77972 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU45 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Astragalus ampullarioides 

(Shivwits milk-vetch) and Astragalus 

holmgreniorum (Holmgren milk-vetch) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are 

designating critical habitat for two 

endangered plants, Astragalus 

ampullarioides (Shivwits milk-vetch) 

and Astragalus holmgreniorum 

(Holmgren milk-vetch) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). In total, approximately 

6,289 acres (ac) (2,545 hectares (ha)) fall 

within the boundaries of the critical 

habitat designation for A. 

holmgreniorum in Mohave County, 

Arizona, and Washington County, Utah, 

and approximately 2,181 ac (883 ha) fall 

within the boundaries of the critical 

habitat designation for A. 

ampullarioides in Washington County, 

Utah. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

January 26, 2007. 

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, at the Utah Fish 

and Wildlife Office, 2369 West Orton 

Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, Utah 

84119 (801–975–3330). The final rule, 

economic analysis, and map are also 

available via the Internet at http:// 

mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ 

plants/milkvetche/index.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, Utah Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES), 

telephone 801–975–3330. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual 

Practice of Administering and 

Implementing the Endangered Species 

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

Attention to and protection of habitat 

is paramount to successful conservation 

actions. However, the role that 

designation of critical habitat plays in 

protecting habitat of listed species 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 critical habitat 

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 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 475 species, or 36 

percent of the 1,310 listed species in the 

United States under the jurisdiction of 

the Service, have designated critical 

habitat. We address the habitat needs of 

all 1,310 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. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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 designating 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 timeframe 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 

to sue relative to critical habitat, and to 

comply with the growing number of 

adverse court orders. As a result, listing 

petition responses, the Service’s own 

proposals to list critically imperiled 

species, and final listing determinations 

on existing proposals are all 

significantly delayed. 

The accelerated schedules of courtordered designations have left the 

Service with limited ability to provide 

for public participation or to ensure a 

defect-free rulemaking process before 

making decisions on listing and critical 

habitat proposals, due to the risks 

associated with noncompliance with 

judicially imposed deadlines. This in 

turn fosters a second round of litigation 

in which those who fear adverse 

impacts from critical habitat 

designations challenge those 

designations. The cycle of litigation 

appears endless, and is very expensive, 

thus diverting resources from 

conservation actions that may provide 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77973 

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) (42 

U.S.C. 4321 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 

Our intent is to discuss only topics 

directly relevant to the designation of 

critical habitat in this final rule. For 

more information on Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides, 

refer to the final listing rule published 

in the Federal Register (66 FR 49560, 

September 28, 2001) and the proposed 

critical habitat rule published in the 

Federal Register (71 FR 15966, March 

29, 2006). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On March 29, 2006, we published a 

proposed rule to designate critical 

habitat for Astragalus holmgreniorum 

and A. ampullarioides (71 FR 15966). 

The public comment period was open 

for 60 days until May 30, 2006. On 

September 26, 2006, we published a 

revised proposed rule in the Federal 

Register, and issued a press release that 

announced the reopening of the public 

comment period on the proposed rule, 

and the availability of the draft 

economic analysis, draft environmental 

assessment, and revisions to proposed 

critical habitat boundaries for A. 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides 

(71 FR 56085). The comment period was 

open for an additional 30 days until 

October 26, 2006. 

Concurrently, we have been working 

on the recovery plan for these two plant 

species. We published a notice of 

availability, and request for comments, 

for the draft recovery plan for 

Astragalus holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides on August 1, 2006 (71 

FR 57557). On September 29, 2006, we 

announced the availability of the final 

recovery plan (71 FR 57557). 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

We requested written comments from 

the public on the proposed designation 

of critical habitat for Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides 

in the proposed rule published on 

March 29, 2006 (71 FR 15966). We also 

contacted appropriate Federal, State, 

and local agencies; tribes; scientific 

organizations; and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposed rule. 

We received 17 written comments on 

the proposal published on March 29, 

2006 (71 FR 15966). These included 

responses from five peer reviewers, 

three Federal agencies, and nine 

organizations or individuals. During the 

comment period on the revised 

proposed rule (71 FR 56085) that 

opened on September 26, 2006, and 

closed on October 26, 2006, we received 

two comments pertaining to the revised 

proposed rule, draft economic analysis, 

draft environmental assessment, and 

revisions to proposed critical habitat 

boundaries. Including all comments 

received during both comment periods, 

10 commenters supported the 

designation of critical habitat for 

Astragalus holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides, and 1 opposed the 

designation. However, some of the 

supporting commenters disagreed with 

specific portions of the proposed 

designation, such as the acreage or 

delineation of individual critical habitat 

units. Eight letters included comments 

or information, but did not express 

support or opposition to the proposed 

critical habitat designation. Comments 

received were grouped into several 

general issues specifically relating to the 

proposed critical habitat designation for 

A. holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides and are addressed in the 

following summary and incorporated 

into the final rule as appropriate. We 

did not receive any requests for a public 

hearing. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited independent 

opinions on the proposed critical 

habitat designation for Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides 

from eight knowledgeable individuals 

who have expertise with the species, the 

geographic region where the species 

occurs, and conservation biology 

principles. We received comments 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 this final 

critical habitat designation. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewers and the public 

for substantive issues and new 

information regarding critical habitat, 

and associated draft economic analysis, 

for Astragalus holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides. Substantive comments 

received have been addressed below, or 

incorporated into this final rule as 

appropriate. 

Peer Review Comments 

Comment 1: One peer reviewer noted 

that the level of detail included in the 

rule for the two species was 

inconsistent, and that exotic species 

were not addressed for Astragalus 

holmgreniorum. 

Response: We examined the 

Background section of the proposed rule 

to designate critical habitat (71 FR 

15966) and found that information was 

presented in equivalent amounts for 

both species, which included 

population size, structure, and habitat 

characteristics. However, information 

on exotic species associated with 

Astragalus holmgreniorum was 

inadvertently left out. Exotic species 

associated with Holmgren milk-vetch 

are Bromus rubens (red brome), 

Erodium cicutarium (storksbill), 

Malcomia africana (African mustard), 

and Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) (Van 

Buren and Harper 2003a, p. 240). The 

threat of invasive weeds is addressed in 

the Special Management Considerations 

or Protections section of this rule. 

Comment 2: One peer reviewer (and 

several public commenters) questioned 

why we did not include the known 

occurrence of Astragalus 

holmgreniorum found north of 

Atkinville Wash and west of I–15, near 

the I–15 interchange with the proposed 

southern corridor, and presented 

information on the size and 

characteristics of the population that the 

peer reviewer thought supported its 

inclusion in critical habitat. 

Response: We did not include this 

area (which is north of the State Line 

Subunit 1a) because a natural wash 

separates it from other populations and 

much of the surrounding area, it lacks 

the Primary Constituent Elements 

(PCEs) due to differing soil type, and 

because of high human impacts due to 

concentrated off-road vehicle (ORV) use. 

Adjacent housing development to the 

west and south, and I–15 to the east, 

further compromise its ability to be selfsustaining. Critical habitat contributes 

to the overall conservation of listed 

species, but it is not the intent of the Act 

to designate critical habitat for every 

population or occurrence of a listed 

species. Critical habitat designations do 

not signal that habitat outside the 

designation is unimportant or may not 

contribute to recovery. 

Comment 3: One peer reviewer 

expressed concern that the proposed 

critical habitat did not adequately 

address ground-nesting pollinators and 

expressed an opinion that preserving 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
77974 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

pollinator nesting sites, or areas where 

bees are known to nest, was important 

in the designation of critical habitat. 

Response: Our designation of critical 

habitat for Astragalus holmgreniorum 

and A. ampullarioides is based solely on 

their conservation needs. This rule does 

not designate critical habitat for 

pollinator species. However, pollinators 

are one of the PCEs necessary for the 

conservation of the two plant species, 

and the critical habitat unit boundaries 

were drawn to include sufficient acreage 

to accommodate habitat for pollinators. 

Thus, we expect the designation to 

afford protection to ground-nesting 

pollinators in proximity to the A. 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides 

populations included in this final 

designation. We include additional 

information on pollinators in the 

Special Management Considerations 

and Protections (Special Management) 

section of this rule. 

Comment 4: One peer reviewer 

inquired about the impact of cattle on 

ground-nesting bees. 

Response: We have no information in 

our files quantifying or qualifying the 

impact of cattle to ground-nesting bees. 

However, some aspects of livestock 

grazing, such as soil compaction and 

reduction of flowering vegetation, could 

be a concern for ground-nesting bees. 

These activities similarly may limit the 

full and natural development of 

Astragalus holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides and were considered 

under the Special Management section 

of the proposed rule (71 FR 15974–

15976, March 29, 2006). 

Comment 5: One peer reviewer stated 

that the use of the National Vegetation 

Classification System (NVCS) does not 

sufficiently identify habitat types for 

Astragalus holmgreniorum. 

Response: The NVCS is a systematic 

approach to classifying a continuum of 

natural vegetation nationwide. We 

included this information in the 

proposed designation because it allows 

land managers to assess the appropriate 

vegetation layer for Astragalus 

holmgreniorum on a Geological 

Information System and eliminate areas 

where the species is unlikely to reside. 

However, we did not rely on this 

information to define PCEs. 

Comment 6: One peer reviewer stated 

that Subunit 1a includes lands that are 

not occupied or are of marginal quality 

for Astragalus holmgreniorum. 

Response: All lands proposed for 

critical habitat are occupied, including 

Subunit 1a. Lands within Subunit 1a 

contain the PCEs for Astragalus 

holmgreniorum, and the plants occur in 

a patchy distribution throughout the 

unit. Therefore, we are including the 

entire subunit in this final critical 

habitat designation, as directed under 

50 CFR 424.12(d). 

Comment 7: One peer reviewer 

disagreed with the statement pertaining 

to Unit 1a that the I–15 right-of-way 

may allow pollinator flow between sites 

situated west and east of the highway, 

and pointed out that, although 

pollinators may travel between sites 

west and east of I–15, it seems likely 

that collisions with vehicles may be a 

serious drain on pollinator resources. 

The peer reviewer asked us to contact 

Dr. Tepedino, a bee biologist, about the 

ability of pollinators to successfully 

navigate I–15. 

Response: Although pollinators are 

likely to be killed by vehicles, neither 

we nor bee biologist Dr. Tepedino are 

aware of any information or ability to 

quantify pollinator mortality from 

vehicle collisions, except that mortality 

is likely to increase with the velocity of 

the vehicles. 

Comment 8: One peer reviewer 

recommended that we reduce the size of 

the Zion National Park Unit (Unit 5 for 

Astragalus ampullarioides) to only 

include the immediate area bordering 

the Chinle Trail at the south end of the 

occurrence where horses and hikers 

may trample plants and create erosion, 

because other areas within the unit were 

not subject to threats. 

Response: When determining which 

areas to include as critical habitat, we 

consider habitats that include the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and that require special 

management considerations or 

protection. We have determined that the 

north end of the Zion Unit requires 

protection from many of the types of 

impacts that are affecting the south end 

of the unit, such as invasive nonnative 

weeds (71 FR 15980–15981, March 29, 

2006). 

Comment 9: One peer reviewer 

responded to our request for comments 

concerning the inclusion of occupied 

habitat for the milk-vetches found in 

intervening areas of I–15 (i.e., between 

the northbound and southbound lanes, 

and within the highway right-of-way but 

outside the highway prism). The peer 

reviewer stated that the inclusion of 

occupied sites for Astragalus 

ampullarioides within the I–15 median 

is valuable because they are a significant 

part of the population, they are healthy, 

and management would not interfere 

with established protocols for highway 

management. 

Response: We included the I–15 site 

identified by the peer reviewer in this 

final designation. Also, in the Criteria to 

Identify Critical Habitat section, we 

provide additional information on the 

areas included in the designation to 

guide highway management. 

Comment 10: One peer reviewer 

stated that protecting and preserving 

habitat on private and State lands 

enhances property values. 

Response: We are unable to confirm 

that critical habitat designation 

enhances property values on private and 

State land, but we do know that 

property values have been enhanced 

adjacent to other open space in the 

county, e.g., Red Cliffs Desert Reserve. 

Our critical habitat designation is based 

solely on the provisions of section 4 of 

the Act; neither enhancing property 

values nor protecting open space is a 

basis for designating critical habitat. 

Comment 11: One peer reviewer 

suggested that we increase the size of 

our critical habitat units to create a 

buffer from the effects of development 

on adjacent lands and recreational use 

of these areas. 

Response: We share the concern about 

the effects of development and 

unregulated recreational use on critical 

habitat and addressed both impacts in 

the Special Management section of the 

proposed rule (71 FR 15974–15976, 

March 24, 2006). We are designating the 

critical habitat units at a scale to 

maintain the populations and primary 

constituent elements essential to the 

conservation of the species per section 

3(5)(A) of the Act and regulations at 50 

CFR 424.12. 

Comment 12: One peer reviewer 

stated that future management of the 

habitat currently administered by 

Arizona and Utah State Lands 

Departments will be critical for the 

survival of Astragalus holmgreniorum. 

Response: All lands included in the 

critical habitat designation are 

important to the conservation of 

Astragalus holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides. 

Comment 13: One peer reviewer 

questioned how Subunit 2b for 

Astragalus holmgreniorum will be 

conserved under section 7 of the Act 

given the statement in the proposed rule 

that the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) is currently working with Santa 

Clara City to sell this land for 

development purposes. 

Response: Under section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act, all Federal agencies are required to 

ensure that any action they fund, 

authorize, or carry out is not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Thus, BLM must ensure that its 

actions do not adversely modify or 

destroy critical habitat contained in 

Subunit 2b. The key factor related to the 

adverse modification determination is 

whether, with implementation of the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77975 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 

(or retain the current ability for the PCEs 

to function) to serve the intended 

conservation role for the species (Jones 

2004). We understand that BLM is 

working on alternatives for retaining 

ownership of the South Hills population 

of Astragalus holmgreniorum (Douglas 

2006). 

Comment 14: In response to our 

statement, on pages 15968 and 15970 of 

the proposed rule, that ‘‘species may 

move from one area to another over 

time,’’ one peer reviewer noted that 

known populations of Astragalus 

holmgreniorum occur in the same 

locations observed decades ago. 

Movements are more accurately 

described as a shift in population 

density in areas where suitable habitat 

occurs. In regard to A. holmgreniorum, 

if there are no major changes in 

hydrological patterns, one would not 

expect much movement of the 

population. 

Response: Populations of Astragalus 

holmgreniorum are being monitored in 

the same areas where they were 

observed decades ago, and this 

information is considered in this final 

rule. Although the establishment of new 

occupied areas may be rare, and the 

migration of seeds is likely to be 

localized, a new and independent 

establishment could result from arrival 

of a single seed (Epling and Lewis 1952, 

p. 264). 

Public Comments 

We received 12 public comments in 

response to our request for additional 

information in the proposed designation 

of critical habitat for Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides 

(71 FR 15966, March 29, 2006). 

Responses that contained new, updated, 

or additional information were 

considered in this final rule. We 

consolidated the comments into several 

categories. Some public comments were 

addressed in the previous section’s peer 

reviewer comments. 

Comments Related to Adequacy of 

Units Proposed 

Comment 15: One commenter stated 

that the critical habitat designation is 

inadequate because it is only 

established where the plants currently 

exist. Suitable habitat encompasses the 

larger landscape. The critical habitat 

designation fails in its purpose of 

facilitating recovery because it does not 

protect this larger area or provide 

connectivity between populations. 

Response: Critical habitat contributes 

to the overall conservation of listed 

species, but it is not the intent of the Act 

to designate critical habitat for every 

population or occurrence of a listed 

species. In the Criteria Used to Identify 

Critical Habitat section of the proposed 

and final critical habitat rules, we 

describe the parameters used for 

delineating areas that contain the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of 

Astragalus holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides, as required by the 

definition of critical habitat when 

considering areas occupied at the time 

of listing. We recognize that surveys to 

confirm the presence of A. 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides 

populations have not occurred 

everywhere throughout the species’

range. However, we determined that 

occupied areas containing the features 

essential to the conservation of these 

species support the majority of known 

locations (see the Criteria Used to 

Identify Critical Habitat section below). 

As a result of our methods, we found 

that the additional areas suggested by 

commenters were not essential to the 

conservation of A. holmgreniorum and 

A. ampullarioides. 

We also considered landscape issues 

when designing units to provide 

continuous habitat for reproduction, 

germination, seed dispersal, and 

pollination. Many units or subunits 

were designated by combining known 

occurrences and providing connectivity. 

Comment 16: One commenter noted 

that designating critical habitat that is 

separate, isolated, and fragmented will 

foment the eventual extinction of these 

populations. 

Response: The best available scientific 

information (71 FR 15966, March 29, 

2006) does not support this concern. We 

have designated critical habitat for 

Astragalus holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides in accordance with the 

Act. We have determined that the areas 

included in the designation are essential 

to the conservation of the two species. 

Many natural features separating the 

units, such as watersheds, land 

formations, and soil types, are unable to 

support the species. 

Comments on Size and Areas To Be 

Included or Excluded 

Comment 17: Several commenters 

recommended that units that were close 

to each other be combined to provide 

connectivity for gene flow. Others 

provided reasons for designating larger 

areas, such as edge effects, current 

fragmentation, anticipated future 

fragmentation, chemical herbicide use, 

range of pollinator flights, invasive 

species, ORV trails, and recreational 

use. One commenter suggested that 

additional critical habitat for Astragalus 

holmgreniorum should be provided in 

Arizona to help offset all of the impacts 

that are occurring in Utah. 

Response: In delineating critical 

habitat, we considered hydrology for 

seed dispersal, soils for suitable habitat, 

elevation changes, and relief to 

determine range and amount of suitable 

habitat. We also considered existing 

natural and human-caused barriers to 

dispersal. As indicated in the process 

described in the proposal (also see 

Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat 

below), we have defined milk-vetch 

recovery populations in a manner that is 

consistent with the Act and our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12. The milkvetch populations may appear close 

together on the maps, but in most cases 

known sites are separated by 1 mile (mi) 

(1.6 kilometers (km)) or more, which 

greatly decreases the expectation of 

frequent inter-site pollination. Critical 

habitat is designated in both Arizona 

and Utah due to occupied habitat 

containing the appropriate PCEs. 

Comment 18: Several commenters 

supported intervening lands of I–15 

being designated for Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides. 

Response: Intervening lands of I–15 

are designated in this final rule. 

Additional information was 

incorporated into the Criteria to Identify 

Critical Habitat section below. 

Comment 19: One commenter 

recommended that we adjust the 

western boundary of Unit 1 for 

Astragalus ampullarioides to eliminate 

the inclusion of an existing mining 

operation. 

Response: The mining operation is 

outside both the proposed and final 

critical habitat boundaries. 

Comment 20: One commenter 

recommended that we adjust the 

southeast corner of Unit 4a for 

Astragalus ampullarioides to include 

only the west side of Harrisburg Ridge, 

because the east side is not part of the 

watershed. 

Response: We did not exclude the east 

side of Harrisburg Ridge. The critical 

habitat designation includes areas 

outside the watershed that are necessary 

(e.g., they provide adequate supply of 

pollinators) to support the reproductive 

success of Astragalus ampullarioides. 

Comment 21: BLM recommended an 

adjustment of Astragalus 

holmgreniorum Units 2a (Stucki 

Springs), and 2b (South Hills) to better 

reflect occurrence and habitat based on 

2006 surveys. 

Response: We announced these 

proposed changes in our revised 

proposed rule and requested public 

comment on them (71 FR 56085, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
77976 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

September 26, 2006). The changes are 

incorporated into this final rule. 

Comment 22: One commenter 

recommended that we remove private 

lands or isolated Federal lands from 

Astragalus holmgreniorum Subunit 2b 

and Unit 3, and A. ampullarioides Unit 

3, in order to designate only areas of 

private and State lands that have some 

potential to transfer to BLM ownership, 

or some other means of preservation. 

Another commenter expressed that land 

ownership should not be a 

consideration of determining critical 

habitat, and included a rationale based 

on lack of economic impacts on private 

lands. 

Response: All the lands proposed for 

critical habitat contain the features 

essential for the conservation of 

Astragalus holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides regardless of ownership. 

In our final designation, we considered 

economic factors for both public and 

private lands. We determined that 

economic costs did not outweigh the 

benefits of designation for any of the 

proposed lands. However, we did 

exclude lands of the Shivwits Band of 

Paiute Indians (Tribe) based on a 

conservation agreement with the Tribe 

(see the Relationship of Critical Habitat 

to Tribal Lands section below). 

Comments Providing Recommendations 

on Pollinators 

Comment 23: One commenter 

recommended larger unit sizes to 

conserve the most effective pollinators, 

which the commenter stated are the 

medium- to large-sized pollinators. 

Response: Our goal for the critical 

habitat designation is to include 

sufficient pollinator habitat and 

sufficient pollinator populations for the 

reproduction of Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides. 

We based our minimum unit size on the 

typical homing distance of the smallest 

pollinators 1,312 feet (ft) (400 meters 

(m)). A radius of 1,312 ft (400 m) 

encompasses 124 ac (50 ha), and 

ensures that pollinators have sufficient 

land to establish nesting sites, access 

floral resources, and provide pollinating 

services. We expect that the designated 

critical habitat units will provide a 

species-rich bee community for small, 

medium, and large pollinators. We find 

no supporting information indicating 

that a larger area is likely to improve 

pollinator services, because smaller 

pollinators are unlikely to travel much 

farther, and many medium and large 

pollinators can easily cover this 

distance. 

Comment 24: In the judgment of one 

commenter, adequate pollinator habitat 

exists adjacent to Unit 3 for Astragalus 

ampullarioides because areas of native 

vegetation remain within the Coral 

Canyon Development. 

Response: A golf course containing 

approximately 80 ac (32 ha) of grass turf 

interspersed with natural rock 

outcroppings exists to the west of Unit 

3. This area is not sufficient to provide 

pollinator resources for the unit because 

the habitat does not contain a diverse 

natural flora capable of supporting an 

abundant pollinator population. 

Comments Related to Tribal Issues 

Comment 25: One commenter stated 

that Astragalus ampullarioides 

occurrences found on land under the 

sovereignty of the Tribe should be 

protected and managed by the Tribe 

without Federal designation of critical 

habitat. 

Response: We agree that the Tribe is 

most able to manage and protect 

Astragalus ampullarioides on their 

lands that are held in trust by the 

United States. Fish, wildlife, and other 

natural resources on Tribal lands are 

better managed under Tribal authorities, 

policies, and programs than through 

Federal regulation wherever possible 

and practicable. We worked with Tribal 

leadership to create a sound 

management plan. On September 18, 

2006, Tribal Chairman Glenn Rogers 

signed the Shivwits Band of Paiutes 

Management Plan for Astragalus 

ampullarioides. This management plan 

provides greater protection than critical 

habitat designation could provide. 

Therefore, this unit was excluded from 

final critical habitat (see the 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship with Tribes and 4(b)(2) 

Exclusions sections below). 

Comment 26: One commenter 

indicated that we should provide an 

environmental assessment and 

economic impact analysis on the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

on Tribal lands. 

Response: We announced the 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis and draft environmental 

assessment for the proposed designation 

of critical habitat in the Federal Register 

(71 FR 56085, September 26, 2006) that 

included a description of the 

environmental and economic impacts of 

the designation on Tribal lands. 

Comment 27: One commenter 

indicated that Units 1 and 2, containing 

lands managed by BLM and the Tribe, 

should be combined into one larger unit 

because they are reasonably close. 

Response: Unit 2 is on Tribal land 

managed by the Tribe, who now have a 

management plan to ensure that the 

conservation of Astragalus 

ampullarioides can be achieved without 

the designation of critical habitat on 

Tribal lands. We are excluding Unit 2 

from the final critical habitat 

designation (see the 4(b)(2) Exclusions 

section below). 

Comments Providing Additional 

Scientific Information 

Comment 28: The U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) indicated that their 

recent research on Astragalus 

ampullarioides occupancy determined 

that the species also is affiliated with 

the Dinosaur Canyon Member of the 

Moenave, but could not confirm an 

affiliation with the Shinarump Member 

of the Chinle. All locations contain clayrich soil. 

Response: We have included this 

information into this final rule. 

Comment 29: One commenter stated 

that new information concerning the 

preferred soils of Astragalus 

ampullarioides (described in comment 

29 above) expands the concept of 

potential habitat. The commenter 

suggested that new surveys beyond the 

geographic scope of currently known 

habitat are necessary and may have 

implications for the specific PCEs for A. 

ampullarioides. 

Response: We agree that the 

additional information on soils 

conducive to Astragalus ampullarioides 

survival will be useful for recognizing 

potential habitat and conducting 

surveys. However, we must base our 

critical habitat designation on the best 

available scientific data at the time of 

designation. Our final critical habitat 

designation is based on the protection of 

the features essential to the conservation 

of the known, existing populations of A. 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides. 

We have incorporated this new 

information into the description of the 

PCEs (see Primary Constituent Elements 

section below). 

Comment 30: One commenter noted 

that herbivory is not mentioned in the 

discussion of PCEs for Astragalus 

ampullarioides despite its potential 

effects on reproductive output and longterm viability of the species, and the 

commenter provided information on 

reduction in fruit production by small 

mammals at one site. 

Response: Herbivory can impact 

Astragalus ampullarioides 

reproduction. The specific information 

provided by the commenter is 

considered in the Special Management 

section of this rule. However, we did 

not include a discussion on herbivory in 

our determination of the PCEs because 

herbivory is not relevant to our 

determination of the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of this species. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77977 

Comment 31: One commenter noted 

that the proposed rule refers to ‘‘USGS 

soil descriptions,’’ but that these 

descriptions were more likely produced 

by U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) Soil Conservation Service or 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS). 

Response: In Washington County, 

Utah, the soil descriptions used 

originated in the Soil Survey of 

Washington County Utah (USDA Soil 

Conservation Service et al. 1977, pp. 

7–10, 12–13, 20–22, 30–31, 34, 44, 48, 

124–129). In Mohave County, Arizona, 

information originated from Soil Survey 

of Shivwits Area, Arizona, Part of 

Mohave County (USDA NRCS et al. 

2000, pp. 1–15, 65–68, 73–74, 113–114). 

This information is corrected in this 

final rule. 

Comment 32: One commenter 

indicated that the proposed rule 

discussed livestock grazing within 

Subunit 4b for Astragalus 

ampullarioides. However, livestock 

have been removed from this area. 

Response: We have updated our 

information. 

Comment 33: One commenter 

indicated that a population of 

Astragalus ampullarioides may exist to 

the south of Subunit 4b and should be 

surveyed to determine if it should be 

included in the critical habitat 

designation. 

Response: We have no further 

information regarding an area outside of 

Subunit 4b with existing Astragalus 

ampullarioides, and have made no 

boundary changes. 

Comment 34: One commenter noted 

that the proposed rule did not discuss 

that Unit 3 for Astragalus 

holmgreniorum is within a regional 

shooting range. 

Response: We have added this 

information to the final rule (see Critical 

Habitat Designation section). 

Comments on Development, Recovery, 

and Other Issues 

Comment 35: One commenter thought 

that it may be too late to adequately 

protect the species because extensive 

development has occurred since listing. 

Response: We agree that the species is 

threatened by development. In addition 

to this critical habitat designation, the 

Act provides conservation mechanisms 

including the section 4 recovery 

planning process, section 6 funding to 

the States, section 7 consultations, and 

the section 9 protective prohibitions of 

unauthorized take and cooperative 

programs with private and public 

landholders and Tribes. A recovery plan 

was completed for these species on 

September 29, 2006 (71 FR 57557). 

Comment 36: One commenter stated 

that various Federal, State, and local 

agencies and government 

representatives with roles in 

Washington County have been complicit 

in the demise of these plants. Priority is 

given to the desert tortoise and the 

protection of these lands at the expense 

of the plants. 

Response: We have no evidence 

supporting this comment. In many 

cases, such as within the recovery 

planning process for Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides, 

various Federal, State, and local 

agencies and government 

representatives with roles in 

Washington County are working 

together to protect lands containing rare 

plants, as well as other listed species, 

such as desert tortoise. 

Comment 37: One commenter stated 

that no viable plan exists to protect 

these species outside of the designated 

habitat. 

Response: We announced a final 

recovery plan for Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides 

(71 FR 57557, September 29, 2006). The 

recovery plan should result in 

protecting and enhancing current 

habitat; ensuring the habitat base for 

each recovery population is large 

enough to allow for natural population 

dynamics, population expansion where 

needed, the continued presence of 

pollinators, and sufficient connectivity 

to allow for gene flow within and among 

populations; achieving permanent land 

protection for at least four recovery 

populations of both A. holmgreniorum 

and A. ampullarioides; developing sitespecific conservation agreements for all 

recovery populations and their habitat 

to protect the milk-vetches within 

existing State laws; prohibiting the use 

of pesticides or herbicides detrimental 

to either of the milk-vetches or their 

pollinators within the vicinity of all 

recovery populations; and collecting 

and storing seeds for all extant 

populations. 

Comment 38: One commenter stated 

that, although considerable study of the 

populations has taken place, no 

significant recovery actions have 

followed, and the recovery plans have 

not been implemented. 

Response: Both of these species were 

listed on September 28, 2001 (71 FR 

15966), and are in the early phases of 

the recovery process. On September 29, 

2006, we announced a final recovery 

plan for Astragalus holmgreniorum and 

A. ampullarioides (71 FR 57557). 

Significant conservation efforts that are 

underway for A. holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides are discussed on pages 

37–40 of the recovery plan (Service 

2006). 

Comment 39: One commenter stated 

that responsible Federal agencies and 

elected officials have failed to protect 

these species as required by the Act. 

Response: We are unaware of any 

failure under the Act to protect these 

species. No detailed information was 

provided by the commenter to support 

this claim. 

Comment 40: One commenter 

suggested that the critical habitat 

designation process could be improved 

by soliciting suggestions prior to 

publishing a proposal. 

Response: We have responsibility 

under the Act for designating critical 

habitat. An important facet of this 

responsibility is to provide opportunity 

for exchange of knowledge and 

participation. Two public comment 

periods were provided to facilitate 

communication, collect best available 

information, and address concerns of 

other agencies and stakeholders. 

Comment 41: One commenter 

suggested that the critical habitat 

designation process should be fully 

integrated with recovery plan 

preparation. 

Response: Our recovery plan for the 

milk-vetches (Service 2006) targets the 

same areas for recovery that we 

proposed for critical habitat. Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protections that are discussed within 

the proposed critical habitat rule (71 FR 

15966, March 29, 2006) address the 

same threats discussed in the recovery 

plan (Service 2006). We are working 

with other partners to address threats 

and population needs to reach recovery. 

Comment 42: The Washington County 

Growth and Conservation Act, as 

currently proposed by Senator Robert 

Bennett, may have serious implications 

for the future of the Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides. 

Response: Congressional activities are 

not evaluated in the designation of 

critical habitat, and, therefore, this 

comment is outside the scope of this 

designation. 

Comment 43: Many commented that 

our discussion of the value of 

designating critical habitat, and the 

procedural and resource difficulties 

involved, was inappropriate and should 

be addressed in a different forum, not in 

the news release for a critical habitat 

rule. 

Response: As discussed in the 

Designation of Critical Habitat Provides 

Little Additional Protection to Species, 

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual 

Practice of Administering and 

Implementing the Act, and Procedural 

and Resource Difficulties in Designating 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
77978 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Critical Habitat sections of this and 

other critical habitat designations, we 

believe that, in most cases, other 

conservation mechanisms provide 

greater incentives and conservation 

benefits than the designation of critical 

habitat. Other mechanisms include the 

section 4 recovery planning process, 

section 6 funding to the States, section 

7 consultations, the section 9 protective 

prohibitions of unauthorized take, the 

section 10 incidental take permit 

process, and cooperative programs with 

private and public landholders and 

Tribal nations. 

Comment 44: No action has ever been 

taken to list the native bee, Peridita 

meconis, or determine its status. 

Response: This action is to designate 

critical habitat for Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides. 

The status of Peridita meconis is outside 

the scope of this action. 

Comments Related to the Draft 

Economic Analysis 

Comment 45: Two commenters stated 

that the St. George area is one of the 

fastest growing metropolitan areas in the 

United States, and that its growth rate 

may increase. The commenters felt that, 

considering the rapid population 

growth, the critical habitat 

determination would provide open 

space relief and an economic amenity 

value. The commenters believe that the 

critical habitat determination may 

provide a future eco-tourism industry, 

and a ‘‘population safety buffer’’ benefit 

for the airport. 

Response: Section 4.1 of the Draft 

Economic Analysis acknowledged that 

Washington County is one of the fastest 

growing counties in the United States. 

However, section 4.1 also highlights that 

the County believes the population 

increase will not cause overcrowding 

because more than 75 percent of the 

land in the County is managed by the 

Federal government (i.e., BLM, U.S. 

Forest Service, and National Park 

Service) and is not expected to be 

developed. The Draft Economic 

Analysis does not forecast precluding 

development within the boundaries of 

the proposed critical habitat 

determination. Residential, commercial, 

and industrial development is expected 

to occur; thus the proposed critical 

habitat determination that occurs on 

non-Federal land is not expected to 

provide a ‘‘population safety buffer’’

benefit for the new regional airport 

located approximately 3 mi (4.8 km) 

east of Subunit 1c. No data are available 

to describe or forecast how many people 

currently visit the area to allow for the 

measurement of the impact of critical 

habitat determination on the future ecotourism industry. 

Comment 46: One commenter thought 

that the draft economic analysis did not 

consider the effect of the new regional 

airport. 

Response: The proposed location of 

the new regional airport is 

approximately 3 mi (4.8 km) east of 

Subunit 1c for Astragalus 

holmgreniorum. While airport-related 

species conservation activities are not 

expected during construction and 

operation of the airport, the Draft 

Economic Analysis included 

consideration of the County growth 

forecast and general plan, which reflect 

the effects of a new regional airport; 

therefore, the economic analysis 

captures any economic impacts related 

to population growth resulting from the 

new regional airport. 

Comments From States 

Comments were received from the 

Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), 

Arizona Department of Transportation, 

and Arizona Game and Fish regarding 

the proposal to designate critical habitat 

for the Astragalus holmgreniorum, and 

are addressed below. 

Comments on Areas in the Median of 

Interstate-15 

Comment 47: One commenter pointed 

out that the proposed rule indicated that 

critical habitat would not include 

existing manmade structures (such as 

roads) that lack PCEs, or the land on 

which such structures are located. The 

commenter thought that manmade 

structures, such as cut slopes and fill 

slopes, as well as regularly graded areas 

along the I–15 right-of-way, should be 

excluded, or that areas of inclusion 

along I–15 should be better defined. 

Response: Where we have specific 

information on areas within the 

designation that do not contain the 

PCEs, we have not included them in the 

final rule (see Summary of Changes). 

The existence of manmade structures 

are excluded by text in the rule 

clarifying that these areas do not contain 

the PCEs and are not included as critical 

habitat (see Criteria to Identify Critical 

Habitat). 

Comment 48: The proposed rule states 

that the long-term conservation of 

Astragalus holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides is, in part, dependent on 

the ability to keep critical habitat free 

from major ground-disturbing activities. 

While best management practices can 

and likely will be developed in 

coordination with the Service, it is 

unlikely that the I–15 right-of-way can 

be kept free from ground-disturbing 

activities, such as road maintenance, 

vehicle collisions, or motorists pulling 

off the roadway. 

Response: The areas we are 

designating as critical habitat provide 

some or all of the habitat components 

essential for the conservation of 

Astragalus holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides. Best management 

practices are likely to reduce grounddisturbing activities, and are evaluated 

during section 7 consultations on 

projects with a Federal nexus, e.g., 

actions related to the Federal Highway 

Administration. 

Comment 49: One commenter stated 

that designation of critical habitat 

within the I–15 right-of-way would not 

provide any additional benefits because 

projects typically receive funding from 

the Federal Highway Administration 

and are already subject to section 7 

consultation. 

Response: Jeopardy and adverse 

modification analyses differ under 

section 7 of the Act and may result in 

differing determinations depending on 

the specific action at issue. The 

jeopardy analysis usually addresses the 

survival and recovery needs of a species 

in a qualitative fashion. Generally, if a 

proposed Federal action is incompatible 

with the viability of a population(s) 

essential to recovery, a jeopardy finding 

is considered to be warranted because of 

the relationship of essential populations 

to the survival and recovery of the 

species as a whole. Adverse 

modification analyses are conducted 

using an analytical framework 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 

(or retain the current ability for the PCEs 

to be functionally established) in 

serving the intended conservation role 

for the species. Activities that may 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat also may jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species. 

Additionally, not all actions that occur 

in critical habitat will be subject to 

section 7 of the Act, because they may 

not be Federal actions. 

Comment 50: The ASLD commented 

that Subunits 1a and 1b for Astragalus 

holmgreniorum, which are under its 

management, are slated for commercial 

and mixed residential uses. While they 

are not opposed to the designation, they 

have concerns regarding the 

development potential of the lands due 

to the designation. 

Our Response: All the lands proposed 

for critical habitat contain the features 

essential for the conservation of 

Astragalus holmgreniorum and A. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77979 

ampullarioides regardless of ownership. 

In our final designation, we considered 

economic factors for both public and 

private lands. We determined that 

economic costs did not outweigh the 

benefits of designation for any of the 

proposed lands. However, we did 

exclude Tribal lands based on a 

conservation agreement with the Tribe. 

Further, critical habitat designation for 

plants does not necessarily affect state 

or private lands, unless there is a 

Federal nexus, such as when Federal 

funds are involved. 

Summary of Changes From Proposed 

Rule 

In developing the final critical habitat 

designation for Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides, 

we reviewed the comments received on 

our proposed rule, draft economic 

analysis, and draft environmental 

assessment, and conducted further 

evaluation of lands included in the 

proposal. Based on our review, we 

changed our proposed designation as 

follows: 

(1) We adjusted the critical habitat 

boundaries of Astragalus 

holmgreniorum Subunits 2a and 2b to 

better capture existing occupied habitat 

that contains the PCEs, based on 

biological information received during 

the public comment period. This 

resulted in the addition of 26 ac (9 ha) 

in Subunit 2a, and the loss of 18 ac (6 

ha) in Subunit 2b (see the revised 

proposed rule published on September 

26, 2006, at 71 FR 56085). 

(2) We adjusted the boundaries of 

Subunits 1a and 1c for Astragalus 

holmgreniorum so that they do not 

contain areas without the PCEs or areas 

that do not meet the designation criteria 

(are essential to the continued 

conservation of the species and require 

special management consideration or 

protection). This resulted in the removal 

of 191 ac (78 ha) and 2 ac (1 ha) 

respectively. 

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

we excluded Unit 2 for Astragalus 

ampullarioides. On September 18, 2006, 

Glenn Rogers, Band Chairman, signed 

the Shivwits Band of Paiutes 

Management Plan for A. ampullarioides. 

This management plan provides greater 

protection than critical habitat 

designation could provide. Because the 

management plan ensures that the 

conservation of A. ampullarioides can 

be achieved without the designation of 

critical habitat on Tribal lands, we are 

excluding Unit 2 from the final critical 

habitat designation (see 4(b)(2) 

Exclusions section below). This 

exclusion amounts to a reduction of 240 

ac (97 ha) in the total critical habitat 

designation for A. ampullarioides. 

(4) We modified the descriptions of 

the PCEs for clarity; however, the 

substance of the PCEs has not changed. 

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 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 

which 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 PCEs, 

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. Thus, we do not include 

areas where existing management is 

sufficient to conserve the species. (As 

discussed below, such areas also may be 

excluded from critical habitat pursuant 

to section 4(b)(2).) 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. However, 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
77980 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

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 

physical and biological features (PCEs) 

that are essential to the conservation of 

the species, that are within areas 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing, and 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 holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides are derived from the 

biological needs of these milk-vetches as 

described in the proposed critical 

habitat designation (71 FR 15966; March 

29, 2006). 

Primary Constituent Elements for 

Astragalus holmgreniorum 

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, the 

primary constituent elements for 

Astragalus holmgreniorum are: 

(1) Appropriate geological layers or 

soils that support individual Astragalus 

holmgreniorum plants. A. 

holmgreniorum is found on the Virgin 

Limestone member, middle red member, 

and upper red member of the Moenkopi 

Formation and the Petrified Forest 

member of the Chinle Formation 

(Harper and VanBuren 1997; Hughes 

2005). Associated soils are defined by 

USDA et al. (1977 and 2000) as Badland; 

Badland, very steep; Eroded land-Shalet 

complex, warm; Hobog-rock land 

association; Isom cobbly sandy loam; 

Ruesh very gravelly fine sandy loam; 

Gypill Hobog complex, 6 to 35 percent 

slopes; Gypill very cobbly sandy loam, 

15 to 40 percent slopes; and HobogGrapevine complex, 2 to 35 percent 

slopes. These soils are generally found 

at elevations from 2,430 to 3,000 ft (756 

to 914 m), support associated native 

plant species, and have a low presence 

or lack of Larrea tridentata (creosote 

bush). 

(2) Topographic features/relief (mesas, 

ridge remnants, alluvial fans, and fan 

terraces, their summits and backslopes, 

and gently rolling to steep swales) and 

the drainage areas along formation edges 

with little to moderate slope (0 to 20 

percent). 

These topographic features/relief 

contribute to the soil substrate and 

vegetative community, natural 

weathering and erosion, and the natural 

surface and subsurface structure that 

provides minimally-altered or unaltered 

hydrological conditions (e.g., seasonally 

available moisture from surface or 

subsurface runoff) on which Astragalus 

holmgreniorum depends. 

(3) The presence of insect visitors or 

pollinators, such as Anthophora 

captognatha, A. damnersi, A. porterae, 

Anthophora spp., Eucera quadricincta, 

Omia titus, and two types of Dialictus 

sp. 

Primary Constituent Elements for 

Astragalus ampullarioides 

Based on our current knowledge of 

the life history, biology, and ecology of 

the species, the primary constituent 

elements for Astragalus ampullarioides 

are: 

(1) Outcroppings of soft clay soil, 

often purple-hued, within the Chinle 

Formation and the Dinosaur Canyon 

Member of the Moenave Formation, at 

elevations from 3,018 to 4,367 ft (920 to 

1,330 m). 

Plant species that are 

characteristically found on these clay 

soils within the Chinle Formation and 

can indicate the presence of this PCE 

were included in the Background 

section of the proposed critical habitat 

designation (71 FR 15966; March 29, 

2006). 

(2) Topographic features/relief, 

including alluvial fans and fan terraces, 

and gently rolling to steep swales, with 

little to moderate slope (3 to 24 percent), 

that are often markedly dissected by 

water flow pathways from seasonal 

precipitation. 

Associated topographic features/relief 

contribute to the soil substrate and 

vegetative community described above, 

natural weathering and erosion, and the 

natural surface and subsurface structure 

that provides minimally altered or 

unaltered hydrological conditions (e.g., 

seasonally available moisture from 

surface or subsurface runoff) on which 

Astragalus ampullarioides depends. 

(3) The presence of insect visitors or 

pollinators, such as Anthophora 

captognatha, A. damnersi, A. porterae, 

Anthophora spp., Eucera quadricincta, 

Bombus morrissonis, Hoplitis grinnelli, 

Osmia clarescens, O. marginata, O. 

titus, O. clavescens, and two types of 

Dialictus sp. 

This designation is designed for the 

conservation of 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 the PCEs. For more 

information regarding the PCEs essential 

to the conservation of Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides, 

see the proposal to designate critical 

habitat (71 FR 15966; March 29, 2006). 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

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

the Act, we use the best scientific data 

in determining areas that contain the 

features essential to the conservation of 

Astragalus holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides. We reviewed available 

information that pertains to habitat 

requirements of these species. We 

reviewed the overall approach to 

conservation of both milk-vetches 

undertaken by local, State, and Federal 

agencies since their listing, and the 

recovery plan for the A. holmgreniorum 

and A. ampullarioides (2006). 

We reviewed the available 

information pertaining to the historic 

and current distributions, life histories, 

habitats, and threats to these milkVerDate Aug<31>2005 20:46 Dec 26, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27DER3.SGM 27DER3

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77981 

vetches. We obtained records of 

distribution for the milk-vetches from 

BLM Arizona Strip Field Office (BLM 

AZ); BLM St. George Field Office (BLM 

UT); Shivwits Band of Paiutes, Utah 

School and Institutional Trust Lands 

Administration (SITLA); Zion National 

Park; and Utah Valley State College 

(VanBuren, unpublished GIS data). We 

also reviewed data included in reports 

submitted during the section 7 

consultation process; and published and 

unpublished documentation from our 

files. This information included BLM 

hand-mapped polygons that outlined 

occupied or potentially occupied 

habitats in Arizona and Utah, primarily 

developed prior to the species’ listing 

(66 FR 49560, September 28, 2001). 

For some sites, recent (2003 to 2005) 

survey information was available and 

evaluated to identify known plant 

locations (provided by Zion National 

Park, BLM UT, BLM AZ, SITLA, and 

Van Buren). Although occupied sites 

may gradually change, recent survey 

results confirm that plant distribution is 

similar to known distributions at the 

time of listing (66 FR 49560, September 

28, 2001). We designated no areas 

outside the geographical area presently 

occupied by the species. 

Our approach to delineating critical 

habitat units was applied in the 

following manner: 

(1) We overlaid plant locations into a 

GIS database. This provided us with the 

ability to examine slope, aspect, 

elevation, vegetation community, and 

topographic features, such as drainages. 

Datapoints were used to determine the 

elevation ranges for both species. We 

found no correlation between aspect 

and occurrence location for either 

species. Some affiliation with slope for 

both species was evident; however, 

statistical correlation was not 

conclusive. 

To better understand the landscape, 

we also examined soil series layers, 

aerial photography, and hardcopy 

geologic maps. We specifically focused 

our analysis on soil types and 

topographic features necessary to 

maintain slope and natural drainage for 

Astragalus holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullariodes populations. We were 

unable to find GIS layers pertaining to 

geologic survey. For this we visually 

compared known sites to hard-copy 

geologic maps. Since the maps were of 

insufficient resolution to further 

evaluate the purplish red clay soil found 

in small outcroppings within the Chinle 

and Moenave Formation, aerial 

photography was employed at times to 

further our understanding of these areas. 

We verified that A. ampullarioides is 

associated with the Petrified Forest 

member of the Chinle, and Dinosaur 

Canyon member of the Moenave 

Formation. We verified that A. 

holmgreniorum is associated with the 

Virgin Limestone member, upper red 

member of the Moenkopi Formation, 

Chinle Shale, and Shinarump 

conglomerate member of the Chinle 

Formation (Harper and Van Buren 

1997), and also may be affiliated with 

the middle red member of the Moenkopi 

Formation (Hughes 2006). 

For both Astragalus holmgreniorum 

and A. ampullarioides, we reviewed soil 

survey layers. No two sites of A. 

ampullarioides contained the same type 

of soil description (USDA et al. 1979). 

From this, we determined that the clay 

outcroppings, associated with the 

Petrified Forest member of the Chinle 

and Dinosaur Canyon member of the 

Moenave Formation on which A. 

ampullarioides is found, may not be 

large enough to be labeled under the 

USDA soil series. In Utah, A. 

holmgreniorum individuals are 

associated with Badland; Badland, very 

steep (84 percent); Hobog-Rock land 

association (9 percent); and Isom cobbly 

sand loam, 3–30 percent slope (5 

percent) (USDA et al. 1977, pp. 7–10, 

12–13, 20–22, 30–31, 34, 44, 48, 124–

129). Although we lacked the same 

degree of information in Arizona, we 

found that documented sites appeared 

to be related to Ruesh very gravelly fine 

sandy loam, 3–20 percent slopes; 

Gypill-Hobog complex, 6–35 percent 

slopes; Gypill very cobbly sandy loam, 

15–40 percent slopes; and HobogGrapevine complex, 2–35 percent slopes 

(as defined in USDA et al. 2000, pp. 1–

15, 65–68, 73–74, 113–114). 

(2) When appropriate, we used 

geographic features (e.g., ridge lines, 

valleys, streams, elevation) or manmade 

features (e.g., roads) that created an 

obvious boundary to delineate a unit 

area boundary. In some cases, we were 

unable to provide obvious boundaries, 

so unit boundaries were drawn to 

encompass PCEs on the basis of the best 

available information. 

(3) We drew critical habitat 

boundaries that captured the locations, 

soils, and slopes elucidated under (1) 

above while considering the boundaries 

identified in (2) above. We described 

and mapped critical habitat 

designations using Universal Transverse 

Mercator (UTM) North American Datum 

83 (NAD 83) coordinates. 

(4) When the resulting units were 

smaller than 124 ac (50 ha), we 

increased the unit size to 124 ac (50 ha) 

by using the average travel distance for 

pollinators of Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides. 

We believe that this increase in unit size 

is essential to ensure sufficient 

pollinator populations for the 

reproduction of Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides. 

Specifically, where necessary, units or 

subunits were enlarged to 124 ac (50 ha) 

by including habitat within a 1,312 ft 

(400 m) radius of the known plant 

locations within the unit. This step 

applied to Subunits 2b and 3 for A. 

holmgreniorum, and Units 1, 2, 3, and 

Subunit 4a for A. ampullarioides. Unit 

3 for A. ampullarioides is bordered by 

development on its western edge; 

therefore, we did not incorporate 1,312 

ft (400 m) on its western edge. 

This critical habitat designation 

includes representatives of all known 

populations of Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides, 

and habitats that possess the physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species and require 

special management considerations or 

protection. Application of these criteria 

(1) Protects habitat that contains the 

PCEs in areas where A. holmgreniorum 

and A. ampullarioides are known to 

occur; (2) maintains the current 

ecological distribution to preserve 

genetic variation within the range of A. 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides 

to minimize the effects of local 

extinction; (3) minimizes fragmentation 

by establishing contiguous occurrences 

and maintaining existing connectivity; 

(4) includes sufficient pollinator habitat; 

and (5) protects the seed bank to ensure 

long-term persistence of the species. 

Much of the survey and field data on 

which this designation is based 

represent observed individuals during 

one point in time. Due to annual 

population fluctuations associated with 

varying local environmental factors 

(e.g., precipitation, seed germination), it 

is likely that individual plants and 

occurrences exist but were not 

identified in recent surveys (Van Buren 

and Harper 2003b; 66 FR 49560, 

September 28, 2001). Identification of 

these areas as critical habitat ensures 

maintenance of connectivity between 

currently known occupied habitats over 

the long term. Gene flow is also 

maintained by securing sufficient area 

for pollinator habitats and travel 

corridors. 

These habitats also ensure protection 

of seed banks, seed dispersal, and 

pollinator services that are essential for 

long-term persistence of Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides 

(Van Buren 2005; Tepedino 2005). 

These seeds represent genetic 

information of past parents and their 

retention affects fitness and demography 

and reduces the expected inbreeding 

coefficient (McCue and Holtsford 1998). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
77982 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Seed banks also ensure population 

persistence in periods of drought or 

other stressful environmental conditions 

(Van Buren 2005). The surrounding 

plant community provides the floral 

resources and habitat necessary to 

maintain pollinators and potential seed 

dispersers (e.g., birds, small mammals). 

Land within this designation supports 

the PCEs for the species that are 

necessary for the growth, reproduction, 

and establishment of A. holmgreniorum 

and A. ampullarioides. 

When determining critical habitat 

boundaries, we made an effort to avoid 

developed areas such as buildings, 

paved areas, boat ramps and other 

structures that lack PCEs for Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides. 

Manmade features within the 

boundaries of the mapped unit, such as 

buildings, roads, parking lots, and other 

paved areas, do not contain any of the 

PCEs for A. holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides. The road prism for I–

15, which includes the asphalt road, 

designated emergency pull-outs or 

safety turn-a-rounds, and surfaces that 

do not contain natural soils (such as 

gravel edges) or native vegetation are 

not included within critical habitat. 

However, the scale of maps prepared 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 

rule have been excluded by text and are 

not designated as critical habitat. 

Therefore, Federal actions limited to 

these areas would not trigger section 7 

consultations, unless they affect the 

species or PCEs in adjacent critical 

habitat. 

We are designating critical habitat on 

lands that we have determined are 

occupied at the time of listing and 

contain sufficient PCEs to support life 

history functions essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

Three units for Astragalus 

holmgreniorum, including five subunits, 

are designated based on PCEs being 

present that support A. holmgreniorum 

life processes. For A. ampullarioides, 

four units, including two subunits, are 

designated based on PCEs being present 

that support A. ampullarioides life 

processes. Most units contain all PCEs; 

however, some segments contain only a 

portion of the PCEs necessary to support 

A. holmgreniorum’s and A. 

ampullarioides’s particular use of that 

habitat. A brief discussion of each area 

designated as critical habitat is provided 

in the Critical Habitat Designation 

section below. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections 

When designating the three critical 

habitat units, including Subunits 1a, 1b, 

1c, 2a, and 2b, for Astragalus 

holmgreniorum, and the four critical 

habitat units, including Subunits 4a and 

4b, for A. ampullarioides, we assessed 

whether the areas determined to be 

occupied at the time of listing and 

containing the primary constituent 

elements may require special 

management considerations or 

protections. As discussed in more detail 

in the proposed critical habitat 

designation (71 FR 15966, September 

26, 2006) and in the unit and subunit 

descriptions below, we found that the 

features essential to the conservation of 

A. holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides, in all areas we are 

designating, may require special 

management considerations and 

protections, including measures 

necessary to alleviate the effects of 

urban development, retaining plants 

and their habitat on Federal lands, 

fencing small populations, removing or 

limiting access routes, ensuring vehicles 

and pedestrians stay on designated 

routes, reducing land use practices that 

disturb the hydrologic regime, 

minimizing the effects of grazing and 

recreation use, managing invasive 

nonnative plant species, evaluating 

revegetation and restoration with native 

plant species, developing adequate fire 

management buffers for these plant 

species and their habitat, and educating 

fire management staff on the location of 

the plants. Additionally these areas may 

require special management 

considerations and protections for 

ground-nesting and local pollinator 

communities. 

Critical Habitat Designation 

Astragalus holmgreniorum 

We are designating three units, 

including five subunits, as critical 

habitat for the Astragalus 

holmgreniorum. 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 primary 

constituent elements essential for the 

conservation of the species, and that 

may require special management or 

protection. We determined that no 

additional areas were essential to the 

conservation of A. holmgreniorum. The 

units and subunits designated as critical 

habitat are listed in Table 1 and 

occupied areas are displayed in Table 2. 

TABLE 1.—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS DESIGNATED FOR ASTRAGALUS HOLMGRENIORUM

Unit or subunit name BLM AZ 

Federal 

BLM UT 

Federal 

Arizona 

state lands 

Utah state 

lands 

County 

land 

Private 

lands Totals 

Occupied Acres (Hectares) 

Unit 1—Utah-Arizona Border: 

1a State Line ...................................... 362 (146) 1,767 (715) 934 (378) 752 (304) ................ 21 (9) 3,836 (1,552) 

1b Gardner Well ................................. .................... .................... 564 (228) .................... ................ ................ 564 (228) 

1c Central Valley ................................ .................... .................... .................... 1,144 (463) ................ 2 (1) 1,146 (464) 

Unit 2—Santa Clara: 

2a Stucki Spring ................................. .................... 438 (177) .................... .................... ................ ................ 438 (177) 

2b South Hills ..................................... .................... 124 (50) .................... .................... ................ 5 (2) 129 (52) 

Unit 3—Purgatory Flat ............................... .................... 118 (48) .................... .................... 22 (9) 36 (15) 176 (72) 

Totals ........................................... 362 (146) 2,447 (990) 1,498 (606) 1,896 (767) 22 (9) 64 (27) 6,289 (2,545) 

TABLE 2.—OCCUPANCY OF CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS DESIGNATED FOR THE ASTRAGALUS HOLMGRENIORUM

Unit or subunit name Occupied at 

time of listing? 

Occupied currently? Acres (Hectares) 

Unit 1—Utah Arizona Border: 

1a State Line .................................................................................................................. yes ................... yes ................... 3,836 (1,552) 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77983 

TABLE 2.—OCCUPANCY OF CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS DESIGNATED FOR THE ASTRAGALUS HOLMGRENIORUM—Continued 

Unit or subunit name Occupied at 

time of listing? 

Occupied currently? Acres (Hectares) 

1b Gardner Well ............................................................................................................. yes ................... yes ................... 564 (228) 

1c Central Valley ............................................................................................................ yes ................... yes ................... 1,146 (464) 

Unit 2—Santa Clara: 

2a Stucki Spring ............................................................................................................. yes ................... yes ................... 438 (177) 

2b South Hills ................................................................................................................. yes ................... yes ................... 129 (52) 

Unit 3—Purgatory Flat ........................................................................................................... yes ................... yes ................... 176 (72) 

Total ........................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 6,289 (2,545) 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for 

Astragalus holmgreniorum, below. 

Unit 1—Utah-Arizona Border 

This unit consists of approximately 

5,546 ac (2,244 ha) divided into three 

subunits: State Line, Gardner Well, and 

Central Valley. This unit contains PCEs 

and is important to the conservation of 

Astragalus holmgreniorum because it is 

one of only three populations of the 

plant and is the largest population of the 

species. 

Subunit 1a—State Line 

This subunit, known to be occupied at 

the time of listing, consists of 3,836 ac 

(1,552 ha), with 9 percent managed by 

BLM AZ, 44 percent managed by BLM 

UT, 23 percent managed by ASLD, 19 

percent managed by SITLA, and 5 

percent private land or land ownership 

unknown. Subunit 1a is located east and 

west of I–15 as this highway crosses the 

State line of Arizona and Utah, and is 

bounded by the Atkinville Wash and 

Virgin River to the north. Documents 

pertaining to occupancy, soil type, and 

land formations were evaluated to 

determine unit boundaries. 

Administrative lines were used for 

boundaries on the west and east sides of 

the unit, and soil type, land features, 

and straight connecting lines were used 

for northern and southern boundaries of 

the unit. 

Recent surveys on lands managed by 

SITLA (Van Buren 2004, p. 3) and BLM 

UT (Van Buren 2005) west and east of 

I–15 confirmed occupancy of Astragalus 

holmgreniorum individuals, and BLM 

AZ (Hughes 2005) verified A. 

holmgreniorum in several locations on 

BLM and ASLD lands. Suitable habitat 

conditions supporting the identified 

PCEs occur throughout the area. Land 

between sections 31, 32, and 8 contains 

known PCEs for A. holmgreniorum; 

however, information is incomplete on 

intervening occupancy. 

Subunit 1a has features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, and it supports the highest 

number of individuals documented to 

date (Service 2006) within a continuous 

geographic area, fragmented only by I–

15. Astragalus holmgreniorum also 

occupies land found between the 

northbound and southbound lanes of I–

15. This intervening area within the 

highway right-of-way may allow 

pollinator flow between sites situated 

west and east of the highway (Douglas 

2005). As a large population, subunit 1a 

retains importance as representative of 

the species’ potential range of genetic 

diversity. Species surveys documented a 

high number of seedlings (Van Buren 

2004, p. 2; 2005, p. 16), which indicates 

that this subunit supports a large seed 

bank. This information indicates a 

viable seed bank, the protection of 

which enhances the genetic diversity 

and boosts the likely persistence of the 

species (Van Buren 2003, p. 6). Seed 

bank protection is necessary for longterm species persistence (McCue and 

Holtsford 1998, p. 35). 

Special management considerations 

may be required to control invasive 

plant species, to control habitat 

degradation due to activities that lead to 

erosion, to maintain the identified 

vegetation types, and to maintain 

pollinator habitat essential to the 

conservation of the species. The BLM 

AZ and BLM UT do not currently have 

a management plan specific to 

Astragalus holmgreniorum; however, 

the agency worked in partnership with 

the Service on a recovery plan for the 

species (71 FR 57557, September 29, 

2006). The BLM UT states that the 

timing of cattle grazing has been 

adjusted to avoid the flowering period 

for the species (Douglas 2004). 

Additionally SITLA is signatory to a 

Letter of Intent intended to place 

roughly 175 ac (71 ha) of land occupied 

by A. homgreniorum into long-term 

conservation (SITLA et al. 2005, pp. 3–

4). 

Subunit 1b—Gardner Well 

Subunit 1b consists of 564 ac (228 ha), 

entirely managed by ASLD. This 

subunit is found in Arizona, south of 

the Arizona-Utah State border, 2 mi (3.2 

km) east of I–15. Reconnaissance maps 

dating to the early 1990s and herbarium 

information for Astragalus 

holmgreniorum indicate plant 

occupancy on ASLD lands. The acreage 

proposed within this subunit was 

further refined based on known plant 

locations, geologic maps, and 

occurrence of PCEs, including soil 

types. 

This subunit is determined to be 

critical habitat because it contains 

features essential to the conservation of 

Astragalus holmgreniorum, is occupied 

by the species, and represents the 

southeastern-most site in Arizona 

within the primary population, as 

discussed in the final listing rule (66 FR 

49560, September 28, 2001). Yearly 

monitoring indicates a relatively high 

density of A. holmgreniorum (Van 

Buren and Harper 2004a, p. 6). In 2005, 

the Gardner Well monitoring site 

contained an estimated 150 plants, all 

seedlings (Van Buren 2005). The 

abundance of seedlings indicates a 

persistent seed bank that is considered 

important for genetic diversity and local 

survivorship (McCue and Holtsford 

1998, pp. 34–35; Van Buren 2003, p. 6; 

Van Buren 2005). This subunit also is 

historically significant because it 

includes the type locality (the location 

of the specimen from which the original 

species’ description was made) for the 

species. 

Special management may be required 

to minimize disturbance to the surface 

structure within this subunit, to control 

invasive species, to maintain the 

identified vegetation types, and to 

maintain pollinator habitat essential to 

the conservation of the species. 

Currently, no management plan has 

been developed for these lands. 

Subunit 1c—Central Valley 

Subunit 1c consists of 1,146 ac (464 

ha), entirely managed by SITLA. This 

subunit is found north of the ArizonaUtah State border, west of a geological 

feature called White Dome, and east of 

I–15. This subunit is determined to be 

critical habitat because it contains 

features essential to conservation of 

Astragalus holmgreniorum, it is 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
77984 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

occupied by the species, and contains a 

large, densely occupied portion of the 

primary population described in the 

final listing rule (66 FR 49560; 

September 28, 2001). This subunit 

contains the second largest continuous 

land base for A. holmgreniorum and the 

second largest number of individuals 

counted to date (Van Buren 2003, p. 5). 

Approximately 99.8 percent of plants 

identified in the 2003 surveys were 

seedlings (Van Buren 2003, p. 6). The 

high number of seedlings and near lack 

of reproductive adults indicates a 

historic seed bank (Van Buren and 

Harper 2004a, pp. 3–4). Protection of 

known seed banks is essential for longterm survival of the species. The 

retention of these seeds can have a 

dramatic effect on demography and 

reduce the expected inbreeding 

coefficient (McCue and Holtsford 1998, 

p. 34). Seed banks also ensure 

population persistence during periods 

of changing environmental conditions 

(Facelli, Chesson, and Barnes 2005, pp. 

3001–3003). 

Plants within this subunit are 

threatened by urban development. 

Special management may be required to 

minimize disturbance to the surface and 

subsurface structure within this subunit, 

and to maintain the identified soil and 

vegetation types. No management plan 

currently exists. A Letter of Intent 

signed by SITLA indicates a willingness 

to develop a management plan for this 

species on a limited portion of their 

property; however, SITLA plans to 

develop a master planned community in 

the area (SITLA et al. 2005, pp. 5–6). 

Unit 2—Santa Clara Unit 

Unit 2 comprises 567 ac (229 ha) 

divided into two subunits: Stucki 

Spring and South Hills. Unit 2 contains 

the PCEs, and is also important to 

conserving genetic diversity of the taxon 

because plants in this area contain a 

unique genetic marker not present in the 

other two populations (Stubben 1997, p. 

46). Therefore, the two subunits in the 

Santa Clara Unit are needed to conserve 

genetic variation held within the gene 

pool for this taxon (Van Buren 2005). 

Additionally, this unit represents one of 

only three known populations of the 

species. 

Subunit 2a—Stucki Spring 

Subunit 2a consists of 438 ac (177 ha) 

managed by BLM UT. This unit is found 

west of Box Canyon, in an area before 

Box Canyon Wash narrows, and near 

Stucki Spring. Astragalus 

holmgreniorum was known to occupy 

this subunit at the time of listing (66 FR 

49560; September 28, 2001). In 2005, 

individuals were confirmed in a 

roadside visit (Van Buren 2005). 

This subunit is determined to be 

critical habitat because it contains 

features essential to conservation of 

Astragalus holmgreniorum, is occupied 

by the species, supports genetic 

diversity, and provides connectivity 

between Subunits 1a (State Line) and 1c 

(Central Valley) to the south, and 

Subunit 2b (South Hills) to the north. 

The land within this unit supports the 

PCEs for the species that are necessary 

for the growth, reproduction, and 

establishment of Astragalus 

holmgreniorum. 

Special management may be required 

in this subunit to minimize habitat 

fragmentation, to minimize disturbance 

to the surface and subsurface structure 

due to recreation or other activities, and 

to maintain the identified soil and 

vegetation types. Plants within this 

subunit are currently threatened by 

unmanaged ORV use. Additionally, 

BLM is considering selling adjacent 

areas for urban development; we 

anticipate that the proximity of the 

development would result in an indirect 

effect to Astragalus holmgreniorum. 

BLM UT does not currently have a 

management plan specific to A. 

holmgreniorum, but the agency worked 

with us to develop a recovery plan for 

this species (71 FR 57557, September 

29, 2006). The objective of the Santa 

Clara River Reserve Recreation and 

Open Space Management Plan is 

development of user-specific trails and 

areas of activities to reduce the effects 

of unregulated and potentially damaging 

activities on habitat components, 

including plants (USDI 2005, p. 10). 

However, specific details regarding 

facility locations, impacts, and 

conservation measures have not been 

identified. 

Subunit 2b—South Hills 

Subunit 2b consists of approximately 

129 ac (52 ha), with 97 percent managed 

by BLM UT and 3 percent private lands 

(or land ownership unknown). This 

subunit was known to be occupied at 

the time of listing (66 FR 49560; 

September 28, 2001). A 2005 survey of 

the area documented a healthy number 

of plants in this subunit (Van Buren 

2005). 

This subunit is determined to be 

critical habitat because it contains 

features essential to conservation of 

Astragalus holmgreniorum, is occupied 

by the species, supports genetic 

diversity, and represents the 

northcentral-most occupied site of the 

species. The land within this subunit 

supports the PCEs necessary for the 

growth, reproduction, and 

establishment of A. holmgreniorum. 

Special management may be required 

to minimize urban encroachment, 

maintain land in Federal ownership, 

reduce disturbance to the surface and 

subsurface structure, control invasive 

species, maintain the identified 

vegetation types, and maintain 

pollinator habitat essential to the 

conservation of the species. Plants 

within this subunit are threatened by 

urban development, land trades, and 

recreation. Public land sales are 

authorized for eligible parcels under the 

Federal Land Transaction Facilitation 

Act of 2000 (Crisp 2004). BLM is 

working with the city of Santa Clara and 

the local community to sell 

approximately 1,400 ac (567 ha) in the 

Santa Clara area. This proposed sale is 

believed to contain all Astragalus 

holmgreniorum individuals in this 

subunit. The intent of the local 

community would be to develop the 

land for residential housing. 

Unit 3—Purgatory Flat 

Unit 3 consists of approximately 176 

ac (72 ha) of land; 68 percent is 

managed by BLM UT, and 32 percent is 

under private ownership or county 

ownership. Part of the critical habitat 

contains lands within a regional 

shooting range. The final listing rule (66 

FR 49561, September 28, 2001) 

indicated that there were 30 to 300 

plants at this location. More recent site 

visits confirm the presence of individual 

plants (Barnes 2005; Van Buren 2005); 

however, a census was not conducted. 

Purgatory Flat is determined to be 

critical habitat because it contains 

features essential to conservation of 

Astragalus holmgreniorum, is occupied 

by the species, and represents the 

northeastern-most occupied site and 

third known population. This unit is the 

farthest from all other critical habitat 

units. Distant populations are often the 

most active regions of speciation and 

may be important for protecting genetic 

diversity (Lesica and Allendorf 1995, p. 

756). The land within this unit supports 

the PCEs that are necessary for the 

growth, reproduction, and 

establishment of A. holmgreniorum. 

Special management may be required 

to minimize disturbance to the surface 

structure within this subunit, control 

invasive species, maintain the identified 

vegetation types, and maintain 

pollinator habitat essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Astragalus ampullarioides 

We are designating four units, 

including two subunits, as critical 

habitat for Astragalus ampullarioides. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77985 

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 primary constituent 

elements essential for conservation of 

the species, and that may require special 

management, and additional areas 

found to be essential to the conservation 

of A. ampullarioides. 

Table 3 summarizes areas that meet 

the definition of critical habitat for 

Astragalus ampullarioides but are 

excluded from critical habitat under 

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

below). Table 4 provides the 

approximate area designated as critical 

habitat for A. ampullarioides by land 

ownership. Table 5 indicates current 

occupancy. 

TABLE 3.—AREAS DETERMINED TO MEET DEFINITION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR ASTRAGALUS AMPULLARIOIDES

(DEFINITIONAL AREA) BUT THAT ARE EXCLUDED UNDER SECTION 4(b)(2) 

Unit 

Definitional 

area acres 

(Hectares) 

Excluded 

area acres 

(Hectares) 

Total Acres 

(Hectares) 

Unit 2—Shivwits ....................................................................................................................................... 240 (97) 240 (97) 240 (97) 

TABLE 4.—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS DESIGNATED FOR ASTRAGALUS AMPULLARIOIDES

Unit or Subunit name BLM-UT 

Federal 

NPS Federal 

Tribal lands 

Shivwits 

Band of 

Pauite 

Utah State 

lands 

Private 

lands Totals 

Occupied Acres (Hectares) 

Unit 1—Pahcoon Spring Wash .................................... 134 (54) .................... .................... .................... .................... 134 (54) 

Unit 3—Coral Canyon .................................................. 10 (4) .................... .................... 76 (31) 1 (.4) 87 (35) 

Unit 4—Harrisburg Junction.

4a—Harrisburg Bench & Cottonwood ......................... 260 (105) .................... .................... .................... 37 (15) 297 (120) 

4b—Silver Reef ............................................................ 415 (168) .................... .................... .................... 47 (19) 462 (187) 

Unit 5—Zion ................................................................. .................... 1,201 (486) .................... .................... .................... 1,201 (486) 

Totals ............................................................. 819 (331) 1,201 (486) .................... 76 (31) 85 (34) 2,181 (883) 

TABLE 5.—OCCUPANCY OF CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS DESIGNATED FOR ASTRAGALUS AMPULLARIOIDES

Unit or Subunit name 

Occupied 

at time of 

listing? 

Occupied 

currently? 

Acres 

(hectares) 

Unit 1—Pahcoon Spring Wash .................................................................................................................... yes ........... yes ........... 134 (54) 

Unit 3—Coral Canyon .................................................................................................................................. yes ........... yes ........... 87 (35) 

Unit 4—Harrisburg Junction ........................................................................................................................ yes ........... yes.

4a—Harrisburg Bench & Cottonwood ......................................................................................................... yes ........... yes ........... 297 (120) 

4b—Silver Reef ............................................................................................................................................ yes ........... yes ........... 462 (187) 

Unit 5—Zion ................................................................................................................................................. yes ........... yes ........... 1,201 (486) 

Totals ............................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 2,181 (883) 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

Astragalus ampullarioides below. 

Unit 1—Pahcoon Spring Wash 

This unit includes 134 ac (54 ha), all 

on BLM UT lands adjacent to the 

Shivwits Indian Reservation. Astragalus 

ampullarioides was known to occupy 

this area at the time of listing. This 

population occurs in a small area where 

the density of A. ampullarioides is high 

(Van Buren and Harper 2004b, p. 3). In 

2005, this population was estimated to 

contain approximately 300 to 350 

individuals (Van Buren 2005). Unit 1 is 

determined to be critical habitat because 

it contains features essential to 

conservation of A. ampullarioides, is 

occupied by the species, and represents 

the northwestern-most occurrence of the 

species. Resources within this unit 

support the identified PCEs associated 

with outcroppings of the Chinle 

Formation. 

Special management may be required 

to minimize disturbance to the surface 

and subsurface structure within this 

unit, to control invasive species, to 

maintain the identified vegetation types, 

and to maintain pollinator habitat 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. Cattle grazing activities are 

present within this unit. The Chinle 

soils are soft and easily susceptible to 

erosion. A cost-share agreement 

between BLM UT and The Nature 

Conservancy (TNC) provides funding for 

signs and protective fencing; contracting 

for the fence is in process. As a part of 

the agreement, BLM UT and TNC will 

compare past plant survey data with 

population surveys to be completed in 

2007 and 2009 to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the fence in eliminating 

habitat degradation. 

Unit 3—Coral Canyon 

This unit, known to be occupied at 

the time of listing, is located adjacent to 

a golf course near Harrisburg Junction, 

and was estimated to contain 100 

individuals in 2005 (Van Buren 2005). 

Land ownership for the 87 ac (35 ha) is 

87 percent SITLA, 12 percent BLM UT, 

and 1 percent private. We included 

occupied habitats and adjacent areas of 

suitable soils and vegetation to allow for 

maintenance of the seed bank, seed 

dispersal, and pollinator services. 

This unit is determined to be critical 

habitat because it contains features 

essential to conservation of the taxon, is 

occupied by the taxon, is centrally 

located and may provide connectivity 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
77986 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

between populations, and contains a 

persistent occupied site of Astragalus 

ampullarioides. 

Plants within this subunit face threats 

from urban development. Special 

management may be required to 

minimize disturbance to the surface and 

subsurface structure within this subunit, 

maintain the identified soil and 

vegetation types, and control invasive 

weeds. 

Unit 4—Harrisburg Junction 

In 2001, the final listing rule (66 FR 

49560; September 28, 2001) referred to 

a population near Harrisburg Junction 

that contained four separate sites. Unit 

4 is comprised of two subunits 

encompassing 759 ac (307 ha) that are 

spatially separated based on geography 

(Harrisburg Bench/Cottonwood and 

Silver Reef). Each of these subunits 

contains two of the plant occurrence 

sites that were known to be occupied at 

the time of the final listing rule (66 FR 

49560; September 28, 2001). In 1999, 

the 4 sites contained approximately 300 

plants (England 1999; Utah Natural 

Heritage Program 1999; Van Buren 

2000). 

In the area of Harrisburg Junction, 

Astragalus ampullarioides populations 

or subpopulations are restricted to 

outcroppings of the Chinle soil. Each 

area may be relatively self-sustaining; 

however, their long-term persistence 

and stability relies on a balance of site 

extinctions and colonization of suitable, 

unoccupied outcroppings through 

dispersal events (Hanski 1985, p. 341; 

Olivieri et al. 1990, pp. 207–209; 

Hastings and Harrison 1994, pp. 175–

176, 180). 

Subunit 4a—Harrisburg Bench and 

Cottonwood 

This 297–ac (120–ha) subunit is 88 

percent BLM land and 12 percent 

private land. Approximately 100 

individual plants were located in this 

subunit during 2005 surveys (Van Buren 

2005). This subunit contains PCEs 

necessary to support Astragalus 

ampullarioides growth, reproduction, 

and establishment. Land found between 

the northbound and southbound lanes 

of I–15 contains an occupied site. This 

intervening area within the highway 

right-of-way may allow pollinator flow 

between occupied sites (Douglas 2005). 

Habitat areas between known occupied 

sites are included in the critical habitat 

designation to support pollinators and 

seed dispersal between sites. Pollinator 

habitat and seed dispersal are 

considered important for the species’

long-term survival (Steffan-Dewenter 

and Tscharntke 1999, pp. 437–438; 

Steffan-Dewenter 2003, pp. 1039–1040; 

Greenleaf 2005, pp. 72–74; Van Buren 

and Harper 2003a, p. 242). 

This subunit is determined to be 

critical habitat because it contains 

features essential to conservation of 

Astragalus ampullarioides, is occupied 

by the species, and contains a persistent 

occupied site for A. ampullarioides that 

is centrally located and may provide 

connectivity between other units. 

At the Harrisburg site, Bromus 

tectorum (cheatgrass) is a closely 

associated species (Van Buren 2005, p. 

14). Part of this unit, east of I–15, 

burned during a wildfire in 2005; 

however, no suppression occurred in 

areas of occupied habitat. The status of 

seeds within the seed bank is unknown. 

Also unknown, but likely, is that most 

of the above-ground stems and foliage 

died back at the time of the fire (Van 

Buren 2005, p. 14). Revisits in 2006 

indicated that Astragalus 

ampullarioides occupies the site and 

was not adversely affected by the fire 

(Van Buren 2006). 

Plants within this subunit may be 

threatened by urban development, 

recreation, and invasive plant species. 

Special management may be required to 

control invasive plant species, minimize 

disturbance to the surface and 

subsurface structure, and maintain the 

identified soil and vegetation types. 

BLM UT and TNC have entered into a 

cost-share agreement to provide signs 

and protective fencing to minimize 

human use at one occupied area within 

this subunit. 

Subunit 4b—Silver Reef 

The 462 ac (187 ha) in this subunit are 

composed of 90 percent BLM lands and 

10 percent private lands. Astragalus 

ampullarioides individuals are found 

along intermittent outcroppings of the 

Chinle Formation. Approximately 150 

individuals were identified in a partial 

survey in 2005 (Van Buren 2005). This 

subunit is determined to be critical 

habitat because it contains features 

essential to conservation of A. 

ampullarioides, is occupied by the 

species, contains a thriving population, 

and maintains a prevalence of soil 

substrate necessary for future expansion 

to maintain metapopulation dynamics. 

Special management may be required 

to minimize recreational use and 

disturbance to the soil surface and 

subsurface structure, control invasive 

plant species and domestic animals, 

maintain the identified vegetation types, 

and maintain pollinator habitat essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

Quantitative information on impacts 

from cattle grazing or recreational use is 

unknown. One occupied area within 

this subunit is under a cost-share 

agreement for protective fencing, which 

is to begin in the near future. 

Monitoring will be used to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the fences in 

eliminating habitat degradation from 

cattle and recreational use. Additional 

areas in this subunit remain unfenced, 

and special management may still be 

necessary to reduce impacts to habitat. 

Unit 5—Zion 

The 1,201 ac (486 ha) in Unit 5 occur 

entirely on lands managed by Zion 

National Park. The population consisted 

of approximately 300 to 500 individuals 

in 2000 (66 FR 49560; September 28, 

2001). More recent surveys document 

almost 4,200 individuals in the unit 

(Miller 2006). 

This unit is determined to be critical 

habitat because it contains features 

essential to conservation of Astragalus 

ampullarioides, is occupied by the 

species, is one of five known 

populations, represents the 

northeastern-most range of the species, 

and contains the largest known 

population of the species. The land 

within this unit supports the PCEs 

necessary for growth, reproduction, and 

establishment. 

Special management is necessary in 

this unit to minimize recreation 

disturbance to the soil surface and 

subsurface structure, control invasive 

weedy species, maintain the identified 

vegetation types, and maintain 

pollinator habitat essential to the 

conservation of the species. Recreational 

use of Zion National Park and 

disturbance from park visitors and 

horses may affect Astragalus 

ampullarioides. An established hiking 

and horse trail that is used infrequently 

from November through April occurs 

near populations of Astragalus 

ampullarioides. 

Plants and habitat within this unit 

also are threatened by invasive 

nonnative plants, including Moluccella 

laevis (bells of Ireland), an introduced 

species not found at other sites. 

Although this unit is in a sparsely 

vegetated habitat that in the past did not 

carry fire, the invasions of exotic grasses 

are creating more continuous fuels. No 

management plan exists specific to 

Astragalus ampullarioides in Zion 

National Park; however, the current 

Zion National Park Fire Management 

Plan includes restrictions on fire 

management within a 0.75-mi (1.2-km) 

buffer zone of the area where A. 

ampullarioides is found. Zion National 

Park worked with us to complete a 

recovery plan for the species (71 FR 

57557, September 29, 2006), and is 

partnering with the USGS to investigate 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77987 

biotic soil conditions and invasive weed 

interactions with A. ampullarioides. 

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 

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 

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 as a result 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; 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. 

When 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 the 

Astragalus holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides or their designated 

critical habitat will require section 7 

consultation under the Act. Activities 

on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 

requiring a Federal permit (such as a 

permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers under section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act or a permit under 

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

Service) or involving some other Federal 

action (such as funding from Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or Federal 

Emergency Management Agency) also 

will 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 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides 

and Their Critical Habitat 

Jeopardy Standard 

Following designation of critical 

habitat, the Service will apply an 

analytical framework for Astragalus 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
77988 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides 

jeopardy analyses that relies heavily on 

the importance of core area populations 

to the survival and recovery of the 

species. 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 Astragalus holmgreniorum and 

A. ampullarioides 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 

considered to be warranted, because of 

the relationship of each core area 

population to the survival and recovery 

of the species as a whole. 

Adverse Modification Standard 

The analytical framework described 

in the Director’s December 9, 2004, 

memorandum will be used to complete 

section 7(a)(2) analyses for Federal 

actions affecting Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides 

critical habitat. 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 

(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. holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides critical habitat units is 

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 the Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides 

is appreciably reduced. Activities that, 

when carried out, funded, or authorized 

by a Federal agency, may affect critical 

habitat and therefore result in 

consultation for the A. holmgreniorum 

and A. ampullarioides include, but are 

not limited to: 

(1) Activities that have the potential 

to degrade or destroy Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides 

and their PCEs, including ORV use, 

heavy recreational use, residential or 

commercial development, road 

development, intensive livestock 

grazing, and herbicide use; 

(2) Alteration of existing hydrology by 

redirection of sheet flow from areas 

adjacent to formation skirts or hillsides, 

e.g., clearing upslope from Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides; 

(3) Compaction of the soil through the 

establishment of trails and roads; 

(4) Activities that foster the 

introduction of nonnative vegetation, 

particularly noxious weeds, or create 

conditions that encourage the growth of 

nonnatives, e.g., supplemental feeding 

of livestock, ORV use that causes 

ground disturbance, road construction, 

creation and maintenance of utility 

corridors, seeding with nonnatives, and 

other activities that cause soil 

disturbance; 

(5) Activities that directly or 

indirectly result in increased erosion, 

decreased soil stability, and changes in 

vegetation communities, e.g., placing 

off-road trailheads along critical habitat, 

which may lead to congregation of 

recreational users in a sensitive 

location; and 

(6) Sale or exchange of lands by a 

Federal agency to an entity that intends 

to develop them or implement activities 

that would degrade or destroy the PCEs. 

We consider all of the units 

designated as critical habitat to contain 

features essential to the conservation of 

Astragalus holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides. All units are within the 

geographic range of the species, all were 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing (based on observations made 

within the last 5 years), and all are 

likely to be used by A. holmgreniorum 

and A. ampullarioides. Federal agencies 

already consult with us on activities in 

areas currently occupied by A. 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides 

to ensure that their actions do not 

jeopardize the continued existence of A. 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides. 

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 [s]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 section 4(b)(2) 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, 

and 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. The 

information provided in the next several 

sections applies to all the discussions 

below concerning the benefits of 

inclusion and exclusion of critical 

habitat. 

After consideration under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, the following lands 

have been excluded from the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Astragalus ampullarioides. A detailed 

analysis of our exclusion of these lands 

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

critical habitat unit is provided in the 

paragraphs that follow. 

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 under section 7 of the Act 

to ensure that these actions 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 action; if there is no Federal 

action, 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77989 

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. 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 

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, Tribes, 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 Astragalus holmgreniorum and 

A. ampullarioides. 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. 

Tribal Lands 

Tribal lands of the Shivwits Band of 

Paiute Indians (Band) were proposed for 

designation, and included 240 ac (97 ha) 

of Unit 2 for Astragalus ampullarioides. 

We received comments from the Band 

requesting assistance in understanding 

the designation of their lands as critical 

habitat and in creating a management 

plan. The Shivwits Band of Paiutes 

Management Plan for Astragalus 

ampullarioides was signed by Chairman 

Glenn Rogers on September 18, 2006. 

Benefits of Inclusion 

Designation of Unit 2 would benefit 

Astragalus ampullarioides because it 

contains the PCEs and is the type 

locality for the species. The site 

provides the common name for this 

taxon, Shivwits milk-vetch. It has a low 

amount of human use, contains features 

essential to conservation of A. 

ampullarioides, is occupied by the 

species, and is one of five known 

populations. 

As described above, designation of 

critical habitat can generally result in 

educational benefits. However, we 

believe that there would be little 

additional informational benefit gained 

from designating Shivwits Tribal lands 

because the Band is already aware of the 

species presence and takes pride in this 

species as a namesake plant. We believe 

that the informational benefits are 

already provided because the Band is 

knowledgeable about the species 

location and has provided protection 

through fencing of occupied habitat (G. 

Rogers 2006). In addition, since lands 

excluded are Tribal lands, they are 

unlikely to be managed under State laws 

or local ordinances. 

Since the listing of Astragalus 

ampullariodes, only one Section 7 

consultation has occurred on tribal 

lands in an area containing the species, 

and no projects are expected to occur 

within the foreseeable future. Therefore, 

we would not expect any additional 

benefits from the inclusion of this 

habitat. In addition, the Band has 

developed a management plan for this 

species that will be implemented for all 

future projects regardless of whether or 

not a federal nexus exists. 

Benefits of Exclusion 

In accordance with Secretarial Order 

3206, ‘‘American Indian Tribal Rights, 

Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, 

and the Endangered Species Act’’ (June 

5, 1997); the President’s memorandum 

of April 29, 1994, ‘‘Government-toGovernment Relations with Native 

American Tribal Governments’’ (59 FR 

22951, May 4, 1994); Executive Order 

13175 ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments;’’ and 

the relevant provision of the 

Departmental Manual of the Department 

of the Interior (512 DM 2), we believe 

that fish, wildlife, and other natural 

resources on Tribal lands are better 

managed under Tribal authorities, 

policies, and programs than through 

Federal regulation wherever possible 

and practicable. Additionally, critical 

habitat designation may be viewed by 

Tribes and members of Bands as an 

unwanted intrusion into Tribal self 

governance, thus compromising the 

government-to-government relationship 

essential to achieving our mutual goals 

of managing for healthy ecosystems 

upon which the viability of threatened 

and endangered species populations 

depend. 

At the time of the proposal, the 

Shivwits Band of Paiute Indians was 

already providing protective 

management for the majority of 

individual plants on their lands. 

Additionally, they were interested in 

creating a management plan that would 

address threats specific to Astragalus 

ampullarioides on their lands. The 

Band, with the assistance of the Service 

and Bureau of Indian Affairs, developed 

a set of conservation and educational 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
77990 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

actions that are the basis for exclusion 

from critical habitat of lands governed 

by the Band. These actions include, but 

are not limited to: identification, 

protection, and retention of occupied 

habitat; management of livestock 

activities, invasive weeds, and fire; 

protection of vegetation communities 

and ecosystems, which includes native 

plants and pollinators; restriction of 

motorized vehicles in occupied areas; 

participation in recovery efforts and 

research; and development of 

educational materials. We believe the 

management plan provides greater 

protection than critical habitat 

designation would provide, and have a 

reasonable expectation that it will be 

implemented because it was developed 

by the Band, with the assistance of the 

Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

The Band has developed a 

management plan for this species in 

response to the proposed designation for 

the purpose of maintaining management 

and conservation authority and thus 

having the critical habitat designation 

removed. Therefore, the inclusion of 

this land is likely to damage intergovernmental relationships and result in 

poorer conservation if we designated 

critical habitat without the 

implementation of this management 

plan. 

Since the listing of Astragalus 

ampullariodes, only one Section 7 

consultation has occurred on tribal 

lands in an area containing A. 

ampullarioides and no projects are 

expected to occur within the foreseeable 

future. Even though the expectation of 

future Section 7 consultation is low, this 

management plan provides 

recommended measures for best 

management practices to avoid and 

minimize impacts to A. ampullarioides 

and surrounding habitat within a half 

mile (approximately 2,624 ft or 800m) of 

known sites. This area is twice the 

distance of the 1,312 ft (400 m) radius 

of the known plant locations used in 

proposing designated critical habitat for 

the protection of PCEs and as such is 

expected to provide greater continuous 

land protection. Additionally any new 

sites found on tribal lands will be 

afforded the same management 

practices. 

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits 

of Inclusion 

The benefits of inclusion occur in 

Section 7 consultations, which may 

commit Federal agencies to prevent 

adverse modification to critical habitat 

caused by the particular project. 

However, very few Section 7 

consultations have occurred in the past 

and are anticipated for this area. The 

outweighing benefits of the Shivwits 

management plan are that it provides 

conservation and management with and 

without a federal nexus. Under a 

Section 7 consultation, no commitment 

exists to provide conservation or longterm benefits to areas not affected by the 

proposed project, whereas the Shivwits 

management plan of this species is 

expected to provide conservation and 

long-term management of a larger area, 

prior to Section 7 consultation, than the 

proposed critical habitat designation 

and, if sites are found, these sites will 

carry the same measure of conservation 

and protection. Inclusion of current 

occupied sites into the designated 

habitat on tribal lands will provide no 

future benefits to new sites, if any 

should exist. 

Critical habitat can also have valuable 

educational benefits in some cases (see 

above). The educational benefit of 

inclusion or exclusion of the critical 

habitat designation on tribal lands is 

duplicated with the Shivwits 

management plan, due to the 

participation of the Band, BIA, and the 

Service. Other benefits such as those 

gained by informed State agencies and 

local governments are unlikely to 

increase or provide conservation on 

tribal lands. As the Band is already 

educated, currently conserving the 

species on their lands, and has included 

educational component to their 

management plan, we see no 

educational benefits to the inclusion of 

Tribal land in the final critical habitat 

rule. 

We believe that conservation of 

Astragalus ampullarioides will be 

achieved by the Shivwits management 

due to their display of proactive 

conservation. Given the importance of 

the Band’s management plan to the 

current and future conservation of A. 

ampullarioides and our government-togovernment relationship with them, the 

benefit of excluding these lands 

outweighs the benefit of including them 

in critical habitat. Therefore, Tribal 

lands have not been designated as 

critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species 

Exclusion of this 140ac (97 ha) of 

Tribal lands will not result in extinction 

of Astragalus ampullarioides because 

these lands will be conserved and 

managed for the benefit of this species 

pursuant to the approved Shivwits Band 

of Paiutes Management Plan for 

Astragalus ampullarioides. The 

jeopardy standard of section 7 and 

routine implementation of habitat 

protection through the section 7 process 

also provide assurances that the species 

will not go extinct. 

We anticipate no impact to national 

security, 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 final designated 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 other 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 

Astragalus holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides based on economic 

impacts. As such, we have considered 

but not excluded any lands from this 

designation based on the potential 

impacts from economic factors. 

Other areas no longer contained in the 

final designation of critical habitat no 

longer meet the definition of critical 

habitat. We made an effort to avoid 

developed areas such as buildings, 

paved areas, boat ramps and other 

structures that lack PCEs for Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides. 

This resulted in the reduction of 

designated land for A. holmgreniorum 

in Subunit 1a from the proposed 

4,027ac (1,630ha) to 3,836ac (1,552ha) 

and in Subunit 1c from 1,148ac (466ha) 

to 1,146ac (464ha). 

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 an economic analysis to 

estimate the potential economic effect of 

the designation. We published a notice 

of availability and request for public 

comments for the draft analysis on 

September 26, 2006 (71 FR 56085). We 

accepted comments on the draft analysis 

until October 26, 2006. 

The primary purpose of the economic 

analysis was to estimate the potential 

economic impacts associated with the 

designation of critical habitat for 

Astragalus holmgreniorum and A. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77991 

ampullarioides. 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 coextensive 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. 

The economic analysis estimates 

potential costs attributed to listing and 

critical habitat designation ranging 

between $9.3 and $14.7 million, in 

undiscounted 2006 dollars, over a 20- 

year period from 2006 to 2025. In 

discounted terms, potential postdesignation economic costs are 

estimated between $9.0 and $13.6 

million (using a 3 percent discount rate) 

or between $8.7 and $12.7 million 

(using a 7 percent discount rate). 

Our economic analysis of the 

proposed critical habitat designation 

evaluated the potential economic effects 

on small business entities and small 

governments resulting from 

conservation actions related to the 

listing of these species and proposed 

designation of their critical habitat. The 

activities affected by Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides 

conservation efforts may include land 

development, transportation and utility 

operations, and conservation on public 

and Tribal lands. More than 98 percent 

of the prospective economic costs 

(based on upper-bound future 

undiscounted cost figures) associated 

with conservation activities for these 

species are expected to be borne by 

Federal agencies (primarily BLM) and 

State departments of transportation. 

Impacts to land development (e.g., BLM 

land disposal) and transportation and 

utilities operations (e.g., Western and 

Southern Corridor projects) are not 

expected to affect small entities. 

A copy of the final economic analysis 

with supporting documents is included 

in our administrative record and may be 

obtained by contacting the Service (see 

ADDRESSES section) or for downloading 

from the Internet at http://mountainprairie.fws.gov/species/plants/ 

milkvetche/index.htm. 

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, but will not 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) has not formally 

reviewed this rule. As explained above, 

we prepared an economic analysis for 

this action. We used this analysis to 

meet the requirement of section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act to determine the economic 

consequences of designating specific 

areas as critical habitat. We also used it 

to help determine whether to exclude 

any area from critical habitat, as 

provided for under section 4(b)(2), if we 

determine that the benefits of such 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

specifying an area as critical habitat, 

unless we determine, 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. 

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 (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of an agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA 

to require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of factual basis for certifying 

that the rule will not have a significant 

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 

any Federal involvement and so will not 

be affected by critical habitat 

designation. In areas where the species 

is present, Federal agencies already are 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
77992 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

required to consult with us under 

section 7 of the Act on activities they 

fund, permit, or implement that may 

affect Astragalus holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides. Federal agencies also 

must consult with us if their activities 

may affect critical habitat. Therefore, 

designation of critical habitat could 

result in an additional economic impact 

on small entities due to the requirement 

to reinitiate consultation for ongoing 

Federal activities. 

In our economic analysis of the 

critical habitat designation, we 

evaluated the potential economic effects 

on small business entities and small 

governments resulting from 

conservation actions related to the 

listing of these species and proposed 

designation of their critical habitat. The 

activities affected by Astragalus 

holmgreniorum or A. ampullarioides 

may include land development, 

transportation and utility operations, 

and conservation on public and Tribal 

lands. The economic analysis identifies 

potential costs estimated to range 

between $9.3 and $14.7 million, in 

undiscounted 2006 dollars, over a 20- 

year period from 2006 to 2025. In 

discounted terms, potential postdesignation economic costs are 

estimated to range between $9.0 and 

$13.6 million (using a 3 percent 

discount rate) or between $8.7 and $12.7 

million (using a 7 percent discount 

rate). 

More than 98 percent of the 

prospective economic costs (based on 

upper-bound future undiscounted cost 

figures) associated with conservation 

activities for Astragalus holmgreniorum 

and A. ampullarioides are expected to 

be borne by Federal agencies (primarily 

BLM) and State departments of 

transportation. Thus, impacts to land 

development (i.e., BLM land disposal) 

and transportation and utilities 

operations (i.e., Western and Southern 

Corridor projects) are not expected to 

affect small entities. Therefore, we do 

not believe that the designation of 

critical habitat for the A. holmgreniorum 

and A. ampullarioides will result in 

disproportionate effect to small business 

entities. Please refer to our draft 

economic analysis for the proposed 

critical habitat designation for a more 

detailed discussion of potential 

economic 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 project’s impact on 

Astragalus holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides and their 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 an exemption were 

obtained, 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 non-discretionary 

terms and conditions. We also may 

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 of 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 timber harvest, 

grazing, mining, and recreation by the 

U.S. Forest Service and BLM; 

(4) Road construction and 

maintenance, right-of-way designation, 

and regulation of agricultural activities; 

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

Emergency Management Agency; and 

(6) Activities funded by the 

Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. 

Department of Energy, 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 holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides. 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 (66 FR 

49560, September 28, 2001)and 

proposed critical habitat designation (71 

FR 15966, March 29, 2006). 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 permits we may issue under 

section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, FHWA 

funding for road improvements, and 

regulation of grazing, mining, and 

recreation by the USFS and BLM. A 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77993 

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 on regulations 

that significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Executive Order 

13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. This final 

rule to designate critical habitat for 

Astragalus holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides 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, 

Tribal governments, or the private sector 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’

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

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

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or Tribal 

governments’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and Tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. (At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were 

Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child 

Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 

Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation 

State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 

Assistance, and Independent Living; 

Family Support Welfare Services; and 

Child Support Enforcement.) ‘‘Federal 

private sector mandate’’ includes a 

regulation that ‘‘would impose an 

enforceable duty upon the private 

sector, except (i) A condition of Federal 

assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program.’’

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities who receive Federal 

funding, assistance, permits or 

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. 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, Small 

Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

Federalism 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, 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 

Arizona and Utah. The designation of 

critical habitat in areas currently 

occupied by the Astragalus 

holmgreniorum and A. ampullarioides 

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 

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, the Office of the Solicitor has 

determined that the rule does not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

meets the requirements of sections 3(a) 

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

designating critical habitat in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

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 the 

Astragalus holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides. 

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 NEPA in connection with 

designating critical habitat under the 

Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
77994 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(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).]. However, when 

the range of the species includes States 

within the Tenth Circuit, such as that of 

Astragalus holmgreniorum and A. 

ampullarioides, pursuant to the Tenth 

Circuit ruling in Catron County Board of 

Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 75 F. 3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996), 

we conducted a NEPA analysis for this 

critical habitat designation, and we 

notified the public of the availability of 

the draft environmental assessment for 

the proposed rule on September 26, 

2006 (71 FR 56085). The final 

environmental assessment and Finding 

of No Significant Impact is available 

upon request from the Field Supervisor, 

Utah Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES section) or on our Web site 

at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/ 

species/plants/milkvetche/index.htm. 

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. 

Tribal lands of the Shivwits Band of 

Paiute Indians (Tribe) included in the 

proposed designation included 240 ac 

(97 ha) of Unit 2 for Astragalus 

ampullarioides. The Shivwits Band of 

Paiutes Management Plan for Astragalus 

ampullarioides was signed by Chairman 

Glenn Rogers on September 18, 2006. 

We determined that the management 

plan, and the conservation actions it 

includes, provide greater protection 

than critical habitat designation would 

provide; therefore, this unit is excluded 

from critical habitat under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available upon 

request from the Field Supervisor, Utah 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES

section). 

Author(s) 

The primary author of this package is 

Heather Barnes, Utah Fish and Wildlife 

Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

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

‘‘Astragalus ampullarioides’’ and 

‘‘Astragalus holmgreniorum’’ under 

‘‘FLOWERING PLANTS’’ in the List of 

Threatened and Endangered Plants to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range Family Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Scientific name Common name 

FLOWERING PLANTS

* * * * * * * 

Astragalus 

ampullarioides.

Shivwits milk-vetch U.S.A. (UT) ............. Fabaceae ................ E 711 17.96(a) NA 

* * * * * * * 

Astragalus 

holmgreniorum.

Holmgren milk-vetch U.S.A. (UT, AZ) ...... Fabaceae ................ E 711 17.96(a) NA 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.96(a), by adding entries 

for Astragalus ampullarioides (Shivwits 

milk-vetch) and Astragalus 

holmgreniorum (Holmgren milk-vetch) 

in alphabetical order under family 

Fabaceae to read as follows: 

§ 17.96 Critical habitat—plants. 

(a) Flowering plants. 

* * * * * 

Family Fabaceae: Astragalus 

ampullarioides (Shivwits milk-vetch) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Washington County, Utah, on the 

maps and as described below. 

(2) Within these areas, the primary 

constituent elements of critical habitat 

for Astragalus ampullarioides are: 

(i) Outcroppings of soft clay soil, 

which is often purplish red, within the 

Chinle Formation and the Dinosaur 

Canyon Member of the Moenave 

Formation, at elevations from 920 to 

1,330 m (3,018 to 4,367 ft); 

(ii) Topographic features/relief, 

including alluvial fans and fan terraces, 

and gently rolling to steep swales with 

little to moderate slope (3 to 24 percent), 

that are often markedly dissected by 

water flow pathways from seasonal 

precipitation; and 

(iii) The presence of insect visitors or 

pollinators, such as Anthophora 

captognatha, A. damnersi, A. porterae, 

other Anthophora species, Eucera 

quadricincta, Bombus morrissonis, 

Hoplitis grinnelli, Osmia clarescens, O. 

marginata, O. titus, O. clavescens, and 

two types of Dialictus species. 

(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) Data layers defining map units 

were an electronic base map of USGS 

7.5′ quadrangles projected to the UTM 

coordinate system, Zone 12 NAD 83. 

Ancillary data used to help refine the 

unit boundaries included Digital 

Orthophoto Quadrangles (DOQs); 

National Agricultural Imagery Program 

(NAIP); cadastral land survey 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77995 

(Township, Range, and Section); soils 

data; and the 1:24,000 Utah water 

courses data set. Critical habitat units 

were delineated through heads-up 

digitizing in a Geographic Information 

System. 

(5) Note: Index map (Map 1—A. 

ampullarioides) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
77996 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3ER27DE06.106</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77997 

(6) Unit 1—Pahcoon Spring Wash, 

Washington County, Utah. 

(i) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 12 NAD 83 coordinates 

(meters E, meters N): 250963, 4122043; 

250963, 4122040; 250559, 4122052; 

250165, 4122063; 250165, 4122075; 

250165, 4122352; 250165, 4122466; 

250165, 4122731; 250176, 4122731; 

250580, 4122731; 250965, 4122731; 

250965, 4122442; 250965, 4122331; 

250965, 4122107; 250963, 4122047; 

250963, 4122043. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 1 (Map 2—A. 

ampullarioides) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
77998 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3ER27DE06.107</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 77999 

(7) Unit 3—Coral Canyon, Washington 

County, Utah. 

(i) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 12 NAD 83 coordinates 

(meters E, meters N): 283348, 4114931; 

283341, 4114729; 283341, 4114729; 

283335, 4114525; 283335, 4114523; 

283334, 4114481; 283329, 4114332; 

283328, 4114322; 283139, 4114327; 

283138, 4114327; 283129, 4114327; 

282929, 4114333; 282929, 4114331; 

282529, 4114339; 282533, 4114481; 

282539, 4114493; 282547, 4114508; 

282551, 4114511; 282560, 4114522; 

282589, 4114545; 282595, 4114551; 

282611, 4114559; 282622, 4114567; 

282630, 4114573; 282640, 4114580; 

282649, 4114587; 282658, 4114593; 

282665, 4114594; 282674, 4114599; 

282679, 4114605; 282680, 4114612; 

282680, 4114617; 282680, 4114622; 

282683, 4114624; 282700, 4114627; 

282712, 4114631; 282724, 4114639; 

282732, 4114646; 282743, 4114651; 

282754, 4114659; 282764, 4114668; 

282768, 4114679; 282776, 4114689; 

282786, 4114697; 282797, 4114705; 

282801, 4114711; 282805, 4114717; 

282805, 4114717; 282808, 4114726; 

282812, 4114736; 282814, 4114750; 

282822, 4114760; 282828, 4114767; 

282837, 4114767; 282846, 4114767; 

282856, 4114763; 282862, 4114753; 

282867, 4114741; 282877, 4114737; 

282895, 4114740; 282905, 4114747; 

282914, 4114759; 282921, 4114771; 

282931, 4114782; 282932, 4114789; 

282936, 4114796; 282943, 4114800; 

282943, 4114800; 282951, 4114800; 

282959, 4114796; 282961, 4114796; 

282967, 4114797; 282972, 4114803; 

282975, 4114812; 282984, 4114820; 

282992, 4114825; 282996, 4114827; 

283013, 4114831; 283027, 4114839; 

283030, 4114841; 283043, 4114849; 

283060, 4114856; 283075, 4114862; 

283082, 4114868; 283086, 4114880; 

283090, 4114890; 283092, 4114901; 

283097, 4114907; 283106, 4114918; 

283115, 4114923; 283135, 4114927; 

283154, 4114928; 283161, 4114922; 

283179, 4114931; 283185, 4114936; 

283186, 4114936; 283186, 4114936; 

283348, 4114933; 283348, 4114931. 

(8) Unit 4—Harrisburg Junction, 

Washington County, Utah. 

(i) Unit 4 is divided into two subunits: 

4a, Harrisburg Bench and Cottonwood, 

and 4b, Silver Reef. 

(ii) Unit 4a Harrisburg Bench and 

Cottonwood. Land bounded by the 

following UTM Zone 12 NAD 83 

coordinates (meters E, meters N): 

285767, 4118407; 285767, 4118468; 

285767, 4118584; 285767, 4118777; 

285767, 4118911; 285767, 4119177; 

285833, 4119177; 286237, 4119177; 

286419, 4119177; 286641, 4119177; 

287098, 4119177; 287267, 4119177; 

287267, 4118771; 287267, 4118377; 

287074, 4118377; 286948, 4118377; 

286948, 4118377; 286556, 4118377; 

286150, 4118377; 285767, 4118377; 

285767, 4118407. 

(iii) Unit 4b—Silver Reef. Land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 12 

NAD 83 coordinates (meters E, meters 

N): 287073, 4121370; 287074, 4121376; 

287074, 4121402; 287085, 4121418; 

287093, 4121441; 287126, 4121474; 

287152, 4121505; 287171, 4121542; 

287187, 4121566; 287209, 4121591; 

287226, 4121621; 287251, 4121651; 

287273, 4121682; 287299, 4121713; 

287324, 4121742; 287349, 4121773; 

287375, 4121800; 287406, 4121836; 

287448, 4121887; 287480, 4121919; 

287514, 4121962; 287526, 4121985; 

287552, 4122029; 287550, 4122030; 

287560, 4122040; 287572, 4122052; 

287587, 4122079; 287600, 4122106; 

287618, 4122133; 287637, 4122165; 

287643, 4122195; 287660, 4122216; 

287676, 4122260; 287696, 4122297; 

287711, 4122329; 287729, 4122354; 

287752, 4122375; 287771, 4122405; 

287782, 4122433; 287799, 4122474; 

287840, 4122544; 287862, 4122588; 

287886, 4122629; 287902, 4122644; 

287918, 4122663; 287930, 4122682; 

287942, 4122698; 287952, 4122710; 

287962, 4122727; 287983, 4122757; 

288026, 4122808; 288046, 4122837; 

288063, 4122855; 288091, 4122887; 

288115, 4122916; 288144, 4122939; 

288169, 4122966; 288196, 4122989; 

288225, 4123018; 288245, 4123040; 

288270, 4123059; 288294, 4123079; 

288311, 4123104; 288320, 4123126; 

288337, 4123142; 288352, 4123154; 

288369, 4123171; 288382, 4123179; 

288395, 4123199; 288409, 4123223; 

288428, 4123238; 288452, 4123249; 

288461, 4123256; 288462, 4123255; 

288480, 4123271; 288489, 4123286; 

288500, 4123293; 288506, 4123303; 

288521, 4123312; 288538, 4123330; 

288562, 4123347; 288579, 4123361; 

288589, 4123375; 288601, 4123392; 

288815, 4123379; 288802, 4122943; 

288787, 4122380; 288763, 4122359; 

288718, 4122320; 288681, 4122286; 

288661, 4122267; 288596, 4122213; 

288536, 4122161; 288525, 4122149; 

288449, 4122071; 288403, 4122026; 

288368, 4121997; 288368, 4121992; 

288367, 4121992; 288333, 4121955; 

288302, 4121916; 288278, 4121891; 

288268, 4121875; 288227, 4121827; 

288198, 4121792; 288167, 4121757; 

288139, 4121723; 288120, 4121697; 

288089, 4121658; 288065, 4121628; 

288012, 4121559; 287980, 4121512; 

287955, 4121466; 287927, 4121426; 

287875, 4121352; 287875, 4121352; 

287747, 4121144; 287668, 4121023; 

287557, 4120848; 287483, 4120730; 

287443, 4120762; 287421, 4120790; 

287397, 4120822; 287376, 4120836; 

287353, 4120857; 287329, 4120875; 

287309, 4120895; 287292, 4120917; 

287290, 4120944; 287289, 4120970; 

287281, 4120992; 287269, 4121010; 

287246, 4121028; 287220, 4121039; 

287195, 4121055; 287175, 4121069; 

287157, 4121078; 287142, 4121100; 

287135, 4121122; 287121, 4121134; 

287086, 4121149; 287069, 4121153; 

287050, 4121175; 287018, 4121205; 

286995, 4121229; 287002, 4121239; 

287012, 4121264; 287023, 4121292; 

287038, 4121310; 287050, 4121326; 

287058, 4121342; 287068, 4121359; 

287073, 4121370. 

(iv) Note: Map of Units 3 and 4 (Map 

3—A. ampullarioides) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
78000 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3ER27DE06.108</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 78001 

(9) Unit 5—Zion, Washington County, 

Utah. 

(i) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 12 NAD 83 coordinates 

(meters E, meters N): 317424, 4119663; 

317442, 4119650; 317463, 4119652; 

317502, 4119660; 317526, 4119660; 

317568, 4119660; 317617, 4119660; 

317626, 4119660; 317657, 4119660; 

317685, 4119660; 317722, 4119650; 

317756, 4119634; 317780, 4119629; 

317798, 4119616; 317821, 4119592; 

317829, 4119566; 317811, 4119556; 

317793, 4119548; 317787, 4119530; 

317800, 4119519; 317832, 4119519; 

317863, 4119511; 317884, 4119503; 

317916, 4119503; 317939, 4119503; 

317963, 4119509; 317984, 4119506; 

317986, 4119485; 317963, 4119477; 

317942, 4119464; 317926, 4119451; 

317900, 4119443; 317874, 4119430; 

317855, 4119412; 317848, 4119404; 

317816, 4119383; 317790, 4119362; 

317790, 4119341; 317866, 4119330; 

317932, 4119325; 317978, 4119300; 

318003, 4119280; 318018, 4119262; 

318039, 4119239; 318064, 4119219; 

318115, 4119208; 318141, 4119225; 

318163, 4119236; 318191, 4119236; 

318215, 4119236; 318250, 4119218; 

318274, 4119194; 318296, 4119173; 

318331, 4119144; 318362, 4119105; 

318388, 4119083; 318416, 4119051; 

318416, 4119050; 318437, 4119003; 

318431, 4118998; 318414, 4118984; 

318413, 4118983; 318402, 4118958; 

318404, 4118939; 318401, 4118929; 

318359, 4118934; 318323, 4118938; 

318305, 4118929; 318295, 4118913; 

318300, 4118893; 318302, 4118873; 

318297, 4118860; 318288, 4118839; 

318285, 4118813; 318292, 4118782; 

318302, 4118763; 318326, 4118737; 

318342, 4118709; 318363, 4118699; 

318382, 4118681; 318408, 4118659; 

318413, 4118655; 318439, 4118628; 

318454, 4118612; 318457, 4118595; 

318458, 4118591; 318466, 4118577; 

318482, 4118572; 318511, 4118557; 

318541, 4118553; 318574, 4118567; 

318592, 4118592; 318595, 4118595; 

318600, 4118600; 318615, 4118596; 

318624, 4118591; 318633, 4118586; 

318648, 4118584; 318652, 4118555; 

318659, 4118531; 318671, 4118513; 

318700, 4118493; 318724, 4118482; 

318745, 4118494; 318759, 4118489; 

318781, 4118486; 318785, 4118472; 

318787, 4118444; 318788, 4118415; 

318799, 4118396; 318805, 4118391; 

318816, 4118384; 318830, 4118385; 

318840, 4118359; 318852, 4118337; 

318873, 4118323; 318884, 4118333; 

318891, 4118344; 318899, 4118347; 

318911, 4118337; 318929, 4118337; 

318942, 4118333; 318960, 4118311; 

318989, 4118302; 319024, 4118281; 

319086, 4118247; 319114, 4118236; 

319136, 4118223; 319168, 4118205; 

319185, 4118207; 319203, 4118186; 

319211, 4118178; 319233, 4118150; 

319254, 4118143; 319275, 4118143; 

319301, 4118129; 319320, 4118117; 

319346, 4118108; 319365, 4118107; 

319367, 4118093; 319380, 4118086; 

319398, 4118089; 319406, 4118094; 

319422, 4118093; 319441, 4118089; 

319448, 4118084; 319441, 4118072; 

319427, 4118055; 319424, 4118022; 

319406, 4117985; 319399, 4117972; 

319406, 4117963; 319412, 4117953; 

319403, 4117944; 319398, 4117932; 

319386, 4117914; 319377, 4117904; 

319363, 4117889; 319354, 4117875; 

319330, 4117859; 319322, 4117849; 

319325, 4117831; 319313, 4117821; 

319306, 4117804; 319297, 4117797; 

319296, 4117786; 319287, 4117767; 

319271, 4117740; 319266, 4117717; 

319261, 4117708; 319242, 4117696; 

319228, 4117677; 319230, 4117638; 

319226, 4117613; 319191, 4117588; 

319183, 4117582; 319136, 4117546; 

319097, 4117525; 319077, 4117508; 

319064, 4117496; 319046, 4117478; 

319034, 4117459; 319032, 4117444; 

319048, 4117432; 319064, 4117426; 

319074, 4117414; 319083, 4117393; 

319098, 4117380; 319111, 4117373; 

319124, 4117366; 319140, 4117355; 

319154, 4117338; 319169, 4117324; 

319186, 4117322; 319192, 4117321; 

319214, 4117321; 319235, 4117303; 

319266, 4117283; 319311, 4117267; 

319325, 4117267; 319349, 4117286; 

319373, 4117310; 319403, 4117310; 

319420, 4117305; 319444, 4117305; 

319467, 4117312; 319488, 4117302; 

319503, 4117290; 319528, 4117277; 

319548, 4117272; 319559, 4117253; 

319579, 4117241; 319588, 4117236; 

319602, 4117219; 319616, 4117201; 

319640, 4117194; 319676, 4117186; 

319711, 4117175; 319744, 4117170; 

319768, 4117167; 319779, 4117186; 

319784, 4117212; 319792, 4117231; 

319799, 4117239; 319803, 4117250; 

319801, 4117269; 319811, 4117291; 

319825, 4117295; 319853, 4117284; 

319884, 4117276; 319924, 4117271; 

319932, 4117194; 319932, 4115820; 

319477, 4115828; 319472, 4115839; 

319456, 4115857; 319430, 4115867; 

319420, 4115875; 319400, 4115900; 

319389, 4115914; 319375, 4115927; 

319364, 4115937; 319335, 4115955; 

319304, 4115970; 319283, 4116007; 

319277, 4116039; 319270, 4116053; 

319244, 4116059; 319204, 4116078; 

319199, 4116088; 319196, 4116102; 

319206, 4116133; 319200, 4116153; 

319192, 4116158; 319161, 4116165; 

319160, 4116165; 319145, 4116168; 

319102, 4116170; 319070, 4116193; 

319043, 4116229; 319038, 4116241; 

319012, 4116257; 318992, 4116260; 

318972, 4116264; 318946, 4116267; 

318926, 4116269; 318899, 4116278; 

318885, 4116285; 318864, 4116300; 

318853, 4116320; 318825, 4116334; 

318803, 4116335; 318781, 4116339; 

318771, 4116349; 318763, 4116357; 

318741, 4116381; 318714, 4116402; 

318691, 4116415; 318681, 4116421; 

318648, 4116428; 318630, 4116430; 

318605, 4116436; 318580, 4116447; 

318557, 4116468; 318533, 4116502; 

318515, 4116537; 318502, 4116567; 

318493, 4116581; 318484, 4116598; 

318472, 4116625; 318459, 4116654; 

318425, 4116681; 318411, 4116690; 

318389, 4116707; 318369, 4116721; 

318367, 4116722; 318349, 4116737; 

318336, 4116749; 318324, 4116751; 

318305, 4116753; 318276, 4116753; 

318243, 4116758; 318203, 4116764; 

318171, 4116769; 318131, 4116774; 

318101, 4116776; 318068, 4116786; 

318050, 4116797; 318038, 4116811; 

318026, 4116827; 318013, 4116842; 

317975, 4116888; 317971, 4116896; 

317947, 4116937; 317935, 4116966; 

317931, 4116989; 317934, 4116995; 

317940, 4117008; 317955, 4117020; 

317968, 4117037; 317974, 4117053; 

317975, 4117056; 317991, 4117076; 

318001, 4117089; 318014, 4117099; 

318023, 4117135; 318033, 4117158; 

318044, 4117194; 318051, 4117215; 

318076, 4117245; 318093, 4117271; 

318109, 4117301; 318118, 4117319; 

318119, 4117336; 318119, 4117365; 

318111, 4117389; 318110, 4117394; 

318109, 4117408; 318105, 4117429; 

318094, 4117451; 318081, 4117476; 

318070, 4117488; 318070, 4117505; 

318063, 4117524; 318062, 4117542; 

318072, 4117558; 318078, 4117577; 

318081, 4117600; 318101, 4117620; 

318112, 4117636; 318098, 4117660; 

318090, 4117680; 318085, 4117688; 

318080, 4117694; 318074, 4117703; 

318058, 4117713; 318048, 4117719; 

318036, 4117737; 318033, 4117751; 

318033, 4117762; 318035, 4117771; 

318037, 4117779; 318034, 4117796; 

318033, 4117798; 318026, 4117816; 

318017, 4117838; 318010, 4117851; 

317999, 4117870; 317990, 4117882; 

317988, 4117886; 317980, 4117897; 

317958, 4117918; 317946, 4117929; 

317935, 4117935; 317924, 4117939; 

317907, 4117945; 317889, 4117949; 

317875, 4117952; 317862, 4117956; 

317853, 4117959; 317836, 4117964; 

317819, 4117970; 317803, 4117976; 

317785, 4117984; 317773, 4117988; 

317759, 4117991; 317749, 4117993; 

317738, 4117995; 317729, 4117997; 

317713, 4118000; 317698, 4118003; 

317689, 4118005; 317671, 4118014; 

317652, 4118025; 317639, 4118033; 

317630, 4118040; 317613, 4118053; 

317598, 4118064; 317592, 4118070; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
78002 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

317588, 4118073; 317584, 4118077; 

317580, 4118081; 317573, 4118089; 

317568, 4118095; 317559, 4118107; 

317551, 4118119; 317545, 4118127; 

317538, 4118138; 317534, 4118144; 

317527, 4118154; 317522, 4118160; 

317513, 4118170; 317505, 4118184; 

317507, 4118198; 317509, 4118201; 

317513, 4118207; 317517, 4118211; 

317520, 4118214; 317523, 4118221; 

317527, 4118230; 317528, 4118240; 

317527, 4118248; 317527, 4118254; 

317526, 4118262; 317524, 4118272; 

317524, 4118278; 317523, 4118286; 

317521, 4118297; 317520, 4118307; 

317518, 4118315; 317516, 4118328; 

317513, 4118336; 317508, 4118347; 

317505, 4118353; 317497, 4118365; 

317489, 4118374; 317481, 4118385; 

317473, 4118393; 317468, 4118398; 

317456, 4118414; 317448, 4118423; 

317439, 4118433; 317428, 4118444; 

317417, 4118453; 317404, 4118461; 

317395, 4118467; 317389, 4118471; 

317378, 4118475; 317372, 4118478; 

317355, 4118483; 317346, 4118486; 

317326, 4118486; 317309, 4118485; 

317293, 4118485; 317268, 4118485; 

317240, 4118485; 317217, 4118482; 

317198, 4118479; 317192, 4118478; 

317175, 4118478; 317153, 4118482; 

317117, 4118499; 317097, 4118505; 

317070, 4118511; 317046, 4118515; 

317021, 4118518; 317006, 4118521; 

316995, 4118526; 317002, 4118540; 

317023, 4118576; 317032, 4118611; 

317031, 4118626; 317029, 4118655; 

317019, 4118696; 317011, 4118739; 

317011, 4118764; 317025, 4118791; 

317039, 4118815; 317040, 4118842; 

317056, 4118883; 317077, 4118919; 

317100, 4118965; 317110, 4119005; 

317120, 4119027; 317121, 4119029; 

317140, 4119063; 317144, 4119072; 

317144, 4119080; 317144, 4119116; 

317144, 4119137; 317141, 4119189; 

317133, 4119226; 317136, 4119291; 

317144, 4119346; 317162, 4119383; 

317181, 4119420; 317186, 4119427; 

317196, 4119441; 317201, 4119464; 

317199, 4119477; 317183, 4119477; 

317162, 4119475; 317147, 4119475; 

317128, 4119490; 317128, 4119501; 

317126, 4119519; 317126, 4119553; 

317133, 4119600; 317144, 4119616; 

317154, 4119645; 317181, 4119668; 

317212, 4119671; 317224, 4119672; 

317259, 4119676; 317290, 4119676; 

317366, 4119689; 317395, 4119692; 

317403, 4119684; 317424, 4119663. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 5 (Map 4—A. 

ampullioides) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 78003 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3ER27DE06.109</MATH>
78004 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

Family Fabaceae: Astragalus 

holmgreniorum (Holmgren milk-vetch) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Mohave County, Arizona, and 

Washington County, Utah, on the maps 

and as described below. 

(2) Within these areas, the primary 

constituent elements of critical habitat 

for Astragalus holmgreniorum are: 

(i) Appropriate geological layers or 

soils that support individual Astragalus 

holmgreniorum plants. These include 

the Virgin Limestone member, middle 

red member, and upper red member of 

the Moenkopi Formation, and the 

Petrified Forest member of the Chinle 

Formation. Associated soils are 

Badland; Badland, very steep; Eroded 

land-Shalet complex, warm; Hobog-rock 

land association; Isom cobbly sandy 

loam; Ruesh very gravelly fine sandy 

loam; Gypill Hobog complex, 6 to 35 

percent slopes; Gypill very cobbly sandy 

loam, 15 to 40 percent slopes; and 

Hobog-Grapevine complex, 2 to 35 

percent slopes; 

(ii) Topographic features/relief 

(mesas, ridge remnants, alluvial fans 

and fan terraces, their summits and 

backslopes, and gently rolling to steep 

swales) and the drainage areas along 

formation edges with little to moderate 

slope (0 to 20 percent); and 

(iii) The presence of insect visitors or 

pollinators, such as Anthophora 

captognatha, A. damnersi, A. porterae, 

other Anthophora species, Eucera 

quadricincta, Omia titus, and two types 

of Dialictus species. 

(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) Data layers defining map units 

were an electronic base map of USGS 

7.5′ quadrangles projected to the UTM 

coordinate system, Zone 12 NAD 83. 

Ancillary data used to help refine the 

unit boundaries included Digital 

Orthophoto Quadrangles (DOQs); 

National Agricultural Imagery Program 

(NAIP); cadastral land survey 

(Township, Range, and Section); soils 

data; and the 1:24,000 Utah water 

courses data set. Critical habitat units 

were delineated through heads-up 

digitizing in a Geographic Information 

System. 

(5) Note: Index map (Map 1—A. 

holmgreniorum) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 78005 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3ER27DE06.110</GPH>
78006 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(6) Unit 1—Utah-Arizona Border, 

Mohave County, Arizona, and 

Washington County, Utah. This unit 

consists of three subunits: State Line, 

Gardner Well, and Central Valley. 

(i) Unit 1a—State Line, Washington 

County, Utah. Land bounded by the 

following UTM Zone 12 NAD 83 

coordinates (meters E, meters N): 

263931,4098206; 263933,4100207; 

264297,4100206; 264324,4100152; 

264361,4100090; 264389,4100059; 

264420,4100041; 264445,4100041; 

264486,4100066; 264528,4100107; 

264560,4100151; 264578,4100184; 

264588,4100206; 264599,4100221; 

264614,4100232; 264631,4100246; 

264647,4100256; 264657,4100269; 

264663,4100289; 264669,4100308; 

264663,4100349; 264653,4100399; 

264639,4100426; 264620,4100454; 

264601,4100482; 264579,4100527; 

264568,4100555; 264563,4100578; 

264555,4100596; 264540,4100617; 

264530,4100643; 264509,4100682; 

264486,4100742; 264483,4100793; 

264481,4100853; 264483,4100885; 

264494,4100904; 264505,4100920; 

264518,4100937; 264524,4100963; 

264537,4101013; 264553,4101091; 

264563,4101143; 264565,4101160; 

264574,4101176; 264581,4101197; 

264594,4101236; 264603,4101265; 

264616,4101294; 264636,4101316; 

264655,4101327; 264685,4101328; 

264713,4101321; 264745,4101296; 

264792,4101262; 264831,4101225; 

264867,4101180; 264895,4101133; 

264906,4101094; 264909,4101006; 

264910,4100916; 264917,4100838; 

264918,4100770; 264926,4100713; 

264935,4100694; 264947,4100670; 

264959,4100658; 264977,4100648; 

264998,4100642; 265010,4100638; 

265032,4100630; 265061,4100626; 

265092,4100626; 265118,4100629; 

265151,4100647; 265170,4100667; 

265187,4100692; 265205,4100736; 

265221,4100782; 265228,4100802; 

265243,4100832; 265261,4100861; 

265292,4100894; 265337,4100917; 

265385,4100947; 265434,4100981; 

265464,4100994; 265509,4101009; 

265550,4101020; 265562,4101023; 

265609,4101039; 265657,4101057; 

265679,4101062; 265703,4101072; 

265716,4101084; 265731,4101105; 

265747,4101116; 265762,4101126; 

265769,4101131; 265778,4101141; 

265797,4101160; 265818,4101168; 

265834,4101180; 265837,4101186; 

265835,4101202; 265841,4101223; 

265846,4101236; 265845,4101253; 

265850,4101262; 265861,4101261; 

265871,4101258; 265889,4101257; 

265919,4101271; 265921,4101273; 

265916,4101084; 266032,4101081; 

266085,4100924; 266312,4100788; 

266347,4100773; 266380,4100795; 

266392,4100805; 266402,4100815; 

266442,4100812; 266466,4100750; 

266484,4100740; 266506,4100739; 

266547,4100754; 266557,4100762; 

266572,4100761; 266656,4100635; 

266665,4100590; 266650,4100540; 

266658,4100460; 266749,4100469; 

266793,4100460; 266812,4100450; 

266877,4100411; 266973,4100352; 

267038,4100312; 267070,4100300; 

267083,4100299; 267136,4100300; 

267163,4100310; 267156,4100330; 

267145,4100361; 267143,4100385; 

267145,4100423; 267153,4100456; 

267168,4100452; 267195,4100451; 

267221,4100452; 267262,4100461; 

267379,4100492; 267432,4100512; 

267626,4100667; 267673,4100704; 

267697,4100726; 267705,4100713; 

267722,4100666; 267724,4100661; 

267744,4100607; 267775,4100561; 

267814,4100526; 267826,4100519; 

267842,4100508; 267855,4100499; 

267906,4100469; 267917,4100463; 

267932,4100459; 267933,4097163; 

267933,4096673; 267934,4095506; 

267934,4095144; 267912,4095140; 

267892,4095136; 267870,4095127; 

267837,4095084; 267820,4095058; 

267798,4095019; 267776,4094979; 

267756,4094951; 267736,4094923; 

267722,4094903; 267681,4094881; 

267640,4094875; 267614,4094871; 

267519,4094815; 267492,4094810; 

267486,4094849; 267482,4094879; 

267480,4094892; 267477,4094916; 

267474,4094940; 267470,4094952; 

267463,4094969; 267455,4094989; 

267448,4094998; 267435,4095013; 

267425,4095026; 267404,4095040; 

267389,4095051; 267374,4095063; 

267363,4095073; 267351,4095083; 

267337,4095095; 267324,4095120; 

267310,4095149; 267308,4095176; 

267305,4095199; 267301,4095220; 

267298,4095240; 267280,4095257; 

267266,4095272; 267253,4095284; 

267230,4095307; 267219,4095318; 

267202,4095340; 267185,4095360; 

267169,4095383; 267160,4095397; 

267151,4095419; 267143,4095436; 

267140,4095468; 267138,4095492; 

267131,4095517; 267125,4095541; 

267114,4095575; 267100,4095615; 

267094,4095640; 267094,4095679; 

267095,4095714; 267097,4095762; 

267099,4095790; 267091,4095805; 

267079,4095831; 267073,4095855; 

267070,4095877; 267072,4095903; 

267087,4095935; 267099,4095962; 

267101,4095985; 267104,4096007; 

267106,4096030; 267113,4096063; 

267119,4096088; 267123,4096109; 

267148,4096146; 267160,4096155; 

267177,4096168; 267199,4096177; 

267217,4096185; 267263,4096207; 

267300,4096219; 267327,4096243; 

267349,4096264; 267379,4096289; 

267407,4096313; 267425,4096330; 

267454,4096362; 267473,4096383; 

267496,4096415; 267509,4096435; 

267502,4096450; 267490,4096461; 

267479,4096471; 267470,4096480; 

267454,4096493; 267434,4096509; 

267411,4096525; 267390,4096536; 

267371,4096546; 267340,4096566; 

267315,4096583; 267300,4096584; 

267280,4096587; 267256,4096590; 

267246,4096591; 267234,4096593; 

267214,4096592; 267171,4096591; 

267142,4096590; 267097,4096592; 

267052,4096595; 267037,4096610; 

267007,4096638; 266973,4096692; 

266897,4096752; 266896,4096752; 

266895,4096753; 266855,4096750; 

266800,4096744; 266744,4096736; 

266729,4096740; 266703,4096758; 

266682,4096769; 266359,4096909; 

266306,4096995; 266037,4097000; 

265906,4097003; 265906,4097003; 

265325,4097015; 265139,4097174; 

263931,4098206. 

(ii) Unit 1b—Gardner Well, 

Washington County, Utah. Land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 12 

NAD 83 coordinates (meters E, meters 

N): 271132, 4097585; 271154, 4097406; 

271173, 4097277; 271180, 4097203; 

271233, 4097154; 271275, 4097136; 

271324, 4097129; 271370, 4097147; 

271416, 4097165; 271451, 4097161; 

271493, 4097165; 271518, 4097154; 

271539, 4097133; 271574, 4097094; 

271606, 4097055; 271628, 4097040; 

271645, 4097017; 271658, 4096995; 

271664, 4096976; 271680, 4096960; 

271693, 4096929; 271698, 4096899; 

271700, 4096880; 271702, 4096849; 

271710, 4096825; 271728, 4096800; 

271730, 4096782; 271718, 4096747; 

271711, 4096697; 271721, 4096652; 

271748, 4096601; 271795, 4096549; 

271831, 4096521; 271866, 4096521; 

271885, 4096521; 271913, 4096509; 

271946, 4096509; 271990, 4096511; 

272026, 4096514; 272051, 4096521; 

272101, 4096517; 272149, 4096496; 

272194, 4096466; 272263, 4096388; 

272301, 4096328; 272317, 4096291; 

272341, 4096229; 272356, 4096176; 

272356, 4096098; 272329, 4096025; 

272288, 4095973; 272218, 4095916; 

272194, 4095890; 272156, 4095871; 

272123, 4095845; 272103, 4095805; 

272089, 4095777; 272089, 4095743; 

272099, 4095684; 271975, 4095633; 

271847, 4095582; 271742, 4095579; 

271672, 4095582; 271424, 4095648; 

270979, 4095805; 270884, 4095787; 

270808, 4095801; 270768, 4095867; 

270702, 4095929; 270640, 4095987; 

270574, 4096049; 270560, 4096104; 

270545, 4096159; 270574, 4096184; 

270603, 4096202; 270649, 4097638; 

270652, 4097721; 270768, 4097702; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 78007 

270830, 4097691; 270873, 4097691; 

270906, 4097680; 270950, 4097680; 

270975, 4097676; 271005, 4097654; 

271019, 4097640; 271048, 4097651; 

271089, 4097673; 271118, 4097676; 

271132, 4097585. 

(iii) Unit 1c—Central Valley, 

Washington County, Utah. Land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 12 

NAD 83 coordinates (meters E, meters 

N): 268995,4099879; 268995,4099902; 

269009,4099933; 269035,4099958; 

269054,4099974; 269076,4099978; 

269100,4099987; 269120,4100000; 

269143,4100027; 269162,4100052; 

269179,4100082; 269197,4100110; 

269214,4100143; 269244,4100175; 

269285,4100198; 269309,4100212; 

269325,4100226; 269361,4100238; 

269376,4100258; 269387,4100289; 

269415,4100322; 269432,4100348; 

269451,4100367; 269483,4100384; 

269520,4100400; 269553,4100408; 

269587,4100423; 269608,4100437; 

269610,4100440; 269616,4100443; 

269621,4100439; 269618,4100426; 

269618,4100414; 269612,4100404; 

269600,4100387; 269599,4100386; 

269595,4100374; 269584,4100349; 

269578,4100326; 269584,4100309; 

269601,4100290; 269620,4100293; 

269631,4100312; 269652,4100322; 

269686,4100335; 269715,4100348; 

269725,4100348; 269725,4100348; 

269726,4100346; 269740,4100352; 

269761,4100358; 269781,4100365; 

269802,4100375; 269827,4100375; 

269850,4100375; 269867,4100375; 

269878,4100381; 269886,4100375; 

269892,4100361; 269901,4100351; 

269918,4100345; 269930,4100368; 

269941,4100404; 269947,4100436; 

269953,4100465; 269950,4100483; 

269938,4100504; 269921,4100530; 

269904,4100544; 269901,4100546; 

269898,4100546; 269883,4100553; 

269876,4100563; 269883,4100573; 

269896,4100577; 269908,4100586; 

269911,4100600; 269905,4100618; 

269899,4100631; 269899,4100645; 

269905,4100651; 269918,4100648; 

269930,4100642; 269942,4100634; 

269963,4100624; 269971,4100619; 

269989,4100621; 270003,4100625; 

270016,4100632; 270033,4100637; 

270044,4100637; 270048,4100633; 

270054,4100628; 270054,4100609; 

270054,4100603; 270058,4100593; 

270068,4100574; 270083,4100564; 

270104,4100564; 270126,4100573; 

270143,4100590; 270152,4100613; 

270153,4100628; 270165,4100639; 

270178,4100652; 270178,4100670; 

270181,4100693; 270181,4100699; 

270182,4100700; 270182,4100709; 

270188,4100712; 270194,4100707; 

270195,4100706; 270196,4100706; 

270200,4100693; 270205,4100677; 

270209,4100657; 270215,4100645; 

270220,4100639; 270236,4100635; 

270251,4100638; 270269,4100648; 

270282,4100652; 270293,4100652; 

270304,4100650; 270311,4100645; 

270320,4100639; 270334,4100639; 

270347,4100639; 270358,4100650; 

270368,4100655; 270381,4100655; 

270395,4100654; 270415,4100654; 

270438,4100654; 270453,4100660; 

270473,4100671; 270500,4100683; 

270522,4100697; 270548,4100712; 

270573,4100725; 270594,4100738; 

270620,4100755; 270638,4100762; 

270651,4100778; 270667,4100795; 

270680,4100808; 270698,4100829; 

270710,4100844; 270723,4100859; 

270731,4100875; 270733,4100886; 

270731,4100899; 270723,4100908; 

270707,4100915; 270694,4100921; 

270684,4100930; 270672,4100937; 

270670,4100941; 270671,4100941; 

270668,4100945; 270663,4100955; 

270654,4100962; 270648,4100970; 

270657,4100979; 270682,4101000; 

270698,4101012; 270728,4101030; 

270760,4101064; 270786,4101093; 

270822,4101114; 270874,4101145; 

270902,4101164; 270969,4101208; 

270992,4101223; 271004,4101223; 

271021,4101223; 271044,4101213; 

271073,4101206; 271107,4101198; 

271142,4101197; 271154,4101197; 

271163,4101206; 271171,4101222; 

271164,4101242; 271160,4101258; 

271156,4101275; 271163,4101287; 

271180,4101285; 271192,4101285; 

271199,4101299; 271198,4101309; 

271189,4101318; 271182,4101327; 

271174,4101342; 271172,4101370; 

271172,4101390; 271182,4101412; 

271183,4101421; 271179,4101435; 

271172,4101447; 271166,4101459; 

271165,4101472; 271171,4101481; 

271182,4101481; 271204,4101476; 

271214,4101485; 271224,4101496; 

271230,4101502; 271243,4101498; 

271254,4101491; 271267,4101491; 

271284,4101502; 271293,4101510; 

271306,4101510; 271314,4101522; 

271324,4101534; 271331,4101544; 

271343,4101555; 271347,4101569; 

271347,4101583; 271355,4101592; 

271355,4101601; 271355,4101611; 

271365,4101615; 271378,4101620; 

271386,4101628; 271389,4101641; 

271394,4101649; 271410,4101651; 

271418,4101660; 271422,4101672; 

271432,4101669; 271445,4101671; 

271457,4101679; 271468,4101689; 

271477,4101702; 271484,4101713; 

271492,4101726; 271507,4101717; 

271558,4101711; 271681,4101696; 

271855,4101690; 272074,4101690; 

272177,4101687; 272181,4101689; 

272129,4101534; 272092,4101397; 

271963,4101441; 271943,4101364; 

272070,4101319; 272020,4101140; 

271940,4100852; 271861,4100577; 

271752,4100334; 271625,4100053; 

271488,4099746; 271377,4099511; 

271328,4099394; 271287,4099296; 

271287,4099296; 271227,4099294; 

271179,4099296; 271145,4099296; 

271102,4099297; 271061,4099295; 

271038,4099287; 271010,4099268; 

270994,4099257; 270977,4099247; 

270954,4099236; 270933,4099226; 

270919,4099215; 270904,4099188; 

270878,4099136; 270861,4099099; 

270839,4099061; 270817,4099026; 

270788,4098984; 270763,4098959; 

270719,4098929; 270691,4098913; 

270681,4098912; 270658,4098879; 

270641,4098853; 270628,4098832; 

270610,4098812; 270578,4098812; 

270551,4098818; 270521,4098818; 

270494,4098824; 270467,4098835; 

270423,4098828; 270401,4098827; 

270344,4098826; 270294,4098830; 

270278,4098835; 270237,4098831; 

270211,4098825; 270170,4098825; 

270142,4098828; 270099,4098835; 

270065,4098845; 270047,4098849; 

270017,4098846; 269993,4098842; 

269956,4098843; 269926,4098850; 

269895,4098865; 269858,4098891; 

269848,4098904; 269830,4098908; 

269803,4098916; 269782,4098925; 

269778,4098934; 269773,4098948; 

269768,4098961; 269754,4098960; 

269735,4098947; 269716,4098933; 

269701,4098919; 269690,4098904; 

269668,4098898; 269660,4098901; 

269660,4098904; 269645,4098949; 

269621,4098990; 269597,4099027; 

269585,4099050; 269554,4099115; 

269526,4099169; 269511,4099201; 

269492,4099221; 269478,4099237; 

269461,4099295; 269438,4099355; 

269426,4099389; 269412,4099420; 

269385,4099469; 269348,4099524; 

269312,4099580; 269301,4099592; 

269280,4099605; 269254,4099620; 

269238,4099629; 269220,4099647; 

269200,4099687; 269179,4099734; 

269181,4099735; 269178,4099736; 

269165,4099747; 269143,4099759; 

269123,4099767; 269097,4099776; 

269080,4099783; 269064,4099801; 

269050,4099821; 269032,4099840; 

269012,4099858; 269002,4099866; 

268995,4099879. 

(iv) Note: Map of Unit 1 (Map 2—A. 

holmgreniorum) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
78008 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3ER27DE06.111</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 78009 

(7) Unit 2—Santa Clara, Washington 

County, Utah. This unit consists of two 

subunits: Stucki Spring and South Hills. 

(i) Unit 2a—Stucki Spring, 

Washington County, Utah. Land 

bounded by the following UTM Zone 12 

NAD 83 coordinates (meters E, meters 

N): 261650,4109466; 261683,4110718; 

262761,4110687; 263214,4109938; 

263203,4109419; 261650,4109466. 

(ii) Unit 2b—South Hills, Washington 

County, Utah. Land bounded by the 

following UTM Zone 12 NAD 83 

coordinates (meters E, meters N): 

263385,4112054; 263932,4112044; 

263975,4111990; 264261,4111983; 

263824,4111209; 263504,4111208; 

263503,4111213; 263502,4111218; 

263501,4111220; 263498,4111226; 

263494,4111234; 263489,4111239; 

263485,4111243; 263481,4111246; 

263476,4111248; 263475,4111249; 

263463,4111252; 263462,4111253; 

263456,4111254; 263454,4111259; 

263453,4111262; 263447,4111274; 

263443,4111280; 263427,4111298; 

263418,4111308; 263413,4111323; 

263409,4111337; 263406,4111354; 

263406,4111366; 263406,4111383; 

263406,4111386; 263405,4111403; 

263405,4111407; 263402,4111422; 

263400,4111427; 263396,4111440; 

263394,4111449; 263395,4111455; 

263397,4111460; 263400,4111464; 

263405,4111473; 263406,4111478; 

263407,4111479; 263408,4111493; 

263408,4111503; 263406,4111515; 

263405,4111516; 263403,4111529; 

263402,4111534; 263407,4111547; 

263409,4111553; 263411,4111568; 

263412,4111572; 263413,4111592; 

263412,4111597; 263411,4111609; 

263409,4111615; 263407,4111620; 

263405,4111624; 263399,4111631; 

263398,4111634; 263397,4111644; 

263401,4111660; 263408,4111679; 

263421,4111711; 263422,4111714; 

263429,4111738; 263430,4111746; 

263431,4111767; 263431,4111772; 

263428,4111792; 263428,4111822; 

263430,4111853; 263429,4111860; 

263428,4111865; 263428,4111866; 

263420,4111884; 263419,4111888; 

263421,4111904; 263421,4111913; 

263417,4111935; 263416,4111937; 

263405,4111976; 263399,4112013; 

263398,4112017; 263390,4112041; 

263390,4112042; 263385,4112054. 

(iii) Note: Map of Unit 2 (Map 3—A. 

holmgreniorum) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
78010 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3ER27DE06.112</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 78011 

(8) Unit 3—Purgatory Flat, 

Washington County, Utah. 

(i) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 12 NAD 83 coordinates 

(meters E, meters N): 284276, 4114426; 

284295, 4114449; 284375, 4114491; 

284510, 4114595; 284590, 4114654; 

284617, 4114709; 284659, 4114733; 

284693, 4114759; 284933, 4114429; 

284888, 4114391; 283702, 4113373; 

283429, 4113736; 283481, 4113781; 

283526, 4113829; 283547, 4113854; 

283592, 4113874; 283640, 4113909; 

283672, 4113940; 283737, 4113995; 

283810, 4114065; 283841, 4114096; 

283862, 4114110; 283886, 4114138; 

283949, 4114190; 283987, 4114228; 

284032, 4114262; 284060, 4114287; 

284098, 4114325; 284139, 4114359; 

284276, 4114426. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 3 (Map 4—A. 

holmgreniorum) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
78012 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * Dated: December 12, 2006. 

Julie MacDonald, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 06–9794 Filed 12–26–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3ER27DE06.113</MATH>