50454 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R8–ES–2007–0007; 92210–1117– 

0000–B4] 

RIN 1018–AU86 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Acanthomintha ilicifolia 

(San Diego thornmint) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are 

designating critical habitat for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia (San Diego 

thornmint) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

In total, approximately 671 acres (ac) 

(272 hectares (ha)) of land in San Diego 

County, California, fall within the 

boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

September 25, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: The final rule, final 

economic analysis, and map of critical 

habitat are available on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this final rule will be available for 

public inspection, by appointment, 

during normal business hours, at the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden 

Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011; 

telephone 760–431–9440; facsimile 

760–431–5901. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES); 

telephone 760–431–9440; facsimile 

760–431–5901. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia in this final 

rule. For more information on the 

taxonomy, biology, and ecology of A. 

ilicifolia, refer to the final listing rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54938), and the 

proposed critical habitat rule published 

in the Federal Register on March 14, 

2007 (72 FR 11946). We did not receive 

any new information pertaining to the 

species description, life history, 

distribution, ecology, or habitat of A. 

ilicifolia following the publication of the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for this species; therefore, please refer to 

the documents listed above for a 

complete detailed discussion of this 

species. 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia is an annual 

member of the mint family in the genus 

Acanthomintha. This plant ranges in 

height from 2 to 6 inches (in) (5 to 15 

centimeters (cm)) and has white, twolipped, tubular flowers with rosecolored markings on the lower lip 

(Jokerst 1993, p. 713). Members of this 

genus have paired leaves and several 

sharp, spiny bracts (modified leaves) 

below whorled flowers. Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia can be distinguished from 

other members of the genus by its 

flower, which has hairless anthers and 

style. 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia usually 

occurs on heavy clay soils in open areas 

surrounded by shrubby vegetation. 

These openings are generally found 

within coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and 

native grassland of coastal San Diego 

County and south to San Telmo in 

northern Baja California, Mexico 

(Beauchamp 1986, p. 175; Reiser 2001, 

pp. 3–5). Acanthomintha ilicifolia is 

frequently associated with gabbro soils, 

which are derived from igneous rock, 

and gray calcareous clays derived from 

soft calcareous sandstone (Oberbauer 

and Vanderwier 1991, pp. 208–209). 

This species is endemic to San Diego 

County, California, and northwestern 

Baja California, Mexico, and grows on 

open clay lenses described as friable, 

meaning that these soils have a loose, 

crumbly texture. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On August 10, 2004, the Center for 

Biological Diversity and California 

Native Plant Society challenged our 

failure to designate critical habitat for 

this species as well as four other plant 

species (Center for Biological Diversity 

v. Norton, C–04–3240 JL (N. D. Cal.)). In 

a settlement agreement dated December 

21, 2004, we agreed to submit for 

publication in the Federal Register a 

proposed designation of critical habitat, 

if prudent and determinable, on or 

before February 28, 2007, and a final 

determination by February 28, 2008. We 

published a proposed critical habitat 

designation for Acanthomintha ilicifolia 

in the Federal Register on March 14, 

2007 (72 FR 11946). As part of that 2007 

proposed designation, we determined 

that it was prudent to designate critical 

habitat for this species (72 FR 11946; 

March 14, 2007). We accepted public 

comments on the proposed designation 

for 60 days, ending May 14, 2007. 

On November 27, 2007, we published 

a notice announcing the availability of 

the draft economic analysis (DEA) and 

reopening the public comment period 

on the proposed rule (72 FR 66122). 

This comment period closed on 

December 27, 2007. In light of new 

information received, we requested an 

extension of the due date of the final 

critical habitat rule. On April 16, 2008, 

the extension request was granted 

allowing us to open an additional 

comment period. On May 13, 2008, we 

opened a third comment period on the 

DEA and the proposed rule. This 

comment period closed on June 12, 

2008 (73 FR 27483). Please refer to the 

‘‘Previous Federal Actions’’ section of 

the proposed critical habitat rule for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia, which 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 14, 2007 (72 FR 11946), for a 

discussion of additional Federal actions 

that occurred prior to the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for this 

species. This final rule complies with 

the December 21, 2004, settlement 

agreement and April 16, 2008, 

extension. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

We requested written comments from 

the public on the proposed designation 

of critical habitat for Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia in the proposed rule that 

published on March 14, 2007 (72 FR 

11946), and in the notice of availability 

of the draft EA published in the Federal 

Register on November 27, 2007 (72 FR 

66122). We received significant 

information during the second comment 

period; therefore, we opened a third 

comment period on the proposed rule 

and the draft EA. The third comment 

period opened on May 13, 2008, and 

closed June 12, 2008 (73 FR 27483). We 

contacted appropriate Federal, State, 

and local agencies; scientific 

organizations; and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposed rule and the draft EA. 

During the comment period that 

opened on March 14, 2007, and closed 

on May 14, 2007, we received two 

comments directly addressing the 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

One comment was from a Federal 

agency and the other was from a nongovernmental organization. During the 

second comment period open from 

November 27, 2007 to December 27, 

2007, we received four comment letters. 

Of these latter comments, one was from 

a Federal agency, one was from a local 

government, one was from a peer 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 50455 

reviewer, and one was from an 

organization. We did not receive any 

additional comments during the third 

comment period. All comments 

received were grouped into general 

issue categories relating to the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia, and are 

addressed in the following summary 

and incorporated into this final rule as 

appropriate. We did not receive requests 

for a public hearing or comments on the 

draft EA. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinions 

from five knowledgeable individuals 

with scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the species, the 

geographic region where the species 

occurs, and conservation biology 

principles. We received a response from 

one peer reviewer. The peer reviewer 

agreed with our characterization of the 

known physical and biological features 

for Acanthomintha ilicifolia. 

We reviewed all comments we 

received from the peer reviewer and the 

public for substantive issues and new 

information regarding critical habitat for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia. The 

comments are addressed in the 

following summary. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

Comment 1: The peer reviewer 

concurred with our characterization of 

the known physical and biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of this species based on 

extensive research on Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia. Additionally, the peer 

reviewer highlighted several areas of 

interest that have not been studied at 

this time, but may provide more 

information on the physical and 

biological features essential for the 

survival of A. ilicifolia. The topics that 

the peer reviewer indicated require 

further research include population 

genetics, pollinator studies, and 

additional soil studies. The peer 

reviewer stated that additional 

population genetics studies of A. 

ilicifolia could show that some 

populations display greater genetic 

diversity, or that some genetic 

characters are contained in only one or 

two populations. Additionally, the peer 

reviewer indicated that studies are 

needed to determine habitat 

requirements for pollinators and to 

understand the effect that habitat 

fragmentation may have on A. ilicifolia. 

Our Response: We agree with the peer 

reviewer’s assessment of information 

needs for Acanthomintha ilicifolia. We 

used the best available scientific and 

commercial data to designate critical 

habitat for this species. The peer 

reviewer’s comments support the 

designation, and the peer reviewer did 

not identify any significant data that we 

did not consider. We look forward to 

working with stakeholders, researchers, 

and other organizations to study the 

important issues identified by the peer 

reviewer. The California Department of 

Fish and Game is funding a study on the 

pollinators of A. ilicifolia. This and 

other future projects will help us to 

better understand the conservation 

needs of this species. 

Comment 2: The peer reviewer 

applauded and reiterated the 

importance of our inclusion of newly 

discovered populations of 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia in the 

proposed critical habitat. The peer 

reviewer also commented that our 

criterion for population stability is 

reasonable and further tracking of 

population dynamics may help refine 

this criterion. The peer reviewer 

supported our inclusion of up to 500 ft 

(152 m) of habitat adjacent to mapped 

occurrences where the habitat is 

contiguous with occupied habitat and 

supports the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

this species. The peer reviewer 

indicated these areas capture unmapped 

clay soil patches, minimize the effects of 

fragmentation, and help alleviate our 

lack of specific knowledge regarding 

pollinators for this species by 

minimizing the encroachment of 

irrigated areas that support nonnative 

insect fauna (which may compete with 

native insect pollinators or affect the 

hydrology that supports A. ilicifolia). 

Our Response: We appreciate the peer 

reviewer’s positive evaluation of our 

criteria used to identify critical habitat. 

Comment 3: The peer reviewer 

commented that we should not exclude 

the area within the pending Encinitas 

subarea plan under the Multiple Habitat 

Conservation Plan (MHCP) as proposed. 

The peer reviewer indicated this plan 

has not progressed towards completion 

at a timely rate and that until a 

conservation plan has been developed, 

we should designate the area as critical 

habitat. 

Our Response: Following the 

publication of the proposed rule, we 

reevaluated the City of Encinitas’

pending habitat conservation plan 

(HCP) subarea plan under the MHCP in 

San Diego County, California. We 

concluded that, at this time, the City of 

Encinitas’ subarea plan is not complete 

and progress on the completion has 

slowed. However, the majority of 

subunit 1C is part of the Manchester 

Avenue Mitigation Bank and is actively 

managed for Acanthomintha ilicifolia 

(Spiegelberg 2005, p. 1–33). 

Preservation and management of the 

Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank is 

independent of the completion of the 

City of Encinitas’ subarea plan. We 

determined that the benefits of 

excluding the lands within the 

Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank 

outweigh the benefits of including these 

lands in a critical habitat designation 

and that their exclusion will not result 

in extinction of this species. Therefore, 

we excluded 70 ac (28 ha) of subunit 1C 

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

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

Act’’ section of this final rule for a 

detailed discussion of this exclusion), 

and we designated the remaining 9 ac (4 

ha) of private lands outside the 

Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank as 

critical habitat. 

Public Comments 

Comment 4: One commenter stated 

that at a minimum, all occupied habitat 

needs to be designated as critical 

habitat. The commenter stated the 

definitions of ‘‘recovery’’ and 

‘‘conservation’’ are synonymous, and 

therefore, any critical habitat 

designation must include all areas the 

Service finds essential to the 

conservation (i.e., recovery) of the 

species. This commenter reiterated that 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia is widely 

scattered in a discontinuous 

distribution, and stated that this type of 

distribution can lead to a high level of 

within-species genetic diversity. The 

commenter stated that it is essential to 

conserve within-species diversity 

represented by occurrences on varying 

soil types as well as geographically 

distinct populations. The commenter 

stated that within-species diversity 

helps species preserve their ability to 

respond to diseases, climate change, 

pollution, and other current and future 

threats. The commenter concluded that 

in the face of uncertainty, designation of 

all occupied habitat, regardless of 

ownership, is legally necessary to 

conserve this species. 

Our Response: We agree with the 

commenter that the term conservation is 

defined in the Act as using all methods 

and procedures necessary to bring any 

listed species to the point at which the 

measures provided under the Act are no 

longer necessary (i.e., recovery). The 

provisions within section 4 of the Act 

require the Secretary to determine 

whether a species is endangered or 

threatened based on threats to the 

species, and therefore, recovery is 

linked to the alleviation of threats to the 

species. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
50456 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

The Act defines critical habitat as the 

specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed on which are found those 

physical and biological features (I) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (II) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection; and specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed upon a 

determination by the Secretary that such 

areas are essential for the conservation 

of the species. We believe that our 

proposed and final designations 

accurately capture all areas essential to 

the conservation of Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia as required by the Act. The 

areas delineated as critical habitat in 

this final rule: (1) Support populations 

that occur on rare or unique habitat 

within the species’ range; (2) support 

the largest known populations of A. 

ilicifolia; and (3) support the most stable 

populations of A. ilicifolia. Further, this 

final designation identifies threats to the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species within each subunit and 

identifies special management 

considerations or protection needed to 

alleviate those threats and thereby will 

contribute to the recovery of A. 

ilicifolia. Although there is no recovery 

plan for this species, we believe that 

recovery for A. ilicifolia can be achieved 

through the implementation of 

conservation measures to protect the 

physical and biological features on the 

areas occupied by this species that meet 

the definition of critical habitat (see the 

‘‘Special Management Considerations or 

Protection’’ section for details about the 

type of management needed for this 

species). 

The commenter stated that we need to 

include all occupied habitat in order to 

conserve the species’ geographic and 

genetic diversity. Species and plant 

communities that are protected across 

their ranges are expected to have lower 

likelihoods of extinction (Soule and 

Simberloff 1986; Scott et al. 2001, pp. 

1297–1300); our criteria identified 

multiple locations across the entire 

range of the species as essential habitat 

to prevent range collapse. Genetic 

variation in plants can result from the 

effects of population isolation and 

adaptation to locally distinct 

environments (Lesica and Allendorf 

1995, pp. 754–757; Fraser 2000, pp. 49–

51; Hamrick and Godt 1996, pp. 291–

295); and our criteria identified 

populations that occur on rare or unique 

habitat within the species’ range in 

order to capture the range of plant 

communities, soil types, and 

environmental gradients in which 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia is found to 

preserve the genetic variation that may 

result from adaptation to local 

environmental conditions, as 

documented in other plant species (e.g., 

see Hamrick and Godt 1996, pp. 299–

301; Millar and Libby 1991, pp. 150, 

152–155). Locations that possess unique 

ecological characteristics are those that 

represent the full range of 

environmental variability where A. 

ilicifolia have evolved, and, therefore, 

are likely to promote the adaptation of 

this species to different environmental 

conditions. We believe we captured the 

within-species diversity that the 

commenter is referring to by including 

areas that support populations on rare 

or unique habitat types, the largest 

known populations of A. ilicifolia, and 

the most stable populations of A. 

ilicifolia. At this time, no one has 

investigated the genetic structure of this 

species; however, if such genetic studies 

are conducted for this species in the 

future, we may revise this critical 

habitat designation if we determine that 

this final designation does not 

adequately represent the species’ range 

of genetic diversity. 

Our designation relies on the best 

available scientific information to 

capture the geographic range of the 

species. The commenter did not 

specifically identify any geographically 

distinct populations that we did not 

capture in our designation. Our criteria 

do not capture populations where we 

had information indicating that the 

habitat had been lost to development 

and, therefore, the populations were 

likely extirpated. Furthermore, our 

criteria limited the designation to areas 

where we had data indicating the 

location of a known population and 

demographic or specific habitat data to 

assess its importance to the overall 

conservation of this species. As 

described above, our designation 

includes areas that support populations 

of Acanthomintha ilicifolia on rare or 

unique habitat types, the largest known 

populations of A. ilicifolia, and the most 

stable populations of A. ilicifolia, 

thereby capturing species’ diversity. We 

determined that designating these areas, 

each of which was occupied at the time 

of listing and contains the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of A. ilicifolia fulfills the 

plant’s biological needs and is adequate 

to conserve this species (for a more 

detailed discussion see the ‘‘Criteria 

Used To Identify Critical Habitat’’

section). We concluded that there are no 

areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing essential to the conservation of 

the species and, therefore, consistent 

with section 3(5)(c) of the Act, we did 

not include the entire geographical area 

currently occupied by this species. 

We recognize that our designation 

does not encompass all known 

occurrences of this species; however, we 

believe that our criteria and the 

designation are adequate to provide for 

the conservation and recovery of this 

species throughout its extant range. 

Although there is no recovery plan for 

this species, we believe that recovery for 

A. ilicifolia can be achieved through the 

implementation of conservation 

measures to protect the physical and 

biological features in the areas occupied 

by this species that meet the definition 

of critical habitat (see the ‘‘Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection’’ section for details about the 

type of management needed for this 

species). 

The commenter expressed concern 

that the proposed designation may not 

capture all areas necessary to allow 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia to respond to 

diseases, climate change, pollution, and 

other current and future threats. As 

stated above, the designation identifies 

all known threats to the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species in each 

individual subunit and identifies 

special management considerations or 

protection needed to alleviate those 

threats. We recognize these threats may 

change in the future; however, we base 

our critical habitat designations on the 

information available at the time of the 

designation and do not speculate as to 

what areas may be found essential if 

better information became available or 

what areas may become essential over 

time. The commenter did not include 

any specific data on future threats to the 

features essential to this species nor are 

we aware of any studies that include 

additional information that we did not 

consider. Should additional data 

become available concerning future 

threats, we may revise this critical 

habitat designation if it is determined 

that the designation did not capture an 

area essential to the conservation of the 

species based on the identification of 

additional threats. 

Comment 5: One commenter stated 

that the Act specifically allows critical 

habitat designations to include areas 

both within and outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed as well as 

currently unoccupied habitat in order to 

capture all areas essential to the 

recovery of listed species. The 

commenter continued to state that the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 50457 

for Acanthomintha ilicifolia fails to 

meet the government’s legal 

requirements to promote recovery of A. 

ilicifolia. 

Our Response: We agree with the 

commenter that the Act does provide 

the flexibility to include areas within 

the designation that were not occupied 

at the time a species was listed 

(including currently unoccupied 

habitat) if those areas are determined to 

be essential to the conservation of the 

species. We evaluated all known 

occurrences of Acanthomintha ilicifolia 

for inclusion in our proposed critical 

habitat designation and identified two 

subunits in the proposed rule, 3E and 

4D, for inclusion in the designation that 

were not known to be occupied at the 

time the species was listed. We now 

consider subunits 3E and 4D to be 

occupied at the time of listing. Even 

though these occurrences were not 

discovered until after the species was 

listed in 1998, over 1,000 plants were 

recorded at each of these sites when 

they were first discovered. We believe 

the large population size indicates that 

the occurrences were established for 

several years because the seeds of A. 

ilicifolia do not disperse in large 

numbers and any new population of A. 

ilicifolia would likely start out small 

and take several years to reach a 

population size greater than 1,000 

plants. In our proposed rule, we did not 

identify any areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by A. 

ilicifolia as essential for the 

conservation of this species. As 

discussed in response to comment 4, we 

believe our proposed rule and this final 

designation of critical habitat meet the 

requirements of the Act and are 

consistent with 50 CFR 424.12(e). We 

are not designating any areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by this 

species as we believe this designation is 

adequate to ensure the conservation of 

the species. 

We recognize the designation of 

critical habitat may not include all 

habitat areas that may eventually be 

determined to be necessary for the 

species’ recovery. Critical habitat 

designations do not signal that habitat 

outside the designation is unimportant 

or may not be required for recovery. 

Areas outside the critical habitat 

designation will continue to be subject 

to conservation actions implemented 

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

regulatory protections afforded by the 

section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and 

the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act. 

Critical habitat designations based on 

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. 

Comment 6: One commenter stated 

that the proposed exclusions, which if 

finalized will exclude over 67 percent of 

occupied habitat, violate the principles 

of the Act, and are not legal because 

excluding areas from a critical habitat 

designation will not promote the 

recovery of this species as is required by 

the Act. The commenter noted that, 

because all the units identified in the 

proposed rule are described as requiring 

special management considerations to 

conserve the primary constituent 

elements, that all units must be 

designated. 

Our Response: Section 4(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act generally mandates that the 

Secretary designate any habitat which is 

considered to be critical habitat, as 

defined in section 3(5)(A), concurrently 

with listing and provides that such 

designations may be revised thereafter 

as appropriate. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

further requires that in making critical 

habitat designations, the Secretary take 

into account the economic impact, the 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Secretary may exclude any area from 

critical habitat if he determines that the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless he 

determines that the failure to designate 

such area as critical habitat will result 

in the extinction of the species 

concerned. Therefore, consistent with 

the Act, we must consider the relevant 

impacts of designation on those areas 

that are determined to meet the 

definition of critical habitat using the 

best scientific data available prior to 

finalizing a critical habitat designation. 

After determining all areas that meet 

the definition of critical habitat under 

section 3(5)(A) of the Act, we 

considered the economic impact, the 

impact on national security, and other 

relevant impacts of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. In this 

final designation, we recognize that 

designating critical habitat in areas 

where we have partnerships with 

landowners that have led to 

conservation and management of 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia on non-Federal 

lands has a relevant perceived impact to 

those landowners and a relevant impact 

to future partnership and conservation 

efforts on non-Federal lands. Based on 

these relevant impacts, we evaluated the 

benefits of designating those particular 

areas as critical habitat against the 

benefits of excluding the areas from the 

designation, and we determined that the 

benefits of excluding a portion of 

subunits 1A and 1C and all of subunits 

1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 

and 4D outweigh the benefits of 

including these areas in the final critical 

habitat designation and that the 

exclusion of these areas will not result 

in extinction of this species. Therefore, 

these exclusions are in full compliance 

with the Act. We also concluded that 

the conservation and management that 

will occur on the non-Federal lands we 

are excluding will contribute to the 

recovery of this species even though the 

Act does not require that areas excluded 

from a critical habitat designation 

contribute to recovery of a species, but 

rather that the benefits analysis 

demonstrate that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion and that the exclusion will 

not result in the extinction of the 

species. For a complete analysis and 

discussion of the exclusions, please 

refer to the ‘‘Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section below. 

Comment 7: One commenter 

specifically questioned the ability of the 

San Diego Multiple Habitat 

Conservation Program (MHCP) and the 

San Diego Multiple Species 

Conservation Program (MSCP) to 

prevent extinction of this species, 

therefore questioning our determination 

that excluding these areas would not 

lead to the extinction of Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia. The commenter stated that 

habitat conservation plans (HCPs), like 

the MHCP and MSCP, are often 

ineffective conservation vehicles. The 

commenter listed three studies and 

stated that the studies conclude that 

species covered by multiple-species 

HCPs may be less likely to be recovered 

than those outside such HCPs. The 

commenter goes on to state that the 

MHCP and MSCP are in relatively early 

stages of implementation and are 

untested. The commenter states there 

are substantial questions as to whether 

these HCPs will provide sufficient 

habitat or species conservation for A. 

ilicifolia. The commenter stated that 

designating critical habitat in areas 

covered by the MHCP and MSCP would 

not undermine those HCPs and that the 

additional protection that a critical 

habitat designation provides would be 

especially beneficial if project 

proponents in those areas elect not to 

follow the guidelines set forth in the 

HCPs, suggesting that designating 

critical habitat would provide a useful 

and needed ‘‘safety net.’’ The 

commenter requested that we reconsider 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
50458 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

our proposed exclusion of non-Federal 

lands covered by the MHCP and MSCP. 

Our Response: We reevaluated our 

proposed exclusions of non-Federal 

land covered by the MHCP and MSCP. 

Although the commenter grouped the 

two HCPs together, we evaluated the 

proposed exclusion of each HCP 

separately in relation to the comments. 

We reevaluated our proposed 

exclusion of non-Federal land covered 

by the MHCP under the approved 

Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan 

(HMP) and the draft Encinitas subarea 

plan. The MHCP is a framework plan 

that has been in place for 5 years and 

is structured to be implemented through 

the approval of individual, constituent 

subarea plans. 

The City of Carlsbad received an 

incidental take permit based on the 

Carlsbad HMP, an individual subarea 

plan under the MHCP framework plan 

on November 9, 2004. All 59 ac (24 ha) 

of land that meet the definition of 

critical habitat within the boundaries of 

the Carlsbad HMP are already conserved 

under the Carlsbad HMP. In addition to 

the two areas that we proposed as 

critical habitat in the Carlsbad HMP, 

there are other populations of A. 

ilicifolia that are conserved under the 

subarea plan. Not all areas placed in 

conservation are actively managed 

under the plan at this time; however, we 

believe the Carlsbad HMP conserves A. 

ilicifolia within its boundaries. 

According to the Service’s biological 

opinion for the Carlsbad HMP, coverage 

of Acanthomintha ilicifolia under this 

plan is contingent upon compliance 

with the conservation measures 

outlined in the HMP (i.e., a funded 

management plan in place) and the 

completion of the San Marcos subarea 

plan under the MHCP. However, we did 

not identify any lands in San Marcos 

that meet the definition of critical 

habitat as described in the ‘‘Criteria 

Used to Identify Critical Habitat’’

section. As a result, we analyzed the 

exclusion of subunits 1A and 1B in 

more detail and concluded that 

exclusion is appropriate because the 

essential habitat under the Carlsbad 

HMP is conserved. Management plans 

were developed and are being 

implemented for conserved lands in 

both of these subunits, although some 

management differs between these two 

areas because these management plans 

were developed over different periods of 

time (i.e., the management plan for 

subunit 1A was developed after the 

Carlsbad HMP was completed, whereas 

the management plan for lands within 

subunit 1B was developed prior to 

development of the Carlsbad HMP). 

Regardless, conservation and 

management of A. ilicifolia in these 

subunits is occurring and we believe it 

is contributing to the conservation of the 

species. Overall, the extent of habitat 

preservation and management that has 

taken place through implementation of 

the Carlsbad HMP since it was 

permitted in 2004 is significant, and 

demonstrates the City of Carlsbad’s 

commitment to fully implement this 

HCP. 

A detailed accounting of preservation, 

conservation, and management 

requirements of the Carlsbad HMP can 

be found in the ‘‘Exclusions Under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section. The 

comprehensive framework of the 

subarea plan and area-specific 

management plans developed as areas 

are preserved under the subarea plan 

contain requirements to conserve and 

adaptively manage Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia habitats and provide for the 

conservation of this species’ primary 

constituent elements (PCEs), thereby 

contributing to the recovery of this 

species. The Carlsbad HMP provides for 

management and monitoring for A. 

ilicifolia at several sites, including 

habitat in subunit 1A that is currently 

actively managed by the Center for 

Natural Lands Management. Activities 

that benefit A. ilicifolia in subunit 1A 

include mapping and census projects, 

removal of nonnative invasive species, 

and the restoration of areas degraded by 

past human use (Tierra Data, Inc. 2005, 

p. 34–63; Carlsbad HMP 2004, p. D–97). 

Land in subunit 1B was permanently 

preserved prior to the creation of the 

HMP. Management of the conserved 

land in subunit 1B is the responsibility 

of the homeowners’ associations who 

own the open space in this subunit. 

These lands are signed and fenced and 

considered part of Carlsbad’s habitat 

preserve. 

The Encinitas subarea plan under the 

MHCP is not complete, and significant 

progress has not occurred towards its 

completion. Therefore, we are not 

excluding from the final designation 

essential habitat within the draft 

Encinitas subarea plan. 

We also reevaluated our proposed 

exclusion of non-Federal land covered 

by approved subarea plans under the 

MSCP. The MSCP is a framework plan 

that has been in place for 10 years. Both 

the City and the County of San Diego 

received incidental take permits for 

their individual subarea plans under the 

MSCP framework plan. Approximately 

948 ac (383 ha) of land that meet the 

definition of critical habitat are within 

the City and County subarea plan 

boundaries under the MSCP. The MSCP 

subarea plans provide for the 

conservation of Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia through the establishment of 

preserve lands within the Multi-Habitat 

Planning Area (MHPA) (City) and PreApproved Mitigation Areas (PAMA) 

(County). In 10 years of implementing 

the subarea plans, approximately 787 ac 

(319 ha), or 83 percent, of lands that 

meet the definition of critical habitat are 

conserved. Although some areas placed 

in conservation are not yet fully 

managed under the plans, we believe 

the subarea plans under the MSCP will 

conserve essential habitat of A. ilicifolia 

within the subarea plan boundaries. The 

extent of habitat preservation and 

management that has taken place 

through implementation of the MSCP 

subarea plans is significant, and 

demonstrates the City’s and County’s 

commitments to fully implement their 

subarea plans. 

The commenter indicated concern 

that species may more likely recover 

outside of HCPs and questioned the 

habitat and species conservation 

provided by the MSCP for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia. The subarea 

plans under the MSCP contain 

requirements to monitor and adaptively 

manage A. ilicifolia habitats and provide 

for the conservation of this species’ PCE. 

The framework and area-specific 

management plans required under the 

subarea plans are comprehensive and 

address a broad range of management 

needs at the preserve and species levels 

that are intended to reduce the threats 

to covered species and thereby 

contribute to the recovery of the species. 

These plans include the following: (1) 

Fire management; (2) public access 

control; (3) fencing and gates; (4) ranger 

patrol; (5) trail maintenance; (6) visitor/ 

interpretive and volunteer services; (7) 

hydrological management; (8) signage 

and lighting; (9) trash and litter removal; 

(10) access road maintenance; (11) 

enforcement of property and/or 

homeowner requirements; (12) removal 

of invasive species; (13) nonnative 

predator control; (14) species 

monitoring; (15) habitat restoration; (16) 

management for diverse age classes of 

covered species; (17) use of herbicides 

and rodenticides; (18) biological 

surveys; (19) research; and (20) species 

management conditions (MSCP 1998). 

Eight major populations of 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia are included 

within preserve lands under the 

approved MSCP subarea plans, each of 

which will be conserved from 80 to 100 

percent, with 85 percent overall 

coverage. A detailed accounting of 

preservation, conservation, and 

management requirements can be found 

in the ‘‘Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act’’ section. In sum, all but 89 

ac (36 ha) of the total 948 ac (383 ha) 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 50459 

of lands that meet the definition of 

critical habitat within the MSCP plan 

area are conserved or otherwise assured 

of conservation. Consistent with the 

narrow endemics requirements of the 

MSCP, the remaining 89 ac (36 ha) will 

be surveyed for A. ilicifolia prior to any 

development occurring on these lands. 

Under the City of San Diego’s subarea 

plan, impacts to narrow endemic plants, 

including A. ilicifolia, inside the MHPA 

will be avoided and outside the MHPA 

will be protected by: (1) Avoidance; (2) 

management; (3) enhancement; and/or 

(4) transplantation to areas identified for 

preservation (City of San Diego 1997, p. 

105–106; Service 1997, p. 15). Under the 

County of San Diego’s subarea plan, 

narrow endemic plants, including A. 

ilicifolia, will be conserved under the 

Biological Mitigation Ordinance using a 

process that: (1) Requires avoidance to 

the maximum extent feasible; (2) allows 

for a maximum 20 percent 

encroachment into a population if total 

avoidance is not feasible; and (3) 

requires mitigation at the 1:1 to 3:1 (in 

kind) for impacts if avoidance and 

minimization of impacts would result in 

no reasonable use of the property 

(County of San Diego (BMO) 1997, p. 11; 

Service 1998, p. 12). These measures 

will ameliorate any habitat loss within 

the 89 ac (36 ha) of lands that are not 

currently preserved or otherwise 

assured of conservation under the 

MSCP, by requiring in situ conservation 

or mitigation of impacts to A. ilicifolia 

and its habitat. Although some losses 

may occur to this species, the 

preservation, conservation, and 

management of A. ilicifolia required 

under the City and County MSCP 

subarea plans ensures the long-term 

conservation of this species and its 

habitat within the plan areas. 

We evaluated the relevant impacts of 

designating critical habitat within areas 

covered by the City and County MSCP 

subarea plans and determined that the 

benefits of excluding non-Federal lands 

covered by the MSCP outweigh the 

benefits of specifying those areas as 

critical habitat and determined that 

excluding these lands will not lead to 

the extinction of Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia. Therefore, we excluded all 

non-Federal lands covered by the City 

and County subarea plans under the 

MSCP from this final designation 

(please see ‘‘Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section below for a 

detailed analysis). 

The commenter also expressed 

concern that HCPs are ineffective 

conservation vehicles. We respectfully 

disagree. Numerous processes are 

incorporated into HCPs that provide for 

Service oversight of implementation to 

ensure compliance with the provisions 

to protect Acanthomintha ilicifolia. For 

example, the MSCP imposes annual 

reporting requirements and provides for 

Service review and approval of 

proposed subarea plan amendments and 

preserve boundary adjustments and for 

Service review and comment on projects 

during the California Environmental 

Quality Act review process. The Service 

also chairs the MSCP Habitat 

Management Technical Committee and 

the Monitoring Subcommittee (MSCP 

1998, p. 5–11—5–23). The Carlsbad 

HMP also incorporates many processes 

to ensure the Service an active role in 

implementation of the HCP. For 

example, Habitat Management Plans, 

reviewed and approved by the Service, 

must be developed for each preserve 

area within the Carlsbad HMP, and 

monitoring and management objectives 

must be established for each preserve. 

Progress towards meeting these 

objectives is measured through the 

submission of annual reports. There are 

also regular coordination meetings 

between the Service and the City of 

Carlsbad to discuss on-going 

conservation issues. Both the MSCP 

subarea plans and the Carlsbad HMP 

must account annually for the progress 

they are making in assembling 

conservation areas. The Service must 

receive annual reports that include, both 

by project and cumulatively, the habitat 

acreage destroyed and conserved within 

the HCPs. This accounting process 

ensures that habitat conservation 

proceeds in rough proportion to habitat 

loss and in compliance with the MSCP 

subarea plans and, the Carlsbad HMP, 

and the plans’ associated implementing 

agreements. 

The commenter did not provide 

copies of the citations that they stated 

conclude that multi-species HCPs are 

not likely to contribute to the recovery 

of listed species, nor did the commenter 

identify any examples of projects that 

may not comply with the Carlsbad HMP 

or the City and County MSCP subarea 

plans by impacting Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia. In light of our summary above, 

we continue to believe that 

implementation of the Carlsbad HMP 

and the City and County MSCP subarea 

plans will benefit A. ilicifolia recovery, 

and we believe there is adequate 

oversight of these plans to ensure 

compliance. 

Comment 8: One commenter 

supported our exclusion of lands 

covered by the MSCP and requested that 

we exclude proposed critical habitat 

areas within the pending North County 

MHCP in San Diego County. The 

commenter stated that the designation 

of critical habitat in these areas may 

have a negative effect on entities 

pursuing the MHCP and deter the 

completion of the plan. 

Our Response: At this time, the HCP 

for northern San Diego County (North 

County MHCP) is being developed and 

a draft plan is not available for public 

review. We understand the commenters’

concern that a designation of critical 

habitat in areas that may be addressed 

in the future by the North County MHCP 

may have a negative effect on entities 

pursuing the HCP and deter its 

completion. This concern is consistent 

with our discussion of conservation 

partnerships in the ‘‘Exclusions Under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section of 

this final rule. However, we also 

recognize that there is a regulatory and 

recovery benefit to designating critical 

habitat in areas that are not protected 

through existing management or 

conservation plans. Exclusions under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act must be 

considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Because a draft of the northern San 

Diego County MHCP has not been 

released for public comment or formally 

evaluated by the Service, it is not clear 

that this framework plan will 

adequately address the conservation and 

recovery needs of Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia. Nor is it clear which areas will 

actively develop subarea plans under 

the North County MHCP. Therefore, we 

cannot presently determine that the 

regulatory and recovery benefits of a 

critical habitat designation in these 

areas would be minimized by the 

measures provided under this future 

plan. Therefore, we did not exclude 

lands that may be covered under this 

plan from critical habitat (the portion of 

subunit 1A owned by the County of San 

Diego). However, if this designation is 

revised in the future, we will re-evaluate 

for potential exclusion areas conserved 

under the plan. In the meantime, we are 

committed to continue working with all 

partners to the North County MHCP to 

minimize any additional regulatory 

burden attributable to this critical 

habitat designation. 

Comment 9: One commenter 

questioned discussion in the proposed 

rule concerning critical habitat 

designations and public perceptions, 

stating that we did not present any 

empirical or quantitative evidence to 

support our claim that landowners fear 

a decline in property value due to real 

or perceived restrictions on land-use 

options and that participants in pending 

HCPs or other conservation plans may 

abandon the planning process in part 

due to perceived additional regulatory 

compliance with a critical habitat 

designation. The commenter noted that 

the MSCP and MHCP and their 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
50460 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

respective subarea plans were 

presumably approved only after a public 

education program that would have 

explained the consequences of having 

listed species on private property. The 

commenter further stated that if the 

MSCP and MHCP function as promised 

by the proposed rule, critical habitat 

designation should create few or no 

additional burdens for permittees and 

finally that the Service inappropriately 

considers an exclusion as an ‘‘either-or’’

situation with regard to HCP 

implementation. The commenter stated 

that critical habitat and habitat 

conservation plans can coexist. 

Our Response: The proposed 

designation cites several studies that 

have examined the issue of conservation 

of threatened and endangered species 

on private lands to support our 

discussion of the impacts to non-Federal 

landowners (Wilcove et al. 1996; Bean 

2002; Conner and Mathews 2002; James 

2002; Koch 2002; Brook et al. 2003). As 

discussed in detail in the ‘‘Conservation 

Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands’’

section below, at least 80 percent of 

endangered or threatened species occur 

either partially or solely on private 

lands (Crouse et al. 2002). Although 

many non-Federal landowners derive 

satisfaction from contributing to listed 

species recovery, many private 

landowners are wary of the possible 

consequences of attracting endangered 

species to their property. Mounting 

evidence suggests that some regulatory 

actions by the Federal Government, 

while well-intentioned and required by 

law, can (under certain circumstances) 

have unintended negative consequences 

for the conservation of species on 

private lands (Wilcove et al. 1996; Bean 

2002; Conner and Mathews 2002; James 

2002; Koch 2002; Brook et al. 2003). 

Many landowners fear a decline in their 

property value due to real or perceived 

restrictions on land-use options where 

threatened or endangered species are 

found (Main et al. 1999; Brook et al. 

2003). According to some researchers, 

the designation of critical habitat on 

private lands significantly reduces the 

likelihood that landowners will support 

and carry out conservation actions 

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

al. 2003). Such voluntary conservation 

actions may be particularly important 

for listed plant species that are not 

subject to the take prohibition under 

section 9 of the Act or the incidental 

take permitting requirements of section 

10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. For this reason, 

we actively encourage participants 

developing HCPs under section 10 of 

the Act to include measures that address 

the conservation of listed plant species 

in their plans even though such 

measures are not required. Designating 

critical habitat for plant species on 

lands voluntarily protected in an HCP or 

other conservation management plan 

could undermine our efforts. Therefore, 

we believe the judicious use of 

excluding specific areas of non-federally 

owned lands from critical habitat 

designations can contribute to species 

recovery and provide a superior level of 

conservation than critical habitat alone. 

Furthermore, our proposed critical 

habitat designations often draw 

significant public comment on the real 

and perceived impacts of the 

designation to Federal and non-Federal 

landowners. We received significant 

comments on multiple rules concerning 

impacts to private and non-Federal 

lands covered by HCPs and other land 

management conservation plans, 

including comment on this rule stating 

that the designation of critical habitat in 

areas covered by HCPs may have a 

negative effect on entities pursuing an 

HCP and may deter the completion of 

pending subarea plans under either the 

MSCP or MHCP (see Comment 8). As 

discussed in response to Comment 7 

above and in the ‘‘Conservation 

Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands’’

section below, we continue to recognize 

that designating critical habitat in areas 

where we have partnerships with 

landowners that have led to 

conservation or management of listed 

species on non-Federal lands has a 

relevant perceived impact to 

landowners and a relevant impact to 

future partnership and conservation 

efforts on non-Federal lands. 

Finally, we agree with the commenter 

that implementing a signed and 

permitted HCP is not an ‘‘either-or’’

situation when determining whether to 

designate an area that meets the 

definition of critical habitat as critical 

habitat. Rather, as stated in section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, the Secretary shall 

designate critical habitat, or make 

revisions thereto, on the basis of the best 

available data and after (emphasis 

added) taking into consideration the 

economic impact, the impact on 

national security, 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. We agree with the 

commenter that designation of an area 

covered by an HCP should create few or 

no additional regulatory burdens for 

permittees, and our analyses of the 

benefits of including areas covered by 

an HCP demonstrates how the 

regulatory benefit of inclusion is small. 

And while we agree that critical habitat 

and habitat conservation plans can 

coexist, we recognize that the 

designation has a relevant real impact to 

future partnerships and conservation 

efforts on non-Federal lands and a 

perceived impact to those landowners 

already in partnership with us. We 

consider that impact in weighing the 

benefits of inclusion against the benefits 

of exclusion on a case-by-case basis to 

determine if exclusion of those lands is 

appropriate. 

Comment 10: One commenter 

objected to the discussion in the 

proposed rule concerning the 

inundation of lawsuits relative to 

critical habitat and suggested that 

litigation would be unnecessary or 

unsuccessful if the Service complied 

with the law. The commenter suggested 

that policymakers make choices that 

avoid compliance with the Act’s critical 

habitat requirements and underfund 

species and habitat conservation 

programs, starving the Service of funds 

and staff. The commenter concluded 

that compliance with the law would be 

a more fiscally, biologically, and legally 

responsible choice. 

Our Response: We removed the 

discussion of litigation-driven workload 

from this final rule. We believe this final 

rule is scientifically sound and 

compliant with the Act and our 

implementing regulations. 

Comment 11: One commenter 

indicated that portions of subunit 1A 

are developed or used for agriculture 

and do not have the potential to support 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia. The 

commenter provided a map depicting 

the areas they believe do not support 

this species and requested that we 

remove these lands from critical habitat. 

Our Response: We reassessed the 

areas described by the commenter. We 

removed the lands in subunit 1A that do 

not contain the PCE, including active 

agricultural fields, navigational aids 

associated with McClellen-Palomar 

Airport, a dirt maintenance road, and 

development areas in the City of 

Carlsbad. We remapped the boundary of 

subunit 1A, and verified that the revised 

subunit contains the features essential 

to the conservation of species which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. As a result 

of the changes described above, we 

removed 26 ac (11 ha) that do not 

support A. ilicifolia and do not contain 

the PCE, resulting in 62 ac (25 ha) 

designated as critical habitat within 

subunit 1A. 

Comment 12: One commenter 

provided information on the 

management of lands owned by the 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 50461 

Center for Natural Lands Management 

(CNLM). The commenter indicated that 

portions of subunits 1A and 1C are 

owned by the CNLM, and are managed 

and monitored for Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia on an annual basis. Funding for 

the perpetual management of these sites 

is obtained from a monetary 

endowment. The CNLM prepared a 

Property Analysis Record (PAR) to 

determine how much money is needed 

to manage and monitor A. ilicifolia on 

these lands. The commenter indicated 

that the CNLM reduces the threats to A. 

ilicifolia by managing weeds, erecting 

fences, closing trails, and distributing 

educational literature to the public. 

Additionally, the commenter indicated 

that high school students are involved 

with annual monitoring for this species 

and that an entomologist is working to 

determine potential pollinators for A. 

ilicifolia on lands in subunit 1C. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

detailed information provided by the 

commenter, and we incorporated this 

information as appropriate into the final 

rule. 

Comments From Other Federal Agencies 

Comment 13: The U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS) commented that laws, 

regulations, policies, and current Land 

Management Plan (LMP) direction 

currently in place provide protection at 

least equivalent to the protection that 

critical habitat designation would 

provide. The agency stated that the LMP 

in place at the Cleveland National 

Forest (CNF) incorporates management 

direction that provides sufficient 

protection and management for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia and its habitat, 

and that the section 7 consultation on 

the LMP resulted in the Service coming 

to a similar conclusion, resulting in the 

issuance of a non-jeopardy biological 

opinion. Additionally, the Cleveland 

National Forest (CNF) has a Species 

Management Guide for A. ilicifolia that 

provides for exclusion of grazing, 

recreation, development, and soil 

disturbance (USFS 1991). The USFS 

commented that due to management 

and conservation standards, there 

should not be any reason to adversely 

modify the habitat’s primary constituent 

elements for A. ilicifolia on the CNF. 

Furthermore, they commented that 

designation of critical habitat on CNF 

lands would not provide any additional 

benefit to the conservation of the 

species or its habitat since all sitespecific projects proposed by the CNF 

are subject to section 7(a)(2) 

consultation with the Service and that 

designation would unnecessarily add to 

their analysis burden by requiring CNF 

to make a determination of effect 

regarding critical habitat when 

consulting under section 7 of the Act. 

The USFS acknowledged their 

responsibility to conserve and recover 

listed species and that they will 

continue to provide necessary 

management, regardless of critical 

habitat designation. 

Our Response: We determined that 

the lands identified on the CNF contain 

the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia and meet the 

definition of critical habitat (see 

‘‘Criteria Used to Identify Critical 

Habitat’’ section below). We 

acknowledge that the LMP for CNF will 

benefit A. ilicifolia and its habitat, and 

that the CNF has completed many of the 

actions outlined in the 1991 

Management Guide (USFS 1991) to 

avoid and minimize impacts to A. 

ilicifolia. The LMP contains general 

provisions for conservation of this 

species and the Management Guide 

suggests specific management and 

conservation actions that should 

address known threats to this species on 

USFS lands. However, the LMP is a 

guidance document and does not 

require or assure funding for 

management actions outlined in the 

plan. Additionally, the LMP does not 

preclude projects from occurring 

outside of the framework of the plan 

that could negatively impact areas 

designated as critical habitat. 

The Secretary has the discretion to 

exclude an area from critical habitat 

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

taking into consideration the economic 

impact, the impact on national security, 

and any other relevant impact if he 

determines that the benefits of such 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

specifying such area, unless he 

determines that the exclusion would 

result in the extinction of the species 

concerned. We considered the request 

from the USFS that we exclude their 

lands because it would unnecessarily 

add work in the future to determine the 

effect regarding critical habitat for 

actions on their lands and the fact that 

they already completed consultation 

under Section 7(a)(2) of the Act on the 

LMP. 

As part of our section 7 consultation 

with the USFS on the LMP, the USFS 

already consulted on various activities 

carried out on national forest lands 

including: Roads and trail management; 

recreation management; special use 

permit administration; administrative 

infrastructure; fire and fuels 

management; livestock grazing and 

range management; minerals 

management; and law enforcement. In 

our 2005 biological opinion on the LMP, 

we determined that implementation of 

the plan was not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia. Since critical habitat has not 

been previously proposed or designated 

for this species, it is anticipated that 

consultation with the USFS regarding 

the LMP will be reinitiated. However, 

because the USFS has already consulted 

with us on potential impacts to the 

species related to activities outlined in 

the LMP, the USFS can supplement its 

analysis for those activities already 

analyzed in the LMP with the additional 

analysis required for critical habitat 

areas. We do not believe that this 

additional analysis would place an 

undue burden on the USFS in this case. 

Based on the record before us, we 

elected not to exclude these lands and 

are designating lands identified on the 

CNF that meet the definition of critical 

habitat and are essential to the 

conservation of Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia. We will continue to consider 

on a case-by-case basis in future critical 

habitat rules whether to exclude specific 

lands from such designation when we 

determine that the benefits of such 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of their 

inclusion. 

Comment 14: One commenter 

indicated that the critical habitat 

proposal, if finalized, may adversely 

affect the Federal Aviation 

Administration’s (FAA’s) and San Diego 

County’s ability to continue to operate 

McClellan-Palomar Airport in a safe and 

efficient manner because navigational 

aides (e.g., lights, maintenance road to 

access navigational aides) are within the 

area proposed as subunit 1A. 

Our Response: As stated above in our 

response to comment 11 above, we 

removed the lands in subunit 1A that do 

not contain the PCE, including all active 

agricultural fields, lands containing 

navigational aides associated with 

McClellen-Palomar Airport, a dirt 

maintenance road, and development 

areas in the City of Carlsbad. We 

remapped the boundary of subunit 1A, 

and we have verified that this area 

meets the definition of critical habitat. 

Based on currently available 

information, we believe that we have 

removed all existing navigational aides 

from the designated critical habitat. 

Additionally, we do not believe that 

regular maintenance of any navigational 

aides that we are currently unaware of, 

but have been inadvertently included in 

the designation, will adversely modify 

critical habitat. We are committed to 

working with the FAA and staff of 

McClellen-Palomar Airport to ensure 

that the designation of critical habitat 

does not impact the future safe and 

efficient operation of the airport. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
50462 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

In our March 14, 2007, proposed rule 

we identified 1,936 acres (ac) (783 

hectares (ha)) of essential habitat for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia in four units 

and seventeen subunits (72 FR 11946). 

At that time we proposed to exclude 

1,302 ac (527 ha) under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act (72 FR 11946; March 14, 

2007). As we continued work on the 

proposed designation, we made two 

types of changes that affected the total 

area considered to meet the definition of 

critical habitat (what we will refer to as 

‘‘essential habitat’’). First, we corrected 

simple mapping errors; for example, in 

one case we tallied a single piece of 

land twice in calculating the total 

number of acres thought to be essential 

habitat. Second, we removed areas that 

did not qualify as essential habitat 

either because they were developed and 

degraded or because they did not 

contain the PCE and were not otherwise 

considered essential. Table 1 depicts the 

changes made to the proposed rule 

published on March 14, 2007, and 

indicates how much area was removed 

(or added as was the case for some of 

the corrections) for each of the two 

reasons discussed above. As we 

continued work on the designation, we 

notified the public of new information 

we were using to make changes to the 

critical habitat (72 FR 66122, November 

27, 2007; 73 FR 27483, May 13, 2008). 

However, Table 1 and this discussion 

focus on the changes from the March 14, 

2007, proposed rule (72 FR 11946) to 

this final rule. The details related to 

these changes are explained below. 

TABLE 1—AREAS PROPOSED AS CRITICAL HABITAT (72 FR 11946, MARCH 14, 2007), AREA REMOVED OR ADDED AS A

CORRECTION, AREA REMOVED AS NON-ESSENTIAL HABITAT, AND FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION

Critical habitat unit/subunit 

Essential 

habitat in 

the March 14, 2007 

proposed rule * 

Area 

subtracted or 

added as a 

correction * 

Area removed because 

it was not essential 

habitat * 

Essential 

habitat as 

of this final rule * 

Unit 1: Northern San Diego County: 

1A. Palomar Airport .................... 88 ac (36 ha) ................ ....................................... 26 ac (11 ha) ................ 62 ac (25 ha). 

1B. Southeast Carlsbad ............. 73 ac (29 ha) ................ ....................................... 16 ac (6 ha) .................. 57 ac (23 ha). 

1C. Manchester .......................... 92 ac (37 ha) ................ ....................................... 13 ac (5 ha) .................. 79 ac (32 ha). 

Unit 2: Central San Diego County: 

2A. Los Pen ̃asquitos Canyon ..... 63 ac (25 ha) ................ ....................................... ....................................... 63 ac (25 ha). 

2B. Sabre Springs ...................... 52 ac (22 ha) ................ Subtracted: 0 ac (1 ha) ....................................... 52 ac (21 ha). 

2C. Sycamore Canyon ............... 306 ac (124 ha) ............ ....................................... ....................................... 306 ac (124 ha). 

2D. Slaughterhouse Canyon ...... 77 ac (31 ha) ................ ....................................... ....................................... 77 ac (31 ha). 

Unit 3: Viejas Mountain and Poser 

Mountain: 

3A. Viejas Mountain ................... 33 ac (13 ha) ................ ....................................... 1 ac (<1 ha) .................. 32 ac (13 ha). 

3B. Viejas Mountain ................... 208 ac (84 ha) .............. ....................................... 15 ac (6 ha) .................. 193 ac (78 ha). 

3C. Viejas Mountain ................... 318 ac (128 ha) ............ ....................................... 42 ac (16 ha) ................ 276 ac (112 ha). 

3D. Viejas Mountain ................... 82 ac (33 ha) ................ ....................................... ....................................... 82 ac (33 ha). 

3E. Poser Mountain .................... 34 ac (14 ha) ................ ....................................... ....................................... 34 ac (14 ha). 

3F. Poser Mountain .................... 163 ac (66 ha) .............. ....................................... 8 ac (3 ha) .................... 155 ac (63 ha). 

Unit 4: Southern San Diego County: 

4A. McGinty Mountain ................ 18 ac (7 ha) .................. Added: 2 ac (1 ha) ........ ....................................... 20 ac (8 ha). 

4B. McGinty Mountain ................ 220 ac (89 ha) .............. Subtracted: 72 ac (29 

ha).

....................................... 148 ac (60 ha). 

4C. McGinty Mountain ................ 27 ac (11 ha) ................ Added: 1 ac (0 ha) ........ ....................................... 28 ac (11 ha). 

4D. Hollenbeck Canyon ............. 84 ac (34 ha) ................ ....................................... ....................................... 84 ac (34 ha). 

Total .................................... 1,936 ac (783 ha) ** ...... Subtracted: 69 ac (29 

ha).

121 ac (48 ha) .............. 1,748 ac (707 ha). 

* The values in this table do not represent an actual conversion of acres to hectares. 

** The sum of the values in this column is 1,938 ac (783 ha), whereas the value given for the total in the Table 1 of the March 14, 2007, Federal Register notice was 1,936 ac (783 ha). This difference is due to rounding and the conversion of values from acres to hectares on a subunitby-subunit basis rather than for the critical habitat as a whole. 

(1) In the proposed rule (72 FR 11946; 

March 14, 2007), we proposed to 

exclude a total of 95 ac (38 ha) of private 

lands in subunits 3C, 3D, and 3F from 

the final critical habitat designation 

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

believed these lands were within the 

planning boundary for the County of 

San Diego approved subarea plan under 

the San Diego MSCP. However, the 

private lands in subunits 3C, 3D, and 3F 

are not within the planning boundary 

for the County of San Diego subarea 

plan under the MSCP; therefore, 

consideration for exclusion under that 

HCP was inappropriate. All lands that 

meet the definition of critical habitat in 

subunits 3C, 3D, and 3F are now 

designated as critical habitat. 

(2) In the proposed rule (72 FR 11946; 

March 14, 2007), the maps and 

boundary descriptions of subunits 4A 

and 4B were delineated correctly; 

however, the area estimates were 

incorrect. The correct area for subunit 

4A is 20 ac (8 ha) rather than 18 ac (7 

ha), and the correct area for subunit 4B 

is 148 ac (60 ha) rather than 220 ac (89 

ha) (see Table 1). Non-Federal lands in 

subunits 4A and 4B are excluded from 

critical habitat, and the federally owned 

lands in subunit 4A are designated as 

critical habitat. 

(3) In the proposed rule (72 FR 11946; 

March 14, 2007), we did not identify 

that subunit 4A contained 2 ac (1 ha) of 

federally owned land, and subunit 4C 

contained 1 ac (<1 ha) of federally 

owned land. Both of these subunits 

include land in the Service’s San Diego 

National Wildlife Refuge (SDNWR). We 

proposed to exclude all non-Federal 

lands in subunits 4A and 4C from the 

final designation based on the benefits 

provided to Acanthomintha ilicifolia by 

the County of San Diego subarea plan 

under the MSCP. While we are 

excluding all private and non-Federal 

public lands covered by the subarea 

plan in this final rule, this exclusion 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 50463 

does not apply to Federal lands; 

therefore, we are designating 3 ac (1 ha) 

on the SDNWR in Unit 4. 

(4) We re-evaluated the areas 

proposed as critical habitat based on 

more up-to-date aerial imagery, field 

visits, and the most recent version of the 

HabiTrak database (i.e., a database that 

shows areas lost to development in the 

area covered by the MSCP). We 

determined that some areas proposed as 

critical habitat no longer contain the 

PCE. Therefore, we removed these areas 

from critical habitat. Below we describe 

the specific areas that we removed from 

critical habitat: 

(a) Subunit 1A, Palomar Airport—In 

the proposed rule (72 FR 11946; March 

14, 2007), we indicated that this subunit 

contained 88 ac (36 ha). After reevaluating this area, we found that 

approximately 26 ac (11 ha) do not 

contain the PCE, including all active 

agricultural fields, lands containing 

navigational aides associated with 

McClellen-Palomar Airport, a dirt 

maintenance road, and development 

areas in the City of Carlsbad (see Table 

1). As a result, we determined that 62 

ac (25 ha) meet the definition of critical 

habitat in subunit 1A. Of the 62 ac (25 

ha), we are designating 60 ac (24 ha) as 

critical habitat, and we are excluding 2 

ac (1 ha) from critical habitat under 

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

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

Act’’ section). 

(b) Subunit 1B, Southeast Carlsbad—

In the proposed rule (72 FR 11946; 

March 14, 2007), we indicated that this 

subunit contained 73 ac (30 ha). After 

re-evaluating this area, we found that 

approximately 16 ac (7 ha) are regularly 

maintained wildland-urban interface 

and do not support the PCE for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia; therefore, we 

removed these 16 ac (7 ha) from critical 

habitat (see Table 1). As a result, we 

determined that 57 ac (23 ha) meet the 

definition of critical habitat in subunit 

1B. We are excluding all of the 57 ac (7 

ha) from critical habitat under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act (see ‘‘Exclusions 

Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’

section). 

(c) Subunit 1C, Manchester—In the 

proposed rule (72 FR 11946; March 14, 

2007), we indicated that this subunit 

contained 92 ac (37 ha). After reevaluating this area, we found that 

approximately 13 ac (5 ha) are 

fragmented by suburban development or 

are too steep to support the PCE for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia; therefore, we 

removed these 13 ac (5 ha) from critical 

habitat (see Table 1). As a result, we 

determined that 79 ac (32 ha) meet the 

definition of critical habitat in subunit 

1C. Of the 79 ac (32 ha) that meet the 

definition of critical habitat, we are 

designating 9 ac (4 ha) as critical 

habitat, and we are excluding 70 ac (28 

ha) from critical habitat under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act (see ‘‘Exclusions 

Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’

section). 

(d) Subunit 3A, Viejas Mountain—In 

the proposed rule (72 FR 11946; March 

14, 2007), we indicated that this subunit 

contained 33 ac (13 ha). After reevaluating this area, we found that 

approximately 1 ac (<1 ha) is developed 

and no longer supports the PCE for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia; therefore, we 

removed this 1 ac (<1 ha) from critical 

habitat (see Table 1). As a result, we 

determined that 32 ac (13 ha) meet the 

definition of critical habitat in subunit 

3A. We are excluding all of the 32 ac (13 

ha) from critical habitat under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act (see ‘‘Exclusions 

Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’

section). 

(e) Subunit 3B, Viejas Mountain—In 

the proposed rule (72 FR 11946; March 

14, 2007), we indicated that this subunit 

contained 208 ac (84 ha). After reevaluating this area, we found that 

approximately 15 ac (6 ha) are 

developed and no longer support the 

PCE for Acanthomintha ilicifolia; 

therefore, we removed these 15 ac (6 ha) 

from critical habitat (see Table 1). As a 

result, we determined that 193 ac (78 

ha) meet the definition of critical habitat 

in subunit 3B. Of the 193 ac (78 ha) that 

meet the definition of critical habitat in 

subunit 3B, we are designating 52 ac (21 

ha) as critical habitat, and we are 

excluding 141 ac (57 ha) from critical 

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

(see ‘‘Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act’’ section). 

(f) Subunit 3C, Viejas Mountain—In 

the proposed rule (72 FR 11946; March 

14, 2007), we indicated that this subunit 

contained 318 ac (128 ha). After reevaluating this area, we found that 

approximately 42 ac (16 ha) are 

impacted by rural development and do 

not contain the PCE; therefore, we 

removed these 42 ac (16 ha) from 

critical habitat (see Table 1). As a result, 

we determined that 276 ac (112 ha) meet 

the definition of critical habitat in 

subunit 3C. We are designating all of the 

276 ac (112 ha), which are federally 

owned, as critical habitat. 

(g) Subunit 3F, Poser Mountain—In 

the proposed rule (72 FR 11946; March 

14, 2007), we indicated that this subunit 

contained 163 ac (66 ha). After reevaluating this area, we found that 

approximately 8 ac (3 ha) are impacted 

by rural development or agricultural 

activities and do not contain the PCE; 

therefore, we removed these 8 ac (3 ha) 

from critical habitat (see Table 1). As a 

result, we determined that 155 ac (63 

ha) meet the definition of critical habitat 

in subunit 3F. We are designating the 

155 ac (63 ha), all of which are federally 

owned, as critical habitat. 

(5) In the proposed rule (72 FR 11946; 

March 14, 2007), we proposed the 

exclusion of lands in subunit 1A and 1B 

covered by the Carlsbad Habitat 

Management Plan (HMP) under the 

MHCP from the designation of critical 

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

Upon further analysis of the Carlsbad 

HMP, we found that coverage of 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia under this HCP 

is contingent on compliance with the 

conservation measures outlined in the 

HMP (i.e., a funded management plan in 

place) and the completion of the San 

Marcos subarea plan under the MHCP. 

We announced that we were 

reconsidering this exclusion in our May 

13, 2008, Federal Register notice (73 FR 

27483); we did not receive public 

comments on this subject. However, we 

did not identify any lands in San 

Marcos that meet the definition of 

critical habitat as described in the 

‘‘Criteria Used to Identify Critical 

Habitat’’ section. Therefore, we 

analyzed the exclusion of subunit 1A 

and 1B in more detail and concluded 

that exclusion is appropriate because 

the essential habitat under the Carlsbad 

HMP is conserved and has management 

in place (see ‘‘Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section of this final 

rule for a detailed discussion of this 

exclusion). We are designating the 

remaining 60 ac (24 ha) of land owned 

by the County of San Diego in subunit 

1A because it is not covered by the 

Carlsbad HMP. 

(6) In the proposed rule (72 FR 11946; 

March 14, 2007), we proposed the 

exclusion of lands in subunit 1C 

covered by the pending Encinitas 

subarea plan under the MHCP from the 

designation of critical habitat under 

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

the Encinitas subarea plan under the 

MHCP has not been completed. 

However, the majority of subunit 1C is 

part of the Manchester Avenue 

Mitigation Bank and is actively 

managed for Acanthomintha ilicifolia 

(Spiegelberg 2005, p. 1–33). We 

determined that the benefits of 

excluding lands within the conservation 

bank area from critical habitat 

designation outweigh the benefits of 

including the area, and that their 

exclusion will not result in extinction of 

this species. Therefore, we are 

excluding 70 ac (28 ha) of subunit 1C 

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

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

Act’’ section of this final rule for a 

detailed discussion of this exclusion), 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
50464 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

and we are designating the remaining 9 

ac (4 ha) of private lands outside the 

Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank as 

critical habitat (see ‘‘Exclusions Under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section of 

this final rule for a detailed discussion 

of this exclusion). 

(7) In the proposed rule (72 FR 11946; 

March 14, 2007), we proposed the 

exclusion of non-Federal lands covered 

by the City of San Diego subarea plan 

under the MSCP in subunits 2A and 2B 

and the exclusion of non-Federal lands 

covered by the County of San Diego 

subarea plan under the MSCP in 

subunits 2C, 2D, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, and 

4D from the designation of critical 

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

In this final rule, we determined that the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion of these lands and 

that their exclusion will not result in 

extinction of this species. Therefore, we 

excluded all non-Federal lands in 

subunits 2A and 2B covered by the City 

of San Diego subarea plan and all nonFederal lands in subunits 2C, 2D, 3A, 

3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D covered by the 

County of San Diego subarea plan, 

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

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

Act’’ section of this final rule for a 

detailed discussion of this exclusion). 

Federally owned lands in subunits 3B, 

4A, and 4C are designated as critical 

habitat. 

(8) In our March 14, 2007, proposed 

rule (72 FR 11946), we indicated that all 

subunits except 3E and 4D were known 

to be occupied by the species at the time 

of listing (October 13, 1998). We now 

consider subunits 3E and 4D to have 

been occupied at the time of listing. 

Even though these occurrences were not 

discovered until after the species was 

listed in 1998, over 1,000 plants were 

recorded at each of these sites when 

they were first discovered in 2000 and 

2001, respectively. We believe the large 

population size indicates that the 

occurrences were established for several 

years prior to their discovery and were 

established at the time the species was 

listed. Acanthomintha ilicifolia seeds do 

not disperse in large numbers and any 

new population of A. ilicifolia would 

likely start out small and take several 

years to reach a population size greater 

than 1,000 plants. Therefore, since these 

large populations were discovered 2 to 

3 years after listing, we consider all 

subunits proposed or designated as 

critical habitat to have been occupied at 

the time of listing (see ‘‘Criteria Used To 

Identify Critical Habitat’’ section). We 

designated critical habitat in subunit 3E, 

and we excluded subunit 4D as 

discussed above. 

(9) We made two corrections to our 

description of the PCE. First, in the 

proposed rule (72 FR 11946; March 14, 

2007), we omitted grassland vegetation 

as one of the vegetation types in which 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia is commonly 

found. This information was discussed 

in the proposed rule, but was 

inadvertently left out of the PCE. We 

included it in the PCE in this final rule. 

Second, in the proposed rule (72 FR 

11946; March 14, 2007), we indicated 

that deep fissures in the clay soils 

associated with A. ilicifolia are 

approximately 2 feet (60 cm) deep. 

However, there are only observational 

discussions and no formal studies on 

this topic. We broadened the statement 

on this habitat feature in the PCE to 

state that the fissures in the soil range 

in depth from approximately 1 to 2 feet 

(30 to 60 cm). 

As a result of the removals and 

corrections outlined above, a total of 

approximately 1,748 ac (707 ha) meets 

the definition of critical habitat and is 

considered essential habitat for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia. We are 

excluding approximately 1,077 ac (435 

ha) of essential habitat under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act because we 

determined that the benefits of 

excluding those lands from the critical 

habitat designation outweigh the 

benefits of including them in the 

designation (see ‘‘Exclusions Under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section) . In 

conclusion, we are designating 671 ac 

(272 ha) of land in San Diego County as 

critical habitat for A. ilicifolia in this 

final rule. 

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 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species and 

(b) Which 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 the use of 

all methods and procedures that are 

necessary to bring any endangered or 

threatened species to the point at which 

the measures provided under the Act 

are no longer necessary. Such methods 

and procedures include, but are not 

limited to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, or transplantation. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against Federal agencies 

carrying out, funding, or authorizing the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

requires consultation on Federal actions 

that may affect critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect land ownership or establish a 

refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 

other conservation area. Such 

designation does not allow the 

government or public to access private 

lands. Such designation does not 

require implementation of restoration, 

recovery, or enhancement measures by 

private landowners. Where a landowner 

requests Federal agency funding or 

authorization for an action that may 

affect a listed species or critical habitat, 

the consultation requirements of section 

7(a)(2) would apply, but even in the 

event of a destruction or adverse 

modification finding, the landowner’s 

obligation is not to restore or recover the 

species, but to implement reasonable 

and prudent alternatives to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. 

For inclusion in a critical habitat 

designation, habitat within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it was listed must 

contain the physical or biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. Critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

data available, habitat areas that provide 

essential life cycle needs of the species 

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

physical and biological features laid out 

in the appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement for the conservation of the 

species). 

Occupied habitat that contains the 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species meets the definition of 

critical habitat only if those features 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. 

Under the Act, we can designate 

unoccupied areas as critical habitat only 

when we determine that the best 

available scientific data demonstrate 

that the designation of that area is 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available. Further, our Policy on 

Information Standards Under the 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 50465 

Endangered Species Act (published in 

the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act 

(section 515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include the recovery plan for the 

species, articles in peer-reviewed 

journals, conservation plans developed 

by States and counties, scientific status 

surveys and studies, biological 

assessments, or other unpublished 

materials and expert opinion or 

personal knowledge. In the case of 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia, several 

botanists and land managers conducted 

field assessments and management 

experiments that were helpful in 

identifying the areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat. There is no 

recovery plan for A. ilicifolia. 

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 we 

may eventually determine, based on 

scientific data not now available to the 

Service, are necessary for the recovery 

of the species. For these reasons, a 

critical habitat designation does not 

signal that habitat outside the 

designated area is unimportant or may 

not be required for recovery of the 

species. 

Areas that support populations, but 

are outside the critical habitat 

designations, will continue to be subject 

to conservation actions we implement 

under section 7 of the Act. They are also 

subject to the regulatory protections 

afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 

standard, as determined on the basis of 

the best available scientific information 

at the time of the Federal agency action. 

Federally funded or permitted projects 

affecting listed species outside their 

designated critical habitat areas may 

still result in jeopardy findings in some 

cases. Similarly, critical habitat 

designations made on the basis of the 

best available information at the time of 

designation will not control the 

direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, habitat conservation 

plans (HCPs), or other species 

conservation planning efforts if 

information available at the time of 

these planning efforts calls for a 

different outcome. 

Primary Constituent Elements 

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

of the Act and the regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12, in determining which areas 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing to designate as critical habitat, 

we consider the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to be the PCEs laid out in the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement for the conservation of the 

species. These physical and biological 

features 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, or 

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. 

We derived the specific primary 

constituent element required for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia from its 

biological needs, as described in the 

proposed critical habitat rule published 

in the Federal Register on March 14, 

2007 (72 FR 11946), and below. 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and Normal Behavior 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia occurs on 

isolated patches of clay soils derived 

from gabbro and soft calcareous 

sandstone substrates (Oberbauer and 

Vanderwier 1991, pp. 208–209). The 

soils derived from gabbro substrates are 

red to dark brown clay soils, and those 

derived from soft calcareous sandstone 

are gray clay soils. These patches of clay 

soils are called ‘‘clay lenses.’’ In San 

Diego County, California, and northern 

Baja California, Mexico, clay lenses are 

known to support a variety of narrow 

endemic (restricted to a specific 

geographic area) plants. Clay lenses tend 

to have an open or unpopulated look 

because many common species cannot 

tolerate living on these clay soils. Clay 

lenses are typically devoid of woody, 

perennial shrubs (Oberbauer and 

Vanderwier 1991, pp. 208–209) (PCE). 

Shrubs have difficulty surviving on 

these soils because in the rainy winter 

months these soils become saturated 

with water and the large root systems of 

shrubs are not able to get oxygen 

(Oberbauer and Vanderwier 1991, pp. 

208–209). Another reason it is difficult 

for shrubs to take root and become 

established on the clay soil is because 

as the soils become saturated with water 

they expand and when the soils dry 

they contract and crack. The harsh 

conditions that clay soils exhibit make 

clay lenses a difficult microhabitat for 

annual native plants to grow on, which 

limits the number and density of 

common native plants on clay lenses. 

Due to the absence of most common 

native vegetation from clay lenses, the 

areas where A. ilicifolia occurs appear 

as open areas surrounded by areas 

populated by denser vegetation. 

In addition to the characteristics 

discussed above, the texture and 

structure of the clay lenses are essential 

for supporting the seedling 

establishment and growth of 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia. This soil 

provides many small pockets and 

deeper fissures where seeds from A. 

ilicifolia become lodged as they fall 

from decomposing plants (Bauder and 

Sakrison 1999, p. 28). The seeds stay in 

the soils until the temperatures become 

cooler in the winter months and the soil 

becomes saturated with the winter rains 

(Bauder and Sakrison 1997, p. 28–29). 

The seedlings then germinate and grow 

to mature plants. These plants do best 

when they are not crowded or shaded 

by other plants (Bauder and Sakrison 

1999, p. 12). The loose, crumbly texture 

of the soil provides the proper substrate 

to hold the seed bank and allow for root 

growth. 

Clay lenses are generally inhabited by 

a specific flora that consists of forbs, 

native grasses, and geophytes (perennial 

plants propagated by buds on 

underground bulbs, tubers, or corms, 

such as lilies, iris, and onions) 

(Oberbauer and Vanderwier 1991, pp. 

208–209), which are better adapted to 

the harsh conditions mentioned above. 

Native plant species that characterize 

the vegetation found with 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia on clay lenses 

include Hesperevax sparsiflora var. 

sparsiflora (erect evax), Harpagonella 

palmeri (Palmer’s grappling-hook), 

Convolvulus simulans (bindweed), 

Apiastrum angustifolium (mock 

parsley), and Microseris douglasii ssp. 

platycarpha (small flowered microseris) 

(Bauder et al. 1994, pp. 9–10; McMillan 

2006, p. 1; Vinje 2006b, pp. 1–2). 

Clay lenses generally form on gentle 

slopes. An analysis of 20 sites where 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
50466 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia was observed 

found that the slopes range from 0 to 25 

degrees, with the majority of the sites 

having slopes below 20 degrees (Bauder 

et al. 1994, pp. 10–11). This study found 

that many thriving, natural populations 

were on slopes that faced southeast, 

south, southwest, and west (Bauder et 

al. 1994, pp. 10–11). Using GIS, we 

found that the known populations of A. 

ilicifolia range in elevation from sea 

level to 3,000 ft (914 m). Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia occurs on soils mapped as Las 

Posas, Olivenhain, Redding, Huerhuero, 

Altamont, Cieneba, and Linne (Service 

GIS database; soils described by 

Bowman 1973, pp. 22–24, 38–40, 54–55, 

61–64, 67–68, and 71–72). 

Water and Hydrology 

The loose, crumbly clay soils that 

support Acanthomintha ilicifolia act 

like a sponge and are saturated by 

winter rains. The saturation of these 

soils allows for seeds of A. ilicifolia to 

imbibe with water and germinate in the 

cool winter months of the 

Mediterranean-type climate (Bauder and 

Sakrison, 1997, p. 32). As such, the 

species requires a natural hydrological 

regime to reproduce. However, we do 

not have specific information on the 

hydrological regime that this species 

requires, other than the general 

characteristics of a Mediterranean-type 

climate; therefore, we did not include 

hydrological regime as a primary 

constituent element. 

Reproduction and Pollination 

The breeding system of 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia has not been 

studied, but it has been determined that 

other members of the genus 

Acanthomintha are self-compatible 

(Steeck 1995, pp. 27–33). A 1996 study 

(Bauder and Sakrison 1997, p. 38) found 

that several insect species visited the 

flowers and moved from plant to plant. 

These insects represented possible 

pollinators of A. ilicifolia; however, 

none were thought to represent speciesspecific pollinators (Bauder and 

Sakrison 1997, p. 39). Since we do not 

have information on any speciesspecific pollinators that visit A. 

ilicifolia, we did not include pollinators 

as a primary constituent element. 

Primary Constituent Element for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia 

Within the geographical area known 

to be occupied by Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia, at the time of listiing we must 

identify the physical and biological 

features that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. 

In this case, we identified one PCE 

with multiple parts. All areas 

designated as critical habitat for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia are occupied, 

occur within the species’ historic 

geographic range, and contain the PCE 

required to support at least one life 

history function. The data provided in 

the PCE is summarized from existing 

scientific data. It is important to note 

that the variable amounts and timing of 

precipitation in southern California do 

not result in favorable conditions for A. 

ilicifolia in every year. 

Based on the above needs and our 

current knowledge of the life history, 

biology, and ecology of the species and 

the requirements of the habitat to 

sustain the essential life history 

functions of the species, we determined 

that the PCE for Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia is: 

Clay lenses that provide substrate for 

seedling establishment and space for 

growth and development of 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia that are: 

(a) Within chaparral, grassland, and 

coastal sage scrub; 

(b) On gentle slopes ranging from 0 to 

25 degrees; 

(c) Derived from gabbro and soft 

calcareous sandstone substrates with a 

loose, crumbly structure and deep 

fissures approximately 1 to 2 feet (30 to 

60 cm); and 

(d) Characterized by a low density of 

forbs and geophytes, and a low density 

or absence of shrubs. 

This designation encompasses those 

areas containing the PCE necessary to 

support one or more of the species’ life 

history functions laid out in the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement for the conservation of the 

species. All units and subunits in this 

designation contain the PCE and 

support multiple life processes. As 

stated in the ‘‘Criteria Used To Identify 

Critical Habitat’’ section of this rule, we 

believe that we can conserve 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia through the 

designation of critical habitat within its 

extant range and are not including any 

areas outside of the geographical area 

occupied by the species. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the occupied areas 

contain features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. 

As stated in the final listing rule, 

threats to Acanthomintha ilicifolia 

include trampling and grazing, the 

presence of exotic plant species, offroad vehicles (ORVs), mining, and 

urbanization (63 FR 54938). Through 

our review of the existing data on A. 

ilicifolia, we conclude that the threats 

listed in the final listing rule continue 

to impact this species and its essential 

physical and biological features. 

Urban development near 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia populations 

may alter the habitat characteristics 

required by this species. The 

destruction of habitat can change the 

slope and aspect of a site, making it 

uninhabitable for A. ilicifolia (PCE 1(b)). 

The close proximity of development to 

populations of A. ilicifolia may affect 

other aspects of the site. For example, 

increased water runoff from 

developments may erode the clay lense 

and change the topography of the site 

(Bauder et al. 1994, p. 23) (PCE 1(b and 

c)). 

The introduction of exotic plant 

species such as Centaurea melitensis 

can drastically change the species 

present in (PCE 1(a)), and eliminate the 

open character of, the clay lense habitat 

(PCE 1(d)). Centaurea melitensis has 

been shown, in field and greenhouse 

experiments, to negatively effect the 

biomass (growth) and seed production 

(reproduction) of Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia (Bauder and Sakrison 1999, p. 

16). Populations of A. ilicifolia that are 

close to urbanized areas or in areas that 

are heavily grazed generally have a high 

density of exotic plant species (PCE 

1(a)). In disturbed soils, C. melitensis is 

a common weed. When this and other 

exotic plant species become established, 

they can out-compete A. ilicifolia for 

light, water, nutrients, and space. 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia often grows 

larger and at a higher density when 

competition with exotic weeds is 

reduced (Bauder and Sakrison 1999, pp. 

12–16; Vinje 2007, p. 10). 

The final listing rule (63 FR 54938) 

discusses the impacts of ORV activity 

and trampling. In recent years, the 

impacts associated with the use of 

mountain bikes have been documented 

to cause similar impacts (Vinje 2006a, p. 

1). Trampling, ORV activity, and 

mountain bike use in Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia habitat can compact the loose, 

crumbly soils (PCE 1(c)). Repeated 

travel over a trail or track degrades the 

habitat of A. ilicifolia in two ways: (1) 

By displacing soil; and (2) by 

compacting soil. These activities, in 

turn, can destroy individual plants and 

can reduce the amount of water that can 

percolate into the soil, thus reducing the 

plant’s ability to grow and reproduce. 

Mining is documented as a threat at 

two sites known to support 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia (63 FR 54938; 

Bauder et al. 1994, p. 17). Mining can 

alter many aspects of A. ilicifolia 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 50467 

habitat. Heavy machinery can compact 

or remove clay lenses (PCE 1(c)) or alter 

the slope of an area (PCE 1(b)). The 

grading of large areas adjacent to A. 

ilicifolia habitat can make those areas 

vulnerable to invasion by exotic plant 

species and lead to the subsequent 

crowding and shading of A. ilicifolia 

habitat (PCE 1(d)). These impacts may 

in turn lead to the disruption of the 

growth and reproduction of A. ilicifolia. 

The protection of habitat for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia from 

development is the first measure of 

protection needed for populations of 

this species (PCE 1(a)). The control of 

exotic plant species, the maintenance 

and enhancement of clay lense habitat, 

the control of incompatible and often 

illegal activities such as off-road vehicle 

use and other unauthorized recreational 

impacts, and careful oversight of 

adjacent activities such as mining, will 

help to ensure the long-term 

conservation for A. ilicifolia and the 

physical and biological features 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

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

the Act, we use the best scientific and 

commercial data available in 

determining the specific occupied areas 

that contain the features essential to the 

conservation of species which may 

require special management 

considerations or protection, as well as 

when determining if any specific areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species are essential to the 

conservation of the species. We only 

designate areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by a species when a 

designation limited to its present range 

would be inadequate to ensure the 

conservation of the species (50 CFR 

424.12(e)). 

Species and plant communities that 

are protected across their ranges are 

expected to have lower likelihoods of 

extinction (Soule and Simberloff 1986; 

Scott et al. 2001, pp. 1297–1300); 

therefore, essential habitat should 

include multiple locations across the 

entire range of the species to prevent 

range collapse and contribute to 

recovery of the species. Conserving 

habitat variability throughout the range 

of this species is important to capture 

the range of habitat diversity and, 

potentially, genetic variability, the 

preservation of which is likely to ensure 

the conservation of those 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia occurrences 

that are most likely to persist under 

future environmental conditions and to 

contribute to species recovery. Genetic 

variation generally results from the 

effects of population isolation and 

adaptation to locally distinct 

environments (Lesica and Allendorf 

1995, pp. 754–757; Fraser 2000, pp. 49–

51; Hamrick and Godt 1996, pp. 291–

295). We sought to include the range of 

ecological conditions in which A. 

ilicifolia is found to preserve the genetic 

variation that may result from 

adaptation to local environmental 

conditions, as documented in other 

plant species (e.g., see Hamrick and 

Godt 1996, pp. 299–301; Millar and 

Libby 1991, pp. 150, 152–155). 

Locations that possess unique ecological 

characteristics are those that represent 

the full range of environmental 

variability where A. ilicifolia has 

evolved, and therefore, are likely to 

promote the adaptation of the species to 

different environmental conditions and 

contribute to species recovery. 

All critical habitat subunits discussed 

in this designation are occupied by the 

species. Occupied areas were 

determined from survey data and 

element occurrence data in the 

California Natural Diversity Database 

(CNDDB) (CNDDB 2006). For the 

purpose of this designation, we assumed 

that each element occurrence represents 

a population of Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia, except in cases where there are 

several element occurrences located 

within 1 mile (1.6 km) of each other and 

the habitat is not fragmented by 

manmade features. In these cases, we 

considered the group of element 

occurrences as a single population. 

Examples of this include the 

Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank in 

Encinitas (element occurrence (EO) 28, 

EO 42, and EO 54), McGinty Mountain 

near Jamul (EO 21, EO 22, and EO 30), 

and Viejas and Poser Mountains near 

Alpine (EO 12, EO 50, EO 51, EO 62, EO 

73, EO 74, and EO 75). 

Using GIS data in the areas identified 

as occupied by this species as a guide, 

we identified the areas that contained 

the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia (the PCE). To 

map the areas that meet the definition 

of critical habitat, we identified areas 

that contain the PCE in the quantity and 

spatial distribution essential for the 

conservation of this species using the 

following criteria: (1) Support 

populations that occur on rare or unique 

habitat within the species’ range; (2) 

support the largest known populations 

of A. ilicifolia; or (3) support the most 

stable populations of A. ilicifolia. These 

criteria are explained in greater detail 

below. Areas containing the PCE and 

that meet at least one of the above 

criteria were considered to meet the 

definition of critical habitat. We 

included adjacent areas up to 500 ft (128 

m) that contained habitat for A. ilicifolia 

to capture the full extent of each 

population including the seed bank, as 

this species fluctuates annually in 

population density and spatial 

distribution. Data from past survey 

efforts and recent field work conducted 

by Service biologists frequently found 

occurrences of A. ilicifolia located 

outside the exact areas where this 

species was mapped (Bauder et al. 1994, 

pp. 14–15; CNDDB 2006, pp. 11, 28–29, 

and 70; Service unpublished data 2006). 

The resulting areas meet the 

definition of critical habitat. To evaluate 

locations occupied by this species we 

used the CNDDB (CNDDB 2006, pp. 1–

74), a survey of A. ilicifolia habitat and 

populations by Bauder et al. (1994, pp. 

7–23), biological surveys (City of San 

Diego 2000, pp 2–6; City of San Diego 

2001, pp. 1–10; City of San Diego 2003, 

pp. 1–11; City of San Diego 2004, pp. 1–

7; City of San Diego 2005, pp. 1–5; 

Conservation Biology Institute 2002, p. 

A3–1; County of San Diego 2002, p. 17; 

Dudek and Associates, Inc. 2006, 

Appendix A, pp. 3–4; Helix 

Environmental Planning, Inc. 2002, p. 6; 

REC Consultants, Inc. 2004, figure 5), 

and interviews with botanists working 

on this species (Kelley 2005, p. 1; 

McMillan 2006, p. 1; Vinje 2006b, pp. 

1–2). 

The first criterion we used to identify 

critical habitat is any area that supports 

a population in rare or unique habitat 

within the species’ range. The majority 

of areas that currently support 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia are on dark 

brown to reddish brown clay soils 

derived from gabbro substrates. 

Historically, A. ilicifolia also occurred 

on gray clay soils that are derived from 

soft calcareous sandstone substrates. 

Conserving unique habitats for A. 

ilicifolia may help to reduce the risk of 

extinction for this species as it may 

capture remaining ecological diversity 

within the range of the species and 

contribute to the recovery of this 

species. This ecological diversity may 

be reflected in genetic diversity; 

however, at this time, no one has 

investigated the genetic structure of this 

species. The only remaining population 

on the calcareous clay soil type is 

northeast of the intersection of Palomar 

Airport Road and El Camino Real, in the 

City of Carlsbad. 

The second criterion we used to 

identify critical habitat is any area that 

supports one of the largest known 

populations of Acanthomintha ilicifolia. 

The CNDDB includes data for this 

species that date back to 1978. 

Populations of this species range from 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
50468 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

just a few individuals to several 

thousand plants. The majority of the 

known populations range from 50 to 

2,000 plants. Yet, there are four 

populations that stand out as the largest, 

each having greater than 25,000 plants. 

These large populations are vital for the 

conservation of this species and occur 

within large blocks of open space that 

are less likely to be impacted by edge 

effects associated with the smaller 

populations in highly urbanized areas. 

Therefore, the conservation of these 

large populations will increase the 

persistence of the species across its 

range and the overall recovery of this 

species. The four largest populations 

and the estimated population at each 

location are: Sycamore Canyon, 31,000 

plants; Slaughterhouse Canyon, 60,000 

plants; Viejas and Poser Mountains, 

29,650 plants; and Hollenbeck Canyon, 

100,000 plants. These four populations 

represent approximately 75 percent of 

the total known plants of this species. 

The third criterion we used to identify 

critical habitat is any area that supports 

one of the most stable populations of 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia. For the 

purpose of this critical habitat 

designation, we defined the most stable 

populations as those that contained 

more than 1,000 plants at least once 

during the period for which we have 

survey data. We evaluated the 

population data from the CNDDB and 

determined that populations with more 

than 1,000 plants at some time had the 

ability to rebound following years with 

low population numbers. Therefore, we 

considered populations with more than 

1,000 plants to have a high probability 

of persisting into the future and 

contributing to the conservation of the 

species. Although these areas are not 

free from exotic plant competitors, these 

populations have persisted over time 

without being out-competed by the 

exotic plant species present. This may 

partially be a result of the low density 

of exotic plant species at these locations 

and, in some cases, the management of 

exotic plant species. All of the areas that 

meet criterion two also meet criterion 

three. Five additional areas have 

populations of A. ilicifolia that meet 

criterion three: the southeast portion of 

the City of Carlsbad; the Manchester 

Avenue Mitigation Bank; Los 

Pen ̃ asquitos Canyon; Sabre Springs; and 

McGinty Mountain. These areas support 

the most stable populations of A. 

ilicifolia. 

All 10 areas that we identified as 

meeting the criteria for critical habitat 

contain the PCE essential for the 

conservation of this species. These areas 

support the only population on 

calcareous clay soil, the largest 

populations, and the most stable 

populations of Acanthomintha ilicifolia. 

Application of these criteria captures 

the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species in the appropriate quantity and 

spatial arrangement and represents the 

range of environmental variability for 

this species. Although a genetic analysis 

of A. ilicifolia is not available, these 

criteria likely capture the full breadth of 

important habitat types and are 

expected to protect the genetic 

variability of this species. The identified 

habitat areas, if managed for threats to 

the physical and biological features, are 

adequate to ensure the conservation of 

A. ilicifolia. 

When determining the critical habitat 

boundaries for this final rule, we made 

every effort to avoid including 

developed areas such as lands covered 

by buildings, pavement, and other 

structures because such lands lack the 

PCE for Acanthomintha ilicifolia. The 

scale of the maps we prepared under the 

parameters for publication within the 

Code of Federal Regulations may not 

reflect the exclusion of such developed 

lands. Any such structures and the land 

under them inadvertently left inside 

critical habitat boundaries shown on the 

maps of this critical habitat rule have 

been excluded by text in this final rule. 

Therefore, a Federal action involving 

these lands would not trigger section 7 

consultation with respect to critical 

habitat and the requirement of no 

adverse modification unless the specific 

action may affect adjacent critical 

habitat. 

Final Critical Habitat Designation 

We are designating approximately 671 

ac (272 ha) of critical habitat for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia in three of the 

four units proposed as critical habitat 

with a total of 10 subunits. Table 2 

outlines the areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat, the areas 

excluded from this final critical habitat, 

and the area designated as critical 

habitat. Table 2 also shows a breakdown 

of the critical habitat based on the 

ownership of these areas. The critical 

habitat areas we describe below 

constitute our current best assessment of 

areas designated as critical habitat for A. 

ilicifolia. In this section, we did not 

discuss the details of the areas that are 

excluded from critical habitat under 

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

information on the areas that are 

excluded, please see the ‘‘Exclusions 

Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’

section. 

TABLE 2—AREAS THAT MEET THE DEFINITION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR ACANTHOMINTHA ILICIFOLIA, AREAS EXCLUDED

FROM THIS FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT, AND AREAS DESIGNATED AS CRITICAL HABITAT; INCLUDING THE OWNERSHIP OF

EACH AREA

Critical habitat unit Land ownership 

Area that meets the 

definition of critical 

habitat 

Area excluded from 

final critical habitat 

Area designated as 

critical habitat 

Unit 1: Northern San Diego County: 

1A. Palomar Airport .............................. Private ........................ 2 ac (1 ha) .................. 2 ac (1 ha) .................. 0 ac (0 ha). 

State/Local .................. 60 ac (24 ha) .............. 0 ac (0 ha) .................. 60 ac (24 ha). 

1B. Southeast Carlsbad ....................... Private ........................ 57 ac (23 ha) .............. 57 ac (23 ha) .............. 0 ac (0 ha). 

1C. Manchester .................................... Private ........................ 79 ac (32 ha) .............. 70 ac (28 ha) .............. 9 ac (4 ha). 

Unit 2: Central San Diego County: 

2A. Los Pen ̃asquitos Canyon ............... State/Local .................. 63 ac (25 ha) .............. 63 ac (25 ha) .............. 0 ac (0 ha). 

2B. Sabre Springs ................................ Private ........................ 1 ac (<1 ha) ................ 1 ac (<1 ha) ................ 0 ac (0 ha). 

State/Local .................. 51 ac (21 ha) .............. 51 ac (21 ha) .............. 0 ac (0 ha). 

2C. Sycamore Canyon ......................... Private ........................ 30 ac (12 ha) .............. 30 ac (12 ha) .............. 0 ac (0 ha). 

State/Local .................. 276 ac (112 ha) .......... 276 ac (112 ha) .......... 0 ac (0 ha). 

2D. Slaughterhouse Canyon ................ Private ........................ 77 ac (31 ha) .............. 77 ac (31 ha) .............. 0 ac (0 ha). 

Unit 3: Viejas Mountain and Poser Mountain: 

3A. Viejas Mountain ............................. Private ........................ 32 ac (13 ha) .............. 32 ac (13 ha) .............. 0 ac (0 ha). 

3B. Viejas Mountain ............................. Private ........................ 141 ac (57 ha) ............ 141 ac (57 ha) ............ 0 ac (0 ha). 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 50469 

TABLE 2—AREAS THAT MEET THE DEFINITION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR ACANTHOMINTHA ILICIFOLIA, AREAS EXCLUDED

FROM THIS FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT, AND AREAS DESIGNATED AS CRITICAL HABITAT; INCLUDING THE OWNERSHIP OF

EACH AREA—Continued 

Critical habitat unit Land ownership 

Area that meets the 

definition of critical 

habitat 

Area excluded from 

final critical habitat 

Area designated as 

critical habitat 

Federal ....................... 52 ac (21 ha) .............. 0 ac (0 ha) .................. 52 ac (21 ha). 

3C. Viejas Mountain ............................. Federal ....................... 276 ac (112 ha) .......... 0 ac (0 ha) .................. 276 ac (112 ha). 

3D. Viejas Mountain ............................. Private ........................ 50 ac (20 ha) .............. 0 ac (0 ha) .................. 50 ac (20 ha). 

Federal ....................... 32 ac (13 ha) .............. 0 ac (0 ha) .................. 32 ac (13 ha). 

3E. Poser Mountain .............................. Federal ....................... 34 ac (14 ha) .............. 0 ac (0 ha) .................. 34 ac (14 ha). 

3F. Poser Mountain .............................. Federal ....................... 155 ac (63 ha) ............ 0 ac (0 ha) .................. 155 ac (63 ha). 

Unit 4: Southern San Diego County: 

4A. McGinty Mountain .......................... Private ........................ 18 ac (7 ha) ................ 18 ac (7 ha) ................ 0 ac (0 ha). 

Federal ....................... 2 ac (1 ha) .................. 0 ac (0 ha) .................. 2 ac (1 ha). 

4B. McGinty Mountain .......................... Private ........................ 141 ac (57 ha) ............ 141 ac (57 ha) ............ 0 ac (0 ha). 

State/Local .................. 7 ac (3 ha) .................. 7 ac (3 ha) .................. 0 ac (0 ha). 

4C. McGinty Mountain .......................... Private ........................ 27 ac (11 ha) .............. 27 ac (11 ha) .............. 0 ac (0 ha). 

Federal ....................... 1 ac (<1 ha) ................ 0 ac (0 ha) .................. 1 ac (<1 ha). 

4D. Hollenbeck Canyon ....................... Private ........................ 23 ac (9 ha) ................ 23 ac (9 ha) ................ 0 ac (0 ha). 

State Local ................. 61 ac (25 ha) .............. 61 ac (25 ha) .............. 0 ac (0 ha). 

Total .............................................. ..................................... 1,748 ac (707 ha) * ..... 1,077 ac (435 ha) * ..... 671 ac (272 ha) *. 

* Values in this table may not sum due to rounding and the conversion of values from acres to hectares. 

Unit Descriptions 

Unit 1: Northern San Diego County 

Unit 1 is located in northern San 

Diego County, California. The area was 

occupied at the time of listing, is 

currently occupied, and contains the 

features essential to the conservation of 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection for A. 

ilicifolia. The habitat in Unit 1 is gently 

sloping and occurs in the north coastal 

portion of San Diego County. The 

habitat included in this unit provides 

for the conservation of populations of 

this species that are at the lowest 

elevations where this species is found. 

These areas represent coastal terrace 

terrain and, therefore, are edaphically 

and ecologically distinct from the other 

units of critical habitat (subunit 1A) (see 

‘‘Criteria Used to Identify Critical 

Habitat’’ section criterion 1). This unit 

contains some of the most stable 

populations of A. ilicifolia (subunits 1B 

and 1C) (see ‘‘Criteria Used to Identify 

Critical Habitat’’ section criterion 3). 

Below, we present a brief description of 

subunits designated as critical habitat in 

this unit. 

Subunit 1A, Palomar Airport 

Subunit 1A is located in Carlsbad, 

California, northeast of the intersection 

of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino 

Real. Subunit 1A consists of 60 ac (24 

ha) of land owned by the County of San 

Diego. Subunit 1A meets our selection 

criteria because it supports a population 

on a unique soil type (see ‘‘Criteria Used 

to Identify Critical Habitat’’ section 

criterion 1). This is the only area where 

A. ilicifolia is still known to occupy 

calcareous clay soils. The features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species in this subunit may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to address threats from exotic 

plant species and unauthorized 

recreational activities. 

A portion of the land that meets the 

definition of critical habitat in this area 

(2 ac (1 ha)) is covered by the Carlsbad 

HMP of the San Diego MHCP. We 

excluded the portion of critical habitat 

covered by the Carlsbad HMP from 

critical habitat because we determined 

the benefits of excluding these lands 

outweigh the benefits of including these 

lands in a critical habitat designation. 

Furthermore, exclusion of these lands 

will not result in the extinction of this 

species (see Table 3 and ‘‘Exclusions 

Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’

section of this final rule for a detailed 

discussion of this exclusion). 

Subunit 1B, Southeast Carlsbad 

Subunit 1B is located in Carlsbad, 

California, east of Calle Acervo and west 

of Paseo Esmerado. All lands within this 

subunit (57 ac (23 ha)) are covered by 

the Carlsbad HMP of the San Diego 

MHCP. We excluded the lands covered 

by the Carlsbad HMP under the MHCP 

in this subunit because we determined 

that the benefits of excluding these 

lands outweigh the benefits of including 

these lands in a critical habitat 

designation. Furthermore, exclusion of 

these lands will not result in the 

extinction of this species (see Table 3 

and ‘‘Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act’’ section of this final rule for 

a detailed discussion of this exclusion). 

Subunit 1C, Manchester 

Subunit 1C is located in Encinitas, 

California, northeast of the intersection 

of Manchester Avenue and South El 

Camino Real. Subunit 1C consists of 9 

ac (4 ha) of private land. Subunit 1C 

meets our selection criteria because it 

supports one of the most stable 

populations of Acanthomintha ilicifolia 

(criterion 3). The features essential to 

the conservation of the species in this 

subunit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address threats from exotic 

plant species and unauthorized 

recreational activities. 

The majority of the land that meets 

the definition of critical habitat in this 

area (70 ac (28 ha)) is in the Manchester 

Avenue Mitigation Bank. The 

Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank is 

owned and managed by the Center for 

Natural Lands Management (CNLM). 

There is long-term management in place 

on this site to conserve several sensitive 

species, including Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia (Spiegelberg 2005, p. 1). We 

excluded the portion of critical habitat 

covered by the Manchester Habitat 

Conservation Area Management Plan 

(Spiegelberg 2005) from critical habitat 

because we determined that the benefits 

of excluding these lands outweigh the 

benefits of including these lands in a 

critical habitat designation; exclusion of 

these lands will not result in the 

extinction of this species (see Table 3 

and ‘‘Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
50470 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

of the Act’’ section of this final rule for 

a detailed discussion of this exclusion). 

Unit 2: Central San Diego County 

Unit 2 is located in an east-west line 

starting in the County of San Diego on 

private land east of the Sycamore 

Canyon/Goodan Ranch Preserve 

(subunit 2D), occurring on Countyowned open space in the Sycamore 

Canyon/Goodan Ranch Preserve 

(subunit 2C), occurring on City of San 

Diego-owned land in Los Pen ̃ asquitos 

Canyon near the border or the City of 

San Diego and the City of Poway 

(subunit 2B), and occurring in 

Pen ̃ asquitos Canyon Preserve (subunit 

2A). The unit was occupied at the time 

of listing, is currently occupied, and 

contains the features essential to the 

conservation of Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection for A. ilicifolia. This unit 

contains some of the largest populations 

of A. ilicifolia (subunits 2C and 2D) 

(criterion 2) and some of the most stable 

populations of A. ilicifolia (subunits 2A 

and 2B) (criterion 3). All lands that meet 

the definition of critical habitat in Unit 

2 are covered by either the City of San 

Diego subarea plan (subunits 2A and 

2B) or the County of San Diego subarea 

plan (subunits 2C and 2D) under the 

San Diego MSCP and are excluded from 

the designation. We determined that the 

benefits of excluding these lands 

outweigh the benefits of including these 

lands in the designation and that 

exclusion of these lands will not result 

in the extinction of this species (see 

Table 3 and ‘‘Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section of this final 

rule for a detailed discussion of this 

exclusion). 

Unit 3: Viejas Mountain and Poser 

Mountain 

Unit 3 is located in San Diego County, 

California, on Viejas Mountain and 

Poser Mountain. The area was occupied 

at the time of listing, is currently 

occupied, and contains the features 

essential to the conservation of 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection for A. 

ilicifolia. Unit 3 is divided into six 

subunits, five of which are designated as 

critical habitat. Due to the proximity of 

the occurrences in this area and the fact 

that the habitat is not fragmented by any 

manmade barriers, we consider these 

occurrences to be a single population of 

A. ilicifolia. Unit 3 is designated as 

critical habitat because it supports one 

of the largest recorded populations of 

the species (criterion 2). This 

population is estimated to have greater 

than 25,000 plants based on the 

maximum number of plants observed at 

the different CNDDB element 

occurrences (EO 12, 6,650 plants in 

1991 (subunit 3F); EO 50, 5,600 plants 

in 1994 (subunit 3B); EO 51, 8,300 

plants in 2003 (subunit 3C); EO 62, 

1,115 plants in 2000 (subunit 3C); EO 

73, 8,750 plants in 1997; and EO 74, 

2,000 plants in 2000 (subunit 3E)). The 

habitat in unit 3 is more mountainous 

than the other units and provides for the 

conservation of this species at the 

highest elevations where this species is 

found. Therefore, this unit is 

ecologically distinct from the other 

units of critical habitat and provides for 

the largest population of A. ilicifolia as 

measured by the area occupied by the 

species. Below, we present a brief 

description of subunits designated as 

critical habitat in this unit. 

Subunit 3A, Viejas Mountain 

Subunit 3A is located east of Peutz 

Valley Road on the western flank of 

Viejas Mountain. All lands that meet the 

definition of critical habitat in this area 

(32 ac (13 ha)) are covered by the 

County of San Diego subarea plan of the 

San Diego MSCP. We excluded the 

lands covered by the County of San 

Diego subarea plan in this subunit 

because we determined that the benefits 

of excluding these lands outweigh the 

benefits of including these lands in a 

critical habitat designation. 

Furthermore, exclusion of these lands 

will not result in the extinction of this 

species (see Table 3 and ‘‘Exclusions 

Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’

section of this final rule for a detailed 

discussion of this exclusion). 

Subunit 3B, Viejas Mountain 

Subunit 3B is located east of Alpine, 

California, and north of Interstate 8 on 

the western slope Viejas Mountain. 

Subunit 3B consists of 52 ac (21 ha) of 

land in the Cleveland National Forest 

(CNF) owned by the U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS). This subunit was occupied by 

the species at the time of listing and is 

currently occupied. Subunit 3B meets 

our selection criteria because this 

subunit is part of one of the largest 

recorded populations of Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia (criterion 2). The features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species in this subunit may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to address the threat from 

exotic plant species and recreational 

activities. 

The privately owned lands that meet 

the definition of critical habitat in this 

area (141 ac (57 ha)) are covered by the 

County of San Diego subarea plan of the 

San Diego MSCP. We excluded the 

lands covered by the County of San 

Diego subarea plan in this subunit 

because we determined that the benefits 

of excluding these lands outweigh the 

benefits of including these lands in a 

critical habitat designation and that 

exclusion of these lands will not result 

in the extinction of this species (see 

Table 3 and ‘‘Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section of this final 

rule for a detailed discussion of this 

exclusion). 

Subunit 3C, Viejas Mountain 

Subunit 3C is located east of Alpine, 

California, and north of Interstate 8 on 

southern slope of Viejas Mountain. 

Subunit 3C consists of 276 ac (112 ha) 

of land in the CNF owned by the USFS. 

This subunit was occupied by the 

species at the time of listing and is 

currently occupied. Subunit 3C meets 

our selection criteria because this 

subunit is part of one of the largest 

recorded populations of Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia (criterion 2). The features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species in this subunit may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to address the threat from 

exotic plant species and recreational 

activities. 

Subunit 3D, Viejas Mountain 

Subunit 3D is located east of Alpine, 

California, and north of Interstate 8 on 

the eastern slope of Viejas Mountain. 

Subunit 3D consists of 32 ac (13 ha) of 

land in the CNF owned by the USFS 

and 50 ac (20 ha) of private land. This 

subunit was occupied by the species at 

the time of listing and is currently 

occupied. Subunit 3D meets our 

selection criteria because this subunit is 

part of one of the largest recorded 

populations of Acanthomintha ilicifolia 

(criterion 2). The features essential to 

the conservation of the species in this 

subunit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address the threat from 

exotic plant species and recreational 

activities. 

Subunit 3E, Poser Mountain 

Subunit 3E is located east of Alpine, 

California, and north of Interstate 8 on 

western slope of Poser Mountain. 

Subunit 3E consists of 34 ac (14 ha) of 

land in the CNF owned by the USFS. 

This subunit was occupied by the 

species at the time of listing and is 

currently occupied. Subunit 3E meets 

our selection criteria because this 

subunit is part of one of the largest 

recorded populations of Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia (criterion 2). The features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species in this subunit may require 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 50471 

special management considerations or 

protection to address the threat from 

exotic plant species and recreational 

activities. 

Subunit 3F, Poser Mountain 

Subunit 3F is located east of Alpine, 

California, and north of Interstate 8 on 

southern slope of Poser Mountain. 

Subunit 3F consists of 155 ac (63 ha) of 

land in the CNF owned by the USFS. 

This subunit was occupied by the 

species at the time of listing and is 

currently occupied. Subunit 3F meets 

our selection criteria because this 

subunit is part of one of the largest 

recorded populations of Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia (criterion 2). The features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species in this subunit may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to address the threat from 

exotic plant species and recreational 

activities. 

Unit 4: Southern San Diego County 

Unit 4 is located in southern San 

Diego County, California near the City of 

Jamul. The area was occupied at the 

time of listing, is currently occupied, 

and contains the features essential to the 

conservation of Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. This critical habitat unit 

contains some of the largest populations 

of A. ilicifolia (subunit 4D) (criterion 2) 

and some of the most stable populations 

of A. ilicifolia (subunits 4A, 4B, and 4C) 

(criterion 3). The habitat for A. ilicifolia 

in southern San Diego County is located 

in proximity to rural residential 

development and in relatively 

undeveloped areas. Below, we present a 

brief description of subunits designated 

as critical habitat in this unit. 

Subunits 4A and 4C, McGinty Mountain 

Subunits 4A and 4C are located east 

of Jamul, California, on the 

southwestern slope of McGinty 

Mountain. The land designated is part 

of the San Diego National Wildlife 

Refuge (SDNWR) and is owned by the 

Service. We are designating 3 ac (1 ha) 

of critical habitat in subunits 4A and 4C 

for Acanthomintha ilicifolia. These 

subunits were occupied by the species 

at the time of listing and are currently 

occupied. Subunits 4A and 4C meet our 

selection criteria because these subunits 

are part of one of the most stable 

populations of A. ilicifolia (criterion 3). 

The features essential to the 

conservation of the species in subunits 

4A and 4C may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address the threat from 

exotic plant species and recreational 

activities. 

The non-Federal lands that meet the 

definition of critical habitat in this area 

(18 ac (7 ha) in subunit 4A and 27 ac 

(11 ha) in subunit 4C) are covered by the 

County of San Diego subarea plan of the 

San Diego MSCP. We excluded the 

lands covered by the County of San 

Diego subarea plan under the MSCP in 

this subunit because we have 

determined that the benefits of 

excluding these lands outweigh the 

benefits of including these lands in a 

critical habitat designation and that 

exclusion of these lands will not result 

in the extinction of this species (see 

Table 3 and ‘‘Exclusions Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section of this final 

rule for a detailed discussion of this 

exclusion). 

Subunit 4B, McGinty Mountain 

All of the lands in subunit 4B that 

meet the definition of critical habitat in 

this area (148 ac (60 ha)) are nonFederal and are covered by the County 

of San Diego subarea plan of the San 

Diego MSCP. We excluded the lands 

covered by the County of San Diego 

subarea plan under the MSCP in this 

subunit because we determined that the 

benefits of excluding these lands 

outweigh the benefits of including these 

lands in the critical habitat designation, 

and that exclusion of these lands will 

not result in the extinction of this 

species (see Table 3 and ‘‘Exclusions 

Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’

section of this final rule for a detailed 

discussion of this exclusion). 

Subunit 4D, Hollenbeck Canyon 

All of the lands in subunit 4D that 

meet the definition of critical habitat in 

this area (84 ac (34 ha)) are non-Federal 

and are covered by the County of San 

Diego subarea plan of the San Diego 

MSCP. We excluded the lands in this 

subunit because we determined that the 

benefits of excluding these lands 

outweigh the benefits of including these 

lands in a critical habitat designation, 

and that exclusion of these lands will 

not result in the extinction of this 

species (see Table 3 and ‘‘Exclusions 

Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’

section of this final rule for a detailed 

discussion of this exclusion). 

Table 3 below provides approximate 

areas (ac (ha)) of lands that meet the 

definition of critical habitat, but are 

excluded from this final critical habitat 

designation. Table 3 provides our reason 

for the exclusion. Also see the 

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

Act’’ section of this final rule for 

detailed discussion of the exclusions 

listed in Table 3. 

TABLE 3—EXCLUSIONS UNDER SECTION 4(b)(2) OF THE ACT BY CRITICAL HABITAT SUBUNIT

Critical habitat unit and subunit description Reason for exclusion under 

section 4(b)(2) of the act 

Areas meeting 

the definition of 

critical habitat 

Areas excluded 

from critical 

habitat 

Unit 1: Northern San Diego County: 

1A. Palomar Airport * ........................................ Carlsbad HMP under the MHCP ............................ 62 ac (25 ha) ...... 2 ac (1 ha).* 

1B. Southeast Carlsbad ................................... Carlsbad HMP under the MHCP ............................ 57 ac (23 ha) ...... 57 ac (23 ha). 

1C. Manchester * .............................................. Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank ...................... 79 ac (32 ha) ...... 70 ac (28 ha).* 

Unit 2: Central San Diego County: 

2A. Los Pen ̃asquitos Canyon ........................... City of San Diego subarea plan under the MSCP 63 ac (25 ha) ...... 63 ac (25 ha). 

2B. Sabre Springs ............................................ City of San Diego subarea plan under the MSCaP 52 ac (21 ha) ...... 52 ac (21 ha). 

2C. Sycamore Canyon ..................................... County of San Diego subarea plan under the 

MSCP.

306 ac (124 ha) .. 306 ac (124 ha). 

2D. Slaughterhouse Canyon ............................ County of San Diego subarea plan under the 

MSCP.

77 ac (31 ha) ...... 77 ac (31 ha). 

Unit 3: Viejas Mountain and Poser Mountain: 

3A. Viejas Mountain ......................................... County of San Diego subarea plan under the 

MSCP.

32 ac (13 ha) ...... 32 ac (13 ha). 

3B. Viejas Mountain * ....................................... County of San Diego subarea plan under the 

MSCP.

193 ac (78 ha) .... 141 ac (57 ha).* 

Unit 4: Southern San Diego County: 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
50472 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3—EXCLUSIONS UNDER SECTION 4(b)(2) OF THE ACT BY CRITICAL HABITAT SUBUNIT—Continued 

Critical habitat unit and subunit description Reason for exclusion under 

section 4(b)(2) of the act 

Areas meeting 

the definition of 

critical habitat 

Areas excluded 

from critical 

habitat 

4A. McGinty Mountain * .................................... County of San Diego subarea plan under the 

MSCP.

20 ac (8 ha) ........ 18 ac (7 ha).* 

4B. McGinty Mountain ...................................... County of San Diego subarea plan under the 

MSCP.

148 ac (60 ha) .... 148 ac (60 ha). 

4C. McGinty Mountain * .................................... County of San Diego subarea plan under the 

MSCP.

28 ac (11 ha) ...... 27 ac (11 ha).* 

4D. Hollenbeck Canyon ................................... County of San Diego subarea plan under the 

MSCP.

84 ac (34 ha) ...... 84 ac (34 ha). 

* A portion of these subunits have been designated as critical habitat. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that actions they fund, 

authorize, or carry out are not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Decisions by the 5th and 9th 

Circuit Courts of Appeals have 

invalidated our definition of 

‘‘destruction or adverse modification’’

(50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot 

Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

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

and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 

442F (5th Cir 2001)), and we do not rely 

on this regulatory definition when 

analyzing whether an action is likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Under the statutory provisions 

of the Act, we determine destruction or 

adverse modification on the basis of 

whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 

(or retain the current ability for the 

primary constituent elements to be 

functionally established) to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species. 

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 the species or to 

destroy or adversely modify its critical 

habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 

listed species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us. As a result of this consultation, 

we document compliance with the 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) through 

our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect, and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat, we also provide 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

the project, if any are identifiable. We 

define ‘‘Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives’’ at 50 CFR 402.02 as 

alternative actions identified during 

consultation that: 

• Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action; 

• Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction; 

• Are economically and 

technologically feasible; and 

• Would, in the Director’s opinion, 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of the listed species or 

destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives can 

vary from slight project modifications to 

extensive redesign or relocation of the 

project. Costs associated with 

implementing a reasonable and prudent 

alternative are similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where we have 

listed a new species or subsequently 

designated critical habitat that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action (or the agency’s 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law). Consequently, 

Federal agencies may sometimes need to 

request reinitiation of consultation with 

us on actions for which formal 

consultation has been completed, if 

those actions with discretionary 

involvement or control may affect 

subsequently listed species or 

designated critical habitat. 

Federal activities that may affect 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia or its 

designated critical habitat require 

section 7 consultation under the Act. 

Activities on State, Tribal, local, or 

private lands requiring a Federal permit 

(such as a permit from the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers under section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 

seq.) or a permit from us under section 

10(a)(1)(B) of the Act) or involving some 

other Federal action (such as funding 

from the Federal Highway 

Administration, Federal Aviation 

Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency) are 

subject to the section 7 consultation 

process. Federal actions not affecting 

listed species or critical habitat, and 

actions on State, Tribal, local or private 

lands that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or permitted, do not require 

section 7(a)(2) consultations. 

Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the adverse 

modification determination is whether, 

with implementation of the proposed 

Federal action, the affected critical 

habitat would continue to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species, or would retain its current 

ability for the primary constituent 

elements to be functionally established. 

Activities that may destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat are those that 

alter the PCE to an extent that 

appreciably reduces the conservation 

value of critical habitat for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia. Generally, the 

conservation role of A. ilicifolia critical 

habitat units is to support viable core 

populations of the species. 

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

to briefly evaluate and describe in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat those 

activities involving a Federal action that 

may destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or those activities that may be 

affected by such designation. 

Activities that, when carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency, may affect critical habitat and 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 50473 

therefore should result in consultation 

for Acanthomintha ilicifolia include, 

but are not limited to: 

(1) Actions that disturb or remove the 

clay soils (PCE 1(c)) within a subunit of 

critical habitat. Such activities include, 

but are not limited to, clearing areas for 

development and roads, creation of 

trails, and installation of pipelines or 

other underground infrastructure. These 

activities could eliminate or reduce the 

habitat necessary for the growth and 

reproduction of Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia. 

(2) Actions that introduce exotic plant 

species or alter the natural habitat in a 

way that increases the likelihood for the 

invasion of exotic plant species (PCE 

1(d)). Such activities include, but are 

not limited to, the introduction of fill 

dirt to development sites adjacent to 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia critical habitat, 

grading areas for agriculture, clearing 

native vegetation, and the use of 

mountain bikes and off-highway 

vehicles. These activities could create 

space for populations of exotic plants to 

grow and then invade A. ilicifolia 

habitat or bring the seeds of exotic 

plants into A. ilicifolia habitat, thus 

filling the open space needed for the 

growth and reproduction (PCE 1(b)) of 

this species with exotic plant 

competitors. 

(3) Actions that alter the hydrology of 

critical habitat subunits. Such activities 

include, but are not limited to, runoff 

from developed streets, runoff from 

irrigated landscapes, and increased flow 

or erosion from storm drains. These 

activities could alter the timing and 

amount of water that Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia plants receive, altering their 

phenology and fecundity. These 

activities could also cause the erosion of 

the clay soils (PCE 1(b and c)) that are 

necessary for the growth of A. ilicifolia. 

Please see the ‘‘Special Management 

Considerations or Protection’’ section 

for a more detailed discussion on the 

impacts of these actions to the listed 

species. 

We consider all of the subunits 

designated as critical habitat, as well as 

those that are excluded from the final 

designation, to contain the features 

essential to the conservation of 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia. All subunits 

are within the geographic area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing and 

are currently occupied by A. ilicifolia 

(see ‘‘Summary of Changes From 

Proposed Rule’’ section of this final rule 

and the proposed rule (72 FR 11946; 

March 14, 2007) for more information 

on the occupied subunits). Federal 

agencies already consult with us on 

activities in areas occupied by A. 

ilicifolia or if the species may be 

affected by the action to ensure that 

their actions do not jeopardize the 

continued existence of A. ilicifolia. 

Exclusions 

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

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

the Secretary must designate and revise 

critical habitat on the basis of the best 

available scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

national security impact, and any other 

relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if he determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless he 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. In making that determination, 

the legislative history is clear that the 

Secretary has broad discretion regarding 

which factor(s) to use and how much 

weight to give to any factor. 

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

considering whether to exclude a 

particular area from the designation, we 

must identify the benefits of including 

the area in the designation, identify the 

benefits of excluding the area from the 

designation, and determine whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. If based on this 

analysis we make this determination, 

then we can exclude the area only if 

such exclusion would not result in the 

extinction of the species. 

In the following sections, we address 

a number of general issues that are 

relevant to the exclusions we consider. 

Additionally, the Service conducted a 

draft economic analysis (draft EA) of the 

impacts of the proposed critical habitat 

designation and related factors. The 

draft EA was made available for public 

review and comment from November 

27, 2007, to December 27, 2007 (72 FR 

66122). We then reopened the comment 

period on the draft EA from May 13, 

2008, to June 12, 2008 (73 FR 27483). 

We did not receive any comments on 

the draft EA during these open comment 

periods. Based on the draft EA, the 

proposed critical habitat, and the 

information in this revised final 

designation of critical habitat, we 

excluded areas from critical habitat 

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

of the Act and our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19; however, 

we did not exclude any areas for 

economic reasons. 

Benefits of Designating Critical Habitat 

The process of designating critical 

habitat as described in the Act requires 

that the Service identify those lands on 

which are found the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection, and those 

areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. In 

identifying those lands, the Service 

must consider the recovery needs of the 

species, such that, on the basis of the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available at the time of designation, the 

habitat that is identified, if managed or 

protected, could provide for the survival 

and recovery of the species. 

The identification of areas that 

contain features essential for the 

conservation of the species, which if 

managed or protected, will provide for 

the recovery of a species, is beneficial. 

The process of proposing and finalizing 

a critical habitat rule provides the 

Service with the opportunity to 

determine the physical and biological 

features essential for conservation of the 

species within the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing, as well as to determine other 

areas essential to the conservation of the 

species. The designation process 

includes peer review and public 

comment on the identified physical and 

biological features and areas. This 

process is valuable to land owners and 

managers in developing conservation 

management plans for identified areas, 

as well as any other occupied habitat or 

suitable habitat that may not be 

included in the Service’s determination 

of essential habitat. 

The consultation provisions under 

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

regulatory benefits of critical habitat. As 

discussed above, Federal agencies must 

consult with us on actions that may 

affect critical habitat and must avoid 

destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. Federal agencies must 

also consult with us on actions that may 

affect a listed species and refrain from 

undertaking actions that are likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species. Thus, the analysis of effects 

to critical habitat is a separate and 

different analysis from that of the effects 

to the species. Therefore, the difference 

in outcomes of these two analyses 

represents the regulatory benefit of 

critical habitat. For some species, and in 

some locations, the outcome of these 

analyses will be similar, because effects 

on habitat will often result in effects on 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
50474 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

the species. However, the regulatory 

standard is different, as the jeopardy 

analysis looks at the action’s impact on 

survival and recovery of the species and 

the adverse modification analysis looks 

at the action’s effects on the designated 

habitat’s contribution to the species’

conservation. This will, in many 

instances, lead to different results and 

different regulatory requirements. Thus, 

critical habitat designations may 

provide greater regulatory benefits to the 

recovery of a species than would listing 

alone. 

There are two limitations to the 

regulatory effect of critical habitat. First, 

a consultation is required only where 

there is a Federal nexus (an action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by 

any Federal agency)—if there is no 

Federal nexus, the critical habitat 

designation of private lands itself does 

not restrict actions that destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Second, the designation only limits 

destruction or adverse modification. By 

its nature, the prohibition on adverse 

modification is designed to ensure that 

the conservation role and function of 

those areas that contain the physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species or of 

unoccupied areas that are essential to 

the conservation of the species are not 

appreciably reduced. Critical habitat 

designation alone, however, does not 

require private property owners to 

undertake specific steps toward 

recovery of the species. 

Once an agency determines that 

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

Act is necessary, the process may 

conclude informally when the Service 

concurs in writing that the proposed 

Federal action is not likely to adversely 

affect critical habitat. However, if we 

determine through informal 

consultation that adverse impacts are 

likely to occur, then formal consultation 

is initiated. Formal consultation 

concludes with a biological opinion 

issued by the Service on whether the 

proposed Federal action is likely to 

result in destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

For critical habitat, a biological 

opinion that concludes in determination 

of no destruction or adverse 

modification may contain discretionary 

conservation recommendations to 

minimize adverse effects to primary 

constituent elements, but it would not 

suggest the implementation of any 

reasonable and prudent alternative. We 

suggest reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the proposed Federal 

action only when our biological opinion 

results in an adverse modification 

conclusion. 

As stated above, the designation of 

critical habitat does not require that any 

management or recovery actions take 

place on the lands included in the 

designation. Even in cases where 

consultation is initiated under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act, the end result of 

consultation is to avoid jeopardy to the 

species and/or adverse modification of 

its critical habitat, but not necessarily to 

manage critical habitat or institute 

recovery actions on critical habitat. 

Conversely, voluntary conservation 

efforts implemented through 

management plans institute proactive 

actions over the lands they encompass 

and are put in place to remove or reduce 

known threats to a species or its habitat; 

therefore, implementing recovery 

actions. We believe that in many 

instances the regulatory benefit of 

critical habitat is low when compared to 

the conservation benefit that can be 

achieved through implementing Habitat 

Conservation Plans (HCPs) under 

section 10 of the Act or other habitat 

management plans. The conservation 

acheived through such plans is typically 

greater than what we achieve through 

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

section 7 consultations involving 

consideration of critical habitat. 

Management plans commit resources to 

implement long-term management and 

protection for particular habitat for at 

least one and possibly other listed or 

sensitive species. Section 7 

consultations only commit Federal 

agencies to preventing adverse 

modification of critical habitat caused 

by the particular project, and they are 

not committed to provide conservation 

or long-term benefits to areas not 

affected by the proposed action. Thus, 

implementation of an HCP or 

management plan that incorporates 

enhancement or recovery as the 

management standard may often 

provide as much or more benefit than a 

consultation for critical habitat 

designation. 

Another benefit of including lands in 

critical habitat is that designation of 

critical habitat serves to educate 

landowners, State and local 

governments, and the public regarding 

the potential conservation value of an 

area. This helps focus and promote 

conservation efforts by other parties by 

clearly delineating areas of high 

conservation value for Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia. In general, critical habitat 

designation always has educational 

benefits; however, in some cases, they 

may be redundant with other 

educational effects. For example, HCPs 

have significant public input and may 

largely duplicate the educational 

benefits of a critical habitat designation. 

Including lands in critical habitat also 

informs State agencies and local 

governments about areas that could be 

conserved under State laws or local 

ordinances. 

Conservation Partnerships on NonFederal Lands 

Most federally listed species in the 

United States will not recover without 

cooperation of non-Federal landowners. 

More than 60 percent of the United 

States is privately owned (National 

Wilderness Institute 1995), and at least 

80 percent of endangered or threatened 

species occur either partially or solely 

on private lands (Crouse et al. 2002). 

Stein et al. (1995) found that only about 

12 percent of listed species were found 

almost exclusively on Federal lands (90 

to 100 percent of their known 

occurrences restricted to Federal lands) 

and that 50 percent of federally listed 

species are not known to occur on 

Federal lands at all. 

Given the distribution of listed 

species with respect to land ownership, 

conservation of listed species in many 

parts of the United States is dependent 

upon working partnerships with a wide 

variety of entities and the voluntary 

cooperation of many non-Federal 

landowners (Wilcove and Chen 1998; 

Crouse et al. 2002; James 2002). 

Building partnerships and promoting 

voluntary cooperation of landowners are 

essential to understanding the status of 

species on non-Federal lands, and 

necessary for us to implement recovery 

actions such as reintroducing listed 

species, habitat restoration, and habitat 

protection. 

Many non-Federal landowners derive 

satisfaction from contributing to 

endangered species recovery. We 

promote these private-sector efforts 

through the Department of the Interior’s 

Cooperative Conservation philosophy. 

Conservation agreements with nonFederal landowners (HCPs, safe harbor 

agreements, other conservation 

agreements, easements, and State and 

local regulations) enhance species 

conservation by extending species 

protections beyond those available 

through section 7 consultations. In the 

past decade, we have encouraged nonFederal landowners to enter into 

conservation agreements, based on a 

view that we can achieve greater species 

conservation on non-Federal land 

through such partnerships than we can 

through regulatory methods (61 FR 

63854; December 2, 1996). 

Many private landowners, however, 

are wary of the possible consequences of 

encouraging endangered species to their 

property, and there is mounting 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 50475 

evidence that some regulatory actions 

by the Federal Government, while wellintentioned and required by law, can 

(under certain circumstances) have 

unintended negative consequences for 

the conservation of species on private 

lands (Wilcove et al. 1996; Bean 2002; 

Conner and Mathews 2002; James 2002; 

Koch 2002; Brook et al. 2003). Many 

landowners fear a decline in their 

property value due to real or perceived 

restrictions on land-use options where 

threatened or endangered species are 

found. Consequently, harboring 

endangered species is viewed by many 

landowners as a liability. This 

perception results in anti-conservation 

incentives because maintaining habitats 

that harbor endangered species 

represents a risk to future economic 

opportunities (Main et al. 1999; Brook et 

al. 2003). 

According to some researchers, the 

designation of critical habitat on private 

lands significantly reduces the 

likelihood that landowners will support 

and carry out conservation actions 

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

al. 2003). The magnitude of this 

negative outcome is greatly amplified in 

situations where active management 

measures (such as reintroduction, fire 

management, and control of invasive 

species) are necessary for species 

conservation (Bean 2002). We believe 

that the judicious exclusion of specific 

areas of non-federally owned lands from 

critical habitat designations can 

contribute to species recovery and 

provide a superior level of conservation 

than critical habitat alone. 

The purpose of designating critical 

habitat is to contribute to the 

conservation of threatened and 

endangered species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The outcome 

of the designation, triggering regulatory 

requirements for actions funded, 

authorized, or carried out by Federal 

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

Act, can sometimes be 

counterproductive to its intended 

purpose on non-Federal lands. Thus the 

benefits of excluding areas that are 

covered by partnerships or voluntary 

conservation efforts can often be high. 

Benefits of Excluding Lands With HCPs 

or Other Approved Management Plans 

The benefits of excluding lands with 

HCPs or other approved long-term 

management plans from critical habitat 

designation include relieving 

landowners, communities, and counties 

of any additional regulatory burden that 

might be imposed by critical habitat. 

Most HCPs and other conservation plans 

take years to develop, and upon 

completion, are consistent with 

recovery objectives for listed species 

that are covered within the plan area. 

Many also provide conservation benefits 

to unlisted sensitive species. Although 

the Act does not prohibit the take of 

listed plant species (so there is no 

requirement to cover listed plant species 

in an HCP), we encourage non-Federal 

public and private landowners to 

include protections for listed plants in 

their plans. Imposing an additional 

regulatory review as a result of the 

designation of critical habitat of a listed 

plant species, in particular, may 

undermine our efforts to encourage 

inclusion of plant species in HCPs and 

undermine other conservation efforts 

and partnerships as well. Our 

experience in implementing the Act has 

found that designation of critical habitat 

within the boundaries of management 

plans that provide conservation 

measures for a species is a disincentive 

to many entities which are either 

currently developing such plans, or 

contemplating doing so in the future, 

because one of the incentives for 

undertaking conservation is greater ease 

of permitting where listed species will 

be affected. Addition of a new 

regulatory requirement would remove a 

significant incentive for undertaking the 

time and expense of management 

planning. In fact, designating critical 

habitat for a plant species in areas 

covered by a pending HCP or 

conservation plan could result in the 

loss of some species’ benefits if 

participants abandon the planning 

process or elect to exclude the plant 

species from the plan, in part because of 

the strength of the perceived additional 

regulatory compliance that such 

designation would entail. The time and 

cost of regulatory compliance for a 

critical habitat designation do not have 

to be quantified for them to be perceived 

as additional Federal regulatory burden 

sufficient to discourage continued 

participation in developing plans 

targeting listed species’ conservation. 

A related benefit of excluding lands 

covered by approved HCPs and 

management plans that cover listed 

plant species from critical habitat 

designation is the unhindered, 

continued ability it gives us to seek new 

partnerships with future plan 

participants, including States, counties, 

local jurisdictions, conservation 

organizations, and private landowners, 

which together can implement 

conservation actions that we would be 

unable to accomplish otherwise. 

Designating lands within approved 

management plan areas as critical 

habitat would likely have a negative 

effect on our ability to establish new 

partnerships to develop these plans, 

particularly plans that address 

landscape-level conservation of plant 

species and habitats. By excluding these 

lands, we preserve our current 

partnerships and encourage additional 

conservation actions in the future. 

Both HCPs and Natural Communities 

Conservation Plan (NCCP)–HCP 

applications require consultation, which 

would review the effects of all HCPcovered activities that might adversely 

impact the species under a jeopardy 

standard, including possibly significant 

habitat modification, even without the 

critical habitat designation. 

Additionally, all other Federal actions 

that may affect the listed species still 

require consultation under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act, and we review these 

actions for possibly significant habitat 

modification in accordance with the 

jeopardy standard under Section 7. 

The information provided in the 

previous section applies to all the 

following discussions of benefits of 

inclusion or exclusion of critical habitat. 

Areas Considered for Exclusion Under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

At the request of the USFS, we 

evaluated the appropriateness of 

excluding Federal lands in the CNF 

from the final designation of critical 

habitat for Acanthomintha ilicifolia 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on 

management provided under the USFS 

LMP and specifically under the Species 

Management Guide developed for the 

CNF (USFS 1991). As indicated in our 

response to Comment 13 in the ‘‘Public 

Comments’’ section above, we have 

concluded based on the record before us 

not to exclude Forest Service lands in 

this instance. Therefore, as previously 

discussed we are designating 

approximately 549 ac (222 ha) of Forest 

Service lands in subunits 3B, 3C, 3D, 

3E, and 3F as critical habitat for A. 

ilicifolia. 

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

Act 

After considering the following areas 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are 

excluding them from the critical habitat 

designation for Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia. We are excluding 

approximately 59 ac (24 ha) of nonFederal lands from the A. ilicifolia 

critical habitat designation in subunits 

1A and 1B that are covered by the 

Carlsbad HMP within the San Diego 

Multiple Species Habitat Program 

(MHCP) plan area. We are excluding 

approximately 948 ac (383 ha) of nonFederal lands from the A. ilicifolia 

critical habitat designation in subunits 

2A; 2B; 2C; 2D; 3A; 3B; 4A; 4B; 4C; and 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
50476 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

4D that are within San Diego Multiple 

Species Conservation Program (MSCP) 

plan area. These lands are covered by 

the City of San Diego subarea plan 

under the MSCP and the County of San 

Diego subarea plan under the MSCP. 

Additionally, we are excluding 70 ac (28 

ha) of private land from the A. ilicifolia 

critical habitat designation in subunit 

1C that is within the Manchester 

Avenue Mitigation Bank. A detailed 

analysis of our exclusion of these lands 

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

provided in the paragraphs below. 

We excluded these areas because we 

believe that: 

(1) Their value for conservation will 

be preserved for the foreseeable future 

by existing protective actions; or 

(2) They are appropriate for exclusion 

under the ‘‘other relevant impact’’

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

In the paragraphs below, we provide 

a detailed analysis of our exclusion of 

these lands under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. 

Habitat Conservation Plan Lands—

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

Act 

In reviewing approved HCPs for 

potential exclusion under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act, we consider (in addition to 

the general partnership relationships 

identified above) whether the plan 

provides for protection and appropriate 

management, if necessary, of essential 

habitat within the plan area and 

whether the plan incorporates 

conservation management strategies and 

actions consistent with currently 

accepted principles of conservation 

biology. 

We believe the framework plans and 

associated subarea plans discussed in 

the paragraphs below fulfill these 

criteria. Therefore, we are excluding 

lands covered by these subarea plans 

that provide for the conservation of 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia from the final 

designation of critical habitat. 

Carlsbad HMP Under the San Diego 

Multiple Habitat Conservation Program 

(MHCP) 

The San Diego MHCP is a 

comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional 

planning program designed to create, 

manage, and monitor an ecosystem 

preserve in northwestern San Diego 

County. The MHCP is a framework plan 

that has been in place for 5 years. It is 

also a regional subarea plan under the 

State of California’s Natural 

Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) 

program and was developed in 

cooperation with California Department 

of Fish and Game (CDFG). The MHCP is 

designed to be implemented through 

approved individual subarea plans. The 

MHCP preserve system is intended to 

protect viable populations of native 

plant and animal species and their 

habitats in perpetuity, while 

accommodating continued economic 

development and quality of life for 

residents of northern San Diego County. 

The MHCP includes an approximately 

112,000-ac (45,324-ha) study area 

within the cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, 

Escondido, San Marcos, Oceanside, 

Vista, and Solana Beach. 

Under the MHCP framework plan, the 

majority of all known Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia populations fall within 

Focused Planning Areas (FPA) (core 

areas and linkages important for 

conservation of sensitive species) and 

will be conserved at levels of 95 to 100 

percent. According to the MHCP, 91 

percent of the major populations and 

critical locations of Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia (as identified in the MHCP) in 

the study area will be conserved under 

the FPA design. In addition to the 

conserved populations, an estimated 

3,403 acres of potentially suitable 

habitat will be conserved as a result of 

the existing preserve design and 

preserve policies. Any populations that 

fall outside of FPAs will be conserved 

at a minimum 80 percent level based on 

the Narrow Endemic Plant Policy. The 

Narrow Endemic Policy requires the 

conservation of new populations of 

narrow endemic species (80 percent 

outside of FPAs) and mitigation for 

unavoidable impacts as well as 

management practices designed to 

achieve no net loss of narrow endemic 

populations. Additionally, cities that 

apply for subarea permits cannot permit 

more than 5 percent gross cumulative 

loss of narrow endemic populations or 

occupied acreage within the FPAs and 

no more than 20 percent cumulative 

loss of narrow endemic locations, 

population numbers, or occupied 

acreage outside of FPAs (AMEC Earth 

and Environmental, Inc. 2003). 

The City of Carlsbad received a permit 

on their individual subarea plan under 

the MHCP framework plan on 

November 9, 2004. Approximately 2 ac 

(1 ha) of land in subunit 1A and all of 

the approximately 57 ac (23 ha) of land 

in subunit 1B are protected by the 

Carlsbad subarea plan also known as the 

Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan 

(HMP). Acanthomintha ilicifolia is a 

conditionally covered species under the 

Carlsbad HMP. ‘‘Conditional’’ coverage 

means that the City of Carlsbad receives 

coverage for this species as identified in 

the associated biological opinion, as 

long as the City complies with the 

conservation measures outlined in the 

HMP. Under the HMP, coverage for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia is also 

conditional until the City of San Marcos 

completes their subarea plan under the 

MHCP. However, in developing this 

critical habitat rule we did not identify 

any lands in San Marcos that meet the 

definition of critical habitat as described 

in the ‘‘Criteria Used to Identify Critical 

Habitat’’ section. Therefore, we believe 

it is appropriate to exclude essential 

habitat protected by the Carlsbad HMP 

where the City of Carlsbad has 

demonstrated compliance with the 

conservation measures for A. ilicifolia 

required to be implemented by the City 

under the HMP. 

Consistent with the framework 

provided under the MHCP, the Carlsbad 

HMP contains requirements to conserve 

and adaptively manage Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia habitats and provide for the 

conservation of this species’ PCE, 

thereby contributing to the recovery of 

this species. The Carlsbad HMP will 

provide management and monitoring for 

A. ilicifolia at several sites, including 

approximately 2 ac (1 ha) of habitat in 

subunit 1A managed by the Center for 

Natural Lands Management. All of the 

land in subunit 1A addressed by the 

Carlsbad HMP is actively managed; 

activities that benefit A. ilicifolia in 

subunit 1A include mapping and census 

projects, removal of nonnative invasive 

species, and the restoration of areas 

degraded by past human use (Tierra 

Data, Inc. 2005, pp. 34–63; Carlsbad 

HMP 2004, p. D–97). All of the 

approximately 57 ac (23 ha) of land in 

subunit 1B was preserved in perpetuity 

prior to the creation of the Carlsbad 

HMP. These lands are signed and fenced 

and are a component of Carlsbad’s 

habitat preserve. Management of the 

conserved land in subunit 1B remains 

the responsibility of the private owner 

of the open space area; however, the 

future management of this area will be 

bolstered by the inclusion of this area in 

the Carlsbad HMP. The management 

approaches developed for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia in other areas 

will be easily applied to subunit 1B 

because the area is part of the Carlsbad 

HMP. 

The Carlsbad HMP also incorporates 

many processes to ensure that the 

Service has an active role in proper 

implementation of the HCP. For 

example, Habitat Management Plans, 

reviewed and approved by the Service, 

must be developed for each preserve 

area within the Carlsbad HMP, and 

monitoring and management objectives 

must be established for each preserve. 

Progress towards meeting these 

objectives is measured through the 

submission of annual reports. There are 

also regular coordination meetings 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 50477 

between the Service and the City of 

Carlsbad to discuss on-going 

conservation issues. Under the Carlsbad 

HMP the City must account annually for 

the progress it is making in assembling 

conservation areas. The City is required 

to provide the Service with an annual 

report that includes, both by project and 

cumulatively, the habitat acreage 

destroyed and conserved within the 

HMP. This accounting process ensures 

that habitat conservation proceeds in 

rough proportion to habitat loss and is 

in compliance with the Carlsbad HMP 

and associated implementing 

agreement. 

All of the lands that meet the 

definition of critical habitat within the 

boundaries of the Carlsbad HMP are 

already conserved under the plan. 

Consistent with the Narrow Endemic 

Policy and FPA design of the MHCP 

framework plan, additional populations 

of A. ilicifolia beyond the two areas we 

identified that meet the definition of 

critical habitat are also conserved under 

Carlsbad’s subarea plan. Conservation of 

these additional populations will 

contribute to the ultimate recovery of 

this species. Although not all areas 

placed in conservation are actively 

managed under the plan at this time, we 

believe the Carlsbad HMP will conserve 

A. ilicifolia within its boundaries 

because A. ilicifolia is one of the focus 

species for this plan and the City of 

Carlsbad has an interest to conserve this 

species throughout the Carlsbad HMP 

area. The extent of habitat preservation 

and management that has taken place 

due to implementation of the Carlsbad 

HMP since it was permitted in 2004 is 

significant, and demonstrates the City of 

Carlsbad’s commitment to fully 

implement this HCP. 

In the 1998 final rule listing this 

species as threatened (63 FR 54938; 

October 13, 1998), we identified habitat 

destruction and fragmentation from 

urban development; off-road vehicle 

activity; non-native, invasive plant 

species; livestock trampling and grazing; 

and mining as primary threats to the 

species. The Carlsbad HMP incorporates 

conservation measures to address these 

threats into the management of its 

preserve area, which will include the 

entire preserve area including subunits 

1A and 1B. The Carlsbad HMP provides 

protection and appropriate management 

for Acanthomintha ilicifolia, its habitat, 

and its PCE through implementation of 

conservation strategies that are 

consistent with generally accepted 

principles of conservation biology. The 

Carlsbad HMP preserves habitat that 

supports identified core populations of 

this species and provides for its 

recovery. 

Benefits of Inclusion—Carlsbad HMP 

The inclusion of approximately 2 ac 

(1 ha) of land in subunit 1A and all of 

the approximately 57 ac (23 ha) of land 

in subunit 1B could be beneficial 

because it identifies lands to be 

managed for the conservation and 

recovery of Acanthomintha ilicifolia. 

The process of proposing and finalizing 

a critical habitat provided the Service 

with the opportunity to determine the 

features or PCEs essential for 

conservation of the species within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing, as well as 

to determine other areas essential to the 

conservation of the species. The 

designation process includes peer 

review and public comment on the 

identified features and areas. This 

process is valuable to landowners and 

managers in developing conservation 

management plans for identified areas, 

as well as any other occupied habitat or 

suitable habitat that may not have been 

included in the Service’s determination 

of essential habitat. However, 

identification of important habitat for A. 

ilicifolia within the City of Carlsbad and 

efforts to conserve the species and its 

habitat were initiated through 

development of the Carlsbad HMP prior 

to the proposed critical habitat rule and 

will continue into the future. 

The educational benefits of 

designation are small and largely 

redundant to those derived through 

conservation efforts already in place or 

underway on the 2 ac (1 ha) of land in 

subunit 1A and all of the approximately 

57 ac (23 ha) of land in subunit 1B that 

are protected under the Carlsbad HMP. 

The process of developing the MHCP 

and Carlsbad HMP has involved 

extensive public review and impute and 

the involvment of several Federal, state, 

and local government partners 

including (but not limited to): The City 

of Carlsbad; California Department of 

Fish and Game; the Service; and other 

Federal agencies. Therefore, the 

educational benefits of designating the 

private lands in Unit 1 (Pan Hot Springs 

Meadow) as critical habitat are minimal. 

The consultation provisions under 

section 7(a) of the Act constitute the 

regulatory benefits of designating lands 

as critical habitat. As discussed above, 

Federal agencies must consult with us 

on actions that may affect critical 

habitat and must avoid destroying or 

adversely modifying critical habitat. 

However, all of the approximately 57 ac 

(23 ha) of land in subunit 1B that is 

being excluded is protected open space 

on private property, with no expected 

Federal nexus for future consultation for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia. Therefore, 

designating this area as critical habitat 

is unlikely to provide a regulatory 

benefit under section 7(a) of the Act. 

The approximately 2 ac (1 ha) of land 

in subunit 1A is also privately owned 

and protected from future development 

with no expected Federal nexus for 

future consultation; therefore, we do not 

anticipate a regulatory benefit result 

from designation of such lands. 

Benefits of Exclusion—Carlsbad HMP 

The City of Carlsbad HMP provides 

substantial protection and management 

for Acanthomintha ilicifolia and its 

essential habitat features in contrast to 

designation of critical habitat, which 

only precludes destruction or adverse 

modification. Moreover, the educational 

benefits that result from critical habitat 

designation, including informing the 

public of areas that are necessary for the 

long-term conservation of the species, 

are already in place both as a result of 

material provided on our Web site and 

through public notice-and-comment 

procedures required to establish the 

MHCP and the Carlsbad HMP. Finally, 

we have not identified a likely Federal 

nexus for future section 7 consultations 

on lands in subunit 1A and subunit 1B 

because the lands are privately owned 

and already protected from 

development; therefore, we do not 

anticipate a regulatory benefit from 

designation. 

In contrast to the lack of an 

appreciable benefit of including these 

lands as critical habitat, the exclusion of 

these lands from critical habitat will 

help preserve the partnerships that we 

developed with the City of Carlsbad in 

the development of the MHCP and 

Carlsbad subarea plan. As discussed 

above, many landowners perceive 

critical habitat as an unfair and 

unnecessary regulatory burden given the 

expense and time involved in 

developing and implementing complex 

regional and jurisdiction-wide HCPs, 

such as the MHCP and Carlsbad HMP. 

For these reasons, we believe that 

designating critical habitat has little 

benefit in the City of Carlsbad, and such 

minor benefit is outweighed by the 

benefit of maintaining partnerships with 

the City and private landowners covered 

by the Carlsbad HMP. 

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion—Carlsbad HMP 

We reviewed and evaluated the 

benefits of inclusion and the benefits of 

exclusion of lands covered by the 

Carlsbad HMP as critical habitat for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia. Based on this 

evaluation, we find that the benefit of 

excluding lands in areas covered by the 

City of Carlsbad HMP under the MHCP 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
50478 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

outweighs the benefit of including those 

lands as critical habitat for A. ilicifolia. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species—Carlsbad HMP 

Exclusion of these 59 ac (24 ha) of 

non-Federal lands from the final 

designation of critical habitat will not 

result in the extinction of 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia because these 

lands are permanently conserved and 

are or will be managed for the benefit 

of this species under the Carlsbad HMP 

under the MHCP. The jeopardy standard 

of section 7 and routine implementation 

of habitat protection through the section 

7 process also provide assurances that 

the species will not go extinct. The 

protections afforded to A. ilicifolia 

under the jeopardy standard will remain 

in place for the areas excluded from 

critical habitat. 

San Diego Multiple Species 

Conservation Program (MSCP)—City 

and County Subarea Plans 

The MSCP is a framework plan that 

has been in place for more than 10 

years. The plan area encompasses 

582,243 ac (235,626 ha) (County of San 

Diego 1997, p. 1–1; MSCP 1998, pp. 2–

1, 4–2—4–4) and provides for the 

conservation of 85 federally listed and 

sensitive species (‘‘covered species’’), 

including Acanthomintha ilicifolia, 

through the establishment of 

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

preserve lands within the Multi-Habitat 

Planning Area (MHPA) (City of San 

Diego) and Pre-Approved Mitigation 

Areas (PAMA) (County of San Diego). 

The MSCP was developed in support of 

applications for incidental take permits 

for several covered species by 12 

participating jurisdictions and many 

other stakeholders in southwestern San 

Diego County. Under the umbrella of the 

MSCP, each of the 12 participating 

jurisdictions is required to prepare a 

subarea plan that implements the goals 

of the MSCP within that particular 

jurisdiction. Four of the 12 jurisdictions 

include areas that support A. ilicifolia: 

The City of San Diego, the City of Chula 

Vista, the County of San Diego, and the 

City of Poway, all of which have 

approved subarea plans. Areas that we 

determined meet the definition of 

critical habitat are within the subarea 

plans for the City of San Diego and the 

County of San Diego. The Service issued 

permits to the City of San Diego on June 

6, 1997 (Service 1997), and to the 

County of San Diego on March 12, 1998 

(Service 1998), based on their subarea 

plans. 

Upon completion of preserve 

assembly, approximately 171,920 ac 

(69,574 ha) of the 582,243 ac (235,626 

ha) MSCP plan area will be preserved 

(MSCP 1998, pp. 2–1, 4–2—4–4). The 

City of San Diego’s preserve is 

delineated by mapped preserve 

boundaries referred to as ‘‘hardline’’

boundaries (i.e., MHPA). County of San 

Diego preserve areas do not have 

‘‘hardline’’ boundaries, but the County’s 

subarea plan identifies areas where 

mitigation activities should be focused 

to assemble its preserve areas (i.e., 

PAMA). Those areas of the MSCP 

preserve that are already conserved as 

well as those areas that are designated 

for inclusion in the preserve under the 

plan are referred to as the ‘‘preserve 

area’’ in this final designation. When the 

preserve is completed, the public sector 

(i.e., Federal, State, and local 

government, and general public) will 

have contributed 108,750 ac (44,010 ha) 

(63.3 percent) to the preserve, of which 

81,750 ac (33,083 ha) (48 percent) was 

existing public land when the MSCP 

was established and 27,000 ac (10,927 

ha) (16 percent) will have been 

acquired. At completion, the private 

sector will have contributed 63,170 ac 

(25,564 ha) (37 percent) to the preserve 

as part of the development process, 

either through avoidance of impacts or 

as compensatory mitigation for impacts 

to biological resources outside the 

preserve. Federal and State 

governments, local jurisdictions and 

special districts, and managers of 

privately owned lands currently, and in 

the future will manage and monitor 

their lands in the preserve for species 

and habitat protection (MSCP 1998, pp. 

2–1, 4–2—4–4). 

Private lands within the MHPA and 

PAMA are subject to special restrictions 

on development, and lands that are 

dedicated to the preserve must be 

legally protected and permanently 

managed to conserve the covered 

species. Public lands owned by the City, 

County, State of California, and the 

Federal Government that are identified 

for conservation under the MSCP must 

also be protected and permanently 

managed to protect the covered species. 

Numerous processes are incorporated 

into the MSCP that allow for Service 

oversight of the MSCP implementation. 

For example, the MSCP imposes annual 

reporting requirements and provides for 

Service review and approval of 

proposed subarea plan amendments and 

preserve boundary adjustments and for 

Service review and comment on projects 

during the California Environmental 

Quality Act review process. The Service 

also chairs the MSCP Habitat 

Management Technical Committee and 

the Monitoring Subcommittee (MSCP 

1998, pp. 5–11—5–23. Each MSCP 

subarea plan must account annually for 

the progress it is making in assembling 

conservation areas. The Service must 

receive annual reports that include, both 

by project and cumulatively, the habitat 

acreage destroyed and conserved within 

the subareas. This accounting process 

ensures that habitat conservation 

proceeds in rough proportion to habitat 

loss and in compliance with the MSCP 

subarea plans and the plans’ associated 

implementing agreements. 

The subarea plans under the MSCP 

contain requirements to monitor and 

adaptively manage Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia habitats and provide for the 

conservation of this species’ PCE. The 

framework and area-specific 

management plans are comprehensive 

and address a broad range of 

management needs at the preserve and 

species levels that are intended to 

reduce the threats to covered species 

and thereby contribute to the recovery 

of the species. These plans include the 

following: (1) Fire management; (2) 

public access control; (3) fencing and 

gates; (4) ranger patrol; (5) trail 

maintenance; (6) visitor/interpretive and 

volunteer services; (7) hydrological 

management; (8) signage and lighting; 

(9) trash and litter removal; (10) access 

road maintenance; (11) enforcement of 

property and/or homeowner 

requirements; (12) removal of invasive 

species; (13) nonnative predator control; 

(14) species monitoring; (15) habitat 

restoration; (16) management for diverse 

age classes of covered species; (17) use 

of herbicides and rodenticides; (18) 

biological surveys; (19) research; and 

(20) species management conditions 

(MSCP 1998). 

Eight major populations of 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia are included 

within preserve lands under the MSCP, 

each of which will be conserved from 80 

to 100 percent, with 85 percent overall 

coverage. In 10 years of implementing 

the City and County of San Diego’s 

subarea plans, approximately 787 ac 

(319 ha), or 83 percent, of lands that 

meet the definition of critical habitat for 

A. ilicifolia have already been 

conserved. An additional 72 ac (28 ha) 

are inside the PAMA and MHPA, and, 

although they have not yet been 

formally committed to the preserve, 

these lands are reasonably assured of 

conservation for A. ilicifolia (see Table 

4) in accordance with the subarea plans. 

Similarly, although some areas placed 

in conservation are not yet fully 

managed, such management will occur 

over time as the subarea plans continue 

to be implemented. The extent of habitat 

preservation and management that has 

taken place to date through 

implementation of the MSCP and its 

subarea plans in the City and County of 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 50479 

San Diego is significant, and 

demonstrates the City and County of 

San Diego’s commitment to fully 

implement the MSCP. 

TABLE 4—NON-FEDERAL LANDS WITHIN THE MSCP PLAN AREA EXCLUDED FROM CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION AND

THE CONSERVATION OF THESE LANDS UNDER THE MSCP * 

Critical habitat unit Land ownership Currently conserved Lands within the PAMA or 

MHPA; not yet conserved 

Lands at risk of 

development 

2A. Los Pen ̃asquitos Canyon.State/Local ........................ 63 ac (25 ha).

2B. Sabre Springs ............. Private ............................... ........................................... 1 ac (<1 ha).

State/Local ........................ 45 ac (19 ha) .................... 1 ac (<1 ha) ...................... 5 ac (2 ha). 

2C. Sycamore Canyon ...... Private ............................... ........................................... 30 ac (12 ha).

State/Local ........................ 276 ac (112 ha).

2D. Slaughterhouse Canyon.Private ............................... 77 ac (31 ha).

3A. Viejas Mountain .......... Private ............................... 25 ac (10 ha) .................... ........................................... 7 ac (3 ha). 

3B. Viejas Mountain .......... Private ............................... 80 ac (32 ha) .................... ........................................... 61 ac (25 ha). 

4A. McGinty Mountain ....... Private ............................... 17 ac (7 ha) ...................... 1 ac (<1 ha).

4B. McGinty Mountain ....... Private ............................... 139 ac (56 ha) .................. 2 ac (1 ha).

State/Local ........................ 7 ac (3 ha).

5+7+61+164C. McGinty 

Mountain.

Private ............................... 22 ac (9 ha) ...................... 5 ac (2 ha).

4D. Hollenbeck Canyon .... Private ............................... ........................................... 7 ac (3 ha) ........................ 16 ac (6 ha). 

State Local ........................ 61 ac (25 ha).

Total ........................... ........................................... 787 ac (319 ha) ................ 72 ac (28 ha) .................... 89 ac (36 ha). 

* Values in this table may not sum due to rounding and the conversion of values from acres to hectares. 

Approximately 166 ac (67 ha) of lands 

that meet the definition of critical 

habitat are outside the PAMA and 

MHPA boundaries (preserve areas) (see 

Table 4); however, of these 166 ac (67 

ha), 77 ac (31 ha) in subunit 2D are 

currently being conserved under an 

‘‘existing-use permit’’ issued by the 

County of San Diego to the landowner 

in this subunit for the continued 

operation of an adjacent sand and gravel 

mining operation. As part of the 

‘‘existing-use permit’’ the landowner is 

required to keep portions of the 

property as open space. Therefore, we 

believe that only 89 ac (36 ha), or 9 

percent of the total 948 ac (383 ha) that 

meet the definition of critical habitat 

within the plan area of the MSCP, could 

potentially be developed. Consistent 

with the narrow endemics requirements 

of the MSCP, the remaining 89 ac (36 

ha) will be surveyed for Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia prior to any development 

occurring on these lands. Under the City 

of San Diego’s subarea plan, impacts to 

narrow endemic plants, including A. 

ilicifolia, inside the MHPA will be 

avoided and outside the MHPA will be 

protected as appropriate by: (1) 

Avoidance; (2) management; (3) 

enhancement; and/or (4) transplantation 

to areas identified for preservation (City 

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

1997, p. 15). Under the County of San 

Diego’s subarea plan, narrow endemic 

plants, including A. ilicifolia, are 

conserved under the Biological 

Mitigation Ordinance using a process 

that: (1) Requires avoidance to the 

maximum extent feasible; (2) allows for 

a maximum 20 percent encroachment 

into a population if total avoidance is 

not feasible; and (3) requires mitigation 

at the 1:1 to 3:1 (in kind) for impacts if 

avoidance and minimization of impacts 

would result in no reasonable use of the 

property (County of San Diego (BMO) 

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

measures help protect A. ilicifolia and 

its essential habitat whether located on 

lands targeted for preserve status within 

the MHPA and PAMA or located 

outside of those areas. The narrow 

endemic policy for both the City of San 

Diego and County of San Diego subarea 

plans require in situ conservation of A. 

ilicifolia or mitigation to ameliorate any 

habitat loss. Therefore, although some 

losses may occur to this species within 

the 89 ac (36 ha) of lands that are not 

currently preserved or otherwise 

designated for conservation under the 

MSCP, the preservation, conservation, 

and management of A. ilicifolia 

provided under the City and County 

MSCP subarea plans ensures the longterm conservation of this species and its 

habitat within all areas addressed by the 

subarea plans under the MSCP. 

We are excluding from the final 

critical habitat designation for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia all non-Federal 

lands (i.e., approximately 948 ac (383 

ha) of lands that meet the definition of 

critical habitat) within the City of and 

County of San Diego’s subarea plans 

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

Table 4). The non-Federal lands we are 

excluding include: 63 ac (25 ha) public 

lands in the City of San Diego’s Los 

Pen ̃ asquitos Canyon Preserve (subunit 

2A); 52 ac (21 ha) of public and private 

lands in Los Pen ̃ asquitos Canyon east of 

Interstate 15 near Sabre Springs (subunit 

2B); 306 ac (124 ha) of public and 

private lands in and adjacent to the 

Goodan Ranch and Sycamore Canyon 

Open Space County Park (subunit 2C); 

77 ac (31 ha) of private lands in 

Slaughterhouse Canyon (subunit 2D); 32 

ac (13 ha) of private lands on the 

western flank of Viejas Mountain 

(subunit 3A); 141 ac (57 ha) of private 

lands on the southwestern flank of 

Viejas Mountain (subunit 3B); 18 ac (7 

ha) of private lands on the northern 

portion of McGinty Mountain (subunit 

4A); 148 ac (60 ha) of public and private 

lands on the central portion of McGinty 

Mountain (subunit 4B); 27 ac (11 ha) of 

private lands on the southern portion of 

McGinty Mountain (subunit 4C); and 84 

ac (34 ha) of public and private lands in 

and adjacent to the Hollenbeck Wildlife 

Area (subunit 4D). 

In the 1998 final rule listing this 

species as threatened (63 FR 54938; 

October 13, 1998), we identified habitat 

destruction and fragmentation from 

urban development, off-road vehicle 

activity, nonnative invasive plant 

species, livestock trampling and grazing, 

and mining as primary threats to the 

species. As described above, the MSCP 

provides protection and appropriate 

management for Acanthomintha 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
50480 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

ilicifolia, its habitat, and its PCE through 

implementation of conservation 

strategies that are consistent with 

generally accepted principles of 

conservation biology. The MSCP 

preserves habitat that supports 

identified core populations of this 

species and provides for its recovery. 

Benefits of Inclusion—MSCP 

The inclusion of approximately 948 

ac (383 ha) of non-Federal lands within 

the MSCP could be beneficial because it 

identifies lands to be managed for the 

conservation and recovery of 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia. The process of 

proposing and finalizing a critical 

habitat rule provided the Service with 

the opportunity to determine the 

features or PCEs essential for 

conservation of the species within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing, as well as 

to determine other areas essential to the 

conservation of the species. The 

designation process includes peer 

review and public comment on the 

identified features and areas. This 

process is valuable to land owners and 

managers in developing conservation 

management plans for identified areas, 

as well as any other occupied habitat or 

suitable habitat that may not have been 

included in the Service’s determination 

of essential habitat. Identification of 

important habitat and habitat features 

for A. ilicifolia within the City of San 

Diego and the County of San Diego and 

efforts to conserve the species and its 

habitat were initiated prior to the 

proposed critical habitat rule through 

the development of the MSCP 

framework plan and the City and 

County MSCP subarea plans and will 

continue into the future. 

We believe that some losses may 

occur to Acanthomintha ilicifolia within 

the 89 ac (36 ha) of lands that are not 

currently preserved or otherwise 

designated for conservation under the 

MSCP. Therefore, the benefits of 

inclusion of these lands within 

designated critical habitat are higher 

than for those lands within the PAMA 

or MHPA because the protections are 

less. 

The educational benefits of 

designation are small and largely 

redundant to those derived through 

conservation efforts already in place or 

underway on the approximately 948 ac 

(383 ha) of non-Federal lands within the 

MSCP subarea plans. The process of 

developing the MSCP has involved 

several partners including (but not 

limited to) the 12 participating 

jurisdictions, California Department of 

Fish and Game, the Service and other 

Federal agencies. Therefore, the 

educational benefits of designating the 

non-Federal lands in subunits 2A, 2B, 

2C, 2D; 3A; 3B; 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D as 

critical habitat are minimal 

The consultation provisions under 

section 7(a) of the Act constitute the 

regulatory benefits of designating land 

as critical habitat. As discussed above, 

Federal agencies must consult with us 

on actions that may affect critical 

habitat and must avoid destroying or 

adversely modifying critical habitat. 

However, all of the approximately 948 

ac (383 ha) of non-Federal lands in 

subunits 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D; 3A; 3B; 4A, 4B, 

4C, and 4D that is being excluded is on 

non-Federal land and lacks an expected 

Federal nexus for future section 7 

consultation on Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia. Therefore, designating these 

areas as critical habitat is unlikely to 

provide a regulatory benefit under 

section 7(a) of the Act 

Benefits of Exclusion—City and County 

Subarea Plans 

The City and County MSCP subarea 

plans provide for protection and active 

management of the features essential to 

the conservation of Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia on lands in subunits 2A, 2B, 

2C, 2D; 3A; 3B; 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D, in 

contrast to the designation of critical 

habitat, which only precludes 

destruction or adverse modification of 

essential habitat. Moreover, the 

educational benefits that result from 

critical habitat designation, including 

informing state and local governments, 

landowners and the public of areas that 

are necessary for the long-term 

conservation of the species, are already 

in place both as a result of material 

provided on our Web site and through 

public notice-and-comment procedures 

required to establish the MSCP and City 

and County subarea plans. Finally, we 

did not identify a likely regulatory 

benefit from designation of the City or 

County lands because the lands are nonFederal and we are not aware of a 

Federal nexus that would trigger future 

section 7 consultation for A. ilicifolia on 

these lands. 

We acknowledge that there are 89 

acres of private and State lands that 

contain essential habitat features that 

are located outside of the City MHPA 

and County PAMA lands identified for 

conservation under the MSCP subarea 

plans, and are potentially at risk of 

development. However, as discussed 

above, these lands are subject either to 

City of San Diego’s the narrow endemic 

species requirements or to the County’s 

Biological Mitigation Ordinance, both of 

which provide substantial protection for 

A. ilicifolia and its habitat. While there 

could be some additional benefits to 

designating the 89 acres as critical 

habitat, we continue to believe the 

potential benefits would be minor. As 

discussed above, the development of the 

MSCP and subarea plans has already 

resulted in public identification of lands 

important to the conservation of A. 

ilicifolia. Additionally, development of 

the MSCP and subarea plans resulted in 

the creation and implementation of 

conservation measures identified in the 

subarea plans to protect the species and 

its essential habitat, both within and 

outside of the City and County preserve 

areas, thus minimizing any additional 

educational benefit from designation. 

Further, as is the case for all of the other 

MSCP lands excluded from the 

designation, none of the 89 acres is 

Federal land, and we are not aware of 

a Federal nexus that would trigger 

future section 7 consultation with 

regard to the lands. Therefore, we do not 

anticipate a regulatory benefit from 

designation of these lands. 

We developed and continue to 

maintain close partnerships with the 

City of San Diego, the County of San 

Diego, other local jurisdictions, and 

several other stakeholders through the 

development of the MSCP, a plan that 

incorporates appropriate protections 

and management for Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia, its habitat, and the features 

essential for the conservation of this 

species. Those protections are 

consistent with statutory mandates 

under section 7 of the Act to avoid 

adverse modification or destruction of 

critical habitat, and go beyond that 

prohibition by including active 

management and protection of essential 

habitat areas. As we discussed above 

under ‘‘Benefits of Excluding Lands 

With HCPs or Other Approved 

Management Plans’’, by excluding these 

lands from designation, we are helping 

to preserve our ongoing partnerships 

with the City and County permittees 

and to encourage new partnerships with 

other landowners and jurisdictions. 

Those partnerships, and the landscape 

level, multiple-species conservation 

planning efforts they promote, are 

critical for the conservation of A. 

ilicifolia. 

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion—City and County 

Subarea Plans 

We reviewed and evaluated the 

exclusion of approximately 948 ac (383 

ha) of non-Federal lands within the 

MSCP from the designation of final 

critical habitat. We determined that the 

regulatory benefit of designating nonFederal lands in subunits 2A, 2B, 2C, 

2D, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D is 

minimal because none of the excluded 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 50481 

lands have an expected Federal nexus 

that would trigger a future section 7 

consultation for Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia or its essential habitat. 

Furthermore, any potential regulatory 

benefits would be small because 91 

percent of essential A. ilicifolia habitat 

within the plan area is assured of 

conservation and management under 

the MSCP and the 89 acres of essential 

habitat for A. ilicifolia within the City 

and County that occur outside of the 

MHPA and PAMA and are subject to 

possible future development, receive 

substantial protection under City and 

County subarea plan measures 

established to protect this species. The 

educational benefits of critical habitat 

designation are also small. Those 

benefits, which include informing the 

public of areas that are necessary for the 

long-term conservation of the species, 

are already in place both as a result of 

material provided on our Web site and 

through public notice-and-comment 

procedures required to establish the 

MSCP and City and County subarea 

plans. The minimal educational and 

potential regulatory benefits of 

including non-Federal lands covered by 

the City and County MSCP subarea 

plans are small when compared to the 

impact such a designation could have 

on our current and future partnerships. 

Designation of lands covered by the 

MSCP may discourage other partners 

from seeking or completing subarea 

plans under the MSCP framework plan 

or from pursing other HCPs. Therefore, 

we determined that the minor benefits 

of critical habitat designation are 

outweighed by benefits of exclusion in 

consideration of the relevant impact to 

current and future partnerships as 

summarized above, and in the 

‘‘Conservation Partnerships on NonFederal Lands’’ section. As discussed 

above, the City and County MSCP 

subarea plans will provide for 

significant preservation and 

management of habitat for A. ilicifolia 

and will help reach the recovery goals 

for this species. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species—City and County MSCP 

Subarea Plans 

Exclusion of these 948 ac (383 ha) of 

non-Federal lands from the final 

designation of critical habitat will not 

result in the extinction of 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia because 

virtually all of the lands determined to 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of this species either are 

already or will be permanently 

conserved and managed for the benefit 

of this species and its PCE under the 

approved MSCP subarea plans. 

Currently, the majority of these lands 

are part of the preserve area and are 

receiving management that benefits the 

species. Importantly, as we stated in our 

biological opinion for the City of San 

Diego subarea plan under the MSCP 

(Service 1997) and the County of San 

Diego subarea plan under the MSCP, 

while some loss of habitat for A. 

ilicifolia is anticipated due to 

implementation of the MSCP, 

implementation of the plan will not 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

this species. 

The jeopardy standard of section 

7(a)(2) of the Act and routine 

implementation of habitat protection 

through the section 7(a)(2) process also 

provide assurances that the species will 

not go extinct. The protections afforded 

to Acanthomintha ilicifolia under the 

jeopardy standard will remain in place 

for the areas excluded from critical 

habitat. 

Other Lands With Management That 

Benefits Acanthomintha ilicifolia—

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

Act 

Manchester Habitat Mitigation Bank 

Area 

The Manchester Avenue Mitigation 

Bank encompasses 123 ac (50 ha) in 

Encinitas, California. The Manchester 

Avenue Mitigation Bank was approved 

by the Service and CDFG in 1996. The 

primary goal of creating the Manchester 

Avenue Mitigation Bank was to protect 

the federally listed coastal California 

gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica 

californica), Arctostaphylos glandulosa 

ssp. crassifolia (Del Mar manzanita), 

and Acanthomintha ilicifolia, as well as 

15 other plant and animal species that 

are known to be ‘‘sensitive’’ or ‘‘rare’’

species in the area. The Manchester 

Avenue Mitigation Bank overlaps with 

70 ac (28 ha) of subunit 1C and is 

covered by the 2005–2010 Management 

Plan, developed by the Center for 

Natural Lands Management (CNLM) 

when they took responsibility for the 

ownership and management of the 

Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank 

(Spiegelberg 2005, pp. 1–33). 

Ongoing management and monitoring 

activities conducted by the CNLM on 

the Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank 

benefit Acanthomintha ilicifolia, its 

habitat, and the features essential for the 

conservation of this species. 

Specifically, the CNLM conducts annual 

monitoring of the population of A. 

ilicifolia within the Manchester Avenue 

Mitigation Bank and uses adaptive 

management techniques to support this 

species and its PCE. CNLM has fenced 

areas where this species occurs to 

exclude adverse impacts from 

recreation. The CNLM conducts annual 

removal of nonnative, invasive species 

from the areas where A. ilicifolia occurs. 

The CNLM also facilitates the recovery 

of this species by providing educational 

opportunities for students from La Costa 

Canyon High School and Rancho Santa 

Ana Botanic Garden to use the preserve 

for field trips and research. Local 

residents are educated about the 

conservation occurring on the 

Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank 

through information about this species 

and other rare species that the CNLM 

posts at kiosks throughout the 

Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank on 

trails open to the public. The CNLM 

works with the Service and CDFG to 

implement research projects funded 

under section 6 of the Act. The 

Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank is 

an important part of the City of 

Encinitas’ open space areas and future 

habitat preserve under the City of 

Encinitas draft subarea plan under the 

MHCP. The CNLM regularly meets with 

representatives from the City of 

Encinitas to ensure the City’s 

cooperation in preservation of the 

Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank. 

The partnerships that exist on the 

Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank 

result in the conservation of A. ilicifolia 

and its essential habitat and help 

increase knowledge of this species 

through ongoing education and research 

programs facilitated by the CNLM. 

Benefits of Inclusion—Manchester 

Habitat Mitigation Bank Area 

The inclusion of 70 ac (28 ha) of land 

in the Manchester Avenue Mitigation 

Bank could be beneficial because it 

identifies lands to be managed for the 

conservation and recovery of 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia. The process of 

proposing and finalizing a critical 

habitat rule provided the Service with 

the opportunity to determine the 

features or PCEs essential for 

conservation of the species. The 

designation process includes peer 

review and public comment on the 

identified features and areas. This 

process is valuable to land owners and 

managers in developing conservation 

management plans for identified areas, 

as well as any other occupied habitat or 

suitable habitat that may not have been 

included in the Service’s determination 

of essential habitat. However, 

identification of important habitat and 

habitat features for A. ilicifolia within 

the area covered by Manchester Avenue 

Mitigation Bank and efforts to conserve 

the species and its habitat were initiated 

prior to the proposed critical habitat 

rule through the development of the 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
50482 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

mitigation bank and will continue into 

the future. The educational benefits of 

designation are largely redundant to 

those derived from ongoing 

conservation efforts already being 

implemented on the 70 ac (28 ha) of 

non-Federal lands within the 

Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank. 

Therefore, the educational benefits of 

designating the private lands in subunit 

1C as critical habitat are minimal. 

The consultation provisions under 

section 7(a) of the Act constitute the 

regulatory benefits of inclusion for 

critical habitat. As discussed above, 

Federal agencies must consult with us 

on actions that may affect critical 

habitat and must avoid destroying or 

adversely modifying critical habitat. 

Because all of the mitigation bank lands 

are permenently protected from 

development and dedicated to the 

protection of Acanthomintha ilicifolia 

and other sensitive species, the 

likelihood of a Federal action occuring 

on these lands that could result in an 

adverse modification of the species 

essential habitat feature is extremely 

small. Moreover, all of the 70 ac (28 ha) 

of non-Federal lands within the 

Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank 

that is being excluded is on private 

property, and we are not aware of a 

Federal nexus that would trigger future 

section 7 consultation in this area. 

Therefore, we do not anticipate a 

regulatory benefit under Section 7(a)(2) 

from designation of lands within the 

Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank. 

Benefits of Exclusion—Manchester 

Avenue Mitigation Bank Area 

The 2005–2010 Management Plan for 

the Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank 

(Spiegelberg 2005, pp. 1–33) provides 

for conservation of bank lands in a 

coordinated, integrated manner. The 

protection and active management of 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia and its 

essential habitat features on Manchester 

Avenue Mitigation Bank lands 

conserves A. ilicifolia at this site and 

directly contributes to the survival and 

recovery of this species in contrast to 

designation of critical habitat, which 

only precludes destruction or adverse 

modification of essential habitat. 

Moreover, the educational benefits that 

result from critical habitat designation, 

including informing the public of areas 

that are necessary for the long-term 

conservation of the species, are already 

in place both as a result of the 

development of the Manchester Avenue 

Mitigation Bank and the ongoing, 

substantial public outreach that is 

conducted by CNLM manager of the 

bank, and the involvement of the public 

and local government representatives in 

the day-to-day operation of the bank. 

Finally, we did not identify a likely 

Federal nexus for future section 7 

consultations on lands within the 

Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank 

because the lands are privately owned 

and already protected from 

development; therefore, we do not 

anticipate a regulatory benefit from 

designation. 

In contrast to the lack of an 

appreciable educational or regulatory 

benefit of including these lands as 

critical habitat, the exclusion of these 

lands from critical habitat will help 

preserve the partnerships that we 

developed with CNLM, the California 

Department of Fish and Game, and the 

City of Encinitas, all of which were 

involved with the creation and remain 

involved with the management of the 

Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank. As 

discussed above, many landowners and 

local jurisdictions perceive critical 

habitat as an unfair and unnecessary 

regulatory burden given the expense 

and time involved in developing and 

implementing conservation plans such 

as the Manchester Avenue Mitigation 

Bank. The exclusion of this area signals 

to other private landowners that if they 

take steps to put their lands into 

conservation, they may avoid an 

additional layer of regulation, which, as 

we described above in the 

‘‘Conservation Partnerships on NonFederal Lands’’ section, sometimes acts 

as a disincentive for private landowners. 

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion—Manchester 

Habitat Conservation Area Management 

Plan 

We reviewed and evaluated the 

proposed designation of essential 

habitat in the Manchester Avenue 

Mitigation Bank and determined that 

the benefits of excluding critical habitat 

on 70 ac (28 ha) of land in the 

Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank 

outweigh the benefits of designating 

these lands as critical habitat. This area, 

now owned by the CNLM, is protected 

by a conservation easement and the 

permanent management of this area is 

funded by an endowment supported by 

a Property Analysis Record (PAR). 

These measures provide assurance that 

the features essential to the conservation 

of Acanthomintha ilicifolia at the 

Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank 

site will be permanently protected and 

managed to conserve this species. In 

light of the conserved status of the lands 

and the absence of an expected Federal 

nexus for future section 7 consultation 

on these privately owned lands, we 

conclude that the potential regulatory 

benefit of designating this area as 

critical habitat is minimal. Likewise, 

educational benefit of designation is 

also small and largely redundant to the 

educational benefit already provided 

though CNLM’s ongoing environmental 

education programs to promote public 

understanding and appreciation of the 

natural resources on the Manchester 

Avenue Mitigation Bank as summarized 

above. The minimal educational and 

potential regulatory benefits of 

including the privately owned 

Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank in 

critical habitat are small when 

compared to the impact such a 

designation could have on our current 

and future partnerships. Designation of 

lands covered by the bank may 

discourage other private landowners 

from seeking or completing similar 

conservation efforts. Therefore, we 

conclude that the minor benefits of 

critical habitat designation are 

outweighed by benefits of exclusion in 

consideration of the relevant impact to 

current and future partnerships as 

summarized above, and in the 

‘‘Conservation Partnerships on NonFederal Lands’’ section. As discussed 

above, Manchester Avenue Mitigation 

Bank will provide for significant 

preservation and management of habitat 

for A. ilicifolia and will help reach the 

recovery goals for this species. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species—Manchester Habitat 

Conservation Area Management Plan 

The exclusion of 70 ac (28 ha) of 

private lands in the Manchester Avenue 

Mitigation Bank from the final critical 

habitat designation will not result in the 

extinction of Acanthomintha ilicifolia 

because these lands are permanently 

conserved and managed for the benefit 

of this species under the agreements in 

place for the Manchester Avenue 

Mitigation Bank. The management 

activities implemented on the 

Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank 

provide for the enhancement and 

preservation of the features essential to 

the conservation of A. ilicifolia. 

The jeopardy standard of section 

7(a)(2) of the Act and routine 

implementation of habitat protection 

through the section 7(a)(2) process also 

provide assurances that the species will 

not go extinct. The protections afforded 

to Acanthomintha ilicifolia under the 

jeopardy standard will remain in place 

for the areas excluded from critical 

habitat. 

Economic Analysis 

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

to designate critical habitat on the basis 

of the best scientific information 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 50483 

available and to consider the economic 

and other relevant impacts of 

designating a particular area as critical 

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

the Secretary to exclude areas from 

critical habitat for economic reasons if 

the Secretary determines that the 

benefits of such exclusions exceed the 

benefits of designating the area as 

critical habitat. However, this exclusion 

cannot occur if it will result in the 

extinction of the species concerned. 

Following the publication of the 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

we conducted an economic analysis to 

estimate the potential economic effect of 

the designation. The draft economic 

analysis (draft EA) was made available 

for public review on November 27, 2007 

(72 FR 66122). We accepted comments 

and information on the draft analysis 

until December 27, 2007. A final 

economic analysis was completed on 

January 24, 2008. 

The primary purpose of the final 

economic analysis is to estimate the 

potential economic impacts associated 

with the designation of critical habitat 

for Acanthomintha ilicifolia. This 

information is intended to assist the 

Secretary in making decisions about 

whether the benefits of excluding 

particular areas from the designation 

outweigh the benefits of including those 

areas in the designation. This economic 

analysis considers the economic 

efficiency effects that may result from 

the designation, including habitat 

protections that may be co-extensive 

with the listing of the species. The 

economic analysis separates the costs 

associated with conservation measures 

and economic impacts that occurred 

pre-designation from those that are 

likely to occur as a result of the 

designation. It also addresses 

distribution of impacts, including an 

assessment of the potential effects on 

small entities and the energy industry. 

The economic analysis separated the 

costs associated with the areas that we 

proposed to exclude from the areas that 

we proposed to designate at the time of 

the March 14, 2007, proposed rule (72 

FR 11946). This information can be used 

by the Secretary to assess whether the 

effects of the designation might unduly 

burden a particular group or economic 

sector. 

The economic analysis focuses on the 

direct and indirect costs of the rule. 

However, economic impacts to land use 

activities can exist in the absence of 

critical habitat. These impacts may 

result from, for example, local zoning 

laws, State and natural resource laws, 

and enforceable management plans and 

best management practices applied by 

other State and Federal agencies. 

Economic impacts that result from these 

types of protections are not included in 

the analysis as they are considered to be 

part of the regulatory and policy 

baseline. 

The economic analysis examines 

activities taking place both within and 

adjacent to the designation. It estimates 

impacts based on activities that are 

‘‘reasonably foreseeable’’ including, but 

not limited to, activities that are 

currently authorized, permitted, or 

funded, or for which proposed plans are 

currently available to the public. 

Accordingly, the analysis bases 

estimates on activities that are likely to 

occur within a 20-year time frame from 

when the proposed rule became 

available to the public (72 FR 11946; 

March 14, 2007). The 20-year time frame 

was chosen for the analysis because, as 

the time horizon for an economic 

analysis is expanded, the assumptions 

on which the projected number of 

projects and cost impacts associated 

with those projects become increasingly 

speculative. 

Based on our analysis, we concluded 

that the designation of critical habitat 

would not result in a significant 

economic impact. The total future 

potential economic impact is estimated 

to be $0.6 to $2.8 million in 

undiscounted dollars over the next 20 

years. The present value of these 

impacts, applying a 3 percent discount 

rate, is $0.4 to $2.1 million ($25,000 to 

$137,000 annualized); applying a 7 

percent discount rate, it is $0.3 to $1.5 

million ($25,000 to $136,000 

annualized). Impacts associated with 

development represent the largest 

proportion of future impacts, accounting 

for 96 percent of forecasted impacts in 

the areas proposed for final designation. 

Impacts from recreation management 

and exotic plant species management 

make up the remaining 4 percent. Under 

the final designation scenario, 

approximately 98 percent of the 

anticipated post-designation impacts are 

forecast to occur in subunits 3D (71 

percent), 3C (17 percent), and 3F (11 

percent). The remaining 2 percent of 

forecasted impacts are expected to occur 

in subunits 3B, 1A, and 3E. Impacts 

associated with development, 

recreation, and exotic plant species 

management are quantified for the areas 

that we proposed as critical habitat. 

Although we do not find the economic 

costs to be significant, they were 

considered in balancing the benefits of 

including and excluding areas from 

critical habitat. We did not exclude any 

areas from this designation of critical 

habitat based on economic impacts. 

A copy of the final economic analysis, 

with supporting documents, may be 

obtained by contacting U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) or for 

downloading from the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or http:// 

www.fws.gov/carlsbad. 

Required Determinations 

In our March 14, 2007, proposed rule 

(72 FR 11946), we indicated that we 

would defer our determination of 

compliance with several statutes and 

Executive Orders until the information 

concerning potential economic impacts 

of the designation and potential effects 

on landowners and stakeholders was 

available in the economic analysis. In 

this final rule, we affirm the information 

contained in the proposed rule 

concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 

13132, E.O. 12988, the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, and the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951). 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant and has not reviewed 

this rule under Executive Order 12866 

(E.O. 12866). OMB bases its 

determination upon the following four 

criteria: 

(a) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(b) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(c) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 

whenever an agency must publish a 

notice of rulemaking for any proposed 

or final rule, it must prepare and make 

available for public comment a 

regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the 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 an agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
50484 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

entities. SBREFA amended RFA to 

require Federal agencies to provide a 

certification statement of the factual 

basis for certifying that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

In this final rule, we are certifying that 

the critical habitat designation for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The following discussion explains our 

rationale. 

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 rule, as well as the types of project 

modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

To determine if the rule could 

significantly affect a substantial number 

of small entities, we considered the 

number of small entities affected within 

particular types of economic activities 

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

and gas production, timber harvesting). 

We apply the ‘‘substantial number’’ test 

individually to each industry to 

determine if certification is appropriate. 

However, the SBREFA does not 

explicitly define ‘‘substantial number’’

or ‘‘significant economic impact.’’

Consequently, to assess whether a 

‘‘substantial number’’ of small entities is 

affected by this designation, this 

analysis considers the relative number 

of small entities likely to be impacted in 

an area. In some circumstances, 

especially with critical habitat 

designations of limited extent, we may 

aggregate across all industries and 

consider whether the total number of 

small entities affected is substantial. In 

estimating the number of small entities 

potentially affected, we also consider 

whether their activities have any 

Federal involvement. 

Designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities authorized, funded, or 

carried out by Federal agencies. Some 

kinds of activities are unlikely to have 

any Federal involvement and so will not 

be affected by critical habitat 

designation. In areas where the species 

is present, Federal agencies already are 

required to consult with us under 

section 7 of the Act on activities they 

authorize, fund, or carry out that may 

affect Acanthomintha ilicifolia (see 

Section 7 Consultation section). Federal 

agencies also must consult with us if 

their activities may affect critical 

habitat. Designation of critical habitat, 

therefore, could result in an additional 

economic impact on small entities due 

to the requirement to reinitiate 

consultation for ongoing Federal 

activities (see Application of the 

‘‘Adverse Modification’’ Standard 

section). 

In our final economic analysis of the 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

we evaluated the potential economic 

effects on small business entities 

resulting from conservation actions 

related to the listing of Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia and the proposed designation 

of critical habitat. The analysis is based 

on the estimated impacts associated 

with the proposed rulemaking as 

described in Chapters 2 through 4 and 

Appendices A, B, C, and F of the 

analysis and evaluates the potential for 

economic impacts related to three 

categories: Development and HCP 

implementation; recreation 

management; and invasive, nonnative 

plant management. 

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the 

California Department of Fish and Game 

(CDFG), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service are not considered small entities 

by the Small Business Administration. 

Two non-profit organizations, The 

Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the 

Center for Natural Lands Management 

(CNLM), are involved with conservation 

activities for Acanthomintha ilicifolia; 

however, the primary mission of both of 

these organizations is to preserve, 

restore, and protect natural resources. 

Therefore, impacts from species 

conservation on these organizations are 

not considered in the small business 

impacts analysis. 

Additionally, the boundaries of four 

city governments encompass portions of 

the proposed critical habitat—Carlsbad, 

Encinitas, San Diego, and Poway—with 

the remainder of the proposed critical 

habitat located within unincorporated 

San Diego County. All four cities and 

the County exceed the criteria to be 

considered a ‘‘small entity’’ under the 

RFA. 

The final economic analysis identified 

18 privately owned, undeveloped 

parcels within areas proposed as critical 

habitat. The 18 parcels are owned by 

nine individual landowners. For the 

nine individual landowners that may be 

affected by the proposed designation of 

critical habitat, the final economic 

analysis could not determine if any of 

these landowners qualify as small 

businesses. For the two landowners of 

proposed subunits 3D, 3E, and 3F, the 

final economic analysis estimates 

annualized impacts associated with 

conservation activities for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia could range 

from a low of $700 to $35,700, with an 

average range of annualized impact of 

$5,300 to $42,300 per landowner over 

the next 20 years. The remaining seven 

landowners of the 14 parcels in subunits 

we excluded from the final designation, 

annualized impacts are estimated to 

range from a low of $300 in subunit 4D 

up to $18,700 in subunit 2C, with an 

average annualized impact ranging from 

$17,000 to $84,000. 

We determined that nine individual 

private landowners do not constitute a 

substantial number of small entities 

according to the SBA. However, even if 

the landowners were to represent small 

development businesses, nine small 

businesses would not be a significant 

number of businesses for San Diego 

County. Additionally, any developer 

directly impacted by the designation of 

critical habitat would not be expected to 

bear the additional cost of conservation 

measures for Acanthomintha ilicifolia; it 

is anticipated that additional costs that 

could arise from the designation would 

be passed on to individual homebuyers 

if the parcels were to be developed. 

Please refer to our final economic 

analysis of the proposed critical habitat 

designation for a more detailed 

discussion of potential economic 

impacts. 

In summary, we considered whether 

this would result in a significant 

economic effect on a substantial number 

of small entities. Based on the above 

reasoning and currently available 

information, we concluded that this rule 

would not result in a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Therefore, we 

are certifying that the designation of 

critical habitat for Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, and a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 50485 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

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

Under SBREFA, this rule is not a 

major rule. Our detailed assessment of 

the economic effects of this designation 

is described in the final economic 

analysis. Based on the effects identified 

in the economic analysis, we believe 

that this rule will not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more, will not cause a major increase 

in costs or prices for consumers, and 

will not have significant adverse effects 

on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises. 

Refer to the final economic analysis for 

a discussion of the effects of this 

determination (see ADDRESSES for 

information on obtaining a copy of the 

final economic analysis). 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 on regulations 

that significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 

requires agencies to prepare Statements 

of Energy Effects when undertaking 

certain actions. OMB has provided 

guidance for implementing this 

Executive Order that outlines nine 

outcomes that may constitute ‘‘a 

significant adverse effect’’ when 

compared without the regulatory action 

under consideration. The final 

economic analysis finds that none of 

these criteria are relevant to this 

analysis. Thus, based on information in 

the final economic analysis, energyrelated impacts associated with 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia conservation 

activities within the final critical habitat 

designation are not expected. As such, 

the designation of critical habitat is not 

expected to significantly affect energy 

supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, 

this action is not a significant energy 

action, and no Statement of Energy 

Effects is required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

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

seq.), we make the following findings: 

(a) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

Tribal governments, or the private 

sector, and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’

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

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

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal governments’’

with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a 

condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also 

excludes ‘‘a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates 

to a then-existing Federal program 

under which $500,000,000 or more is 

provided annually to State, local, and 

tribal governments under entitlement 

authority,’’ if the provision would 

‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of 

assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or 

otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

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

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children 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 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 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. 

However, the legally binding duty to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat rests 

squarely on the Federal agency. 

Furthermore, to the extent that nonFederal entities are indirectly impacted 

because they receive Federal assistance 

or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 

program, the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act would not apply, nor would 

critical habitat shift the costs of the large 

entitlement programs listed above onto 

State governments. 

(b) We do not believe that this rule 

will significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because it will not 

produce a Federal mandate of $100 

million or greater in any year, that is, it 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act. The designation of critical habitat 

imposes no obligations on State or local 

governments. By definition, Federal 

agencies are not considered small 

entities, although the activities they 

fund or permit may be proposed or 

carried out by small entities. As such, a 

Small Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

Executive Order 12630—Takings 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(‘‘Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights’’), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

designating critical habitat for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia in a takings 

implications assessment. Critical habitat 

designation does not affect landowner 

actions that do not require Federal 

funding or permits, nor does it preclude 

development of habitat conservation 

programs or issuance of incidental take 

permits to permit actions that do require 

Federal funding or permits to go 

forward. The takings implications 

assessment concludes that this 

designation of critical habitat for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia does not pose 

significant takings implications. 

Federalism 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this 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 

critical habitat designation with 

appropriate State resource agencies in 

California. The designation may have 

some benefit to these governments in 

that the areas that contain the physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the PCE of the 

habitat necessary to the conservation of 

the species is specifically identified. 

This information does not alter where 

and what federally sponsored activities 

may occur. However, it may assist local 

governments in long-range planning 

(rather than having them wait for caseby-case section 7 consultations to 

occur). 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform), the regulation meets the 

applicable standards set forth in 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. 

We are designating critical habitat in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Act. This final rule uses standard 

property descriptions and identifies the 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
50486 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

subspecies within the designated areas 

to assist the public in understanding the 

habitat needs of Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). This rule will not impose 

recordkeeping or reporting requirements 

on State or local governments, 

individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

It is our position that, outside the 

Jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses as 

defined by the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) in connection with designating 

critical habitat under the Act. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). This assertion was upheld by 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 

F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 

516 U.S. 1042 (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), E.O. 

13175, and the Department of the 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997, ‘‘American Indian 

Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act,’’ we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We determined that there are no Tribal 

lands occupied at the time of listing that 

contain the features essential for the 

conservation, and no unoccupied Tribal 

lands that are essential for the 

conservation of Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia. Therefore, we are not 

designating critical habitat for A. 

ilicifolia on Tribal lands. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available upon 

request from the Field Supervisor, 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Author(s) 

The primary authors of this 

rulemaking are the staff members 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. 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.12(h), by revising the 

entry for ‘‘Acanthomintha ilicifolia’’

under ‘‘FLOWERING PLANTS’’ to read 

as follows: 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range Family Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Scientific name Common name 

FLOWERING PLANTS

* * * * * * * 

Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia.

San Diego thornmint U.S.A. (CA), Mexico Lamiaceae .............. T 649 17.96(a) NA 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.96(a), by adding an 

entry for ‘‘Acanthomintha ilicifolia (San 

Diego thornmint),’’ in alphabetical order 

under family Lamiaceae, to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.96 Critical habitat—plants. 

(a) Flowering plants. 

* * * * * 

Family Lamiaceae: Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia (San Diego thornmint) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for San Diego County, California, on the 

maps below. 

(2) The primary constituent element 

of critical habitat for Acanthomintha 

ilicifolia is clay lenses that provide 

substrate for seedling establishment and 

space for growth and development of 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia that are: 

(i) Within chaparral, grassland, and 

coastal sage scrub; 

(ii) On gentle slopes ranging from 0 to 

25 degrees; 

(iii) Derived from gabbro and soft 

calcareous sandstone substrates with a 

loose, crumbly structure and deep 

fissures (approximately 1 to 2 feet (30 to 

60 cm)); and 

(iv) Characterized by a low density of 

forbs and geophytes, and a low density 

or absence of shrubs. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (such as buildings, 

aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the 

land on which such structures are 

located existing on the effective date of 

this rule. 

(4) Critical habitat map units. Data 

layers defining map units were created 

using a base of U.S. Geological Survey 

7.5′ quadrangle maps, and the critical 

habitat units were then mapped using 

UTM coordinates. 

(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat 

units for Acanthomintha ilicifolia (San 

Diego thornmint) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 50487 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULESER26AU08.008</GPH>
50488 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

(6) Unit 1: San Diego County, 

California. From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangle maps San Luis Rey, San 

Marcos, Encinitas, and Rancho Santa Fe. 

(i) Subunit 1A. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD27 coordinates 

(E,N): 475715, 3666433; 475721, 

3666303; 475701, 3666286; 475680, 

3666267; 475668, 3666256; 475657, 

3666252; 475640, 3666251; 475636, 

3666235; 475627, 3666226; 475627, 

3666225; 475624, 3666222; 475614, 

3666214; 475604, 3666209; 475588, 

3666206; 475577, 3666207; 475570, 

3666200; 475651, 3666200; 475724, 

3666204; 475729, 3666090; 475729, 

3666089; 475715, 3666078; 475725, 

3665997; 475684, 3665976; 475692, 

3665942; 475678, 3665937; 475677, 

3665937; 475667, 3665934; 475660, 

3665932; 475625, 3665959; 475555, 

3665930; 475456, 3665852; 475471, 

3665837; 475502, 3665823; 475526, 

3665825; 475595, 3665822; 475610, 

3665823; 475639, 3665823; 475697, 

3665853; 475706, 3665850; 475706, 

3665850; 475707, 3665847; 475709, 

3665845; 475710, 3665842; 475711, 

3665840; 475713, 3665837; 475714, 

3665834; 475715, 3665832; 475716, 

3665829; 475717, 3665826; 475718, 

3665823; 475719, 3665821; 475720, 

3665818; 475721, 3665815; 475721, 

3665812; 475722, 3665809; 475723, 

3665807; 475723, 3665804; 475724, 

3665801; 475724, 3665798; 475725, 

3665795; 475725, 3665792; 475726, 

3665789; 475726, 3665787; 475726, 

3665784; 475726, 3665781; 475726, 

3665778; 475726, 3665775; 475726, 

3665772; 475726, 3665769; 475726, 

3665766; 475726, 3665763; 475726, 

3665760; 475726, 3665758; 475725, 

3665755; 475725, 3665752; 475725, 

3665751; 475690, 3665758; 475660, 

3665748; 475573, 3665707; 475497, 

3665712; 475443, 3665727; 475419, 

3665730; 475402, 3665733; 475390, 

3665731; 475389, 3665722; 475387, 

3665635; 475393, 3665625; 475384, 

3665621; 475363, 3665616; 475351, 

3665612; 475329, 3665607; 475298, 

3665608; 475276, 3665597; 475267, 

3665596; 475257, 3665597; 475244, 

3665599; 475234, 3665595; 475221, 

3665587; 475170, 3665590; 475172, 

3665599; 475154, 3665640; 475145, 

3665651; 475119, 3665668; 475104, 

3665685; 475097, 3665688; 475098, 

3665697; 475100, 3665707; 475103, 

3665716; 475107, 3665725; 475111, 

3665735; 475114, 3665741; 475117, 

3665745; 475123, 3665756; 475124, 

3665759; 475129, 3665767; 475135, 

3665775; 475142, 3665783; 475148, 

3665790; 475156, 3665797; 475161, 

3665801; 475175, 3665813; 475178, 

3665815; 475186, 3665821; 475195, 

3665826; 475203, 3665831; 475212, 

3665835; 475215, 3665836; 475216, 

3665844; 475216, 3665854; 475218, 

3665864; 475220, 3665873; 475223, 

3665883; 475227, 3665892; 475231, 

3665901; 475236, 3665910; 475241, 

3665919; 475247, 3665927; 475253, 

3665934; 475260, 3665942; 475267, 

3665948; 475286, 3665965; 475286, 

3665965; 475294, 3665972; 475302, 

3665977; 475310, 3665983; 475319, 

3665987; 475328, 3665991; 475337, 

3665995; 475338, 3665995; 475339, 

3665996; 475372, 3666006; 475381, 

3666009; 475390, 3666011; 475400, 

3666013; 475410, 3666014; 475420, 

3666014; 475430, 3666014; 475440, 

3666013; 475450, 3666011; 475452, 

3666011; 475478, 3666005; 475474, 

3666011; 475472, 3666014; 475466, 

3666022; 475461, 3666030; 475456, 

3666039; 475452, 3666048; 475448, 

3666057; 475445, 3666067; 475443, 

3666077; 475441, 3666087; 475440, 

3666096; 475440, 3666106; 475440, 

3666116; 475441, 3666126; 475443, 

3666134; 475446, 3666150; 475446, 

3666152; 475448, 3666162; 475451, 

3666171; 475455, 3666181; 475459, 

3666190; 475464, 3666199; 475468, 

3666205; 475479, 3666223; 475480, 

3666225; 475486, 3666233; 475492, 

3666241; 475496, 3666245; 475511, 

3666260; 475514, 3666263; 475518, 

3666267; 475517, 3666269; 475517, 

3666272; 475517, 3666275; 475516, 

3666278; 475516, 3666281; 475516, 

3666284; 475516, 3666287; 475516, 

3666289; 475516, 3666292; 475516, 

3666295; 475516, 3666298; 475517, 

3666301; 475517, 3666304; 475517, 

3666307; 475518, 3666310; 475518, 

3666313; 475519, 3666315; 475519, 

3666318; 475520, 3666321; 475520, 

3666324; 475521, 3666327; 475522, 

3666330; 475523, 3666332; 475524, 

3666335; 475524, 3666338; 475525, 

3666341; 475526, 3666343; 475528, 

3666346; 475529, 3666349; 475530, 

3666351; 475531, 3666354; 475532, 

3666357; 475534, 3666359; 475535, 

3666362; 475536, 3666364; 475538, 

3666367; 475539, 3666369; 475541, 

3666372; 475543, 3666374; 475544, 

3666376; 475546, 3666379; 475548, 

3666381; 475550, 3666383; 475551, 

3666386; 475553, 3666388; 475555, 

3666390; 475557, 3666392; 475559, 

3666394; 475561, 3666396; 475563, 

3666398; 475565, 3666400; 475568, 

3666402; 475570, 3666404; 475572, 

3666406; 475574, 3666408; 475577, 

3666410; 475579, 3666411; 475581, 

3666413; 475584, 3666415; 475586, 

3666416; 475589, 3666418; 475591, 

3666419; 475594, 3666421; 475596, 

3666422; 475599, 3666424; 475601, 

3666425; 475604, 3666426; 475607, 

3666427; 475609, 3666428; 475612, 

3666430; 475615, 3666431; 475617, 

3666432; 475620, 3666433; 475623, 

3666433; 475626, 3666434; 475628, 

3666435; 475631, 3666436; 475634, 

3666437; 475637, 3666437; 475640, 

3666438; 475643, 3666438; 475645, 

3666439; 475648, 3666439; 475651, 

3666439; 475654, 3666440; 475657, 

3666440; 475660, 3666440; 475663, 

3666440; 475666, 3666440; 475669, 

3666440; 475671, 3666440; 475674, 

3666440; 475677, 3666440; 475680, 

3666440; 475683, 3666440; 475686, 

3666439; 475689, 3666439; 475692, 

3666439; 475695, 3666438; 475697, 

3666438; 475700, 3666437; 475703, 

3666437; 475706, 3666436; 475709, 

3666435; 475712, 3666434; 475714, 

3666433; returning to 475715, 3666433. 

(ii) Subunit 1C. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD27 coordinates 

(E,N): 476734, 3654344; 476773, 

3654344; 476753, 3654337; 476753, 

3654314; 476730, 3654283; 476699, 

3654259; 476670, 3654230; 476667, 

3654190; 476654, 3654166; 476578, 

3654226; 476581, 3654228; 476586, 

3654259; 476577, 3654287; 476576, 

3654287; 476519, 3654289; 476485, 

3654306; 476451, 3654315; 476452, 

3654320; 476457, 3654334; 476457, 

3654335; 476461, 3654344; 476465, 

3654353; 476467, 3654358; 476474, 

3654370; 476476, 3654374; 476481, 

3654383; 476487, 3654391; 476488, 

3654392; 476497, 3654403; 476502, 

3654409; 476509, 3654417; 476515, 

3654423; 476519, 3654426; 476609, 

3654448; 476615, 3654465; 476615, 

3654341; 476616, 3654341; returning to 

476734, 3654344. 

(iii) Note: Map of Unit 1, Subunits 1A 

and 1C, follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 50489 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULESER26AU08.009</GPH>
50490 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

(7) Unit 3: San Diego County, 

California. From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangle map Viejas Mountain. 

(i) Subunit 3B. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD27 coordinates 

(E,N): 524469, 3634407; 524471, 

3634409; 524477, 3634418; 524483, 

3634425; 524490, 3634433; 524497, 

3634439; 524505, 3634446; 524513, 

3634452; 524522, 3634457; 524530, 

3634461; 524539, 3634466; 524549, 

3634469; 524557, 3634472; 524601, 

3634484; 524603, 3634484; 524607, 

3634485; 524617, 3634500; 524621, 

3634504; 524627, 3634512; 524634, 

3634519; 524641, 3634526; 524647, 

3634531; 524683, 3634560; 524686, 

3634562; 524694, 3634568; 524702, 

3634573; 524711, 3634578; 524720, 

3634582; 524729, 3634585; 524739, 

3634588; 524749, 3634590; 524758, 

3634592; 524768, 3634593; 524778, 

3634593; 524783, 3634593; 524811, 

3634592; 524816, 3634592; 524826, 

3634591; 524836, 3634590; 524845, 

3634587; 524855, 3634584; 524864, 

3634581; 524873, 3634577; 524882, 

3634572; 524891, 3634567; 524899, 

3634561; 524907, 3634555; 524914, 

3634548; 524917, 3634544; 524933, 

3634527; 524937, 3634523; 524943, 

3634516; 524949, 3634508; 524954, 

3634499; 524959, 3634490; 524963, 

3634481; 524966, 3634472; 524986, 

3634414; 524987, 3634413; 524990, 

3634403; 524992, 3634394; 524993, 

3634384; 524994, 3634374; 524995, 

3634364; 524994, 3634354; 524993, 

3634344; 524992, 3634334; 524990, 

3634325; 524987, 3634315; 524985, 

3634311; 524970, 3634270; 524968, 

3634265; 524964, 3634255; 524959, 

3634247; 524957, 3634243; 524957, 

3634242; 524953, 3634220; 524952, 

3634214; 524950, 3634204; 524947, 

3634194; 524943, 3634185; 524939, 

3634176; 524935, 3634167; 524929, 

3634159; 524923, 3634150; 524917, 

3634143; 524913, 3634139; 524890, 

3634114; 524887, 3634111; 524880, 

3634104; 524872, 3634098; 524864, 

3634092; 524856, 3634087; 524847, 

3634082; 524838, 3634078; 524832, 

3634076; 524804, 3634066; 524801, 

3634065; 524791, 3634062; 524781, 

3634059; 524774, 3634058; 524755, 

3634055; 524744, 3634054; 524741, 

3634053; 524732, 3634052; 524731, 

3634341; 524634, 3634343; 524436, 

3634347; 524436, 3634347; 524439, 

3634356; 524444, 3634365; 524448, 

3634374; 524452, 3634380; 524454, 

3634383; returning to 524469, 3634407. 

Land bounded by the following UTM 

NAD27 coordinates (E,N): 524386, 

3634381; 524389, 3634377; 524400, 

3634360; 524402, 3634356; 524406, 

3634348; 524348, 3634349; 524325, 

3634350; 524325, 3634407; 524325, 

3634407; 524324, 3634436; 524342, 

3634425; 524344, 3634424; 524352, 

3634418; 524360, 3634411; 524367, 

3634405; 524374, 3634397; 524374, 

3634397; 524381, 3634390; 524385, 

3634384; returning to 524386, 3634381. 

Land bounded by the following UTM 

NAD27 coordinates (E,N): 524764, 

3633867; 524774, 3633864; 524783, 

3633860; 524792, 3633856; 524801, 

3633851; 524810, 3633846; 524818, 

3633840; 524826, 3633834; 524833, 

3633827; 524840, 3633820; 524846, 

3633812; 524852, 3633804; 524857, 

3633796; 524862, 3633787; 524866, 

3633778; 524869, 3633768; 524871, 

3633763; 524896, 3633679; 524897, 

3633675; 524900, 3633665; 524901, 

3633655; 524902, 3633645; 524902, 

3633635; 524902, 3633625; 524901, 

3633615; 524900, 3633606; 524897, 

3633596; 524894, 3633586; 524891, 

3633577; 524887, 3633568; 524882, 

3633559; 524877, 3633551; 524871, 

3633542; 524865, 3633535; 524858, 

3633527; 524851, 3633521; 524844, 

3633515; 524805, 3633485; 524768, 

3633441; 524765, 3633438; 524749, 

3633418; 524749, 3633418; 524749, 

3633467; 524735, 3633871; 524745, 

3633870; 524755, 3633869; 524758, 

3633868; returning to 524764, 3633867. 

(ii) Note: Subunit 3B for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia is depicted on 

the map in paragraph (7)(x) of this entry. 

(iii) Subunit 3C. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD27 coordinates 

(E,N): 527110, 3634008; 527113, 

3633915; 527118, 3633794; 527114, 

3633788; 527113, 3633774; 527112, 

3633774; 527093, 3633707; 527076, 

3633649; 527047, 3633595; 526929, 

3633588; 526900, 3633612; 526851, 

3633672; 526802, 3633692; 526764, 

3633652; 526723, 3633606; 526709, 

3633575; 526535, 3633564; 526387, 

3633555; 526378, 3633555; 526380, 

3633421; 526384, 3633149; 526237, 

3633148; 526221, 3633170; 526221, 

3633170; 526215, 3633178; 526209, 

3633187; 526205, 3633195; 526201, 

3633205; 526197, 3633214; 526194, 

3633223; 526194, 3633225; 526175, 

3633297; 526173, 3633306; 526171, 

3633315; 526171, 3633325; 526170, 

3633335; 526170, 3633340; 526173, 

3633452; 526174, 3633458; 526175, 

3633468; 526176, 3633478; 526179, 

3633487; 526181, 3633497; 526185, 

3633506; 526189, 3633515; 526194, 

3633524; 526199, 3633532; 526192, 

3633537; 526183, 3633543; 526176, 

3633549; 526169, 3633555; 526138, 

3633586; 526137, 3633587; 526131, 

3633594; 526124, 3633602; 526118, 

3633610; 526113, 3633618; 526109, 

3633627; 526104, 3633636; 526101, 

3633646; 526098, 3633655; 526096, 

3633665; 526094, 3633675; 526093, 

3633684; 526090, 3633734; 526085, 

3633793; 526074, 3633870; 526074, 

3633871; 526064, 3633943; 526064, 

3633944; 526063, 3633954; 526062, 

3633964; 526063, 3633974; 526064, 

3633984; 526064, 3633986; 526073, 

3634048; 526074, 3634056; 526076, 

3634066; 526079, 3634076; 526083, 

3634085; 526084, 3634088; 526100, 

3634123; 526100, 3634133; 526091, 

3634181; 526070, 3634267; 526069, 

3634273; 526068, 3634278; 526058, 

3634337; 526058, 3634342; 526057, 

3634352; 526057, 3634353; 526054, 

3634397; 526054, 3634406; 526054, 

3634416; 526055, 3634426; 526057, 

3634435; 526059, 3634445; 526062, 

3634455; 526066, 3634464; 526070, 

3634473; 526074, 3634482; 526080, 

3634490; 526085, 3634498; 526092, 

3634506; 526099, 3634513; 526102, 

3634517; 526123, 3634536; 526127, 

3634540; 526134, 3634546; 526143, 

3634552; 526151, 3634557; 526160, 

3634562; 526169, 3634566; 526178, 

3634570; 526187, 3634572; 526213, 

3634579; 526214, 3634580; 526224, 

3634582; 526234, 3634584; 526235, 

3634584; 526261, 3634587; 526270, 

3634588; 526277, 3634588; 526310, 

3634612; 526318, 3634617; 526320, 

3634620; 526340, 3634682; 526341, 

3634684; 526344, 3634694; 526348, 

3634703; 526353, 3634712; 526358, 

3634720; 526364, 3634728; 526370, 

3634736; 526377, 3634743; 526385, 

3634750; 526392, 3634756; 526400, 

3634762; 526403, 3634764; 526449, 

3634794; 526455, 3634797; 526464, 

3634802; 526473, 3634806; 526483, 

3634810; 526492, 3634812; 526502, 

3634815; 526512, 3634816; 526522, 

3634817; 526532, 3634818; 526542, 

3634817; 526549, 3634817; 526586, 

3634812; 526589, 3634812; 526598, 

3634810; 526608, 3634808; 526618, 

3634805; 526627, 3634802; 526636, 

3634798; 526645, 3634793; 526653, 

3634788; 526662, 3634782; 526669, 

3634775; 526677, 3634769; 526683, 

3634761; 526690, 3634754; 526695, 

3634745; 526701, 3634737; 526705, 

3634728; 526710, 3634719; 526712, 

3634713; 526738, 3634641; 526739, 

3634638; 526742, 3634628; 526744, 

3634619; 526746, 3634609; 526747, 

3634599; 526747, 3634589; 526747, 

3634583; 526744, 3634492; 526761, 

3634446; 526790, 3634400; 526792, 

3634397; 526796, 3634389; 526797, 

3634389; 526807, 3634393; 526814, 

3634395; 526876, 3634412; 526877, 

3634413; 526887, 3634415; 526897, 

3634417; 526902, 3634417; 526973, 

3634424; 526978, 3634425; 526988, 

3634425; 526998, 3634425; 527008, 

3634424; 527017, 3634422; 527027, 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 50491 

3634420; 527029, 3634419; 527087, 

3634403; 527095, 3634401; 527104, 

3634397; 527113, 3634393; 527120, 

3634389; 527111, 3634389; 527111, 

3634111; returning to 527110, 3634008. 

(iv) Note: Subunit 3C for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia is depicted on 

the map in paragraph (7)(x) of this entry. 

(v) Subunit 3D. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD27 coordinates 

(E,N): 527502, 3634924; 527484, 

3634918; 527477, 3634916; 527467, 

3634914; 527460, 3634912; 527393, 

3634902; 527391, 3634902; 527381, 

3634901; 527371, 3634901; 527314, 

3634901; 527314, 3634901; 527304, 

3634901; 527294, 3634902; 527284, 

3634904; 527275, 3634906; 527265, 

3634909; 527256, 3634912; 527247, 

3634917; 527238, 3634921; 527229, 

3634927; 527221, 3634932; 527214, 

3634939; 527206, 3634945; 527200, 

3634953; 527199, 3634953; 527164, 

3634993; 527158, 3635001; 527152, 

3635009; 527147, 3635017; 527142, 

3635026; 527138, 3635035; 527134, 

3635045; 527132, 3635054; 527129, 

3635064; 527128, 3635074; 527127, 

3635076; 527120, 3635142; 527119, 

3635150; 527119, 3635160; 527119, 

3635170; 527120, 3635180; 527121, 

3635189; 527124, 3635199; 527127, 

3635209; 527130, 3635218; 527130, 

3635219; 527172, 3635317; 527176, 

3635326; 527180, 3635335; 527186, 

3635343; 527191, 3635351; 527196, 

3635357; 527263, 3635436; 527265, 

3635438; 527272, 3635445; 527279, 

3635452; 527280, 3635453; 527285, 

3635457; 527376, 3635529; 527378, 

3635530; 527386, 3635536; 527395, 

3635541; 527403, 3635546; 527413, 

3635550; 527422, 3635554; 527430, 

3635556; 527514, 3635580; 527516, 

3635580; 527525, 3635582; 527535, 

3635584; 527545, 3635585; 527555, 

3635585; 527565, 3635585; 527566, 

3635585; 527661, 3635578; 527671, 

3635577; 527680, 3635576; 527690, 

3635573; 527763, 3635554; 527823, 

3635540; 527827, 3635539; 527837, 

3635536; 527846, 3635532; 527855, 

3635528; 527864, 3635524; 527872, 

3635518; 527881, 3635513; 527888, 

3635506; 527895, 3635500; 527900, 

3635252; 527901, 3635233; 527900, 

3635233; 527896, 3635228; 527895, 

3635227; 527529, 3635219; 527494, 

3635218; returning to 527502, 3634924. 

(vi) Note: Subunit 3D for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia is depicted on 

the map in paragraph (7)(x) of this entry. 

(vii) Subunit 3E. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD27 coordinates 

(E,N): 529307, 3636146; 529297, 

3636146; 529297, 3636146; 529284, 

3636147; 529274, 3636148; 529264, 

3636149; 529260, 3636150; 529249, 

3636153; 529243, 3636154; 529233, 

3636157; 529224, 3636161; 529215, 

3636165; 529210, 3636167; 529197, 

3636175; 529193, 3636177; 529184, 

3636182; 529176, 3636188; 529168, 

3636194; 529161, 3636201; 529154, 

3636208; 529148, 3636216; 529143, 

3636223; 529135, 3636235; 529134, 

3636236; 529129, 3636245; 529124, 

3636253; 529120, 3636263; 529116, 

3636272; 529114, 3636279; 529111, 

3636290; 529110, 3636292; 529108, 

3636302; 529107, 3636311; 529106, 

3636321; 529105, 3636331; 529106, 

3636341; 529107, 3636351; 529107, 

3636356; 529110, 3636370; 529111, 

3636376; 529113, 3636386; 529116, 

3636395; 529119, 3636405; 529123, 

3636413; 529129, 3636426; 529130, 

3636427; 529134, 3636435; 529140, 

3636444; 529145, 3636451; 529160, 

3636471; 529161, 3636472; 529167, 

3636480; 529174, 3636487; 529181, 

3636494; 529189, 3636500; 529195, 

3636505; 529214, 3636518; 529216, 

3636519; 529224, 3636524; 529233, 

3636529; 529242, 3636533; 529251, 

3636537; 529258, 3636539; 529276, 

3636544; 529279, 3636544; 529288, 

3636547; 529297, 3636548; 529319, 

3636551; 529321, 3636552; 529331, 

3636553; 529340, 3636553; 529350, 

3636553; 529360, 3636552; 529370, 

3636550; 529373, 3636549; 529388, 

3636546; 529394, 3636544; 529404, 

3636542; 529413, 3636538; 529416, 

3636537; 529428, 3636532; 529434, 

3636529; 529443, 3636524; 529451, 

3636519; 529459, 3636513; 529467, 

3636507; 529474, 3636500; 529481, 

3636493; 529483, 3636490; 529495, 

3636476; 529499, 3636471; 529505, 

3636463; 529510, 3636454; 529515, 

3636446; 529519, 3636437; 529523, 

3636427; 529525, 3636420; 529531, 

3636398; 529532, 3636396; 529534, 

3636386; 529536, 3636376; 529537, 

3636366; 529537, 3636356; 529537, 

3636356; 529537, 3636345; 529537, 

3636336; 529536, 3636326; 529534, 

3636316; 529532, 3636306; 529529, 

3636296; 529525, 3636287; 529521, 

3636278; 529519, 3636273; 529512, 

3636262; 529510, 3636258; 529505, 

3636249; 529499, 3636241; 529493, 

3636233; 529492, 3636233; 529480, 

3636219; 529474, 3636212; 529466, 

3636205; 529459, 3636199; 529451, 

3636193; 529442, 3636188; 529439, 

3636186; 529419, 3636175; 529414, 

3636173; 529405, 3636169; 529402, 

3636167; 529379, 3636159; 529373, 

3636156; 529363, 3636153; 529354, 

3636151; 529347, 3636150; 529330, 

3636147; 529327, 3636147; 529317, 

3636146; returning to 529307, 3636146. 

(viii) Note: Subunit 3E for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia is depicted on 

the map in paragraph (7)(x) of this entry. 

(ix) Subunit 3F. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD27 coordinates 

(E,N): 530315, 3635191; 530282, 

3635194; 530276, 3635194; 530273, 

3635195; 530266, 3635195; 530213, 

3635199; 530116, 3635207; 530086, 

3635210; 530086, 3635212; 530086, 

3635218; 530085, 3635235; 530085, 

3635238; 530086, 3635248; 530087, 

3635258; 530087, 3635259; 530089, 

3635277; 530091, 3635285; 530093, 

3635295; 530096, 3635304; 530099, 

3635314; 530100, 3635316; 530109, 

3635336; 530112, 3635344; 530117, 

3635352; 530122, 3635361; 530128, 

3635369; 530133, 3635374; 530140, 

3635383; 530142, 3635386; 530149, 

3635393; 530156, 3635400; 530164, 

3635406; 530172, 3635412; 530176, 

3635415; 530186, 3635421; 530191, 

3635424; 530200, 3635428; 530209, 

3635432; 530218, 3635436; 530228, 

3635439; 530237, 3635441; 530246, 

3635443; 530255, 3635444; 530257, 

3635444; 530265, 3635445; 530264, 

3635448; 530263, 3635458; 530263, 

3635458; 530261, 3635472; 530260, 

3635481; 530260, 3635491; 530260, 

3635501; 530261, 3635510; 530262, 

3635522; 530263, 3635523; 530264, 

3635533; 530266, 3635542; 530269, 

3635552; 530273, 3635561; 530275, 

3635567; 530279, 3635575; 530281, 

3635578; 530291, 3635578; 530311, 

3635593; 530327, 3635609; 530347, 

3635630; 530361, 3635647; 530364, 

3635658; 530367, 3635660; 530377, 

3635663; 530386, 3635666; 530386, 

3635666; 530395, 3635669; 530405, 

3635672; 530415, 3635673; 530425, 

3635674; 530432, 3635674; 530446, 

3635675; 530449, 3635675; 530459, 

3635674; 530469, 3635673; 530479, 

3635672; 530488, 3635670; 530491, 

3635669; 530507, 3635664; 530514, 

3635662; 530523, 3635659; 530532, 

3635655; 530541, 3635650; 530549, 

3635645; 530558, 3635639; 530565, 

3635632; 530571, 3635627; 530581, 

3635617; 530582, 3635616; 530589, 

3635609; 530595, 3635601; 530601, 

3635593; 530606, 3635585; 530611, 

3635576; 530613, 3635571; 530618, 

3635560; 530620, 3635556; 530628, 

3635562; 530636, 3635567; 530645, 

3635572; 530649, 3635574; 530671, 

3635584; 530677, 3635587; 530686, 

3635590; 530696, 3635593; 530705, 

3635595; 530713, 3635597; 530733, 

3635600; 530735, 3635600; 530729, 

3635610; 530729, 3635611; 530725, 

3635620; 530721, 3635630; 530718, 

3635639; 530717, 3635643; 530715, 

3635652; 530712, 3635655; 530705, 

3635663; 530698, 3635670; 530693, 

3635678; 530691, 3635681; 530686, 

3635689; 530682, 3635695; 530677, 

3635704; 530673, 3635713; 530670, 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
50492 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

3635722; 530668, 3635728; 530665, 

3635738; 530664, 3635742; 530662, 

3635751; 530660, 3635761; 530659, 

3635771; 530659, 3635781; 530659, 

3635791; 530659, 3635792; 530655, 

3635802; 530654, 3635804; 530651, 

3635813; 530648, 3635823; 530646, 

3635833; 530644, 3635842; 530644, 

3635846; 530642, 3635857; 530642, 

3635864; 530641, 3635874; 530642, 

3635884; 530643, 3635894; 530643, 

3635898; 530645, 3635906; 530646, 

3635912; 530648, 3635922; 530651, 

3635932; 530654, 3635941; 530656, 

3635944; 530660, 3635953; 530663, 

3635959; 530667, 3635968; 530673, 

3635976; 530673, 3635977; 530679, 

3635985; 530684, 3635992; 530690, 

3636000; 530697, 3636007; 530704, 

3636014; 530707, 3636017; 530717, 

3636024; 530721, 3636028; 530729, 

3636034; 530738, 3636039; 530741, 

3636041; 530747, 3636044; 530752, 

3636047; 530761, 3636051; 530771, 

3636054; 530780, 3636057; 530781, 

3636058; 530790, 3636060; 530799, 

3636062; 530809, 3636064; 530819, 

3636065; 530829, 3636065; 530833, 

3636065; 530844, 3636065; 530850, 

3636064; 530860, 3636063; 530870, 

3636062; 530880, 3636059; 530889, 

3636057; 530899, 3636053; 530906, 

3636050; 530906, 3636050; 530915, 

3636046; 530920, 3636043; 530923, 

3636048; 530929, 3636059; 530930, 

3636060; 530935, 3636069; 530941, 

3636077; 530947, 3636085; 530954, 

3636092; 530961, 3636099; 530969, 

3636105; 530974, 3636108; 530988, 

3636118; 530991, 3636121; 531000, 

3636126; 531008, 3636131; 531018, 

3636135; 531027, 3636138; 531036, 

3636141; 531046, 3636144; 531056, 

3636145; 531066, 3636146; 531073, 

3636146; 531089, 3636147; 531092, 

3636147; 531102, 3636146; 531112, 

3636145; 531122, 3636144; 531132, 

3636142; 531141, 3636139; 531149, 

3636136; 531163, 3636130; 531164, 

3636130; 531173, 3636125; 531182, 

3636121; 531191, 3636116; 531199, 

3636110; 531206, 3636103; 531213, 

3636097; 531223, 3636087; 531224, 

3636086; 531231, 3636079; 531237, 

3636071; 531243, 3636063; 531248, 

3636055; 531253, 3636046; 531257, 

3636037; 531260, 3636028; 531262, 

3636024; 531268, 3636003; 531270, 

3635997; 531272, 3635987; 531274, 

3635978; 531275, 3635968; 531275, 

3635958; 531275, 3635951; 531274, 

3635927; 531274, 3635925; 531272, 

3635895; 531272, 3635893; 531271, 

3635883; 531269, 3635873; 531267, 

3635864; 531264, 3635854; 531257, 

3635832; 531257, 3635832; 531253, 

3635822; 531249, 3635813; 531244, 

3635804; 531239, 3635796; 531233, 

3635788; 531230, 3635784; 531224, 

3635776; 531221, 3635772; 531214, 

3635765; 531206, 3635758; 531206, 

3635758; 531206, 3635755; 531203, 

3635746; 531203, 3635744; 531200, 

3635734; 531201, 3635728; 531201, 

3635727; 531202, 3635717; 531202, 

3635707; 531202, 3635697; 531201, 

3635687; 531198, 3635665; 531198, 

3635665; 531197, 3635655; 531194, 

3635645; 531191, 3635636; 531188, 

3635626; 531184, 3635617; 531183, 

3635616; 531171, 3635593; 531167, 

3635585; 531162, 3635576; 531156, 

3635568; 531150, 3635560; 531143, 

3635553; 531122, 3635532; 531122, 

3635532; 531115, 3635525; 531107, 

3635519; 531105, 3635517; 531085, 

3635503; 531071, 3635491; 531069, 

3635489; 531060, 3635483; 531052, 

3635478; 531043, 3635473; 531034, 

3635469; 531031, 3635468; 531014, 

3635462; 531008, 3635460; 530999, 

3635457; 530989, 3635454; 530979, 

3635453; 530969, 3635452; 530959, 

3635451; 530954, 3635452; 530940, 

3635452; 530936, 3635452; 530936, 

3635452; 530938, 3635442; 530940, 

3635432; 530941, 3635422; 530941, 

3635412; 530941, 3635402; 530940, 

3635392; 530938, 3635383; 530938, 

3635379; 530930, 3635343; 530928, 

3635337; 530925, 3635327; 530922, 

3635319; 530910, 3635289; 530910, 

3635288; 530906, 3635279; 530904, 

3635275; 530888, 3635245; 530885, 

3635240; 530880, 3635232; 530828, 

3635152; 530827, 3635151; 530824, 

3635147; 530633, 3635163; 530487, 

3635176; 530329, 3635190; returning to 

530315, 3635191. 

(x) Note: Map of Unit 3, Subunits 3B, 

3C, 3D, 3E, and 3F, follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 50493 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULESER26AU08.010</GPH>
50494 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

(8) Unit 4: San Diego County, 

California. From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangle maps Alpine and Dulzura. 

(i) Subunit 4A. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD27 coordinates 

(E,N): 512272, 3623323; 512234, 

3623334; 512185, 3623361; 512163, 

3623400; 512214, 3623403; 512216, 

3623412; 512233, 3623405; 512281, 

3623398; 512302, 3623368; 512301, 

3623330; 512297, 3623324; returning to 

512272, 3623323. 

(ii) Note: Subunit 4A for 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia is depicted on 

the map in paragraph (8)(iv) of this 

entry. 

(iii) Subunit 4C Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD27 coordinates 

(E,N): 512490, 3621562; 512502, 

3621562; 512500, 3621561; 512498, 

3621559; 512495, 3621558; 512493, 

3621557; 512490, 3621556; 512487, 

3621555; 512485, 3621553; 512482, 

3621552; 512479, 3621551; 512476, 

3621550; 512474, 3621550; 512471, 

3621549; 512468, 3621548; 512465, 

3621547; 512462, 3621546; 512460, 

3621546; 512457, 3621545; 512454, 

3621545; 512451, 3621544; 512448, 

3621544; 512445, 3621543; 512442, 

3621543; 512439, 3621543; 512437, 

3621543; 512434, 3621543; 512431, 

3621543; 512428, 3621542; 512425, 

3621543; 512422, 3621543; 512419, 

3621543; 512416, 3621543; 512413, 

3621543; 512411, 3621543; 512408, 

3621544; 512405, 3621544; 512402, 

3621545; 512399, 3621545; 512396, 

3621546; 512393, 3621546; 512391, 

3621547; 512388, 3621548; 512385, 

3621549; 512382, 3621550; 512379, 

3621550; 512377, 3621551; 512374, 

3621552; 512371, 3621553; 512369, 

3621555; 512366, 3621556; 512363, 

3621557; 512361, 3621558; 512358, 

3621559; 512355, 3621561; 512353, 

3621562; 512351, 3621563; 512351, 

3621564; 512490, 3621562; returning to 

512490, 3621562. 

(iv) Note: Map of Unit 4, Subunits 4A 

and 4C follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 50495 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULESER26AU08.011</GPH>
50496 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * Dated: August 13, 2008. 

David M. Verhey, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. E8–19194 Filed 8–25–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with RULES