41258 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

necessary steps to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA 

has complied with Executive Order 

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by 

examining the takings implications of 

the rule in accordance with the 

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental 

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk 

and Avoidance of Unanticipated 

Takings’’ issued under the executive 

order. 

This rule, proposing to approve the 

redesignation of Mercer County to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the associated maintenance 

plan, the 2002 base-year inventory, and 

the MVEBs identified in the 

maintenance plan, does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: July 16, 2007. 

Donald S. Welsh, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. E7–14589 Filed 7–26–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU98 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis; notice of public hearings. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

revise currently designated critical 

habitat for Astragalus magdalenae var. 

peirsonii (Peirson’s milk-vetch) 

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, 

approximately 16,108 acres (ac) (6,519 

hectares (ha)) in Imperial County, 

California, fall within the boundaries of 

the proposed revised critical habitat 

designation. Lands being proposed as 

critical habitat are under Federal 

(15,857 ac (6,418 ha)), private (240 ac 

(97 ha)), and State (11 ac (4 ha)) 

ownership. 

Section 4 of the Act requires us to 

consider the economic and other 

relevant impacts of specifying any area 

as critical habitat. We have conducted 

an analysis of the economic impacts of 

designating the aforementioned areas as 

critical habitat for Astragalus 

magdalenae var. peirsonii, and are 

announcing the availability of the draft 

economic analysis for public review. We 

hereby solicit data and comments from 

the public on all aspects of this revised 

proposal, including data on the 

economic and other impacts of the 

designation. 

We are also announcing that public 

hearings will be held on both the 

proposed critical habitat rule and the 

draft economic analysis. 

DATES: We will accept comments from 

all interested parties until September 

25, 2007. The public hearings will take 

place on August 23, 2007, from 1 p.m. 

to 3 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at 

the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office in 

Carlsbad, California (see ADDRESSESS). 

ADDRESSES: Public Hearings. The public 

hearings will be held at the Carlsbad 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden 

Valley Road, Carlsbad, California, 

92011. 

Comments. If you wish to comment 

on the proposed rule and/or the draft 

economic analysis, you may submit 

your comments and materials, identified 

by RIN 1018–AU98, by any of the 

following methods: 

(1) You may send comments by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to 

fw8cfwocomments@fws.gov. Include 

‘‘RIN 1018–AU98’’ in the subject line. 

(2) You may fax your comments to Jim 

Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish 

and Wildlife Office at 760–431–5901. 

(3) You may mail or hand-deliver 

your written comments and information 

to Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad 

Fish and Wildlife Office at the address 

above. 

(4) You may submit your comments at 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal, http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Comments and materials received, as 

well as supporting documentation used 

in the preparation of this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection, 

by appointment, during normal business 

hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 

Office at the above address (telephone 

760–431–9440). Copies of the draft 

economic analysis are available for 

downloading from the Internet at 

http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/ or by 

contacting the Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office directly at the above 

phone number or address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish 

and Wildlife Office, at the address listed 

under ADDRESSES (telephone 760–431–

9440; facsimile 760–431–5901). Persons 

who use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days 

a week. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, comments or suggestions 

from the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested party concerning this 

proposed critical habitat rule and its 

associated draft economic analysis are 

hereby solicited. On the basis of public 

comment, during the development of 

the final rule we may find that areas 

proposed are not essential or are 

appropriate for exclusion under section 

4(b)(2) in which case they would be 

removed from the final critical habitat 

designation. 

Comments particularly are sought 

concerning: 

(1) The reasons any habitat should or 

should not be determined to be critical 

habitat as provided by section 4 of the 

Act, including whether the benefit of 

designation will outweigh any threats to 

the taxon caused by designation. 

(2) Specific information on the 

amount and distribution of Astragalus 

magdalenae var. peirsonii habitat, and 

what areas that were occupied at the 

time of listing that contain features 

essential for the conservation of the 

taxon should be included in the 

designation and why, and what areas 

that were not occupied at the time of 

listing are essential to the conservation 

of the taxon and why. 

(3) Additional information on the 

specific physical and biological features 

(primary constituent elements) that are 

essential to the conservation of 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

(see ‘‘Primary Constituent Elements’’

section of this proposed rule for more 

details). 

(4) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 41259 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat. 

(5) Information on how many of the 

State and local environmental 

protection measures referenced in the 

draft economic analysis were adopted 

largely as a result of the listing of 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii, 

and how many were either already in 

place or enacted for other reasons. 

(6) Whether the draft economic 

analysis identifies all State and local 

costs attributable to the revised 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

and information on any costs that have 

been inadvertently overlooked. 

(7) Whether the draft economic 

analysis makes appropriate assumptions 

regarding current practices and likely 

regulatory changes imposed as a result 

of the designation of critical habitat. 

(8) Whether the draft economic 

analysis correctly assesses the effect on 

regional costs associated with land use 

controls that derive from the 

designation of critical habitat. 

(9) Whether the economic analysis 

indicated potentially disproportionate 

impacts to any areas included in the 

proposed designation. Based on this 

information, we may consider excluding 

portions of these areas from the final 

designation per our discretion under 

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

(10) Whether the economic analysis 

appropriately identifies all costs that 

could result from the designation, in 

particular, any impacts on small entities 

or families; and whether it is 

appropriate that the analysis does not 

include the cost of project modifications 

that are the result of informal 

consultation only. 

(11) Whether the economic analysis 

appropriately identifies the benefits that 

could result from the designation. 

(12) Whether there is information 

about areas that could be used as 

substitutes for the economic activities 

planned in critical habitat areas that 

would offset the costs and allow for the 

conservation of critical habitat areas. 

(13) Whether our approach to 

designating critical habitat could be 

improved or modified in any way to 

provide for greater public participation 

and understanding, or to assist us in 

accommodating public concerns and 

comments. 

If you wish to comment on the 

proposed rule and/or the draft economic 

analysis, you may submit your 

comments and materials by any one of 

several methods (see ADDRESSES

section). Please submit e-mail comments 

to fw8cfwocomments@fws.gov. Please 

include ‘‘Attn: RIN 1018–AU98’’ in your 

e-mail subject line and your name and 

return address in the body of your 

message. If you do not receive a 

confirmation from the system that we 

have received your message, contact us 

directly by calling our Carlsbad Fish 

and Wildlife Office at phone number 

760–431–9440. Please note that 

comments must be received by the date 

specified in DATES in order to be 

considered. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Background 

This proposed rule addresses revised 

critical habitat for Astragalus 

magdalenae var. peirsonii. For 

additional information on the 

taxonomy, biology, and ecology of this 

taxon, refer to the final rule listing the 

taxon as threatened, published in the 

Federal Register on October 6, 1998 (63 

FR 53596), or the proposed and final 

rules designating critical habitat for this 

taxon published in the Federal Register 

on August 5, 2003 (68 FR 46143), and 

on August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47330), 

respectively. It is our intention to 

discuss only those topics directly 

relevant to the revised designation of 

critical habitat in this proposed rule. 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

is an erect to spreading, herbaceous 

member of the Fabaceae (legume family) 

(Barneby 1959, p. 879; 1964, p. 862) that 

occurs on bowls, swales, and slopes of 

intact, active windblown sand dunes of 

the Algodones Dunes of Imperial 

County, California and the northeastern 

Estado de Baja California and Gran 

Desierto of northwestern Sonora, 

Mexico (Felger 2000, p. 300; 

Spellenberg 1993, p. 598; Willoughby 

2005a, p. 2). Please refer to the ‘‘Primary 

Constituent Elements’’ section below for 

additional discussion on habitat 

requirements of this taxon. Plants may 

reach 8 to 27 inches (in) (20 to 70 

centimeters (cm)) in height and develop 

tap roots (Barneby 1964, pp. 863–864) 

that penetrate deeply to the moister 

sand and that anchor plants in the 

shifting sand dunes. The root crown is 

often exposed by wind action moving 

the sand away from the base of the 

plants. Seeds are enclosed in fruits or 

pods and are either dispersed locally by 

falling out of partly opened fruits on the 

parent plant, ‘‘salt-shaker’’ style, or are 

dispersed further if blown across the 

sand after falling from the parent plant. 

Thus seeds can be transported from one 

favorable site to another, or remain near 

the parent plant, depending on winds 

(Phillips et al. 2001, p. 11). 

Seeds require no pre-treatment to 

induce germination, but germination 

success has been shown to improve 

dramatically when the outer seed coat is 

scarified (e.g., scratched, chipped) 

(Porter et al. 2005, p. 29). Germination 

appears to be more successful in the 

cooler months of the year when 

temperatures are less than 86 °F (30 °C) 

(Romspert and Burk 1979, pp. 45–46). 

Therefore, based on our current 

understanding of the taxon’s life history, 

sufficient rain in conjunction with cool 

temperatures and wetter-than-average 

fall weather appears to trigger 

germination events. 

Depending upon conditions, 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii is 

capable of flowering before it is one year 

old (Barneby 1964, p. 862; Romspert 

and Burk 1979, p. 16; Phillips et. al 

2001, p. 10; Phillips and Kennedy 2005, 

p. 22). Porter et al. (2005, pp. 31–32) 

hypothesized that if rains occur early in 

the growing season, then flowering can 

begin in as little as 3 months after 

germination. If, on the other hand, rains 

(and germination) do not occur until 

late February, then flowering is delayed 

until the next rainy season. In dry years, 

individuals die and are not replaced by 

new seedlings. 

This variability in annual abundance 

of above-ground plants has caused this 

taxon to be considered variously as an 

annual (completing its life cycle in a 

year or growing season) or a perennial 

(living for more than 2 years) (Munz 

1932, p. 7; Munz 1974, p. 432; Barneby 

1959, p. 879; Barneby 1964, p. 862; 

Spellenberg 1993, p. 598; Willoughby 

2001, p. 21). Recent evidence has 

confirmed that this species is a shortlived perennial (Phillips et al. 2001, p. 

10; Porter et al. 2005, pp. 31, 34). This 

taxon likely depends on the production 

of seeds in wetter years and the 

persistence of the seed bank from 

previous years to survive until 

appropriate conditions for germination 

occur again. Porter et al. (2005, p. 29) 

identified the primary dormancy 

mechanism in Astragalus magdalenae 

var. peirsonii as the impermeability of 

the seed coat to water and demonstrated 

little loss of viability in seeds stored for 

5 years. This dormancy mechanism is 

consistent with species having a seed 

bank (Given 1994, p. 67). Dispersed 

seeds in a given year that do not 

germinate during the subsequent 

growing season become part of the soil 

seed bank (Given 1994, p. 67). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
41260 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Species Distribution and Abundance 

In the United States, Astragalus 

magdalenae var. peirsonii is restricted 

to about 53,000 acres (ac) (21,500 

hectares (ha)) in a narrow band running 

40 miles (mi) (64 kilometers (km)) 

northwest to southeast along the 

western portion of the Algodones Dunes 

of eastern Imperial County, California, 

which is the largest sand dune field in 

North America. Astragalus magdalenae 

var. peirsonii has also been documented 

from the Gran Desierto of Sonora, 

Mexico (Felger 2000, p. 300) from an 

area south and southeast of the Sierra 

Pinacate lava field, but the Service has 

no additional information on the size of 

the population or extent of area 

occupied (63 FR 53599). The taxon was 

noted from the Borrego Valley, 

California, by Barneby (1959, p. 879) but 

no verified, reproducing population 

exists (Porter et al. 2005, pp. 9–10). 

Other observations from Yuma, Arizona, 

and San Felipe, Baja California, Mexico, 

were based on misidentified specimens 

(see Porter et al. 2005, pp. 9–10, and 

Phillips et al. 2001, p. 7, for detailed 

accounts). 

The Algodones Dunes are one of the 

largest sand dune fields in North 

America, extending about 40 mi (64 

km), trending from northwest to 

southeast (Norris and Norris 1961, p. 

608). Please refer to the 2003 proposed 

critical habitat rule for a more detailed 

discussion on the geomorphology of the 

Algodones Dunes (68 FR 46143). These 

dunes are often referred to as the 

Imperial Sand Dunes, a designation 

derived from their inclusion in the 

Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area 

(ISDRA) established by the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM). The majority 

of the Algodones Dunes is managed by 

BLM within 8 management areas, of 

which 7 are occupied by Astragalus 

magdalenae var. peirsonii (Mammoth 

Wash, North Algodones Wilderness, 

Glamis, Gecko, Adaptive Management 

Area (AMA), Ogilby, and Buttercup). 

The State of California and private 

individuals own some small inholdings 

in the Mammoth Wash management 

area. 

The ISDRA is the most popular offhighway vehicle (OHV) area in the 

southwest United States, with a 

specified major focus to ensure that 

OHV recreation opportunities are 

continuously available while 

responding to increased need for 

protection of plant and animal species 

in the dunes (Willoughby 2003, pp. 1–

3). As a result of a settlement agreement 

reached in 2000, the BLM agreed to 

establish 5 interim closure areas within 

the Algodones Dunes, temporarily 

closing these areas to OHV recreation 

(see Index Map in ‘‘Rule Promulgation’’

section). As a result of a June 3, 2005, 

lawsuit, these temporary closures are 

still in place (see ‘‘Previous Federal 

Actions’’ section below for more 

information about the 2005 lawsuit). 

The Algodones Dunes are in one of 

the driest and hottest regions in the 

United States. The rainfall is often 

described as scattered or patchy with 

amounts differing from place to place 

and from year to year, with areas to the 

northwest being generally dryer than 

those to the southeast (Willoughby 

2001, p. 20). Romspert and Burk (1979, 

p. 11) reported average yearly rainfall 

during the period 1941–1970 was 2.6 in 

(66 millimeters (mm)). Average yearly 

rainfall between 1997 and 2002 at seven 

weather stations in the vicinity of the 

dunes ranged from a low of 0.1 in (3.3 

mm) during the 2001–2002 growing 

season to a high of 6.1 in (155 mm) in 

the 1997–1998 growing season 

(Willoughby 2004, p.13). Average yearly 

rainfall between 2002 and 2006 at two 

weather stations on the dunes ranged 

from a low of 0.2 in (5.3 mm) during the 

2005–2006 growing season to a high of 

4.8 in (122 mm) during the 2004–2005 

growing season (Willoughby 2006, 

p.18). 

The distribution and abundance of 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

has been recorded during several 

ongoing survey efforts. As discussed in 

the 2004 final critical habitat rule (69 FR 

47330), the 1977 dunes-wide survey for 

A. m. var. peirsonii and four other rare 

psammophytic (sand-loving) scrub 

species (WESTEC 1977) was considered 

the most extensive survey of the 

Algodones Dunes conducted at that 

time. The BLM conducted rare plant 

surveys for 5 consecutive years from 

1998 through 2002, generally repeating 

the methodology used by WESTEC in its 

1977 survey (Willoughby 2001, p. iii). 

Raw data from the 2001 and 2002 

surveys were provided by the BLM to 

the Service for use in the development 

of the 2004 final critical habitat rule. 

However, a written report of the 2001 

and 2002 surveys (Willoughby 2004) 

was completed in October 2004, after 

the publication of the August 4, 2004, 

final critical habitat rule. As also 

discussed in the 2004 final critical 

habitat rule, Phillips and Kennedy 

(2002, 2003) conducted surveys for A. 

m. var. peirsonii from 2001 through 

2003. Since publication of the 2004 final 

critical habitat rule, both the BLM 

(Willoughby 2005a, 2005b, 2006) and 

Phillips and Kennedy (2004, 2005, 

2006) continued to conduct annual 

surveys for this species through 2006. 

Table 1 below summarizes all of the 

various survey efforts, including the 

number of sampling points or transects 

and the effective area surveyed by each 

effort as well as the estimated 

population by the survey methodology 

and the actual number of plants 

counted. 

TABLE 1.—COMPARISON OF SURVEY DATA COLLECTED FOR Astragalus magdalenae VAR. peirsonii IN THE ALGODONES

DUNES; DATA TAKEN FROM 13 UNPUBLISHED REPORTS

Year Surveyor Number of 

plants counted 

Estimated 

population 

Number 

samples 

Effective 

area 

1977 ............................... WESTEC ................................................................ N/A N/A 542 53,000 ac 

1998 ............................... BLM 1 ..................................................................... 5,064 N/A 542 53,000 ac 

1999 ............................... BLM 1 ..................................................................... 942 N/A 542 53,000 ac 

2000 ............................... BLM 1 ..................................................................... 86 N/A 542 53,000 ac 

2001 ............................... BLM 1 ..................................................................... 5,930 N/A 542 53,000 ac 

2002 ............................... BLM 1 ..................................................................... 2,297 N/A 542 53,000 ac 

2001 ............................... Phillips 2 ................................................................. 3 71,926 N/A 127 ~35,000 ac 

2001 ............................... Phillips 2 ................................................................. 30,771 N/A 25 138 ac 

2003 ............................... Phillips 2 ................................................................. 33,202 N/A 25 138 ac 

2005 ............................... Phillips 2 ................................................................. 77,922 4 173,328 25 138 ac 

2006 ............................... Phillips 2 ................................................................. 1,233 4 2,035 25 138 ac 

2004 ............................... BLM 1 ..................................................................... 25,798 286,374 37,169 53,000 ac 

2005 ............................... BLM 1 ..................................................................... 739,805 1,831,076 123,488 53,000 ac 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 41261 

TABLE 1.—COMPARISON OF SURVEY DATA COLLECTED FOR Astragalus magdalenae VAR. peirsonii IN THE ALGODONES

DUNES; DATA TAKEN FROM 13 UNPUBLISHED REPORTS—Continued 

Year Surveyor Number of 

plants counted 

Estimated 

population 

Number 

samples 

Effective 

area 

2006 ............................... BLM 1 ..................................................................... N/A 83,451 775 53,000 ac 

(1) BLM reports cited as Willoughby; (2) Phillips reports cited as Phillips et al. or Phillips and Kennedy; (3) reconnaissance of unspecified area; 

(4) estimated population for 60 specific sample sites. 

Since different methodologies and 

survey effort were used by the BLM as 

compared to Phillips and Kennedy, it is 

difficult to compare the annual 

estimates of dunes-wide species 

abundance reported from the two 

different survey efforts. Early surveys 

conducted by WESTEC in 1977 

(WESTEC 1977) and by BLM from 1998 

through 2002 (Willoughby 2001, 2004) 

incorporated a methodology [whereby 

plants encountered along driving 

transects were qualitatively indexed to 

an abundance value] and represented in 

quadrants measuring 0.45 mi on each 

side. Analysis of these coarse, dunewide surveys could only provide 

relative comparisons of mean 

abundance values between years. In 

2004, the BLM embarked on a new 

sampling methodology that sampled a 

larger portion of the dunes in greater 

detail (Willoughby 2005a, pp. 1–5). 

Unlike previous surveys, the recent 

BLM surveys were scientifically and 

statistically designed to estimate the 

standing Astragalus magdalenae var. 

peirsonii population (Willoughby 2005a, 

2005b, 2006). Data were compiled in 

adjacent 25 x 25-meter (m) cells along 

4–5 km transects covering the full 

length of the dunes, and all microhabitats were sampled along each 

transect (Willoughby 2005b, pp. 1–3). 

Within these 25 x 25-m cells, surveyors 

noted: The total number of plants; age 

class of plants; number of seedlings; 

number of flowering versus nonflowering plants; number of plants 

exhibiting damage from OHVs; and the 

number of plants showing damage from 

other sources (Willoughby 2005b, p. 3). 

The recent BLM surveys also increased 

the number of sample transects to 135 

in 2004, and to 510 for the spring 2005 

surveys; the increased transect numbers 

and more detailed survey methodology 

increased their overall sample count to 

37,169 and 123,488, respectively 

(Willoughby 2005b). In 2006, the BLM 

used a randomized sample of 2005 

known occupied cells during the very 

dry winter and spring of 2006 to yield 

a population estimate for the 2005–2006 

survey year (Willoughby 2006, p. 6). 

Both the WESTEC and BLM surveys 

covered an effective area of about 53,000 

ac (21,200 ha) and encompassed all 

management areas containing 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

(Willoughby 2005a, p. 2). 

By comparison, Phillips et al. (2001, 

p. 6) counted individual Astragalus 

magdalenae var. peirsonii from 127 

specific locations covering an 

unspecified area of about 35,000 ac 

(14,165 ha) (Phillips and Kennedy 2002, 

Appendix A). Phillips and Kennedy 

(2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006) then 

established 25 monitoring sites from 

these 127 locations for their multi-year 

survey effort, which had an effective 

area of about 138 ac (56 ha). 

The disparity between these three 

survey methods and the data collected 

makes it difficult to assess status and 

trends of the Astragalus magdalenae 

var. peirsonii population. However, we 

consider the surveys conducted by BLM 

to be the most extensive and precise 

effort to determine overall population 

abundance and distribution for this 

species, because this effort covered an 

effective area of about 53,000 ac (21,200 

ha) and encompassed all management 

areas containing Astragalus magdalenae 

var. peirsonii. Also, the amount of data 

gathered in 2005 was the result of an 

exceptionally good rainfall year and 

extraordinary monitoring effort. We 

agree with the BLM that the 2005 survey 

effort represents the best estimate to 

date of distribution and abundance of 

the species on the Algodones Dunes 

(Willoughby 2006, p. v). The 2005–2006 

survey year was an exceptionally dry 

year, with no A. m. var. peirsonii 

germination reported (Willoughby 2006, 

p. vi). 

While direct comparison of annual 

estimates of Astragalus magdalenae var. 

peirsonii abundance reported by BLM 

and Phillips and Kennedy is difficult 

due to differences in survey 

methodologies and effort used by the 

surveyors, some comparisons can be 

made which illustrate the wide 

variation in numbers of standing 

individuals found in any given year and 

in any given area of the dunes 

depending on abundance and 

distribution of rainfall. If we compare 

BLM data from 1998 with BLM 2000 

data and compare Phillips and 

Kennedy’s 2001 data with their 2003 

data, we see the annual variation in 

species abundance at occupied sites. 

Along the same series of west to east 

transects, BLM counted a total of 5,064 

plants in 1998, a heavy rainfall year, 

and 86 plants in 2000, a low rainfall 

year (Willoughby 2004, p. 36). The 

record of steep decline of the cohort 

counted by Phillips et al. in 2001 was 

tracked by Phillips and Kennedy (2002, 

p. 18), who reported that only 26 

percent of the plants seen in spring of 

2001 were present in late 2001. Phillips 

and Kennedy (2003, p. 12) also reported 

that only 0.26 percent of the plants 

counted in spring 2001 survived to 

spring 2003. 

This wide variation in numbers of 

standing individuals is also evident 

when comparing results of the BLM’s 

dunes-wide surveys conducted in 2004, 

2005, and 2006. In 2004, estimated 

dunes-wide abundance was 286,374 

plants (5.5 plants/ac (13.5/ha)) 

(Willoughby 2005a, p. 37). In 2005, 

estimated dunes-wide abundance was 

1,831,076 plants (39.8 plants/ac (86/ha)) 

(Willoughby 2005b, pp. 9–11). In 2006, 

estimated dunes-wide abundance was 

83,451 plants (1.6 plants/ac (3.9/ha)) 

(Willoughby 2006, p. vi). Differences in 

densities (plants per acre) are likely due 

to differences in rainfall between years. 

An above average amount of rainfall was 

recorded during the 2004–2005 growing 

season, resulting in the greatest 

abundance of plants to date, while the 

2005–2006 growing season was 

considered an exceptionally dry year, 

resulting in zero reported germination. 

Density in 2004 may have also been 

decreased due to higher average 

monthly maximum temperatures 

recorded during the survey period, 

potentially impacting germination 

(Willoughby 2005a, p. 12). 

In any given year, Astragalus 

magdalenae var. peirsonii may be 

present as standing plants, as a ‘‘soil 

seed bank’’ in the sand dunes, or as 

plants persisting as perennial root 

crowns in the sand dunes. During any 

given year, the suitable habitat for A. m. 

var. peirsonii may be occupied by 

various combinations of these three life 

history phases. The dynamics of dune 

morphology, local rainfall patterns and 

amounts, and the spatial distribution of 

the soil seed bank contribute to the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
41262 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

patchy or mosaic nature of the 

distribution of standing plants of A. m. 

var. peirsonii. As discussed above, local 

rainfall patterns and amounts are likely 

to cause shifts in the proportions of 

these three life history phases. 

This species was federally listed as 

threatened due to threats of increasing 

habitat loss from OHV use and 

associated recreational development, 

destruction of plants, and lack of 

protection afforded the plant under 

State law (63 FR 53596). Impacts to 

individual plants and their habitat 

associated with OHV activities and 

recreation development continue to be 

the primary threat to this species in the 

United States. Please refer to the final 

listing rule (63 FR 53596) for a detailed 

discussion of the threats to the species 

and to the ‘‘Special Management 

Considerations or Protection’’ section of 

this proposed rule for a more detailed 

discussion on threats to this species’

habitat. 

Previous Federal Actions 

For more information on previous 

Federal actions related to the 

designation of critical habitat for 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii, 

refer to the final listing rule published 

in the Federal Register on October 6, 

1998 (63 FR 53596), and the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for this 

species published in the Federal 

Register on August 5, 2003 (68 FR 

46143). On August 4, 2004 (69 FR 

47330), we designated approximately 

21,836 acres (ac) (8,848 hectares (ha)) of 

land in Imperial County, California, as 

critical habitat for this species. 

On June 3, 2005, the Center for 

Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, Public 

Employees for Environmental 

Responsibility, and Desert Survivors 

filed suit against the BLM and the 

Service alleging, among other violations 

related to the protection of Astragalus 

magdalenae var. peirsonii and desert 

tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), that the 

Service did not properly consider and 

weigh the benefits and costs associated 

with designating critical habitat for A. 

m. var. peirsonii. In a September 25, 

2006, order and injunction regarding 

final relief, the court ordered the Service 

to submit a new final critical habitat 

rule to the Federal Register for 

publication no later than February 1, 

2008. In addition, the Court ordered that 

the August 4, 2004 final critical habitat 

designation remain in full force and 

effect pending completion of the new 

final rule, and that the August 5, 2003 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

be reinstated and remain effective 

pending completion of the new final 

rule or the issuance of a new proposed 

critical habitat rule for A. m. peirsonii. 

Therefore, under the Court’s order, this 

proposed rule replaces the August 5, 

2003 proposed critical habitat 

designation, and the August 5, 2003 

proposed rule is no longer in effect. All 

areas currently designated under the 

August 4, 2004 final rule remain 

designated pending completion of the 

new final critical habitat rule. 

On November 30, 2005, we published 

a notice of 90-day finding on a petition 

to delist this species and an initiation of 

a status review in the Federal Register 

(70 FR 71795). Please see the notice of 

90-day finding for a discussion of the 

previous Federal actions related to the 

delisting petition history of this species. 

We are currently completing a status 

review of Astragalus magdalenae var. 

peirsonii and will publish our 12-month 

finding on the delisting petition in the 

Federal Register later this year. 

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 

that are necessary to bring any 

endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the 

measures provided under the Act are no 

longer necessary. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

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

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(a)(2) 

of the Act 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 at the time of 

listing 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 (areas on which are 

found the primary constituent elements, 

as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)). 

Occupied habitat that contains the 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species meets the definition of 

critical habitat only if the essential 

features thereon may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. Thus, we do not include 

areas where existing management is 

sufficient to conserve the species. (As 

discussed below, such areas may also be 

excluded from critical habitat under 

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

Unoccupied areas can be designated 

as critical habitat. However, 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. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 

Further, the Service’s Policy on 

Information Standards Under the 

Endangered Species Act, published in 

the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34271); 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 may include the 

recovery plan for the species, articles in 

peer-reviewed journals, conservation 

plans developed by States and counties, 

scientific status surveys and studies, 

biological assessments, or other 

unpublished materials and expert 

opinion or personal knowledge. All 

information is used in accordance with 

the provisions of Section 515 of the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 41263 

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. 

Habitat is often dynamic, and species 

may move from one area to another over 

time. Furthermore, we recognize that 

designation of critical habitat may not 

include all of the habitat areas that may 

eventually be determined to be 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, critical 

habitat designations do not signal that 

habitat outside the designation is 

unimportant or may not be required for 

recovery. 

Areas that support populations, but 

are outside the critical habitat 

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. 

Methods 

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, 

we used the best scientific and 

commercial information available in 

determining areas that contain the 

features essential to the conservation of 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii, 

areas that are essential to the 

conservation of A. m. var. peirsonii, or 

both. This included data from 

unpublished research and survey 

reports, such as WESTEC (1977); Porter 

et al. (2005); BLM surveys conducted 

from 1998 to 2006 (Willoughby 2001, 

2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2006); peerreviewed journal articles; site visits; and 

discussions with species experts. We are 

not including in this proposed critical 

habitat rule any areas outside the 

geographical area presently occupied by 

the species. 

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 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing to 

propose as critical habitat, we consider 

those physical and biological features 

(primary constituent elements) that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, and that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. These include, but are not 

limited to: (1) Space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, 

minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; (3) cover or 

shelter; (4) sites for breeding, 

reproduction, and rearing (or 

development) of offspring; and (5) 

habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historic, geographical, and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

The specific primary constituent 

elements (PCEs) required for Astragalus 

magdalenae var. peirsonii are derived 

from the biological needs of A. m. var. 

peirsonii as described in the 

‘‘Background’’ section of this proposed 

rule, and also in the final listing rule (63 

FR 53596) and in the ‘‘Background’’

section of the 2003 proposed critical 

habitat rule (68 FR 46143). 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth, Including Sites for 

Germination, Reproduction, Seed 

Dispersal, Seed Bank, and Pollination 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

is found on active sand dunes between 

active faces (so-called slip faces) of the 

dunes, in bowls, or on semi-stabilized 

shallow slopes, facing the slip-faces of 

active dunes (Porter et al. 2005, p. 14). 

Active sand dunes provide the space 

needed for individual and population 

growth, including sites for germination, 

reproduction, seed dispersal, seed bank, 

and pollination of A. m. var. peirsonii. 

Active sand dunes are characterized by 

bowls (hollows among the dunes), 

swales (low area), and slip faces (areas 

so steep that the loose sand naturally 

cascades downward) that run transverse 

to the primary ridge line. A. m. var. 

peirsonii generally occurs on westfacing slopes where there is relative 

substrate stability from the floor of the 

dune basin to beyond the ridge; the 

greatest concentrations are generally 

above the middle of the slope (WESTEC 

1977, p. 75; Porter et al. 2001, pp. 12–

13). 

Sand movement, dune-building, and 

dune migration are likely determined by 

the wind regime (Norris and Norris 

1961, p. 609). Winds from the northwest 

are prevalent in the winter, while in the 

summer the winds are from the 

southeast (Romspert and Burk 1979, p. 

11). Muhs et al. (1995, pp. 43–44) 

found, during a study of the sand source 

for the Algodones Dunes, that dominant 

sand-moving winds are as follows: 

Prevailing from the northwest all year at 

Indio, California; from the west or 

southwest all year at El Centro, 

California; and from the northwest in 

winter and from the southeast in 

summer at Yuma, Arizona. These winds 

are responsible for the local dispersal of 

seeds that either fall out of partly 

opened fruits or pods on the parent 

plant or that are released from fruits 

blown across the sand after falling from 

the parent plant (Phillips et al. 2001, p. 

11). 

Seed germination patterns likely 

reflect the horizontal and vertical 

distribution of the seed bank in the 

shifting sand dunes (seeds will not 

effectively germinate if buried more 

than 3 in (8 cm) below the surface of the 

dune (Bowers 1996, p. 69)). As an 

adaptation to shifting sands and low soil 

moisture, this species has developed 

extremely long tap roots (Barneby 1964, 

p. 862) that penetrate deeply to the 

moister sand and that anchor the plants 

in the shifting dunes. According to 

Porter et al. (2005, p. 28), seedlings may 

have roots descending only 4 in (10 cm), 

whereas older plants (e.g., 4 years or 

older) are likely to have roots ‘‘many 

meters deep.’’ Seeds buried in the sand 

function as the seed bank and allow for 

growth when suitable conditions, such 

as adequate rainfall, scarification, and 

suitable sand depths, are met. 

Wind-driven sand appears to provide 

the primary mechanism for seed 

scarification (e.g., scratching or 

chipping of outer cover). While seeds 

require no pre-germination treatment to 

induce germination, scarification 

appears to significantly increase 

germination success. Porter et al. (2005, 

p. 29) conducted germination trials of 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

seeds collected from Algodones Dunes 

and found that, averaging over all 

germination trials, scarified seeds had 

99.1 percent germination whereas 

unscarified seeds displayed 5.3 percent 

germination. In germination trials 

conducted by Romspert and Burk (1979, 

pp. 45–46), 92 percent or more seeds 

germinated within 29 days at 

temperatures of 77 °F (25 °C) or less, 

and no seeds germinated at 

temperatures of 86 °F (30 °C) or higher. 

This observation indicates that seeds on 

the dunes likely germinate in the cooler 

months of the year. Porter et al. (2005, 

p. 29) identified the primary dormancy 

mechanism in A. m. var. peirsonii as the 

impermeability of the seed coat to water 

and demonstrated little loss of viability 

in seeds stored for 5 years. 

Seedlings may be generally present in 

suitable habitat throughout the dunes, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
41264 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

especially during above-normal 

precipitation years. In intervening dry 

years, plant numbers decrease as 

individuals die and are not replaced by 

new seedlings. Porter (et al. 2005, p. 35) 

estimated that a total- or near-total 

failure of seedling recruitment occurs 20 

percent of the time (1 of every 5 years). 

This species likely depends on the 

production of seeds in the wetter years 

and the persistence of the seed bank 

from previous years to survive until 

appropriate conditions for germination 

occur again. 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

occurs only in a vegetation community 

referred to as psammophytic (sandloving) scrub, characterized by Croton 

wigginsii (Dunes croton), Eriogonum 

deserticola (Desert buckwheat), 

Helianthus niveus ssp. Tephrodes 

(Algodones Dunes sunflower), Palafoxia 

arida var. gigantean (Giant Spanishneedle), Pholisma sonorae, Tiquilia 

plicata (Plicate coldenia), Petalonyx 

thurberi (Thurber’s sandpaper plant), 

and Panicum urvilleanum (Dunes panic 

grass) (WESTEC 1977, p. 58; Porter et al. 

2005, p. 14). However, none of these 

species truly dominates the landscape 

(Porter et al. 2005, p. 14). 

In areas where the sand dunes are 

more stabilized (less sand dune building 

and movement), such as along the 

margins of the dune fields, the open 

canopy psammophytic scrub 

community is replaced by the sandier 

phases of the creosote bush scrub 

community. Astragalus magdalenae var. 

peirsonii is apparently excluded from 

the relatively more closed canopy, 

creosote bush scrub community. The 

presence of this associated co-adapted 

psammophytic scrub plant community 

is important for population growth of A. 

m. var. peirsonii, because it provides 

habitat for insect pollinators required by 

A. m. var. peirsonii for fruit production 

(Porter et al. 2005, p. 35). The whitefaced digger bee (Habropoda pallida) 

has been found to be the most frequent 

visitor on and may be the primary 

pollinator for this taxon (Porter et al. 

2005, p. 32). 

Intervening Areas for Gene Flow and 

Connectivity Within the Population 

The active sand dunes are continuous 

along the northwest-to-southeast axis. 

The continuity of the sand dunes 

provides connectivity and facilitates 

gene flow within the population by 

allowing the movement of pollinators 

and the wind dispersal of fruit and 

seeds. Therefore, areas of the sand 

dunes between bowls occupied by 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

are important for maintaining gene flow 

within the population. 

Areas That Provide the Basic 

Requirements for Growth (Such as 

Water, Light, and Minerals) 

A soil survey for the Imperial Valley 

area of Imperial County did not include 

the areas east of the Coachella Canal, 

but did depict a few adjacent portions 

of the Algodones Dunes as Rositas fine 

sand with 9 to 30 percent slopes 

(Zimmerman 1981, p. 32). Rositas fine 

sand is described as deep, somewhat 

excessively drained, sloping soils 

formed in wind-blown sands of diverse 

origin. Dean (1978, p. 65) describes the 

sand as quartz with a mean grain size of 

0.006 in (0.17 mm). The dunes contain 

60 to 70 percent quartz and 30 to 40 

percent feldspar sand (Norris and Norris 

1961, p. 610). Porter et al. 2005 (pp. 26–

27) describes the sand as containing 

very little organic material (less than 1 

percent). They also found that following 

rainfall, the dune surface held 

considerable moisture. Within two to 

three weeks of a rainfall event, moist 

sand was found 1 in (3 cm) below the 

dune surface and later in the season 

(e.g., April) moist sand was found 7 in 

(19 cm) below the surface (Porter et al. 

2005, pp. 26–27). Therefore, Rositas fine 

sands are required by this species to 

provide the basic requirements for 

growth. 

Based on the best available 

information at this time, the primary 

constituent elements required by 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

are: 

(1) West and/or northwest-facing 

sides of bowls, swales, and slopes 

consisting of Rositas fine sands within 

intact, active sand dune systems 

(defined as sand areas that are subject to 

sand-moving winds) in the existing 

range of the species that provide space 

needed for individual and population 

growth, including sites for germination, 

reproduction, seed dispersal, seed bank, 

and pollination; 

(2) The associated co-adapted 

psammophytic scrub plant community 

characterized by Croton wigginsii, 

Eriogonum deserticola, Helianthus 

niveus ssp. tephrodes, Palafoxia arida 

var. gigantean, Pholisma sonorae, 

Tiquilia plicata, Petalonyx thurberi, and 

Panicum urvilleanum that provides 

habitat for insect pollinators, 

particularly the white-faced digger bee 

(Habropoda pallida), required for 

reproduction; and 

(3) Areas within intact, active sand 

dune systems between occupied bowls, 

swales, and slopes that allow for 

pollinator movement and wind 

dispersal of fruit and seeds. 

This proposed revision to the critical 

habitat designation is designed for the 

conservation of those areas containing 

PCEs necessary to support the life 

history functions that were the basis for 

the proposal and the areas containing 

those PCEs. Because not all life history 

functions require all the PCEs, not all 

proposed critical habitat units will 

contain all the PCEs. 

Units are designated based on 

sufficient PCEs being present to support 

at least one of the species’ life history 

functions. Some units contain all PCEs 

and support multiple life processes, 

while some units contain only a portion 

of the PCEs necessary to support the 

species’ particular use of that habitat. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the areas determined to 

be occupied at the time of listing 

contain primary constituent elements 

that may require special management 

considerations or protection. We have 

also considered how revising the 

current designation highlights habitat 

that needs special management 

consideration or protection. 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

was listed due to destruction of plants 

and modification of habitat associated 

with OHV activity and associated 

recreational development (63 FR 53596). 

OHVs can impact habitat for A. m. var. 

peirsonii by: 

(1) Disrupting the natural processes 

that support dune formation, movement, 

and structure which could disrupt the 

available habitat needed for individual 

and population growth (PCE 1 and 3); 

(2) Causing the collapse of dune faces 

and ridges, which could result in burial 

of the seed bank (PCE 1); 

(3) Disturbing surface sand, thereby 

decreasing soil moisture needed for 

individual and population growth (PCE 

1); and 

(4) Degrading the psammophytic 

scrub plant community that provides 

habitat for pollinators required for 

reproduction (PCE 2). 

In the 2004 final critical habitat rule, 

we stated that OHVs may also increase 

sand compaction (69 FR 47330). 

However, Porter et al. (2005, p. 27) 

measured soil compaction associated 

with undisturbed dunes, OHV-traversed 

sand dunes, and dunes disturbed by foot 

traffic, and found that soil compaction 

on the undisturbed dunes was 

significantly higher. They state that 

winds and rains cause the sand grains 

on the surface of the dune to sort and 

pack in undisturbed areas, thereby 

potentially reducing evaporative water 

loss from the dunes. They theorize that 

OHV activity or walking disturbs the 

surface and may result in increased 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 41265 

evaporative water loss in the dunes 

(Porter et al. 2005, p. 27). 

Special management considerations 

or protection may be required to 

minimize impacts to Astragalus 

magdalenae var. peirsonii habitat 

resulting from OHV recreation. The 

BLM (2003, Appendix 1 p. 13) listed the 

following possible management options 

to protect A. m. var. peirsonii and its 

habitat: (1) Use restrictions based on a 

permit system that would allow a 

specified level of use (high, medium, 

low, no use); (2) temporally based 

closures or limitations (open during 

some months or years, closed in others); 

(3) recognition and management of 

certain areas within a management area; 

and/or (4) increased education and 

outreach to OHV users to avoid certain 

areas. Special management 

considerations needed may also include 

additional enforcement to ensure visitor 

compliance with these management 

options. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

All proposed revised critical habitat 

units are within areas that we have 

determined were occupied at the time of 

listing, and that contain sufficient 

primary constituent elements (PCEs) to 

support life history functions essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Lands were proposed for designation 

based on sufficient PCEs being present 

to support the life processes. Some 

lands contain only a portion of the PCEs 

necessary to support the particular use 

of that habitat. 

We consider BLM’s 2005 (Willoughby 

2005b) survey data to be the best 

available information on the 

distribution and range of Astragalus 

magdalenae var. peirsonii on the 

Algodones Dunes. As discussed in the 

‘‘Background’’ section of this proposed 

rule, an exceptional amount of rainfall 

was recorded during the 2004–2005 

growing season, resulting in the highest 

recorded abundance of the species to 

date with an estimated 1,831,076 plants 

(39.8 plants/ac (86 plants/ha)) in the 

dunes (Willoughby 2005b, pp. 9–11). 

This rainfall event coincided with the 

start of BLM’s revised survey 

methodology, which consisted of a more 

detailed survey approach, as previously 

described in the ‘‘Background’’ section, 

and covered a larger portion of the 

dunes (Willoughby 2005a, pp. 1–5). The 

2005 survey contained 123,488 sample 

points covering an effective area of 

53,000 acres. Because these surveys 

occurred under the best possible growth 

and germination conditions for the plant 

and covered the largest area and greatest 

number of sample point locations, we 

relied on BLM’s raw 2005 survey data 

as the basis for our criteria and GIS 

model to delineate proposed critical 

habitat for A. m. var. peirsonii. 

As discussed in further detail below, 

we used the following criteria to 

delineate proposed critical habitat: (1) 

Areas occupied by the species at the 

time of listing; (2) areas occupied at a 

density greater than 100 plants per ha 

according to BLM’s 2005 survey data 

(Willoughby 2005b); and (3) areas 

containing the features essential to the 

conservation of the species. As stated in 

the final listing rule (63 FR 53596), the 

Algodones Dunes was, and continues to 

be, the only area in the United States 

known to be occupied by Astragalus 

magdalenae var. peirsonii. 

We delineated the revised proposed 

critical habitat boundaries using the 

following GIS model: 

(1) We selected occupied cells 

(defined in Willoughby (2005b) as 25- 

m2 survey areas) with a plant density 

greater than 100 plants per ha (6 plants 

per cell) as core areas. About half of the 

plants observed in 2005 were in cells 

with a density more than or equal to 100 

plants per ha. We used a density of 100 

plants per ha since this captured the 

majority of the large clusters of standing 

plants. We believe these higher density 

core areas contain a larger extent of high 

quality habitat (e.g., suitable dune 

morphology and soil moisture) and 

therefore the PCEs required by this 

species. Also, since these core areas 

contain higher numbers of standing 

plants in proximity to each other, we 

believe that these areas likely support 

relatively large seed banks (a greater 

number of seeds being contributed by a 

greater number of standing plants). 

Therefore, based on our assumptions 

that these core areas contain a larger 

extent of high quality habitat and larger 

seed banks, we considered these areas 

most likely to contribute to the recovery 

of the species. 

(2) We expanded each core area to 1 

ha then merged 1-ha core areas within 

100-m distances of each other to form 

aggregated core areas. We expanded 

core areas to one ha to capture the entire 

population and seed bank in a dune 

bowl, based on our field observations 

that most occupied dune bowls are 

approximately one ha in size. We 

aggregated the 1-ha core areas within 

100 m of each other to maintain space 

for wind dispersal of seeds between 

occupied dune bowls. This 100-m 

distance is a dunes-wide approximation 

of the average distance between 

aggregated core areas. 

(3) We then eliminated outlying or 

remote core areas greater than 400 

meters (4 bowls) from adjacent core 

areas and core areas less than 400 m 

away but with a plant density less than 

approximately 370 plants (= 0.0005 of 

the total observed population of 

739,805) within the aggregated core 

area. This step allowed us to remove 

core areas with low numbers of plants 

considered not essential to the 

conservation of the species. Since these 

areas are a greater distance from 

aggregated core areas and/or contain 

relatively fewer standing plants, we 

believe these areas either contain a 

smaller extent of high quality habitat 

(e.g., suitable dune morphology and soil 

moisture) and/or support relatively 

small seed banks. Since we were not 

able to determine the importance of 

these outlying or remote areas to the 

long-term conservation of the species, 

we did not include them in the 

proposed designation. 

(4) We then overlaid a 100-m2 grid 

onto the final core areas to define the 

legal boundaries of the proposed critical 

habitat. We removed remaining small 

polygons less than 400 m from the core 

habitat in which the plant density was 

low. Since these polygons contained a 

low number of standing plants, we 

believe these areas contain a smaller 

extent of high quality habitat (e.g., 

suitable dune morphology and soil 

moisture) and/or support relatively 

small seed banks. Since we are not able 

to determine the importance of these 

lower density areas to the long-term 

conservation of the species at this time, 

we did not include them in the 

proposed designation. 

This methodology captured 

approximately 92 percent of the 2005 

observed population and includes areas 

we believe contain high density core 

populations, a large extent of high 

quality habitat, and a large seed bank 

and therefore important for the recovery 

of the species. 

Areas meeting the proposed critical 

habitat boundaries were then analyzed 

to determine if any existing 

conservation or management plans exist 

that benefit the taxon and its PCEs. As 

discussed in the 2004 final critical 

habitat rule (69 FR 47330), BLM 

released a proposed Recreation Area 

Management Plan (RAMP) for the 

ISDRA in 2003 (BLM 2003). The RAMP 

includes an intensive monitoring/study 

plan that the BLM has implemented 

(BLM 2003). As a result of the 

September 25, 2006, order and 

injunction regarding final relief, 

referenced in the ‘‘Background’’ section 

of this proposed rule, the Environmental 

Impact Statement associated with the 

2003 RAMP was remanded back to the 

BLM for further consideration. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
41266 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

When determining proposed critical 

habitat boundaries within this proposed 

rule, we made every effort to avoid 

including developed areas such as 

buildings, paved areas, and other 

structures that lack PCEs for Astragalus 

magdalenae var. peirsonii. The scale of 

the maps prepared under the parameters 

for publication within the Code of 

Federal Regulations may not reflect the 

exclusion of such developed areas. Any 

such structures and the land under them 

inadvertently left inside critical habitat 

boundaries shown on the maps of this 

proposed rule have been excluded by 

text in the proposed rule and are not 

proposed for designation as critical 

habitat. Therefore, Federal actions 

limited to these areas would not trigger 

section 7 consultation, unless they affect 

the species or primary constituent 

elements in adjacent critical habitat. 

Summary of Changes From Previously 

Designated Critical Habitat 

The areas identified in this proposed 

rule constitute a proposed revision of 

the areas we proposed to designate as 

critical habitat for Astragalus 

magdalenae var. peirsonii on August 5, 

2003 (68 FR 46143), and designated on 

August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47330). The main 

differences include the following: 

1. This proposed revision includes 

16,108 ac (6,519 ha) of land in Imperial 

County, California, a reduction of 

36,672 acre (14,840 ha) from the 2003 

proposed rule (68 FR 46143) and 5,728 

ac (2,329 ha) from the 2004 final critical 

habitat rule (69 FR 47330). The 

differences in data and selection criteria 

between the currently designated 

critical habitat and this proposed 

revision are described further below. 

2. The reduction in total acreage from 

the 2003 proposed critical habitat 

designation is primarily the result of a 

revised methodology to delineate 

critical habitat. The model used to 

delineate critical habitat boundaries in 

the 2003 proposed rule was based 

primarily on species survey data 

collected by the BLM from 1998 through 

2002 along transects throughout the 

areas of the Algodones Dunes occupied 

by Astragalus magdalenae var. 

peirsonii. Each transect was composed 

of a series of grid squares measuring 

approximately 0.45 mi2. In order to 

create the model, we used the coarse 

scale BLM survey data to extrapolate the 

values for four variables: (1) The 

presence or absence of standing plants 

of A. m. var. peirsonii; (2) the 

abundance of A. m. var. peirsonii; (3) 

the frequency of occurrence of A. m. 

var. peirsonii over the survey years; and 

(4) the number of associated rare 

psammophytic plant taxa present. These 

variables were scored, then 

standardized, and finally compiled. 

Because of the dynamic nature of the 

distribution of this plant, the cyclic 

nature of suitable climatic regimes, and 

the presence of a seed bank for A. m. 

var. peirsonii, grid squares where this 

plant was not found were included in 

critical habitat if they were contiguous 

with occupied grid squares (68 FR 

46143). The data used to create the 2003 

model was considered the best available 

at that time and allowed us to identify 

areas known to be occupied by A. m. 

var. peirsonii as well as areas likely to 

be occupied based on the presence of 

suitable habitat (e.g. presence of 

associated psammophytic plant taxa). 

As discussed in the ‘‘Background’’

and ‘‘Criteria Used to Identify Critical 

Habitat’’ sections of this proposed rule, 

the model used to delineate revised 

critical habitat boundaries in this 

revised proposed rule is based on 

survey data collected by BLM in 2005 

(Willoughby 2005b). A higher than 

average rainfall occurred during the 

2004–2005 growing season, resulting in 

the highest Astragalus magdalenae var. 

peirsonii densities to date. Based on 

these survey data, our revised model 

uses occupancy and density to outline 

areas known to be occupied by the 

species. The model used to delineate the 

revised proposed critical habitat is 

based on data collected along a larger 

number of transects (510 versus 34) 

during a year of the highest recorded A. 

m. var. peirsonii abundance. Therefore, 

the data are more robust, relying 

primarily on occupancy documented 

over a larger area of the dunes and at a 

finer spatial resolution (25 m2 grid cells) 

during optimal environmental 

conditions instead of on the presence of 

suitable habitat (e.g., the presence of 

associated rare psammophytic plant 

taxa) as did the 2003 model. 

In summary, we consider the model 

used to delineate revised critical habitat 

boundaries in this proposed rule to 

more accurately depict the areas known 

to be occupied by the species than the 

model used to delineate the 2003 

proposed critical habitat boundaries. We 

believe that the 2003 designation was 

more inclusive due to limited data and 

the rough spatial scale of the data, and 

the 2005 data now provide more 

specific and reliable information 

regarding abundance and distribution, 

allowing us to more precisely identify 

habitat essential to the conservation of 

the species associated with core 

population areas. Based on the new 

model, we determined that 36,535 ac 

(14,785 ha) previously proposed as 

critical habitat in 2003 are not essential 

to the conservation of the taxon, and 

therefore did not include these areas in 

the revised proposed critical habitat 

designation. 

3. Of the 16,108 ac (6,519 ha) 

included in this proposed revision to 

critical habitat, 14 ac (6 ha) in Subunit 

3B, 331 ac (134 ha) in Subunit 3C, and 

75 ac (30 ha) in Unit 4 were not 

included in the 2003 proposed critical 

habitat rule. Also, 9,573 ac (3,874 ha) in 

Subunits 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 3C and all of 

Unit 4 (218 ac (88 ha)) were not 

included in the 2004 final rule (see 

Table 2 below). These 9,573 ac (3,874 

ha) were excluded in the 2004 final rule 

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

Secretary determined that the economic 

benefits of excluding these lands 

outweighed the conservation benefits of 

including these lands in the designation 

due to the large potential economic and 

human costs of the designation (69 FR 

47330). These lands are again under 

consideration for critical habitat in this 

proposed revision to critical habitat. 

All lands proposed for critical habitat 

have been re-evaluated in a revised 

economic analysis, consistent with the 

lawsuit discussed in the ‘‘Previous 

Federal Actions’’ section of this 

proposed rule. The new draft economic 

analysis is available for public review 

and comment concurrently with this 

rule (see ‘‘Economic Analysis’’ section 

below). Based on public comment and 

information in the economic analysis, 

habitat being proposed as critical habitat 

herein may be excluded from final 

critical habitat by the Secretary under 

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

Act and in our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. Table 2 

below outlines the changes in Unit/ 

Subunit number and area between the 

2003 proposed critical habitat rule, the 

2004 final critical habitat rule, and the 

2007 revised proposed critical habitat 

rule for Astragalus magdalenae var. 

peirsonii. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 41267 

TABLE 2.—CHANGES IN UNIT/SUBUNIT NUMBERING AND AREA (IN ACRES (AC) AND HECTARES (HA)) BETWEEN THE 2003 

PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT RULE, THE 2004 FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT RULE, AND THE 2007 REVISED PROPOSED

CRITICAL HABITAT RULE FOR Astragalus magdalenae VAR. peirsonii 

2003 proposed rule 

(68 FR 46143) 

2004 Final rule 

(69 FR 47330) 

2007 revised 

proposed rule 

Unit/ 

Subunit 

Area 

(ac (ha)) 

Unit/ 

Subunit 

Area 

(ac (ha)) 

Unit/ 

Subunit 

Area 

(ac (ha)) 

1A .............................................. 16,510 (6,681) 1A ................ 16,509 (6,681) 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D ....................................... 4,675 (1,892) 

1B .............................................. 34,333 (13,894) 1B ................ 1 5,355 (2,167) 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 3C ................................ 4 11,215 (4,539) 

1C .............................................. 1,490 (603) 1C ............... 2 0 (0) 4 ............................................................. 5 218 (88) 

1D .............................................. 447 (181) 1D ................ 3 0 (0) (none) ..................................................... (none) 

Totals .................................. 52,780 (21,359) ..................... 21,863 (8,848) ................................................................ 16,108 (6,519) 

1 28,978 ac (11,727 ha) excluded from final designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

2Excluded from the final designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

3 Removed from the final designation; not essential to the conservation of the species. 

4 Includes 331 ac (134 ha) not included in the 2004 final designation. 

5 Includes 75 ac (30 ha) not designated in the 2004 final designation. 

Proposed Revisions to the Critical 

Habitat Designation 

We are proposing approximately 

16,245 ac (6,574 ha) as critical habitat 

for Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

within 4 units further divided into 9 

subunits. These lands are under Federal 

(15,995 ac (6,473 ha)), private (239 ac 

(97 ha)), and State (11 ac (4 ha)) 

ownership. The approximate area (ac 

(ha)) encompassed within each 

proposed critical habitat unit/subunit 

and landownership is shown in Table 3 

below. We are not proposing to exclude 

under section 4(b)(2) any areas from the 

final designation (see ‘‘Exclusions 

Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ for a 

detailed discussion). These units 

generally correspond to those units in 

the 2004 designation (see Table 2), and 

if finalized would entirely replace the 

current critical habitat designation for 

A. m. var. peirsonii in 50 CFR 17.95(a). 

The critical habitat areas described 

below constitute our best current 

assessment of areas determined to be 

occupied at the time of listing on which 

are found the primary constituent 

elements that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. 

TABLE 3.—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT (ACRES (AC), HECTARES (HA)) FOR Astragalu magdalenae VAR. peirsonii 

[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries.] 

Critical habitat unit Critical habitat subunit Land ownership1 Total area 

(ac (ha)) 

Unit 1—Mammoth Wash/North Algodones Dunes Wilderness................................................. ................................................ 4,675 (1,892) 

Subunit 1A ............................. BLM ....................................... 203 (82) 

Private ................................... 218 (88) 

Subunit 1B ............................. BLM ....................................... 1,389 (562) 

Private ................................... 22 (9) 

Subunit 1C ............................. BLM ....................................... 730 (296) 

State ...................................... 11 (4) 

Subunit 1D ............................. BLM ....................................... 2,103 (851) 

Unit 2—Gecko/Glamis ........................................................... ................................................ ................................................ 4,003 (1,620) 

Subunit 2A ............................. BLM ....................................... 2,716 (1,099) 

Subunit 2B ............................. BLM ....................................... 1,287 (521) 

Unit 3—Adaptive Management Area/Ogilby ......................... ................................................ ................................................ 7,212 (2,919) 

Subunit 3A ............................. BLM ....................................... 4,487 (1,816) 

Subunit 3B ............................. BLM ....................................... 1,176 (476) 

Subunit 3C ............................. BLM ....................................... 1,549 (627) 

Unit 4—Buttercup .................................................................. ................................................ BLM ....................................... 218 (88) 

Total ................................................................................ ................................................ ................................................ 16,108 (6,519) 

1BLM = Bureau of Land Management; State = California State Lands Commission. 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii, 

below. 

Unit 1—Mammoth Wash/North 

Algodones Dunes Wilderness (4,675 ac 

(1,892 ha)) 

Unit 1 consists of 4,675 ac (1,892 ha) 

of land, further divided into 4 subunits 

(1A, 1B, 1C, 1D), primarily under BLM 

ownership (Table 2). This unit includes 

land in the BLM’s Mammoth Wash and 

North Algodones Dunes Wilderness 

Management Areas. 

Subunits 1A (421 ac (170 ha)) and 1B 

(1,411 ac (571 ha)) 

Subunits 1A and 1B are in the 

Mammoth Wash area. About half of the 

land in Subunit 1A is under BLM 

ownership, and the other half is under 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
41268 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

private ownership (Table 2). The 

majority of the land in Subunit 1B is 

owned by the BLM (Table 2). Both 

subunits were occupied at the time of 

listing, are currently occupied, and 

contain all of the features (PCEs 1, 2, 

and 3) essential to the conservation of 

the species. Additionally, habitat in 

Subunits 1A and 1B supports the largest 

numbers of Astragalus magdalenae var. 

peirsonii in the Mammoth Wash 

Management Area, with approximately 

8,002 plants observed in Subunit 1A 

and 24,623 plants observed in Subunit 

1B (based on our calculations using 

BLM’s 2005 raw survey data). Habitat 

within these subunits contains a higher 

density of standing plants and is likely 

to support a large seed bank based on 

our analysis of BLM’s 2004 survey data 

in addition to containing the PCEs 

required by the species. 

The Mammoth Wash Management 

Area is used for camping, hunting, 

rights of way, motion picture/television 

filming, and OHV recreation (BLM 2003, 

p. 67). The majority of Subunit 1B is 

within an interim closure area, 

temporarily closed to OHV activity. 

Because the area outside of the interim 

closure area is remote and difficult to 

access, OHV recreationists give it 

relatively light visitation on holiday 

weekends and minimal visitation during 

the week (BLM 2003, p. 67). This 

management area had the lowest 

average annual visitation 

(approximately 80 vehicles) of all 

management areas open for OHV use 

during the 2003–2004, 2004–2005, and 

2005–2006 seasons (BLM 2006). 

The PCEs found in Subunit 1A may 

require special management 

considerations or protection such as use 

restrictions and/or additional 

enforcement to minimize impacts 

associated with OHV use and associated 

recreational activity. The majority of the 

habitat in Subunit 1B is currently being 

managed by the BLM to minimize 

impacts associated with OHV use 

through an interim closure of the area. 

However, regardless of the future status 

of this interim closure area, the PCEs 

found in this subunit may require 

special management considerations or 

protection, such as OHV-use restrictions 

and/or additional enforcement in the 

future to minimize impacts associated 

with OHV recreation (see ‘‘Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection’’ section). 

Subunits 1C (741 ac (300 ha)) and 1D 

(2,103 ac (851 ha)) 

The majority of land in Subunit 1C 

and all of the land in Subunit 1D is 

owned by the BLM (Table 2). Both 

subunits were occupied at the time of 

listing, are currently occupied, and 

contain all of the features (PCEs 1, 2, 

and 3) essential to the conservation of 

the species. Additionally, habitat in 

Subunits 1C and 1D retains the most 

natural and pristine features of the 

Algodones Dunes ecosystem, and 

includes the best remaining example of 

a dune system undisturbed by intensive 

OHV recreation in the ISDRA. These 

areas also support the largest numbers 

of Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

in the North Algodones Dunes 

Wilderness Management Area with 

approximately 15,519 plants observed 

in Subunit 1C and 42,673 plants 

observed in Subunit 1D (based on our 

calculations using BLM’s 2005 raw 

survey data. Habitat within these 

subunits contains a higher density of 

standing plants and is likely to support 

a large seed bank based on our analysis 

of BLM’s 2004 survey data in addition 

to containing the PCEs required by the 

species. 

The North Algodones Dunes 

Wilderness Management Area is a 

32,000-ac (12,955 ha) area that was 

designated as a wilderness area in 1994 

to protect a number of rare and endemic 

plant and animal species, including 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii. 

Activities in this area include 

photographic activities, sightseeing, 

walking, hiking, backpacking, camping, 

nature study, horseback riding, hunting, 

rights-of-way, and wildlife viewing 

(BLM 2003, p. 71). No recreational use 

of mechanized vehicles of any kind 

(OHVs, motorcycles, bicycles, hang 

gliders, motorized equipment, or 

motorboats) is allowed in the wilderness 

area; management takes the form of 

‘‘minimal and subtle on-site controls 

and restrictions’’ (Willoughby 2003). 

However, people occasionally trespass 

with motorized vehicles, and the BLM 

acknowledges that the amount of 

motorized trespasses in this area should 

be reduced (BLM 2003, p. 71). 

The PCEs found in both subunits may 

require special management 

considerations or protection, such as 

additional enforcement to minimize 

impacts associated with unauthorized 

trespass by motorized vehicles (see 

‘‘Special Management Considerations or 

Protection’’ section). 

Unit 2—Gecko/Glamis (4,003 ac (1,620 

ha)) 

Unit 2 consists of 4,003 ac (1,620 ha) 

of land further divided into 2 subunits 

(2A and 2B) entirely under BLM 

ownership (Table 2). This unit includes 

lands in the BLM’s Gecko and Glamis 

Management Areas, with the majority 

being in the Gecko Management Area. 

Subunits 2A (2,716 ac (1,099 ha)) and 

2B (1,287 ac (521 ha)) 

Both subunits were occupied at the 

time of listing, are currently occupied, 

and contain all of the features (PCEs 1, 

2, and 3) essential to the conservation of 

the species. Additionally, habitat in 

Subunits 2A and 2B supports the largest 

numbers of Astragalus magdalenae var. 

peirsonii in the Gecko/Glamis 

Management Areas with approximately 

37,234 plants observed in Subunit 2A 

and 20,865 plants observed in Subunit 

2B (based on our calculations using 

BLM’s 2005 raw survey data). Habitat 

within these subunits contains a higher 

density of standing plants and is likely 

to support a large seed bank based on 

our analysis of BLM’s 2004 survey data 

in addition to containing the PCEs 

required by the species. 

Subunits 2A and 2B are almost 

entirely within BLM’s Gecko 

Management Area, the most developed 

of the eight management areas within 

the ISDRA. It contains campgrounds, 

toilets, trash stations, camping pads, 

overlooks, commercial vending, and a 

ranger station (BLM 2003, pp. 75–76). 

The Gecko Management Area had the 

highest average annual visitation 

(approximately 144,421 vehicles) of the 

management areas open for OHV use 

during the 2003–2004, 2004–2005, and 

2005–2006 seasons (BLM 2006). 

However, the majority of Subunit 2B is 

within an interim closure area, 

temporarily closed to OHV activity. 

The PCEs found in Subunit 2A may 

require special management 

considerations or protection, such as 

use restrictions and/or additional 

enforcement to minimize impacts 

associated with intensive OHV activity. 

The majority of the habitat in Subunit 

2B is currently being managed by the 

BLM to minimize impacts associated 

with OHV-use through an interim 

closure of the area. However, regardless 

of the future status of this interim 

closure area, the PCEs found in this 

subunit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection such as OHV-use restrictions 

and/or additional enforcement in the 

future to minimize impacts associated 

with OHV recreation (see ‘‘Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection’’ section). 

Unit 3—Adaptive Management Area 

(AMA)/Ogilby (7,212 ac (2,919 ha)) 

Unit 3 consists of (7,212 ac (2,919 ha)) 

of land further divided into 3 subunits 

(3A, 3B, 3C) entirely under BLM 

ownership (Table 2). This unit includes 

lands in the BLM’s AMA and Ogilby 

Management Area. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 41269 

Subunits 3A (4,487 ac (1,816 ha)), 3B 

(1,176 ac (476 ha)), and 3C (1,549 ac 

(627 ha)) 

All three subunits were occupied at 

the time of listing, are currently 

occupied, and contain all of the features 

(PCEs 1, 2, and 3) essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Additionally, habitat in Subunits 3A, 

3B, and 3C represents the largest, 

widest, and highest sand dune fields 

within the Algodones Dunes and 

supports the largest numbers of 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

dunes-wide, with approximately 

200,021 plants observed in Subunit 3A; 

178,837 plants observed in Subunit 3B; 

and 125,526 plants observed in Subunit 

3C (based on our calculations using 

BLM’s 2005 raw survey data). Habitat 

within these subunits contains a higher 

density of standing plants and is likely 

to support a large seed bank based on 

our analysis of BLM’s 2004 survey data 

in addition to containing the PCEs 

required by the species. 

All of Subunit 3A and about half of 

Subunit 3B are in the BLM’s AMA. The 

other half of Subunit 3B and all of 

Subunit 3C are in the Ogilby 

Management Area. The AMA is 

intended primarily for OHV recreation, 

although there is also rights-of-way use 

(BLM 2003, p. 84). However, the entire 

AMA, including all of Subunit 3A and 

most of Subunit 3B, is within an interim 

closure area, temporarily closed to OHV 

activity. The Ogilby Management Area 

is used for camping, OHV recreation, 

and rights-of-way (BLM 2003, p. 90). A 

portion of the Ogilby Management Area, 

including a small portion of Subunit 3C, 

is within an interim closure area, 

temporarily closed to OHV activity. 

Areas of the Ogilby Management Area 

open to OHV use had average annual 

visitation of approximately 12,951 

vehicles during the 2003–2004, 2004–

2005, and 2005–2006 seasons (BLM 

2006). 

The PCEs found in Subunit 3C not 

within the interim closure area may 

require special management 

considerations or protection such as use 

restrictions and/or additional 

enforcement to minimize impacts 

associated with OHV recreation. Habitat 

in Subunits 3A and 3B, and a small 

portion of Subunit 3C, are currently 

being managed by the BLM to minimize 

impacts associated with OHV use 

through an interim closure of the area. 

However, regardless of the future status 

of this interim closure area, the PCEs 

found in these subunits may require 

special management considerations or 

protection such as OHV-use restrictions 

and/or additional enforcement in the 

future to minimize impacts associated 

with OHV recreation (see ‘‘Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection’’ section). 

Unit 4—Buttercup (218 ac (88 ha)) 

Unit 4 consists of 218 ac (88 ha) of 

land entirely under BLM ownership 

(Table 2). This unit includes lands in 

the BLM’s Buttercup Management Area. 

This unit was occupied at the time of 

listing, is currently occupied, and 

contains all of the features (PCEs 1, 2, 

and 3) essential to the conservation of 

the species. Additionally, habitat in 

Unit 4 supports the largest number of 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii in 

the Buttercup Management Area with 

approximately 30,011 plants observed 

(based on our calculations using BLM’s 

2005 raw survey data). Habitat within 

these subunits contains a higher density 

of standing plants and is likely to 

support a large seed bank based on our 

analysis of BLM’s 2004 survey data in 

addition to containing the PCEs 

required by the species. 

This area is used for camping, OHV 

recreation, sightseeing, commercial 

vending, education, filming and rights 

of way (BLM 2003, p. 97). The 

Buttercup Management Area had the 

second highest average annual visitation 

(approximately 78,629 vehicles) of the 

management areas open for OHV use 

during the 2003–2004, 2004–2005, and 

2005–2006 seasons (BLM 2006). Due to 

its proximity to Mexico, there are also 

many United States—Mexico 

international border issues (e.g. illegal 

border crossings and smuggling of goods 

and contraband) in this management 

area requiring frequent patrol by the 

U.S. Border Patrol (BLM 2003, p. 97). 

The PCEs found in Unit 4 may require 

special management considerations or 

protection such as use restrictions and/ 

or additional enforcement to minimize 

impacts associated with intensive OHV 

activity (see ‘‘Special Management 

Considerations or Protection’’ section). 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

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)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that actions they fund, 

authorize, or carry out are not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Decisions by the 5th and 9th 

Circuit Court of Appeals have 

invalidated our definition of adversely 

modify (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force 

v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 

3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) and Sierra Club 

v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 

245 F.3d 434, 442F (5th Cir 2001)), and 

we do not rely on this regulatory 

definition when analyzing whether an 

action is likely to destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat. 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 its intended 

conservation role for the species. 

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

Federal agencies to confer with us on 

any action that is likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a species 

proposed for listing or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. This is a 

procedural requirement only. However, 

once a proposed species becomes listed, 

or proposed critical habitat is 

designated as final, the full prohibitions 

of section 7(a)(2) apply to any Federal 

action. The primary utility of the 

conference procedures is to maximize 

the opportunity for a Federal agency to 

adequately consider proposed species 

and critical habitat and avoid potential 

delays in implementing their proposed 

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

compliance process, should those 

species be listed or the critical habitat 

designated. 

Under conference procedures, the 

Service may provide advisory 

conservation recommendations to assist 

the agency in eliminating conflicts that 

may be caused by the proposed action. 

The Service may conduct either 

informal or formal conferences. Informal 

conferences are typically used if the 

proposed action is not likely to have any 

adverse effects to the proposed species 

or proposed critical habitat. Formal 

conferences are typically used when the 

Federal agency or the Service believes 

the proposed action is likely to cause 

adverse effects to proposed species or 

critical habitat, inclusive of those that 

may cause jeopardy or adverse 

modification. 

The results of an informal conference 

are typically transmitted in a conference 

report, while the results of a formal 

conference are typically transmitted in a 

conference opinion. Conference 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
41270 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

opinions on proposed critical habitat are 

typically prepared according to 50 CFR 

402.14, as if the proposed critical 

habitat were designated. We may adopt 

the conference opinion as the biological 

opinion when the critical habitat is 

designated, if no substantial new 

information or changes in the action 

alter the content of the opinion (see 50 

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

conservation recommendations in a 

conference report or opinion are strictly 

advisory. 

If a species is listed or critical habitat 

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

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of such a species or 

to destroy or adversely modify its 

critical habitat. If a Federal action may 

affect a listed species or its critical 

habitat, the responsible Federal agency 

(action agency) must enter into 

consultation with us. As a result of this 

consultation, compliance with the 

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

documented through the Service’s 

issuance of: (1) A concurrence letter for 

Federal actions that may affect, but are 

not likely to adversely affect, listed 

species or critical habitat; or (2) a 

biological opinion for Federal actions 

that 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 certain instances, including 

where a new species is listed or critical 

habitat is subsequently designated that 

may be affected by the Federal action 

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 magdalenae var. peirsonii or 

its designated critical habitat require 

section 7(a)(2) consultation under the 

Act. Activities on State, Tribal, local or 

private lands requiring a Federal permit 

(such as a permit from the Corps under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act or a 

permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the 

Act from the Service) or involving some 

other Federal action (such as funding 

from the Federal Highway 

Administration, Federal Aviation 

Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency) are 

also subject to the section 7(a)(2) 

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(a)(2) 

consultations. 

Application of the Jeopardy and 

Adverse Modification Standards for 

Actions Involving Effects to the 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

and Its Critical Habitat 

Jeopardy Standard 

Prior to and following designation of 

critical habitat, the Service has applied 

an analytical framework for Astragalus 

magdalenae var. peirsonii jeopardy 

analyses that relies heavily on the 

importance of core area populations to 

the survival and recovery of A. m. var. 

peirsonii. The section 7(a)(2) analysis is 

focused not only on these populations 

but also on the habitat conditions 

necessary to support them. 

The jeopardy analysis usually 

expresses the survival and recovery 

needs of the Astragalus magdalenae var. 

peirsonii in a qualitative fashion 

without making distinctions between 

what is necessary for survival and what 

is necessary for recovery. Generally, if a 

proposed Federal action is incompatible 

with the viability of the affected core 

area population(s), inclusive of 

associated habitat conditions, a jeopardy 

finding is warranted because of the 

relationship of each core area 

population to the survival and recovery 

of the species as a whole. 

Adverse Modification Standard 

For the reasons described in the 

Director’s December 9, 2004, 

memorandum, the key factor related to 

the adverse modification determination 

is whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 

(or retain the current ability for the 

primary constituent elements to be 

functionally established) to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species. Generally, the conservation role 

of Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

critical habitat units is to support viable 

core 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 

would be those that alter the primary 

constituent elements to the extent that 

the value of critical habitat for the 

conservation of Astragalus magdalenae 

var. peirsonii is appreciably reduced. 

Such activities may also jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species. 

Nearly the entire designated critical 

habitat is on BLM lands. Activities on 

BLM lands or by Federal agencies that 

may affect Astragalus magdalenae var. 

peirsonii or its critical habitat require 

section 7(a)(2) consultation. Activities 

on private or State lands requiring a 

permit from BLM or any other activity 

requiring Federal action (i.e., funding or 

authorization) that may affect this 

species or its critical habitat will also 

continue to be subject to the section 

7(a)(2) consultation requirement. 

Federal actions not affecting A. m. var. 

peirsonii or its critical habitat, as well 

as actions on non-Federal lands that are 

not federally funded or permitted, will 

not require section 7(a)(2) consultations 

for this species. 

The areas proposed to be designated 

as critical habitat are occupied by either 

above-ground plants or a soil seed bank 

of Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii. 

BLM and other Federal agencies already 

consult with us on activities where the 

species may be present to ensure that 

their actions do not jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species or 

destroy or adversely modify its 

currently designated critical habitat. 

Actions on which Federal agencies 

consult with us on effects to A. m. var. 

peirsonii or its critical habitat include, 

but are not limited to: 

(1) Development of the Recreational 

Area Management Plan for the Imperial 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 41271 

Sand Dunes Recreation Area by the 

Bureau of Land Management; 

(2) Issuance of permits for private 

actions (e.g. filming) on Federal lands 

within the Algodones Dunes by the 

Bureau of Land Management; 

(3) Modifications to the All American 

Canal by the Bureau of Reclamation; 

and 

(4) Construction and maintenance of 

facilities by the U.S. Border Patrol. 

Activities that, when carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency, may affect critical habitat and 

require that a section 7(a)(2) 

consultation be conducted include, but 

are not limited to: 

(1) Activities that disrupt the natural 

processes that support dune formation, 

movement, and structure; or otherwise 

change the morphology of the dunes 

(e.g., ridges, slip faces, bowls, swales); 

and 

(2) Activities that degrade or diminish 

psammophytic scrub, including 

activities that (a) disturb the sand such 

that soil moisture is lost resulting in 

decreased seed germination or 

desiccation of plants resulting in 

premature death, or (b) bury or expose 

seeds resulting in decreased seed 

germination; or (c) physically impact or 

dislodge plants resulting in premature 

death. 

We consider all of the units proposed 

as critical habitat to contain features 

essential to the conservation of 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii. 

All units are within the geographic 

range of this taxon, all were occupied by 

the species at the time of listing, and are 

currently occupied by the A. m. var. 

peirsonii. Federal agencies already 

consult with us on activities in areas 

currently occupied by A. m. var. 

peirsonii, or if the species or its 

currently designated critical habitat may 

be affected by the action, to ensure that 

their actions do not jeopardize the 

continued existence of A. m. var. 

peirsonii or destroy or adversely modify 

its designated critical habitat. 

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

Act 

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

critical habitat shall be designated, and 

revised, on the basis of the best 

available scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

national security impact, and any other 

relevant impact, of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if he determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless 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 Congressional Record is clear that 

the Secretary is afforded broad 

discretion regarding which factor(s) to 

use and how much weight to give to any 

factor. However, we are not proposing to 

exclude any lands under provisions of 

section 4(b)(2) in this proposed rule. 

Economic Analysis 

An analysis of the economic impacts 

of the revised proposal of critical habitat 

for Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

is available for review and comment. 

The comment period for the draft 

economic analysis runs concurrently 

with the comment period for this 

proposed rule. Copies of the draft 

economic analysis are available for 

downloading from the Internet at 

http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/ or by 

contacting the Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office directly (see ADDRESSES

section). 

The draft economic analysis considers 

the potential economic effects of actions 

relating to the conservation of 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii, 

including costs associated with sections 

4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and specifying 

the incremental effects attributable to 

designating critical habitat. It further 

considers the economic effects of 

protective measures taken as a result of 

other Federal, State, and local laws that 

aid habitat conservation for A. m. var. 

peirsonii in habitat areas with features 

essential to the conservation of this 

taxon. The analysis considers both 

economic efficiency and distributional 

effects. In the case of habitat 

conservation, efficiency effects generally 

reflect the ‘‘opportunity costs’’

associated with the commitment of 

resources to comply with habitat 

protection measures (e.g., lost economic 

opportunities associated with 

restrictions on land use). This analysis 

also addresses how potential economic 

impacts are likely to be distributed, 

including an assessment of any local or 

regional impacts of habitat conservation 

and the potential effects of conservation 

activities on small entities and the 

energy industry. This information can 

be used by decision-makers to assess 

whether the effects of the designation 

might unduly burden a particular group 

or economic sector. Finally, this 

analysis looks retrospectively at costs 

that have been incurred since the date 

the species was listed as an endangered 

species and considers those costs that 

may occur in the 20 years following the 

designation of critical habitat (i.e., 

2008–2027). 

This analysis quantifies potential 

economic impacts that may result from 

the designation of critical habitat. 

Specifically, the analysis quantifies the 

impact of a loss of OHV trips that could 

result from the potential closures of 

portions of the critical habitat as a result 

of the designation, as well as expected 

administrative and project modification 

costs attributable to critical habitat 

designation. Additionally, the analysis 

provides information on the full value 

of OHV use of the ISDRA in the absence 

of closures resulting from critical 

habitat. The analysis also quantifies 

administrative costs attributable to 

critical habitat designation, potential 

project modification costs attributable to 

critical habitat, and potential public cost 

savings. At the lower bound, in the 

absence of closures to OHV use 

resulting from critical habitat, only 

impacts related to administrative efforts 

are expected. At the upper bound, the 

forecast impacts assume this 

designation will result in restrictions in 

OHV use, and that as a result of these 

restrictions, some OHV recreationists 

may no longer visit the ISDRA, 

potentially resulting in a consumer 

surplus loss. Specifically, upper bound 

impacts reflect a potential loss of 

visitation in portions of the area 

proposed for critical habitat. Within the 

upper bound scenario, a range of 

impacts is estimated, representing 

differing assumptions underlying the 

forecast visitation growth rate for the 

ISDRA. 

The total potential post-designation 

efficiency impacts for 2008–2027 range 

from a lower bound of zero to an upper 

bound range of $91.8 million in 

undiscounted dollars. In annualized 

terms, the impacts range from zero to 

$4.59 million. At a three percent 

discount rate, the impacts range from 

zero to $67.7 million over 20 years. At 

a seven percent discount rate, the 

impacts range from zero to $47.6 million 

over 20 years. 

We solicit data and comments from 

the public on these draft documents, as 

well as on all aspects of the proposal. 

We may revise the proposal, or its 

supporting documents, to incorporate or 

address new information received 

during the comment period. In 

particular, we may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if we determine that the 

benefits of excluding the area outweigh 

the benefits of including the area as 

critical habitat, provided such exclusion 

will not result in the extinction of the 

species. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy 

published in the Federal Register on 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
41272 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek 

the expert opinions of at least three 

appropriate and independent specialists 

regarding this proposed rule. The 

purpose of such review is to ensure that 

our critical habitat designation is based 

on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses. We will 

send copies of this proposed rule to 

these peer reviewers immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register. We will invite these peer 

reviewers to comment during the public 

comment period on the specific 

assumptions and conclusions regarding 

the proposed designation of critical 

habitat. 

We will consider all comments and 

information received during the 

comment period on this proposed rule 

during preparation of a final 

rulemaking. Accordingly, the final 

decision may differ from this proposal. 

Public Hearings 

The Act provides for one or more 

public hearings on this proposal, if 

requested. Upon publication of this 

proposed rule, we are announcing that 

public hearings will be held on both the 

proposed critical habitat rule and the 

draft economic analysis on August 23, 

2007, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. 

to 8 p.m. at the Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office in Carlsbad, California 

(see ADDRESSES). The location, date, and 

times of these public hearings will also 

be announced in local newspapers at 

least 15 days prior to the first hearing. 

Clarity of the Rule 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) requires each 

agency to write regulations and notices 

that are easy to understand. We invite 

your comments on how to make this 

proposed rule easier to understand, 

including answers to questions such as 

the following: (1) Are the requirements 

in the proposed rule clearly stated? (2) 

Does the proposed rule contain 

technical jargon that interferes with the 

clarity? (3) Does the format of the 

proposed rule (grouping and order of 

the sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing, and so forth) aid or 

reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description 

of the notice in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of the preamble 

helpful in understanding the proposed 

rule? (5) What else could we do to make 

this proposed rule easier to understand? 

Send a copy of any comments on how 

we could make this proposed rule easier 

to understand to: Office of Regulatory 

Affairs, Department of the Interior, 

Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20240. You may e-mail 

your comments to this address: 

Exsec@ios.doi.gov. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12866, this revised proposed 

designation of critical habitat is a 

significant rule in that it may raise novel 

legal and policy issues. Based on our 

draft economic analysis of the proposed 

revised critical habitat designation, the 

total potential post-designation 

efficiency impacts for 2008–2027 range 

from a lower bound of zero impact to an 

upper bound of $91.8 million in 

undiscounted dollars. In annualized 

terms, the impacts would range from 

zero to $4.59 million. At a three percent 

discount rate, the impacts would be zero 

to 67.7 million over 20 years. At a seven 

percent discount rate, the impacts 

would be zero to $47.6 million over 20 

years. Therefore, based on our draft 

economic analysis, we have determined 

that the proposed revised critical habitat 

designation for Astragalus magdalenae 

var. peirsonii will not result in 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. 

Further, E.O. 12866 directs Federal 

agencies promulgating regulations to 

evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office 

of Management and Budget, Circular A–

4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to 

Circular A–4, once it has determined 

that the Federal regulatory action is 

appropriate, the agency will then need 

to consider alternative regulatory 

approaches. Since the determination of 

critical habitat is a statutory 

requirement pursuant to the Act, we 

must then evaluate alternative 

regulatory approaches, where feasible, 

when promulgating a designation of 

critical habitat. 

In developing our designations of 

critical habitat, we consider economic 

impacts, impacts to national security, 

and other relevant impacts pursuant to 

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

discretion allowable under this 

provision, we may exclude any 

particular area from the designation of 

critical habitat providing that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying the area as critical 

habitat and that such exclusion would 

not result in the extinction of the 

species. As such, we believe that the 

evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion 

of particular areas, or combination 

thereof, in a designation constitutes our 

regulatory alternative analysis. 

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

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 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 effects 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 the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to 

require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of the factual basis for 

certifying that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Based upon our draft economic analysis 

of the proposed designation, we provide 

our analysis for determining whether 

the proposed rule would result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Based on comments received, this 

determination is subject to revision as 

part of the final rulemaking. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration (SBA), small entities 

include small organizations, such as 

independent nonprofit organizations, 

and small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents, as well as small 

businesses (13 CFR 121.201). 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 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 41273 

To determine if this proposed 

designation of critical habitat for 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

would affect a substantial number of 

small entities, we considered the 

number of small entities affected within 

particular types of economic activities 

(e.g., OHV recreation). We considered 

each industry or category individually 

to determine if certification is 

appropriate. In estimating the numbers 

of small entities potentially affected, we 

also considered whether their activities 

have any Federal involvement; some 

kinds of activities are unlikely to have 

any Federal involvement and so will not 

be affected by the designation of critical 

habitat. Designation of critical habitat 

only affects activities conducted, 

funded, permitted, or authorized by 

Federal agencies; non-Federal activities 

are not affected by the designation. 

Typically, when proposed critical 

habitat designations are made final, 

Federal agencies must consult with us if 

their activities may affect that 

designated critical habitat. 

Consultations to avoid the destruction 

or adverse modification of critical 

habitat would be incorporated into the 

existing consultation process. 

In our economic analysis of this 

proposed designation, we evaluated the 

potential economic effects on small 

business entities resulting from 

conservation actions related to proposed 

designation of critical habitat for 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii. In 

our analysis of impacts to small entities 

(appendix A of draft economic analysis, 

we estimated that a total of up to 827 

small entities in OHV-related sectors 

could be impacted by critical habitat 

designation, with 398 of those 

businesses in Imperial County and 429 

in Yuma County. Exhibit A–4 of our 

Draft Economic Analysis (on page A–8) 

presents an estimated ‘‘per business 

impact to small entities.’’ In Imperial 

County, the average impact per small 

entity is estimated to be $44,300, which 

is 3.22% of the estimated average per 

business annual sales of $1,370,000. In 

Yuma County the average impact per 

small entity is estimated to be $7,400, 

which is 0.51% of the estimated average 

per business annual sales of $1,440,000. 

The composite average for both 

Counties is estimated to be $25,400 per 

small entity, which is 1.78% of the 

estimated average per business annual 

sales of $1,410,000. Although a number 

of small entities will be affected by the 

designation, we do not believe the 

economic impact will be significant. 

Therefore, we certify that this proposed 

regulation will not result in a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small business entities. 

Please refer to our draft economic 

analysis of this designation for a more 

detailed discussion of potential 

economic impacts. 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

an Executive Order (E.O. 13211; Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) on regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Executive Order 

13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. Energyrelated impacts associated with the 

proposed A. m. var. peirsonii critical 

habitat are not expected. As noted by 

BLM, the likelihood of any energyrelated activity occurring within the 

proposed critical habitat is minimal for 

a number of reasons. First, utility 

corridors exist outside of the proposed 

critical habitat area. Second, areas of the 

ISDRA likely to experience 

development are not included in the 

proposed designation. Third, the 

construction and maintenance of 

projects (such as utility lines) away from 

current roads, canals, and railways and 

through the central, more remote 

portions of the dunes is likely to be 

economically infeasible. Thus, this 

proposed designation 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), 

the Service makes the following 

findings: 

(a) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

Tribal governments, or the private sector 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’

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

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

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal governments’’

with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a 

condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also 

excludes ‘‘a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates 

to a then-existing Federal program 

under which $500,000,000 or more is 

provided annually to State, local, and 

tribal governments under entitlement 

authority,’’ if the provision would 

‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of 

assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or 

otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

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

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child 

Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 

Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation 

State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 

Assistance, and Independent Living; 

Family Support Welfare Services; and 

Child Support Enforcement. ‘‘Federal 

private sector mandate’’ includes a 

regulation that ‘‘would impose an 

enforceable duty upon the private 

sector, except (i) a condition of Federal 

assistance or (ii) a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program.’’

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action may be indirectly impacted by 

the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. 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 the majority 

of the lands (98 percent) involved in the 

proposed designation are federally 

owned. As such, Small Government 

Agency Plan is not required. However, 

we will, further evaluate this issue as 

we conduct our economic analysis and 

review and revise this assessment as 

warranted. 

Takings 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630 (‘‘Government Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Private Property Rights’’), we 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
41274 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

have analyzed the potential takings 

implications of designating critical 

habitat for the Astragalus magdalenae 

var. peirsonii in a takings implications 

assessment. The takings implications 

assessment concludes that this 

designation of critical habitat for A. m. 

var. peirsonii does not pose significant 

takings implications. However, we will, 

further evaluate this issue as we 

conduct our economic analysis and 

review and revise this assessment as 

warranted. 

Federalism 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132 (Federalism), the rule does not 

have significant Federalism effects. A 

Federalism assessment is not required. 

In keeping with Department of the 

Interior and Department of Commerce 

policy, we requested information from, 

and coordinated development of, this 

proposed critical habitat designation 

with appropriate State resource agencies 

in California. The majority of the lands 

(98 percent) involved in the proposed 

designation are federally owned and, 

therefore, the proposed designation has 

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 (Civil Justice Reform), 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 have proposed designating critical 

habitat in accordance with the 

provisions of the Endangered Species 

Act. This proposed rule uses standard 

property descriptions and identifies the 

primary constituent elements within the 

designated areas to assist the public in 

understanding the habitat needs of 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. This rule will not 

impose recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements on State or local 

governments, individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

It is our position that, outside the 

Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses as 

defined by the NEPA in connection with 

designating critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

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

assertion was upheld in the courts of the 

Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. 

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

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

(1996)). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and the Department of 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. We 

have determined that there are no Tribal 

lands occupied at the time of listing that 

contain the features essential for the 

conservation and no Tribal lands that 

are unoccupied areas that are essential 

for the conservation of Astragalus 

magdalenae var. peirsonii. Therefore, 

designation of critical habitat for A. m. 

var. peirsonii has not been designated 

on Tribal lands. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available for 

downloading from the Internet at 

http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/ or by 

contacting the Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office directly (see ADDRESSES

section). 

Author(s) 

The primary authors of this package 

are Tannika Engelhard and Lloyd B. 

McKinney of the Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

2. In § 17.96 (h), revise the entry for 

‘‘Fabaceae: Astragalus magdalenae var. 

peirsonii (Peirson’s milk-vetch)’’ under 

‘‘FLOWERING PLANTS’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.96 Critical habitat—plants. 

(a) Flowering plants. 

* * * * * 

Family Fabaceae: Astragalus 

magdalenae var. peirsonii (Peirson’s 

milk-vetch) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for this species are found in Imperial 

County, California, on the maps below. 

(2) The primary constituent elements 

of critical habitat for Astragalus 

magdalenae var. peirsonii are the 

habitat components that provide: 

(i) West and/or northwest-facing sides 

of bowls, swales, and slopes consisting 

of Rositas fine sands within intact, 

active sand dune systems (defined as 

sand areas that are subject to sandmoving winds) in the existing range of 

the species that provide space needed 

for individual and population growth, 

including sites for germination, 

reproduction, seed dispersal, seed bank, 

and pollination; 

(ii) The associated co-adapted 

psammophytic scrub plant community 

characterized by Croton wigginsii, 

Eriogonum deserticola, Helianthus 

niveus ssp. tephrodes, Palafoxia arida 

var. gigantean, Pholisma sonorae, 

Tiquilia plicata, Petalonyx thurberi, and 

Panicum urvilleanum that provides 

habitat for insect pollinators, 

particularly the white-faced digger bee 

(Habropoda pallida), required for 

reproduction; and 

(iii) Areas within intact, active sand 

dune systems between occupied bowls, 

swales, and slopes that allow for 

pollinator movement and wind 

dispersal of fruit and seeds. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures, such as buildings, 

aqueducts, airports, roads, and the land 

on which such structures are located 

existing on the effective date of this rule 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 41275 

and not containing one or more of the 

primary constituent elements. 

(4) Critical habitat map units. Data 

layers defining map units were created 

using USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles. 

(5) Note: Index map (Map 1) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP27JY07.000</GPH>
41276 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(6) Unit 1: Imperial County, 

California. 

(i) Subunit 1A, Mammoth Wash, 

Imperial County, California. From USGS 

1:24,000 quadrangles Amos and 

Tortuga, lands bounded by the 

following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 657000, 3668000; 657300, 3668000; 

657300, 3667900; 657400, 3667900; 

657400, 3667800; 657500, 3667800; 

657500, 3667700; 657600, 3667700; 

657600, 3667400; 657800, 3667400; 

657800, 3667200; 657900, 3667200; 

657900, 3667100; 658000, 3667100; 

658000, 3666900; 658100, 3666900; 

658100, 3666700; 658200, 3666700; 

658200, 3666500; 658100, 3666500; 

658100, 3666400; 658200, 3666400; 

658200, 3666300; 658300, 3666300; 

658300, 3666200; 658400, 3666200; 

658400, 3665900; 657900, 3665900; 

657900, 3666000; 657700, 3666000; 

657700, 3666100; 657600, 3666100; 

657600, 3666200; 657400, 3666200; 

657400, 3666500; 657300, 3666500; 

657300, 3666600; 657100, 3666600; 

657100, 3667000; 657000, 3667000; 

657000, 3667200; 656900, 3667200; 

656900, 3667400; 656800, 3667400; 

656800, 3667500; 656700, 3667500; 

656700, 3667700; 656800, 3667700; 

656800, 3667800; 657000, 3667800; 

thence returning to 657000, 3668000. 

(ii) Subunit 1B, Mammoth Wash, 

Imperial County, California. From USGS 

1:24,000 quadrangle Amos, lands 

bounded by the following UTM NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 658700, 3665900; 

659100, 3665900; 659100, 3665800; 

659200, 3665800; 659200, 3665500; 

659100, 3665500; 659100, 3665400; 

659300, 3665400; 659300, 3665300; 

659600, 3665300; 659600, 3665200; 

659700, 3665200; 659700, 3665100; 

659800, 3665100; 659800, 3665000; 

659700, 3665000; 659700, 3664800; 

659600, 3664800; 659600, 3664600; 

659500, 3664600; 659500, 3664500; 

659800, 3664500; 659800, 3664600; 

659900, 3664600; 659900, 3664800; 

660300, 3664800; 660300, 3664300; 

660200, 3664300; 660200, 3664200; 

660300, 3664200; 660300, 3664100; 

660600, 3664100; 660600, 3663700; 

660700, 3663700; 660700, 3663600; 

660900, 3663600; 660900, 3663500; 

661000, 3663500; 661000, 3663400; 

661200, 3663400; 661200, 3663000; 

661300, 3663000; 661300, 3662900; 

661600, 3662900; 661600, 3662800; 

661700, 3662800; 661700, 3662600; 

662000, 3662600; 662000, 3662500; 

662600, 3662500; 662600, 3662300; 

662500, 3662300; 662500, 3662200; 

662300, 3662200; 662300, 3662000; 

662600, 3662000; 662600, 3661900; 

663000, 3661900; 663000, 3661700; 

663100, 3661700; 663100, 3661500; 

663200, 3661500; 663200, 3661200; 

663100, 3661200; 663100, 3661100; 

663000, 3661100; 663000, 3661000; 

662700, 3661000; 662700, 3660800; 

662500, 3660800; 662500, 3660900; 

662400, 3660900; 662400, 3661100; 

661900, 3661100; 661900, 3661300; 

661800, 3661300; 661800, 3661600; 

661700, 3661600; 661700, 3662100; 

661300, 3662100; 661300, 3662000; 

661100, 3662000; 661100, 3662400; 

661000, 3662400; 661000, 3662300; 

660700, 3662300; 660700, 3662500; 

660500, 3662500; 660500, 3662600; 

660400, 3662600; 660400, 3662700; 

660300, 3662700; 660300, 3663100; 

660200, 3663100; 660200, 3663400; 

659900, 3663400; 659900, 3663500; 

659800, 3663500; 659800, 3663800; 

659600, 3663800; 659600, 3664200; 

659500, 3664200; 659500, 3664300; 

659400, 3664300; 659400, 3664100; 

659100, 3664100; 659100, 3664200; 

659000, 3664200; 659000, 3664500; 

658900, 3664500; 658900, 3664800; 

658800, 3664800; 658800, 3664700; 

658600, 3664700; 658600, 3664800; 

658500, 3664800; 658500, 3665200; 

658300, 3665200; 658300, 3665400; 

658000, 3665400; 658000, 3665500; 

657900, 3665500; 657900, 3665700; 

658600, 3665700; 658600, 3665800; 

658700, 3665800; thence returning to 

658700, 3665900. 

(iii) Subunit 1C, North Algodones 

Wilderness Area, Imperial County, 

California. From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangles Acolita and Amos, lands 

bounded by the following UTM NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 663400, 3661100; 

663700, 3661100; 663700, 3661000; 

663800, 3661000; 663800, 3660900; 

664000, 3660900; 664000, 3660800; 

664100, 3660800; 664100, 3660700; 

664200, 3660700; 664200, 3660600; 

664400, 3660600; 664400, 3660300; 

664500, 3660300; 664500, 3659900; 

664600, 3659900; 664600, 3659800; 

664700, 3659800; 664700, 3659700; 

664800, 3659700; 664800, 3659600; 

665000, 3659600; 665000, 3659300; 

665200, 3659300; 665200, 3659200; 

665300, 3659200; 665300, 3659100; 

665400, 3659100; 665400, 3658900; 

665600, 3658900; 665600, 3658400; 

665800, 3658400; 665800, 3658300; 

665900, 3658300; 665900, 3658100; 

666200, 3658100; 666200, 3657900; 

666100, 3657900; 666100, 3657800; 

666000, 3657800; 666000, 3657900; 

665400, 3657900; 665400, 3658000; 

665300, 3658000; 665300, 3658200; 

665200, 3658200; 665200, 3658300; 

665000, 3658300; 665000, 3658700; 

664800, 3658700; 664800, 3658900; 

664700, 3658900; 664700, 3659000; 

664300, 3659000; 664300, 3659200; 

664100, 3659200; 664100, 3659300; 

663900, 3659300; 663900, 3659400; 

663800, 3659400; 663800, 3659500; 

663700, 3659500; 663700, 3659800; 

663600, 3659800; 663600, 3660000; 

663500, 3660000; 663500, 3660100; 

663400, 3660100; 663400, 3660200; 

663300, 3660200; 663300, 3660300; 

663100, 3660300; 663100, 3660500; 

663000, 3660500; 663000, 3660800; 

663100, 3660800; 663100, 3660900; 

663400, 3660900; thence returning to 

663400, 3661100. 

(iv) Subunit 1D, North Algodones 

Wilderness Area, Imperial County, 

California. From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangles Acolita and Glamis NW, 

lands bounded by the following UTM 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 666500, 

3657900; 666700, 3657900; 666700, 

3657700; 666800, 3657700; 666800, 

3657600; 667100, 3657600; 667100, 

3657300; 667300, 3657300; 667300, 

3657000; 667600, 3657000; 667600, 

3656600; 668100, 3656600; 668100, 

3656400; 668300, 3656400; 668300, 

3656000; 668700, 3656000; 668700, 

3655900; 668800, 3655900; 668800, 

3655800; 669500, 3655800; 669500, 

3655700; 669600, 3655700; 669600, 

3655800; 669800, 3655800; 669800, 

3655500; 669600, 3655500; 669600, 

3655400; 669400, 3655400; 669400, 

3655300; 669300, 3655300; 669300, 

3655100; 669600, 3655100; 669600, 

3655000; 669500, 3655000; 669500, 

3654900; 669700, 3654900; 669700, 

3654700; 669900, 3654700; 669900, 

3654500; 670100, 3654500; 670100, 

3654300; 670200, 3654300; 670200, 

3654400; 670500, 3654400; 670500, 

3654300; 670600, 3654300; 670600, 

3653900; 670900, 3653900; 670900, 

3653800; 671200, 3653800; 671200, 

3653400; 671300, 3653400; 671300, 

3653300; 671500, 3653300; 671500, 

3653600; 671600, 3653600; 671600, 

3653700; 671800, 3653700; 671800, 

3653400; 671900, 3653400; 671900, 

3653300; 672100, 3653300; 672100, 

3653200; 672200, 3653200; 672200, 

3653000; 672600, 3653000; 672600, 

3652600; 672700, 3652600; 672700, 

3652700; 673000, 3652700; 673000, 

3652200; 673100, 3652200; 673100, 

3652100; 673700, 3652100; 673700, 

3651800; 673400, 3651800; 673400, 

3651700; 673300, 3651700; 673300, 

3651600; 673400, 3651600; 673400, 

3651500; 673300, 3651500; 673300, 

3651400; 673100, 3651400; 673100, 

3651300; 672900, 3651300; 672900, 

3651000; 672700, 3651000; 672700, 

3650800; 672600, 3650800; 672600, 

3650700; 672400, 3650700; 672400, 

3650800; 672300, 3650800; 672300, 

3651300; 672200, 3651300; 672200, 

3651400; 671600, 3651400; 671600, 

3651500; 671500, 3651500; 671500, 

3652000; 671400, 3652000; 671400, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 41277 

3651900; 671200, 3651900; 671200, 

3652200; 671300, 3652200; 671300, 

3652400; 671500, 3652400; 671500, 

3652600; 671400, 3652600; 671400, 

3652900; 671100, 3652900; 671100, 

3653100; 670900, 3653100; 670900, 

3653000; 670700, 3653000; 670700, 

3653100; 670600, 3653100; 670600, 

3653200; 670400, 3653200; 670400, 

3653300; 670300, 3653300; 670300, 

3653500; 670100, 3653500; 670100, 

3653700; 669800, 3653700; 669800, 

3653900; 669500, 3653900; 669500, 

3653800; 669300, 3653800; 669300, 

3653900; 669200, 3653900; 669200, 

3654000; 669100, 3654000; 669100, 

3654200; 669400, 3654200; 669400, 

3654100; 669800, 3654100; 669800, 

3654400; 669600, 3654400; 669600, 

3654500; 669500, 3654500; 669500, 

3654700; 669400, 3654700; 669400, 

3654800; 669200, 3654800; 669200, 

3654900; 669100, 3654900; 669100, 

3655000; 668900, 3655000; 668900, 

3655100; 668700, 3655100; 668700, 

3655300; 668600, 3655300; 668600, 

3655400; 668500, 3655400; 668500, 

3655300; 668300, 3655300; 668300, 

3655400; 668100, 3655400; 668100, 

3655500; 668000, 3655500; 668000, 

3655600; 667900, 3655600; 667900, 

3656100; 667700, 3656100; 667700, 

3656000; 667400, 3656000; 667400, 

3656100; 667000, 3656100; 667000, 

3656300; 666600, 3656300; 666600, 

3656400; 666500, 3656400; 666500, 

3656800; 666300, 3656800; 666300, 

3657000; 666000, 3657000; 666000, 

3657100; 665900, 3657100; 665900, 

3657400; 666200, 3657400; 666200, 

3657600; 666300, 3657600; 666300, 

3657800; 666500, 3657800; thence 

returning to 666500, 3657900. 

(v) Note: Map of Unit 1 (Map 2) 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
41278 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP27JY07.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 41279 

(7) Unit 2: Imperial County, 

California. 

(i) Subunit 2A, Gecko, Imperial 

County, California. From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangles Glamis and Glamis NW, 

lands bounded by the following UTM 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 674500, 

3648700; 674700, 3648700; 674700, 

3648600; 674800, 3648600; 674800, 

3648500; 674700, 3648500; 674700, 

3648300; 674800, 3648300; 674800, 

3648100; 675000, 3648100; 675000, 

3647900; 674900, 3647900; 674900, 

3647800; 675100, 3647800; 675100, 

3647600; 675200, 3647600; 675200, 

3647400; 675800, 3647400; 675800, 

3647200; 676100, 3647200; 676100, 

3647100; 676500, 3647100; 676500, 

3647300; 676700, 3647300; 676700, 

3647400; 676400, 3647400; 676400, 

3647700; 676500, 3647700; 676500, 

3647800; 676700, 3647800; 676700, 

3647700; 676800, 3647700; 676800, 

3647600; 676700, 3647600; 676700, 

3647500; 677200, 3647500; 677200, 

3647300; 677400, 3647300; 677400, 

3647400; 677600, 3647400; 677600, 

3647500; 677700, 3647500; 677700, 

3647600; 677800, 3647600; 677800, 

3647700; 678000, 3647700; 678000, 

3647400; 677900, 3647400; 677900, 

3647200; 677800, 3647200; 677800, 

3647000; 677900, 3647000; 677900, 

3647100; 678300, 3647100; 678300, 

3646800; 678200, 3646800; 678200, 

3646700; 677900, 3646700; 677900, 

3646400; 677600, 3646400; 677600, 

3646200; 677900, 3646200; 677900, 

3646300; 678100, 3646300; 678100, 

3645900; 678400, 3645900; 678400, 

3646100; 678600, 3646100; 678600, 

3646300; 678900, 3646300; 678900, 

3646100; 678700, 3646100; 678700, 

3645900; 678800, 3645900; 678800, 

3645700; 678700, 3645700; 678700, 

3645600; 678600, 3645600; 678600, 

3645500; 678700, 3645500; 678700, 

3645300; 678900, 3645300; 678900, 

3645400; 678800, 3645400; 678800, 

3645600; 679000, 3645600; 679000, 

3645700; 678900, 3645700; 678900, 

3646000; 679100, 3646000; 679100, 

3646100; 679000, 3646100; 679000, 

3646200; 679100, 3646200; 679100, 

3646300; 679400, 3646300; 679400, 

3646500; 679600, 3646500; 679600, 

3646300; 679700, 3646300; 679700, 

3646100; 679600, 3646100; 679600, 

3646000; 679500, 3646000; 679500, 

3645900; 679300, 3645900; 679300, 

3645800; 679400, 3645800; 679400, 

3645600; 679100, 3645600; 679100, 

3645300; 679200, 3645300; 679200, 

3645200; 679400, 3645200; 679400, 

3645000; 679300, 3645000; 679300, 

3644400; 679100, 3644400; 679100, 

3644200; 679300, 3644200; 679300, 

3643900; 679500, 3643900; 679500, 

3643700; 679400, 3643700; 679200, 

3643700; 679200, 3643900; 679100, 

3643900; 679100, 3643800; 679000, 

3643800; 679000, 3643900; 678900, 

3643900; 678900, 3643800; 678800, 

3643800; 678800, 3643600; 678900, 

3643600; 678900, 3643300; 678800, 

3643300; 678800, 3643100; 678600, 

3643100; 678600, 3643200; 678400, 

3643200; 678400, 3643300; 678600, 

3643300; 678600, 3643600; 678400, 

3643600; 678400, 3643500; 678300, 

3643500; 678300, 3643600; 678200, 

3643600; 678200, 3643400; 677900, 

3643400; 677900, 3643200; 677800, 

3643200; 677800, 3643100; 677500, 

3643100; 677500, 3643400; 677700, 

3643400; 677700, 3643500; 677900, 

3643500; 677900, 3643700; 677200, 

3643700; 677200, 3644000; 677300, 

3644000; 677300, 3644300; 677100, 

3644300; 677100, 3644200; 676800, 

3644200; 676800, 3644500; 676900, 

3644500; 676900, 3644800; 676800, 

3644800; 676800, 3645000; 676600, 

3645000; 676600, 3644900; 676500, 

3644900; 676500, 3644800; 676400, 

3644800; 676400, 3644900; 676300, 

3644900; 676300, 3645100; 676500, 

3645100; 676500, 3645200; 676600, 

3645200; 676600, 3645300; 677000, 

3645300; 677000, 3645500; 676700, 

3645500; 676700, 3645400; 676500, 

3645400; 676500, 3645600; 676400, 

3645600; 676400, 3645300; 676300, 

3645300; 676300, 3645200; 676100, 

3645200; 676100, 3645300; 676000, 

3645300; 676000, 3645500; 676200, 

3645500; 676200, 3645600; 676300, 

3645600; 676300, 3645800; 676200, 

3645800; 676200, 3645900; 676000, 

3645900; 676000, 3645800; 675800, 

3645800; 675800, 3645900; 675600, 

3645900; 675600, 3645800; 675400, 

3645800; 675400, 3645900; 675300, 

3645900; 675300, 3646500; 675700, 

3646500; 675700, 3646600; 675600, 

3646600; 675600, 3646800; 675500, 

3646800; 675500, 3647000; 675100, 

3647000; 675100, 3647500; 674900, 

3647500; 674900, 3647700; 674800, 

3647700; 674800, 3647500; 674500, 

3647500; 674500, 3647700; 674300, 

3647700; 674300, 3648000; 674500, 

3648000; 674500, 3648300; 674300, 

3648300; 674300, 3648400; 674200, 

3648400; 674200, 3648600; 674500, 

3648600; thence returning to 674500, 

3648700. 

(ii) Subunit 2B, Gecko, Imperial 

County, California. From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangle Glamis, lands bounded by 

the following UTM NAD83 coordinates 

(E, N): 679400, 3643700; 679500, 

3643700; 679700, 3643700; 679700, 

3643600; 679800, 3643600; 679800, 

3643400; 679700, 3643400; 679700, 

3643300; 679800, 3643300; 679800, 

3643000; 679600, 3643000; 679600, 

3642900; 679500, 3642900; 679500, 

3642800; 679300, 3642800; 679300, 

3642600; 679200, 3642600; 679200, 

3642400; 679600, 3642400; 679600, 

3642200; 679500, 3642200; 679500, 

3642000; 679800, 3642000; 679800, 

3642200; 679900, 3642200; 679900, 

3642300; 680100, 3642300; 680100, 

3642200; 680400, 3642200; 680400, 

3642100; 680700, 3642100; 680700, 

3641800; 680500, 3641800; 680500, 

3641900; 680300, 3641900; 680300, 

3641800; 680100, 3641800; 680100, 

3641900; 680000, 3641900; 680000, 

3641800; 679800, 3641800; 679800, 

3641600; 679900, 3641600; 679900, 

3641500; 680000, 3641500; 680000, 

3641400; 680100, 3641400; 680100, 

3641300; 680700, 3641300; 680700, 

3641400; 681000, 3641400; 681000, 

3641700; 681300, 3641700; 681300, 

3641800; 681500, 3641800; 681500, 

3641600; 681900, 3641600; 681900, 

3641800; 682100, 3641800; 682100, 

3641700; 682200, 3641700; 682200, 

3641400; 681800, 3641400; 681800, 

3641200; 681700, 3641200; 681700, 

3640800; 681900, 3640800; 681900, 

3640600; 682100, 3640600; 682100, 

3640700; 682200, 3640700; 682200, 

3640800; 682400, 3640800; 682400, 

3640400; 682100, 3640400; 682100, 

3640300; 681900, 3640300; 681900, 

3640200; 681700, 3640200; 681700, 

3640000; 681400, 3640000; 681400, 

3640100; 681200, 3640100; 681200, 

3640000; 681100, 3640000; 681100, 

3639900; 681300, 3639900; 681300, 

3639700; 681000, 3639700; 681000, 

3639600; 680700, 3639600; 680700, 

3639700; 680600, 3639700; 680600, 

3639800; 680400, 3639800; 680400, 

3639900; 680300, 3639900; 680300, 

3640500; 680400, 3640500; 680400, 

3640600; 680500, 3640600; 680500, 

3640500; 680600, 3640500; 680600, 

3640300; 680500, 3640300; 680500, 

3640200; 680600, 3640200; 680600, 

3640000; 680800, 3640000; 680800, 

3640100; 680900, 3640100; 680900, 

3640200; 680800, 3640200; 680800, 

3640500; 681200, 3640500; 681200, 

3640800; 681400, 3640800; 681400, 

3641100; 681500, 3641100; 681500, 

3641500; 681400, 3641500; 681400, 

3641300; 681200, 3641300; 681200, 

3640900; 680900, 3640900; 680900, 

3641100; 680800, 3641100; 680800, 

3641200; 680700, 3641200; 680700, 

3641100; 680400, 3641100; 680400, 

3641000; 680200, 3641000; 680200, 

3641100; 680100, 3641100; 680100, 

3640900; 680300, 3640900; 680300, 

3640600; 680000, 3640600; 680000, 

3640300; 679800, 3640300; 679800, 

3640400; 679700, 3640400; 679700, 

3640600; 679800, 3640600; 679800, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
41280 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

3640700; 679700, 3640700; 679700, 

3641100; 679400, 3641100; 679400, 

3641200; 679300, 3641200; 679300, 

3641500; 679100, 3641500; 679100, 

3641400; 678900, 3641400; 678900, 

3641500; 678800, 3641500; 678800, 

3641700; 678700, 3641700; 678700, 

3641800; 678600, 3641800; 678600, 

3642000; 678500, 3642000; 678500, 

3641800; 678200, 3641800; 678200, 

3642100; 678300, 3642100; 678300, 

3642500; 678600, 3642500; 678600, 

3642800; 678700, 3642800; 678700, 

3643000; 678900, 3643000; 678900, 

3643200; 679000, 3643200; 679000, 

3643300; 679300, 3643300; 679300, 

3643400; 679400, 3643400; thence 

returning to 679400, 3643700; and lands 

bounded by 680500, 3640900; 680700, 

3640900; 680700, 3640800; 680800, 

3640800; 680800, 3640600; 680500, 

3640600; thence returning to 680500, 

3640900. 

(iii) Note: Map of Unit 2 (Map 3) 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 41281 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP27JY07.002</GPH>
41282 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(8) Unit 3: Imperial County, 

California. 

(i) Subunit 3A, AMA, Imperial 

County, California. From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangles Cactus, Glamis and Glamis 

SE, lands bounded by the following 

UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 

682600, 3639800; 682900, 3639800; 

682900, 3639700; 683100, 3639700; 

683100, 3639600; 683200, 3639600; 

683200, 3639400; 683400, 3639400; 

683400, 3639100; 683100, 3639100; 

683100, 3639000; 683200, 3639000; 

683200, 3638800; 683300, 3638800; 

683300, 3638700; 683900, 3638700; 

683900, 3638600; 684100, 3638600; 

684100, 3638500; 684300, 3638500; 

684300, 3638400; 684400, 3638400; 

684400, 3638100; 684100, 3638100; 

684100, 3637700; 684300, 3637700; 

684300, 3637400; 684600, 3637400; 

684600, 3637100; 684700, 3637100; 

684700, 3637000; 685000, 3637000; 

685000, 3637100; 685300, 3637100; 

685300, 3637000; 685400, 3637000; 

685400, 3636800; 685100, 3636800; 

685100, 3636400; 685200, 3636400; 

685200, 3636300; 685400, 3636300; 

685400, 3636100; 685700, 3636100; 

685700, 3636000; 685900, 3636000; 

685900, 3635900; 686400, 3635900; 

686400, 3635700; 686700, 3635700; 

686700, 3635200; 687300, 3635200; 

687300, 3635300; 687500, 3635300; 

687500, 3635400; 687600, 3635400; 

687600, 3635500; 687700, 3635500; 

687700, 3635600; 687900, 3635600; 

687900, 3635500; 688000, 3635500; 

688000, 3635300; 687700, 3635300; 

687700, 3635000; 687600, 3635000; 

687600, 3634700; 687700, 3634700; 

687700, 3634500; 687800, 3634500; 

687800, 3634300; 687900, 3634300; 

687900, 3634100; 688100, 3634100; 

688100, 3634000; 688200, 3634000; 

688200, 3633900; 688300, 3633900; 

688300, 3633700; 688400, 3633700; 

688400, 3633600; 688500, 3633600; 

688500, 3633500; 688600, 3633500; 

688600, 3633300; 688500, 3633300; 

688500, 3633200; 688400, 3633200; 

688400, 3632900; 688500, 3632900; 

688500, 3632600; 688600, 3632600; 

688600, 3632200; 688700, 3632200; 

688700, 3632100; 688800, 3632100; 

688800, 3631900; 688900, 3631900; 

688900, 3631800; 688800, 3631800; 

688800, 3631700; 688900, 3631700; 

688900, 3631500; 689500, 3631500; 

689500, 3631300; 689800, 3631300; 

689800, 3631000; 689500, 3631000; 

689500, 3630600; thence southwestward 

to y-coordinate 3630000 at the 

Management Area boundary; thence 

northwestward along the Management 

Area boundary to x-coordinate 686700; 

thence to 686700, 3632800; 686600, 

3632800; 686600, 3632900; 686500, 

3632900; 686500, 3633000; 686400, 

3633000; 686400, 3633400; 686300, 

3633400; 686300, 3633500; 686200, 

3633500; 686200, 3633600; 686100, 

3633600; 686100, 3633800; 685900, 

3633800; 685900, 3633900; 685800, 

3633900; 685800, 3634000; 685700, 

3634000; 685700, 3634200; 685600, 

3634200; 685600, 3634300; 685300, 

3634300; 685300, 3634700; 685200, 

3634700; 685200, 3634800; 685000, 

3634800; 685000, 3634900; 684900, 

3634900; 684900, 3635200; 684800, 

3635200; 684800, 3635300; 684700, 

3635300; 684700, 3635400; 684500, 

3635400; 684500, 3635500; 684400, 

3635500; 684400, 3635600; 684300, 

3635600; 684300, 3635800; 684100, 

3635800; 684100, 3635900; 684000, 

3635900; 684000, 3636000; 683900, 

3636000; 683900, 3636100; 683500, 

3636100; 683500, 3636200; 683400, 

3636200; 683400, 3636500; 683300, 

3636500; 683300, 3636600; 683200, 

3636600; 683200, 3636700; 683100, 

3636700; 683100, 3636800; 682800, 

3636800; 682800, 3636900; 682700, 

3636900; 682700, 3637100; 682800, 

3637100; 682800, 3637500; 682300, 

3637500; 682300, 3637700; 682000, 

3637700; 682000, 3638000; 681900, 

3638000; 681900, 3638500; 681600, 

3638500; 681600, 3638800; 681800, 

3638800; 681800, 3639000; 681900, 

3639000; 681900, 3639100; 682000, 

3639100; 682000, 3639200; 682100, 

3639200; 682100, 3639300; 682500, 

3639300; 682500, 3639500; 682400, 

3639500; 682400, 3639700; 682600, 

3639700; thence returning to 682600, 

3639800. 

(ii) Subunit 3B, AMA/Ogilby, 

Imperial County, California. From USGS 

1:24,000 quadrangle Cactus, lands 

bounded by the following UTM NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 691900, 3631300; 

692300, 3631300; 692300, 3630800; 

691900, 3630800; 691900, 3630700; 

691800, 3630700; 691800, 3630600; 

691500, 3630600; 691500, 3630500; 

691200, 3630500; 691200, 3630100; 

691100, 3630100; 691100, 3629900; 

691200, 3629900; 691200, 3629600; 

691100, 3629600; 691100, 3629400; 

691400, 3629400; 691400, 3629700; 

691600, 3629700; 691600, 3629800; 

691700, 3629800; 691700, 3629700; 

691800, 3629700; 691800, 3629500; 

691700, 3629500; 691700, 3629400; 

691500, 3629400; 691500, 3629300; 

691600, 3629300; 691600, 3628700; 

691700, 3628700; 691700, 3628600; 

thence southwestward to the 

Management Area boundary at ycoordinate 3627650; thence 

northwestward along the Management 

Area boundary to y-coordinate 3630000; 

thence northeastward to 689500, 

3630600; thence to 689600, 3630600; 

689600, 3630500; 689700, 3630500; 

689700, 3630400; 690000, 3630400; 

690000, 3630300; 690200, 3630300; 

690200, 3630200; 690700, 3630200; 

690700, 3630100; 690900, 3630100; 

690900, 3630400; 691000, 3630400; 

691000, 3630700; 691200, 3630700; 

691200, 3630800; 691300, 3630800; 

691300, 3630900; 691500, 3630900; 

691500, 3631000; 691600, 3631000; 

691600, 3631100; 691800, 3631100; 

691800, 3631200; 691900, 3631200; 

thence returning to 691900, 3631300. 

(iii) Subunit 3C, Ogilby, Imperial 

County, California. From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangle Cactus and Grays Well, 

lands bounded by the following UTM 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 693100, 

3629300; 693400, 3629300; 693400, 

3629100; 693500, 3629100; 693500, 

3628700; 693300, 3628700; 693300, 

3628600; 693200, 3628600; 693200, 

3628500; 692400, 3628500; 692400, 

3628200; 692300, 3628200; 692300, 

3628100; 691900, 3628100; 691900, 

3627600; 692300, 3627600; 692300, 

3627500; 692800, 3627500; 692800, 

3627200; 692700, 3627200; 692700, 

3627100; 692500, 3627100; 692500, 

3627000; 692600, 3627000; 692600, 

3626700; 692700, 3626700; 692700, 

3626600; 693800, 3626600; 693800, 

3626500; 693900, 3626500; 693900, 

3626300; 693800, 3626300; 693800, 

3625700; 694400, 3625700; 694400, 

3625600; 695000, 3625600; 695000, 

3625300; 694700, 3625300; 694700, 

3625200; 694400, 3625200; 694400, 

3625100; 694300, 3625100; 694300, 

3625000; 694000, 3625000; 694000, 

3625100; 693900, 3625100; 693900, 

3625200; 693700, 3625200; 693700, 

3624500; thence westward to the 

Management Area boundary at ycoordinate 3624500; thence 

northwestward along the Management 

Area boundary at x-coordinate 693000; 

thence to 693000, 3625400; 693100, 

3625400; 693100, 3625600; 692900, 

3625600; 692900, 3625700; 692800, 

3625700; 692800, 3625800; 692700, 

3625800; 692700, 3626100; 692500, 

3626100; 692500, 3626300; 692100, 

3626300; 692100, 3626800; thence 

westward to the Management Area 

boundary at y-coordinate 3626800; 

thence northwestward to y-coordinate 

3627650; thence to 691700, 3628600; 

692700, 3628600; 692700, 3628700; 

692800, 3628700; 692800, 3628800; 

692900, 3628800; 692900, 3628900; 

693000, 3628900; 693000, 3629000; 

693100, 3629000; thence returning to 

693100, 3629300; and lands bounded by 

696500, 3625500; 696800, 3625500; 

696800, 3625300; 697000, 3625300; 

697000, 3625000; 696900, 3625000; 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 41283 

696900, 3624800; 696500, 3624800; 

696500, 3624600; 696300, 3624600; 

696300, 3624400; 696100, 3624400; 

696100, 3624500; 695800, 3624500; 

695800, 3624200; 695700, 3624200; 

695700, 3624000; 695600, 3624000; 

695600, 3623900; 695400, 3623900; 

695400, 3624000; 695200, 3624000; 

695200, 3623900; 695000, 3623900; 

695000, 3623800; 694600, 3623800; 

694600, 3624300; 694800, 3624300; 

694800, 3624400; 694900, 3624400; 

694900, 3624500; 695300, 3624500; 

695300, 3624400; 695400, 3624400; 

695400, 3624600; 695600, 3624600; 

695600, 3624700; 695700, 3624700; 

695700, 3624800; 696100, 3624800; 

696100, 3625000; 696300, 3625000; 

696300, 3625100; 696400, 3625100; 

696400, 3625400; 696500, 3625400; 

thence returning to 696500, 3625500. 

Subunit 3C, Ogilby, Imperial County, 

California. From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangle Cactus and Grays Well, 

lands bounded by the following UTM 

NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 693100, 

3629300; 693400, 3629300; 693400, 

3629100; 693500, 3629100; 693500, 

3628700; 693300, 3628700; 693300, 

3628600; 693200, 3628600; 693200, 

3628500; 692400, 3628500; 692400, 

3628200; 692300, 3628200; 692300, 

3628100; 691900, 3628100; 691900, 

3627600; 692300, 3627600; 692300, 

3627500; 692800, 3627500; 692800, 

3627200; 692700, 3627200; 692700, 

3627100; 692500, 3627100; 692500, 

3627000; 692600, 3627000; 692600, 

3626700; 692700, 3626700; 692700, 

3626600; 693800, 3626600; 693800, 

3626500; 693900, 3626500; 693900, 

3626300; 693800, 3626300; 693800, 

3625700; 694400, 3625700; 694400, 

3625600; 695000, 3625600; 695000, 

3625300; 694700, 3625300; 694700, 

3625200; 694400, 3625200; 694400, 

3625100; 694300, 3625100; 694300, 

3625000; 694000, 3625000; 694000, 

3625100; 693900, 3625100; 693900, 

3625200; 693700, 3625200; 693700, 

3624500; 693400, 3624500; 693400, 

3624700; 693300, 3624700; 693300, 

3624800; 693200, 3624800; 693200, 

3624900; 693100, 3624900; 693100, 

3625000; 693000, 3625000; 693000, 

3625400; 693100, 3625400; 693100, 

3625600; 692900, 3625600; 692900, 

3625700; 692800, 3625700; 692800, 

3625800; 692700, 3625800; 692700, 

3626100; 692500, 3626100; 692500, 

3626300; 692100, 3626300; 692100, 

3626800; 691400, 3626800; 691400, 

3627000; 691300, 3627000; 691300, 

3627100; 691200, 3627100; 691200, 

3627400; 690900, 3627400; 690900, 

3627500; 690800, 3627501; 691700, 

3628600; 692700, 3628600; 692700, 

3628700; 692800, 3628700; 692800, 

3628800; 692900, 3628800; 692900, 

3628900; 693000, 3628900; 693000, 

3629000; 693100, 3629000; thence 

returning to 693100, 3629300; and lands 

bounded by 696500, 3625500; 696800, 

3625500; 696800, 3625300; 697000, 

3625300; 697000, 3625000; 696900, 

3625000; 696900, 3624800; 696500, 

3624800; 696500, 3624600; 696300, 

3624600; 696300, 3624400; 696100, 

3624400; 696100, 3624500; 695800, 

3624500; 695800, 3624200; 695700, 

3624200; 695700, 3624000; 695600, 

3624000; 695600, 3623900; 695400, 

3623900; 695400, 3624000; 695200, 

3624000; 695200, 3623900; 695000, 

3623900; 695000, 3623800; 694600, 

3623800; 694600, 3624300; 694800, 

3624300; 694800, 3624400; 694900, 

3624400; 694900, 3624500; 695300, 

3624500; 695300, 3624400; 695400, 

3624400; 695400, 3624600; 695600, 

3624600; 695600, 3624700; 695700, 

3624700; 695700, 3624800; 696100, 

3624800; 696100, 3625000; 696300, 

3625000; 696300, 3625100; 696400, 

3625100; 696400, 3625400; 696500, 

3625400; thence returning to 696500, 

3625500. 

(iv) Note: The map depicting Unit 3 

is found at paragraph (9)(ii) of this 

entry. 

(9) Unit 4: Buttercup, Imperial 

County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

Grays Well, lands bounded by the 

following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 697900, 3622100; 698300, 3622100; 

698300, 3621900; 698200, 3621900; 

698200, 3621700; 698300, 3621700; 

698300, 3621600; 698500, 3621600; 

698500, 3621500; 698600, 3621500; 

698600, 3621200; 698500, 3621200; 

698500, 3621100; 698400, 3621100; 

698400, 3621000; 698300, 3621000; 

698300, 3620970; 697900, 3620925; 

697900, 3621000; 697800, 3621000; 

697800, 3621100; 697700, 3621100; 

697700, 3621300; 697600, 3621300; 

697600, 3621400; 697500, 3621400; 

697500, 3621500; 697400, 3621500; 

697400, 3621800; 697600, 3621800; 

697600, 3621900; 697900, 3621900; 

thence returning to 697900, 3622100. 

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

4) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
41284 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * Dated: July 19, 2007. 

Todd Willens, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 07–3674 Filed 7–26–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP27JY07.003</GPH>