44238 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0054; 

92210–1117–0000–B4] 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AW20 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Ambrosia pumila (San 

Diego ambrosia) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

designate critical habitat for Ambrosia 

pumila (San Diego ambrosia) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). In total, approximately 

802 acres (ac) (324 hectares (ha)) of land 

are being proposed for designation as 

critical habitat. The proposed critical 

habitat is located in Riverside and San 

Diego Counties, California. 

DATES: We will consider comments we 

receive on or before October 26, 2009. 

We must receive requests for public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section by October 13, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0054. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R8– 

ES–2009–0054; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

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: 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from the public, other 

concerned government agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or other 

interested party concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) The reasons why we should or 

should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ under section 4 of the 

Endangered Species of 1973, as 

amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

including whether there are threats to 

the species from human activity, the 

degree of which can be expected to 

increase due to the designation, and 

whether that increase in threat 

outweighs the benefit of designation 

such that the designation is not prudent. 

(2) Specific information that may 

assist us in clarifying or identifying 

more specific primary constituent 

elements (PCEs). There is a lack of 

specific information available regarding 

what constitutes physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

this species. Additionally, the available 

information does not identify a 

consistent pattern in specific life-history 

requirements and habitat types where 

Ambrosia pumila is found. For these 

reasons, the PCEs in this proposed rule 

are broad and based on our assessment 

of the ecosystem settings in which the 

species has most frequently been 

detected and our best assessment 

regarding its life history requisites. We 

specifically seek information that may 

assist us in defining those physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species which may 

require special management 

considerations or protection, or in 

identifying specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it was listed that may 

be essential to the conservation of the 

species. In particular, answers to the 

following questions may be helpful to 

clarify or identify more specific PCEs of 

Ambrosia pumila habitat: 

• Does the species reproduce via seed? 

If so, does the species rely on some 

aspect of its environment to trigger seed 

germination? 

•What are the key factors determining 

why the species occupies the particular 

areas it occupies (but not other areas 

with the same habitat type)? For 

example, what role does proximity to 

waterways or vernal pools play? 

(3) The appropriateness of designating 

critical habitat for this species. If the 

broad essential physical and biological 

features proposed for Ambrosia pumila 

habitat cannot be defined more 

specifically, or we cannot reasonably 

identify essential habitat for this species 

based on our evaluation of information 

received, it may be difficult to identify 

specific areas as critical habitat for this 

species. This may be the case if specific 

information regarding what constitutes 

essential habitat for this species cannot 

be obtained, or if the data obtained 

suggest that the species can effectively 

carry out all necessary life functions in 

a range of habitat types and conditions 

(i.e., there may not be specific habitat 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species). 

(4) Specific information on: 

•The amount and distribution of 

Ambrosia pumila habitat included in 

this proposed rule, 

•What areas occupied at the time of 

listing that contain features essential for 

the conservation of the species should 

we include or exclude in the 

designation and why, and 

•What areas not occupied at the time 

of listing are essential to the 

conservation of the species and why. 

(5) How the proposed critical habitat 

boundaries could be refined to more 

closely circumscribe the areas identified 

as essential. We also seek 

recommendations to improve the 

methodology used to delineate the areas 

proposed as critical habitat; especially 

comments regarding how we might 

more accurately estimate the additional 

surface area beyond the visible surface 

area covered by the aerial stems that we 

need to include for each occurrence of 

Ambrosia pumila in the critical habitat 

designation to ensure that habitat areas 

do not exclude unseen underground 

portions of A. pumila plants (see step 

number 4 in the Methods section 

below). 

(6) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the areas 

proposed as critical habitat and their 

possible impacts on the species and the 

proposed critical habitat. 

(7) Any probable economic, national 

security, or other relevant impacts of 

designating any area that may be 

included in the final designation. We 

are particularly interested in any 

impacts on small entities, and the 

benefits of including or excluding areas 

that exhibit these impacts. 

(8) Any issues with the exclusions 

being considered under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act as part of this proposed 

designation, or reasons why any 

proposed critical habitat not considered 

for exclusions should be excluded. 

(9) Any special management 

considerations or protections that the 

proposed critical habitat may require. 

(10) Whether we could improve or 

modify our approach to designating 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44239 

critical habitat in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to better 

accommodate public concerns and 

comments. 

(11) Whether the benefit of an 

exclusion of any particular area 

outweighs the benefit of inclusion under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in particular 

for those areas covered by the Western 

Riverside County Multiple Species 

Habitat Conservation Plan (Western 

Riverside MSHCP), and Subarea Plans 

(City of San Diego and County of San 

Diego) under the San Diego Multiple 

Species Conservation Program (MSCP), 

and specific reasons why. 

(12) Whether the benefit of excluding 

the area proposed as critical habitat 

within the City of Oceanside in San 

Diego County (Subunit 4C) under 

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

benefit of including this area as critical 

habitat, and specific reasons why. The 

City of Oceanside is working on a 

Subarea Plan under the Northwestern 

San Diego County Multiple Habitat 

Conservation Plan (MHCP) in 

cooperation with the Service. 

Our final determination concerning 

critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila will 

take into consideration all written 

comments and comments received 

during a public hearing, should one be 

requested, and any additional 

information we receive during the 

public comment period. These 

comments will be included in the 

public record for this rulemaking. Our 

final determination will also incorporate 

all comments requested of peer 

reviewers and received during the 

comment period. Finally, our final 

determination concerning critical 

habitat will consider all written 

comments and any additional 

information we receive during the 

comment period for the draft Economic 

Analysis (DEA). On the basis of peer 

reviewer and public comments, we may, 

during the development of our final 

determination, find that areas within 

those proposed do not meet the 

definition of critical habitat, that some 

modifications to the described 

boundaries are appropriate, or that areas 

are not appropriate for exclusion under 

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

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

We will post your entire comment— 

including your personal identifying 

information—on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. If you provide 

personal identifying information in 

addition to the required items specified 

in the previous paragraph, such as your 

street address, phone number, or e-mail 

address, you may request at the top of 

your document that we withhold this 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

You may obtain copies of the 

proposed rule by mail from the Carlsbad 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or by 

visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat in this 

proposed rule. This rule incorporates 

new information on the biology, 

distribution, and abundance of 

Ambrosia pumila that we did not 

discuss in the 2002 final listing rule for 

this species (67 FR 44372). For more 

information on A. pumila, refer to that 

final listing rule, which was published 

in the Federal Register on July 2, 2002. 

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 failure 

of the Service 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, a proposed critical habitat 

designation to the Federal Register for 

publication on or before August 20, 

2009, and submit a final critical habitat 

designation to the Federal Register for 

publication on or before August 19, 

2010. In this proposed critical habitat 

rule, we reaffirm that determination of 

critical habitat for A. pumila is prudent. 

However, we may revisit our prudency 

determination following additional 

review and consideration of information 

we receive during the public comment 

period. 

Species Description 

Ambrosia is a genus comprising 35 to 

50 wind-pollinated annual and 

perennial plant species in the 

Asteraceae (sunflower) family. Members 

of this genus occur predominantly in 

the Western Hemisphere, especially 

North America. Species are generally 

found in arid or semiarid areas, while 

some are weeds of cultivated fields or 

strand species of Pacific and Caribbean 

beaches (Payne 1976, p. 169). 

Ambrosia pumila is a clonal 

herbaceous perennial. Individual stems 

are generally 5 to 30 centimeters (cm) (2 

to 12 inches (in)) tall, but may grow to 

50 cm (20 in), and are densely covered 

with short hairs. The leaves are two to 

four times pinnately divided into many 

small segments and are covered with 

short, soft, gray-white, appressed (lying 

flat on surface) hairs. The species has 

separate male and female flowers on the 

same plant (monoecious). The male 

flowers have no petals, are yellow to 

translucent, and are borne in clusters on 

terminal flower stalks. The female 

flowers have no petals and are 

yellowish-white. Female flowers are in 

clusters in the axils of the leaves below 

the male flower clusters (Nuttall 1840, 

pp. 344–345; Gray 1882, p. 217; Munz 

1935, p. 544; Keck 1959, p. 1103; Ferris 

1960, p. 148; Munz 1974, p. 112; 

Beauchamp 1986, p. 94; Payne 1993, p. 

194). Female flowers produce a dry, 

single-seeded fruit called an achene. 

References to seeds in this document 

refer to the single-seeded fruits. 

Ambrosia pumila spreads vegetatively 

by means of slender, branched, 

underground root-like rhizomes from 

which new aboveground stems (aerial 

stems or ramets) arise each year (Nuttall 

1840, p. 344; Munz 1974, p. 112; Payne 

1993, p. 194). This growth pattern 

results in numerous aerial stems 

interconnected by a system of rhizomes, 

called a clone. All aerial stems growing 

from the same root system are 

genetically identical and represent a 

single individual A. pumila plant 

(called a genet) (Harper 1977, p. 26). 

Growing rhizomes extend underground 

beyond the aboveground limit of the 

aerial stems into adjacent suitable 

habitat, allowing rhizomes of adjacent 

individuals to intermingle. The 

underground interconnections can break 

or disintegrate, resulting in aerial stems 

that are genetically identical but 

physically separate (McGlaughlin and 

Friar 2007, p. 319). The extent to which 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
44240 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

rhizomes are capable of spreading has 

been observed only in individuals 

translocated to previously unoccupied 

sites. For example, A. pumila 

individuals transplanted on the San 

Diego National Wildlife Refuge in 

January 2008 were documented to 

produce new stems several inches away 

within 10 months (by November 2008). 

Additionally, A. pumila individuals 

transplanted in 1997 to an unoccupied 

site at Pilgrim Creek just south of 

Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in 

San Diego County were documented to 

produce new stems up to 70 in (178 cm) 

from the original stems within 2 years 

(by 1999) (Johnson et al. 1999, p. 3). 

Because of the clonal nature of 

Ambrosia pumila’s growth, it is not 

possible to directly determine the 

number of genetically distinct plants 

present in an area simply by counting 

stems (McGlaughlin and Friar 2007, p. 

320). McGlaughlin and Friar’s (2007, p. 

323) analysis of clonality in A. pumila 

determined that the aerial stem-to-genet 

ratio is roughly 10-to-1 on average 

(about 1 genet for every 10 aerial stems 

counted in a patch (cluster of stems)). A 

patch constitutes a spatially distinct 

cluster of stems within an occurrence, 

whereas an occurrence constitutes a 

group of individuals separated from the 

next nearest group of individuals by a 

distance greater than or equal to 0.25 

mile (mi) (0.40 kilometer (km)). 

Habitat 

Ambrosia pumila occurs primarily on 

upper terraces of rivers and drainages 

(Beauchamp 1986, p. 94; Johnson et al. 

1999, p. 1; McGlaughlin and Friar 2007, 

p. 321; California Natural Diversity 

Database data report for A. pumila 2008 

(CNDDB 2008)); however, several 

patches of the plant occur within the 

watershed of a large vernal (ephemeral) 

pool in the Skunk Hollow preserve in 

Riverside County (Dudek 2003, p. P-326; 

CNDDB 2008). Within these areas, the 

species is found in open grassland of 

native and nonnative plant species, and 

openings in coastal sage scrub (Johnson 

et al. 1999, p. 1; Dudek 2000, p. 18; 

Dudek 2003, p. P-330; CNDDB 2008), 

and primarily on sandy loam or clay 

soils (Johnson et al. 1999, p. 1; Dudek 

2000, p. 18; CNDDB 2008; USDA 2008). 

The species may also be found in 

ruderal habitat types (disturbed 

communities containing a mixture of 

native and nonnative grasses and forbs) 

such as fire fuel breaks and edges of dirt 

roadways (Beauchamp 1986, p. 94; 

Payne 1993, p. 194; CNDDB 2008). 

Nonnative grassland and ruderal habitat 

types provide adequate habitat for A. 

pumila; however, nonnative plants can 

out-compete A. pumila plants for 

resources in some situations if not 

managed. Occurrences are disjunct 

(generally 1 or more miles (1.6 or more 

km) apart) and most locations have been 

subjected to disturbance such as 

nonnative plant invasion, mining 

activities, development, grading, and 

human encroachment on foot, horses, or 

vehicles (CNDDB 2008). 

It is unclear why Ambrosia pumila 

consistently occurs in areas near 

waterways such as upper terraces of 

rivers or other water bodies. The areas 

where the species is found do not 

necessarily provide high levels of soil 

moisture, and A. pumila is adapted to 

dry conditions (Keck 1959, p. 1103; 

Munz 1974, p. 112; Dudek 2000, 

Appendix A; CNLM 2008, p. 18). 

Additionally, Service biologists have 

observed green (that is, not desiccated) 

aerial stem shoots of A. pumila after 

small amounts of precipitation and after 

other vegetation in the observed area 

had desiccated. Ambrosia pumila may 

require periodic flooding for dispersal of 

seeds and roots dislodged during 

flooding, seed germination, or some 

other segment of its life cycle. Further, 

areas subject to periodic flooding appear 

to be less amenable to competing 

nonnative and native plants. 

Life History 

The reproductive biology of Ambrosia 

pumila has not been studied to the same 

extent as the more common Ambrosia 

species, such as A. artemisiifolia 

(common ragweed) and A. trifida (giant 

ragweed) (Dudek 2000, p. 16). Thus, 

little is known about its pollination 

system, seed production, seed dispersal, 

and germination (Dudek 2000, p. 16; 

Dudek 2003, p. P-331; McGlaughlin and 

Friars 2007, p. 320). 

Aerial stems of Ambrosia pumila 

sprout from their underground rhizomes 

in early spring after winter rains, and 

flower between May and October (Keck 

1959, p. 1103). Recently, however, 

Service biologists observed aerial stems 

sprouting under dry conditions in late 

fall (Folarin 2008, pers. comm.). The 

plants senesce after the growing season, 

leaving the root system in place from 

which new aerial stems may sprout 

when environmental conditions are 

appropriate (Keck 1959, p. 1103). 

Ambrosia pumila is presumed to be 

wind-pollinated because most other 

species of Ambrosia are windpollinated, and because biological 

pollinators have not been observed 

visiting A. pumila flowers (Johnson et 

al. 1999, p. 4; Dudek 2000, p. 16; Dudek 

2003, p. P-331). Alternatively, 

pollinator(s) of A. pumila may have 

been extirpated (Dudek 2003, p. P-331). 

The species is presumed to be capable 

of self-pollination and of being selffertile (i.e., self-compatible, where 

pollen from an individual plant can 

fertilize an ovule on the same plant, 

resulting in production of viable seed) 

because other species of Ambrosia are 

capable of self-pollination (Payne 1976, 

pp. 171–172). The configuration of the 

male flowers in relation to the female 

flowers also implies opportunity for 

self-pollination (Dudek 2000, p. 16). 

However, studies are needed to 

determine whether viable seed is 

produced through self-pollination in 

this species (Johnson et al. 1999, p. 4; 

Dudek 2000, p. 16; Dudek 2003, p. P332; McGlaughlin and Friars 2007, p. 

329). 

Ambrosia pumila is thought to have 

limited sexual reproductive output due 

to low production of viable seed 

(Johnson et al. 1999, pp. 1-5; Dudek 

2000, pp. 16–17; Dudek 2003, pp. P331–P-332). Low seed production in this 

species is inferred by the lack of fertile 

fruits on all but a few preserved A. 

pumila museum specimens (Wallace 

1999, pers. comm.), and field observers 

have found seed production in A. 

pumila to be low (Dudek 2000, p. 17; 

Dudek 2003, p. P-332). Specific 

germination requirements of A. pumila 

seed are unknown. A 1998 germination 

study using 22 A. pumila seeds of 

unknown viability collected from 3 sites 

at Mission Trails Regional Park did not 

result in any germination of seedlings 

(Dudek 2000, Appendix B). The lack of 

germination could have been due to the 

seeds being nonviable or to 

inappropriate germination conditions. 

Regardless of what proportion of A. 

pumila seeds are viable, low seed 

production implies that little sexual 

reproduction is occurring in this 

species. Low levels of sexual 

reproduction is not an unusual 

condition in clonal plant species 

(Sackville et al. 1987, p. 54). This 

reduced sexual reproduction may 

negatively impact the ability of the 

species to adapt to rapid environmental 

change or environmental change over 

the long term, which is especially 

deleterious to a rare species with 

disjunct occurrences such as A. pumila 

(Dudek 2000, p. 17; Dudek 2003, p. P332). 

The dispersal strategy of Ambrosia 

pumila is unknown. Ambrosia pumila 

seeds lack structures that facilitate 

dispersal by wind or passing animals 

(Nuttall 1840, p. 344; Payne 1993, p. 

194). The species may depend on 

periodic flooding of nearby waterways 

for dispersal of seeds and rhizomes that 

can produce new aerial stems (Dudek 

2003, p. P-332). The longevity of 

individual plants is also unknown, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44241 

although plants with clonal growth 

patterns tend to be long-lived 

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

Tanner 2001, p. 1980). Finally, the 

longevity of seeds and potential for 

buried seed banks to develop in the soil 

is unknown. 

Genetics 

Little is known about genetic diversity 

or genetic distribution of Ambrosia 

pumila across its range. McGlaughlin 

and Friar (2007) conducted a genetic 

study of A. pumila to address 

conservation and management of the 

species. They found that each 

population they examined contained 

multiple genetically distinct 

individuals, but no individuals that 

occurred in more than one population. 

Therefore, they concluded that in order 

to maintain a level of genetic diversity 

capable of responding to variable 

ecological conditions, conservation of 

the species should involve the 

protection and maintenance of as many 

populations of A. pumila as possible 

(McGlaughlin and Friar 2007, pp. 319 

and 329). 

Geographic Range and Status 

Ambrosia pumila is distributed in 

southern California from northwestern 

Riverside County, south through 

western San Diego County, to 

northwestern Baja California, Mexico 

(CNDDB 2008). It is generally found at 

or below elevations of 1600 feet (ft) (487 

meters (m)) in Riverside County, and 

600 ft (183 m) in San Diego County 

(CNDDB 2008). When listed as 

endangered under the Act in 2002, 15 

occurrences of A. pumila were known 

in the United States: 3 in Riverside 

County and 12 in San Diego County (67 

FR 44372; July 2, 2002). As noted 

previously, the term ‘‘occurrence’’ as 

used in this proposed critical habitat 

rule is defined as one or more A. pumila 

plants more than 0.25 mi (0.40 km) from 

another individual or group of 

individuals (Bittman 2002, in litt.). More 

than 80 percent of the occupied sites 

identified in the final listing rule were 

concentrated in the following 6 areas: 

• Near Alberhill about 2.1 mi (3.5 km) 

to the northwest of the Nichols Road 

site in Riverside County; 

• Along Nichols Road in the City of 

Lake Elsinore, Riverside County; 

• Near the Skunk Hollow vernal pool 

in southwestern Riverside County; 

• Adjacent to State Route 76 in 

northern San Diego County; 

• Mission Trails Regional Park, in the 

City of San Diego, San Diego County; 

and 

• San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 

near the unincorporated community of 

Jamul in southern San Diego County. 

According to information used to 

develop the final listing rule (67 FR 

44372; July 2, 2002), roughly 44 ac (18 

ha)) of habitat in San Diego County was 

occupied by this species in 12 

occurrences. This habitat estimate only 

includes areas where A. pumila stems 

were found in the 5 to 10 years prior to 

listing in 2002. Similar area estimate 

data were unavailable for the 3 

occurrences in Riverside County. 

Since this species was listed, one 

occurrence was identified in Riverside 

County about 1 mile (1.6 km) south of 

Skunk Hollow along San Diego 

aqueduct, from a survey report (AMEC 

2006, pp. 12–13; CNDDB 2008), and one 

occurrence was identified in 

unincorporated San Diego County on 

the west side of State Route 76, south of 

Olive Hill Road (see ‘‘Criteria Used to 

Identify Critical Habitat’’ below). Also 

since listing, we determined that one 

occurrence, on the west side of 

Interstate 15 just north of Lake Hodges 

and south of Via Rancho Parkway in 

San Diego County, previously identified 

as extirpated or not viable in the final 

listing rule is now extant and viable. 

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, Mexico (Burrascano and 

Hogan 1996, p. 8). Two of these three 

occurrences were confirmed by David 

Hogan, formerly with the Southwest 

Center for Biological Diversity (now 

Center for Biological Diversity), and 

Cindy Burrascano of the California 

Native Plant Society (CNPS), San Diego 

Chapter (Burrascano and Hogan 1996, p. 

8). Although additional occurrences 

may have existed in Baja California, the 

species was not considered to be 

widespread at the time of listing due to 

the lack of appropriate habitat and 

impacts from agriculture and urban 

development, especially near the coast 

(Burrascano and Hogan1996, p. 8). 

All currently known occurrences are 

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. Also, because the 

plants produce very few if any seeds, 

the ability of the plant to disperse into 

and colonize previously unoccupied 

areas is diminished. Since this species 

was listed, no additional occurrences 

were documented in Mexico; the 

occurrences along the west coast of Baja 

California between Cabo Colonet and 

the U.S.-Mexico border are rapidly 

disappearing due to recreational 

development and agriculture (Dudek 

2003, p. P-330). 

Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 

3(5)(A) of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 4 of 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 by the Secretary of the 

Interior that such areas are essential for 

the conservation of the species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means the use of 

all methods and procedures that are 

necessary to bring an endangered or 

threatened species to the point at which 

the measures provided pursuant to the 

Act are no longer necessary. Such 

methods and procedures include, but 

are not limited to, all activities 

associated with scientific resources 

management such as research, census, 

law enforcement, habitat acquisition 

and maintenance, propagation, live 

trapping and transplantation, and in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot otherwise be relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against Federal agencies 

carrying out, funding, or authorizing 

activities that result in the destruction 

or adverse modification of critical 

habitat. Section 7(a)(2) 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 

the landowner. Where a landowner 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
44242 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

seeks or requests Federal agency 

funding or authorization for an activity 

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 Federal action agency’s and 

the applicant’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. 

To be considered for inclusion in a 

critical habitat designation, 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 the physical and biological 

features are found laid out in the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement essential to the 

conservation of the species. Under the 

Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, 

we can designate as critical habitat areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed 

only when we determine that those 

areas are essential for the conservation 

of the species and that designation 

limited to those areas occupied at the 

time of listing would be inadequate to 

ensure the conservation of the species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available. Further, our Policy on 

Information Standards Under the 

Endangered Species Act (published in 

the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act 

(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 proposed 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 dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. We recognize that climate change 

may cause changes in the arrangement 

of occupied habitat patches. Current 

climate change predictions for terrestrial 

areas in the Northern Hemisphere 

indicate warmer air temperatures, more 

intense precipitation events, and 

increased summer continental drying 

(Field et al. 1999, pp. 1–3; Hayhoe et al. 

2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al. 2005, p. 6; 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 2007, p. 11). However, 

predictions of climatic conditions for 

smaller subregions such as California 

remain uncertain. It is unknown at this 

time if climate change in California will 

result in a warmer trend with localized 

drying, higher precipitation events, or 

other effects. Thus, the information 

currently available on the effects of 

global climate change and increasing 

temperatures does not make sufficiently 

precise estimates of the location and 

magnitude of the effects, so we are 

unable to determine what, if any, 

additional areas would be needed. 

However, we recognize that critical 

habitat designated at a particular point 

in time may not include all of the 

habitat areas that we may later 

determine are necessary for the recovery 

of the species. For these reasons, a 

critical habitat designation does not 

signal that habitat outside the 

designated critical habitat area is 

unimportant or may not be required for 

recovery of the species. 

Areas that are important to the 

conservation of the species, but are 

outside the critical habitat designation, 

will continue to be subject to 

conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. Areas 

that support populations are 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 information available at the 

time of 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, in determining which areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing to 

propose as critical habitat, we consider 

the physical and biological features that 

are essential to the conservation of the 

species and that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. Those features are the 

primary constituent elements (PCEs) 

laid out in the appropriate quantity and 

spatial arrangement for the conservation 

of the species. The PCEs include, but are 

not limited to: 

(1) Space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; 

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

other nutritional or physiological 

requirements; 

(3) Cover or shelter; 

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, 

and rearing (or development) of 

offspring; and 

(5) Habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historical, geographical, and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

Little is known about the habitat 

specificity and characteristics of this 

species. Therefore, the PCEs for 

Ambrosia pumila are based on our 

assessment of the ecosystem settings in 

which the species has most frequently 

been detected. 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and for Normal Behavior 

Clonal Growth—Rhizome Spread and 

New Aerial Stems 

Individual Ambrosia pumila plants 

spread by underground rhizomes to 

produce a group of genetically identical 

aerial 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 investigating an intact, 

underground rhizome system. 

The extent and configuration of the 

visible portion (aerial stems) of A. 

pumila patches can change from one 

growing season to the next (Martin 

2005, p. 3; City of San Diego 2008a, p. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44243 

1). For example, see Figure 4 in Martin 

2005, in which patches of A. pumila are 

shown to change in shape and size (up 

to several square meters) from 2000 to 

2005, 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 

(Folarin 2008, pers. comm.)). These 

changes in patch size and shape are 

perhaps 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 occupied by the 

stems above ground at any given time, 

with aerial stems produced only where 

conditions are appropriate. Thus, to 

ensure that a habitat area does not 

exclude unseen underground portions 

of A. pumila plants, the area needs to 

include additional surface area beyond 

the visible surface area covered by the 

aerial stems. 

Germination of Seeds and Spread of 

Seedlings 

It is unclear to what extent and with 

what frequency Ambrosia pumila 

reproduces by seed. Presuming at least 

low rates of sexual reproduction, space 

is needed for new plants to germinate, 

grow, and spread. However, 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 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 green 

(not desiccated) aerial stem shoots after 

small amounts of precipitation and after 

annual vegetation in the area had 

desiccated, 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 (Folarin 2008, 

pers. comm.). Additionally, we believe 

that periodic flooding may be necessary 

to some segment of the plant’s life 

history (such as seed germination, 

dispersal of seeds and rhizomes) or to 

maintain some essential aspect of its 

habitat, because of the indicator that the 

plant is 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 shadetolerant (Dudek 2000, pp. 18–19). 

Ambrosia pumila stems amid taller 

vegetation obtain adequate sunlight by 

growing taller (etiolation) and more 

slender compared to those in more open 

areas (Dudek 2000, p. 19), which also 

implies the species is not shadetolerant. 

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 2008). These soil types likely 

are particularly conducive to the growth 

and persistence of A. pumila because it 

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), and 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 seen no reports of data 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 whether this species 

reproduces via seed. 

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or 

Rearing (or Development) of Offspring 

As stated above under the ‘‘Life 

History’’ section, little is known about 

sexual reproduction in Ambrosia 

pumila. Because occurrences are 

consistently found on the upper terraces 

of rivers and other waterways, 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, A. 

pumila may depend on floods to 

disperse rhizomes and seeds (Dudek 

2003, p. P-332) and to create space for 

new stems by removing or limiting the 

growth of competitors. 

Presuming Ambrosia pumila is windpollinated, as discussed in the ‘‘Life 

History’’ section above, the species 

requires sufficient airflow through 

inflorescences to pick up and carry 

pollen (McGlaughlin and Friars 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—lowgrowing plants do not block or 

dramatically reduce airflow to plants of 

A. pumila’s stature, which is generally 

less than 12 in (30 cm) tall 

(McGlaughlin and Friars 2007, p. 329). 

Ambrosia pumila is presumed to be 

self-compatible (an individual can 

produce viable seed using its own 

pollen), but this aspect of the species’ 

reproductive strategy has not been well 

examined. In a recent study, another 

Ambrosia species previously thought to 

be self-compatible was found not to be 

self-compatible (Friedman and Barrett 

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

self-compatible, genetically distinct 

individuals in close proximity to one 

another may be crucial to maintaining 

sexual reproduction in the species 

(McGlaughlin and Friars 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 

(flat or gently sloping areas of 0 to 42 

percent slopes are typical for terraces on 

which A. pumila occurrences are found, 

near, but not directly adjacent to, the 

river channel) and other drainages in 

western Riverside County, western San 

Diego County, and northwestern Baja 

California (Beauchamp 1986, p. 94; 

Johnson et al. 1999, p. 1; McGlaughlin 

and Friar 2007, p. 321; CNDDB 2008). 

These areas are or have been associated 

with a natural flood disturbance regime. 

The species is primarily associated with 

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 2008). 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; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
44244 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

CNDDB 2008). 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. P326; CNDDB 2008). 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 2008). 

Occurrences in Riverside County are 

found at much higher elevation 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, we are required to identify 

the known physical and biological 

features, called primary constituent 

elements (PCEs), within the 

geographical area occupied by Ambrosia 

pumila at the time of listing that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. Again, the physical and 

biological features are those PCEs laid 

out in a specific 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 traits of 

the habitat types in which the species is 

most often found. All areas we are 

proposing as critical habitat for A. 

pumila were occupied at the time the 

species was listed, occur within the 

species’ historical geographic range, and 

contain physical and biological features 

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 have 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 on near (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 A. 

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. 

With this proposed designation of 

critical habitat, we intend to conserve 

the physical and biological features that 

are essential to support the life-history 

functions that are the basis for the 

proposal. All units and subunits 

proposed in this rule 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 A. 

pumila. 

We are soliciting public comment for 

information to help us more specifically 

identify PCEs and essential habitat for 

Ambrosia pumila. There is a lack of 

available information regarding what 

constitutes essential habitat for this 

species. Additionally, the available 

information does not identify a 

consistent pattern in specific life-history 

requirements and habitat types where 

Ambrosia pumila is found. For these 

reasons, the PCEs in this proposed rule 

are broad and based on our assessment 

of the ecosystem settings in which the 

species has most frequently been 

detected and speculation regarding its 

life history. We specifically seek 

information that may assist us in 

defining those physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection, or in identifying specific 

areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time it 

was listed that may be essential to the 

conservation of the species (see 

questions 2 and 3 in the Public 

Comments section). 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the physical and 

biological features within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing contain 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. All areas 

proposed for designation 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 Ambrosia pumila. 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. 

Researchers estimate 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 as much of its 

habitat has been impacted by human 

activities (Burrascano and Hogan 1997, 

p. 7; Dudek 2000, p. 17; CNDDB 2008). 

A detailed discussion of threats to A. 

pumila and its habitat can be found in 

the final listing rule (67 FR 44372). The 

primary threats impacting the physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of A. pumila that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection within the 

proposed critical habitat include, but 

are not limited to, the following (67 FR 

44372): 

• 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 remove the PCEs by 

removing soil (by grading) and changing 

Ambrosia pumila habitat to urban land, 

which is unsuitable for the species. 

• Soil compaction caused by the 

creation 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 on trails, implying that 

although the appropriate soil type might 

be present, soil compaction can alter the 

physical characteristics of the soil such 

that the soil can no longer support 

growth of the plant. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44245 

• Habitat alteration caused by 

nonnative plant species that may, if 

present in large enough numbers, 

change the plant community to the 

extent that A. pumila plants can no 

longer receive adequate sunlight and 

airflow. 

• Alteration of hydrology 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 periodic flooding presumed 

necessary for the plant’s persistence 

altogether, or change groundwater levels 

that could change the plant community 

to the extent that A. pumila plants can 

no longer receive adequate sunlight and 

airflow. 

Special management considerations 

or protection are required within critical 

habitat areas to address these threats. 

Management activities that could 

ameliorate these threats include fencing 

Ambrosia pumila occurrences and 

providing signage to discourage 

encroachment by hikers, horses, and off 

road vehicle users; control of nonnative 

plants using methods shown to be 

effective (for examples, see CNLM 

2008); guiding the design of 

development projects to avoid impacts 

to A. pumila habitat; and restoring and 

maintaining hydrology and floodplain 

dynamics of waterways associated with 

A. pumila occurrences where feasible. 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not imply that lands outside of 

critical habitat do not play an important 

role in the conservation of Ambrosia 

pumila. 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 A. 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. 

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, and areas outside of 

the geographical area occupied at the 

time of listing that are essential to the 

conservation of A. pumila, or both. All 

essential areas were occupied at the 

time of listing, as discussed below. As 

a result, we are not currently proposing 

any areas outside the geographical area 

presently occupied by A. pumila 

because we have determined that 

including only occupied areas in critical 

habitat is sufficient for the conservation 

of the species. In San Diego County, 

where the pattern of extirpated 

occurrences reflects a loss of 

occurrences from each of the watersheds 

in which the species occurs rather than 

a complete loss from those watersheds, 

the areas occupied at the time of listing 

include the known historical range of 

the species (CNDDB 2008). In Riverside 

County, the loss of an occurrence near 

the Riverside Airport reflects a loss to 

the geographical extent of the range in 

that county (Provance and Sanders 

2001, p. 47). 

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 habitat 

specificity, characteristics, and breeding 

system. Additionally, data from 

different information sources at times 

conflict, further complicating the task of 

discerning the specific habitat 

requirements of the species. We used 

numerous sources of information, such 

as materials and data included in 

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 and presented in academic 

theses and agency reports; regional 

Geographic Information System (GIS) 

coverages for area calculations and 

mapping; and data collected in the field 

by Service biologists. 

We are proposing to designate critical 

habitat in areas that we determined 

were occupied by the species at the time 

of listing, and that contain the PCEs in 

the quantity and spatial arrangement to 

support life history functions essential 

to the conservation of the species. This 

includes two areas occupied by 

occurrences detected after Ambrosia 

pumila was listed. We have concluded 

that 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 near Santa Gertrudis Creek 

was found during a survey for a 

subtransmission line project in 2006 

(AMEC 2006, p. 12). The occurrence at 

the intersection of State Route 76 and 

Olive Hill Road was found during a 

general survey for A. pumila in 2006 

(CNDDB 2008). To our knowledge, the 

areas had not been surveyed for A. 

pumila previously, and we have no 

reason to believe the plant was imported 

or had dispersed into these areas from 

other areas after A. pumila was listed. 

The occurrences identified since listing 

likely were in existence for many years 

and were only recently detected due to 

increased awareness of this species. 

We are also proposing to designate 

critical habitat in some areas where A. 

pumila was thought to be extirpated or 

where, though extant, A. pumila was 

not considered viable at the time of 

listing. We conducted surveys of 

historical occurrences as part of the 

background research for this proposed 

rule. We found one documented 

occurrence area east of Lake Hodges in 

San Diego County that was thought to be 

extirpated or nonviable because the 

occurrence had not been seen since 

1999, and because records did not 

contain sufficient information to locate 

the occurrence site. Our survey found 

this site does contain a viable 

occurrence of A. pumila and meets the 

criteria set out in this rule for A. pumila 

critical habitat. The site was located 

after the species was listed and found to 

contain a large population of A. pumila. 

We are not proposing to designate any 

areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing, and all of the areas we are 

proposing to designate are currently 

occupied by the species. All units and 

subunits proposed contain the PCEs 

believed to be essential to the 

conservation of this species. 

Methods 

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

the Act, we use the best scientific and 

commercial data available in trying to 

determine areas that contain the features 

that are essential to the conservation of 

Ambrosia pumila. We used the best 

scientific data available to select areas 

that we believe may possess those 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, and that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. 

After identifying the PCEs, we 

followed these steps to delineate critical 

habitat: 

(1) We identified areas occupied by 

Ambrosia pumila at the time of listing 

as extant occurrences, where an 

occurrence is defined as an occupied 

habitat area separated by 0.25 mi (0.40 

km) or more from the next nearest 

occupied habitat area. 

(2) We determined that due to the lack 

of specific information regarding the 

needs of the species, we are unable to 

identify specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it was listed that may 

be essential to the conservation of the 

species. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
44246 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(3) We removed all areas where the 

species occurs in habitat of low quality 

for growth and propagation (such as 

pavement areas or cracks within paved 

areas). Although occupied, we believe 

these occurrences are not capable of 

providing for the full life-history 

requirements of this species and are not 

likely to contribute to its long-term 

conservation; therefore, we did not 

consider these locations as containing 

essential features as habitat and did not 

include them in critical habitat. 

(4) To define an outer boundary for 

each patch that captures the existing 

underground rhizome system (which 

extends beyond the visible aerial stems 

of plants within each occurrence), we 

added the average distance between the 

visible (aerial stems) portions of each 

Ambrosia pumila patch and the next 

nearest patch to the limits of the visible 

portion of each patch. Using GIS data, 

we found the average distance between 

clusters of stems in adjacent patches to 

be approximately 1,181 ft (260 m), and 

we added this distance to the visible 

outer limit of each occurrence to 

delineate the presumed expanse of the 

occurrence that also includes the 

underground rhizomes. 

(5) We removed any area within the 

outer boundary of an occurrence where 

habitat type was not grassland, ruderal, 

or coastal sage scrub. 

We describe how we implemented 

each of the steps above in detail below. 

(1) We identified all occurrences of 

Ambrosia pumila—those known to exist 

at the time of listing and those detected 

since 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) the 

California Natural Diversity Database 

occurrence data report for A. pumila 

and accompanying GIS records (CNDDB 

2008, pp. 1–49); (3) the data from the 

Consortium of California Herbaria and 

accompanying Berkeley Mapper GIS 

records (Consortium of California 

Herbaria 2008, pp. 1–5); (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 internal species GIS 

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). As 

discussed in detail earlier in this 

section, we consider all extant 

occurrences to have been in existence at 

the time of listing. We used these data 

to delineate GIS polygons around 

Ambrosia pumila occurrences. 

We reviewed the data that we 

compiled to ensure its accuracy. We 

checked each data point in our database 

to ensure that it represented a site 

documented by a herbarium voucher or 

observation of Ambrosia pumila and 

was not a duplicate voucher or 

observation of another occurrence in the 

database. Duplicates were removed from 

our 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 observations where the 

location could not be determined from 

available data or site visits. 

We then determined which areas are 

currently occupied. For areas where we 

have past occupancy data for Ambrosia 

pumila, we assumed the area remains 

occupied unless: (1) Three or more 

surveys for the species did not find A. 

pumila; (2) the site was significantly 

disturbed (for example, converted to 

development) since the last observation 

of the species at that location; or (3) 

specific location information for the site 

was lacking, and field surveys carried 

out in conjunction with this proposed 

critical habitat determination could not 

locate the occurrence. 

(2) We determined that there are no 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it was listed that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. Information 

found during the Service’s research in 

connection with this proposed action 

indicated that the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time it 

was listed provides sufficient resources 

for the conservation of the species. We 

do not have sufficient information 

regarding the specific needs of the 

species to determine if any unoccupied 

areas 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 pavement areas or cracks 

within paved areas). Although 

occupied, we did not consider these 

locations for critical habitat, as these 

occurrences are not likely to contribute 

to the long-term conservation of the 

species. We made this determination 

using site descriptions in the California 

Natural Diversity Database, talking to 

Service biologists, other researchers, 

and land managers familiar with the 

areas in question, and visiting and 

evaluating sites in person. 

(4) We estimated the distance that the 

root system of an occurrence likely 

extends beyond the aboveground extent 

of the occurrence by measuring the 

distance of each GIS polygon 

representing an Ambrosia pumila patch 

to the nearest neighboring patch. As 

mentioned above, an occurrence is 

defined by CNDDB as an occupied 

habitat area separated by 0.25 mi (0.40 

km) or more from next nearest occupied 

habitat area. A patch is defined herein 

as a distinct cluster of stems within an 

occurrence. We estimated the average 

distance of underground rhizome 

expansion beyond the aboveground 

aerial stems as 1,181 ft (260 m). We 

expanded the outer boundary of the 

above-ground extent of each occurrence 

by 1,181 ft (260 m) to account for the 

underground rhizome system extending 

beyond the area occupied by visible 

stems. We believe this method 

adequately captures the extent of 

individual occurrences. 

(5) We removed any areas within the 

expanded outer boundary of an 

occurrence where habitat type was not 

grassland, ruderal, or open areas within 

coastal sage scrub habitat, using the 

habitat types assigned to relevant areas 

in our GIS database, and personal 

observations of sites by Service 

biologists and other researchers or land 

managers. 

Based on the results of this 

methodology, we are proposing to 

designate 7 units that include 8 subunits 

as critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila. 

After applying the above criteria and 

methods, we mapped the critical habitat 

unit boundaries at each of these seven 

units as GIS polygons around known 

occurrences. Critical habitat boundaries 

were delineated as polygons 

encompassing the extent of habitat 

believed to contain the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. 

When determining the proposed 

critical habitat boundaries, we made 

every effort to avoid including 

developed areas such as lands occupied 

by buildings, paved areas, and other 

structures that lack PCEs for Ambrosia 

pumila. The scale of the maps we 

prepared under the parameters for 

publication within the Code of Federal 

Regulations may not reflect the 

exclusion of such developed areas. Any 

developed structures and the land under 

them inadvertently left inside critical 

habitat boundaries shown on the maps 

of this proposed critical habitat are 

excluded by text in this rule and are not 

proposed for critical habitat designation. 

Therefore, if the critical habitat is 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44247 

finalized as proposed, 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 would affect the species 

or PCEs in adjacent critical habitat. 

We are soliciting public comment for 

information that may assist us in 

defining those physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection, or in identifying specific 

areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time it 

was listed that may be essential to the 

conservation of the species (see 

questions 2 and 3 in the Public 

Comments section). 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

We determined that approximately 

802 ac (324 ha) meet our definition of 

critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila, 

including lands under Federal, State, 

other government, and private 

ownership. We are proposing 7 units 

that include 8 subunits as critical 

habitat for A. pumila. Table 1 identifies 

the approximate area of each proposed 

critical habitat unit and subunit by 

landownership. 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR Ambrosia pumila. 

Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries. 

Location 

(California Natural Diversity Database(CNDDB) 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: Temescal Creek watershed — — 23.4 9.5 88.4 35.8 111.8 45.3 

1A. Alberhill (*) — — 23.4 9.5 18.0 7.3 41.4 16.8 

1B. Nichols Road (44) — — — — 70.4 28.5 70.4 28.5 

Unit 2: Skunk Hollow Vernal Pool watershed 

(22) 

— — — — 118.1 47.8 118.1 47.8 

Unit 3: Santa Gertrudis Creek watershed 

(55) 

— — — — 32.5 13.2 32.5 13.2 

SUBTOTAL: — — 23.4 9.5 239.0 96.8 262.4 106.3 

SAN DIEGO COUNTY 

Unit 4: San Luis Rey River watershed — — 2.4 1.0 102.5 41.5 104.9 42.5 

4A. Calle de la Vuelta (43) — — — — 29.6 12.0 29.6 12.0 

4B. Olive Hill Road (16) — — 0.3 0.1 34.8 14.1 35.0 14.2 

4C. Jeffries Ranch (45) — — 2.2 0.9 38.1 15.4 40.3 16.3 

Unit 5: San Dieguito River watershed – Lake 

Hodges (14) 

— — 15.8 6.4 5.3 2.2 21.2 8.6 

Unit 6: San Diego River watershed – 

Mission Trails Regional Park (12) 

— — 171.5 69.4 26.4 10.7 197.8 80.1 

Unit 7: Sweetwater River watershed 145.5 58.9 12.6 5.1 57.1 23.1 215.2 87.1 

7A. Jamul Road (1) — — 2.5 1.0 36.4 14.7 38.9 15.7 

7B. San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (48) 117.6 47.6 — — 15.0 6.1 132.5 53.6 

7C. Steele Canyon Bridge (34) 27.9 11.3 10.1 4.1 5.8 2.3 43.7 17.7 

SUBTOTAL: 145.5 58.9 202.3 81.9 191.3 77.4 539.1 218.2 

TOTAL 145.5 58.9 225.7 91.4 430.4 174.2 801.6 324.4 

* Occurrence not entered in CNDDB. 

**Values in this table may not sum due to rounding. 

The areas we are proposing as critical 

habitat currently provide all habitat 

components necessary to meet the 

primary biological needs of Ambrosia 

pumila, as defined by the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. These areas 

constitute our best assessment of areas 

determined to be occupied at the time 

of listing that contain the PCEs for A. 

pumila that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. We are not proposing any 

unoccupied areas or areas outside of the 

species’ historical range because we 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
44248 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

determined that occupied lands within 

the species’ historical range are 

sufficient for the conservation of A. 

pumila. Each unit and subunit includes 

suitable habitat that will allow for 

population growth and growth of aerial 

stems from parts of the root system. 

Presented below are brief descriptions 

of all subunits 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: Temescal Creek Watershed 

Unit 1 is located in western Riverside 

County and consists of two subunits 

totaling approximately 23 ac (10 ha) of 

County-owned land, and 88 ac (36 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, 

east of Lake Street, and south of 

Temescal Creek (also called Alberhill 

Creek). 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). This 

subunit (along with subunit 1B) 

represents the northernmost occurrence 

of this species, which is geographically 

situated to 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). 

This subunit was occupied at the time 

of listing and remains occupied. 

Subunit 1A 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 human encroachment that 

occurs in the area. The County-owned 

portions of Subunit 1A are conserved 

and are being managed for the County 

by the Western Riverside County 

Regional Conservation Authority in 

accordance with Western Riverside 

MSHCP guidelines. Please see the 

‘‘Special Management Considerations or 

Protection’’ section of this proposed 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 

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 70 ac (28 ha) of privately 

owned land. 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). 

However, due to impacts from 

unauthorized grading and disking, and 

a permitted road realignment project, A. 

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 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 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 proposed rule 

for a discussion of the threats to A. 

pumila habitat and potential 

management considerations. 

Unit 2: Skunk Hollow Vernal Pool 

Watershed 

Unit 2 is located in the Barry Jones 

(Skunk Hollow) Wetland Mitigation 

Bank in unincorporated Riverside 

County. The mitigation bank is located 

east of the City of Murrieta and is 

loosely bounded by Browning Street on 

the north, the edge of an unnamed 

canyon on the east, Murrieta Hot 

Springs Road on the south, and Pourroy 

Avenue on the west. Unit 2 consists of 

approximately 118 ac (48 ha) of 

privately owned land managed by 

Center for Natural Lands Management. 

This unit, like all other extant 

occurrences, is essential to the 

conservation of Ambrosia pumila 

because of its contribution to the genetic 

diversity of the species (McGlaughlin 

and Friar 2007, p. 329). This unit was 

occupied at the time of listing and 

remains occupied. Unit 2 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 annual 

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 require continued 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. The Center 

for Natural Lands Management is 

providing needed management by 

maintaining fencing around the area to 

protect the area from encroachment, and 

carrying out research to determine the 

best method for control of nonnative 

plant species on-site. Please see the 

‘‘Special Management Considerations or 

Protection’’ section of this proposed rule 

for a discussion of the threats to A. 

pumila habitat and potential 

management considerations. 

Unit 3: Santa Gertrudis Creek 

Watershed (55) 

Unit 3 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. Unit 3 consists of 

approximately 32 ac (13 ha) of privately 

owned land. This unit was occupied at 

the time of listing and remains 

occupied, and, like all other extant 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44249 

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). Unit 3 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 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 proposed 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 three 

subunits of approximately 2 ac (1 ha) of 

State or local government owned land 

and approximately 103 ac (41 ha) of 

privately owned land, for a total of 

approximately 105 ac (42 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 

30 ac (12 ha) of privately owned land. 

This subunit 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). 

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 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, 

human encroachment, road 

maintenance activities, and future 

widening of State Route 76. Please see 

the ‘‘Special Management 

Considerations or Protection’’ section of 

this proposed 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 0.3 ac (0.1 ha) of State or 

local government owned land and 

approximately 35 ac (14 ha) of privately 

owned land, for a total of approximately 

35 ac (14 ha) (values do not sum due to 

rounding). The occurrence in this 

subunit was considered extirpated at the 

time of listing, but has since been found 

to be extant. Like all other extant 

occurrences, it 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). 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 periodic 

flooding presumed necessary for the 

plant’s persistence (PCE 1), and 

grassland habitat type which allow 

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, 

human encroachment, road 

maintenance activities, and future 

widening of State Route 76. Please see 

the ‘‘Special Management 

Considerations or Protection’’ section of 

this proposed 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 mile (1.1 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 2 ac (1 ha) of State or 

local government owned land and 

approximately 38 ac (15 ha) of privately 

owned land, for a total of approximately 

40 ac (16 ha). This subunit 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). 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 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, 

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 proposed 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 on the west side of 

Interstate 15, just north of Lake Hodges 

and south of Via Rancho Parkway in 

San Diego County. Unit 5 consists of 

approximately 16 ac (6 ha) of 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). This unit was occupied at 

the time of listing, 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). 

Unit 5 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 unit 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
44250 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 proposed 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. 

This unit includes three areas: (1) South 

of Old Mission Dam and Father Junipero 

Serra Trail and west of Simeon Drive; 

(2) north of Old Mission Dam and the 

San Diego River, and northwest of 

Simeon Drive; and (3) immediately east 

of Kumeyaay Campground, north of 

Mission Gorge Road, east of Bushy Hill 

Drive, and south of the San Diego River. 

Unit 6 consists of approximately 172 ac 

(69 ha) of land owned and managed by 

the City of San Diego, and 

approximately 26 ac (11 ha) of privately 

owned land, for a total of 198 ac (80 ha). 

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). 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 proposed 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 2 

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) 

(values do not sum due to rounding). 

This subunit 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). 

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 proposed rule 

for a discussion of the threats to A. 

pumila habitat and potential 

management considerations. 

Subunit 7B: San Diego National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Subunit 7B is located primarily 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 

Fish and Wildlife Service and 

approximately 15 ac (6 ha) of privately 

owned land, for a total of approximately 

133 ac (54 ha). This subunit was 

occupied at the time of listing and 

remains occupied, and 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). Subunit 7B 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 on privately owned lands, 

and 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 proposed 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 mile (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 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 

approximately 10 ac (4 ha) of State 

(California Department of 

Transportation) and local (County of 

San Diego) 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). This subunit was occupied at 

the time of listing and remains 

occupied. Like all other extant 

occurrences, it 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). 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44251 

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 on State, local government, 

and privately owned lands, and 

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 proposed 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 Appeal 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 

proposed 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, including the Service, to 

evaluate their actions with respect to 

any species that is endangered or 

threatened and with respect to its 

critical habitat, if any is proposed or 

designated. Regulations implementing 

this interagency cooperation provision 

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 

402. 

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

Federal agencies to confer with us on 

any action that is likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a species 

proposed for listing or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. Conference 

reports provide conservation 

recommendations to assist the agency in 

eliminating conflicts that may be caused 

by the proposed action. We may issue 

a formal conference report if requested 

by a Federal agency. Formal conference 

reports on proposed critical habitat 

contain an opinion that is prepared 

according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if critical 

habitat were designated. We may adopt 

the formal conference report as the 

biological opinion when the critical 

habitat is designated, if no substantial 

new information or changes in the 

action alter the content of the opinion 

(see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). The 

conservation recommendations in a 

conference report or opinion are 

advisory. 

If a species is listed or critical habitat 

is designated, section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of such a species or 

to destroy or adversely modify its 

critical habitat. If a Federal action may 

affect a listed species or its critical 

habitat, the responsible Federal agency 

(action agency) must enter into 

consultation with us. As a result of this 

consultation, 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 critical habitat; or 

2. A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect, and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

An exception to the concurrence 

process referred to in (1) above occurs 

in consultations involving National Fire 

Plan projects. In 2004, the U.S. Forest 

Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) reached agreements 

with the Service to streamline a portion 

of the section 7 consultation process 

(BLM–ACA 2004, pp. 1–8; FS–ACA 

2004, pp. 1–8). The agreements allow 

the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau 

of Land Management the opportunity to 

make ‘‘not likely to adversely affect’’ 

determinations for projects 

implementing the National Fire Plan. 

Such projects include prescribed fire, 

mechanical fuels treatments (thinning 

and removal of fuels to prescribed 

objectives), emergency stabilization, 

burned area rehabilitation, road 

maintenance and operation activities, 

ecosystem restoration, and culvert 

replacement actions. The U.S. Forest 

Service and the Bureau of Land 

Management must insure staff is 

properly trained, and both agencies 

must submit monitoring reports to the 

Service to determine if the procedures 

are being implemented properly and 

effects on endangered species and their 

habitats are being properly evaluated. 

As a result we do not believe the 

alternative consultation processes being 

implemented as a result of the National 

Fire Plan will differ significantly from 

those consultations being conducted by 

the Service. 

If we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or destroy and/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 

critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where we have 

listed a new species or subsequently 

designated critical habitat that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action (or the agency’s 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law). Consequently, 

Federal agencies may sometimes need to 

request reinitiation of consultation with 

us on actions for which formal 

consultation has been completed, if 

those actions with discretionary 

involvement or control may affect 

subsequently listed species or 

designated critical habitat. 

Federal activities that may affect 

Ambrosia pumila or its designated 

critical habitat require section 7 

consultation under the Act. Activities 

on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 

requiring a Federal permit (such as a 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
44252 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers under section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) 

or a permit from us under section 10 of 

the Act) or involving some other Federal 

action (such as funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency) are 

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 PCEs to be functionally 

established. Activities that may destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat are 

those that alter the physical and 

biological features (PCEs) to an extent 

that appreciably reduces the 

conservation value of critical habitat for 

Ambrosia pumila. Generally, the 

conservation role of the A. pumila 

proposed critical habitat units is to 

support the various life-history needs 

and provide for the conservation of the 

species. 

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

to briefly evaluate and describe in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat those 

activities involving a Federal action that 

may destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. Activities that may destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat may 

also jeopardize the continued existence 

of the species. 

Activities that, 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 actions that would adversely 

affect the species’ exposure to adequate 

moisture, nutrients, sunlight, airflow, 

and periodic flooding. For example: 

(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 remove soils 

appropriate for A. pumila growth such 

as 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 

vehicle use also adversely affect critical 

habitat. 

We consider all of the units and 

subunits proposed as critical habitat to 

contain features essential to the 

conservation of Ambrosia pumila. All 

units are within the geographic range of 

the species, were occupied at the time 

of listing, and are currently occupied by 

A. pumila. To ensure that their actions 

do not jeopardize the continued 

existence of A. pumila, Federal agencies 

already consult with us on activities in 

areas currently occupied by A. pumila, 

or in unoccupied areas if the species 

may be affected by their actions. 

Exemptions 

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 

1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 

required each military installation that 

includes land and water suitable for the 

conservation and management of 

natural resources to complete an 

integrated natural resources 

management plan (INRMP) by 

November 17, 2001. An INRMP 

integrates implementation of the 

military mission for the installation 

with stewardship of the natural 

resources found on the base. Each 

INRMP includes: 

• An assessment of the ecological 

needs on the installation, including the 

need to provide for the conservation of 

listed species; 

• A statement of goals and priorities; 

• A detailed description of 

management actions to be implemented 

to provide for these ecological needs; 

and 

• A monitoring and adaptive 

management plan. 

Among other things, an INRMP must, 

to the extent appropriate and applicable, 

provide for fish and wildlife 

management; fish and wildlife habitat 

enhancement or modification; wetland 

protection, enhancement, and 

restoration where necessary to support 

fish and wildlife; and enforcement of 

applicable natural resource laws. 

The National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. No. 

1088–136) amended the Endangered 

Species Act to limit areas eligible for 

designation as critical habitat. 

Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now 

provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not 

designate as critical habitat any lands or 

other geographical areas owned or 

controlled by the Department of 

Defense, or designated for its use, that 

are subject to an integrated natural 

resources management plan prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 

U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines 

in writing that such plan provides a 

benefit to the species for which critical 

habitat is proposed for designation.’’ 

There are no Department of Defense 

lands with a completed INRMP within 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation. Therefore, there are no 

lands that meet the criteria for being 

exempted from the designation of 

critical habitat pursuant to section 

4(a)(3) of the Act. 

Exclusions 

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

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

the Secretary must designate or 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. 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 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 determine that the benefits 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44253 

of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, we can exclude the area only 

if such exclusion would not result in the 

extinction of the species. 

Exclusions Based on Habitat 

Conservation Plans (HCPs) 

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

consider any other relevant impacts, in 

addition to economic impacts and 

impacts to national security. We 

consider a number of factors including 

whether the landowners have developed 

any HCPs or other management plans 

for the area, or whether there are 

conservation partnerships that would be 

encouraged by designation of, or 

exclusion from, critical habitat. In 

addition, we look at any Tribal issues, 

and consider the government-togovernment relationship of the United 

States with Tribal entities. We also 

consider any social impacts that might 

occur because of the designation. 

In the following sections, we address 

a number of general issues that are 

relevant to the exclusions we are 

considering. Additionally, we are 

preparing a draft economic analysis of 

the impacts of the proposed critical 

habitat designation and related factors, 

which will be available for public 

review and comment when it is 

complete. Based on public comment on 

that document and the proposed 

designation itself, as well as the 

information in the final economic 

analysis, the Secretary may exclude 

from critical habitat areas different from 

those identified for possible exclusion 

in this proposed rule under the 

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

up to and including all areas proposed 

for designation. This is also addressed 

in our implementing regulations at 50 

CFR 424.19. 

Ambrosia pumila is a covered species 

under the Western Riverside County 

Multiple Species Habitat Conservation 

Plan (Western Riverside County 

MSHCP), the City of San Diego Subarea 

Plan under the Multiple Species 

Conservation Program (MSCP), and the 

County of San Diego Subarea Plan under 

the MSCP. We are considering exclusion 

of lands covered by each of these plans. 

Portions of the proposed critical habitat 

subunits may warrant exclusion from 

the proposed designation of critical 

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

based on the partnerships, management, 

and protection afforded under these 

approved and legally operative HCPs. In 

this proposed rule, we are seeking input 

from the stakeholders in these HCPs, 

peer reviewers, and the public as to 

whether or not we should exclude these 

areas from the final critical habitat 

designation. Below is a brief description 

of each plan and the lands proposed as 

critical habitat that are covered by each 

plan. 

Western Riverside County Multiple 

Species Habitat Conservation Plan 

(Western Riverside County MSHCP) 

The Western Riverside County 

MSHCP is a large-scale, multijurisdictional HCP encompassing about 

1.26 million ac (510,000 ha) in western 

Riverside County. The Western 

Riverside County MSHCP plan area 

encompasses Units 1, 2, and 3 of 

proposed critical habitat for Ambrosia 

pumila. The Western Riverside County 

MSHCP addresses 146 listed and 

unlisted ‘‘covered species,’’ including 

A. pumila. Participants in the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP include 14 

cities; the County of Riverside, 

including the Riverside County Flood 

Control and Water Conservation Agency 

(County Flood Control), Riverside 

County Transportation Commission, 

Riverside County Parks and Open Space 

District, and Riverside County Waste 

Department; California Department of 

Parks and Recreation; and the California 

Department of Transportation. The 

Western Riverside County MSHCP was 

designed to establish a multi-species 

conservation program that minimizes 

and mitigates the expected loss of 

habitat and the incidental take of 

covered species. On June 22, 2004, the 

Service issued a single incidental take 

permit (TE-088609-0) under section 

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

under the MSHCP for a period of 75 

years. 

The Western Riverside County 

MSHCP 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 pre-existing 

natural and open space areas (Public/ 

Quasi-Public lands). These Public/ 

Quasi-Public lands include those under 

Federal ownership, primarily managed 

by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau 

of Land Management, and also 

permittee-owned open-space areas (such 

as State parks, County Flood Control, 

and county park lands). Collectively, the 

Additional Reserve Lands and Public/ 

Quasi-Public lands form the overall 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

Conservation Area. The precise 

configuration of the 153,000 ac (61,916 

ha) of Additional Reserve Lands is not 

mapped or identified in the MSHCP, but 

rather is based on textual descriptions of 

a Conceptual Reserve Design within the 

bounds of a 310,000 ac (125,453 ha) 

‘‘Criteria Area’’ that is interpreted as 

implementation of the MSHCP 

proceeds. 

Specific conservation objectives 

stated in the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP for Ambrosia pumila include 

conserving at least 21,800 ac (8,822 ha) 

of occupied or suitable habitat for the 

species. This goal will be attained 

through acquisition or other dedications 

of land assembled from within the 

Criteria Area (i.e., the Additional 

Reserve Lands) or Narrow Endemic Plan 

Species Survey Area and through 

coordinated management of existing 

Public/Quasi-Public lands. We mapped 

a ‘‘Conceptual Reserve Design’’ that 

illustrates existing Public/Quasi-Public 

lands and predicts the geographic 

distribution of the Additional Reserve 

Lands based on our interpretation of the 

textual descriptions of habitat 

conservation necessary to meet MSHCP 

conservation goals. Our Conceptual 

Reserve Design was intended to predict 

one possible future configuration of 

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

Reserve Lands in conjunction with the 

existing Public/Quasi-Public 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 Ambrosia pumila habitat under 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP 

will contribute to conservation and 

ultimate recovery of this species. 

Ambrosia pumila is threatened 

primarily by habitat loss due to 

urbanization, flood control, and 

nonnative species competition (Service 

2004b, pp. 334–342). The Western 

Riverside County MSHCP aims to 

remove or reduce threats to this species 

and its PCEs as the plan is implemented 

by placing large blocks of occupied and 

unoccupied habitat into preservation 

throughout the Conservation Area. 

Areas identified for conservation 

include the occurrences at the Barry 

Jones (Skunk Hollow) Wetland 

Mitigation Bank (Unit 2), and the 

occurrence near Temescal Creek at 

Nichols Road (Subunit 1B). 

Additionally, the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP anticipated 

conservation of a third occurrence 

(Subunit 1A), near Temescal Creek east 

of Lake Street, in accordance with its 

Narrow Endemics Policy (Dudek 2003, 

pp. P-327–P-328). 

Additionally, the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP requires 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 species survey area (see 

Narrow Endemic Species Survey Area 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
44254 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 until it 

is demonstrated that the conservation 

objectives for the species are met (see 

Additional Survey Needs and 

Procedures; Western Riverside County 

MSHCP, Volume 1, section 6.3.2 in 

Dudek 2003). 

The survey requirements, avoidance 

and minimization measures, and 

management for Ambrosia pumila (and 

its PCEs) provided for in the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP are expected 

to benefit this species on public and 

private lands covered by the plan. We 

are considering the exclusion of 

approximately 263 ac (106 ha) of private 

lands and permittee-owned or 

controlled Public/Quasi-Public lands in 

Units 1 (Subunits 1A and 1B), 2, and 3 

within the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP Plan Area from the final critical 

habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act. The Western Riverside 

County MSHCP has several measures in 

place to ensure the plan is implemented 

in a way that conserves Ambrosia 

pumila in accordance with the speciesspecific criteria and objectives for this 

species. Projects in the areas proposed 

as critical habitat conducted or 

approved by Western Riverside County 

MSHCP permittees are subject to the 

conservation requirements of the 

MSHCP. For projects that may impact A. 

pumila, various policies (including the 

Narrow Endemic Plant Species Policy 

(in Dudek 2003)) may provide 

additional conservation requirements. 

The Western Riverside County 

MSHCP incorporates many processes 

that allow for Service oversight and 

participation in program 

implementation. These processes 

include: (1) Consultation with the 

Service on a long-term management and 

monitoring plan; (2) submission of 

annual monitoring reports; (3) annual 

status meetings with the Service; and (4) 

submission of annual implementation 

reports to the Service (Service 2004b, 

pp. 9–10). Below we provide a brief 

analysis of the lands in Units 1, 2, and 

3 that we are considering for exclusion 

and how each area is covered by the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP or 

other conservation measures. 

We are considering to exclude from 

critical habitat designation three Units 

that are within the boundaries of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP. 

Within Unit 1, the County-owned 

portion of Subunit 1A is conserved and 

is currently managed for the County of 

Riverside by the Western Riverside 

County Regional Conservation 

Authority; transfer of ownership to the 

Western Riverside County Regional 

Conservation Authority is planned for 

the near future. Subunit 1B is on 

privately owned lands and is not 

currently conserved or managed for A. 

pumila. It is also within the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP Criteria Area, 

but not within the Narrow Endemic 

Plan Species Survey Area. Unit 2 is on 

privately owned lands and is conserved 

and managed by the Center for Natural 

Lands Management as part of the Barry 

Jones (Skunk Hollow) Wetland 

Mitigation Bank. Unit 3 is on privately 

owned lands and is not currently 

conserved or managed for A. pumila. It 

is not within the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP Criteria Area or the 

Narrow Endemic Plan Species Survey 

Area. 

The approximate amount of land that 

meets the definition of critical habitat 

for Ambrosia pumila within the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP and 

conservation status of those lands is 

summarized in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—LANDS UNDER THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) 

THAT MEET THE DEFINITION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR Ambrosia pumila. 

Unit/Subunit 

Within Western Riverside 

County MSHCP 

Within MSHCP 

Conservation Area 

Outside of Conceptual 

Reserve Design but Within 

Criteria Area 

acres hectares acres hectares acres hectares 

1A. Alberhill 41.4 16.8 23.4 9.5 34.9 14.1 

1B. Nichols Road 70.4 28.5 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.5 

Unit 2: Skunk Hollow Vernal Pool watershed 118.1 47.8 7.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 

Unit 3: Santa Gertrudis Creek watershed 32.5 13.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Totals: 262.5 106.2 30.4 12.3 36.0 14.6 

* Values in this table may not sum due to rounding. 

In summary, we are considering 

exclusion of approximately 263 ac (106 

ha) of Ambrosia pumila habitat on 

private lands and permittee-owned or 

controlled lands in Subunits 1A and 1B 

and Units 2 and 3 that meet the 

definition of critical habitat for A. 

pumila within the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP under section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act. The 2002 final listing rule for 

A. pumila identified the following 

primary threats to A. pumila: habitat 

destruction and fragmentation caused 

by urban development; highway and 

utility corridor construction, expansion, 

and maintenance; sheep grazing; human 

encroachment on foot, horses, and 

vehicles; weed abatement and fire 

suppression practices (including 

mowing in mid summer to early fall 

when mowing would remove flowering 

portions of the aerial stems, discing, and 

plowing); stochastic events such as fire 

or drought; and competition from 

nonnative plant species (67 FR 44372). 

The implementation of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP helps to 

address these threats through a regional 

planning effort, and outlines speciesspecific objectives and criteria for the 

conservation of A. pumila. We will 

analyze the benefits of inclusion and 

exclusion of this area from critical 

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

We encourage any public comment in 

relation to our consideration of the areas 

in Units 1, 2, and 3 for inclusion or 

exclusion (see Public Comments section 

above). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44255 

San Diego Multiple Species 

Conservation Program (MSCP)—City 

and County of San Diego’s Subarea 

Plans 

The MSCP Plan is a framework HCP 

that has been in place for more than a 

decade. The plan area encompasses 

approximately 582,243 ac (235,626 ha) 

(County of San Diego 1997, p. 1–1; 

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 

establishment and management of 

approximately 171,920 ac (69,574 ha) of 

preserve lands, including lands within 

the Multi-Habitat Planning Area 

(MHPA; City of San Diego) and the 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 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 County of San Diego 

and the City of San Diego Subarea Plans. 

We are considering exclusion of lands 

within the City of San Diego and County 

of San Diego Subarea Plans. 

Specifically, we are considering the 

exclusion of 278 ac (113 ha) in Unit 5, 

Unit 6, Subunit 7A, and non-federally 

owned portions of 7B and 7C (see 

Tables 3 and 4). 

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 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

Upon completion of preserve assembly 

by the end of the permit term, 

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 City of San 

Diego’s preserve is delineated by 

mapped preserve boundaries referred to 

as ‘‘hardline’’ boundaries (the MultiHabitat Planning Area). Most of the 

County of San Diego preserve areas do 

not have ‘‘hardline’’ boundaries, but the 

County’s subarea plan identifies areas 

where mitigation activities should be 

focused to assemble its preserve areas 

(the Pre-Approved Mitigation Areas). 

When the MSCP preserve is 

completed, the public sector (Federal, 

State, and local government, and general 

public) will have contributed 

approximately 108,750 ac (44,010 ha) 

(63.3 percent) to the preserve. 

Approximately 81,750 ac (33,083 ha) (48 

percent) was existing public land when 

the MSCP was established and at least 

27,000 ac (10,927 ha) (16 percent) will 

have been acquired. At completion, the 

private sector will have contributed at 

least 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. Federal and State 

governments, local jurisdictions and 

special districts, and managers of 

privately owned lands currently and in 

the future 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 Multi-Habitat 

Planning Area and Pre-Approved 

Mitigation Areas 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 

provides for Service review and 

comment on projects during the 

California Environmental Quality Act 

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 must receive annual 

reports that include, both by project and 

cumulatively, the habitat acreage lost 

and conserved within the subareas. This 

accounting process ensures that habitat 

conservation proceeds in rough 

proportion to habitat loss and in 

compliance with the MSCP subarea 

plans and the plans’ associated 

implementing agreements. 

The subarea plans under the MSCP 

contain requirements to monitor and 

adaptively manage Ambrosia pumila 

habitats and provide for the 

conservation of this species’ PCEs. 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 that are 

intended to reduce the threats to 

covered species and thereby contribute 

to the recovery of the species. 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). 

To protect Ambrosia pumila habitat, 

the City and County of San Diego 

subarea plans require that development 

be configured in a manner that 

minimizes impacts to sensitive 

biological resources and species covered 

by those plans (Service 1997, p. 10; 

Service 1998b, p. 7). The City of San 

Diego Subarea Plan requires 

preservation of 90 percent of the 

occurrence of A. pumila at Mission 

Trails Regional Park, additional impact 

avoidance and other measures as 

required under the MSCP Plan for 

narrow endemic species, and areaspecific management directives 

designed to maintain long-term survival 

in the planning area (Service 1997, pp. 

104–105). Under the City of San Diego’s 

subarea plan, impacts to narrow 

endemic plants, including A. pumila, 

inside the Multi-Habitat Planning Area 

will be avoided, and outside the MultiHabitat Planning Area will be protected 

as appropriate by: (1) Avoidance of 

impacts; (2) management; (3) 

enhancement; and/or (4) transplantation 

to areas identified for preservation (City 

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

1997, p. 15). 

The County of San Diego Subarea 

Plan provides three levels of protection 

for Ambrosia pumila. First, the Plan 

requires conservation of 87 to 100 

percent of A. pumila occurrences in the 

County Subarea. Second, area-specific 

management directives must be 

designed for A. pumila to maintain 

long-term survival in the planning area 

(Service 1997, pp. 104–105). Third, the 

County Subarea Plan dictates that on 

category 3 lands (lands for which the 

County Plan has not delineated preserve 

and development boundaries), any 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
44256 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

newly discovered occurrences of A. 

pumila will be protected by impact 

avoidance measures required under the 

County’s Biological Mitigation 

Ordinance. Narrow endemic plants, 

including A. pumila, are conserved 

under the Biological Mitigation 

Ordinance using a process that: (1) 

Requires avoidance to the maximum 

extent feasible; (2) allows for a 

maximum 20 percent encroachment into 

a population if total avoidance is not 

feasible; and (3) requires in-kind 

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

impacts if avoidance and minimization 

of impacts would preclude reasonable 

use of the property (County of San Diego 

1997, p. 11; Service 1998b, p. 12). 

These measures help protect 

Ambrosia pumila and its essential 

habitat whether located on lands 

targeted for preserve status within the 

Multi-Habitat Planning Area and PreApproved Mitigation Areas or located 

outside of those areas in the City and 

County of San Diego Subareas. The 

narrow endemic policy for both the City 

and County of San Diego subarea plans 

require in situ conservation of A. pumila 

or mitigation to ameliorate any habitat 

loss. Therefore, although some losses 

may occur to this species on lands that 

are not currently preserved or otherwise 

designated for conservation under the 

MSCP, the preservation, conservation, 

and management of A. pumila provided 

under the City and County MSCP 

subarea plans promotes the long-term 

conservation of this species and its 

essential habitat within all areas 

covered by the subarea plans under the 

MSCP. 

The approximate acreage of land that 

meets the definition of critical habitat 

for Ambrosia pumila within the City of 

San Diego Subarea and conservation 

status of those lands is summarized in 

Table 3. The City of San Diego has a 

management plan in place for the A. 

pumila occurrence in Mission Trails 

Regional Park (Dudek 2000), ongoing 

monitoring of that occurrence (City of 

San Diego 2000, 2001, 2003, 2006, and 

2008b), and ongoing maintenance of the 

Mission Trails Regional Park 

occurrence, including building and 

maintaining fencing and rerouting or 

closing trails to protect plants (Dudek 

2000, pp. 29–30). No management plan, 

management, or monitoring is yet in 

place for the other non-Federal lands 

covered by the City or County of San 

Diego Subarea Plans that meet the 

definition of critical habitat for 

Ambrosia pumila. 

TABLE 3—LANDS UNDER THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO SUBAREA PLAN THAT MEET THE DEFINITION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR

AMBROSIA PUMILA (INCLUDING THE MULTIPLE-HABITAT PLANNING AREA (MHPA)). 

Unit/Subunit 

Within City of San Diego 

Subarea 

Within City of San Diego 

MHPA 

Conserved within City of 

San Diego MHPA* 

acres hectares acres hectares acres hectares 

Unit 5: San Dieguito River watershed—Lake Hodges 9.0 3.6 3.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 

Unit 6: San Diego River watershed—Mission Trails 

Regional Park 

197.5 79.9 151.5 61.3 46.0 18.6 

Total AreaConsidered for Exclusion 206.5 83.6 154.6 62.6 46.0 18.6 

*

Conserved outside of MHPA: 23.7 ac (9.6 ha). 

**Values in this table may not sum due to rounding. 

The approximate amount of land that 

meets the definition of critical habitat 

for Ambrosia pumila within the County 

of San Diego Subarea and conservation 

status of those lands is summarized in 

Table 4. 

TABLE 4—LANDS UNDER THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SUBAREA PLAN THAT MEET THE DEFINITION OF CRITICAL HABITAT

FOR Ambrosia pumila (INCLUDING PRE-APPROVED MITIGATION AREAS (PAMA); AREAS ON FEDERAL LANDS NOTED IN

PARENTHESES). 

Unit/Subunit 

Within County of San 

Diego Subarea 

(on Federal lands) 

Within County of San 

Diego PAMA 

(on Federal lands) 

Conserved within County 

of San Diego PAMA*

(on Federal lands) 

acres hectares acres hectares acres hectares 

7A. Jamul Road 38.9 15.7 20.4 8.2 13.6 5.5 

7B. San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 132.5 

(116.1) 

53.6 

(47.0) 

116.2 

(116.1) 

47.0 

(47.0) 

116.1 

(116.1) 

47.0 

(47.0) 

7C. Steele Canyon Bridge 43.7 

(27.6) 

17.7 

(11.2) 

30.6 

(27.6) 

12.4 

(11.2) 

28.4 

(27.6) 

11.5 

(11.2) 

Totals: 215.2 

(143.7) 

87.1 

(58.1) 

167.1 

(143.7) 

67.6 

(58.1) 

158.1 

(143.7) 

64.0 

(58.1) 

Total Area Considered for Exclusion

(non-Federal lands only) 

71.5 29.0 23.4 9.5 14.4 5.9 

*

Conserved outside of PAMA: 0.1 ac (0.0 ha) 

**Values in this table may not sum due to rounding. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44257 

Approximately 51.9 ac (21.0 ha), or 25 

percent of non-Federal lands under the 

City of San Diego’s Subarea Plan that 

meet the definition of critical habitat, 

are outside the Multi-Habitat Planning 

Area; approximately 48.1 ac (23.2 ha), or 

67.3 percent of non-Federal lands under 

the County of San Diego’s Subarea Plan 

that meet the definition of critical 

habitat, are outside the Pre-Approved 

Mitigation Areas. Consistent with the 

narrow endemic species requirements of 

the MSCP, the lands outside the PreApproved Mitigation Areas and MultiHabitat Planning Area will be surveyed 

for Ambrosia pumila prior to any 

development occurring on these lands, 

and any occurrences of A. pumila 

discovered must be protected in 

accordance with those requirements. 

Additionally, as stated above, 

preservation and management will be 

provided for occurrences within the 

preserve areas of these subarea plans. 

In summary, we are considering 

exclusion of 278 ac (113 ha) of nonFederal lands that meet the definition of 

critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila 

within the City and County of San Diego 

Subarea Plans under section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act. There are an additional 143.7 

ac (58.1 ha) of Federal land at the San 

Diego National Wildlife Refuge included 

in Subunits 7B and 7C that are within 

the County of San Diego’s subarea plan 

that meet the definition of critical 

habitat, but because these lands are 

federally owned we are not considering 

them for exclusion. The 2002 final 

listing rule for A. pumila identified the 

following primary threats for this 

species: habitat destruction and 

fragmentation from urban development 

and development of recreational 

activities; highway and utility corridor 

construction, highway expansion, and 

maintenance of these corridors; 

trampling and soil compaction caused 

by hikers, horses, and vehicles; fire 

suppression practices; competition from 

nonnative plant species; and stochastic 

events such as fire or drought (67 FR 

44372; July 2, 2002). The 

implementation of the City and County 

of San Diego MSCP subarea plans helps 

to address these threats through a 

regional planning effort rather than 

through a project-by-project approach, 

and outlines species-specific objectives 

and criteria for the conservation of A. 

pumila. We will analyze the benefits of 

inclusion and exclusion of this area 

from critical habitat under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. We encourage any 

public comment in relation to our 

consideration of the areas discussed 

above for inclusion or exclusion. 

Economic Analysis 

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

Secretary to exclude areas from critical 

habitat for economic reasons if the 

Secretary determines that the benefits of 

such exclusion exceed the benefits of 

designating the area as critical habitat. 

However, this exclusion cannot occur if 

it will result in the extinction of the 

species concerned. 

In compliance with section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act, we are preparing an analysis of 

the economic impacts of proposing 

critical habitat designation and related 

factors for Ambrosia pumila, to evaluate 

the potential economic impact of the 

designation. This economic analysis 

also will be used to determine 

compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, 

E.O. 12630 (Takings), and E.O. 13211 

(Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use). 

We will announce the availability of 

the draft economic analysis as soon as 

it is completed, at which time we will 

seek public review and comment. At 

that time, copies of the draft economic 

analysis will be available for 

downloading from the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or by contacting 

the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 

directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section). Based on public 

comment on that document, and our 

evaluation of the relative benefits of 

inclusions and exclusion, areas may be 

excluded from critical habitat by the 

Secretary under the provisions of 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act in the final 

rule, as provided for in the Act and in 

our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

242.19. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we are 

soliciting the expert opinions of at least 

three appropriate independent 

specialists regarding this proposed rule. 

The purpose of peer review is to ensure 

that our critical habitat designation is 

based on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses. We have 

invited these peer reviewers to comment 

during this public comment period on 

our specific assumptions and 

conclusions in this proposed 

designation of critical habitat. We will 

consider all comments and information 

we receive during this comment period 

on this proposed rule during our 

preparation of a final determination. 

Accordingly, our final decision may 

differ from this proposal. 

Public Hearings 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

one or more public hearings on this 

proposal, if we receive any requests for 

hearings. We must receive your request 

for a public hearing within 45 days after 

the date of this Federal Register 

publication. Send your request to Jim 

Bartel, Field Supervisor of the Carlsbad 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

We will schedule public hearings on 

this proposal, if any are requested, and 

announce the dates, times, and places of 

those hearings, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the first hearing. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review— 

Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant under Executive Order 

(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), 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 effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of an agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA 

to require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of factual basis for certifying 

that the rule will not have a significant 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
44258 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

At this time, we lack the available 

economic information necessary for the 

areas being proposed in this revision to 

provide an adequate factual basis for the 

required RFA finding. Therefore, we 

defer the RFA finding until completion 

of the draft economic analysis prepared 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and E.O. 

12866. The draft economic analysis will 

provide the required factual basis for the 

RFA finding. Upon completion of the 

draft economic analysis, we will 

announce its availability in the Federal 

Register and reopen the public 

comment period for the proposed 

designation. We will include with this 

announcement, as appropriate, an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis or a 

certification that the rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

accompanied by the factual basis for 

that determination. We concluded that 

deferring the RFA finding until 

completion of the draft economic 

analysis is necessary to meet the 

purposes and requirements of the RFA. 

Deferring the RFA finding in this 

manner will ensure that we make a 

sufficiently informed determination 

based on adequate economic 

information and provide the necessary 

opportunity for public comment. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act, we make the 

following findings: 

1. This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

Tribal governments, or the private 

sector, and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

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

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

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or [T]ribal 

governments’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and [T]ribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child 

Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 

Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation 

State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 

Assistance, and Independent Living; 

Family Support Welfare Services; and 

Child Support Enforcement. ‘‘Federal 

private sector mandate’’ includes a 

regulation that ‘‘would impose an 

enforceable duty upon the private 

sector, except (i) a condition of Federal 

assistance or (ii) a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, permits, or 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

2. We do not expect this rule to 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Small governments will 

be affected only to the extent that any 

programs having Federal funds, permits, 

or other authorized activities must 

ensure that their actions will not 

adversely affect the critical habitat. 

Therefore, a Small Government Agency 

Plan is not required. However, as we 

conduct our economic analysis for the 

rule, we will further evaluate this issue 

and revise this assessment if 

appropriate. 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

designating critical habitat for Ambrosia 

pumila in a takings implications 

assessment. The takings implications 

assessment concludes that this 

designation of critical habitat for A. 

pumila does not pose significant takings 

implications for lands within or affected 

by the designation. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this proposed 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, and the PCEs of the 

habitat necessary to the conservation of 

the species are specifically identified. 

This information does not alter where 

and what federally sponsored activities 

may occur. However, it may assist these 

local governments in long-range 

planning (rather than having them wait 

for case-by-case section 7 consultations 

to occur). 

Where State and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 

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

While non-Federal entities that receive 

Federal funding, assistance, or permits, 

or that otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988 (Civil Justice Reform), it has been 

determined that the rule does not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

meets the requirements of sections 3(a) 

and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

in accordance with the provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act. This proposed 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44259 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 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 Circuit Court of the 

United States for the Tenth Circuit, we 

do not need to prepare environmental 

analyses as defined by NEPA in 

connection with designating critical 

habitat under the Endangered Species 

Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). This assertion was 

upheld by the Circuit Court of the 

United States for the Ninth Circuit 

(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 

1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 

U.S. 1042 (1996)). 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful, etc. 

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 readily 

acknowledge our 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 there are no Tribal 

lands occupied by Ambrosia pumila at 

the time of listing that contain the 

features essential for the conservation of 

Ambrosia pumila, nor are there any 

other Tribal lands that are essential for 

the conservation of this species. 

Therefore, designation of critical habitat 

for A. pumila is not being proposed on 

Tribal lands. We will continue to 

coordinate with Tribal governments as 

appropriate during the designation 

process. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ requires agencies 

to prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. Based 

on an analysis conducted for the 

preparation of this proposal, we 

determined that this proposed rule to 

designate 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. 

However, we will further evaluate this 

issue as we conduct our economic 

analysis, and review and revise this 

assessment as warranted. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available on http:// 

wwww.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. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– 

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

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

‘‘Ambrosia pumila’’ under 

‘‘FLOWERING PLANTS’’ 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(a) NA 

* * * * * * * 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
44260 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

3. In § 17.96(a), add an entry for 

‘‘Ambrosia pumila (San Diego 

ambrosia),’’ in alphabetical 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 (PCEs) of critical 

habitat for Ambrosia pumila are: 

(i) 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 (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 A. pumila 

occurrences are found). 

(ii) Grassland or ruderal habitat types 

(disturbed communities containing a 

mixture of native and nonnative grasses 

and forbs) or openings within coastal 

sage scrub, on the soil types and 

topography described in the PCE set 

forth in paragraph (2)(i) of this entry, 

that provide adequate sunlight and 

airflow for population growth and 

reproduction. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures existing on the 

effective date of this rule, such as 

buildings, aqueducts, airports, and 

roads, and the land on which such 

structures are located, and not 

containing one or more of the PCEs. 

(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. These coordinates establish 

the vertices and endpoints of the 

boundaries of the units and subunits. 

(5) Note: Index Map of critical habitat 

for Ambrosia pumila (San Diego 

ambrosia), Riverside and San Diego 

Counties, California, follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44261 

(6) Unit 1, Riverside County, 

California. 

(i) [Reserved for textual description of 

units.] 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 1, Critical 

Habitat for Ambrosia pumila (San Diego 

ambrosia), Riverside County, California, 

follows: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP27AU09.199</GPH>
44262 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(7) Units 2 and 3, Riverside County, 

California. 

(i) [Reserved for textual description of 

units.] 

(ii) Note: Map of Units 2 and 3, 

Critical Habitat for Ambrosia pumila 

(San Diego ambrosia), Riverside County, 

California, follows: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP27AU09.200</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44263 

(8) Unit 4, Subunits 4A, 4B, and 4C, 

San Diego County, California. 

(i) [Reserved for textual description of 

unit.] 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 4, Critical 

Habitat for Ambrosia pumila (San Diego 

ambrosia), San Diego County, California, 

follows: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP27AU09.201</GPH>
44264 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(9) Unit 5, San Diego County, 

California. 

(i) [Reserved for textual description of 

units.] 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 5, Critical 

Habitat for Ambrosia pumila (San Diego 

ambrosia), San Diego County, California, 

follows: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP27AU09.202</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44265 

(10) Unit 6, San Diego County, 

California. 

(i) [Reserved for textual description of 

units.] 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 6, Critical 

Habitat for Ambrosia pumila (San Diego 

ambrosia), San Diego County, California, 

follows: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP27AU09.203</GPH>
44266 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(11) Unit 7, Subunits 7A, 7B, and 7C, 

San Diego County, California. 

(i) [Reserved for textual description of 

units.] 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 7, Critical 

Habitat for Ambrosia pumila (San Diego 

ambrosia), San Diego County, California, 

follows: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP27AU09.204</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44267 

Dated: August 14, 2009 

Will Shafroth, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. E9–20499 Filed 8–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP27AU09.205</GPH>