[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 14, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66374-66423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9089]



[[Page 66373]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii; Final Rule

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

[[Page 66374]]


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

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 
milk-vetch) 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 court-ordered 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

[[Page 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 non-native 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

[[Page 66376]]

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: 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 long-term 
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

[[Page 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

[[Page 66378]]

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

[[Page 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 limestone-
derived 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

[[Page 66380]]

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 lyonii-
associated 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 non-native 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

[[Page 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) non-use 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 
long-term 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.

[[Page 66382]]

    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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 66384]]

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 
Muller-Landau 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 cross-pollination (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 
above-ground expression of A. brauntonii populations are patchy over 
time and space as a result of the dormant seed

[[Page 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 Muller-Landau 
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). Long-distance 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,

[[Page 66386]]

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 Baer-Keeley 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 66388]]

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))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Proposed rule
      Critical habitat units/subunits                    County              (Nov. 10, 2005)     Final rule ac
                                                                                 ac (ha)              (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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 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

[[Page 66390]]

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 good-
quality 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.

[[Page 66391]]



              Table 3.--Proposed and Final Critical Habitat Units for Pentachaeta lyonii (ac (ha))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Proposed rule
      Critical habitat units/subunits                    County              (Nov. 10, 2005)     Final rule  ac
                                                                                 ac (ha)              (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,

[[Page 66392]]

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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 66394]]

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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 66396]]

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act for Pentachaeta lyonii

Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal 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 non-Federal 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 non-Federal 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 66398]]

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-and-comment, 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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 66400]]

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;

[[Page 66401]]

    (5) Hazard mitigation and post-disaster 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 non-Federal 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

[[Page 66402]]

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

0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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


0
2. In Sec.  17.12(h), revise the entries for ``Astragalus brauntonii'' 
and ``Pentachaeta lyonii'' under ``Flowering Plants,'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species
--------------------------------------------------------    Historic range           Family            Status      When listed    Critical     Special
         Scientific name                Common name                                                                               habitat       rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Flowering Plants
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Astragalus brauntonii............  Braunton's milk-      U.S.A. (CA)........  Fabaceae...........  E                       606     17.96(a)           NA
                                    vetch.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Pentachaeta lyonii...............  Lyon's pentachaeta..  U.S.A. (CA)........  Asteraceae.........  E                       606     17.96(a)           NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. In Sec.  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:


Sec.  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

[[Page 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

[[Page 66404]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14NO06.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 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,

[[Page 66406]]

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

[[Page 66407]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14NO06.001

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 66408]]

    (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,

[[Page 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

[[Page 66410]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14NO06.002

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 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 mid-1990's. All were 
projected to UTM zone 11, NAD27.
    (5) Note: Index map for Astragalus brauntonii (Map 1) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 66412]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14NO06.003

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 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,

[[Page 66414]]

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

[[Page 66415]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14NO06.004

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 66416]]

    (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:

[[Page 66417]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14NO06.005


[[Page 66418]]


    (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:

[[Page 66419]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14NO06.006


[[Page 66420]]


    (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:

[[Page 66421]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14NO06.007


[[Page 66422]]


    (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:

[[Page 66423]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14NO06.008

* * * * *

    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