66374 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU51 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Astragalus brauntonii and 

Pentachaeta lyonii 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are 

designating critical habitat for the 

Astragalus brauntonii (Braunton’s milkvetch) and Pentachaeta lyonii (Lyon’s 

pentachaeta) pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). For A. brauntonii, 

approximately 3,300 acres (ac) (1,337 

hectares (ha)) fall within the boundaries 

of the critical habitat designation. The 

critical habitat for A. brauntonii is 

located in Ventura, Los Angeles, and 

Orange Counties, California. For P. 

lyonii, approximately 3,396 ac (1,372 

ha) fall within the boundaries of the 

critical habitat designation. The critical 

habitat for P. lyonii is located in Ventura 

and Los Angeles Counties, California. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

December 14, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials 

received, as well as supporting 

documentation used in the preparation 

of this final rule, are available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours, in the branch of 

Endangered Species, at the Ventura Fish 

and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, 

Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003. The final 

rule, economic analysis, and map are 

also available on the Internet at http:// 

www.fws.gov/ventura. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, Ventura 

Fish and Wildlife Office, at the address 

in ADDRESSES (telephone 805/644–1766; 

facsimile 805/644–3958). Persons who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339, 7 days a week and 24 

hours a day. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual 

Practice of Administering and 

Implementing the Act 

Attention to and protection of habitat 

are paramount to successful 

conservation actions. The role that 

designation of critical habitat plays in 

protecting habitat of listed species, 

however, is often misunderstood. As 

discussed in more detail below in the 

discussion of exclusions under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, there are significant 

limitations on the regulatory effect of 

designation under section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act. In brief, (1) designation provides 

additional protection to habitat only 

where there is a federal nexus; (2) the 

protection is relevant only when, in the 

absence of designation, destruction or 

adverse modification of the critical 

habitat would in fact take place (in other 

words, other statutory or regulatory 

protections, policies, or other factors 

relevant to agency decision-making 

would not prevent the destruction or 

adverse modification); and (3) 

designation of critical habitat triggers 

the prohibition of destruction or adverse 

modification of that habitat, but it does 

not require specific actions to restore or 

improve habitat. 

Currently, only 476 species, or 36 

percent of the 1,311 listed species in the 

United States under the jurisdiction of 

the Service, have designated critical 

habitat. We address the habitat needs of 

all 1,311 listed species through 

conservation mechanisms such as 

listing, section 7 consultations, the 

section 4 recovery planning process, the 

section 9 protective prohibitions of 

unauthorized take, section 6 funding to 

the States, the section 10 incidental take 

permit process, and cooperative, 

nonregulatory efforts with private 

landowners. The Service believes that it 

is these measures that may make the 

difference between extinction and 

survival for many species. 

In considering exclusions of areas 

originally proposed for designation, we 

evaluated the benefits of designation in 

light of Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

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

(hereinafter Gifford Pinchot). In that 

case, the Ninth Circuit invalidated the 

Service’s regulation defining 

‘‘destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat.’’ In response, on 

December 9, 2004, the Director issued 

guidance to be considered in making 

section 7 adverse modification 

determinations. This critical habitat 

designation does not use the invalidated 

regulation in our consideration of the 

benefits of including areas in this final 

designation. The Service will carefully 

manage future consultations that 

analyze impacts to designated critical 

habitat, particularly those that appear to 

be resulting in an adverse modification 

determination. Such consultations will 

be reviewed by the Regional Office prior 

to finalizing to ensure that an adequate 

analysis has been conducted that is 

informed by the Director’s guidance. 

On the other hand, to the extent that 

designation of critical habitat provides 

protection, that protection can come at 

significant social and economic cost. In 

addition, the mere administrative 

process of designation of critical habitat 

is expensive, time-consuming, and 

controversial. The current statutory 

framework of critical habitat, combined 

with past judicial interpretations of the 

statute, make critical habitat the subject 

of excessive litigation. As a result, 

critical habitat designations are driven 

by litigation and courts rather than 

biology, and made at a time and under 

a time frame that limits our ability to 

obtain and evaluate the scientific and 

other information required to make the 

designation most meaningful. 

In light of these circumstances, the 

Service believes that additional agency 

discretion would allow our focus to 

return to those actions that provide the 

greatest benefit to the species most in 

need of protection. 

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in 

Designating Critical Habitat 

We have been inundated with 

lawsuits for our failure to designate 

critical habitat, and we face a growing 

number of lawsuits challenging critical 

habitat determinations once they are 

made. These lawsuits have subjected the 

Service to an ever-increasing series of 

court orders and court-approved 

settlement agreements, compliance with 

which now consumes nearly the entire 

listing program budget. This leaves the 

Service with little ability to prioritize its 

activities to direct scarce listing 

resources to the listing program actions 

with the most biologically urgent 

species conservation needs. 

The consequence of the critical 

habitat litigation activity is that limited 

listing funds are used to defend active 

lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent 

(NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, 

and to comply with the growing number 

of adverse court orders. As a result, 

listing petition responses, the Service’s 

own proposals to list critically 

imperiled species, and final listing 

determinations on existing proposals are 

all significantly delayed. 

The accelerated schedules of courtordered designations have left the 

Service with limited ability to provide 

for public participation or to ensure a 

defect-free rulemaking process before 

making decisions on listing and critical 

habitat proposals, due to the risks 

associated with noncompliance with 

judicially imposed deadlines. This in 

turn fosters a second round of litigation 

in which those who fear adverse 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66375 

impacts from critical habitat 

designations challenge those 

designations. The cycle of litigation 

appears endless, and is expensive, thus 

diverting resources from conservation 

actions that may provide relatively more 

benefit to imperiled species. 

The costs resulting from the 

designation include legal costs, the cost 

of preparation and publication of the 

designation, the analysis of the 

economic effects and the cost of 

requesting and responding to public 

comment, and in some cases the costs 

of compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 

U.S.C. 4371 et seq.). These costs, which 

are not required for many other 

conservation actions, directly reduce the 

funds available for direct and tangible 

conservation actions. 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat in this 

rule. For more information on 

Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta 

lyonii, refer to the proposed critical 

habitat published in the Federal 

Register on November 10, 2005 (70 FR 

68982), and the final listing rule 

published on January 29, 1997 (62 FR 

4172). 

Previous Federal Actions 

For more information concerning 

previous Federal actions concerning 

Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta 

lyonii, refer to the proposed designation 

of critical habitat published in the 

Federal Register on November 10, 2005 

(70 FR 68982). On January 27, 2003, our 

decision not to designate critical habitat 

for A. brauntonii and P. lyonii was 

challenged in Center for Biological 

Diversity v. Norton (Case No. 03–CV–

0198–IEG (S.D.Cal.). On July 28, 2003, 

the Court entered a settlement 

agreement, in which the Service agreed 

to submit for publication a proposal to 

withdraw the existing ‘‘not prudent’’

determination together with a new 

proposed critical habitat determination 

for both species by November 1, 2005. 

On November 10, 2005, we published a 

proposed rule to designate 

approximately 3,638 ac (1,471 ha) of 

critical habitat in 6 units in Ventura, Los 

Angeles, and Orange Counties, 

California, for A. brauntonii, and 

approximately 4,212 ac (1,703 ha) of 

critical habitat in 7 units in Ventura and 

Los Angeles Counties, California for P. 

lyonii (70 FR 68982). On July 21, 2006, 

we published a notice announcing the 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis (DEA), and reopening of the 

public comment period (71 FR 41410). 

This comment period closed on August 

21, 2006. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

We requested written comments from 

the public on the proposed designation 

of critical habitat for Astragalus 

brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii in the 

proposed rule published on November 

10, 2005 (70 FR 68982). We also 

contacted appropriate Federal, State, 

and local agencies; scientific 

organizations; and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposed rule. The initial comment 

period ended January 9, 2006. We 

published newspaper notices on July 6, 

2006, in the Ventura County Star, 

Ventura, California; and in the Yorba 

Linda Star, Orange County, California, 

inviting public comment on the 

economic analysis and proposed critical 

habitat designation. We did not receive 

any requests for a public hearing. 

During the comment period that 

opened on November 10, 2005, and 

closed on January 9, 2006, we received 

10 comments directly addressing the 

proposed critical habitat designation: 5 

from peer reviewers, 1 from a Federal 

agency, and 4 from organizations or 

individuals. During the comment period 

that opened on July 21, 2006, and closed 

on August 21, 2006, we received five 

comments directly addressing the 

proposed critical habitat designation 

and the draft economic analysis. Of 

these latter comments, one was from a 

Federal agency, one was from a State 

agency, and three were from 

organizations or individuals. Fourteen 

commenters supported the designation 

of critical habitat for Astragalus 

brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii, and 

one commenter did not express support 

or opposition to the designation but 

requested that the lands under their 

ownership be excluded from the 

designation of critical habitat under 

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

and new information relating to the 

proposed critical habitat designation for 

A. brauntonii and P. lyonii are 

addressed in the following summary 

and incorporated into the final rule as 

appropriate. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinions 

from seven knowledgeable individuals 

with scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the species, the 

geographic region in which the species 

occurs, and conservation biology 

principles. We received responses from 

five of the peer reviewers. The peer 

reviewers generally concurred with our 

methods and conclusions and provided 

additional information, clarifications, 

and suggestions to improve the final 

critical habitat rule. Peer reviewer 

comments are addressed in the 

following summary and incorporated 

into the final rule as appropriate. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewers and the public 

for substantive issues and new 

information regarding critical habitat for 

Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta 

lyonii, and address them in the 

following summary. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

1. Comment: A peer reviewer 

disagreed with our assertion that fire 

suppression was a threat to Astragalus 

brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii. He 

stated that despite efforts to suppress 

fires in coastal southern California, the 

present frequency of fires, which is 

every 15 years or less, is substantially 

higher than historically, which is 

thought to be every 50 to 100 years. This 

current fire frequency has resulted in 

displacing native shrubs with nonnative grasses that are competitively 

superior to A. brauntonii and P. lyonii. 

Therefore, he recommended that 

management of critical habitat areas 

emphasize the need for preventing 

excessive fires. 

Our Response: We agree that 

excessive fires should be prevented in 

critical habitat areas. We note that 

Astragalus brauntonii responds 

favorably to fire because it triggers 

germination of dormant seeds. However, 

if fires are too frequent, this benefit may 

be outweighed by the risk of conversion 

to non-native grasslands. We recognize 

that the long dormant period for seeds 

suggests that frequent fires are not 

necessary to ensure persistence, and 

thus frequent fires should not be 

encouraged. Instead, the management 

goal should be to maintain those 

conditions to which the species is 

adapted. Contrary to the reviewer’s 

assertion, we did not list fire 

suppression as a threat to Pentachaeta 

lyonii. Invasion of non-native plants and 

annual grasses is a major threat to both 

species, and therefore, excessive fires 

should be prevented in critical habitat 

for both species. We have removed fire 

suppression as a threat to A. brauntonii 

in the final designation. 

2. Comment: A peer reviewer 

disagreed with the Service’s statement 

that ‘‘critical habitat provides relatively 

little additional protection to listed 

species,’’ because designation of critical 

habitat includes information about the 

primary constituent elements the 

species needs for persistence and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
66376 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

recovery. This information can be used 

by Federal and non-Federal agencies to 

develop a basic landscape scale longterm conservation strategy for the 

species. 

Our Response: The section referenced 

by the reviewer is intended to be a 

general statement regarding our position 

on the designation of critical habitat. As 

discussed in the preamble of this and 

other critical habitat designation rules, 

we believe that, in most cases, 

conservation mechanisms provided 

through section 7, the section 4 recovery 

planning process, the section 9 

protective prohibitions of unauthorized 

take, section 6 funding to the States, the 

section 10 incidental take permit 

process, and cooperative programs with 

private and public landowners and 

Tribes provide greater incentives and 

conservation benefits than does the 

designation of critical habitat. 

Furthermore, while we agree critical 

habitat designations include species 

specific information that can be used by 

Federal and non-Federal agencies to 

develop a basic landscape scale longterm conservation strategy for a species, 

agencies may obtain similar types of 

information from other Service 

documents, such as species recovery 

plans. 

3. Comment: A peer reviewer 

commented that the proposed critical 

habitat rule did not discuss the 

Incidental Take permit for Pentachaeta 

lyonii pursuant to Fish and Game Code 

Section 1081 that is currently being 

processed for the Lake Sherwood Area 

Plan in Ventura County. The peer 

reviewer stated that most of the western 

portion of Unit 3c is addressed in the 

plan. 

Our Response: We are aware of the 

State of California’s pending Incidental 

Take permit for the Lake Sherwood Area 

Plan. However, as of this final 

designation, the plan is not finished and 

thus has not yet been approved. 

Therefore, we did not consider the 

potential impacts of the proposed 

activities on Pentachaeta lyonii or 

critical habitat within the Lake 

Sherwood Area Plan for this 

designation. 

4. Comment: A peer reviewer stated 

that we did not include in our records 

a location of Astragalus brauntonii that 

occurs on the ‘‘old Ahmanson 

property.’’

Our Response: The reviewer is 

referring to occurrence number 29 in the 

California Natural Diversity Database 

(CNDDB) record for Astragalus 

brauntonii. The exact location of this 

occurrence is not known. After careful 

review and inquiries to several 

individuals who are familiar with the 

occurrences for this species, we have 

concluded that this occurrence is 

probably incorrect and may not exist. 

We welcome any further information 

about this occurrence. 

5. Comment: A peer reviewer stated 

that the ‘‘historic Stunt Ranch site’’

should be included for recovery 

purposes for potential reintroduction. 

The reviewer is referring to occurrence 

number 3 in the CNDDB database record 

for Pentachaeta lyonii. 

Our Response: We did not include 

this occurrence because it currently 

does not appear to be suitable habitat for 

Pentachaeta lyonii. The species has not 

been present on the site since it burned 

in 1993. The soil in that area has been 

heavily disturbed by gophers, and this 

has made the area very favorable for 

non-native annual grasses. Despite the 

fact that this occurrence was not 

included in critical habitat, we 

recognize that there may be 

reintroduction potential for this site, 

and would consider this a valid 

recovery effort for the species. 

6. Comment: A peer reviewer thought 

that the designation of critical habitat 

for Astragalus brauntonii should be 

postponed until the portions of 

proposed critical habitat that were 

burned by a wildfire in 2005 (subunits 

1a–1d and subunits 2a–2f) could be 

surveyed. The fires may have stimulated 

dormant seeds of A. brauntonii in areas 

where the plant was not known to 

occur. The purpose of these surveys 

would be to determine if there are 

additional areas that contain A. 

brauntonii for inclusion into critical 

habitat. 

Our Response: We were unable to 

postpone designation of critical habitat 

to wait for the results of post-fire 

surveys because a July 28, 2003, 

settlement agreement and resulting 

court order mandated that we propose 

critical habitat by November 1, 2005, 

and finalize the critical habitat 

designation by November 1, 2006. 

However, we did fund post-fire surveys 

for Astragalus brauntonii in those areas 

that were burned. The results of those 

surveys revealed several new locations 

of A. brauntonii outside of proposed 

critical habitat. One location was found 

along a firebreak extending up to 2,297 

feet (ft) (700 meters (m)) from subunit 2a 

in Oakbrook Regional Park, and at least 

four new locations were found between 

subunits 2d and 2e. These locations are 

within areas similar in habitat, and 

within the known distribution of the 

species. This highlights the difficulty in 

determining every occurrence of the 

species because the locations of 

dormant seeds may be unknown until a 

disturbance occurs. However critical 

habitat does not reflect every population 

or occurrence of A. brauntonii. We are 

designating habitat that we have 

determined contains the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species arranged in 

the quantity and spatial characteristics 

necessary for conservation (see section 

titled ‘‘Critical Habitat’’ below for more 

information on the determination of 

critical habitat). 

7. Comment: A peer reviewer thought 

that PCE 1 for Astragalus brauntonii, 

which was ‘‘carbonate limestone soils 

derived from marine sediment,’’ was not 

the best description of the soil type 

associated with the plant. A recent 

study in which soil samples were taken 

at most locations of A. brauntonii 

revealed that the plant occurs in areas 

with calcium carbonate soils (a broader 

range of soils), and not necessarily 

where soils are derived from limestone 

(Landis 2005). The reviewer suggested 

that the original PCE could lead 

researchers to only look for A. 

brauntonii in soils that are obviously 

derived from limestone. 

Our Response: We have changed this 

PCE by removing the reference to 

limestone soils and adding calcium 

carbonate to the soils description. This 

change is also reflected in ‘‘Areas that 

Provide the Basic Requirements for 

Growth (Such as Water, Light, and 

Minerals).’’

8. Comment: A peer reviewer 

commented that he is aware of 

occurrences of Astragalus brauntonii 

between Units 3 and 4 but is unable to 

disclose the locations because he 

entered into a ‘‘confidentiality clause’’

with the clients that commissioned 

surveys. 

Our Response: We are not entirely 

surprised that additional populations 

occur in the area between units 3 and 

4, because this intervening area has 

similar features and PCEs to the two 

units. The Service has made a diligent 

effort to gather all sources of 

information concerning the distribution 

of this species, including surveys and 

other studies, biological assessments, 

other unpublished materials, and the 

personal knowledge of experts. Our 

proposed critical habitat was based on 

the best information available to us at 

the time. 

9. Comment: A peer reviewer wanted 

to know why there were discussions of 

4 PCEs for Astragalus brauntonii and 

Pentachaeta lyonii throughout the 

proposed rule, but only 3 PCEs were 

listed in the PCE section of the proposed 

rule. 

Our Response: Only three PCEs were 

included in the proposed rule. The 

reference to 4 PCEs in the proposed rule 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66377 

was an error, which has been corrected 

in this final rule. 

10. Comment: One peer reviewer 

suggested that a population viability 

analyses would assist us in designing 

critical habitat units that are large 

enough to assure persistence of 

sufficiently sized populations. Another 

peer reviewer thought that most of the 

units are too small and should be 

increased in size to reduce potential 

impacts of Argentine ant invasions on 

pollinators. Argentine ants are 

associated with manmade structures, 

and research has shown that they 

reduce native arthropod populations 

(e.g., bees and wasps) up to 656 ft (200 

m) from their nests. The peer reviewer 

commented that Argentine ants could 

threaten the persistence of the plants 

because they would be expected to 

displace the pollinator community and 

suggested that we should include an 

additional ‘‘ant buffer’’ of 656 ft (200 m) 

around each unit, which would make 

the minimum unit size about 180 ac (73 

ha). 

Our Response: We used the best 

scientific information available for this 

designation, and the Service does not 

typically conduct population viability 

analyses to assist in determining critical 

habitat. We acknowledge the potential 

indirect negative impacts of Argentine 

ants on the pollinators of these plant 

species and agree that a 656-ft (200-m) 

distance from the nearest edge of 

manmade structure may reduce any 

potential impacts. The impacts of 

Argentine ants on a rare native plant 

were discussed in a study by 

Conservation Biology Institute (2000). 

However, critical habitat, within the 

geographical range occupied by the 

species at the time it was listed, is 

defined by those physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species (see Primary Constituent 

Elements section) which may require 

special management or protection. 

Physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation means 

PCEs arranged in the quantity and 

spatial characteristics necessary for 

conservation of the species. Critical 

habitat is not intended to create a 

preserve or other conservation area, or 

to include buffers in order to reduce 

impacts from manmade structures. The 

potential direct and indirect impacts to 

critical habitat and listed plants as a 

result of development of manmade 

structures would presumably be 

addressed through section 7 or other 

regulatory means. Therefore, while we 

recognize the reviewer’s position, we 

believe that any identifiable impacts 

will be addressed through other 

regulatory means. 

Comments From the State 

Section 4(i) of the Act states, ‘‘the 

Secretary shall submit to the State 

agency a written justification for failure 

to adopt regulations consistent with the 

agency’s comments or petition.’’

California Department of Fish and Game 

(CDFG) provided the following 

comments concerning the proposed 

critical habitat designation for 

Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta 

lyonii. 

11. Comment: CDFG provided several 

corrections to our habitat description for 

Pentachaeta lyonii. They stated that P. 

lyonii is not always confined to flat 

slopes but is known to occur on slopes 

20–30 percent or greater, and said it can 

occur on thin volcanic surface soils 

underlaid by near-surface volcanic rock, 

and in localized flat areas on steep 

slopes, dirt hiking trails, and old 

roadbeds. 

Our Response: We based our habitat 

description on the best available 

information to us at the time, but 

acknowledge that Pentachaeta lyonii 

may occur in a broader range of habitat 

preferences than was described in the 

proposed critical habitat. 

12. Comment: CDFG stated that PCE 

2 for Astragalus brauntonii, ‘‘Low 

proportion (<10%) of shrub cover 

directly around the plant,’’ was not 

entirely correct because the species may 

persist in the form of dormant seeds 

within mature stands of chaparral 

between episodes of fire. Therefore, 

occupied habitat would only contain 

PCE 2 at some points in successional 

time. 

Our Response: We recognize that 

Astragalus brauntonii occurrences may 

not contain PCE 2 all of the time, but 

this PCE is essential for the plant to be 

able to complete a necessary life history 

component—seed germination and 

plant growth. It is not necessary for all 

three PCEs to be present at a site at all 

times for it to be considered critical 

habitat. 

13. Comment: CDFG said that we 

were incorrect in stating that 

Pentachaeta lyonii does not maintain a 

dormant seed bank, and that the species 

responds to favorable growing 

conditions with dramatic increases in 

population numbers and occupied 

acreage, suggesting that the species 

maintains some type of seed bank 

between years. 

Our Response: Keeley (1995) found 

that seeds buried more that 1⁄4 inch 

under the soil for more than 6 months 

did not germinate, leading to his 

conclusion that the species does not 

maintain a dormant seed bank. 

However, in a later study, he 

acknowledged that seeds likely remain 

dormant during drought years 

(Fotheringham and Keeley 1998), and 

hypothesized that seeds may need to be 

buried less than 1⁄4 inch to germinate 

following long-term dormancy periods. 

This hypothesis contradicted his 

previous conclusion that the species 

does not maintain a seed bank. We have 

corrected the final rule to reflect this 

information. 

14. Comment: CDFG employees have 

observed Pentachaeta lyonii in habitat 

that does not appear to contain a biotic 

crust, so biotic crust should not be 

considered essential for all populations. 

In this critical habitat designation, PCE 

2 is listed as ‘‘Exposed soils that exhibit 

a microbiotic crust which may inhibit 

invasion by other plant competitors.’’ 

Our Response: Although there has not 

been a specific study on biotic crusts 

and Pentachaeta lyonii, the habitat of 

this species was characterized in the 

listing rule by ‘‘a low percentage of total 

plant cover and exposed soils with a 

microbiotic crust, partially assisting 

with reducing competition with other 

species.’’ Crusts can be seen at many 

occupied sites of P. lyonii, and it is 

believed that these crusts reduce the 

ability of other plants to invade areas 

where P. lyonii occurs. We believe that 

this is an important PCE because it 

highlights a special management 

consideration for this species, which is 

that disturbance of the soil’s surface 

crust should be avoided to prevent 

invasion by other plant species. We 

recognize that not every occurrence may 

contain microbiotic crusts, and it is not 

necessary for all three PCEs to be 

present at a site for it to be considered 

critical habitat. 

15. Comment: CDFG noted that the 

minimum distance from one edge of a 

proposed unit to the other edge is 

insufficient to reduce potential adverse 

edge effects. They stated that Argentine 

ants, which are associated with 

manmade structures, are known to 

reduce native arthropod populations, 

including known insect pollinators of 

these species, such as bees and wasps. 

According to research, a distance of 

328–656 ft (100–200 m) from the urban 

edge to core habitat is needed to ensure 

that core habitats remain free of 

Argentine ants. 

Our Response: As discussed in our 

response to comment 10, we 

acknowledge that there is the potential 

for indirect negative impacts of 

Argentine ants associated with 

manmade structures on the pollinators 

of these plant species, and agree that an 

additional 328–656 ft (100–200 m) 

distance beyond the proposed units and 

from the nearest urban edge may reduce 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
66378 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

these impacts. However, in defining 

critical habitat, we believe that we have 

identified those areas that contain the 

PCEs essential to the conservation of the 

species which may require special 

management considerations or 

protections. The potential direct and 

indirect impacts to critical habitat and 

listed plants as a result of development 

of manmade structures would 

presumably be addressed through 

section 7 or other regulatory means. 

16. Comment: CDFG commented that 

the true distribution of Astragalus 

brauntonii is not known because of the 

species’ dormant seeds that may persist 

undetected in the soil for many years, 

and recommended using soil and 

geologic maps to capture additional 

potentially suitable habitat in the 

vicinity of known locations. 

Our Response: We included 

additional suitable habitat up to 935 ft 

(285 m) from known occurrences in 

order to capture areas that are likely to 

contain an undetected seed bank and to 

allow for genetic exchange between 

patches. We did not include habitat 

beyond the 935 ft (285 m) distance, 

because those areas are not known to be 

occupied by the species nor do we have 

evidence to support that this habitat is 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. We recognize that designation 

of critical habitat may not include all of 

the habitat areas that may ultimately be 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species, and therefore, critical habitat 

designations do not signal that habitat 

outside the designation is unimportant 

or not required for recovery. 

17. Comment: CDFG commented that 

many of the units for both species lack 

connectivity to other units; suggested 

connecting units where there is 

potentially suitable geology or soils; and 

gave specific examples of units that 

could be connected. 

Our Response: We connected 

occurrences that were within 1,968 ft 

(600 m) of each other into single units 

to allow for genetic exchange between 

populations. We did not connect 

occurrences beyond that distance 

because they were not likely to be 

genetically connected. In some cases, 

units closer than 1,968 ft (600 m) from 

each other were not connected because 

the intervening habitat was developed 

and lacked the PCEs. 

Public Comments on the Process of 

Designating Critical Habitat 

18. Comment: One commenter stated 

that the ‘‘historic Stunt Ranch site’’

should be included for recovery 

purposes for potential reintroduction. 

This commenter is referring to 

occurrence number 3 in the CNDDB 

database record for Pentachaeta lyonii. 

Our Response: As explained in our 

response to peer review comment 5, we 

did not include this occurrence because 

it currently does not appear to be 

suitable habitat for Pentachaeta lyonii. 

Despite the fact that this occurrence was 

not included in critical habitat, we 

recognize that there may be 

reintroduction potential for this site, 

and would consider reintroduction to be 

a valid recovery effort for the species. 

19. Comment: One commenter 

disagreed with the Service’s statement 

that ‘‘critical habitat provides relatively 

little additional protection to listed 

species’’ and asserted that critical 

habitat designations include 

information about the primary 

constituent elements the species needs 

for persistence and recovery. This 

information can be used by Federal and 

non-Federal agencies to develop a basic 

landscape scale long-term conservation 

strategy for the species. 

Our Response: As discussed in our 

response to peer review comment 2, the 

section referenced by the commenter is 

intended to be a general statement 

regarding our position on the 

designation of critical habitat. Although 

it is our position that the conservation 

and recovery of listed species are better 

served through other conservation 

mechanisms, we agree with the 

commenter’s assertion that the 

information contained in this 

designation can be used to develop 

long-term conservation strategies for the 

species. 

20. Comment: Several commenters 

thought that many of the units for both 

species were too small for a variety of 

reasons. They commented that we failed 

to account for areas needed for 

pollinator reproduction, which are 

different from pollinator foraging areas 

and may require larger patch sizes to 

support the pollinator population. One 

commenter asserted that additional area 

is needed to provide for pollinator 

persistence and pollinator linkages 

between populations of Pentachaeta 

lyonii, and that the minimum size 

needed to ensure persistence depends 

on local habitat conditions and the 

degree of isolation between patch sizes. 

The commenter noted that P. lyonii 

requires a low proportion of vegetative 

cover to persist, suggesting that patches 

should be larger to contain enough 

flowering plants to support pollinators. 

Similarly, a commenter thought critical 

habitat should be enlarged and merged 

to include appropriate soils and 

potential habitat and provide 

opportunities for pollinator dispersal. In 

the opinion of the commenter, this 

would provide corridors of connectivity, 

reducing habitat fragmentation and 

genetic isolation. Larger areas would 

also better support populations that 

shift in time and space, allow for 

ecosystem processes (including fire or 

fire-like disturbances) to function at 

appropriate scales, and minimize edge 

effects. 

Our Response: We generally agree 

with the conservation biology principles 

and rationale presented by the 

commenters. However, the Act states 

that critical habitat is ‘‘the specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species * * * on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species’’ (i.e., PCEs (see Primary 

Constituent Elements section)). 

Furthermore, based on the Act, we only 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing 

when the best available information 

indicates that it is essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

We used the best scientific 

information available to determine the 

necessary habitat to ensure persistence 

of individual populations. In order to 

reduce fragmentation and preserve 

genetic connectivity, we connected 

populations within 1,968 ft (600 m) of 

each other because they are likely to be 

visited by the same pollinators. We also 

designated suitable habitat to allow for 

important life-history functions such as 

seed dispersal and presence of 

pollinators, and included areas that 

likely contain a seed bank and/or 

unmapped patches within populations. 

We believe that our critical habitat 

design captures the areas essential to the 

conservation to the species based on the 

best scientific information currently 

available. We believe that by capturing 

entire populations within single critical 

habitat units and by connecting 

populations within 1,968 ft (600 m) of 

each other into single units, the species 

will persist and pollination will 

continue. 

21. Comment: One commenter 

thought that surveys should be 

conducted for Astragalus brauntonii 

and Pentachaeta lyonii because of a 

wildfire that burned areas within the 

known distribution of the species, and 

any additional locations discovered 

should be included in critical habitat. 

Our Response: As discussed in our 

response to comment 6, we were unable 

to postpone our proposed designation of 

critical habitat further to incorporate the 

results of these surveys, although we 

funded post-fire surveys for Astragalus 

brauntonii in those areas that were 

burned and found additional locations 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66379 

of the species. We determined that the 

fire did not burn within the known 

distribution of Pentachaeta lyonii, so 

there was no need for post-fire surveys. 

22. Comment: One commenter 

thought that PCE 1 for Astragalus 

brauntonii, ‘‘carbonate limestone soils 

derived from marine sediment,’’ was not 

the best description of the soil type 

associated with the plant. A recent 

study in which soil samples were taken 

at locations of A. brauntonii revealed 

that the plant occurs with calcium 

carbonate soils (a broader range of soils), 

and not necessarily with limestonederived soils (Landis 2005). The PCE as 

originally proposed could lead 

researchers to only look for A. 

brauntonii on soils that are obviously 

derived from limestone. 

Our Response: As stated in our 

response to comment 7, we have 

changed this PCE by removing the 

reference to limestone soils and adding 

calcium carbonate to the soils 

description. This change is also 

reflected in ‘‘Areas that Provide the 

Basic Requirements for Growth (Such as 

Water, Light, and Minerals)’’. 

23. Comment: Two commenters 

thought that an occurrence of Astragalus 

brauntonii located within the City of 

Oak Park should have been included 

within critical habitat because it 

contains the largest known seed bank in 

the Simi Hills. The commenters noted 

that inclusion of this occurrence, if a 

3,281-ft (1,000-m) zone to protect 

pollinator habitat was incorporated, 

would link units 2c and 2d. In addition, 

one of the commenters stated that a 

‘‘Rare Plant Conservation Plan’’ is in 

effect in the Oak Park area that covers 

three tiny preserves within open space 

and a ‘‘demonstration garden’’ that 

contains A. brauntonii, on land owned 

and managed by the Rancho Simi 

Recreation and Parks District. The 

commenter states that the plan does not 

adequately ensure the conservation and 

persistence of A. brauntonii, and should 

not be used as a basis to exclude this 

occurrence from critical habitat. 

Our Response: The commenters are 

referring to occurrence 20 in the CNDDB 

record for Astragalus brauntonii. We 

did not include this occurrence because 

it does not contain the PCEs. A large 

portion of this occurrence was removed 

by Rancho Simi Recreation and Parks 

District to create a city park, other 

portions were removed by urban 

development, and very small remaining 

portions are surrounded by or directly 

adjacent to urban development. It is 

difficult to determine the size of a seed 

bank, and there is no clear evidence that 

this occurrence contains the largest 

known seed bank in the Simi Hills, 

although small numbers of plants and a 

seed bank may remain within open 

space areas along the periphery of 

developed areas. Remaining portions of 

this occurrence are almost completely 

surrounded by urban development; 

therefore, we would be unable to link 

units 2c and 2d because we do not 

intentionally include developed areas 

such as buildings, paved areas, and 

other areas that lack the PCEs. Because 

this occurrence does not contain the 

PCEs, we did not evaluate the existing 

conservation plan as a basis for 

excluding this occurrence from critical 

habitat. 

24. Comment: Several commenters 

identified portions of Pentachaeta lyonii 

populations that were not included in 

the designation (e.g., in subunit 2a, and 

Unit 4), and also thought that 

intervening habitat between subunits 

should have been included (e.g., 

between subunits 2b and 2c, and 

between the two parts of subunit 3c). 

Our Response: We do not 

intentionally include developed areas 

such as buildings, paved areas, and 

other areas that lack the PCEs in our 

critical habitat designations. Based on 

aerial photos of those areas 

(PhotoMapper 3.50, AirPhoto USA, NW 

Los Angeles Map 1999), we determined 

that those portions of populations and 

intervening habitat were previously 

removed by urban development. 

25. Comment: A commenter thought 

we should have included Pentachaeta 

lyonii occurrences 9 and 19 from the 

CNDDB records in critical habitat. 

Our Response: We only included 

extant occurrences that contain the 

PCEs within critical habitat. We did not 

include occurrence 9 within the nearby 

Unit 7 (Malibu Lake unit) because, 

based on the CNDDB records, this 

occurrence has been extirpated since 

1992. We did not include occurrence 19 

because three of the four patches of 

Pentachaeta lyonii within this 

occurrence were removed by 

construction of a golf course. The fourth 

and only remaining patch is within 

approximately a 500 square-foot (46- 

square-meter) area, and is surrounded 

by the golf course. We believe that this 

remaining occurrence contains a 

population size of fewer than 10 

individuals and may have even been 

extirpated. This location lacks the PCEs 

and has little recovery or conservation 

value; therefore, it was not included in 

the critical habitat designation. 

26. Comment: There were several 

suggestions of simple management 

strategies for protecting both species 

that would not result in economic 

hardship on any jurisdiction or 

management agency, as well as 

suggestions for additional new criteria 

for delisting. For Astragalus brauntonii, 

suggested management techniques 

include: Lifting the blade of bulldozers 

at least 18 inches in the air when 

clearing roads or creating firebreaks; 

using weed-whackers to clear weeds 

around the plant; and leaving cut stalks 

and seedpods on the side of the road 

rather than removing A. brauntonii 

plant material. For Pentachaeta lyonii, 

suggested management techniques 

include routing roads around critical 

habitat areas and controlling non-native 

weeds invading critical habitat areas 

without the use of herbicides and 

without disturbing the soil. For both 

species, suggested management 

techniques include not transplanting 

plants as a conservation tool because 

both species are dependent on specific 

soil characteristics and performing road 

maintenance, fuel modification, and 

other management activities after 

fruiting. 

Our Response: We have incorporated 

some of the management strategies into 

the section titled ‘‘Special Management 

Considerations or Protections’’ in this 

rule. We may also provide these 

suggestions, in the form of best 

management practices, to local agencies 

when we provide technical assistance 

regarding ways to reduce impacts to 

listed species, and to Federal agencies 

through the section 7 consultation 

process. The suggested new criteria for 

delisting are valid recovery actions that 

we may attempt to accomplish in future 

recovery actions for the species. These 

criteria may also be incorporated into a 

revised recovery plan at some point in 

the future. 

27. Comment: One commenter 

thought that the proposed critical 

habitat only maintains both species at 

their current level with no opportunity 

for recovery because we do not propose 

unoccupied suitable habitat. Other 

commenters thought that we should 

have included unoccupied suitable 

habitat on land owned by the National 

Park Service (NPS) or by local open 

space agencies because they represent 

opportunities for population expansion 

for the species. They noted that an 

experimental population of Pentachaeta 

lyonii was recently introduced at 

Paramount Ranch on NPS land, 

illustrating the potential for 

reintroductions into other areas. 

Our Response: We disagree with the 

commenter that our proposal and 

designation do not provide 

opportunities for recovery of the 

species. Our critical habitat designation 

noted the fact that both plants occur in 

patchy distributions both physically and 

temporally. In order to incorporate 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
66380 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

entire populations, we conducted a 

nearest neighbor analysis and 

determined that the average distance 

between patches of plants was 275 m 

(902 ft) for Pentachaeta lyonii and 285 

m (935 ft) for Astragalus brauntonii. 

Therefore, in areas where the habitat 

was contiguous and PCEs were present, 

we included suitable habitat up to 275 

m (902 ft) and 285 m (935 ft) from 

known patches of P. lyonii and A. 

brauntonii, respectively, to ensure that 

we captured the entire population 

(including the seed bank) within one 

critical habitat unit and minimized 

fragmentation. Furthermore, where we 

had populations within 600 m (1,968 ft) 

of one another and the habitat was 

contiguous and contained the PCEs, we 

connected those populations together in 

one unit to facilitate genetic exchange 

between populations through pollinator 

activity. We expect that these areas 

contain a seed bank, and/or additional 

suitable habitat for population 

expansion through seed dispersal. Both 

of these strategies capture recovery 

opportunities for the species and, 

through these strategies, we believe we 

have captured the entire area necessary 

to ensure persistence of the species. For 

further information, please refer to the 

‘‘Criteria Used to Identify Critical 

Habitat’’ section. Although we did not 

designate specific areas of unoccupied 

habitat for potential reintroductions, we 

believe that this can be an important 

recovery tool for P. lyonii, particularly 

on Federal Lands, and we support these 

types of actions. We recognize that 

designation of critical habitat may not 

include all of the habitat areas that are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species, and therefore, critical habitat 

designations do not signal that habitat 

outside the designation is unimportant 

or not required for recovery. 

28. Comment: A researcher 

commented that we were incorrect in 

stating that Pentachaeta lyonii does not 

maintain a dormant seed bank. Surveys 

conducted in multiple years at the same 

site show large fluctuations in 

population size, and this would likely 

be impossible unless the species 

maintains a seed bank for at least 5 to 

10 years. 

Our Response: As discussed in our 

response to comment 13 from the State, 

we have corrected the final rule to 

reflect this information. 

29. Comment: A researcher 

commented that the role of biotic crusts 

is unsupported by data and that this 

should not be used for PCE 2 for 

Pentachaeta lyonii because it suggests 

that crust is a required element for P. 

lyonii habitat. In the proposed 

designation, PCE 2 was listed as 

‘‘Exposed soils that exhibit a 

microbiotic crust which may inhibit 

invasion by other plant competitors.’’

Our Response: As discussed in our 

response to comment 14, we recognize 

that not every occurrence may contain 

microbiotic crusts, and it is not 

necessary for all three PCEs to be 

present at a site for it to be considered 

critical habitat. 

30. Comment: A researcher 

commented that PCE 3 for Pentachaeta 

lyonii should focus on the presence of 

bare ground rather than on proportion of 

vegetative cover. In the proposed 

designation, PCE 3 was listed as ‘‘low 

proportion of total vegetative cover 

(<25%).’’ The commenter asserted that 

this PCE can be misleading because, 

based on research, P. lyonii is found in 

areas with 20 to 60 percent cover of 

native vegetation at a larger scale (i.e., 

538 to 2,153 square foot patch sizes (50 

to 200 square meter)). Although the 

species can be found in areas with a 

larger proportion of total vegetative 

cover, there needs to be small openings 

of bare ground for the plant to grow in 

(i.e., > 10% bare ground on a small scale 

of less than approximately 3 ft (1 m) 

because it does not compete well with 

other species. In addition, the researcher 

found that plant litter accumulation 

associated with annual grass invasion 

reduces P. lyonii populations. The 

commenter indicated that this finding 

further highlights that bare ground is an 

essential component of this species’

habitat. 

Our Response: We agree with the 

researcher’s comment, and have 

changed P. lyonii PCE 3 to read: ‘‘a 

mosaic of bare ground (>10%) patches 

in an area with less than 60 percent 

cover.’’ We believe this more accurately 

reflects the physical and biological 

needs essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

31. Comment: A researcher 

commented that we should have a PCE 

that addresses habitat quality based on 

presence of Pentachaeta lyoniiassociated native plant species and the 

absence of non-native invasive plants. P. 

lyonii habitat that is in decline shows 

increased presence of non-native 

species, build-up of litter cover and loss 

of bare ground, and slow loss of 

associated species. 

Our Response: We agree that presence 

of non-native invasive plants indicates 

poor habitat quality for Pentachaeta 

lyonii, and that presence of some 

associated native species can be a good 

indicator of good habitat quality, and 

this concept was discussed in the 

proposed and final rule. However, we 

believe that PCEs 2 and 3 adequately 

capture habitat quality, because it is 

unlikely that either PCE would exist if 

the unit became overtaken with nonnative invasive plants. 

Comments Related to the Draft 

Economic Analysis 

32. Comment: Two commenters stated 

that economic analysis overestimates 

the cost of critical habitat designation 

because it will affect real estate 

development on private lands only 

where there is a Federal nexus. Such a 

nexus will not exist for most projects in 

the area proposed as critical habitat. 

Our Response: We recognize that real 

estate development on private lands 

does not come under the purview of the 

section 7 consultation process unless 

there is a Federal nexus. However, it is 

difficult to predict which future actions 

may bare a Federal nexus. The 

methodology of the analysis quantifies 

future costs when it is possible to isolate 

and measure them and then calculates 

the economic surplus resulting from 

future activities that may take place 

within proposed critical habitat. This 

approach avoids speculation about 

regulatory impacts. It is, however, 

possible to calculate the value added 

from development activities within 

areas of critical habitat. By using this 

methodology, we believe we have 

appropriately captured potential costs to 

the real estate development sector. 

33. Comment: One commenter stated 

that costs that occurred prior to 

designation should not be included in 

the cost of critical habitat designation. 

Our Response: Based on the 10th 

Circuit Court’s ruling in New Mexico 

Cattle Growers Association v. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 248 F.3d 1277, 128 

(10th Cir. 2001) the Service conducts a 

full analysis of all the economic impacts 

of a critical habitat designation, 

regardless of whether those impacts are 

attributable co-extensively to other 

causes. Accordingly, here, the economic 

analysis specifies that it considers the 

future economic impacts associated 

with critical habitat designation and 

past costs that have resulted from efforts 

to conserve the species within areas of 

critical habitat. As explained in section 

III.1, past costs are defined as costs that 

occurred between when the species was 

listed under the Endangered Species Act 

and the present. These past costs are not 

attributable to critical habitat. 

34. Comment: One commenter 

suggested that past development 

projects in areas of critical habitat 

should be analyzed to determine the 

limitations on development arising from 

critical habitat. 

Our Response: The economic analysis 

uses consultation history to determine 

how many future development projects 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66381 

will have a Federal nexus and what the 

recommended restriction on 

development will be. For both species 

in question, the number of available 

consultations on private development 

projects is highly limited or nonexistent. 

The available evidence, however, 

suggests that total avoidance of the 

species has been required in the past; 

for example, the 1999 consultation with 

Lennar Homes referenced in the report. 

35. Comment: One commenter stated 

that that local zoning and other 

restrictions limit the pace of 

development, thus reducing the costs of 

critical habitat. 

Our Response: We agree that local 

regulation plays a large role in 

determining the timing and intensity of 

development. The development 

projections from the Southern California 

Association of Governments (SCAG) 

that form the basis of the economic 

modeling incorporate these restrictions. 

36. Comment: One commenter stated 

that there are many additional benefits 

of critical habitat designation beyond 

just the conservation of habitat for the 

listed species, and that these should be 

included in the economic analysis. 

Our Response: In the context of a 

critical habitat designation, the primary 

purpose of the rulemaking (i.e., the 

direct benefit) is to designate areas in 

need of special management that 

contain the features that are essential to 

the conservation of listed species. 

The designation of critical habitat 

may result in two distinct categories of 

benefits to society: (1) Use; and (2) nonuse benefits. Use benefits are simply the 

social benefits that accrue from the 

physical use of a resource. Visiting 

critical habitat to see endangered 

species in their natural habitat would be 

a primary example. Non-use benefits, in 

contrast, represent welfare gains from 

‘‘just knowing’ that a particular listed 

species’’ natural habitat is being 

specially managed for the survival and 

recovery of that species. Both use and 

non-use benefits may occur 

unaccompanied by any market 

transactions. 

A primary reason for conducting this 

analysis is to provide information 

regarding the economic impacts 

associated with a proposed critical 

habitat designation. Section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act requires the Secretary to 

designate critical habitat based on the 

best scientific data available after taking 

into consideration the economic impact, 

and any other relevant impact, of 

specifying any particular area as critical 

habitat. Economic impacts can be both 

positive and negative and by definition, 

are observable through market 

transactions. 

Where data are available, the analysis 

attempt to recognize and measure the 

net economic impact (i.e., the increased 

regulatory burden less any discernable 

offsetting market gains), of species 

conservation efforts imposed on 

regulated entities and the regional 

economy. 

Under Executive Order 12866, OMB 

directs Federal agencies to provide an 

assessment of both the social costs and 

benefits of proposed regulatory actions. 

OMB’s Circular A–4 distinguishes two 

types of economic benefits: direct 

benefits and ancillary benefits. 

Ancillary benefits are defined as 

favorable impacts of a rulemaking that 

are typically unrelated, or secondary, to 

the statutory purpose of the rulemaking. 

In the context of critical habitat, the 

primary purpose of the rulemaking (i.e., 

the direct benefit) is the potential to 

enhance conservation of the species. 

The published economics literature has 

documented that social welfare benefits 

can result from the conservation and 

recovery of endangered and threatened 

species. In its guidance for 

implementing Executive Order 12866, 

OMB acknowledges that it may not be 

feasible to monetize, or even quantify, 

the benefits of environmental 

regulations due to either an absence of 

defensible, relevant studies or a lack of 

resources on the implementing agency’s 

part to conduct new research. Rather 

than rely on economic measures, the 

Service believes that the direct benefits 

of the proposed rule are best expressed 

in biological terms that can be weighed 

against the expected cost impacts of the 

rulemaking. 

We have accordingly considered, in 

evaluating the benefits of excluding 

versus including specific areas, the 

biological benefits that may occur to a 

species from designation (see below, 

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

Act), but these biological benefits are 

not addressed in the economic analysis. 

37. Comment: One commenter stated 

that Section 9 of the ESA is flawed, and 

allows extirpation of plants in areas 

outside federal jurisdiction. The 

comment asserts that critical habitat is 

important to the conservation of the 

species by prohibiting take, requiring 

mitigation and facilitating the 

development of recovery plans. 

Our Response: Critical habitat does 

not prohibit take of plants on private 

lands, or require mitigation for private 

activities. Critical Habitat only affects 

private activities when a project 

requires a Federal permit, approval or 

funding. The Act requires the Service to 

develop recovery plans independent of 

critical habitat designations. 

38. Comment: One commenter 

thought that the cost estimated in the 

economic analysis was too high because 

it includes costs attributable to listing as 

opposed to costs of critical habitat 

designation. A second commenter 

asserted that it was unlawful to report 

the coextensive costs of conserving the 

species and that only the incremental 

costs resulting from critical habitat 

should be reported. 

Our Response: The primary purpose 

of the economic analysis is to estimate 

the potential economic impacts 

associated with the designation of 

critical habitat for these two species. We 

interpret the Act to require that the 

economic analysis include all of the 

economic impacts associated with the 

conservation of the species, which may 

include some of the effects associated 

with listing. We note that the Act 

generally requires critical habitat to be 

designated at the time of listing, and if 

we had conducted an economic analysis 

at that time, the impacts associated with 

listing would not be readily 

distinguishable from those associated 

with critical habitat designation. 

39. Comment: One commenter 

indicated that the majority of lands 

designated as critical habitat are already 

conserved as open space and thus not 

likely to be developed. 

Our Response: We agree that a 

significant amount of land within the 

areas proposed as critical habitat has 

been conserved as open space via longterm agreements. We have detailed 

these agreements for each unit of 

proposed critical habitat. Projected 

development in the economic analysis 

is limited to areas that fall outside these 

conservation commitments. 

40. Comment: One commenter 

asserted that SCAG projections are 

inadequate since they fail to consider 

local zoning requirements and capture 

only the potential for development in 

various regions. 

Our Response: The SCAG 

development projections are the best 

information available on the extent, 

timing and placement of real estate 

development in the Los Angeles 

metropolitan region. These forecasts are 

based on aggregate projections of 

economic activity and employment, as 

well as location-specific factors such as 

zoning and other local factors. 

41. Comment: One commenter stated 

that the costs presented in Table 1 of the 

Draft Economic Analyses are overstated 

because portions of proposed critical 

habitat are public lands. 

Our Response: The totals presented in 

Table 1 are associated with 

development occurring on private land 

only. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
66382 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

42. Comment: One public comment 

stated that there is a discrepancy in the 

‘‘Surplus per Developed Acre’’ between 

Table 1 and the text. 

Our Response: Table 1 is correct, 

however, the corresponding figure 

presented in the text ($2,714,359) is not. 

This has been corrected in the final 

economic analysis. 

43. Comment: One commenter stated 

that the small business analyses are 

incomplete. 

Our Response: These sections have 

been expanded in the final economic 

analyses. 

44. Comment: One commenter stated 

that it is unclear how the IMPLAN 

(economic modeling software) analyses 

calculated such a high number when the 

designation of critical habitat does not 

prevent development. 

Our Response: The regional economic 

analysis considers the secondary effects 

of housing construction within the areas 

proposed as critical habitat. We note, 

however, that estimated secondary 

effects are small when considered as a 

fraction of the total contribution of the 

housing industry to the Southern 

California economy. 

45. Comment: One commenter stated 

that it is unclear how the IMPLAN 

Analyses evaluates the secondary effects 

of critical habitat designation on other 

industries. 

Our Response: Section V Regional 

Economic Impacts contains an 

explanation of how IMPLAN, which is 

an input-output model, computes 

indirect and induced effects. See also 

Table 3, which breaks down the 

secondary effects of designation to each 

industry. 

46. Comment: One commenter 

asserted that the costs presented in 

Table 1 are significantly higher than 

they should be because they are 

associated with the designation on 

public and private lands. 

Our Response: The costs presented in 

the reports are estimated based on the 

private land projected for development, 

not the public and private land 

proposed for critical habitat designation. 

47. Comment: One commenter stated 

that there are other discrepancies 

between the text and Table 1, including 

the ‘‘Projected Households’’. 

Our Response: Table 1 presents the 

projected households, which is 

consistent with the projected 

households in the text. Table 3 presents 

the households allowed by zoning, 

which is also consistent with the zoning 

allowances in the text. 

48. Comment: One commenter 

requested to be excluded under 4(b)(2) 

of the Act based on economic impacts 

of critical habitat on their property. The 

landowner owns the property within the 

proposed Unit 6 for Pentachaeta lyonii 

and has proposed to develop 81 

residential units on the property. 

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

Act requires the Secretary to designate 

critical habitat based on the best 

scientific data available after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impact, of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. We 

received additional information from 

the landowner in a Memorandum, dated 

March 3, 2006, which estimated that the 

lost revenue as a result of critical habitat 

on their proposed development, if they 

avoided impacts to the species, would 

be approximately $78 million. As a 

result, Unit 6 in its entirety has been 

excluded from the final rule. See 

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

Act section below for more details. 

Summary of Changes From Proposed 

Rule 

(1) We modified our criteria for 

delineating the outer boundaries of each 

unit resulting in minor reductions in 

unit sizes. In the proposed rule, the 

outer boundaries of each unit or subunit 

extended to 984 ft (300 m) on all sides 

of each mapped patch, which would 

presumably incorporate the minimum 

size habitat necessary to support 

associated insect pollinators. However, 

A. brauntonii and P. lyonii are known to 

be pollinated by several insect 

pollinators, and nonspecific pollinators 

are not a Primary Constituent Element 

(PCE) for either species. Upon further 

consideration, we felt we needed to 

better define and map the critical 

habitat boundaries. In looking at the 

mapping information from all mapped 

records (i.e., from the CNDDB database 

and from records collected from other 

sources), we noticed that the 

distribution of plants was often patchy, 

both at any one moment in time and 

over time. In other words, the plants 

were often expressed at different 

locations within a single area or 

population. This evidence supports the 

presence of a seed bank. In order to 

define when patches were within a 

single population and include areas 

with a seed bank, we conducted a 

nearest neighbor analysis for both 

species using all available mapped 

occurrences. To do this, we used GIS to 

determine the distance from the 

centroid of each mapped occurrence or 

‘‘patch’’ to the centroid of the nearest 

mapped occurrence. We determined 

that the average distance between 

patches within populations was 935 ft 

(285 m) for Astragalus brauntonii and 

902 ft (275 m) for Pentachaeta lyonii. 

Therefore, in the final designation, we 

designated additional suitable habitat 

up to 935 ft (285 m) from each mapped 

patch of A. brauntonii to incorporate the 

patchy expression of populations in 

space and over time, include unmapped 

patches within populations, incorporate 

the existing seed bank, and include 

areas for seed dispersal and genetic 

exchange through pollinator activity. 

For P. lyonii, we designated additional 

suitable habitat up to 902 ft (275 m) 

from each mapped patch to incorporate 

the patchy expression of the plant in 

space and time, include unmapped 

patches within populations, incorporate 

the existing seed bank, and include 

areas for seed dispersal and genetic 

exchange through pollinator activity. 

See the Criteria Used to Identify Critical 

Habitat section for details on the revised 

criteria. Table 1 for A. brauntonii and 

Table 3 for P. lyonii shows the proposed 

and final acreages of each unit that were 

changed based on the new criteria. 

(2) We made corrections on 

ownership of lands within several units. 

The ownership of subunit 1c for 

Pentachaeta lyonii was misidentified as 

being entirely owned by Calleguas 

Municipal Water District. We 

determined that, in the proposed rule, 

the ownership of the land within this 

subunit is 49 ac (19 ha) of private land 

and only 2 ac (1 ha) of land owned by 

Calleguas Municipal Water District. 

After applying the revised criteria, in 

this final rule, the entire unit (33 ac (13 

ha)) is on private land. The ownership 

of subunit 2b for P. lyonii was 

misidentified as 31 ac (13 ha) owned by 

Conejo Open Space Conservation 

Agency (COSCA), and 16 ac (6 ha) of 

private land; after identifying the correct 

ownership and applying the revised 

criteria, 22 ac (9 ha) is owned by 

COSCA and 18 ac (7 ha) is on private 

land. The ownership of subunit 1d for 

Astragalus brauntonii was misidentified 

as being owned by Rocketdyne. 

However, Rocketdyne sold this property 

to Boeing. In addition, it was 

determined that a small portion of this 

subunit is owned by a local agency. 

After identifying the correct ownership 

and applying the revised criteria, 68 ac 

(27 ha) is owned by Boeing and 2 ac (1 

ha) is owned by a local agency (Santa 

Monica Mountains Conservancy). The 

ownership of subunit 2a for A. 

brauntonii was misidentified as 235 ac 

(95 ha) owned by COSCA, and 217 ac 

(88 ha) of private land; after identifying 

the correct ownership and applying the 

revised criteria, 118 ac (48 ha) is owned 

by the State, 221 ac (89 ha) is owned by 

COSCA, and 71 ac (29 ha) is on private 

land. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66383 

(3) We corrected the reference to soils 

in PCE 1 for Astragalus brauntonii from 

‘‘carbonate limestone soils derived from 

marine sediment’’ to ‘‘calcium carbonate 

soils derived from marine sediment,’’

because we believe that this is a more 

accurate description of the soil type. A 

recent study in which soil samples were 

taken at most locations of A. brauntonii 

revealed that the plant occurs in areas 

with calcium carbonate soils (a broader 

range of soils), and not necessarily 

where soils are derived from limestone 

(Landis 2005). This correction is also 

reflected in the discussion of Areas that 

Provide the Basic Requirements for 

Growth (Such as Water, Light, and 

Minerals). 

(4) We changed PCE 3 for Pentachaeta 

lyonii from ‘‘low proportion of total 

vegetative cover (<25%)’’ to ‘‘a mosaic 

of bare ground (>10%) patches in an 

area with less than 60 percent cover,’’

because we believe that this is a more 

accurate and complete description of 

the habitat. This is based on a recent 

habitat study of the species conducted 

by Santa Monica Mountains National 

Recreation Area. This correction is also 

reflected in the discussion of Areas that 

Provide the Basic Requirements for 

Growth (Such as Water, Light, and 

Minerals). 

(5) We changed PCE 3 Astragalus 

brauntonii from ‘‘periodic disturbances 

that stimulate seed germination (e.g., 

fire, flooding, erosion) and reduce 

vegetative cover’’ to ‘‘chaparral and 

coastal sage scrub communities 

characterized by periodic disturbances 

that stimulate seed germination (e.g., 

fire, flooding, erosion) and reduce 

vegetative cover,’’ because we believe 

that a PCE should not be a physical 

process, but a habitat condition that 

occurs in part as a result of the physical 

process. The revised PCE allows for 

easier identification of its presence 

because it would be expected to be 

present at any point in time, whereas 

the original PCE is more difficult to 

identify because it occurs only 

periodically. 

(6) We excluded Unit 6 for 

Pentachaeta lyonii (223 ac (94 ha)) 

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

final critical habitat designation based 

on economic impacts to the landowner. 

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

the Act section for a detailed discussion. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as—(i) the specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by a species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection; and (ii) specific areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by a species at the time it is listed, upon 

a determination that such areas have 

features that are essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

Conservation, as defined under section 

3 of the Act, means to use and the use 

of all methods and procedures that are 

necessary to bring any endangered 

species or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management, such 

as research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

with regard to actions carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency. Section 7 requires consultation 

on Federal actions that are likely to 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect land ownership or establish a 

refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 

other conservation area. Such 

designation does not allow government 

or public access to private lands. 

Section 7 is a purely protective measure 

and does not require implementation of 

restoration, recovery, or enhancement 

measures. 

To be included in a critical habitat 

designation, the habitat within the area 

occupied by the species must first have 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. Critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

data available, habitat areas that provide 

essential life cycle needs of the species 

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

primary constituent elements, as 

defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)). 

Habitat occupied at the time of listing 

may be included in critical habitat only 

if the essential features thereon may 

require special management or 

protection. Areas outside of the 

geographic area occupied by the species 

at the time of listing may only be 

included in critical habitat if they are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. Accordingly, when the best 

available scientific data do not 

demonstrate that the conservation needs 

of the species require additional areas, 

we will not designate critical habitat in 

areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing. An area currently occupied by 

the species but was not known to be 

occupied at the time of listing will 

likely, but not always, be essential to the 

conservation of the species and, 

therefore, typically included in the 

critical habitat designation. 

The Service’s Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act, published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), 

and Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–

554; H.R. 5658) and the associated 

Information Quality Guidelines issued 

by the Service, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that decisions made 

by the Service represent the best 

scientific data available. They require 

Service biologists to the extent 

consistent with the Act and with the use 

of the best scientific data available, to 

use primary and original sources of 

information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. When determining which areas 

are critical habitat, a primary source of 

information is generally the listing 

package for the species. Additional 

information sources include the 

recovery plan for the species, articles in 

peer-reviewed journals, conservation 

plans developed by States and counties, 

scientific status surveys and studies, 

biological assessments, or other 

unpublished materials and expert 

opinion or personal knowledge. All 

information is used in accordance with 

the provisions of Section 515 of the 

Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 

(Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658) and the 

associated Information Quality 

Guidelines issued by the Service. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. Habitat 

is often dynamic, and species may move 

from one area to another over time. 

Furthermore, we recognize that 

designation of critical habitat may not 

include all of the habitat areas that may 

eventually be determined to be 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, critical 

habitat designations do not signal that 

habitat outside the designation is 

unimportant or may not be required for 

recovery. 

Areas that support populations, but 

are outside the critical habitat 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
66384 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

designation, will continue to be subject 

to conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to 

the regulatory protections afforded by 

the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as 

determined on the basis of the best 

available information at the time of the 

action. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. Similarly, critical habitat 

designations made on the basis of the 

best available information at the time of 

designation will not control the 

direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, habitat conservation 

plans, or other species conservation 

planning efforts if new information 

available to these planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Primary Constituent Elements 

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

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12, in determining which areas to 

designate as critical habitat, we consider 

those physical and biological features 

(PCEs) that are essential to the 

conservation of the species, and within 

areas occupied by the species at the 

time of listing, that may require special 

management considerations and 

protection. These include, but are not 

limited to, space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; food, water, air, light, 

minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; cover or 

shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, 

and rearing (or development) of 

offspring; and habitats that are protected 

from disturbance or are representative of 

the historic geographical and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

The specific PCEs required for 

Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta 

lyonii are derived from the physical and 

biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of the species as 

described below. 

Astragalus brauntonii 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth, Including Sites for 

Germination, Pollination, Reproduction, 

and Seed Bank 

Seeds of Astragalus brauntonii are 

enclosed in dense hairy pods and 

require heat or physical scarification 

(breaking, scratching, or mechanically 

altering the seed coat) to germinate. 

Disturbances such as fire, erosion, and 

human activities such as mechanical 

scraping of soil (e.g., during road or trail 

maintenance) are known to stimulate 

germination (Fotheringham and Keeley 

1998). Each seed pod produces between 

three and six seeds, and each plant may 

support upwards of several hundred 

flowers (Barneby 1964). Therefore, 

plants may produce a large number of 

seeds before dying back, depositing a 

seed ‘‘bank’’ in the soil that has the 

ability to remain dormant for many 

years until the next disturbance. Plant 

seeds are frequently dispersed by a 

variety of vectors, some which result in 

short-distance dispersal, and others 

which result in long-distance dispersal 

(Cain et al. 2000; Nathan and MullerLandau 2000). Because the seeds of A. 

brauntonii have no specialized 

adaptations to facilitate seed dispersal 

by wind, it is likely that most seed fall 

within a short distance of the parent 

plant (Cain et al. 2000). Long-distance 

dispersal, however, is likely achieved by 

water (during rainstorms), and by 

transport of seeds by wildlife. Seeds 

from species within the Fabaceae family 

are known to be transported by small 

seed-eating mammals, including ground 

squirrels (Citellus sp.) pocket mice 

(Perognathus sp.), kangaroo rats 

(Dipodomys sp.), and birds, including 

quail (Lophortyx sp.) (Martin et al. 

1961). Small mammals facilitate seed 

dispersal through consumption and 

elimination of undigested seed and 

through seed caching (Cain et al. 2000; 

Sieg 1987). 

The presence of a persistent seed bank 

makes it difficult to determine the 

complete distribution of the species at 

any one point in time. Where a dormant 

seed bank is present, Astragalus 

brauntonii establishes quickly after a 

disturbance that removes other plant 

competitors and stimulates germination 

of dormant seeds (Fotheringham and 

Keeley 1998). Individual plants have a 

lifespan of two to three years, although 

some individuals may live five years or 

more if conditions are favorable, and 

then plants may not be visible again 

until the next disturbance 

(Fotheringham and Keeley 1998). 

Like many other Astragalus species, 

Astragalus brauntonii is self-fertile, and 

also produces seed through crosspollination (Fotheringham and Keeley 

1998). Insect pollinators of A. 

brauntonii are polylectic, meaning that 

they utilize several plant species within 

an area (Karron 1987), and a variety of 

plants may be necessary to sustain 

populations of pollinators. Insect 

visitors include megachilid bees and 

bumblebees (Fotheringham and Keeley 

1998). Gathmann and Tscharntke (2002) 

determined that maximum foraging 

distance of several species of solitary 

bees was positively correlated with 

body length. The body length of 

megachilid bees ranges 0.24–0.47 inches 

(in) (6–12 millimeters (mm)). Based on 

the linear regression model calculated 

by Gathmann and Tscharntke (2002), 

the maximum foraging distance of 

megachilid bees is 492–1,968 ft (150–

600 m). The body length of bumblebees 

(Bombus sp.) ranges 0.51–0.98 in (13–25 

mm), giving them a maximum foraging 

distance of 1,968–3,937 ft (600–1,200 m) 

(Gathmann and Tscharntke 2002). 

Therefore, known pollinators of P. lyonii 

have the ability to pollinate individual 

plants up to 1,968 ft (600 m) from the 

pollen source, suggesting that genetic 

connectivity can occur between 

populations that are up to 1,968 ft (600 

m) apart from each other. 

Areas That Provide the Basic 

Requirements for Growth (Such as 

Water, Light, and Minerals) 

Astragalus brauntonii may be limited 

to shallow calcium carbonate soils 

derived from marine substrates 

(Mistretta 1992, Fotheringham and 

Keeley 1998, Betsey Landis, California 

Native Plant Society, in litt. 2005). It 

occasionally occurs on non-carbonate 

soils at down-wash sites near other 

known occurrences, although 

survivorship of plants may be reduced 

on non-carbonate soils (Fotheringham 

and Keeley 1998; B. Landis, in litt. 

2005). 

Habitat of Astragalus brauntonii has 

been described as scrub dominated by 

chaparral with a high overall percentage 

(<80%) of vegetative cover, however, 

the species does not tolerate shading 

and is associated with bare ground 

directly around the plant (Carroll 1987, 

Fotheringham and Keeley 1998). It may 

persist for several years on sites where 

microsite conditions inhibit or are 

hostile to shrub growth, or it may be 

gradually crowded out by more robust 

and tough-woody chaparral plants until 

the next disturbance event that removes 

plant cover (Carroll 1987; Fotheringham 

and Keeley 1998). Common species 

associated with chaparral communities 

in this region of California are chamise 

(Adenostoma fasciculatum), California 

lilacs (Ceanothus spp.), manzanitas 

(Arctostaphylos spp.), sages (Salvia 

spp.), California buckwheat (Eriogonum 

fasciculatum), laurel sumac (Malosma 

laurina), sugar bush (Rhus ovata), and 

yucca (Yucca whipplei) (Hanes 1988). 

Common species associated with coastal 

sage scrub are California sagebrush 

(Artemisia californica), sages, California 

buckwheat, lemonade berry (Rhus 

integrifolia), encelia (Encelia 

californica), and goldenbush (Isocoma 

menziesii) (Mooney 1988). The aboveground expression of A. brauntonii 

populations are patchy over time and 

space as a result of the dormant seed 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66385 

bank and dynamic habitat conditions 

and physical processes where it occurs. 

Primary Constituents for Astragalus 

brauntonii 

Pursuant to our regulations, we are 

required to identify the known physical 

and biological features (PCEs) essential 

to the conservation of Astragalus 

brauntonii. All areas designated as 

critical habitat for A. brauntonii are 

occupied, within the species’ historic 

geographic range, and contain sufficient 

PCEs to support at least one life history 

function. 

Based on our current knowledge of 

the life history, biology, and ecology of 

the species and the requirements of the 

habitat to sustain the essential life 

history functions of the species, we have 

determined that the PCEs for Astragalus 

brauntonii are: 

(1) Calcium carbonate soils derived 

from marine sediment; 

(2) Low proportion (<10%) of shrub 

cover directly around the plant; and 

(3) Chaparral and coastal sage scrub 

communities characterized by periodic 

disturbances that stimulate seed 

germination (e.g., fire, flooding, erosion) 

and reduce vegetative cover. 

This designation is designed for the 

conservation of those areas containing 

PCEs necessary to support the life 

history functions that were the basis for 

the proposal. Because not all life history 

functions require all the PCEs, not all 

critical habitat will contain all of the 

PCEs. 

Units are designated based on 

sufficient PCEs being present to support 

one or more of the species’s life history 

functions. Some units contain all PCEs 

and support multiple life processes, 

while some units contain only a portion 

of the PCEs necessary to support the 

species’ particular use of that habitat. 

Where a subset of the PCEs is present at 

the time of designation, this rule 

protects those PCEs and thus the 

conservation function of the habitat. 

Pentachaeta lyonii 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth, Including Sites for 

Germination, Pollination, Reproduction, 

and Seed Bank 

Pentachaeta lyonii is an annual plant 

that may exhibit large fluctuations in 

population size between years (Keeley 

and Baer-Keeley 1992). Population 

boundaries exhibit annual fluctuations, 

although the plants generally remain 

within core areas that contain suitable 

microsite characteristics (Keeley and 

Baer-Keeley 1992). Each flower 

produces 30 or more seed heads, and 

each seed head produces 20 to 40 seeds; 

therefore, in a favorable year, an 

individual plant may produce on the 

order of 1,000 seeds. The seeds likely 

persist in the soil for several years 

during extended dry spells 

(Fotheringham and Keeley 1998). Plant 

seeds are frequently dispersed by a 

variety of vectors, some which result in 

short-distance dispersal, and others 

which result in long-distance dispersal 

(Cain et al. 2000; Nathan and MullerLandau 2000). The presence of 

deciduous pappus bristles on the seeds 

indicates that the plant does not exhibit 

long-distance dispersal by wind, as do 

many other species in this family, 

reducing the likelihood of colonization 

of new areas and contributing to the 

limited distribution by this method 

(Keeley and Baer-Keeley 1992; 

Fotheringham and Keeley 1998). Longdistance dispersal, however, is likely 

achieved by transport of seeds by 

wildlife. Seeds from species within the 

Asteraceae family are known to be 

transported by small seed-eating 

mammals, including ground squirrels 

(Citellus sp.) pocket mice (Perognathus 

sp.), kangaroo rats (Dipodomys sp.), and 

birds, including quail (Lophortyx sp.) 

(Martin et al. 1961). Small mammals 

facilitate seed dispersal through 

consumption and elimination of 

undigested seed and through seed 

caching (Cain et al. 2000; Sieg 1987). 

Pentachaeta lyonii is not capable of 

self-pollination, but is dependent upon 

insect pollinators for successful seed 

production (Fotheringham and Keeley 

1998). Pollinators of P. lyonii include 

digger bees, andrenid bees, and 

megachilid bees (Braken and Verhoeven 

1998; Fotheringham and Keeley 1998). 

These pollinators are polylectic, 

meaning that they utilize several plant 

species within an area (Braken and 

Verhoeven 1998), and a variety of plants 

are necessary to sustain pollinator 

populations. Based on the linear 

regression model calculated by 

Gathmann and Tscharntke (2002), the 

maximum foraging distance of digger 

bees (body length 0.51–0.75 in; 13–19 

mm) is approximately 1,968 ft (600 m), 

and the maximum foraging distance of 

megachilid bees (body length 0.24–0.47 

in; 6–12 mm) is 492–1,968 ft (150–600 

m). The maximum foraging distance of 

andrenid bees is 853–1,640 ft (260–500 

m) (Gathmann and Tscharntke 2002). 

Therefore, known pollinators of P. lyonii 

have the ability to pollinate individual 

plants up to 1,968 ft (600 m) from the 

pollen source, suggesting that genetic 

connectivity occurs between 

populations that are up to 1,968 ft (600 

m) apart from each other. 

Areas That Provide the Basic 

Requirements for Growth (Such as 

Water, Light, and Minerals) 

Pentachaeta lyonii tends to occur on 

rocky clay soils of volcanic origin (Baier 

& Associates 1991; Impact Sciences 

2003). It has been recorded in areas with 

a large percentage of bare ground 

(>60%), a low proportion of vegetative 

cover (<25%), and it does not compete 

well with dense annual grasses or 

shrubs (Keeley 1995, Fotheringham and 

Keeley 1998). P. lyonii will persist in 

stable populations without disturbance 

if site conditions such as exposed soils 

that exhibit a microbiotic crust (Belnap 

1990) inhibit invasion by shrubs and 

annual grasses, or it may require 

periodic disturbances to remove plant 

competitors (Fotheringham and Keeley 

1998). The chaparral and coastal sage 

plant communities are similar to those 

described above for Astragalus 

brauntonii. The pocket grasslands 

within these shrub communities that 

support P. lyonii are comprised of native 

and nonnative grasses including purple 

needlegrass (Nassella pulchra), wild oat 

(Avena spp.), and bromes (Bromus 

spp.); as well as a variety of herbs. 

Primary Constituents for Pentachaeta 

lyonii 

Pursuant to our regulations, we are 

required to identify the known physical 

and biological features (PCEs) essential 

to the conservation of Pentachaeta 

lyonii. All areas designated as critical 

habitat for P. lyonii are occupied, within 

the species’ historic geographic range, 

and contain sufficient PCEs to support 

at least one life history function. 

Based on our current knowledge of 

the life history, biology, and ecology of 

the species and the requirements of the 

habitat to sustain the essential life 

history functions of the species, we have 

determined that the PCEs for 

Pentachaeta lyonii are: 

(1) Clay soils of volcanic origin; 

(2) Exposed soils that exhibit a 

microbiotic crust which may inhibit 

invasion by other plant competitors; and 

(3) A mosaic of bare ground (>10%) 

patches in an area with less than 60 

percent cover. 

This designation is designed for the 

conservation of the PCEs necessary to 

support the life history functions that 

were the basis for the proposal. Because 

not all life history functions require all 

the PCEs, not all critical habitat will 

contain all of the PCEs. 

Units are designated based on 

sufficient PCEs being present to support 

one or more of the species’s life history 

functions. Some units contain all PCEs 

and support multiple life processes, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
66386 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

while some units contain only a portion 

of the PCEs necessary to support the 

species’ particular use of that habitat. 

Where a subset of the PCEs is present at 

the time of designation, this rule 

protects those PCEs and thus the 

conservation function of the habitat. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

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

the Act, we use the best scientific and 

commercial data available in 

determining areas that contain the 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of Astragalus brauntonii 

and Pentachaeta lyonii. We have also 

reviewed available information that 

pertains to the habitat requirements of 

these species. This includes information 

from Service documents, including the 

final rule listing these taxa as 

endangered (62 FR 4172; January 29, 

1997) and the recovery plan (USFWS 

1999); information from the CNDD 

(2003); data in reports submitted during 

section 7 consultations; recent 

biological surveys; regional GIS 

coverages; information from research 

published in peer-reviewed articles and 

presented in agency reports; aerial 

photos; and discussions with botanical 

experts. We designated no areas outside 

the geographic area presently occupied 

by the species. 

We used agency and academic reports 

to describe the ecology, habitat, and 

pollination biology of Astragalus 

brauntonii and other related Astragalus 

species (Carroll 1987; Karron 1987; 

Fotheringham and Keeley 1998; 

Gathmann and Tscharntke 2002). We 

used agency and academic reports to 

describe the ecology, habitat, and 

pollination biology of Pentachaeta 

lyonii (Belnap 1990; Keeley and BaerKeeley 1992; Keeley 1995; Braker and 

Verhoeven 1998; Fotheringham and 

Keeley 1998; Gathmann and Tscharntke 

2002). 

We designated critical habitat on 

lands that were occupied at the time of 

listing, are currently known to be 

occupied, and contain sufficient PCEs to 

support life history functions essential 

for the conservation of Astragalus 

brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii, and 

may be in need of special management 

considerations or protections. In a few 

instances, we designated occupied areas 

that were identified after listing, but 

which we determined to be essential to 

the conservation of A. brauntonii and P. 

lyonii. 

We reevaluated the proposed 

designations based on public comment, 

peer review, the economic analysis of 

the proposed rule, public comments on 

the economic analysis, and other 

available and new information to ensure 

that the designation accurately reflects 

habitat containing the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of Astragalus brauntonii 

and Pentachaeta lyonii. 

Astragalus brauntonii 

We designated critical habitat for 

Astragalus brauntonii—supporting areas 

that were known to be occupied at the 

time of listing and contain the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. We also designated occurrences 

not known to be occupied at the time of 

listing but which are currently 

occupied, and were determined to be 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. We included occurrences not 

known to be occupied at the time of 

listing because this species is extremely 

limited in distribution and often occurs 

in very small disjunct populations, 

making it particularly vulnerable to 

extinction. According to Noss et al. 

(1997), a species distributed across 

multiple sites within its range is less 

susceptible to extinction than another 

similar species confined to far fewer 

sites. As a result, being restricted to 

small, isolated locations makes the 

species more vulnerable to threats such 

as loss of genetic variation, extremely 

small or declining population sizes, and 

increased vulnerability to stochastic 

(i.e., random or less predictable) events. 

Inclusion of all known occurrences that 

still contain the PCEs was deemed 

necessary in this instance to reduce 

fragmentation and helps to maintain 

genetic connectivity between 

populations and increase the chance of 

recolonization from neighboring patches 

if one patch becomes extirpated. 

We designated critical habitat for 

Astragalus brauntonii in areas that 

contained known populations and 

additional surrounding suitable habitat 

that likely supports unmapped or 

unknown patches present but missed 

during surveys within populations, and 

likely incorporates the existing seed 

bank. We included patches of 

surrounding suitable habitat, using the 

method described below, around known 

plant locations because of the difficulty 

of knowing the full distribution given 

the long dormancy of this species’ seed 

bank and the aboveground expression of 

the plant in different portions of the 

species’ range over time. Inclusion of 

this surrounding suitable habitat allows 

for necessary life history functions such 

as seed dispersal, support of associated 

insect pollinators, and appropriate 

periodic ground disturbances in order to 

stimulate dormant seeds within the soil 

to germinate. We also connected units 

within close geographic proximity to 

each other to maintain genetic 

connectivity between populations, 

reduce fragmentation, and to include 

contiguous habitat for pollinators and 

seed dispersal. A detailed description of 

how we determined areas appropriate 

for inclusion follows. 

We used a multi-step process to map 

critical habitat units. First, we mapped 

all CNDDB records of Astragalus 

brauntonii in a GIS format. These data 

consist of polygons (figures made up of 

several line segments) depicting the 

results of field surveys for A. brauntonii. 

Additional records from recent surveys 

that are not in the CNDDB records were 

also mapped in a GIS format. To 

determine areas where unmapped or 

unknown patches within populations 

are likely to occur, and to include areas 

that contain an unknown or 

unexpressed seed bank, we measured 

the distance from the centroid of each 

known occurrence or ‘‘patch’’ to the 

centroid of the nearest neighboring 

patch, and found that the average 

distance between nearest patches was 

935 ft (285 m). Therefore, we included 

additional suitable habitat up to 935 ft 

(285 m) from known occurrences to 

incorporate entire populations that are 

patchy in time and space. 

Then, we connected areas that were 

within 1,968 ft (600 m) of each other, 

because this is the distance between 

populations that could be traversed by 

important insect pollinators, and this 

approach allows for genetic exchange 

and connectivity between populations 

and reduces fragmentation. As 

discussed in the PCEs section, known 

pollinators of Astragalus brauntonii 

include megachilid bees and 

bumblebees. Based on body length, 

foraging ranges are approximately 492–

1,968 ft (150–600 m) for megachilid bees 

and 1,968–3,937 ft (600–1,200 m) for 

bumblebees (Gathmann and Tscharntke 

2002). We chose 1,968 ft (600 m) as the 

maximum distance to connect known 

populations because 1,968 ft (600 m) is 

the minimum foraging range for 

bumblebees, and megachilid bees also 

fall within this foraging range. Plant 

communities between these areas would 

also support insect pollinators and seed 

dispersers of A. brauntonii, and may 

also contain unknown or unmapped 

populations and/or a dormant seed 

bank. 

Pentachaeta lyonii 

We designated critical habitat for 

areas that support occurrences of 

Pentachaeta lyonii that were known to 

be occupied at the time of listing and 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species. We also 

designated occurrences not known to be 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66387 

occupied at the time of listing but which 

are currently occupied; however, these 

occurrences are within the geographic 

range of occurrences known to be 

occupied at the time of listing and 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species. With the 

exception of Unit 6, we included all 

known occurrences that still contain the 

PCEs because this species is extremely 

limited in distribution, and patches 

exhibit large annual fluctuations in 

population numbers and area, making it 

particularly vulnerable to extinction. 

According to Noss et al. (1997), a 

species distributed across multiple sites 

within its range is less susceptible to 

extinction than another similar species 

confined to far fewer sites. As a result, 

being restricted to small, isolated 

locations makes the species more 

vulnerable to threats such as loss of 

genetic variation, extremely small or 

declining population sizes, and 

increased vulnerability to stochastic 

(i.e., random or less predictable) events. 

Inclusion of all known occurrences, 

with the exception of Unit 6, that still 

contain the PCEs reduces fragmentation, 

maintains genetic connectivity between 

populations, and increases the chance of 

recolonization from neighboring patches 

if one patch becomes extirpated. 

We designated critical habitat for 

Pentachaeta lyonii in areas that 

contained known populations and 

additional surrounding suitable habitat 

that likely includes unmapped or 

unknown patches present but missed 

during surveys within populations, and 

incorporates the existing seed bank. We 

included surrounding habitat around 

known plant locations, using the 

method described below, because the 

boundaries of patches fluctuate between 

years, and this species’ ability to 

maintain a seed bank during extended 

dry spells makes it difficult to know the 

full distribution of the species. 

Inclusion of surrounding suitable 

habitat allows for support of associated 

insect pollinators. We also connected 

units within close geographic proximity 

to each other to maintain genetic 

connectivity between populations, 

reduce fragmentation, and include 

contiguous habitat for pollinators and 

allow for population boundaries to 

expand. 

We used a multi-step process to map 

critical habitat units. First, we mapped 

all CNDDB records of Pentachaeta lyonii 

in a GIS format. These data consist of 

polygons depicting the results of field 

surveys for P. lyonii. Additional records 

from recent surveys that are not in the 

CNDDB records were also mapped in a 

GIS format. To determine areas where 

unmapped or unknown patches within 

populations are likely to occur, and to 

include areas that contain an unknown 

or unexpressed seed bank, we measured 

the distance from the centroid of each 

known occurrence or ‘‘patch’’ to the 

centroid of the nearest neighboring 

patch, and found that the average 

distance between nearest patches was 

902 ft (275 m). Therefore, we included 

additional suitable habitat up to (902 ft 

(275 m) from known occurrences. 

Population boundaries are known to 

fluctuate, so this approach also includes 

areas into which populations could 

expand. 

Then, we connected areas that were 

within 1,968 ft (600 m) of each other 

because this is the distance between 

populations that could be traversed by 

important insect pollinators, and this 

approach allows for genetic exchange 

and connectivity between populations 

and reduces fragmentation. As 

discussed in the PCEs section, known 

pollinators of Pentachaeta lyonii 

include digger bees, megachilid bees, 

and andrenid bees. Based on body 

length, foraging ranges are 

approximately 1,968 ft (600 m) for 

digger bees, 492–1,968 ft (150–600 m) 

for megachilid bees and 853–1,640 ft 

(260–500 m) for andrenid bees 

(Gathmann and Tscharntke 2002). We 

chose 1,968 ft (600 m) as the maximum 

distance to connect known populations 

because 1,968 ft (600 m) is the foraging 

range for digger bees, and megachilid 

bees, and andrenid bees also fall within 

this foraging range. Plant communities 

between these areas would also support 

insect pollinators, include areas for 

population boundaries to expand, and 

may also contain unknown or 

unmapped populations and/or a seed 

bank. 

When determining final critical 

habitat boundaries, we made every 

effort to avoid including developed 

areas such as buildings, paved areas, 

and other structures that lack PCEs for 

Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta 

lyonii. Because of their small scale, the 

maps prepared under the parameters for 

publication within the Code of Federal 

Regulations may not reflect the 

exclusion of such developed areas. Any 

such structures and the land under them 

inadvertently left inside critical habitat 

boundaries shown on the maps of this 

final rule have been excluded by text 

and are not designated as critical 

habitat. Therefore, Federal actions 

limited to these excluded areas would 

not trigger section 7 consultation, unless 

they affect the species and/or primary 

constituent elements in adjacent critical 

habitat. 

We are designating critical habitat in 

areas that contain sufficient primary 

constituent elements (PCEs) to support 

life history functions essential for the 

conservation of the species. Lands are 

proposed for designation based on 

sufficient PCEs being present to support 

the life processes of the species. Some 

lands contain all PCEs and support 

multiple life processes. Some lands 

contain only a portion of the PCEs 

necessary to support the particular use 

of that habitat. 

A brief discussion of each area 

designated as critical habitat is provided 

in the unit descriptions below. 

Additional detailed documentation 

concerning the essential nature of these 

areas is contained in our supporting 

record for this rulemaking. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the areas determined to 

be occupied at the time of listing and 

containing the PCEs may require special 

management considerations or 

protections. As discussed in the listing 

rule, throughout our proposed rule 

published on November 10, 2006 (70 FR 

68982), and in this final rule, most of 

the known occurrences of Astragalus 

brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii occur 

within the direct vicinity of urban areas 

and are threatened by direct and 

indirect effects of habitat fragmentation 

and loss resulting from urban 

development. The most significant 

threat to both species is direct loss of 

plants from urban development. In 

addition, indirect effects associated with 

urban development include habitat 

fragmentation, which reduces gene flow 

between sites; reduction in insect 

pollinators; increases in nonnative 

plants and animals; and changes in local 

hydrology that affect plant communities 

(Conservation Biology Institute 2000). 

Known threats to both species include 

but are not limited to: Weed control 

such as herbicide application, mowing, 

and direct removal of plants; increased 

fire frequencies associated with human 

activities that contribute to the 

conversion of native shrubland to 

grassland; competition from nonnative 

plant species; and cattle grazing and 

recreational activities such as off-road 

vehicle use and equestrian and foot 

traffic that results in trampling of plants. 

Other known threats specific to 

Astragalus brauntonii include land use 

activities that result in frequent 

disturbances and removal of plants 

before they replenish the seed bank, 

such as yearly road maintenance. Other 

known threats specific to Pentachaeta 

lyonii include soil-disturbing activities 

such as discing associated with fire 

suppression activities and changes to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
66388 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

the structure and composition of pocket 

grassland communities that displace P. 

lyonii (i.e., introduction of nonnative 

annual grasses, changes in local 

hydrology, and increased gopher 

activity). As such, we believe that each 

area designated as critical habitat may 

require some level of management and/ 

or protection to address the current and 

future threats to the species. Threats 

specific to each unit that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection are further discussed in the 

Unit Descriptions section. 

Critical Habitat Designation 

We are designating 3,300 ac (1337 ha) 

within six units as critical habitat for 

Astragalus brauntonii. The critical 

habitat areas described below constitute 

our best assessment at this time of areas 

determined to be occupied at the time 

of listing, that contain the PCEs and may 

require special management, and those 

additional areas that were not known at 

the time of listing but were found to be 

essential to the conservation of A. 

brauntonii. With the exception of Units 

1 and 3, all areas not known at the time 

of listing are within the same geographic 

areas and part of the same populations 

as those areas known at the time of 

listing. For reasons described previously 

(see Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat section), we have determined 

that inclusion of all known locations 

that still contain the PCEs, including 

those not known at the time of listing, 

is essential to the conservation of the 

species because this species is 

extremely limited in distribution, has a 

very small overall population size, and 

often occurs in very small disjunct 

populations, making it particularly 

vulnerable to extinction (Noss et al. 

1997). Inclusion of these populations 

reduces fragmentation, prevents range 

collapse of the species, maintains 

genetic connectivity between 

populations, and increases the chance of 

recolonization from neighboring 

populations if one patch becomes 

extirpated (Noss et al. 1997). 

Table 1 shows the proposed and final 

critical habitat units for Astragalus 

brauntonii. Table 2 shows the 

approximate area designated as critical 

habitat for A. brauntonii by land 

ownership. 

TABLE 1.—PROPOSED AND FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR ASTRAGALUS BRAUNTONII (AC (HA)) 

Critical habitat units/subunits County 

Proposed rule 

(Nov. 10, 2005) 

ac (ha) 

Final rule 

ac (ha) 

Unit 1: Northern Simi Hills ...................................................... Ventura ................................................... 471 (191) 434 (175) 

Subunit 1a ........................................................................ ................................................................ 196 (79) 183 (74) 

Subunit 1b ........................................................................ ................................................................ 80 (32) 73 (29) 

Subunit 1c ........................................................................ ................................................................ 118 (48) 108 (44) 

Subunit 1d ........................................................................ ................................................................ 77 (32) 70 (28) 

Unit 2: Southern Simi Hills ...................................................... Ventura/Los Angeles .............................. 1,128 (456) 1,019 (414) 

Subunit 2a ........................................................................ ................................................................ 452 (183) 410 (166) 

Subunit 2b ........................................................................ ................................................................ 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5) 

Subunit 2c ........................................................................ ................................................................ 173 (70) 144 (58) 

Subunit 2d ........................................................................ ................................................................ 121 (49) 111 (45) 

Subunit 2e ........................................................................ ................................................................ 157 (63) 146 (60) 

Subunit 2f ......................................................................... ................................................................ 224 (90) 207 (84) 

Unit 3: Santa Monica Mountains ............................................ Los Angeles ........................................... 243 (98) 228 (93) 

Unit 4: Pacific Palisades ......................................................... Los Angeles ........................................... 577 (233) 505 (205) 

Unit 5: Monrovia ...................................................................... Los Angeles ........................................... 331 (134) 282 (114) 

Unit 6: Coal Canyon ............................................................... Orange ................................................... 889 (360) 832 (336) 

Total .......................................................................... ................................................................ 3,639 (1,472) 3,300 (1,337) 

TABLE 2.—APPROXIMATE ACREAGE BY LAND OWNERSHIP CATEGORIES WITHIN CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS/SUBUNITS FOR

ASTRAGALUS BRAUNTONII (AC (HA)) 

Critical habitat unit and subunit Federal State Local agency Private Total 

Unit 1: Northern Simi Hills ..................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 21 (9) 413 (166) 4 34 (175) 

Subunit 1a ...................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 19 (8) 164 (66) 183 (74) 

Subunit 1b ...................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 73 (29) 73 (29) 

Subunit 1c ....................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 108 (44) 108 (44) 

Subunit 1d ...................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1) 68 (27) 70 (28) 

Unit 2: Southern Simi Hills ..................... 196 (80) 118 (48) 427 (173) 278 (113) 1,019 (414) 

Subunit 2a ...................................... 0 (0) 118 (48) 221 (89) 71 (29) 410 (166) 

Subunit 2b ...................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0.5) 0 (0) 1 (0.5) 

Subunit 2c ....................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 144 (58) 0 (0) 144 (58) 

Subunit 2d ...................................... 111 (45) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 111 (45) 

Subunit 2e ...................................... 85 (35) 0 (0) 61 (25) 0 (0) 146 (60) 

Subunit 2f ....................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 207 (84) 207 (84) 

Unit 3: Santa Monica Mountains ........... 172 (70) 0 (0) 0 (0) 56 (23) 228 (93) 

Unit 4: Pacific Palisades ........................ 0 (0) 439 (178) 0 (0) 66 (27) 505 (205) 

Unit 5: Monrovia .................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 218 (88) 64 (26) 282 (114) 

Unit 6: Coal Canyon .............................. 0 (0) 589 (238) 0 (0) 243 (98) 832 (336) 

Total ......................................... 368 (150) 1,146 (464) 666 (270) 1,120 (453) 3,300 (1,337) 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66389 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for 

Astragalus brauntonii, below. 

Unit 1: Northern Simi Hills Unit 

This unit is located south of Simi 

Valley in the northern Simi Hills in 

Ventura County and consists of 21 ac (9 

ha) of local agency land (Rancho Simi 

Recreation and Parks District) and 413 

ac (166 ha) of private lands. It is divided 

into four subunits mapped from 

occurrences identified after the time of 

listing but currently occupied; all occur 

within 1.5 mi (2.5 km) of each other. 

Unit 1, inclusive of the four subunits, is 

located within the same physiographic 

area (the Simi Hills) as Unit 2. This unit 

is essential because it represents a 

previously unknown portion of the 

species’ range north of Unit 2, and 

inclusion of multiple populations 

within the entire range increases a 

species’ chance of persistence (Noss et 

al. 1997). These subunits are occupied 

and contain one or more of the PCEs. 

Threats that may require special 

management in this unit include road 

maintenance, which could result in 

disturbances that are too frequent and 

prevent replenishment of the seed bank, 

invasion of nonnative plants which 

could crowd out A. brauntonii, cattle 

grazing, and recreation activities such as 

equestrian and foot traffic, which could 

result in trampling of plants. 

Subunit 1a: This subunit consists of 

19 ac (8 ha) of local agency land in 

Challenger Park owned by Rancho Simi 

Recreation and Parks District and 164 ac 

(66 ha) of private land within dedicated 

open space managed by the Bridle Path 

Homeowner’s Association. It occurs 

along Bus Canyon. This subunit 

contains at least two of the PCEs (2 and 

3); whether it contains PCE 1 is 

unknown. This subunit supports a 

population as evidenced by three plants 

observed in three separate locations in 

1998. 

Subunit 1b: This subunit consists of 

73 ac (29 ha) of private land that may 

be threatened by urban development. It 

occurs near the end of Peter Place Road 

in Simi Valley, which is north of Bus 

Canyon at the edge of an urban 

development. This subunit contains at 

least two of the PCEs (2 and 3); whether 

it contains PCE 1 is unknown. This 

subunit supports a population of at least 

three plants observed in 2000. 

Subunit 1c: This subunit consists of 

108 ac (44 ha) of private land within 

dedicated open space managed by the 

Bridle Path Homeowner’s Association. It 

occurs along a ridge between Bus 

Canyon and Runkel Canyon above a fire 

road. This subunit contains all of the 

PCEs. This subunit supports a 

population of approximately 66 plants 

observed in 2004. 

Subunit 1d: This subunit consists of 

68 ac (27 ha) of private land owned by 

Boeing and 2 ac (1 ha) of local agency 

lands (Santa Monica Mountains 

Conservancy). This subunit contains at 

least two of the PCEs (2 and 3); whether 

it contains PCE 1 is unknown. Several 

hundred plants were reported at this 

location after a fire in 2006 (Lopez 

2006). 

Unit 2: Southern Simi Hills Unit 

This unit is located along the 

southern Simi Hills in Ventura and Los 

Angeles Counties and consists of 196 ac 

(80 ha) of Federal lands, 118 ac (48 ha) 

of State land, 427 ac (173 ha) of local 

agency lands (Conejo Open Space 

Conservation Authority (COSCA), City 

of Thousand Oaks, Santa Monica 

Mountains Conservancy, and Rancho 

Simi Recreation and District), and 278 

ac (113 ha) of private land. This unit is 

divided into six subunits mapped from 

records known at the time of listing and 

occurrences identified after listing. 

These subunits are all within 3.2 mi (5.2 

km) of each other and occur along the 

southern perimeter of the geologic 

Chatsworth Formation. Overall, these 

subunits contain all of the PCEs, 

provide connectivity between several 

occurrences known at the time of 

listing, and represent the southernmost 

portion of the species’ range within the 

Simi Hills. Inclusion of these subunits 

reduces fragmentation, maintains 

genetic connectivity between 

populations, and increases the chance of 

recolonization from neighboring 

populations if one patch becomes 

extirpated (Noss et al. 1997). Threats 

that may require special management in 

this unit include road and trail 

maintenance that could result in 

disturbances that are too frequent and 

prevent replenishment of the seed bank, 

invasion of nonnative plants that could 

crowd out Astragalus brauntonii, edge 

effects from urban development, and 

recreation activities such as off-road 

vehicles and equestrian and foot traffic, 

which could result in trampling of 

plants. 

Subunit 2a: This subunit consists of 

118 ac (48 ha) of State land managed by 

COSCA, 221 ac (89 ha) of local agency 

lands designated as open space in 

Oakbrook Regional Park and owned and 

managed by COSCA, and 71 ac (29 ha) 

of private land. This subunit is mapped 

from occurrences known at the time of 

listing and it contains all of the PCEs. 

It includes small numbers of plants 

found in several locations along a ridge; 

we believe a seed bank exists within 

and between known occurrences 

because the locations are near each 

other and the habitat is contiguous 

between them and close enough for 

genetic connectivity through insect 

pollination. 

Subunit 2b: This subunit consists of 1 

ac (0.5 ha) of local agency land owned 

by the City of Thousand Oaks. This 

subunit occurs within a Southern 

California Edison easement and adjacent 

to a trail in Conejo Open Space District 

surrounded by a residential 

neighborhood. It is mapped from an 

occurrence identified after listing and it 

contains all of the PCEs. Despite the 

small size of the subunit, it likely 

contains a relatively large population; 

approximately 68 plants were observed 

at this location in 2003. The population 

is enclosed by permanent fencing, and 

the area receives periodic vegetation 

clearing for fire control. 

Subunit 2c: This subunit consists of 

144 ac (58 ha) of local agency land in 

Oak Canyon Community Park owned 

and managed by Rancho Simi 

Recreation and Parks District. This 

subunit is mapped from an occurrence 

known at the time of listing and it 

contains all of the PCEs. It includes 

plants found in several locations along 

both sides of Medea Creek and contains 

a relatively large area. Approximately 

400 plants were observed in this area in 

1993, although few plants have been 

observed since then. This subunit is 

threatened by additional park 

development, which may require 

special management. 

Subunit 2d: This subunit consists of 

111 ac (45 ha) of Federal land within the 

Santa Monica Mountains National 

Recreation Area. It includes plants that 

were found at two separate locations on 

both sides of Palo Comado Canyon, and 

is mapped from an occurrence known at 

the time of listing. Fewer than 30 plants 

were observed in this area in 1987, and 

fewer than 10 plants at a time have been 

observed since then, however, the unit 

continues to remain occupied and 

contains a seed bank. This subunit 

contains all of the PCEs. 

Subunit 2e: This subunit consists of 

85 ac (35 ha) of Federal land within the 

Santa Monica Mountains National 

Recreation Area, and 61 ac (25 ha) of 

local agency land owned and managed 

as open space by Santa Monica 

Mountains Conservancy. This subunit is 

located on the east side of Cheseboro 

Canyon in an area that is relatively 

isolated from urban development. It is 

mapped from an occurrence identified 

after listing. Approximately 30 plants 

were observed at this location in 2000, 

hundreds of plants were observed 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
66390 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

during post-fire surveys in 2006, and 

this subunit contains all of the PCEs. 

Subunit 2f: This subunit consists of 

207 ac (84 ha) of private land located 

east of the City of Chatsworth along 

Dayton Canyon in the eastern Simi 

Hills. It is mapped from one occurrence 

known at the time of listing and 

additional occurrences identified since 

the time of listing, although these 

occurrences are within the same 

population. A portion of one of the 

populations was removed during 

development in 1999. This subunit 

contains all of the PCEs. Approximately 

14 plants were observed in this area in 

1999, and 27 plants were observed 

during post-fire surveys in 2006. 

Unit 3: Santa Monica Mountains Unit 

This unit is located in the eastern 

Santa Monica Mountains in upper Zuma 

Canyon, north of Point Dume in Los 

Angeles County. It consists of 172 ac (70 

ha) of Federal land within the Santa 

Monica Mountains National Recreation 

Area, and 56 ac (23 ha) of private land. 

It includes an area where more than 300 

plants were found in 1999 after a 

prescribed burn, and the entire unit is 

mapped from an occurrence identified 

after listing. This unit contains all of the 

PCEs, is occupied, is the only known 

location in the western Santa Monica 

Mountains, and represents the western 

edge of the species’ range. We also 

believe this area supports a large seed 

bank based on the observed post-fire 

germination that occurred here in 1999. 

This unit is essential because it 

represents a previously unknown 

portion of the species’ range, and 

inclusion of multiple populations 

within the entire range increases a 

species’ chance of persistence (Noss et 

al. 1997). Threats that may require 

special management in this unit include 

road maintenance that could result in 

disturbances that are too frequent, 

preventing establishment or 

replenishment of the seed bank. 

Unit 4: Pacific Palisades Unit 

This unit is located in the Santa Ynez 

Canyon north of Pacific Palisades in Los 

Angeles County and consists of 439 ac 

(178 ha) of State lands within Topanga 

State Park and 66 ac (27 ha) of private 

land. It includes plants found in three 

separate locations that are part of a 

single population complex, and is 

mapped from occurrences known at the 

time of listing. This is thought to be a 

large population; over 1,000 plants were 

observed at one of these locations in 

1998. That site is cleared annually for a 

powerline and fuel break, a disturbance 

that likely causes large numbers of 

plants to germinate each year. This unit 

contains all of the PCEs, represents the 

eastern edge of the species’ range within 

the Santa Monica Mountains, provides 

connectivity between the three separate 

locations, is a relatively large goodquality site, and the area likely 

incorporates a large existing seed bank. 

Threats that may require special 

management in this unit include road 

maintenance that could result in 

disturbances that are too frequent, 

preventing establishment or 

replenishment of the seed bank, and 

growth of nonnative plants that could 

crowd out Astragalus brauntonii. 

Unit 5: Monrovia Unit 

This unit is located in the San Gabriel 

Mountains in the City of Monrovia in 

Los Angeles County and consists of 218 

ac (88 ha) of local agency land owned 

by the City of Monrovia and managed as 

open space (Monrovia Wilderness 

Preserve) and 64 ac (26 ha) of private 

land. It includes plants found in several 

locations that are part of a single 

population complex, and is mapped 

from an occurrence known at the time 

of listing. This is a large population; 

approximately 700 plants were observed 

in this area in 2004. This unit contains 

all of the PCEs, represents a unique and 

disjunct (separated) piece of the species’

range, is a relatively large, good-quality 

site, and the area likely incorporates a 

large existing seed bank. Threats that 

may require special management in this 

unit include maintenance of fire roads, 

the growth of nonnative plants that 

could crowd out Astragalus brauntonii, 

and recreation activities such as foot 

and bicycle traffic, which could result 

in trampling of plants. 

Unit 6: Coal Canyon Unit 

This unit is located south of the City 

of Yorba Linda in Coal Canyon and 

Gypsum Canyon in Orange County and 

consists of 589 ac (238 ha) of State land 

(Chino Hills State Park and California 

Department of Fish and Game—Coal 

Canyon Ecological Reserve) and 243 ac 

(98 ha) of private land. This unit 

includes plants found in several 

locations that are part of a large 

population complex, and is mapped 

from occurrences known at the time of 

listing. This population was very small 

and declining until a fire in 2003, after 

which more than 5,000 plants were 

reported. This unit contains all of the 

PCEs, represents a disjunct portion of 

the species’ range, is a relatively large 

area isolated from urban development, 

and provides genetic connectivity 

between plants found at several 

locations within the unit. We also 

believe the site supports a large seed 

bank, based on the post-fire germination 

that occurred here in 2003. Threats that 

may require special management in this 

unit include maintenance of fire roads 

and the growth of shrubs and nonnative 

plants, which could crowd out 

Astragalus brauntonii. 

Pentachaeta lyonii 

We are designating 3,396 ac (1,372 ha) 

within 6 units as critical habitat for 

Pentachaeta lyonii in Los Angeles and 

Ventura Counties. The units described 

below constitute our best assessment 

currently of areas determined to be 

occupied at the time of listing, that 

contain the PCEs and that may require 

special management, and those 

additional areas that were not known at 

the time of listing but were found to be 

essential to the conservation of P. lyonii. 

All areas not known at the time of 

listing are in the same geographic area 

and within the range of those areas 

determined to be occupied at the time 

of listing. For reasons described 

previously (see Criteria Used To Identify 

Critical Habitat section), we have 

determined that inclusion of all known 

locations, with the exception of Unit 6, 

that still contain the PCEs is essential to 

the conservation of the species because 

this species is extremely limited in 

distribution, has a very small overall 

population size, and often occurs in 

very small disjunct populations, making 

it particularly vulnerable to extinction 

(Noss et al. 1997). Inclusion of these 

populations reduces fragmentation, 

maintains genetic connectivity between 

populations, prevents range collapse of 

the species, and increases the chance of 

recolonization from neighboring 

populations if one patch becomes 

extirpated (Noss et al. 1997). 

Table 3 shows the differences in 

acreage between the proposed and final 

rule, and Table 4 provides the 

approximate area designated as critical 

habitat by land ownership. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66391 

TABLE 3.—PROPOSED AND FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR PENTACHAETA LYONII (AC (HA)) 

Critical habitat units/subunits County 

Proposed rule 

(Nov. 10, 2005) 

ac (ha) 

Final rule 

ac (ha) 

Unit 1: Simi Valley .................................................................. Ventura ................................................... 458 (185) 390 (157) 

Subunit 1a ........................................................................ ................................................................ 283 (114) 245 (99) 

Subunit 1b ........................................................................ ................................................................ 19 (8) 18 (7) 

Subunit 1c ........................................................................ ................................................................ 50 (20) 33 (13) 

Subunit 1d ........................................................................ ................................................................ 106 (43) 94 (38) 

Unit 2: Montclef Ridge ............................................................ Ventura ................................................... 1,317 (533) 1,157 (468) 

Subunit 2a ........................................................................ ................................................................ 1,196 (485) 1,051 (425) 

Subunit 2b ........................................................................ ................................................................ 47 (19) 40 (16) 

Subunit 2c ........................................................................ ................................................................ 74 (29) 66 (27) 

Unit 3: Thousand Oaks ........................................................... Ventura/Los Angeles .............................. 1,470 (594) 1,259 (510) 

Subunit 3a ........................................................................ ................................................................ 236 (96) 212 (86) 

Subunit 3b ........................................................................ ................................................................ 75 (30) 64 (26) 

Subunit 3c ........................................................................ ................................................................ 1,159 (468) 983 (398) 

Unit 4: Triunfo Canyon ............................................................ Los Angeles ........................................... 236 (95) 206 (83) 

Unit 5: Mulholland Drive ......................................................... Los Angeles ........................................... 396 (160) 292 (117) 

Subunit 5a ........................................................................ ................................................................ 82 (33) 68 (27) 

Subunit 5b ........................................................................ ................................................................ 163 (66) 107 (43) 

Subunit 5c ........................................................................ ................................................................ 78 (31) 62 (25) 

Subunit 5d ........................................................................ ................................................................ 73 (30) 55 (22) 

Unit 6: Cornell Road ............................................................... Los Angeles ........................................... 233 (94) 0 (0) 

Unit 7: Malibu Lake ................................................................. Los Angeles ........................................... 102 (41) 92 (37) 

Total .......................................................................... ................................................................ 4,212 (1,704) 3,396 (1,372) 

TABLE 4.—APPROXIMATE ACREAGE BY LAND OWNERSHIP CATEGORIES WITHIN CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS/SUBUNITS FOR

PENTACHAETA LYONII (AC (HA)) 

Critical habitat unit and subunit Federal State Local agency Private Total 

Unit 1: Simi Valley ................................. 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 390 (157) 390 (157) 

Subunit 1a ...................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 245 (99) 245 (99) 

Subunit 1b ...................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 18 (7) 18 (7) 

Subunit 1c ....................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 33 (13) 33 (13) 

Subunit 1d ...................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 94 (38) 94 (38) 

Unit 2: Montclef Ridge ........................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 892 (361) 265 (107) 1,157 (468) 

Subunit 2a ...................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 862 (349) 189 (76) 1,051 (425) 

Subunit 2b ...................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 22 (9) 18 (7) 40 (16) 

Subunit 2c ....................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 8 (3) 58 (24) 66 (27) 

Unit 3: Thousand Oaks .......................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 671 (272) 588 (238) 1,259 (510) 

Subunit 3a ...................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 149 (60) 63 (26) 212 (86) 

Subunit 3b ...................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 26 (11) 38 (15) 64 (26) 

Subunit 3c ....................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 496 (201) 487 (197) 983 (398) 

Unit 4: Triunfo Canyon ........................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 197 (80) 9 (3) 206 (83) 

Unit 5: Mulholland Drive ........................ 105 (42) 0 (0) 0 (0) 187 (75) 292 (117) 

Subunit 5a ...................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 68 (27) 68 (27) 

Subunit 5b ...................................... 105 (42) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1) 107 (43) 

Subunit 5c ....................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 62 (25) 62 (25) 

Subunit 5d ...................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 55 (22) 55 (22) 

Unit 6: Cornell Road .............................. 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 

Unit 7: Malibu Lake ................................ 0 (0) 58 (23) 0 (0) 34 (14) 92 (37) 

Total ......................................... 105 (42) 58 (23) 1,760 (713) 1,473 (594) 3,396 (1,372) 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for 

Pentachaeta lyonii, below. 

Unit 1: Simi Valley Unit 

This unit is located east of Moorpark 

and west of Simi Valley in Ventura 

County and consists of 390 ac (157 ha) 

of private land. This unit is divided into 

four subunits and mapped from 

occurrences known at the time of 

listing. The subunits are in the same 

geographic area; they are all within 2.5 

mi (4000 m) of each other. These 

subunits are included because they 

contain features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species, contain at 

least two of the PCEs (1 and 3), and the 

unit as a whole represents the 

northernmost edge of the species’ range. 

Inclusion of these subunits reduces 

fragmentation, maintains genetic 

connectivity between populations, and 

increases the chance of recolonization 

from neighboring populations if one 

patch becomes extirpated (Noss et al. 

1997). Soils have not been sampled for 

microbiotic crusts at all locations, so it 

is unknown if every subunit contains 

PCE 2. Threats that may require special 

management in this unit include the 

invasion of annual grasses and 

nonnative plants that could crowd out 

P. lyonii, and grazing, edge effects from 

urban development, road maintenance, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
66392 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

and vehicle traffic, which could result 

in removal or trampling of plants. 

Subunit 1a: This subunit is located 

east of Moorpark in the Tierra Rejada 

Hills and consists of 245 ac (99 ha) of 

private land. This subunit includes 

several patches within a single 

population complex; at least 1200 plants 

were recorded in this area in 1995. This 

subunit contains at least two of the PCEs 

(1 and 3); soils have not been sampled 

for microbiotic crusts, so whether it 

contains PCE 2 is unknown. 

Subunit 1b: This subunit is located in 

eastern Moorpark and consists of 18 ac 

(7 ha) of private land within the Tierra 

Rejada Vernal Pool Preserve owned by 

Serenata Homeowners association and 

managed by Mountains Recreation and 

Conservation Authority. It includes one 

of the largest known populations of 

Pentachaeta lyonii, and is fenced and 

monitored annually. This subunit 

contains at least two of the PCEs (1 and 

3); soils have not been sampled for 

microbiotic crusts, so whether it 

contains PCE 2 is unknown. 

Subunit 1c: This subunit is located in 

western Simi Valley near Wood Ranch 

Reservoir and consists of 33 ac (13 ha) 

of private land. It includes at least two 

separate patches of plants within the 

same population complex. This subunit 

contains at least two of the PCEs (1 and 

3); soils have not been sampled for 

microbiotic crusts, so whether it 

contains PCE 2 is unknown. 

Subunit 1d: This subunit is located in 

western Simi Valley directly adjacent to 

Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. It 

consists of 94 ac (38 ha) of private land 

and includes at least two separate 

patches of plants within the same 

population complex. This subunit 

contains at least two of the PCEs (1 and 

3); soils have not been sampled for 

microbiotic crusts, so whether it 

contains PCE 2 is unknown. 

Unit 2: Montclef Ridge Unit 

This unit is located along Montclef 

Ridge, northwest of Newbury Park in 

Ventura County. It consists of 892 ac 

(361 ha) of local agency land (Lynmere, 

Wildwood Park, and Mount Clef Ridge) 

owned and managed by COSCA and 

Conejo Recreation and Parks District, 

and 265 ac (107 ha) of private land. This 

unit is divided into three subunits that 

occur within the same geographic area, 

and are mapped from occurrences 

known at the time of listing and one 

occurrence identified after listing. These 

subunits are included because they 

contain features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species, contain all 

of the PCEs, and represent a large 

proportion of the species’ range. 

Inclusion of these subunits reduces 

fragmentation, maintains genetic 

connectivity between populations, and 

increases the chance of recolonization 

from neighboring populations if one 

patch becomes extirpated (Noss et al. 

1997). Threats that may require special 

management include invasion by annual 

grasses and nonnative plants that could 

crowd out P. lyonii; recreation, 

including equestrian activities, foot 

traffic, and off-road vehicles, which 

could result in trampling of plants; 

illegal dumping, urban development, 

which could result in removal of plants; 

and edge effects from existing urban 

development. 

Subunit 2a: This subunit includes a 

large population complex with patches 

of plants from multiple locations, and is 

mapped from several occurrences 

known at the time of listing and one 

occurrence identified after listing, and 

consists of 862 ac (349 ha) of local 

agency land (Lynmere, Wildwood Park, 

and Mount Clef Ridge) designated as 

open space and owned by COSCA and 

Conejo Recreation and Parks District 

and 189 ac (76 ha) of private land. The 

occurrence identified after listing is 

known to be occupied, and provides 

connectivity between occurrences 

known at the time of listing. This 

subunit consists of a relatively large 

contiguous area with multiple 

populations of Pentachaeta lyonii, and 

it contains all of the PCEs. 

Subunit 2b: This subunit includes at 

least two separate patches of plants 

within the same population complex 

and is mapped from an occurrence 

known at the time of listing. It consists 

of 22 ac (9 ha) of local agency land 

designated as open space and owned by 

COSCA, and 18 ac (7 ha) of private land, 

6 ac (2 ha) of which is owned by 

California Lutheran University. This 

subunit contains all of the PCEs. 

Subunit 2c: This subunit includes at 

least two separate patches of plants 

within the same population complex 

and is mapped from an occurrence 

known at the time of listing. It consists 

of 8 ac (3 ha) of local agency land 

designated as open space and owned by 

COSCA, and 58 ac (24 ha) of private 

land, 34 ac (14 ha) of which is owned 

by California Lutheran University. This 

subunit contains all of the PCEs. 

Unit 3: Thousand Oaks Unit 

This unit is located in Thousand Oaks 

near Lake Sherwood in Ventura and Los 

Angeles Counties. It consists of 671 ac 

(272 ha) of local agency land (COSCA, 

Las Virgenes Metropolitan Water 

District, and Mountain Resources 

Conservation Authority) and 588 ac (238 

ha) of private land. This unit is divided 

into three subunits mapped from 

occurrences known at the time of listing 

and two occurrence identified after 

listing. These subunits are included 

because they contain features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, contain at least two of the PCEs 

(1 and 3), and represent a large 

proportion of the species’ range. 

Inclusion of these subunits reduces 

fragmentation, maintains genetic 

connectivity between populations, and 

increases the chance of recolonization 

from neighboring populations if one 

patch becomes extirpated (Noss et al. 

1997). Soils have not been sampled for 

microbiotic crusts, so whether the 

subunits contain PCE 2 is unknown. 

Threats that may require special 

management include edge effects from 

urban development, removal of plants 

for urban development or fuel 

management, invasion by annual grasses 

and nonnative plants that could crowd 

out Pentachaeta lyonii, and equestrian 

and foot traffic that could result in 

trampling of plants. 

Subunit 3a: This subunit is located 

north of Lake Sherwood and consists of 

149 ac (60 ha) of local agency land 

designated as open space owned by 

COSCA, and 63 ac (26 ha) of private 

land. It is mapped from a relatively large 

population (11,000 plants in 1991) 

known at the time of listing. This 

subunit contains at least two of the PCEs 

(1 and 3); soils have not been sampled 

for microbiotic crusts, so whether it 

contains PCE 2 is unknown. 

Subunit 3b: This subunit is located on 

the north side of Lake Sherwood and 

consists of 26 ac (11 ha) of local agency 

land owned by COSCA and 38 ac (15 

ha) of private land. It is mapped from an 

occurrence known at the time of listing. 

Two of the three patches within this 

population were removed by 

development in 1997; the only 

remaining patch of occupied habitat has 

been designated. This subunit contains 

at least two of the PCEs (1 and 3); soils 

have not been sampled for microbiotic 

crusts, so whether it contains PCE 2 is 

unknown. 

Subunit 3c: This subunit is located 

south of Lake Sherwood and consists of 

496 ac (201 ha) of local agency land 

designated as open space owned by 

COSCA, and 487 ac (197 ha) of private 

land. It is mapped from occurrences 

known at the time of listing and two 

occurrences identified after listing, and 

includes numerous patches of plants 

within one population complex. 

Overall, this subunit contains at least 16 

known populations of Pentachaeta 

lyonii. This subunit contains at least two 

of the PCEs (1 and 3); soils have not 

been sampled for microbiotic crusts, so 

whether it contains PCE 2 is unknown. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66393 

Unit 4. Triunfo Canyon Unit 

This unit is located in unincorporated 

Los Angeles County. It consists of 197 

ac (80 ha) of local agency land owned 

by Mountains Recreation and 

Conservation Authority, and 9 ac (3 ha) 

of private land. It is mapped from an 

occurrence known at the time of listing 

and includes multiple patches within a 

large, single population complex. This 

unit is included because it contains the 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species, contains all of the PCEs, is 

currently occupied, and represents a 

relatively large population complex of 

Pentachaeta lyonii (37,300 individuals 

estimated in 2000), and is a good-quality 

site. Inclusion of this unit reduces 

fragmentation, maintains genetic 

connectivity between populations, and 

increases the chance of recolonization 

from neighboring populations if one 

patch becomes extirpated (Noss et al. 

1997). Threats that may require special 

management include invasion by annual 

grasses and nonnative plants, which 

could crowd out P. lyonii, fuel 

management, which could result in 

removal of plants, and foot traffic, 

which could result in trampling of 

plants. 

Unit 5: Mullholland Drive Unit 

This unit is located in the Santa 

Monica Mountains in Los Angeles 

County and consists of 105 ac (42 ha) of 

Federal land (Santa Monica Mountains 

National Recreation Area) and 187 ac 

(75 ha) of private land. It is divided into 

4 subunits mapped from occurrences 

known at the time of listing and 

occurrences identified after listing. 

These subunits are included because 

they contain features essential to the 

conservation of the species, are 

currently occupied, contain at least two 

of the PCEs (1 and 3), and represent the 

southernmost locations within the 

species’ range. Inclusion of these 

subunits reduces fragmentation, 

maintains genetic connectivity between 

populations, and increases the chance of 

recolonization from neighboring 

populations if one patch becomes 

extirpated (Noss et al. 1997). Soils have 

not been sampled for microbiotic crusts, 

so whether these subunits contain PCE 

2 is unknown. Threats that may require 

special management include the 

potential for development, which could 

result in removal of plants; fuel 

management, which could also result in 

removal of plants; and invasion by 

annual grasses and nonnative plants, 

which could crowd out Pentachaeta 

lyonii. 

Unit 5a: This subunit consists of 68 ac 

(27 ha) of private land along the south 

side of Mulholland Drive. It is mapped 

from an occurrence known at the time 

of listing. This population contained at 

least 3000 individual plants in 2000. 

This subunit contains at least two of the 

PCEs (1 and 3); soils have not been 

sampled for microbiotic crusts, so 

whether it contains PCE 2 is unknown. 

Unit 5b: This subunit consists of 105 

ac (42 ha) of Federal land (Santa Monica 

Mountains National Recreation Area) in 

Rocky Oaks Park and 2 ac (1 ha) of 

private land on the west side of Kanan 

Road. This subunit contains at least two 

remaining patches of plants within a 

population complex. One patch within 

this population was extirpated by 

equestrian activities (although the 

habitat remains), so the remaining 

patches have been fenced. It is mapped 

from an occurrence known at the time 

of listing. This subunit contains at least 

two of the PCEs (1 and 3); soils have not 

been sampled for microbiotic crusts, so 

whether it contains PCE 2 is unknown. 

Unit 5c: This subunit consists of 62 ac 

(25 ha) of private land designated as 

open space and managed by Santa 

Monica Mountains Conservancy on 

Mulholland Drive. It includes at least 

two patches of plants within a single 

population complex, and is mapped 

from an occurrence identified after 

listing. This subunit is occupied and 

contains at least two of the PCEs (1 and 

3); soils have not been sampled for 

microbiotic crusts, so whether it 

contains PCE 2 is unknown. 

Unit 5d: This subunit consists of 55 ac 

(22 ha) of private land on Kanan Road. 

It is mapped from an occurrence 

identified after listing. This subunit is 

occupied and contains at least two of 

the PCEs (1 and 3); soils have not been 

sampled for microbiotic crusts, so 

whether it contains PCE 2 is unknown. 

Unit 6: Cornell Road Unit 

All essential lands in Unit 6 are 

excluded from critical habitat 

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

Act for economic reasons (see the 

Exclusions Under Section 49b)(2) of the 

Act section). This unit is located in the 

Santa Monica Mountains in Los Angeles 

County and consists of 233 ac (94 ha) of 

private land. It includes plants found in 

several locations and is mapped from an 

occurrence known at the time of listing. 

This unit contains all of the PCEs, 

represents one of the southernmost 

locations within the species’ range, 

contains numerous distinct patches and 

a very large population of individuals 

(> 3 million plants estimated in 1999), 

is genetically distinct from the other 

populations, and contains more genetic 

variability than the other populations. 

Threats that may require special 

management include the potential for 

grading and development, which could 

result in removal of plants, edge effects 

from nearby developments, and 

invasion by annual grasses and 

nonnative plants, which could crowd 

out P. lyonii. 

Unit 7: Malibu Lake Unit 

This unit is located in the Santa 

Monica Mountains in Los Angeles 

County and consists of 58 ac (23 ha) of 

State land (Malibu Creek State Park) and 

34 ac (14 ha) of private land. It is 

mapped from an occurrence known at 

the time of listing. This unit is included 

because it contains features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, contains at least two of the 

PCEs (PCEs 1 and 3), represents the 

easternmost known location within the 

species’ range, is currently occupied, 

and contains a relatively large 

population (100,000–200,000 plants 

estimated in 1998). Inclusion of this 

unit reduces fragmentation, maintains 

genetic connectivity between 

populations, and increases the chance of 

recolonization from neighboring 

populations if one patch becomes 

extirpated (Noss et al. 1997). Soils have 

not been sampled for microbiotic crusts, 

so whether the subunits contain PCE 2 

is unknown. Threats that may require 

special management include recreation 

activities such as foot traffic, which may 

result in trampling of plants. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7 of the Act requires Federal 

agencies, including the Service, to 

ensure that actions they fund, authorize, 

or carry out are not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. In our 

regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define 

destruction or adverse modification as 

‘‘a direct or indirect alteration that 

appreciably diminishes the value of 

critical habitat for both the survival and 

recovery of a listed species. Such 

alterations include, but are not limited 

to, alterations adversely modifying any 

of those physical or biological features 

that were the basis for determining the 

habitat to be critical.’’ However, recent 

decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit 

Court of Appeals have invalidated this 

definition. Pursuant to current national 

policy and the statutory provisions of 

the Act, destruction or adverse 

modification is determined on the basis 

of whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 

(or retain the current ability for the 

primary constituent elements to be 

functionally established) to serve the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
66394 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

intended conservation role for the 

species. 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to evaluate their actions with respect to 

any species that is proposed or listed as 

endangered or threatened and with 

respect to its critical habitat, if any is 

proposed or designated. Regulations 

implementing this interagency 

cooperation provision of the Act are 

codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

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

Federal agencies to confer with us on 

any action that is likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a proposed 

species or result in destruction or 

adverse modification of proposed 

critical habitat. This is a procedural 

requirement only. However, once a 

proposed species becomes listed, or 

proposed critical habitat is designated 

as final, the full prohibitions of section 

7(a)(2) apply to any Federal action. The 

primary utility of the conference 

procedures is to maximize the 

opportunity for a Federal agency to 

adequately consider proposed species 

and critical habitat and avoid potential 

delays in implementing their proposed 

action because of the section 7(a)(2) 

compliance process, should those 

species be listed or the critical habitat 

designated. 

Under conference procedures, the 

Service may provide advisory 

conservation recommendations to assist 

the agency in eliminating conflicts that 

may be caused by the proposed action. 

The Service may conduct either 

informal or formal conferences. Informal 

conferences are typically used if the 

proposed action is not likely to have any 

adverse effects to the proposed species 

or proposed critical habitat. Formal 

conferences are typically used when the 

Federal agency or the Service believes 

the proposed action is likely to cause 

adverse effects to proposed species or 

critical habitat, inclusive of those that 

may cause jeopardy or adverse 

modification. 

The results of an informal conference 

are typically transmitted in a conference 

report, while the results of a formal 

conference are typically transmitted in a 

conference opinion. Conference 

opinions on proposed critical habitat are 

typically prepared according to 50 CFR 

402.14, as if the proposed critical 

habitat were designated. We may adopt 

the conference opinion as the biological 

opinion when the critical habitat is 

designated, if no substantial new 

information or changes in the action 

alter the content of the opinion (see 50 

CFR 402.10(d)). As noted above, any 

conservation recommendations in a 

conference report or opinion are strictly 

advisory. 

If a species is listed or critical habitat 

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

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of such a species or 

to destroy or adversely modify its 

critical habitat. If a Federal action may 

affect a listed species or its critical 

habitat, the responsible Federal agency 

(action agency) must enter into 

consultation with us. As a result of this 

consultation, compliance with the 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) will be 

documented through the Service’s 

issuance of: (1) A concurrence letter for 

Federal actions that may affect, but are 

not likely to adversely affect, listed 

species or critical habitat; or (2) a 

biological opinion for Federal actions 

that may affect, but are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

result in jeopardy to a listed species or 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of critical habitat, we also provide 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

the project, if any are identifiable. 

‘‘Reasonable and prudent alternatives’’

are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as 

alternative actions identified during 

consultation that can be implemented in 

a manner consistent with the intended 

purpose of the action, that are consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, that are 

economically and technologically 

feasible, and that the Director believes 

would avoid jeopardy to the listed 

species or destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives can 

vary from slight project modifications to 

extensive redesign or relocation of the 

project. Costs associated with 

implementing a reasonable and prudent 

alternative are similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where a new 

species is listed or critical habitat is 

subsequently designated that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action or such 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law. Consequently, some 

Federal agencies may request 

reinitiation of consultation with us on 

actions for which formal consultation 

has been completed, if those actions 

may affect subsequently listed species 

or designated critical habitat or 

adversely modify or destroy proposed 

critical habitat. 

Federal activities that may affect 

Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta 

lyonii or its designated critical habitat 

will require section 7 consultation 

under the Act. Activities on State, 

Tribal, local or private lands requiring a 

Federal permit (such as a permit from 

the Corps under section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act or a permit under section 

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

or involving some other Federal action 

(such as funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency) will 

also be subject to the section 7 

consultation process. Federal actions 

not affecting listed species or critical 

habitat, and actions on State, tribal, 

local or private lands that are not 

federally-funded, authorized, or 

permitted, do not require section 7 

consultations. 

Application of the Jeopardy and 

Adverse Modification Standards for 

Actions involving Effects to Astragalus 

brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii and 

Their Critical Habitat 

Jeopardy Standard 

Prior to and following designation of 

critical habitat, the Service has applied 

an analytical framework for Astragalus 

brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii 

jeopardy analyses that relies heavily on 

the importance of core area populations 

to the survival and recovery of A. 

brauntonii and P. lyonii. The section 

7(a)(2) analysis is focused not only on 

these populations but also on the habitat 

conditions necessary to support them. 

The jeopardy analysis usually 

expresses the survival and recovery 

needs of the Astragalus brauntonii and 

Pentachaeta lyonii in a qualitative 

fashion without making distinctions 

between what is necessary for survival 

and what is necessary for recovery. 

Generally, if a proposed Federal action 

is incompatible with the viability of the 

affected core area population(s), 

inclusive of associated habitat 

conditions, a jeopardy finding is 

warranted because of the relationship of 

each core area population to the 

survival and recovery of the species as 

a whole. 

Adverse Modification Standard 

For the reasons described in the 

Director’s December 9, 2004 

memorandum the key factor related to 

the adverse modification determination 

is whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66395 

(or retain the current ability for the 

primary constituent elements to be 

functionally established) to serve the 

intended conservation role for the 

species. Generally, the conservation role 

of A. brauntonii and P. lyonii critical 

habitat units are to support viable core 

area populations. 

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

to briefly evaluate and describe in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat those 

activities involving a Federal action that 

may destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. Activities that may destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat may 

also jeopardize the continued existence 

of the species. 

Activities that may destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat are 

those that alter the PCEs to an extent 

that the conservation value of critical 

habitat for Astragalus brauntonii or 

Pentachaeta lyonii is appreciably 

reduced. However, as discussed in the 

PCE section for A. brauntonii, periodic 

disturbances that stimulate seed 

germination (e.g., fire, flooding, erosion) 

and reduce vegetative cover are 

characteristic of the species’ habitat. 

Activities that, when carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency, may affect critical habitat and 

therefore result in consultation for A. 

brauntonii and P. lyonii include, but are 

not limited to: 

(1) Removing, thinning, or destroying 

A. brauntonii and P. lyonii plants. This 

may occur through burning, mechanical, 

chemical, or other means, including 

plowing, grading, livestock grazing, 

construction, road building, mechanical 

weed control, herbicide application, and 

firefighting activities; 

(2) Activities that appreciably degrade 

or destroy A. brauntonii or P. lyonii 

habitat (and its PCEs). Such activities 

include, but are not limited to: livestock 

grazing, clearing, discing, farming, 

residential or commercial development, 

introducing or encouraging the spread 

of nonnative species, off-road vehicle 

use; 

(3) Activities that appreciably 

diminish habitat value or quality 

through indirect effects (e.g., edge 

effects, invasion of exotic plants or 

animals, or fragmentation) due to 

construction of buildings or roads; 

(4) Any activity, including the 

regulation of activities by the Corps of 

Engineers under section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act or activities carried out 

by or licensed by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), that could 

alter watershed or soil characteristics in 

ways that would appreciably alter or 

reduce the quality or quantity of surface 

and subsurface flow of water needed to 

maintain A. brauntonii or P. lyonii. 

These activities include, but are not 

limited to: Altering the natural fire 

regime by using prescribed fires that are 

too frequent or poorly-timed; 

development, including road building 

and other direct or indirect activities; 

agricultural activities; livestock grazing; 

and vegetation manipulation such as 

clearing or grubbing in the watershed 

upslope from A. brauntonii or P. lyonii. 

(5) Road construction and 

maintenance, right-of-way designation, 

and regulation of agricultural activities, 

or any activity funded or carried out by 

the Department of Transportation or 

Department of Agriculture that could 

result in excavation, or mechanized 

land clearing of A. brauntonii or P. 

lyonii habitat; and 

(6) Licensing of construction of 

communication sites by the Federal 

Communications Commission or 

funding of construction or development 

activities by the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development that 

could result in excavation, or 

mechanized land clearing, of A. 

brauntonii or P. lyonii habitat. 

We consider all of the units 

designated as critical habitat, as well as 

those that have been excluded or not 

included, to contain features essential to 

the conservation of the species. All 

units are within the geographical area of 

the species and are currently occupied. 

Four of the six units for Astragalus 

brauntonii were occupied at the time of 

listing, although three subunits within 

Unit 2 contain additional populations 

not known at the time of listing but are 

currently occupied. Units 1 and 4 were 

not known to be occupied at the time of 

listing but are currently occupied. All 

seven units for Pentachaeta lyonii were 

occupied at the time of listing, although 

four subunits within these units contain 

additional populations not known at the 

time of listing but are currently 

occupied. Federal agencies already 

consult with us on activities in areas 

currently occupied by A. brauntonii and 

P. lyonii, or if the species may be 

affected by the action, to ensure that 

their actions do not jeopardize the 

continued existence of A. brauntonii or 

P. lyonii. 

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

Act 

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

critical habitat shall be designated, and 

revised, on the basis of the best 

available scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

national security impact, and any other 

relevant impact, of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if he determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless [s]he 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. In making that determination, 

the Secretary is afforded broad 

discretion and the Congressional record 

is clear that in making a determination 

under the section the Secretary has 

discretion as to which factors and how 

much weight will be given to any factor. 

Under section 4(b)(2), in considering 

whether to exclude a particular area 

from the designation, we must identify 

the benefits of including the area in the 

designation, identify the benefits of 

excluding the area from the designation, 

determine whether the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion. If an exclusion is 

contemplated, then we must determine 

whether excluding the area would result 

in the extinction of the species. In the 

following sections, we address a number 

of general issues that are relevant to the 

exclusions we considered. 

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

for Astragalus brauntonii 

Pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 

we must consider relevant impacts in 

addition to economic ones. We 

determined that the lands within the 

designation of critical habitat for 

Astragalus brauntonii are not owned or 

managed by the Department of Defense, 

there are currently no habitat 

conservation plans for A. brauntonii, 

and the designation does not include 

any Tribal lands or trust resources. We 

anticipate no impact to national 

security, Tribal lands, partnerships, or 

habitat conservation plans from this 

critical habitat designation. Based on 

the best available information including 

the prepared economic analysis, we 

believe that all of these units contain the 

features that are essential for the 

conservation of this species. Our 

economic analysis indicates an overall 

low cost resulting from the designation. 

Therefore, we have found no areas for 

which the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and 

so have not excluded any areas from 

this designation of critical habitat for A. 

brauntonii based on economic impacts. 

As such, we have considered but not 

excluded any lands from this 

designation for A. brauntonii based on 

the potential impacts to these factors. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
66396 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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

for Pentachaeta lyonii 

Conservation Partnerships on NonFederal Lands 

Most federally listed species in the 

United States will not recover without 

the cooperation of non-federal 

landowners. More than 60% of the 

United States is privately owned 

(National Wilderness Institute 1995) and 

at least 80% of endangered or 

threatened occur either partially or 

solely on private lands (Crouse et al. 

2002). Stein et al. (1995) found that only 

about 12% of listed species were found 

almost exclusively on Federal lands (90 

to 100% of their known occurrences 

restricted to Federal lands) and that 

50% of federally listed species are not 

known to occur on Federal lands at all. 

Given the distribution of listed 

species with respect to land ownership, 

conservation of listed species in many 

parts of the United States is dependent 

upon working partnerships with a wide 

variety of entities and the voluntary 

cooperation of many non-federal 

landowners (Wilcove and Chen 1998, 

Crouse et al. 2002, James 2002). 

Building partnerships and promoting 

voluntary cooperation of landowners is 

essential to understanding the status of 

species on non-federal lands and is 

necessary to implement recovery actions 

such as reintroducing listed species, 

habitat restoration, and habitat 

protection. 

Many non-Federal landowners derive 

satisfaction in contributing to 

endangered species recovery. The 

Service promotes these private-sector 

efforts through the Four Cs 

philosophy—conservation through 

communication, consultation, and 

cooperation. This philosophy is evident 

in Service programs such as HCPs, Safe 

Harbor Agreements, Candidate 

Conservation Agreements, Candidate 

Conservation Agreements with 

Assurances, and conservation challenge 

cost-share. Many private landowners, 

however, are wary of the possible 

consequences of encouraging 

endangered species to their property, 

and there is mounting evidence that 

some regulatory actions by the Federal 

government, while well-intentioned and 

required by law, can under certain 

circumstances have unintended 

negative consequences for the 

conservation of species on private lands 

(Wilcove et al. 1996, Bean 2002, Conner 

and Mathews 2002, James 2002, Koch 

2002, Brook et al. 2003). Many 

landowners fear a decline in their 

property value due to real or perceived 

restrictions on land-use options where 

threatened or endangered species are 

found. Consequently, harboring 

endangered species is viewed by many 

landowners as a liability, resulting in 

anti-conservation incentives because 

maintaining habitats that harbor 

endangered species represents a risk to 

future economic opportunities (Main et 

al. 1999, Brook et al. 2003). 

The purpose of designating critical 

habitat is to contribute to the 

conservation of threatened and 

endangered species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The outcome 

of the designation, triggering regulatory 

requirements for actions funded, 

authorized, or carried out by Federal 

agencies under section 7 of the Act, can 

sometimes be counterproductive to its 

intended purpose on non-Federal lands. 

According to some researchers, the 

designation of critical habitat on private 

lands significantly reduces the 

likelihood that landowners will support 

and carry out conservation actions 

(Main et al. 1999, Bean 2002, Brook et 

al. 2003). The magnitude of this 

negative outcome is greatly amplified in 

situations where active management 

measures (e.g., reintroduction, fire 

management, control of invasive 

species) are necessary for species 

conservation (Bean 2002). 

The Service believes that the 

judicious use of excluding specific areas 

of non-federally owned lands from 

critical habitat designations can 

contribute to species recovery and 

provide a superior level of conservation 

than critical habitat alone. The 

Department of Interior Four C’s 

philosophy—conservation through 

communication, consultation, and 

cooperation—is the foundation for 

developing the tools of conservation. 

These tools include conservation grants, 

funding for Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program, the Coastal Program, 

and cooperative-conservation challenge 

cost-share grants. Our Private 

Stewardship Grant program and 

Landowner Incentive Program provide 

assistance to private landowners in their 

voluntary efforts to protect threatened, 

imperiled, and endangered species, 

including the development and 

implementation of HCPs. 

Conservation agreements with nonFederal landowners (e.g., Habitat 

Conservation Plans (HCPs), contractual 

conservation agreements, easements, 

and stakeholder-negotiated State 

regulations) enhance species 

conservation by extending species 

protections beyond those available 

through section 7 consultations. In the 

past decade we have encouraged nonFederal landowners to enter into 

conservation agreements, based on a 

view that we can achieve greater species 

conservation on non-Federal land 

through such partnerships than we can 

through coercive methods (61 FR 63854; 

December 2, 1996). 

General Principles of Section 7 

Consultations Used in the 4(b)(2) 

Balancing Process 

The most direct, and potentially 

largest, regulatory benefit of critical 

habitat is that federally authorized, 

funded, or carried out activities require 

consultation pursuant to section 7 of the 

Act to ensure that they are not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. There are two limitations to this 

regulatory effect. First, it only applies 

where there is a Federal nexus—if there 

is no Federal nexus, designation itself 

does not restrict actions that destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Second, it only limits destruction or 

adverse modification. By its nature, the 

prohibition on adverse modification is 

designed to ensure those areas that 

contain the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species or unoccupied areas that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species are not eroded. Critical habitat 

designation alone, however, does not 

require specific steps toward recovery. 

Once consultation under section 7 of 

the Act is triggered, the process may 

conclude informally when the Service 

concurs in writing that the proposed 

Federal action is not likely to adversely 

affect the listed species or its critical 

habitat. However, if the Service 

determines through informal 

consultation that adverse impacts are 

likely to occur, then formal consultation 

would be initiated. Formal consultation 

concludes with a biological opinion 

issued by the Service on whether the 

proposed Federal action is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or result in destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat, 

with separate analyses being made 

under both the jeopardy and the adverse 

modification standards. For critical 

habitat, a biological opinion that 

concludes in a determination of no 

destruction or adverse modification may 

contain discretionary conservation 

recommendations to minimize adverse 

effects to primary constituent elements, 

but it would not contain any mandatory 

reasonable and prudent measures or 

terms and conditions. Mandatory 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

the proposed Federal action would only 

be issued when the biological opinion 

results in a jeopardy or adverse 

modification conclusion. 

We also note that for 30 years prior to 

the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision in 

Gifford Pinchot, the Service equated the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66397 

jeopardy standard with the standard for 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. The Court ruled that the 

Service could no longer equate the two 

standards and that adverse modification 

evaluations require consideration of 

impacts on the recovery of species. 

Thus, under the Gifford Pinchot 

decision, critical habitat designations 

may provide greater benefits to the 

recovery of a species. However, we 

believe the conservation achieved 

through implementing habitat 

conservation plans (HCPs) or other 

habitat management plans is typically 

greater than would be achieved through 

multiple site-by-site, project-by-project, 

section 7 consultations involving 

consideration of critical habitat. 

Management plans commit resources to 

implement long-term management and 

protection to particular habitat for at 

least one and possibly other listed or 

sensitive species. Section 7 

consultations only commit Federal 

agencies to prevent adverse 

modification to critical habitat caused 

by the particular project, and they are 

not committed to provide conservation 

or long-term benefits to areas not 

affected by the proposed project. Thus, 

any HCP or management plan which 

considers enhancement or recovery as 

the management standard will always 

provide as much or more benefit than a 

consultation for critical habitat 

designation conducted under the 

standards required by the Ninth Circuit 

in the Gifford Pinchot decision. 

Educational Benefits of Critical Habitat 

A benefit of including lands in critical 

habitat is that the designation of critical 

habitat serves to educate landowners, 

State and local governments, and the 

public regarding the potential 

conservation value of an area. This 

helps focus and promote conservation 

efforts by other parties by clearly 

delineating areas of high conservation 

value for Pentachaeta lyonii. In general 

the educational benefit of a critical 

habitat designation always exists, 

although in some cases it may be 

redundant with other educational 

effects. For example, HCPs have 

significant public input and may largely 

duplicate the educational benefit of a 

critical habitat designation. This benefit 

is closely related to a second, more 

indirect benefit: That designation of 

critical habitat would inform State 

agencies and local governments about 

areas that could be conserved under 

State laws or local ordinances. 

However, we believe that there would 

be little additional informational benefit 

gained from the designation of critical 

habitat for the exclusion we are making 

in this rule because the area being 

excluded was included in the proposed 

rule as having habitat containing the 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. Consequently, we believe 

that the informational benefits are 

already provided even though this area 

is not designated as critical habitat. 

Additionally, the purpose normally 

served by the designation, that of 

informing State agencies and local 

governments about areas that would 

benefit from protection and 

enhancement of habitat for Astragalus 

brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii is 

already well established among State 

and local governments and Federal 

agencies in those areas that we are 

excluding from critical habitat in this 

rule on the basis of other existing 

habitat management protections. 

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

Secretary to take into consideration 

potential economic impacts of a critical 

habitat designation and to exclude areas 

from critical habitat for economic 

reasons if he determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion exceed the 

benefits of designating the area as 

critical habitat, unless the exclusion 

will result in the extinction of the 

species concerned. This is a 

discretionary authority Congress has 

provided to the Secretary with respect 

to critical habitat. Although economics 

may not be considered when listing a 

species, Congress has expressly required 

this consideration when designating 

critical habitat. 

In conducting economic analyses, we 

are guided by the Tenth Circuit Court of 

Appeal’s ruling in the New Mexico 

Cattle Growers Association case (248 

F.3d at 1285), which directed us to 

consider all impacts, ‘‘regardless of 

whether those impacts are attributable 

co-extensively to other causes.’’ The 

Ninth Circuit has recently ruled (Gifford 

Pinchot, 378 F.3d at 1071) that the 

Service’s regulations defining ‘‘adverse 

modification’’ of critical habitat are 

invalid because they define adverse 

modification as affecting both survival 

and recovery of a species. The Court 

directed us to consider that 

determinations of adverse modification 

should be focused on impacts to 

recovery. While we have not yet 

proposed a new definition for public 

review and comment, compliance with 

the Court’s direction may result in 

additional costs associated with the 

designation of critical habitat 

(depending upon the outcome of the 

rulemaking). In light of the uncertainty 

concerning the regulatory definition of 

adverse modification, our current 

methodological approach to conducting 

economic analyses of our critical habitat 

designations is to consider all 

conservation-related costs. This 

approach would include costs related to 

sections 4 and 7 of the Act, as well as 

other protections under State and local 

laws and regulations, and should 

encompass costs that would be 

considered and evaluated in light of the 

Gifford Pinchot ruling. 

Unit 6, the Cornell Road Unit, 

includes approximately 233 ac (94 ha) 

in an unincorporated area of Los 

Angeles County, California. The land 

within this unit is owned and managed 

by Sage Community Group (‘‘Sage’’), a 

private landowner. Sage has proposed to 

build 81 homes on approximately 40 ac 

(16 ha) of their 320-acre (129.5 ha) 

property, and all of these homes would 

occur within the proposed critical 

habitat unit. Since July 5, 2005, the 

Service has been in formal consultation 

with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

to address impacts to Pentachaeta lyonii 

that may occur on the property as a 

result of this proposed development. 

Sage has proposed to preserve 

approximately 280 ac (113 ha) of the 

property in open space, and the majority 

of the existing P. lyonii on the property 

will be protected in perpetuity and 

managed within this open space area. 

The management plan for the property 

will address management of the open 

space areas, fuel modification zones 

around the proposed homes, and 

landscaping activities on the private 

lots. In addition, a memorandum to CRA 

International, the economic contractor 

for the Service, dated March 3, 2006, 

Sage stated the potential cost to them of 

designating their lands in Unit 6 as 

critical habitat for Pentachaeta lyonii 

could be as high as $78 million. 

Therefore, we are excluding the Cornell 

Road Unit (Unit 6) under section 4(b)(2). 

Benefits of Inclusion of Lands Within 

Unit 6: Cornell Road 

The area excluded in Unit 6 is 

currently occupied by Pentachaeta 

lyonii. The potential benefits of 

inclusion of lands within Unit 6 in the 

critical habitat designation are 

discussed above in the ‘‘General 

Principles of Section 7 Consultations 

Used in the 4(b)(2) Balancing Process’’

and ‘‘Educational Benefits of Critical 

Habitat’’ sections. 

The designation of Unit 6 as critical 

habitat could result in approximately 

$78 million in costs, the majority of 

which are directly related to residential 

development impacts. Any decrease in 

residential housing development that 

might occur as a result of the 

designation of critical habitat for 

Pentachaeta lyonii in Unit 6 could 

minimize impacts to and potentially 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
66398 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

provide incrementally greater protection 

to the species and to the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

species’ conservation (i.e., the primary 

constituent elements). A decrease in 

residential housing development would 

directly translate into a potential benefit 

to the species that would result from 

this designation. 

In summary, we believe that inclusion 

of Unit 6 as critical habitat could 

provide some additional Federal 

regulatory benefits for the species. 

However, that benefit is limited to some 

degree by the fact that the areas within 

Unit 6 are occupied by the species and, 

therefore, consultation with the Service 

for any Federal action that may affect 

the species in Unit 6 is already now 

required. The additional educational 

benefits that might arise from critical 

habitat designation are largely 

accomplished through the multiple 

opportunities for public notice-andcomment, which accompanied the 

development of this regulation; 

publicity associated with prior 

litigation; and public outreach 

associated with the development and 

the implementation of the Recovery 

Plan for Pentachaeta lyonii. 

Benefits of Exclusion of lands Within 

Unit 6: Cornell Road 

The development of a conservation 

strategy for the lands within Unit 6 has 

been a collaborative effort that has 

promoted the development of a positive 

relationship between the Service and 

Sage Community Group. The Service 

believes that exclusion of Unit 6 will 

allow us to continue working with Sage 

in a spirit of cooperation and 

partnership. In addition the designation 

of Unit 6 as critical habitat could result 

in approximately $78 million in costs to 

the landowner. By excluding Unit 6, 

some of these costs may be avoided. 

The development of a conservation 

strategy through the section 7 

consultation that is already in process 

will create a tangible and quantifiable 

benefit within the 233 ac (94 ha) unit. 

The unit will be placed in a 

conservation easement with funding for 

managing the easement in perpetuity. 

The management of this easement will 

include control of non-native plants and 

restricted access to human activities 

(i.e., no ORVs or horses). The 

conservation strategy will also provide a 

commitment by Sage and Service to 

review the management periodically to 

determine if the strategy is successful 

and determine if there are additional 

protective measures that need to be 

added. 

We also believe that the benefits of 

excluding these lands from the 

designation of critical habitat and 

thereby avoiding the potential economic 

costs of designation, exceed the 

educational and regulatory benefits that 

could result from including those lands 

in this designation of critical habitat. 

We also believe that excluding these 

lands, and thus helping the landowner 

to avoid the additional costs that would 

result from the designation, will 

contribute to a more positive climate for 

HCPs and other active conservation 

measures that provide greater 

conservation benefits than would result 

from designation of critical habitat—

even in the post-Gifford Pinchot 

environment—which requires only that 

there be no destruction or adverse 

modification resulting from actions with 

a Federal nexus. We, therefore, find that 

the benefits of excluding Unit 6 from 

this designation of critical habitat 

outweigh the benefits of including it in 

the designation. 

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion of Unit 6: Cornell 

Road 

We believe that the recovery planning 

process has already provided 

information about habitat that contains 

those features considered essential to 

the conservation of Pentachaeta lyonii 

and has facilitated conservation efforts 

through heightened public awareness of 

the plight of the listed species to the 

public, State and local governments, 

scientific organizations, and Federal 

agencies. The Recovery Plan contains 

explicit objectives for ongoing public 

education, outreach, and collaboration 

at local, State, and Federal levels, and 

between the private and public sectors, 

in recovering P. lyonii. 

In conclusion, we have evaluated the 

potential benefits that will result from 

the section 7 process and conservation 

strategy for the lands within Unit 6 and 

determined that the benefit of exclusion 

outweighs the benefit of inclusion. We 

also evaluated and considered the 

potential economic costs relative to the 

potential benefit for Pentachaeta lyonii 

and its primary constituent elements 

derived from the designation of critical 

habitat. We believe that the potential 

economic cost of approximately $78 

million significantly outweighs the 

potential conservation and protective 

benefits for the species and its primary 

constituent elements derived from 

avoiding residential development as a 

result of this designation. Therefore, for 

these reasons we have excluded Unit 6 

from critical habitat for P. lyonii. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species 

Because lands excluded from within 

this unit are considered occupied 

habitat, actions that might adversely 

affect Pentachaeta lyonii are expected to 

have a Federal nexus, and thus would 

trigger a section 7 consultation with the 

Service. The jeopardy standard of 

section 7 of the Act, and routine 

implementation of habitat preservation 

through the section 7 process, as 

discussed in the economic analysis, 

would be applied. The section 7 

consultation with the Service that is 

already in process regarding potential 

impacts of the proposed development 

project on P. lyonii will ensure the 

continued persistence of the species 

within Unit 6. As part of this 

consultation, the landowner has 

proposed to preserve the majority of the 

P. lyonii that occurs on the property in 

open space, in perpetuity, and 

implement a management plan to 

ensure the continued persistence of the 

species. 

The total 233 acres (94 ha) of critical 

habitat excluded from within Unit 6 is 

small relative to the 3,396 ac (1,372 ha) 

which would remain designated as 

critical habitat. This unit also represents 

a small proportion of the species’ range. 

This small proportion, together with the 

protections afforded to Pentachaeta 

lyonii due to designation of critical 

habitat on other lands, and protections 

afforded to P. lyonii through the draft 

management plan and through the 

section 7 process already initiated in 

Unit 6, leads us to conclude that 

exclusion of this unit will not result in 

extinction of the species. 

Economic Analysis 

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

to designate critical habitat on the basis 

of the best scientific information 

available and to consider the economic 

and other relevant impacts of 

designating a particular area as critical 

habitat. We may exclude areas from 

critical habitat upon a determination 

that the benefits of such exclusions 

outweigh the benefits of specifying such 

areas as critical habitat. We cannot 

exclude such areas from critical habitat 

when such exclusion will result in the 

extinction of the species concerned. 

Following the publication of the 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

we conducted economic analyses to 

estimate the potential economic effects 

of the designation. The draft analyses 

were made available for public review 

on July 21, 2006 (71 FR 41410). We 

accepted comments on the draft analysis 

until August 21, 2006. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66399 

The primary purpose of the economic 

analyses is to estimate the potential 

economic impacts associated with the 

designation of critical habitat for 

Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta 

lyonii. This information is intended to 

assist the Secretary in making decisions 

about whether the benefits of excluding 

particular areas from the designation 

outweigh the benefits of including those 

areas in the designation. This economic 

analysis considers the economic 

efficiency effects that may result from 

the designation, including habitat 

protections that may be co-extensive 

with the listing of the species. It also 

addresses distribution of impacts, 

including an assessment of the potential 

effects on small entities and the energy 

industry. This information can be used 

by the Secretary to assess whether the 

effects of the designation might unduly 

burden a particular group or economic 

sector. 

This analysis focuses on the direct 

and indirect costs of the rule. However, 

economic impacts to land use activities 

can exist in the absence of critical 

habitat. These impacts may result from, 

for example, local zoning laws, State 

and natural resource laws, and 

enforceable management plans and best 

management practices applied by other 

State and Federal agencies. Economic 

impacts that result from these types of 

protections are not included in the 

analysis as they are considered to be 

part of the regulatory and policy 

baseline. 

We received comments on the draft 

economic analysis of the proposed 

designation. Following the close of the 

comment period, we reviewed and 

considered the public comments and 

information we received and prepared 

responses to those comments (see 

Responses to Comments section above) 

or incorporated the information or 

changes directly into this final rule or 

our final economic analysis. 

The July 21, 2006, notice (71 FR 

41410) provides a detailed economics 

section that identifies a total surplus 

(sum of producer and consumer 

surplus), from housing development 

forecasted to be built within the area of 

Astragalus brauntonii proposed critical 

habitat, of approximately $91.87 million 

over a 20-year period (approximately 

$8.11 million annually at a 7 percent 

discount rate, or approximately $5.99 

million annually at a 3 percent discount 

rate). A total surplus (sum of producer 

and consumer surplus), from housing 

development forecasted to be built 

within the area of Pentachaeta lyonii 

proposed critical habitat of 

approximately $121.21 million over a 

20-year period, (approximately $10.69 

million annually at a 7 percent discount 

rate, or $7.91 million annually at a 3 

percent discount rate) was also 

identified. We evaluated the potential 

economic impact of this designation as 

identified in the draft analysis. Based on 

this evaluation, we believe that there are 

no disproportionate economic impacts 

that warrant exclusion pursuant to 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act at this time. 

A copy of the final economic analyses 

with supporting documents are 

included in our administrative record 

and may be obtained by contacting U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of 

Endangered Species (see ADDRESSES

section) or for downloading from the 

Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ventura. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12866, this document is a significant 

rule in that it may raise novel legal and 

policy issues. However, because the 

final economic analysis indicates the 

potential economic surplus from lands 

contained within these units is $92 

million over a 20-year period for 

Astragalus brauntonii and $121 million 

over a 20-year period for Pentachaeta 

lyonii, and the economic impact of 

designating critical habitat would be 

only a fraction of this amount, we do 

not anticipate that this final rule will 

have an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more or affect the 

economy in a material way. Due to the 

tight timeline for publication in the 

Federal Register, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) did not 

formally review this rule. The 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis was announced in the Federal 

Register on July 21, 2006 (71 FR 41410), 

and was made available for public 

review and comment. 

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

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) (as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of an agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA 

to require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of factual basis for certifying 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The SBREFA 

also amended the RFA to require a 

certification statement. 

Small entities include small 

organizations, such as independent 

nonprofit organizations; small 

governmental jurisdictions, including 

school boards and city and town 

governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; as well as small 

businesses. Small businesses include 

manufacturing and mining concerns 

with fewer than 500 employees, 

wholesale trade entities with fewer than 

100 employees, retail and service 

businesses with less than $5 million in 

annual sales, general and heavy 

construction businesses with less than 

$27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

consider the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this rule, as well as the types of project 

modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

To determine if the rule could 

significantly affect a substantial number 

of small entities, we consider the 

number of small entities affected within 

particular types of economic activities 

(e.g., housing development, grazing, oil 

and gas production, timber harvesting). 

We apply the ‘‘substantial number’’ test 

individually to each industry to 

determine if certification is appropriate. 

However, the SBREFA does not 

explicitly define ‘‘substantial number’’

or ‘‘significant economic impact.’’

Consequently, to assess whether a 

‘‘substantial number’’ of small entities is 

affected by this designation, this 

analysis considers the relative number 

of small entities likely to be impacted in 

an area. In some circumstances, 

especially with critical habitat 

designations of limited extent, we may 

aggregate across all industries and 

consider whether the total number of 

small entities affected is substantial. In 

estimating the number of small entities 

potentially affected, we also consider 

whether their activities have any 

Federal involvement. 

Designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities conducted, funded, or 

permitted by Federal agencies. Some 

kinds of activities are unlikely to have 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
66400 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

any Federal involvement and so will not 

be affected by critical habitat 

designation. In areas where the species 

is present, Federal agencies already are 

required to consult with us under 

section 7 of the Act on activities they 

fund, permit, or implement that may 

affect Astragalus brauntonii and 

Pentachaeta lyonii. Federal agencies 

also must consult with us if their 

activities may affect critical habitat. 

Designation of critical habitat, therefore, 

could result in an additional economic 

impact on small entities due to the 

requirement to reinitiate consultation 

for ongoing Federal activities. 

To determine if the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for 

Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta 

lyonii would affect a substantial number 

of small entities, we considered the 

number of small entities affected within 

particular types of economic activities 

(e.g., residential and commercial 

development). We considered each 

industry or category individually to 

determine if certification is appropriate. 

In estimating the numbers of small 

entities potentially affected, we also 

considered whether their activities have 

any Federal involvement; some kinds of 

activities are unlikely to have any 

Federal involvement and so will not be 

affected by the designation of critical 

habitat. Designation of critical habitat 

only affects activities conducted, 

funded, permitted, or authorized by 

Federal agencies; non-Federal activities 

are not affected by the designation. 

In our economic analyses of the final 

critical habitat designation, we evaluate 

the potential economic effects on small 

business entities resulting from 

conservation actions related to the 

listing of Astragalus brauntonii and 

Pentachaeta lyonii and proposed 

designation of critical habitat. We 

determined from our analyses that the 

small business entities that may be 

affected are firms in the new home 

construction sector. Small business 

effects have been calculated on the total 

surplus generated from new housing 

construction within critical habitat. This 

assumption is conservative because it is 

the worst-case scenario of how critical 

habitat will affect small businesses. In 

the event that conservation is achieved 

without requiring developers to 

completely avoid critical habitat, 

impacts on small businesses will be 

lower. 

To estimate the number of firms 

potentially affected, these analyses use 

the following steps. First, they calculate 

the number of homes built by small 

businesses annually. Average revenues 

for a small construction firm are 

$694,000 annually. The mean new home 

price for the study area of these analyses 

is approximately $970,000 for 

Astragalus brauntonii and $920,000 for 

Pentachaeta lyonii. Small construction 

firms are assumed to build one new 

home per year. Second, they calculate 

the proportion of new home 

construction that would be undertaken 

by small businesses. Prior analyses of 

permitting data in Sacramento County 

found that 22 percent of building 

permits for single family dwellings were 

issued to builders classified as small 

businesses. A total of 156 new homes 

are projected to be built within 

Astragalus brauntonii proposed critical 

habitat over the next 20 years. 

Accordingly, 34 are projected to be built 

by small businesses. Since each firm 

builds one home per year, 34 small 

firms are potentially affected within 

Astragalus brauntonii proposed critical 

habitat over the 20-year time frame of 

this analysis. A total of 222 new homes 

are projected to be built within 

Pentachaeta lyonii proposed critical 

habitat over the next 20 years. 

Accordingly, 49 are projected to be built 

by small businesses. Since each firm 

builds one home per year, 49 small 

firms are potentially affected within 

Pentachaeta lyonii proposed critical 

habitat over the 20-year time frame of 

this analysis. These firms may be 

affected by activities associated with the 

conservation of Astragalus brauntonii 

and Pentachaeta lyonii, inclusive of 

activities associated with listing, 

recovery, and critical habitat. Critical 

habitat is not expected to result in 

significant small business impacts. 

In general, two different mechanisms 

in section 7 consultations could lead to 

additional regulatory requirements for 

the approximately four small 

businesses, on average, that may be 

required to consult with us each year 

regarding their projects impacts on 

Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta 

lyonii and its habitat. First, if we 

conclude, in a biological opinion, that a 

proposed action is likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a species or 

adversely modify its critical habitat, we 

can offer ‘‘reasonable and prudent 

alternatives.’’ Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives are alternative actions that 

can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the scope of the Federal 

agency’s legal authority and 

jurisdiction, that are economically and 

technologically feasible, and that would 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of listed species or result in 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

A Federal agency and an applicant may 

elect to implement a reasonable and 

prudent alternative associated with a 

biological opinion that has found 

jeopardy or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. An agency or applicant 

could alternatively choose to seek an 

exemption from the requirements of the 

Act or proceed without implementing 

the reasonable and prudent alternative. 

However, unless it obtains an 

exemption the Federal agency or 

applicant would be at risk of violating 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act if it chose to 

proceed without implementing the 

reasonable and prudent alternatives. 

Second, if we find that a proposed 

action is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a listed animal or 

plant species, we may identify 

reasonable and prudent measures 

designed to minimize the amount or 

extent of take and require the Federal 

agency or applicant to implement such 

measures through nondiscretionary 

terms and conditions. We may also 

identify discretionary conservation 

recommendations designed to minimize 

or avoid the adverse effects of a 

proposed action on listed species or 

critical habitat, help implement 

recovery plans, or to develop 

information that could contribute to the 

recovery of the species. 

Based on our experience with 

consultations under section 7 of the Act 

for all listed species, virtually all 

projects—including those that, in their 

initial proposed form, would result in 

jeopardy or adverse modification 

determinations in section 7 

consultations—can be implemented 

successfully with, at most, the adoption 

of reasonable and prudent alternatives. 

These measures, by definition, must be 

economically feasible and within the 

scope of authority of the Federal agency 

involved in the consultation. We can 

only describe the general kinds of 

actions that may be identified in future 

reasonable and prudent alternatives. 

These are based on our understanding of 

the needs of the species and the threats 

it faces, as described in the final listing 

rule and this critical habitat designation. 

Within the final critical habitat units, 

the types of Federal actions or 

authorized activities that we have 

identified as potential concerns are: 

(1) Regulation of activities affecting 

waters of the United States by the U.S. 

Army Corps Engineers under section 

404 of the Clean Water Act; 

(2) Regulation of water flows, 

damming, diversion, and channelization 

implemented or licensed by Federal 

agencies; 

(3) Regulation of fire management 

plans by the NPS; 

(4) Road construction and 

maintenance, right-of-way designation, 

and regulation of agricultural activities; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66401 

(5) Hazard mitigation and postdisaster repairs funded by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA); and 

(6) Activities regulated or funded by 

the EPA, U.S. Department of Energy, the 

FAA, or any other Federal agency. 

It is likely that a developer or other 

project proponent could modify a 

project or take measures to protect 

Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta 

lyonii. The kinds of actions that may be 

included if future reasonable and 

prudent alternatives become necessary 

include conservation set-asides, 

management of competing nonnative 

species, restoration of degraded habitat, 

and regular monitoring. These are based 

on our understanding of the needs of the 

species and the threats it faces, as 

described in the final listing rule and 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

These measures are not likely to result 

in a significant economic impact to 

project proponents. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether this would result in a 

significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities. We 

have determined, for the above reasons 

and based on currently available 

information, that it is not likely to affect 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Federal involvement, and thus section 7 

consultations, would be limited to a 

subset of the area designated. The most 

likely Federal involvement could 

include U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

permits and FHA funding for road 

improvements. A regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) 

Under SBREFA, this rule is not a 

major rule. Our detailed assessment of 

the economic effects of this designation 

is described in the economic analysis. 

Based on the effects identified in the 

economic analysis, we believe that this 

rule will not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more, 

will not cause a major increase in costs 

or prices for consumers, and will not 

have significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete 

with foreign-based enterprises. Refer to 

the final economic analysis for a 

discussion of the effects of this 

determination. 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) on regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Executive Order 

13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. There are 

transmission power lines within at least 

two units for Astragalus brauntonii; 

however, this final rule to designate 

critical habitat for A. brauntonii and 

Pentachaeta lyonii is not expected to 

significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use. Therefore, this 

action is not a significant energy action 

and no Statement of Energy Effects is 

required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following findings: 

(a) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’

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

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

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal 

governments,’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding’’ and the State, local, or tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. (At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child 

Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 

Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation 

State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 

Assistance, and Independent Living; 

Family Support Welfare Services; and 

Child Support Enforcement.) ‘‘Federal 

private sector mandate’’ includes a 

regulation that ‘‘would impose an 

enforceable duty upon the private 

sector, except (i) a condition of Federal 

assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program.’’

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities who receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits or 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action may be indirectly impacted by 

the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above on to State 

governments. 

(b) We do not believe that this rule 

will significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because it will not 

produce a Federal mandate of $100 

million or greater in any year; that is, it 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act. The designation of critical habitat 

imposes no obligations on State or local 

governments. As such, a Small 

Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

Federalism 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132 (Federalism), the rule does not 

have significant Federalism effects. A 

Federalism assessment is not required. 

In keeping with the Department of the 

Interior and Department of Commerce 

policy, we requested information from, 

and coordinated development of, this 

final critical habitat designation with 

appropriate State resource agencies in 

California. The designation of critical 

habitat in areas currently occupied by 

Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta 

lyonii may impose nominal additional 

regulatory restrictions to those currently 

in place and, therefore, may have little 

incremental impact on State and local 

governments and their activities. The 

designation may have some benefit to 

these governments in that the areas that 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the primary 

constituent elements of the habitat 

necessary to the conservation of the 

species are specifically identified. While 

making this definition and 

identification does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur, it may assist these local 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
66402 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

governments in long-range planning 

(rather than waiting for case-by-case 

section 7 consultations to occur). 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office 

of the Solicitor has determined that the 

rule does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

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

of the Order. We are designating critical 

habitat in accordance with the 

provisions of the Endangered Species 

Act. This final rule uses standard 

property descriptions and identifies the 

primary constituent elements within the 

designated areas to assist the public in 

understanding the habitat needs of 

Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta 

lyonii. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. This rule will not 

impose recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements on State or local 

governments, individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

It is our position that, outside the 

Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses as 

defined by the NEPA in connection with 

designating critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

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

assertion was upheld in the courts of the 

Ninth Circuit [Douglas County v. 

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

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

(1996)]. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and the Department of 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. We 

have determined that there are no tribal 

lands occupied by Astragalus 

brauntonii or Pentachaeta lyonii at the 

time of listing that contain the features 

essential for conservation of either 

species, and there are no tribal lands 

that contain unoccupied areas for either 

species that are essential for the 

conservation of these species. Therefore, 

critical habitat for A. brauntonii and P. 

lyonii has not been designated on Tribal 

lands. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available upon 

request from the Field Supervisor, 

Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Author 

The primary author of this package is 

the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

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

‘‘Astragalus brauntonii’’ and 

‘‘Pentachaeta lyonii’’ 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

*******

Astragalus brauntonii Braunton’s milkvetch.U.S.A. (CA) ............. Fabaceae ................ E 606 17.96(a) NA 

*******

Pentachaeta lyonii ... Lyon’s pentachaeta U.S.A. (CA) ............. Asteraceae ............. E 606 17.96(a) NA 

*******

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

Pentachaeta lyonii, in alphabetical order 

under Family Asteraceae, and add 

critical habitat for Astragalus brauntonii 

in alphabetical order under Family 

Fabaceae, to read as follows: 

§ 17.96 Critical habitat—plants. 

(a) Flowering Plants. 

* * * * * 

Family Asteraceae: Pentachaeta lyonii 

(Lyon’s pentachaeta) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, 

California, on the maps below. 

(2) Critical habitat includes the plant 

communities within the range of 

Pentachaeta lyonii that are 

characterized by the following primary 

constituent elements: 

(i) Clay soils of volcanic origin; 

(ii) Exposed soils that exhibit a 

microbiotic crust, which may inhibit 

invasion by other plant competitors; and 

(iii) A mosaic of bare ground (>10%) 

patches in an area with less than 60 

percent cover. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures existing on the 

effective date of this rule and not 

containing one or more of the primary 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66403 

constituent elements, such as buildings, 

aqueducts, airports, and roads, and the 

land on which such structures are 

located. 

(4) Data layers defining map units 

were created on base maps using the 

following aerial imagery: For eastern 

Ventura County, we used Air Photo 

USA, Inc., aerial imagery captured in 

October 2002; for westernmost Los 

Angeles county populations, we used 

Air Photo USA, Inc., aerial imagery 

captured in August 1999. Both were 

projected to Universal Transverse 

Mercator (UTM) zone 11, North 

American Datum (NAD) 1927. 

(5) Index map for Pentachaeta lyonii 

(Map 1) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
66404 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2ER14NO06.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66405 

(6) Unit 1 for Pentachaeta lyonii: Simi 

Valley Unit, Ventura County, California. 

(i) Subunit 1a: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Simi. Land bounded 

by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 329277, 3794756; 

329285, 3794822; 329318, 3794831; 

329332, 3794857; 329491, 3794890; 

329464, 3795033; 329514, 3795052; 

329552, 3795059; 329610, 3795117; 

329654, 3795148; 329703, 3795171; 

329756, 3795183; 329827, 3795184; 

329893, 3795174; 329960, 3795146; 

330015, 3795107; 330062, 3795053; 

330093, 3794995; 330111, 3794926; 

330113, 3794872; 330099, 3794802; 

330070, 3794739; 330169, 3794478; 

330260, 3794458; 330323, 3794428; 

330386, 3794441; 330429, 3794445; 

330501, 3794440; 330581, 3794421; 

330703, 3794370; 330747, 3794338; 

330772, 3794313; 330817, 3794247; 

330849, 3794174; 330865, 3794090; 

330651, 3793969; 330487, 3793935; 

330497, 3793889; 330511, 3793869; 

330501, 3793823; 330338, 3793940; 

330301, 3793941; 329854, 3793954; 

329852, 3794025; 329850, 3794079; 

329805, 3794148; 329811, 3794213; 

329768, 3794273; 329576, 3794445; 

329558, 3794507; 329442, 3794481; 

329388, 3794513; 329337, 3794563; 

329301, 3794626; 329283, 3794687; 

returning to 329277, 3794756. 

(ii) Subunit 1b: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Simi. Land bounded 

by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 328955, 3793028; 

329079, 3793108; 329065, 3793154; 

329075, 3793194; 329151, 3793294; 

329199, 3793334; 329213, 3793342; 

329235, 3793310; 329338, 3793280; 

329368, 3793229; 329386, 3793188; 

329255, 3793079; 329165, 3793021; 

329111, 3793000; 329057, 3792995; 

328958, 3792998; returning to 328955, 

3793028. 

(iii) Subunit 1c; From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Thousand Oaks. Land 

bounded by the following UTM zone 11, 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 331295, 

3791187; 331295, 3791210; 331330, 

3791275; 331362, 3791302; 331444, 

3791341; 331497, 3791349; 331712, 

3791342; 331763, 3791351; 331806, 

3791304; 331842, 3791246; 331852, 

3791219; 331641, 3791016; 331597, 

3791023; 331461, 3791044; 331335, 

3791130; returning to 331295, 3791187. 

(iv) Subunit 1d; From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Simi. Land bounded 

by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 332406, 3791975; 

332519, 3792037; 332583, 3792085; 

332606, 3792133; 332606, 3792174; 

332583, 3792177; 332569, 3792227; 

332623, 3792286; 332635, 3792347; 

332558, 3792379; 332554, 3792419; 

332553, 3792470; 332570, 3792525; 

332599, 3792563; 332653, 3792568; 

332706, 3792563; 332748, 3792551; 

332789, 3792575; 332853, 3792600; 

332905, 3792612; 332941, 3792615; 

333048, 3792601; 333098, 3792582; 

333144, 3792554; 333183, 3792517; 

333234, 3792451; 333261, 3792385; 

333270, 3792331; 333265, 3792260; 

333242, 3792181; 333216, 3792134; 

333172, 3792083; 333091, 3792116; 

333051, 3792116; 333025, 3792111; 

332985, 3792088; 332921, 3792041; 

332846, 3792013; 332827, 3792000; 

332805, 3791981; 332800, 3791967; 

332616, 3791898; 332577, 3791898; 

332524, 3791910; 332452, 3791942; 

returning to 332406, 3791975. 

(v) Note: Unit 1 for Pentachaeta lyonii 

is depicted on Map 2—see paragraph 

(a)(7)(iv) of this section. 

(7) Unit 2 for Pentachaeta lyonii: 

Montclef Ridge Unit, Ventura County, 

California. 

(i) Subunit 2a; From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Newbury Park. Land 

bounded by the following UTM zone 11, 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 320757, 

3786338; 320759, 3786395; 320768, 

3786445; 320784, 3786492; 320806, 

3786536; 320864, 3786609; 321086, 

3787190; 321083, 3787252; 321091, 

3787318; 321068, 3787390; 321061, 

3787460; 321065, 3787514; 321081, 

3787584; 321104, 3787635; 321132, 

3787681; 321169, 3787720; 321217, 

3787759; 321248, 3787777; 321299, 

3787796; 321382, 3787807; 321935, 

3788068; 321973, 3788114; 322015, 

3788151; 322063, 3788181; 322115, 

3788203; 322167, 3788216; 322218, 

3788222; 322272, 3788219; 322321, 

3788209; 322913, 3788371; 322947, 

3788402; 322993, 3788431; 323043, 

3788453; 323095, 3788465; 323160, 

3788468; 323214, 3788459; 323280, 

3788438; 323338, 3788405; 323380, 

3788417; 323436, 3788426; 323518, 

3788421; 323565, 3788467; 323629, 

3788506; 323672, 3788542; 323725, 

3788570; 323756, 3788601; 323800, 

3788633; 323870, 3788663; 323940, 

3788677; 324012, 3788673; 324069, 

3788656; 324118, 3788634; 324162, 

3788602; 324209, 3788548; 324245, 

3788474; 324286, 3788420; 324308, 

3788371; 324388, 3788292; 324434, 

3788259; 324667, 3788223; 324708, 

3788206; 324672, 3788145; 324747, 

3788150; 324770, 3788180; 325020, 

3788065; 324898, 3787879; 324839, 

3787849; 324733, 3787850; 324577, 

3787713; 324716, 3787572; 324832, 

3787428; 324845, 3787362; 325048, 

3787448; 325169, 3787468; 325297, 

3787527; 325410, 3787537; 325521, 

3787580; 325597, 3787587; 325717, 

3787590; 325849, 3787553; 325894, 

3787510; 325885, 3787482; 325790, 

3787526; 325534, 3787512; 325442, 

3787433; 325513, 3787354; 325683, 

3787214; 325703, 3787231; 325819, 

3787188; 325815, 3787138; 325887, 

3787125; 325937, 3787145; 325982, 

3787128; 326178, 3787035; 326145, 

3786988; 326097, 3786938; 326053, 

3786907; 326018, 3786889; 325956, 

3786865; 325861, 3786842; 325732, 

3786836; 325687, 3786838; 325572, 

3786861; 325514, 3786882; 325468, 

3786911; 325396, 3786978; 324815, 

3787144; 324735, 3787089; 324647, 

3787055; 324638, 3787071; 324526, 

3787250; 324442, 3787263; 324152, 

3787281; 324122, 3787369; 324111, 

3787460; 324120, 3787553; 324149, 

3787640; 324197, 3787721; 324259, 

3787787; 324337, 3787840; 324424, 

3787874; 324377, 3787917; 324346, 

3787960; 324318, 3788027; 324304, 

3788112; 324284, 3788124; 324264, 

3788094; 324227, 3788055; 324156, 

3788006; 324112, 3787983; 324020, 

3787949; 323930, 3787931; 323803, 

3787926; 323719, 3787933; 323678, 

3787883; 323605, 3787826; 323533, 

3787792; 323472, 3787779; 323428, 

3787754; 323351, 3787724; 323298, 

3787715; 323244, 3787717; 323166, 

3787735; 323108, 3787763; 322524, 

3787671; 322414, 3787565; 322318, 

3787523; 322221, 3787562; 321715, 

3787174; 321691, 3787100; 321654, 

3787044; 321486, 3786890; 321401, 

3786883; 321382, 3786733; 321407, 

3786714; 321440, 3786486; 321455, 

3786312; 321426, 3786200; 321452, 

3786148; 321520, 3786182; 321595, 

3786032; 321665, 3786035; 321698, 

3785934; 321660, 3785903; 321679, 

3785865; 321725, 3785853; 321880, 

3785811; 321872, 3785762; 321860, 

3785728; 321835, 3785681; 321813, 

3785652; 321769, 3785609; 321717, 

3785573; 321665, 3785520; 321608, 

3785485; 321523, 3785626; 321467, 

3785627; 321419, 3785719; 321373, 

3785722; 321377, 3785628; 321385, 

3785572; 321432, 3785450; 321370, 

3785460; 321304, 3785487; 321274, 

3785507; 321227, 3785549; 321185, 

3785598; 321142, 3785681; 321125, 

3785744; 321117, 3785816; 321127, 

3785920; 321117, 3786000; 321070, 

3786002; 321021, 3786011; 320974, 

3786027; 320914, 3786059; 320862, 

3786102; 320829, 3786140; 320793, 

3786197; 320774, 3786244; 320762, 

3786292; returning to 320757, 3786338. 

(ii) Subunit 2b: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Newbury Park. Land 

bounded by the following UTM zone 11, 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 325989, 

3788043; 326019, 3788123; 326091, 

3788240; 326227, 3788353; 326250, 

3788403; 326324, 3788464; 326386, 

3788484; 326514, 3788481; 326536, 

3788451; 326532, 3788204; 326524, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
66406 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

3788204; 326477, 3788163; 326370, 

3788097; 326277, 3788045; 326016, 

3787984; returning to 325989, 3788043. 

(iii) Subunit 2c: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangles Newbury Park and 

Thousand Oaks. Land bounded by the 

following UTM zone 11, NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 326429, 3789621; 

326431, 3789704; 326432, 3789786; 

326434, 3789791; 326465, 3789836; 

326496, 3789863; 326625, 3789975; 

326793, 3789915; 326860, 3789913; 

327037, 3789851; 327170, 3789936; 

327203, 3789898; 327221, 3789867; 

327241, 3789818; 327251, 3789778; 

327236, 3789712; 327019, 3789561; 

326772, 3789480; 326771, 3789566; 

326524, 3789567; 326447, 3789579; 

returning to 326429, 3789621. 

(iv) Note: Unit 2 for Pentachaeta 

lyonii is depicted on Map 2, which 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66407 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2ER14NO06.001</GPH>
66408 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(8) Unit 3 for Pentachaeta lyonii: 

Thousand Oaks Unit, Ventura and Los 

Angeles Counties, California. 

(i) Subunit 3a: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Thousand Oaks. Land 

bounded by the following UTM zone 11, 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 327757, 

3781188; 327763, 3781472; 327769, 

3781489; 327794, 3781536; 327828, 

3781578; 327855, 3781602; 327960, 

3781663; 328124, 3781731; 328228, 

3781763; 328344, 3781771; 328413, 

3781781; 328587, 3781782; 328721, 

3781760; 328755, 3781748; 328802, 

3781723; 328856, 3781676; 328888, 

3781632; 328926, 3781543; 328940, 

3781472; 328940, 3781436; 328929, 

3781344; 328909, 3781262; 328891, 

3781214; 328810, 3781152; 328769, 

3781055; 328742, 3781034; 328712, 

3781014; 328629, 3780971; 328578, 

3780955; 328421, 3780930; 328338, 

3780900; 328240, 3780880; 328187, 

3780882; 328048, 3780909; 327956, 

3780939; 327896, 3780978; 327806, 

3781078; 327781, 3781125 returning to 

327757, 3781188. 

(ii) Subunit 3b: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Thousand Oaks. Land 

bounded by the following UTM zone 11, 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 327196, 

3780235; 327199, 3780252; 327212, 

3780261; 327243, 3780279; 327299, 

3780302; 327352, 3780314; 327424, 

3780315; 327464, 3780310; 327537, 

3780289; 327636, 3780240; 327681, 

3780211; 327737, 3780220; 327827, 

3780225; 327881, 3780220; 327915, 

3780210; 327965, 3780188; 328020, 

3780152; 328059, 3780115; 328081, 

3780087; 328106, 3780039; 328122, 

3779988; 328127, 3779934; 328120, 

3779865; 328104, 3779813; 328079, 

3779765; 328057, 3779739; 328002, 

3779771; 327815, 3779812; 327801, 

3779852; 327736, 3779926; 327751, 

3779983; 327645, 3779966; 327555, 

3779999; 327434, 3780068; 327338, 

3780132; 327305, 3780172; returning to 

327196, 3780235. 

(iii) Subunit 3c (western portion): 

From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle 

Thousand Oaks. Land bounded by the 

following UTM zone 11, NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 327396, 3778203; 

327408, 3778287; 327447, 3778379; 

327461, 3778440; 327532, 3778533; 

327578, 3778594; 327605, 3778648; 

327610, 3778680; 327641, 3778709; 

327649, 3778743; 327691, 3778780; 

327753, 3778799; 327794, 3778817; 

327872, 3778831; 327910, 3778850; 

327928, 3778830; 327932, 3778806; 

327926, 3778765; 327916, 3778737; 

327892, 3778695; 327857, 3778658; 

327846, 3778629; 327817, 3778591; 

327826, 3778565; 327891, 3778516; 

327883, 3778465; 327877, 3778451; 

327865, 3778434; 327819, 3778410; 

327788, 3778387; 327771, 3778373; 

327755, 3778351; 327816, 3778259; 

327877, 3778169; 327908, 3778135; 

327964, 3778215; 327986, 3778235; 

328041, 3778408; 328011, 3778500; 

327980, 3778599; 327990, 3778640; 

328023, 3778696; 328033, 3778731; 

328022, 3778796; 328025, 3778837; 

328007, 3778882; 327993, 3778920; 

327980, 3779003; 328028, 3778975; 

328102, 3778910; 328133, 3778866; 

328160, 3778800; 328170, 3778729; 

328160, 3778658; 328130, 3778583; 

328112, 3778552; 328081, 3778514; 

328065, 3778492; 328059, 3778465; 

328072, 3778393; 328160, 3778487; 

328171, 3778505; 328218, 3778530; 

328305, 3778555; 328359, 3778557; 

328418, 3778550; 328470, 3778535; 

328513, 3778512; 328571, 3778584; 

328613, 3778618; 328644, 3778636; 

328677, 3778650; 328730, 3778662; 

328847, 3778668; 328900, 3778659; 

329018, 3778625; 329065, 3778600; 

329105, 3778568; 329118, 3778549; 

329022, 3778458; 329113, 3778394; 

329152, 3778431; 329247, 3778487; 

329263, 3778533; 329287, 3778569; 

329306, 3778708; 329296, 3778761; 

329301, 3778793; 329311, 3778820; 

329383, 3778893; 329400, 3778943; 

329408, 3779001; 329427, 3779030; 

329444, 3779045; 329490, 3779073; 

329526, 3779088; 329531, 3779148; 

329546, 3779199; 329575, 3779253; 

329605, 3779295; 329644, 3779331; 

329739, 3779397; 329838, 3779285; 

329839, 3779285; 329870, 3779235; 

329901, 3779225; 329917, 3779225; 

330001, 3779225; 330001, 3779244; 

330186, 3779218; 330199, 3779172; 

330196, 3779100; 330324, 3779030; 

330304, 3778967; 330291, 3778864; 

330186, 3778781; 330029, 3778696; 

329967, 3778657; 329918, 3778611; 

329796, 3778488; 329768, 3778464; 

329722, 3778435; 329592, 3778380; 

329510, 3778323; 329433, 3778215; 

329217, 3778063; 329172, 3778065; 

329073, 3777994; 329078, 3777947; 

329065, 3777920; 329063, 3777872; 

329085, 3777817; 329142, 3777731; 

329190, 3777706; 329148, 3777617; 

329126, 3777608; 329085, 3777627; 

329047, 3777666; 329017, 3777707; 

329007, 3777729; 328967, 3777758; 

328963, 3777772; 328967, 3777811; 

328945, 3777844; 328891, 3777860; 

328853, 3777860; 328802, 3777844; 

328740, 3777780; 328688, 3777740; 

328513, 3777659; 328476, 3777715; 

328447, 3777801; 328443, 3777873; 

328457, 3777950; 328420, 3777928; 

328370, 3777909; 328317, 3777900; 

328277, 3777900; 328227, 3777861; 

328189, 3777838; 328139, 3777819; 

328094, 3777811; 328050, 3777753; 

328013, 3777723; 327933, 3777739; 

327916, 3777711; 327884, 3777723; 

327844, 3777749; 327834, 3777887; 

327789, 3777917; 327781, 3777953; 

327780, 3777984; 327611, 3778114; 

327401, 3778151; returning to 327396, 

3778203. 

(iv) Subunit 3c (eastern portion): 

From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles 

Thousand Oaks and Point Dume. Land 

bounded by the following UTM zone 11, 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 327881, 

3775578; 327888, 3775677; 327911, 

3775745; 327942, 3775796; 327976, 

3775838; 328032, 3775884; 328099, 

3775921; 328151, 3775937; 328235, 

3775945; 328289, 3775939; 328350, 

3775920; 328407, 3775947; 328456, 

3775959; 328753, 3776379; 328780, 

3776511; 328313, 3776697; 328244, 

3776736; 328193, 3776788; 328169, 

3776823; 328153, 3776859; 328141, 

3776901; 328135, 3776940; 328142, 

3777020; 328154, 3777061; 328172, 

3777096; 328217, 3777156; 328278, 

3777202; 328330, 3777225; 328397, 

3777237; 328464, 3777234; 328522, 

3777217; 328576, 3777187; 328628, 

3777139; 329046, 3776893; 329096, 

3777123; 329161, 3777223; 329179, 

3777242; 329206, 3777246; 329244, 

3777250; 329262, 3777272; 329235, 

3777307; 329228, 3777342; 329223, 

3777395; 329199, 3777423; 329195, 

3777440; 329212, 3777453; 329238, 

3777447; 329263, 3777440; 329287, 

3777438; 329315, 3777432; 329339, 

3777447; 329366, 3777477; 329380, 

3777522; 329380, 3777550; 329434, 

3777608; 329445, 3777701; 329445, 

3777773; 329607, 3777846; 329988, 

3777882; 330019, 3777911; 330048, 

3777935; 330049, 3777994; 330035, 

3778082; 330037, 3778129; 330054, 

3778161; 330071, 3778180; 330092, 

3778181; 330120, 3778146; 330166, 

3778048; 330194, 3777983; 330321, 

3777987; 330370, 3778025; 330388, 

3778069; 330417, 3778116; 330461, 

3778107; 330508, 3778102; 330547, 

3778075; 330551, 3778059; 330536, 

3777988; 330543, 3777968; 330554, 

3777961; 330574, 3777959; 330619, 

3777961; 330594, 3777814; 330563, 

3777726; 330535, 3777680; 330511, 

3777653; 330484, 3777629; 330438, 

3777601; 330377, 3777578; 330324, 

3777569; 330270, 3777571; 330201, 

3777589; 329628, 3777445; 329620, 

3777399; 329608, 3777365; 329592, 

3777333; 329565, 3777294; 329524, 

3777246; 329467, 3777199; 329437, 

3777179; 329388, 3777157; 329398, 

3776787; 329433, 3776728; 329452, 

3776662; 329454, 3776584; 329435, 

3776511; 329456, 3776439; 329462, 

3776377; 329460, 3776334; 329451, 

3776284; 329435, 3776237; 329403, 

3776177; 329373, 3776138; 329337, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66409 

3776103; 329263, 3776055; 329193, 

3776077; 329011, 3776090; 328911, 

3776079; 328757, 3776035; 328685, 

3775801; 328675, 3775764; 328677, 

3775688; 328681, 3775635; 328688, 

3775608; 328661, 3775594; 328617, 

3775599; 328202, 3775501; 328159, 

3775259; 328129, 3775265; 328050, 

3775303; 327982, 3775354; 327939, 

3775411; 327895, 3775508; returning to 

327881, 3775578. 

(v) Note: Unit 3 for Pentachaeta lyonii 

is depicted on Map 3—see paragraph 

(a)(12)(ii) of this section. 

(9) Unit 4 for Pentachaeta lyonii: 

Triunfo Canyon Unit, Los Angeles 

County, California. 

(i) Unit 4: From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangles Thousand Oaks and Point 

Dume. Land bounded by the following 

UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 331377, 3777912; 331406, 3777957; 

331557, 3778148; 331611, 3778195; 

331665, 3778224; 331749, 3778248; 

331803, 3778250; 331847, 3778243; 

331869, 3778239; 331996, 3778182; 

332097, 3778144; 332192, 3778116; 

332404, 3778078; 332519, 3778051; 

332592, 3778045; 332671, 3778027; 

332717, 3778041; 332732, 3778075; 

332724, 3778098; 332686, 3778135; 

332671, 3778195; 332794, 3778230; 

332809, 3778107; 332859, 3778111; 

332861, 3778240; 332899, 3778243; 

332935, 3778196; 333040, 3778224; 

333177, 3778261; 333181, 3778243; 

333186, 3778172; 333173, 3778096; 

333135, 3778008; 333100, 3777961; 

333095, 3777904; 333072, 3777836; 

333044, 3777790; 333007, 3777751; 

332963, 3777720; 332931, 3777704; 

332845, 3777680; 332774, 3777680; 

332704, 3777699; 332629, 3777743; 

332583, 3777732; 332513, 3777729; 

332460, 3777738; 332408, 3777758; 

332311, 3777716; 332257, 3777704; 

332211, 3777644; 332136, 3777584; 

332062, 3777545; 332010, 3777529; 

331956, 3777524; 331921, 3777526; 

331885, 3777533; 331836, 3777552; 

331796, 3777526; 331646, 3777565; 

331598, 3777666; 331538, 3777747; 

331494, 3777785; 331398, 3777791; 

331398, 3777855; returning to 331377, 

3777912. 

(ii) Note: Unit 4 for Pentachaeta lyonii 

is depicted on Map 3—see paragraph 

(a)(12)(ii) of this section. 

(10) Unit 5 for Pentachaeta lyonii: 

Mulholland Drive Unit, Los Angeles 

County, California. 

(i) Subunit 5a: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Point Dume. Land 

bounded by the following UTM zone 11, 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 329661, 

3774511; 329686, 3774511; 329694, 

3774579; 329707, 3774627; 329733, 

3774681; 329759, 3774721; 329840, 

3774646; 329898, 3774637; 329982, 

3774727; 330035, 3774723; 330098, 

3774711; 330117, 3774666; 330130, 

3774615; 330149, 3774542; 330263, 

3774514; 330333, 3774476; 330389, 

3774437; 330369, 3774370; 330346, 

3774325; 330306, 3774270; 330270, 

3774236; 330215, 3774197; 330165, 

3774174; 330104, 3774158; 330044, 

3774152; 330001, 3774154; 329952, 

3774163; 329904, 3774179; 329844, 

3774211; 329792, 3774254; 329759, 

3774292; 329723, 3774349; 329704, 

3774395; 329689, 3774462; returning to 

329686, 3774511. 

(ii) Subunit 5b: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Point Dume. Land 

bounded by the following UTM zone 11, 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 332156, 

3774563; 332160, 3774661; 332179, 

3774731; 332214, 3774793; 332339, 

3774915; 332457, 3774998; 332632, 

3775179; 332675, 3775210; 332724, 

3775233; 332741, 3775237; 332789, 

3775072; 332829, 3775010; 332930, 

3774876; 332955, 3774819; 332955, 

3774772; 332911, 3774777; 332907, 

3774668; 332913, 3774512; 332757, 

3774458; 332433, 3774465; 332364, 

3774314; 332308, 3774334; 332249, 

3774374; 332201, 3774428; 332170, 

3774492; returning to 332156, 3774563. 

(iii) Subunit 5c: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Point Dume. Land 

bounded by the following UTM zone 11, 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 334109, 

3775136; 334111, 3775191; 334129, 

3775261; 334166, 3775325; 334191, 

3775353; 334227, 3775384; 334293, 

3775418; 334255, 3775484; 334239, 

3775536; 334234, 3775572; 334235, 

3775615; 334243, 3775663; 334260, 

3775708; 334280, 3775745; 334329, 

3775800; 334389, 3775840; 334458, 

3775864; 334535, 3775868; 334529, 

3775752; 334504, 3775732; 334507, 

3775641; 334513, 3775577; 334512, 

3775562; 334452, 3775507; 334383, 

3775373; 334360, 3775305; 334385, 

3775186; 334429, 3775162; 334491, 

3775098; 334533, 3775067; 334559, 

3774932; 334512, 3774904; 334460, 

3774884; 334406, 3774875; 334334, 

3774880; 334281, 3774896; 334227, 

3774925; 334178, 3774970; 334146, 

3775014; 334118, 3775082; returning to 

334109, 3775136. 

(iv) Subunit 5d: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Point Dume. Land 

bounded by the following UTM zone 11, 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 333938, 

3776910; 333946, 3776963; 333984, 

3776973; 334040, 3776976; 334158, 

3777014; 334515, 3777025; 334545, 

3776941; 334561, 3776863; 334655, 

3776845; 334747, 3776778; 334693, 

3776730; 334628, 3776698; 334447, 

3776638; 334394, 3776629; 334196, 

3776640; 334145, 3776656; 334082, 

3776692; 334031, 3776743; 333997, 

3776802; 333973, 3776871; returning to 

333938, 3776910. 

(v) Note: Unit 5 for Pentachaeta lyonii 

is depicted on Map 3—see paragraph 

(a)(12)(ii) of this section. 

(11) Unit 7 for Pentachaeta lyonii: 

Malibu Lake Unit, Los Angeles County, 

California. 

(i) Unit 7: From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangles Point Dume and Malibu 

Beach. Land bounded by the following 

UTM zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 338380, 3775057; 338535, 3775051; 

338571, 3775034; 338597, 3775025; 

338662, 3775115; 338692, 3775172; 

338711, 3775200; 338713, 3775218; 

338701, 3775240; 338626, 3775315; 

338619, 3775330; 338616, 3775391; 

338606, 3775424; 338663, 3775446; 

338720, 3775457; 338774, 3775459; 

338827, 3775450; 338841, 3775446; 

338893, 3775451; 338929, 3775449; 

339016, 3775428; 339080, 3775397; 

339134, 3775349; 339155, 3775323; 

339164, 3775290; 339178, 3775202; 

339185, 3775064; 339166, 3775015; 

339138, 3774969; 339092, 3774917; 

339036, 3774874; 338990, 3774847; 

338942, 3774829; 338892, 3774791; 

338831, 3774764; 338760, 3774750; 

338689, 3774755; 338590, 3774784; 

338541, 3774804; 338510, 3774822; 

338469, 3774856; 338434, 3774898; 

338401, 3774959; 338386, 3775011; 

returning to 338380, 3775057. 

(ii) Note: Unit 7 for Pentachaeta lyonii 

is depicted on Map 3, which follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
66410 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2ER14NO06.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66411 

* * * * * 

Family Fabaceae: Astragalus 

brauntonii (Braunton’s milk-vetch). 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange 

Counties, California, on the maps below. 

(2) The primary constituent elements 

of critical habitat for Astragalus 

brauntonii are the habitat components 

that provide: 

(i) Calcium carbonate soils derived 

from marine sediment; 

(ii) Low proportion (less than 10 

percent) of shrub cover directly around 

the plant; and 

(iii) Chaparral and coastal sage scrub 

communities characterized by periodic 

disturbances that stimulate seed 

germination (e.g., fire, flooding, erosion) 

and reduce vegetative cover, 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures existing on the 

effective date of this rule and not 

containing one or more of the primary 

constituent elements, such as buildings, 

aqueducts, airports, and roads, and the 

land on which such structures are 

located. 

(4) Critical habitat units are described 

below. Data layers defining map units 

were created on base maps using the 

following aerial imagery: For eastern 

Ventura County, we used AirPhotoUSA, 

Inc., aerial imagery captured in October 

2002; for western-most Los Angeles 

county populations, we used 

AirPhotoUSA, Inc., aerial imagery 

captured in August 1999; for 

populations near the City of Monrovia, 

in Los Angeles County, and for the 

population in Orange County, we used 

USGS Digital Orthophoto Quarter 

Quadrangles captured in the mid1990’s. All were projected to UTM zone 

11, NAD27. 

(5) Note: Index map for Astragalus 

brauntonii (Map 1) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
66412 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2ER14NO06.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66413 

(6) Unit 1 for Astragalus brauntonii, 

Northern Simi Hills Unit, Ventura 

County, California. 

(i) Subunit 1a: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Thousand Oaks. Land 

bounded by the following UTM zone 11, 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 336376, 

3789405; 336383, 3789477; 336415, 

3789572; 336456, 3789634; 336519, 

3789691; 336595, 3789729; 336688, 

3789746; 336768, 3789741; 336813, 

3789801; 336869, 3789850; 336949, 

3789890; 337019, 3789906; 337075, 

3789908; 337121, 3789902; 337174, 

3789890; 337209, 3789876; 337252, 

3789851; 337295, 3789816; 337320, 

3789788; 337348, 3789743; 337375, 

3789676; 337387, 3789605; 337385, 

3789549; 337369, 3789478; 337339, 

3789411; 337294, 3789352; 337220, 

3789297; 337154, 3789268; 337167, 

3789198; 337160, 3789100; 337136, 

3789029; 337106, 3788977; 337083, 

3788948; 337037, 3788905; 336990, 

3788875; 336937, 3788856; 336874, 

3788845; 336795, 3788849; 336741, 

3788861; 336674, 3788890; 336628, 

3788922; 336581, 3788973; 336551, 

3789021; 336532, 3789073; 336521, 

3789138; 336484, 3789165; 336437, 

3789215; 336408, 3789263; 336388, 

3789315; returning to 336376, 3789405. 

(ii) Subunit 1b: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangles Thousand Oaks and 

Calabasas. Land bounded by the 

following UTM zone 11, NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 338171, 3790635; 

338173, 3790693; 338187, 3790754; 

338211, 3790807; 338247, 3790857; 

338290, 3790898; 338343, 3790930; 

338398, 3790951; 338459, 3790961; 

338518, 3790959; 338575, 3790945; 

338631, 3790920; 338679, 3790886; 

338721, 3790841; 338752, 3790791; 

338774, 3790733; 338783, 3790675; 

338782, 3790616; 338768, 3790556; 

338743, 3790502; 338708, 3790452; 

338665, 3790412; 338612, 3790379; 

338557, 3790358; 338496, 3790349; 

338437, 3790351; 338380, 3790364; 

338324, 3790389; 338276, 3790424; 

338233, 3790469; 338202, 3790519; 

338181, 3790576; returning to 338171, 

3790635. 

(iii) Subunit 1c: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangles Thousand Oaks and 

Calabasas. Land bounded by the 

following UTM zone 11, NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 338516, 3788952; 

338527, 3789021; 338550, 3789087; 

338594, 3789158; 338643, 3789208; 

338700, 3789248; 338764, 3789277; 

338832, 3789293; 338931, 3789297; 

339000, 3789287; 339065, 3789263; 

339137, 3789219; 339187, 3789171; 

339227, 3789114; 339256, 3789050; 

339272, 3788982; 339274, 3788912; 

339263, 3788843; 339240, 3788777; 

339196, 3788706; 339147, 3788656; 

339090, 3788616; 339026, 3788587; 

338959, 3788571; 338883, 3788566; 

338808, 3788573; 338742, 3788594; 

338680, 3788626; 338619, 3788676; 

338591, 3788708; 338563, 3788751; 

338534, 3788814; 338519, 3788882; 

returning to 338516, 3788952. 

(iv) Subunit 1d: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Calabasas. Land 

bounded by the following UTM zone 11, 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 341703, 

3788492; 341705, 3788551; 341719, 

3788610; 341743, 3788663; 341777, 

3788710; 341819, 3788750; 341869, 

3788781; 341925, 3788802; 341983, 

3788812; 342041, 3788810; 342098, 

3788797; 342151, 3788773; 342201, 

3788737; 342240, 3788695; 342271, 

3788645; 342292, 3788591; 342302, 

3788531; 342300, 3788473; 342286, 

3788416; 342262, 3788363; 342226, 

3788312; 342184, 3788274; 342135, 

3788243; 342080, 3788223; 342013, 

3788212; 341962, 3788215; 341905, 

3788228; 341852, 3788252; 341805, 

3788286; 341765, 3788329; 341733, 

3788380; 341712, 3788435; returning to 

341703, 3788492. 

(v) Note: Unit 1 for Astragalus 

brauntonii is depicted on Map 2—see 

paragraph (a)(7)(vii) of this section. 

(7) Unit 2 for Astragalus brauntonii, 

Southern Simi Hills Unit, Ventura 

County and Los Angeles County, 

California. 

(i) Subunit 2a: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Thousand Oaks. Land 

bounded by the following UTM zone 11, 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 331967, 

3786775; 332010, 3786796; 332036, 

3786818; 332059, 3786815; 332143, 

3786838; 332153, 3786872; 332032, 

3786908; 332054, 3786949; 332107, 

3787022; 332203, 3787105; 332274, 

3787160; 332410, 3787127; 332550, 

3787113; 332640, 3787122; 332652, 

3787061; 333232, 3786946; 333316, 

3786954; 333372, 3786949; 333423, 

3786936; 333470, 3786916; 333531, 

3786876; 333609, 3786872; 333661, 

3786859; 333701, 3786843; 333773, 

3786857; 333842, 3786856; 333914, 

3786837; 333976, 3786804; 334019, 

3786769; 334050, 3786734; 334079, 

3786687; 334093, 3786652; 334106, 

3786602; 334110, 3786554; 334104, 

3786498; 334093, 3786456; 334138, 

3786438; 334206, 3786397; 334285, 

3786328; 334431, 3786159; 334452, 

3786128; 334484, 3786061; 334504, 

3785989; 334509, 3785940; 334508, 

3785877; 334487, 3785777; 334454, 

3785711; 334418, 3785666; 334377, 

3785628; 334330, 3785598; 334277, 

3785578; 334203, 3785566; 334148, 

3785564; 334092, 3785573; 334017, 

3785596; 333953, 3785634; 333914, 

3785669; 333797, 3785891; 333752, 

3785877; 333747, 3785883; 333691, 

3786002; 333674, 3786074; 333668, 

3786139; 333626, 3786150; 333575, 

3786173; 333495, 3786232; 333453, 

3786253; 333371, 3786305; 333326, 

3786302; 333270, 3786305; 333210, 

3786317; 333158, 3786337; 333126, 

3786356; 333082, 3786391; 333024, 

3786464; 332440, 3786601; 332403, 

3786580; 332351, 3786561; 332296, 

3786552; 332259, 3786552; 332186, 

3786566; 332089, 3786613; 332046, 

3786649; 332022, 3786677; 331988, 

3786728; returning to 331967, 3786775. 

(ii) Subunit 2b: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Thousand Oaks. Land 

bounded by the following UTM zone 11, 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 335530, 

3784984; 335546, 3785093; 335565, 

3785110; 335590, 3785102; 335569, 

3784979; 335559, 3784977; 335546, 

3784977; returning to 335530, 3784984. 

(iii) Subunit 2c: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Thousand Oaks. Land 

bounded by the following UTM zone 11, 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 336280, 

3784509; 336387, 3784488; 336664, 

3784616; 336909, 3784789; 336942, 

3784722; 336957, 3784641; 336984, 

3784596; 336999, 3784562; 337017, 

3784484; 337019, 3784432; 337084, 

3784382; 337100, 3784363; 337093, 

3784348; 337094, 3784270; 337026, 

3784217; 337038, 3784151; 337045, 

3784086; 337153, 3784041; 337115, 

3784014; 337064, 3783816; 337012, 

3783819; 336983, 3783806; 336973, 

3783806; 336958, 3783843; 336954, 

3783873; 336871, 3784003; 336869, 

3784037; 336879, 3784082; 336883, 

3784153; 336859, 3784238; 336838, 

3784256; 336820, 3784262; 336755, 

3784266; 336676, 3784283; 336658, 

3784311; 336640, 3784317; 336613, 

3784299; 336603, 3784281; 336603, 

3784268; 336629, 3784222; 336640, 

3784120; 336755, 3784049; 336844, 

3783987; 336848, 3783952; 336883, 

3783901; 336903, 3783853; 336873, 

3783853; 336849, 3783833; 336856, 

3783796; 336847, 3783768; 336850, 

3783748; 336832, 3783715; 336793, 

3783703; 336741, 3783721; 336686, 

3783722; 336628, 3783708; 336647, 

3783616; 336513, 3783551; 336338, 

3783761; 336349, 3783854; 336373, 

3783924; 336406, 3783980; 336412, 

3784049; 336431, 3784110; 336393, 

3784146; 336371, 3784176; 336344, 

3784225; 336332, 3784261; 336320, 

3784331; 336294, 3784396; 336281, 

3784468; returning to 336280, 3784509. 

(iv) Subunit 2d: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Calabasas. Land 

bounded by the following UTM zone 11, 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 338707, 

3784551; 338713, 3784618; 338729, 

3784672; 338760, 3784729; 338796, 

3784772; 338850, 3784817; 338900, 

3784844; 338968, 3784864; 339024, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
66414 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

3784870; 339079, 3784864; 339147, 

3784845; 339196, 3784818; 339259, 

3784771; 339311, 3784751; 339359, 

3784721; 339422, 3784659; 339459, 

3784595; 339482, 3784509; 339485, 

3784401; 339473, 3784323; 339444, 

3784254; 339403, 3784198; 339347, 

3784149; 339281, 3784116; 339193, 

3784098; 339137, 3784099; 339071, 

3784115; 339020, 3784138; 338981, 

3784163; 338941, 3784201; 338911, 

3784242; 338843, 3784285; 338802, 

3784323; 338755, 3784387; 338729, 

3784442; 338712, 3784496; returning to 

338707, 3784551. 

(v) Subunit 2e: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Calabasas. Land 

bounded by the following UTM zone 11, 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 340541, 

3785437; 340548, 3785524; 340571, 

3785601; 340615, 3785684; 340666, 

3785746; 340738, 3785805; 340810, 

3785843; 340887, 3785867; 340964, 

3785875; 341051, 3785869; 341133, 

3785846; 341214, 3785804; 341274, 

3785757; 341337, 3785683; 341376, 

3785611; 341403, 3785522; 341410, 

3785442; 341403, 3785361; 341376, 

3785272; 341338, 3785201; 341288, 

3785138; 341216, 3785078; 341145, 

3785040; 341069, 3785016; 340985, 

3785006; 340894, 3785013; 340820, 

3785035; 340734, 3785079; 340671, 

3785130; 340612, 3785202; 340574, 

3785273; 340550, 3785351; returning to 

340541, 3785437. 

(vi) Subunit 2f: From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle Calabasas. Land 

bounded by the following UTM zone 11, 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 346217, 

3787493; 346231, 3787542; 346250, 

3787586; 346281, 3787636; 346314, 

3787675; 346353, 3787709; 346396, 

3787737; 346477, 3787770; 346546, 

3787782; 346630, 3787779; 347234, 

3787813; 347300, 3787832; 347365, 

3787835; 347416, 3787843; 347492, 

3787839; 347529, 3787829; 347580, 

3787805; 347626, 3787772; 347653, 

3787745; 347687, 3787699; 347710, 

3787647; 347720, 3787610; 347725, 

3787554; 347720, 3787497; 347710, 

3787460; 347687, 3787409; 347665, 

3787377; 347622, 3787330; 347584, 

3787298; 347541, 3787273; 347493, 

3787256; 347443, 3787247; 347394, 

3787247; 346752, 3787100; 346688, 

3787072; 346639, 3787060; 346569, 

3787054; 346500, 3787061; 346445, 

3787077; 346445, 3787293; 346426, 

3787376; 346382, 3787428 returning to 

346217, 3787493. 

(vii) Note: Unit 2 for Astragalus 

brauntonii is depicted on Map 2, which 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66415 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2ER14NO06.004</GPH>
66416 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(8) Unit 3 for Astragalus brauntonii, 

Santa Monica Mountains Unit, Los 

Angeles County, California. 

(i) Unit 3: From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangle Point Dume. Land bounded 

by the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 331185, 3768655; 

331185, 3768730; 331205, 3768803; 

331237, 3768861; 331285, 3768913; 

331301, 3768954; 331331, 3769002; 

331370, 3769043; 331416, 3769076; 

331468, 3769100; 331523, 3769112; 

331599, 3769112; 331636, 3769105; 

331683, 3769088; 331738, 3769055; 

331794, 3768997; 331912, 3768949; 

332085, 3768851; 332146, 3768802; 

332187, 3768757; 332226, 3768705; 

332257, 3768644; 332280, 3768561; 

332280, 3768490; 332263, 3768398; 

332240, 3768347; 332189, 3768277; 

332133, 3768228; 332072, 3768195; 

332020, 3768176; 331959, 3768166; 

331946, 3768100; 331922, 3768046; 

331888, 3768000; 331838, 3767954; 

331799, 3767931; 331759, 3767915; 

331719, 3767905; 331677, 3767901; 

331633, 3767903; 331591, 3767912; 

331542, 3767931; 331504, 3767954; 

331452, 3768000; 331411, 3768061; 

331353, 3768103; 331309, 3768156; 

331274, 3768232; 331263, 3768305; 

331265, 3768351; 331272, 3768389; 

331301, 3768458; 331255, 3768501; 

331221, 3768547; 331198, 3768599; 

returning to 331185, 3768655. 

(ii) Note: Unit 3 (Map 3 for Astragalus 

brauntonii) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66417 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2ER14NO06.005</GPH>
66418 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(9) Unit 4 for Astragalus brauntonii: 

Pacific Palisades Unit, Los Angeles 

County, California. 

(i) Unit 4: From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangle Topanga. Land bounded by 

the following UTM zone 11, NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 355707, 3772295; 

355707, 3772369; 355733, 3772467; 

355774, 3772545; 355824, 3772609; 

355871, 3772707; 355937, 3772804; 

356000, 3772868; 356030, 3772891; 

356142, 3772948; 356215, 3772962; 

356318, 3772958; 356373, 3772949; 

356454, 3772921; 356508, 3772891; 

356613, 3772818; 356651, 3772777; 

356687, 3772716; 356782, 3772664; 

356801, 3772649; 356910, 3772595; 

357152, 3772547; 357212, 3772558; 

357361, 3772565; 357479, 3772557; 

357532, 3772541; 357596, 3772508; 

357639, 3772473; 357679, 3772428; 

357708, 3772381; 357732, 3772311; 

357764, 3772063; 357762, 3772007; 

357751, 3771955; 357779, 3771909; 

357800, 3771861; 357828, 3771720; 

357831, 3771654; 357816, 3771572; 

358249, 3771162; 358310, 3771152; 

358358, 3771135; 358420, 3771102; 

358460, 3771071; 358519, 3771005; 

358559, 3770927; 358573, 3770879; 

358581, 3770827; 358582, 3770775; 

358571, 3770706; 358554, 3770658; 

358521, 3770596; 358477, 3770542; 

358439, 3770508; 358379, 3770472; 

358332, 3770452; 358282, 3770440; 

358235, 3770434; 358176, 3770436; 

358125, 3770446; 358077, 3770462; 

358015, 3770495; 357975, 3770526; 

357939, 3770563; 357891, 3770637; 

357862, 3770718; 357854, 3770771; 

357853, 3770817; 357544, 3771137; 

357417, 3771216; 357337, 3771239; 

357284, 3771268; 357300, 3771301; 

357591, 3771565; 357405, 3772067; 

357349, 3772049; 357156, 3772046; 

357117, 3772046; 357055, 3772037; 

356986, 3772275; 356772, 3772203; 

356631, 3772270; 356516, 3772291; 

356445, 3772271; 356455, 3772138; 

356450, 3772044; 356441, 3771989; 

356407, 3771903; 356383, 3771858; 

356345, 3771904; 356275, 3771953; 

356181, 3772007; 356092, 3772042; 

356068, 3772088; 356078, 3772228; 

356061, 3772271; 355979, 3772303; 

355961, 3772306; 355929, 3772303; 

355911, 3772295; 355883, 3772262; 

355849, 3772233; 355792, 3772204; 

355735, 3772187; 355723, 3772218; 

returning to 355707, 3772295. 

(ii) Note: Unit 4 (Map 4 for Astragalus 

brauntonii) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66419 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2ER14NO06.006</GPH>
66420 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(10) Unit 5 for Astragalus brauntonii: 

Monrovia Unit, Los Angeles County, 

California. 

(i) Unit 5: From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangle Azusa and Mount Wilson. 

Land bounded by the following UTM 

zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 

405974, 3781576; 405979, 3781650; 

405995, 3781703; 406022, 3781753; 

406076, 3781819; 406120, 3781855; 

406169, 3781881; 406204, 3781893; 

406262, 3781902; 406287, 3781909; 

406341, 3781880; 406556, 3781863; 

406865, 3781863; 407128, 3781894; 

407227, 3781943; 407278, 3781950; 

407327, 3781948; 407390, 3781979; 

407480, 3782002; 407536, 3782004; 

407591, 3781995; 407643, 3781975; 

407716, 3781930; 407757, 3781892; 

407790, 3781845; 407847, 3781789; 

407877, 3781742; 407900, 3781675; 

407910, 3781613; 407905, 3781538; 

407889, 3781485; 407858, 3781425; 

407788, 3781337; 407734, 3781284; 

407670, 3781247; 407605, 3781228; 

407533, 3781222; 407466, 3781231; 

407393, 3781212; 407319, 3781212; 

407234, 3781235; 407173, 3781271; 

407131, 3781265; 407075, 3781267; 

406986, 3781289; 406937, 3781316; 

406891, 3781351; 406858, 3781385; 

406830, 3781398; 406785, 3781386; 

406355, 3781261; 406281, 3781256; 

406208, 3781270; 406109, 3781318; 

406066, 3781353; 406041, 3781381; 

406004, 3781446; 405989, 3781494; 

returning to 405974, 3781576. 

(ii) Note: Unit 5 (Map 5 for Astragalus 

brauntonii) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66421 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2ER14NO06.007</GPH>
66422 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(11) Unit 6 for Astragalus brauntonii, 

Coal Canyon Unit, Orange County, 

California. 

(i) Unit 6: From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangle Black Star Canyon. Land 

bounded by the following UTM zone 11, 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 435146, 

3745336; 435148, 3745392; 435158, 

3745441; 435178, 3745493; 435205, 

3745541; 435241, 3745585; 435284, 

3745620; 435343, 3745652; 435397, 

3745668; 435464, 3745673; 435516, 

3745669; 435536, 3745742; 435562, 

3745791; 435608, 3745847; 435636, 

3745872; 435675, 3745897; 435680, 

3746003; 435692, 3746057; 435725, 

3746124; 435780, 3746189; 435831, 

3746385; 435841, 3746513; 435753, 

3746808; 435709, 3746866; 435676, 

3746949; 435666, 3747018; 435672, 

3747092; 435696, 3747163; 435725, 

3747210; 435782, 3747268; 435828, 

3747301; 435879, 3747324; 435964, 

3747349; 436020, 3747355; 436095, 

3747350; 436066, 3747408; 436054, 

3747444; 436047, 3747480; 436044, 

3747530; 436050, 3747639; 436070, 

3747711; 436107, 3747776; 436164, 

3747831; 436126, 3747871; 436096, 

3747919; 436076, 3747973; 436067, 

3748023; 436069, 3748086; 436081, 

3748141; 436105, 3748193; 436131, 

3748231; 436428, 3748073; 436642, 

3748002; 436631, 3747955; 436616, 

3747919; 436593, 3747881; 436564, 

3747846; 436645, 3747774; 436678, 

3747729; 436703, 3747670; 436763, 

3747625; 436798, 3747585; 436819, 

3747554; 436842, 3747504; 436852, 

3747464; 436859, 3747415; 436857, 

3747352; 436880, 3747282; 436885, 

3747245; 436884, 3747198; 436935, 

3747153; 436986, 3747079; 437002, 

3747040; 437019, 3746976; 437030, 

3746895; 437023, 3746802; 437002, 

3746738; 436963, 3746670; 436928, 

3746629; 436902, 3746606; 436910, 

3746001; 436959, 3745945; 437001, 

3745869; 437017, 3745816; 437028, 

3745730; 437028, 3745655; 437019, 

3745600; 437001, 3745551; 436962, 

3745475; 436939, 3745446; 436884, 

3745392; 436831, 3745352; 436727, 

3745306; 436691, 3745296; 436636, 

3745291; 436562, 3745301; 436490, 

3745331; 436443, 3745324; 436384, 

3745323; 436311, 3745338; 436260, 

3745361; 436220, 3745387; 436191, 

3745409; 436154, 3745449; 436118, 

3745474; 436097, 3745436; 436055, 

3745385; 436012, 3745350; 435956, 

3745321; 435966, 3745236; 435959, 

3745173; 435940, 3745105; 435903, 

3745041; 435864, 3745000; 435827, 

3744971; 435778, 3744945; 435724, 

3744929; 435626, 3744922; 435544, 

3744938; 435468, 3744975; 435425, 

3745011; 435396, 3745044; 435336, 

3745064; 435286, 3745090; 435247, 

3745121; 435209, 3745162; 435180, 

3745209; 435165, 3745244; returning to 

435146, 3745336. 

(ii) Note: Unit 6 (Map 6 for Astragalus 

brauntonii) follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 66423 

* * * * * Dated: October 31, 2006. 

David M. Verhey, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 06–9089 Filed 11–13–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2ER14NO06.008</GPH>