62192 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0038] 

[MO 92210-0-0009] 

RIN 1018–AW22 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for 

Navarretia fossalis (Spreading 

Navarretia) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), designate 

final revised critical habitat for 

Navarretia fossalis (spreading 

navarretia) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended. In 

total, approximately 6,720 acres (ac) 

(2,720 hectares (ha)) of habitat in Los 

Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego 

Counties, California, fall within the 

boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation. This final rule constitutes 

an overall increase of approximately 

6,068 ac (2,456 ha) from the 2005 

critical habitat designation for N. 

fossalis. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

November 8, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule and the 

associated economic analysis are 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and http:// 

www.fws.gov/carlsbad/. Comments and 

materials received, as well as supporting 

documentation used in preparing this 

final rule are 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, Suite 101, 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, 6010 Hidden Valley 

Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011 

(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 

development of the revised designation 

of critical habitat for Navarretia fossalis 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) (Act), in this final rule. For more 

information on the taxonomy, biology, 

and ecology of N. fossalis, refer to the 

final listing rule published in the 

Federal Register (FR) on October 13, 

1998 (63 FR 54975), the final 

designation of critical habitat for N. 

fossalis published in the Federal 

Register on October 18, 2005 (70 FR 

60658), the proposed revised 

designation of critical habitat published 

in the Federal Register on June 10, 2009 

(74 FR 27588), and the document 

announcing the availability of the draft 

economic analysis (DEA) published in 

the Federal Register on April 15, 2010 

(75 FR 19575). Additionally, 

information on this species can be 

found in the Recovery Plan for the 

Vernal Pools of Southern California 

(Recovery Plan) finalized on September 

3, 1998 (Service 1998). 

New Information on Subspecies’ 

Description, Life History, Ecology, 

Habitat, and Range 

We did not receive any new 

information pertaining to the 

description, life history, or ecology of 

Navarretia fossalis following the 2009 

proposed rule to revise critical habitat 

(74 FR 27588; June 10, 2009). However, 

the following paragraphs discuss new 

information that we received regarding 

the species’ habitat, geographic range 

and status, and the areas needed for N. 

fossalis conservation. 

Habitat 

Navarretia fossalis habitat was 

discussed in detail in the proposed 

revised critical habitat rule (74 FR 

27588; June 10, 2009). One commenter 

provided information during the first 

public comment period on the proposed 

rule, noting several habitat 

characteristics they felt we should have 

discussed (see Comment 15 below); 

therefore, we are providing additional 

discussion and clarification here. 

Navarretia fossalis grows in vernal pool 

habitat, seasonally flooded alkali vernal 

plain habitat (a habitat that includes 

alkali playa, alkali scrub, alkali vernal 

pool, and alkali annual grassland 

communities), and irrigation ditches 

and detention basins (Bramlet 1993a, 

pp. 10, 14, 21–23; Ferren and Fiedler 

1993, pp. 126–127; Spencer 1997, pp. 8, 

13). Within alkali annual grasslands, 

this species is restricted to small vernal 

pools or other depressions (Bramlet 

2009, p. 3). Researchers have also 

described ‘‘riverine pools’’ where N. 

fossalis occurs as having unique floristic 

elements, such as Trichocoronis wrightii 

var. wrightii (limestone bugheal or 

Wright’s trichocoronis); N. fossalis and 

T. wrightii are only known to co-occur 

in the San Jacinto River (Bramlet 2009, 

p. 7). Suitability of hydrological 

conditions for the germination of this 

species varies on an annual basis; 

therefore, N. fossalis can be 

undetectable for a number of years and 

the number of plants varies depending 

on the timing, duration, and extent of 

ponding (Bramlet 2009, p. 3). For more 

habitat information, please see the 

Habitat section in the proposed revised 

critical habitat designation published in 

the Federal Register on June 10, 2009 

(74 FR 27588). 

Areas Needed for Conservation: Core 

and Satellite Habitat Areas 

In the proposed revised critical 

habitat rule (74 FR 27588; June 10, 

2009), we discussed the areas that 

represent core habitat areas and satellite 

habitat areas for Navarretia fossalis. 

During the first public comment period, 

one peer reviewer expressed concern 

regarding our use of the word ‘‘core’’ and 

the biological connotation of such 

terminology. The terms ‘‘core habitat 

area’’ and ‘‘satellite habitat area’’ are 

descriptive terms defined for the 

purpose of this rulemaking and are not 

intended to be synonymous with similar 

terms used in other documents, or to 

describe a population distribution. We 

defined these terms in the proposed 

revised critical habitat designation 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 10, 2009 (74 FR 27588). Core 

habitat is defined as areas that contain 

the highest concentrations of N. fossalis 

and the largest contiguous blocks of 

habitat for this species. Satellite areas 

are defined as habitat areas that support 

occurrences that are smaller than those 

supported by the ‘‘core habitat areas,’’ 

but provide the means to significantly 

contribute to the recovery of N. fossalis 

(for further discussion of this issue see 

Comment 4 in the Summary of 

Comments and Recommendations 

section and our response). For more 

information on ‘‘core habitat area’’ and 

‘‘satellite habitat area,’’ please see the 

Areas Needed for Conservation: Core 

and Satellite Habitat Areas section in 

the proposed revised critical habitat 

designation published in the Federal 

Register on June 10, 2009 (74 FR 27588). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On October 18, 2005 (70 FR 60658), 

we published our final designation of 

critical habitat for Navarretia fossalis. 

On December 19, 2007, the Center for 

Biological Diversity filed a complaint in 

the U.S. District Court for the Southern 

District of California challenging our 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62193 

designation of critical habitat for N. 

fossalis and Brodiaea filifolia (Center for 

Biological Diversity v. United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service et al., Case No. 

07–CV–02379–W–NLS). This lawsuit 

challenged the validity of the 

information and reasoning we used to 

exclude areas from the 2005 critical 

habitat designation for N. fossalis. On 

July 25, 2008, we reached a settlement 

agreement in which we agreed to submit 

a proposed revised critical habitat 

designation for N. fossalis to the Federal 

Register for publication by May 29, 

2009, and a final revised critical habitat 

designation for publication by May 28, 

2010. By order dated January 21, 2010, 

the district court approved a 

modification to the settlement 

agreement that extends to September 30, 

2010, the deadline for submission of a 

final revised critical habitat designation 

to the Federal Register. The proposed 

revised critical habitat designation 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 10, 2009 (74 FR 27588). 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Revised Rule and the 

Previous Critical Habitat Designation 

The areas designated as critical 

habitat in this final rule constitute a 

revision of the critical habitat for 

Navarretia fossalis we designated on 

October 18, 2005 (70 FR 60658). For this 

revised rulemaking process we: 

(1) Refined the primary constituent 

elements (PCEs) to more accurately 

define the physical and biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of N. fossalis; 

(2) Revised criteria to more accurately 

identify critical habitat; 

(3) Improved mapping methodology 

to more accurately define critical habitat 

boundaries and better represent areas 

that contain PCEs; 

(4) Evaluated areas considered for 

exclusion from critical habitat 

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

Act, including identifying whether or 

not areas are conserved and managed for 

the benefit of N. fossalis; 

(5) Reanalyzed the economic impacts 

to identify baseline and incremental 

costs associated with critical habitat 

designation; and 

(6) Added, subtracted, and revised 

areas that do or do not meet the 

definition of critical habitat. Table 1 

provides an overview of the differences 

between critical habitat rules for N. 

fossalis at the unit level. 

TABLE 1. CHANGES BETWEEN THE OCTOBER 18, 2005, CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION; THE JUNE 10, 2009, PROPOSED

CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION; THE APRIL 15, 2010, CHANGES TO THE JUNE 10, 2009 PROPOSAL (AVAILABILITY OF

THE DEA); AND THIS REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION. 

Critical habitat unit in 

this final rule County October 2005 critical habitat designation 

June 2009 proposed 

revised critical habitat 

designation 

April 2010 changes 

to proposed revised 

critical habitat 

designation 

September 2010 

revised critical habitat 

designation 

Unit 1: Los Angeles 

Basin-Orange 

Management Area 

Los Angeles 326 ac 

(132 ha) 

161 ac 

(65 ha) 

176 ac 

(71 ha) 

176 ac 

(71 ha) 

Unit 2: San Diego: 

Northern Coastal 

Mesa Management 

Area 

San Diego 22 ac 

(9 ha) 

9 ac 

(4 ha) 

9 ac 

(4 ha) 

9 ac 

(4 ha) 

Unit 3: San Diego: 

Central Coastal 

Mesa Management 

Area 

San Diego 0 ac 

(0 ha) 

110 ac 

(45 ha) 

108 ac 

(44 ha) 

103 ac 

(42 ha) 

Unit 4: San Diego: 

Inland Management 

Area 

San Diego 159 ac 

(64 ha) 

206 ac 

(83 ha) 

206 ac 

(83 ha) 

206 ac 

(83 ha) 

Unit 5: San Diego: 

Southern Coastal 

Mesa Management 

Area 

San Diego 145 ac 

(59 ha) 

711 ac 

(288 ha) 

753 ac 

(305 ha) 

749 ac 

(303 ha) 

Unit 6: Riverside 

Management Area 

Riverside 0 ac 

(0 ha) 

5,675 ac 

(2,297 ha) 

6,356 ac 

(2,572 ha) 

5,477 ac 

(2,217 ha) 

Totals* 652 ac 

(264 ha) 

6,872 ac 

(2,781 ha) 

7,608 ac 

(3,079 ha) 

6,720 ac 

(2,720 ha) 

*Values in this table may not sum due to rounding. 

In 2005, we designated approximately 

652 ac (264 ha) as critical habitat for 

Navarretia fossalis in 4 units with 10 

subunits (70 FR 60658; October 18, 

2005). In our 2009 proposed revised 

critical habitat, we proposed 

approximately 6,872 ac (2,781 ha) as 

critical habitat in 6 units with 22 

subunits (74 FR 27588; June 10, 2009). 

In response to information received as 

public comments on our 2009 proposed 

revised critical habitat, we changed the 

2009 proposed revised rule to propose 

approximately 7,608 ac (3,079 ha) as 

critical habitat in 6 units with 23 

subunits (75 FR 19575; April 15, 2010). 

In this revised critical habitat rule, we 

are designating approximately 6,720 ac 

(2,720 ha) as critical habitat in 6 units 

with 19 subunits, reflecting exclusion of 

approximately 871 ac (353 ha) in all or 

portions of 2 units (3 subunits) based on 

consideration of relevant impacts under 

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

contain the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

N. fossalis on Marine Corps Air Station 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62194 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(MCAS) Miramar and Marine Corps 

Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton are exempt 

from this critical habitat designation 

based on section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act. 

All lands designated as critical habitat 

in this revised rule were included in the 

2009 proposed revised rule (74 FR 

27588) or the document that made 

available the DEA (75 FR 19575). Table 

2 provides detailed information about 

differences between the 2005 final 

critical habitat designation, the 2009 

proposed revised critical habitat 

designation, and this revised critical 

habitat designation for N. fossalis. The 

changes between the 2005 final 

designation, the 2009 proposed 

revisions, and this final designation are 

described below. 

TABLE 2. A COMPARISON OF THE AREAS IDENTIFIED AS CONTAINING THE PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES ESSENTIAL

TO THE CONSERVATION OF Navarretia fossalis IN THE 2005 CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION, THE 2009 PROPOSED

REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION, AND THIS REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION. 

Location* 

2005 Critical Habitat 

Designation 

2009 Proposed Revised Critical 

Habitat 

2010 Revised Critical Habitat 

Designation 

Subunit 

Area Containing 

Essential 

Features 

Subunit 

Area Containing 

Essential 

Features 

Subunit 

Area Containing 

Essential 

Features 

Unit 1: Los Angeles Basin-Orange Management Area 

Cruzan Mesa 1A 294 ac 

(119 ha) 

1A 129 ac 

(52 ha) 

1A 156 ac 

(63 ha) 

Plum Canyon 1B 32 ac 

(13 ha) 

1B 32 ac 

(13 ha) 

1B 20 ac 

(8 ha) 

Unit 2: San Diego: Northern Coastal Mesa Management Area 

MCB Camp 

Pendleton 

4(a)(3) exemption 67 ac 

(27 ha) 

4(a)(3) exemption 145 ac 

(59 ha) 

4(a)(3) exemption 145 ac 

(59 ha) 

Poinsettia Lane 

Commuter 

Station 

2; partially 

excluded under 

section 4(b)(2) 

22 ac 

(9 ha) 

2 9 ac 

(4 ha) 

2 9 ac 

(4 ha) 

Unit 3: San Diego: Central Coastal Mesa Management Area 

Santa Fe Valley Proposed as 

Unit 3, but 

determined not 

essential 

— Not proposed — Not proposed — 

Santa Fe Valley 

(Crosby 

Estates) 

— — 3A 5 ac 

(2 ha) 

Excluded under 

section 4(b)(2) 

5 ac 

(2 ha) 

Carroll Canyon — — 3B 20 ac 

(8 ha) 

3B 18 ac 

(7 ha) 

Nobel Drive — — 3C 37 ac 

(15 ha) 

3C 37 ac 

(15 ha) 

MCAS Miramar 4(a)(3) exemption 61 ac 

(25 ha) 

4(a)(3) exemption 69 ac 

(28 ha) 

4(a)(3) exemption 69 ac 

(28 ha) 

Montgomery Field Excluded under 

section 4(b)(2) 

38 ac 

(16 ha) 

3D 48 ac 

(20 ha) 

3D 48 ac 

(20 ha) 

Unit 4: San Diego: Inland Management Area 

San Marcos 

(Upham) 

4C1 34 ac 

(14 ha) 

4C1 34 ac 

(14 ha) 

4C1 34 ac 

(14 ha) 

San Marcos 

(Universal Boot) 

4C2 32 ac 

(13 ha) 

4C2 32 ac 

(13 ha) 

4C2 32 ac 

(13 ha) 

San Marcos (Bent 

Avenue) 

4D 7 ac 

(3 ha) 

4D 5 ac 

(2 ha) 

4D 5 ac 

(2 ha) 

Ramona 4E 86 ac 

(35 ha) 

4E 135 ac 

(55 ha) 

4E 135 ac 

(55 ha) 

Unit 5: San Diego: Southern Coastal Mesa Management Area 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62195 

TABLE 2. A COMPARISON OF THE AREAS IDENTIFIED AS CONTAINING THE PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES ESSENTIAL

TO THE CONSERVATION OF Navarretia fossalis IN THE 2005 CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION, THE 2009 PROPOSED

REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION, AND THIS REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION.—Continued 

Location* 

2005 Critical Habitat 

Designation 

2009 Proposed Revised Critical 

Habitat 

2010 Revised Critical Habitat 

Designation 

Subunit 

Area Containing 

Essential 

Features 

Subunit 

Area Containing 

Essential 

Features 

Subunit 

Area Containing 

Essential 

Features 

Sweetwater 

Vernal Pools 

(S1-3) 

5A; partially 

excluded under 

section 4(b)(2) 

89 ac 

(36 ha) 

Excluded 

74 ac 

(30 ha) 

5A 95 ac 

(38 ha) 

5A 95 ac 

(38 ha) 

Otay River Valley 

(K1 and K2) 

Excluded under 

section 4(b)(2) 

57 ac 

(23 ha) 

Not proposed, 

determined not 

essential 

— Not proposed, 

determined not 

essential 

— 

Otay River Valley 

(M2) 

5B and excluded 

under section 

4(b)(2) 

42 ac 

(17 ha) 

Excluded 

67 ac 

(27 ha) 

5B 24 ac 

(10 ha) 

5B 24 ac 

(10 ha) 

Otay Mesa (J26) 5C and excluded 

under section 

4(b)(2) 

14 ac 

(6 ha) 

Not proposed, 

determined not 

essential 

— 5C*** 42 ac 

(17 ha) 

Arnie’s Point Proposed as 

Subunit 5D, but 

determined not 

essential 

— Not proposed — Not proposed — 

Proctor Valley 

(R1-2) 

— — 5F 88 ac 

(36 ha) 

5F 88 ac 

(36 ha) 

Otay Lakes (K3-5) — — 5G 140 ac 

(57 ha) 

5G 140 ac 

(57 ha) 

Western Otay 

Mesa vernal 

pool complexes 

Excluded under 

section 4(b)(2) 

117 ac 

(47 ha) 

5H 143 ac 

(58ha) 

5H 143 ac 

(58ha) 

Eastern Otay 

Mesa vernal 

pool complexes 

Excluded under 

section 4(b)(2) 

277 ac 

(112 ha) 

5I 221 ac 

(89 ha) 

5I 221 ac 

(89 ha) 

Unit 6: Riverside Management Area 

San Jacinto River Excluded under 

section 4(b)(2) 

10,774 ac 

(4,360 ha) 

6A 3,550 ac 

(1,437 ha) 

6A*** 4,312 ac 

(1,745 ha) 

Salt Creek 

Seasonally 

Flooded Alkali 

Plain 

Excluded under 

section 4(b)(2) 

2,233 ac 

(904 ha) 

6B 1,054 ac 

(427 ha) 

6B 930 ac 

(376 ha) 

Wickerd Road 

and Scott Road 

Pools 

Excluded under 

section 4(b)(2) 

275 ac 

(111 ha) 

6C 205 ac 

(83 ha) 

6C*** 235 ac 

(95 ha) 

Skunk Hollow Excluded under 

section 4(b)(2) 

306 ac 

(124 ha) 

6D 158 ac 

(64 ha) 

Excluded under 

section 4(b)(2) 

158 ac 

(64 ha) 

Mesa de Burro Excluded under 

section 4(b)(2) 

4,396 ac 

(1,779 ha) 

6E 708 ac 

(287 ha) 

Excluded under 

section 4(b)(2) 

708 ac 

(287 ha) 

Total Area 

Essential for the 

Conservation of 

Navarretia 

fossalis** 

— 19,399 ac 

(7,851 ha) 

— 7,086 ac 

(2,868 ha) 

— 7,804 ac 

(3,158 ha) 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62196 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2. A COMPARISON OF THE AREAS IDENTIFIED AS CONTAINING THE PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES ESSENTIAL

TO THE CONSERVATION OF Navarretia fossalis IN THE 2005 CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION, THE 2009 PROPOSED

REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION, AND THIS REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION.—Continued 

Location* 

2005 Critical Habitat 

Designation 

2009 Proposed Revised Critical 

Habitat 

2010 Revised Critical Habitat 

Designation 

Subunit 

Area Containing 

Essential 

Features 

Subunit 

Area Containing 

Essential 

Features 

Subunit 

Area Containing 

Essential 

Features 

Total Area 

Exempt Under 

Section 

4(a)(3)** 

— 128 ac 

(52 ha) 

— 213 ac 

(86 ha) 

— 213 ac 

(86 ha) 

Total Area 

Excluded Under 

Section 

4(b)(2)** 

— 18,619 ac 

(7,535 ha) 

— 0 ac 

(0 ha) 

— 871 ac 

(353 ha) 

Total Area 

Designated as 

Critical Habitat 

for Navarretia 

fossalis** 

— 652 ac 

(264 ha) 

— N/A — 6,720 ac 

(2,720 ha) 

*This table does not include all locations that are occupied by Navarretia fossalis. It includes only those locations that were designated as critical habitat in 2005 or proposed in 2009 or discussed in this critical habitat rule. 

**Values in this table may not sum due to rounding. 

***Acreage added in 75 FR 19575 (June 10, 2009) revision. 

Summary of Changes From the 2005 

Final Designation of Critical Habitat 

In the 2005 final rule, we did not 

designate areas containing essential 

habitat features if those habitat features 

were already conserved and managed 

for the benefit of Navarretia fossalis 

because we concluded that the areas did 

not meet the second part of the 

definition of critical habitat under 

section 3(5)(a)(i) of the Act. We have 

reconsidered our approach in light of 

subsequent court decisions and have 

decided that areas containing essential 

habitat features that ‘‘may require’’ 

special management considerations or 

protection do meet the definition of 

critical habitat irrespective of whether 

the habitat features are currently 

receiving special management or 

protection. Current protection or 

management does not disqualify an area 

from meeting the definition of critical 

habitat, rather it is a relevant factor to 

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

when we weigh the benefits of 

including a particular area in critical 

habitat against the benefits of excluding 

the area. In this rule we identified 

essential areas that are conserved and 

managed for the benefit of the species, 

determined they meet the definition of 

critical habitat, and then analyzed 

whether the benefits of exclusion from 

critical habitat designation outweigh the 

benefits of including these areas under 

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

This rule also uses a new economic 

analysis to identify and estimate the 

potential economic effects on small 

business entities resulting from 

implementation of conservation actions 

associated with the proposed revision of 

critical habitat. The analysis focuses on 

the estimated incremental impacts 

associated with critical habitat 

designation. 

Of the 652 ac (264 ha) of land 

included in the 2005 final critical 

habitat rule, approximately 469 ac (190 

ha) are included in this revised critical 

habitat designation. Some areas 

designated in 2005 are not designated in 

this final rule because we used a grid of 

2.47–ac (1–ha) cells (100 m grid) to 

identify essential habitat in our GIS 

analysis in 2005. In this revised critical 

habitat, we identified essential habitat 

with heads-up digitizing at various 

scales using imagery of 1–meter 

resolution, resulting in a more precise 

identification. 

Additionally, we are designating as 

critical habitat 6,251 ac (2,530 ha) of 

land identified as meeting the definition 

of critical habitat that were not 

designated in 2005. The primary reason 

revised designated critical habitat is 

greater than the 2005 designated area is 

that we included several areas that were 

excluded from the 2005 critical habitat 

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

Act. A summary of specific changes 

from the 2005 critical habitat 

designation is provided below. In 

addition to revisions to specific 

subunits, we also revised the PCEs, the 

criteria used to identify critical habitat, 

the economic impacts to include 

incremental impacts, and the mapping 

methodology for this revised critical 

habitat designation. For a detailed 

discussion of the changes between the 

2005 critical habitat rule and the 2009 

proposed revision, please see the 

Summary of Changes From Previously 

Designated Critical Habitat section in 

the proposed revised rule (74 FR 27588; 

June 10, 2009). 

In this revised critical habitat 

designation for Navarretia fossalis, 

comparisons to the 2005 critical habitat 

designation are described below using 

three categories: 

(1) Areas designated in 2005 and also 

designated in this rule, 

(2) Areas designated in 2005 but not 

designated in this rule, and 

(3) Areas not designated in 2005 that 

are designated in this rule. 

(1) Areas designated in 2005 and also 

designated in this rule are found in 

Subunits 1A, 1B, 2, 4C1, 4C2, 4D, 4E, 

5A, 5B, and 5C. We analyzed each of 

these areas and determined these areas 

are not conserved and managed for the 

benefit of Navarretia fossalis and the 

benefits of inclusion outweigh the 

benefits of exclusion. 

(2) Areas designated in 2005 but not 

designated in this rule include land in 

Subunits 1A, 1B, 2, 4D, 5A, and 5B as 

described in the 2005 designation. The 

difference of these subunits between the 

previous rule and this final rule is 

mostly due to our discontinued use of 

a 100–m grid to map critical habitat, 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62197 

which captured areas that we 

determined in this rule did not meet the 

definition of critical habitat. 

Additionally, the difference in Subunit 

1B was due to more precise Navarretia 

fossalis habitat location data in the 

vicinity of Plum Canyon. 

(3) Areas not designated in 2005 that 

are designated in this rule include areas 

within Subunits 1B, 3B, 3C, 3D, 4D, 4E, 

5A, 5B, 5F, 5G, 5H, 5I, 6A, 6B, and 6C, 

and part of 5C. Some of these subunits 

meet the definition of critical habitat 

based on new information. Subunits 1B, 

4D, 4E, and 5B include new areas due 

to mapping refinements made to better 

capture local watersheds. Subunits 3B, 

3D, 5F, 5G, 5H, and 5I include vernal 

pool complexes that provide habitat for 

Navarretia fossalis that were not 

included in the 2005 final rule, but meet 

the definition of critical habitat for this 

species (see the 2009 proposed rule for 

details (74 FR 27588; June 10, 2009)). 

Other subunits have been designated 

based on our determination under 

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

benefits of inclusion outweigh the 

benefits of exclusion of these areas 

because they are not currently 

conserved and managed for the benefit 

of N. fossalis. All or portions of 

Subunits 3D, 5A, 5B, 5H, 5I, 6A, and 6C 

are the same as areas that met the 

definition of critical habitat in 2005, but 

were excluded from the 2005 

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

Act. The only areas excluded from 

critical habitat in the current rule under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act are those that 

are conserved and managed for the 

benefit of N. fossalis, and where the 

exclusion would not result in extinction 

of the species (see the Application of 

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

rule). 

Summary of Changes From the 2009 

Proposed Rule To Revise Critical 

Habitat 

We evaluated lands considered for 

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

Act to determine if the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion. We excluded 871 ac (353 ha) 

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

that are conserved and managed for the 

benefit of Navarretia fossalis We 

excluded certain lands under two 

habitat conservation plans (HCPs), 

summarized below and discussed in 

detail in the Exclusions section. 

(1) In the proposed revised rule, we 

considered for exclusion under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act lands covered by the 

Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan 

(Carlsbad HMP) under the San Diego 

Multiple Habitat Conservation Program 

(MHCP). In this revised rule, we 

determined the benefits of inclusion 

outweigh the benefits of exclusion for 

all of the lands covered by the Carlsbad 

HMP because these lands are not both 

conserved and managed for the benefit 

of Navarretia fossalis. However, we 

recognize the efforts made by permittees 

of the Carlsbad HMP to assist in the 

conservation of N. fossalis and other 

listed species. We look forward to 

continuing to work with these partners 

to assure that long-term conservation 

and management is assured for N. 

fossalis. See the Exclusions section 

below for a summary evaluation of 

lands considered for exclusion under 

the Carlsbad HMP and our rationale for 

including these lands in this revised 

critical habitat designation. 

(2) In the proposed revised rule, we 

considered lands proposed as critical 

habitat within the County of San Diego 

Subarea Plan under the San Diego 

Multiple Species Conservation Program 

(MSCP; County of San Diego Subarea 

Plan) for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act. In this revised rule, we 

determined the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion for a 

portion (5 ac (2 ha) in Subunit 3A) of 

lands under the County of San Diego 

Subarea Plan that are both conserved 

and managed for the benefit of 

Navarretia fossalis, and determined 

exclusion of these lands will not result 

in extinction of the species. However, 

we determined the benefits of inclusion 

outweigh the benefits of exclusion for 

81 ac (33 ha) of lands within the County 

of San Diego Subarea Plan. As a result, 

we excluded approximately 5 ac (2 ha) 

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

the Act, and included approximately 81 

ac (33 ha) within the revised critical 

habitat designation. For a complete 

discussion of the benefits of inclusion 

and exclusion for all lands within the 

County of San Diego Subarea Plan, see 

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

Act section below. 

(3) In the proposed revised rule, we 

considered for exclusion under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act lands owned by or 

under the jurisdiction of the permittees 

of the Western Riverside County 

Multiple Species Habitat Conservation 

Plan (Western Riverside County 

MSHCP). In this revised rule, we 

determined the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion for 

866 ac (351 ha) of the lands owned by 

or under the jurisdiction of the 

permittees of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP that are conserved and 

managed (Subunits 6D and 6E), and 

determined exclusion of these lands 

will not result in extinction of the 

species. We determined the benefits of 

inclusion outweigh the benefits of 

exclusion for 5,477 ac (2,217 ha) of 

lands owned by or under the 

jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP. As a 

result, we excluded approximately 866 

ac (351 ha) of these lands under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, and included 

approximately 5,477 ac (2,217 ha) 

within the revised critical habitat 

designation. For a complete discussion 

of the benefits of inclusion and 

exclusion for all lands within the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP, see 

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

Act section below. 

Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(i) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features 

(I) essential to the conservation of the 

species and 

(II) which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(ii) specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

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, live trapping, 

transplantation, and in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot otherwise be relieved, regulated 

taking. 

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 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62198 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

government or public to access private 

lands. Such designation does not 

require implementation of restoration, 

recovery, or enhancement measures by 

non-Federal landowners. Where a 

landowner seeks or 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) of the 

Act would apply, but in the event of a 

destruction or adverse modification 

finding, the Federal action agency’s and 

the applicant’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, the habitat within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it was listed must 

contain the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species, and be included if those 

features may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. Critical habitat designations 

identify, to the extent known using the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available, habitat areas that provide 

essential life cycle needs of the species 

(areas on which are found the physical 

and biological features laid out in the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement for the conservation of the 

species). Under the Act and regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.12, we can designate 

critical habitat in areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed only when 

we determine that those areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species and that designation limited to 

the geographical area occupied at the 

time of listing would be inadequate to 

ensure 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 

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 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. 

Habitat is often dynamic, and species 

may move from one area to another over 

time. Climate change will be a particular 

challenge for biodiversity because the 

interaction of additional stressors 

associated with climate change and 

current stressors may push species 

beyond their ability to survive (Lovejoy 

2005, pp. 325–326). The synergistic 

implications of climate change and 

habitat fragmentation are the most 

threatening facet of climate change for 

biodiversity (Hannah et al. 2005, p.4). 

Current climate change predictions for 

terrestrial areas in the Northern 

Hemisphere indicate warmer air 

temperatures, more intense 

precipitation events, and increased 

summer continental drying (Field et al. 

1999, pp. 1–3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 

12422; Cayan et al. 2005, p. 6; 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 1181). Climate 

change may also affect the duration and 

frequency of drought and these climatic 

changes may even more dramatic and 

intense (Graham 1997). Documentation 

of climate-related changes that have 

already occurred in California (Croke et 

al. 1998, pp. 2128, 2130; Brashears et al. 

2005, p. 15144), and future drought 

predictions for California (such as Field 

et al. 1999, pp. 8–10; Lenihen et al. 

2003, p. 1667; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 

12422; Brashears et al. 2005, p. 15144; 

Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181) and North 

America (IPCC 2007, p. 9) indicate 

prolonged drought and other climaterelated changes will continue in the 

foreseeable future. 

We anticipate these changes could 

affect a number of native plants, 

including Navarretia fossalis 

occurrences and habitat. If the amount 

and timing of precipitation or the 

average temperature increases in 

southern California, the long term 

viability of N. fossalis may be affected 

in several ways, including the 

following: (1) Drier conditions may 

result in a lower germination rate and 

smaller population sizes; (2) a shift in 

the timing of annual rainfall may favor 

nonnative species that impact the 

quality of habitat for this species; or (3) 

drier conditions may result in increased 

fire frequency, making the ecosystems 

in which N. fossalis currently grows 

more vulnerable to the threats of 

subsequent erosion and nonnative plant 

invasion. 

At this time, we are unable to identify 

the specific ways that climate change 

may impact Navarretia fossalis; 

therefore, we are unable to determine if 

any additional areas may be appropriate 

to include in this final critical habitat 

rule to address the effects of climate 

change. Additionally, we recognize that 

critical habitat designated at a particular 

point in time may not include all of the 

habitat areas that we may later 

determine 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 are important to the 

conservation of the species, but are 

outside the critical habitat designation, 

will continue to be subject to 

conservation actions we implement 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. Areas 

that support populations 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 and commercial 

information at the time of the 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, HCPs, or other species 

conservation planning efforts if new 

information available at the time of 

these planning efforts calls for a 

different outcome. 

Physical and Biological Features 

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

and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which 

areas within the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing to designate as critical habitat, 

we consider the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species and which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. These include, but are not 

limited to: 

(1) Space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62199 

(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 consider the specific physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species and laid out 

in the appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement for the conservation of the 

species. We derive those specific 

essential physical and biological 

features for Navarretia fossalis from the 

biological needs of this species as 

described in the Critical Habitat section 

of the proposed rule to designate critical 

habitat for N. fossalis published in the 

Federal Register on June 10, 2009 (74 

FR 27588). 

The area designated as final revised 

critical habitat consists of ephemeral 

wetland habitat for the reproduction 

and growth of Navarretia fossalis, 

intermixed wetland and upland habitats 

that comprise the local watershed to 

support ephemeral wetland habitat, and 

the topography and soils required for 

ponding during winter and spring 

months. The methods of dispersal and 

pollination for N. fossalis are not well 

understood; therefore, elements 

required for these processes may not be 

geographically captured by this revised 

critical habitat designation. Likewise, 

delineating larger watershed areas that 

support ephemeral wetland habitat may 

require hydrological data and modeling 

that are not available; therefore, areas 

beyond the local watershed are not 

included in this revised critical habitat 

designation. The physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

N. fossalis are derived from studies of 

this species’ habitat, ecology, and life 

history as described below, in the 

Background section of the proposed 

revised critical habitat designation 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 10, 2009 (74 FR 27588), the critical 

habitat designation published in the 

Federal Register on October 18, 2005 

(70 FR 60658), and the final listing rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54975). 

Habitats That Are Representative of the 

Historical, Geographical, and Ecological 

Distribution of Navarretia fossalis 

Navarretia fossalis is restricted to 

ephemeral wetlands in southern 

California and northwestern Baja 

California, Mexico (Moran 1977, pp. 

155–156; Oberbauer 1992, p. 7; Day 

1993, p. 847; California Natural 

Diversity Database (CNDDB) 2008, pp. 

1–44), and primarily associated with 

vernal pools and seasonally flooded 

alkali vernal plain habitats (Moran 1977, 

pp. 155–156; Bramlet 1993a, p. 10; Day 

1993, p. 847; Ferren and Fiedler 1993, 

pp. 126–127). In Los Angeles County, N. 

fossalis is known to occur in vernal 

pools on Cruzan Mesa and the 

associated drainage of Plum Canyon 

(such as CNDDB 2008, Element 

Occurrence (EO) 31, 32, and 41). In 

Riverside County, N. fossalis is known 

to occur in large vernal pools with 

basins that range in size from 0.5 ac (0.2 

ha) to 10.0 ac (4.0 ha) (such as CNDDB 

2008, EO 42, 43, and 44), and in 

temporary wetlands that are described 

as seasonally flooded alkali vernal plain 

habitat along the San Jacinto River and 

near Salt Creek/Stowe Pool in Hemet 

(such as CNDDB 2008, EO 22, 23, and 

24). In San Diego County, N. fossalis is 

found in vernal pools that are smaller 

than those in Riverside County, ranging 

in size from 0.01 ac (0.005 ha) to 0.2 ac 

(0.09 ha) and are often found in clusters 

of several vernal pools typically referred 

to as vernal pool complexes (such as 

CNDDB 2008, EO 4, 14, and 19). In 

Mexico, N. fossalis is known from fewer 

than 12 occurrences, most of which are 

clustered in three areas of Baja 

California: along the international 

border, on the plateaus south of the Rio 

Guadalupe, and on the San Quintin 

coastal plain (Moran 1977, p. 156). 

Ephemeral Wetland Habitat 

Despite variation in the types of 

habitat where Navarretia fossalis is 

found (i.e., vernal pool habitat and 

seasonally flooded alkali vernal plain 

habitat), these ephemeral wetlands all 

share the same temporary nature (i.e., 

areas fill with water during the winter 

and spring and dry completely during 

summer and fall). Navarretia fossalis 

depends on both the inundation and 

drying of its habitat for survival. This 

type of ephemerally wet habitat 

excludes upland plants that live in a dry 

environment year round, or wetland 

plants that require year-round moisture 

to become established (Keeler-Wolf et 

al. 1998). 

Navarretia fossalis primarily occurs in 

ephemeral wetland habitat, more 

specifically, vernal pool and seasonally 

flooded alkali vernal plain habitat 

(Moran 1977, pp. 156–157; Bramlet 

1993a, p. 10; Bramlet 1993b, p. 14; Day 

1993, p. 847). Vernal pools form during 

the winter rains in depressions that are 

part of a gently sloping and undulating 

landscape, where soil mounds are 

interspersed with basins (mima-mound 

topography; Cox 1984, pp. 1397–1398). 

Water ponds in vernal pools in part due 

to an underlying impervious soil layer 

(hard pan or clay pan). Navarretia 

fossalis can also occur in ditches and 

other artificial depressions associated 

with degraded vernal pool habitat 

(Moran 1977, p. 155). 

Seasonally flooded alkali vernal plain 

habitat includes alkali playa, alkali 

scrub, alkali vernal pool, and alkali 

annual grassland vegetation types. The 

hydrologic regime for this habitat 

involves sporadic seasonal flooding (as 

described above) combined with slow 

drainage of the alkaline soils. Largescale inundation of flood plains occur 

approximately every 20 to 50 years, 

which is necessary for long-term 

maintenance of the habitat by removing 

scrub vegetation (Roberts 2004, p. 4). 

During a typical seasonal flooding cycle 

dry period, alkali scrub vegetation 

expands its distribution into the 

seasonally flooded areas of alkali vernal 

plains habitat and crowds out the 

species associated more with ephemeral 

wetlands. During a large-scale flood, 

standing and slow-draining waters 

remain for weeks or months and kill 

alkali scrub vegetation, resulting in 

favorable conditions for annual 

ephemeral wetland-associated species 

(such as Navarretia fossalis) to expand 

their range (Bramlet 2004, p. 8; Roberts 

2004, p. 4). Although uncommon, largescale flooding events maintain N. 

fossalis habitat and likely provide a 

species dispersal mechanism (Bramlet 

2009, p. 3). Seasonally flooded alkali 

vernal plain can also persist in lightly 

to moderately disturbed habitat that 

may obscure or suppress expression of 

PCEs, especially when disturbance 

consists of soil amendments or dryland 

farming activities (Roberts 2009, p. 2). 

Subsurface Water Flow That Creates A 

Local Watershed of Intermixed Wetland 

and Upland Habitats 

Vernal pools within a complex are 

hydrologically connected by subsurface 

water, which creates a landscape that is 

intermixed with wetland and upland 

habitats. This entire area comprises a 

local watershed and provides the 

appropriate physical and biological 

features necessary to maintain vernal 

pools within each complex. Seasonally 

flooded alkali vernal plain habitats are 

also hydrologically connected by 

flowing water when it flows over the 

surface from one vernal pool to another 

or across the seasonally flooded alkali 

vernal plain. Due to an impervious hard 

pan, water flows and collects below 

ground as the soil becomes saturated. 

Movement of the water through vernal 

pool and seasonally flooded alkali 

vernal plain systems results in pools 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62200 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

filling and holding water continuously 

for a number of days (Hanes et al. 1990, 

p. 51). For this reason, these ephemeral 

wetlands are best described from a 

watershed perspective. The local 

watershed associated with a vernal pool 

complex or seasonally flooded alkali 

vernal plain includes all surfaces in the 

surrounding area from which water 

flows into the complex or plain habitat. 

Some ephemeral wetlands included in 

this rule (such as the San Jacinto River 

and the Salt Creek Seasonally Flooded 

Alkali Plain) have large watersheds 

where the overland flow of water 

contributes to the ponding that supports 

Navarretia fossalis, while other 

ephemeral wetlands have comparatively 

small watersheds (such as Carroll 

Canyon and Nobel Drive) and fill almost 

entirely from direct rainfall (Hanes et al. 

1990, p. 53; Hanes and Stromberg 1998, 

p. 38). It is also possible that subsurface 

flow occurs within a watershed and 

contributes water to some vernal pools 

and seasonally flooded alkali vernal 

plains (Hanes et al. 1990, p. 53; Hanes 

and Stromberg 1998, p. 48). In 

summary, N. fossalis depends on an 

entire local watershed that includes 

subsurface water flow over an area that 

is comprised of intermixed wetland and 

upland habitats. 

Topography and Soils That Support 

Ponding During Winter and Spring 

Topography and soils support 

ponding that occurs during winter and 

spring months. Impervious subsurface 

layers combined with flat to gently 

sloping topography serve to inhibit 

rapid infiltration of rainwater, resulting 

in ponding of vernal pools and 

seasonally flooded alkali vernal plains 

(Bramlet 1993a, p. 1; Bauder and 

McMillian 1998, pp. 57–59). Soils also 

function to moderate water chemistry 

and rate of water loss to evaporation 

(Zedler 1987, pp. 17–30). In Los Angeles 

County, vernal pools that support 

Navarretia fossalis are found on 

Cieneba-Pismo-Caperton soils (NRCS 

SSURGO, ca676. In western Riverside 

County, seasonally flooded alkali vernal 

plain habitats that support N. fossalis 

are found on Domino, Traver, Waukena, 

Chino, (Bramlet 1993a, pp. 1, 10) (59 FR 

64812; December 15, 1994) and Willows 

soils (Bramlet 2009, p. 4). In San Diego 

County, vernal pool habitats that 

support N. fossalis are found on 

Huerhuero, Placentia, Olivenhain, 

Stockpen, and Redding soils (NRCS 

SSURGO, ca073). 

Primary Constituent Elements for 

Navarretia Fossalis 

Under the Act and its implementing 

regulations, we are required to identify 

the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of 

Navarretia fossalis. The physical and 

biological features are the primary 

constituent elements (PCEs) laid out in 

the appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement essential to the 

conservation of the species. Areas 

designated as critical habitat for N. 

fossalis were occupied at the time of 

listing (see the Geographic Range and 

Status section of the proposed revised 

rule for a more detailed explanation), 

are currently occupied, are within the 

species’ historic geographical range, and 

contain sufficient PCEs to support N. 

fossalis. 

Based on our current knowledge of 

the life history, biology, and ecology of 

Navarretia fossalis, and habitat 

characteristics required to sustain the 

essential life history functions of the 

species, we determined that the PCEs 

specific to N. fossalis are: 

(1) PCE 1—Ephemeral wetland 

habitat. Vernal pools (up to 10 ac (4 ha)) 

and seasonally flooded alkali vernal 

plains that become inundated by winter 

rains and hold water or have saturated 

soils for 2 weeks to 6 months during a 

year with average rainfall (i.e., years 

where average rainfall amounts for a 

particular area are reached during the 

rainy season (between October and 

May)). This period of inundation is long 

enough to promote germination, 

flowering, and seed production for 

Navarretia fossalis and other native 

species typical of vernal pool and 

seasonally flooded alkali vernal plain 

habitat, but not so long that true 

wetland species inhabit the areas. 

(2) PCE 2—Intermixed wetland and 

upland habitats that act as the local 

watershed. Areas characterized by 

mounds, swales, and depressions within 

a matrix of upland habitat that result in 

intermittently flowing surface and 

subsurface water in swales, drainages, 

and pools described in PCE 1. 

(3) PCE 3—Soils that support ponding 

during winter and spring. Soils found in 

areas characterized in PCEs 1 and 2 that 

have a clay component or other property 

that creates an impermeable surface or 

subsurface layer. These soil types 

include, but are not limited to: CienebaPismo-Caperton soils in Los Angeles 

County; Domino, Traver, Waukena, 

Chino, and Willows soils in Riverside 

County; and Huerhuero, Placentia, 

Olivenhain, Stockpen, and Redding 

soils in San Diego County. 

With this revised designation of 

critical habitat, we intend to conserve 

the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, through the identification of the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement of the PCEs sufficient to 

support the life-history functions of the 

species. For Navarretia fossalis, the size 

of the ephemeral wetland habitat can 

vary a great deal, but the most important 

factor (i.e., the appropriate quantity and 

spatial arrangement of the PCEs) in any 

of the subunits designated as critical 

habitat is that the vernal pool or alkali 

playa habitat has intact and functioning 

hydrology and intact adjacent upland 

areas that ensure a functioning 

ecosystem. All units and subunits 

designated as critical habitat contain the 

PCEs in the appropriate quantity and 

spatial arrangement essential to the 

conservation of this species and are 

currently occupied by N. fossalis. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing contain the 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. 

Researchers estimate that greater than 

90 percent of the vernal pool habitat in 

southern California has been converted 

as a result of past human activities 

(Bauder and McMillian 1998, pp. 56–67; 

Keeler-Wolf et al. 1998, pp. 10, 60–61, 

63–64). A detailed discussion of threats 

to Navarretia fossalis and its habitat can 

be found in the final listing rule (63 FR 

54975; October 13, 1998), the previous 

critical habitat designation (70 FR 

60658; October 18, 2005), and the 

Recovery Plan for Vernal Pools of 

Southern California (Service 1998, pp. 

1–113, appendices). The features 

essential to the conservation of N. 

fossalis may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to reduce the following 

threats: habitat destruction and 

fragmentation from urban and 

agricultural development; pipeline 

construction; alteration of hydrology 

and floodplain dynamics; excessive 

flooding; channelization; water 

diversions; off-road vehicle (OHV) 

activity; trampling by cattle and sheep; 

weed abatement; fire suppression 

practices (including discing and 

plowing to remove weeds and create fire 

breaks); competition from nonnative 

plant species; direct and indirect 

impacts from some human recreational 

activities (63 FR 54975, October 13, 

1998; Service 1998, p. 7); and manure 

dumping (Roberts 2009, pp. 2–14). 

In particular, manure dumping on 

private property along the San Jacinto 

River area is impacting habitat within 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62201 

area. These impacts are occurring 

despite identification of these areas as 

important for the survival and recovery 

of Navarretia fossalis and other 

sensitive species (such as Brodiaea 

filifolia) addressed in the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP. Dumping of 

manure and sewage sludge should be 

avoided in all areas containing 

populations of N. fossalis. As outlined 

in the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP, we have been working with 

permittees to implement additional 

ordinances that will help to control 

activities (such as manure dumping) 

that may impact the implementation of 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP 

conservation objectives. To date, the 

City of Hemet is the only Western 

Riverside County MSHCP permittee that 

has addressed the negative impacts that 

manure dumping has on species such as 

N. fossalis and B. filifolia and their 

habitat trough the enactment of 

Ordinance 1666 (i.e., the ordinance that 

prevents manure dumping activities and 

educates its citizens). We will continue 

to work with Riverside County and 

permittees of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP to address activities that 

may impact the species within this plan 

area, as well as other HCPs and plan 

areas that may have other activities that 

impact N. fossalis and its habitat. 

Special management considerations 

or protection are required within critical 

habitat areas to address these threats. 

Management activities that could 

ameliorate these threats include (but are 

not limited to) fencing Navarretia 

fossalis occurrences to prevent soil 

compaction and providing signage to 

discourage encroachment by hikers, 

cattle, sheep, and OHV activity; control 

of nonnative plants using methods 

shown to be effective; guiding the 

design of development projects to avoid 

impacts to N. fossalis habitat; enacting 

local ordinances to prohibit manure 

dumping; and restoring and maintaining 

natural hydrology and floodplain 

dynamics of watersheds associated with 

N. fossalis occurrences where feasible. 

These management activities will 

protect the PCEs for the species by 

reducing soil compaction to help 

maintain an impermeable surface (PCE 

3) that supports ephemeral wetland 

habitat (PCE 1), which is needed to 

promote germination, flowering, and 

seed production for N. fossalis. 

Additionally, management of critical 

habitat lands will help maintain both 

the wetland and upland habitat that acts 

as the local watershed and provides 

intermittent flowing water on the 

surface and subsurface (PCEs 2 and 3). 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

As required by section 4(b) of the Act, 

we used the best scientific and 

commercial data available to designate 

critical habitat. 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)). We are not 

designating any areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by 

Navarretia fossalis because occupied 

areas are sufficient for the conservation 

of the species. 

This revised rule updates our 2005 

final designation of critical habitat for 

Navarretia fossalis with the best 

available scientific information. For 

some areas analyzed in 2005, we have 

new information from survey reports 

and public comments that led us to 

either add or remove areas from critical 

habitat designation. 

This section provides details of the 

process and criteria we used to 

delineate a final revised critical habitat 

designation for Navarretia fossalis. This 

revised rule is based largely on areas 

that are identified as required for the 

conservation of N. fossalis in the 

Recovery Plan for Vernal Pools of 

Southern California (Service 1998, 

pp.1–113, appendices), the 2005 final 

critical habitat designation, and new 

information obtained since that 

designation. Table 3 in this rule depicts 

the areas essential for N. fossalis 

conservation; it does not include all 

locations occupied by N. fossalis. It 

includes only those locations that were: 

(1) Included in Appendix F or G of 

the Recovery Plan; 

(2) designated, excluded, or exempt in 

the 2005 final critical habitat 

designation; 

(3) proposed as critical habitat in the 

2009 rule or proposed as critical habitat 

in the Federal Register notice published 

on April 15, 2010 (75 FR 19575); or 

(4) designated, excluded, or exempt in 

this final revised critical habitat 

designation. 

The unit names used in this revised 

critical habitat for N. fossalis are based 

on those used for management areas in 

the 1998 Recovery Plan. The specific 

changes made to the 2005 final critical 

habitat designation are summarized in 

the Summary of Changes From 

Previously Designated Critical Habitat 

section of this rule. 

We analyzed the biology, life history, 

ecology, and distribution (historical, at 

the time of listing, and current) of 

Navarretia fossalis. Based on this 

information, we are designating revised 

critical habitat in areas within the 

geographical area occupied by N. 

fossalis at the time of listing and 

currently occupied that contain the 

PCEs in the quantity and spatial 

arrangement to support life-history 

functions essential to the conservation 

of the species (see the Geographic 

Range and Status section in the 

proposed revised rule (74 FR 27588; 

June 10, 2009) for more information). 

We are not designating any areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing. All 

units and subunits contain the PCEs in 

the appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement essential to the 

conservation of N. fossalis. 

TABLE 3. AREAS NECESSARY FOR Navarretia fossalis CONSERVATION AS DESCRIBED IN THE 1998 RECOVERY PLAN, 2005 

FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION, 2009 PROPOSED REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION, 2010 REVISIONS

PROPOSED IN THE AVAILABILITY OF THE DEA, AND THIS 2010 FINAL REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION. 

Location* Recovery Plan Appendix Final Critical Habitat 

Subunits (2005) 

Proposed Revised Critical 

Habitat Subunits (based 

on 2009 proposal and 

2010 availability of the 

DEA) 

Final Revised Critical 

Habitat Subunits (2010) 

Unit 1: Los Angeles Basin-Orange Management Area 

Cruzan Mesa F 1A 1A 1A 

Plum Canyon N/A 1B 1B 1B 

Unit 2: San Diego: Northern Coastal Mesa Management Area 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62202 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3. AREAS NECESSARY FOR Navarretia fossalis CONSERVATION AS DESCRIBED IN THE 1998 RECOVERY PLAN, 2005 

FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION, 2009 PROPOSED REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION, 2010 REVISIONS

PROPOSED IN THE AVAILABILITY OF THE DEA, AND THIS 2010 FINAL REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION.—Continued 

Location* Recovery Plan Appendix Final Critical Habitat 

Subunits (2005) 

Proposed Revised Critical 

Habitat Subunits (based 

on 2009 proposal and 

2010 availability of the 

DEA) 

Final Revised Critical 

Habitat Subunits (2010) 

Stuart Mesa, Marine Corps 

Base (MCB) Camp 

PendletonRecovery plan 

(RP)** name: Stuart 

Mesa 

F 4(a)(3) exemption 4(a)(3) exemption 4(a)(3) exemption 

Wire Mountain, MCB 

Camp Pendleton RP 

name: Wire Mountain 

F — 4(a)(3) exemption 4(a)(3) exemption 

Poinsettia Lane Commuter 

Station RP name: JJ 2 

Poinsettia Lane 

F 2 (partially excluded under 

section 4(b)(2)) 

2 2 

Unit 3: San Diego: Central Coastal Mesa Management Area 

Santa Fe Valley (Crosby 

Estates) 

N/A — 3A Excluded under section 

4(b)(2) 

Carroll Canyon (D 5-8) — — 3B 3B 

Nobel Drive (X 5) — — 3C 3C 

Large Pool northwest of 

runway, MCAS Miramar 

N/A — 4(a)(3) exemption 4(a)(3) exemption 

EE1-2, MCAS Miramar RP 

name: EE1-2, Miramar 

Interior 

F 4(a)(3) exemption — — 

Kearny Mesa (U 19) N/A 4(a)(3) exemption — — 

New Century (BB 2)RP 

name: BB 2 New 

Century 

G — — — 

Montgomery Field RP 

name: N1-4, 6 

Montgomery Field 

F Excluded under section 

4(b)(2) 

3D 3D 

Unit 4: San Diego: Inland Management Area 

San Marcos (North L 

15)RP name: L 7, 8, 14- 

20 

G — — — 

San Marcos (Northwest L 

14)RP name: L 7, 8, 14- 

20 

G — — — 

San Marcos (L 1-6)RP 

name: L 1-6, 9-13 San 

Marcos 

F 4C1 4C1 4C1 

San Marcos (L 9-10)RP 

name: L 1-6, 9-13 San 

Marcos 

F 4C2 4C2 4C2 

San Marcos (L 11-13)RP 

name: L 1-6, 9-13 San 

Marcos 

F 4D 4D 4D 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62203 

TABLE 3. AREAS NECESSARY FOR Navarretia fossalis CONSERVATION AS DESCRIBED IN THE 1998 RECOVERY PLAN, 2005 

FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION, 2009 PROPOSED REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION, 2010 REVISIONS

PROPOSED IN THE AVAILABILITY OF THE DEA, AND THIS 2010 FINAL REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION.—Continued 

Location* Recovery Plan Appendix Final Critical Habitat 

Subunits (2005) 

Proposed Revised Critical 

Habitat Subunits (based 

on 2009 proposal and 

2010 availability of the 

DEA) 

Final Revised Critical 

Habitat Subunits (2010) 

San Marcos (North L 

15)RP name: L 7, 8, 14- 

20 

G — — — 

Ramona RP name: 

Ramona 

F — — — 

Ramona RP name: 

Ramona T 

G 4E 4E 4E 

Unit 5: San Diego: Southern Coastal Mesa Management Area 

Sweetwater Vernal Pools 

(S1-3)RP name: 

Sweetwater Lake 

F 5A ( partially excluded 

under section 4(b)(2)) 

5A 5A 

Otay River Valley (M2) — 5B 5B 5B 

Otay Mesa (J26)RP name: 

J 26 Otay Mesa 

F 5C 5C 5C 

Proctor Valley (R1)RP 

name: R Proctor Valley 

F — 5F 5F 

Otay Reservoir (K3-5)RP 

name: K3-5 Otay River 

F — 5G 5G 

K1, 2 RP name: K 1, 2, 6, 

7 Otay River 

G Excluded under section 

4(b)(2) 

Does not meet the 

definition of Critical 

Habitat 

— 

K 6, 7 RP name: K 1, 2, 6, 

7 Otay River 

G — — — 

Western Otay Mesa vernal 

pool complexes RP 

name: J 2, 5, 7, 11-21, 

23-30 Otay Mesa / J 3 

Otay Mesa 

F / G Excluded under section 

4(b)(2) 

5H / 5I 5H / 5I 

Western Otay Mesa vernal 

pool complexes (J 32 

(West Otay A + B), J 33 

(Sweetwater High 

School)) 

N/A — 5H 5H 

Eastern Otay Mesa vernal 

pool complexes RP 

name: 23-30 Otay Mesa 

/ J 22 Otay Mesa 

F / G Excluded under section 

4(b)(2) 

5H / 5I 5H / 5I 

Eastern Otay Mesa vernal 

pool complexes RP 

name: J 19, 27, 28E, 

28W Otay Mesa 

— Excluded under section 

4(b)(2) 

Does not meet the 

definition of Critical 

Habitat 

— 

RP name: J (undescribed) G — — — 

Unit 6: Riverside Management Area 

San Jacinto River RP 

name: San Jacinto 

F Excluded under section 

4(b)(2) 

6A 6A 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62204 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3. AREAS NECESSARY FOR Navarretia fossalis CONSERVATION AS DESCRIBED IN THE 1998 RECOVERY PLAN, 2005 

FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION, 2009 PROPOSED REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION, 2010 REVISIONS

PROPOSED IN THE AVAILABILITY OF THE DEA, AND THIS 2010 FINAL REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION.—Continued 

Location* Recovery Plan Appendix Final Critical Habitat 

Subunits (2005) 

Proposed Revised Critical 

Habitat Subunits (based 

on 2009 proposal and 

2010 availability of the 

DEA) 

Final Revised Critical 

Habitat Subunits (2010) 

Salt Creek Seasonally 

Flooded Alkali Plain RP 

name: Hemet/ Salt 

Creek 

F Excluded under section 

4(b)(2) 

6B 6B 

Wickerd Road and Scott 

Road Pools 

N/A — 6C 6C 

Skunk Hollow RP name: 

Skunk Hollow 

— Excluded under section 

4(b)(2) 

6D Excluded under Section 

4(b)(2) 

RP name: Temecula F — — — 

Mesa de Burro RP name: 

Santa Rosa Plateau 

F Excluded under section 

4(b)(2) 

6E Excluded under Section 

4(b)(2) 

Total Areas (out of 39 

areas listed in this table) 

27 22 28 28 

*This table does not include all locations occupied by Navarretia fossalis. It includes only those locations included in Appendix F or G of the 

Recovery Plan (‘‘RP’’ in above table); designated, excluded, or exempt in 2005; proposed as critical habitat in the 2009 rule; proposed as revisions to proposed rule as identified in the document making available the DEA; or designated, excluded, or exempt in this final rule. Note: The 

alpha-numeric vernal pool labels were applied in the Recovery Plan. 

**RP name = Name in Recovery Plan, if different from the current rule. 

Appendices F and G of the Recovery 

Plan provide information on the areas 

needed to stabilize (prevent extinction 

of) Navarretia fossalis (Appendix F) and 

the areas that should be conserved and 

managed to reclassify or recover N. 

fossalis (Appendix G). In Table 3, we 

summarized the data from the Recovery 

Plan. According to this summary, 27 

locations were highlighted as areas that 

should be conserved and managed to 

recover N. fossalis. Our 2005 final rule 

to designate critical habitat (70 FR 

60658; October 18, 2005) used the 

Recovery Plan as the basis for 

designating critical habitat; however, 

the rule included some additions to and 

subtractions from those areas deemed 

essential to the conservation of N. 

fossalis in the Recovery Plan. Nine areas 

that the Recovery Plan identified as 

necessary for recovery were not 

identified in the 2005 final rule as 

essential to the conservation of N. 

fossalis, and four areas not in the 

Recovery Plan were added. These nine 

areas were sites where we did not have 

specific occurrence data or areas where 

recent surveys had not found N. fossalis. 

The four areas added to the 2005 final 

rule were locations where occurrence 

data indicated that these areas 

contained the features essential to the 

conservation of N. fossalis. A total of 22 

areas were identified in the 2005 final 

rule as essential to the conservation of 

Navarretia fossalis (see Table 3). 

We did not include seven occurrences 

of N. fossalis highlighted in the 

Recovery Plan in the proposed revised 

critical habitat designation or this final 

rule. We do not have detailed 

information on these occurrences, and 

N. fossalis has not been observed during 

recent surveys at some of these sites. 

Additionally, we included areas in this 

revised critical habitat (based on new 

data) that were not identified as 

necessary for recovery in the Recovery 

Plan. While some of the areas are 

different, non-inclusion of some areas in 

the Recovery Plan and inclusion of 

other areas for which we have better 

data will achieve the overall goal of the 

Recovery Plan for N. fossalis and 

provide for conservation of this species. 

In this revised designation of critical 

habitat for Navarretia fossalis, using the 

best scientific and commercial 

information, we selected areas that 

possess those physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species, and which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. We took into account past 

conservation planning for N. fossalis in 

the Recovery Plan and in the 2005 

critical habitat designation. For this 

revised rule, we completed the 

following steps to delineate critical 

habitat: 

(1) Compiled all available data on N. 

fossalis into a GIS database; 

(2) Reviewed data to ensure accuracy; 

(3) Determined which occurrences 

were known to occur at the time of 

listing; 

(4) Determined which areas are 

currently occupied; 

(5) Defined the areas containing the 

features essential to the conservation of 

N. fossalis in terms of core habitat areas 

and satellite habitat areas; 

(6) Determined if each occupied area 

represents core habitat or satellite 

habitat and, therefore, should be 

designated as critical habitat; and 

(7) For both core and satellite habitat 

areas, mapped the specific locations that 

contain the essential physical and 

biological features (PCEs in the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement needed to support lifehistory functions essential to the 

conservation of N. fossalis). 

These steps are described in detail 

below. 

(1) We compiled all available data on 

Navarretia fossalis into a GIS database. 

Data on locations where N. fossalis 

occurs were based on collections and 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62205 

observations made by botanists (both 

amateur and professional), biological 

consultants, and academic researchers. 

We compiled data from the following 

sources to create our GIS database for N. 

fossalis: (a) Data used in the Recovery 

Plan and in the 2005 final critical 

habitat rule for N. fossalis (70 FR 

60658); (b) the CNDDB data report for N. 

fossalis and accompanying GIS records 

(CNDDB 2008, pp. 1–44); (c) data 

presented in the City of San Diego’s 

Vernal Pool Inventory for 2002–2003 

(City of San Diego 2004, pp. 1–125, 

appendices); (d) the data report for N. 

fossalis from the California Consortium 

of Herbaria and accompanying Berkeley 

Mapper GIS records (Consortium of 

California Herbaria 2008, pp. 1–17); (e) 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP 

species GIS database; and (f) the 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office’s 

internal species GIS database, which 

includes the species data used for the 

San Diego MSCP and the San Diego 

MHCP, reports from section 7 

consultations, and Service observations 

of N. fossalis (Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office’s internal species GIS 

database). 

(2) We reviewed the Navarretia 

fossalis data that we compiled to ensure 

its accuracy. We checked each data 

point in our database to ensure that it 

represented an original collection or 

observation of N. fossalis. Data that did 

not represent an original collection or 

observation were removed from our 

database. We checked each data point to 

ensure that it was mapped in the correct 

location. Data points that did not match 

the description for the original 

collection or observation were 

remapped in the correct location or 

removed from our database. 

(3) We determined which Navarretia 

fossalis occurrences existed at the time 

of listing. We concluded that all known 

occurrences, except for a single 

occurrence translocated after this 

species was listed, were extant at the 

time of listing. We drew this conclusion 

because N. fossalis has limited dispersal 

capabilities. We believe the 

documentation of additional 

occurrences after the species was listed 

was due to an increased effort to survey 

for this species. In other words, we do 

not believe this species has naturally 

colonized any new areas since it was 

listed. 

(4) We determined which areas are 

currently occupied by Navarretia 

fossalis. For areas where we had past 

occupancy data for the species, we 

assumed the area is currently occupied 

unless: (a) Two or more rare plant 

surveys conducted during the past 10 

years did not find N. fossalis (providing 

the surveys were conducted in years 

with average rainfall (i.e., years where 

average rainfall amounts for a particular 

area are reached during the rainy season 

between October and May)) and during 

the appropriate months to find this 

species (i.e., March, April, and May); or 

(b) the site was significantly disturbed 

since the last observation of the species 

at that location. 

(5) We defined the areas necessary for 

conservation of Navarretia fossalis in 

terms of ‘‘core habitat areas’’ and 

‘‘satellite habitat areas.’’ See the Areas 

Needed for Conservation: Core and 

Satellite Habitat Areas section in this 

rule for definitions of these areas. 

(6) We determined if each occupied 

area represents core habitat or satellite 

habitat. In the final listing rule (63 FR 

54975; October 13, 1998), we stated that 

60 percent of the known Navarretia 

fossalis occurrences are concentrated in 

three locations: Otay Mesa in southern 

San Diego County, along the San Jacinto 

River in western Riverside County, and 

near Hemet in Riverside County 

(referred to as the Salt Creek Seasonally 

Flooded Alkali Plain in this final critical 

habitat rule). These three areas represent 

core habitat for N. fossalis. In addition 

to these three core habitat areas, Mesa 

de Burro in Riverside County represents 

core habitat for this species due to the 

large species abundance observed there 

in 2008, and the large amount of intact 

vernal pool habitat on this mesa. In 

total, we identified four core habitat 

areas for N. fossalis. Large populations 

of N. fossalis are currently present in 

these four areas, but there have been 

significant impacts to these areas in the 

form of habitat fragmentation, nonnative 

plant invasion, agricultural activities, 

and unauthorized recreational use. 

Because these four areas represent large, 

interconnected ephemeral wetland areas 

and large N. fossalis populations, they 

are essential to, and will serve as 

anchors for, the overall conservation 

effort for this species. Additionally, the 

conservation of these four areas will 

sustain the largest populations of N. 

fossalis, allowing the species to persist 

where it will be less constrained by the 

threats that negatively impact its 

essential habitat features (PCEs). 

Habitat areas outside the four core 

habitat areas also support stable, intact 

occurrences of Navarretia fossalis. 

These satellite areas represent unique 

habitat within this species’ range that 

also contain the PCEs laid out in the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement essential to the 

conservation of the species. The satellite 

habitat areas occur over a wide range of 

soils and at various elevations that 

include several occurrences over a range 

of environmental variables, the 

preservation of which will help 

maintain the genetic diversity of N. 

fossalis. The satellite habitat areas are 

essential to the conservation of N. 

fossalis because they allow for 

connections between existing 

occurrences of the species, and together 

with the core habitat areas, will create 

a sustainable matrix of habitat for N. 

fossalis that will enable it to evolve and 

potentially respond to future 

environmental changes. 

Areas of essential habitat that are 

smaller than core habitat areas were 

selected as satellite habitat areas if 

Navarretia fossalis persists from year to 

year (i.e., areas that may be isolated and 

likely to be genetically unique), and are: 

(a) on the periphery of this species’ 

geographical distribution; (b) 

geographically isolated from other 

occurrences; or (c) provide connections 

between other satellite or core habitat 

areas. Additional discussion about 

exceptions to the assignment of satellite 

areas is found below in the Critical 

Habitat Units section of this rule. 

(7) For the core and satellite habitat 

areas, we mapped the specific areas that 

contain the physical and biological 

features (the PCEs) in the quantity and 

spatial arrangement needed to support 

life history functions essential to 

Navarretia fossalis. We first mapped the 

ephemeral wetland habitat in the 

occupied area using occurrence data, 

aerial imagery, and 1:24,000 

topographic maps. We then mapped the 

intermixed wetland and upland habitats 

that make up the local watersheds and 

the topography and soils that support 

the occupied ephemeral wetland 

habitat. We identified the gently sloping 

area associated with ephemeral wetland 

habitat and any adjacent areas that slope 

toward and contribute to the hydrology 

of the ephemeral wetland habitat. In 

most cases, we delineated the border of 

revised critical habitat around the 

occupied ephemeral wetlands and 

associated local watershed areas to 

follow natural breaks in the terrain such 

as ridgelines, mesa edges, and steep 

canyon slopes. 

When determining the revised critical 

habitat boundaries, we made every 

effort to map precisely only the areas 

that contain the PCEs and provide for 

the conservation of Navarretia fossalis. 

However, due to the mapping scale that 

we use to draft critical habitat 

boundaries, we cannot guarantee that 

every fraction of revised critical habitat 

contains the PCEs. Additionally, we 

made every attempt to avoid including 

developed areas such as lands 

underlying buildings, paved areas, and 

other structures that lack PCEs for N. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62206 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

fossalis. 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 areas. Any 

developed structures and the land under 

them inadvertently left inside critical 

habitat boundaries shown on the maps 

of this revised critical habitat 

designation are excluded by text in this 

rule and are not designated as critical 

habitat. Therefore, Federal actions 

involving these lands would not trigger 

section 7 consultation with respect to 

critical habitat and the requirement of 

no adverse modification unless the 

specific actions may affect the species or 

PCEs in adjacent critical habitat. 

Revised Critical Habitat Designation 

We are designating 6 units that 

include 19 subunits as critical habitat 

for Navarretia fossalis. Table 4 identifies 

the approximate area of each critical 

habitat subunit by land ownership. 

These subunits, which generally 

correspond to the geographic area of the 

subunits delineated in the 2005 

designation, replace the current critical 

habitat designation for N. fossalis in 50 

CFR 17.96(a). The critical habitat areas 

we describe below constitute our best 

assessment of areas determined to be 

occupied at the time of listing that 

contain the primary constituent 

elements in the appropriate quantity 

and spatial arrangement (i.e., essential 

features) which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. We are not designating any 

unoccupied areas or areas outside of the 

species’ historical range because we 

determined that occupied lands within 

the species’ historical range are 

sufficient for the conservation of N. 

fossalis provided that these lands are 

protected or receive special 

management considerations for N. 

fossalis. 

TABLE 4. AREA AND OWNERSHIP FOR LANDS INCLUDED IN THE Navarretia fossalis REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT

DESIGNATION. 

Location Federal State Government Local Government Private Total 

Unit 1: Los Angeles Basin-Orange Management Area 

1A. Cruzan Mesa — — — 156 ac 

(63 ha) 

156 ac 

(63 ha) 

1B. Plum Canyon — — — 20 ac 

(8 ha) 

20 ac 

(8 ha) 

Unit 2: San Diego: Northern Coastal Mesa Management Area 

2. Poinsettia Lane 

Commuter Station 

— — 6 ac 

(3 ha) 

3 ac 

(1 ha) 

9 ac 

(4 ha) 

Unit 3: San Diego: Central Coastal Mesa Management Area 

3B. Carroll Canyon — — 17 ac 

(7 ha) 

1 ac 

(< 1 ha) 

18 ac 

(7 ha) 

3C. Nobel Drive — 37 ac 

(15 ha) 

— 37 ac 

(15 ha) 

3D. Montgomery Field — — 48 ac 

(20 ha) 

— 48 ac 

(20 ha) 

Unit 4: San Diego: Inland Management Area 

4C1. San Marcos 

(Upham) 

— — — 34 ac 

(14 ha) 

34 ac 

(14 ha) 

4C2. San Marcos 

(Universal Boot) 

— — 15 ac 

(6 ha) 

17 ac 

(7 ha) 

32 ac 

(13 ha) 

4D. San Marcos (Bent 

Avenue) 

— — — 5 ac 

(2 ha) 

5 ac 

(2 ha) 

4E. Ramona — — 3 ac 

(1 ha) 

132 ac 

(53 ha) 

135 ac 

(55 ha) 

Unit 5: San Diego: Southern Coastal Mesa Management Area 

5A. Sweetwater 

Vernal Pools (S1-3) 

23 ac 

(9 ha) 

1 ac 

(<1 ha) 

71 ac 

(29 ha) 

— 95 ac 

(38 ha) 

5B. Otay River Valley 

(M2) 

— — — 24 ac 

(10 ha) 

24 ac 

(10 ha) 

5C. Otay Mesa (J26) — 2 ac 

(1 ha) 

24 ac 

(10 ha) 

16 ac 

(7 ha) 

42 ac 

(17 ha) 

5F. Proctor Valley 

(R1-2) 

— — 51 ac 

(21 ha) 

37 ac 

(15 ha) 

88 ac 

(36 ha) 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62207 

TABLE 4. AREA AND OWNERSHIP FOR LANDS INCLUDED IN THE Navarretia fossalis REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT

DESIGNATION.—Continued 

Location Federal State Government Local Government Private Total 

5G. Otay Lakes (K3- 

5) 

— — 140 ac 

(57 ha) 

— 140 ac 

(57 ha) 

5H. Western Otay 

Mesa vernal pool 

complexes 

— — 41 ac 

(17 ha) 

98 ac 

(40 ha) 

139 ac 

(56 ha) 

5I. Eastern Otay Mesa 

vernal pool 

complexes 

— — — 221 ac 

(89 ha) 

221 ac 

(89 ha) 

Unit 6: Riverside Management Area 

6A. San Jacinto River — 1,504 ac 

(608 ha) 

— 2,808 ac 

(1,136 ha) 

4,312 ac 

(1,745 ha) 

6B. Salt Creek 

Seasonally Flooded 

Alkali Plain 

— — — 930 ac 

(376 ha) 

930 ac 

(376 ha) 

6C. Wickerd Road 

and Scott Road 

Pools 

— — — 235 ac 

(95 ha) 

235 ac 

(95 ha) 

Total 23 ac 

(9 ha) 

1,507 ac 

(610 ha) 

453 ac 

(183 ha) 

4,737 ac 

(1,917 ha) 

6,720 ac 

(2,720 ha)* 

*Values in this table may not sum due to rounding. 

Critical Habitat Units 

Presented below are brief descriptions 

of all subunits included in the 

Navarretia fossalis revised critical 

habitat designation and reasons why 

they meet the definition of critical 

habitat for the species. The units in this 

revised critical habitat correspond to the 

management areas described in the 1998 

Recovery Plan for Vernal Pools of 

Southern California. Each subunit 

contains either: (1) A core habitat area; 

or (2) a satellite habitat area that 

provides connectivity between core 

habitat areas or other satellite habitat 

areas. Areas identified as subunits that 

harbor satellite habitat areas were 

identified as containing features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (compared to other areas not 

identified as essential habitat) due to a 

combination of their geographic 

proximity to core habitat areas, their 

status as an area that supports a stable 

occurrence (representing occurrences 

that continue to persist within a given 

geographic area), and the likelihood that 

these particular habitat areas support 

genetically unique occurrences. Other 

areas not qualifying as satellite areas are 

occurrences that are represented by one 

or more of the following characteristics: 

Occurrence consisting of few 

individuals; no detailed information on 

occurrence; lack of observations during 

recent surveys; locations not identified 

in the Recovery Plan; or areas have low 

likelihood of persistence due to 

fragmentation or enclosure by 

developed areas. 

Unit 1: Los Angeles Basin—Orange 

Management Area 

Unit 1 is located in northwestern Los 

Angeles County and consists of two 

subunits totaling 176 ac (71 ha) of 

private land. 

Subunit 1A: Cruzan Mesa 

Subunit 1A is located near the City of 

Santa Clarita in Los Angeles County. 

This subunit is on Cruzan Mesa, 

northwest of Forest Park and the Sierra 

Highway and southwest of Vasquez 

Canyon Road. Subunit 1A consists of 

156 ac (63 ha) of private land and meets 

our selection criteria as satellite habitat. 

Cruzan Mesa is one of the only areas in 

Los Angeles County that supports mesatop vernal pools. As satellite habitat, 

this subunit supports a stable 

occurrence of Navarretia fossalis, 

provides potential connectivity with 

Subunit 1B, and likely supports a 

genetically distinct occurrence because 

of the separation of these two northern 

occurrences from other occurrences of 

N. fossalis. This subunit and Subunit 1B 

(described below) represent the most 

northern occurrences of this species. 

Subunit 1A contains the physical and 

biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of N. fossalis, 

including ephemeral wetland habitat 

(PCE 1), intermixed wetland and upland 

habitats that act as the local watershed 

(PCE 2), and the topography and soils 

that support ponding during winter and 

spring months (PCE 3). The physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species in this 

subunit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species and activities 

(such as mowing or grading) that occur 

in the vernal pool basins. Please see the 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to N. fossalis 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Subunit 1B: Plum Canyon 

Subunit 1B is located near the City of 

Santa Clarita in Los Angeles County. 

This subunit is in Plum Canyon, west of 

Forest Park and the Sierra Highway and 

north of Plum Canyon Road. Subunit 1B 

consists of 20 ac (8 ha) of private land 

and meets our selection criteria as 

satellite habitat. As satellite habitat, this 

subunit supports a stable occurrence of 

Navarretia fossalis, provides potential 

connectivity with Subunit 1A, and 

likely supports a genetically distinct 

occurrence because of the separation of 

these two northern occurrences from 

other occurrences of N. fossalis. The 

Plum Canyon vernal pool habitat occurs 

on a flat area down-slope from the 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62208 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

vernal pools on Cruzan Mesa. The 

vernal pools on Cruzan Mesa (Subunit 

1A) and Plum Canyon represent the 

only habitat for N. fossalis in Los 

Angeles County and the most northern 

occurrences of this species. Subunit 1B 

contains the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

N. fossalis, including ephemeral 

wetland habitat (PCE 1), intermixed 

wetland and upland habitats that act as 

the local watershed (PCE 2), and the 

topography and soils that support 

ponding during winter and spring 

months (PCE 3). The physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species in this 

subunit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species within this 

subunit. Please see the Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to N. fossalis 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Unit 2: San Diego—Northern Coastal 

Mesa Management Area 

Poinsettia Lane Commuter Station 

Unit 2 is located in the City of 

Carlsbad in San Diego County and 

contains 6 ac (3 ha) of land owned by 

the North County Transit District and 3 

ac (1 ha) of private land. This unit is 

loosely bounded by Avenida Encinas on 

the north, a housing development on the 

east, Poinsettia Lane on the south, and 

train tracks on the west. Unit 2 meets 

our selection criteria as satellite habitat 

because it supports a stable occurrence 

of Navarretia fossalis and provides 

potential connectivity between 

occurrences on MCB Camp Pendleton 

and Subunits 4C1, 4C2, and 4D. The 

Poinsettia Lane vernal pool complex 

consists of a series of vernal pools that 

run parallel to a berm created by the 

train tracks. Unit 2 contains the physical 

and biological features that are essential 

to the conservation of N. fossalis, 

including ephemeral wetland habitat 

(PCE 1), intermixed wetland and upland 

habitats that act as the local watershed 

(PCE 2), and the topography and soils 

that support ponding during winter and 

spring months (PCE 3). The physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species in this unit 

may require special management 

considerations or protection to address 

threats from nonnative plant species 

and activities (such as unauthorized 

recreational use) that occur in the vernal 

pool basins. Please see the Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to N. fossalis 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Unit 3: San Diego—Central Coastal Mesa 

Management Area 

Unit 3 is located in central coastal San 

Diego County and consists of three 

subunits totaling 103 ac (42 ha). This 

unit contains 102 ac (42 ha) owned by 

State and local governments, and 

approximately 1 ac (less than 1 ha) of 

private land. 

Subunit 3B: Carroll Canyon 

Subunit 3B is located in the City of 

San Diego in San Diego County. This 

subunit is located to the southwest of 

the intersection of Parkdale Avenue and 

Osgood Way, and is loosely bounded by 

residential development on the north, 

open space to the east, and a quarry to 

the south and west. Subunit 3B consists 

of approximately 18 ac (7 ha) that 

includes 17 ac (7 ha) of land owned by 

State or local governments and 1 ac (less 

than 1 ha) of private land. Subunit 3B 

meets our selection criteria as satellite 

habitat because it supports a stable 

occurrence of Navarretia fossalis and 

provides potential connectivity between 

occurrences in Subunits 3A and 3C. The 

Carroll Canyon vernal pool complex 

consists of a group of vernal pools on 

the edge of a mesa north of Carroll 

Canyon. Historically, there may have 

been more habitat for this species; 

however, the majority of vernal pool 

habitat in the vicinity of this subunit 

has been developed. Subunit 3B 

contains the physical and biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of N. fossalis, including 

ephemeral wetland habitat (PCE 1), 

intermixed wetland and upland habitats 

that act as the local watershed (PCE 2), 

and the topography and soils that 

support ponding during winter and 

spring months (PCE 3). The physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species in this 

subunit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species and activities 

(such as trespass or illegal trash 

dumping) that occur in the vernal pool 

basins. Please see the Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to N. fossalis 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Subunit 3C: Nobel Drive 

Subunit 3C is located in the City of 

San Diego in San Diego County. This 

subunit is loosely bounded by the 805 

interstate on the northeast, train tracks 

on the south, and Nobel Drive on the 

northwest. Subunit 3C consists of 37 ac 

(15 ha) of land owned by local 

government and meets our selection 

criteria as satellite habitat because it 

supports a stable occurrence of 

Navarretia fossalis and provides 

potential connectivity between 

occurrences in Subunits 3B and 3D. The 

Nobel Drive vernal pool complex 

consists of a group of vernal pools on a 

mesa-top north of Rose Canyon. Subunit 

3C contains the physical and biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of N. fossalis, including 

ephemeral wetland habitat (PCE 1), 

intermixed wetland and upland habitats 

that act as the local watershed (PCE 2), 

and the topography and soils that 

support ponding during winter and 

spring months (PCE 3). The physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species in this 

subunit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species and activities 

(such as unauthorized recreational use) 

that occur in the vernal pool basins. 

Please see the Special Management 

Considerations or Protection section of 

this rule for a discussion of the threats 

to N. fossalis habitat and potential 

management considerations. 

Subunit 3D: Montgomery Field 

Subunit 3D is located in the City of 

San Diego in San Diego County. This 

subunit is located at Montgomery Field 

(airport) to the northeast of the runway 

area. Subunit 3D consists of 48 ac (20 

ha) of land owned by the City of San 

Diego and meets our selection criteria as 

satellite habitat. As satellite habitat, this 

subunit supports a stable occurrence of 

Navarretia fossalis and provides 

potential connectivity with the 

occurrence in Subunit 3C. The 

Montgomery Field vernal pool complex 

consists of a large group of vernal pools 

east of the runway area at Montgomery 

Field, although only the northeastern 

portion of this vernal pool complex is 

being designated as critical habitat 

because the southeastern portion of this 

vernal pool complex has been 

hydrologically disconnected from other 

vernal pools by past development, is 

now isolated, and does not meet the 

definition of essential habitat. 

Navarretia fossalis has not been 

documented in the southeastern portion 

of this vernal pool complex. Subunit 3D 

contains the physical and biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of N. fossalis, including 

ephemeral wetland habitat (PCE 1), 

intermixed wetland and upland habitats 

that act as the local watershed (PCE 2), 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62209 

and the topography and soils that 

support ponding during winter and 

spring months (PCE 3). The physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species in this 

subunit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species that occur in 

the vernal pool basins. Please see the 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to N. fossalis 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Unit 4: San Diego—Inland Management 

Area 

Unit 4 is located within inland San 

Diego County and consists of four 

subunits totaling 206 ac (83 ha). This 

unit contains 18 ac (7 ha) owned by 

State and local governments, and 188 ac 

(76 ha) of private land. 

Subunits 4C1, 4C2, and 4D: San Marcos 

Subunits 4C1, 4C2, and 4D are located 

in the City of San Marcos in San Diego 

County. These three subunits consist of 

three separate vernal pool complexes. 

The first (Subunit 4C1) is loosely 

bounded by La Mirada Drive on the 

northeast, Las Posas Road on the 

southeast, Linda Vista Drive on the 

southwest, and South Pacific Street on 

the northwest. The second (Subunit 

4C2) is loosely bounded by Linda Vista 

Drive on the northeast, Las Posas Road 

on the east, West San Marcos Boulevard 

on the south, and South Pacific Street 

on the west. The third (Subunit 4D) is 

loosely bounded by South Bent Avenue 

on the northeast, commercial 

development on the southeast and 

southwest, and Linda Vista Drive on the 

northwest. Subunit 4C1 consists of 34 ac 

(14 ha) of private land, Subunit 4C2 

consists of 15 ac (6 ha) of land owned 

by local government and 17 ac (7 ha) of 

private land, and Subunit 4D consists of 

5 ac (2 ha) of private land. These three 

subunits meet our selection criteria as 

satellite habitat areas because they 

support stable occurrences of Navarretia 

fossalis and provide potential 

connectivity between occurrences in 

Unit 2 and Subunit 4E. We grouped 

these vernal pool complexes because of 

the clustered nature of these 

occurrences. These subunits have 

separate subunit numbers to be 

consistent with the numbering 

identified in the 2005 critical habitat 

designation. Subunits 4C1, 4C2, and 4D 

contain the physical and biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of N. fossalis, including 

ephemeral wetland habitat (PCE 1), 

intermixed wetland and upland habitats 

that act as the local watershed (PCE 2), 

and the topography and soils that 

support ponding during winter and 

spring months (PCE 3). The physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species in these 

subunits may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species and activities 

(such as commercial development, 

trespass, or OHV use) that occur in the 

vernal pool basins. Please see the 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to N. fossalis 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Subunit 4E: Ramona 

Subunit 4E is located in the 

unincorporated community of Ramona. 

This subunit is loosely bounded by the 

Ramona Airport and Ramona Airport 

Road on the north, Sawday Road on the 

east, Santa Maria Creek on the south, 

and a series of rock outcrops on the 

west. Subunit 4E consists of 

approximately 135 ac (55 ha) that 

includes 3 ac (1 ha) of land owned by 

State or local governments and 132 ac 

(53 ha) of private land. Subunit 4E 

meets our selection criteria as satellite 

habitat because it supports a stable 

occurrence of Navarretia fossalis and 

provides potential connectivity with 

occurrences in Subunits 4C1, 4C2, and 

4D. The vernal pools in this subunit 

occur in gently sloping grassland habitat 

and are at the highest elevation where 

N. fossalis is known to occur. Subunit 

4E contains the physical and biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of N. fossalis, including 

ephemeral wetland habitat (PCE 1), 

intermixed wetland and upland habitats 

that act as the local watershed (PCE 2), 

and the topography and soils that 

support ponding during winter and 

spring months (PCE 3). The physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species in this 

subunit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species and activities 

(such as agricultural activities or 

recreational use) that occur in the vernal 

pool basins. Please see the Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to N. fossalis 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Unit 5: San Diego—Southern Coastal 

Mesa Management Area 

Unit 5 is located in southern San 

Diego County and consists of six 

subunits totaling 748 ac (303 ha). This 

unit contains 28 ac (11 ha) of federally 

owned land, 330 ac (134 ha) of land 

owned by State and local governments, 

and 390 ac (158 ha) of private land. 

Subunit 5A: Sweetwater Vernal Pools 

Subunit 5A is located southwest of 

the Sweetwater Reservoir. This subunit 

is loosely bounded by the Sweetwater 

Reservoir on the north, steeply sloping 

topography on the east, State Route 125 

on the south, and an unnamed drainage 

on the west. Subunit 5A consists of 

approximately 95 ac (38 ha) and 

includes 23 ac (9 ha) of Federal land 

that is part of the San Diego National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, 1 ac (less than 

1ha) of land owned by the State, and 71 

ac (29 ha) of land owned by local 

government. This subunit meets our 

selection criteria as satellite habitat. 

This satellite habitat subunit supports a 

stable occurrence of Navarretia fossalis 

and provides potential connectivity 

between occurrences in Subunits 5B 

and 5F. Some of the area occupied by 

N. fossalis was lost during the 

construction of State Route 125. The soil 

from that area was salvaged and is being 

used to restore other vernal pools in this 

subunit. Subunit 5A contains the 

physical and biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of N. 

fossalis, including ephemeral wetland 

habitat (PCE 1), intermixed wetland and 

upland habitats that act as the local 

watershed (PCE 2), and the topography 

and soils that support ponding during 

winter and spring months (PCE 3). The 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species in this subunit may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species and activities 

(such as unauthorized recreational use) 

that occur in the vernal pool basins. 

Please see the Special Management 

Considerations or Protection section of 

this rule for a discussion of the threats 

to N. fossalis habitat and potential 

management considerations. 

Subunit 5B: Otay River Valley 

Subunit 5B is located in the City of 

Chula Vista and unincorporated San 

Diego County. This subunit is loosely 

bounded by Olympic Parkway on the 

north, a housing development on the 

east, and a landfill to the southwest. 

Subunit 5B consists of 24 ac (10 ha) of 

private land and meets our selection 

criteria as satellite habitat because it 

supports a stable occurrence of 

Navarretia fossalis and provides 

potential connectivity between 

occurrences of N. fossalis in Subunits 

5A and 5H. Subunit 5B contains the 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62210 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

physical and biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of N. 

fossalis, including ephemeral wetland 

habitat (PCE 1), intermixed wetland and 

upland habitats that act as the local 

watershed (PCE 2), and the topography 

and soils that support ponding during 

winter and spring months (PCE 3). The 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species in this subunit may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species and activities 

(such as unauthorized recreational use) 

that occur in the vernal pool basins. 

Please see the Special Management 

Considerations or Protection section of 

this rule for a discussion of the threats 

to N. fossalis habitat and potential 

management considerations. 

Subunit 5C: Otay Mesa 

Subunit 5C is located on the eastern 

portion of Otay Mesa, directly northwest 

of and adjacent to the George F. Bailey 

Detention Facility at the terminus of 

Alta Road. Subunit 5C consists of 26 ac 

(11 ha) of State and local governmentowned land, and 16 ac (7 ha) of private 

land, and it meets our selection criteria 

as satellite habitat because it supports a 

stable occurrence of Navarretia fossalis 

and provides potential connectivity 

between occurrences of N. fossalis in 

Subunits 5G and 5I. Subunit 5C 

contains the physical and biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of N. fossalis, including 

ephemeral wetland habitat (PCE 1), 

intermixed wetland and upland habitats 

that act as the local watershed (PCE 2), 

and the topography and soils that 

support ponding during winter and 

spring months (PCE 3). The physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species in this 

subunit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species and activities 

(such as unauthorized recreational use) 

that occur in the vernal pool basins. 

Please see the Special Management 

Considerations or Protection section of 

this rule for a discussion of the threats 

to N. fossalis habitat and potential 

management considerations. 

Subunit 5F: Proctor Valley 

Subunit 5F is located between the 

unincorporated communities of Eastlake 

and Jamul in San Diego County. This 

subunit is located along Proctor Valley 

Road in Proctor Valley. Subunit 5F 

consists of approximately 88 ac (36 ha) 

and includes 51 ac (21 ha) of land 

owned by the City of San Diego and 37 

ac (15 ha) of private land. Subunit 5F 

meets our selection criteria as satellite 

habitat because it supports a stable 

occurrence of Navarretia fossalis and 

provides potential connectivity between 

occurrences of N. fossalis in Subunits 

5A and 5G. The vernal pools in this 

subunit occur in Proctor Valley on a flat 

area that is slightly elevated from the 

stream channel that runs through this 

valley. The vernal pools in this subunit 

to the west of Proctor Valley Road are 

severely impacted by OHV use, but the 

vernal pools to the east of Proctor Valley 

road remain relatively intact. Subunit 

5F contains the physical and biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of N. fossalis, including 

ephemeral wetland habitat (PCE 1), 

intermixed wetland and upland habitats 

that act as the local watershed (PCE 2), 

and the topography and soils that 

support ponding during winter and 

spring months (PCE 3). The physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species in this 

subunit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species and activities 

(such as unauthorized recreational use 

or OHV use) that occur in the vernal 

pool basins. Please see the Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to N. fossalis 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Subunit 5G: Otay Lakes 

Subunit 5G is located east of the City 

of Chula Vista in San Diego County. 

This subunit is loosely bounded by 

Lower Otay Reservoir to the north and 

west and by the slopes of Otay 

Mountain to the southeast. Subunit 5G 

consists of 140 ac (57 ha) of land owned 

by State or local governments and meets 

our selection criteria as satellite habitat 

because this location supports a stable 

occurrence of Navarretia fossalis and 

provides potential connectivity between 

occurrences of N. fossalis in Subunits 

5F and 5I. The vernal pool complexes in 

this subunit are located on the flat areas 

to the south of Lower Otay Reservoir. 

Subunit 5G contains the physical and 

biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of N. fossalis, 

including ephemeral wetland habitat 

(PCE 1), intermixed wetland and upland 

habitats that act as the local watershed 

(PCE 2), and the topography and soils 

that support ponding during winter and 

spring months (PCE 3). The physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species in this 

subunit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species and activities 

(such as unauthorized recreational use) 

that occur in the vernal pool basins. 

Please see the Special Management 

Considerations or Protection section of 

this rule for a discussion of the threats 

to N. fossalis habitat and potential 

management considerations. 

Subunit 5H: Western Otay Mesa vernal 

pool complexes 

Subunit 5H is located within the Otay 

Mesa Community planning area of the 

City of San Diego. Subunit 5H consists 

of approximately 139 ac (56 ha) that 

includes 41 ac (17 ha) of land owned by 

local governments and 98 ac (40 ha) of 

private land. Subunit 5H and Subunit 5I 

encompass the core habitat on Otay 

Mesa. As core habitat, this subunit 

contains a large area of habitat that 

supports sizable occurrences of 

Navarretia fossalis and provides 

potential connectivity between 

occurrences in Subunits 5G and 5I. This 

subunit contains several mesa-top 

vernal pool complexes on western Otay 

Mesa (Bauder vernal pool complexes J 

2N, J 2S, J 2W, J 4, J 13N, J 13S, J 14, 

J 33, J 34 as in Appendix D of City of 

San Diego, 2004). Subunit 5H contains 

the physical and biological features that 

are essential to the conservation of N. 

fossalis, including ephemeral wetland 

habitat (PCE 1), intermixed wetland and 

upland habitats that act as the local 

watershed (PCE 2), and the topography 

and soils that support ponding during 

winter and spring months (PCE 3). The 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species in this subunit may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species and activities 

(such as unauthorized recreational use 

or residential and commercial 

development) that occur in the vernal 

pool basins. Please see the Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to N. fossalis 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Subunit 5I: Eastern Otay Mesa vernal 

pool complexes 

Subunit 5I is located in the City of 

San Diego. This subunit contains several 

mesa top vernal pool complexes on 

eastern Otay Mesa. Subunit 5I consists 

of 221 ac (89 ha) of private land. 

Subunit 5I and Subunit 5H encompass 

the core habitat on Otay Mesa. As core 

habitat, Subunit 5I contains a large area 

of habitat that supports sizable 

occurrences of Navarretia fossalis and 

provides potential connectivity between 

occurrences in Subunits 5B and 5H. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62211 

This subunit contains several mesa-top 

vernal pool complexes on eastern Otay 

Mesa (Bauder vernal pool complexes J 

22, J 29, J 30, J 31N, J 31S as in 

Appendix D of City of San Diego, 2004 

and Service GIS). Subunit 5I contains 

the physical and biological features that 

are essential to the conservation of N. 

fossalis, including ephemeral wetland 

habitat (PCE 1), intermixed wetland and 

upland habitats that act as the local 

watershed (PCE 2), and the topography 

and soils that support ponding during 

winter and spring months (PCE 3). The 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species in this subunit may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species and activities 

(such as unauthorized recreational use 

or residential and commercial 

development) that occur in the vernal 

pool basins. Please see the Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to N. fossalis 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

Unit 6: Riverside Management Area 

Unit 6 is located in western Riverside 

County and consists of three subunits 

totaling 5,477 ac (2,217 ha). This unit 

contains 1,504 ac (609 ha) of land 

owned by the State of California’s 

Department of Fish and Game and 3,973 

ac (1,608 ha) of private land. 

Subunit 6A: San Jacinto River 

Subunit 6A is generally located along 

the San Jacinto River near the cities of 

Hemet and Perris in Riverside County. 

This subunit is loosely bounded by 

Mystic Lake on the northeast and by the 

Perris Airport on the southwest. Subunit 

6A consists of approximately 4,312 ac 

(1,745 ha), including 1,504 ac (609 ha) 

of land owned by State or local 

governments and 2,808 ac (1,136 ha) of 

private land. Subunit 6A encompasses 

core habitat along the San Jacinto River. 

As core habitat, this subunit contains a 

large area of habitat that supports 

sizable occurrences of Navarretia 

fossalis and provides potential 

connectivity between occurrences in 

Subunits 6B and 6C. This subunit 

consists of seasonally flooded alkali 

vernal plains that occur along the San 

Jacinto River. Subunit 6A contains the 

physical and biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of N. 

fossalis, including ephemeral wetland 

habitat (PCE 1), intermixed wetland and 

upland habitats that act as the local 

watershed (PCE 2), and the topography 

and soils that support ponding during 

winter and spring months (PCE 3). The 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species in this subunit may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species and activities 

(such as manure dumping or flood 

control) that occur in the vernal pool 

basins and associated watershed area. 

Please see the Special Management 

Considerations or Protection section of 

this rule for a discussion of the threats 

to N. fossalis habitat and potential 

management considerations. 

Subunit 6B: Salt Creek Seasonally 

Flooded Alkali Plain 

Subunit 6B is located near the City of 

Hemet and west of the Hemet-Ryan 

Airport in Riverside County. This 

subunit is loosely bounded by 

Devonshire Avenue on the north, the 

boundary for the City of Hemet on the 

east, train tracks on the south, and lowlying hills on the west. Subunit 6B 

consists of 930 ac (376 ha) of private 

land that encompasses the core habitat 

along the Upper Salt Creek drainage 

west of the City of Hemet. As core 

habitat, this subunit contains a large 

area of habitat that supports sizable 

occurrences of Navarretia fossalis and 

provides potential connectivity between 

occurrences in Subunits 6A and 6C. 

This subunit consists of seasonally 

flooded alkali vernal plains not subject 

to U.S. Army Corps of Engineer 

jurisdiction. Subunit 6B contains the 

physical and biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of N. 

fossalis, including ephemeral wetland 

habitat (PCE 1), intermixed wetland and 

upland habitats that act as the local 

watershed (PCE 2), and the topography 

and soils that support ponding during 

winter and spring months (PCE 3). The 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species in this subunit may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species and activities 

(such as manure dumping, grazing, 

flood control, or discing for vegetation 

control) that occur in the vernal pool 

basins and associated watershed area. 

Please see the Special Management 

Considerations or Protection section of 

this rule for a discussion of the threats 

to N. fossalis habitat and potential 

management considerations. 

Subunit 6C: Wickerd and Scott Road 

Pools 

Subunit 6C is located in the City of 

Menifee in Riverside County, California. 

This subunit is loosely bounded by low 

lying hills north of Garbani Road on the 

north, Briggs Road on the east, Scott 

Road on the south, and Menifee Road on 

the west. Subunit 6C consists of 235 ac 

(95 ha) of private land. This subunit 

meets our selection criteria as satellite 

habitat because this location supports a 

stable occurrence of Navarretia fossalis 

and provides potential connectivity 

among occurrences of N. fossalis in 

Subunits 6A, 6B, and with Subunit 6D 

that we are excluding under section 

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

Section 4(b)(2) of the Action section). 

This subunit consists of two large vernal 

pools. Subunit 6C contains the physical 

and biological features that are essential 

to the conservation of N. fossalis, 

including ephemeral wetland habitat 

(PCE 1), intermixed wetland and upland 

habitats that act as the local watershed 

(PCE 2), and the topography and soils 

that support ponding during winter and 

spring months (PCE 3). The physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species in this 

subunit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to address threats from 

nonnative plant species and activities 

(such as manure dumping, residential or 

agricultural development, discing for 

vegetation control, or maintenance of 

existing pipelines) that occur in the 

vernal pool basins and associated 

watershed area. Please see the Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection section of this rule for a 

discussion of the threats to N. fossalis 

habitat and potential management 

considerations. 

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 Fifth and 

Ninth 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 those physical and biological 

features that relate to the ability of the 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62212 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

area to periodically support the species) 

to serve its intended conservation role 

for the species (Service 2004a, p. 3). 

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 designated critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that are likely to adversely affect 

listed species or designated 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: 

(1) Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

(2) Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

(3) Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

(4) 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 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 

Navarretia fossalis 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 (Corps) under section 404 of 

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

seq.) or a permit from us under section 

10 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 

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 remain functional to 

serve its intended conservation role for 

the species. Activities that may destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat are 

those that alter the physical and 

biological features to an extent that 

appreciably reduces the conservation 

value of critical habitat for Navarretia 

fossalis. As discussed above, the role of 

critical habitat is to support the life 

history needs of the species and provide 

for the conservation of the species. For 

N. fossalis, this includes supporting 

viable occurrences and recovery of the 

species in core habitat areas and 

satellite habitat areas. 

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

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat, activities 

involving a Federal action that may 

destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. 

Activities that, when carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency, may affect critical habitat and, 

therefore, should result in consultation 

for Navarretia fossalis include, but are 

not limited to (please see Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection section for a more detailed 

discussion on the impacts of these 

actions to the listed species): 

(1) Actions that would impact the 

ability of an ephemeral wetland to 

continue to provide habitat for 

Navarretia fossalis and other native 

species that require this specialized 

habitat type. Such activities could 

include, but are not limited to, water 

impoundment, stream channelization, 

water diversion, water withdrawal, and 

development activities. These activities 

could alter the biological and physical 

features essential to the conservation of 

N. fossalis that provide the appropriate 

habitat for the species by eliminating 

ponding habitat; changing the duration 

and frequency of the ponding events on 

which this species relies; making the 

habitat too wet, thus allowing obligate 

wetland species to become established; 

making the habitat too dry, thus 

allowing upland species to become 

established; causing large amounts of 

sediment or manure to be deposited in 

N. fossalis habitat; or causing increased 

erosion and incising of waterways. 

(2) Actions that would impact the soil 

and topography that cause water to 

pond during the winter and spring 

months. Such activities could include, 

but are not limited to, deep ripping of 

soils, trenching, soil compaction, and 

development activities. These activities 

could alter the biological and physical 

features essential to the conservation of 

Navarretia fossalis that provide the 

appropriate habitat for the species by 

eliminating ponding habitat, impacting 

the impervious nature of the soil layer, 

or making the soil so impervious that 

water pools for an extended period that 

is detrimental to N. fossalis (as 

described in the PCEs). 

Exemptions 

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 

1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 

required each military installation that 

includes land and water suitable for the 

conservation and management of 

natural resources to complete an 

integrated natural resources 

management plan (INRMP) by 

November 17, 2001. An INRMP 

integrates implementation of the 

military mission of the installation with 

stewardship of the natural resources 

found on the base. Each INRMP 

includes: 

(1) An assessment of the ecological 

needs on the installation, including the 

need to provide for the conservation of 

listed species; 

(2) A statement of goals and priorities; 

(3) A detailed description of 

management actions to be implemented 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62213 

to provide for these ecological needs; 

and 

(4) A monitoring and adaptive 

management plan. 

Among other things, each INRMP 

must, to the extent appropriate and 

applicable, provide for fish and wildlife 

management; fish and wildlife habitat 

enhancement or modification; wetland 

protection, enhancement, and 

restoration where necessary to support 

fish and wildlife; and enforcement of 

applicable natural resource laws. 

The National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108- 

136) amended the Act to limit areas 

eligible for designation as critical 

habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) 

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 

now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not 

designate as critical habitat any lands or 

other geographical areas owned or 

controlled by the Department of 

Defense, or designated for its use, that 

are subject to an integrated natural 

resources management plan prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 

U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines 

in writing that such plan provides a 

benefit to the species for which critical 

habitat is proposed for designation.’’ 

We consult with the military on the 

development and implementation of 

INRMPs for installations with federally 

listed species. Any INRMPs developed 

by military installations located within 

the range of Navarretia fossalis and that 

contain those features essential to the 

species’ conservation were analyzed for 

exemption under the authority of 

section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act. 

Both MCB Camp Pendleton and 

MCAS Miramar have approved INRMPs 

that address Navarretia fossalis, and the 

Marine Corps (on both installations) has 

committed to work closely with us, 

California Department of Fish and Game 

(CDFG), and California Department of 

Parks and Recreation to continually 

refine the existing INRMPs as part of the 

Sikes Act’s INRMP review process. In 

accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of 

the Act, we determined that 

conservation efforts identified in the 

INRMPs will provide a benefit to N. 

fossalis occurring in habitats within or 

adjacent to MCB Camp Pendleton and 

MCAS Miramar (see the following 

sections that detail this determination 

for each installation). Therefore, 213 ac 

(86 ha) of habitat on MCB Camp 

Pendleton and MCAS Miramar are 

exempt from this revised critical habitat 

for N. fossalis under section 4(a)(3) of 

the Act. 

Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton 

(MCB Camp Pendleton) 

In the previous final critical habitat 

designation for Navarretia fossalis (70 

FR 60658; October 18, 2005) and the 

proposed revised critical habitat 

designation (74 FR 27588; June 10, 

2009), we exempted MCB Camp 

Pendleton from the designation of 

critical habitat. We based this decision 

on the conservation benefits to N. 

fossalis identified in the INRMP 

developed by MCB Camp Pendleton in 

November 2001 and the updated INRMP 

that was prepared by MCB Camp 

Pendleton in March 2007 (Marine Corp 

Base Camp Pendleton 2007). We 

determined that conservation efforts 

identified in the INRMP provide a 

benefit to the occurrences of N. fossalis 

and vernal pool habitat occurring on 

MCB Camp Pendleton (Marine Corps 

Base Camp Pendleton 2007, Section 4, 

pp. 51–76). This conservation protects 

the 145 ac (59 ha) of habitat that we 

believe to be essential for the 

conservation of N. fossalis on Stuart 

Mesa and near the Wire Mountain 

Housing Complex. Therefore, lands 

containing features essential to the 

conservation of N. fossalis on this 

installation are exempt from this revised 

critical habitat for N. fossalis under 

section 4(a)(3) of the Act. For more 

information on the conservation benefits 

afforded to N. fossalis at MCB Camp 

Pendleton, please see the Exemptions 

Under Section 4(a)(3) of the Act section 

in the proposed revised critical habitat 

rule (74 FR 27610). 

Marine Corps Air Station Miramar 

(MCAS Miramar) 

In the previous final critical habitat 

designation for Navarretia fossalis (70 

FR 60658; October 18, 2005) and the 

proposed revised critical habitat 

designation (74 FR 27588; June 10, 

2009), we exempted MCAS Miramar 

from the designation of critical habitat 

(70 FR 60658; October 18, 2005). We 

based this decision on the conservation 

benefits to N. fossalis identified in the 

INRMP developed by MCAS Miramar in 

May 2000 and the updated INRMP 

prepared by MCAS Miramar in October 

2006 (Gene Stout and Associates et al. 

2006). We determined that conservation 

efforts identified in the INRMP provide 

a benefit to the occurrences of N. 

fossalis and vernal pool habitat on the 

69 ac (28 ha) of habitat on the western 

portion of MCAS Miramar (Gene Stout 

and Associates et al. 2006, Section 7, 

pp. 17–23). Therefore, lands containing 

features essential to the conservation of 

N. fossalis on this installation are 

exempt from the revised critical habitat 

for N. fossalis under section 4(a)(3) of 

the Act. For more information on the 

conservation benefits afforded to N. 

fossalis at MCAS Miramar, please see 

the Exemptions Under Section 4(a)(3) of 

the Act section in the proposed revised 

critical habitat rule (74 FR 27610). 

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. 

In the following paragraphs, we 

address a number of general issues that 

are relevant to our analysis under 

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

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

may exclude an area from designated 

critical habitat based on economic 

impacts, national security impacts, or 

any other relevant impacts. 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. 

When considering the benefits of 

inclusion for an area, we consider the 

additional regulatory benefits that area 

would receive from the protection from 

adverse modification or destruction as a 

result of actions with a Federal nexus; 

the educational benefits of mapping 

essential habitat for recovery of the 

listed species; and any benefits that may 

result from a designation due to State or 

Federal laws that may apply to critical 

habitat. 

When considering the benefits of 

exclusion, we consider, among other 

things, whether exclusion of a specific 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62214 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

area is likely to result in long–term 

conservation; the continuation, 

strengthening, or encouragement of 

partnerships that result in conservation 

of listed species; or implementation of 

a management plan that provides equal 

to or more conservation than a critical 

habitat designation would provide. 

Specifically, when evaluating a 

conservation plan we consider, among 

other factors: whether the plan is 

finalized; how it provides for the 

conservation of the essential physical 

and biological features; whether the 

conservation management strategies and 

actions contained in a management plan 

are in place and there is a strong 

likelihood they will be implemented 

into the future; whether the 

conservation strategies in the plan are 

likely to be effective; and whether the 

plan contains a monitoring program or 

adaptive management to ensure that the 

conservation measures are effective and 

can be adapted in the future in response 

to new information. 

After evaluating the benefits of 

inclusion and the benefits of exclusion, 

we carefully weigh the two sides to 

determine whether the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. 

If we determine that they do, we then 

determine whether exclusion would 

result in extinction. If exclusion of an 

area from critical habitat will result in 

extinction, we will not exclude it from 

the designation. 

In the case of Navarretia fossalis, the 

revised critical habitat designation does 

not include any Tribal lands or trust 

resources. However, this revised critical 

habitat designation does include some 

lands covered by three completed HCPs 

for N. fossalis. No new HCP or 

conservation plan covering the 

distribution of this species has been 

approved since the proposed revised 

designation that published in the 

Federal Register on June 10, 2009 (74 

FR 27588). 

Based on the information provided by 

entities seeking exclusion, as well as 

other comments we received, we 

evaluated whether certain lands in the 

proposed critical habitat Units 3 and 6 

were appropriate for exclusion from this 

final designation. 

After considering the following areas 

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

excluding them from the critical habitat 

designation for Navarretia fossalis: 

Subunit 3A within the County of San 

Diego Subarea Plan under the MSCP, 

and Subunits 6D and 6E within the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP (see 

Table 5 below). As described in the 

following exclusion analyses for the two 

HCPs, we made this determination 

because we believe that: 

(1) Their value for N. fossalis 

conservation will be preserved for the 

foreseeable future by existing protective 

actions, and 

(2) They are appropriate for exclusion 

under the ‘‘other relevant factor’’ 

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

TABLE 5. AREAS BEING EXCLUDED UNDER SECTION 4(B)(2) OF THE ACT FROM THIS REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT

DESIGNATION. 

Subunit Area excluded 

County of San Diego Subarea Plan under the San Diego MSCP 

3A. Santa Fe Valley: Crosby Estates 5 ac (2 ha) 

Subtotal County of San Diego Subarea Plan under the San Diego MSCP 5 ac (2 ha) 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

6D. Skunk Hollow 158 ac (64 ha) 

6E. Mesa de Burro 708 ac (287 ha) 

Subtotal for Western Riverside County MSHCP 866 ac (351 ha) 

Total 871 ac (353 ha)* 

*Values in this table may not sum due to rounding. 

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 

Factors Habitat Conservation Plans 

We believe that the benefits of 

excluding from critical habitat portions 

of the essential habitat we identified 

within the County of San Diego Subarea 

Plan under the MSCP and the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP outweigh the 

benefits of including these areas; 

therefore, we are excluding these areas 

from this revised critical habitat 

designation. Lands covered by the 

Carlsbad HMP under the MHCP, and 

portions of the lands covered by the 

County of San Diego Subarea Plan under 

the MSCP, and the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP do not result in the 

benefits of exclusion outweighing the 

benefits of inclusion under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, as described in detail 

below. 

Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan 

(HMP)— San Diego Multiple Habitat 

Conservation Program (MHCP). 

We considered exclusion of a portion 

of essential habitat covered by the 

Carlsbad HMP under the MHCP for 

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

Act. The lands that were under 

consideration for exclusion within the 

City of Carlsbad include a portion of one 

vernal pool complex located east of the 

railroad tracks at the Poinsettia Lane 

Commuter Station. The vernal pool 

complex is partially on land that is 

covered by the Carlsbad HMP (i.e., the 

3 ac (1 ha) considered for exclusion 

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

partially on land that is owned by the 

North County Transportation District (6 

ac (2 ha)), which is not a participating 

entity to the Carlsbad HMP and was not 

considered for exclusion. We 

determined that the benefits of 

inclusion for 3 ac (1 ha) of Unit 2 lands 

within the Carlsbad HMP area are 

greater than the benefits of exclusion. In 

making our final decision with regard to 

these HMP–covered lands, we 

considered several factors, including 

our relationship with the City of 

Carlsbad, our relationship with other 

MHCP stakeholders, existing 

consultations, conservation measures in 

place on these lands that benefit 

Navarretia fossalis, implementation of 

long–term management strategies, and 

impacts to current and future 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62215 

partnerships. We recognize N. fossalis 

conservation measures outlined in the 

Carlsbad HMP will be implemented 

eventually on covered lands as the plan 

is carried out regardless of critical 

habitat designation. This vernal pool 

complex in Unit 2 is also benefiting 

from conservation efforts as a result of 

actions associated with four other 

federally listed vernal pool species (i.e., 

San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta 

sandiegonensis) and its designated 

critical habitat, and Riverside fairy 

shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) and 

its designated critical habitat, and 

Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii (San 

Diego button–celery), and Orcuttia 

californica (California Orcutt grass)). 

However, the 3 ac (1 ha) portion 

considered for exclusion under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act is not conserved and 

managed for the long–term protection of 

the species and its habitat at this time. 

Once this area is conserved and 

managed, it will help with the long– 

term protection of this vernal pool 

complex, not only for N. fossalis, but 

also the four other federally endangered 

vernal pool species that already receive 

protection under the plan. 

Protection of this vernal pool area is 

particularly important considering the 

surrounding area has already been 

developed. Conservation measures for 

lands within the Carlsbad HMP are 

outlined in the Carlsbad HMP biological 

opinion (Service 2004c, pp. 312–316). 

We recognize that these lands have been 

avoided by development associated 

with the Water’s End housing project 

and have been identified as open space 

for the protection of the vernal pool 

habitat, as outlined in a consultation 

conducted with the Corps (Service 

1994) prior to the development of the 

Carlsbad HMP. The developer of the 

Water’s End project agreed to grant a 

conservation easement over the 

Navarretia fossalis habitat to CDFG and 

provide a management plan with an 

endowment ($100,000) to the City of 

Carlsbad for management and 

monitoring in perpetuity. Additionally, 

the land–owners recently completed a 

5–year restoration of the upland portion 

of the vernal pool complex with coastal 

sage scrub vegetation (City of Carlsbad 

2009, p. 7). However, a conservation 

easement has not yet been placed over 

the property and long–term 

management of the property is not yet 

in place. Thus, we made the 

determination that the benefits of 

inclusion outweigh the benefits of 

exclusion and have included all lands 

in this area (i.e., 9 ac (4 ha in Unit 2)) 

as critical habitat for N. fossalis. We 

recognize and appreciate the 

conservation actions taken to date at 

this location, such as the $100,000 

provided by the Water’s End project 

along with an additional $50,000 from 

the North Coast Transit District that are 

being held by CDFG and will be used to 

develop and implement long–term 

management to benefit vernal pool 

species occurring at this site, including 

N. fossalis. We look forward to working 

with the North Coast Transit District 

and CDFG in the near future to ensure 

that both conservation and long–term 

management are implemented for N. 

fossalis and its essential habitat at this 

location. 

San Diego Multiple Species 

Conservation Program (MSCP)—County 

of San Diego Subarea Plan. 

We determined approximately 86 ac 

(35 ha) of habitat in Subunits 3A, 5B, 

5F, and 5I within the County of San 

Diego Subarea Plan of the MSCP contain 

the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of 

Navarretia fossalis that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection and therefore, these lands 

meet the definition of critical habitat 

under the Act. In making our final 

decision with regard to lands within the 

County of San Diego Subarea Plan, we 

considered several factors, including 

our relationship with the participating 

MSCP jurisdiction, our relationship 

with other MSCP stakeholders, non– 

covered activities, existing 

consultations, long–term conservation 

measures management in place on these 

lands that benefit N. fossalis, and 

impacts to current and future 

partnerships. We recognize N. fossalis 

conservation measures outlined in the 

County of San Diego Subarea Plan will 

be implemented as the plan is carried 

out regardless of whether covered areas 

are designated as critical habitat. Under 

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

excluding 5 ac (2 ha) of land in Subunit 

3A covered by the County of San Diego 

Subarea Plan from this revised critical 

habitat designation that are currently 

assured of long–term conservation and 

management. The remaining 81 ac (33 

ha) of land in Subunits 5B, 5F, and 5I 

covered by the County of San Diego 

Subarea Plan are not excluded, and we 

have designated these areas as critical 

habitat for N. fossalis. 

The MSCP is a subregional HCP made 

up of several subarea plans that has 

been in place for more than a decade. 

The subregional plan area encompasses 

approximately 582,243 ac (235,626 ha) 

(County of San Diego 1997, p. 1–1; 

MSCP 1998, pp. 2–1, and 4–2 to 4–4) 

and provides for conservation of 85 

federally listed and sensitive species 

(‘‘covered species’’) through the 

establishment and management 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 federally listed 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. Navarretia fossalis was 

evaluated in the subregional plan as 

well as the permitted subarea plans. 

Upon completion of the plan that 

identifies where mitigation activities 

should be focused, 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 and 4– 

2 to 4–4). San Diego County 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 revised 

critical habitat designation. When the 

preserve is completed, the public sector 

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

governments, 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. Currently and in the future, 

Federal and State governments, local 

jurisdictions, special districts, and 

managers of privately owned lands will 

manage and monitor their lands in the 

preserve for species and habitat 

protection (MSCP 1998, pp. 2–1 and 4– 

2 to 4–4). 

We considered excluding lands 

within the County of San Diego Subarea 

Plan. After reviewing the areas covered 

by the County of San Diego Subarea 

Plan, we are excluding approximately 5 

ac (2 ha) in Subunit 3A that are 

currently conserved and managed. The 

areas within the plan boundaries of the 

County of San Diego Subarea Plan in 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62216 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Subunits 5B, 5F, and 5I were not 

excluded because we do not believe that 

the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion at this time. The 

lands in these subunits are not currently 

conserved under this HCP, and non– 

covered activities (such as illegal OHV 

use) that could adversely affect 

Navarretia fossalis and its essential 

habitat are occurring on these lands. 

Therefore, we believe the conservation 

benefit of including these areas as 

critical habitat for N. fossalis may be 

significant. Additionally, portions of 

Subunits 5B and 5I are designated as 

major/minor Amendment Areas under 

the subarea plan and their conservation 

depends upon the approval of future 

amendments to the plan. Therefore, we 

did not consider these major/minor 

amendment areas for exclusion under 

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

The County of San Diego Subarea 

Plan provides additional conservation 

for the Navarretia fossalis habitat in 

Subunit 3A (Crosby Estates) beyond 

what occurred when the area was 

initially developed and conserved (i.e., 

in 1995 prior to the Subarea Plan 

development). Subunit 3A consists of 5 

ac (2 ha) of private land within the 

northern portion of the County of San 

Diego Subarea Plan. This area was set 

aside in 1995 when the surrounding 

area was developed, and the vernal pool 

habitat area was restored and managed 

for a 5–year period to ensure the 

conservation of N. fossalis and other 

vernal pool species. Under the County 

of San Diego Subarea Plan, the area will 

continue to receive periodic monitoring 

beyond the initial 5–year period. The 

long–term management requirements 

applicable for this area are explained in 

the ‘‘The Crosby at Rancho Santa Fe, 

Habitat Management Plan, Annual 

Report, 2008’’ (Rincon Consultants, Inc. 

2008, pp. 1–6). Such management will 

include monitoring and management of 

invasive species, implementing erosion 

control measures, monitoring and 

removal of trash/debris, creating natural 

fencing barriers to address unauthorized 

off–trail activity, installing signage, and 

developing educational website and 

materials (Rincon Consultants, Inc. 

2008, pp. 4–15). 

Benefits of Inclusion—County of San 

Diego Subarea Plan 

The principle benefit of including an 

area in a critical habitat designation is 

the requirement of Federal agencies to 

ensure actions they fund, authorize, or 

carry out are not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

any designated critical habitat, the 

regulatory standard of section 7 of the 

Act under which consultation is 

completed. Federal agencies must 

consult with the Service 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 

such species. 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 

(including Navarretia fossalis), and in 

some locations, the outcome of these 

analyses will be similar, because effects 

to habitat will often also result in effects 

to the species. However, the regulatory 

standard is different, as the jeopardy 

analysis investigates the action’s impact 

to survival and recovery of the species, 

while the adverse modification analysis 

investigates the action’s effects to the 

designated habitat’s contribution to 

conservation. This will, in many 

instances, lead to different results and 

different regulatory requirements. Thus, 

critical habitat designations may 

provide greater benefits to the recovery 

of a species than would listing alone. 

Critical habitat may provide a 

regulatory benefit for Navarretia fossalis 

when there is a Federal nexus present 

for a project that might adversely 

modify critical habitat. Also, where 

federally listed animal species, such as 

the Riverside fairy shrimp or San Diego 

fairy shrimp co–occur with N. fossalis 

and are likely to be taken by a proposed 

action that otherwise lacks a Federal 

nexus, the project proponent would be 

required to obtain an incidental take 

permit under section 10 of the Act, thus 

resulting an intra–Service section 7 

consultation that would also include N. 

fossalis. In the areas that we considered 

for exclusion within the County of San 

Diego Subarea Plan, Riverside fairy 

shrimp or San Diego fairy shrimp are 

present in Subunits 3A, 5F, and 5I. In 

this context, we anticipate that projects 

that meet the definition of critical 

habitat within Subunits 3A, 5F, and 5I 

will require a consultation with the 

Service regardless of whether critical 

habitat is designated. It is possible that 

in Subunit 5B (where no federally listed 

fairy shrimp are known to exist) the 

designation of critical habitat will result 

in an increase in the likelihood that 

consultations with the Service will 

occur. It is also possible that the number 

of consultations that occur in the local 

watershed areas of Subunits 5F and 5I 

would increase by approximately 20 

percent as a result of critical habitat 

designation for N. fossalis within the 

non–ponded/watershed areas (Service 

2009, p. 2). Therefore, for Subunit 5B 

and to a certain extent Subunits 5F and 

5I, it is probable that conservation 

achieved under the Act would increase 

if the areas are designated as critical 

habitat for N. fossalis, resulting in a 

small regulatory benefit associated with 

the designation of critical habitat in 

these subunits. 

When consulting under section 7 of 

the Act in designated critical habitat, we 

conduct independent analyses for 

jeopardy and adverse modification. 

However, with regard to vernal pool 

species such as Navarretia fossalis, the 

outcomes of those analyses (in terms of 

potential restrictions on development) 

are almost always the same. In general, 

a properly functioning hydrologic 

regime is critical to sustain listed vernal 

pool species and their immediate vernal 

pool habitat (i.e., local watershed). 

Avoidance or adequate minimization of 

impacts to the wetland area and its 

associated watershed (which 

collectively creates the hydrologic 

regime necessary to support N. fossalis) 

is important not only to enable the 

critical habitat unit to carry out its 

conservation function (i.e., to avoid 

adverse modification), but also to avoid 

jeopardy to the listed species. 

Navarretia fossalis is completely 

dependent on a properly functioning 

vernal pool system for its survival; 

therefore, it is not possible to 

differentiate conservation measures 

needed to avoid adverse modification of 

critical habitat from those needed to 

avoid jeopardy to the species. Impacts to 

both wetland features where N. fossalis 

occurs and to the associated local 

watershed necessary to maintain those 

wetland features should generally be 

avoided to prevent jeopardy to N. 

fossalis or to prevent adverse 

modification to N. fossalis critical 

habitat. Service biologists regularly 

negotiate with project proponents to 

avoid impacts to vernal pool and 

ephemeral wetland habitat. Whenever 

possible; these negotiations include 

conservation measures that would avoid 

impacts to both the pools and the 

associated local watershed area. 

Therefore, we do not believe 

conservation achieved under the Act 

would differ greatly whether or not the 

areas are designated as critical habitat 

for N. fossalis. However, while the 

outcome of individual section 7 

consultation may not differ, we believe 

designation of lands in Subunits 5B, 5F, 

and 5I as critical habitat may provide a 

small regulatory benefit by increasing 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62217 

the likelihood and number of 

consultations in these areas and thereby 

increase the overall level of 

conservation for N. fossalis. 

Another possible benefit of including 

lands in a critical habitat designation is 

the educational value of the designation 

to landowners and the public regarding 

the potential conservation value of an 

area. For example, a critical habitat 

designation for Navarretia fossalis may 

help local governments or the public 

focus conservation efforts on areas of 

high conservation value for this species. 

Past efforts have highlighted the 

importance of the essential habitat for 

N. fossalis within the jurisdiction of the 

County of San Diego Subarea Plan. 

These past efforts include public 

meetings and opportunities for public 

comment that occurred during the 

process of creating the HCP, the 

development of the Habitat Management 

Plan for the Crosby at Rancho Santa Fe, 

and development of our Recovery Plan 

for Southern California Vernal Pool 

Species (Service 1998). While these 

efforts have helped to identify important 

conservation areas for N. fossalis in the 

County of San Diego Subarea Plan, some 

of these areas (i.e., Subunits 5B, 5F, and 

5I) still suffer impacts from activities 

such as grazing on non–agricultural 

lands (an activity covered by the plan), 

and illegal off–highway vehicle (OHV) 

use. By designating critical habitat in 

these areas that continue to receive 

impacts, we will better educate the 

public regarding these and other threats 

to N. fossalis and the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. The 

educational information provided in 

this revised rule and the 2005 final rule 

(70 FR 60658; October 18, 2005) can be 

used by the public to learn about N. 

fossalis priority conservation areas. The 

inclusion in revised critical habitat of 

the approximately 81 ac (33 ha) of lands 

in subunits 5B, 5F, and 5I that are not 

currently protected and managed would 

formally identify these areas as essential 

for the conservation and recovery of N. 

fossalis and in doing so provide a 

significant educational benefit to the 

conservation of N. fossalis. In contrast, 

we believe the educational benefit of 

designating Subunit 3A would be 

insignificant because this area is already 

conserved. 

We considered that the designation of 

critical habitat for Navarretia fossalis 

may strengthen or reinforce some of the 

provisions in other State and Federal 

laws, such as the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). These laws analyze the 

potential for projects to significantly 

affect aspects of the environment. In this 

case for N. fossalis, vernal pools and 

vernal pool species have been a focus of 

conservation in San Diego County for 

more than 20 years and have been 

addressed in CEQA and NEPA 

throughout this time period; therefore, 

we do not believe designation of critical 

habitat for N. fossalis will provide a 

significant additional benefit to analyses 

conducted under these laws. 

In summary, we believe designating 

Subunits 3A, 5B, 5F, and 5I as revised 

critical habitat may provide some 

regulatory benefits under section 7 of 

the Act, particularly in Subunits 5B, 5F, 

and 5I, where designation may increase 

the likelihood and number of 

consultations and thus the overall level 

of conservation for this species and its 

essential habitat, but we do not believe 

that the outcome of these consultations 

will change greatly with the designation 

of critical habitat. Additionally, we 

believe that there may be a significant 

benefit associated with the designation 

of critical habitat due to the educational 

component provided by critical habitat 

in areas that are not currently 

conserved; specifically, we believe that 

these benefits are significant in Subunits 

5B, 5F, and 5I. 

Benefits of Exclusion—County of San 

Diego Subarea Plan 

We believe significant benefits would 

be realized by forgoing designation of 

critical habitat on lands covered by the 

County of San Diego Subarea Plan 

including: 

(1) Continuance and strengthening of 

our effective working relationships with 

all MSCP jurisdictions and stakeholders 

to promote conservation of Navarretia 

fossalis and its habitat; 

(2) Allowance for continued 

meaningful collaboration and 

cooperation in working toward 

recovering this species, including 

conservation benefits that might not 

otherwise occur; 

(3) Encouragement for other 

jurisdictions to complete subarea plans 

under the MSCP (including the City of 

Santee); and 

(4) Encouragement of additional HCP 

and other conservation plan 

development in the future on other 

private lands for this and other federally 

listed and sensitive species. 

The County of San Diego Subarea 

Plan provides substantial protection and 

management for Navarretia fossalis and 

the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, and addresses conservation 

issues from a coordinated, integrated 

perspective rather than a piecemeal, 

project–by–project approach (as would 

occur under sections 7 and 9 of the Act). 

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 

MSCP. Exclusion of these lands from 

critical habitat could help preserve the 

partnerships we developed with the 

County of San Diego in the development 

of the MSCP and County of San Diego 

Subarea Plan, and foster future 

partnerships and development of future 

HCPs. 

The primary benefit of excluding 

lands owned by or under the 

jurisdiction of the County of San Diego 

Subarea Plan permittees from critical 

habitat under the MSCP is strengthening 

of our existing partnership with the 

County of San Diego. The County of San 

Diego requested that we exclude lands 

covered by their subarea plan during the 

public comment period. If the County of 

San Diego believes that a revised critical 

habitat designation will impact its 

ability to implement their subarea plan, 

then designating County of San Diego 

lands may affect our partnership with 

them. 

In summary, we believe that 

excluding lands covered by the County 

of San Diego Subarea Plan from critical 

habitat provides the significant benefit 

of maintaining existing regional HCP 

partnerships and fostering new ones. 

Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against 

Benefits of Inclusion—County of San 

Diego Subarea Plan 

We reviewed and evaluated the 

benefits of inclusion and benefits of 

exclusion for all lands within the 

County of San Diego Subarea Plan under 

the MSCP proposed as critical habitat 

for Navarretia fossalis. The benefits of 

including lands currently conserved 

under the MSCP in the critical habitat 

designation are small. All of the 

approximately 5 ac (2 ha) of land in 

Subunit 3A are already conserved and 

managed for the preservation of vernal 

pool species, including N. fossalis. 

Therefore, designating this area as 

critical habitat is unlikely to provide 

significant regulatory or educational 

benefits. This area is currently being 

managed under a habitat management 

plan developed in part because the area 

is covered by the County of San Diego 

Subarea Plan. The exclusion of 

conserved areas of Subunit 3A will 

benefit the partnership that we have 

with the County of San Diego and 

encourage the conservation of lands 

associated with the development and 

implementation of future HCPs. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62218 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Including lands in Subunits 5B, 5F, 

and 5I in the critical habitat designation 

for Navarretia fossalis that are not 

currently conserved or protected from 

activities such as illegal OHV use and 

unregulated grazing in critical habitat 

will provide additional regulatory 

protection for N. fossalis and its 

essential habitat under section 7(a) of 

the Act when there is a Federal nexus, 

and designation will act as an 

educational tool for the public regarding 

the conservation of N. fossalis. 

Therefore, designating these areas as 

critical habitat for N. fossalis is likely to 

provide additional regulatory benefits as 

well as a significant educational benefit 

to the species. We believe that 

excluding these areas under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act would provide a 

significant benefit to the partnership 

that we have with the County of San 

Diego, but we believe that the 

conservation benefits of including these 

lands as critical habitat outweighs the 

benefit of exclusion. 

In summary, we find that the benefits 

of excluding lands in areas that are 

conserved and managed for the purpose 

of protecting Navarretia fossalis 

(Subunit 3A) outweigh the benefits of 

including those lands as critical habitat 

for N. fossalis. We find that the benefits 

of including lands that are being 

impacted by activities covered under 

the County of San Diego Subarea Plan 

and are not yet conserved and managed 

(Subunits 5B, 5F, and 5I) outweigh the 

benefits of excluding those lands as 

critical habitat for N. fossalis. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species—County of San Diego 

Subarea Plan 

We determined that the exclusion of 

approximately 5 ac (2 ha) of habitat in 

Subunit 3A within the County of San 

Diego Subarea Plan from the revised 

designation of critical habitat for 

Navarretia fossalis will not result in 

extinction of the species. The County of 

San Diego Subarea Plan and ‘‘The 

Crosby at Rancho Santa Fe Habitat 

Management Plan’’ provide protection 

and long–term management of lands 

that meet the definition of critical 

habitat for N. fossalis in Subunit 3A. 

Additionally, the jeopardy standard of 

section 7 of the Act for N. fossalis in 

Subunit 3A provides assurances that the 

species will not go extinct as a result of 

exclusion from critical habitat 

designation. The consultation 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) and the 

attendant requirement to avoid jeopardy 

to N. fossalis for projects with a Federal 

nexus will provide significant 

protection to the species. Therefore, 

based on the above discussion we are 

excluding approximately 5 ac (2 ha) of 

habitat in Subunit 3A within the County 

of San Diego Subarea Plan from this 

revised critical habitat designation. 

Western Riverside County Multiple 

Species Habitat Conservation Plan 

(Western Riverside County MSHCP) 

We determined that approximately 

6,343 ac (2,567 ha) of land owned by or 

under the jurisdiction of the permittees 

of the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP contain the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of Navarretia fossalis that 

may require special management 

considerations or protection, and 

therefore, these lands meet the 

definition of critical habitat under the 

Act. In making our final decision with 

regard to these lands, we considered 

several factors including our 

relationships with participating 

jurisdictions, our relationships with 

other stakeholders, existing 

consultations, conservation measures 

and management in place on these lands 

that benefit N. fossalis, and impacts to 

current and future partnerships. We 

recognize N. fossalis conservation 

measures outlined in the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP will be 

implemented as the plan is carried out 

regardless if covered areas are 

designated as revised critical habitat. 

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

excluding 866 ac (351 ha) of land 

meeting the definition of critical habitat 

owned by or under the jurisdiction of 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP 

permittees within Unit 6 (Subunits 6D 

and 6E) from this revised critical habitat 

designation. We are including 5,477 ac 

(2,217 ha) of land that meets the 

definition of critical habitat owned by or 

under the jurisdiction of Western 

Riverside County MSHCP permittees 

within Unit 6 (Subunits 6A, 6B, and 6C) 

in this revised critical habitat 

designation. As described in our section 

4(b)(2) analysis below, we reached this 

determination in consideration of the 

benefits associated with the designation 

of each area in revised critical habitat 

balanced against the benefits of 

excluding the area in the final critical 

habitat designation, including such 

factors as (but not limited to) the 

existence of co–occurring listed species 

(such as the San Diego and Riverside 

fairy shrimp species) resulting in 

redundant conservation measures, 

implementation of conservation 

measures, and non–covered activities. 

The Western Riverside County 

MSHCP is a large–scale, multi– 

jurisdictional HCP encompassing 

approximately 1.26 million ac (510,000 

ha) of land in western Riverside County. 

The Western Riverside County MSHCP 

addresses 146 listed and unlisted 

‘‘covered species,’’ including Navarretia 

fossalis. Participants in the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP include 14 

cities; the County of Riverside, 

including the Riverside County Flood 

Control and Water Conservation Agency 

(County Flood Control), Riverside 

County Transportation Commission, 

Riverside County Parks and Open Space 

District, and Riverside County Waste 

Department; California Department of 

Parks and Recreation; and the California 

Department of Transportation. The 

Western Riverside County MSHCP is a 

multi–species conservation program 

that minimizes and mitigates the 

expected loss of habitat and associated 

incidental take of covered species. On 

June 22, 2004, the Service issued a 

single incidental take permit (Service 

2004b, TE–088609–0) under section 

10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to 22 permittees 

under the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP for a period of 75 years. 

The Western Riverside County 

MSHCP will establish approximately 

153,000 ac (61,917 ha) of new 

conservation lands (Additional Reserve 

Lands) to complement the approximate 

347,000 ac (140,426 ha) of pre–existing 

natural and open space areas (Public/ 

Quasi–Public (PQP) lands) in the plan 

area. These PQP lands include those 

under Federal ownership, primarily 

managed by the United States Forest 

Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), and also permittee– 

owned or controlled open–space areas, 

primarily managed by the State and 

Riverside County. Collectively, the 

Additional Reserve Lands and PQP 

lands form the overall Western 

Riverside County MSHCP Conservation 

Area. The configuration of the 153,000 

ac (61,916 ha) of Additional Reserve 

Lands is not mapped or precisely 

identified (‘‘hard–lined’’) in the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP. Rather, it is 

based on textual descriptions of habitat 

conservation necessary to meet the 

conservation goals for all covered 

species within the bounds of the 

approximately 310,000 ac (125,453 ha) 

Criteria Area and is interpreted as 

implementation of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP takes place. 

Specific conservation objectives in the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP for 

Navarretia fossalis include providing 

6,900 ac (2,792 ha) of occupied or 

suitable habitat for the species in the 

MSHCP Conservation Area. This acreage 

goal can be attained through acquisition 

or other dedications of land assembled 

from within the Criteria Area (i.e., the 

Additional Reserve Lands) or Narrow 

Endemic Plan Species Survey Area and 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62219 

through coordinated management of 

existing PQP lands. We internally 

mapped a ‘‘Conceptual Reserve Design,’’ 

which illustrates existing PQP lands and 

predicts the geographic distribution of 

the Additional Reserve Lands based on 

our interpretation of the textual 

descriptions of habitat conservation 

necessary to meet conservation goals. 

Our Conceptual Reserve Design was 

intended to predict one possible future 

configuration of the eventual 

approximately 153,000 ac (61,916 ha) of 

Additional Reserve Lands. The Western 

Riverside County MSHCP states that at 

least 6,900 ac (2,792 ha) of vernal pool 

and playa habitat suitable for N. fossalis 

within the San Jacinto River, Mystic 

Lake, and Salt Creek areas will be 

included within the MSHCP 

Conservation Area (Service 2004b, p. 

376; FWS–WRIV–870.19). 

Preservation and management of 

approximately 6,900 ac (2,792 ha) of 

Navarretia fossalis habitat under the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP will 

contribute to the conservation and 

ultimate recovery of this species. 

Navarretia fossalis is threatened 

primarily by agricultural activities, 

development, manure dumping (Roberts 

2009, pp. 2–14), and fuel modification 

actions within the plan area (Service 

2004b, pp. 369–378). The Western 

Riverside County MSHCP will remove 

and reduce threats to N. fossalis and the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species as the plan is implemented by 

placing large blocks of occupied and 

unoccupied habitat into preservation 

throughout the Conservation Area. 

Areas identified for preservation and 

conservation include 13 of the known 

locations of the species at Skunk 

Hollow, the Santa Rosa Plateau, the San 

Jacinto Wildlife Area, floodplains of the 

San Jacinto River from the Ramona 

Expressway to Railroad Canyon, and 

upper Salt Creek west of Hemet. 

The Western Riverside County 

MSHCP Conservation Area will 

maintain floodplain processes along the 

San Jacinto River and along Salt Creek 

to provide for the distribution of 

Navarretia fossalis to shift over time as 

hydrologic conditions and seed bank 

sources change. Additionally, the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

requires surveys for N. fossalis as part 

of the project review process for public 

and private projects where suitable 

habitat is present within a defined 

narrow endemic species survey area (see 

Narrow Endemic Species Survey Area 

Map, Figure 6–1 of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP, Volume I, in 

Dudek 2003). For locations with 

positive survey results for N. fossalis, 90 

percent of those portions of the property 

that provide long–term conservation 

value for the species will be avoided 

until it is demonstrated that the 

conservation objectives for the species 

are met. Once the objectives are met, 

avoided areas would be evaluated to 

determine whether they should be 

released for development or included in 

the MSHCP Conservation Area (see 

Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant 

Species; Western Riverside County 

MSHCP, Volume 1, section 6.1.3, in 

Dudek and Associates, Inc. 2003). 

The survey requirements, avoidance 

and minimization measures, and 

management for Navarretia fossalis and 

its PCEs provided for in the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP are expected 

to benefit this species on public and 

private lands covered by the plan. We 

determined that approximately 6,343 ac 

(2,567 ha) of private and permittee– 

owned or controlled PQP lands in Unit 

6 (Subunits 6A through 6E), within the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP Plan 

Area, meet the definition of critical 

habitat for N. fossalis. Projects in areas 

meeting the definition of critical habitat 

for N. fossalis conducted or approved by 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

permittees are subject to the 

conservation requirements of the 

MSHCP. For projects that may impact N. 

fossalis, various HCP policies (i.e., 

Narrow Endemic Plant Species Policy, 

and the Riparian/Riverine and Vernal 

Pool Policy in Dudek and Associates, 

Inc. 2003) provide additional 

conservation requirements. 

The Western Riverside County 

MSHCP incorporates several processes 

that allow for Service oversight and 

participation in program 

implementation. These processes 

include: 

(1) Consultation with the Service on 

a long–term management and 

monitoring plan; 

(2) Submission of annual monitoring 

reports; 

(3) Annual status meetings with the 

Service; and 

(4) Submission of annual 

implementation reports to the Service 

(Service 2004b, pp. 9–10). 

Below, we provide a brief analysis of 

the lands in Unit 6 that we are 

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

Act and lands we are including in the 

revised critical habitat designation, and 

how each area is covered by the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP or other 

conservation measures. 

Two of the subunits, Subunit 6D 

(Skunk Hollow) and Subunit 6E (Mesa 

de Burro), consist of lands that are 

managed and already in permanent 

conservation. The majority of Subunit 

6D was conserved as a result of the 

Rancho Bella Vista HCP (Rancho Bella 

Vista 1999, p. 2; CNLM 2009a, p. 1) and 

the remainder of the land in Subunit 6D 

was conserved as a result of the 

Assessment District 161 HCP (CNLM 

2009b, p. 1), both HCPs of which were 

incorporated into the larger, subregional 

Western Riverside County MSHCP upon 

its completion. In total, 100 percent of 

the lands in Subunit 6D are conserved 

and managed specifically for the 

purpose of preserving the vernal pool 

habitat. Subunit 6E is conserved as part 

of the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological 

Reserve. This Reserve has four 

landowners: the CDFG, the County of 

Riverside, the Metropolitan Water 

District of Southern California, and The 

Nature Conservancy. The landowners 

and the Service (which owns no land on 

the Plateau) signed a cooperative 

management agreement on April 16, 

1991 (Dangermond and Associates, Inc. 

1991), and meet regularly to implement 

management of the Reserve (Riverside 

County Parks 2009, p. 2). The vernal 

pools within Subunit 6E are managed 

and monitored to preserve the unique 

vernal pool plants and animals that 

occur on the Santa Rosa Plateau. 

The other three units (Subunit 6A, 6B, 

and 6C) are not conserved or managed 

for Navarretia fossalis at this time; 

however, as the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP is implemented, we 

believe that additional areas in these 

subunits may be conserved. Subunit 6A 

is 99 percent within the Narrow 

Endemic Plant Species Survey Area 

(NEPSSA), and Subunits 6B and 6C are 

entirely within the NEPSSA. Therefore, 

biological surveys for N. fossalis will 

occur prior to development of any 

suitable habitat within these subunits. 

Furthermore, Subunits 6A and 6B have 

additional protections in place either 

from past conservation efforts (such as 

the establishment of the San Jacinto 

Wildlife Area and the Metropolitan 

Water District Upper Salt Creek Wetland 

Preserve), or through additional project 

review requirements within the Criteria 

Area (Joint Project/Acquisition Review 

Process as described in the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP (Service 

2004b, pp. 23, 25; Western Riverside 

County MSHCP, Volume 1, section 6.6.2 

in Dudek and Associates, Inc. 2003, pp. 

6–82–6–84)). We anticipate that these 

areas will receive management that 

would benefit N. fossalis at some point 

in the near future; however, at this time 

these areas do not receive active 

management that would benefit N. 

fossalis, as described further below. 

A large portion of Subunit 6A (1,504 

ac (609 ha), or approximately 35 

percent) is within the San Jacinto 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62220 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Wildlife Area, a wildlife area owned 

and operated by CDFG. This area 

consists of restored wetlands that 

provide habitat for waterfowl and 

wading birds, and seasonally flooded 

vernal plain habitat along the San 

Jacinto River north of the Ramona 

Expressway that supports Navarretia 

fossalis. Though conserved from 

development, the CDFG has not 

implemented a management plan that is 

beneficial to N. fossalis (E. Konno, 

CDFG Biologist, pers. comm. 2010) . In 

addition to the portion of Subunit 6A 

owned by CDFG, 68 percent (2,919 ac 

(1,181 ha)) of the remaining land is 

within the Criteria Area. Projects in this 

area will be implemented through the 

Joint Project Review Process to ensure 

that the requirements of the MSHCP 

permit and the Implementing 

Agreement are properly met (Western 

Riverside County MSHCP, Volume 1, 

section 6.6.2 in Dudek and Associates, 

Inc. 2003, p. 6–82); however, these areas 

are not currently conserved and 

managed to benefit N. fossalis. 

The majority of Subunit 6B is within 

the Criteria Area (56 percent; 525 ac 

(212 ha) out of a total 943 ac (382 ha)) 

and projects in this area will be 

implemented through the Joint Project 

Review Process. A portion of this 

subunit is in the area referred to as West 

Hemet, which is under the jurisdiction 

of the City of Hemet. Although the West 

Hemet area is not conserved, the City is 

actively working on addressing issues 

on sensitive vernal pool resources (such 

as updating the general plan), and 

recently implemented an ordinance 

against manure dumping, which is a 

threat to the species in this subunit (see 

the Special Management 

Considerations and Protection section). 

Subunit 6C is not within the Criteria 

Area for the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP; however, impacts to the pools 

in this subunit should be avoided, 

minimized, or offset through 

implementation of the Protection of 

Species Associated with Riparian/ 

Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools 

guidelines and NEPSSA guidelines. For 

example, the NEPSSA guidelines 

include protection measures that require 

surveys in suitable habitat for narrow 

endemic species in an attempt to find 

areas that should be considered as 

priorities for Western Riverside County 

MSHCP Conservation Area acquisition 

(Western Riverside County MSHCP, 

Volume 1, section 6.0 in Dudek and 

Associates, Inc. 2003). Additionally, for 

populations identified in NEPSSA 

surveys, impacts to 90 percent of those 

portions of the property that provide for 

long–term conservation value of the 

identified Narrow Endemic Plant 

Species shall be avoided until it is 

demonstrated that Conservation goals 

for the particular species are met 

(Western Riverside County MSHCP, 

Volume 1, section 6.1.3 in Dudek and 

Associates, Inc. 2003, p. 6–39). The 

Protection of Species Associated with 

Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal 

Pools guidelines require assessments of 

potentially significant project effects as 

required by CEQA (Western Riverside 

County MSHCP, Volume 1, section 6.1.2 

in Dudek and Associates, Inc. 2003, p. 

6–20). 

The Benefits of Inclusion—Western 

Riverside County MSHCP 

The principle benefit of including an 

area in a critical habitat designation is 

the requirement of Federal agencies to 

ensure actions they fund, authorize, or 

carry out are not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

any designated critical habitat, the 

regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act under which consultation is 

completed. Federal agencies must 

consult with the Service 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 

such species. 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 

(including Navarretia fossalis), and in 

some locations, the outcome of these 

analyses will be similar, because effects 

to habitat will often also result in effects 

to the species. However, the regulatory 

standard is different, as the jeopardy 

analysis investigates the action’s impact 

to survival and recovery of the species, 

while the adverse modification analysis 

investigates the action’s effects to the 

designated habitat’s contribution to 

conservation. This will, in many 

instances, lead to different results and 

different regulatory requirements. Thus, 

critical habitat designations may 

provide greater benefits to the recovery 

of a species than would listing alone. 

Federal agencies must consult with us 

on actions that may affect critical 

habitat and must avoid destroying or 

adversely modifying critical habitat. 

Critical habitat may provide a regulatory 

benefit for Navarretia fossalis when 

there is a Federal nexus present for a 

project that might adversely modify 

critical habitat. However, all of the 

approximately 866 ac (351 ha) of land 

we are excluding within Units 6 

(Subunits 6D and 6E) are protected open 

space or on private property, with no 

expected Federal nexus, including no 

areas connected to navigable waters that 

would typically result in a U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers’ Federal nexus. For 

N. fossalis critical habitat where no 

federally listed fairy shrimp occur, we 

believe it is unlikely there will be 

Federal nexus because projects that will 

adversely modify critical habitat should 

not occur in areas conserved under the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP, and 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps) typically does not assume 

jurisdiction under section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) 

when vernal pool complexes are not 

hydrologically connected to navigable 

waters of the United States. 

Furthermore, two federally listed fairy 

shrimp species, Riverside fairy shrimp 

and vernal pool fairy shrimp 

(Branchinecta lynchii), are also present 

in some of the vernal pool habitat 

managed under the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP, and the terms and 

conditions of the biological opinion 

(USFWS 2004b, pp. 11441153) would 

also conserve N. fossalis. Therefore, we 

believe there will be indirect benefits to 

N. fossalis in excluded areas covered by 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP 

based on conservation actions achieved 

under the Act in habitat also occupied 

by a federally listed fairy shrimp 

species. 

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. 

Critical habitat may provide a regulatory 

benefit for Navarretia fossalis when 

there is a Federal nexus present for a 

project that might adversely modify 

critical habitat. Specifically, we expect 

projects along the San Jacinto River 

would require a 404 permit under the 

Clean Water Act from the Corps. 

Therefore, critical habitat designation in 

Subunits 6A, 6B, and 6C will provide an 

additional regulatory benefit to the 

conservation of N. fossalis by 

prohibiting adverse modification of 

habitat essential for the conservation of 

this species. 

As discussed above, the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP mandates 

protection of Navarretia fossalis habitat 

considered necessary for survival and 

recovery of the species. For locations 

with positive survey results, impacts to 

90 percent of portions of the property 

that provide long–term conservation 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62221 

value for the species will be avoided 

(referring to the ephemeral wetland 

habitat that supports N. fossalis and the 

local watershed area that allows the 

ephemeral wetland habitat to function 

properly) until it is demonstrated that 

the conservation objectives for the 

species have been met (see Protection of 

Narrow Endemic Plant Species; Western 

Riverside County MSHCP, Volume 1, 

section 6.1.3, in Dudek and Associates, 

Inc. 2003). However, the MSHCP does 

not prohibit manure dumping and other 

soil amendments in habitat that has not 

yet been conserved. As discussed in 

Comments 6, 13, and 22 below, this 

threat is significant and ongoing within 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP 

plan area (specifically in Subunits 6A, 

6B, and 6C) in habitat that has not been 

conserved and managed to benefit the 

species. Manure dumping is not a 

covered activity under the plan. 

Therefore, for activities covered under 

the plan, we believe that protections 

provided by the designation of critical 

habitat will be partially redundant with 

protections provided by the HCP; 

however, additional regulatory 

protection from manure dumping and 

other soil amendments is needed in 

Subunits 6A, 6B, and 6C. 

Local ordinances may address 

activities not covered by an HCP that 

impact threatened or endangered 

species, particularly if they accompany 

permanent conservation and 

management of an area. For example, 

the City of Hemet enacted local 

Ordinance No. 1666 on April 9, 2002, to 

control the practice of dumping manure 

on biologically sensitive sites such as 

the vernal pool complex along Salt 

Creek (Subunit 6B). Although 

Ordinance No. 1666 provides an added 

level of protection above and beyond 

that provided by the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP (because manure 

dumping is not a covered activity under 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP), 

and complements the regulatory 

protection that would be provided by 

critical habitat designation, these lands 

are not yet conserved and managed for 

N. fossalis. 

Another possible benefit of including 

lands in critical habitat is public 

education regarding the potential 

conservation value of an area that may 

help focus conservation efforts on areas 

of high conservation value for certain 

species. Any information about 

Navarretia fossalis and its habitat that 

reaches a wide audience, including 

parties engaged in conservation 

activities, is valuable. The inclusion of 

lands in the N. fossalis critical habitat 

designation that are owned by or under 

the jurisdiction of the permittees of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

could be beneficial to the species 

because while the plan establishes 

conservation goals for N. fossalis and 

identifies criteria for identifying habitat 

to be conserved, the critical habitat 

designation specifically identifies those 

lands essential to the conservation of 

the species and which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. The process of proposing 

revised critical habitat provided an 

opportunity for peer review and public 

comment on habitat we determined 

meets the definition of critical habitat. 

This process is valuable to land owners 

and managers in prioritizing 

conservation and management of 

identified areas. Information on N. 

fossalis and its habitat also has been 

provided to the public in the past, 

through meetings, educational materials 

provided by the County of Riverside, 

and recommendations provided in our 

Recovery Plan for Southern California 

Vernal Pool Species (Service 1998). In 

general, we believe the designation of 

critical habitat for N. fossalis will 

provide additional information for the 

public concerning the importance of 

essential habitat in Subunits 6A, 6B, 

and 6C that has not already been 

available. 

The benefit of educating the public 

about Navarretia fossalis habitat is 

significant because the distribution of 

vernal pool and alkali playa habitat in 

Riverside County is not well known and 

the importance of these habitat areas 

may not be known to the public. 

Activities that harm habitat where N. 

fossalis occurs (including the associated 

local watershed areas) are taking place 

in Riverside County possibly due to the 

lack of public awareness. For example, 

manure dumping on private property 

along the San Jacinto River and in the 

vicinity of the Wicker Road Pool is 

adversely affecting habitat within the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP plan 

area (Roberts 2009, pp. 2–14). We have 

been working with permittees to 

implement ordinances that will help to 

control activities (such as manure 

dumping) that may impact the 

implementation of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP conservation 

objectives. To date, the City of Hemet is 

the only Western Riverside County 

MSHCP permittee that has addressed 

the negative impacts (alters the physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of N. fossalis) that manure 

dumping has on N. fossalis and its 

habitat through the enactment of 

Ordinance 1666 (i.e., the ordinance that 

prevents manure dumping activities, 

thereby educating its citizens and 

reducing the educational benefits of 

including this land as critical habitat). 

We believe including areas in the N. 

fossalis revised critical habitat 

designation where manure dumping 

still occurs on non–conserved and non– 

managed lands will provide information 

to the public and local jurisdictions 

regarding the importance of addressing 

this threat throughout the areas where 

manure dumping occurs. Therefore, we 

believe there is an overall significant 

educational conservation benefit of 

critical habitat designation of essential 

habitat within Subunits 6A, 6B and 6C 

in the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP because designation will 

specifically identify for the public and 

plan participants those areas essential 

for conservation of the species that are 

not currently protected and managed 

under the plan, and particularly for 

areas outside of the City of Hemet where 

Ordinance 1666 has been enacted, will 

help educate the public about the 

threats to these areas posed by manure 

dumping. 

The designation of Navarretia fossalis 

critical habitat may also strengthen or 

reinforce some of the provisions in other 

State and Federal laws, such as CEQA 

or NEPA. These laws analyze the 

potential for projects to significantly 

affect the environment. In Riverside 

County, the additional protections 

associated with critical habitat may be 

beneficial in areas not currently 

conserved. Critical habitat may signal 

the presence of habitat that is not 

conserved or protected that could 

otherwise be missed in the review 

process for these other environmental 

laws. 

In summary, we believe that 

designating critical habitat is unlikely to 

provide regulatory benefits under the 

Act in essential habitat areas that are 

currently conserved and managed. In 

areas that are not currently conserved 

and managed, we believe that there are 

significant regulatory and educational 

benefits that would result from critical 

habitat designation. The educational 

benefits of designation are somewhat 

reduced in the non-conserved portion of 

Subunit 6B within the City of Hemit 

where an ordinance exists to protect N. 

fossalis habitat from manure dumping. 

Benefits of Exclusion—Western 

Riverside County MSHCP 

We believe benefits would be realized 

by forgoing designation of critical 

habitat for Navarretia fossalis on lands 

covered by the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP including: 

(1) Continuance and strengthening of 

our effective working relationships with 

all Western Riverside County MSHCP 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62222 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

jurisdictions and stakeholders to 

promote conservation of N. fossalis and 

its habitat; 

(2) Allowance for continued 

meaningful collaboration and 

cooperation in working toward 

recovering this species, including 

conservation benefits that might not 

otherwise occur; 

(3) Encouragement for local 

jurisdictions to fully participate in the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP; and 

(4) Encouragement of additional HCP 

and other conservation plan 

development in the future on other 

private lands for this and other federally 

listed and sensitive species. 

The Western Riverside County 

MSHCP provides substantial protection 

and management for Navarretia fossalis 

and the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, and addresses conservation 

issues from a coordinated, integrated 

perspective rather than a piecemeal, 

project-by-project approach (as would 

occur under sections 7 and 9 of the Act 

or smaller HCPs). 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 Western Riverside County 

MSHCP (as discussed further in 

Comment 22 below in the Summary of 

Comments and Recommendations 

section of this rule). Exclusion of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP lands 

from critical habitat would help 

preserve the partnerships we developed 

with the County of Riverside, the City 

of Hemet, and other local jurisdictions 

in the development of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP, and foster 

future partnerships and development of 

future HCPs. 

In summary, we believe excluding 

land covered by the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP from critical habitat 

could provide the significant benefit of 

maintaining existing regional HCP 

partnerships and fostering new ones. 

Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against 

Benefits of Inclusion—Western 

Riverside County MSHCP 

We reviewed and evaluated the 

benefits of inclusion and benefits of 

exclusion for all lands owned by or 

under the jurisdiction of Western 

Riverside County MSHCP permittees as 

critical habitat for Navarretia fossalis. 

The benefits of including conserved and 

managed lands in the critical habitat 

designation are small. All of the 

approximately 158 ac (64 ha) of land in 

Subunit 6D at Skunk Hollow and all of 

the approximately 708 ac (287 ha) of 

land in Subunit 6E at Mesa de Burro are 

already managed and conserved, and 

provide a benefit to N. fossalis. It is also 

unlikely that a project with a Federal 

nexus will occur in Subunits 6D, and 

6E; therefore, designating these areas as 

critical habitat is unlikely to provide 

significant regulatory benefit. 

Additionally, the educational benefits 

of critical habitat designation and the 

potential benefits designation may 

confer under other statutes (such as 

CEQA and NEPA) are also small in 

Subunits 6D and 6E because these areas 

are already conserved and managed in 

perpetuity. Therefore, designation of N. 

fossalis critical habitat in Subunits 6D 

or 6E will not provide a substantial 

educational benefit. 

In summary, we find that excluding 

lands from critical habitat in areas that 

are receiving long-term conservation 

and management for the purpose of 

protecting Navarretia fossalis (Subunits 

6D and 6E) will help preserve our 

partnership with the County of 

Riverside and other permittees in the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP and 

encourage the conservation of lands 

associated with development and 

implementation of future HCPs. These 

partnership benefits are significant and 

outweigh the small potential regulatory 

and educational benefits of including 

these already conserved and managed 

lands as critical habitat for N. fossalis. 

With regards to lands within the City of 

Hemet, we acknowledge the City’s 

proactive efforts to protect N. fossalis 

through enactment of Ordinance 1666 

prohibiting manure dumping in 

essential N. fossalis habitat. This effort 

somewhat reduces the regulatory and 

educational benefits of designation of 

that portion of Subunit 6B within the 

City of Hemit. However, these lands are 

not receiving long-term conservation 

and management to benefit N. fossalis. 

We find that including City of Hemet 

lands (Subunit 6B) and other nonconserved and non-managed lands 

within the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP (Subunits 6A and 6C) as critical 

habitat outweigh the benefits of 

exclusion. We believe that critical 

habitat designation in these areas will 

provide additional regulatory protection 

under section 7(a) of the Act when there 

is a Federal nexus, and act as an 

educational tool for the public to lead to 

conservation and management of N. 

fossalis and its essential habitat. 

Therefore, designating these areas as 

critical habitat for N. fossalis is likely to 

provide a regulatory as well as 

educational benefit to the species. While 

we acknowledge that excluding these 

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

would provide a significant benefit to 

the partnership that we have with the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

permittees (including the City of 

Hemet), we believe that the 

conservation value of including these 

non-conserved, non-managed lands as 

critical habitat outweighs the benefit of 

exclusion. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species—Subunits 6D and 6E, 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

We determined that the exclusion of 

866 ac (351 ha) of land in Unit 6 

(Subunits 6D and 6E) owned by or 

under the jurisdiction of Western 

Riverside County MSHCP permittees 

from the revised designation of critical 

habitat for Navarretia fossalis will not 

result in extinction of the species. These 

areas are permanently conserved and 

managed to provide a benefit to N. 

fossalis and its habitat. Additionally, the 

jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act 

provides assurances the species will not 

go extinct as a result of exclusion from 

critical habitat designation. The 

consultation requirements of section 

7(a)(2) and the attendant requirement to 

avoid jeopardy to N. fossalis for projects 

with a Federal nexus will provide 

significant protection to the species. 

Therefore, based on the above 

discussion, we are excluding 

approximately 866 ac (351 ha) of 

conserved and managed land in Unit 6 

(Subunits 6D and 6E) owned by or 

under the jurisdiction of Western 

Riverside County MSHCP permittees 

from this revised critical habitat 

designation. 

Economics 

An analysis of the economic impacts 

for the previous proposed critical 

habitat designation for Navarretia 

fossalis was conducted and made 

available to the public on August 31, 

2005 (70 FR 51742). That economic 

analysis was finalized for the final rule 

to designate critical habitat for N. 

fossalis published in the Federal 

Register on October 18, 2005 (70 FR 

60658). The analysis determined that 

the costs associated with critical habitat 

for N. fossalis across the entire area 

considered for designation (across 

designated and excluded areas) were 

primarily a result of the potential effects 

of critical habitat designation on land 

development, flood control, and 

transportation. After excluding land in 

Riverside and San Diego Counties from 

the 2004 proposed critical habitat (69 

FR 60110; October 7, 2004), the 

economic impact was estimated to be 

between $13.9 and $32.1 million over 

the next 20 years. Based on the 2005 

economic analysis, we concluded that 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62223 

the designation of critical habitat for N. 

fossalis, as proposed in 2004, would not 

result in significant small business 

impacts. This analysis is presented in 

the document making available the 

economic analysis published in the 

Federal Register on August 31, 2005 (70 

FR 51742). 

We prepared a new economic impact 

analysis associated with this revised 

critical habitat designation for 

Navarretia fossalis. In the revised DEA, 

we evaluated the potential economic 

effects on small business entities 

resulting from implementation of 

conservation actions related to the 

proposed revision to critical habitat for 

N. fossalis. The analysis is based on the 

estimated incremental impacts 

associated with the proposed 

rulemaking as described in sections 3 

through 10 of the analysis. We 

announced the availability of the draft 

economic analysis in the Federal 

Register on April 15, 2010 (75 FR 

19575). 

The final economics analysis 

determined that the costs associated 

with critical habitat for Navarretia 

fossalis, across the entire area 

considered for designation (both 

designated and excluded areas), are 

primarily a result of the potential effects 

of critical habitat designation on 

transportation, land development, and 

flood control. The incremental 

economic impact of designating critical 

habitat was estimated to be between 

$846,000 and $1.2 million over the next 

20 years using a 7 percent discount rate 

($70,000 and $100,000 annualized) 

(Entrix 2010, p. ES-3). The difference 

between the economic impacts 

projected with this designation 

compared to those in the 2005 

designation are due to the use of an 

incremental analysis in this designation 

rather than the broader coextensive 

analysis used in the 2005 designation. 

Additionally, the economic analysis for 

the 2005 designation included all 

31,086 ac (12,580 ha) of essential habitat 

while the 2010 analysis included only 

the 7,609 ac (3,079 ha) that were 

proposed for designation. Based on the 

2010 final economic analysis, we 

concluded that the designation of 

critical habitat for N. fossalis, as 

proposed in 2009, would not result in 

significant small business impacts. This 

analysis is presented in the Final 

Economic Analysis of Proposed Revised 

Critical Habitat Designation for 

Spreading Navarretia (FEA)(Entrix 

2010). 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

We requested written comments from 

the public on the proposed rule to revise 

critical habitat for the Navarretia 

fossalis during two comment periods. 

The first comment period opened with 

the publication of the proposed revised 

rule in the Federal Register on June 10, 

2009 (74 FR 27588), and closed on 

August 10, 2009. The second comment 

period opened with the publication of 

the availability of the DEA published in 

the Federal Register on April 15, 2010 

(75 FR 19575) and closed on May 17, 

2010. During both public comment 

periods, we contacted appropriate 

Federal, State, and local agencies; 

scientific organizations; and other 

interested parties and invited them to 

comment on the proposed rule to revise 

critical habitat for this species and the 

associated DEA. During the comment 

periods, we requested all interested 

parties submit comments or information 

related to the proposed revisions to 

critical habitat, including (but not 

limited to) the following: unit 

boundaries; species occurrence 

information and distribution; land use 

designations that may affect critical 

habitat; potential economic effects of the 

proposed designation; benefits 

associated with critical habitat 

designation; areas proposed for 

designation and associated rationale for 

the non-inclusion or considered 

exclusion of these areas; and methods 

used to designate critical habitat. 

During the first comment period, we 

received 12 comments directly 

addressing the proposed revised critical 

habitat designation, 4 from peer 

reviewers and 8 from public 

organizations or individuals. During the 

second comment period, we received 

one comment from local government 

addressing the proposed critical habitat 

designation and the DEA. We did not 

receive any requests for a public 

hearing. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our peer review 

policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinions 

from four knowledgeable individuals 

with scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the species, the 

geographic region in which it occurs, 

and conservation biology principles 

pertinent to the species. We received 

responses from all four peer reviewers 

who provided additional information, 

clarifications, and suggestions that we 

incorporated into the rule to improve 

the revised critical habitat designation. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewers and the public 

for substantive issues and new 

information regarding the designation of 

critical habitat for Navarretia fossalis. 

All comments are addressed in the 

following summary and incorporated 

into the final rule as appropriate. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

Comment 1: One peer reviewer was 

supportive of the proposed revised 

critical habitat rule. The reviewer stated 

the proposed rule was well thought-out, 

based on sound data, and presented a 

thorough analysis. The reviewer further 

stated that Navarretia fossalis’ specific 

needs for ephemerally wet habitats and 

limited dispersal ability were 

appropriately analyzed and considered 

in the proposed revised rule. The 

reviewer concluded our revised 

methods were thorough, logical and 

biologically supported, and limited the 

proposed designation to areas necessary 

for maintaining N. fossalis persistence. 

Our Response: We appreciate the peer 

reviewer’s critical review. 

Comment 2: One peer reviewer stated 

that large, well-established Navarretia 

fossalis populations need to be 

protected; therefore, the reviewer 

believe the definition of ‘‘core habitat 

areas’’ as relatively large areas of intact 

habitat with existing populations in the 

proposed revised rule was reasonable. 

The reviewer further stated that limited 

gene flow among populations and the 

range of soil and water conditions 

among habitats suggest significant 

range-wide genetic variability of N. 

fossalis; therefore, the reviewer believes 

populations on the periphery of the 

geographical range and those that 

occupy unique non-core habitats are 

important to species preservation. The 

reviewer stated that designating only 

relatively large intact habitat areas as 

critical habitat could lead to significant 

loss of genetic diversity and preclude 

species’ survival and recovery and 

therefore, agreed with our inclusion of 

both large and smaller areas for N. 

fossalis. 

Our Response: We appreciate the peer 

reviewer’s critical review and have 

incorporated their comments into the 

rule as appropriate. 

Comment 3: One peer reviewer 

offered technical and organizational 

comments. The reviewer stated the 

proposal writing style was professional 

and understandable. The reviewer noted 

the proposal was better organized than 

past critical habitat proposals on 

Navarretia fossalis, as well as other 

critical habitat designations for listed 

species that occur in similar habitat, and 

the use of tables to help explain 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62224 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

differences between the 2005 and 2009 

proposals was helpful. The reviewer 

further stated the usefulness of maps in 

the printed rule for public review of 

specific units was limited, and the lack 

of UTM coordinates and a 100-m grid 

made it difficult for the public to 

reproduce maps at different scales, 

overlay features with mapping 

programs, and confirm map accuracy. 

Our Response: We appreciate the peer 

reviewer’s comments and will consider 

this advice when publishing future 

proposed critical habitat designations. 

Comment 4: One peer reviewer 

commented on text in the Areas Needed 

for Conservation: Core and Satellite 

Habitat Areas section of the proposed 

rule. The reviewer stated since the 

Service clearly based these proposed 

areas on new information, there should 

have been a citation or explanation as to 

why Mesa de Burro was considered a 

‘‘core population.’’ The reviewer stated 

they were able to verify reports of large 

populations qualifying Mesa de Burro as 

a ‘‘core population,’’ but the Mesa de 

Burro site may not be biologically 

equivalent with the other ‘‘core 

population complexes.’’ The reviewer 

defined ‘‘core population complexes’’ as 

numerous vernal pools and argued the 

Mesa de Burro occurrence appears to be 

restricted to a small number of pools. 

The reviewer suggested it was probably 

best to describe Mesa de Burro as a 

‘‘large and important population,’’ since 

it is not really a complex of populations 

or occurrences. 

Our Response: We understand the 

peer reviewer’s concern regarding the 

ecological connotation of terms used for 

the Navarretia fossalis critical habitat 

designation; however, we never used 

the terms ‘‘core population’’ or ‘‘core 

population complexes’’ in the proposed 

rule. The only term used in the 

proposed revised rule and in this 

document with the word ‘‘core’’ is ‘‘core 

habitat area,’’ which is a descriptive 

term of convenience. As described in 

the proposed revised rule (74 FR 27588) 

and the Areas Needed for Conservation: 

Core and Satellite Habitat Areas section 

of this rule, ‘‘core habitat area’’ denotes 

those areas that contain the highest 

concentrations of N. fossalis and the 

largest contiguous blocks of habitat for 

this species and are therefore the most 

critical areas for conservation of this 

species. The term was not intended to 

be synonymous with similar terms used 

in other documents. The term ‘‘vernal 

pool complex’’ is used in Table 3 to refer 

to more than one geographically 

proximal pool, but was not further 

defined. 

Regarding the peer reviewer’s 

suggested description of Mesa de Burro 

as a ‘‘large important population,’’ we do 

not share this opinion. We are not aware 

of any formal definition of 

‘‘occurrences’’ or descriptions of 

associated pools in a biologically 

delineated population. Mesa de Burro 

contains a relatively large abundance of 

observed individuals occupying 

multiple vernal pools, and we believe 

this description appropriately describes 

the current level of scientific 

knowledge. In general, we are 

conservative with use of the term 

‘‘population’’ because of the term’s 

frequent misapplication in gray 

literature. We refrain from using the 

term ‘‘population’’ to describe a 

geographically specific occupied area 

unless data indicate appropriate rates of 

genetic exchange exist among spatially 

clustered individuals and a geographical 

population distribution has been 

delineated. Therefore, we believe the 

peer reviewer’s concerns regarding our 

use of inappropriate terminology are not 

well founded. We have edited the Areas 

Needed for Conservation: Core and 

Satellite Habitat Areas section to clarify 

the above issues. 

Comment 5: Regarding the discussion 

of the PCEs in the proposed rule, one 

peer reviewer recommended changing, 

‘‘During a typical seasonal flooding 

period, alkali scrub vegetation expands 

its distribution into deeper areas of the 

seasonally flooded alkali vernal plain 

habitat and crowds out the more 

ephemeral wetland species’’ to ‘‘During 

a typical seasonal flooding cycle, alkali 

scrub vegetation expands its 

distribution during the dry periods into 

deeper areas of the seasonally flooded 

alkali vernal plains habitat...’’ The peer 

reviewer also stated that light to 

moderate disturbance can mask or 

suppress some PCEs within seasonally 

flooded vernal alkali plains habitat. 

Therefore, the reviewer recommended 

the final rule include the following 

qualification regarding habitat quality: 

‘‘Seasonally flooded alkali vernal plain 

can persist in light to moderately 

disturbed habitat that may obscure or 

suppress expression of PCEs, especially 

soil amendments and dryland farming 

activities. Reasonably restorable habitat 

is considered to have the applicable 

PCEs within the San Jacinto River flood 

plain and at Old Salt Creek. Many of 

these sites, although currently in 

degraded condition, are restorable and 

may be necessary to the recovery of the 

species.’’ The peer reviewer also noted 

an apparent omission of the species’ 

occurrence within the alkali Chino 

series soils at Old Salt Creek. 

Our Response: We considered the 

suggested edits provided by the peer 

reviewer and made changes to the text 

above as appropriate (see Primary 

Constituent Elements section). 

Comment 6: Regarding the Special 

Management Considerations or 

Protection section of the proposed rule, 

one peer reviewer recommended adding 

soil chemistry alteration and manure 

dumping to the list of threats for 

Navarretia fossalis. The reviewer stated 

manure dumping has reduced or 

eliminated alkali vernal pools over large 

portions of the San Jacinto River flood 

plain and may now be the most 

significant immediate threat to N. 

fossalis. The reviewer cited numerous 

communications with the Carlsbad Fish 

and Wildlife Office in which the 

reviewer had documented manure 

dumping in vernal pool habitat. 

Our Response: We considered the 

suggested text edits to this revised 

critical habitat rule and made changes 

as appropriate (see Special Management 

Considerations or Protection section). 

We agree that manure dumping is a 

significant threat to Navarretia fossalis, 

and we agree that this activity is 

ongoing. We are in the process of 

working with local jurisdictions in 

Western Riverside County (including 

the County of Riverside) to address 

manure dumping through initiatives 

like Ordinance No. 1666 that was 

enacted by the City of Hemet. We hope 

to work further with our partners in 

Riverside County to reduce the threat of 

manure dumping (see also responses to 

Comments 12 and 13 below, and the 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection section of this rule). 

Comment 7: Regarding the Criteria 

Used To Identify Critical Habitat 

section of the proposed revised rule, one 

peer reviewer argued that based on data 

for similar species, two or more negative 

surveys during the past 10 years is an 

insufficient effort to confirm extirpation 

in lightly disturbed habitat. The 

reviewer advised that a lack of positive 

surveys for a decade suggests a 

population is declining or scarce, but 

without significant habitat disturbance 

as well, does not mean it is extirpated. 

The peer reviewer recommended that in 

circumstances where habitat has not 

been significantly altered, the Service 

should not conclude absence based on 

lack of documentation. In the case of 

comprehensive but negative survey 

results, the peer reviewer believes 20 

years would be a more reliable indicator 

of population extirpation. The peer 

reviewer further noted that while this 

change in methodology may not change 

what areas meet the definition of critical 

habitat for Navarretia fossalis, the 

limitations of current methods should 

be considered in future critical habitat 

analyses. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62225 

Our Response: We appreciate the peer 

reviewer’s concerns and have 

considered the argument that more than 

20 years without positive survey data in 

suitable habitat is an appropriate 

criterion for determining likely absence 

of Navarretia fossalis. We would like to 

reassure the peer reviewer that we used 

more complex criteria than two negative 

surveys over a period of 10 years to 

determine occupancy. Negative surveys 

must have occurred under appropriate 

conditions, while habitat status was also 

considered. As discussed in the Criteria 

Used To Identify Critical Habitat 

section, we assume an area is currently 

occupied for areas where we had past 

occupancy data unless: (a) Two or more 

rare plant surveys conducted during the 

past 10 years did not find N. fossalis 

(providing the surveys were conducted 

in years where average rainfall amounts 

for a particular area are reached during 

the rainy season (between October and 

May)) and during the appropriate 

months to find this species (March, 

April, and May); or (b) the site was 

significantly disturbed since the last 

observation of the species at that 

location. Therefore, we believe our 

current methodology is appropriate. 

Comment 8: One peer reviewer 

expressed concerns regarding 

occupancy status of specific pools. The 

reviewer argued the description of a 

vernal pool in Subunit 5G (Otay Lakes) 

as partly unoccupied may be 

inappropriate, because Navarretia 

fossalis is likely still present if habitat 

is intact and minimally disturbed. The 

reviewer stated a better criterion for 

occupancy determination would be 

habitat status within the vicinity of 

vernal pools, rather than a lack of 

occupancy data for the past 10 years. 

The peer reviewer stated they were not 

necessarily suggesting that the vernal 

pool ‘‘populations’’ at Otay River Valley 

and Otay Lakes (Unit 5) be included in 

critical habitat, only that the assumption 

of species’ absence may be false. 

The peer reviewer also stated that 

because the vernal pool complex in 

Subunit 5C occurs within a core habitat 

area (Otay Mesa) that has experienced 

significant habitat loss, faces significant 

threats, and is identified in the Recovery 

Plan as necessary for recovery, it seems 

prudent to include it in critical habitat, 

or offer a more compelling argument for 

non-inclusion. 

Our Response: In such a scenario of 

limited survey periods, we use the 

available surveys as the best available 

science. This situation underscores the 

need for us to address new information 

as it is received. We understand the peer 

reviewer’s concern and have considered 

their argument; however, habitat 

availability and condition does not 

always necessarily equate to occupancy 

for vernal pools species because other 

habitat characteristics such as 

hydroperiod, pool depth, soil type and 

other physical features also play a role. 

Critical habitat designations are to use 

the best available commercial and 

scientific data to identify lands that we 

believe contain the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. Without 

more site specific investigation on 

occupancy for Subunit 5G, we cannot 

ascertain for certain that all of the areas 

are occupied solely on habitat status as 

recommended by the peer reviewer and 

have relied on our criteria for 

occupancy as stated above. Please see 

the response to Comment 7 above for 

further discussion regarding occupancy 

data and criteria used to identify critical 

habitat. 

We agree with the peer reviewer that 

Subunit 5C meets the definition of 

critical habitat. Based on information in 

our files inadvertently excluded from 

our initial Geographic Information 

System (GIS) analysis, we determined 

that the previously proposed Subunit 5C 

(69 FR 60110; October 1, 2004) has 

documented occupancy within the past 

10 years and meets the definition of 

critical habitat. We proposed 

designation of subunit 5C in our 

revision to the 2009 proposed. We 

proposed adding subunit 5C in the 

document that made available the DEA 

for the proposed revised critical habitat 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 15, 2010 (72 FR 19575). We are 

designating subunit 5C as critical 

habitat in this final rule. Please see 

edited Summary of Changes From the 

2009 Proposed Rule To Revise Critical 

Habitat and Critical Habitat Units 

sections for more information. 

Comment 9: One peer reviewer noted 

that although the proposal stated that 

slopes facing away from Cruzan Mesa 

were removed from Subunit 1A 

(compared to the 2005 designation), an 

examination of Google Earth imagery 

indicated some of the mesa top was also 

removed. The reviewer recommended 

subunit boundaries be modified to 

include the full mesa top. 

Our Response: We appreciate the peer 

reviewer’s critical review. We 

considered the suggested changes and 

revised the designated critical habitat 

boundary for Subunit 1A to include 

those areas containing the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. We 

explained the revised proposed 

boundary in the document we 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 15, 2010 (75 FR 19575). The 

revision increased the designated total 

for Subunit 1A by 27 ac (11 ha), 

reflected in Table 2. For more 

information, see the Summary of 

Changes From Previously Designated 

and Proposed Revised Critical Habitat 

section. 

Comment 10: One peer reviewer 

suggested there may not be sufficient 

data to demonstrate the Plum Canyon 

vernal pool in Subunit 1B meets the 

definition of critical habitat. The 

reviewer noted that although there are 

two collection records from 1996 and 

2003, the CNDDB notes the ‘‘site 

requires more field work,’’ which 

usually means there is some debate on 

specific location or population status. 

The peer reviewer added they were not 

able to confirm the location of this 

vernal pool through examination of 

aerial photographs. The peer reviewer 

also recommended the western portion 

of Subunit 3B should not be designated 

critical habitat because Google Earth 

imagery indicates this area has been 

graded and is unlikely to ever support 

the PCEs for this species. 

Our Response: We appreciate the peer 

reviewer’s critical review. We 

considered the suggested changes and 

revised this final designation by 

removing the western portion of 

Subunit 3B as discussed in the 

document making available the DEA (75 

FR 19575; April 15, 2010). However, we 

believe Subunit 1B (Plum Canyon) 

meets the definition of critical habitat 

because this subunit supports a stable 

occurrence of Navarretia fossalis, 

provides potential connectivity with 

Subunit 1A, and likely supports a 

genetically distinct occurrence. We 

believe Subunit 3B (Carroll Canyon) 

meets the definition of critical habitat 

because it supports a stable occurrence 

of N. fossalis and provides potential 

connectivity between occurrences of N. 

fossalis in Subunits 3A and 3C. For 

more information, see the Critical 

Habitat Units, Criteria Used To Identify 

Critical Habitat, and Summary of 

Changes From Previously Designated 

and Proposed Revised Critical Habitat 

sections. 

Comment 11: One peer reviewer 

recommended multiple changes to the 

boundary of Subunit 6B as follows: 

(1) Remove a central section south of 

Stetson Road that has been developed or 

disturbed for many years; 

(2) expand the eastern edge boundary 

to include vernal pools at the western 

end of the airport because this site 

includes the PCEs, has documented 

historical occupation, includes pools 

that are more reliably filled than pools 

that were proposed for designation, and 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62226 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

this land has a likely Federal Aviation 

Administration Federal nexus; 

(3) include vernal pools and wet 

depressions that form fairly reliably in 

the northwest portion of the subunit; 

(4) remove the drier area at the 

northern end just south of Devonshire 

Road; and 

(5) remove the eastern corner because 

it either has active residential 

development or an approved 

development proposal and is heavily 

degraded. 

Our Response: We appreciate the peer 

reviewer’s critical review. We 

considered the suggested changes and 

revised the final critical habitat 

boundary as noticed in the NOA of the 

DEA (75 FR 19575; April 15, 2010). For 

more information see the Summary of 

Changes From the Proposed Revised 

Rule and the Previous Critical Habitat 

Designation. 

Comment 12: One peer reviewer 

believes that manure dumping should 

be specifically mentioned in the section 

of this critical habitat designation that 

outlines activities that, when carried 

out, funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency, may affect critical habitat and, 

therefore, should result in consultation 

for Navarretia fossalis: Effects of Critical 

Habitat Designation section, subsection 

(2) titled Application of the ‘Adverse 

Modification’ Standard section, 

paragraph describing ‘‘Actions that 

would impact soil and topography.’’ The 

peer reviewer argued that widespread 

manure dumping along the San Jacinto 

River, which alters soil chemistry 

(reducing alkalinity and clay and silt 

composition ratios) and topography 

(elevates soil surface and suppresses 

depressions formation), is a significant 

threat to the species. 

Our Response: We considered the 

peer reviewer’s suggested edits when 

preparing this revised critical habitat 

rule and made changes to the Effects of 

Critical Habitat Designation, 

Application of the ‘Adverse 

Modification’ Standard section. We 

agree that manure dumping is a 

significant threat to Navarretia fossalis 

and the PCEs require special 

management considerations or 

protection to reduce the threat (see the 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection). The Western Riverside 

County MSHCP does not prohibit 

permittees from engaging in manure 

dumping on non-conserved lands where 

a Federal nexus is present and there is 

no local ordinance to prevent dumping; 

therefore, we determined that 

designation of critical habitat would 

provide significant additional habitat 

protection. We also determined that 

education has been inadequate in some 

areas with regard to the severity of this 

threat; therefore, designation of critical 

habitat where manure dumping can 

occur would provide a significant 

educational conservation benefit (see 

also response to Comments 6 and 13, 

and the Western Riverside County 

Multiple Species Habitat Conservation 

Plan (Western Riverside County 

MSHCP) section). 

Comment 13: One peer reviewer 

believes that exclusion of lands owned 

under the jurisdiction of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP permittees 

should not be excluded from critical 

habitat based on partnership benefits. 

As an example, the peer reviewer stated 

that areas along the San Jacinto River 

and near the city of Hemet have not 

been adequately protected. These areas 

were identified in the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP as necessary for the 

conservation of Navarretia fossalis and 

were excluded from the 2005 final 

critical habitat designation. The peer 

reviewer asserted that habitat vandalism 

and incidental destruction in all vernal 

pools within the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP plan area have 

continued, and in some areas increased, 

since the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP was permitted. The peer 

reviewer discussed at length and in 

detail evidence that they believe 

suggests land-owners who are aware of 

the conservation value of vernal pools 

are working to eradicate habitat rather 

than ‘‘partnering with regulators’’ to 

conserve it. Additionally, the peer 

reviewer argued that unlike other 

approved HCPs, the reviewers believe 

the Service has evidence that the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP is 

not providing the benefits ‘‘claimed to 

justify exclusion in the proposed 

revised critical habitat rule.’’ The 

reviewers further hypothesized that 

should impacts continue at the rate and 

magnitude as occurred during the first 

5 years of the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP implementation, there could be 

almost no habitat left in 5 years outside 

the San Jacinto Wildlife Area and the 

Metropolitan Water District Vernal Pool 

Preserve. 

Our Response: We appreciate the peer 

reviewer’s concerns regarding adequate 

protection of Navarretia fossalis under 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP. 

Although not specifically stated by the 

peer reviewer, the comment indicates 

the reviewer believes: 

(1) The benefits of exclusion (based 

primarily on partnerships benefits) 

would be lower than the benefits of 

inclusion because these partnerships 

have provided less benefit to N. fossalis 

to-date than anticipated; and 

(2) The benefits of inclusion (nonredundant protections and education 

provided by critical habitat designation) 

are greater because conservation actions 

mandated by the HCP are not being 

implemented. 

Benefits provided by existing HCPs 

are not considered a benefit of exclusion 

because they would remain in place 

regardless of critical habitat designation; 

however, they do minimize the benefits 

of inclusion to the extent they are 

redundant with protection measures 

that would be provided by a critical 

habitat designation. As described in the 

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

section, the likelihood of a project with 

a Federal nexus occurring in Subunits 

6D (Barry Jones Wetland Mitigation 

Bank) and 6E (PQP lands) in the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

revised critical habitat is small because 

these areas are currently conserved and 

managed; therefore, the regulatory and 

educational benefits of inclusion are 

insignificant. Additionally, the portion 

of Subunit 6B that is in the City of 

Hemet is protected by an ordinance that 

addresses illegal manure dumping, an 

activity that is not covered by the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP; 

however, this area does not receive 

long-term conservation and 

management for the benefit of 

Navarretia fossalis and its habitat. Due 

to this additional protection from 

manure dumping, the benefits of 

inclusion of this portion of Subunit 6B 

as critical habitat are somewhat 

lessened. 

Regarding the benefits of exclusion, 

the adequacy of Navarretia fossalis 

protection under an HCP is relevant to 

the value of partnerships to the extent 

it demonstrates the overall conservation 

value of a regional HCP permit. We 

believe the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP generally incorporates ongoing 

management and protection that should 

benefit the conservation of N. fossalis 

and its habitat over the long term. Please 

refer to the Application of Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act section for further 

discussion on the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP, including discussion 

on areas receiving long-term 

conservation and management that we 

have excluded under section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act. 

Based on new information, we did 

find the benefits of inclusion in critical 

habitat to be greater in some areas 

within the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP than we estimated in the 

October 18, 2005, critical habitat rule 

(70 FR 60658). We determined that 

designation of critical habitat for 

Navarretia fossalis would provide 

significant additional habitat protection 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62227 

in Subunits 6A, 6B, and 6C. We came 

to this determination because the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP does 

not currently provide for the long-term 

conservation and management of N. 

fossalis in these subunits, and the HCP 

does not prohibit permittees from 

engaging in manure dumping activities 

(a significant new threat on nonconserved lands that was not identified 

in the HCP or the associated biological 

opinion (Service 2004b, pp. 369–378)). 

Therefore, in areas where a Federal 

nexus exists (see also Comments 6 and 

12 above), we concluded that the 

significant regulatory benefit of 

including the areas in critical habitat 

outweigh the partnership benefits of 

exclusion. We also determined that 

education to date has been inadequate 

in some areas with regard to the severity 

of manure dumping; therefore, 

designation of N. fossalis critical habitat 

where manure dumping can occur 

would provide a significant educational 

conservation benefit. 

In summary, we found the benefits of 

exclusion of lands covered by the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP to be 

greater than the minimal benefits of 

including these lands in the critical 

habitat designation for those areas that 

are currently conserved and managed 

(i.e., Subunits 6D and 6E). Alternatively, 

the benefits of inclusion are greater for 

non-conserved, non-managed lands 

within the plan area (i.e., Subunit 6A, 

6B, and 6C). See the Application of 

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

(particularly the Weighing Benefits of 

Exclusion Against Benefits of 

Inclusion—Western Riverside County 

MSHCP section) for a complete 

discussion of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP exclusion analysis. 

Issues discussed by the peer reviewer, 

while they may reflect valid concerns 

with regard to HCP implementation, do 

not reduce the benefits of exclusion for 

Subunits 6D and 6E. We believe that 

conservation is adequate in these areas 

as a result of the long-term conservation 

and management of Subunits 6D and 6E 

(see Benefits of Exclusion—Western 

Riverside County MSHCP and the 

Weighing Benefits of Exclusion Against 

Benefits of Inclusion—Western 

Riverside County MSHCP sections). 

However, we will consider the 

information submitted by the peer 

reviewer in our ongoing assessments of 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP, 

and continue to work with permittees to 

ensure that the HCP is properly 

implemented to benefit Navarretia 

fossalis and its habitat. 

Comment 14: One peer reviewer 

stated that the Service should not 

exclude habitat within the plan area of 

HCP permits that are not yet issued. The 

reviewer stated draft plans provide no 

guarantee that the final HCPs will 

provide adequate species conservation. 

Our Response: We did not exclude 

any habitat from this revised critical 

habitat designation that falls within the 

plan area of an HCP permit that has not 

yet been issued. 

Other Comments 

Comment 15: Two commenters 

provided biological information for our 

consideration. 

(1) One commenter provided 

information about the presence of 

Navarretia fossalis at one location in 

San Marcos, California, including 

reference to a website with detailed 

biological information about this 

location. The commenter indicated that 

they believe the future of the site is 

uncertain and N. fossalis grows in the 

larger vernal pools onsite. 

(2) A second commenter stated that 

although ‘‘scrub’’ habitat elements may 

expand into alkali playa, the more 

common process currently observed is 

replacement of alkali playa by alkali 

grassland (regarding the Primary 

Constituent Elements– Ephemeral 

Wetland Habitat section of the proposed 

rule). The second commenter also noted 

that in some of the known species’ 

localities, alkali grassland has become 

dominated by species less commonly 

found in the wetter areas of the alkali 

playa, possibly due to alteration of 

hydrology. 

(3) The second commenter described 

distinct ‘‘riverine pools’’ characterized 

by unique floristic elements, such as 

Trichocoronis wrightii (limestone 

bugheal), which only occur with 

Navarretia fossalis within the San 

Jacinto River Unit. 

(4) The second commenter stated that 

‘‘general anecdotal observations’’ of 

habitat conditions at the Salt Creek 

Seasonally Flooded Alkali Plain 

indicate a recent decline in Navarretia 

fossalis densities, especially at the 

Stowe vernal pool. The commenter 

acknowledged these observations may 

reflect a response to rainfall patterns, 

but stated the habitat does appear to 

have experienced drying of the 

ephemeral wetlands and vernal pools, 

along with an expansion of Hordeum 

marinum subsp. gussoneanum (cheat 

grass). 

(5) The second commenter stated that 

a number of the larger vernal pools in 

the Perris plain region occur on Willows 

soils. 

(6) Finally, the second commenter 

noted the proposed expansion of 

waterfowl ponds and wet soil 

management in portions of the San 

Jacinto Wildlife Area (under the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP) may 

negatively affect Navarretia fossalis. The 

expansion could benefit N. fossalis by 

providing more habitat for this species; 

however, ponding duration and exotic 

plant species used to increase the 

waterfowl habitat suitability could 

conflict with existing or expanded N. 

fossalis populations within the San 

Jacinto Wildlife Area. 

Our Response: We appreciate all 

information provided. We are aware of 

the San Marcos vernal pools 

information, which is identified in 

Table 2 as Subunit 4C1 in the San 

Marcos Upham location. Additionally, 

the Service regularly works with CDFG 

to ensure that the seasonally flooded 

alkali vernal plain habitat in the San 

Jacinto Wildlife Area continues to 

function and provide a benefit to 

Navarretia fossalis and other sensitive 

species that use this habitat. We will 

consider the information regarding the 

proposed expansion of waterfowl ponds 

and wet soil management in portions of 

the San Jacinto Wildlife Area in future 

conservation recommendations and 

decisions; however, we do not believe it 

is relevant to this revised critical habitat 

designation for N. fossalis. 

We considered the other information 

provided and edited this revised critical 

habitat rule as appropriate (see Primary 

Constituent Elements—Ephemeral 

Wetland Habitat and Background— 

Geographic Range and Status sections 

above). 

Comment 16: One commenter 

recommended that the total number of 

Navarretia fossalis localities be carefully 

reviewed and possibly updated 

(regarding the Background— 

Geographic Range and Status section of 

the proposed rule). The commenter 

stated that they believe the section 

failed to cite some potentially important 

references, including Brown’s (2003) 

listing of ephemeral pools in western 

Riverside County, and CNDDB 

collection records from the ElsinoreMurrieta area and from San Luis Obispo 

County. 

Our Response: Regarding the 

suggested Background section citations, 

the data in Brown’s (2003) record table 

is part of our Service files and was 

incorporated in our GIS database, we are 

not aware of any CNDDB collection 

records from the Elsinore-Murrieta area 

(and none were provided by the 

commenter), and the San Luis Obispo 

County record has never been verified; 

therefore, we did not include those 

suggested record citations in this final 

rule. 

Comment 17: Two commenters 

expressed general opposition to revising 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62228 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

critical habitat because of the resulting 

costs to taxpayers and private 

companies. 

Our Response: According to sections 

3(5)(A) and 4(b) of the Act and our 

implementing regulations under 50 CFR 

424.12, we are required to designate 

critical habitat for federally listed 

species. Following the listing of 

Navarretia fossalis in 1998 and the 

subsequent designation of the species’ 

critical habitat in 2005, the Center for 

Biological Diversity filed a complaint on 

December 19, 2007, in the U.S. District 

Court for the Southern District of 

California challenging the 2005 

designation. This lawsuit challenged the 

validity of the information and 

reasoning we used to exclude areas from 

the 2005 critical habitat designation for 

N. fossalis. On July 25, 2008, the parties 

reached a settlement agreement, in 

which we agreed to reconsider the 

critical habitat designation for the 

species. The action of revising the 

designation is the result of our following 

a court order. Therefore, while we 

acknowledge the commenters’ concern 

that revising critical habitat is costly, we 

do not have discretion with regard to 

completion of court-ordered actions (see 

Previous Federal Actions section above 

for more information regarding 

completion of this revised rule). 

Comment 18: Two commenters 

provided suggestions regarding the 

proposed critical habitat designation 

review process. One commenter stated 

that graphics provided in the proposed 

rule did not allow detailed review of 

areas proposed as revised critical habitat 

and thus recommended the Service post 

topographic maps or aerial photographs 

on the Internet during open comment 

periods. A second commenter requested 

that no additional areas be proposed as 

revised critical habitat without 

recirculation of the entire rule for notice 

and comment. 

Our Response: We agree it would be 

advantageous to provide more detailed 

graphics for public review and will 

consider the practicality of doing so 

when publishing future proposed 

critical habitat designations. 

According to section 4(b)(5) of the Act 

and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 

U.S.C. Subchapter II), we are required to 

provide an adequate opportunity for the 

public to comment on any critical 

habitat rule. Although it is not fiscally 

practical for us to recirculate an entire 

rule for notice and comment, any areas 

proposed as revised critical habitat for 

Navarretia fossalis that are in addition 

to those listed in the proposed revised 

critical habitat rule (74 FR 27588; June 

10, 2009) were described in the 

document that made available the DEA 

(75 FR 19575; April 15, 2010). As a 

result, the opportunity for public review 

and comment prior to designation of 

this revised critical habitat designation 

occurred as a result of an initial public 

comment period between June 10, 2009, 

and August 10, 2009, and a second 

public comment period between April 

15, 2010, and May 17, 2010. 

Comment 19: Two commenters 

recommended adding or removing areas 

from the Navarretia fossalis proposed 

revised critical habitat. The first 

commenter recommended proposed 

revised critical habitat be expanded at 

the ‘‘northern and southern boundaries’’ 

of the San Jacinto River subunit 

(Subunit 6A). Specifically they 

recommended proposed revised critical 

habitat be expanded at the following 

locations: 

(1) At the northern boundary east to 

include pond areas within the San 

Jacinto Wildlife Area; 

(2) Around 13th Street east of the 

County owned property; 

(3) Eastward near Simpson Road in 

the area of San Jacinto Avenue to 

include areas north of Ellis Avenue; 

(4) North of the San Jacinto river to 

near Redlands Avenue; 

(5) To include the entire vernal pool 

found south off Case Road; 

(6) South of the San Jacinto River, 

possibly to the boundary of Green 

Valley Parkway; 

(7) Westward to include pools in the 

northwestern corner of the Hemet 

Airport within the Salt Creek Seasonally 

Flooded Alkali Plain; and 

(8) At the southern end of the 

Wickerd Road and Scott Road locality. 

A second commenter asserted that the 

proposed critical habitat designation 

falls short of the Act’s ‘‘recovery 

requirement’’ by focusing solely on 

species’ survival. They asserted in 

particular that additional areas need to 

be proposed to ensure ecological 

features required for species’ recovery 

are maintained, such as water quality, 

inundation frequency, and habitat 

connectivity. 

Our Response: We considered the 

changes suggested by the first 

commenter and revised this final 

revised critical habitat designation as 

appropriate as discussed in the 

document making available DEA (75 FR 

19575; April 15, 2010). For more 

information see the Summary of 

Changes From the Proposed Revised 

Rule and the Previous Critical Habitat 

Designation section and our response to 

Comment 11 

Regarding the second commenter’s 

assertion that additional critical habitat 

areas need to be proposed to meet the 

‘‘[Act’s] recovery requirement,’’ we 

believe we have designated all the 

specific occupied areas which are found 

those physical or biological features that 

are essential to the conservation of the 

species. We recognize that the 

designation of critical habitat may not 

include all of the habitat that may 

eventually be determined to be 

necessary for the recovery of Navarretia 

fossalis, and critical habitat designations 

do not signal that habitat outside the 

designation is unimportant or may not 

contribute to recovery. Areas outside the 

revised 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 if 

actions occurring in these areas may 

affect N. fossalis; these protections and 

conservation tools will continue to 

contribute to recovery of this species. 

The second commenter did not suggest 

specific additional areas for inclusion in 

the proposed revised critical habitat 

designation, and we are not aware of 

any additional areas required for species 

recovery that should be proposed as 

revised critical habitat. 

Comment 20: One commenter 

suggested edits to the proposed revised 

critical habitat rule text. The commenter 

stated that more information could have 

been included in the Background 

section of the proposed rule regarding 

the different substrates, hydrology, and 

habitat status of each core habitat area. 

The commenter also recommended we 

expand our discussion of the extent of 

protection during the early phase of 

HCP implementation and for plant 

species under the Act. The commenter 

specifically recommended the following 

edits: 

(1) Note that Navarretia fossalis is 

generally restricted to vernal pools and 

alkali playas, and that in the alkali 

grasslands, this species is restricted to 

small vernal pools or other depressions 

within this community (Background— 

Habitat subsection); 

(2) Note that suitability of 

hydrological conditions for the 

germination of this species vary on an 

annual basis, which means that N. 

fossalis can be absent for a number of 

years and the total number of plants can 

vary depending on the timing, duration, 

and extent of ponding (Background— 

Habitat subsection); 

(3) Describe the unique nature of the 

ephemeral wetlands found along the 

San Jacinto River, especially how large 

scale flooding events, although 

uncommon, appear to maintain N. 

fossalis habitat and provide a species 

dispersal mechanism (Primary 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62229 

Constituent Elements; Ephemeral 

Wetland Habitat subsection); 

(4) Discuss the importance of specific 

microtopography required to provide 

sufficient ponding duration (hydrology) 

to support this species and the threat 

posed by alteration of microtopography 

(Primary Constituent Elements; 

Ephemeral Wetland Habitat 

subsection); and 

(5) Mention a number of the larger 

vernal pools in the Perris Plain region 

occur on the Willows Soil Series 

(Primary Constituent Elements: 

Topography and Soils that Support 

Ponding During Winter and Spring 

subsection). 

With regard to PCEs in general, the 

commenter stated: 

(1) The importance of overland water 

flow and the size of the local watershed 

required to maintain ephemeral 

wetlands needs to be emphasized; and 

(2) More information should be 

provided on the current condition of the 

PCEs in each subunit. 

The commenter made the following 

specific edit recommendations for the 

Criteria Used to Identify Critical 

Habitat section: 

(1) Step 3 should be expanded to note 

how total proposed area reductions in 

essential habitat were determined and 

the extent of local watershed inclusion 

in a unit; and 

(2) Step 4 should include notes of any 

recent field or site condition 

observations. 

The commenter made the following 

specific edit recommendations for the 

Summary of Changes from Previously 

Designated Critical Habitat section of 

the proposed revised rule: 

(1) Regarding ‘‘Cruzan Mesa’’ 

subsection, they stated the pools could 

not fill by overland flow of water on the 

mesa, and recommended we explain 

how the habitat could be self-sustaining 

if the watershed area outside of 

proposed revised critical habitat 

boundaries was lost; 

(2) Regarding ‘‘Wickerd Road and 

Scott Road’’ subsection, they stated more 

information should be provided on the 

current condition at this pool complex; 

and 

(3) Regarding the ‘‘Santa Rosa Plateau’’ 

subsection, they recommended 

providing a summary of known Mesa de 

Burro species’ distribution information. 

The commenter made the following 

specific edit recommendations for the 

Critical Habitat Units section of the 

proposed revised rule: 

(1) Expand the discussion of current 

habitat conditions and threats regarding 

the ‘‘San Jacinto River’’ and ‘‘Salt Creek 

Seasonally Flooded Alkali Plain’’ 

subsections; 

(2) Discuss what habitat conservation 

has been or will be achieved under the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP at 

important occupied localities; and 

(3) Note the presence of regionally 

significant vernal pools in addition to 

the areas of alkali playa and grassland; 

generally these pools are floristically 

distinct from these communities. 

Our Response: We appreciate these 

editorial recommendations and have 

made changes to the text of this final 

rule, where appropriate (see 

Background, Primary Constituent 

Elements, Criteria Used to Identify 

Critical Habitat, Summary of Changes 

From the Proposed Revised Rule and 

the Previous Critical Habitat 

Designation, and Critical Habitat Units 

sections above). In some cases, the 

amount of detail requested by the 

commenter was not appropriate for the 

purpose of designating critical habitat; 

therefore some information was not 

incorporated. 

Comment 21: Two commenters stated 

that they believe lands owned or under 

the jurisdiction of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP permittees should be 

excluded from the revised Navarretia 

fossalis critical habitat designation. The 

commenters argued for exclusion 

because the HCP already adequately 

provides for the survival and recovery of 

the species, and under section 6.9 of the 

HCP and section 14.10 of the associated 

Implementing Agreement, no critical 

habitat should be designated in the HCP 

Plan Area. The first commenter also 

argued that case law (‘‘15 vernal pool 

species court case’’) supports exclusion 

where the court upheld the exclusion of 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP. 

The second commenter stated that 

although the Western Riverside Flood 

Control and Water Conservation District 

is a Western Riverside County MSHCP 

permittee whose projects are currently 

subject to the provisions of the HCP, 

critical habitat designation may affect 

the continued operation, maintenance, 

and restoration of existing flood control 

facilities as well as the construction of 

future flood control improvements along 

the San Jacinto River and within the 

Salt Creek watershed. The second 

commenter also argued designating 

critical habitat within the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP Plan 

boundaries would create duplicative 

regulatory efforts without any additional 

benefits to the species. 

Our Response: With regard to the 

commenters’ assertions that lands 

owned or under the jurisdiction of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

should be excluded because the HCP 

adequately provides for the survival and 

recovery of the species, or because the 

HCP is being fully implemented, we 

agree that the protection afforded 

Navarretia fossalis and its essential 

habitat under the MSHCP is a relevant 

consideration in our section 4(b)(2) 

exclusion analysis. Exclusion is based 

on our determination that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, and that exclusion of an area 

will not result in extinction of a species. 

We found the benefits of exclusion of 

lands covered by the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP to be greater than the 

minimal benefits of including these 

lands in the critical habitat designation 

in areas that receive long-term 

conservation and management for the 

species and its habitat (i.e., Subunits 6D 

and 6E). For more information, see 

response to Comment 13 and the 

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

section for a detailed discussion. 

After public review and comment on 

the proposed revision to critical habitat 

for Navarretia fossalis, we determined 

through our analysis under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act that the maximum 

extent of allowable exclusions under the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP was 

limited to the exclusion of lands owned 

by or under the jurisdiction of the 

permittees of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP in Subunits 6D and 6E 

where lands are conserved and managed 

in perpetuity (see Application of 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act—Western 

Riverside County Multiple Species 

Habitat Conservation Plan (Western 

Riverside County MSHCP) section 

above for a detailed discussion of the 

exclusion analysis. 

We do not foresee additional effects of 

critical habitat designation on flood 

control operations along the San Jacinto 

River and within the Salt Creek 

watershed as a result of mandated 

habitat conservation actions. We believe 

any impacts to partnerships (a benefit of 

exclusion) would be outweighed by the 

benefits of inclusion as explained above. 

Therefore, the commenter’s argument 

that lands owned by or under the 

jurisdiction of Western Riverside 

County MSHCP permittees should be 

excluded because of possible impacts to 

the flood control facilities and future 

flood control improvements is not 

adequately supported. 

Comment 22: Two commenters 

suggested that the Service should not 

exclude lands owned or under the 

jurisdiction of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP permittees from the 

revised Navarretia fossalis critical 

habitat designation. The first commenter 

opposed to exclusion argued that no 

biological benefits are achieved by 

excluding habitat within HCP Plan areas 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62230 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

from critical habitat designation 

because: 

(1) Research demonstrates species 

with designated critical habitat are less 

likely to be declining, and twice as 

likely to be recovering, than species 

without critical habitat (cited Taylor et 

al. 2005); 

(2) The Western Riverside County 

MSHCP fails to address degradation of 

habitat inside the reserves, especially 

the ongoing problem of manure 

dumping activities; and 

(3) There are nonsignatory agencies 

that have jurisdiction within the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP plan 

area who conduct activities outside of 

the HCP process that require section 7 

consultation. 

The second commenter opposed to 

exclusion gave the following reasons: 

(1) Critical habitat designation 

provides potential for enhanced 

protection and recovery of this species 

within the HCP plan area, because these 

areas require ‘‘special management 

considerations or protection,’’ and it is 

not a ‘‘hindrance to the conservation 

process’’; 

(2) Habitat continues to be lost due to 

the common practices of disking, soil 

amendment, and hydrology alteration 

within the plan area because the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP does 

not address these existing land use 

practices and did not provide 

procedures for conserving specific 

populations of Navarretia fossalis; 

(3) The benefits of critical habitat 

designation are especially great along 

the San Jacinto River, (Upper) Salt 

Creek, and the Wickerd Road and Scott 

Road vernal pools because threats are 

high and there is a potential Federal 

nexus in this area; and 

(4) The proposed flood control plan 

for the San Jacinto River is a covered 

activity under the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP and the loss of 

infrequent, major flooding events may 

negatively affect the ‘‘metapopulation 

ecology’’ (dispersal required to 

recolonize pools where subpopulations 

have been extirpated) of N. fossalis. 

Our Response: With regard to the 

commenters’ assertions that lands 

owned or under the jurisdiction of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

should not be excluded because the 

HCP may not adequately provide for the 

survival and recovery of the species, or 

because is not being fully implemented, 

we agree that the protection afforded 

Navarretia fossalis and its essential 

habitat under the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP is a relevant 

consideration in our section 4(b)(2) 

exclusion analysis. Exclusion is based 

on our determination that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, and that exclusion of an area 

will not result in extinction of a species. 

We found the benefits of exclusion of 

lands covered by the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP to be greater than the 

minimal benefits of including these 

lands in the critical habitat designation 

in areas that are currently receiving 

long-term conservation and 

management to benefit the species (i.e., 

Subunits 6D and 6E). For more 

information, see response to Comment 

13 and the Application of Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act section for a detailed 

discussion. 

We do not agree with the commenter 

that Taylor et al.’s (2005, pp. 360–367) 

conclusions compel a finding that lands 

covered by the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP should be included in 

the revised Navarretia fossalis critical 

habitat designation. The results of 

Taylor et al. (2005, pp. 360–367) do 

indicate a significant conservation 

benefit of critical habitat designation; 

however, that study did not analyze or 

discuss the effects of HCP-based 

exclusions or the above-described 

exclusion determination process for N. 

fossalis. The benefits of excluding lands 

covered by a particular HCP based on 

partnerships must be analyzed 

independently and balanced against the 

benefits of inclusion (based on 

protections provided by critical habitat 

that are not redundant with HCP 

protections) because HCPs: 

(1) Are variable in scope; 

(2) Contain variable conservation and 

management planning efforts; and 

(3) Use species abundance trends that 

may not be apparent for many years to 

determine effects of conservation 

measures. 

Therefore, the general conclusions in 

the literature cited by the commenter do 

not warrant the specific conclusion that 

all essential habitat covered by HCPs 

should be included in critical habitat. 

We agree with the commenter that 

when there are agencies with 

jurisdiction in the HCP plan area that 

are not HCP signatories who may 

conduct activities requiring section 7 

consultation; the regulatory benefits of 

critical habitat designation may be 

higher in situations where the likely 

protections afforded through the section 

7 consultation are not redundant with, 

but would go beyond, those afforded 

under the HCP. However the benefits of 

including or excluding particular areas 

may vary even within a specific HCP, 

and determining those relative benefits 

requires an evaluation of the 

circumstances affecting each area. The 

mere fact that a Federal nexus exists 

does not mean that regulatory benefits 

of designation will outweigh the 

benefits of exclusion. 

Regarding the comment that areas 

should be included in critical habitat 

designation because they require special 

management considerations or 

protection, this language refers to the 

definition of critical habitat, not the 

exclusion process. Section 3(5)(A)(i) of 

the Act defines critical habitat, in part, 

as areas which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

directs the Secretary to consider the 

impacts of designating such areas as 

critical habitat and provides the 

Secretary with discretion to exclude 

particular areas if the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion. In this rule, we do not state 

that areas that are being adequately 

managed and protected do not meet the 

definition of critical habitat under 

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

considered the management and 

protection of particular areas that do 

meet the definition of critical habitat in 

our exclusion analyses under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. Please see Critical 

Habitat and Application of Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act sections above for 

more detailed discussions of the 

definition of critical habitat and 

exclusion analyses. 

Comment 23: One commenter 

requested that if we designate new 

critical habitat, the revised critical 

habitat rule should include clear 

guidance to other Federal agencies by 

stating that proof of Western Riverside 

County MSHCP compliance will allow 

the agency to make a ‘‘no effect’’ 

determination with regard to projects in 

designated critical habitat to ensure that 

section 7 consultations are consistent 

with the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP and are completed in a timely 

manner. 

Our Response: A ‘‘no effect’’ 

determination is the appropriate 

determination when the Federal action 

agency determines its proposed action 

will not affect a listed species or 

designated critical habitat. This requires 

a project (and species-specific) 

evaluation and analysis of effects to 

reach a ‘‘no effect’’ determination. 

Therefore, we are unable at this time to 

concur with any ‘‘no effect’’ 

determinations made by other Federal 

agencies for any future projects that may 

occur in Navarretia fossalis critical 

habitat. 

Comment 24: One commenter 

requested that we exclude Subunit 4E 

from the revised critical habitat 

designation for Navarretia fossalis based 

on partnership benefits. They stated the 

Ramona Grasslands Open Space 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62231 

Preserve in Subunit 4E is being 

managed and monitored according to 

Area Specific Management Directives 

built from the scientific framework laid 

out in the Framework Management and 

Monitoring Plan for the Ramona 

Grasslands Open Space Preserve: San 

Diego County. The commenter further 

stated that preserve management goals 

will be revised and updated to comply 

with the requirements of the North 

County MSCP once it is approved. The 

commenter provided a list of current 

management actions and specific goals 

for the conservation of N. fossalis. 

Our Response: As discussed in the 

responses to Comments 13 and 21, 

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

Act are not based on partnership 

benefits alone, but whether the benefits 

of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion. We reviewed the Area 

Specific Management Directives 

referenced by the commenter and 

determined that they do describe and 

provide beneficial conservation 

measures for Navarretia fossalis that are 

redundant with conservation measures 

provided by critical habitat designation, 

and therefore would reduce the benefits 

of inclusion in critical habitat if 

implementation were assured into the 

future. When considering the benefits of 

exclusion, we consider a variety of 

factors, including but not limited to 

whether the plan is finalized (i.e., 

approved by all parties) and there is a 

reasonable expectation that 

conservation management strategies and 

actions will be implemented into the 

future (see Application of Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act section for further 

discussion). The HCP under which 

these measures will be assured of future 

implementation is not yet finalized; 

therefore, we determined the benefits of 

exclusion do not outweigh the benefits 

of inclusion for lands within the 

Ramona Grasslands Open Space 

Preserve portion of Subunit 4E from N. 

fossalis critical habitat designation at 

this time. 

Comment 25: Two commenters 

expressed concerns regarding the 

inclusion or exclusion of lands owned 

or under the jurisdiction of MSCP 

permittees in the Navarretia fossalis 

final revised critical habitat designation. 

The first commenter opposed to 

exclusion argued that no biological 

benefits are achieved by excluding 

habitat within HCP plan areas from 

critical habitat designation because: 

(1) Research demonstrates species 

with designated critical habitat are less 

likely to be declining, and twice as 

likely to be recovering, than species 

without critical habitat (cited Taylor et 

al. 2005); 

(2) The MSCP fails to address 

degradation of habitat inside the 

conserved areas, especially where illegal 

OHV activities have ‘‘severely’’ impacted 

vernal pools; and 

(3) There are nonsignatory agencies 

that have jurisdiction within the MSCP 

plan area who conduct activities outside 

of the HCP process that require section 

7 consultation. 

The second commenter stated the 

MSCP provides for the conservation of 

Navarretia fossalis and therefore lands 

owned by or under the jurisdiction of 

permittees should be excluded from 

critical habitat designation under 

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

Our Response: A decision to exclude 

lands from critical habitat is based on an 

evaluation of the benefits of exclusion 

in comparison to the benefits of 

inclusion. Please see response to 

Comment 13 above regarding arguments 

for and against exclusion of lands 

owned by or under the jurisdiction of 

regional HCP permittees. We found the 

benefits of exclusion of lands covered 

by the County of San Diego Subarea 

Plan under the MSCP outweighed the 

benefits of inclusion for areas that are 

receiving long-term conservation and 

management (Subunit 3A); however, we 

found that the benefits of inclusion 

outweighed the benefits of exclusion on 

lands that are currently not conserved 

and being impacted by activities that 

were not covered by the County of San 

Diego Subarea Plan because there were 

potential significant benefits to the 

conservation of Navarretia fossalis that 

may come from the designation of 

critical habitat on these lands (Subunits 

5B, 5F, and 5I). See response to 

Comment 13 and 22 and Application of 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section for a 

complete discussion. 

Comment 26: One commenter 

recommended critical habitat be 

designated on military bases where 

applicable, and stated it is not 

appropriate to rely on integrated natural 

resources management plans (INRMPs) 

for protection of Navarretia fossalis. 

Our Response: We do not have 

discretion to designate critical habitat 

on the military bases within proposed 

revised critical habitat as suggested by 

the commenter. The National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 

(Pub. L. 108–136) amended the Act to 

limit areas eligible for designation as 

critical habitat. Specifically, section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ‘‘The 

Secretary shall not designate as critical 

habitat any lands or other geographical 

areas owned or controlled by the 

Department of Defense, or designated 

for its use, that are subject to an 

integrated natural resources 

management plan (INRMP) prepared 

under section 670a of this title, if the 

Secretary determines in writing that 

such plan provides a benefit to the 

species for which critical habitat is 

proposed for designation.’’ (See 

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

section above for further discussion). 

We determined the INRMPs for MCB 

Camp Pendleton and MCAS Miramar 

(Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton 

2007; Gene Stout and Associates et al. 

2006) provide benefits to Navarretia 

fossalis; therefore, the Act mandates we 

exempt these military bases from critical 

habitat designation (see Application of 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act section above 

for further discussion). 

Comment 27: One commenter stated 

that no areas should be excluded from 

critical habitat designation based on 

HCPs that have not been finalized and 

implemented because there is no 

guarantee that proposed HCPs will be 

finalized. 

Our Response: We did not exclude 

any habitat from this revised critical 

habitat designation within the plan area 

of an HCP permit that has not yet been 

issued (see responses to Comments 14 

and 24). 

Comment 28: One commenter stated 

that areas of Unit 6 covered by the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

should be excluded from critical habitat 

designation based on the Service’s 

permitting Biological Opinion for the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

(Service 2004b) for several reasons: 

(1) The Service’s reasoning in the 

2005 rule that excluded the same areas 

in the 2005 designation; 

(2) The proposed designation of these 

areas covered by the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP is not beneficial to the 

species; 

(3) The Western Riverside County 

MSHCP precludes designation of critical 

habitat; 

(4) Several species for which critical 

habitats were not designated occur on 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

covered lands; and 

(5) The idea that designations of 

critical habitat within the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP ultimately 

function as disincentives to such 

planning processes. 

Our Response: For lands within the 

jurisdiction of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP, this rule excludes a 

portion (Subunits 6D and 6E) and 

includes the remaining covered lands 

(Subunits 6A, 6B, and 6C) as designated 

critical habitat. When we conduct an 

exclusion analysis under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act, each exclusion is based on 

weighing the benefits of exclusion with 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62232 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

the benefits of inclusion. We found the 

benefits of exclusion of lands covered 

by the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP to be greater than the minimal 

benefits of including these lands in the 

critical habitat designation in areas that 

receive long-term conservation and 

management of the species and its 

habitat (i.e., Subunits 6D and 6E). Please 

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

the Act section for a detailed discussion 

on our exclusion analyses (including 

why areas covered by the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP that are 

designated as critical habitat are 

beneficial to the species) for those areas 

we considered for exclusion in the 

proposed revised critical habitat 

designation (74 FR 27588), the 

associated document announcing the 

DEA (75 FR 19575), and our response to 

Comment 13. 

With regard to the commenters 

concern of designating areas in this rule 

that were excluded in the 2005 critical 

habitat designation, we did not 

designate areas containing essential 

habitat features if those habitat features 

were already conserved and managed 

for the benefit of Navarretia fossalis 

because we concluded that the areas did 

not meet the second part of the 

definition of critical habitat under 

section 3(5)(a)(i) of the Act. We have 

reconsidered our approach in this rule 

in light of subsequent court decisions 

and have decided that areas containing 

essential habitat features that ‘‘may 

require’’ special management 

considerations or protection do meet the 

definition of critical habitat irrespective 

of whether the habitat features are 

currently receiving special management 

or protection. See the Summary of 

Changes From the 2005 Final 

Designation of Critical Habitat section 

for further discussion of why some areas 

were included as critical habitat in this 

rule that were excluded in the 2005 

rule. 

With regard to the commenter’s belief 

that critical habitat should not be 

designated in the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP Plan Area based on 

language in section 6.9 of the HCP and 

the associated Implementing 

Agreement, section 14.10 of the 

Implementing Agreement does not 

preclude critical habitat designation 

within the plan area (Dudek and 

Associates 2003, p. 63). See our 

response to Comment 20 for a 

discussion of why critical habitat is not 

precluded under an HCP Implementing 

Agreement. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review— 

Executive Order 12866 

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: 

(1) 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. 

(2) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(3) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

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

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an 

agency is required to publish a notice of 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

effect of the rule on small entities (small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small government jurisdictions), as 

described below. However, no 

regulatory flexibility analysis is required 

if the head of an agency certifies the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended 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 

Navarretia fossalis 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, small entities include 

small organizations, such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and 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 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 revised 

designation of critical habitat for 

Navarretia fossalis would significantly 

affect a substantial number of small 

entities, we consider the number of 

small entities affected within particular 

types of economic activities, such as 

residential and commercial 

development. 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 

Navarretia fossalis 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 the species. 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 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62233 

consultation for ongoing Federal 

activities (see Application of the 

‘‘Adverse Modification’’ Standard 

section). 

In our final economic analysis of the 

critical habitat designation, we 

evaluated the potential economic effects 

on small business entities resulting from 

implementation of conservation actions 

related to the revised designation of 

critical habitat for Navarretia fossalis. 

The analysis is based on the estimated 

impacts associated with the rulemaking 

as described in sections 3 through 9 of 

the analysis and evaluates the potential 

for economic impacts related to: 

residential, commercial and industrial 

development; conservation lands 

management; transportation; pipeline 

projects; flood control; agriculture; and 

fire management (Entrix 2010, p. A-1). 

The FEA estimates the total incremental 

impacts associated with development as 

a whole to be $112,000 to $431,000 over 

the 20–year timeframe of the FEA. The 

FEA identifies incremental impacts to 

small entities to occur only in the 

development sector (Entrix 2010, p. A2). The other categories of projects 

either will have no impacts 

(conservation land management, 

pipeline projects, agriculture, or fire 

management) or are Federal, State, or 

public entities not considered small or 

exceed the criteria for small business 

status (Entrix 2010, pp. A-1–A-2). Of the 

approximately 3,143 ac (1,272 ha) land 

considered developable in the 

designation, only 1,130 ac (457 ha) has 

been forecasted to be developed over the 

next 20–year timeframe (Entrix 2010, p. 

A-3). The FEA equates this acreage to 38 

projects, with one developer per project 

(Entrix 2010, p. A-3). The FEA 

summarizes that two developers 

annually may be affected by the 

designation of critical habitat resulting 

in total annualized incremental impacts 

to small entities of $10,565 to $40,644 

(Entrix 2010, pp. A-3, A-4). The FEA 

assumes all developers are considered 

small and states that this estimate may 

overstate impacts if not all of the 

developers are small (Entrix 2010, p. A4). The FEA also states (Section 3 of the 

FEA) that where substitute land is 

readily available to developers, costs 

will be passed on to affected 

landowners in the form of decreased 

land value and that under such 

circumstances most of the costs will not 

be borne by developers (Entrix 2010, p. 

A-4). Please refer to our final economic 

analysis of critical habitat designation 

for N. fossalis for a more detailed 

discussion of potential economic 

impacts. 

In summary, we considered whether 

this designation would result in a 

significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The total number of small businesses 

impacted annually by the designation is 

estimated to be two, with an annualized 

impact of approximately of $10,565 to 

$40,644. This impact is less than 10 

percent of the total incremental impact 

identified for development activities 

and may be an overestimate of the 

impacts considering that not all 

developers will be small and that some 

of these costs may be passed on to 

landowners. Based on the above 

reasoning and currently available 

information, we concluded this rule 

would not result in a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities for 

transportation, development, and flood 

control impacts as identified in the FEA 

(Entrix 2010, pp. A-1–A-4). Therefore, 

we are certifying that the designation of 

critical habitat for Navarretia fossalis 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, and a regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 (E.O. 13211; 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’) 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 to not taking the regulatory 

action under consideration. The 

economic analysis finds that none of 

these criteria are relevant to this 

analysis. Thus, based on information in 

the economic analysis, energy-related 

impacts associated with Navarretia 

fossalis conservation activities within 

critical habitat 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, the Service 

makes the following findings: 

(1) 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 [T]ribal 

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 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62234 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(2) As discussed in the FEA of the 

revised designation of critical habitat for 

Navarretia fossalis, we do not believe 

that this rule would significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments 

because it would 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 FEA 

concludes incremental impacts may 

occur due to administrative costs of 

section 7 consultations for development, 

transportation, and flood control 

projects activities; however, these are 

not expected to significantly affect small 

governments. Incremental impacts 

stemming from various species 

conservation and development control 

activities are expected to be borne by 

the Federal Government, California 

Department of Transportation, CDFG, 

Riverside County, Riverside County 

Flood Control and Water Conservation 

District, and City of Perris, which are 

not considered small governments. 

Consequently, we do not believe that 

the revised critical habitat designation 

would significantly or uniquely affect 

small government entities. As such, a 

Small Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

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 

Navarretia fossalis 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 N. 

fossalis does not pose significant takings 

implications for lands within or affected 

by the designation. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), the rule does not have 

significant Federalism effects. A 

Federalism assessment is not required. 

In keeping with Department of the 

Interior, we requested information from, 

and coordinated development of the 

proposed critical habitat designation 

with appropriate State resource agencies 

in California. The designation may have 

some benefit to these governments 

because the areas that contain the 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species are more clearly defined, 

and the primary constituent elements of 

the habitat necessary to the conservation 

of the species are specifically identified. 

This information does not alter where 

and what federally sponsored activities 

may occur. However, it may assist these 

local governments in long-range 

planning (because these local 

governments no longer have to wait for 

case-by-case section 7 consultations to 

occur). 

Where State and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) would be required. 

While non-Federal entities that receive 

Federal funding, assistance, or permits, 

or that otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform), this rule 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 

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 Navarretia fossalis. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 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) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

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 NEPA in connection with 

designating critical habitat under the 

Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). This position 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 have a 

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 of the species, nor are 

there any unoccupied tribal lands that 

are essential for the conservation of 

Navarretia fossalis. Therefore, we are 

not designating critical habitat for N. 

fossalis on tribal lands. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available on http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Carlsbad Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62235 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

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

‘‘Navarretia fossalis (spreading 

navarretia)’’ under family 

Polemoniaceae to read as follows: 

§ 17.96 Critical habitat—plants. 

(a) Flowering plants. 

* * * * * 

Family Polemoniaceae: Navarretia 

fossalis (spreading navarretia) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Los Angeles, Riverside, and San 

Diego Counties, California, on the maps 

below. 

(2) Within these areas, the primary 

constituent elements (PCEs) for 

Navarretia fossalis consist of three 

components: 

(i) PCE 1—Ephemeral wetland 

habitat. Vernal pools (up to 10 ac (4 ha)) 

and seasonally flooded alkali vernal 

plains that become inundated by winter 

rains and hold water or have saturated 

soils for 2 weeks to 6 months during a 

year with average rainfall (i.e., years 

where average rainfall amounts for a 

particular area are reached during the 

rainy season (between October and 

May)). This period of inundation is long 

enough to promote germination, 

flowering, and seed production for 

Navarretia fossalis and other native 

species typical of vernal pool and 

seasonally flooded alkali vernal plain 

habitat, but not so long that true 

wetland species inhabit the areas. 

(ii) PCE 2—Intermixed wetland and 

upland habitats that act as the local 

watershed. Areas characterized by 

mounds, swales, and depressions within 

a matrix of upland habitat that result in 

intermittently flowing surface and 

subsurface water in swales, drainages, 

and pools described in PCE 1. 

(iii) PCE 3—Soils that support 

ponding during winter and spring. Soils 

found in areas characterized in PCEs 1 

and 2 that have a clay component or 

other property that creates an 

impermeable surface or subsurface 

layer. These soil types include, but are 

not limited to: Cieneba-Pismo-Caperton 

soils in Los Angeles County; Domino, 

Traver, Waukena, Chino, and Willows 

soils in Riverside County; and 

Huerhuero, Placentia, Olivenhain, 

Stockpen, and Redding soils in San 

Diego County. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures existing on the 

effective date of this rule and not 

containing one of more of the primary 

constituent elements, such as buildings, 

aqueducts, airports, and roads, and the 

land on which such structures are 

located. 

(4) Critical habitat map units. Data 

layers defining map units were created 

using a base of U.S. Geological Survey 

7.5’ quadrangle maps. Critical habitat 

units were then mapped using Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone 11, 

North American Datum (NAD) 1983 

coordinates. 

(5) Note: Index Map of critical habitat 

units for Navarretia fossalis (spreading 

navarretia) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62236 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(6) Unit 1: Los Angeles Basin–Orange 

Management Area, Los Angeles County, 

CA. Subunit 1A: Cruzan Mesa. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

Mint Canyon. Land bounded by the 

following Universal Transverse 

Mercator (UTM) North American Datum 

of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 

367454, 3813696; 367493, 3813876; 

367443, 3813933; 367418, 3814003; 

367396, 3814159; 367387, 3814304; 

367454, 3814474; 367517, 3814549; 

367580, 3814651; 367676, 3814752; 

367807, 3814866; 367996, 3814923; 

368172, 3815075; 368198, 3815107; 

368375, 3815036; 368318, 3814957; 

368262, 3814889; 368198, 3814795; 

368181, 3814768; 368108, 3814754; 

368073, 3814710; 367963, 3814624; 

367921, 3814549; 367938, 3814421; 

368014, 3814343; 368006, 3814230; 

368048, 3814134; 368070, 3814110; 

368060, 3814070; 368014, 3814065; 

367972, 3814041; 367955, 3813970; 

367935, 3813962; 367866, 3813938; 

367834, 3813913; 367795, 3813849; 

367740, 3813818; 367720, 3813762; 

367640, 3813619; 367577, 3813595; 

367520, 3813592; 367481, 3813628; 

367454, 3813696; thence returning to 

367454, 3813696. 

(ii) Note: Map of Subunit 1A (Cruzan 

Mesa) is provided at paragraph (7)(ii) of 

this entry. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2ER07OC10.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62237 

(7) Unit 1: Los Angeles Basin–Orange 

Management Area, Los Angeles County, 

CA. Subunit 1B: Plum Canyon. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

Mint Canyon. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 366405, 3812925; 366364, 3812918; 

366339, 3812957; 366287, 3812974; 

366266, 3812973; 366271, 3813010; 

366295, 3813063; 366333, 3813106; 

366370, 3813141; 366424, 3813157; 

366448, 3813168; 366505, 3813193; 

366585, 3813271; 366601, 3813269; 

366600, 3813233; 366619, 3813163; 

366628, 3813088; 366619, 3813004; 

366612, 3812959; 366602, 3812939; 

366532, 3812913; 366490, 3812911; 

366441, 3812920; 366405, 3812925; 

thence returning to 366405, 3812925. 

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

(Cruzan Mesa) and 1B (Plum Canyon) 

follows: 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2ER07OC10.003</GPH>
62238 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(8) Unit 2: San Diego: Northern 

Coastal Mesa Management Area— 

Poinsettia Lane Commuter Station, San 

Diego County, CA. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

Encinitas. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 470268, 3663409; 470278, 3663384; 

470281, 3663385; 470287, 3663371; 

470291, 3663351; 470291, 3663350; 

470312, 3663306; 470317, 3663288; 

470319, 3663280; 470359, 3663184; 

470392, 3663084; 470440, 3662935; 

470487, 3662900; 470520, 3662863; 

470515, 3662828; 470501, 3662798; 

470529, 3662710; 470522, 3662706; 

470515, 3662703; 470501, 3662700; 

470476, 3662766; 470454, 3662825; 

470429, 3662892; 470404, 3662960; 

470386, 3663008; 470368, 3663055; 

470361, 3663075; 470296, 3663238; 

470184, 3663499; 470163, 3663558; 

470195, 3663563; 470209, 3663563; 

470210, 3663559; 470213, 3663548; 

470223, 3663527; 470234, 3663498; 

470242, 3663476; 470248, 3663458; 

470251, 3663445; 470251, 3663440; 

470260, 3663420; 470264, 3663415; 

thence returning to 470268, 3663409. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 2 (Poinsettia 

Lane Commuter Station) follows: 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2ER07OC10.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62239 

(9) Unit 3: San Diego: Central Coastal 

Mesa Management Area, San Diego 

County, CA. Subunit 3B: Carroll 

Canyon. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

Del Mar. Land bounded by the following 

UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 

485008, 3639919; 485017, 3639943; 

485017, 3639943; 485018, 3639947; 

485035, 3639991; 485533, 3639996; 

485537, 3639996; 485537, 3639996; 

485525, 3639961; 485476, 3639931; 

485440, 3639908; 485440, 3639908; 

485338, 3639845; 485223, 3639815; 

485221, 3639814; 485179, 3639804; 

485179, 3639803; 485158, 3639798; 

485086, 3639788; 485070, 3639828; 

485008, 3639919; thence returning to 

485008, 3639919. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3B 

(Carroll Canyon) follows: 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2ER07OC10.005</GPH>
62240 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(10) Unit 3: San Diego: Central Coastal 

Mesa Management Area, San Diego 

County, CA. Subunit 3C: Nobel Drive. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle La 

Jolla. Land bounded by the following 

UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 

481837, 3636331; 481667, 3636273; 

481510, 3636284; 481409, 3636370; 

481393, 3636384; 481475, 3636442; 

481708, 3636763; 481796, 3636699; 

481797, 3636697; 481797, 3636697; 

481877, 3636570; 481965, 3636407; 

481837, 3636331; thence returning to 

481837, 3636331. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3C 

(Nobel Drive) follows: 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2ER07OC10.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62241 

(11) Unit 3: San Diego: Central Coastal 

Mesa Management Area, San Diego 

County, CA. Subunit 3D: Montgomery 

Field. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle La 

Jolla. Land bounded by the following 

UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 

487573, 3630977; 487591, 3630964; 

487627, 3630940; 487619, 3630908; 

487617, 3630896; 487645, 3630880; 

487577, 3630651; 487447, 3630712; 

487233, 3630813; 487194, 3630830; 

487232, 3630926; 487248, 3630966; 

487260, 3630999; 487281, 3631001; 

487306, 3630997; 487327, 3630977; 

487330, 3630975; 487334, 3630978; 

487336, 3630979; 487341, 3630983; 

487343, 3630991; 487359, 3631033; 

487363, 3631045; 487361, 3631049; 

487357, 3631057; 487377, 3631099; 

487386, 3631117; 487376, 3631131; 

487375, 3631131; 487326, 3631133; 

487336, 3631175; 487340, 3631237; 

487346, 3631328; 487347, 3631333; 

487384, 3631352; 487437, 3631378; 

487571, 3631443; 487594, 3631446; 

487598, 3631422; 487598, 3631310; 

487575, 3631296; 487573, 3630977; 

thence returning to 487573, 3630977. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 3, Subunit 3D 

(Montgomery Field) follows: 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2ER07OC10.007</GPH>
62242 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(12) Unit 4: San Diego: Inland 

Management Area, San Diego County, 

CA. Subunit 4C1: San Marcos (Upham). 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

San Marcos. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 481857, 3666532; 481841, 3666524; 

481458, 3666685; 481587, 3666988; 

481974, 3666823; 481857, 3666532; 

thence returning to 481857, 3666532. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 4, Subunit 4C1 

is provided at paragraph (14)(ii) of this 

entry. 

(13) Unit 4: San Diego: Inland 

Management Area, San Diego County, 

CA. Subunit 4C2: San Marcos (Universal 

Boot). 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

San Marcos. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 481373, 3666492; 481676, 3666355; 

481700, 3666464; 481813, 3666423; 

481809, 3666367; 481877, 3666133; 

481805, 3666113; 481825, 3666048; 

481669, 3666007; 481641, 3666000; 

481639, 3666000; 481639, 3666002; 

481618, 3666066; 481555, 3666266; 

481317, 3666363; 481373, 3666492; 

thence returning to 481373, 3666492. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 4, Subunit 4C2 

is provided at paragraph (14)(ii) of this 

entry. 

(14) Unit 4: San Diego: Inland 

Management Area, San Diego County, 

CA. Subunit 4D: San Marcos (Bent 

Avenue). 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

San Marcos. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 482781, 3666563; 482772, 3666562; 

482716, 3666750; 482842, 3666785; 

482865, 3666703; 482781, 3666563; 

thence returning to 482781, 3666563. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 4, Subunits 

4C1, 4C2, and 4D (San Marcos) follows: 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2ER07OC10.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62243 

(15) Unit 4: San Diego: Inland 

Management Area, San Diego County, 

CA. Subunit 4E: Ramona. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

San Pasqual. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD83 (E, N): 508768, 

3654813; 508597, 3654751; 508493, 

3654857; 508382, 3654971; 508373, 

3654977; 508373, 3654977; 508366, 

3654982; 508357, 3654989; 508270, 

3655050; 508115, 3655137; 508036, 

3655159; 507889, 3655176; 507807, 

3655222; 507750, 3655265; 507772, 

3655380; 507758, 3655500; 507813, 

3655500; 507965, 3655470; 508357, 

3655383; 508363, 3655347; 508363, 

3655345; 508375, 3655275; 508376, 

3655265; 509073, 3655260; 509073, 

3655260; 509073, 3655260; 509180, 

3655257; 509181, 3655234; 509181, 

3655233; 509209, 3654862; 509082, 

3654835; 508896, 3654822; 508768, 

3654813; thence returning to 508768, 

3654813. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 4, Subunit 4E 

(Ramona) follows: 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2ER07OC10.009</GPH>
62244 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(16) Unit 5: San Diego: Southern 

Coastal Mesa Management Area, San 

Diego County, CA. Subunit 5A: 

Sweetwater Vernal Pools. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

Jamul Mountains. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 501084, 3616605; 501096, 3616520; 

501078, 3616418; 501054, 3616382; 

501054, 3616382; 501051, 3616377; 

501051, 3616376; 501051, 3616376; 

501051, 3616376; 501049, 3616374; 

501052, 3616122; 501052, 3616122; 

501052, 3616121; 501053, 3616099; 

501005, 3616101; 501004, 3616101; 

501002, 3616102; 500915, 3616106; 

500913, 3616107; 500913, 3616107; 

500814, 3616112; 500775, 3616112; 

500775, 3616112; 500775, 3616112; 

500769, 3616112; 500562, 3616233; 

500497, 3616288; 500462, 3616334; 

500436, 3616380; 500420, 3616409; 

500402, 3616428; 500327, 3616508; 

500312, 3616524; 500300, 3616596; 

500356, 3616639; 500425, 3616639; 

500468, 3616628; 500511, 3616617; 

500591, 3616596; 500640, 3616597; 

500651, 3616619; 500670, 3616713; 

500671, 3616718; 500685, 3616767; 

500770, 3616826; 500802, 3616841; 

500872, 3616836; 500903, 3616834; 

500952, 3616822; 501051, 3616760; 

501075, 3616669; 501075, 3616667; 

501076, 3616663; 501084, 3616607; 

501084, 3616605; 501084, 3616605; 

thence returning to 501084, 3616605. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 5, Subunit 5A 

(Sweetwater Vernal Pools) follows: 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2ER07OC10.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62245 

(17) Unit 5: San Diego: Southern 

Coastal Mesa Management Area, San 

Diego County, CA. Subunit 5B: Otay 

River Valley. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa. Land 

bounded by the following UTM NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 499953, 3607783; 

499924, 3607743; 499882, 3607749; 

499871, 3607775; 499868, 3607814; 

499815, 3607834; 499768, 3607839; 

499731, 3607866; 499747, 3607899; 

499762, 3607949; 499818, 3607996; 

499843, 3608025; 499843, 3608079; 

499818, 3608100; 499815, 3608107; 

499784, 3608170; 499796, 3608236; 

499838, 3608323; 499855, 3608364; 

499880, 3608400; 499909, 3608415; 

499921, 3608415; 499944, 3608404; 

499957, 3608370; 499997, 3608238; 

499997, 3608196; 499994, 3608161; 

499992, 3608144; 499988, 3608082; 

499962, 3608026; 499936, 3607993; 

499920, 3607960; 499923, 3607916; 

499939, 3607872; 499957, 3607827; 

499953, 3607783; thence returning to 

499953, 3607783. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 5, Subunit 5B 

(Otay River Valley) follows: 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2ER07OC10.011</GPH>
62246 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(18) Unit 5: San Diego: Southern 

Coastal Mesa Management Area, San 

Diego County, CA. Subunit 5C: Otay 

Mesa. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

Otay Mesa. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 506759, 3606253; 506757, 3606201; 

506702, 3606219; 506663, 3606258; 

506601, 3606362; 506590, 3606382; 

506575, 3606411; 506575, 3606411; 

506535, 3606490; 506509, 3606580; 

506503, 3606601; 506485, 3606661; 

506481, 3606693; 506531, 3606734; 

506581, 3606748; 506599, 3606760; 

506600, 3606760; 506617, 3606771; 

506634, 3606848; 506641, 3606869; 

506642, 3606870; 506660, 3606918; 

506706, 3606936; 506750, 3606885; 

506777, 3606855; 506777, 3606854; 

506792, 3606837; 506829, 3606785; 

506880, 3606730; 506913, 3606679; 

506915, 3606602; 506915, 3606597; 

506918, 3606535; 506901, 3606523; 

506901, 3606523; 506885, 3606512; 

506841, 3606510; 506807, 3606502; 

506776, 3606485; 506776, 3606485; 

506768, 3606480; 506768, 3606473; 

506768, 3606473; 506759, 3606253; 

506759, 3606253; thence returning to 

506759, 3606253. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 5, Subunit 5C 

(Otay Mesa) follows: 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2ER07OC10.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62247 

(19) Unit 5: San Diego: Southern 

Coastal Mesa Management Area, San 

Diego County, CA. Subunit 5F: Proctor 

Valley. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

Jamul Mountains. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 507676, 3615007; 507616, 3614943; 

507548, 3614930; 507458, 3614918; 

507386, 3614907; 507320, 3614907; 

507247, 3614939; 507190, 3614947; 

507173, 3614947; 507188, 3615018; 

507239, 3615163; 507269, 3615226; 

507269, 3615275; 507213, 3615335; 

507188, 3615393; 507188, 3615433; 

507194, 3615465; 507194, 3615465; 

507194, 3615465; 507196, 3615476; 

507211, 3615508; 507298, 3615529; 

507316, 3615587; 507301, 3615676; 

507301, 3615723; 507301, 3615800; 

507362, 3615808; 507402, 3615865; 

507403, 3615866; 507448, 3615906; 

507488, 3615906; 507526, 3615872; 

507556, 3615806; 507605, 3615706; 

507590, 3615601; 507537, 3615580; 

507514, 3615518; 507556, 3615510; 

507654, 3615493; 507669, 3615405; 

507661, 3615318; 507661, 3615220; 

507674, 3615164; 507678, 3615148; 

507680, 3615073; 507679, 3615062; 

507679, 3615062; 507679, 3615062; 

507676, 3615007; thence returning to 

507676, 3615007. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 5, Subunit 5F 

(Proctor Valley) follows: 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2ER07OC10.013</GPH>
62248 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(20) Unit 5: San Diego: Southern 

Coastal Mesa Management Area, San 

Diego County, CA. Subunit 5G: Otay 

Lakes. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Jamul Mountains and Otay Mesa. Land 

bounded by the following UTM NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 508045, 3609784; 

508120, 3609675; 508188, 3609745; 

508194, 3609751; 508316, 3609736; 

508337, 3609733; 508400, 3609730; 

508423, 3609791; 508450, 3609898; 

508460, 3609936; 508570, 3609926; 

508651, 3609926; 508671, 3609898; 

508672, 3609897; 508707, 3609847; 

508714, 3609756; 508646, 3609718; 

508323, 3609536; 508199, 3609465; 

508094, 3609406; 508033, 3609385; 

507917, 3609374; 507800, 3609334; 

507695, 3609287; 507595, 3609248; 

507467, 3609283; 507394, 3609229; 

507308, 3609250; 507303, 3609341; 

507359, 3609406; 507392, 3609455; 

507371, 3609565; 507383, 3609658; 

507366, 3609763; 507387, 3609868; 

507392, 3609895; 507404, 3609959; 

507455, 3609968; 507572, 3609922; 

507715, 3609896; 507742, 3609891; 

507912, 3609880; 508045, 3609784; 

thence returning to 508045, 3609784. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 5, Subunit 5G 

(Otay Lakes) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2ER07OC10.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62249 

(21) Unit 5: San Diego: Southern 

Coastal Mesa Management Area, San 

Diego County, CA. Subunit 5H: Western 

Otay Mesa Vernal Pool Complexes. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa. Land 

bounded by the following UTM NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 498398, 3601961; 

498398, 3601927; 498482, 3601937; 

498514, 3601914; 498495, 3601822; 

498463, 3601742; 498434, 3601651; 

498324, 3601579; 498154, 3601581; 

498025, 3601666; 498008, 3601765; 

498093, 3601864; 498185, 3601904; 

498223, 3601940; 498240, 3602001; 

498268, 3602119; 498268, 3602251; 

498375, 3602256; 498461, 3602258; 

498495, 3602211; 498468, 3602159; 

498468, 3602158; 498463, 3602148; 

498450, 3602119; 498450, 3602119; 

498436, 3602087; 498407, 3602039; 

498398, 3601961; thence returning to 

498398, 3601961. 

(ii) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa. Land 

bounded by the following UTM NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 497444, 3602605; 

497382, 3602601; 497311, 3602614; 

497263, 3602633; 497255, 3602688; 

497270, 3602708; 497270, 3602708; 

497287, 3602732; 497379, 3602732; 

497424, 3602725; 497443, 3602708; 

497443, 3602707; 497447, 3602704; 

497529, 3602702; 497546, 3602702; 

497545, 3602698; 497545, 3602698; 

497529, 3602651; 497518, 3602636; 

497515, 3602631; 497455, 3602606; 

497444, 3602605; 497444, 3602605; 

thence returning to 497444, 3602605. 

(iii) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa. Land 

bounded by the following UTM NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 498002, 3602859; 

497981, 3602853; 497930, 3602857; 

497929, 3602859; 497911, 3602885; 

497934, 3602916; 497946, 3602955; 

497985, 3602951; 497981, 3602939; 

497985, 3602920; 498000, 3602888; 

498012, 3602861; 498002, 3602859; 

thence returning to 498002, 3602859. 

(iv) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa. Land 

bounded by the following UTM NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 499680, 3603156; 

499688, 3603148; 499683, 3603090; 

499717, 3603078; 499739, 3603039; 

499829, 3603005; 499812, 3602945; 

499754, 3602867; 499676, 3602836; 

499584, 3602794; 499553, 3602833; 

499536, 3602889; 499519, 3602920; 

499485, 3602983; 499483, 3603035; 

499478, 3603172; 499490, 3603173; 

499497, 3603173; 499577, 3603174; 

499584, 3603178; 499607, 3603175; 

499624, 3603162; 499680, 3603156; 

thence returning to 499680, 3603156. 

(v) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa. Land 

bounded by the following UTM NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 499158, 3603493; 

499170, 3603456; 499130, 3603457; 

499083, 3603458; 499083, 3603495; 

499075, 3603541; 499070, 3603572; 

499121, 3603582; 499130, 3603565; 

499141, 3603546; 499158, 3603493; 

thence returning to 499158, 3603493. 

(vi) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa. Land 

bounded by the following UTM NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 499007, 3603851; 

499012, 3603773; 499051, 3603691; 

499044, 3603640; 498993, 3603609; 

498983, 3603633; 498993, 3603652; 

498993, 3603655; 498986, 3603722; 

498984, 3603778; 498983, 3603805; 

498979, 3603807; 498953, 3603817; 

498947, 3603819; 498903, 3603790; 

498852, 3603749; 498857, 3603715; 

498823, 3603688; 498741, 3603676; 

498702, 3603688; 498719, 3603715; 

498763, 3603742; 498826, 3603776; 

498874, 3603817; 498930, 3603831; 

498957, 3603847; 499000, 3603873; 

499007, 3603851; thence returning to 

499007, 3603851. 

(vii) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa. Land 

bounded by the following UTM NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 499259, 3603894; 

499303, 3603885; 499344, 3603890; 

499383, 3603892; 499384, 3603882; 

499390, 3603749; 499393, 3603531; 

499431, 3603514; 499458, 3603487; 

499461, 3603449; 499189, 3603449; 

499221, 3603587; 499233, 3603618; 

499247, 3603633; 499267, 3603642; 

499269, 3603664; 499267, 3603679; 

499209, 3603701; 499182, 3603768; 

499184, 3603807; 499177, 3603877; 

499186, 3603886; 499206, 3603907; 

499259, 3603894; thence returning to 

499259, 3603894. 

(viii) From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangles Imperial Beach and Otay 

Mesa. Land bounded by the following 

UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, N): 

499359, 3604115; 499359, 3604025; 

499350, 3604018; 499347, 3604016; 

499320, 3604033; 499314, 3604043; 

499286, 3604091; 499257, 3604115; 

499221, 3604110; 499177, 3604098; 

499160, 3604125; 499160, 3604197; 

499148, 3604270; 499143, 3604287; 

499153, 3604292; 499223, 3604309; 

499293, 3604299; 499330, 3604270; 

499361, 3604239; 499387, 3604214; 

499398, 3604205; 499383, 3604178; 

499359, 3604159; 499359, 3604122; 

499359, 3604115; thence returning to 

499359, 3604115. 

(ix) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa. Land 

bounded by the following UTM NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 499618, 3604583; 

499662, 3604524; 499662, 3604352; 

499620, 3604367; 499541, 3604418; 

499504, 3604459; 499475, 3604484; 

499446, 3604510; 499436, 3604546; 

499451, 3604575; 499475, 3604575; 

499475, 3604575; 499528, 3604566; 

499562, 3604568; 499618, 3604583; 

thence returning to 499618, 3604583. 

(x) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa. Land 

bounded by the following UTM NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 500083, 3603092; 

500026, 3603130; 499985, 3603143; 

499944, 3603149; 499903, 3603164; 

499898, 3603164; 499885, 3603170; 

499886, 3603218; 499880, 3603221; 

499880, 3603325; 499949, 3603340; 

499967, 3603344; 499969, 3603407; 

500093, 3603400; 500083, 3603092; 

500083, 3603092; thence returning to 

500083, 3603092. 

(xi) Note: Map of Unit 5, Subunit 5H 

(Western Otay Mesa Vernal Pool 

Complexes) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
62250 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(22) Unit 5: San Diego: Southern 

Coastal Mesa Management Area, San 

Diego County, CA. Subunit 5I: Eastern 

Otay Mesa Vernal Pool Complexes. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

Otay Mesa. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 505882, 3604195; 505900, 3603953; 

505859, 3603974; 505832, 3603989; 

505798, 3604009; 505753, 3604040; 

505721, 3604065; 505690, 3604091; 

505662, 3604118; 505633, 3604147; 

505608, 3604176; 505569, 3604222; 

505539, 3604260; 505527, 3604287; 

505547, 3604326; 505587, 3604372; 

505626, 3604399; 505733, 3604393; 

505828, 3604330; 505863, 3604289; 

505865, 3604259; 505882, 3604195; 

thence returning to 505882, 3604195. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2ER07OC10.015</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62251 

(ii) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

Otay Mesa. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 503223, 3605127; 503429, 3604767; 

503325, 3604734; 503153, 3604635; 

503028, 3604559; 502978, 3604516; 

502955, 3604458; 502942, 3604387; 

502909, 3604331; 502856, 3604268; 

502838, 3604202; 502733, 3604206; 

502719, 3604815; 502735, 3605001; 

502742, 3605091; 502788, 3605114; 

502833, 3605086; 502840, 3605001; 

502847, 3604914; 502930, 3604871; 

502988, 3604876; 503021, 3604924; 

503050, 3605001; 503061, 3605030; 

503092, 3605139; 503130, 3605145; 

503160, 3605149; 503223, 3605127; 

thence returning to 503223, 3605127. 

(iii) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

Otay Mesa. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N):504614, 3605172; 504617, 3605127; 

504583, 3605128; 504550, 3605129; 

504519, 3605130; 504519, 3605122; 

504540, 3604842; 503733, 3604867; 

503681, 3604857; 503658, 3604846; 

503624, 3604830; 503406, 3605134; 

503467, 3605162; 503530, 3605134; 

503588, 3605119; 503598, 3605139; 

503598, 3605200; 503672, 3605223; 

503753, 3605309; 503847, 3605347; 

503912, 3605382; 503925, 3605389; 

504011, 3605433; 504067, 3605433; 

504096, 3605387; 504102, 3605377; 

504186, 3605344; 504240, 3605309; 

504283, 3605282; 504358, 3605268; 

504475, 3605246; 504552, 3605221; 

504561, 3605218; 504587, 3605196; 

504614, 3605172; thence returning to 

504614, 3605172. 

(iv) Note: Map of Unit 5, Subunit 5I 

(Eastern Otay Mesa Vernal Pool 

Complexes) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2ER07OC10.016</GPH>
62252 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(23) Unit 6: Riverside: Riverside 

Management Area, Riverside County, 

CA. Subunit 6A: San Jacinto River. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Perris and Lakeview. Land bounded by 

the following UTM NAD83 coordinates 

(E, N): 480115, 3736015; 480123, 

3736089; 480006, 3736246; 479961, 

3736644; 479978, 3736737; 480068, 

3736890; 481015, 3736904; 481258, 

3737111; 481423, 3736990; 481474, 

3736952; 481500, 3736933; 481500, 

3736933; 481545, 3736899; 481546, 

3736899; 481550, 3736896; 481717, 

3736773; 481889, 3736646; 481884, 

3736589; 481807, 3736439; 481388, 

3735908; 481199, 3735637; 481101, 

3735567; 480929, 3735516; 480866, 

3735513; 480742, 3735505; 480700, 

3735490; 480699, 3735490; 480658, 

3735471; 480615, 3735434; 480604, 

3735421; 480565, 3735397; 480520, 

3735296; 480463, 3735138; 480410, 

3735025; 480359, 3734946; 480274, 

3734884; 480175, 3734856; 480102, 

3734839; 480006, 3734830; 479843, 

3734847; 479783, 3734918; 479733, 

3735028; 479744, 3735177; 479783, 

3735259; 479899, 3735327; 479936, 

3735397; 479969, 3735510; 480020, 

3735584; 480071, 3735637; 480106, 

3735671; 480115, 3736015; thence 

returning to 480115, 3736015. 

(ii) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Perris and Lakeview. Land bounded by 

the following UTM NAD83 coordinates 

(E, N):482086, 3737103; 481896, 

3737158; 481736, 3737152; 481607, 

3737005; 481565, 3737040; 481565, 

3737040; 481499, 3737095; 481495, 

3737098; 481495, 3737098; 481460, 

3737128; 481498, 3737171; 481607, 

3737294; 481659, 3737308; 481659, 

3737308; 481675, 3737312; 481806, 

3737364; 481806, 3737365; 481828, 

3737373; 481884, 3737410; 482049, 

3737423; 482228, 3737521; 482293, 

3737565; 482301, 3737570; 482305, 

3737714; 482307, 3737840; 482332, 

3738252; 482381, 3738399; 482400, 

3738519; 482406, 3738559; 482498, 

3738780; 482590, 3738989; 482670, 

3739143; 482799, 3739259; 483002, 

3739302; 483057, 3739329; 483058, 

3739329; 483102, 3739351; 483154, 

3739376; 483180, 3739388; 483352, 

3739505; 483481, 3739579; 483555, 

3739659; 483622, 3739714; 483733, 

3739714; 483849, 3739726; 483914, 

3739777; 483935, 3739794; 483942, 

3739923; 483946, 3739994; 483948, 

3740021; 483997, 3740083; 484071, 

3740101; 484109, 3740101; 484175, 

3740101; 484286, 3740101; 484409, 

3740101; 484491, 3740101; 484556, 

3740101; 484562, 3740101; 484660, 

3740101; 484724, 3740101; 484808, 

3740101; 484740, 3740015; 484724, 

3740003; 484593, 3739911; 484558, 

3739876; 484507, 3739825; 484310, 

3739634; 484095, 3739438; 484078, 

3739426; 483978, 3739358; 483961, 

3739335; 483914, 3739275; 483904, 

3739263; 483910, 3738133; 483780, 

3737932; 483550, 3737726; 483330, 

3737413; 483310, 3737372; 483104, 

3737308; 483107, 3736913; 482312, 

3736913; 482230, 3736937; 482203, 

3736962; 482172, 3737005; 482086, 

3737103; thence returning to 482086, 

3737103. 

(iii) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Perris and Lakeview. Land bounded by 

the following UTM NAD83 coordinates 

(E, N): 485275, 3740138; 484724, 

3740131; 484574, 3740129; 484505, 

3740129; 484256, 3740126; 484305, 

3740158; 484305, 3740158; 484397, 

3740217; 484483, 3740273; 484649, 

3740476; 484723, 3740618; 484725, 

3740623; 484725, 3740623; 484760, 

3740691; 484853, 3740957; 484956, 

3741250; 485150, 3741749; 485159, 

3741772; 485184, 3741895; 485202, 

3742006; 485218, 3742268; 485221, 

3742307; 485244, 3742361; 485288, 

3742466; 485368, 3742554; 485531, 

3742733; 485534, 3742737; 485537, 

3742748; 485537, 3742748; 485552, 

3742804; 485575, 3743092; 485589, 

3743271; 485662, 3743360; 485679, 

3743380; 485711, 3743419; 485761, 

3743480; 485917, 3743485; 485964, 

3743486; 486099, 3743615; 486204, 

3743695; 486326, 3743781; 486336, 

3743800; 486369, 3743867; 486376, 

3743928; 486369, 3743936; 486336, 

3743974; 486296, 3744021; 486336, 

3744125; 486339, 3744131; 486366, 

3744163; 486366, 3744163; 486492, 

3744315; 486519, 3744332; 486551, 

3744352; 486640, 3744408; 486787, 

3744549; 486855, 3744586; 487051, 

3744586; 487135, 3744567; 487242, 

3744543; 487425, 3744461; 487477, 

3744437; 487488, 3744432; 487690, 

3744377; 487905, 3744309; 487899, 

3744260; 487824, 3744168; 487824, 

3744168; 487795, 3744131; 487690, 

3744039; 487631, 3743972; 487543, 

3743873; 487346, 3743928; 487236, 

3743799; 487150, 3743627; 487133, 

3743609; 487027, 3743486; 486935, 

3743418; 486907, 3743363; 486867, 

3743283; 486818, 3743136; 486763, 

3743062; 486707, 3742964; 486535, 

3742804; 486366, 3742612; 486356, 

3742601; 486351, 3742595; 486348, 

3742590; 486334, 3742565; 486330, 

3742557; 486111, 3742165; 486057, 

3742013; 486019, 3741907; 486012, 

3741890; 486090, 3741855; 485750, 

3741117; 486062, 3740960; 485546, 

3740143; 485276, 3740138; 485275, 

3740138; thence returning to 485275, 

3740138. 

(iv) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Perris and Lakeview. Land bounded by 

the following UTM NAD83 coordinates 

(E, N): 488922, 3746032; 488976, 

3746028; 489134, 3746103; 489376, 

3746196; 489562, 3746326; 489603, 

3746429; 489618, 3746466; 489662, 

3746610; 489663, 3746613; 489672, 

3746642; 489684, 3746680; 489690, 

3746700; 489701, 3746735; 489768, 

3746809; 489887, 3746940; 490083, 

3747089; 490231, 3747126; 490425, 

3747178; 490511, 3747200; 490519, 

3747205; 490546, 3747218; 490585, 

3747238; 490687, 3747247; 490836, 

3747135; 490966, 3746959; 491124, 

3746819; 491199, 3746726; 491199, 

3746680; 491199, 3746678; 491199, 

3746661; 491152, 3746652; 491125, 

3746646; 491106, 3746642; 491056, 

3746617; 491047, 3746613; 491045, 

3746612; 490864, 3746522; 490864, 

3746522; 490827, 3746503; 490652, 

3746443; 490404, 3746359; 490390, 

3746354; 490083, 3746252; 489983, 

3746182; 489983, 3746182; 489979, 

3746179; 489897, 3746121; 489785, 

3745870; 489785, 3745793; 489785, 

3745582; 489785, 3745424; 489601, 

3745328; 489571, 3745312; 489292, 

3745284; 489059, 3745266; 488827, 

3745117; 488810, 3745111; 488810, 

3745111; 488806, 3745110; 488787, 

3745103; 488557, 3745024; 488514, 

3745000; 488514, 3745000; 488493, 

3744988; 488464, 3744972; 488408, 

3744940; 488338, 3744897; 488306, 

3744877; 488290, 3744867; 488287, 

3744866; 488287, 3744689; 488272, 

3744656; 488222, 3744549; 488212, 

3744537; 488205, 3744528; 488205, 

3744528; 488101, 3744401; 488027, 

3744317; 487969, 3744341; 487537, 

3744523; 487537, 3744523; 487500, 

3744539; 487497, 3744540; 487476, 

3744546; 487427, 3744559; 487255, 

3744605; 487148, 3744610; 487135, 

3744611; 487125, 3744611; 487059, 

3744615; 487056, 3744615; 487023, 

3744616; 486974, 3744619; 486934, 

3744621; 486934, 3744621; 486864, 

3744624; 486911, 3744726; 486945, 

3744784; 486975, 3744834; 487054, 

3744967; 487060, 3744979; 487067, 

3744989; 487148, 3745127; 487357, 

3745480; 487712, 3746290; 487720, 

3746307; 487739, 3746356; 487857, 

3746655; 488073, 3747200; 488202, 

3747526; 488288, 3747745; 488297, 

3747768; 488361, 3747950; 488408, 

3748084; 488539, 3748177; 488574, 

3748178; 488582, 3748178; 488595, 

3748178; 488800, 3748180; 488805, 

3748180; 489137, 3748184; 489217, 

3748185; 489329, 3748186; 489346, 

3748182; 489436, 3748160; 489441, 

3748159; 489498, 3748067; 489520, 

3748032; 489520, 3748032; 489534, 

3748010; 489605, 3747930; 489701, 

3747824; 489701, 3747749; 489690, 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62253 

3747746; 489608, 3747724; 489608, 

3747724; 489605, 3747723; 489497, 

3747693; 489391, 3747693; 489293, 

3747693; 489279, 3747693; 489255, 

3747693; 489240, 3747677; 489217, 

3747653; 489134, 3747563; 489133, 

3747561; 489067, 3747400; 489032, 

3747312; 488911, 3747005; 488873, 

3746800; 488881, 3746769; 488887, 

3746746; 488901, 3746689; 488994, 

3746568; 488966, 3746456; 488920, 

3746317; 488855, 3746187; 488845, 

3746066; 488845, 3746038; 488922, 

3746032; thence returning to 488922, 

3746032. 

(v) Note: Map of Unit 6, Subunit 6A 

(San Jacinto River) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2ER07OC10.017</GPH>
62254 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(24) Unit 6: Riverside: Riverside 

Management Area, Riverside County, 

CA. Subunit 6B: Salt Creek Seasonally 

Flooded Alkali Plain. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles 

Lakeview and Winchester. Land 

bounded by the following UTM NAD83 

coordinates (E, N): 496999, 3734333; 

496995, 3733632; 496993, 3733374; 

496993, 3733353; 496992, 3733079; 

496991, 3733046; 496991, 3732939; 

496990, 3732731; 497270, 3732723; 

497270, 3732391; 496987, 3732276; 

496986, 3732133; 496979, 3732133; 

496441, 3732133; 495871, 3732118; 

495855, 3732117; 495791, 3731864; 

495754, 3731720; 496288, 3731734; 

496176, 3731442; 496130, 3731321; 

496119, 3731293; 496110, 3731269; 

496105, 3731257; 496098, 3731238; 

495840, 3731139; 495783, 3731117; 

495764, 3731110; 495673, 3731075; 

495539, 3731023; 495370, 3730958; 

495370, 3730958; 495344, 3730948; 

495344, 3731276; 495344, 3731308; 

495344, 3731312; 495203, 3731319; 

495197, 3731308; 495182, 3731281; 

495169, 3731258; 495144, 3731229; 

495122, 3731204; 495028, 3731204; 

494990, 3731228; 494954, 3731251; 

494929, 3731288; 494917, 3731307; 

494913, 3731312; 494806, 3731312; 

494766, 3731420; 494693, 3731621; 

494724, 3731768; 494749, 3731819; 

494811, 3731848; 494835, 3731935; 

494886, 3732013; 494875, 3732052; 

494962, 3732078; 495080, 3732115; 

495080, 3732115; 495095, 3732120; 

495368, 3732124; 495546, 3732126; 

495551, 3732348; 495558, 3732640; 

495560, 3732698; 495566, 3732880; 

495578, 3732932; 495579, 3732936; 

495783, 3732925; 496065, 3733488; 

496058, 3733755; 496057, 3733807; 

496043, 3734174; 496173, 3734170; 

496461, 3734174; 496505, 3734333; 

thence returning to 496999, 3734333. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 6, Subunit 6B 

(Salt Creek Seasonally Flooded Alkali 

Plain) follows: 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2ER07OC10.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62255 

(25) Unit 6: Riverside: Riverside 

Management Area, Riverside County, 

CA. Subunit 6C: Wickerd and Scott 

Road Pools. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

Romoland. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 485930, 3722429; 485737, 3722429; 

485737, 3722611; 485930, 3722611; 

485930, 3722429; thence returning to 

485930, 3722429. 

(ii) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

Romoland. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 485922, 3723029; 485730, 3723232; 

485911, 3723435; 485930, 3724021; 

486317, 3724020; 486317, 3723305; 

486412, 3723293; 486417, 3723421; 

486512, 3723424; 486506, 3723229; 

486714, 3723225; 486716, 3723220; 

486716, 3723210; 486716, 3723200; 

486716, 3723196; 486716, 3723094; 

486716, 3723072; 486716, 3723031; 

486716, 3722986; 486716, 3722964; 

486716, 3722954; 486716, 3722915; 

486716, 3722899; 486716, 3722885; 

486716, 3722830; 486699, 3722435; 

486116, 3722429; 486118, 3722817; 

486016, 3722821; 486016, 3722931; 

485922, 3723029; thence returning to 

485922, 3723029. 

(iii) Note: Map of Unit 6, Subunit 6C 

(Wickerd and Scott Road Pools) follows: 

* * * * * Dated: September 23, 2010 

Eileen Sobeck, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24763 Filed 10–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES_2ER07OC10.019</GPH>