74546 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0054; MO 

92210–0–0009–B4] 

RIN 1018–AW20 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Final Rule Designating 

Critical Habitat for Ambrosia pumila 

(San Diego ambrosia) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are 

designating critical habitat for Ambrosia 

pumila (San Diego ambrosia) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. Approximately 783 acres (317 

hectares) are being designated as critical 

habitat for A. pumila in Riverside and 

San Diego counties, California. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

December 30, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The final rule, final 

economic analysis, and map of critical 

habitat will be available on the Internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0054. 

Supporting documentation we used in 

preparing this final rule will be 

available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 

Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 

101, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone 

760–431–9440; facsimile 760–431–5901. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley 

Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011; 

telephone 760–431–9440; facsimile 

760–431–5901. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

We intend to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat for 

Ambrosia pumila under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), in this final 

critical habitat designation. For more 

information on the taxonomy, biology, 

and ecology of A. pumila, refer to the 

final listing rule published in the 

Federal Register on July 2, 2002 (67 FR 

44372), the proposed critical habitat 

designation published in the Federal 

Register on August 27, 2009 (74 FR 

44238), and the Notice of Availability 

(NOA) of the draft economic analysis 

(DEA) published in the Federal Register 

on May 18, 2010 (75 FR 27690). 

New Information on Species’ 

Description, Life History, Ecology, 

Habitat, and Geographic Range and 

Status 

We received no new information 

pertaining to the description, life 

history, ecology, or habitat of Ambrosia 

pumila following the 2009 proposed 

critical habitat designation (74 FR 

44238, August 27, 2009). However, we 

did receive and analyze new 

information related to the distribution 

and status of A. pumila, which is 

described below. 

Geographic Range and Status 

As described in the proposed rule, 

Ambrosia pumila is distributed in 

southern California from northwestern 

Riverside County, south through 

western San Diego County, to 

northwestern Baja California, Mexico 

(CNDDB 2010). It is generally found at 

or below elevations of 1,600 feet (ft) 

(487 meters (m)) in Riverside County, 

and 600 ft (183 m) in San Diego County 

(CNDDB 2010). Since publication of the 

proposed rule in the Federal Register on 

August 27, 2009 (74 FR 44238), we 

became aware of two additional 

occurrences of this species, both of 

which fall within the previously known 

geographic range of the species. One 

occurrence (Subunit 3B) is in the City of 

Temecula in Riverside County near the 

western end of 1st Street, just west of 

Murrieta Creek. This occurrence is 

believed to have been present at the 

time of listing because plants with 

clonal growth patterns tend to be longlived (Watkinson and White 1985, pp. 

44–45; Tanner 2001, p. 1980). Although 

stems may die and portions of the 

rhizome may disintegrate over time, 

except under extreme conditions, 

enough of the rhizome survives from 

one growing season to the next to 

support continued growth of an 

individual plant. Additionally, because 

the plants produce very few if any 

seeds, the ability of the plant to disperse 

into and colonize previously 

unoccupied areas is diminished. The 

second occurrence is located just west 

of Lake Hodges in the western portion 

of central San Diego County, on and 

adjacent to the west side of the Crosby 

National Golf Club. This occurrence was 

included in the listing rule, but was 

thought to have been possibly extirpated 

since the species was listed. This 

occurrence is now known to be extant. 

Previous Federal Actions 

Ambrosia pumila was listed as an 

endangered species on July 2, 2002 (67 

FR 44372). Designation of critical 

habitat was found to be prudent in the 

proposed (64 FR 72993; December 29, 

1999) and final listing rules, but was 

deferred due to budgetary constraints 

and higher listing priorities. The Center 

for Biological Diversity filed a 

complaint in the U.S. District Court for 

the Southern District of California on 

December 19, 2007, challenging the 

Service’s failure to designate critical 

habitat for four endangered plants, 

including A. pumila (Center for 

Biological Diversity v. United States 

Fish and Wildlife, et al., Case No. 07– 

CV–2378 NLS). The April 11, 2008, 

settlement agreement stipulates that the 

Service shall submit a determination as 

to whether it is prudent to designate 

critical habitat for A. pumila, and if 

prudent, submit a proposed critical 

habitat designation to the Federal 

Register for publication by August 20, 

2009, and submit a final critical habitat 

designation to the Federal Register for 

publication by before August 19, 2010. 

By order dated August 3, 2010, the 

district court approved a modification to 

the settlement agreement that extends to 

November 19, 2010, the deadline for 

submission of a final revised critical 

habitat designation to the Federal 

Register. The proposed critical habitat 

designation published in the Federal 

Register on August 27, 2009 (74 FR 

44238). 

Summary of Changes From Proposed 

Rule To Designate Critical Habitat 

In our 2009 proposed rule (74 FR 

44247, August 27, 2009), we proposed 

approximately 802 acres (ac) (324 

hectares (ha)) as critical habitat in 7 

units with 8 subunits in Riverside and 

San Diego Counties, California. We 

reevaluated our data in conjunction 

with information received during the 

comment period and information 

obtained after the publication of the 

2009 proposed rule. Based on this 

reevaluation, we changed our proposal 

to approximately 1,140 ac (461 ha) in 7 

units, which collectively consist of 13 

subunits (75 FR 27690, May 18, 2010). 

In this final critical habitat rule, we are 

designating approximately 783 ac (317 

ha) as critical habitat in 6 units with 13 

subunits, reflecting the exclusion of 

approximately 329 ac (133 ha) based on 

consideration of relevant impacts under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. All land 

designated as critical habitat in this 

final rule was included in the 2009 

proposed rule (74 FR 44247, August 27, 

2009) or the Notice of Availability 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74547 

(NOA) for the Draft Economic Analysis 

(DEA) (75 FR 27690, May 18, 2010). 

Changes between this designation and 

the 2009 proposed designation are 

described below and in Table 1. 

(1) In the proposed rule and the NOA, 

we considered lands covered under the 

Western Riverside County Multiple 

Species Habitat Conservation Plan 

(Western Riverside County MSHCP) in 

Subunits 1A and 1B, Unit 2 and Subunit 

3B for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act. We have analyzed each of the 

areas considered for exclusion under the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP and 

determined that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion of approximately 118 ac (48 

ha) of land in Unit 2 covered by the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP. We 

also determined that exclusion of this 

area will not result in extinction of the 

species. Therefore, we excluded this 

area from this critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. For a complete discussion of the 

benefits of inclusion and exclusion, see 

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

Act section below. 

(2) In the proposed rule as modified 

by the NOA, we considered lands in 

Units 5A and 6 owned by or under the 

jurisdiction of the City of San Diego 

within the City of San Diego Subarea 

Plan under the Multiple Species 

Conservation Program (City of San 

Diego MSCP Subarea Plan) for exclusion 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We 

have analyzed each of the areas 

considered for exclusion under the City 

of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan and 

determined that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion of approximately 160 ac (65 

ha) of land in Unit 6 covered by the City 

of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. 

Exclusion of this area will not result in 

extinction of the species. Therefore, we 

excluded this area from this critical 

habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act (see Exclusions Under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section 

below). 

(3) In the proposed rule as modified 

by the NOA, we considered lands in 

Subunit 5B and Unit 7 (Subunits 7A, 7B 

and 7C) owned by or under the 

jurisdiction of the County of San Diego 

within the County of San Diego Subarea 

Plan under the MSCP (County of San 

Diego MSCP Subarea Plan) for exclusion 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We 

have analyzed each of the proposed 

areas within the County of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan area and 

determined that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion of approximately 52 ac (21 ha) 

of land in Subunit 5B covered by the 

County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan that are conserved and managed 

under the Crosby at Rancho Santa Fe 

Habitat Management Plan. We also 

determined that exclusion of this area 

will not result in extinction of the 

species. Therefore, we excluded this 

area from this critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act (see Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act section below). 

(4) The boundaries of Subunits 4A, 

4B, and 4C have been modified to 

remove habitat that is not suitable for 

Ambrosia pumila according to data 

received after the proposed rule was 

published, and to remove widened 

portions of State Route 76 where habitat 

is no longer suitable for A. pumila (see 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat section below). 

(5) To prepare final critical habitat 

maps, we overlay maps of those lands 

we are excluding from this critical 

habitat designation on polygons that are 

delineated using physical and biological 

features. This process often leaves small 

fragments of a proposed critical habitat 

unit or subunit that are not excluded but 

that, by themselves, may not be 

considered essential. We evaluated 

these areas and removed from the final 

designation habitat fragments remaining 

after areas are excluded that were not 

considered essential. As a result, the 

sum of the areas designated and 

excluded is slightly reduced in this final 

critical habitat designation compared to 

the size of the total proposed 

designation due to removal of small 

artifacts or fragments created by the 

exclusion process. 

TABLE 1—A COMPARISON OF THE AREAS IDENTIFIED AS CONTAINING FEATURES ESSENTIAL TO THE CONSERVATION OF

AMBROSIA PUMILA IN THE 2009 PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION AND THIS FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION

Location 

2009 Proposed critical 

habitat 

Excluded under 

section 4(b)(2) 

2010 Final critical 

habitat 

Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Acres Hectares 

Unit 1: Santa Ana River watershed ................................. 112 45 0 0 112 45 

Subunit 1A: Alberhill (Lake Street) .................................. 41 17 0 0 41 17 

Subunit 1B: Nichols Road ................................................ 70 29 0 0 70 29 

Unit 2: Skunk Hollow Vernal Pool watershed .................. 118 48 118 48 0 0 

Unit 3: Santa Margarita River watershed ........................ 77 31 0 0 77 31 

Subunit 3A: Santa Gertrudis Creek ................................. 33 13 0 0 33 13 

Subunit 3B: Murrieta Creek ............................................. 44 18 0 0 44 18 

Unit 4: San Luis Rey River watershed ............................ 126 51 0 0 92 37 

Subunit 4A: Calle de la Vuelta ........................................ 30 12 0 0 15* 6 

Subunit 4B: Olive Hill Road ............................................. 35 14 0 0 23* 9 

Subunit 4C: Jeffries Ranch .............................................. 40 16 0 0 33* 13 

Subunit 4D: Gird/Monserate Hill ...................................... 21 9 0 0 21** 8 

Unit 5: San Dieguito River watershed—Lake Hodges .... 294 119 52 21 249 101 

Subunit 5A: Lake Hodges East (Via Rancho Pkwy) ....... 21 9 0 0 21 9 

Subunit 5B: Lake Hodges West (Crosby Estates) .......... 279 113 52 21 228 92 

Unit 6: San Diego River watershed—Mission Trails Regional Park ................................................................... 198 80 160 65 38 16 

Unit 7: Sweetwater River watershed ............................... 215 87 0 0 215 87 

Subunit 7A: Jamul Drive .................................................. 39 16 0 0 39 16 

Subunit 7B: San Diego National Wildlife Refuge ............ 133 54 0 0 133 54 

Subunit 7C: Steele Canyon Bridge .................................. 44 18 0 0 44 18 

Total .......................................................................... 1,146 461 329 133 783 317 

Values in this table may not sum or may differ slightly from values in the proposed rule and NOA due to rounding. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74548 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

* Modified to remove habitat that is not suitable for Ambrosia pumila. 

** This number is different than the number given in the NOA due to a typographical error in the NOA. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 

3(5)(A) of the Act as:(1) The specific 

areas within the geographical area 

occupied by the species, at the time it 

is listed in accordance with the Act, on 

which are found those physical or 

biological features 

(a) essential to the conservation of the 

species and 

(b) which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and (2) specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3(3) of the Act, means the use of 

all methods and procedures that are 

necessary to bring any endangered or 

threatened species to the point at which 

the measures provided under the Act 

are no longer necessary. Such methods 

and procedures include, but are not 

limited to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management, such 

as research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, 

transplantation, and—in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot otherwise be relieved—regulated 

taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7(a)(2) of the Act through 

the prohibition against Federal agencies 

carrying out, funding, or authorizing the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

requires consultation on Federal actions 

that may affect critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect land ownership or establish a 

refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 

other conservation area. Such 

designation does not allow the 

government or public to access private 

lands. Such designation does not 

require implementation of restoration, 

recovery, or enhancement measures by 

private landowners. Where a landowner 

requests Federal agency funding or 

authorization for an action that may 

affect a listed species or critical habitat, 

the consultation requirements of section 

7(a)(2) would apply, but even in the 

event of a destruction or adverse 

modification finding, the landowner’s 

obligation is not to restore or recover the 

species, but to implement reasonable 

and prudent alternatives to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. 

For inclusion in a critical habitat 

designation, the habitat within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing must 

contain physical and biological features 

that are essential to the conservation of 

the species, and be included only if 

those features may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. Critical habitat designations 

identify, to the extent known using the 

best scientific data available, habitat 

areas that provide essential life cycle 

needs of the species; that is, areas on 

which are found the primary constituent 

elements (PCEs) laid out in the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement essential to the 

conservation of the species. Under 

section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, the 

Secretary can designate critical habitat 

in areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time it is 

listed as critical habitat only when 

he/she determines that those areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available. Further, our Policy on 

Information Standards Under the 

Endangered Species Act (published in 

the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act 

(section 515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include the recovery plan for the 

species, articles in peer-reviewed 

journals, conservation plans developed 

by States and counties, scientific status 

surveys and studies, biological 

assessments, or other unpublished 

materials and expert opinion or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is often dynamic, and species 

may naturally move within an area or 

from one area to another over time. 

Furthermore, we recognize that 

designation of critical habitat may not 

include all habitat areas that may 

eventually be determined necessary for 

recovery of the species, based on 

scientific data not now available. For 

these reasons, a critical habitat 

designation does not signal that habitat 

outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not promote the 

recovery of the species. Federal 

activities that may affect areas outside of 

critical habitat are still subject to review 

under section 7 of the Act if they may 

affect Ambrosia pumila. The 

prohibitions of section 9 of the Act 

applicable to listed plant species also 

continue to apply both inside and 

outside of designated critical habitat. 

Areas that support occurrences of the 

species, but are outside the critical 

habitat designation, will continue to be 

subject to conservation actions we 

implement under section 7(a)(1) of the 

Act. In these areas, the species is also 

subject to the regulatory protections 

afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 

standard, as determined on the basis of 

the best available scientific information 

at the time of the agency action. 

Federally funded or permitted projects 

affecting listed species outside their 

designated critical habitat areas may 

still result in jeopardy findings in some 

cases. Similarly, critical habitat 

designations made on the basis of the 

best available information at the time of 

designation will not control the 

direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, habitat conservation 

plans (HCPs), or other species 

conservation planning efforts if new 

information available to these planning 

efforts calls for a different outcome. 

Physical and Biological Features 

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

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), in determining which areas 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing to propose as critical habitat, we 

consider those physical and biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. We 

consider the physical and biological 

features to be the PCEs laid out in the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement essential for the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74549 

conservation of the species. The PCEs 

include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; 

(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or 

other nutritional or physiological 

requirements; 

(3) Cover or shelter; 

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, 

and rearing (or development) of 

offspring; and 

(5) Habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historical, geographical, and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

Little is known about the specific 

characteristics of Ambrosia pumila 

habitat. Therefore, the PCEs for this 

species are based on our assessment of 

the ecosystem settings in which the 

species has most frequently been 

detected. The physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

A. pumila are derived from studies of 

this species’ habitat, ecology, and life 

history as described below, in the 

Background section of the proposed 

critical habitat designation published in 

the Federal Register on August 27, 2009 

(74 FR 44238), and in the final listing 

rule published in the Federal Register 

on July 2, 2002 (67 FR 44372). 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and for Normal Behavior 

Clonal Growth—Rhizome Spread and 

New Aerial Stems 

Individual Ambrosia pumila plants 

spread by slender underground 

rhizomes to produce a group of 

genetically identical aerial (aboveground) stems—a clone. Growing 

rhizomes extend underground beyond 

the extent of the aerial stems into 

adjacent suitable habitat, and rhizomes 

of adjacent plants likely intermingle to 

a degree. The distance rhizomes extend 

beyond the standing aerial stems is 

difficult to measure because of the 

difficulty in unearthing an intact 

rhizome system. 

The number and spatial distribution 

of the aerial stems of Ambrosia pumila 

patches can differ from one growing 

season to the next (Martin 2005, p. 3; 

City of San Diego 2008a, p. 1). For 

example, a study that monitored A. 

pumila in 2000 and 2005 observed 

patches of A. pumila differing in shape 

and size (up to several square meters), 

with some patches not producing any 

stems in 2005 (some of the patches that 

did not produce stems in 2005 were 

observed to produce stems in 2008 

(Martin 2005, p. 8; A. Folarin 2008, 

pers. comm.)). Differences in patch size 

and shape may be due to differences in 

available moisture or competition from 

other plants (Martin 2005, p. 3; City of 

San Diego 2008a, p. 1). Based on these 

and other observations, we conclude 

that the rhizome system of a group of A. 

pumila stems likely occupies a greater 

underground area than that occupied by 

the aerial stems at any given time, and 

aerial stems may be produced only 

when and where conditions are 

appropriate. Thus, habitat occupied by 

A. pumila extends beyond that seen to 

be occupied by the aerial stems, and 

area designated as critical habitat must 

extend beyond the area seen to be 

occupied by standing aerial stems to 

encompass the estimated limits of the 

underground rhizome system. 

Germination of Seeds and Spread of 

Seedlings 

It is unknown to what extent and with 

what frequency Ambrosia pumila 

reproduces by seeds. Based on genetic 

studies described below, at least some 

low rate of sexual reproduction has 

occurred. We are not aware of any 

research that would provide the 

information needed to assess the 

species’ germination and seedling 

needs. 

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or 

Other Nutritional or Physiological 

Requirements 

Water 

Specific water needs of the species are 

unknown. Ambrosia pumila is adapted 

to the dry conditions which occur 

annually throughout its range (Keck 

1959, p. 1103; Munz 1974, p. 112; 

Dudek 2000, Appendix A; CNLM 2008, 

p. 18). Service biologists have observed 

fresh (not desiccated) aerial stem shoots 

after small amounts of precipitation and 

after annual vegetation in the area had 

desiccated (A. Folarin 2008, pers. 

comm.), implying that either A. pumila 

requires less water than other grassland 

plants, that the underground perennial 

rhizome system has some capacity to 

store enough water to sustain growth, or 

both. Additionally, we believe that 

periodic flooding may be necessary at 

some stage of the plant population’s life 

history (such as seed germination, 

dispersal of seeds and rhizomes) or to 

maintain some essential aspect of its 

habitat, because native occurrences of 

the plant are always found on river 

terraces or within the watersheds of 

vernal pools. 

Light 

Ambrosia pumila is limited to open or 

low-growing plant communities, which 

implies that the species is not shade 

tolerant (Dudek 2000, pp. 18–19). 

Ambrosia pumila stems amid taller 

vegetation obtain adequate sunlight by 

growing taller and more slender 

compared to those in more open areas 

(Dudek 2000, p. 19), which implies the 

species is not shade tolerant. 

Soil 

Ambrosia pumila is found primarily 

on sandy loam or clay soils including 

(but not limited to) the Placentia (sandy 

loam), Diablo (clay), and Ramona (sandy 

loam) series (Dudek 2000, Appendix A; 

CNDDB 2010). Ambrosia pumila is 

rarely found growing on other substrate 

types (such as gravel). 

Chemical soil attributes and other 

abiotic and biotic characteristics have 

been measured and documented for 

Ambrosia pumila occurrences at Skunk 

Hollow (Riverside County), Mission 

Trails Regional Park, and San Diego 

National Wildlife Refuge (San Diego 

County) (Dudek 2000, Appendix A; 

CNLM 2008, pp. 6–7, 12, and 18), 

including pH, percent organic matter, 

soil moisture, and elemental 

composition. These measurements did 

not provide consistent results across the 

range of the species; thus, we are unable 

to make generalizations as to needs of 

the species as far as soil attributes are 

concerned. 

Temperature 

We have no information on the 

tolerance of Ambrosia pumila to 

climatic extremes. Temperature is 

thought to potentially play a role in 

inducing (or prohibiting) seed 

germination (Johnson 1999, p. 5), 

although there is limited information at 

this time as to how often this species 

currently reproduces via seed. 

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or 

Rearing (or Development) of Offspring 

As stated in the ‘‘Life History’’ section 

of the proposed rule, little is known 

about the nature and frequency of 

sexual reproduction in Ambrosia 

pumila. Occurrences are consistently 

found on the upper terraces of rivers 

and other waterways; consequently, 

periodic flooding of these waterways 

likely plays or likely has played a role 

in the life history of the plant. For 

example, Johnson (1999, p. 5) 

postulated that A. pumila seeds may 

require soaking in flood waters or 

scarification as they are churned about 

with debris in flood waters to germinate. 

Additionally, floods may disperse A. 

pumila rhizomes and seeds (Dudek 

2003, p. P–332) and create space for 

new stems by removing or limiting the 

growth of competitors. 

Presuming Ambrosia pumila is wind 

pollinated, as discussed in the ‘‘Life 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74550 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

History’’ section of the proposed rule, 

the species requires sufficient airflow 

through inflorescences to pick up and 

carry pollen (McGlaughlin and Friar 

2007, p. 329). This is another reason (in 

addition to not being shade-tolerant) 

that A. pumila may require habitat 

containing primarily low-growing 

plants—low-growing plants do not 

block or dramatically reduce airflow to 

plants of A. pumila’s stature, which is 

generally less than 12 inches (30 

centimeters) tall (McGlaughlin and Friar 

2007, p. 329). 

Ambrosia pumila is presumed to be 

self-compatible (an individual can 

produce viable seed with its own 

pollen), but this aspect of the species’ 

reproductive strategy has not been wellexamined. In a recent study, another 

Ambrosia species previously thought to 

be self-compatible was found not to be 

self-compatible (Friedman and Barrett 

2008, p. 4). If A. pumila likewise is not 

self-compatible, genetically distinct 

individuals in close proximity to one 

another may be crucial to maintaining 

sexual reproduction in the species 

(McGlaughlin and Friar 2007, p. 329). 

Habitats Protected From Disturbance or 

Representative of the Historical, 

Geographical, and Ecological 

Distributions of the Species 

Ambrosia pumila occurs most 

frequently on upper terraces of rivers 

with flat or gently sloping areas of 0 to 

42 percent slopes. A. pumila 

occurrences are found near, but not 

directly adjacent to, the river channels 

and along other drainages in western 

Riverside County, western San Diego 

County, and northwestern Baja 

California, Mexico (Beauchamp 1986, 

p. 94; Johnson et al. 1999, p. 1; 

McGlaughlin and Friar 2007, p. 321; 

CNDDB 2008). These areas are or likely 

have been associated with a natural 

flood disturbance regime. The species is 

primarily associated with native and 

nonnative grassland and ruderal 

communities, and openings in coastal 

sage scrub (Johnson et al. 1999, p. 1; 

Dudek 2000, p. 18; Dudek 2003, p. P– 

330; CNDDB 2010). In Riverside County, 

A. pumila occurs in ruderal and 

nonnative grassland communities 

adjacent to creeks and other smaller 

drainages (for example, Temescal 

(Alberhill) Creek and Santa Gertrudis 

Creek) (Dudek 2003, p. P–326; CNDDB 

2010). Ambrosia pumila also occurs in 

nonnative grassland community 

adjacent to and within the watershed of 

Skunk Hollow vernal pool in Riverside 

County (Dudek 2003, p. P–326; CNDDB 

2010). In San Diego County, A. pumila 

is more often found adjacent to larger 

waterways (for example, San Luis Rey 

River, San Diego River, and Sweetwater 

River), although the species is also often 

found associated with smaller drainages 

and washes (CNDDB 2010). 

Occurrences in Riverside County are 

found further inland and at higher 

elevations than in San Diego County. 

For example, the occurrence at Skunk 

Hollow in Riverside County is 1,350 ft 

(411 m) above sea level, while the 

occurrences at Mission Trails Regional 

Park and San Diego National Wildlife 

Refuge in San Diego County are about 

315 ft and 360 ft (96 m and 110 m) 

above sea level, respectively (CNLM 

2008, p. 7)). 

The documented range of Ambrosia 

pumila in Mexico at the time of listing 

extended from Cabo Colonet south to 

Lake Chapala in north-central Baja 

California. We have no information 

regarding additional occurrences in 

Mexico, or the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species there. 

Primary Constituent Elements for 

Ambrosia pumila 

Under the Act and its implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we are 

required to identify the specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by a species, at the time it is listed, on 

which are found those physical or 

biological features determined to be 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. The essential physical and 

biological features are those PCEs laid 

out in the appropriate spatial 

arrangement and quantity determined to 

be essential to the conservation of the 

species. Because not much is known 

about the specific needs and 

characteristics of this species, the PCEs 

are based on observed characteristics of 

the habitats in which the species is most 

often found. All areas designated as 

critical habitat for A. pumila were 

occupied at the time the species was 

listed, occur within the species’ 

historical geographic range, and contain 

sufficient PCEs to support at least one 

life-history function. 

Based on the above needs and our 

current knowledge of the life history, 

biology, and ecology of Ambrosia 

pumila, and the characteristics of the 

areas where the species is known to 

occur, we identified two PCEs for A. 

pumila: 

1. Sandy loam or clay soils (regardless 

of disturbance status), including (but 

not limited to) the Placentia (sandy 

loam), Diablo (clay), and Ramona (sandy 

loam) soil series that occur near (up to 

several hundred meters from but not 

directly adjacent to) a river, creek, or 

other drainage, or within the watershed 

of a vernal pool, and that occur on an 

upper terrace (flat or gently sloping 

areas of 0 to 42 percent slopes are 

typical for terraces on which Ambrosia 

pumila occurrences are found). 

2. Grassland or ruderal habitat types, 

or openings within coastal sage scrub, 

on the soil types and topography 

described in PCE 1, that provide 

adequate sunlight, and airflow for wind 

pollination. 

Based on our current knowledge of 

the needs of the species, we believe the 

need for space for individual and 

population growth and normal behavior 

is met by PCE 2, and areas for 

reproduction, water, light, and soil are 

provided by PCEs 1 and 2. These areas 

provide nutrients, moisture, and 

proximity to water features that provide 

periodic flooding presumed necessary 

for the plant’s persistence. 

In designating this critical habitat, we 

intend to conserve the physical and 

biological features considered essential 

to support the life-history functions of 

the species. All units and subunits 

designated here as critical habitat 

contain sufficient PCEs in the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement to provide for one or more 

of the life-history functions of Ambrosia 

pumila. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the occupied areas 

contain the physical and biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species, and 

whether these features may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. The area designated as 

critical habitat will require some level of 

management to address the current and 

future threats to the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. In all units, 

special management will be required to 

ensure that the habitat is able to provide 

for the growth and reproduction of the 

species. 

Records indicate that Ambrosia 

pumila historically was known from 

over 50 locations in San Diego and 

Riverside counties, but the number of 

extant occurrences has been 

dramatically reduced because much of 

the species’ habitat has been impacted 

by human activities (Burrascano and 

Hogan 1997, p. 7; Dudek 2000, p. 17; 

CNDDB 2010). A detailed discussion of 

threats to A. pumila and its habitat can 

be found in the final listing rule (67 FR 

44372, July 2, 2002). The features 

essential to the conservation of A. 

pumila require special management 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74551 

considerations or protection to reduce 

the following threats, among others: 

• Habitat destruction caused by urban 

development, including highway and 

utility corridor construction and 

maintenance, highway expansion, and 

development of recreational facilities 

(such as golf courses and campgrounds). 

These activities can destroy the PCEs by 

removing or compacting soil, making 

habitat unsuitable for Ambrosia pumila. 

• Soil compaction caused by the 

creation and use of trails by hikers, 

horses, and vehicles. Ambrosia pumila 

appears to be tolerant to some level of 

disturbance caused by trail creation and 

use; it is often found in the disturbed 

areas along margins of dirt trails. 

However, it is found less often in 

trailways, implying that although the 

appropriate soil type might be present, 

soil compaction can alter soil physical 

characteristics such that the soil can no 

longer support plant growth (PCE 1). 

• Habitat alteration caused by 

invasion of nonnative plant species that 

may, if present in large enough 

numbers, change the plant assemblage 

or cover density to the extent that 

Ambrosia pumila plants can no longer 

receive adequate sunlight and airflow 

(PCE 2). 

• Alteration of hydrological and 

floodplain dynamics, such as 

channelization and water diversions, 

(an additional threat not discussed in 

the listing rule), which can change the 

frequency of flooding in occupied areas 

or eliminate natural periodic flooding 

presumed necessary for the plant’s longterm persistence (PCE 1). 

Special management considerations 

or protection are required within critical 

habitat areas to address these threats. 

Management activities that could 

ameliorate these threats include fencing 

Ambrosia pumila occurrences and 

providing signage to discourage 

encroachment by hikers, horses, and offroad vehicle users; control of nonnative 

plants using methods shown to be 

effective (for examples, see CNLM 

2008); guiding the design of 

development projects to avoid impacts 

to A. pumila habitat; and restoring and 

maintaining natural hydrology and 

floodplain dynamics of waterways 

associated with A. pumila occurrences 

where feasible. These management 

activities will help protect the PCEs for 

the species by reducing soil compaction 

(PCE 1), lowering the density of 

nonnative plants thereby maintaining 

the appropriate community structure 

(PCE 2), and maintain periodic flooding 

of A. pumila habitat where possible 

(PCE 1). 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

As required by section 4(b) of the Act, 

we used the best scientific and 

commercial data available in 

determining areas within the 

geographical area occupied at the time 

of listing that contain the features 

essential to the conservation of 

Ambrosia pumila. We are designating 

critical habitat in areas that we consider 

to have been occupied by the species at 

the time of listing and that continue to 

be occupied today, and that contain the 

PCEs laid out in the appropriate 

quantity and spatial arrangement 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (see the ‘‘Geographic Range and 

Status’’ section of the proposed critical 

habitat rule (74 FR 44241, August 27, 

2009) for more information). We are not 

designating any areas outside the 

geographical range occupied at the time 

of listing. All units and subunits contain 

the PCEs of A. pumila habitat. 

We also reviewed available 

information that pertains to the habitat 

requirements of this species, although 

A. pumila has not been well-studied 

and little is known about its breeding 

system or habitat requirements and 

characteristics. Additionally, some data 

from different information sources 

conflict, further complicating the task of 

discerning species’ habitat 

requirements. We used sources of 

information, such as reports submitted 

to the Service during section 7 

consultations and other project reviews, 

and by biologists holding section 

10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits; research 

published in peer-reviewed articles; 

research presented in academic theses 

and agency reports; regional Geographic 

Information System (GIS) coverages; and 

data collected in the field by Service 

biologists. 

Ambrosia pumila was first detected 

after listing of the species in two of the 

areas we are designating as critical 

habitat. We concluded these areas were 

occupied at the time the species was 

listed because individuals of species 

with a clonal growth habit like A. 

pumila are usually long-lived 

(Watkinson and White 1985, pp. 44–45; 

Tanner 2001, p. 1980). The occurrence 

at the intersection of State Route 76 and 

Olive Hill Road in San Diego County 

(Subunit 4B) was found during a general 

survey for A. pumila in 2006 (CNDDB 

2010). The occurrence near the 

intersection of State Route 76 and Gird 

Road in San Diego County (Subunit 4D) 

was mapped during a survey for a State 

Route 76 road widening project (GIS 

data provided to the Service by 

California Department of Transportation 

in 2009; USFWS 2008). To our 

knowledge, these two areas had not 

been adequately, if at all, surveyed for 

A. pumila prior to discovery, and we 

have no reason to believe the plant was 

imported, or had dispersed into these 

areas from other locations after listing 

because the plants produce very few if 

any seeds and, consequently, the ability 

of the plant to disperse into and 

colonize previously unoccupied areas is 

diminished. It is unlikely that the 

species would be able to disperse great 

distances and colonize new areas (see 

Index Map below). We believe that the 

occurrences identified since listing were 

in existence for many years and were 

only recently detected due to increased 

awareness of this species. 

We are also designating critical 

habitat in some areas where Ambrosia 

pumila was thought to be extirpated and 

where an occurrence exists that was not 

considered viable at the time of listing. 

We conducted surveys of historical 

occurrences as part of the background 

research for this rule. Based on 

information provided by a local 

biological consultant, we were able to 

verify one occurrence east of Lake 

Hodges in San Diego County that was 

previously thought to be extirpated 

because it had not been seen since 1999. 

During our development of the 

proposed rule, we were unable to verify 

this site because the available records 

contained minimal site location 

information. However, our recent survey 

(2009) of the site east of Lake Hodges in 

San Diego County found a viable, 

relatively large A. pumila occurrence 

and we determined this site meets the 

definition of critical habitat (see criteria 

below). All units and subunits contain 

the physical and biological features 

believed to be essential to the 

conservation of this species. 

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

the Act, we used the best scientific and 

commercial data available in trying to 

determine areas that contain the 

physical and biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of 

Ambrosia pumila, and that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. 

After identifying the PCEs, we 

followed these steps to delineate critical 

habitat: 

(1) We identified all extant, natural 

occurrences of Ambrosia pumila, which 

consist of those known to exist at the 

time of listing, and those subsequently 

detected that we believe existed at the 

time of listing. We compiled data from 

the following sources to create our 

database of A. pumila occurrences: (1) 

Data used in the 2002 listing rule for A. 

pumila (67 FR 44372, July 2, 2002); (2) 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74552 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

the current CNDDB element occurrence 

data report for A. pumila and 

accompanying GIS references (CNDDB 

2010, pp. 1–50); (3) data from the online Consortium of California Herbaria 

and accompanying Berkeley Mapper 

GIS records (Consortium of California 

Herbaria 2010); (4) the Western 

Riverside County Multiple Species 

Habitat Conservation Plan (Western 

Riverside County MSHCP) species GIS 

database; and (5) the Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office’s (CFWO) internal GIS 

species database, which includes the 

species data used for the San Diego 

Multiple Species Conservation Program 

(MSCP) and the San Diego Multiple 

Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP), 

reports from section 7 consultations, 

and Service observations of A. pumila 

(CFWO internal species GIS database). 

We used these data to delineate GIS 

polygons around A. pumila occurrences. 

First, we reviewed the data that we 

compiled to ensure its accuracy. We 

checked each data point to ensure it 

represented a site documented by a 

herbarium voucher or reported 

observation of Ambrosia pumila and 

was not a duplicate occurrence in the 

database. Any duplicates detected were 

removed from the database. Secondly, 

we checked each data point to ensure 

that it was correctly mapped. Data 

points that did not match the 

description for the original herbarium 

collection or observation were 

remapped in the correct location, if 

possible. We removed occurrences 

where the location could not be 

determined from available data or site 

visits. Third, we determined occupancy 

status. For areas where we have past 

occupancy data for A. pumila, we 

assumed the area remained occupied 

unless: (1) Multiple surveys for the 

species did not find A. pumila; (2) the 

site was significantly disturbed (for 

example, developed) since the last 

observation of the species; or (3) records 

lacked specific location information, 

and field surveys carried out in 

conjunction with this critical habitat 

determination could not locate the 

occurrence. 

(2) We determined there are no 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by Ambrosia pumila at 

the time it was listed that are essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Information obtained during the 

Service’s research in connection with 

this action indicates that the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it was listed provides 

sufficient resources for the conservation 

of the species. For example, 

McGlaughlin and Friar (2007, p. 329) 

conducted an analysis of genetic 

diversity within and among populations 

of A. pumila and determined that the 

existing occurrences could support 

recovery of the species. We do not have 

sufficient information regarding the 

specific needs of the species to 

determine if any areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by Ambrosia 

pumila at the time it was listed are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

(3) We removed areas where 

Ambrosia pumila occurs in habitat of 

low quality for growth and propagation 

(such as paved areas, or relatively small 

urban lots surrounded by residential 

development and continuously 

subjected to impacts of urbanization 

such as mowing or foot and vehicle 

traffic). For example, we did not include 

one occurrence in the City of El Cajon 

on a site composed of two residential 

lots less than half an acre in size, one 

mowed and landscaped, the other with 

highly disturbed and compacted soil. 

Although occupied, we did not consider 

these locations for critical habitat 

because they likely do not contribute to 

the long-term conservation of the 

species. We made this determination 

using site descriptions in the CNDDB, 

satellite imagery, and by talking with 

Service biologists, other researchers, 

and land managers familiar with the 

areas in question. 

(4) Using data from studies that 

mapped the aerial stems of Ambrosia 

pumila, we estimated the distance the 

rhizome system likely extends beyond 

aerial stems clusters by calculating the 

average distance between aerial stems 

clusters within a CNDDB occurrence 

polygon. An occurrence is defined by 

CNDDB as an occupied habitat area 

separated by 0.25 mi (0.40 km) or more 

from the next nearest occupied habitat 

area. Using this method we estimated 

the average distance of underground 

rhizome expansion beyond the aboveground aerial stems as approximately 

1,181 ft (260 m). Therefore, we 

expanded the outer boundary of the 

above-ground extent of each CNDDB 

occurrence polygon by 1,181 ft (260 m) 

to account for the underground rhizome 

system extending beyond the area 

occupied by visible stems. We believe 

this distance adequately captures the 

extent of individual occurrences. 

(5) We removed any areas within the 

boundary mapped in step (4) above 

where vegetation type was not 

grassland, ruderal, or coastal sage scrub, 

using the vegetation types in our GIS 

database and personal observations by 

Service biologists and other researchers 

or land managers. 

When determining the critical habitat 

boundaries, we made every effort to 

map precisely only the areas that 

contain the PCEs and provide for the 

conservation of Ambrosia pumila. 

However, we cannot guarantee that 

every fraction of critical habitat contains 

the PCEs due to the mapping scale we 

use to identify critical habitat 

boundaries. We made every attempt to 

avoid including developed areas such as 

lands underlying buildings, paved areas, 

and other structures that lack PCEs for 

A. pumila. The scale of maps prepared 

under the parameters for publication 

within the Code of Federal Regulations 

may not reflect the exclusion of such 

developed areas. Any developed 

structures and the land under them 

inadvertently left inside critical habitat 

boundaries shown on the maps of this 

final critical habitat designation are 

excluded by text in this rule and are not 

designated as critical habitat. Therefore, 

Federal actions involving these lands 

would not trigger section 7 consultation 

with respect to critical habitat and the 

requirement of no adverse modification 

unless the specific actions may affect 

the species or PCEs in adjacent critical 

habitat. 

Critical Habitat Designation 

We are designating 783 ac (317 ha) of 

critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila in 

6 units that include 13 subunits. The 

critical habitat areas outlined in Table 2 

and described below constitute our best 

assessment of areas occupied at the time 

of listing that contain the PCEs laid out 

in the appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement essential to the 

conservation of the species that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. We are not 

designating any areas outside the 

geographic area occupied by the species 

at the time of listing because we 

determined that occupied lands within 

the species’ known geographical range 

are sufficient for the conservation of A. 

pumila. Each unit and subunit include 

suitable habitat that will allow for 

population growth and growth of 

individual plants represented by aerial 

stems and the associated rhizome 

system. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74553 

TABLE 2—AREA ESTIMATES (ACRES) (HECTARES) AND LAND OWNERSHIP FOR AMBROSIA PUMILA FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT

Unit #: Unit name (CNDDB element 

occurrence number) 

Federally owned land State or local government-owned land Privately-owned land Total area 

Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Acres Hectares 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY 

Unit 1: Santa Ana River watershed .................. .................. 26 11 85 35 112 45 

1A. Alberhill (58) .............................. .................. .................. 23 10 18 7 41 17 

1B. Nichols Road (44) ..................... .................. .................. 3 1 67 27 70 29 

Unit 3: Santa Margarita River watershed .............................................. .................. .................. 8 3 69 28 77 31 

Subunit 3A: Santa Gertrudis Creek .................. .................. 8 3 25 10 33 13 

Subunit 3B: Murrieta Creek ............. .................. .................. .................. .................. 44 18 44 18 

Subtotal: .................................... .................. .................. 34 14 154 62 189 76 

SAN DIEGO COUNTY 

Unit 4: San Luis Rey River watershed .............................................. .................. .................. 17 7 75 30 92 37 

4A. Calle de la Vuelta (43) .............. .................. .................. 1 0 14 6 15 6 

4B. Olive Hill Road (16) ................... .................. .................. 16 6 8 3 23 9 

4C. Jeffries Ranch (45) .................... .................. .................. 0 0 33 13 33 13 

4D. Gird/Monserate Hill (n/a) ........... .................. .................. 1 0 20 8 21 8 

Unit 5: San Dieguito River watershed .............................................. .................. .................. 129 52 121 49 249 101 

5A. Lake Hodges East (Via Rancho 

Pkwy) (14) .................................... .................. .................. 16 6 5 2 21 9 

Subunit 5B: Lake Hodges West 

(Crosby Estates) ........................... .................. .................. 113 46 115 47 228 92 

Unit 6: San Diego River watershed—Mission Trails Regional 

Park .............................................. .................. .................. 6 3 32 13 38 15 

Unit 7: Sweetwater River watershed 146 59 13 5 57 23 215 87 

Subunit 7A: Jamul Road .................. .................. .................. 3 1 36 15 39 16 

7B. SDNWR (48) ............................. 118 48 .................. .................. 15 6 133 54 

7C. Steele Canyon Bridge (34) ....... 28 11 10 4 6 2 44 18 

Subtotal ..................................... 146 59 164 67 284 115 594 240 

Total ................................... 146 59 199 81 438 178 783 316 

Values in this table may not sum due to rounding. 

Critical Habitat Units 

Presented below are brief descriptions 

of all subunits included in the final 

critical habitat designation and reasons 

why they meet the definition of critical 

habitat for Ambrosia pumila. The 

subunits are listed in order 

geographically north to south and east 

to west. 

Unit 1: Santa Ana River Watershed 

Unit 1 is located in western Riverside 

County and consists of two subunits 

totaling approximately, 26 ac (11 ha) of 

State or local government-owned land, 

and 85 ac (35 ha) of private land for a 

total of approximately 112 ac (45 ha) 

(values do not sum due to rounding). 

Subunit 1A: Alberhill 

Subunit 1A is located near Alberhill, 

north of Lake Elsinore and just west of 

Interstate Highway 15 in Riverside 

County, California. This subunit is near 

the northern base of Alberhill Mountain, 

and near the intersection of Lake Street 

and Temescal Canyon Road. Subunit 1A 

consists of approximately 23 ac (10 ha) 

of County-owned land, and 18 ac (7 ha) 

of privately owned land for a total of 

approximately 41 ac (17 ha). The 

approximately 23 ac (10 ha) of Countyowned land in Subunit 1A are 

conserved and currently managed by the 

Western Riverside County Regional 

Conservation Authority; transfer of 

ownership by the County of Riverside to 

the Western Riverside County Regional 

Conservation Authority is planned for 

the near future. This conserved area is 

not yet receiving active management. 

This subunit was occupied at the time 

of listing and remains occupied and, 

like all other extant occurrences, we 

also believe this subunit is essential to 

the conservation of this species because 

of its contribution to the genetic 

diversity of the species (McGlaughlin 

and Friar 2007, p. 329; see Genetics 

section of the proposed rule (74 FR 

44241, August 27, 2009)). Subunit 1A 

contains the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

Ambrosia pumila, including sandy loam 

or clay soils located on an upper terrace 

of a water source, which provide 

nutrients, moisture, and potentially 

periodic flooding presumed necessary 

for the plant’s persistence (PCE 1); and 

coastal sage scrub vegetation, which 

allows adequate sunlight and airflow for 

A. pumila (PCE 2). The PCEs in this 

subunit require special management 

considerations or protection to address 

threats from nonnative plant species in 

situations where nonnative species are 

outcompeting A. pumila for resources, 

and from human encroachment and 

development. Please see the Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to A. pumila 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Subunit 1B: Nichols Road 

Subunit 1B is located about 2.1 mi 

(3.5 km) southeast of Subunit 1A 

(Alberhill), on the north and south sides 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74554 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

of Nichols Road, in Riverside County, 

California. This subunit is near the 

southeastern base of Alberhill 

Mountain, just west of Durant Road and 

Temescal Creek. Subunit 1B consists of 

approximately 3 ac (1 ha) of State or 

local government-owned land, and 67 ac 

(27 ha) of privately owned land for a 

total of approximately 70 ac (29 ha) 

(values do not sum due to rounding). No 

lands in Subunit 1B are conserved or 

managed for biological resources. This 

subunit was occupied at the time of 

listing and remains occupied, and is 

essential to the conservation of this 

species because this subunit (along with 

Subunit 1A) represents the 

northernmost occurrences of this 

species, which is geographically 

situated to potentially assist this species 

expand its range northward. Like all 

other extant occurrences, this subunit is 

also essential to the conservation of this 

species because of its contribution to the 

genetic diversity of the species 

(McGlaughlin and Friar 2007, p. 329; 

see Genetics section of the proposed 

rule (74 FR 44241, August 27, 2009)). 

However, due to impacts from 

unauthorized grading and disking, and 

a permitted road realignment project, 

Ambrosia pumila within this subunit 

may be in imminent danger of 

extirpation. Subunit 1B contains 

physical and biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of A. 

pumila, including sandy loam or clay 

soils located on an upper terrace of a 

water source, which provide nutrients, 

moisture, and periodic flooding 

presumed necessary for the plant’s 

persistence (PCE 1), and ruderal habitat 

type, which allows adequate sunlight 

and airflow for A. pumila (PCE 2). The 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species in this subunit may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species in situations 

where nonnative species are 

outcompeting A. pumila for resources, 

and from activities (grading, 

construction, human encroachment) 

that occur in the area. Please see the 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to A. pumila 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Unit 3: Santa Margarita River Watershed 

Unit 3 is located in western Riverside 

County and consists of two subunits 

totaling approximately, 8 ac (3 ha) of 

State or local government-owned land, 

and 69 ac (28 ha) of private land for a 

total of 77 ac (31 ha). 

Subunit 3A: Santa Gertrudis Creek 

Subunit 3A is located about 1 mile 

(1.6 km) southwest of Unit 2, along the 

San Diego Aqueduct, south of the 

intersection of Chandler and Suzi Roads 

and north of Santa Gertrudis Creek in 

Riverside County. Subunit 3A consists 

of approximately 8 ac (3 ha) of Stateowned land and 25 ac (10 ha) of 

privately owned land for a total of 

approximately 33 ac (13 ha). No lands 

in Subunit 3A are conserved or 

managed for biological resources. This 

unit was occupied at the time of listing 

and remains occupied, and like all other 

extant occurrences, is essential to the 

conservation of this species because of 

its contribution to the genetic diversity 

of the species (McGlaughlin and Friar 

2007, p. 329; see Genetics section of the 

proposed rule (74 FR 44241, August 27, 

2009)). Subunit 3A contains physical 

and biological features that are essential 

to the conservation of Ambrosia pumila, 

including sandy loam or clay soils 

located on an upper terrace of a water 

source, which provide nutrients, 

moisture, and periodic flooding 

presumed necessary for the plant’s 

persistence (PCE 1), and ruderal habitat 

type, which allows adequate sunlight 

and airflow for A. pumila (PCE 2). The 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species in this unit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species in situations 

where nonnative species are 

outcompeting A. pumila for resources, 

human encroachment, and utility 

maintenance activities. Please see the 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to A. pumila 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Subunit 3B: Murrieta Creek 

Subunit 3B is located in the City of 

Temecula in southwestern Riverside 

County, California. This subunit is near 

the western end of 1st Street, just west 

of Murrieta Creek. Subunit 3B consists 

of approximately 44 ac (18 ha) of 

privately owned land. No lands in 

Subunit 3B are conserved or managed 

for biological resources. This subunit 

meets the definition of critical habitat 

for this species because of its 

contribution to the genetic diversity of 

the species (McGlaughlin and Friar 

2007, p. 329; see Genetics section of the 

proposed rule (74 FR 44241, August 27, 

2009)). Subunit 3B contains physical 

and biological features that are essential 

to the conservation of Ambrosia pumila, 

including sandy loam or clay soils 

located on an upper terrace of a water 

source, which provide nutrients, 

moisture, and periodic flooding 

presumed necessary for the plant’s 

persistence (PCE 1), and nonnative 

grassland habitat type, which allows 

adequate sunlight and airflow for A. 

pumila (PCE 2). The physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species in this 

subunit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species in situations 

where nonnative species are outcompeting A. pumila for resources, from 

human foot and vehicle traffic that may 

occur in the area, and from 

development. Please see the Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to A. pumila 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Unit 4: San Luis Rey River Watershed 

Unit 4 is located in northwestern San 

Diego County and consists of four 

subunits of approximately 17 ac (7 ha) 

of State or local government-owned land 

and approximately 74 ac (30 ha) of 

privately owned land, for a total of 

approximately 91 ac (37 ha). 

Subunit 4A: Calle de la Vuelta 

Subunit 4A is located near junction of 

State Route 76 and Calle de la Vuelta in 

unincorporated San Diego County. 

Subunit 4A consists of approximately 

0.8 ac (0.3 ha) of State or local 

government-owned land and 14 ac (6 

ha) of privately owned land, for a total 

of approximately 15 ac (6 ha). No lands 

in Subunit 4A are conserved or 

managed for biological resources. This 

subunit was occupied at the time of 

listing and, like all other extant 

occurrences, we also believe this 

subunit is essential to the conservation 

of this species because of its 

contribution to the genetic diversity of 

the species (McGlaughlin and Friar 

2007, p. 329; see Genetics section of the 

proposed rule (74 FR 44241, August 27, 

2009)). Subunit 4A contains physical 

and biological features that are essential 

to the conservation of Ambrosia pumila, 

including sandy loam or clay soils 

located on an upper terrace of a water 

source, which provide nutrients, 

moisture, and periodic flooding 

presumed necessary for the plant’s 

persistence (PCE 1), and ruderal 

vegetation, which allows adequate 

sunlight and airflow for A. pumila (PCE 

2). The PCEs in this subunit may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species in situations 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74555 

where nonnative species are 

outcompeting A. pumila for resources, 

human encroachment, road 

maintenance activities, and future 

widening of State Route 76. Please see 

the Special Management Considerations 

or Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to A. pumila 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Subunit 4B: Olive Hill Road 

Subunit 4B is located on the west side 

of State Route 76, south of Olive Hill 

Road in unincorporated San Diego 

County. Subunit 4B consists of 

approximately 16 ac (6 ha) of State or 

local government-owned land and 

approximately 8 ac (3 ha) of privately 

owned land, for a total of approximately 

23 ac (9 ha) (values do not sum due to 

rounding). No lands in Subunit 4B are 

conserved (a portion of Subunit 4B is 

within the Groves mitigation preserve, 

managed by the California Department 

of Transportation (Caltrans); this area 

has not yet been conserved). The 

occurrence in this subunit was 

erroneously considered extirpated at the 

time of listing, but has since been found 

to be extant. Like all other extant 

occurrences, we also believe this 

subunit is essential to the conservation 

of this species because of its 

contribution to the genetic diversity of 

the species (McGlaughlin and Friar 

2007, p. 329; see Genetics section of the 

proposed rule (74 FR 44241, August 27, 

2009)). Subunit 4B contains physical 

and biological features that are essential 

to the conservation of Ambrosia pumila, 

including sandy loam or clay soils 

located on an upper terrace of a water 

source, which provide nutrients, 

moisture, and flooding presumed 

necessary for the plant’s persistence 

(PCE 1), and grassland vegetation which 

allow adequate sunlight and airflow for 

A. pumila (PCE 2). The PCEs in this 

subunit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species in situations 

where nonnative species are 

outcompeting A. pumila for resources, 

human encroachment, road 

maintenance activities, and future 

widening of State Route 76. Please see 

the Special Management Considerations 

or Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to A. pumila 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Subunit 4C: Jeffries Ranch 

Subunit 4C is located approximately 

0.7 mi (1 km) southwest of Bonsall 

Bridge, adjacent to the south side of 

State Route 76 in the City of Oceanside, 

San Diego County. Subunit 4C consists 

of approximately 0.1 ac (0.05 ha) of 

State or local government-owned land 

and approximately 33 ac (13 ha) of 

privately owned land for a total of 

approximately 33 ac (13 ha). No lands 

in Subunit 4C are conserved. This 

subunit was occupied at the time of 

listing and, like all other extant 

occurrences, we believe this subunit is 

essential to the conservation of this 

species because of its contribution to the 

genetic diversity of the species 

(McGlaughlin and Friar 2007, p. 329; 

see Genetics section of the proposed 

rule (74 FR 44241, August 27, 2009)). 

Subunit 4C contains physical and 

biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of Ambrosia pumila, 

including sandy loam or clay soils 

located on an upper terrace of a water 

source, which provide nutrients, 

moisture, and periodic flooding 

presumed necessary for the plant’s 

persistence (PCE 1), and nonnative 

grassland vegetation, which allows 

adequate sunlight and airflow for A. 

pumila (PCE 2). The PCEs in this 

subunit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species in situations 

where nonnative species are 

outcompeting A. pumila for resources, 

human encroachment, road and utility 

maintenance activities, future widening 

of State Route 76, and potential 

development. Please see the Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to A. pumila 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Subunit 4D: Gird/Monserate Hill 

Subunit 4D is located in the Fallbrook 

area of northern San Diego County, 

California. This subunit is adjacent to 

the north side of State Route 76, almost 

equidistant from Gird Road (to the west) 

and Monserate Hill Road (to the east). 

Subunit 4D consists of 0.7 ac (0.3 ha) of 

State-owned land and 20 ac (8 ha) of 

privately owned land, for a total of 21 

ac (9 ha) (values do not sum due to 

rounding). No lands in Subunit 4D are 

conserved or managed for biological 

resources. This subunit was occupied at 

the time of listing and, like all other 

extant occurrences, we believe this 

subunit is also essential to the 

conservation of this species because of 

its contribution to the genetic diversity 

of the species (McGlaughlin and Friar 

2007, p. 329; see Genetics section of the 

proposed rule (74 FR 44241, August 27, 

2009)). Subunit 4D contains physical 

and biological features that are essential 

to the conservation of A. pumila, 

including sandy loam or clay soils 

located on an upper terrace of a water 

source, which provide nutrients, 

moisture, and periodic flooding 

presumed necessary for the plant’s 

persistence (PCE 1); and nonnative 

grassland vegetation, which allows 

adequate sunlight and airflow for A. 

pumila (PCE 2). The PCEs in this 

subunit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species in situations 

where nonnative species are outcompeting A. pumila for resources, from 

human encroachment that may occur in 

the area, and from development and 

road maintenance. Please see the 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to A. pumila 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Unit 5: San Dieguito River Watershed— 

Lake Hodges 

Unit 5 is located in central San Diego 

County and consists of two subunits 

comprised of approximately 129 ac (52 

ha) of State or local government-owned 

land and approximately 121 ac (49 ha) 

of privately owned land, for a total of 

approximately 249 ac (101 ha) (values 

do not sum due to rounding). This total 

does not include a portion of Subunit 

5B (52 ac (21 ha)) that we have excluded 

from this designation under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act (see the Exclusions 

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

of this rule). 

Subunit 5A: Lake Hodges East (Via 

Rancho Pkwy) 

Subunit 5A is located on the west side 

of Interstate 15, just north of Lake 

Hodges and south of Via Rancho 

Parkway in San Diego County. Subunit 

5A consists of approximately 16 ac (6 

ha) of State or local government owned 

land and approximately 5 ac (2 ha) of 

privately owned land, for a total of 

approximately 21 ac (9 ha) (values do 

not sum due to rounding). No lands in 

Subunit 5A are conserved or managed 

for biological resources. This subunit 

was occupied at the time of listing and, 

like all other extant occurrences, we 

also believe this subunit is essential to 

the conservation of this species because 

of its contribution to the genetic 

diversity of the species (McGlaughlin 

and Friar 2007, p. 329; see Genetics 

section of the proposed rule (74 FR 

44241, August 27, 2009)). Subunit 5A 

contains physical and biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of Ambrosia pumila, 

including sandy loam or clay soils 

located on an upper terrace of a water 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74556 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

source, which provide nutrients, 

moisture, and periodic flooding 

presumed necessary for the plant’s 

persistence (PCE 1), and nonnative 

grassland vegetation, which allows 

adequate sunlight and airflow for A. 

pumila (PCE 2). The PCEs in this unit 

may require special management 

considerations or protection to address 

threats from nonnative plant species in 

situations where nonnative species are 

outcompeting A. pumila for resources, 

human encroachment, utility 

maintenance activities, and potential 

development. Please see the Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to A. pumila 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Subunit 5B: Lake Hodges West—Crosby 

Estates 

Subunit 5B is located just west of 

Lake Hodges in the western portion of 

central San Diego County, California. 

This subunit is on and adjacent to the 

west side of the Crosby National Golf 

Club. Subunit 5B consists of 

approximately 113 ac (46 ha) of State or 

local government owned land, 115 ac 

(47 ha) of privately owned land for a 

total of approximately 228 ac (92 ha) 

(values do not sum due to rounding). 

This subunit meets the definition of 

critical habitat for this species because 

of its contribution to the genetic 

diversity of the species (McGlaughlin 

and Friar 2007, p. 329; see Genetics 

section of the proposed rule (74 FR 

44241, August 27, 2009)). Subunit 5B 

contains physical and biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of Ambrosia pumila, 

including sandy loam or clay soils 

located on an upper terrace of a water 

source, which provide nutrients, 

moisture, and periodic flooding 

presumed necessary for the plant’s 

persistence (PCE 1), and nonnative 

grassland habitat type, which allows 

adequate sunlight and airflow for A. 

pumila (PCE 2). The physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species in this 

subunit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species in situations 

where nonnative species are outcompeting A. pumila for resources, from 

human encroachment that may occur in 

the area, and from golf course 

maintenance. Please see the Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to A. pumila 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Unit 6: San Diego River Watershed— 

Mission Trails Regional Park 

Unit 6 is located in Mission Trails 

Regional Park in the City of San Diego. 

Unit 6 consists of approximately 6 ac (3 

ha) of State or local government owned 

land, and approximately 32 ac (13 ha) 

of privately owned land, for a total of 38 

ac (15 ha) (values do not sum due to 

rounding). This total does not include a 

portion of Unit 6 (160 ac (65ha)) that we 

have excluded from this designation 

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

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

Act section of this rule). This unit was 

occupied at the time of listing and 

remains occupied, and like all other 

extant occurrences, is essential to the 

conservation of this species because of 

its contribution to the genetic diversity 

of the species (McGlaughlin and Friar 

2007, p. 329; see Genetics section of the 

proposed rule (74 FR 44241, August 27, 

2009)). Unit 6 contains physical and 

biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of A. pumila, including 

sandy loam or clay soils located on an 

upper terrace of a water source, which 

provide nutrients, moisture, and 

periodic flooding presumed necessary 

for the plant’s persistence (PCE 1), and 

nonnative grassland habitat type, which 

allows adequate sunlight and airflow for 

A. pumila (PCE 2). The physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species in this unit 

may require special management 

considerations or protection to address 

threats from nonnative plant species in 

situations where nonnative species are 

outcompeting A. pumila for resources, 

and human encroachment. Please see 

the Special Management Considerations 

or Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to A. pumila 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Unit 7: Sweetwater River Watershed 

Unit 7 is located in southwestern San 

Diego County and consists of three 

subunits containing approximately 146 

ac (60 ha) of federally owned land (San 

Diego National Wildlife Refuge), 

approximately 13 ac (5 ha) of State or 

local government owned land, and 

approximately 57 ac (23 ha) of privately 

owned land, for a total of approximately 

215 ac (87 ha) (values do not sum due 

to rounding). 

Subunit 7A: Jamul Road 

Subunit 7A is located southeast of the 

City of El Cajon at and near junction of 

Jamul Road and Steele Canyon Road, on 

the north and south sides of Jamul Road. 

Subunit 7A consists of approximately 3 

ac (1 ha) of State or local government 

owned land, and approximately 36 ac 

(15 ha) of privately owned land, for a 

total of approximately 39 ac (16 ha). No 

lands in Subunit 7A are conserved or 

managed for biological resources. This 

subunit was occupied at the time of 

listing and remains occupied. This 

subunit, like all other extant 

occurrences, is essential to the 

conservation of this species because of 

its contribution to the genetic diversity 

of the species (McGlaughlin and Friar 

2007, p. 329; see Genetics section of the 

proposed rule (74 FR 44241, August 27, 

2009)). Subunit 7A contains physical 

and biological features that are essential 

to the conservation of A. pumila, 

including sandy loam or clay soils 

located on an upper terrace of a water 

source, which provide nutrients, 

moisture, and periodic flooding 

presumed necessary for the plant’s 

persistence (PCE 1), and nonnative 

grassland habitat type, which allows 

adequate sunlight and airflow for A. 

pumila (PCE 2). The physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species in this 

subunit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species in situations 

where nonnative species are 

outcompeting A. pumila for resources, 

alterations of site hydrology, and offhighway vehicle use. Please see the 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to A. pumila 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Subunit 7B: San Diego National Wildlife 

Refuge (SDNWR) 

Subunit 7B is located on the San 

Diego National Wildlife Refuge, south of 

Sweetwater River between Rancho San 

Diego Golf Course and the hills to the 

south, and on the north and south sides 

of a dirt trail adjoining the end of Par 

Four Drive in unincorporated San Diego 

County. Subunit 7B consists of 

approximately 118 ac (48 ha) of Federal 

land owned and managed by the 

Service, and approximately 15 ac (6 ha) 

of privately owned land, for a total of 

approximately 133 ac (54 ha). No 

private lands in Subunit 7B are 

conserved or managed for biological 

resources. This subunit was occupied at 

the time of listing and, like all other 

extant occurrences, we also believe this 

subunit is essential to the conservation 

of this species because of its 

contribution to the genetic diversity of 

the species (McGlaughlin and Friar 

2007, p. 329 see Genetics section of the 

proposed rule (74 FR 44241, August 27, 

2009)). Subunit 7B contains physical 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74557 

and biological features that are essential 

to the conservation of A. pumila, 

including sandy loam or clay soils 

located on an upper terrace of a water 

source, which provide nutrients, 

moisture, and periodic flooding 

presumed necessary for the plant’s 

persistence (PCE 1), and nonnative 

grassland vegetation, which allows 

adequate sunlight and airflow for A. 

pumila (PCE 2). The PCEs in this 

subunit may require continued 

management and protection on federally 

owned lands to address threats from 

nonnative plant species in situations 

where nonnative species are 

outcompeting A. pumila for resources, 

and human encroachment. Please see 

the Special Management Considerations 

or Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to A. pumila 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Subunit 7C: Steele Canyon Bridge 

Subunit 7C is located mainly on the 

east side of State Route 94 on a slope 

between a concrete-lined ditch and a 

fence adjacent and parallel to State 

Route 94, approximately 0.7 mi (1.1 km) 

southeast of Subunit 7B, in 

unincorporated San Diego County. A 

small portion of the subunit is located 

on the opposite side of State Route 94 

just south of Steele Canyon Bridge in a 

split-rail exclosure. Subunit 7C consists 

of approximately 28 ac (11 ha) of 

federally owned land managed by the 

Service, approximately 10 ac (4 ha) of 

State or local government owned land, 

and approximately 6 ac (2 ha) of 

privately owned land, for a total of 

approximately 44 ac (18 ha) (values do 

not sum due to rounding). No private or 

state/local government owned lands in 

Subunit 7C are conserved or managed 

for biological resources. This subunit 

was occupied at the time of listing and, 

like all other extant occurrences, we 

also believe this subunit is essential to 

the conservation of this species because 

of its contribution to the genetic 

diversity of the species (McGlaughlin 

and Friar 2007, p. 329; see Genetics 

section of the proposed rule (74 FR 

44241, August 27, 2009)). Subunit 7C 

contains physical and biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of Ambrosia pumila, 

including sandy loam or clay soils 

located on an upper terrace of a water 

source, which provide nutrients, 

moisture, and flooding presumed 

necessary for the plant’s persistence 

(PCE 1), and nonnative grassland 

vegetation, which allows adequate 

sunlight and airflow for A. pumila (PCE 

2). The PCEs in this subunit may require 

continued management and protection 

on federally owned lands to address 

threats from nonnative plant species in 

situations where nonnative species are 

outcompeting A. pumila for resources, 

and human encroachment. Please see 

the Special Management Considerations 

or Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to A. pumila 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that actions they fund, 

authorize, or carry out are not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Decisions by the 5th and 9th 

Circuit Courts of Appeals have 

invalidated our definition of 

‘‘destruction or adverse modification’’ 

(50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot 

Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) 

and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 

442F (5th Cir 2001)), and we do not rely 

on this regulatory definition when 

analyzing whether an action is likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Under the statutory provisions 

of the Act, we determine destruction or 

adverse modification on the basis of 

whether, with implementation of the 

Federal action, the affected critical 

habitat would remain functional (or 

retain the current ability for the PCEs to 

be functionally established) to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species (Service 2004a, p. 3). 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to ensure that activities 

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of such a species or to destroy 

or adversely modify its critical habitat. 

If a Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us in most cases. As a result of this 

consultation, we document compliance 

with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) 

through our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or designated critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that are likely to adversely affect 

listed species or designated critical 

habitat. 

An exception to the concurrence 

process referred to in (1) above occurs 

in consultations involving National Fire 

Plan projects on lands managed by the 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

or the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 

However, none of the lands we are 

designating as critical habitat are 

located on BLM or USFS lands. 

If we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat, we also provide 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

the project, if any are identifiable. We 

define ‘‘Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives’’ at 50 CFR 402.02 as 

alternative actions identified during 

consultation that: 

• Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

• Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

• Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

• Would, in the Director’s opinion, 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of the listed species or 

destroying or adversely modifying its 

critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is not likely to 

jeopardize a listed species or adversely 

modify its critical habitat but may result 

in incidental take of listed animals, we 

provide an incidental take statement 

that specifies the impact of such 

incidental taking on the species. We 

then define ‘‘Reasonable and Prudent 

Measures’’ considered necessary or 

appropriate to minimize the impact of 

such taking. Reasonable and prudent 

measures are binding measures the 

action agency must implement to 

receive an exemption to the prohibition 

against take contained in section 9 of 

the Act. These reasonable and prudent 

measures are implemented through 

specific ‘‘Terms and Conditions’’ that 

must be followed by the action agency 

or passed along by the action agency as 

binding conditions to an applicant. 

Reasonable and prudent measures, 

along with the terms and conditions that 

implement them, cannot alter the basic 

design, location, scope, duration, or 

timing of the action under consultation 

and may involve only minor changes 

(50 CFR 402.14). The Service may 

provide the action agency with 

additional conservation 

recommendations, which are advisory 

and not intended to carry binding legal 

force. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74558 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where we have 

listed a new species or subsequently 

designated critical habitat that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action (or the agency’s 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law). Consequently, 

Federal agencies may sometimes need to 

request reinitiation of consultation with 

us on actions for which formal 

consultation has been completed, if 

those actions with discretionary 

involvement or control may affect 

subsequently listed species or 

designated critical habitat. 

Federal activities that may affect 

Ambrosia pumila or its designated 

critical habitat will require section 7 

consultation under the Act. Activities 

on State, tribal, local, or private lands 

requiring a Federal permit (such as a 

permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers under section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act or a permit under 

section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from the 

Service) or involving some other Federal 

action (such as funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency) will 

also be subject to the section 7 

consultation process. Federal actions 

not affecting listed species or critical 

habitat, and actions on State, tribal, 

local, or private lands that are not 

federally funded, authorized, or 

permitted, do not require section 7 

consultations. 

Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the adverse 

modification determination is whether, 

with implementation of the proposed 

Federal action, the affected critical 

habitat would continue to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species, or would retain its current 

ability for the primary constituent 

elements to be functionally established. 

Activities that may destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat are those that 

alter the physical and biological features 

to an extent that appreciably reduces the 

conservation value of critical habitat for 

Ambrosia pumila. Generally, the 

conservation role of the A. pumila 

critical habitat units is to support viable 

occurrences in appropriate habitat areas. 

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

to briefly evaluate and describe in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat those 

activities involving a Federal action that 

may destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. 

Activities that, when carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency, may adversely affect critical 

habitat and therefore should result in 

consultation for Ambrosia pumila 

include, but are not limited to, the 

following: 

(1) Actions that would alter the 

configuration of the water sources 

associated with Ambrosia pumila 

habitat or the upper terraces where A. 

pumila habitat is found. Such activities 

could include, but are not limited to, 

water impoundment, stream 

channelization, water diversion, water 

withdrawal, and development activities. 

These activities could alter the 

biological and physical features that 

provide the appropriate habitat for A. 

pumila by altering or eliminating 

flooding events that this species may 

rely on for dispersal, seed germination, 

and control of competitors; reducing or 

increasing the availability of 

groundwater that may result in a shift of 

habitat type to a community unsuitable 

for A. pumila (shrub- or tree-dominated 

habitat, which would inhibit exposure 

to needed sunlight and airflow); or 

causing increased erosion that could 

remove soils appropriate for A. pumila 

growth. 

(2) Activities that cover or remove 

soils appropriate for A. pumila growth 

such as development, plowing or 

grading, or activities that change the 

characteristics of soils so that A. pumila 

growth is impeded, such as soil 

compaction due to hiking and offhighway vehicle use. 

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

Act 

No lands meet the criteria for being 

exempted from the designation of 

critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila 

pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act. 

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

Act 

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

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

the Secretary must designate and revise 

critical habitat on the basis of the best 

available scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

national security impact, and any other 

relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if he determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless he 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. In making that determination, 

the legislative history is clear that the 

Secretary has broad discretion regarding 

which factor(s) to use and how much 

weight to give to any factor. 

In the following paragraphs we 

address a number of general issues that 

are relevant to our analysis under 

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

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

may exclude an area from designated 

critical habitat based on economic 

impacts, impacts on national security, 

or any other relevant impacts. In 

considering whether to exclude a 

particular area from the designation, we 

must identify the benefits of including 

the area in the designation, identify the 

benefits of excluding the area from the 

designation, and determine whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. If based on this 

analysis, we make this determination, 

then we can exclude the area only if 

such exclusion would not result in the 

extinction of the species. 

When considering the benefits of 

inclusion for an area, we consider the 

additional regulatory benefits that area 

would receive from the protection from 

adverse modification or destruction as a 

result of actions with a Federal nexus; 

the educational benefits of mapping 

essential habitat for recovery of the 

listed species; and any benefits that may 

result from a designation due to State or 

Federal laws that may apply to critical 

habitat. The designation of critical 

habitat may strengthen or reinforce 

some of the provisions in other State 

and Federal laws, such as the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). These laws analyze the 

potential for projects to significantly 

affect the environment. Critical habitat 

may signal the presence of sensitive 

habitat that could otherwise be missed 

in the review process for these other 

environmental laws. 

When considering the benefits of 

exclusion, we consider, among other 

things, whether exclusion of a specific 

area is likely to result in long-term 

conservation; the continuation, 

strengthening, or encouragement of 

partnerships that result in conservation 

of listed species; or implementation of 

a management plan that provides equal 

to or more conservation than a critical 

habitat designation would provide. 

Specifically, when evaluating a 

conservation plan we consider, among 

other factors: 

(1) Whether the plan is complete and 

provides a benefit for the species by 

conserving and managing the features 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74559 

essential for the conservation of the 

species; 

(2) Whether the plan provides 

conservation strategies and measures 

consistent with currently accepted 

principles of conservation biology; and 

(3) Whether there is a reasonable 

expectation that the conservation 

management strategies and actions will 

be implemented for the foreseeable 

future, and effective based on past 

practices, written guidance, or 

regulations. 

After evaluating the benefits of 

inclusion and the benefits of exclusion, 

we carefully weigh the two sides to 

determine whether the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. 

If we determine that they do, we then 

determine whether exclusion would 

result in extinction. If exclusion of an 

area from critical habitat will result in 

extinction, we will not exclude it from 

the designation. 

In the case of Ambrosia pumila, the 

areas proposed and ultimately 

designated as critical habitat do not 

include any tribal lands or tribal trust 

resources or DOD lands. However, this 

designated critical habitat does include 

some lands covered by HCPs, 

specifically, the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP, the City of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan, and the County of 

San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. 

The information provided above 

applies to the following discussions of 

exclusions under section (4)(b)(2) of the 

Act. Ambrosia pumila is covered under 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP, 

the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan, and the City of San Diego MSCP 

Subarea Plan. After considering the 

following areas under section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act, we are exercising our discretion 

to exclude from critical habitat 

designation: Subunit 2 within the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP; a 

portion of Subunit 5B within the County 

of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan area 

and conserved and managed under the 

Crosby at Rancho Santa Fe Habitat 

Management Plan; and a portion of 

Subunit 6 within the City of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan. As described in the 

following exclusion analyses for the 

three HCPs, we made this determination 

because we believe that the value of the 

excluded lands for A. pumila 

conservation will be preserved for the 

foreseeable future by existing protective 

actions and they are appropriate for 

exclusion under the ‘‘other relevant 

factor’’ provisions of section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act. We concluded that the benefits 

of excluding these areas from critical 

habitat outweigh the benefits of 

including the areas. With regard to the 

remaining portions of essential habitat 

covered by the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP, the City of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan, and the County of 

San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, we 

concluded that the benefits of inclusion 

outweigh the benefits of exclusion; 

therefore we are not exercising our 

discretion to exclude these lands from 

critical habitat designation. Brief 

descriptions of each plan and lands 

excluded from critical habitat covered 

by each plan are described below. The 

areas where we determined the benefits 

of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion are listed in Table 3. 

Additional details on these areas can be 

found in the proposed critical habitat 

rule (74 FR 44238, August 27, 2009) and 

the NOA (75 FR 27690, May 18, 2010). 

TABLE 3—AREAS EXCLUDED FROM AMBROSIA PUMILA CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION UNDER SECTION 4(B)(2) OF THE

ACT

Subunit 

Excluded under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act 

Acres Hectares 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

2. Skunk Hollow ....................................................................................................................................................... 118 48 

County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan (The Crosby at Rancho Santa Fe Habitat Management Plan) 

5B. Lake Hodges west—Crosby estates ................................................................................................................. 52 21 

City of San Diego MSCP Plan 

6. Mission Trails Regional Park ............................................................................................................................... 160 65 

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 329 133 

Values in this table may not sum due to rounding. 

Western Riverside County Multiple 

Species Habitat Conservation Plan 

(Western Riverside County MSHCP) 

We determined that approximately 

298 ac (121 ha) of land in Subunits 1A 

and 1B, Unit 2, and Subunits 3A and 3B 

that are within the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP planning area meet the 

definition of critical habitat under the 

Act (approximately 9 ac (3 ha) in 

Subunit 1A are not covered by the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP as a 

result of a legal settlement reached 

between certain landowners and the 

County of Riverside in 2004 exempting 

the landowners from the HCP (Murdock 

Settlement, 2004)). In making our final 

decision with regard to these lands, we 

considered several factors including our 

relationships with participating 

jurisdictions and other stakeholders, 

existing consultations, conservation 

measures and management that are in 

place on these lands, and impacts to 

current and future partnerships. Under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have 

determined to exercise our delegated 

discretion to exclude 118 ac (48 ha) of 

land within Unit 2 from this final 

critical habitat designation. We are 

including 189 ac (76 ha) of land within 

Subunits 1A, 1B, 3A, and 3B in this 

critical habitat designation (including 

approximately 9 ac (3 ha) in Subunit 1A 

not covered by the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP). As described in our 

analysis below, we reached this 

conclusion by weighing the benefits of 

exclusion against the benefits of 

including each area in the final critical 

habitat designation. 

The Western Riverside County 

MSHCP is a regional, multijurisdictional 

HCP encompassing approximately 1.26 

million ac (510,000 ha) of land in 

western Riverside County. The Western 

Riverside County MSHCP addresses 146 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74560 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

listed and unlisted ‘‘covered species,’’ 

including Ambrosia pumila. The 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

includes a multispecies conservation 

program designed to minimize and 

mitigate the expected loss of habitat and 

associated incidental take of covered 

species, while allowing development to 

occur. On June 22, 2004, the Service 

issued a single incidental take permit 

(Service 2004b, TE–088609–0) under 

section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to 22 

permittees under the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP to be in effect for a 

period of 75 years (Service 2004, TE– 

088609–0). We concluded in our 

biological opinion (Service 2004b, p. 

342) that implementation of the plan, as 

proposed, was not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of A. pumila. 

Our determination was based on our 

conclusion that 62 percent of A. pumila 

suitable habitat and at least 2 (Nichols 

Road (Subunit 1B) and Skunk Hollow 

(Unit 2)) of the 3 extant occurrences 

known at that time would be protected 

or remain within the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP Conservation Area 

(lands conserved under the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP). We also 

noted that the surveys required by the 

HCP (see Narrow Endemic Plant Species 

survey area discussed below) could 

result in newly discovered occurrences 

of A. pumila. These potentially new 

occurrences would be conserved by 

being added to the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP Conservation Area. 

The Western Riverside County 

MSHCP, when fully implemented, will 

establish approximately 153,000 ac 

(61,917 ha) of new conservation lands 

(Additional Reserve Lands) to 

complement the approximate 347,000 ac 

(140,426 ha) of preexisting natural and 

open space areas (Public/Quasi-Public 

(PQP) lands). These PQP lands include 

those under ownership of public or 

quasi-public agencies, primarily the 

United States Forest Service (USFS) and 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), as 

well as permittee-owned or controlled 

open-space areas managed by the State 

of California and Riverside County. 

Collectively, the Additional Reserve 

Lands and PQP lands form the overall 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

Conservation Area. The configuration of 

the 153,000 ac (61,916 ha) of Additional 

Reserve Lands (ARL) is not mapped or 

precisely delineated (‘‘hard-lined’’) in 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP. 

Instead, the ARL are textual 

descriptions of habitat conservation 

necessary to meet the conservation goals 

for all covered species within the 

bounds of the approximately 310,000-ac 

(125,453-ha) Criteria Area and is 

determined as implementation of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP takes 

place. 

Three species-specific conservation 

objectives are included in the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP for Ambrosia 

pumila. The first objective is to conserve 

at least 21,800 ac (8,822 ha) of occupied 

or suitable habitat for the species. This 

objective can be attained through 

acquisition or other dedications of land 

assembled from within the Criteria Area 

(i.e., the ARL) or Narrow Endemic Plant 

Species Survey Area and through 

coordinated management of existing 

PQP. We mapped a ‘‘Conceptual Reserve 

Design’’ that illustrates existing PQP 

lands and predicts the geographic 

distribution of the ARL based on our 

interpretation of the textual descriptions 

of habitat conservation necessary to 

meet Western Riverside County MSHCP 

conservation goals. Our Conceptual 

Reserve Design is the Service’s estimate 

of one possible future configuration of 

153,000 ac (61,916 ha) of ARL in 

conjunction with the existing PQP 

lands, including approximately 21,800 

ac (8,822 ha) of ‘‘suitable’’ A. pumila 

habitat that will be conserved to meet 

the goals and objectives of the plan 

(Service 2004b, p. 73). Preservation and 

management of approximately 21,800 ac 

(8,822 ha) of suitable A. pumila habitat 

under the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP will contribute to conservation 

and ultimate recovery of this species. 

The second species-specific 

conservation objective included in the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP for 

Ambrosia pumila is to include within 

the Conservation Area at least two of the 

three occupied locations identified at 

the time the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP was permitted. Ambrosia 

pumila is threatened in the plan area 

primarily by habitat loss due to 

urbanization, flood control activities, 

and nonnative species competition 

(Service 2004b, pp. 334–342). The 

Western Riverside County MSHCP is 

designed to remove or reduce threats to 

this species as the plan is implemented 

by placing large blocks of occupied and 

unoccupied habitat into preservation 

throughout the Conservation Area. The 

two areas identified for inclusion in the 

Conservation Area are the occurrences 

at the Barry Jones (Skunk Hollow) 

Wetland Mitigation Bank (in Unit 2), 

and the occurrence near Temescal Creek 

at Nichols Road (in Subunit 1B). 

The third species-specific 

conservation objective included in the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP for 

Ambrosia pumila is the requirement of 

surveys for A. pumila as part of the 

project review process for public and 

private project proposals where suitable 

habitat is present within a defined 

Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey 

area (see Narrow Endemic Plant Species 

Survey Area Map, Figure 6–1 of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP, 

Volume I in Dudek 2003). For locations 

with positive survey results, 90 percent 

of those portions of the property that 

provide long-term conservation value 

for the species will be avoided; when it 

is demonstrated the conservation 

objectives for the species under the HCP 

are met, avoided areas will be evaluated 

to determine whether they will be open 

for development or considered for 

inclusion into the MSHCP Conservation 

Area (see Additional Survey Needs and 

Procedures; Western Riverside County 

MSHCP, Volume 1, section 6.3.2 in 

Dudek 2003). The Western Riverside 

County MSHCP anticipated inclusion of 

a third occurrence, near Temescal Creek 

east of Lake Street (in Subunit 1A), into 

the MSHCP Conservation Area in 

accordance with its Narrow Endemics 

Policy (Dudek 2003, pp. P–327–P–328). 

This area has been conserved but is not 

currently managed to benefit A. pumila 

and its habitat. 

Below is a brief analysis of the 

relative benefits of inclusion and 

exclusion of Unit 2, which we have 

exercised our discretion to exclude from 

critical habitat designation and our 

analysis of the relative benefits of 

inclusion and exclusion of Subunits 1A, 

1B, 3A and 3B which we have not 

exercised our discretion to exclude from 

critical habitat designation. 

Benefits of Inclusion—Western 

Riverside County MSHCP 

The principal benefit of including an 

area in a critical habitat designation is 

the requirement of Federal agencies to 

ensure actions they fund, authorize, or 

carry out are not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

any designated critical habitat, the 

regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act under which consultation is 

completed. Federal agencies must 

consult with the Service on actions that 

may affect critical habitat and must 

avoid destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. Federal agencies must 

also consult with us on actions that may 

affect a listed species and refrain from 

undertaking actions that are likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

such species. The analysis of effects to 

critical habitat is a separate and 

different analysis from that of the effects 

to the species. Therefore, the difference 

in outcomes of these two analyses 

represents the regulatory benefit of 

critical habitat. For some species 

(including Ambrosia pumila), and in 

some locations, the outcome of these 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74561 

analyses will be similar, because effects 

to habitat will often also result in effects 

to the species. However, the regulatory 

standard is different, as the jeopardy 

analysis investigates the action’s impact 

on the survival and recovery of the 

species, while the adverse modification 

analysis focuses on the action’s effects 

on the designated habitat’s contribution 

to conservation. This will, in many 

instances, lead to different results and 

different regulatory requirements. Thus, 

critical habitat designations may 

provide greater benefits to the recovery 

of a species than would listing alone. 

Critical habitat may provide a 

regulatory benefit for Ambrosia pumila 

when there is a Federal nexus present 

for a project that might adversely 

modify critical habitat. A Federal nexus 

generally exists where land is federally 

owned, or where actions proposed on 

non-Federal lands require a Federal 

permit or Federal funding. In the 

absence of a Federal nexus, the 

regulatory benefit provided through 

Section 7 consultation under the Act 

does not exist. Clearly, any activities 

affecting designated critical habitat on 

Federal land would trigger a duty to 

consult under Section 7. In contrast, the 

potential for a Federal nexus for 

activities proposed on non-Federal 

lands varies widely and depends on the 

particular circumstances of each case. 

Nevertheless, because the breadth of 

potential Federal actions that may 

trigger a duty to consult under Section 

7 is quite broad, we cannot say with 

certainty that future development of, or 

activities on non-Federal lands will 

always lack a Federal nexus. However, 

where there is no discernable Federal 

nexus on non-Federal lands we propose 

to designate as critical habitat, we 

consider the regulatory benefit of 

designation of those non-Federal lands 

to be small. 

Any protections provided by critical 

habitat that are redundant with 

protections already in place on lands 

proposed for designation also reduce the 

benefits of inclusion in critical habitat. 

Protections provided by HCPs or other 

conservation and management, may 

prevent the destruction or adverse 

modification of habitat to the same or 

greater extent as would the consultation 

provisions under section 7(a) of the Act 

for critical habitat. 

None of the land in Unit 2 is Federal 

land. The majority of Unit 2 is within 

the Barry Jones (Skunk Hollow) Wetland 

Mitigation Bank on privately owned 

lands owned and managed by Center for 

Natural Lands Management (CNLM) and 

protected by a conservation easement 

held by the California Department of 

Fish and Game. Two smaller portions of 

this unit are adjacent to the Barry Jones 

(Skunk Hollow) Wetland Mitigation 

Bank, one to the east on Johnson Ranch 

and Metropolitan Water District lands, 

and the other to the west on lands 

conserved as part of the Rancho Bella 

Vista HCP. All land in Unit 2 is 

conserved under conservation easement 

and actively managed by CNLM in 

accordance with the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP. We consider the 

likelihood of a Federal nexus for 

activities occurring on lands in Unit 2 

to be remote. It is possible that the Army 

Corps of Engineers may take jurisdiction 

over portions of Unit 2 if a project were 

to occur in that area; however, the 

probability of project impacts in Unit 2 

is slight because the area is conserved 

and managed and thus protected from 

direct development impacts. Because 

Unit 2 is already permanently conserved 

and managed to benefit Ambrosia 

pumila, the regulatory benefit of 

designating this area as critical habitat 

would be redundant with the 

protections already in place. Because 

the existence of a future Federal nexus 

in Unit 2 is remote and the protections 

afforded by designation would be 

redundant with protections already in 

place, we believe the regulatory benefit 

of designation of Unit 2 is negligible and 

not significant. 

Similar to Unit 2, none of the land in 

Units 1 and 3 is federally owned, and 

we consider the likelihood of a future 

Federal nexus in Units 1 and 3B to be 

remote. There is a potential that Federal 

funds may be applied to future projects 

related to the San Diego Aqueduct in 

Subunit 3A (see Comment 14 in the 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations section below); 

however the probability of a project 

with a Federal nexus occurring in 

Subunit 3A is uncertain. The absence of 

a discernable Federal nexus in Unit 1 

and Subunit 3B, and the uncertainty 

regarding a future Federal nexus in 

Subunit 3A reduce the potential 

regulatory benefits of designation of 

these areas. 

In contrast to Unit 2, Subunits 1B, 3A, 

and 3B are not currently protected or 

managed under the Western Riverside 

MSHCP for the benefit of A. pumila and 

its essential habitat. Subunit 1A is 

largely conserved, but it is not currently 

managed to protect the species and its 

habitat. 

As summarized above, under the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP on 

lands within the Narrow Endemic Plant 

Species survey area with positive survey 

results for Ambrosia pumila, impacts to 

90 percent of portions of the property 

that provide long-term conservation 

value for the species are to be avoided 

until it is demonstrated that the 

conservation objectives for the species 

have been met, at which time avoidance 

is no longer be required (see Protection 

of Narrow Endemic Plant Species; 

Western Riverside County MSHCP, 

Volume 1, section 6.1.3, in Dudek 2003). 

Also, projects proposed in areas within 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP 

Criteria Area (Criteria Area) are to be 

implemented through the Joint Project 

Review Process to ensure that the 

requirements of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP permit and the 

Implementing Agreement are properly 

met and are protecting essential habitat 

for A. pumila (Western Riverside 

County MSHCP, Volume 1, section 6.6.2 

in Dudek 2003, p. 82). 

Portions of Subunits 1A, 1B, and 3B 

are within the Narrow Endemic Plant 

Species Survey Area or the Criteria Area 

under the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP, and we anticipate that these 

areas will eventually be protected and 

managed under the plan. As noted 

above, a large portion of Subunit 1A is 

already conserved, but it is not actively 

managed for the benefit of Ambrosia 

pumila. Because none of these areas are 

both conserved and managed, they 

remain vulnerable to threats from 

nonnative species, human 

encroachment and development related 

impacts as discussed above in the 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection section. We recognize that 

the regulatory benefit of designating 

Subunits 1A, 1B, and 3B is partially 

redundant with existing and anticipated 

protection (conservation) and 

management of these areas under the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP; 

however because such protection is not 

yet fully in place, we believe there is 

some regulatory benefit to designation 

of these areas. Subunit 3A is neither 

within the Narrow Endemic Plant 

Species survey area or the Criteria Area 

and is not targeted for conservation and 

management under the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP. As a result, 

the regulatory benefit provided by the 

designation of critical habitat within 

Subunit 3A would not be redundant 

with conservation measures outlined in 

the plan. We conclude that the 

regulatory benefit of designating 

Subunits 1A, 1B and 3B is partially 

redundant with the anticipated 

protection of these areas under the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP, 

while the regulatory benefit of 

designating Subunit 3A would not be 

redundant with conservation provided 

under the plan. However, because the 

likelihood of a future Federal nexus on 

any of these lands is remote we consider 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74562 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

the regulatory benefit of designation of 

the entirety of Units 1 and 3 to be small 

and not significant. 

Designating critical habitat also can be 

beneficial because the process of 

proposing critical habitat provides the 

opportunity for peer review and public 

comment on lands we propose to 

designate as critical habitat, our criteria 

to assess those lands, potential impacts 

from the proposal, and information on 

the taxon itself. We believe the 

designation of critical habitat may 

generally provide previously 

unavailable information to the public. 

Public education regarding the potential 

conservation value of an area may also 

help focus conservation and 

management efforts on areas of high 

conservation value for certain species. 

Information about Ambrosia pumila and 

its habitat that reaches a wide audience, 

including parties concerned about and 

engaged in conservation activities, is 

valuable because the public may not be 

aware of documented (or 

undocumented) A. pumila occurrences 

that have not been conserved or are not 

being managed. 

Because Unit 2 is already 

permanently conserved and actively 

managed for the benefit of Ambrosia 

pumila, we believe there is little 

educational benefit to designation of 

this area. The education benefit of 

designation is somewhat lower for 

Subunits 1A and 1B because 

educational information regarding the 

importance of the A. pumila 

occurrences in these two areas to the 

conservation of the species has been 

presented to the public during 

development and implementation of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP. 

However, this critical habitat rule 

provides more specific information 

regarding the entire habitat area in 

Subunits 1A and 1B (not just the aboveground portions of the occurrences) that 

we consider essential to the 

conservation of the species. Therefore, 

we believe the education benefit to 

including Subunits 1A and 1B in this 

designation is still significant. 

Subunits 3A and 3B were unknown at 

the time the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP was finalized, and therefore 

educational information regarding the 

Ambrosia pumila occurrences in 

Subunits 3A and 3B was not presented 

to the public during development and 

implementation of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP. Designating 

as critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila 

Subunits 3A and 3B will identify these 

specific areas as essential for the 

conservation and recovery of Ambrosia 

pumila and in doing so, provide an 

educational component that is a 

significant benefit to the conservation of 

this species. The educational 

information contained in this rule 

provides information that can be used 

by the public to learn about A. pumila 

and its essential habitat in Subunits 3A 

and 3B and that can refine the broader 

conservation goals for A. pumila under 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP 

by focusing conservation on the specific 

areas essential for the recovery of the 

species. 

The designation of Ambrosia pumila 

critical habitat may also strengthen or 

reinforce some of the provisions in other 

State and Federal laws, such as the 

California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA) or the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). These laws analyze 

the potential for projects to significantly 

affect the environment. In Riverside 

County, the additional protections 

associated with critical habitat may be 

beneficial in areas not currently 

conserved. Critical habitat may signal 

the presence of sensitive habitat that 

could otherwise be missed in the review 

process for these other environmental 

laws. In the case of CEQA, this could be 

a benefit, since CEQA may require 

additional review of projects that may 

affect critical habitat and protection of 

essential habitat if its destruction would 

constitute a significant environmental 

effect. However, this benefit is a minor 

benefit in the case of NEPA, because 

NEPA does not require project 

proponents to protect sensitive habitat. 

The potential ancillary benefits under 

other laws of critical habitat designation 

would be higher in Subunits 1A, 1B, 3A, 

and 3B where the species and its habitat 

are not currently conserved. The 

benefits would be negligible in Unit 2 

because A. pumila and its essential 

habitat are protected and managed. 

In summary, we believe that the 

regulatory benefit of designating critical 

habitat under section 7(a) of the Act is 

small in Subunits 1A, 1B, and 3B 

because the likelihood of a future 

Federal nexus in these areas is remote. 

There is a higher potential for a Federal 

nexus in Subunit 3A, but it is still 

uncertain. Overall, we believe the 

regulatory benefit of designation of 

Subunits 1A, 1B, 3A and 3B is not 

significant. We believe that the 

educational benefit of designation is 

significant in Subunits 1A, 1B, 3A, and 

3B because these areas are not 

conserved and managed and designation 

may help focus conservation efforts for 

this species under the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP on these 

specific essential habitat areas. There 

are also potential ancillary benefits 

under other laws that would result from 

designation of Subunits 1A, 1B, 3A, and 

3B. In Unit 2, which is conserved and 

managed, we believe the benefits of 

critical habitat designation are not 

significant. The regulatory benefit of 

designation in Unit 2 is likely 

redundant with protection provided by 

the conservation and management of the 

area, and because this area is already 

conserved and managed, the public 

education and ancillary benefits are also 

insignificant in Unit 2. We conclude 

that among lands proposed as critical 

habitat that are covered by the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP, the 

educational benefit of designation in 

Subunits 1A, 1B, 3A, and 3B is 

significant, and the regulatory and 

ancillary benefits of designating these 

areas are small and not significant. The 

regulatory, educational and ancillary 

benefits of designating Unit 2 as critical 

habitat are negligible. 

Benefits of Exclusion—Western 

Riverside County MSHCP 

We believe benefits could be realized 

by forgoing designation of critical 

habitat for Ambrosia pumila on lands 

covered by the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP including: 

(1) Continuance and strengthening of 

our effective working relationships with 

all Western Riverside County MSHCP 

jurisdictions and stakeholders to 

promote conservation of Ambrosia 

pumila, its habitat, and 145 other 

species covered by the HCP and their 

habitat; 

(2) Allowance for continued 

meaningful collaboration and 

cooperation in working toward 

protecting and recovering this species 

and the many other species covered by 

the HCP, including conservation 

benefits that might not otherwise occur; 

(3) Encouragement for local 

jurisdictions to fully participate in the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP; and 

(4) Encouragement of additional HCP 

and other conservation plan 

development in the future on other 

private lands for this and other federally 

listed and sensitive species, including 

incorporation of protections for plant 

species which is voluntary because the 

Act does not prohibit take of plant 

species. 

The Western Riverside County 

MSHCP provides substantial protection 

and management for Ambrosia pumila 

and the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, and addresses conservation 

issues from a coordinated, integrated 

perspective rather than a piecemeal, 

project-by-project approach (as would 

occur under sections 7 of the Act or 

smaller HCPs), thus resulting in 

coordinated landscape-scale 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74563 

conservation that can contribute to 

genetic diversity by preserving covered 

species populations, habitat, and 

interconnected linkage areas that 

support recovery of Ambrosia pumila 

and other listed species. It is important 

that we encourage participation in such 

plans and encourage voluntary coverage 

of listed plant species in such plans. 

Additionally, many landowners 

perceive critical habitat as an unfair and 

unnecessary regulatory burden given the 

expense and time involved in 

developing and implementing complex 

regional and jurisdiction-wide HCPs, 

such as the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP. Exclusion of Western Riverside 

County MSHCP lands would help 

preserve the partnerships we developed 

with the County of Riverside and other 

local jurisdictions in the development of 

the HCP, and foster future partnerships 

and development of future HCPs, and in 

particular HCPs that include protections 

for listed plants, such as A. pumila. 

In summary, we believe excluding 

land covered by the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP from critical habitat 

could provide the significant benefit of 

maintaining existing regional HCP 

partnerships and fostering new ones. 

Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against 

Benefits of Inclusion—Western 

Riverside County MSHCP 

We reviewed and evaluated the 

benefits of inclusion and the benefits of 

exclusion for all lands owned by or 

under the jurisdiction of Western 

Riverside County MSHCP permittees as 

critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila. 

The benefits of including conserved and 

managed lands in the critical habitat 

designation are small. All of the 

approximately 118 ac (48 ha) of land in 

Unit 2 at the Barry Jones (Skunk 

Hollow) Wetland Mitigation Bank are 

already conserved and managed. 

Therefore we do not believe critical 

habitat designation for A. pumila will 

provide significant regulatory, 

educational or ancillary benefits for this 

area. In contrast to Unit 2, the 

designation as critical habitat of 

essential habitat for Ambrosia pumila in 

Subunits 1A, 1B, 3A, and 3B will 

provide a significant educational benefit 

and may also result in small regulatory 

and ancillary benefits for A. pumila and 

its essential habitat. None of these 

subunits are currently both conserved 

and managed to benefit A. pumila (a 

large portion of Subunit 1A is 

conserved, but not actively managed), 

the broad conservation goals for this 

species under the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP do not explicitly require 

and assure protection of the specific 

lands included in Subunits 1A, 1B, and 

3B, and the plan does not identify the 

lands in Subunit 3A for conservation. 

Therefore designation of these units will 

provide a significant educational benefit 

by focusing attention on the specific 

lands within Western Riverside County 

MSHCP that are essential for the 

species’ recovery so that conservation 

efforts are directed toward those areas. 

We also anticipate a potential regulatory 

benefit from designation in the unlikely 

circumstance that a Federal nexus exists 

in connection with activities on these 

lands and some ancillary benefit from 

other laws such as CEQA and NEPA 

from designating these areas as critical 

habitat. 

Excluding Subunits 1A, 1B, Unit 2, 

and Subunits 3A and 3B from critical 

habitat designation will further our 

existing partnerships with permittees 

under the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP and encourage future voluntary 

conservation efforts for this species by 

relieving landowners of the any 

additional regulatory burden stemming 

from designation. We consider this a 

significant benefit of excluding these 

lands. 

In summary, we find that excluding 

from critical habitat areas that are 

receiving long-term conservation and 

management for the purpose of 

protecting Ambrosia pumila (Unit 2) 

will preserve our partnership with the 

County of Riverside and other 

permittees in the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP and encourage the 

conservation of lands associated with 

development and implementation of 

future HCPs. These partnership benefits 

are significant and outweigh the small 

potential regulatory, educational, and 

ancillary benefits of including Unit 2 in 

critical habitat for A. pumila. We find 

that including lands as critical habitat 

that are not yet receiving long-term 

conservation and management 

(Subunits 1A, 1B, 3A, and 3B) will 

provide additional regulatory protection 

under section 7(a) of the Act if there is 

a Federal nexus, and will provide a 

significant educational benefit by 

focusing conservation efforts by the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

permittees on conservation and 

management of these specific essential 

habitat areas for A. pumila and 

educating the public about importance 

of these areas for the conservation of 

this species. Designation may also result 

in some ancillary benefits under other 

laws. Therefore, designating these areas 

as critical habitat for A. pumila will 

provide significant educational as well 

as some regulatory and ancillary 

benefits to the species. While we 

acknowledge that excluding these areas 

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

provide a significant benefit to the 

partnership that we have with the 

County of Riverside and other 

permittees under the Western Riverside 

MSHCP, we believe that the significant 

educational along with the potential 

regulatory and ancillary benefits to 

conservation of the species and its 

essential habitat in Subunits 1A, 1B, 3A, 

and 3B of including these lands as 

critical habitat outweighs the benefit of 

exclusion. Therefore we have not 

exercised our delegated discretion to 

exclude these areas. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species—Unit 2, Western 

Riverside County MSHCP 

We determined that exclusion of 118 

ac (48 ha) of land in Unit 2 within the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

planning area from the final critical 

habitat designation for Ambrosia pumila 

will not result in extinction of the 

species. This area is permanently 

conserved and managed to provide a 

benefit to A. pumila and its habitat. The 

jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act 

provides assurances the species will not 

go extinct as a result of exclusion from 

critical habitat designation where 

habitat is occupied by A. pumila or 

other federally listed species. Therefore, 

based on the above discussion, we have 

determined to exercise our delegated 

discretion to exclude approximately 118 

ac (48 ha) of land in Unit 2 owned by 

or under the jurisdiction of Western 

Riverside County MSHCP permittees 

from this critical habitat designation. 

San Diego Multiple Species 

Conservation Program (MSCP)—City 

and County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plans 

We determined that approximately 

207 ac (84 ha) of habitat in Subunit 5A 

and Unit 6 within the City of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan, and approximately 

488 ac (198 ha) of habitat in Subunits 

5B, 7A, 7B, and 7C within the County 

of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan meet 

the definition of Ambrosia pumila 

critical habitat under the Act. In making 

our decision with regard to designating 

lands within these two subarea plans as 

critical habitat, we considered several 

factors, including our relationship with 

the participating MSCP jurisdictions, 

our relationship with other MSCP 

stakeholders, non-covered activities, 

existing consultations, conservation 

measures in place that benefit A. 

pumila, and impacts to current and 

future partnerships. We recognize that 

A. pumila conservation efforts required 

under the City and County of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plans will continue 

regardless of whether covered areas are 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74564 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

designated as critical habitat. Under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have 

decided to exercise our delegated 

discretion to exclude approximately 160 

ac (65 ha) of non-Federal land in Unit 

6 covered by the City of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan, and approximately 

52 ac (21 ha) of non-Federal land in 

Subunit 5B covered by the County of 

San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan from this 

critical habitat designation. The 

remaining approximately 228 ac (92 ha) 

of land in Subunit 5B in the County of 

San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan area and 

the remaining 38 ac (15 ha) of land 

covered by the City of San Diego MSCP 

Subarea Plan in Unit 6, and all lands 

covered by the City of San Diego MSCP 

Subarea Plan in Subunit 5A (9 ac (4 

ha)), and all lands covered by the 

County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan in Subunits 7A, 7B, and 7C (215 ac 

(87 ha)) are being designated as critical 

habitat for A. pumila. 

The MSCP is a subregional HCP made 

up of several subarea plans that has 

been in place for more than a decade. 

The subregional plan area encompasses 

approximately 582,243 ac (235,626 ha) 

(MSCP 1998, pp. 2–1, and 4–2 to 4–4) 

and provides for conservation of 85 

federally listed and sensitive species 

(‘‘covered species’’) through the existing 

preserve lands and establishment and 

management of approximately 171,920 

ac (69,574 ha) of preserve lands within 

the Multi-Habitat Planning Area 

(MHPA) (City and County) and PreApproved Mitigation Areas (PAMA) 

(County of San Diego). The MSCP was 

developed in support of applications for 

incidental take permits for several 

federally listed species by 12 

participating jurisdictions and included 

many other stakeholders in 

southwestern San Diego County. Under 

the umbrella of the MSCP, each of the 

12 participating jurisdictions is required 

to prepare a subarea plan that 

implements the goals of the MSCP 

within that particular jurisdiction. 

Ambrosia pumila was evaluated in the 

MSCP subregional plan, the City of San 

Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, and the 

County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan. 

Upon completion of preserve 

assembly, approximately 171,920 ac 

(69,574 ha) of the 582,243 ac (235,626 

ha) MSCP plan area will be preserved 

(MSCP 1998, pp. 2–1 and 4–2 to 4–4). 

The MSCP identifies areas where 

mitigation activities should be focused 

to assemble its preserve areas (i.e., 

MHPA and PAMA). Those areas of the 

MSCP preserve that are already 

conserved, as well as those areas that 

are designated for inclusion in the 

preserve under the plan, are referred to 

as the ‘‘preserve area’’ in this critical 

habitat designation. When the preserve 

is completed, the public sector (i.e., 

Federal, State, and local government, 

and general public) will have 

contributed 108,750 ac (44,010 ha) (63 

percent) to the preserve, of which 

81,750 ac (33,083 ha) (48 percent) was 

existing public land when the MSCP 

was established and 27,000 ac (10,927 

ha) (16 percent) will have been 

acquired. At completion, the private 

sector will have contributed 63,170 ac 

(25,564 ha) (37 percent) to the preserve 

as part of the development process, 

either through avoidance of impacts or 

as compensatory mitigation for impacts 

to biological resources outside the 

preserve. Currently and in the future, 

Federal and State governments, local 

jurisdictions and special districts, and 

managers of privately owned lands will 

manage and monitor their lands in the 

preserve for species and habitat 

protection (MSCP 1998, pp. 2–1 and 

4–2 to 4–4). 

Private lands within the MHPA (City 

and County of San Diego) and PAMA 

(County of San Diego) are subject to 

special restrictions on development, and 

lands that are dedicated to the preserve 

must be permanently protected and 

managed to conserve the covered 

species. Public lands owned by the 

cities, county, State of California, and 

the Federal Government that are 

identified for conservation under the 

MSCP must also be protected and 

permanently managed to conserve the 

covered species. Numerous processes 

are incorporated into the MSCP that 

allow Service oversight of the MSCP 

implementation. For example, the 

MSCP imposes annual reporting 

requirements, provides for Service 

review and approval of proposed 

subarea plan amendments and preserve 

boundary adjustments, and for Service 

review and comment on projects during 

CEQA review process. We also chair the 

MSCP Habitat Monitoring 

Subcommittee (MSCP 1998, pp. 5–11 to 

5–23). Each MSCP subarea plan must 

account annually for the progress it is 

making in assembling conservation 

areas and show that preserve assembly 

is in rough step with the development 

allowed in each jurisdiction. We receive 

annual reports that detail the habitat 

acreage lost and conserved within the 

subareas by project and cumulatively. 

This accounting process ensures habitat 

conservation proceeds in rough 

proportion to habitat loss and in 

compliance with the MSCP subarea 

plans and the plans’ associated 

implementing agreements. 

The City of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan and the County of San Diego MSCP 

Subarea Plan contain requirements to 

monitor and adaptively manage 

Ambrosia pumila habitats and provide 

for the conservation of this species. The 

framework and area-specific 

management plans are required to be 

comprehensive and address a broad 

range of management needs at the 

preserve and species levels intended to 

reduce the threats to covered species 

and thereby contribute to recovery. 

These plans are to include the 

following: (1) Fire management; (2) 

public access control; (3) fencing and 

gates; (4) ranger patrol; (5) trail 

maintenance; (6) visitor, interpretive, 

and volunteer services; (7) hydrological 

management; (8) signage and lighting; 

(9) trash and litter removal; (10) access 

road maintenance; (11) enforcement of 

property and homeowner requirements; 

(12) removal of invasive species; (13) 

nonnative predator control; (14) species 

monitoring; (15) habitat restoration; (16) 

management for diverse age classes of 

covered species; (17) use of herbicides 

and rodenticides; (18) biological 

surveys; (19) research; and (20) species 

management conditions (MSCP 1998, p. 

49–97). 

City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan 

In addition to the protections 

described above, the City of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan requires 

preservation of over 90 percent of the 

occurrence of Ambrosia pumila at 

Mission Trails Regional Park, additional 

impact avoidance and other measures 

required under the MSCP narrow 

endemic species policy, and areaspecific management directives 

designed to maintain long-term survival 

in the planning area (Service 1997, pp. 

104–105; Dudek 2000, p. 28). Under the 

City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, 

impacts to narrow endemic plants, 

including A. pumila, inside the MHPA 

will be avoided, and outside the MHPA 

will be protected as appropriate by 

management, enhancement (for 

example, removing nonnative species), 

restoration, or transplantation to areas 

identified for preservation (City of San 

Diego 1997, pp. 105–106; Service 1997, 

p. 15). These measures help protect 

Ambrosia pumila, whether located on 

lands targeted for preserve status within 

the MHPA or located outside of the 

MHPA in the City of San Diego MSCP 

Subarea Plan area. Within the MHPA, 

the narrow endemic policy for the City 

of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan 

requires in situ conservation of A. 

pumila or mitigation to ameliorate any 

habitat loss. 

Below is a brief analysis of the 

benefits of inclusion and exclusion of a 

portion of Unit 6 which we have 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74565 

exercised our delegated discretion to 

exclude from critical habitat designation 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our 

analysis of the relative benefits of 

inclusion and exclusion of the 

remaining portion of Unit 6 and the 

portions of Subunit 5A covered under 

the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan which we have not exercised our 

delegated discretion to exclude from 

critical habitat designation. 

Benefits of Inclusion—City of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan 

As discussed above in our section 

4(b)(2) analysis of lands within the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP, the 

principal benefit of including an area in 

a critical habitat designation is the 

requirement of Federal agencies to 

ensure actions they fund, authorize, or 

carry out are not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

any designated critical habitat, the 

regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act under which consultation is 

completed. Federal agencies must 

consult with the Service on actions that 

may affect critical habitat and must 

avoid destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. Federal agencies must 

also consult with us on actions that may 

affect a listed species and refrain from 

undertaking actions that are likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

such species. The analysis of effects to 

critical habitat is a separate and 

different analysis from that of the effects 

to the species. Therefore, the difference 

in outcomes of these two analyses 

represents the regulatory benefit of 

critical habitat. For some species 

(including Ambrosia pumila), and in 

some locations, the outcome of these 

analyses will be similar, because effects 

to habitat will often also result in effects 

to the species. However, the regulatory 

standard is different, as the jeopardy 

analysis investigates the action’s impact 

to survival and recovery of the species, 

while the adverse modification analysis 

investigates the action’s effects to the 

designated habitat’s contribution to 

conservation. This will, in many 

instances, lead to different results and 

different regulatory requirements. Thus, 

critical habitat designations may 

provide greater benefits to the recovery 

of a species than would listing alone. 

Critical habitat may provide a 

regulatory benefit for Ambrosia pumila 

when there is a Federal nexus present 

for a project that might adversely 

modify critical habitat. A Federal nexus 

generally exists where land is federally 

owned, or where actions proposed on 

non-Federal lands require a Federal 

permit or Federal funding. In the 

absence of a Federal nexus, the 

regulatory benefit provided through 

Section 7 consultation under the Act 

does not exist. Clearly, any activities 

affecting designated critical habitat on 

Federal land would trigger a duty to 

consult under Section 7. In contrast, the 

potential of a Federal nexus for 

activities proposed on non-Federal 

lands varies widely and depends on the 

particular circumstances of each case. 

Nevertheless, because the breadth of 

potential Federal actions that may 

trigger a duty to consult under Section 

7 is quite broad, we cannot say with 

certainty that future development of, or 

activities on non-Federal lands will 

always lack a Federal nexus. However 

where there is no discernable Federal 

nexus on non-Federal lands we propose 

to designate as critical habitat, we 

consider the regulatory benefit of 

designation of those non-Federal lands 

to be small. 

Any protections provided by critical 

habitat that are redundant with 

protections already in place also reduce 

the benefits of inclusion in critical 

habitat. Other protections, such as may 

be provided by HCPs or conservation 

and management, may prevent the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

habitat to the same or greater extent as 

would the consultation provisions 

under section 7(a) of the Act for critical 

habitat. 

None of the land in Subunit 5A or 

Unit 6 is federally owned. In Subunit 

5A, which lies adjacent to Interstate 15, 

there is the potential of Federal funding 

for future projects related to the 

interstate (see Comment 14 in the 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations section below). 

However the probability of a project 

with a Federal nexus occurring in 

Subunit 5A is uncertain. We are not 

aware of any current or potential future 

Federal nexus on the lands in Unit 6. 

A portion of Unit 6, 160 ac (65 ha) lies 

within the Mission Trails Regional Park 

and is conserved and managed in 

accordance with the City of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan and the City of San 

Diego Mission Trails Regional Park San 

Diego Ambrosia Management Plan 

(Dudek 2000), which includes ongoing 

monitoring (City of San Diego 2000, 

2001, 2003, 2006, and 2008b) and 

management, including building and 

maintaining fencing and rerouting or 

closing trails to protect plants (Dudek 

2000, pp. 29–30). Because this 160 ac 

(65 ha) portion of Unit 6 is already 

permanently conserved and managed to 

benefit Ambrosia pumila, we believe the 

regulatory benefit of designating this 

area as critical habitat is redundant with 

the protections already in place. As 

noted above, there is also little 

likelihood of a future Federal nexus in 

the conserved portion of Unit 6. The 

lack of a discernable Federal nexus 

combined with the redundancy of 

Federal protections afforded by 

designation with those already in place 

in this area, render the regulatory 

benefit of designating the conserved 

portion of Unit 6 negligible and 

insignificant. 

In contrast to the 160 ac (65 ha) 

conserved and managed portion of Unit 

6, neither the remaining portion of Unit 

6 nor Subunit 5A is currently conserved 

and managed under the City of San 

Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. 

As discussed above, the City of San 

Diego MSCP Subarea Plan provides for 

protection of Ambrosia pumila habitat 

considered necessary for survival and 

recovery of the species. Areas that we 

have identified as essential for the 

conservation of A. pumila (portion of 

Subunit 5A and Unit 6) that occur with 

the MHPA are targeted for conservation 

under the City of San Diego MSCP 

Subarea Plan, and as noted above, a 160 

ac (65 ha) portion of Unit 6 is already 

conserved and managed. Also, under 

the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan, impacts to narrow endemic plants, 

including A. pumila, inside the MHPA 

must be avoided. Outside of the MHPA 

A. pumila may be afforded protection as 

appropriate by management, 

enhancement (such as removing 

nonnative species), or restoration (City 

of San Diego 1997, pp. 105–106; Service 

1997, p. 15). 

The portion of Unit 6 that is not 

conserved and a portion of Subunit 5A 

are both within the MHPA, and we 

anticipate that these areas may 

eventually be conserved under the City 

of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. 

However, the areas are not currently 

conserved or managed and remain more 

vulnerable to threats, including 

competition from non-native plant 

species and human encroachment as 

discussed above in the Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection section. That portion of 

Subunit 5A within the City of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan area, but outside of 

the MHPA, will also be protected to the 

extent practicable under the City of San 

Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, but the plan 

allows for the transplantation of 

Ambrosia pumila individuals to areas 

identified for preservation under the 

subarea plan’s narrow endemic policy if 

impacts outside of the MHPA cannot be 

avoided. We recognize that the 

regulatory benefit of designating 

Subunit 5A, and in particular that 

portion of Subunit 5A within the 

MHPA, and the currently unconserved 

portion of Unit 6 is partially redundant 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74566 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

with the anticipated conservation and 

management of these areas under the 

City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. 

However, because such protections are 

not yet in place, and are not certain to 

occur, we believe there is some 

regulatory benefit to designation of 

these areas notwithstanding the existing 

and anticipated protections under the 

City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. 

Because the likelihood of a future 

Federal nexus on Subunit 5A is 

uncertain and on Unit 6 is remote, we 

believe this regulatory benefit is small 

and not significant. 

Designating critical habitat also can be 

beneficial because the process of 

proposing critical habitat provides the 

opportunity for peer review and public 

comment on lands we propose to 

designate as critical habitat, our criteria 

to assess those lands, potential impacts 

from the proposal and information on 

the taxon itself. We believe the 

designation of critical habitat may 

generally provide previously 

unavailable information to the public. 

Public education regarding the potential 

conservation value of an area may also 

help focus conservation and 

management efforts on areas of high 

conservation value for certain species. 

Information about Ambrosia pumila and 

its habitat that reaches a wide audience, 

including parties concerned about and 

engaged in conservation activities, is 

also valuable because the public may 

not be aware of documented (or 

undocumented) A. pumila occurrences 

that have not been conserved or are not 

being managed. 

Because the 160 ac (65 ha) portion of 

Unit 6 is already permanently conserved 

and is actively managed for the benefit 

of Ambrosia pumila, there is little 

educational benefit to designation of 

this area. 

Designating as critical habitat for 

Ambrosia pumila Subunit 5A and the 

portions of Unit 6 that are not conserved 

will identify areas essential for the 

conservation and recovery of A. pumila 

and in doing so, provide an educational 

component that is a significant benefit 

to the conservation of A. pumila. The 

educational information contained in 

this rule provides information that can 

be used by the public to learn about A. 

pumila and its essential habitat in the 

currently unconserved portion of Unit 6 

and in Subunit 5A and that can refine 

the broader conservation goals for A. 

pumila under the City of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan by focusing 

conservation on the specific areas 

essential for the recovery of the species. 

The designation of Ambrosia pumila 

critical habitat may also strengthen or 

reinforce some of the provisions in other 

State and Federal laws, such as CEQA 

or NEPA. These laws analyze the 

potential for projects to significantly 

affect the environment. In the City of 

San Diego, the additional protections 

associated with critical habitat would be 

beneficial in areas not currently 

conserved. Critical habitat signals the 

presence of sensitive habitat that could 

otherwise be missed in the review 

process for these other environmental 

laws. In the case of CEQA, this could be 

a benefit, since CEQA may require 

protection of essential habitat if its 

destruction would constitute a 

significant environmental effect. 

However, this benefit is a minor benefit 

in the case of NEPA, because NEPA 

does not require project proponents to 

protect sensitive habitat. The potential 

ancillary benefits under other laws of 

critical habitat designation would be 

higher in the currently unconserved 

portion of Unit 6 and in Subunit 5A 

because A. pumila and its habitat are 

not protected and managed in these 

areas. The ancillary benefits of 

designation would be negligible in the 

160 ac (65 ha) conserved portion of Unit 

6 because the species and its essential 

habitat in that area are protected and 

managed. 

In summary, we believe that the 

regulatory benefit of designating critical 

habitat under section 7(a) of the Act is 

small in Subunit 5A and in the portion 

of Unit 6 that is not conserved and 

managed. The likelihood of a future 

Federal nexus in the unconserved 

portion of Unit 6 is remote; there is a 

higher potential for a Federal nexus in 

Subunit 5A, but it is still uncertain. 

While the regulatory benefit of 

designation in these areas is only 

partially redundant with existing 

protections for Ambrosia pumila 

provided under the City of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan, the regulatory 

benefit is lower because of the 

uncertainty of a future Federal nexus for 

activities that could adversely affect 

essential habitat for A. pumila on these 

lands. We believe that the regulatory 

benefit of designation in Subunit 5A 

and in the unconserved and unmanaged 

portion of Unit 6 is not significant. We 

consider the educational benefit of 

designation of Unit 5A and the 

unconserved and unmanaged portion of 

Unit 6 to be significant because 

designation will help focus conservation 

efforts for this species under the City of 

San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan on these 

specific essential habitat areas and 

educate the public about the importance 

of these areas for the conservation of 

this species. There are also potential 

ancillary benefits under other laws that 

would result from designation of 

Subunit 5A and the portion of Unit 6 

that is not conserved or managed. In the 

160-ac (65-ha) portion of Unit 6 that is 

conserved and managed, we believe the 

benefits of critical habitat designation 

are not significant. The regulatory 

benefit of designation in this area is 

redundant with protection provided by 

the conservation and management of the 

area, and because this area is already 

conserved and managed, the public 

education and ancillary benefits are also 

insignificant. We conclude that among 

lands proposed as critical habitat that 

are covered by the City of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan, the educational 

benefit of designation of Subunit 5A and 

the portion of Unit 6 that is not 

conserved and managed is significant, 

and the regulatory and ancillary benefits 

of designating these areas are small and 

not significant. The regulatory, 

educational and ancillary benefits of 

designating the 160 ac (65-ha) conserved 

portion of Unit 6 as critical habitat are 

negligible. 

Benefits of Exclusion—City of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan 

We believe benefits would be realized 

by forgoing designation of critical 

habitat for Ambrosia pumila on lands 

covered by the City of San Diego MSCP 

Subarea Plan including: 

(1) Continuance and strengthening of 

our effective working relationships with 

all MSCP jurisdictions and stakeholders 

to promote conservation of Ambrosia 

pumila and its habitat; 

(2) Allowance for continued 

meaningful collaboration and 

cooperation in working toward 

protecting and recovering this species 

and the many other species covered by 

the Subarea plan, including 

conservation benefits that might not 

otherwise occur; 

(3) Encouragement for local 

jurisdictions to fully participate in the 

MSCP; and 

(4) Encouragement of additional HCP 

and other conservation plan 

development in the future on other 

private lands for this and other federally 

listed and sensitive species, including 

incorporation of protections for plant 

species which is voluntary because the 

Act does not prohibit take of plant 

species. 

The City of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan provides substantial protection and 

management for Ambrosia pumila and 

the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, and addresses conservation 

issues from a coordinated, integrated 

perspective rather than a piecemeal, 

project-by-project approach (as would 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74567 

occur under sections 7 and 9 of the Act 

or smaller HCPs); therefore, it is 

important that we encourage 

participation in such plans and 

encourage voluntary coverage of listed 

plant species in such plans. Many 

landowners perceive critical habitat as 

an unfair and unnecessary regulatory 

burden given the expense and time 

involved in developing and 

implementing complex regional and 

jurisdiction-wide HCPs, such as the City 

of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. 

Exclusion of the City of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan lands from critical 

habitat would help preserve the 

partnerships we developed with the 

City of San Diego in the development of 

the MSCP and the City of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan, and foster future 

partnerships and development of future 

HCPs, and in particular HCPs that 

include protections for listed plants, 

such as A. pumila. 

In summary, we believe excluding 

land covered by the City of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan from critical habitat 

will provide the significant benefit of 

maintaining existing regional HCP 

partnerships and fostering new ones. 

Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against 

Benefits of Inclusion—City of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan 

We reviewed and evaluated the 

benefits of inclusion and benefits of 

exclusion for all lands within the City 

of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan 

(approximately 207 ac (84 ha)) as 

critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila. 

The benefits of including conserved and 

managed lands in the critical habitat 

designation are small. Approximately 

160 ac (65 ha) of land in Unit 6 are 

conserved and managed. We do not 

believe critical habitat designation for 

A. pumila will provide significant 

regulatory, educational or ancillary 

benefits for this area. In contrast, the 

designation as critical habitat of 

essential habitat for A. pumila in 

Subunit 5A and the unconserved 

portion of Unit 6 will provide a 

significant educational benefit and may 

provide some regulatory and ancillary 

benefits for the species and its habitat. 

Neither of these areas is currently 

conserved and managed to benefit A. 

pumila. Therefore designation of these 

areas will provide a significant 

educational benefit by focusing 

conservation efforts under the City of 

San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan on 

habitat for A. pumila, both within and 

outside the MHPA, that is essential for 

the recovery of the species. We also 

anticipate some regulatory benefit from 

designation of Subunit 5A and the 

unconserved portion of Unit 6 in the 

unlikely circumstance that a Federal 

nexus exists in connection with 

activities on these lands and some 

ancillary benefit from other laws such as 

CEQA and NEPA. 

Excluding the portion of Subunit 5A 

covered under the City of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan and all of Unit 6 

from critical habitat designation will 

further our existing partnerships with 

permittees under the City of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan and encourage 

future voluntary conservation efforts for 

this species by relieving landowners of 

any additional regulatory burden 

stemming from designation. We 

consider this a significant benefit of 

excluding these lands. 

In summary, we find that the benefits 

of excluding lands from critical habitat 

that are receiving long-term 

conservation and management for the 

purpose of protecting Ambrosia pumila 

(160 ac (65 ha) in Unit 6) will preserve 

our partnership with the City of San 

Diego and other permittees of the MSCP 

and encourage the conservation of lands 

associated with development and 

implementation of future HCPs. These 

partnership benefits are significant and 

outweigh the small potential regulatory, 

educational, and ancillary benefits of 

including those lands as critical habitat 

for A. pumila. We find that including 

lands as critical habitat that are not yet 

receiving long-term conservation and 

management (Subunit 5A and portions 

of Unit 6 that are not conserved) will 

provide additional regulatory protection 

under section 7(a) of the Act if there is 

a Federal nexus and will provide a 

significant educational benefit by 

focusing conservation efforts by the City 

of San Diego under the City of San 

Diego MSCP Subarea Plan on 

conservation and management of these 

specific essential habitat areas for A. 

pumila and educating the public about 

the importance of these areas for the 

conservation of this species. Designation 

may also result in some ancillary 

benefits under other laws. Therefore, 

designating these areas as critical 

habitat for A. pumila will provide 

significant educational as well as some 

regulatory and ancillary benefits to the 

species. While we acknowledge that 

excluding these areas under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act would provide a 

significant benefit to the partnership 

that we have with the City of San Diego 

and other permittees under the MSCP, 

we believe that the significant 

educational benefit along with the 

potential regulatory and ancillary 

benefits to conservation of the species 

and its essential habitat in Subunit 5A 

and in the unconserved portion of Unit 

6 of including these lands as critical 

habitat outweighs the benefits of 

exclusion. Therefore we have not 

exercised our delegated discretion to 

exclude these areas. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species—Portions of Unit 6, City 

of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan 

We determined that exclusion of 160 

ac (65 ha) of land in Unit 6 within the 

City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan 

planning area from the final critical 

habitat designation for Ambrosia pumila 

will not result in extinction of the 

species. This area is permanently 

conserved and managed to provide a 

benefit to A. pumila and its habitat. The 

jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act 

provides assurances that the species 

will not go extinct as a result of 

exclusion from critical habitat 

designation where habitat is occupied 

by A. pumila or other federally listed 

species. Therefore, based on the above 

discussion, we have determined to 

exercise our delegated discretion to 

exclude approximately 160 ac (65 ha) of 

land in Unit 6 covered under the City 

of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. 

County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan 

In addition to the protections 

described above under the ‘‘San Diego 

Multiple Species Conservation Program 

(MSCP)—City and County of San 

Diego’s Subarea Plans’’ section, the 

County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan dictates that all occurrences 

(including any newly discovered 

occurrences) of A. pumila will be 

protected by impact avoidance measures 

required under the County’s Biological 

Mitigation Ordinance (BMO; County of 

San Diego 1997, p. 11). Narrow endemic 

plants, including A. pumila, are 

conserved under the BMO using a 

process that: (1) Requires avoidance to 

the maximum extent feasible, (2) 

restricts encroachment into a population 

not already conserved to a maximum of 

20 percent if total avoidance is not 

feasible, and (3) requires in-kind 

mitigation at 1-to-1 to 3-to-1 ratios for 

impacts if avoidance and minimization 

of impacts would preclude reasonable 

use of the property (County of San Diego 

1997, p. 11; USFWS 1998, p. 12). Thus, 

the narrow endemic species policy for 

the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

plan requires in situ conservation of A. 

pumila or mitigation to ameliorate any 

habitat loss. 

Below is a brief analysis of the 

relative benefits of inclusion and 

exclusion of that portion of Subunit 5B 

which we have exercised our delegated 

discretion to exclude from critical 

habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74568 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

of the and our analysis of the relative 

benefits of inclusion and exclusion of 

the remaining portion of Unit 5B and all 

of Unit 7 which we have not exercised 

our delegated discretion to exclude from 

critical habitat designation. 

Benefits of Inclusion—County of San 

Diego MSCP Subarea Plan 

As discussed above in our section 

4(b)(2) analysis of lands within the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP, the 

principle benefit of including an area in 

a critical habitat designation is the 

requirement of Federal agencies to 

ensure actions they fund, authorize, or 

carry out are not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

any designated critical habitat, the 

regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act under which consultation is 

completed. Federal agencies must 

consult with the Service on actions that 

may affect critical habitat and must 

avoid destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. Federal agencies must 

also consult with us on actions that may 

affect a listed species and refrain from 

undertaking actions that are likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

such species. The analysis of effects to 

critical habitat is a separate and 

different analysis from that of the effects 

to the species. Therefore, the difference 

in outcomes of these two analyses 

represents the regulatory benefit of 

critical habitat. For some species 

(including Ambrosia pumila), and in 

some locations, the outcome of these 

analyses will be similar, because effects 

to habitat will often also result in effects 

to the species. However, the regulatory 

standard is different, as the jeopardy 

analysis investigates the action’s impact 

to survival and recovery of the species, 

while the adverse modification analysis 

investigates the action’s effects to the 

designated habitat’s contribution to 

conservation. This will, in many 

instances, lead to different results and 

different regulatory requirements. Thus, 

critical habitat designations may 

provide greater benefits to the recovery 

of a species than would listing alone. 

Critical habitat may provide a 

regulatory benefit for Ambrosia pumila 

when there is a Federal nexus present 

for a project that might adversely 

modify critical habitat. A Federal nexus 

generally exists where land is federally 

owned, or where actions proposed on 

non-Federal lands require a Federal 

permit or Federal funding. In the 

absence of a Federal nexus, the 

regulatory benefit provided through 

Section 7 consultation under the Act 

does not exist. Clearly, any activities 

affecting designated critical habitat on 

Federal land would trigger a duty to 

consult under Section 7. In contrast, the 

potential of a Federal nexus for 

activities proposed on non-Federal 

lands varies widely and depends on the 

particular circumstances of each case. 

Nevertheless, because the breadth of 

potential Federal actions that may 

trigger a duty to consult under Section 

7 is quite broad, we cannot say with 

certainty that future development of, or 

activities on non-Federal lands will 

always lack a Federal nexus. However 

where there is no discernable Federal 

nexus on non-Federal lands we propose 

to designate as critical habitat, we 

consider the regulatory benefit of 

designation of those non-Federal lands 

to be small. 

Any protections provided by critical 

habitat that are redundant with 

protections already in place also reduce 

the benefits of inclusion in critical 

habitat. Other protections, such as may 

be provided by HCPs or conservation 

and management, may prevent the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

habitat to the same or greater extent as 

would the consultation provisions 

under section 7(a) of the Act for critical 

habitat. 

The County of San Diego MSCP 

Subarea Plan dictates that occurrences 

of A. pumila will be protected by impact 

avoidance measures required under the 

County’s BMO. Narrow endemic plants, 

including A. pumila, are conserved 

under the BMO using a process that: 

(1) Requires avoidance to the 

maximum extent feasible; 

(2) Restricts encroachment into a 

population not already conserved to a 

maximum of 20 percent if total 

avoidance is not feasible; and 

(3) Requires in-kind mitigation at 1-to1 to 3-to-1 ratios for impacts if 

avoidance and minimization of impacts 

would preclude reasonable use of the 

property (County of San Diego 1997, 

p. 11; Service 1998, p. 12). 

None of the lands in Subunit 5B are 

federally owned and only a portion of 

the lands in Unit 7 are federally owned. 

(We are not considering exercising our 

discretion to exclude the federally 

owned portions of Unit 7.) We are not 

aware of any current or future Federal 

nexus on the non-Federal lands in 

Subunit 5B and Unit 7. 

Approximately 52 ac (21 ha) of 

Subunit 5B are within the Crosby at 

Rancho Santa Fe preserve area and have 

been conserved and are managed in 

accordance with the Crosby at Rancho 

Santa Fe Habitat Management Plan 

(Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2008, pp. 1– 

6), which includes ongoing monitoring 

and management (such as conducting 

regular surveys of sensitive species 

including Ambrosia pumila, managing 

weeds, conducting erosion control 

activities, installing and maintaining 

fencing and signage, removing trash, 

and enhancing public awareness of the 

preserve). Because this 52 ac (21 ha) 

portion of Subunit 5B is already 

permanently protected and managed to 

benefit A. pumila, we believe the 

regulatory benefit of designating this 

area as critical habitat is redundant with 

the protections already in place. As 

noted above, there is also little 

likelihood of a future Federal nexus in 

the conserved portion of Subunit 5B. 

The lack of a discernable Federal nexus 

combined with the redundancy of 

Federal protections afforded by 

designation with those already in place 

under the Crosby at Rancho Santa Fe 

Habitat Management Plan, render the 

regulatory benefit of designating the 

conserved portion of Subunit 5B 

negligible and insignificant. 

In contrast to the 52 ac (21 ha) 

conserved and managed portion of 

Subunit 5B, neither the remaining 

portion of Unit 5B nor the portion of 

Unit 7 that is not federally owned is 

currently conserved and managed under 

the County of San Diego’s MSCP 

Subarea Plan. As discussed above, the 

County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan dictates that occurrences of A. 

pumila both inside and outside of the 

PAMA will be protected by impact 

avoidance measures required under the 

County’s BMO using a process that 

requires avoidance to the maximum 

extent feasible; restricts encroachment 

into a population not already conserved 

to a maximum of 20 percent if total 

avoidance is not feasible; and requires 

in-kind mitigation if avoidance and 

minimization of impacts would 

preclude reasonable use of the property 

(County of San Diego 1997, p. 11; 

Service 1998, p. 12). 

We anticipate that the portions of 

Unit 7 that are not federally owned and 

the unconserved portion of Subunit 5B 

may eventually be protected under the 

County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan as the BMO is applied to future 

development. However, these areas are 

currently not conserved and managed 

and remain vulnerable to threats, 

including competition from non-native 

plant species and human encroachment 

as discussed above in the Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection section. In addition, the 

County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan does allow for some impacts to the 

species and its habitat where avoidance 

is not feasible. We recognize that the 

regulatory benefit of designating the 

portion of Unit 7 that is not federally 

owned and the currently unconserved 

portion of Subunit 5B is partially 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74569 

redundant with the anticipated 

protection and management of these 

areas for the benefit of A. pumila under 

the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan. However, because conservation 

and management are not yet in place 

and protection under the County’s BMO 

may not be coextensive with the 

protections afforded by critical habitat 

in these areas, we believe there is some 

regulatory benefit to designation of 

these areas notwithstanding the existing 

and anticipated protections under the 

County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan. Because the likelihood of a future 

Federal nexus in these areas is remote, 

we believe this regulatory benefit is 

small and not significant. 

Designating critical habitat also can be 

beneficial because the process of 

proposing critical habitat provides the 

opportunity for peer review and public 

comment on lands we propose to 

designate as critical habitat, our criteria 

to assess those lands, potential impacts 

from the proposal and information on 

the taxon itself. We believe the 

designation of critical habitat may 

generally provide previously 

unavailable information to the public. 

Public education regarding the potential 

conservation value of an area may also 

help focus conservation and 

management efforts on areas of high 

conservation value for certain species. 

Information about Ambrosia pumila and 

its habitat that reaches a wide audience, 

including parties concerned about and 

engaged in conservation activities, is 

also valuable because the public may 

not be aware of documented (or 

undocumented) A. pumila occurrences 

that have not been conserved or are not 

being managed. 

Because the 52 ac (21 ha) portion of 

Subunit 5B is already permanently 

conserved and is actively managed for 

the benefit of Ambrosia pumila, there is 

little educational benefit to designation 

of this area. 

Designating as critical habitat for 

Ambrosia pumila Unit 7 and the portion 

of Subunit 5B that is not conserved will 

identify areas essential for the 

conservation and recovery of A. pumila 

and in doing so, provide an educational 

component that is a significant benefit 

to the conservation of A. pumila. The 

educational information contained in 

this rule provides information that can 

be used by the public to learn about A. 

pumila and its essential habitat in Unit 

7 and the currently unconserved portion 

of Unit 5B and that can refine the 

broader conservation goals for A. 

pumila under the County of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan by focusing 

conservation on the specific areas 

essential for the recovery of the species. 

The designation of Ambrosia pumila 

critical habitat may also strengthen or 

reinforce some of the provisions in other 

State and Federal laws, such as CEQA 

or NEPA. These laws analyze the 

potential for projects to significantly 

affect the environment. In the County of 

San Diego, the additional protections 

associated with critical habitat may be 

beneficial in areas not currently 

conserved. Critical habitat would signal 

the presence of sensitive habitat that 

could otherwise be missed in the review 

process for these other environmental 

laws. In the case of CEQA, this could be 

a benefit, since CEQA may require 

protection of essential habitat if its 

destruction would constitute a 

significant environmental effect. 

However, this benefit is a minor benefit 

in the case of NEPA, because NEPA 

does not require project proponents to 

protect sensitive habitat. The potential 

ancillary benefits under other laws of 

critical habitat designation would be 

higher in Unit 7 and the currently 

unconserved portion of Subunit 5B 

because A. pumila and its habitat are 

not protected and managed in these 

areas. The ancillary benefits of 

designation would be negligible in the 

52 ac (21 ha) conserved portion of 

Subunit 5B because the species and its 

essential habitat in that area are 

protected and managed. 

In summary, we believe that the 

regulatory benefit of designating critical 

habitat under section 7(a) of the Act is 

small in Unit 7 and in the portion of 

Subunit 5B that is not conserved and 

managed. While the regulatory benefits 

of designation in these areas are only 

partially redundant with existing and 

anticipated protections for Ambrosia 

pumila provided under the County of 

San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, the 

regulatory benefit is lower because of 

the uncertainty of a future Federal 

nexus for activities that could adversely 

affect essential habitat for A. pumila on 

these lands. We believe that the 

regulatory benefit of designation in Unit 

7 and in the portion of Subunit 5B that 

is not conserved and managed is not 

significant. We consider the educational 

benefit of designation of Unit 7 and the 

unconserved and unmanaged portion of 

Subunit 5B to be significant because 

designation will help focus conservation 

efforts for this species under the County 

of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan on 

these specific essential habitat areas and 

educate the public about the importance 

of these areas for the conservation of A. 

pumila. There are also potential 

ancillary benefits from other laws that 

would result from designation of Unit 7 

and the unconserved portion of Unit 5B. 

In the 52 ac (21 ha) portion of Subunit 

5B that is conserved and managed, we 

believe the benefits of critical habitat 

designation are not significant. The 

regulatory benefit of designation in this 

area is redundant with protection 

provided by the conservation and 

management of the area, and because 

this area is already conserved and 

managed, the public education and 

ancillary benefits are also insignificant. 

We conclude that among the lands 

proposed as critical habitat that are 

covered by the County of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan, the educational 

benefit of designation of Unit 7 and the 

portion of Subunit 5B that is not 

conserved and managed is significant, 

and the regulatory and ancillary benefits 

of designating these areas are small and 

not significant. The regulatory, 

educational and ancillary benefits of 

designating the 52 ac (21 ha) conserved 

and managed portion of Subunit 5B are 

negligible. 

Benefits of Exclusion—County of San 

Diego MSCP Subarea Plan 

We believe benefits would be realized 

by forgoing designation of critical 

habitat for Ambrosia pumila on lands 

covered by the County of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan including: 

(1) Continuance and strengthening of 

our effective working relationships with 

all MSCP jurisdictions and stakeholders 

to promote conservation of Ambrosia 

pumila and its habitat; 

(2) Allowance for continued 

meaningful collaboration and 

cooperation in working toward 

protecting and recovering this species 

and the many other species covered by 

the subarea plan, including 

conservation benefits that might not 

otherwise occur; 

(3) Encouragement for local 

jurisdictions to fully participate in the 

MSCP; and 

(4) Encouragement of additional HCP 

and other conservation plan 

development in the future on other 

private lands for this and other federally 

listed and sensitive species, including 

incorporation of protections for plant 

species which is voluntary because the 

Act does not prohibit take of plant 

species. 

The County of San Diego MSCP 

Subarea Plan provides substantial 

protection and management for 

Ambrosia pumila and the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species, and 

addresses conservation issues from a 

coordinated, integrated perspective 

rather than a piecemeal, project-byproject approach (as would occur under 

sections 7 and 9 of the Act or smaller 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74570 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

HCPs). Therefore it is important that we 

encourage participation in such plans 

and encourage voluntary coverage of 

listed plant species in such plans. Many 

landowners perceive critical habitat as 

an unfair and unnecessary regulatory 

burden given the expense and time 

involved in developing and 

implementing complex regional and 

jurisdiction-wide HCPs, such as the 

MSCP and County of San Diego MSCP 

Subarea Plan. Exclusion of the County 

of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan lands 

from critical habitat would help 

preserve the partnerships we developed 

with the County of San Diego in the 

development of the MSCP and the 

County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan, and foster future partnerships and 

development of future HCPs, and in 

particular HCPs that include protections 

for listed plants, such as A. pumila. 

In summary, we believe that 

excluding land covered by the County of 

San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan from 

critical habitat will provide the 

significant benefit of maintaining 

existing regional HCP partnerships and 

fostering new ones. 

Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against 

Benefits of Inclusion—County of San 

Diego MSCP Subarea Plan 

We reviewed and evaluated the 

benefits of inclusion and benefits of 

exclusion for lands within the County of 

San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan area 

(approximately 494 ac (200 ha) in 

Subunits 5B, 7A, 7B, and 7C) as critical 

habitat for Ambrosia pumila. The 

benefits of including conserved and 

managed lands in the critical habitat 

designation are small. Approximately 52 

ac (21 ha) of land in Subunit 5B are 

conserved and managed. We do not 

believe that critical habitat designation 

for A. pumila will provide significant 

regulatory, educational, or ancillary 

benefits for this area. In contrast, the 

designation as critical habitat of 

essential habitat for A. pumila in the 

non-federally owned portions of Unit 7 

and the unconserved portion of Subunit 

5B will provide a significant 

educational benefit and may provide 

some regulatory and ancillary benefits 

for the species and its habitat. Neither 

of these areas is currently both 

conserved and managed to benefit A. 

pumila. Therefore designation of these 

areas may provide a significant 

educational benefit by focusing 

conservation efforts under the County of 

San Diego Subarea Plan on habitat for A. 

pumila, both within and outside the 

PAMA, which is essential for the 

recovery of the species. We also 

anticipate some regulatory benefit from 

designation of Unit 7 and the 

unconserved portion of Subunit 5B in 

the unlikely circumstance that a Federal 

nexus exists in connection with 

activities on these lands and some 

ancillary benefit from other laws such as 

CEQA and NEPA. 

Excluding Unit 7 and all of Subunit 

5B from critical habitat designation will 

further our existing partnerships with 

permittees under the City of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan and encourage 

future voluntary conservation efforts for 

this species by relieving landowners of 

any additional regulatory burden 

stemming from designation. We 

consider this a significant benefit of 

excluding these lands. 

In summary, we find that excluding 

lands from critical habitat areas that are 

receiving long-term conservation and 

management for the purpose of 

protecting Ambrosia pumila (52 ac (21 

ha) in Subunit 5B) will preserve our 

partnership with the County of San 

Diego and other permittees of the MSCP 

and encourage the conservation of lands 

associated with development and 

implementation of future HCPs. These 

partnership benefits are significant and 

outweigh the small potential regulatory, 

educational, and ancillary benefits of 

including those lands in critical habitat 

for A. pumila. We find that including 

lands as critical habitat that are not yet 

receiving long-term conservation and 

management (Subunits 7A, 7B, and 7C, 

and portions of Subunit 5B that are not 

conserved) will provide additional 

regulatory protection under section 7(a) 

of the Act if there is a Federal nexus, 

and will provide a significant 

educational benefit by focusing 

conservation efforts by the County of 

San Diego under the County of San 

Diego MSCP Subarea Plan on 

conservation and management of these 

specific essential habitat areas for A. 

pumila and educating the public about 

the importance of these areas for the 

conservation of this species. Designation 

may also result in some ancillary 

benefits under other laws. Therefore, 

designating these areas as critical 

habitat for A. pumila will provide 

significant educational as well as some 

regulatory and ancillary benefits to the 

species. While we acknowledge that 

excluding these areas under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act would provide a 

significant benefit to the partnership 

that we have with the County of San 

Diego and other permittees under the 

MSCP, we believe that the significant 

educational along with the potential 

regulatory and ancillary benefits to 

conservation of the species and its 

essential habitat in Unit 7 and the 

unconserved portion of Subunit 5B of 

including these lands as critical habitat 

outweighs the benefit of exclusion. 

Therefore we have not exercised our 

delegated discretion to exclude these 

areas. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species—Portions of Subunits 5B, 

County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan 

We determined that exclusion of 52 ac 

(21 ha) of land in Subunit 5B within the 

County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan planning area from the final critical 

habitat designation for Ambrosia pumila 

will not result in extinction of the 

species. This area is permanently 

conserved and managed to provide a 

benefit to A. pumila and its habitat. The 

jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act 

provides assurances that the species 

will not go extinct as a result of 

exclusion from critical habitat 

designation where habitat is occupied 

by A. pumila or other federally listed 

species. Therefore, based on the above 

discussion, we have determined to 

exercise our delegated discretion to 

exclude approximately 52 ac (21 ha) of 

land in Subunit 5B covered under the 

County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan. 

Economics 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider the economic impacts of 

specifying any particular area as critical 

habitat. In order to consider economic 

impacts, we prepared a draft economic 

analysis, which we made available for 

public review on (May 18, 2010; 75 FR 

27690), based on the August 27, 2009, 

proposed rule (74 FR 44238). We 

accepted comments on the draft analysis 

until May 17, 2010. Following the close 

of the comment period, a final analysis 

of the potential economic effects of the 

designation was developed taking into 

consideration the public comments and 

any new information. 

The intent of the final economic 

analysis (FEA) is to quantify the 

economic impacts of all potential 

conservation efforts for Ambrosia 

pumila; some of these costs will likely 

be incurred regardless of whether we 

designate critical habitat (baseline). The 

economic impact of the final critical 

habitat designation is analyzed by 

comparing scenarios both ‘‘with critical 

habitat’’ and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’ 

The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ scenario 

represents the baseline for the analysis, 

considering protections already in place 

for the species (e.g., under the Federal 

listing and other Federal, State, and 

local regulations). The baseline, 

therefore, represents the costs incurred 

regardless of whether critical habitat is 

designated. The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74571 

scenario describes the incremental 

impacts associated specifically with the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. The incremental conservation 

efforts and associated impacts are those 

not expected to occur absent the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. In other words, the incremental 

costs are those attributable solely to the 

designation of critical habitat above and 

beyond the baseline costs; these are the 

costs we consider in the final 

designation of critical habitat. The 

analysis looks retrospectively at 

baseline impacts incurred since the 

species was listed, and forecasts both 

baseline and incremental impacts likely 

to occur during the 20 year period 

following the designation of critical 

habitat. This period was determined to 

be the appropriate period for analysis 

because limited planning information 

was available for most activities to 

forecast activity levels for projects 

beyond a 20-year timeframe. 

The FEA also addresses how potential 

economic impacts are likely to be 

distributed, including an assessment of 

any local or regional impacts of habitat 

conservation and the potential effects of 

conservation activities on government 

agencies, private businesses, and 

individuals. The FEA measures lost 

economic efficiency associated with 

residential and commercial 

development and public projects and 

activities, such as economic impacts on 

water management and transportation 

projects, Federal lands, small entities, 

and the energy industry. Decisionmakers can use this information to 

assess whether the effects of the 

designation might unduly burden a 

particular group or economic sector. 

The final economic analysis 

determined that the costs associated 

with critical habitat for A. pumila, 

across the entire area considered for 

designation (both designated and 

excluded areas), are primarily a result of 

residential and commercial 

development and transportation and 

utility projects. The incremental 

economic impact of designating critical 

habitat was estimated to be $8,990 over 

the next 20 years using a 7 percent 

discount rate (Industrial Economics, Inc. 

2010, p. ES–9). Based on the 2010 final 

economic analysis, we concluded that 

the designation of critical habitat for A. 

pumila, as proposed in 2009 and as 

finalized in this rule, would not result 

in significant small business impacts 

and no areas are expected to experience 

disproportionate economic impacts as a 

result of the designation. We have not 

exercised our delegated discretion to 

exclude any areas from this critical 

habitat designation for economic 

reasons. A copy of the final economic 

analysis with supporting documents 

may be obtained by contacting the 

Carlsbad Field Office (see ADDRESSES) or 

for downloading from the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

We requested written comments from 

the public on the proposed rule to 

designate critical habitat for Ambrosia 

pumila during two comment periods. 

The first comment period opened with 

the publication of the proposed rule in 

the Federal Register on August 27, 2009 

(74 FR 44238), and closed on October 

26, 2009. The second comment period 

opened with the publication of the 

notice of availability of the Draft 

Economic Analysis (DEA) in the Federal 

Register on May 18, 2010 (75 FR 27690) 

and closed on June 17, 2010. During the 

public comment periods, we contacted 

appropriate Federal, State, and local 

agencies; scientific organizations; and 

other interested parties and invited 

them to comment on the proposed rule 

to designate critical habitat for A. 

pumila and the associated DEA. During 

the comment periods, we requested all 

that interested parties submit comments 

or information related to the proposed 

critical habitat, including (but not 

limited to) the following: Reasons why 

we should or should not designate 

habitat as ‘‘critical habitat’’; information 

that may assist us in clarifying or 

identifying more specific PCEs; the 

appropriateness of designating critical 

habitat for this species; the amount and 

distribution of A. pumila habitat 

included in this proposed rule; what 

areas are essential to the conservation of 

the species; unit boundaries and 

methodology used to delineate the areas 

proposed as critical habitat; land use 

designations and current or planned 

activities in the areas proposed as 

critical habitat; economic, national 

security, or other relevant impacts of 

designating any area; issues with the 

exclusions being considered under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act; special 

management considerations; how to 

improve public outreach during the 

critical habitat designation process; and 

whether the benefit of an exclusion of 

any particular area outweighs the 

benefit of inclusion under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. 

During the first comment period, we 

received nine comment letters, two from 

peer reviewers and seven from public 

organizations or individuals. During the 

second comment period we received 4 

comment letters addressing the 

proposed critical habitat designation 

and the DEA. All four of these latter 

comment letters were from public 

organizations or individuals. We did not 

receive any requests for a public 

hearing. We appreciate all peer reviewer 

and public comments submitted and 

their contributions to the improvement 

of the content and accuracy of this 

document. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our Policy for Peer 

Review in Endangered Species Act 

Activities, published on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions 

from four knowledgeable individuals 

with scientific expertise that includes 

familiarity with Ambrosia pumila, the 

geographic region in which it occurs, 

and conservation biology principles. 

Two peer reviewers submitted 

responses that included additional 

information, clarifications, and 

suggestions that we incorporated into 

the final critical habitat rule. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewers and the public 

for substantive issues and new 

information regarding the designation of 

critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila. All 

comments are addressed in the 

following summary and incorporated 

into the final rule as appropriate. 

Peer Reviewer’s Comments 

Comment 1: One peer reviewer noted 

that it is important to be careful and 

conservative in our designation of the 

critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila to 

protect as many occurrences as possible 

to ensure the long-term viability of the 

species. This is important because there 

are critical questions about the ecology 

and habitat requirements that remain 

unanswered, and we do not have 

enough information to confidently 

extend the critical habitat designation 

far beyond the known occurrences of 

this species. 

Our Response: The approach 

recommended in this peer reviewer’s 

comment mirrors the approach we used 

in designating critical habitat for 

Ambrosia pumila. See Criteria Used To 

Identify Critical Habitat section above. 

Comment 2: One peer reviewer 

suggested that data such as distance to 

water source could help expand the 

critical habitat of this species to areas 

outside of where it is known to occur, 

and pointed out that these data are 

available for three of the seven proposed 

critical habitat units (CNLM 2008, p. 7). 

Our Response: According to our GIS 

analysis conducted during the 

development of the proposed critical 

habitat rule, distance to water source is 

very inconsistent throughout the range 

of the species. Using GIS data we 

estimated the distance between 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74572 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Ambrosia pumila and associated 

waterways for over 30 A. pumila 

patches, and the results ranged from 

approximately 330 ft (100 m) to over 

2,400 ft (750 m). Because of the wide 

range of results, distance to water source 

was not included as part of the finalized 

criteria or methodology used to 

designate critical habitat. 

Comment 3: One peer reviewer stated 

that it would be helpful to know how 

many and which occurrences were 

removed in step (3) of the Methods 

section in the proposed critical habitat 

rule (74 FR 44245). 

Our Response: The CNDDB Element 

Occurrence numbers that were removed 

in step (3) of the Criteria Used To 

Identify Critical Habitat section above 

are Element Occurrence numbers 11, 24, 

and 29. 

Comment 4: One peer reviewer noted 

that there may be some particular 

circumstances where an occurrence 

should be protected even if it does not 

protect the full life history of the 

species. 

Our Response: We attempted to 

designate sites that protect the full life 

history of Ambrosia pumila, as such 

sites will provide the greatest 

conservation benefit for the species. 

Some of the sites we designated may not 

provide for all life history requirements 

of the species. Also, sites occupied by 

the species that did not meet the criteria 

set forth for this critical habitat 

designation may still contribute to the 

conservation and recovery of the 

species. 

Comment 5: One peer reviewer noted 

that to better make an informed decision 

about the process of the critical habitat 

delineation, it would be helpful to know 

the extent to which each step refined 

the critical habitat. 

Our Response: After eliminating many 

CNDDB Element Occurrences from 

consideration in step (1) of our 

methodology due to these being 

extirpated or nonnatural occurrences 

(transplants), we further refined the 

proposed critical habitat by removing 

three areas (CNDDB Element 

Occurrence numbers 11, 24, and 29) 

where the species occurs in habitat of 

low quality for growth and propagation. 

After adding area to each unit or subunit 

to account for the underground 

rhizomes that extend beyond the visible 

extent of the above-ground stems, we 

further refined the proposed critical 

habitat by removing habitat types 

inappropriate for the species and 

developed areas. See the Criteria Used 

To Identify Critical Habitat section 

above for a more detailed description of 

the steps we followed to delineate 

critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila. 

Comment 6: One peer reviewer stated 

that there should be a clear goal of how 

many occurrences will be protected. 

Our Response: In accordance with 

section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), in 

determining which areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing to propose 

as critical habitat, we consider those 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. We consider the physical 

and biological features to be the PCEs 

laid out in the appropriate quantity and 

spatial arrangement for the conservation 

of the species. Although the peer 

reviewer’s request is to protect a certain 

number or percentage of occurrences, 

such an approach would not be 

consistent with the conservation 

purpose of critical habitat designation. 

Therefore, goals of how many 

occurrences will be protected are not 

outlined in this rule. 

Comment 7: One peer reviewer 

requested information on how many of 

the known extant Ambrosia pumila 

occurrences are protected in the seven 

critical habitat units, what percentage of 

the existing Ambrosia pumila 

occurrences will be protected by this 

critical habitat designation, and what 

percentage of the existing population 

(percent of total stems) will be protected 

by this critical habitat designation. 

Our Response: Each critical habitat 

subunit corresponds with one CNDDB 

Element Occurrence of Ambrosia 

pumila; thus, the final critical habitat 

designation for this species includes all 

or portions of 9 occurrences of A. 

pumila (or 63 percent of the 16 

currently known extant occurrences of 

A. pumila) (some portions of the area 

containing occurrences have been 

excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act). Although critical habitat 

designation does not guarantee 

protection of a species in an area 

designated as critical habitat, it is a 

regulatory mechanism that can aid in 

the recovery of a species. All or portions 

of 9 occurrences of A. pumila will 

receive additional regulatory protection. 

We do not have range-wide data 

sufficient to estimate the total number of 

Ambrosia pumila aerial stems in 2010 

or any year prior; therefore, we are 

unable to determine what percent of 

total stems are included in this critical 

habitat designation. 

Comment 8: One peer reviewer noted 

that on p. 44248 of the proposed critical 

habitat rule, under the heading ‘‘Unit 2: 

Skunk Hollow Vernal Pool Watershed,’’ 

sentence three should read, ‘‘Unit 2 

consists of approximately 118 ac (48 ha) 

of privately owned land owned and 

managed by Center for Natural Lands 

Management that is also protected by a 

Conservation Easement held by the 

California Department of Fish and 

Game.’’ 

Our Response: We have revised this 

sentence in the unit description in this 

final rule. 

Comment 9: One peer reviewer noted 

that the USGS 7.5′ quadrangle maps 

used as a base layer for the maps 

published with the proposed critical 

habitat for A. pumila are obsolete due to 

recent urban development that has 

occurred since the maps were 

published. The peer reviewer suggested 

we use a more recent road map or aerial 

photograph that they believe would 

better depict the boundaries of the units 

and allow photos for a more 

constructive evaluation of the units. 

Our Response: We use the most recent 

data available to create our critical 

habitat maps. However, we may remove 

some roads and other features to avoid 

creating maps that are too complex or 

unclear. If roads appear to be missing 

from critical habitat maps, it is not 

because we have used outdated maps 

that do not have more recently built 

roads, but rather because we removed 

those roads in order to maintain clarity. 

Comment 10: One peer reviewer 

noted that the description of basic 

biology and current knowledge about 

Ambrosia pumila is detailed and 

accurate. 

Our Response: We appreciate the peer 

reviewer’s comment. 

Comment 11: One peer reviewer 

agreed with our determination that 

including unoccupied habitat in the 

critical habitat designation for Ambrosia 

pumila is not warranted. The peer 

reviewer stated they believe there are 

too many gaps in the knowledge of 

habitat requirements for this species, 

and that adding unoccupied habitat to 

that designated as critical habitat would 

potentially far exceed what is necessary 

to adequately protect this species. 

Our Response: We appreciate the peer 

reviewer’s insight and critical review of 

our analysis of areas considered 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Comment 12: One peer reviewer 

expressed concern that the methodology 

for determining potential habitat for 

Ambrosia pumila does not adequately 

account for the down-slope, stream, or 

drainage dispersal of seeds or rhizomes. 

The peer reviewer noted that although 

it is reasonable to assume that flooding 

or runoff would carry seeds and 

rhizomes beyond the designated areas, 

the amount is difficult to quantify. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74573 

Alternatively, the peer reviewer stated 

that accounting for the down-slope, 

stream, or drainage dispersal of seeds or 

rhizomes may not be an issue if the 

down-slope areas are adequately 

protected under a local HCP. 

Our Response: Not enough 

information is available to determine 

what down-slope, stream, or drainage 

areas might be essential to the 

conservation of this species or to what 

extent current drainage systems affect 

the distribution and survival of the 

species. We likewise have no direct 

evidence that seeds or rhizomes are 

currently dispersed (or are dispersible 

in the case of the rhizomes) by current 

annual drainage events. Therefore, we 

did not specifically include these areas 

in the critical habitat designation 

(although some down-slope or drainage 

areas may overlap with areas included 

in the designation), and we were not 

able to assess whether relevant HCPs 

adequately protected the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of A. pumila in these 

unoccupied areas. 

Comment 13: One peer reviewer 

expressed concern that some of the 

proposed exclusion areas contained 

within the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP may overstate the degree of 

protection that any area is likely to 

receive since the protected areas are not 

clearly defined at this time. 

Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act authorizes the Secretary to 

designate critical habitat after taking 

into consideration the economic 

impacts, national security impacts, and 

any other relevant impacts of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

An area may be excluded from critical 

habitat if it is determined that the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of designating a particular area 

as critical habitat, unless the failure to 

designate will result in the extinction of 

the species. We believe the exclusions 

made in this final rule are legally 

supported under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act and scientifically justified. After 

analyzing the benefits of inclusion and 

exclusion of proposed critical habitat 

units and subunits on lands covered 

under the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP, we determined that the 

benefits of exclusion outweighed the 

benefits of inclusion for Unit 2 because 

this area is conserved and managed (see 

Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against 

Benefits of Inclusion—Western 

Riverside County MSHCP section 

above). Service biologists continue to 

work with the County of Riverside and 

permittees of the HCP to ensure that A. 

pumila and its habitat receive the full 

extent of protections anticipated by the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP. 

Comment 14: One peer reviewer 

expressed concern regarding the 

potential exclusion of Subunit 3A 

(Santa Gertrudis Creek) because they 

believe this area could potentially be 

eligible for Federal funds related to the 

San Diego Aqueduct. The peer reviewer 

also expressed concern regarding the 

exclusion of Unit 5A, which the 

reviewer believes may conflict with 

necessary conservation associated with 

Federal funds directed toward the 

adjacent Interstate 15. 

Our Response: The probability of a 

project with a Federal nexus occurring 

in Subunit 3A is uncertain; we do not 

know if Federal funds will be used for 

future maintenance of the San Diego 

Aqueduct (see Weighing Benefits of 

Exclusion Against Benefits of 

Inclusion—Western Riverside County 

MSHCP); however, we have not 

excluded Subunit 3A from this critical 

habitat designation. We have not 

excluded any part of Subunit 5A from 

this critical habitat designation; 

therefore, the peer reviewer’s concern 

regarding potential conflicts with 

necessary conservation associated with 

Federal funds directed toward the 

adjacent Interstate 15 is no longer an 

issue. 

Comments From Representatives of 

Local Jurisdictions 

Comment 15: One commenter stated 

that since Ambrosia pumila is a covered 

species under the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP, lands covered by this 

HCP should be excluded from the 

critical habitat designation because the 

HCP provides adequate protection for 

the species. The commenter asserted 

that including land covered by the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP in 

the critical habitat designation for 

Ambrosia pumila would be in violation 

of section 6.9 of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP and section 14.10 of the 

associated Implementing Agreement, 

while exclusion of these lands would be 

consistent with Home Builders 

Association of Northern California v. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (E.D. Cal. 

Nov. 11, 2006) Case No. 05–629–WBS– 

KJMA, which upheld the exclusion of 

Western Riverside County MSHCP lands 

from critical habitat for 15 vernal pool 

species, finding that the exclusion was 

a reasonable exercise of Service 

discretion. 

Our Response: With regard to the 

commenter’s assertion that lands owned 

or under the jurisdiction of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP should be 

excluded because the HCP provides 

adequate protection for the species, the 

adequacy of an HCP to protect a species 

and its essential habitat is one 

consideration taken into account in our 

evaluation under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. Exclusion of an area from critical 

habitat is based on our determination 

that the benefits of exclusion outweigh 

the benefits of inclusion, and that 

exclusion of an area will not result in 

extinction of a species, which is a more 

complex analysis process. We have 

examined the protections afforded 

Ambrosia pumila by the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP during our 

exclusion analysis in this critical habitat 

designation, and have determined that 

the benefits of excluding in areas owned 

by or under the jurisdiction of Western 

Riverside County MSHCP permittees do 

not outweigh the benefits of including 

Unit 1 and 3 because these areas are not 

conserved and managed. However, we 

also determined that the benefits of 

excluding lands in areas owned by or 

under the jurisdiction of Western 

Riverside County MSHCP permittees 

that are conserved and managed (Unit 2) 

outweigh the benefits of including those 

lands as critical habitat for A. pumila 

(see Weighing Benefits of Exclusion 

Against Benefits of Inclusion—Western 

Riverside County MSHCP section 

above). 

With regard to the commenter’s belief 

that critical habitat should not be 

designated in the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP Plan Area based on 

language in section 6.9 of the HCP and 

section 14.10 of the associated 

Implementing Agreement, the 

Implementing Agreement does not 

preclude critical habitat designation 

within the plan area (Dudek 2003, p. 6– 

109; Western Riverside County Regional 

Conservation Authority et al., p. 51). 

Consistent with our commitment under 

the Implementing Agreement, and after 

public review and comment on the 

proposed critical habitat for Ambrosia 

pumila, we determined through our 

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

that exclusions under the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP are limited to 

the exclusion of lands owned by or 

under the jurisdiction of the permittees 

of the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP that are both conserved and 

managed (Unit 2). The Western 

Riverside County MSHCP does not 

specifically identify which lands will be 

conserved and managed and allows 

lands which may be essential for A. 

pumila to be developed as long as the 

Plan’s overall goals for conservation are 

achieved over the term of the permit. As 

a result, the exclusion from critical 

habitat of all lands within the boundary 

of the Western Riverside County 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74574 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

MSHCP would be premature and 

potentially not assist in conservation of 

A. pumila (see Benefits of Exclusion— 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

section above for a detailed discussion 

of the exclusion analysis). 

Comment 16: One commenter 

asserted that since the Service has 

maintained in previous critical habitat 

rules that the benefits of excluding 

Western Riverside County MSHCP lands 

outweigh the benefits of including this 

HCP in the designation, not excluding 

lands covered by this HCP in the 

designation of critical habitat for 

Ambrosia pumila would be arbitrary 

and capricious under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 

701 et seq.). Further, the commenter 

cited several examples of past critical 

habitat designations wherein the Service 

has excluded lands covered by the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP, and 

detailed the reasoning used by the 

Service to justify these exclusions. 

Our Response: We agree that the 

Service has in the past excluded 

Western Riverside County MSHCP lands 

from critical habitat designations. We do 

not agree that designating critical 

habitat on lands covered under the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP is 

arbitrary and capricious under the 

Administrative Procedure Act because 

we have a reasoned basis for our 

decision. Section 3(5)(A) of the 

Endangered Species Act defines critical 

habitat, in part, as areas containing 

physical or biological features that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection, while 

section 4(b)(2) directs the Secretary to 

consider the impacts of designating 

such areas as critical habitat and 

provides the Secretary with discretion 

to exclude particular areas if he 

determines that the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion. In 

this rule, we considered the protection 

and management of particular areas 

covered by the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP that meet the definition 

of critical habitat in our exclusion 

analyses under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. 

Upon weighing the benefits of 

inclusion against benefits of exclusion, 

we determined the benefits of excluding 

118 ac (48 ha) owned by or under the 

jurisdiction of permittees of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP in Unit 2 

outweigh the benefits of including this 

area in the final critical habitat 

designation. Further, we determined 

that exclusion of this area will not result 

in extinction of Ambrosia pumila. 

Therefore, we excluded Unit 2 from this 

final critical habitat designation (see the 

‘‘Western Riverside County Multiple 

Species Habitat Conservation Plan 

(Western Riverside County MSHCP)’’ 

subsection under the Exclusions Under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section above). 

Comment 17: One commenter stated 

that the establishment of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP was intended, 

in part, to replace the need for critical 

habitat, not to implement an additional 

layer of regulation. The commenter 

stated that this was the reason all of 

these stakeholders, including private 

parties such as the Building Industry 

Association, agreed to support the 

establishment of this HCP. If the Service 

includes lands covered by the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP in the critical 

habitat designation for Ambrosia 

pumila, the commenter believes the 

Service would be establishing a 

precedent that there was no reason 

behind the work and effort that the 

County of Riverside and other 

stakeholders invested in initially 

creating the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP. Thus, the commenter believes 

that not excluding lands covered by the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP from 

the critical habitat designation for A. 

pumila would dissuade creation of 

future HCPs. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

efforts of the many local jurisdictions 

and other stakeholders in developing 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP. 

Those efforts are anticipated to result in 

significant protection for numerous 

species including Ambrosia pumila 

under the plan, including conservation 

of A. pumila habitat in a reserve system 

(the Conservation Area), protection for 

A. pumila habitat within the Criteria 

Area and the Narrow Endemic Plant 

Species survey area), avoidance and 

minimization measures, and 

management for A. pumila and its 

habitat on lands covered by the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP in Units 1, 2, 

and 3. However, we have examined the 

current protections afforded A. pumila 

by the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP during our exclusion analysis 

in this critical habitat designation, and 

have determined that the benefits of 

excluding Units 1 and 3 from critical 

habitat do not outweigh the benefits of 

including Unit 1 and 3 because these 

areas are not conserved and managed, 

and therefore the regulatory, 

educational and ancillary benefit of 

critical habitat designation of these 

areas outweighs the partnership benefits 

furthered by their exclusion. We also 

determined that the benefits of 

excluding lands in Unit 2 which are 

conserved and managed outweigh the 

benefits of including those lands as 

critical habitat for A. pumila (see 

Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against 

Benefits of Inclusion—Western 

Riverside County MSHCP section 

above). 

Comment 18: One commenter 

submitted comments opposing the 

designation of critical habitat for 

Ambrosia pumila on lands covered by 

the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan under the MSCP. The commenter 

asserted that sensitive plant and wildlife 

species covered by the County of San 

Diego MSCP Subarea Plan and their 

habitats are conserved to the maximum 

extent practicable under this HCP, and 

that designation of critical habitat on 

lands covered by the County of San 

Diego MSCP Subarea Plan would not 

add more protection for A. pumila, but 

could add economic burdens on County 

of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan 

participants. The commenter goes on to 

state that portions of Unit 7 that are not 

already preserved are covered by the 

County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concerns regarding what 

the commenter believes is the maximum 

protection afforded to Ambrosia pumila 

under the County of San Diego MSCP 

Subarea Plan and realize that Unit 7 

(and portions of Subunit 5B that are not 

already preserved) are covered by the 

County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan. Although not specifically stated by 

the commenter, their comment indicates 

they believe: 

(1) The benefits of exclusion would be 

higher than the benefits of inclusion 

because the existing protections provide 

adequate protection to Ambrosia pumila 

to date, and the economic burden on 

participants would be high; and 

(2) The benefits of inclusion 

(nonredundant protections provided by 

critical habitat designation) are less 

because conservation actions mandated 

by the HCP are already in place and are 

being implemented. 

Conservation benefits provided by 

existing HCPs are not considered a 

benefit of exclusion because they would 

remain in place regardless of critical 

habitat designation; however, they do 

minimize the benefits of inclusion to the 

extent they are redundant with 

protection measures that would be 

provided by a critical habitat 

designation. With regard to the 

commenter’s assertion that lands owned 

or under the jurisdiction of the County 

of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan should 

be excluded because the HCP provides 

adequate protection for the species, the 

adequacy of an HCP to protect a species 

and its essential habitat is one 

consideration taken into account in our 

evaluation under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. Exclusion of an area from critical 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74575 

habitat is based on our determination 

that the benefits of exclusion outweigh 

the benefits of inclusion, and that 

exclusion of an area will not result in 

extinction of a species, which is a more 

complex analytical process. 

We have examined the protections 

afforded Ambrosia pumila by the 

County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan during our exclusion analysis in 

this critical habitat designation, and 

have determined that the benefits of 

exclusion in areas covered under the 

County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan do not outweigh the regulatory, 

educational and ancillary benefits of 

including Unit 7 and the portion of 

Subunit 5B that is not conserved 

because these areas are not conserved 

and managed. However, we also 

determined that the benefits of 

excluding lands in areas under the 

County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plan that are conserved and managed 

(portion of Subunit 5B) outweigh the 

benefits of including those lands as 

critical habitat for A. pumila (see 

Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against 

Benefits of Inclusion—County of San 

Diego MSCP Subarea Plan section 

above). 

With regard to the commenter’s 

statement that critical habitat 

designation for Ambrosia pumila could 

add economic burdens on County of San 

Diego MSCP Subarea Plan participants, 

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

Secretary shall designate critical habitat, 

and make revisions thereto, under 

subsection (a)(3) on the basis of the best 

scientific data available and after taking 

into consideration the economic impact, 

the impact to national security, and any 

other relevant impact, of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. In 

accordance with 50 CFR 424.19, in 

conducting an impact analysis of critical 

habitat, the Secretary shall identify any 

significant activities that would either 

affect an area considered for designation 

as critical habitat or be likely to be 

affected by the designation, and shall, 

after proposing designation of such an 

area, consider the probable economic 

and other impacts of the designation on 

proposed or ongoing activities. The 

Secretary may exclude any area from 

critical habitat if he determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless he 

determines, based on the best scientific 

and commercial data available, that the 

failure to designate such area as critical 

habitat will result in the extinction of 

the species concerned. Therefore, 

consistent with the Act and our 

implementing regulations, we must 

consider the relevant impacts of 

designating areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat prior to 

finalizing a critical habitat designation. 

After determining which areas met 

the definition of critical habitat for 

Ambrosia pumila under section 3(5)(A) 

of the Act, we took into consideration 

the economic impact, the impact on 

national security, and other relevant 

impacts of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat for this species. In this 

final designation, we recognize that 

designating critical habitat in areas 

where we have partnerships with 

landowners that have led to 

conservation or management of listed 

species on non-Federal lands has a 

relevant, perceived impact to 

landowners and a relevant impact to 

future partnerships and conservation 

efforts on non-Federal lands. Economic 

impacts are benefits of exclusion that 

are evaluated in an exclusion analysis. 

The commenter provided no data to 

support the assertion that designating 

critical habitat on lands owned by or 

under the jurisdiction of draft North 

County MSCP permittees could add 

economic burdens on potential North 

County MSCP participants. According 

to the Final Economic Analysis 

completed for this critical habitat 

designation, the economic impact of this 

designation on landowners is not 

expected to be significant. 

Comment 19: One commenter 

opposed designating critical habitat for 

Ambrosia pumila on lands covered by 

the draft North County MSCP. The 

commenter asserted that sensitive plant 

and wildlife species anticipated to be 

covered by the draft North County 

MSCP and their habitats will be 

conserved to the maximum extent 

practicable under this HCP, and that 

designation of critical habitat on lands 

that will be covered by the draft North 

County MSCP would not add more 

protection for A. pumila, but could add 

economic burdens on potential North 

County MSCP participants. The 

commenter goes on to state that the A. 

pumila populations within the County’s 

jurisdiction along the San Luis Rey 

River (Units 4A and 4B) are within the 

Pre-approved Mitigation Area (PAMA) 

of the draft North County MSCP and 

would be subject to the proposed 

Narrow Endemic Policy. 

Our Response: We did not consider 

exercising our delegated discretion to 

exclude any habitat from this critical 

habitat designation that falls within the 

plan area of an HCP where an incidental 

take permit has not yet been issued 

because until we have reviewed the 

completed HCP and issued an 

incidental take permit, we do not know 

whether the protections afforded the 

species under the draft plan are 

adequate or will be implemented. 

After determining which areas met 

the definition of critical habitat for 

Ambrosia pumila under section 3(5)(A) 

of the Act, we took into consideration 

the economic impact, the impact on 

national security, and other relevant 

impacts of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat for this species. 

According to the Final Economic 

Analysis completed for this critical 

habitat designation, the economic 

impact of this designation on 

landowners is not expected to be 

significant and we declined to exercise 

our delegated discretion to exclude any 

areas based on economic impacts. The 

commenter provided no data to support 

the assertion that designating critical 

habitat on lands owned by or under the 

jurisdiction of draft North County MSCP 

permittees could add economic burdens 

on potential North County MSCP 

participants. Therefore, we disagree 

with the commenter’s assertion that 

lands owned by or under the 

jurisdiction of draft North County MSCP 

permittees should be excluded because 

of possible economic impacts. 

Other Comments: 

Comment 20: One commenter stated 

that the values in Tables 3 and 4 either 

do not match summary totals in the text 

of the proposed rule, or are presented 

awkwardly and cause confusion. The 

commenter suggested that we correct 

the figures if they are in error, or present 

them in a clearer format allowing 

readers to match figures in the text to 

figures in tables. 

Our Response: We agree that the 

manner in which data were presented in 

Tables 3 and 4 could be confusing to the 

reader. We removed these tables from 

the final rule, and have presented this 

data in text only to alleviate confusion. 

Comment 21: One commenter 

submitted comments on behalf of an 

organization which, as a whole, 

supports designation of critical habitat 

within HCPs, but in the case of the City 

and County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plans under the MCSP, acknowledges 

there may be some merit to the 

argument that excluding MSCP lands 

will benefit coordination with 

stakeholders, and that the City and 

County Subarea Plans are already 

offering benefits to covered species, 

including Ambrosia pumila. 

Additionally, the commenter stated that 

rare plant protection mechanisms were 

already in place prior to protections 

afforded under the MSCP, and there are 

serious efforts to implement the MSCP, 

at least at the County level. 

Our Response: Exclusions under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act consider the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74576 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

benefits of partnerships together with 

numerous other factors to determine 

whether the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion. In 

our exclusion analyses for the City and 

County of San Diego MSCP Subarea 

Plans, we reviewed the goals and 

objectives that provide beneficial 

conservation measures for Ambrosia 

pumila that are redundant with 

conservation measures provided by 

critical habitat designation, and 

therefore would reduce the benefits of 

inclusion in critical habitat. When 

considering the benefits of exclusion, 

we consider a variety of factors, 

including but not limited to whether the 

plan is finalized (i.e., approved by all 

parties) and if there is a reasonable 

expectation that conservation 

management strategies and actions will 

be implemented into the future (see 

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

Act section above for further 

discussion). We determined that the 

benefits of exclusion do not outweigh 

the benefits of inclusion of essential 

habitat covered by the City and County 

of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan with 

the exception of those lands that are 

both conserved and managed. See the 

San Diego Multiple Species 

Conservation Program (MSCP)—City 

and County of San Diego’s Subarea 

Plans section above for the exclusion 

analyses for the City and County of San 

Diego MSCP Subarea Plans. 

Comment 22: One commenter 

believes that critical habitat 

designations within HCP lands are 

reasonable and prudent and exclusions 

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

not be given for HCP lands. 

Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act authorizes the Secretary to 

designate critical habitat after taking 

into consideration the economic 

impacts, national security impacts, and 

any other relevant impacts of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

The Secretary is vested with discretion 

to exclude any particular area from 

critical habitat if he determines that the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of designating the area as 

critical habitat, unless the failure to 

designate will result in the extinction of 

the species. We believe the exclusions 

made in this final rule are legally 

supported under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act and scientifically justified. The 

commenter specifically addressed 

exclusions where HCPs are in place. 

Areas excluded under section 4(b)(2) 

based on completed HCPs or other 

Service-approved management plans 

typically receive long-term protection 

and conservation under their HCPs or 

management plans. As discussed above, 

we fully considered and weighed the 

benefits to the conservation of Ambrosia 

pumila in determining whether to 

exclude from critical habitat designation 

any particular area of essential A. 

pumila habitat within an HCP area (see 

response to Comments 13 though 19 

above, and Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act section for further 

discussion on the exclusion analyses for 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP, 

City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan 

under the MSCP, and County of San 

Diego MSCP Subarea Plan under the 

MSCP). 

Comment 23: One commenter 

opposed excluding lands under the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP, 

stating that coordination is poor, habitat 

continues to degrade at rates equal to or 

exceeding rates when the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP was adopted, 

and it is not clear that there is a serious 

effort in Western Riverside County to 

implement the plan (at least in terms of 

rare plant conservation). 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concerns regarding 

adequate protection of Ambrosia pumila 

under the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP. We have determined that the 

benefits of excluding lands owned by or 

under the jurisdiction of Western 

Riverside County MSHCP permittees 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion only 

in Unit 2, which is both conserved and 

managed. Coordination between the 

Service and the managers of the land in 

Unit 2 (CNLM) is ongoing and has 

resulted in research and conservation 

actions for the benefit of Ambrosia 

pumila onsite and elsewhere. The 

remaining Subunits in Western 

Riverside County (Subunits 1A, 1B, 3A, 

and 3B) have not been excluded from 

this designation, and thus will receive 

the benefits of critical habitat 

designation under the Act. We therefore 

believe the commenter’s concern 

regarding excluding lands covered 

under the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP is no longer an issue. We will 

continue to monitor the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP 

implementation on the status of A. 

pumila in other areas owned by or 

under the jurisdiction of Western 

Riverside County MSHCP permittees, 

and work with HCP permittees and 

landowners to continue and improve 

implementation of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP. 

Comment 24: One commenter stated 

that HCPs are required only to meet an 

extinction (i.e., jeopardy) standard, and 

because recovery is not a requirement of 

HCPs, Section 10/HCP requirements to 

avoid jeopardy could result in reducing 

a species to a minimal existence that 

contributes little to the overall biotic 

community, and could also leave a 

species at perpetual risk of extinction 

from a variety of factors, while 

technically not qualifying as a jeopardy. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concerns regarding the 

long-term recovery of Ambrosia pumila. 

Although not specifically stated by the 

commenter, their comment indicates 

they believe that lands covered under an 

HCP should not be a basis for exclusion 

from a critical habitat designation 

because the plans do not protect a listed 

species to the level beyond that 

evaluated in a jeopardy analysis under 

section 7 of the Act. However, the 

Secretary is vested with broad 

discretion under Section 4(b)(2) in 

evaluating whether the benefits of 

excluding an area from critical habitat 

designation outweigh the benefits of 

designating the area, so long as 

exclusion of an area will not result in 

extinction of a species. We consider a 

number of factors in a section 4(b)(2) 

analysis, including (but not limited to) 

the protections afforded for a species 

and its essential habitat under an HCP, 

whether there are conservation 

partnerships that would be encouraged 

by designation of, or exclusion from, 

critical habitat, particularly partnerships 

that include voluntary protections for 

listed plant species in an HCP or other 

management plan, and the economic, 

regulatory and educational impacts of 

including a particular area as critical 

habitat. See Exclusions under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act and ‘‘Benefits of 

Excluding Lands with HCPs’’ section for 

further discussion. 

We found the benefits of excluding 

lands that are both conserved and 

managed under the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP, the City of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan, and the County of 

San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan to be 

greater than the benefits of including 

these lands. See the Exclusions under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section above 

for a detailed discussion. 

Comment 25: One commenter stated 

that critical habitat is intended to 

provide for the conservation of the 

species (i.e., to go beyond just 

preventing extinction and achieve a 

status where the protections afforded by 

the Act are no longer necessary); and 

that critical habitat designations within 

the context of regional HCPs could 

assure that the intent of the Act is 

achieved and improve the opportunity 

for recovery. A second commenter 

stated that relinquishing an important 

tool for conservation (i.e., critical 

habitat) in cases where a Federal nexus 

would otherwise exist because of the 

HCP overlay is not wise if the overall 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74577 

strategic goal is to recover or stabilize an 

endangered species. 

Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act states that critical habitat shall be 

designated, and revised, on the basis of 

the best available scientific data after 

taking into consideration the economic 

impact, national security impact, and 

any other relevant impact of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

An area may be excluded from critical 

habitat if it is determined that the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying a particular area 

as critical habitat, unless the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. Consequently, we may exclude 

an area from critical habitat based on 

economic impacts, impacts on national 

security, or other relevant impacts, such 

as preservation of conservation 

partnerships, if we determine the 

benefits of excluding an area from 

critical habitat outweigh the benefits of 

including the area in critical habitat, 

provided the action of excluding the 

area will not result in the extinction of 

the species. See the Exclusions under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section above 

for a detailed discussion. 

We found the benefits of excluding 

lands that are both conserved and 

managed under the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP, the City of San Diego 

MSCP Subarea Plan, and the County of 

San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan to be 

greater than the benefits of including 

these lands. See the Exclusions under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section above 

for a detailed discussion. 

Comment 26: One commenter stated 

that the Service should not exclude 

HCPs from critical habitat because 

critical habitat is a Federal tool for 

conserving species and their habitats 

and by excluding HCPs we are 

depriving Federal agencies 

opportunities to conserve species. 

Our Response: As a conservation tool, 

a critical habitat designation ensures 

that when actions with a Federal nexus 

may impact critical habitat, the Federal 

action agency consults with the Service 

to determine if the action will adversely 

modify critical habitat. Critical habitat 

does not require a Federal agency to 

perform any additional conservation 

actions nor does it direct conservation 

actions. In instances where the critical 

habitat is unoccupied, there may be 

additional benefit in that the Federal 

agency is required to consult under 

section 7 of the Act if its proposed 

action would affect critical habitat. With 

regard to areas that are within the 

boundaries of an HCP, exclusions are 

based on our determination that the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion, and that exclusion 

of an area will not result in extinction 

of a species. In the areas that we are 

excluding from this final rule (lands that 

are both conserved and managed), we 

have evaluated the benefits of 

highlighting the importance of these 

areas for Federal agencies and the 

public, but found that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion for the areas we have 

excluded (see the Exclusions under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section above 

for details). 

Comment 27: One commenter noted 

that the information on the life history 

and geographical range in the proposed 

rule appears to be accurate overall, but 

also noted that more detailed editing of 

the text would greatly improve the 

readability of the Life History and 

Geographic Range and Status sections of 

the proposed rule. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

commenter’s critical review. However, 

the commenter did not specify how or 

what portions of the text in these 

sections should be edited, nor what 

could be improved for clarity/ 

readability. However, we thank the 

commenter for their suggestion, and 

have reevaluated the information 

provided in the proposed critical habitat 

rule and believe that it is complete, 

clear, and accurate based on the best 

information available. 

Comment 28: One commenter 

suggested that the descriptions of the 

critical habitat units be expanded to 

provide more detail on the distribution 

of Ambrosia pumila within these units. 

This commenter suggested that we 

describe in detail the current conditions 

and land use practices within these 

localities, and note potential threats, 

even at localities with Western 

Riverside County MSHCP or HCP 

reserve or reserve study areas. 

Our Response: Regarding the 

distribution of Ambrosia pumila within 

critical habitat units/subunits, we 

presume each unit/subunit to be 

entirely occupied by the species; areas 

not occupied by aerial stems are 

presumed to be occupied by rhizomes 

(see Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat section above). Therefore, a 

discussion of the distribution of A. 

pumila plants within each unit/subunit 

is not needed. Regarding the description 

of current conditions, land use 

practices, and potential threats within 

each unit, we provided all information 

we are aware of in this final critical 

habitat designation. Any additional 

relevant details received during the 

comment periods have been 

incorporated into this final rule where 

appropriate. 

Comment 29: One commenter noted 

that the acreage figures between Table 1 

and Table 2 appear to be different than 

the 41.4 ac (16.8 ha) of occupied habitat 

for this species in Unit 1A; Table 2 

notes that there are 58.3 ac (23.6 ha) of 

occupied habitat. 

Our Response: Each column in Table 

2 of the proposed rule was intended to 

present a separate set of data; the 

acreages should not sum across each 

row. We understand that the 

presentation used was confusing, and 

have attempted to make presentation of 

all data as clear as possible in this final 

critical habitat rule. 

Comment 30: One commenter 

believes that text in the proposed 

critical habitat rule fails to mention the 

distribution of Ambrosia pumila within 

proposed Subunit 1A. The commenter 

further states that from Table 1 it would 

appear that 56 percent of this habitat is 

already within County-owned property 

that will be a reserve area. The 

commenter suggests that the text clearly 

note whether the occurrence is within 

County or private property. 

Our Response: As stated above in our 

response to Comment 28, we presume 

each unit/subunit to be entirely 

occupied by the species; areas not 

occupied by aerial stems are presumed 

to be occupied by rhizomes (see Criteria 

Used To Identify Critical Habitat section 

above). The boundaries of all critical 

habitat subunits represent our 

estimation of the underground extent of 

the Ambrosia pumila rhizome of each 

occurrence. Therefore, a discussion of 

the distribution of A. pumila plants 

within each unit/subunit is not needed 

and we believe the species occupies 100 

percent of Subunit 1A, approximately 

23 ac (10 ha) of which is on County 

property and 18 ac (7 ha) of which is on 

private property (see Criteria Used To 

Identify Critical Habitat above, and our 

response to Comment 29). 

Comment 31: One commenter stated 

that the description of critical habitat 

units should clearly note any current or 

future threats to Subunit 1A, if there is 

any planned expansion of Lake Street, 

and if this or other projects could 

further fragment the clones found at this 

locality and how this could affect the 

viability of the clonal stands found 

within this subunit. 

Our Response: In our description of 

Subunit 1A we have included all known 

threats to the habitat in this subunit. We 

are not aware of a planned expansion of 

Lake Street or any other proposed 

project at this site, and thus how any 

future project that we are not aware of 

could affect the species in this area. 

Comment 32: One commenter stated 

that the text in the proposed critical 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74578 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

habitat rule should note current land 

use practices and threats in proposed 

Subunits 1B and 3A. The commenter 

pointed out that lands on the south side 

of Nichols Road (Subunit 1B) are often 

disked, and lands on the north side of 

Nichols Road are subject to OHV 

activity and trash dumping. 

Our Response: In our description of 

Subunits 1B and 3A, we included all 

known land use practices and threats to 

the habitat in this subunit that we are 

aware of (see Western Riverside County 

Multiple Species Habitat Conservation 

Plan (Western Riverside County 

MSHCP) section above). We appreciate 

the additional information provided by 

the commenter regarding activities in 

Subunit 1B that impact Ambrosia 

pumila habitat, and we have 

incorporated this information into this 

final rule where appropriate. 

Comment 33: One commenter 

believes the expansion of Nichols Road 

is a likely possibility; thus, further 

analysis is needed to determine the 

viability of Subunit 1B if only the 1.1 ac 

(0.5 ha) within the Criteria Area is 

retained as occupied habitat for this 

species. The commenter believes it will 

be difficult to complete any expansion 

of Nichols Road without major impacts 

to at least one of the clonal units in 

Subunit 1B. 

Our Response: The City of Lake 

Elsinore informed us that the Nichols 

Road expansion project will avoid the 

above-ground portion of the Ambrosia 

pumila occurrence in that area (T. 

Weiner. pers. comm. 2009). Service 

biologists will continue to work with 

the City of Lake Elsinore to avoid 

impacts to all parts of this occurrence of 

Ambrosia pumila as the proposed 

Nichols Road expansion project goes 

forward. See the Western Riverside 

County Multiple Species Habitat 

Conservation Plan section for further 

discussion on this exclusion analysis. 

Comment 34: One commenter 

suggested that since Subunit 3A is not 

proposed to be included within a 

reserve, further analysis on the viability 

of this subunit should be provided. The 

commenter believes there is no 

justification for excluding this locality 

from critical habitat if it is not managed 

within a reserve because the site could 

be developed (once Western Riverside 

County MSHCP provisions for Ambrosia 

pumila have been met). 

Our Response: We have determined 

that the benefits of excluding Subunit 

3A from this designation do not 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion 

because this area has not been 

conserved and is not managed; therefore 

the commenter’s concern is no longer an 

issue (see the ‘‘Western Riverside 

County Multiple Species Habitat 

Conservation Plan (Western Riverside 

County MSHCP)’’ subsection under the 

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

Act section above). 

Comment 35: One commenter 

requested clarification as to whether the 

land in Subunit 3A is owned or under 

easement by Metropolitan Water District 

or a private landowner. 

Our Response: According to the best 

available information we have regarding 

land ownership within Subunit 3A, 

these lands are not owned or under 

easement held by Metropolitan Water 

District. 

Comment 36: One commenter stated 

that the size and distribution of 

Ambrosia pumila patches in Subunit 3A 

should be noted within the text. 

Our Response: The boundaries of the 

critical habitat subunits represent our 

estimation of the underground extent of 

the Ambrosia pumila rhizome for each 

occurrence. Therefore, it is our 

estimation that A. pumila occupies 100 

percent of Subunit 3A (see Criteria Used 

To Identify Critical Habitat, and our 

responses to Comments 30 and 32 

above). 

Comment 37: One commenter stated 

that more explanation should be 

provided on the implications of the last 

column in Table 2, as it appears to the 

commenter that the majority of the 

proposed critical habitat in Western 

Riverside County is not within an 

existing reserve or proposed reserve area 

(criteria area), and thus there would be 

little protection for any of these 

localities, except County-owned lands 

in Subunit 1A, and the CNLM-managed 

lands in Unit 2. (The commenter 

believes there is a potential argument 

for excluding the lands within Unit 2 

because there is current management at 

this locality.) 

Our Response: A more thorough 

explanation of protections afforded 

habitat in each unit/subunit of proposed 

critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila in 

Western Riverside County is provided 

in the final rule (see the ‘‘Western 

Riverside County Multiple Species 

Habitat Conservation Plan’’ section 

above). With regard to our exclusion 

analysis for the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP, exclusion of an area 

from critical habitat is based on our 

determination that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, and that exclusion of an area 

will not result in extinction of a species, 

which is a complex analytical process. 

We found the benefits of excluding 

lands covered by the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP in Unit 2 to be greater 

than the benefits of including these 

lands in the critical habitat designation 

because this area has been conserved 

and is managed, and exclusion will not 

result in extinction of Ambrosia pumila; 

the commenter’s concern is, therefore, 

no longer an issue. For more 

information, see the Exclusions under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section above 

for a detailed discussion. 

Comment 38: One commenter stated 

that more details are required on 

potential fragmentation, potential 

infrastructure impacts and the 

‘‘importance’’ of the clonal populations 

on County of Riverside lands versus 

private lands. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

information provided by the 

commenter; however, the amount of 

detail requested by the commenter to be 

added to the final rule was not 

necessary for the purpose of designating 

critical habitat. Therefore, this 

additional information was not 

incorporated. 

Comment 39: One commenter stated 

that considering the current land use 

management practices and proposed 

reserve protection of only 1.6 percent of 

the occupied acreage ‘‘at this locality’’, 

there appears to be little justification for 

excluding this locality from critical 

habitat designation. Further, the 

commenter states that the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP is to conserve 

two known localities of Ambrosia 

pumila (near Lake Street (within 

Subunit 1A) and near Nichols Road 

(within Subunit 1B)), which could 

easily lead to the loss of the clones at 

the other sites in western Riverside 

County considered suitable for critical 

habitat designation. The commenter also 

states that landowner participation 

within the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP is voluntary and generally not 

requested for any property outside of 

the criteria areas. 

Our Response: It is unclear what 

specific area of Western Riverside 

County the commenter was referring to 

as ‘‘this locality’’; however, we 

appreciate the commenter’s concerns 

regarding adequate protection of 

Ambrosia pumila under the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP. Although not 

specifically stated by the commenter, 

their comment indicates they believe 

that the benefits of inclusion (nonredundant protections and education 

provided by critical habitat designation) 

are greater than the benefits of exclusion 

because conservation actions mandated 

by the HCP are inadequate. 

We have found the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

including land in the critical habitat 

designation only where lands are both 

conserved and managed (Unit 2); 

therefore the commenter’s concern is no 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74579 

longer an issue. Please refer to the 

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

Act section, and our response to 

Comments 13 through 17 above for 

further discussion on the benefits of 

exclusion for the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP. We will continue to 

monitor the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP implementation on the status of 

Ambrosia pumila. 

Comment 40: One commenter 

asserted that the final critical habitat 

rule may not exclude essential habitat 

covered by other conservation 

mechanisms. The commenter stated that 

HCPs utilize a different part of the Act— 

Section 10, and allow for the ‘‘take’’ of 

species including Ambrosia pumila and 

are not a substitute for the designation 

of critical habitat, which focuses on the 

recovery of species. 

Our Response: We respectfully 

disagree with the comment. Section 

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

Secretary must designate and revise 

critical habitat on the basis of the best 

available scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

national security impact, and any other 

relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if he determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless he 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. In making that determination, 

the legislative history is clear that the 

Secretary has broad discretion regarding 

which factor(s) to use and how much 

weight to give to any factor. 

It is appropriate under Section 4(b)(2) 

to consider the effect of critical habitat 

designation on our ability to maintain 

existing partnerships and encourage 

future partnerships to conserve listed 

species, including partnerships with 

local jurisdictions and other 

stakeholders to develop HCPs. We note 

that the Act does not prohibit take of 

listed plant species and HCPs developed 

under Section 10 of the Act in support 

issuance of incidental take permits for 

listed animal species are not required to 

include protections for listed plant 

species. Thus, we believe it is 

particularly relevant and appropriate to 

evaluate the impacts of critical habitat 

designation under Section 4(b)(2) on our 

ability to encourage development of 

HCPs and other management plans that 

voluntarily include protections for 

listed plant species such as Ambrosia 

pumila. For more information, see 

response to Comments 13 through 17 

and the Exclusions under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act section above for a 

detailed discussion. 

Comment 41: One commenter stated 

that the Service should not exclude 

habitat within the plan area of HCP 

permits that are not yet issued such as 

the City of Oceanside’s Subarea Plan 

under the Northwestern San Diego 

County Multiple Habitat Conservation 

Plan. They argued draft plans provide 

no guarantee that the final HCPs will 

provide adequate species conservation. 

Our Response: We did not exclude 

any habitat from this critical habitat 

designation that falls within the plan 

area of an HCP permit that has not yet 

been issued. Please see the Exclusions 

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

for a detailed discussion on our 

exclusion analyses of those areas we 

considered for exclusion in the 

proposed critical habitat designation (74 

FR 44238) and the associated NOA 

announcing the DEA (75 FR 27690, May 

18, 2010). 

Comment 42: One commenter stated 

that the draft proposed critical habitat is 

not adequate to inform a decision as 

important as the designation of critical 

habitat for A. pumila. 

Our Response: Because little is known 

about the biology and life history of 

Ambrosia pumila at this time, it is 

difficult to construct a critical habitat 

designation that we can be certain fully 

addresses the needs of the species. 

However, we are mandated to complete 

and publish a critical habitat 

designation for this species by a courtordered deadline (see Previous Federal 

Actions section of this rule). This final 

critical habitat designation is based on 

the best available scientific and 

commercial data as well as information 

we obtained during the public comment 

periods. 

Comment 43: One commenter 

believes the proposed rule is fatally 

flawed because the agency fails to 

consider all currently occupied habitat. 

The commenter believes it is incumbent 

upon the Service to re-examine all of the 

extant populations and include a critical 

habitat designation for each of them, not 

just those known at the time of listing, 

in the critical habitat designation. 

Another commenter stated that no 

justification is given as to why all extant 

CNDDB Element Occurrences were not 

included in the proposed critical habitat 

designation. 

Our Response: All currently occupied 

and formerly occupied habitat 

(including all extant CNDDB Element 

Occurrences) was considered for 

designation as critical habitat for 

Ambrosia pumila, and all occurrences 

were included in the proposed critical 

habitat unless they were known to have 

been extirpated, presumed to have been 

extirpated based on documented 

negative survey results, are not natural 

occurrences (transplants or plants 

moved from their natural location with 

fill soil), or did not meet the criteria 

used to identify critical habitat (see 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat section above). Extant 

occurrences not proposed as critical 

habitat in the proposed rule were 

reevaluated prior to publication of the 

NOA. Based on additional information 

provided for our analysis, we 

determined that one occurrence (Gird/ 

Monserate Hill; Subunit 4D) previously 

analyzed for the proposed rule meets 

the definition of critical habitat and it 

was added to the proposed critical 

habitat designation as identified in the 

NOA. Additionally, two occurrences of 

which we were not aware until after the 

publication of the proposed rule were 

also added to the proposed critical 

habitat designation as identified in the 

NOA. 

We recognize that the designation of 

critical habitat may not include all of 

the habitat that may eventually be 

determined to be necessary for the 

recovery of Ambrosia pumila, and 

critical habitat designations do not 

signal that habitat outside the 

designation is unimportant or may not 

contribute to recovery. Areas outside the 

final critical habitat designation will 

continue to be subject to conservation 

actions implemented under section 

7(a)(1) of the Act and regulatory 

protections afforded by the section 

7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the 

prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if 

actions occurring in these areas may 

affect A. pumila; these protections and 

conservation tools will continue to 

contribute to recovery of this species. 

Comment 44: One commenter 

believes that all areas occupied by 

Ambrosia pumila clearly support all of 

the PCEs, because they support A. 

pumila. 

Our Response: Critical habitat 

designations identify habitat areas that 

provide essential life cycle needs of the 

species (areas on which are found the 

PCEs laid out in the appropriate 

quantity and spatial arrangement 

essential to the conservation of the 

species). Based on the best available 

commercial and scientific information 

available, we are unable to be more 

specific about the PCEs for Ambrosia 

pumila due to the lack of information 

available regarding the biology and life 

history of the species. Therefore, we are 

unable to determine whether areas 

containing transplant occurrences and 

occurrences highly impacted by human 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74580 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

activities sufficiently support the 

biology and life history of the species. 

For this reason, we have not included 

these areas in the final critical habitat 

designation. 

Comment 45: One commenter noted 

that according to the CNDDB (2009), 

several extant occurrences of Ambrosia 

pumila are completely absent in the 

critical habitat designation, including 

Element Occurrence 54 (which is 0.5 mi 

(0.8 km) southeast of Steele Peak) and 

Element Occurrence 57 (which is 

adjacent to the west end of Santiago 

Road, just west of Murrieta Creek). 

Our Response: We were not aware of 

Element Occurrence 57 until after the 

proposed critical habitat rule was 

completed. Upon evaluation of the new 

information received and evaluated, we 

included a critical habitat subunit 

(Subunit 3B) in the proposed critical 

habitat designation, as described in the 

NOA that published on May 18, 2010 

(75 FR 27690). Service and CDFG staff 

attempted to locate and map Element 

Occurrence 54 during a site visit in 2009 

(A. Folarin, pers. comm. 2009); 

however, the occurrence was not found 

and was thus presumed to be extirpated. 

Other extant occurrences were not 

proposed as critical habitat because they 

were not natural occurrences 

(transplants or plants moved from their 

natural location with fill soil), or did not 

meet the criteria used to identify critical 

habitat (see Criteria Used To Identify 

Critical Habitat section above). 

Comment 46: One commenter 

believes the Service ignored the 

recovery goal of critical habitat by 

failing to include additional and 

adjacent habitat that may not currently 

be occupied, but could provide an 

opportunity for Ambrosia pumila 

recovery. This commenter believes that 

without critical habitat, A. pumila has a 

reduced chance of persisting and 

recovering, citing Taylor et al. 2005. 

This commenter goes on to state that the 

Service should consider and evaluate 

the recovery benefits of critical habitat 

designation in order to promulgate a 

legally valid critical habitat rule (which 

the commenter believes was not done in 

the proposed rule). 

Our Response: Critical habitat 

designation is a different process than 

development of recovery goals and 

objectives that are outlined in a recovery 

plan (which has not yet been developed 

for Ambrosia pumila). A critical habitat 

designation is a regulatory action that 

defines specific areas that are essential 

to the conservation of the species in 

accordance with the statutory 

definition. A recovery plan (and the 

associated recovery goals and 

objectives) is a guidance document 

developed in cooperation with partners, 

which provides a roadmap with detailed 

site-specific management actions to help 

conserve listed species and their 

ecosystems. Recovery plans provide 

important information about the species 

and the actions that are needed to bring 

about a species recovery. 

Based on the best available 

commercial and scientific information 

available, we are unable to be more 

specific about the PCEs for Ambrosia 

pumila due to the paucity of 

information available regarding the 

biology and life history of the species. 

We believe we have, to the best of our 

ability, determined and designated all 

habitat areas that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. We 

recognize that the designation of critical 

habitat may not include all of the 

habitat that may eventually be 

determined to be necessary for the 

recovery of A. pumila, and critical 

habitat designations do not signal that 

habitat outside the designation is 

unimportant or may not contribute to 

recovery. Areas outside the critical 

habitat designation will continue to be 

subject to conservation actions 

implemented under section 7(a)(1) of 

the Act and regulatory protections 

afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 

standard and the prohibitions of section 

9 of the Act if actions occurring in these 

areas may affect A. pumila; these 

protections and conservation tools will 

continue to contribute to recovery of 

this species. 

Comment 47: One commenter noted 

that models are available that 

specifically address conservation 

designs to ensure rare species 

persistence (Burgman et al. 2001). The 

commenter recommended 

implementation of this type of modeling 

to improve the methodology used to 

delineate the areas proposed as critical 

habitat. Another commenter noted that 

a relatively recent scientific approach to 

identifying the size of plant 

conservation areas takes into 

consideration multiple variables 

including life strategy, disturbance 

probability, potential habitat, 

population size, recovery from 

disturbance, habitat suitability, 

predation, and competition (Burgman et 

al. 2001). This commenter believes that 

these types of factors are all critical 

components when establishing critical 

habitat needs for species and strongly 

recommends that the Service implement 

a similar modeling effort for Ambrosia 

pumila. 

Our Response: Models such as those 

discussed by Burgman et al. (2001) are 

useful in identifying target areas for 

conservation. We have used different 

types of models to help us identify 

critical habitat for several federallylisted species. For Ambrosia pumila, we 

have chosen to identify areas where the 

species is known to occur rather than 

use a model due to the fact that we 

would have had difficulty defining the 

parameters of the model in a way that 

would have produced meaningful 

results due to the of paucity of 

information available regarding the 

biology and life history of the species. 

By using the methods described in this 

final rule, the designation of critical 

habitat will contribute to the 

conservation of this species (see Criteria 

Used To Identify Critical Habitat 

section). 

Comment 48: One commenter 

believes that if an exclusion is 

contemplated, then consideration must 

be given not only to the species 

extinction thresholds, but also to 

species recovery standards during 

critical habitat designations. 

Our Response: The process for 

evaluating the exclusion of an area from 

critical habitat is defined in and 

governed by Section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

As discussed above, that Section vests 

the Secretary with broad discretion to 

consider any relevant factor in 

determining whether the benefits of 

excluding a particular area from 

designation as critical habitat outweigh 

the benefits of designating the area, so 

long as exclusion of the area would not 

result in extinction of the species. 

We recognize that the designation of 

critical habitat may not include all of 

the habitat that may eventually be 

determined to be necessary for the 

recovery of Ambrosia pumila, and 

critical habitat designations do not 

signal that habitat outside the 

designation is unimportant or may not 

contribute to recovery. Areas outside the 

critical habitat designation will 

continue to be subject to conservation 

actions implemented under section 

7(a)(1) of the Act and regulatory 

protections afforded by the section 

7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the 

prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if 

actions occurring in these areas may 

affect A. pumila; these protections and 

conservation tools will continue to 

contribute to recovery of this species. 

Critical habitat designation is a different 

process than development of recovery 

goals and objectives that are outlined in 

a recovery plan (which has not yet been 

developed for Ambrosia pumila). A 

critical habitat designation is a 

regulatory action that defines specific 

areas that are essential to the 

conservation of the species in 

accordance with the statutory 

definition. A recovery plan (with 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74581 

associated recovery goals and 

objectives) is a guidance document 

developed in cooperation with partners, 

which provides a roadmap with detailed 

site-specific management actions to help 

conserve listed species and their 

ecosystems. Recovery plans provide 

important information about the species 

and the actions that are needed to bring 

about a species recovery, while critical 

habitat designations identify specific 

areas that are essential for the species’ 

conservation. 

Comment 49: One commenter stated 

that connectivity needs to be included 

and fragmentation avoided, and based 

on the paucity of knowledge about the 

reproductive mechanisms, and the 

documented genetic diversity within 

studied populations (McGlaughlin and 

Friar 2005), a conservative approach to 

connectivity especially between 

adjacent populations is prudent. 

Our Response: To include areas in the 

critical habitat designation that increase 

connectivity between areas occupied by 

Ambrosia pumila, we would need to 

determine what unoccupied areas are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and the function of these areas 

in the life history of the species. This 

rule describes our best understanding at 

this time of the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

A. pumila. Due to the lack of 

information available regarding the 

biology and life history of the species, 

we are unable to determine how such 

unoccupied areas would support the 

biology and life history of the species, 

and where they should be located. 

Therefore, we are unable to include 

unoccupied areas in between adjacent 

populations. 

Because relatively little is known 

about the biology and life history of 

Ambrosia pumila at this time, it is 

difficult to construct a critical habitat 

designation that we can be certain 

addresses every need of the species. 

However, we are mandated to complete 

and publish a critical habitat 

designation for this species by a courtordered deadline (see Previous Federal 

Actions section of this rule). This final 

critical habitat designation is based on 

the best available scientific and 

commercial data as well as information 

we obtained during the public comment 

periods. 

Comment 50: One commenter stated 

that the Service needs to include all 

occupied habitat in the Economic 

Analysis (and final critical habitat rule), 

and not rely on the proposed critical 

habitat as the basis for the Economic 

Analysis. 

Our Response: The purpose of the 

Economic Analysis is to identify and 

analyze the potential economic impacts 

associated with the designation of 

critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila. 

Occupied areas not proposed as critical 

habitat are outside the scope of the 

Economic Analysis, as they are not 

expected to be impacted by the 

designation. 

Comment 51: One commenter stated 

that areas that require special 

management considerations that are 

covered or will be covered in the future 

by management plans or conservation 

plans should not be excluded pursuant 

to section 3(5)(A) or 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

Our Response: Exclusion of an area 

from critical habitat designation is based 

on our determination that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, and that exclusion of the area 

will not result in extinction of a species, 

which is a complex analysis process. 

We found the benefits of exclusion of 

lands that are both conserved and 

managed under HCPs or long-term 

management plans to be greater than the 

benefits of including these lands in the 

critical habitat designation, because the 

associated HCPs and management plans 

afford protection to the excluded areas, 

and because of the benefits of preserving 

partnerships and encouraging 

development of additional HCPs and 

other conservation plans in the future. 

For more information, see the 

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

Act section above for a detailed 

discussion. 

Comment 52: One commenter stated 

that in Center for Biological Diversity, et 

al. v. Norton, 240 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 

1099 (D. Az. 2003) the court found that 

the existence of a management plan, far 

from being a reason to exclude an area 

from critical habitat, is indisputable 

proof that the area qualifies as critical 

habitat. 

Our Response: In some instances, it 

may not be appropriate to exclude areas 

from critical habitat based on a 

management plan. We review each area 

that we consider for exclusion on an 

individual basis and base our 

conclusion on the results of the analysis 

conducted in accordance with a section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. Our analysis is based 

on weighing the benefits of excluding 

the area from the critical habitat 

designation against the benefits of 

including the area in the critical habitat 

designation, and typically includes 

consideration of the conservation of the 

species and its habitat achieved under 

an HCP or other management plan. 

Please see the Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act section for a detailed 

discussion of our analyses of those areas 

we considered for exclusion in the 

proposed critical habitat designation (74 

FR 44238, August 27, 2009) and the 

NOA announcing the availability of the 

DEA (75 FR 27690, May 18, 2010). 

Comment 53: One commenter stated 

that whether habitat does or does not 

require special management is not 

determinative of whether that habitat is 

‘‘critical’’ to a threatened or endangered 

species; what is determinative is 

whether or not the habitat is ‘‘essential 

to the conservation of the species’’ and 

special management of that habitat is 

possibly necessary. 

Our Response: We agree with the 

commenter that prong one of the 

definition of critical habitat in Section 

2 of the Act only requires that an area 

contain an essential physical or 

biological feature that ‘‘may require’’ 

special management considerations; it 

does not require an absolute finding that 

the area requires special management. 

Prong two of the definition of critical 

habitat does not require a finding that 

special management is required. Please 

see the Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat and Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act sections for a detailed 

discussion of the process followed to 

delineate critical habitat for this 

designation. 

Comment 54: One commenter stated 

that recent scientific reports support the 

conservation all of the Ambrosia pumila 

populations (McGlaughlin and Friar 

2005, Machearn et al. 2006, Hierl et al. 

2007). They stated that conservation of 

A. pumila should include the 

maintenance of multiple populations 

throughout the species range. 

Our Response: We believe we have 

designated all habitat areas that we are 

able to determine are essential to the 

conservation of the species at this time. 

We recognize that the designation of 

critical habitat may not include all of 

the habitat that may eventually be 

determined to be necessary for the 

recovery of Ambrosia pumila, and 

critical habitat designations do not 

signal that habitat outside the 

designation is unimportant or may not 

contribute to recovery. Areas outside the 

critical habitat designation will 

continue to be subject to conservation 

actions implemented under section 

7(a)(1) of the Act and regulatory 

protections afforded by the section 

7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the 

prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if 

actions occurring in these areas may 

affect A. pumila; these protections and 

conservation tools will continue to 

contribute to recovery of this species. 

Comment 55: One commenter stated a 

belief that Ambrosia pumila definitely 

needs critical habitat designated for it. 

The commenter goes on to note that at 

Sweetwater Gorge, the County of San 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74582 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Diego has an area fenced to preserve this 

plant which is full of weeds; and the 

plant did not have a chance. The 

commenter believes that we need not 

only designated habitat but a way to 

keep areas open for this plant, so it will 

survive. 

Our Response: We thank the 

commenter for the information provided 

regarding this Ambrosia pumila 

occurrence. Over-competition from 

nonnative plant species is a threat to A. 

pumila throughout its range. Insuring 

the implementation of management 

actions needed to maintain A. pumila 

habitat is beyond the scope of this 

critical habitat designation. However, 

Service biologists are working with 

partners in San Diego and Riverside 

counties to recover A. pumila and 

insure management and monitoring of 

the species and its essential habitat. 

Comments Regarding the Draft 

Economic Analysis 

General Comments Regarding 

Assumptions 

Comment 56: One comment states 

that assumptions in the draft economic 

analysis (DEA), such as the discount 

rate, should be revised in light of 

current economic conditions, citing 

reductions in home prices and rates of 

development. 

Our Response: The DEA quantifies 

reductions in private land values 

associated with avoidance requirements, 

which reflects the market’s evaluation of 

the future development potential of a 

parcel given this encumbrance. This 

expectation reflects long-term 

development potential, periods over 

which housing market fluctuations 

historically have and will continue to 

occur. The market value of parcels is 

determined by adjusting assessed values 

to current values using the OFHEO 

Home Price Index. Over the last three 

years the index indicates reductions in 

home prices ranging from 7 to 32 

percent in Riverside County and 8 to 18 

percent in San Diego County. Thus, 

property values reflect current housing 

market conditions in these areas. 

Finally, with respect to the discount 

rate(s) applied in the analysis, the U.S. 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) requires Federal agencies to 

report results using discount rates of 

three and seven percent (see OMB, 

Circular A–4, 2003). In the DEA these 

rates provide a means to present 

impacts on an annual basis and do not 

affect their absolute magnitude. 

Comment 57: One comment states 

that the DEA inappropriately includes 

and does not clearly define potential 

costs associated with time delays, 

regulatory uncertainty, and stigma. 

Our Response: Chapter 2 of the DEA 

defines these categories of costs to 

provide context for EAs in general. Data 

are not available to investigate and 

quantify any potential costs associated 

with these categories in the DEA. 

Rather, costs are associated directly 

with avoidance requirements and 

associated reductions in developable 

land value. 

Comment 58: One comment states 

that the DEA understates consultation 

costs in terms of costs, time and 

opportunity costs. 

Our Response: The DEA presents a 

range of consultation costs based on a 

broad review of consultation records 

from several Service field offices around 

the country. Absent specific information 

on consultation costs for the Ambrosia 

pumila, the average of this range of costs 

represents the best available estimate at 

this time. 

Impacts to Private Lands 

Comment 59: One comment states in 

multiple sections that the DEA fails to 

acknowledge planned, approved and 

ongoing development projects in the 

Alberhill and Nichols Road subunits 

(1A and 1B). In addition, the DEA does 

not rely on the most current property 

value information for these areas, does 

not account for property value losses on 

parcels adjacent to designated areas, 

does not quantify associated regional 

economic impacts in terms of jobs and 

wages, and does not acknowledge 

additional constraints such as affordable 

housing requirements. 

Our Response: As suggested by the 

commenter, the City of Lake Elsinore 

was contacted to determine the status of 

these projects and relevance of ambrosia 

conservation measures. The planning 

department was unable to readily 

identify these projects and provide 

requested information regarding status, 

value, permitting, and the potential for 

a Federal nexus in a reasonable 

timeframe. However, the DEA provides 

estimates of potential losses in market 

value associated with these parcels, 

which partially reflect any limitations 

on future development potential. 

Additional text describing the concerns 

raised in the comment and subsequent 

discussions with the City have been 

added to the final economic analysis 

(FEA). 

Impacts to Infrastructure Projects 

Comment 60: One comment states 

that the DEA fails to recognize the I–15 

‘‘multi-modal widening project’’ in the 

Alberhill and Nichols Road subunits. 

Our Response: The DEA estimates 

incremental impacts for all properties, 

including those within Subunits 1A and 

1B (Alberhill and Nichols Road 

respectively). Although the project in 

question was not discussed specifically, 

incremental impacts to properties in 

Subunits 1A and 1B that would occur in 

the event of a project with a Federal 

nexus were calculated and included in 

the DEA. 

Comment 61: One comment states 

that the Mission Trails Region Park unit 

(Unit 6) overlaps with an infrastructure 

easement for a water pipeline. The 

commenter is concerned that the 

designation may result in additional 

section 7 consultations over and above 

those that would result under its 

proposed HCP. 

Our Response: While GIS data were 

not available to confirm overlap, it does 

appear that a portion of the easement is 

within the boundaries of the Mission 

Trails unit. Padre Dam Municipal Water 

District along with Helix Water District, 

Sweetwater Authority, and Otay Water 

District is in the process of developing 

a Joint Water Agencies Natural 

Community Conservation Plan/Habitat 

Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP or plan). 

The plan will govern project location, 

development, maintenance, and 

operation of the parties’ water delivery 

facilities. Ambrosia pumila is identified 

as a covered species under the proposed 

plan. We have not formally reviewed 

the proposed plan and determined 

whether to issue an incidental take 

permit under Section 10 of the Act to 

the water agencies. However, as part of 

our anticipated review of the water 

agencies’ permit application, we must 

conduct an internal consultation under 

Section 7 of the Act to insure that the 

proposed permit is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of A. 

pumila, and will not adversely modify 

any designated critical habitat for this 

species. Assuming the project meets 

applicable statutory standards under 

Section 7 and Section 10, we will issue 

an incidental take permit based on the 

protections provided under the plan for 

the covered species, including A. 

pumila. Because we will have evaluated 

the effects of the water agencies’ 

anticipated activities on A. pumila and 

its designated critical habitat within the 

plan area as part of our review of the 

proposed NCCP/HCP, future Section 7 

consultations, if any, that may occur 

with regard to A. pumila designated 

critical habitat are not anticipated to 

result in additional restrictions on or 

mitigation for the water agencies’ 

activities beyond the measures provided 

under the NCCP/HCP. Therefore, the 

DEA does not forecast additional costs 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74583 

associated with conservation efforts to 

maintain the district’s water delivery 

facilities. 

Benefits of Designation 

Comment 62: One comment states 

that the potential slowing of 

development as a result of the 

designation and corresponding 

reduction in infrastructure needs has a 

benefit in reducing greenhouse gases. 

This benefit should be included in the 

DEA. 

Our Response: Whether the proposed 

designation will have a measurable 

impact on greenhouse gas emissions is 

uncertain, both because of the absence 

of specific information on the nature 

and extent of future development in 

designated areas and because projects 

may find alternate locations, 

redistributing emissions geographically 

without producing a net reduction. 

Finally, the Service has stated 

previously that the underlying causes of 

climate change are complex global 

issues that are beyond the scope of the 

Act (see 74 FR 56070). Thus, the 

potential for such benefits is not 

discussed in the DEA. 

Comment 63: One comment states 

that the DEA fails to quantify benefits 

associated with open space, aesthetics, 

and educational opportunities and does 

not recognize benefits associated with 

improving water quality and quantity 

and preservation of habitat for other 

species. 

Our Response: As described in 

Chapter 4 of the DEA, the purpose of 

critical habitat is to support the 

conservation of the Ambrosia pumila. 

The data required to estimate and value 

in monetary terms the incremental 

changes in the probability of 

conservation resulting from the 

designation are not available. 

Depending on the project modifications 

ultimately implemented as a result of 

the rule, other ancillary benefits that are 

not the stated objective of critical 

habitat (such as those identified by the 

commenter) may occur. However, 

because these benefits are not associated 

with the stated goals of the rule (i.e., 

conservation of the species) they do not 

inform the designation decision. 

Comment 64: One comment states 

that the DEA fails to identify referenced 

studies that have estimated the public’s 

willingness to pay for endangered 

species and open space preservation. 

Our Response: Richardson and 

Loomis (2009; Ecological Economics 68, 

p. 1535–1548) present a meta-analysis of 

31 studies that estimate the value of 

threatened, endangered and rare 

species. Similarly, McConell and Walls 

(2005) provide an overview of the 

extensive literature on the value of open 

space: http://www.rff.org/Publications/ 

Pages/PublicationDetails.aspx?

PublicationID=9562. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review— 

Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant and has not reviewed 

this rule under Executive Order 12866 

(E.O. 12866). OMB bases its 

determination upon the following four 

criteria: 

(1) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(2) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(3) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an 

agency must publish a notice of 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

effects of the rule on small entities 

(small businesses, small organizations, 

and small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of an 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The SBREFA amended RFA to require 

Federal agencies to provide a 

certification statement of the factual 

basis for certifying that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

In this final rule, we are certifying that 

the critical habitat designation for 

Ambrosia pumila will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The following discussion explains our 

rationale. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations, such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; as well as small 

businesses. Small businesses include 

manufacturing and mining concerns 

with fewer than 500 employees, 

wholesale trade entities with fewer than 

100 employees, retail and service 

businesses with less than $5 million in 

annual sales, general and heavy 

construction businesses with less than 

$27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

consider the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this rule, as well as the types of project 

modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

To determine if the designation of 

critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila 

would significantly affect a substantial 

number of small entities, we consider 

the number of small entities affected 

within particular types of economic 

activities, such as residential and 

commercial development. We apply the 

‘‘substantial number’’ test individually 

to each industry to determine if 

certification is appropriate. However, 

the SBREFA does not explicitly define 

‘‘substantial number’’ or ‘‘significant 

economic impact.’’ Consequently, to 

assess whether a ‘‘substantial number’’ 

of small entities is affected by this 

designation, this analysis considers the 

relative number of small entities likely 

to be impacted in an area. In some 

circumstances, especially with critical 

habitat designations of limited extent, 

we may aggregate across all industries 

and consider whether the total number 

of small entities affected is substantial. 

In estimating the number of small 

entities potentially affected, we also 

consider whether their activities have 

any Federal involvement. 

Designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities authorized, funded, or 

carried out by Federal agencies. Some 

kinds of activities are unlikely to have 

any Federal involvement and so will not 

be affected by critical habitat 

designation. In areas where the species 

is present, Federal agencies already are 

required to consult with us under 

section 7 of the Act on activities they 

authorize, fund, or carry out that may 

affect Ambrosia pumila. Federal 

agencies also must consult with us if 

their activities may affect critical 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74584 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

habitat. Designation of critical habitat, 

therefore, could result in an additional 

economic impact on small entities due 

to the requirement to reinitiate 

consultation for ongoing Federal 

activities (see Application of the 

‘‘Adverse Modification’’ Standard 

section). 

In our final economic analysis of the 

critical habitat designation, we 

evaluated the potential economic effects 

on small business entities resulting from 

implementation of conservation actions 

related to the designation of critical 

habitat for Ambrosia pumila. The 

analysis is based on the estimated 

impacts associated with the rulemaking 

as described in sections 2 and 3 of the 

analysis and evaluates the potential for 

economic impacts related to: 

Commercial and residential 

development and transportation and 

utility projects (Industrial Economics, 

Inc. 2010, p. 1–6). The FEA estimates 

the total incremental impacts associated 

with development as a whole to be $0 

to $8,990 over the 20-year timeframe of 

the FEA. The FEA identifies 

incremental impacts to small entities to 

occur only due to residential and 

commercial development (Industrial 

Economics, Inc. 2010, pp. A–3–A–5). 

The other category of projects either will 

have no impacts (transportation and 

utility) or are Federal, State, or public 

entities not considered small or exceed 

the criteria for small business status. 

Please refer to our final economic 

analysis of critical habitat designation 

for A. pumila for a more detailed 

discussion of potential economic 

impacts. 

In summary, we considered whether 

this designation would result in a 

significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The annualized impact to each entity 

identified in the analysis was estimated 

to be approximately $225. This impact 

is less than 10 percent of the total 

incremental impact identified for 

development activities. Based on the 

above reasoning and currently available 

information, we concluded this rule 

would not result in a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities as identified in 

the FEA (Industrial Economics, Inc. 

2010, p. A–3–A–5). Therefore, we are 

certifying that the designation of critical 

habitat for Ambrosia pumila will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act, we make the 

following findings: 

(a) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

Tribal governments, or the private 

sector, and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

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

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

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or Tribal 

governments,’’ with two exceptions. 

First, it excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance.’’ Second, it also excludes ‘‘a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program,’’ unless the 

regulation ‘‘relates to a then-existing 

Federal program under which 

$500,000,000 or more is provided 

annually to State, local, and Tribal 

governments under entitlement 

authority,’’ if the provision would 

‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of 

assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or 

otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

Critical habitat designation does not 

impose a legally binding duty on nonFederal Government entities or private 

parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. Designation of 

critical habitat may indirectly impact 

non-Federal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency. 

However, the legally binding duty to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat rests 

squarely on the Federal agency. 

Furthermore, to the extent that nonFederal entities are indirectly impacted 

because they receive Federal assistance 

or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 

program, the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act would not apply, nor would 

critical habitat shift the costs of the large 

entitlement programs listed above on to 

State governments. 

(b) As discussed in the FEA of the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for Ambrosia pumila, we do not believe 

that this rule would significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments 

because it would not produce a Federal 

mandate of $100 million or greater in 

any year; that is, it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act. The FEA 

concludes incremental impacts may 

occur due to administrative costs of 

section 7 consultations for development 

activities; however, these are not 

expected to affect small governments. 

Consequently, we do not believe that 

the critical habitat designation would 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

government entities. As such, a Small 

Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(‘‘Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights’’), we analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

designating critical habitat for Ambrosia 

pumila in a takings implications 

assessment. Critical habitat designation 

does not affect landowner actions that 

do not require Federal funding or 

permits and the removal or destruction 

of listed plant species such as A. pumila 

does not require issuance of a Federal 

incidental take permit. The designation 

of critical habitat for A. pumila does not 

pose significant takings implications for 

the above reasons. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this rule does not have 

significant Federalism effects. A 

Federalism assessment is not required. 

In keeping with Department of the 

Interior and Department of Commerce 

policy, we requested information from, 

and coordinated development of this 

proposed critical habitat designation 

with, appropriate State resource 

agencies in California. The designation 

may have some benefit to these 

governments because the areas that 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined. This information does 

not alter where and what federally 

sponsored activities may occur. 

However, it may assist these local 

governments in long-range planning. 

Where State and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) would be required. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74585 

While non-Federal entities that receive 

Federal funding, assistance, or permits, 

or that otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988 (Civil Justice Reform), it has been 

determined that the rule does not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

that it meets the requirements of 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. 

We have designated critical habitat in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Act. This rule uses standard property 

descriptions and identifies the PCEs 

within the designated areas to assist the 

public in understanding the habitat 

needs of Ambrosia pumila. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). This rule will not impose 

recordkeeping or reporting requirements 

on State or local governments, 

individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses as 

defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) in connection with designating 

critical habitat under the Act. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). This position was upheld by the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 

F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 

516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, 

and the Department of the Interior’s 

manual at 512 DM 2, we have a 

responsibility to communicate 

meaningfully with recognized Federal 

Tribes on a government-to-government 

basis. In accordance with Secretarial 

Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American 

Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal 

Trust Responsibilities, and the 

Endangered Species Act), we readily 

acknowledge our responsibilities to 

work directly with Tribes in developing 

programs for healthy ecosystems, to 

acknowledge that tribal lands are not 

subject to the same controls as Federal 

public lands, to remain sensitive to 

Indian culture, and to make information 

available to Tribes. 

We determined that there are no tribal 

lands occupied at the time of listing that 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species, nor are 

there any unoccupied tribal lands that 

are essential for the conservation of 

Ambrosia pumila. Therefore, critical 

habitat for A. pumila is not being 

designated on tribal lands. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

an Executive Order (E.O. 13211; Actions 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) on regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 

requires agencies to prepare Statements 

of Energy Effects when undertaking 

certain actions. Based on an analysis 

conducted for this designation, we 

determined that the final designation of 

critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila is 

not expected to significantly affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or use. 

Therefore, this action is not a significant 

energy action, and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available on 

http://www.regulations.gov and upon 

request from the Field Supervisor, 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section). 

Author(s) 

The primary author of this notice is 

the staff from the Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 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 for 

‘‘Ambrosia pumila (San Diego 

ambrosia)’’ under family Asteraceae to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range Family Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Scientific name Common name 

FLOWERING PLANTS

* * * * * * * 

Ambrosia pumila ........................ San Diego ambrosia.U.S.A. (CA), 

Mexico.

Asteraceae .. E .................. 727 17.96 NA 

* * * * * * * 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74586 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 3. In § 17.96(a), add an entry for 

‘‘Ambrosia pumila (San Diego 

ambrosia)’’ in alphabetic order under 

family Asteraceae to read as follows: 

§ 17.96 Critical habitat—plants. 

(a) Flowering plants. 

* * * * * 

Family Asteraceae: Ambrosia pumila 

(San Diego ambrosia). 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Riverside and San Diego Counties, 

California, on the maps below. 

(2) Within these areas, the primary 

constituent elements (PCE) for Ambrosia 

pumila are: 

(i) PCE 1—Sandy loam or clay soils 

(regardless of disturbance status), 

including (but not limited to) the 

Placentia (sandy loam), Diablo (clay), 

and Ramona (sandy loam) soil series 

that occur on or near (up to several 

hundred meters from but not directly 

adjacent to) a river, creek, or other 

drainage, or within the watershed of a 

vernal pool, and that occur on an upper 

terrace (flat or gently sloping areas of 0 

to 42 percent slopes are typical for 

terraces on which Ambrosia pumila 

occurrences are found). 

(ii) PCE 2—Grassland or ruderal 

habitat types, or openings within coastal 

sage scrub, on the soil types and 

topography described in PCE 1, that 

provide adequate sunlight, and airflow 

for wind pollination. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures existing on the 

effective date of this rule and not 

containing one of more of the primary 

constituent elements, such as buildings, 

aqueducts, airports, and roads, and the 

land on which such structures are 

located. 

(4) Critical habitat map units. Data 

layers defining map units were created 

using a base of U.S. Geological Survey 

7.5′ quadrangle maps. Critical habitat 

units were then mapped using Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone 11, 

North American Datum (NAD) 1983 

coordinates. 

(5) Note: Index Map of critical habitat 

units for Ambrosia pumila (San Diego 

ambrosia) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74587 

(6) Unit 1: Santa Ana River 

Watershed, Riverside County, 

California. 

(i) Subunit 1A: Alberhill (Lake Street). 

From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

Alberhill, land bounded by the 

following Universal Transverse 

Mercator (UTM) Zone 11, North 

American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) 

coordinates (E, N): 463686, 3731715; 

463700, 3731686; 463720, 3731646; 

463716, 3731644; 463729, 3731595; 

463760, 3731582; 463782, 3731595; 

463814, 3731641; 463886, 3731662; 

463886, 3731649; 463787, 3731553; 

463823, 3731472; 463814, 3731470; 

463800, 3731468; 463786, 3731467; 

463772, 3731467; 463757, 3731467; 

463743, 3731468; 463729, 3731470; 

463715, 3731473; 463701, 3731476; 

463687, 3731480; 463684, 3731482; 

463668, 3731487; 463658, 3731491; 

463653, 3731493; 463650, 3731494; 

463643, 3731498; 463626, 3731504; 

463609, 3731512; 463606, 3731513; 

463589, 3731523; 463575, 3731532; 

463568, 3731536; 463565, 3731539; 

463559, 3731544; 463555, 3731547; 

463546, 3731555; 463529, 3731572; 

463521, 3731580; 463514, 3731589; 

463501, 3731607; 463491, 3731625; 

463483, 3731641; 463479, 3731650; 

463477, 3731653; 463475, 3731658; 

463471, 3731671; 463465, 3731693; 

463464, 3731699; 463467, 3731698; 

463480, 3731696; 463496, 3731713; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3ER30NO10.213</GPH>
74588 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

463509, 3731725; 463524, 3731739; 

463548, 3731743; 463563, 3731732; 

463661, 3731718; thence returning to 

463686, 3731715. Continue to 463692, 

3732048; 463718, 3732037; 463768, 

3732026; 463824, 3732016; 463861, 

3732009; 463916, 3732007; 463940, 

3732008; 463960, 3732009; 464014, 

3732012; 464040, 3732016; 464046, 

3732009; 464054, 3731998; 464062, 

3731986; 464068, 3731974; 464070, 

3731971; 464071, 3731969; 464074, 

3731962; 464080, 3731949; 464084, 

3731936; 464088, 3731923; 464092, 

3731910; 464094, 3731896; 464096, 

3731883; 464097, 3731869; 464098, 

3731856; 464098, 3731842; 464097, 

3731828; 464095, 3731815; 464093, 

3731802; 464090, 3731789; 464086, 

3731776; 464081, 3731763; 464076, 

3731751; 464071, 3731739; 464068, 

3731734; 464064, 3731727; 464058, 

3731715; 464056, 3731713; 464009, 

3731786; 463961, 3731829; 463909, 

3731858; 463881, 3731872; 463883, 

3731805; 463875, 3731807; 463798, 

3731811; 463797, 3731677; 463737, 

3731653; 463731, 3731686; 463720, 

3731746; 463718, 3731748; 463717, 

3731750; 463718, 3731754; 463719, 

3731756; 463690, 3731916; 463615, 

3731934; 463595, 3731939; 463577, 

3732046; 463573, 3732046; 463571, 

3732055; 463582, 3732063; 463596, 

3732066; 463615, 3732066; 463641, 

3732062; 463665, 3732057; thence 

returning to 463692, 3732048. 

(ii) Subunit 1B: Nichols Road. From 

USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle Lake 

Elsinore, land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 466525, 3729671; 466527, 3729663; 

466525, 3729648; 466520, 3729639; 

466517, 3729631; 466515, 3729619; 

466517, 3729609; 466525, 3729603; 

466531, 3729605; 466542, 3729615; 

466543, 3729628; 466542, 3729639; 

466540, 3729658; 466538, 3729667; 

466538, 3729671; 466544, 3729674; 

466548, 3729670; 466551, 3729656; 

466555, 3729647; 466561, 3729637; 

466566, 3729631; 466569, 3729625; 

466569, 3729622; 466565, 3729616; 

466559, 3729613; 466555, 3729607; 

466555, 3729600; 466558, 3729592; 

466563, 3729586; 466573, 3729586; 

466580, 3729589; 466589, 3729589; 

466594, 3729586; 466603, 3729577; 

466610, 3729562; 466611, 3729550; 

466613, 3729539; 466622, 3729531; 

466631, 3729528; 466621, 3729517; 

466609, 3729506; 466596, 3729495; 

466589, 3729490; 466549, 3729462; 

466543, 3729457; 466528, 3729448; 

466513, 3729440; 466498, 3729433; 

466482, 3729427; 466466, 3729422; 

466461, 3729420; 466437, 3729416; 

466398, 3729412; 466363, 3729411; 

466339, 3729413; 466254, 3729494; 

466239, 3729510; 466203, 3729537; 

466200, 3729537; 466191, 3729537; 

466155, 3729497; 466153, 3729498; 

466128, 3729522; 466109, 3729547; 

466153, 3729578; 466204, 3729592; 

466209, 3729593; 466229, 3729595; 

466270, 3729602; 466302, 3729640; 

466254, 3729669; 466206, 3729633; 

466121, 3729614; 466103, 3729626; 

466102, 3729659; 466095, 3729690; 

466054, 3729701; 466046, 3729702; 

466044, 3729730; 466043, 3729733; 

466043, 3729740; 466042, 3729757; 

466043, 3729774; 466044, 3729791; 

466047, 3729808; 466051, 3729824; 

466054, 3729834; 466064, 3729867; 

466066, 3729873; 466072, 3729889; 

466079, 3729904; 466087, 3729919; 

466096, 3729934; 466106, 3729948; 

466117, 3729961; 466128, 3729973; 

466131, 3729976; 466157, 3730001; 

466167, 3730011; 466180, 3730021; 

466194, 3730031; 466208, 3730040; 

466223, 3730048; 466239, 3730055; 

466255, 3730061; 466260, 3730063; 

466294, 3730073; 466305, 3730077; 

466322, 3730081; 466338, 3730083; 

466355, 3730085; 466357, 3730085; 

466359, 3730079; 466361, 3730061; 

466379, 3730040; 466384, 3730029; 

466392, 3730021; 466402, 3730013; 

466413, 3730002; 466421, 3729993; 

466427, 3729983; 466433, 3729973; 

466438, 3729964; 466441, 3729946; 

466442, 3729922; 466439, 3729903; 

466435, 3729886; 466432, 3729870; 

466432, 3729866; 466430, 3729857; 

466425, 3729842; 466422, 3729831; 

466420, 3729819; 466420, 3729814; 

466424, 3729812; 466446, 3729784; 

466454, 3729740; 466456, 3729738; 

466474, 3729727; 466486, 3729719; 

466494, 3729711; 466509, 3729699; 

466518, 3729688; 466522, 3729681; 

thence returning to 466525, 3729671. 

Continue to 466671, 3729914; 466713, 

3729743; 466713, 3729740; 466713, 

3729724; 466687, 3729719; 466666, 

3729753; 466662, 3729760; 466636, 

3729756; 466601, 3729723; 466601, 

3729720; 466604, 3729684; 466609, 

3729671; 466629, 3729620; 466637, 

3729599; 466662, 3729569; 466654, 

3729557; 466651, 3729566; 466639, 

3729588; 466623, 3729610; 466616, 

3729630; 466614, 3729636; 466611, 

3729645; 466605, 3729660; 466603, 

3729663; 466594, 3729679; 466590, 

3729692; 466585, 3729699; 466584, 

3729700; 466568, 3729709; 466550, 

3729723; 466538, 3729743; 466517, 

3729758; 466500, 3729775; 466487, 

3729788; 466478, 3729801; 466470, 

3729816; 466468, 3729836; 466473, 

3729853; 466481, 3729871; 466486, 

3729892; 466488, 3729922; 466489, 

3729957; 466481, 3729991; 466469, 

3730020; 466456, 3730035; 466447, 

3730047; 466438, 3730059; 466432, 

3730077; 466432, 3730082; 466448, 

3730079; 466465, 3730075; 466481, 

3730070; 466497, 3730064; 466511, 

3730058; 466538, 3730045; 466554, 

3730036; 466568, 3730027; 466582, 

3730018; 466583, 3730016; 466595, 

3730007; 466607, 3729995; 466619, 

3729983; 466628, 3729972; 466642, 

3729953; 466650, 3729943; 466652, 

3729942; 466662, 3729928; thence 

returning to 466671, 3729914. 

(iii) Note: Map of Unit 1: Santa Ana 

River Watershed (Map 2) follows: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74589 

(7) Unit 3: Santa Margarita River 

Watershed, Riverside County, 

California. 

(i) Subunit 3A: Santa Gertrudis Creek. 

From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

Bachelor Mountain, land bounded by 

the following UTM Zone 11, NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 489149, 3711597; 

489149, 3711584; 489149, 3711536; 

489150, 3711526; 489182, 3711531; 

489207, 3711536; 489206, 3711534; 

489204, 3711530; 489150, 3711522; 

489032, 3711505; 489029, 3711505; 

489004, 3711496; 488986, 3711490; 

488853, 3711446; 488773, 3711419; 

488772, 3711420; 488762, 3711430; 

488752, 3711440; 488743, 3711451; 

488735, 3711462; 488727, 3711474; 

488720, 3711486; 488714, 3711498; 

488708, 3711511; 488703, 3711524; 

488698, 3711537; 488695, 3711551; 

488692, 3711565; 488690, 3711573; 

488740, 3711573; 488761, 3711585; 

488780, 3711661; 488930, 3711666; 

488932, 3711728; 488940, 3711726; 

488943, 3711766; 488947, 3711838; 

488937, 3711846; 488946, 3712065; 

488946, 3712074; 488957, 3712074; 

488971, 3712072; 488984, 3712071; 

488987, 3712071; 488990, 3712070; 

489021, 3712064; 489021, 3712064; 

489051, 3712053; 489080, 3712039; 

489095, 3712029; 489094, 3712020; 

489063, 3711973; 489021, 3711968; 

489016, 3711967; 489020, 3711850; 

489021, 3711849; 489029, 3711846; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3ER30NO10.214</GPH>
74590 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

489029, 3711830; 489071, 3711829; 

489078, 3711826; 489096, 3711829; 

489115, 3711828; 489118, 3711942; 

489129, 3711946; 489173, 3711946; 

489176, 3711940; 489179, 3711934; 

489188, 3711925; 489197, 3711915; 

489205, 3711904; 489212, 3711894; 

489219, 3711882; 489224, 3711872; 

489231, 3711772; 489227, 3711772; 

489148, 3711771; 489032, 3711771; 

489029, 3711742; 489031, 3711597; 

489081, 3711597; 489094, 3711588; 

489105, 3711597; 489136, 3711597; 

thence returning to 489149, 3711597. 

(ii) Subunit 3B: Murrieta Creek. From 

USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle Temecula, 

land bounded by the following UTM 

Zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 

486159, 3705522; 486130, 3705488; 

486110, 3705464; 486117, 3705456; 

486125, 3705449; 486155, 3705347; 

486174, 3705279; 486208, 3705158; 

486202, 3705156; 486186, 3705151; 

486169, 3705147; 486165, 3705147; 

486153, 3705145; 486140, 3705142; 

486130, 3705142; 486123, 3705141; 

486116, 3705140; 486104, 3705140; 

486076, 3705140; 486058, 3705142; 

486045, 3705144; 486030, 3705146; 

486014, 3705150; 486008, 3705152; 

485996, 3705155; 485986, 3705159; 

485970, 3705165; 485960, 3705169; 

485954, 3705172; 485959, 3705189; 

485959, 3705209; 485945, 3705214; 

485921, 3705201; 485918, 3705191; 

485913, 3705194; 485902, 3705202; 

485889, 3705211; 485876, 3705222; 

485870, 3705227; 485861, 3705236; 

485855, 3705242; 485843, 3705254; 

485834, 3705265; 485827, 3705275; 

485824, 3705277; 485815, 3705291; 

485806, 3705306; 485803, 3705310; 

485797, 3705321; 485791, 3705332; 

485784, 3705347; 485780, 3705357; 

485776, 3705369; 485774, 3705375; 

485769, 3705391; 485765, 3705408; 

485763, 3705420; 485760, 3705437; 

485758, 3705453; 485758, 3705461; 

485758, 3705473; 485758, 3705501; 

485774, 3705498; 485777, 3705509; 

485794, 3705516; 485793, 3705526; 

485785, 3705556; 485769, 3705566; 

485769, 3705568; 485773, 3705580; 

485776, 3705591; 485781, 3705605; 

485787, 3705618; 485794, 3705634; 

485802, 3705649; 485811, 3705664; 

485817, 3705673; 485825, 3705683; 

485828, 3705688; 485839, 3705701; 

485845, 3705707; 485853, 3705716; 

485859, 3705722; 485871, 3705734; 

485881, 3705742; 485891, 3705750; 

485894, 3705752; 485908, 3705762; 

485910, 3705763; 486004, 3705670; 

486019, 3705644; 486044, 3705619; 

486065, 3705600; 486086, 3705587; 

486119, 3705557; thence returning to 

486159, 3705522. 

(iii) Note: Map of Unit 3: Santa 

Margarita River Watershed (Map 3) 

follows: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74591 

(8) Unit 4: San Luis Rey River 

Watershed. From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangle Bonsall, San Diego County, 

California. 

(i) Subunit 4A: Calle de la Vuelta. 

Land bounded by the following UTM 

Zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 

480305, 3685329; 480306, 3685327; 

480308, 3685328; 480309, 3685328; 

480311, 3685328; 480313, 3685329; 

480315, 3685330; 480317, 3685330; 

480320, 3685329; 480322, 3685328; 

480323, 3685327; 480324, 3685326; 

480326, 3685325; 480327, 3685324; 

480329, 3685322; 480330, 3685320; 

480331, 3685319; 480332, 3685317; 

480333, 3685316; 480336, 3685314; 

480337, 3685313; 480339, 3685311; 

480340, 3685310; 480366, 3685285; 

480367, 3685284; 480360, 3685275; 

480359, 3685274; 480359, 3685272; 

480356, 3685271; 480355, 3685269; 

480336, 3685247; 480331, 3685240; 

480296, 3685207; 480296, 3685206; 

480289, 3685200; 480288, 3685202; 

480285, 3685211; 480277, 3685232; 

480274, 3685237; 480263, 3685253; 

480275, 3685262; 480329, 3685305; 

480324, 3685305; 480323, 3685305; 

480321, 3685305; 480319, 3685304; 

480317, 3685303; 480315, 3685302; 

480313, 3685302; 480312, 3685301; 

480311, 3685301; 480309, 3685300; 

480307, 3685299; 480305, 3685298; 

480302, 3685297; 480300, 3685296; 

480298, 3685296; 480296, 3685296; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3er30NO10.215</GPH>
74592 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

480298, 3685298; 480298, 3685300; 

480298, 3685301; 480297, 3685303; 

480298, 3685305; 480298, 3685306; 

480299, 3685307; 480298, 3685308; 

480294, 3685308; 480292, 3685308; 

480291, 3685307; 480291, 3685308; 

480291, 3685311; 480292, 3685312; 

480294, 3685312; 480296, 3685314; 

480296, 3685315; 480297, 3685317; 

480298, 3685318; 480300, 3685321; 

480298, 3685322; 480297, 3685323; 

480295, 3685324; 480295, 3685326; 

480294, 3685328; 480294, 3685330; 

480294, 3685332; 480294, 3685334; 

480294, 3685336; 480294, 3685337; 

480295, 3685339; 480295, 3685342; 

480295, 3685343; 480295, 3685345; 

480295, 3685346; 480295, 3685348; 

480296, 3685349; 480296, 3685350; 

480297, 3685351; 480299, 3685351; 

480300, 3685351; 480301, 3685350; 

480301, 3685348; 480302, 3685347; 

480302, 3685345; 480302, 3685343; 

480303, 3685341; 480303, 3685340; 

480304, 3685338; 480304, 3685336; 

480304, 3685335; 480304, 3685333; 

480304, 3685331; 480305, 3685330; 

thence returning to 480305, 3685329. 

Continue to 480281, 3685448; 480265, 

3685444; 480258, 3685449; 480259, 

3685460; 480259, 3685463; 480266, 

3685476; 480280, 3685473; 480282, 

3685470; 480291, 3685457; 480288, 

3685454; 480284, 3685450; thence 

returning to 480281, 3685448. Continue 

to 480471, 3685448; 480481, 3685448; 

480488, 3685448; 480488, 3685439; 

480489, 3685426; 480491, 3685416; 

480496, 3685411; 480501, 3685405; 

480503, 3685395; 480503, 3685383; 

480503, 3685369; 480504, 3685363; 

480505, 3685359; 480506, 3685357; 

480503, 3685356; 480493, 3685354; 

480473, 3685347; 480450, 3685339; 

480438, 3685334; 480433, 3685338; 

480433, 3685339; 480426, 3685349; 

480422, 3685367; 480423, 3685373; 

480422, 3685375; 480422, 3685375; 

480421, 3685377; 480421, 3685380; 

480422, 3685382; 480423, 3685383; 

480423, 3685385; 480424, 3685414; 

480424, 3685429; 480418, 3685444; 

480418, 3685445; 480407, 3685469; 

480413, 3685469; 480434, 3685478; 

480439, 3685478; 480446, 3685474; 

480450, 3685465; 480454, 3685459; 

480457, 3685457; 480463, 3685450; 

thence returning to 480471, 3685448. 

Continue to 480206, 3685424; 480222, 

3685406; 480227, 3685407; 480242, 

3685411; 480241, 3685409; 480240, 

3685408; 480236, 3685404; 480234, 

3685402; 480233, 3685401; 480229, 

3685397; 480228, 3685396; 480226, 

3685393; 480185, 3685351; 480185, 

3685341; 480185, 3685341; 480176, 

3685316; 480175, 3685315; 480165, 

3685301; 480158, 3685312; 480155, 

3685316; 480155, 3685318; 480149, 

3685342; 480146, 3685367; 480146, 

3685375; 480147, 3685393; 480159, 

3685450; 480160, 3685475; 480157, 

3685495; 480156, 3685498; 480152, 

3685510; 480146, 3685517; 480150, 

3685520; 480165, 3685512; 480167, 

3685505; 480170, 3685495; 480175, 

3685478; thence returning to 480206, 

3685424. Continue to 480632, 3685486; 

480641, 3685475; 480652, 3685481; 

480655, 3685484; 480659, 3685481; 

480675, 3685473; 480676, 3685472; 

480688, 3685465; 480679, 3685457; 

480637, 3685427; 480565, 3685379; 

480560, 3685386; 480559, 3685387; 

480557, 3685389; 480551, 3685391; 

480546, 3685396; 480544, 3685402; 

480539, 3685413; 480534, 3685422; 

480534, 3685431; 480530, 3685442; 

480526, 3685450; 480552, 3685443; 

480557, 3685447; 480565, 3685457; 

480567, 3685477; 480568, 3685489; 

480566, 3685510; 480566, 3685518; 

480568, 3685524; 480571, 3685531; 

480578, 3685533; 480588, 3685535; 

480607, 3685520; 480621, 3685509; 

480632, 3685499; thence returning to 

480632, 3685486. Continue to 480543, 

3685580; 480538, 3685577; 480549, 

3685584; 480549, 3685596; 480549, 

3685637; 480548, 3685669; 480553, 

3685667; 480559, 3685665; 480566, 

3685661; 480575, 3685657; 480578, 

3685655; 480579, 3685655; 480583, 

3685653; 480594, 3685647; 480600, 

3685642; 480606, 3685638; 480612, 

3685634; 480615, 3685632; 480598, 

3685617; 480596, 3685616; 480592, 

3685612; 480588, 3685609; 480583, 

3685606; 480579, 3685602; 480579, 

3685602; 480575, 3685599; 480570, 

3685596; 480566, 3685593; 480561, 

3685590; 480557, 3685587; 480552, 

3685585; 480548, 3685582; thence 

returning to 480543, 3685580. Continue 

to 480521, 3685637; 480528, 3685571; 

480524, 3685570; 480518, 3685568; 

480496, 3685558; 480406, 3685519; 

480399, 3685517; 480398, 3685516; 

480397, 3685515; 480392, 3685513; 

480390, 3685517; 480387, 3685522; 

480384, 3685523; 480304, 3685547; 

480318, 3685574; 480331, 3685590; 

480351, 3685594; 480357, 3685595; 

480360, 3685629; 480360, 3685634; 

480361, 3685647; 480367, 3685674; 

480372, 3685675; 480376, 3685632; 

480378, 3685620; 480378, 3685613; 

480439, 3685629; 480436, 3685656; 

480435, 3685661; 480432, 3685687; 

480435, 3685687; 480439, 3685688; 

480446, 3685688; 480454, 3685688; 

480461, 3685688; 480465, 3685688; 

480480, 3685686; 480487, 3685685; 

480488, 3685685; 480502, 3685683; 

480510, 3685681; 480516, 3685680; 

thence returning to 480521, 3685637. 

(ii) Subunit 4B: Olive Hill Road. Land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 

11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 478735, 

3683078; 478770, 3683404; 478753, 

3683404; 478723, 3683406; 478682, 

3683412; 478683, 3683413; 478685, 

3683416; 478689, 3683422; 478693, 

3683429; 478702, 3683441; 478716, 

3683458; 478723, 3683466; 478729, 

3683475; 478737, 3683483; 478753, 

3683499; 478761, 3683506; 478770, 

3683514; 478776, 3683518; 478774, 

3683498; 478770, 3683407; thence 

returning to 478770, 3683404. Continue 

to 478854, 3683318; 478868, 3683273; 

478920, 3683299; 478923, 3683301; 

478925, 3683303; 478929, 3683306; 

478929, 3683310; 478933, 3683309; 

478936, 3683312; 478940, 3683314; 

478944, 3683315; 478950, 3683319; 

478954, 3683322; 478915, 3683171; 

478919, 3683133; 478923, 3683087; 

478929, 3683027; 478936, 3682992; 

478924, 3682992; 478912, 3682993; 

478907, 3682992; 478896, 3682993; 

478892, 3682993; 478870, 3682995; 

478858, 3682996; 478847, 3682999; 

478844, 3683000; 478825, 3683005; 

478815, 3683008; 478805, 3683012; 

478784, 3683022; 478774, 3683026; 

478763, 3683033; 478744, 3683046; 

478742, 3683048; 478739, 3683051; 

478735, 3683053; 478724, 3683062; 

478708, 3683079; 478694, 3683096; 

478681, 3683114; 478674, 3683124; 

478669, 3683134; 478659, 3683154; 

478655, 3683164; 478652, 3683175; 

478646, 3683197; 478642, 3683219; 

478639, 3683242; 478639, 3683253; 

478639, 3683256; 478639, 3683259; 

478639, 3683271; 478641, 3683293; 

478645, 3683316; 478650, 3683337; 

478658, 3683358; 478659, 3683361; 

478664, 3683373; 478667, 3683380; 

478670, 3683386; 478676, 3683399; 

478721, 3683395; 478718, 3683381; 

478737, 3683377; 478836, 3683359; 

thence returning to 478854, 3683318. 

(iii) Subunit 4C: Jeffries Ranch. Land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 

11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 477180, 

3679339; 477189, 3679340; 477202, 

3679341; 477218, 3679343; 477236, 

3679323; 477240, 3679318; 477245, 

3679320; 477249, 3679321; 477248, 

3679320; 477247, 3679319; 477244, 

3679316; 477232, 3679315; 477228, 

3679315; 477221, 3679318; 477202, 

3679329; thence returning to 477180, 

3679339. Continue to 477347, 3679308; 

477347, 3679303; 477338, 3679320; 

477327, 3679331; 477325, 3679333; 

477322, 3679335; 477310, 3679356; 

477305, 3679360; 477305, 3679360; 

477307, 3679372; 477305, 3679382; 

477306, 3679382; 477313, 3679367; 

477314, 3679365; 477324, 3679343; 

477326, 3679341; 477328, 3679338; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74593 

477336, 3679332; 477349, 3679324; 

477349, 3679323; thence returning to 

477347, 3679308. Continue to 477180, 

3679339; 477179, 3679339; 477177, 

3679338; 477176, 3679337; 477178, 

3679332; 477179, 3679311; 477180, 

3679306; 477179, 3679299; 477179, 

3679275; 477177, 3679247; 477177, 

3679233; 477179, 3679233; 477181, 

3679233; 477185, 3679232; 477189, 

3679232; 477193, 3679232; 477197, 

3679232; 477201, 3679232; 477205, 

3679232; 477209, 3679231; 477213, 

3679231; 477217, 3679231; 477221, 

3679231; 477225, 3679231; 477229, 

3679231; 477233, 3679231; 477238, 

3679231; 477242, 3679231; 477245, 

3679231; 477257, 3679223; 477316, 

3679212; 477317, 3679212; 477310, 

3679201; 477303, 3679189; 477294, 

3679178; 477285, 3679167; 477275, 

3679156; 477265, 3679146; 477254, 

3679137; 477243, 3679128; 477231, 

3679120; 477219, 3679113; 477207, 

3679106; 477194, 3679100; 477180, 

3679094; 477179, 3679094; 477167, 

3679090; 477164, 3679089; 477153, 

3679086; 477139, 3679083; 477125, 

3679080; 477111, 3679079; 477097, 

3679078; 477083, 3679078; 477070, 

3679072; 477058, 3679067; 477045, 

3679062; 477032, 3679058; 477018, 

3679055; 477005, 3679052; 476991, 

3679051; 476977, 3679049; 476970, 

3679049; 476963, 3679049; 476949, 

3679049; 476935, 3679050; 476922, 

3679052; 476913, 3679054; 476909, 

3679055; 476896, 3679057; 476883, 

3679061; 476871, 3679066; 476857, 

3679070; 476844, 3679074; 476831, 

3679079; 476818, 3679085; 476806, 

3679091; 476793, 3679097; 476780, 

3679103; 476778, 3679104; 476775, 

3679106; 476775, 3679111; 476776, 

3679141; 476776, 3679173; 476776, 

3679195; 476777, 3679200; 476778, 

3679204; 476778, 3679212; 476778, 

3679213; 476776, 3679215; 476776, 

3679222; 476776, 3679223; 476769, 

3679223; 476766, 3679225; 476759, 

3679227; 476761, 3679268; 476763, 

3679301; 476765, 3679328; 476766, 

3679328; 476769, 3679327; 476772, 

3679326; 476772, 3679333; 476772, 

3679356; 476776, 3679373; 476777, 

3679376; 476780, 3679385; 476782, 

3679422; 476765, 3679423; 476765, 

3679424; 476797, 3679423; 476810, 

3679428; 476839, 3679438; 476866, 

3679437; 476870, 3679436; 476874, 

3679435; 476866, 3679427; 476864, 

3679429; 476862, 3679431; 476853, 

3679434; 476845, 3679429; 476842, 

3679426; 476842, 3679426; 476837, 

3679420; 476837, 3679415; 476837, 

3679411; 476836, 3679407; 476836, 

3679406; 476835, 3679403; 476834, 

3679400; 476833, 3679398; 476830, 

3679396; 476826, 3679394; 476824, 

3679393; 476821, 3679392; 476816, 

3679391; 476808, 3679381; 476799, 

3679375; 476787, 3679367; 476785, 

3679365; 476785, 3679365; 476785, 

3679362; 476786, 3679360; 476786, 

3679356; 476785, 3679354; 476783, 

3679351; 476782, 3679348; 476784, 

3679345; 476786, 3679343; 476784, 

3679323; 476780, 3679305; 476779, 

3679300; 476780, 3679295; 476781, 

3679279; 476784, 3679265; 476785, 

3679260; 476790, 3679238; 476797, 

3679220; 476808, 3679196; 476817, 

3679171; 476825, 3679161; 476834, 

3679155; 476837, 3679153; 476843, 

3679150; 476849, 3679151; 476851, 

3679155; 476850, 3679159; 476847, 

3679167; 476842, 3679174; 476829, 

3679187; 476820, 3679205; 476812, 

3679230; 476804, 3679260; 476799, 

3679289; 476799, 3679312; 476800, 

3679317; 476825, 3679309; 476827, 

3679321; 476828, 3679322; 476832, 

3679332; 476841, 3679342; 476849, 

3679349; 476857, 3679352; 476864, 

3679354; 476871, 3679346; 476879, 

3679344; 476885, 3679346; 476886, 

3679345; 476891, 3679344; 476897, 

3679342; 476904, 3679344; 476907, 

3679347; 476909, 3679354; 476909, 

3679359; 476907, 3679365; 476903, 

3679372; 476899, 3679383; 476896, 

3679393; 476897, 3679401; 476899, 

3679407; 476902, 3679414; 476904, 

3679422; 476911, 3679419; 476936, 

3679408; 476958, 3679401; 476963, 

3679400; 476972, 3679397; 477007, 

3679382; 477018, 3679377; 477030, 

3679373; 477041, 3679369; 477047, 

3679368; 477063, 3679358; 477062, 

3679364; 477065, 3679363; 477076, 

3679361; 477088, 3679359; 477100, 

3679357; 477112, 3679356; 477125, 

3679355; 477137, 3679355; 477149, 

3679355; 477161, 3679356; 477165, 

3679352; 477172, 3679345; 477179, 

3679339; thence returning to 477180, 

3679339. 

(iv) Subunit 4D: Gird Road/Monserate 

Hill. Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 482662, 3686370; 482664, 3686368; 

482667, 3686364; 482670, 3686360; 

482677, 3686352; 482680, 3686347; 

482689, 3686335; 482693, 3686329; 

482701, 3686316; 482704, 3686309; 

482710, 3686295; 482713, 3686288; 

482718, 3686274; 482719, 3686271; 

482707, 3686267; 482696, 3686261; 

482680, 3686257; 482666, 3686254; 

482650, 3686251; 482642, 3686248; 

482640, 3686242; 482638, 3686238; 

482634, 3686226; 482631, 3686222; 

482624, 3686213; 482583, 3686199; 

482566, 3686188; 482563, 3686187; 

482511, 3686179; 482469, 3686178; 

482449, 3686178; 482429, 3686181; 

482416, 3686180; 482389, 3686180; 

482344, 3686184; 482323, 3686183; 

482302, 3686181; 482294, 3686181; 

482290, 3686180; 482260, 3686179; 

482237, 3686178; 482208, 3686183; 

482193, 3686186; 482193, 3686194; 

482193, 3686200; 482193, 3686201; 

482193, 3686209; 482193, 3686213; 

482194, 3686228; 482195, 3686231; 

482196, 3686239; 482197, 3686246; 

482199, 3686254; 482200, 3686257; 

482204, 3686272; 482205, 3686277; 

482208, 3686286; 482210, 3686291; 

482212, 3686295; 482213, 3686299; 

482216, 3686305; 482217, 3686308; 

482222, 3686319; 482225, 3686324; 

482232, 3686336; 482236, 3686341; 

482244, 3686354; 482247, 3686357; 

482250, 3686361; 482251, 3686363; 

482256, 3686368; 482261, 3686374; 

482264, 3686377; 482268, 3686381; 

482286, 3686374; 482325, 3686376; 

482352, 3686373; 482384, 3686368; 

482397, 3686358; 482421, 3686349; 

482446, 3686348; 482467, 3686353; 

482493, 3686354; 482507, 3686353; 

482521, 3686352; 482526, 3686350; 

482529, 3686349; 482529, 3686349; 

482530, 3686349; 482533, 3686349; 

482537, 3686349; 482539, 3686347; 

482539, 3686347; 482584, 3686340; 

482595, 3686333; 482602, 3686317; 

482610, 3686315; 482613, 3686332; 

482611, 3686335; 482604, 3686346; 

482599, 3686352; 482598, 3686367; 

482597, 3686370; 482595, 3686369; 

482595, 3686371; 482593, 3686392; 

482595, 3686409; 482596, 3686422; 

482604, 3686417; 482606, 3686416; 

482609, 3686414; 482617, 3686409; 

482621, 3686406; 482631, 3686399; 

482636, 3686395; 482642, 3686390; 

482648, 3686384; 482649, 3686383; 

482652, 3686380; thence returning to 

482662, 3686370. 

(v) Note: Map of Unit 4, San Luis Rey 

River Watershed (Map 4) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74594 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(9) Unit 5: San Dieguito River 

Watershed, San Diego County, 

California. 

(i) Subunit 5A: Lake Hodges East 

Unit. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

Escondido, land bounded by the 

following UTM Zone 11, NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 493490, 3658493; 

493465, 3658587; 493409, 3658642; 

493384, 3658647; 493357, 3658702; 

493353, 3658702; 493349, 3658704; 

493347, 3658705; 493346, 3658708; 

493340, 3658712; 493338, 3658714; 

493335, 3658716; 493334, 3658719; 

493334, 3658721; 493335, 3658722; 

493338, 3658722; 493340, 3658723; 

493342, 3658726; 493344, 3658727; 

493340, 3658734; 493338, 3658733; 

493336, 3658736; 493336, 3658738; 

493337, 3658740; 493322, 3658771; 

493287, 3658855; 493261, 3658917; 

493249, 3658947; 493290, 3658913; 

493335, 3658913; 493339, 3658882; 

493358, 3658839; 493375, 3658814; 

493376, 3658816; 493379, 3658816; 

493380, 3658812; 493379, 3658812; 

493381, 3658810; 493383, 3658809; 

493386, 3658808; 493387, 3658806; 

493387, 3658805; 493386, 3658802; 

493382, 3658803; 493414, 3658753; 

493470, 3658649; 493496, 3658550; 

thence returning to 493490, 3658493. 

Continue to 493410, 3658814; 493412, 

3658812; 493413, 3658809; 493414, 

3658806; 493414, 3658805; 493412, 

3658805; 493410, 3658808; 493407, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3er30no10.216</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74595 

3658810; 493405, 3658813; 493402, 

3658812; 493397, 3658813; 493394, 

3658814; 493392, 3658815; 493394, 

3658816; 493398, 3658817; 493399, 

3658820; 493398, 3658822; 493398, 

3658824; 493398, 3658826; 493401, 

3658824; 493401, 3658822; 493403, 

3658822; 493404, 3658821; 493406, 

3658819; 493408, 3658817; 493409, 

3658814; thence returning to 493410, 

3658814. Continue to 493770, 3658577; 

493770, 3658565; 493770, 3658561; 

493770, 3658554; 493770, 3658547; 

493769, 3658542; 493770, 3658539; 

493770, 3658537; 493766, 3658542; 

493762, 3658547; 493758, 3658553; 

493756, 3658555; 493755, 3658556; 

493753, 3658557; 493751, 3658559; 

493747, 3658562; 493730, 3658577; 

493727, 3658573; 493719, 3658565; 

493716, 3658565; 493709, 3658564; 

493705, 3658564; 493700, 3658563; 

493697, 3658561; 493693, 3658560; 

493688, 3658560; 493680, 3658559; 

493674, 3658555; 493670, 3658552; 

493665, 3658549; 493662, 3658546; 

493658, 3658544; 493655, 3658542; 

493650, 3658540; 493648, 3658538; 

493643, 3658537; 493641, 3658536; 

493639, 3658535; 493635, 3658533; 

493631, 3658533; 493628, 3658533; 

493626, 3658533; 493624, 3658533; 

493620, 3658534; 493617, 3658535; 

493616, 3658541; 493616, 3658543; 

493616, 3658547; 493616, 3658558; 

493618, 3658566; 493621, 3658572; 

493623, 3658577; 493624, 3658582; 

493624, 3658586; 493623, 3658589; 

493622, 3658594; 493622, 3658599; 

493640, 3658593; 493661, 3658584; 

493690, 3658573; 493702, 3658586; 

493739, 3658624; 493683, 3658667; 

493678, 3658671; 493732, 3658756; 

493735, 3658749; 493739, 3658740; 

493740, 3658737; 493748, 3658716; 

493752, 3658701; 493754, 3658694; 

493756, 3658684; 493758, 3658668; 

493759, 3658647; 493762, 3658636; 

493765, 3658615; 493766, 3658608; 

493767, 3658599; 493768, 3658586; 

thence returning to 493770, 3658577. 

Continue to 493574, 3658234; 493567, 

3658232; 493570, 3658252; 493572, 

3658311; 493575, 3658321; 493594, 

3658404; 493592, 3658411; 493590, 

3658421; 493589, 3658432; 493588, 

3658442; 493588, 3658451; 493588, 

3658460; 493589, 3658472; 493591, 

3658482; 493591, 3658493; 493591, 

3658502; 493592, 3658512; 493593, 

3658523; 493593, 3658533; 493593, 

3658541; 493595, 3658547; 493596, 

3658552; 493595, 3658559; 493596, 

3658563; 493597, 3658569; 493598, 

3658574; 493597, 3658577; 493597, 

3658582; 493597, 3658588; 493598, 

3658591; 493599, 3658596; 493601, 

3658600; 493603, 3658602; 493603, 

3658600; 493604, 3658599; 493605, 

3658597; 493606, 3658596; 493608, 

3658594; 493609, 3658592; 493611, 

3658588; 493612, 3658585; 493612, 

3658580; 493612, 3658572; 493610, 

3658568; 493609, 3658561; 493609, 

3658555; 493609, 3658549; 493610, 

3658541; 493611, 3658536; 493612, 

3658528; 493613, 3658523; 493615, 

3658516; 493617, 3658513; 493618, 

3658510; 493620, 3658507; 493624, 

3658498; 493628, 3658487; 493632, 

3658478; 493636, 3658470; 493639, 

3658463; 493642, 3658457; 493645, 

3658450; 493647, 3658442; 493648, 

3658435; 493650, 3658429; 493651, 

3658422; 493654, 3658416; 493657, 

3658411; 493661, 3658405; 493664, 

3658402; 493667, 3658400; 493669, 

3658397; 493672, 3658394; 493674, 

3658390; 493676, 3658385; 493678, 

3658379; 493680, 3658372; 493683, 

3658364; 493684, 3658359; 493685, 

3658351; 493686, 3658343; 493686, 

3658334; 493685, 3658326; 493683, 

3658310; 493681, 3658298; 493679, 

3658291; 493676, 3658288; 493663, 

3658278; 493654, 3658272; 493636, 

3658259; 493634, 3658258; 493626, 

3658253; 493610, 3658246; 493605, 

3658244; 493584, 3658236; 493581, 

3658236; thence returning to 493574, 

3658234. Continue to 493505, 3658583; 

493507, 3658582; 493509, 3658583; 

493510, 3658581; 493509, 3658579; 

493509, 3658576; 493509, 3658573; 

493508, 3658571; 493506, 3658569; 

493509, 3658565; 493511, 3658562; 

493511, 3658559; 493508, 3658558; 

493507, 3658558; 493505, 3658560; 

493506, 3658564; 493506, 3658566; 

493502, 3658565; 493499, 3658566; 

493497, 3658566; 493496, 3658568; 

493497, 3658570; 493502, 3658572; 

493497, 3658575; 493496, 3658579; 

493496, 3658580; 493497, 3658582; 

493496, 3658584; 493498, 3658585; 

493499, 3658585; 493502, 3658587; 

493503, 3658588; 493505, 3658585; 

thence returning to 493505, 3658583. 

Continue to 493492, 3658487; 493493, 

3658490; 493496, 3658491; 493496, 

3658494; 493498, 3658496; 493498, 

3658498; 493498, 3658501; 493498, 

3658504; 493499, 3658507; 493499, 

3658509; 493499, 3658511; 493500, 

3658513; 493499, 3658515; 493499, 

3658517; 493499, 3658519; 493499, 

3658521; 493497, 3658523; 493499, 

3658525; 493499, 3658528; 493502, 

3658529; 493506, 3658530; 493508, 

3658530; 493508, 3658526; 493510, 

3658525; 493512, 3658523; 493511, 

3658519; 493511, 3658516; 493511, 

3658513; 493510, 3658511; 493511, 

3658509; 493510, 3658507; 493510, 

3658506; 493510, 3658503; 493509, 

3658500; 493507, 3658498; 493507, 

3658495; 493507, 3658493; 493508, 

3658492; 493509, 3658489; 493507, 

3658486; 493506, 3658483; 493497, 

3658486; 493496, 3658486; thence 

returning to 493492, 3658487. Continue 

to 493492, 3658487; 493507, 3658446; 

493509, 3658440; 493508, 3658433; 

493497, 3658322; 493498, 3658242; 

493498, 3658230; 493499, 3658224; 

493495, 3658224; 493486, 3658225; 

493472, 3658226; 493468, 3658227; 

493452, 3658230; 493448, 3658231; 

493434, 3658234; 493425, 3658237; 

493415, 3658240; 493410, 3658242; 

493398, 3658247; 493377, 3658256; 

493360, 3658266; 493356, 3658269; 

493367, 3658284; 493417, 3658415; 

493405, 3658433; 493480, 3658486; 

493490, 3658493; thence returning to 

493492, 3658487. 

(ii) Subunit 5B: Lake Hodges West 

(Crosby Estates). From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangle Rancho Santa Fe, land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 

11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 486068, 

3656371; 486163, 3656336; 486256, 

3656332; 486280, 3656334; 486338, 

3656338; 486341, 3656338; 486358, 

3656339; 486365, 3656339; 486384, 

3656338; 486394, 3656338; 486406, 

3656337; 486411, 3656336; 486428, 

3656334; 486445, 3656330; 486449, 

3656328; 486467, 3656323; 486479, 

3656319; 486496, 3656313; 486602, 

3656268; 486668, 3656246; 486770, 

3656215; 486780, 3656211; 486784, 

3656210; 486800, 3656204; 486809, 

3656200; 486816, 3656197; 486819, 

3656195; 486823, 3656193; 486829, 

3656190; 486837, 3656186; 486846, 

3656181; 486853, 3656177; 486867, 

3656168; 486881, 3656159; 486885, 

3656155; 486894, 3656148; 486905, 

3656138; 486917, 3656126; 486918, 

3656125; 486924, 3656119; 486936, 

3656106; 486947, 3656093; 486957, 

3656079; 486966, 3656065; 486972, 

3656054; 486983, 3656031; 486985, 

3656027; 486992, 3656012; 486998, 

3656002; 486998, 3655997; 486999, 

3655993; 487001, 3655988; 487004, 

3655982; 487003, 3655980; 487007, 

3655963; 487009, 3655953; 487013, 

3655929; 487014, 3655922; 487015, 

3655905; 487016, 3655888; 487015, 

3655871; 487015, 3655865; 487000, 

3655865; 486984, 3655864; 486962, 

3655863; 486950, 3655864; 486936, 

3655865; 486922, 3655866; 486905, 

3655866; 486896, 3655866; 486884, 

3655865; 486874, 3655866; 486862, 

3655867; 486853, 3655867; 486839, 

3655870; 486825, 3655871; 486808, 

3655874; 486793, 3655877; 486782, 

3655879; 486766, 3655884; 486756, 

3655887; 486746, 3655890; 486736, 

3655893; 486726, 3655896; 486719, 

3655898; 486710, 3655901; 486698, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74596 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

3655904; 486683, 3655910; 486669, 

3655915; 486657, 3655920; 486643, 

3655925; 486631, 3655930; 486611, 

3655936; 486601, 3655939; 486593, 

3655941; 486583, 3655945; 486574, 

3655949; 486553, 3655955; 486551, 

3655958; 486552, 3655960; 486556, 

3655961; 486559, 3655964; 486562, 

3655966; 486566, 3655968; 486565, 

3655971; 486568, 3655975; 486570, 

3655978; 486571, 3655981; 486567, 

3655982; 486563, 3655981; 486559, 

3655978; 486555, 3655977; 486552, 

3655977; 486549, 3655979; 486546, 

3655980; 486543, 3655981; 486539, 

3655982; 486534, 3655979; 486535, 

3655974; 486538, 3655972; 486540, 

3655970; 486540, 3655966; 486538, 

3655965; 486536, 3655966; 486532, 

3655967; 486528, 3655968; 486524, 

3655969; 486520, 3655971; 486516, 

3655975; 486511, 3655974; 486508, 

3655972; 486502, 3655973; 486493, 

3655976; 486482, 3655981; 486467, 

3655986; 486454, 3655989; 486441, 

3655992; 486428, 3655995; 486419, 

3655997; 486400, 3656001; 486390, 

3656001; 486379, 3656002; 486368, 

3656002; 486356, 3656002; 486344, 

3656002; 486332, 3656001; 486321, 

3656000; 486308, 3655999; 486287, 

3655996; 486270, 3655995; 486257, 

3655995; 486248, 3655995; 486237, 

3655994; 486231, 3655994; 486223, 

3655995; 486217, 3655996; 486207, 

3655997; 486194, 3655998; 486185, 

3655999; 486178, 3656000; 486170, 

3656001; 486164, 3656001; 486159, 

3656003; 486154, 3656002; 486149, 

3656002; 486143, 3656002; 486136, 

3656004; 486124, 3656007; 486118, 

3656008; 486115, 3656010; 486111, 

3656012; 486108, 3656011; 486106, 

3656010; 486103, 3656009; 486098, 

3656009; 486092, 3656008; 486086, 

3656008; 486078, 3656009; 486070, 

3656010; 486062, 3656012; 486052, 

3656015; 486040, 3656018; 486027, 

3656021; 486013, 3656025; 486001, 

3656030; 485990, 3656034; 485978, 

3656039; 485967, 3656042; 485953, 

3656046; 485936, 3656048; 485928, 

3656050; 485921, 3656054; 485914, 

3656058; 485907, 3656061; 485900, 

3656063; 485882, 3656070; 485865, 

3656074; 485845, 3656080; 485839, 

3656081; 485833, 3656082; 485809, 

3656085; 485802, 3656086; 485791, 

3656088; 485770, 3656089; 485762, 

3656089; 485754, 3656088; 485748, 

3656086; 485747, 3656083; 485743, 

3656083; 485738, 3656083; 485731, 

3656083; 485724, 3656083; 485718, 

3656082; 485715, 3656082; 485711, 

3656082; 485708, 3656081; 485705, 

3656081; 485701, 3656081; 485695, 

3656080; 485692, 3656079; 485689, 

3656079; 485686, 3656078; 485683, 

3656078; 485681, 3656078; 485679, 

3656077; 485676, 3656077; 485674, 

3656076; 485672, 3656076; 485669, 

3656075; 485666, 3656074; 485663, 

3656074; 485658, 3656072; 485655, 

3656071; 485652, 3656071; 485650, 

3656070; 485647, 3656069; 485645, 

3656068; 485433, 3655998; 485429, 

3655997; 485427, 3655996; 485419, 

3655994; 485417, 3655993; 485415, 

3655992; 485413, 3655991; 485411, 

3655990; 485408, 3655989; 485404, 

3655987; 485401, 3655986; 485399, 

3655985; 485397, 3655984; 485392, 

3655982; 485390, 3655981; 485386, 

3655979; 485384, 3655978; 485381, 

3655977; 485376, 3655974; 485374, 

3655973; 485372, 3655972; 485370, 

3655971; 485368, 3655969; 485366, 

3655968; 485364, 3655967; 485361, 

3655965; 485358, 3655963; 485354, 

3655960; 485351, 3655958; 485349, 

3655957; 485346, 3655955; 485344, 

3655953; 485337, 3655948; 485332, 

3655943; 485329, 3655942; 485328, 

3655940; 485325, 3655938; 485323, 

3655936; 485322, 3655941; 485318, 

3655958; 485316, 3655958; 485299, 

3655965; 485282, 3655974; 485270, 

3655972; 485249, 3655959; 485247, 

3655965; 485228, 3655975; 485256, 

3656022; 485249, 3656033; 485216, 

3656048; 485172, 3656059; 485151, 

3656049; 485124, 3656007; 485074, 

3656016; 485040, 3656047; 485016, 

3656037; 484987, 3656037; 484984, 

3656046; 485023, 3656092; 485025, 

3656095; 485034, 3656104; 485042, 

3656112; 485045, 3656115; 485058, 

3656127; 485103, 3656167; 485111, 

3656174; 485125, 3656186; 485139, 

3656196; 485156, 3656207; 485170, 

3656216; 485183, 3656223; 485281, 

3656271; 485317, 3656290; 485484, 

3656374; 485497, 3656380; 485504, 

3656383; 485508, 3656384; 485515, 

3656387; 485589, 3656415; 485597, 

3656418; 485614, 3656423; 485630, 

3656427; 485645, 3656430; 485682, 

3656435; 485700, 3656437; 485717, 

3656437; 485734, 3656437; 485742, 

3656436; 485858, 3656425; 485867, 

3656424; 485881, 3656422; 485896, 

3656419; 485913, 3656415; 486038, 

3656381; 486055, 3656376; 486064, 

3656373; thence returning to 486068, 

3656371; excluding land bounded by 

485418, 3656210; 485473, 3656204; 

485522, 3656211; 485590, 3656193; 

485677, 3656187; 485720, 3656187; 

485731, 3656348; 485724, 3656348; 

485576, 3656356; 485534, 3656359; 

485509, 3656315; 485472, 3656290; 

485448, 3656272; 485411, 3656271; 

485411, 3656267; 485411, 3656234; 

returning to 485418, 3656210. Continue 

to 484991, 3655391; 484981, 3655385; 

484974, 3655382; 484970, 3655379; 

484965, 3655377; 484962, 3655375; 

484959, 3655373; 484955, 3655371; 

484951, 3655368; 484909, 3655368; 

484840, 3655368; 484812, 3655429; 

484837, 3655419; 484864, 3655408; 

484886, 3655406; 484920, 3655406; 

484946, 3655409; 484973, 3655417; 

485009, 3655435; 485034, 3655461; 

485019, 3655477; 485026, 3655483; 

485041, 3655495; 485049, 3655503; 

485057, 3655510; 485065, 3655518; 

485070, 3655523; 485075, 3655527; 

485080, 3655529; 485084, 3655529; 

485088, 3655530; 485091, 3655528; 

485094, 3655526; 485098, 3655523; 

485105, 3655525; 485104, 3655534; 

485099, 3655536; 485092, 3655538; 

485087, 3655538; 485083, 3655538; 

485078, 3655537; 485070, 3655534; 

485062, 3655530; 485058, 3655527; 

485054, 3655523; 485052, 3655521; 

485048, 3655517; 485041, 3655510; 

485031, 3655500; 485026, 3655503; 

485026, 3655505; 485028, 3655508; 

485026, 3655511; 485025, 3655516; 

485026, 3655520; 485026, 3655523; 

485028, 3655526; 485031, 3655530; 

485033, 3655533; 485035, 3655536; 

485050, 3655544; 485064, 3655553; 

485071, 3655572; 485075, 3655599; 

485073, 3655618; 485103, 3655632; 

485107, 3655634; 485110, 3655635; 

485112, 3655636; 485115, 3655637; 

485109, 3655633; 485143, 3655562; 

485112, 3655511; 485106, 3655504; 

485101, 3655497; 485061, 3655449; 

thence returning to 484991, 3655391. 

Continue to 486546, 3655942; 486553, 

3655942; 486557, 3655941; 486569, 

3655937; 486577, 3655933; 486584, 

3655930; 486599, 3655925; 486606, 

3655922; 486614, 3655920; 486622, 

3655918; 486628, 3655916; 486643, 

3655911; 486650, 3655909; 486659, 

3655905; 486665, 3655903; 486674, 

3655900; 486721, 3655884; 486729, 

3655882; 486738, 3655878; 486741, 

3655877; 486751, 3655874; 486755, 

3655872; 486763, 3655870; 486774, 

3655869; 486781, 3655867; 486790, 

3655865; 486809, 3655860; 486817, 

3655858; 486820, 3655857; 486824, 

3655856; 486832, 3655855; 486839, 

3655855; 486854, 3655855; 486865, 

3655855; 486874, 3655854; 486883, 

3655854; 486901, 3655853; 486910, 

3655854; 486943, 3655854; 486949, 

3655853; 486993, 3655855; 487014, 

3655856; 487014, 3655854; 487013, 

3655848; 487011, 3655836; 487010, 

3655828; 487006, 3655830; 486999, 

3655832; 486993, 3655833; 486987, 

3655834; 486982, 3655831; 486978, 

3655828; 486975, 3655825; 486970, 

3655821; 486964, 3655817; 486960, 

3655813; 486957, 3655810; 486955, 

3655806; 486954, 3655803; 486952, 

3655799; 486950, 3655794; 486947, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74597 

3655790; 486944, 3655787; 486941, 

3655784; 486939, 3655782; 486935, 

3655781; 486932, 3655781; 486928, 

3655781; 486923, 3655782; 486918, 

3655784; 486913, 3655786; 486910, 

3655788; 486907, 3655785; 486902, 

3655785; 486899, 3655786; 486896, 

3655788; 486893, 3655791; 486891, 

3655794; 486889, 3655798; 486885, 

3655804; 486882, 3655805; 486879, 

3655805; 486876, 3655804; 486872, 

3655802; 486869, 3655800; 486866, 

3655797; 486864, 3655794; 486862, 

3655791; 486860, 3655788; 486857, 

3655786; 486854, 3655786; 486852, 

3655787; 486850, 3655787; 486846, 

3655788; 486843, 3655791; 486840, 

3655788; 486835, 3655787; 486832, 

3655786; 486827, 3655786; 486822, 

3655786; 486817, 3655786; 486812, 

3655786; 486806, 3655787; 486802, 

3655788; 486798, 3655788; 486794, 

3655787; 486786, 3655785; 486780, 

3655786; 486776, 3655787; 486771, 

3655787; 486767, 3655788; 486762, 

3655790; 486760, 3655793; 486760, 

3655798; 486763, 3655802; 486763, 

3655806; 486764, 3655809; 486760, 

3655810; 486757, 3655813; 486759, 

3655817; 486762, 3655821; 486764, 

3655823; 486766, 3655826; 486764, 

3655828; 486758, 3655828; 486755, 

3655828; 486751, 3655828; 486748, 

3655829; 486745, 3655831; 486742, 

3655830; 486739, 3655827; 486739, 

3655823; 486739, 3655817; 486735, 

3655815; 486732, 3655814; 486729, 

3655816; 486728, 3655819; 486725, 

3655822; 486721, 3655822; 486721, 

3655820; 486720, 3655818; 486716, 

3655815; 486712, 3655811; 486712, 

3655808; 486709, 3655805; 486708, 

3655802; 486704, 3655802; 486700, 

3655802; 486696, 3655802; 486693, 

3655803; 486689, 3655804; 486685, 

3655804; 486680, 3655806; 486675, 

3655808; 486672, 3655813; 486671, 

3655817; 486668, 3655821; 486666, 

3655823; 486662, 3655824; 486659, 

3655824; 486655, 3655824; 486650, 

3655824; 486646, 3655824; 486645, 

3655828; 486641, 3655833; 486638, 

3655837; 486634, 3655842; 486630, 

3655846; 486625, 3655851; 486621, 

3655853; 486617, 3655853; 486612, 

3655853; 486607, 3655853; 486602, 

3655854; 486599, 3655855; 486595, 

3655858; 486593, 3655862; 486591, 

3655867; 486588, 3655871; 486585, 

3655875; 486582, 3655877; 486578, 

3655879; 486573, 3655880; 486567, 

3655880; 486562, 3655877; 486559, 

3655874; 486556, 3655873; 486553, 

3655874; 486552, 3655878; 486550, 

3655881; 486547, 3655884; 486543, 

3655885; 486539, 3655887; 486531, 

3655892; 486525, 3655897; 486520, 

3655900; 486514, 3655903; 486508, 

3655905; 486503, 3655907; 486498, 

3655910; 486495, 3655914; 486493, 

3655917; 486490, 3655920; 486492, 

3655922; 486493, 3655924; 486496, 

3655924; 486500, 3655924; 486504, 

3655924; 486508, 3655925; 486511, 

3655926; 486512, 3655929; 486513, 

3655933; 486517, 3655934; 486520, 

3655934; 486523, 3655929; 486525, 

3655926; 486528, 3655925; 486533, 

3655925; 486539, 3655923; 486540, 

3655918; 486542, 3655912; 486545, 

3655909; 486549, 3655906; 486552, 

3655904; 486556, 3655903; 486561, 

3655903; 486566, 3655904; 486571, 

3655905; 486575, 3655908; 486578, 

3655911; 486580, 3655915; 486579, 

3655919; 486576, 3655923; 486571, 

3655926; 486567, 3655930; 486561, 

3655933; 486555, 3655937; 486550, 

3655940; thence returning to 486546, 

3655942. Continue to 486546, 3655942; 

486540, 3655943; 486536, 3655944; 

486531, 3655946; 486529, 3655949; 

486533, 3655948; 486537, 3655947; 

486542, 3655945; thence returning to 

486546, 3655942. Continue to 484970, 

3656030; 484990, 3656022; 484994, 

3656022; 485035, 3656004; 485080, 

3655965; 485109, 3655914; 485144, 

3655848; 485127, 3655839; 485113, 

3655820; 485105, 3655815; 485103, 

3655818; 485091, 3655792; 485079, 

3655765; 485085, 3655752; 485121, 

3655742; 485122, 3655723; 485133, 

3655703; 485087, 3655665; 485055, 

3655683; 485033, 3655727; 484990, 

3655682; 485016, 3655631; 485015, 

3655619; 484956, 3655584; 484867, 

3655543; 484773, 3655500; 484705, 

3655465; 484700, 3655476; 484694, 

3655492; 484689, 3655508; 484687, 

3655516; 484691, 3655525; 484725, 

3655575; 484752, 3655566; 484792, 

3655552; 484841, 3655562; 484863, 

3655612; 484890, 3655679; 484927, 

3655762; 484963, 3655846; 484965, 

3655851; 484955, 3655884; 484931, 

3655906; 484897, 3655930; 484903, 

3655940; 484915, 3655960; 484920, 

3655967; 484927, 3655977; 484934, 

3655987; 484937, 3655992; 484945, 

3656001; thence returning to 484970, 

3656030. Continue to 486197, 3655653; 

486184, 3655747; 486164, 3655904; 

486168, 3655904; 486172, 3655905; 

486177, 3655903; 486182, 3655901; 

486187, 3655901; 486193, 3655901; 

486199, 3655900; 486207, 3655899; 

486213, 3655898; 486220, 3655899; 

486228, 3655903; 486240, 3655908; 

486245, 3655909; 486254, 3655910; 

486263, 3655911; 486273, 3655914; 

486282, 3655916; 486291, 3655919; 

486300, 3655920; 486312, 3655920; 

486321, 3655919; 486334, 3655919; 

486344, 3655919; 486352, 3655919; 

486360, 3655920; 486369, 3655920; 

486376, 3655920; 486384, 3655920; 

486392, 3655919; 486402, 3655919; 

486412, 3655919; 486418, 3655918; 

486424, 3655914; 486430, 3655912; 

486437, 3655909; 486442, 3655907; 

486447, 3655904; 486451, 3655902; 

486453, 3655901; 486456, 3655900; 

486459, 3655901; 486462, 3655902; 

486466, 3655903; 486469, 3655906; 

486469, 3655909; 486468, 3655913; 

486471, 3655911; 486475, 3655908; 

486491, 3655899; 486496, 3655897; 

486501, 3655895; 486507, 3655894; 

486513, 3655893; 486516, 3655892; 

486519, 3655890; 486522, 3655886; 

486526, 3655882; 486530, 3655880; 

486533, 3655879; 486537, 3655877; 

486541, 3655875; 486550, 3655869; 

486555, 3655866; 486561, 3655862; 

486567, 3655859; 486574, 3655856; 

486581, 3655853; 486588, 3655850; 

486595, 3655848; 486604, 3655845; 

486611, 3655844; 486619, 3655842; 

486624, 3655840; 486628, 3655837; 

486634, 3655831; 486639, 3655826; 

486644, 3655822; 486646, 3655819; 

486647, 3655816; 486651, 3655813; 

486655, 3655813; 486660, 3655812; 

486665, 3655808; 486670, 3655809; 

486672, 3655806; 486675, 3655803; 

486680, 3655801; 486686, 3655799; 

486690, 3655797; 486697, 3655793; 

486702, 3655790; 486706, 3655790; 

486708, 3655789; 486711, 3655788; 

486716, 3655784; 486721, 3655783; 

486726, 3655782; 486734, 3655781; 

486739, 3655779; 486744, 3655777; 

486750, 3655774; 486756, 3655772; 

486761, 3655768; 486766, 3655765; 

486772, 3655765; 486776, 3655765; 

486783, 3655764; 486788, 3655763; 

486794, 3655762; 486799, 3655762; 

486804, 3655761; 486809, 3655760; 

486815, 3655759; 486820, 3655759; 

486824, 3655760; 486827, 3655760; 

486831, 3655760; 486834, 3655757; 

486838, 3655754; 486856, 3655753; 

486862, 3655752; 486870, 3655752; 

486878, 3655753; 486884, 3655754; 

486892, 3655754; 486898, 3655754; 

486904, 3655753; 486911, 3655753; 

486925, 3655753; 486932, 3655753; 

486939, 3655754; 486946, 3655754; 

486953, 3655753; 486959, 3655752; 

486964, 3655751; 486968, 3655750; 

486974, 3655749; 486977, 3655749; 

486981, 3655748; 486985, 3655747; 

486983, 3655743; 486979, 3655736; 

486973, 3655724; 486966, 3655711; 

486957, 3655696; 486947, 3655682; 

486936, 3655669; 486925, 3655658; 

486907, 3655639; 486895, 3655628; 

486881, 3655617; 486868, 3655607; 

486853, 3655598; 486842, 3655592; 

486826, 3655583; 486820, 3655581; 

486814, 3655577; 486800, 3655572; 

486785, 3655566; 486768, 3655561; 

486752, 3655557; 486742, 3655555; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74598 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

486735, 3655554; 486727, 3655552; 

486710, 3655549; 486694, 3655548; 

486681, 3655548; 486677, 3655547; 

486660, 3655548; 486643, 3655549; 

486633, 3655551; 486608, 3655555; 

486601, 3655556; 486584, 3655560; 

486572, 3655564; 486517, 3655581; 

486514, 3655583; 486469, 3655596; 

486434, 3655609; 486378, 3655627; 

486374, 3655628; 486367, 3655631; 

486351, 3655636; 486310, 3655654; 

486289, 3655652; 486285, 3655652; 

486268, 3655651; 486257, 3655651; 

486245, 3655652; thence returning to 

486197, 3655653. Continue to 485696, 

3655719; 485694, 3655718; 485691, 

3655727; 485680, 3655734; 485680, 

3655743; 485680, 3655753; 485670, 

3655762; 485654, 3655771; 485642, 

3655777; 485627, 3655773; 485614, 

3655766; 485595, 3655752; 485585, 

3655751; 485570, 3655748; 485560, 

3655740; 485546, 3655725; 485539, 

3655714; 485534, 3655715; 485526, 

3655719; 485516, 3655722; 485506, 

3655724; 485498, 3655726; 485491, 

3655728; 485483, 3655732; 485477, 

3655735; 485483, 3655745; 485490, 

3655759; 485539, 3655844; 485664, 

3655792; 485668, 3655784; 485672, 

3655776; 485677, 3655767; 485684, 

3655755; 485688, 3655742; 485695, 

3655728; thence returning to 485696, 

3655719. Continue to 485125, 3655282; 

485161, 3655336; 485197, 3655388; 

485188, 3655448; 485200, 3655465; 

485201, 3655467; 485236, 3655453; 

485265, 3655443; 485268, 3655437; 

485269, 3655424; 485260, 3655418; 

485249, 3655409; 485237, 3655398; 

485222, 3655388; 485211, 3655375; 

485210, 3655358; 485214, 3655341; 

485230, 3655328; 485226, 3655316; 

485220, 3655313; 485204, 3655306; 

485187, 3655299; 485168, 3655293; 

485156, 3655302; 485136, 3655286; 

485133, 3655281; 485128, 3655280; 

thence returning to 485125, 3655282. 

(iii) Note: Map of Unit 5, San Dieguito 

River Watershed (Map 5) follows: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74599 

(10) Unit 6: San Diego River 

Watershed (Mission Trails Regional 

Park), San Diego County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle La 

Mesa. Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 497416, 3633563; 497433, 3633542; 

497440, 3633534; 497486, 3633525; 

497490, 3633524; 497564, 3633515; 

497623, 3633447; 497653, 3633437; 

497667, 3633426; 497667, 3633425; 

497665, 3633424; 497664, 3633423; 

497663, 3633421; 497661, 3633420; 

497660, 3633419; 497659, 3633418; 

497658, 3633417; 497657, 3633415; 

497656, 3633415; 497653, 3633416; 

497641, 3633406; 497622, 3633389; 

497502, 3633282; 497501, 3633282; 

497500, 3633281; 497499, 3633280; 

497498, 3633279; 497496, 3633277; 

497494, 3633275; 497493, 3633272; 

497492, 3633270; 497491, 3633268; 

497490, 3633266; 497490, 3633265; 

497489, 3633263; 497488, 3633261; 

497487, 3633259; 497486, 3633257; 

497486, 3633255; 497485, 3633253; 

497484, 3633251; 497483, 3633250; 

497483, 3633248; 497482, 3633247; 

497482, 3633246; 497481, 3633244; 

497480, 3633243; 497480, 3633241; 

497478, 3633241; 497476, 3633242; 

497474, 3633242; 497436, 3633248; 

497321, 3633266; 497291, 3633271; 

497255, 3633277; 497253, 3633277; 

497251, 3633278; 497250, 3633279; 

497248, 3633279; 497247, 3633279; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3ER30NO10.217</GPH>
74600 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

497245, 3633280; 497244, 3633280; 

497242, 3633281; 497241, 3633281; 

497239, 3633281; 497238, 3633282; 

497236, 3633282; 497235, 3633283; 

497234, 3633283; 497232, 3633284; 

497231, 3633284; 497229, 3633284; 

497228, 3633285; 497226, 3633285; 

497225, 3633286; 497223, 3633286; 

497222, 3633287; 497220, 3633287; 

497219, 3633288; 497218, 3633288; 

497216, 3633289; 497215, 3633289; 

497213, 3633290; 497212, 3633290; 

497210, 3633291; 497209, 3633291; 

497207, 3633291; 497206, 3633292; 

497204, 3633292; 497203, 3633293; 

497202, 3633293; 497200, 3633294; 

497199, 3633294; 497197, 3633295; 

497195, 3633296; 497193, 3633297; 

497192, 3633297; 497190, 3633298; 

497189, 3633298; 497187, 3633299; 

497186, 3633299; 497185, 3633300; 

497183, 3633301; 497182, 3633301; 

497181, 3633302; 497179, 3633303; 

497178, 3633304; 497176, 3633304; 

497175, 3633305; 497174, 3633305; 

497172, 3633306; 497171, 3633307; 

497169, 3633307; 497168, 3633308; 

497167, 3633309; 497165, 3633309; 

497129, 3633325; 497132, 3633327; 

497145, 3633339; 497105, 3633342; 

497094, 3633342; 497094, 3633344; 

497094, 3633345; 497095, 3633347; 

497095, 3633348; 497109, 3633363; 

497119, 3633374; 497159, 3633420; 

497163, 3633424; 497166, 3633429; 

497170, 3633433; 497173, 3633437; 

497177, 3633442; 497180, 3633446; 

497183, 3633451; 497186, 3633456; 

497189, 3633460; 497192, 3633465; 

497195, 3633470; 497198, 3633475; 

497200, 3633480; 497203, 3633485; 

497206, 3633490; 497208, 3633495; 

497210, 3633500; 497213, 3633505; 

497215, 3633510; 497217, 3633515; 

497219, 3633520; 497222, 3633530; 

497240, 3633585; 497267, 3633572; 

497316, 3633562; 497347, 3633594; 

497350, 3633597; 497359, 3633637; 

497395, 3633637; 497391, 3633607; 

thence returning to 497416, 3633563. 

Continue to 497667, 3633724; 497706, 

3633658; 497714, 3633643; 497746, 

3633579; 497750, 3633570; 497745, 

3633571; 497666, 3633595; 497632, 

3633604; 497609, 3633598; 497597, 

3633594; 497568, 3633623; 497468, 

3633685; 497478, 3633726; 497513, 

3633712; 497537, 3633722; 497518, 

3633746; 497463, 3633780; 497456, 

3633786; 497466, 3633785; 497473, 

3633785; 497491, 3633784; 497507, 

3633782; 497517, 3633781; 497548, 

3633775; 497582, 3633764; 497606, 

3633759; 497614, 3633757; 497618, 

3633756; 497630, 3633752; 497642, 

3633747; 497654, 3633742; 497658, 

3633740; thence returning to 497667, 

3633724. Continue to 497734, 3633375; 

497757, 3633359; 497793, 3633362; 

497815, 3633364; 497811, 3633356; 

497804, 3633344; 497797, 3633332; 

497791, 3633336; 497713, 3633382; 

497683, 3633399; 497685, 3633402; 

497691, 3633408; 497709, 3633394; 

497722, 3633383; thence returning to 

497734, 3633375. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 6, San Diego 

River Watershed (Map 6) follows: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74601 

(11) Unit 7: Sweetwater River 

Watershed. From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangle Jamul Mountains, San Diego 

County, California. 

(i) Subunit 7A: Jamul Drive, land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 

11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 508257, 

3622795; 508265, 3622710; 508240, 

3622721; 508243, 3622534; 508294, 

3622538; 508280, 3622534; 508265, 

3622522; 508263, 3622516; 508252, 

3622510; 508248, 3622507; 508235, 

3622498; 508230, 3622497; 508186, 

3622467; 508145, 3622409; 508096, 

3622372; 508090, 3622382; 508083, 

3622382; 508075, 3622386; 508071, 

3622393; 508069, 3622400; 508066, 

3622405; 508059, 3622409; 508055, 

3622415; 508055, 3622423; 508060, 

3622431; 508034, 3622474; 508071, 

3622495; 508095, 3622462; 508148, 

3622529; 508173, 3622590; 508168, 

3622714; 508145, 3622769; 508138, 

3622783; 508090, 3622755; 508081, 

3622750; 508081, 3622720; 508081, 

3622701; 508032, 3622672; 508025, 

3622712; 508024, 3622721; 508014, 

3622716; 508003, 3622710; 508014, 

3622722; 508026, 3622734; 508040, 

3622745; 508053, 3622755; 508068, 

3622764; 508076, 3622768; 508089, 

3622775; 508105, 3622782; 508121, 

3622788; 508137, 3622793; 508153, 

3622797; 508170, 3622800; 508182, 

3622801; 508188, 3622802; 508196, 

3622802; 508229, 3622802; 508246, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3er30no10.218</GPH>
74602 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

3622800; 508259, 3622798; thence 

returning to 508257, 3622795. Continue 

to 508468, 3622646; 508485, 3622630; 

508517, 3622630; 508534, 3622638; 

508542, 3622640; 508558, 3622642; 

508542, 3622609; 508536, 3622576; 

508559, 3622577; 508651, 3622578; 

508673, 3622575; 508700, 3622571; 

508702, 3622561; 508702, 3622558; 

508705, 3622544; 508705, 3622536; 

508706, 3622527; 508707, 3622510; 

508706, 3622494; 508705, 3622476; 

508702, 3622460; 508699, 3622448; 

508697, 3622439; 508696, 3622434; 

508694, 3622427; 508691, 3622417; 

508688, 3622409; 508682, 3622392; 

508675, 3622377; 508667, 3622362; 

508658, 3622348; 508654, 3622341; 

508647, 3622332; 508642, 3622325; 

508634, 3622316; 508631, 3622312; 

508619, 3622299; 508607, 3622288; 

508594, 3622277; 508581, 3622267; 

508567, 3622257; 508553, 3622248; 

508538, 3622240; 508522, 3622233; 

508506, 3622227; 508490, 3622222; 

508478, 3622220; 508469, 3622218; 

508464, 3622216; 508448, 3622214; 

508439, 3622213; 508427, 3622212; 

508419, 3622211; 508402, 3622210; 

508385, 3622211; 508382, 3622211; 

508368, 3622213; 508355, 3622215; 

508356, 3622218; 508355, 3622222; 

508348, 3622263; 508314, 3622305; 

508310, 3622320; 508322, 3622341; 

508344, 3622369; 508355, 3622382; 

508379, 3622440; 508382, 3622447; 

508385, 3622455; 508391, 3622474; 

508385, 3622478; 508381, 3622480; 

508369, 3622497; 508367, 3622516; 

508373, 3622533; 508379, 3622539; 

508392, 3622541; 508423, 3622547; 

508428, 3622548; 508424, 3622568; 

508421, 3622582; 508427, 3622592; 

508448, 3622625; thence returning to 

508468, 3622646. 

(ii) Subunit 7B: San Diego National 

Wildlife Refuge, land bounded by the 

following UTM Zone 11, NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 506785, 3622518; 

506776, 3622486; 506773, 3622483; 

506782, 3622480; 506803, 3622474; 

506850, 3622458; 506889, 3622450; 

506892, 3622450; 506929, 3622425; 

506979, 3622418; 506982, 3622418; 

507036, 3622402; 507095, 3622387; 

507102, 3622386; 507118, 3622390; 

507118, 3622415; 507212, 3622399; 

507220, 3622440; 507278, 3622444; 

507298, 3622453; 507360, 3622474; 

507401, 3622441; 507434, 3622417; 

507474, 3622397; 507478, 3622395; 

507513, 3622372; 507520, 3622374; 

507527, 3622376; 507574, 3622389; 

507587, 3622323; 507587, 3622311; 

507593, 3622117; 507596, 3622028; 

507593, 3622026; 507580, 3622020; 

507575, 3622017; 507560, 3622010; 

507544, 3622004; 507527, 3621999; 

507511, 3621995; 507494, 3621992; 

507477, 3621991; 507460, 3621990; 

507454, 3621990; 507450, 3621985; 

507438, 3621973; 507426, 3621961; 

507413, 3621950; 507399, 3621940; 

507385, 3621932; 507370, 3621924; 

507354, 3621917; 507338, 3621911; 

507322, 3621906; 507306, 3621902; 

507289, 3621899; 507280, 3621898; 

507266, 3621897; 507259, 3621896; 

507242, 3621896; 507225, 3621896; 

507208, 3621898; 507191, 3621901; 

507175, 3621904; 507159, 3621909; 

507143, 3621916; 507127, 3621923; 

507112, 3621930; 507109, 3621932; 

507088, 3621945; 507077, 3621952; 

507063, 3621962; 507050, 3621973; 

507039, 3621983; 507011, 3621999; 

507008, 3622000; 506993, 3622009; 

506979, 3622020; 506925, 3622061; 

506917, 3622068; 506908, 3622075; 

506901, 3622078; 506855, 3622075; 

506838, 3622074; 506832, 3622074; 

506783, 3622076; 506771, 3622076; 

506755, 3622078; 506744, 3622079; 

506729, 3622075; 506708, 3622069; 

506692, 3622065; 506675, 3622062; 

506658, 3622061; 506641, 3622060; 

506624, 3622061; 506608, 3622062; 

506591, 3622065; 506574, 3622069; 

506558, 3622074; 506542, 3622080; 

506527, 3622087; 506512, 3622095; 

506498, 3622104; 506484, 3622114; 

506471, 3622124; 506458, 3622136; 

506447, 3622149; 506436, 3622162; 

506426, 3622175; 506417, 3622190; 

506409, 3622205; 506402, 3622220; 

506399, 3622229; 506394, 3622241; 

506392, 3622248; 506387, 3622264; 

506383, 3622281; 506380, 3622297; 

506379, 3622314; 506378, 3622331; 

506379, 3622348; 506380, 3622365; 

506383, 3622382; 506387, 3622398; 

506392, 3622414; 506398, 3622430; 

506405, 3622446; 506413, 3622461; 

506422, 3622475; 506427, 3622482; 

506432, 3622488; 506440, 3622498; 

506447, 3622508; 506460, 3622526; 

506470, 3622541; 506479, 3622551; 

506488, 3622546; 506494, 3622543; 

506515, 3622535; 506552, 3622521; 

506562, 3622517; 506579, 3622493; 

506649, 3622502; 506714, 3622510; 

506714, 3622576; 506758, 3622587; 

506759, 3622593; 506764, 3622590; 

506771, 3622582; 506773, 3622578; 

506775, 3622574; 506776, 3622571; 

506779, 3622557; 506780, 3622551; 

506783, 3622529; thence returning to 

506785, 3622518. Continue to 506785, 

3622517; 506850, 3622515; 506895, 

3622524; 506928, 3622512; 506953, 

3622496; 506982, 3622483; 507015, 

3622475; 507026, 3622438; 506994, 

3622434; 506908, 3622466; 506838, 

3622491; thence returning to 506785, 

3622517. 

(iii) Subunit 7C: Steele Canyon 

Bridge, land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 505615, 3621882; 505571, 3621844; 

505579, 3621869; 505578, 3621878; 

505576, 3621904; 505573, 3621960; 

505572, 3621967; 505583, 3621969; 

505599, 3621972; 505618, 3621974; 

505622, 3621974; 505635, 3621975; 

505647, 3621975; 505664, 3621974; 

505679, 3621973; 505695, 3621971; 

505712, 3621968; 505716, 3621967; 

505701, 3621940; 505673, 3621923; 

505636, 3621910; 505620, 3621886; 

thence returning to 505615, 3621882. 

Continue to 505971, 3621723; 505975, 

3621707; 505976, 3621702; 505978, 

3621690; 505980, 3621678; 505981, 

3621666; 505982, 3621661; 505982, 

3621650; 505983, 3621637; 505982, 

3621615; 505980, 3621597; 505979, 

3621584; 505976, 3621569; 505974, 

3621561; 505973, 3621554; 505962, 

3621558; 505932, 3621570; 505832, 

3621575; 505808, 3621562; 505797, 

3621556; 505794, 3621554; 505794, 

3621549; 505794, 3621533; 505792, 

3621514; 505797, 3621512; 505860, 

3621488; 505867, 3621487; 505877, 

3621491; 505918, 3621454; 505928, 

3621452; 505927, 3621449; 505919, 

3621439; 505917, 3621435; 505912, 

3621428; 505901, 3621415; 505894, 

3621408; 505890, 3621404; 505855, 

3621395; 505851, 3621395; 505827, 

3621394; 505802, 3621402; 505756, 

3621431; 505732, 3621455; 505715, 

3621480; 505674, 3621484; 505616, 

3621483; 505592, 3621487; 505589, 

3621487; 505563, 3621491; 505522, 

3621511; 505472, 3621540; 505484, 

3621544; 505529, 3621540; 505534, 

3621540; 505550, 3621556; 505571, 

3621577; 505574, 3621598; 505571, 

3621603; 505567, 3621615; 505565, 

3621627; 505564, 3621634; 505564, 

3621639; 505566, 3621652; 505569, 

3621664; 505574, 3621675; 505581, 

3621686; 505590, 3621694; 505599, 

3621702; 505609, 3621708; 505622, 

3621713; 505634, 3621716; 505647, 

3621716; 505662, 3621714; 505673, 

3621710; 505677, 3621709; 505705, 

3621718; 505762, 3621747; 505805, 

3621785; 505882, 3621851; 505883, 

3621858; 505885, 3621867; 505888, 

3621871; 505899, 3621860; 505910, 

3621846; 505914, 3621840; 505918, 

3621835; 505927, 3621823; 505936, 

3621808; 505940, 3621801; 505946, 

3621790; 505949, 3621782; 505956, 

3621767; 505962, 3621753; 505966, 

3621740; thence returning to 505971, 

3621723. Continue to 505319, 3621677; 

505307, 3621669; 505309, 3621682; 

505309, 3621686; 505310, 3621694; 

505312, 3621702; 505315, 3621718; 

505316, 3621722; 505320, 3621734; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 74603 

505321, 3621737; 505323, 3621745; 

505374, 3621776; 505397, 3621757; 

505403, 3621748; 505355, 3621707; 

505342, 3621694; 505338, 3621692; 

505321, 3621679; thence returning to 

505319, 3621677. Continue to 505603, 

3621450; 505617, 3621446; 505666, 

3621446; 505691, 3621443; 505707, 

3621414; 505716, 3621406; 505721, 

3621394; 505728, 3621377; 505790, 

3621349; 505839, 3621359; 505831, 

3621354; 505817, 3621344; 505812, 

3621342; 505801, 3621336; 505791, 

3621331; 505787, 3621329; 505776, 

3621324; 505764, 3621319; 505752, 

3621315; 505748, 3621314; 505732, 

3621308; 505714, 3621305; 505701, 

3621302; 505686, 3621300; 505670, 

3621298; 505660, 3621298; 505648, 

3621297; 505633, 3621298; 505623, 

3621298; 505607, 3621299; 505595, 

3621301; 505577, 3621304; 505561, 

3621308; 505555, 3621309; 505543, 

3621312; 505533, 3621316; 505517, 

3621322; 505506, 3621327; 505494, 

3621332; 505490, 3621334; 505475, 

3621342; 505460, 3621352; 505449, 

3621359; 505437, 3621368; 505423, 

3621379; 505418, 3621384; 505412, 

3621389; 505408, 3621393; 505402, 

3621399; 505403, 3621404; 505428, 

3621436; 505456, 3621474; 505464, 

3621503; 505478, 3621505; 505485, 

3621507; 505488, 3621505; 505518, 

3621482; 505571, 3621458; 505597, 

3621452; thence returning to 505603, 

3621450. 

(iv) Note: Map of Unit 7, Sweetwater 

River Watershed (Map 7) follows: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3
74604 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * Dated: November 17, 2010. 

Thomas L. Strickland, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29692 Filed 11–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3er30no10.219</GPH>