[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71284-71319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26687]



[[Page 71283]]

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

Part IV





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Brodiaea filifolia (thread-leaved brodiaea); 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 71284]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AT75


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Designation of Critical Habitat for Brodiaea filifolia (thread-leaved 
brodiaea)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
designate critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act), for the federally threatened Brodiaea filifolia 
(thread-leaved brodiaea). We have determined that 9,403 acres (ac) 
(3,805 hectares (ha)) of habitat with essential features exists for 
Brodiaea filifolia in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, 
and San Diego counties. Of this eligible habitat, we are proposing to 
designate approximately 4,690 ac (1,898 ha) of land in 10 units in Los 
Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, and San Diego Counties, California, as 
critical habitat for this species. Eligible habitat in Riverside and 
portions of San Diego counties covered by approved and/or pending 
habitat conservation plans is being proposed for exclusion from 
critical habitat under 4(b)(2) of the Act.

DATES: We will accept comments from all interested parties until 
February 7, 2005. We must receive requests for public hearings, in 
writing, at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by January 24, 
2005.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and 
information concerning this proposal by any one of several methods:
    1. You may submit written comments and information to the Field 
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 
Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92009.
    2. You may hand-deliver written comments and information to our 
office at the above address.
    3. You may send comments and information by electronic mail (e-
mail) [email protected]. Please see the ``Public Comments 
Solicited'' section below for file format and other information about 
electronic filing.
    4. You may fax your comments to 760-431-3624.
    Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in preparation of this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (at the above address) 
(telephone number 760-431-9440).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES section).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments Solicited

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal be as 
accurate as possible. Accordingly, we hereby solicit comments or 
suggestions from the public, other governmental agencies and entities, 
Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested 
parties regarding this proposed rule. In particular, we seek comments 
concerning:
    (1) The reasons any areas should or should not be determined to be 
critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including whether 
the benefits of designation will outweigh threats to the species due to 
the designation;
    (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of Brodiaea 
filifolia and its habitat, specifically updated information on specific 
populations or occurrences and what habitat or habitat components or 
features are essential to the conservation of this species and why;
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in or 
adjacent to the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed 
critical habitat;
    (4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential 
impacts which could result from the proposed designation and, in 
particular, any impacts to small entities; and
    (5) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be 
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public 
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating 
public concerns and comments.
    (6) We request information from the Department of Defense to assist 
the Secretary of the Interior in evaluating critical habitat on lands 
administered by or under the control of the Department of Defense based 
on any benefit provided by an Integrated Natural Resources Management 
Plan (INRMP) to the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia; and information 
regarding impacts to national security associated with proposed 
designation of critical habitat.
    If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials 
concerning this proposal by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES 
section). Please submit Internet comments to [email protected] in 
ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form 
of encryption. Please also include ``Attn: Brodiaea filifolia'' in your 
e-mail subject header and your name and return address in the body of 
your message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that 
we have received your internet message, contact us directly by calling 
our Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at phone number 760-431-9440. 
Please note that the Internet address [email protected] will be 
closed out at the termination of the public comment period.
    Our practice is to make comments, including the names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular 
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold 
their home address from the rulemaking record, and we will honor such 
requests to the extent allowable by law. There also may be 
circumstances in which, as allowable by law, we would withhold from the 
rulemaking record a respondent's identity. If you wish us to withhold 
your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the 
beginning of your comment. We will not, however, consider anonymous 
comments. The Service will make all submissions from organizations or 
businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as 
representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available 
for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials 
received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, 
during normal business hours at the above address.

Designation of Critical Habitat Provides Little Additional Protection 
to Species

    In 30 years of implementing the Act, we have found that the 
designation of statutory critical habitat provides little additional 
protection to most listed species, while consuming significant amounts 
of available conservation resources. Our present system for designating 
critical habitat has evolved since its original statutory prescription 
into a process that provides little real conservation benefit, is 
driven by litigation and the courts rather than biology, limits our 
ability to fully evaluate the science involved, consumes enormous 
agency resources, and imposes huge social and economic costs. We 
believe that additional agency discretion would allow our focus to 
return to those actions that provide the greatest benefit to the 
species most in need of protection.

[[Page 71285]]

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and 
Implementing the Act

    While attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to 
successful conservation actions, we have consistently found that, in 
most circumstances, the designation of critical habitat is of little 
additional value for most listed species, yet it consumes large amounts 
of conservation resources. Sidle (1987) stated, ``Because the Act can 
protect species with and without critical habitat designation, critical 
habitat designation may be redundant to the other consultation 
requirements of section 7.'' Currently, only 467 species or 37 percent 
of the 1,255 listed species in the United States under our jurisdiction 
have designated critical habitat. We address the habitat needs of all 
1,255 listed species through conservation mechanisms such as listing, 
section 7 consultations, the Section 4 recovery planning process, the 
Section 9 protective prohibitions of unauthorized take, Section 6 
funding to the States, and the Section 10 incidental take permit 
process. We believe that it is these measures that may make the 
difference between extinction and survival for many species.
    We note, however, that a recent 9th Circuit judicial opinion, 
Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 
has invalidated the Service's regulation defining destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat. We are currently reviewing 
the decision to determine what effect it may have on the outcome of 
consultations pursuant to Section 7 of the Act.

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat

    We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate 
critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging 
critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have 
subjected us to an ever-increasing series of court orders and court-
approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now consumes 
nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves us with little 
ability to prioritize our activities to direct scarce listing resources 
to the listing program actions with the most biologically urgent 
species conservation needs.
    The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that 
limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to 
Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to 
comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result, 
listing petition responses, our own proposals to list critically 
imperiled species, and final listing determinations on existing 
proposals are all significantly delayed.
    The accelerated schedules of court-ordered designations have left 
us with almost no ability to provide for adequate public participation 
or to ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before making decisions 
on listing and critical habitat proposals due to the risks associated 
with noncompliance with judicially-imposed deadlines. This in turn 
fosters a second round of litigation in which those who fear adverse 
impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those 
designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless, is very 
expensive, and in the final analysis provides relatively little 
additional protection to listed species.
    The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the 
cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of 
the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to 
public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with NEPA; 
all are part of the cost of critical habitat designation. None of these 
costs result in any benefit to the species that is not already afforded 
by the protections of the Act enumerated earlier, and they directly 
reduce the funds available for direct and tangible conservation 
actions.

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the designation of critical habitat in this proposed rule and that 
clarify the species description and biology provided in the final 
listing rule. Additional information on the biology and ecology of 
Brodiaea filifolia and the factors affecting the species can be found 
in the final rule listing the species as threatened, published in the 
Federal Register on October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54975).
    Brodiaea filifolia is a perennial herb in the Liliaceae (lily 
family) that produces leaves and flower stalks from dark-brown, 
fibrous-coated underground corms (underground bulb-like storage stem 
that lacks succulent leaves). Corms are dormant in the summer but begin 
growing after the first significant fall rains saturate the soil. 
Leaves grow slowly throughout the winter. At the time of flowering, 
generally early summer, the leaves of Brodiaea are dead or nearly so 
and next season's corms are mature. The flowering period lasts for two 
to three weeks, and development of the capsules and seeds takes four to 
eight weeks. The rate of deposition and duration of seeds in the soil 
is unknown. However, it is likely that the majority of seeds produced 
in the capsules are dispersed nearby and as such would be expected to 
be scattered among the standing plants at any given occurrence. 
Conditions conducive to triggering natural germination are also 
unknown. Leaves are likely produced every year. Young plants may 
produce only leaves for a few seasons before having enough food stores 
to be capable of producing flower stalks. Leaves appear in early spring 
and die back by the time of flowering which typically occurs from May 
to June. Even mature specimens may not flower every year, depending 
upon environmental conditions. The flower stalks are 20 to 40 cm (8 in 
to 16 in) tall. The tubular flowers are 9 mm to 12 mm (0.4 in to 0.5 
in) long and are arranged in loose umbels. The six perianth segments 
are violet, with their tips spreading. The staminodia (characteristic 
sterile stamens) are narrow and pointed.
    All species of Brodiaea are self-incompatible, requiring cross-
pollination to set seed. The corm is the principal means by which 
plants of the genus Brodiaea perpetuate themselves (Niehaus 1971). 
Seedlings produce contractile roots (roots of specialized form designed 
to shrink vertically under conditions of seasonal drying) for the first 
few years. These roots swell with moisture in the wet season creating a 
space in the malleable clay substrate. As the season progresses, the 
succulent root dries and shrinks vertically, drawing the young corm 
down into the ground. This is repeated for a few years until the soil 
moisture is insufficient to support the contractile root. The corm from 
the previous year is replaced by an adjacent new corm each year. The 
new corm of a mature plant often produces two to fifteen cormlets 
(Niehaus 1971).
    The historical range of Brodiaea filifolia extends from the 
foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains in Los Angeles County (Glendora 
and San Dimas), east to the western foothills of the San Bernardino 
Mountains in San Bernardino County (Arrowhead Hot Springs), south 
through eastern Orange and western Riverside Counties to northern San 
Diego County (Highland Valley) (USFWS 1998; CNDDB 2003; City of San 
Diego 1997; SANDAG 2003). This species is usually found in herbaceous 
plant communities that occur in open areas on clay soils, soils with 
clay subsurface, or clay lenses within loamy, silty loam, or alkaline 
soils, and elevations of 100 ft (30 m) to 2,500 ft (765 m), depending 
on soil

[[Page 71286]]

series. These plant communities are generally classified as non-native 
grassland, valley needlegrass grassland, valley sacaton grassland, 
alkali playa, southern interior basalt vernal pools, San Diego mesa 
hardpan vernal pools, and San Diego mesa claypan vernal pools (Holland 
1986). Based upon dominant species, these communities have been further 
divided into series which include, but are not limited to, California 
annual grassland, nodding needlegrass, purple needlegrass, foothill 
needlegrass, saltgrass, alkali grassland, alkali playa, and bush 
seepweed and habitats such as San Diego mesa vernal pools, San Jacinto 
Valley vernal pools, and Santa Rosa Plateau vernal pools (Sawyer and 
Keeler-Wolf 1994). Brodiaea filifolia grows in association with coastal 
sage scrub vegetation in some areas, such as Los Angeles and San 
Bernardino Counties.
    Brodiaea filifolia has also been found in the San Mateo Wilderness 
Area near the northern border of San Diego and Riverside counties and 
in the Miller Peak area in the Santa Ana Mountains of western Riverside 
County. These occurrences appear to include some hybrids between B. 
filifolia and B. orcuttii. Occurrences in the San Mateo Wilderness Area 
have been observed along the banks of, and within, intermittent stream 
channels, and those in the Miller Peak area have been observed on clay 
soils in southern needlegrass grassland (Boyd et al. 1992). In Miller 
Canyon, a tributary that drains the southern flank of Miller Mountain, 
the species and some hybrids are found on deposits of gravel, cobble, 
and small boulders along the stream channel in association with 
tussocks of Juncus macrophyllus and Muhlenbergia rigens and in vernal 
seeps and on open, clayey benches (Boyd et al. 1992).
    All members of the genus Brodiaea appear to require full sun, and 
many tend to occur on only one or a few soil series (Niehaus 1971). In 
San Diego, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties, occurrences of Brodiaea 
filifolia are highly correlated with specific clay soil series such as, 
but not limited to, Alo, Altamont, Auld, and Diablo or clay lens 
inclusions in a matrix of loamy soils such as Fallbrook, Huerhuero, and 
Las Flores series (63 FR 54975, CNDDB 2003, Service GIS data 2004). In 
San Bernardino, the species is associated with Etsel family-Rock 
outcrop-Springdale and Tujunga-Urban land-Hanford soils (Service GIS 
data 2004). In western Riverside County, the species is often found on 
alkaline silty-clay soil series such as, but not limited to, Domino, 
Grangeville, Waukena, and Willows or on clay loam soils underlain by 
heavy clays derived from basalt lava flows (i.e., Murrieta series on 
the Santa Rosa Plateau) (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1971, Bramlet 
1993, CNDDB 2003). On these soils, B. filifolia is typically found as a 
constituent of native perennial and non-native annual grasslands. In 
San Marcos, the Santa Rosa Plateau, and near Hemet, these grasslands 
are often part of the watersheds for vernal pool and playa complexes 
(Bramlet 1993, Service 1998, CNDDB 2003). These soils enable the 
natural process of seed dispersal and germination, cormlet deposition 
to an appropriate soil depth, and corm persistence through seedling and 
adult phases of flowering and fruit set described earlier.
    Members of the genus Brodiaea likely rely on Tumbling Flower 
Beetles (Coleoptera) and Sweat Bees (Hymenoptera) for cross-pollination 
(Niehaus 1971). The home ranges and species fidelity of these 
pollinators is not known. Alternative pollen source plants may be 
necessary for the persistence of these insects when Brodiaea filifolia 
is not in flower seasonally or annually because of poor environmental 
conditions. Studies to quantify the distance that bees will fly to 
pollinate their host plants are limited in number, but the few that 
exist show that some bees will routinely fly 100 to 500 m (328 to 984 
ft) to pollinate plants. Studies by Steffan-Dewenter and Tscharntke 
(2000) have demonstrated that it is possible for bees to fly at least 
1,000 m (3,280 ft) to pollinate flowers, and at least one study 
suggests that bumblebees may forage many kilometers from a colony 
(Sudgen 1985).
    The size of a particular population of Brodiaea species, as well as 
other corm and bulb forming species, is often measured by counting 
numbers of standing flower stalks. However, because more plants flower 
in wet years than dry years, flowering plants likely represent only a 
portion of the total population of plants present at any given site. In 
addition to the annual fluctuation in numbers of flowering plants, 
seedlings and young plants likely only produce leaves for a few years 
before they are able to produce flower stalks. These vegetative plants 
may go undetected in surveys.
    By 1998, at least 25 percent of Brodiaea filifolia populations or 
occurrences were eliminated by urbanization and agricultural conversion 
(63 FR 54975). This species has also been impacted by non-agricultural 
disking for fire and weed control as well as grading (White and Bramlet 
2004). Urban development and flood control projects are among the 
continuing threats to this species in Orange, Riverside, and San Diego 
Counties. White and Bramlet (2004) note that habitats for Brodiaea 
filifolia in Orange County and some in San Diego County are degraded by 
``dense infestations'' of the perennial Cynara cardunculus (artichoke 
thistle). The species is also threatened by recreational activities 
such as off-road vehicle use; clearing for firebreaks; alteration of 
existing hydrologic conditions resulting from construction and 
operation of flood control structures; over-grazing; and competition 
from non-native plant species (USFWS 1998, RECON 1999, CNDDB 2003).
    Translocation may also be a threat to this species. Translocation 
efforts associated with mitigation for development projects have not, 
on the whole, proved to be successful in conserving the species 
(Fiedler 1991). Information on file for ten mitigation based 
translocations suggests that there has been little consistency or 
recording of translocation methodology or project design, minimal 
effective monitoring, and success was either deemed negative or 
unknown. For all ten projects the stated objective of the translocation 
effort was to salvage plants from sites to be developed. Accounting for 
the numbers and origins of corms has been poorly documented. In some 
cases agreed-upon endowments to cover monitoring and management were 
not provided. Monitoring has not provided information about 
establishment of new plants from those translocated to the receptor 
sites. Even if individuals become established, the survival of 
transplanted corms does not necessarily indicate success for the 
species. Due to the lack of successful translocations of this species, 
listed as endangered by the State, staff at the California Department 
of Fish and Game (CDFG) attempt to negotiate the avoidance of 
translocation for this species citing take provisions under Section 
2081(a) of the Fish and Game Code. The loss of all or portions of 
native populations of B. filifolia due to habitat loss coupled with the 
failure of translocation efforts continues to contribute to the decline 
of B. filifolia.

Previous Federal Actions

    For more information on previous federal actions concerning 
Brodiaea filifolia prior to the time of listing, refer to the final 
rule listing the species as threatened published in the Federal 
Register on October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54975). A recovery plan for B. 
filifolia has not yet been completed. The following text discusses 
those Federal

[[Page 71287]]

actions that occurred subsequent to the listing.
    On November 15, 2001, a lawsuit was filed against the Department of 
the Interior (DOI) and the Service by the Center for Biological 
Diversity and California Native Plant Society, challenging our ``not 
prudent'' determinations for eight plants including Brodiaea filifolia 
(No. CV-01-2101) (CBD et al. v. USDOI). A second lawsuit asserting the 
same challenge was filed against the DOI and the Service by the 
Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation (BILD) on November 21, 2001 
(No. CV-01-2145) (BILD v. USDOI). Both cases consolidated on March 19, 
2002, and all parties agreed to remand the critical habitat 
determinations to the Service for additional consideration. In a July 
1, 2002, order, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 
California directed us to publish a new prudency determination and/or 
propose critical habitat for B. filifolia on or before November 30, 
2004. This proposed rule to designate critical habitat complies with 
the court's ruling.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the 
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the 
time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those 
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of 
the species'' and (II) that may require special management 
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures 
that are necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to 
the point at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or 
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 requires conference on 
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat, and consultation on Federal 
actions that may affect designated critical habitat.
    In the geographic area occupied by the species, 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 (i.e., areas on which are found the 
primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
    Our regulations state that, ``The Secretary shall designate as 
critical habitat areas outside the geographic area presently occupied 
by the species only when a designation limited to its present range 
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species'' (50 CFR 
424.12(e)). Accordingly, when the best available scientific and 
commercial data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the 
species so require, we will not designate critical habitat in areas 
outside the geographic area occupied by the species.
    Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species 
Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271) 
and our U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information Quality Guidelines 
(2002) provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to 
ensure that our decisions represent the best scientific and commercial 
data available. These policies and guidelines require us, to the extent 
consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and 
commercial data available, to use primary and original sources of 
information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat. When determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary 
source of information should be the listing package for the species. 
Additional information may be obtained from a recovery plan, 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.
    This proposed critical habitat designation is not intended to 
suggest that habitat outside the delineated area is unimportant to 
Brodiaea filifolia. Areas outside the critical habitat designation will 
continue to be subject to conservation actions that may be implemented 
under section 7(a)(1), and to the regulatory protections afforded by 
the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and applicable section 9 
prohibitions, as determined on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of the action. We specifically anticipate 
federally funded or assisted projects affecting listed species outside 
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy 
findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made 
on the basis of the best available information at the time of 
designation will not control the direction and substance of future 
recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species 
conservation planning efforts if new information available to these 
planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Methods

    As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best 
scientific and commercial data available in determining areas that 
contain the features that are essential to the conservation of Brodiaea 
filifolia. We designated no areas outside the geographic area presently 
occupied by the species. These included data and information from 
research and survey observations in published, peer-reviewed articles, 
and data provided by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 
and data provided by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 
We also reviewed available information pertaining to the habitat 
requirements of this species including the final listing rule; our 
draft Recovery Plan; data and information included in reports submitted 
during section 7 consultations; information contained in species 
analyses for individual and regional Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) 
where B. filifolia is a covered species or is being proposed for 
coverage; data collected on Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton; 
data collected from reports submitted by researchers holding section 
10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits; and information received from local 
species experts.
    Habitat that contains the features essential to the conservation of 
the species was delineated by examining (1) species occurrence 
information in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, and San 
Diego Counties from the CNDDB and from survey reports; (2) vegetation 
data layers from Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties and 
vegetation data layers from the U.S. Forest Service's Cleveland 
National Forest for Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties; (3) 
Natural Resources Conservation Service's Soil Survey Geographic 
Database (SSURGO) soil data layers for Orange, Riverside, and San Diego 
Counties, and State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) soil data layers 
for Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties; and (4) slope data derived 
from a 30-meter digital elevation model (DEM). These layers were 
overlaid on digital ortho quarter quadrangle (DOQQ) satellite imagery 
layers, and habitat was delineated in areas that had an extant species 
occurrence within them, had not undergone development, had the PCE's 
including suitable soil and vegetation

[[Page 71288]]

types, and had a slope of less than 20 degrees. After creating a GIS 
coverage of the eligible areas, we created legal descriptions of these 
areas. We used a 100-meter grid to establish Universal Transverse 
Mercator (UTM), North American Datum (NAD) 27 coordinates which, when 
connected, provided the boundaries of the eligible habitat areas.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical 
habitat, we are required to base critical habitat determinations on the 
best scientific and commercial data available and to consider those 
physical and biological features, otherwise referred to as primary 
constituent elements, essential to the conservation of the species, and 
which may require special management considerations or protection. 
These include, but are not limited to: space for individual growth and 
population expansion; water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional 
or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; and habitats that are 
protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic 
geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
    These physical and biological features provide for the following: 
(1) Areas for growth of individuals and populations, including sites 
suitable for sexual and asexual (cormlet) reproduction, pollination and 
pollen dispersal, seed dispersal and germination, and maintenance of 
seed banks; (2) intervening areas suitable to facilitate gene flow and 
connectivity or linkages within and among eligible occurrences; and (3) 
maintenance of areas that provide basic requirements for growth such as 
water, light, nutrients, and minerals.
    The conservation of Brodiaea filifolia is dependent upon several 
factors that include, but are not limited to, the protection and 
management of existing populations and the habitat which supports them; 
the maintenance of areas of sufficient size and configuration to 
sustain natural ecosystem components, functions, and processes (e.g., 
full sun exposure, natural fire and hydrologic regimes, adequate biotic 
balance to prevent excessive herbivory); protection of existing 
substrate continuity and structure, connectivity among groups of plants 
within geographic proximity to facilitate gene flow among the sites 
through pollinator activity and seed dispersal; and sufficient adjacent 
suitable habitat for vegetative reproduction and population expansion. 
The areas being proposed for designation as critical habitat provide 
one or more of the physical or biological features essential for the 
conservation of this species.
    Lands being proposed for designation as critical habitat for B. 
filifolia occur within the historical range of the species. Based on 
the best available scientific and commercial information available 
regarding the life history, ecology, and distribution of this species, 
we believe that the primary constituent elements of critical habitat 
for B. filifolia consist of the following:
    (1) Appropriate soil series and associated vegetation at suitable 
elevations of either:
    (A) Clay soil series of various origins (e.g., Alo, Altamont, Auld, 
Diablo), clay lenses found as unmapped inclusions in other soils 
series, or within loamy soils underlain by a clay subsoil (e.g., 
Fallbrook, Huerhuero, Las Flores) that generally occur on mesas and 
gentle to moderate slopes, or in association with vernal pools, between 
the elevations of 100 ft (30 m) and 2,500 ft (765 m) and support open 
native or non-native grassland communities, open coastal sage scrub, or 
coastal sage scrub-chaparral communities; or
    (B) Silty loam soil series underlain by a clay subsoil or caliche 
that are generally poorly drained, moderately to strongly alkaline, 
granitic in origin (e.g., Domino, Grangeville, Waukena, Willows), that 
generally occur in low-lying areas and floodplains, often in 
association with vernal pool or playa complexes, between the elevations 
of 600 ft (180 m) and 1,800 ft (550 m) and support native, non-native, 
or alkali grassland or scrub communities; or
    (C) Clay loam soil series (e.g., Murrieta) underlain by heavy clay 
loams or clays derived from olivine basalt lava flows, that generally 
occur on mesas and gentle to moderate slopes between the elevations of 
1,700 ft (520 m) and 2,500 ft (765 m) and support native or non-native 
grassland or oak woodland savannah communities associated with basalt 
vernal pools; or
    (D) Sandy loam soils derived from basalt and granodiorite parent 
materials, deposits of gravel, cobble, and boulders, or hydrologically-
fractured weathered granite in intermittent streams and seeps that 
support open riparian and freshwater marsh communities associated with 
intermittent drainages, floodplains, and seeps generally between 1,800 
ft (550 m) and 2,500 ft (765 m).
    (2) Areas with an intact surface and subsurface structure not 
permanently altered by anthropogenic land use activities (e.g., deep, 
repetitive disking; grading). These features as well as associated 
physical processes (e.g., full sunlight exposure) are essential to 
maintain those substrate and vegetation types where Brodiaea filifolia 
is found and to support pollinator assemblages necessary to facilitate 
gene flow within and among populations of B. filifolia.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As discussed in the Methods section, we identified 9,403 ac (3,806 
ha) of eligible habitat for Brodiaea filifolia. We delineated proposed 
critical habitat using the following criteria: (1) Essential 
occurrences; (2) presence of suitable vegetation; (3) presence of 
suitable soil types; and (4) an area about 250 m of vegetation 
surrounding each occurrence to provide for pollinator habitat. We then 
analyzed the critical habitat areas to determine if any areas should be 
excluded from the proposed designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
(see ``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' for a detailed 
discussion).
    We defined eligible occurrences as areas of intact, occupied 
habitat supporting 1,000 or more naturally occurring individuals of 
Brodiaea filifolia, areas necessary to maintain gene flow, and/or areas 
containing significant populations. We defined significant populations 
as those found in unique habitat, supported by historical records in 
Niehaus 1971 and/or the CNDDB 2003 reports for the species. For 
example, populations found within an atypical vegetative community, on 
atypical soils, and/or at an atypical elevation. Essential occurrences 
found within unique habitat types harbor genetic diversity that may 
allow for their persistence in these areas. This overall diversity may 
be important to the conservation of the species.
    Significant populations are also often peripheral populations. 
Peripheral populations of a species are separable by geographical and/
or ecological differences from central populations (Lesica and 
Allendorf 1995). Conservation of species may depend upon protecting the 
genetic variability present across the range of a species. Reduced gene 
flow and limited seed dispersal may contribute to the genetic diversity 
of peripheral populations attributable to genetic drift from central 
populations. Population divergence may also be attributed to 
differences in habitat such as soil types, fire frequency, and climate 
(Lessica and Allendorf 1995). Ornduff (1966) found the highest 
concentration of morphological and cytological variants at the margin 
of the geographic range of species of Lasthenia. For these reasons,

[[Page 71289]]

conservation of geographically (e.g. Los Angeles and San Bernardino 
Counties) and ecologically (e.g. Devil's Canyon) peripheral populations 
may be essential for the conservation of this species.
    Currently, the exact number of extant populations or occurrences of 
Brodiaea filifolia is unknown. Reasons for this include the lack of 
surveys in areas of suitable habitat, false negative survey results 
yielded during inappropriate seasons, and variation in how survey data 
is recorded. For example, some surveyors may record populations within 
close proximity as a single occurrence while others may record each 
population as an individual occurrence. According to Table 3 of White 
and Bramlet (2004), approximately 83 occurrences of this species are 
currently known throughout its range. We were recently made aware of an 
occurrence at Highland Valley (San Diego County) not included in White 
and Bramlet's Table 3. Of the 84 currently known occurrences, we are 
proposing to designate critical habitat for 31 occurrences. Of the 
remaining occurrences, 26 are considered to be eligible but are being 
proposed for exclusion, and 27 are not included because we do not have 
adequate information about the occurrence or the area does not contain 
any of the PCEs for the species. Occurrences comprised solely of 
translocated plants were not considered eligible occurrences because 
their potential for long-term survival and their contribution to the 
species gene pool is currently unknown. However, several translocated 
plants are included in this proposed designation due to their proximity 
to or occurrence within a naturally-occurring population.
    To determine which occurrences are eligible, we also used recovery 
criteria from a draft recovery plan that includes this species (page 
60, Bramlet and White 2004). The draft recovery plan states that 
Brodiaea filifolia should be evaluated for delisting when, among other 
criteria, the following occurrences have been fully protected: (1) All 
known occurrences in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, (2) at 
least 10 core occurrences in Orange County, (3) at least 10 core 
occurrences in western Riverside County, (4) at least 12 core 
occurrences on Camp Pendleton, and (5) at least 20 core occurrences in 
northwestern San Diego County, especially in the San Marcos area.
    Where possible, we delineated a vegetative area of 250 m around 
each eligible occurrence to provide for pollinator habitat. Studies 
indicate that if pollinator habitat within 1,000 m of some host plants 
is eliminated, seed set of some plant species may be decreased by as 
much as 50 percent. Additional studies suggest that the degradation of 
pollinator habitat is likely to adversely affect the abundance of 
pollinator species (Jennersten 1988; Rathcke and Jules 1993). As 
discussed in the Background section, Brodiaea likely rely on Tumbling 
Flowers Beetles (Coleoptera) and Sweat Bees (Hymenoptera) for cross 
pollination (Niehasus 1971). Studies to quantify the distance that bees 
will fly to pollinate their host plants are limited in number, but the 
few that exist show that some bees will routinely fly 100 to 500 m (328 
to 984 ft) to pollinate plants with some flying at least 1,000 m (3,280 
ft) to pollinate flowers (Steffan-Dewenter and Tscharntke 2000). Since 
we do not currently have information on specific pollinator species of 
Brodiaea filifolia, we based the 250-m distance on the mean routine 
flight distance for bees.
    These 250-m areas include suitable soils and vegetation required by 
Brodiaea filifolia. These 250-m areas include habitat where the species 
may be present as mature but non-flowering corms or immature corms 
rather than currently flowering plants. These areas provide some areas 
needed for gene flow, pollen dispersal, seed dispersal, germination, 
and maintenance of seed banks.
    It is also necessary to maintain the natural hydrological and fire 
regimes associated with this species. However, sufficient information 
is not currently available to quantify the extent of the area necessary 
to maintain the natural fire and hydrological regimes for particular 
populations. Therefore, we are unable to fully incorporate these areas 
into our identification of essential habitat.
    Whenever possible, areas not containing the primary constituent 
elements, such as developed areas, were not included in the boundaries 
of proposed critical habitat. However, we did not map critical habitat 
in enough detail to exclude all developed areas, or other areas 
unlikely to contain the primary constituent elements essential for the 
conservation of Brodiaea filifolia. Such areas within the boundaries of 
the mapped units, such as buildings, roads, parking lots, railroad 
tracks, canals, and other paved areas, are excluded from the 
designation by text, but these exclusions do not show on the maps 
because their scale is too small.

Special Management Considerations or Protections

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the physical 
and biological features determined to be essential for conservation may 
require special management considerations or protection. We have also 
considered how designation highlights habitat that needs special 
management consideration or protection. For example, in the development 
of regional HCPs, critical habitat can be useful to determine which 
Brodiaea filifolia habitat should be highest priority for special 
management or protection. The final designation will guide the Service 
and applicants to ensure habitat conservation planning efforts are 
consistent with conservation objectives for B. filifolia.
    Many of the known occurrences face the following common threats: 
direct and indirect effects from habitat fragmentation and loss 
resulting from urban development (and associated infrastructure 
projects) and agricultural activities continue to be the most 
significant potential threats to Brodiaea filifolia. Other threats 
include repeated mowing and disking associated with fire suppression 
activities and weed control, military training, alteration of existing 
hydrologic conditions (particularly in western Riverside County), off-
road vehicle and other recreational activities, over-grazing, and 
competition from non-native plant species. Unsuccessful translocation 
efforts may also contribute to the decline of this species.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We determined that approximately 9,403 ac (3,805 ha) of eligible 
habitat exists for Brodiaea filifolia in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, 
Orange, Riverside and San Diego Counties, California. We are proposing 
to designate approximately 4,690 ac (1,898 ha) of the total eligible 
habitat in 10 units as critical habitat in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, 
Orange, and San Diego Counties, California (Table 1). The 10 proposed 
critical habitat units encompass 3, 2, 13, and 15 eligible occurrences 
in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, and San Diego counties, 
respectively. Twelve eligible occurrences in Riverside and 13 eligible 
occurrences in San Diego counties covered by approved and/or pending 
habitat conservation plans are being proposed for exclusion from the 
critical habitat designation (See ``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act'' for a detailed discussion). Areas proposed as critical 
habitat are under Federal, State, local, and private ownership. The 
species is not currently known to occur on any Tribally-owned lands 
within its range. Therefore, no Tribally-owned lands are being proposed 
for designation. Table 2 provides the approximate area of proposed 
critical habitat by county and land ownership.

[[Page 71290]]

The proposed critical habitat areas described below constitute our best 
assessment at this time of those areas needed for the species' 
conservation. Each unit or subunit contains the primary constituent 
elements related to an intact surface and subsurface structure 
essential to maintain the identified soil and vegetation types where 
the species is found and to support pollinator assemblages necessary to 
facilitate gene flow within and among populations of B. filifolia. 
Lands within each unit or subunit are also are currently occupied and 
within the historic range of B. filifolia. Table 3 provides the 
approximate area of eligible habitat, eligible habitat excluded from 
the proposed designation, and total critical habitat proposed for B. 
filifolia.
    Descriptions of each proposed critical habitat unit and the reasons 
why they are eligible for designation are listed below. Unit 
descriptions also include the size of the unit, the general vegetation 
and soil types present in the unit, any known threats specific to the 
unit, and numbers of individual plants, if known. Because the species 
may be present as mature but non-flowering corms or immature corms 
rather than flowering plants, the number of individuals given should be 
considered an estimate of the minimum number of plants present. In 
several cases, lands within the unit are referred to as developed. 
Using aerial imagery and other information, we determined that PCEs for 
this species are still present within each unit, although the habitat 
may be somewhat degraded.

  Table 1.--Acreage (Acres (ac); Hectares (ha)) and County of Units and
      Subunits Proposed as Critical Habitat for Brodiaea filifolia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Critical habitat unit and subunit          County            ac; ha
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: Los Angeles County.........  Los Angeles........        294; 119
    1a: Glendora...................  ...................          96; 39
    1b: San Dimas..................  ...................         198; 80
------------------------------------
Unit 2: Arrowhead Hot Springs......  San Bernardino.....          89; 36
------------------------------------
Unit 3: Aliso Canyon...............  Orange.............         151; 61
Unit 4: Orange County..............  ...................      1,860; 753
    4a: Arroyo Trabuco.............  ...................          74; 30
    4b: Casper's Regional Park.....  ...................        259; 105
    4c: Canada Gobernadora/Chiquita  ...................        311; 126
     Ridgeline.
    4d: Prima Deschecha............  ...................         119; 48
    4e: Forster Ranch..............  ...................          96; 39
    4f: Telega/Segunda Deshecha....  ...................         190; 77
    4g: Cristianitos Canyon........  ...................        588; 238
    4h: Cristianitos Canyon South..  ...................          72; 29
    4i: Blind Canyon...............  ...................         151; 61
------------------------------------
Unit 5: Northern San Diego County..  San Diego..........      1,527; 618
    5a: Miller Mountain............  ...................      1,263; 511
    5b: Devil's Canyon.............  ...................        264; 107
Unit 6: Oceanside..................  ...................         198; 81
    6a: Alta Creek.................  ...................          49; 20
    6b: Mesa Drive.................  ...................            5; 2
    6c: Oceanside East/Mission       ...................          64; 26
     Avenue.
    6d: Taylor/Darwin..............  ...................          80; 33
Unit 7: Carlsbad...................  ...................         125; 50
    7a: Fox-Miller.................  ...................          93; 38
    7b: Rancho Carillo.............  ...................          32; 13
Unit 8: San Marcos.................  ...................        315; 127
    8a: Rancho Santa Fe Road North.  ...................          86; 35
    8b: Rancho Santalina/Loma Alta.  ...................          82; 33
    8c: Grand Avenue...............  ...................           10; 4
    8d: Upham......................  ...................         117; 47
    8e: Linda Vista................  ...................           20; 8
Unit 9: Double LL Ranch............  ...................          57; 23
Unit 10: Highland Valley...........  ...................          74; 30
                                                         ---------------
      Total........................  ...................    4,690; 1,898
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 2.--Area (Acres (ac) and Hectares (ha)) Included in Proposed Critical Habitat for Brodiaea filifolia by
                                            County and Landownership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             County                    Federal*         State or local          Private              Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles.....................  20 ac; 8 ha.......  0 ac; 0 ac........  274 ac; 111 ha....  294 ac; 119 ha.
San Bernardino..................  0 ac; 0 ha........  0 ac; 0 ha........  89 ac; 36 ha......  89 ac; 36 ha.
Orange..........................  0 ac; 0 ha........  219 ac; 89 ha.....  1,792 ac; 725 ha..  2,011 ac; 814 ha.
Riverside**.....................  47 ac; 19 ha......  0 ac; 0 ha........  0 ac; 0 ha........  47 ac; 19 ha.
San Diego.......................  1,239 ac; 501 ha..  0 ac; 0 ha........  1,010 ac; 409 ha..  2,249 ac; 910 ha.
Total...........................  1,306 ac; 529 ha..  219 ac; 89 ha.....  3,165 ac; 1,281 ha  4,690 ac; 1,898
                                                                                               ha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Federal lands include Bureau of Land Management, DOD, National Forest, and Fish and Wildlife Service lands.
** Proposed critical habitat in Riverside County is entirely on National Forest lands.

[[Page 71291]]

 
Note: The proposed designation does not include any Tribally-owned lands.


  Table 3.--Total Eligible Habitat, Eligible Habitat Excluded From the Proposed Designation, and Total Critical
                     Habitat Proposed for Brodiaea filifolia in Acres (ac) and Hectares (ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Eligible habitat        Proposed critical
                County                   Total eligible habitat          excluded                 habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles...........................  294 ac; 119 ha.........  0 ac 0 ha;.............  294 ac; 119 ha.
San Bernardino........................  89 ac; 36 ha...........  0 ac; 0 ha.............  89 ac; 36 ha.
Orange................................  2,011 ac; 814 ha.......  0 ac; 0 ha.............  2,011 ac; 814 ha.
Riverside.............................  3,314 ac; 1,341 ha.....  3,267 ac; 1,322 ha.....  47 ac*; 19 ha.
San Diego.............................  3,695 ac; 1,495 ha.....  1,446 ac; 585 ha.......  2,249 ac; 910 ha.
    Total.............................  9,403 ac; 3,805 ha.....  4,713 ac; 1,907 ha.....  4,690 ac; 1,898 ha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Proposed critical habitat in Riverside County is entirely on National Forest lands.

Unit Descriptions

    Los Angeles County--There are currently three known occurrences of 
Brodiaea filifolia in Los Angeles County, each of which is proposed as 
critical habitat.
    Unit 1: Los Angeles County Unit--This unit consists of 294 ac (119 
ha) divided into 2 subunits.
    Subunit 1a: Glendora. This subunit consists of 96 ac (39 ha) of 
private lands in the city of Glendora, in the foothills of the San 
Gabriel Mountains in eastern Los Angeles County. Lands within this 
subunit contain Cieneba-Exchequer-Sobrant soils, a type of silty loam, 
and consist primarily of northern mixed chaparral and coastal sage 
scrub. This population represents only one of two occurrences located 
in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains part of the Transverse 
Ranges, where the species was historically found, and represents the 
nearest genetic connection to the San Dimas subunit. Lands within this 
subunit support an occurrence of about 2,000 plants associated in part 
with northern mixed chaparral. This occurrence represents a peripheral 
location (Lesica and Allendorf 1995), being the northernmost known 
occurrence of the species, with populations known since 1991 [and 
rediscovery of population not reported since 1921] (CNDDB 2003, p. 16). 
The site is owned and managed by the Glendora Community Conservancy 
(GCC); however, we are not aware of a specific conservation or 
management plan protecting or managing for this species on the GCC's 
property. Management actions to control invasive species may be 
required to maintain the identified vegetation types essential to the 
conservation of the species since invasive species can outcompete 
native species for resources.
    Subunit 1b: San Dimas subunit. This subunit consists of 198 ac (80 
ha) of privately owned and Federal (Angeles National Forest) lands in 
the city of San Dimas in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains of 
eastern Los Angeles County. Lands within this subunit contain Cieneba-
Exchequer-Sobrant soils, a type of silty loam, and consist primarily of 
coastal sage scrub and northern mixed chaparral. This is one of only 
two units in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains of the 
Transverse Ranges where it occurred historically and represents the 
only likely genetic connection to the Glendora subunit. This subunit 
supports two occurrences totaling about 6,000 plants and is associated 
with chaparral, with plants recorded since 1990 (CNDDB 2003, p. 35). 
While this species is not currently known to occur on the Angeles 
National Forest, the species occurs directly outside of the National 
Forest so approximately 20 ac of the national forest was included in 
the proposed designation to provide for pollinator habitat. This site 
is threatened by urban development. Therefore, management actions to 
minimize disturbance to the surface and subsurface structure within 
this subunit may be required to maintain the identified soil and 
vegetation types as well as pollinator habitat essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    San Bernardino County--There are currently two known occurrences of 
Brodiaea filifolia in San Bernardino County, both of are being proposed 
as critical habitat.
    Unit 2: Arrowhead Hot Springs Unit. This unit consists of 89 ac (36 
ha) of privately owned land at the southwestern base of the San 
Bernardino Mountains. Lands within this unit contain Etsel family-Rock 
outcrop-Springdale and Tujunga-Urban land-Hanford soils, some of which 
are considered alluvial, and consist primarily of coastal sage scrub. 
This unit supports the only occurrence of this plant in the foothills 
of the San Bernardino Mountains of the Transverse Ranges, where it 
occurred historically with collections dating since the late 1800s 
(Niehaus 1971, CNDDB 2003 p. 5) and most recently 1000 plants observed 
in 1993, represents a peripheral location at the northern limits of the 
species range (Lesica and Allendorf 1995), and represents the type 
locality for the species. Lands within this unit support two 
occurrences, totaling about 1,000 plants, that are associated with 
coastal sage scrub. Occurrences in this unit are threatened by invasive 
exotic plants. Therefore, management actions to control invasive 
species may be required to maintain the identified vegetation types 
essential to the conservation of the species since invasive species can 
outcompete native species for resources.
    Orange County--There are currently 23 known occurrences of Brodiaea 
filifolia in Orange County, 13 of which have been determined to have 
the PCEs essential to the conservation of the species and thus are 
being proposed as critical habitat.
    Unit 3: Aliso Canyon Unit. This unit consists of 151 ac (61 ha) of 
publicly owned land in Aliso-Wood Canyon Regional Park, in the city of 
Laguna Niguel, southwestern Orange County. Lands within this unit 
contain clay loam or other types of loam and consist primarily of 
annual grassland that has been graded or disturbed. Lands within this 
unit support an occurrence that is associated with annual grassland and 
represent a peripheral location (Lesica and Allendorf 1995), being the 
westernmost occurrence of the species. Although this occurrence is 
protected from urban development as part of Aliso-Wood Regional Park, 
these parklands are managed for recreational use and not specifically 
for the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia. The occurrence in this unit 
is primarily threatened by fuel management activities (annual mowing) 
conducted by park staff (Julie Vanderwier, USFWS, pers. comm. 2004). 
Therefore, management actions to minimize disturbance to the surface 
structure within this unit may be required to maintain the identified 
vegetation types as well as pollinator habitat essential to the 
conservation of the species.

[[Page 71292]]

    Unit 4: Orange County Unit--This unit consists of 1,861 ac (753 ha) 
divided into 9 subunits.
    Subunit 4a: Arroyo Trabuco. This subunit consists of 74 ac (30 ha) 
of privately owned land near Rancho Mission Viejo in southern Orange 
County. Lands within this subunit contain clay loam or other types of 
loam, and consist primarily of annual grassland and coastal sage scrub. 
Lands within this subunit support an occurrence that represents a 
regionally peripheral location (Lesica and Allendorf 1995), being the 
westernmost occurrence of the species for the unit; and may provide 
gene flow to the Canada Gobernadora/Chiquita Ridgeline subunit (about 
4.5 km away). Roughly half of this land appears to be under 
agricultural use. Therefore, management actions to minimize disturbance 
to the surface structure within this subunit may be required to 
maintain the identified vegetation types as well as pollinator habitat 
essential to the conservation of the species.
    Subunit 4b: Casper's Regional Park. This subunit consists of 259 ac 
(105 ha) of privately owned and County (Casper's Regional Park) lands 
in the city of San Juan Capistrano, in the southwestern region of the 
Santa Ana Mountains, southern Orange County. Lands within this unit 
contain clay loam, sandy loam, or rocky outcrop, and consist primarily 
of sagebrush-buckwheat scrub. Lands within this support an occurrence 
of about 800 plants that is one of only two occurrences that occur in 
sagebrush-buckwheat scrub, are located in the foothills of the Santa 
Ana Mountains at or near the highest elevation of any of the Orange 
County occurrences, and represent the northernmost occurrence in Orange 
County as a regionally peripheral population (Lesica and Allendorf 
1995). This occurrence also provides for gene flow to the south 
(subunit 4c, about 3.75 km away). Records of this plant date from 1989 
with 24 plants to 850 plants in 1995 (CNDDB 2003 p. 51). While this 
occurrence is protected from urban development, being contained within 
Casper's Regional Park, park lands are primarily managed for 
recreational use and not specifically for the conservation of the 
species. Management actions to minimize disturbance to the surface 
structure within this subunit may be required to maintain the 
identified vegetation types as well as pollinator habitat essential to 
the conservation of the species.
    Subunit 4c: Canada Gobernadora/Chiquita Ridgeline. This subunit 
consists of 311 ac (126 ha) of privately owned land near Chiquita and 
Gobernadora Canyons on Rancho Mission Viejo in southern Orange County. 
Lands within this subunit contain clay, clay loam, or sandy loam and 
consist primarily of dry-land croplands and sagebrush-buckwheat scrub. 
Lands within this subunit support two occurrences, totaling about 4,400 
plants, and this subunit is one of only two subunits to include 
sagebrush-buckwheat scrub vegetation. Approximately 2600 plants were 
observed from this subunit and adjacent areas from surveys conducted in 
the 1990s (CNDDB 2003 p. 59). This subunit is central to Orange County 
populations and may provide for gene flow to surrounding populations in 
Unit 4 (Casper's Regional Park subunit is about 3.75 km away, and the 
Arroyo Trabuco subunit is about 4.5 km away). Occurrences in this 
subunit are threatened by urban development. Therefore, management 
actions to minimize disturbance to the surface and subsurface structure 
within this subunit may be required to maintain the identified soil and 
vegetation types as well as pollinator habitat essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    Subunit 4d: Prima Deschecha. This subunit consists of 119 ac (48 
ha) of privately owned land northeast of San Clemente in western Orange 
County. Lands within this subunit contain clay soils and consist 
primarily of annual grassland. Lands within this subunit support an 
occurrence that may provide gene flow north to the Canada Gobernadora/
Chiquita Ridgeline subunit (about 4.5 km away) and south to the Forster 
Ranch subunit (about 1.75 km away). Occurrences in this subunit are 
threatened by urban development. Management actions to minimize 
disturbance to the surface and subsurface structure within this subunit 
may be required to maintain the identified soil and vegetation types as 
well as pollinator habitat essential to the conservation of the 
species.
    Subunit 4e: Forster Ranch. This subunit consists of 96 ac (39 ha) 
of privately owned land northeast of San Clemente in southwestern 
Orange County. Lands within this subunit contain clay and clay-loam 
soils and consist primarily of annual grassland. Lands within this 
subunit support an occurrence that may provide gene flow north to the 
Prima Deschecha subunit (about 1.75 km away) as well as to populations 
on MCB Camp Pendleton. Occurrences in this subunit are threatened by 
urban development. Management actions to minimize disturbance to the 
surface and subsurface structure within this subunit may be required to 
maintain the identified soil and vegetation types as well as pollinator 
habitat essential to the conservation of the species.
    Subunit 4f: Telega/Segunda Deshecha. This subunit consists of 190 
ac (77 ha) of privately owned land northeast of San Clemente in 
southwestern Orange County. Lands within this subunit contain clay 
soils and support needlegrass grassland. Lands within this subunit 
support an occurrence that may provide gene flow east to the 
Cristianitos Canyon subunit (about 1.25 km away) and to populations on 
MCB Camp Pendleton. Occurrences in this subunit are threatened by urban 
development. Management actions to minimize disturbance to the surface 
and subsurface structure within this subunit may be required to 
maintain the identified soil and vegetation types as well as pollinator 
habitat essential to the conservation of the species.
    Subunit 4g: Cristianitos Canyon. This subunit consists of 588 ac 
(238 ha) of privately owned land in Cristianitos Canyon on Rancho 
Mission Viejo in southern Orange County. Lands within this subunit are 
underlain by clay and sandy loam soils and consist primarily of annual 
grassland and needlegrass grassland. Lands within this subunit support 
3 occurrences, totaling about 3,000 plants, as well as several smaller 
occurrences and may provide for gene flow to surrounding occurrences 
such as Telega/Segunda Deshecha (about 1.25 km away) and those on MCB 
Camp Pendleton in San Diego County. Approximately 2600 plants were 
observed from this subunit and adjacent areas from surveys conducted in 
the 1990s (CNDDB 2003 p.57). Occurrences in this subunit are threatened 
by development of the Foothill Transportation Corridor. Management 
actions to minimize disturbance to the surface and subsurface structure 
within this subunit may be required to maintain the identified soil and 
vegetation types as well as pollinator habitat essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    Subunit 4h: Cristianitos Canyon South. This subunit consists of 72 
ac (29 ha) of privately owned land in Cristianitos Canyon on Rancho 
Mission Viejo in southern Orange County. Lands within this subunit 
contain clay, clay-loam, and loam soils that support annual grassland. 
Lands within this subunit support an occurrence that may provide gene 
flow to occurrences in Orange (such as Telega/Segunda Deshecha and 
Cristianitos Canyon that are about 1.75 km away) and San Diego 
Counties. Approximately 2600 plants

[[Page 71293]]

were observed from this subunit and adjacent areas from surveys 
conducted in the 1990s (CNDDB 2003 p. 58). Occurrences in this subunit 
are threatened by urban development. Management actions to minimize 
disturbance to the surface and subsurface structure within this subunit 
may be required to maintain the identified soil and vegetation types as 
well as pollinator habitat essential to the conservation of the 
species.
    Subunit 4i: Blind Canyon. This subunit consists of 151 ac (61 ha) 
of privately owned land on Rancho Mission Viejo near the border between 
Orange and San Diego counties. Lands within this subunit contain clay 
loam and sandy loam soils and consist primarily of annual grassland and 
coastal sage scrub. Lands within this subunit support an occurrence 
that may provide gene flow between occurrences in Orange County (about 
2 km away from the Cristianitos Canyon subunit) and on MCB Camp 
Pendleton (about 1.5 km away). Occurrences in this subunit are 
threatened by urban development. Therefore, management actions to 
minimize disturbance to the surface and subsurface structure within 
this subunit may be required to maintain the identified soil and 
vegetation types as well as pollinator habitat essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    San Diego County--There are currently 44 known occurrences of 
Brodiaea filifolia in San Diego County, 15 of which have been 
determined to be eligible for designation and thus are being proposed 
as critical habitat.
    Unit 5: Northern San Diego Unit--This unit consists of 1,527 ac 
(618 ha) divided into 2 subunits.
    Subunit 5a: Miller Mountain. This subunit consists of 1,263 ac (511 
ha) of private and publicly-owned (Cleveland National Forest) lands in 
northern San Diego County near the border with Riverside County. About 
47 acres of Cleveland National Forest lands in this subunit lie within 
Riverside County. The majority of the vegetation in this subunit is 
valley and foothill grassland and northern mixed and chamise 
chaparrals. This occurrence may provide gene flow north and south into 
Riverside and San Diego Counties (about 3.5 km away from the closest 
unit, excluded, in Riverside County, and about 1.5 km away from the 
Devil's Canyon subunit). Lands within this subunit support an 
occurrence of about 20,000 plants as well as some plants thought to be 
intermediate between Brodiaea filifolia and B. orcuttii. This 
population is also historically recorded as a type locality from the 
late 1800s (Niehaus 1971), with surveys from 1992 of about 20,000 
plants (CNDDB 2003 pp. 32 and 33). The Cleveland National Forest does 
not currently have a management plan specific to Brodiaea filifolia, 
however, timing of cattle grazing has been adjusted to avoid the 
flowering period for the species (Kirsten Winter, Forest Botanist, 2004 
pers. comm.). Management actions to minimize disturbance to the surface 
structure within this subunit and to control invasive species may be 
required to maintain the identified vegetation types as well as 
pollinator habitat essential to the conservation of the species.
    Subunit 5b: Devil's Canyon. This subunit consists of 264 ac (107 
ha). It occurs on private and publicly-owned (Cleveland National 
Forest) lands in northeastern San Diego County. The majority of the 
vegetation in this subunit is chaparral. Lands within this subunit 
support an occurrence that may provide gene flow to occurrences in 
Riverside County via the Miller Mountain subunit (about 1.5 km away). 
This population is also historically recorded as a type locality from 
the late 1800s (Niehaus 1971) with surveys from 1992 of several 
thousand plants (CNDDB 2003 p. 34). The Cleveland National Forest does 
not currently have a management plan specific to Brodiaea filifolia, 
however, timing of cattle grazing has been adjusted to avoid the 
flowering period for the species (Kirsten Winter, Forest Botanist (2004 
pers. comm.). Management actions to minimize disturbance to the surface 
structure within this subunit and to control invasive species may be 
required to maintain the identified vegetation types as well as 
pollinator habitat essential to the conservation of the species.
    Unit 6: Oceanside Unit--This unit consists of 199 ac (81 ha) 
divided into 4 subunits.
    Subunit 6a: Alta Creek. This subunit consists of 49 ac (20 ha) of 
private land in northern coastal San Diego County. Lands within this 
subunit contain fine sandy loam, loam, or loamy fine sand and consist 
primarily of coastal sage scrub. Lands within this subunit support an 
occurrence that may provide gene flow to occurrences in the Mesa Drive 
subunit (about 1 km away), and in Calavera Heights (about 3 km away) as 
well as other occurrences along coastal San Diego County. The 
occurrences in this subunit are threatened by urban development. 
Therefore, management actions to minimize disturbance to the surface 
and subsurface structure within this subunit may be required to 
maintain the identified soil and vegetation types as well as pollinator 
habitat essential to the conservation of the species.
    Subunit 6b: Mesa Drive. This subunit consists of 5 ac (2 ha) of 
privately owned land in the city of Oceanside, northern coastal San 
Diego County. Lands within this subunit contain loamy fine sands and 
consists primarily of extant areas of grassland. This subunit supports 
an occurrence and provides potential gene flow to occurrences in 
Calavera Heights via Alta Creek (about 1 km away). The occurrence in 
this subunit is threatened by urban development. Therefore, management 
actions to minimize disturbance to the surface and subsurface structure 
within this subunit may be required to maintain the identified soil and 
vegetation types as well as pollinator habitat essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    Subunit 6c: Oceanside East/Mission Avenue. This subunit consists of 
91 ac (37 ha) of privately owned land in the city of Oceanside, 
northwestern San Diego County. Lands within this subunit contain fine 
loamy sands and consist primarily of coastal sage scrub with some 
disturbed areas. Lands within this subunit support an occurrence that 
may provide gene flow to occurrences in coastal San Diego County (the 
Mesa Drive subunit is about 2.5 km away). Occurrences in this subunit 
are threatened by urban development. Therefore, management actions to 
minimize disturbance to the surface and subsurface structure within 
this subunit may be required to maintain the identified soil and 
vegetation types as well as pollinator habitat essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    Subunit 6d: Taylor/Darwin subunit. This subunit consists of 80 ac 
(33 ha) of privately owned land in the city of Oceanside, northwestern 
San Diego County. The majority of the subunit is undeveloped, but is 
immediately surrounded by urban development. However, areas of extant 
valley and foothill grasslands exist in the surrounding area Most of 
the soils present in this subunit are clay or loamy fine sand. Lands 
within this subunit support a regionally peripheral population (Lesica 
and Allendorf 1995), and an occurrence that may provide gene flow to 
the Oceanside East/Mission Avenue subunit (about 3.5 km away). 
Occurrences in this subunit are threatened by encroaching urban 
development. Therefore, management actions to minimize disturbance to 
the surface and subsurface structure within this subunit may be 
required to maintain the identified soil and vegetation types as well 
as pollinator

[[Page 71294]]

habitat essential to the conservation of the species.
    Unit 7: Carlsbad--This unit consists of 125 ac (50 ha) divided into 
2 subunits.
    Subunit 7a: Fox-Miller. This subunit consists of 93 ac (38 ha) of 
privately owned land in the city of Carlsbad, northwestern San Diego 
County. Lands within this subunit contain heavy clay soils and consist 
primarily of non-native grassland. Lands within this subunit support an 
occurrence of about 19,000 plants that may provide gene flow to 
surrounding occurrences (this unit is about 1.5 km west of a protected 
unit, and thereby excluded). This occurrence is threatened by urban 
development. Therefore, management actions to minimize disturbance to 
the surface and subsurface structure within this subunit may be 
required to maintain the identified soil and vegetation types as well 
as pollinator habitat essential to the conservation of the species. 
Though this unit occurs in the City of Carlsbad subarea of the Multiple 
Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) Plan, we are proposing to designate 
this unit for the reasons provided below in ``Relationship of Critical 
Habitat to the City of Carlsbad Draft Habitat Management Plan--
Exclusion under 4(b)(2).''
    Subunit 7b: Rancho Carillo. This subunit consists of 32 ac (13 ha) 
of private land in San Diego County. Lands within this subunit contain 
clay or sandy loam soils and consist primarily of non-native grasslands 
and coastal sage scrub. Records of this plant date from 1991 with more 
than 100 plants to estimates of 300 to 24,000 plants, most as non-
flowering corms (CNDDB 2003 p. 18). Lands within this subunit support 
an occurrence that may provide gene flow to nearby occurrences to the 
northeast (nearest occurrence about 1.5 km away) and occurrences in the 
Rancho Santa Fe Road North unit (less than 0.5 km away). Occurrences in 
this subunit are threatened by road realignment and urban development. 
Therefore, management actions to minimize disturbance to the surface 
and subsurface structure within this subunit may be required to 
maintain the identified soil and vegetation types as well as pollinator 
habitat essential to the conservation of the species.
    Unit 8: San Marcos--This unit consists of 315 ac (127 ha) divided 
into 5 subunits.
    Subunit 8a: Rancho Santa Fe Road North. This subunit consists of 86 
ac (35 ha) of private land in San Diego County. Lands within this 
subunit contain clay or sandy loam soils and consist primarily of non-
native grasslands and coastal sage scrub. Lands within this subunit 
support an occurrence that may provide gene flow to the northeast 
(about 1.5 km away from a protected unit, thereby excluded). This 
subunit is also immediately east of the Rancho Carillo subunit. 
Occurrences in this subunit are threatened by road realignment and 
urban development. Therefore, management actions to minimize 
disturbance to the surface and subsurface structure within this subunit 
may be required to maintain the identified soil and vegetation types as 
well as pollinator habitat essential to the conservation of the 
species.
    Subunit 8b: Rancho Santalina/Loma Alta. This subunit consists of 82 
ac (33 ha) of privately owned land in the city of San Marcos, northern 
San Diego County. The majority of the vegetation in the subunit is 
developed, however, there are areas of valley and foothill grassland 
and coastal sage scrub. Most of the soils in this subunit are clay, 
loam, or loamy fine sand. Lands within this subunit support an 
occurrence of about 6,000 plants, may provide gene flow to nearby 
occurrences (about 0.5 km from the Grand Avenue subunit), and represent 
a peripheral location (Lesica and Allendorf 1995), being the 
easternmost known occurrence of the species. Portions of this subunit 
have been lost as the result of urban development and some of the 
remaining habitat is in narrow linear areas and subject to considerable 
edge effects such as persistent proximity to sources of invasive exotic 
plants and trampling by humans and their pets. The occurrence is 
threatened by OHV use, invasive non-native plants, and disking. 
Therefore, management actions to minimize disturbance to the surface 
and subsurface structure and control invasive species within this 
subunit may be required to maintain the identified soil and vegetation 
types as well as pollinator habitat essential to the conservation of 
the species.
    Subunit 8c: Grand Avenue. This subunit consists of 10 ac (4 ha) of 
privately owned land in the city of San Marcos, northern San Diego 
County. The majority of the subunit is undeveloped, but is immediately 
surrounded by urban development. However, areas of extant valley and 
foothill grasslands exist in the surrounding area. Most of the soils in 
the subunit are loamy fine sand. Lands within this subunit support an 
occurrence that may provide gene flow to surrounding occurrences (about 
0.5 km from the Rancho Santalina/Loma Alta and Upham subunits). Records 
of this plant date from 1993 (CNDDB 2003 p. 31). Occurrences in this 
subunit are threatened by urban development. Therefore, management 
actions to minimize disturbance to the surface and subsurface structure 
within this subunit may be required to maintain the identified soil and 
vegetation types as well as pollinator habitat essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    Subunit 8d: Upham. This subunit consists of 117 ac (47 ha) of 
privately owned land in the city of San Marcos, northern San Diego 
County. The majority of the subunit is undeveloped, but is immediately 
surrounded by urban development. However, areas of extant valley and 
foothill grasslands exist in the surrounding area. Records of this 
plant date from 1978, with about 1000 or more plants seen in 1986 and 
1995 (CNDDB 2003 p. 7). Lands within this subunit support an occurrence 
that may provide gene flow to surrounding occurrences (about 0.5 km 
from the Grand Avenue and Linda Vista subunits). Occurrences in this 
subunit are threatened by urban development. Therefore, management 
actions to minimize disturbance to the surface and subsurface structure 
within this subunit may be required to maintain the identified soil and 
vegetation types as well as pollinator habitat essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    Subunit 8e: Linda Vista. This subunit consists of 20 ac (8 ha) of 
privately owned land in the city of San Marcos, northern San Diego 
County. Much of the subunit is undeveloped; but is immediately 
surrounded by urban development. However, areas of extant valley and 
foothill grasslands exist in the surrounding area. Lands within this 
subunit support an occurrence that may provide gene flow to surrounding 
occurrences in northern San Diego County, such as the Upham subunit 
(about 0.5 km away). Records of this plant date from 1991 (CNDDB 2003 
p. 30). This subunit is threatened by OHV activity, encroaching urban 
development, and trash dumping. Therefore, management actions to 
minimize disturbance to the surface and subsurface structure within 
this subunit may be required to maintain the identified soil and 
vegetation types as well as pollinator habitat essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    Unit 9: Double LL Ranch Unit--This unit consists of 57 ac (23 ha) 
of privately owned land in the city of Encinitas, northwestern San 
Diego County. Much of the unit is undeveloped; but is immediately 
surrounded by urban development. However, areas of extant valley and 
foothill grasslands exist in the surrounding area. Most of the soils 
present in this unit are heavy clays. Lands within this subunit support 
a

[[Page 71295]]

regionally peripheral population (Lesica and Allendorf 1995). This unit 
is threatened by urban development and the indirect effects of 
activities associated with the road that bisects the unit. Therefore, 
management actions to minimize disturbance to the surface and 
subsurface structure within this unit may be required to maintain the 
identified soil and vegetation types as well as pollinator habitat 
essential to the conservation of the species.
    Unit 10: Highland Valley Unit--This unit consists of 74 ac (30 ha) 
of privately owned land east of the community of Ramona in northeastern 
San Diego County. Lands within this unit contain clay or sandy loam 
soils and consist primarily of non-native grassland or alkali seep. 
Lands within this subunit support an occurrence that represents the 
only known occurrence in San Diego County that is on alkali soils and 
because it is a peripheral location (Lesica and Allendorf 1995), being 
the easternmost locality for the species. Populations in this unit are 
threatened by urban development and agricultural activities. Therefore, 
management actions to minimize disturbance to the surface and 
subsurface structure within this unit may be required to maintain the 
identified soil and vegetation types as well as pollinator habitat 
essential to the conservation of the species.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are 
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In response 
to recent court decisions invalidating our regulatory definition of 
adverse modification under 402.2, we are not relying on that definition 
in this discussion of critical habitat effects. Instead in evaluating 
whether destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would 
occur, we rely on the statutory definition of critical habitat quoted 
earlier in this rule. We must analyze whether, if a proposed Federal 
agency action were implemented, critical habitat would remain 
functional to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is 
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its 
critical habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations 
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are 
codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 
Federal agencies to confer with us on any action that is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species or result in 
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. 
Conference reports provide conservation recommendations to assist the 
agency in eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the proposed 
action. The conservation recommendations in a conference report are 
advisory. If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, 
section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities 
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify 
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species 
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) 
must enter into consultation with us. Through this consultation, the 
action agency ensures that the permitted actions do not jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the 
project, if any are identifiable. ``Reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions 
identified during consultation that can be implemented in a manner 
consistent with the intended purpose of the action, that are consistent 
with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and 
jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically feasible, and 
that the Director believes would avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives 
can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or 
relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a 
reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical 
habitat is subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such 
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law.
    Consequently, some Federal agencies may request re-initiation of 
consultation or conference with us on actions for which formal 
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated 
critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical 
habitat.
    We may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal 
agency. Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain 
an opinion that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if critical 
habitat were designated. We may adopt the formal conference report as 
the biological opinion when the critical habitat is designated, if no 
substantial new information or changes in the action alter the content 
of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
    Activities on Federal lands that may affect Brodiaea filifolia or 
its critical habitat will require section 7 consultation. Activities on 
private or State lands requiring a permit from a Federal agency, such 
as a permit from the Army Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water 
Act, a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from the Service, or some other 
Federal action, including funding (e.g., Federal Highway Administration 
or Federal Emergency Management Agency funding), will also continue to 
be subject to the section 7 consultation process. Federal actions not 
affecting listed species or critical habitat and actions on non-Federal 
and private lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or 
permitted do not require section 7 consultation.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat include those that would impair the functionality of the 
primary constituent elements within a critical habitat unit to serve 
their intended conservation role for the species. We note that such 
activities may also jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
    To properly portray the effects of critical habitat designation, we 
must first compare the section 7 requirements for actions that may 
affect critical habitat with the requirements for actions that may 
affect a listed species. Section 7 prohibits actions funded, 
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies from jeopardizing the 
continued existence of a listed species or destroying or adversely 
modifying the listed species' critical habitat.
    Activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat, or may be affected by the critical habitat 
designation include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Removing, thinning, or destroying Brodiaea filifolia habitat 
(as defined in

[[Page 71296]]

the primary constituent elements discussion), whether by burning, 
mechanical, chemical, or other means (e.g., plowing, grubbing, grading, 
grazing, woodcutting, construction, road building, mining, mechanical 
weed control, herbicide application, etc.);
    (2) Activities that appreciably degrade or destroy Brodiaea 
filifolia habitat (and its primary constituent elements) include, but 
are not limited to, livestock grazing, clearing, disking, farming, 
residential or commercial development, introducing or encouraging the 
spread of nonnative species, off-road vehicle use, and heavy 
recreational use;
    (3) Activities that appreciably diminish habitat value or quality 
through indirect effects (e.g., edge effects, invasion of exotic plants 
or animals, or fragmentation);
    (4) Any activity, including the regulation of activities by the 
Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act or 
activities carried out by or licensed by the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), that could alter watershed or soil characteristics in 
ways that would appreciably alter or reduce the quality or quantity of 
surface and subsurface flow of water needed to maintain Brodiaea 
filifolia habitat (these activities include, but are not limited to, 
altering the natural fire regime either through fire suppression or by 
using prescribed fires that are too frequent or poorly-timed; 
development, including road building and other direct or indirect 
activities; agricultural activities, livestock grazing, and vegetation 
manipulation such as clearing or grubbing in the watershed upslope from 
Brodiaea filifolia);
    (5) Road construction and maintenance, right-of-way designation, 
and regulation of agricultural activities, or any activity funded or 
carried out by the Department of Transportation or Department of 
Agriculture that could result in excavation, or mechanized land 
clearing of Brodiaea filifolia habitat; and
    (6) Licensing of construction of communication sites by the Federal 
Communications Commission or funding of construction or development 
activities by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that 
could result in excavation, or mechanized land clearing of Brodiaea 
filifolia habitat.
    The 10 proposed critical habitat units are within the geographical 
area occupied by the species and have the PCEs essential for the 
conservation of Brodiaea filifolia. Additionally, all habitats within 
this designation are likely to be used by the pollinators for the 
species. Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in 
areas currently occupied by the species or if the species may be 
affected by the action, to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize 
the continued existence of the species.

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat shall be 
designated, and revised, on the basis of the best available scientific 
data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national 
security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. An area may be excluded from 
critical habitat if it is determined that the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of specifying a particular area as critical 
habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical habitat 
will result in the extinction of the species.
    In our critical habitat designations, we have used the provisions 
outlined in section 4(b)(2) of the Act to evaluate lands eligible for 
designation for possible exclusion from proposed critical habitat. 
Lands that we have either excluded from or not included in critical 
habitat based on that provision include those covered by: (1) Legally 
operative HCPs that cover the species and provide assurances that the 
conservation measures for the species will be implemented and 
effective; (2) draft HCPs that cover the species, have undergone public 
review and comment, and provide assurances that the conservation 
measures for the species will be implemented and effective (i.e., 
pending HCPs); (3) Tribal conservation plans that cover the species and 
provide assurances that the conservation measures for the species will 
be implemented and effective; (4) State conservation plans that provide 
assurances that the conservation measures for the species will be 
implemented and effective; and (5) Service National Wildlife Refuge 
System Comprehensive Conservation Plans that provide assurances that 
the conservation measures for the species will be implemented and 
effective. A summary of the exclusions proposed in this rule follow in 
Table 4.

 Table 4.--Approximate Eligible Habitat, Excluded Eligible Habitat, and
   Proposed Critical Habitat (Acres (ac); Hectares (ha)) for Brodiaea
                                filifolia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total eligible habitat identified for     9,403 ac; 3,805 ha.
 Brodiaea filifolia.
Eligible habitat excluded from the
 proposed critical habitat designation
 pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Western Riverside County Multiple         3,267 ac; 1,322 ha.
 Species Habitat Conservation Plan
 (Riverside County).
City of Carlsbad Draft Habitat            321 ac; 130 ha.
 Management Plan (San Diego County).
Villages of La Costa Habitat              208 ac; 84 ha.
 Conservation Plan (San Diego County).
``Mission-essential'' Department of       917 ac; 371 ha.
 Defense lands (Marine Corps Base (MCB),
 Camp Pendleton, San Diego County).
Total eligible habitat excluded from      4,713 ac; 1,907 ha.
 proposed critical habitat.
Total eligible habitat proposed as        4,690 ac; 1,898 ha.
 critical habitat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relationship of Critical Habitat to Approved Habitat Conservation Plans

    As described above, section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to 
consider other relevant impacts, in addition to economic and national 
security impacts, when designating critical habitat. Some areas 
occupied by Brodiaea filifolia involve complex HCPs that address 
multiple species, cover large areas, and have many participating 
permittees. Many of the large regional HCPs in southern California have 
been, or are being, developed to provide for the voluntary and 
cooperative conservation of numerous federally listed species and rare 
species and their habitat. Over time, areas in the planning area are 
addressed per the HCP, and key areas are acquired, managed, and 
monitored. These HCPs are designed to implement conservation actions to 
address future projects that are anticipated to occur within the 
planning area of the HCP, and to reduce delays in the permitting 
process.
    Approved regional HCPs (e.g., those sponsored by cities, counties 
or other local jurisdictions) where Brodiaea filifolia is addressed 
provide for the protection and management of habitat that contains the 
PCE's essential to the conservation of the species while shifting 
development to non-essential areas. Regional HCP development processes 
provide an intensive data

[[Page 71297]]

collection and analysis regarding habitat of B. filifolia. The process 
also enables us to develop a reserve system that provides for the 
biological needs and long-term conservation of the species (Schwartz 
1999).
    Completed HCPs and their accompanying Implementing Agreements (IA) 
contain management measures and protections for identified preserve 
areas that protect, restore, and enhance the value of these lands as 
habitat for Brodiaea filifolia. These measures include explicit 
standards to minimize impacts to the addressed species and its habitat. 
In general, HCPs are designed to ensure that the value of the 
conservation lands are maintained, expanded, and improved for the 
species that they cover.
    Brodiaea filifolia is covered under the approved Western Riverside 
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, the approved Villages of La 
Costa Habitat Conservation Plan, and the City of Carlsbad Draft Habitat 
Management Plan. We have determined that the benefits of excluding 
eligible habitat areas within these pending and legally operative HCPs 
from the proposed critical habitat designations will outweigh the 
benefits of including them.

Relationship of Critical Habitat to the Western Riverside Multiple 
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)--Exclusion Under 4(b)(2)

    Areas of eligible habitat for Brodiaea filifolia in the Western 
Riverside County Management Area occur within the Western Riverside 
MSHCP area, and have been proposed for exclusion from proposed critical 
habitat pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The Western Riverside 
MSHCP was developed over a period of eight years and was approved and 
permitted on June 22, 2004. Participants in this HCP include 14 cities, 
the County of Riverside (including the Riverside County Flood Control 
and Water Conservation Agency, Riverside County Transportation 
Commission, Riverside County Parks and Open Space District, and 
Riverside County Waste Department), the California Department of Parks 
and Recreation, and the California Department of Transportation. The 
Western Riverside MSHCP is a subregional plan under the State's Natural 
Community Conservation Plans (NCCP) and was developed in cooperation 
with the California Department of Fish and Game.
    The MSHCP establishes a multi-species conservation program to 
minimize and mitigate the expected loss of habitat values of ``covered 
species'' and, with regard to covered animal species, their incidental 
take. The intent of the MSHCP is to provide avoidance, minimization, 
and mitigation measures for the impacts of proposed activities on 
covered species and their habitats. Within the 1,260,000 ac (510,000 
ha) Plan Area of the MSHCP, approximately 153,000 ac (62,000 ha) of 
diverse habitats are to be conserved. The proposed conservation of 
153,000 ac (62,000 ha) will complement other existing natural and open 
space areas (e.g., State Parks, Forest Service, and County Park Lands). 
The MSHCP identifies the following species-specific conservation goals 
that will be implemented for the long-term conservation of Brodiaea 
filifolia: (1) To include within the MSHCP conservation area at least 
6,900 ac out of an estimated 11,482 ac of suitable habitat; (2) to 
include within the MSHCP conservation area at least 11 major locations 
supporting B. filifolia; (3) to conduct surveys for the species in 
certain areas of suitable habitat until the conservation goals are met; 
and (4) to maintain floodplain processes along the San Jacinto River.

Relationship of Critical Habitat to the City of Carlsbad Draft Habitat 
Management Plan--Exclusion Under 4(b)(2)

    Lands within the boundaries of the City of Carlsbad draft Habitat 
Management Plan (HMP) that contain eligible habitat for B. filifolia 
have been considered but are not proposed as critical habitat. The 
Carlsbad HMP, a draft subarea plan under the draft Multiple Habitat 
Conservation Plan (MHCP), is part of a large-scale habitat conservation 
planning effort in northwestern San Diego County. The draft MHCP 
includes the participation of the cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, 
Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach and Vista. The draft 
MHCP is also being proposed as a subregional plan under the State's 
NCCP and is being developed in cooperation with CDFG. The plan area 
encompasses approximately 111,908 ac (45,288 ha). Each of the cities 
participating in the MHCP is preparing an individual subarea plan that 
would authorize the issuance of an incidental take permit for those 
species specifically identified for coverage with a particular city's 
subarea plan.
    The City of Carlsbad has prepared a draft subarea HMP for the MHCP. 
Within the boundaries of the draft HMP, five eligible populations of B. 
filifolia are currently known to occur (Calavera Heights, Lake 
Calavera, Fox-Miller, Carlsbad Oaks North, Poinsettia). All known 
populations of B. filifolia that occur within the boundaries of the 
draft HMP, with one exception, are inside planned preserve areas. The 
draft HMP anticipates B. filifolia will be fully covered under the 
plan, with the exception of the population known to occur on the Fox-
Miller site (Unit 7a), described below. For the fully covered 
populations of B. filifolia, the draft HMP identifies the species as a 
narrow endemic and provides for the conservation of 100 percent of 
those populations of B. filifolia that occur within the boundaries of 
the proposed preserve areas. All populations of B. filifolia, with the 
exception of the Fox-Miller population, are included in the proposed 
preserve areas of the draft HMP. Additionally, the draft HMP includes 
provisions to manage the populations within the preserve areas in order 
to provide for the long-term conservation of the species.
    For the Fox-Miller site, the draft HMP would only include the plant 
as a conditionally covered species. The proposed hardline on Fox-Miller 
will not meet the conditions for coverage of the species due to the 
recent identification of 19,100 plants on the property. Modification of 
this hardline would need to occur for coverage of brodiaea filifolia. 
Thus, development that would adversely affect this species could not be 
permitted under Carlsbad's HMP until such coverage is received by the 
City. The Service and CA Department of Fish and Game will work with the 
City of Carlsbad and the landowner to address the conservation of this 
plant on that property. If the conditions to achieve this conservation 
are met, we may consider excluding this area from critical habitat in 
the final rule.
    Substantial progress has been made on the City of Carlsbad's 
subarea HMP. On June 4, 2004, we published a Notice of Availability of 
a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report (EIS/EIR) and Receipt of 
and Application for an Incidental Take Permit in the Federal Register 
regarding the MHCP and the City of Carlsbad's draft subarea HMP (69 FR 
31632). Public comment on these documents was accepted until July 6, 
2004. The City of Carlsbad also modified their subarea HMP by addendum 
in order to receive a Federal consistency determination from the 
California Coastal Commission.
    Although the draft subarea HMP for the City of Carlsbad is not yet 
approved and implemented, the circulation of the final EIS/EIR, 
solicitation of public review and comment, and initiation of the intra-
Service section 7 consultation for those species, including the

[[Page 71298]]

Brodiaea filifolia, identified for coverage with the draft plan, 
demonstrates significant sustained progress in the development of this 
habitat conservation planning effort.
    We are excluding eligible habitat for B. filifolia at Calavera 
Heights, Lake Calavera, Carlsbad Oaks North, and Poinsettia from 
proposed critical habitat designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act. The population of B. filifolia identified as the Fox-Miller 
site (Unit 7) is being proposed as critical habitat.

Relationship of Critical Habitat to the Villages of La Costa Habitat 
Conservation Plan--Exclusion Under 4(b)(2)

    The Fieldstone/La Costa project is on 1,955 acres at two locations 
within the City of Carlsbad. The project is a housing development with 
limited commercial use, a school, park, and various roadways. All of 
the Brodiaea filifolia on-site occurred in the Northwest parcel and was 
estimated to consist of 7,000 individuals. The project was permitted to 
directly impact 1,190 individuals (17 percent) due to development. As 
part of the HCP and section 10(a)(1)(B) permit issuance, the following 
conservation measures were required and have been implemented for the 
long-term conservation of Brodiaea filifolia: (1) Permanent protection 
of approximately 5,800 individuals (83 percent) in a 702.5-ac natural 
open space preserve configured to provide connectivity to other 
significant areas of natural habitat; (2) long-term management of 
conserved habitat; (3) monitoring; (4) habitat restoration and 
enhancement; (5) control of invasive plant species; (6) implementation 
of a fire management program; (7) access control measures; and (8) 
public education. Open space areas on Villages of La Costa lands are 
actively managed to maintain and enhance biological values by the 
Center for Natural Lands Management (Don Rideout, City of Carlsbad, 
pers. comm. 2004).

Other Regional Natural Community Conservation Plans and HCPs

    There are other regional NCCP/HCP efforts under way in southern 
California that have not yet been completed but which, upon approval, 
will provide conservation benefits to Brodiaea filifolia. Lands within 
these HCPs are not excluded from consideration for proposed critical 
habitat. However, management plans and/or habitat conservation plans 
that provide for conservation of the species in areas being proposed as 
critical habitat submitted to and approved by the Service prior to the 
end of the public comment period for this proposed rule will be 
evaluated for exclusion from the final designation.
    The Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) in northwestern 
San Diego County encompasses approximately 112,000 ac (45,324 ha). The 
cities of Oceanside, Escondido, San Marcos, Vista, Carlsbad, Encinitas, 
and Solana Beach are involved in the development and implementation of 
this multiple species HCP/NCCP. As discussed above, the City of 
Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is their subarea plan to the 
MHCP and has been proceeding ahead of the other cities in MHCP. The 
HMPs for the other participating cities are in various stages of 
development.
    The proposed Southern Subregion NCCP/HCP in Orange County 
encompasses approximately 128,000 ac (51,799 ha) in its planning area. 
Jurisdictions and private landowners within the study area include the 
cities of Rancho Santa Margarita, Mission Viejo, San Juan Capistrano, 
San Clemente, and Rancho Mission Viejo. B. filifolia is being proposed 
as one of the species covered under this plan, but because this plan is 
still in review the lands in this plan have not been excluded. The 
preliminary draft of this plan conveys the importance of conservation 
of at least 75 percent of all the known B. filifolia occurrences (and 
an estimated 96 percent of documented flowering scapes) within the plan 
area (NCCP/SAMP Working Group 2003).
    North County Subarea of the MSCP comprises approximately 14,045 ha 
(34,705 ac) within the unincorporated areas of San Diego. Currently, 
there is only one known occurrence of Brodiaea filifolia in this 
planning area, and this population is included in proposed critical 
habitat. The North County MSCP Subarea Plan is in the preliminary 
stages. Draft Plans have not been created, and the California 
Environmental Quality Act documents have not been drafted. However, a 
group of independent science advisors reviewed the process for 
incorporating the best available science in the North County Subarea 
Plan (NCSAP). Based on meetings and a review of the Independent Science 
Advisors (ISA) Report (ISA 2002), the County created a Revised NCSAP 
Preserve Planning Process Report. In addition, public scoping meetings 
have been held and a draft Subarea Plan Working Draft map of the 
planning area with draft Pre-Approved Mitigation Areas have been 
identified.

(1) Benefits of Inclusion

    The principal effect of designated critical habitat is that 
federally funded or authorized activities within critical habitat may 
require consultation under section 7 of the Act. Consultation ensures 
that action entities avoid adverse modification of critical habitat. 
Currently approved and permitted HCPs and NCCP/HCPs ensure the long-
term survival of addressed species. HCPs or NCCP/HCPs and IAs 
(implementing agreements) include management measures and protections 
for conservation lands designed to protect, restore, and enhance their 
value as habitat for covered species and thus provide benefits to the 
species well in excess of those that would result from a critical 
habitat designation.
    Another benefit of including these lands is that the designation of 
critical habitat can serve to educate landowners and the public 
regarding the potential conservation value of an area. This may focus 
and contribute to conservation efforts by other parties by clearly 
delineating areas of high conservation value for certain species.

(2) Benefits of Exclusion

    The benefits of excluding lands within HCPs from critical habitat 
designation include relieving landowners, communities, and counties 
that have voluntarily adopted an HCP of the additional regulatory 
burden that might be imposed by critical habitat. Many HCPs become the 
basis for regional conservation plans consistent with the recovery 
objectives for listed species covered within the plan area. Many of 
these HCPs provide conservation benefits to unlisted, rare species. 
Imposing additional regulatory review after an HCP is completed solely 
as a result of the designation of critical habitat may undermine 
conservation efforts and partnerships in many areas. In fact, it could 
result in the loss of species' benefits if participants abandon the 
voluntary HCP process because it may result in an additional regulatory 
burden requiring more of them than of other parties who have not 
voluntarily participated in species conservation. Designation of 
critical habitat within the boundaries of approved HCPs is likely to be 
viewed as a disincentive to those entities currently developing HCPs or 
contemplating them in the future.
    A related benefit of excluding lands within HCPs from critical 
habitat designation is the continued ability by the Service to seek new 
partnerships. These may include future HCP participants, such as 
States, counties, local jurisdictions, conservation

[[Page 71299]]

organizations, and private landowners. These entities together may 
implement conservation actions that we would be unable to accomplish 
otherwise.
    An HCP or NCCP/HCP application must undergo section 7 consultation. 
While this consultation does not address adverse modification to 
critical habitat, it will determine if the HCP jeopardizes the species 
in the plan area. Federal actions not covered by the HCP, but in areas 
occupied by listed species, still require consultation under section 7 
of the Act. HCPs and NCCP/HCPs typically provide greater conservation 
benefits to an addressed listed species than section 7 consultations 
because, under the specific requirements for an HCP contained in 
section 10 of the Act, HCPs and NCCP/HCPs assure the long-term 
protection and management of a covered species and its habitat, and 
funding for such management through the standards found in the 5 Point 
Policy for HCPs (64 FR 35242). Section 7 is limited to requiring that 
the specific action being consulted upon does not jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat.

(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion

    The Western Riverside MSHCP, the Carlsbad HMP, and the Villages of 
La Costa HCP include Brodiaea filifolia as a covered species. HCPs and 
NCCP/HCPs provide protection for B. filifolia and its associated 
habitat. The educational benefits of critical habitat, including 
informing the public of areas that are essential for the long-term 
survival and conservation of the species, is still accomplished from 
material provided on our website and through public notice and comment 
procedures required to establish an HCP or NCCP/HCP. We have also 
received input from the public through the public participation that 
occurs in the development of many regional HCPs or NCCP/HCPs. For these 
reasons, we believe that proposing critical habitat has little 
additional benefit in areas covered by HCPs, provided that the HCP or 
NCCP/HCP specifically and adequately covers the species for which 
critical habitat is being proposed. We do not believe that this 
exclusion would result in the extinction of the species because the 
eligible habitat within these HCPs will be conserved, and we have 
already consulted on these HCPs under section 7 of the Act.

Relationship of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton to Proposed Critical 
Habitat

    The Sikes Act Improvements Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) requires each 
military installation that includes land and water suitable for the 
conservation and management of natural resources to complete, by 
November 17, 2001, an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 
(INRMP). An INRMP integrates implementation of the military mission of 
the installation with stewardship of the natural resources found there. 
INRMPs include an assessment of the ecological needs on the 
installation, including needs to provide for the conservation of listed 
species; a statement of goals and priorities; a description of 
management actions to be implemented to provide for these ecological 
needs; a monitoring plan, and an adaptive management plan.
    Section 318 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2004 (Public Law No. 108-136) amended the Endangered Species Act 
to address the relationship of INRMPs to critical habitat by adding a 
new section 4(a)(3)(B). This provision prohibits the Service from 
designating 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 INRMP prepared under section 101 of the 
Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary of the Interior determines 
in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which 
critical habitat is proposed for designation.
    Camp Pendleton has completed an INRMP that provides a framework for 
managing natural resources. As part of the process of developing their 
INRMP, on March 30, 2000, a formal consultation was initiated between 
the Marine Corps and the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding their 
activities on upland areas of Camp Pendleton. The consultation that 
addresses the upland habitat of Brodiaea filifolia and other species is 
not yet complete. We are currently working cooperatively with Camp 
Pendleton to facilitate the completion of this consultation. Thus, the 
INRMP currently does not provide a benefit to listed species, including 
Brodiaea filifolia, contained within these habitats on the base. As 
such, we are unable to use the INRMP for Camp Pendleton as a basis for 
not including lands essential to the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia 
in proposed critical habitat pursuant to section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act. 
If, however the consultation that addresses upland habitat and species 
is finalized prior to the time we finalize the designation for Brodiaea 
filifolia, we may not include areas essential to the conservation of 
Brodiaea filifolia on Camp Pendleton in the final designation under the 
authority of 4(a)(3)(B).

Exclusion Under 4(b)(2)

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that the Secretary of the 
Interior shall designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best 
scientific and commercial data available, after taking into 
consideration the economic impact, impact to national security and any 
other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical 
habitat. The Secretary may exclude any area from critical habitat if it 
is determined that the benefit of such exclusion outweighs the benefits 
of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless the 
failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the 
extinction of the species concerned.
    We have considered the effect of a critical habitat designation on 
national security and have determined that the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of inclusion. We are, therefore, not proposing 
critical habitat on ``mission-essential'' training areas on Camp 
Pendleton. In this proposal we refer to areas designated as training 
areas on maps created by MCB, Camp Pendleton as ``mission-essential'' 
training areas. Camp Pendleton has identified its training areas as 
``mission-essential'' to the Marine Corps' ability to train Marines and 
Sailors for combat, and which is discussed in the ``Benefits of 
Exclusion'' below.
    To continue its critical training missions pending completion of 
the consultation covering upland habitats and species discussed above, 
the Marine Corps has implemented measures to avoid jeopardy of Brodiaea 
filifolia and other listed species within the uplands area. In 
particular, the Marine Corps is implementing a set of ``programmatic 
instructions'' to avoid adverse effects to B. filifolia.

(1) Benefits of Inclusion

    The primary benefit of proposing critical habitat is to identify 
lands within occupied areas that contain the PCEs essential to the 
conservation of the species or within unoccupied area are essential to 
the conservation of the species. If critical habitat were to be 
designated in these areas they would require consultation to ensure 
activities would not adversely modify critical habitat or jeopardize 
the continued existence of the species. We are in formal consultation 
with the Marine Corps on upland activities to ensure

[[Page 71300]]

current and proposed actions will not jeopardize the species' continued 
existence, and the Marine Corps routinely consults with the Service for 
activities on Camp Pendelton that may affect federally listed species 
to ensure such species are not jeopardized. On March 30, 2000, at the 
request of the Marine Corps, the Service initiated consultation 
regarding activities on approximately 125,000 ac (50,500 ha) of land on 
Camp Pendelton and their effects on numerous federally listed species, 
including the brodiaea. Although this programmatic consultation has not 
yet been completed, the Marine Corps has implemented a set of 
``programmatic instructions'' to minimize adverse effects to the 
brodiaea. The benefits associated with designating critical habitat on 
mission-essential training areas and on lands within Camp Pendelton 
would be minimal because these areas are already encompassed in the 
ongoing programmatic consultation. Designation of critical habitat may 
provide education benefits by informing land managers of areas 
essential to the conservation of the brodiaea. In the case of Camp 
Pendelton there is no appreciable educational benefit because the 
installation has already demonstrated its knowledge and understanding 
of essential habitat for the species through the ongoing programmatic 
consultation and implementation of ``programmatic instructions.''

(2) Benefits of Exclusion

    The Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton (MCB, Camp Pendleton) is an 
amphibious training base that promotes combat readiness for military 
forces and is the only Marine Corps facility on the West Coast where 
amphibious operations can be combined with air, sea, and ground assault 
training activities year-round. If eligible habitat that occurs within 
``mission-essential'' training areas is proposed as critical habitat, 
the Marine Corps would be required to determine if activities would 
adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat. If such a 
determination was made, the Marine Corps would be compelled to 
conference with us pursuant to the requirements of section 7 of the 
Act. Furthermore, if proposed critical habitat within training areas is 
included in a final designation, designation of critical habitat in 
mission-essential training areas would trigger a requirement for the 
Marine Corps to consult on activities that may affect designated 
critical habitat and to reinitiate consultation on activities for which 
a consultation may have already been completed that assessed the 
effects to a federally listed species on MCB, Camp Pendleton. If ``may 
affect'' determinations were made, the Marine Corps would be further 
obligated to initiate or reinitiate consultations with us. In a similar 
proposed designation for the California coastal gnatcatcher and San 
Diego fairy shrimp, the Marine Corps warned that the requirement to 
undertake additional conferencing and/or consultations or revisiting 
already completed consultations specifically to address the effects of 
activities on designated critical habitat could delay or impair the 
Marine Corps' ability to train Marines and Sailors for combat in 
support of continuous, global deployment to the western Pacific and 
southwest Asia (Department of the Navy; June 23, 2003 letter). Thus, 
the Service has determined it is appropriate to exclude approximately 
917 ac (371 ha) of land within MCB, Camp Pendleton from this proposed 
designation of critical habitat.

(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion

    Based on the impact to national security and the Marine Corps' need 
to maintain a high level of military readiness and combat capability, 
the Service determined that the benefits of excluding mission-essential 
training areas within MCB, Camp Pendleton from critical habitat 
outweigh the benefits of including them in such proposed designation. 
The Service, in conducting this analysis pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act, determined that the exclusion of these lands from proposed 
critical habitat will not result in the extinction of the brodiaea 
because the Marine Corps has implemented measures to avoid jeopardy of 
the Brodiaea filifolia and other listed species in the uplands area. 
Although these lands are not included in designated proposed critical 
habitat, the Marine Corps will still be required to consult with the 
Service on activities that may affect the brodiaea, to ensure such 
activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. 
Additionally, management guidelines for all upland areas are expected 
to be developed and incorporated into future revisions of MCB, Camp 
Pendleton's INRMP upon completion of the programmatic consultation on 
upland areas. Maps delineating habitat for B. filifolia, overlaid with 
``mission-essential'' training areas on MCB, Camp Pendleton, are 
available for public review and comment at the Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section) or on the Internet at http://carlsbad.fws.gov. These maps are provided to allow the public the 
opportunity to adequately comment on these exclusions.

Economic Analysis

    An analysis of the economic impacts of proposing critical habitat 
for Brodiaea filifolia is being prepared. We will announce the 
availability of the draft economic analysis in the Federal Register as 
soon as it is completed, at which time we will seek public review and 
comment. At that time, copies of the draft economic analysis will be 
available for downloading from the Internet at http://carlsbad.fws.gov, 
or by contacting the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 
Office directly (see ADDRESSES section).

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994, (59 FR 
34270), we will solicit the expert opinions of at least three 
appropriate and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. 
The purpose of such review is to ensure that our critical habitat 
designation is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and 
analyses. We will send these peer reviewers copies of this proposed 
rule immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We will 
invite these peer reviewers to comment on the specific assumptions and 
conclusions regarding the proposed designation of critical habitat.
    We will consider all comments and information received during the 
comment period on this proposed rule during the preparation of a final 
rulemaking. Accordingly, the final designation may differ from this 
proposal.

Public Hearings

    The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, 
if requested. Requests for public hearings must be made in writing at 
least 15 days prior to the close of the public comment period. We will 
schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and 
announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings in the local 
newspapers at least 15 days prior to the first hearing.

Clarity of the Rule

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations and 
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to 
make this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to the 
following: (1) Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly 
stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain technical jargon

[[Page 71301]]

that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposed 
rule (grouping and order of the sections, use of headings, 
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description 
of the notice in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble 
helpful in understanding the proposed rule? (5) What else could we do 
to make this proposed rule easier to understand?
    Send a copy of any comments on how we could make this proposed rule 
easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of 
the Interior, room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You 
may e-mail your comments to this address: [email protected].

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This document has been reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), in accordance with Executive Order 12866. OMB makes the 
final determination under Executive Order 12866. We are preparing a 
draft economic analysis of this proposed action, which will be 
available for public comment, to determine the economic consequences of 
designating the specific areas as critical habitat. Within these areas, 
the types of Federal actions or authorized activities that we have 
identified as potential concerns are listed above in the section on 
Section 7 Consultation.
    The availability of the draft economic analysis will be announced 
in the Federal Register and in local newspapers so that it is available 
for public review and comments.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to require Federal agencies to 
provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    At this time, the Service lacks the available economic information 
necessary to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA 
finding. Therefore, the RFA finding is deferred until completion of the 
draft economic analysis prepared pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the ESA 
and E.O. 12866. This draft economic analysis will provide the required 
factual basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the draft 
economic analysis, the Service will publish a notice of availability of 
the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation and reopen the 
public comment period for the proposed designation. The Service will 
include with the notice of availability, as appropriate, an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis or a certification that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities accompanied by the factual basis for that determination. The 
Service has concluded that deferring the RFA finding until completion 
of the draft economic analysis is necessary to meet the purposes and 
requirements of the RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this manner will 
ensure that the Service makes a sufficiently informed determination 
based on adequate economic information and provides the necessary 
opportunity for public comment.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O. 
13211) on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, 
distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to 
prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. 
This proposed rule to designate critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia 
is not anticipated to be a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, and it is not expected to significantly affect 
energy supplies, distribution, or use because there are no distribution 
facilities, power grid stations, etc. within the boundaries of proposed 
critical habitat. However, two pipelines cross portions of subunits 4f, 
Telega/Segunda Deschecha, and 8d, Upham. Since the areas supporting the 
pipelines are considered developed areas that do not contain the 
primary constituent elements for this species and are excluded from the 
designation by text, we do not believe that activities limited to these 
areas supporting the pipelines would be affected by the designation. 
Therefore, we do not anticipate that this action is not a significant 
energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. We will, 
however, further evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic 
analysis and, as appropriate, review and revise this assessment as 
warranted.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
    (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal 
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. (At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work 
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; 
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; 
and Child Support Enforcement.) ``Federal private sector mandate'' 
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the 
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a 
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities who receive Federal 
funding, assistance, permits or

[[Page 71302]]

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; neither would critical habitat shift the costs of the large 
entitlement programs listed above on to State governments.
    (b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments. The term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' 
means governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, 
school districts, or special districts with a population of less than 
50,000 (U.S.C. title 5, part I, chapter 6, section 601[5]). The lands 
being proposed for designation as critical habitat for Brodiaea 
filifolia are owned by Federal, State, and local government entities. 
None of these government entities fits the definition of ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is 
not required. We will, however, further evaluate this issue as we 
conduct our economic analysis and revise this assessment if 
appropriate.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects and, therefore, a Federalism assessment 
is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior policies, 
we requested information from, and coordinated the development of this 
proposed critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource 
agencies in California. We anticipate that the proposed designation of 
critical habitat in the areas currently occupied by Brodiaea filifoli a 
will imposes no additional significant restrictions beyond those 
currently in place and, therefore, should have has little incremental 
impact on State and local governments and their activities. However, we 
will re-evaluate this assessment after conducting our economic analysis 
for the species and for the final designation.
    The proposed designation of critical habitat may have some benefit 
to the State and local resource agencies in that the areas and features 
essential to the conservation of this species are more clearly defined, 
and the primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary to the 
conservation of this species are specifically identified. While this 
definition and identification does not alter where and what federally 
sponsored activities may occur, it may assist local governments in 
long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7 
consultations to occur).

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the 
Interior's Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does 
not unduly burden the judicial system and does meet the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are proposing to designate 
critical habitat in accordance with provisions of the Endangered 
Species Act. The rule uses standard property descriptions and 
identifies the primary constituent elements within the designated areas 
to assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of Brodiaea 
filifolia.

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

    This proposed rule does not contain new or revised information 
collection for which OMB approval is required under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. Information collections associated with certain Act 
permits are covered by an existing OMB approval and are assigned 
clearance No. 1018-0094. This includes Forms 3-200-55 and 3-200-56, 
with an expiration date of July 31, 2004. This rule will not impose 
record keeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, 
individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or 
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    It is our position that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not need 
to prepare environmental analyses as defined by the NEPA in connection 
with designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this 
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244). This assertion was upheld in the courts of the Ninth Circuit 
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert. 
denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department 
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that 
there are no tribal lands eligible for the conservation of Brodiaea 
filifolia. Therefore, critical habitat has not been proposed for 
designation on Tribal lands.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available, upon 
request, from the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Field Office (see 
ADDRESSES section).

Author

    This rule was prepared by staff at the Carlsbad Field Office (see 
ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17, 
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. In Sec.  17.12(h), revise the entry in the table for ``Brodiaea 
filifolia'' under ``FLOWERING PLANTS,'' to read as follows:


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

[[Page 71303]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species
--------------------------------------------------------    Historic range           Family            Status          When       Critical     Special
         Scientific name                Common name                                                                   listed      habitat       rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering plants
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Brodiaea filifolia...............  Thread-leaved         U.S.A. (CA)........  Liliaceae---Lily...  T                       650     17.96(a)           NA
                                    brodiaea.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In Sec.  17.96(a), add critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia, 
in alphabetical order under Family Liliaceae to read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
    Family Liliaceae: Brodiaea filifolia (Thread-leaved brodiaea)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Brodiaea filifolia on 
the maps below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for 
Brodiaea filifolia consist of the following:
    (i) Appropriate soil series and associated vegetation at suitable 
elevations of either:
    (A) Clay soil series of various origins (e.g., Alo, Altamont, Auld, 
Diablo), clay lenses found as unmapped inclusions in other soil series, 
or within loamy soils underlain by a clay subsoil (e.g., Fallbrook, 
Huerhuero, Las Flores) that generally occur on mesas and gentle to 
moderate slopes, or in association with vernal pools, between the 
elevations of 100 ft (30 m) and 2,500 ft (765 m) and support open 
native or non-native grassland communities, open coastal sage scrub or 
coastal sage scrub-chaparral communities; or
    (B) Silty loam soil series underlain by a clay subsoil or caliche 
that are generally poorly drained, moderately to strongly alkaline, 
granitic in origin (e.g., Domino, Grangeville, Waukena, Willows), that 
generally occur in low-lying areas and floodplains, often in 
association with vernal pool or playa complexes, between the elevations 
of 600 ft (180 m) and 1,800 ft (550 m) and support native, non-native, 
or alkali grassland or scrub communities; or
    (C) Clay loam soil series (e.g., Murrieta) underlain by heavy clay 
loams or clays derived from olivine basalt lava flows, that generally 
occur on mesas and gentle to moderate slopes between the elevations of 
1,700 ft (520 m) and 2,500 ft (765 m) and support native or non-native 
grassland or oak woodland savannah communities associated with basalt 
vernal pools; or
    (D) Sandy loam soils derived from basalt and granodiorite parent 
materials, deposits of gravel, cobble, and boulders, or hydrologically-
fractured weathered granite in intermittent streams and seeps that 
support open riparian and freshwater marsh communities associated with 
intermittent drainages, floodplains, and seeps generally between 1,800 
ft (550 m) and 2,500 ft (765 m).
    (ii) Areas with an intact surface and subsurface structure not 
permanently altered by anthropogenic land use activities (e.g., deep, 
repetitive disking; grading). These features as well as associated 
physical processes (e.g., full sunlight exposure) are essential to 
maintain those substrate and vegetation types where Brodiaea filifolia 
is found and to support pollinator assemblages necessary to facilitate 
gene flow within and among populations of B. filifolia.
    (iii) Critical habitat does not include existing features and 
structures, such as open water, buildings, roads, aqueducts, railroads, 
airport runways and buildings, other paved areas, lawns, and other 
urban landscaped areas not containing one or more of the primary 
constituent elements.
    (3) Index map of critical habitat units for Brodiaea filifolia 
(Thread-leaved brodiaea) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 71304]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08DE04.026

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 71305]]

    (4) All map units are in the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 
coordinate system, North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) projection.
    Map Unit 1: Los Angeles County, California, from USGS 1:24,000 
quadrangle map Glendora, California.
    (i) Subunit 1a: Glendora; land bounded by the following UTM 
coordinates (E, N): 422400, 3779900; 422400, 3779800; 422500, 3779800; 
422500, 3779700; 422600, 3779700; 422600, 3779300; 422400, 3779300; 
422400, 3779200; 422100, 3779200; 422100, 3779300; 422000, 3779300; 
422000, 3779500; 421900, 3779500; 421900, 3779800; 422000, 3779800; 
422000, 3779900; returning to 422400, 3779900.
    (ii) Subunit 1b: San Dimas; land bounded by the following UTM 
coordinates (E, N): 425300, 3778600; 425300, 3778500; 425400, 3778500; 
425400, 3778400; 425500, 3778400; 425500, 3777900; 425400, 3777900; 
425400, 3777800; 425300, 3777800; 425300, 3777700; 425200, 3777700; 
425200, 3777500; 424700, 3777500; 424700, 3777600; 424600, 3777600; 
424600, 3778200; 424700, 3778200; 424700, 3778500; 424900, 3778500; 
424900, 3778600; returning to 425300, 3778600.
    (iii) Map of proposed critical habitat unit 1a, 1b for Brodiaea 
filifolia (Thread-leaved brodiaea) follows:

[[Page 71306]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08DE04.027


[[Page 71307]]


    (5)(i) Map Unit 2: Arrowhead Hot Springs, San Bernardino County, 
California. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map San Bernardino North, 
California, land bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E, N): 
475400, 3783000; 475400, 3782800; 475500, 3782800; 475500, 3782500; 
475400, 3782500; 475400, 3782400; 475300, 3782400; 475300, 3782300; 
475000, 3782300; 475000, 3782400; 474900, 3782400; 474900, 3783000; 
returning to 475400, 3783000.
    (ii) Map of proposed critical habitat unit 2 for Brodiaea filifolia 
(Thread-leaved brodiaea) follows:

[[Page 71308]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08DE04.028

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 71309]]

    (6) Map Unit 3: Aliso Canyon, Orange County, California. From USGS 
1:24,000 quadrangle map San Juan Capistrano, California, land bounded 
by the following UTM coordinates (E, N): 432200, 3712100; 432200, 
3712000; 432500, 3712000; 432500, 3711900; 432600, 3711900; 432600, 
3711800; 432700, 3711800; 432700, 3711400; 432600, 3711400; 432600, 
3711300; 432400, 3711300; 432400, 3711200; 432200, 3711200; 432200, 
3711300; 431900, 3711300; 431900, 3711400; 431800, 3711400; 431800, 
3711900; 431900, 3711900; 431900, 3712000; 432000, 3712000; 432000, 
3712100; returning to 432200, 3712100.
    (7) Map Unit 4: Orange County, California, from USGS 1:24,000 
quadrangle maps San Juan Capistrano, Canada Gobernadora, and San 
Clemente, California.
    (i) Subunit 4a: Arroyo Trabuco; land bounded by the following UTM 
coordinates (E, N): 439600, 3712900; 439600, 3712800; 439700, 3712800; 
439700, 3712500; 439600, 3712500; 439600, 3712400; 439500, 3712400; 
439500, 3712300; 439300, 3712300; 439300, 3712400; 439100, 3712400; 
439100, 3712900; returning to 439600, 3712900.
    (ii) Subunit 4b: Casper's Regional Park; land bounded by the 
following UTM coordinates (E, N): 447200, 3715700; 447200, 3715600; 
447300, 3715600; 447300, 3715500; 447400, 3715500; 447400, 3715400; 
447500, 3715400; 447500, 3714900; 447600, 3714900; 447600, 3714800; 
447700, 3714800; 447700, 3714400; 447600, 3714400; 447600, 3714300; 
447500, 3714300; 447500, 3714200; 447200, 3714200; 447200, 3714300; 
447000, 3714300; 447000, 3714500; 446900, 3714500; 446900, 3714700; 
446800, 3714700; 446800, 3714900; 446700, 3714900; 446700, 3715600; 
446900, 3715600; 446900, 3715700; returning to 447200, 3715700.
    (iii) Subunit 4c: Canada Gobernadora/Chiquita Ridgeline; land 
bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E, N): 444600, 3711000; 
444500, 3711000; 444500, 3710600; 444600, 3710600; 444600, 3710400; 
444700, 3710400; 444700, 3710200; 444600, 3710200; 444600, 3710100; 
444500, 3710100; 444500, 3710000; 444200, 3710000; 444200, 3710100; 
443900, 3710100; 443900, 3710200; 443800, 3710200; 443800, 3710600; 
443900, 3710600; 443900, 3710900; 444000, 3710900; 444000, 3711400; 
444100, 3711400; 444100, 3711500; 444500, 3711500; 444500, 3711400; 
444600, 3711400; returning to 444600, 3711000; and land bounded by 
444600, 3711000; 444700, 3711000; 444700, 3711100; 444800, 3711100; 
444800, 3711200; 445100, 3711200; 445100, 3711100; 445200, 3711100; 
445200, 3710600; 444700, 3710600; 444700, 3710700; 444600, 3710700; 
returning to 444600, 3711000.
    (iv) Subunit 4d: Prima Deshecha; land bounded by the following UTM 
coordinates (E, N): 442600, 3706000; 442600, 3705900; 442700, 3705900; 
442700, 3705700; 442800, 3705700; 442800, 3705500; 442700, 3705500; 
442700, 3705300; 442100, 3705300; 442100, 3705400; 442000, 3705400; 
442000, 3705900; 442100, 3705900; 442100, 3706000; returning to 442600, 
3706000.
    (v) Subunit 4e: Forster Ranch; land bounded by the following UTM 
coordinates (E, N): 443300, 3703500; 443300, 3703400; 443400, 3703400; 
443400, 3703300; 443500, 3703300; 443500, 3703100; 443400, 3703100; 
443400, 3702900; 443300, 3702900; 443300, 3702800; 443000, 3702800; 
443000, 3702900; 442800, 3702900; 442800, 3703400; 442900, 3703400; 
442900, 3703500; returning to 443300, 3703500.
    (vi) Subunit 4f: Talega/Segunda Deshecha; land bounded by the 
following UTM coordinates (E, N): 446400, 3705600; 446400, 3705100; 
446300, 3705100; 446300, 3705000; 446100, 3705000; 446100, 3704600; 
446000, 3704600; 446000, 3704500; 445500, 3704500; 445500, 3704600; 
445400, 3704600; 445400, 3705200; 445600, 3705200; 445600, 3705300; 
445800, 3705300; 445800, 3705500; 445900, 3705500; 445900, 3705600; 
returning to 446400, 3705600.
    (vii) Subunit 4g: Cristianitos Canyon; land bounded by the 
following UTM coordinates (E, N): 448300, 3707600; 448300, 3706600; 
448200, 3706600; 448200, 3706500; 448100, 3706500; 448100, 3705900; 
448300, 3705900; 448300, 3705800; 448500, 3705800; 448500, 3705700; 
448600, 3705700; 448600, 3705600; 448700, 3705600; 448700, 3705300; 
448600, 3705300; 448600, 3704700; 448700, 3704700; 448700, 3704500; 
448800, 3704500; 448800, 3704400; 448700, 3704400; 448700, 3704100; 
448600, 3704100; 448600, 3704000; 448200, 3704000; 448200, 3704100; 
448100, 3704100; 448100, 3704200; 448000, 3704200; 448000, 3704600; 
448100, 3704600; 448100, 3704700; 448000, 3704700; 448000, 3704900; 
447900, 3704900; 447900, 3705000; 447800, 3705000; 447800, 3705100; 
447700, 3705100; 447700, 3705600; 447800, 3705600; 447800, 3705800; 
447700, 3705800; 447700, 3705900; 447600, 3705900; 447600, 3706000; 
447500, 3706000; 447500, 3706300; 447600, 3706300; 447600, 3706400; 
447900, 3706400; 447900, 3706500; 447700, 3706500; 447700, 3706600; 
447600, 3706600; 447600, 3707000; 447700, 3707000; 447700, 3707400; 
447800, 3707400; 447800, 3707600; returning to 448300, 3707600.
    (viii) Subunit 4h: Cristianitos Canyon South; land bounded by the 
following UTM coordinates (E, N): 447000, 3702800; 447000, 3702700; 
447200, 3702700; 447200, 3702200; 447100, 3702200; 447100, 3702300; 
446800, 3702300; 446800, 3702400; 446600, 3702400; 446600, 3702500; 
446500, 3702500; 446500, 3702700; 446600, 3702700; 446600, 3702800; 
returning to 447000, 3702800.
    (ix) Subunit 4i: Blind Canyon; land bounded by the following UTM 
coordinates (E, N): 451500, 3703900; 451500, 3703800; 451700, 3703800; 
451700, 3703200; 451400, 3703200; 451400, 3703100; 451300, 3703100; 
451300, 3702900; 450800, 3702900; 450800, 3703400; 450900, 3703400; 
450900, 3703500; 451100, 3703500; 451100, 3703700; 451200, 3703700; 
451200, 3703800; 451300, 3703800; 451300, 3703900; returning to 451500, 
3703900.
    (x) Map of critical habitat units 3 and 4a-i for Brodiaea filifolia 
(Thread-leaved brodiaea) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 71310]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08DE04.029


[[Page 71311]]


    (8) Map of excluded eligible habitat for Brodiaea filifolia 
(Thread-leaved brodiaea), Corona area, Riverside County, California 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08DE04.030


[[Page 71312]]


    (9) Map of excluded eligible habitat for Brodiaea filifolia 
(Thread-leaved brodiaea), Perris area, Riverside County, California 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08DE04.031


[[Page 71313]]


    (10) Map Unit 5: Northern San Diego County, California, from USGS 
1:24,000 quadrangle maps Sitton Peak, Margarita Peak, and Fallbrook, 
California.
    (i) Subunit 5a: Miller Mountain; land bounded by the following UTM 
coordinates (E, N): 464300, 3707400; 464300, 3707300; 464400, 3707300; 
464400, 3707200; 464500, 3707200; 464500, 3707000; 464800, 3707000; 
464800, 3706900; 464900, 3706900; 464900, 3706800; 465000, 3706800; 
465000, 3706700; 465100, 3706700; 465100, 3706600; 465200, 3706600; 
465200, 3705900; 465100, 3705900; 465100, 3705700; 464400, 3705700; 
464400, 3705400; 464300, 3705400; 464300, 3705300; 464200, 3705300; 
464200, 3705200; 464100, 3705200; 464100, 3705100; 464000, 3705100; 
464000, 3705000; 463900, 3705000; 463900, 3704900; 464100, 3704900; 
464100, 3704400; 464000, 3704400; 464000, 3704300; 463800, 3704300; 
463800, 3704100; 463700, 3704100; 463700, 3704000; 463600, 3704000; 
463600, 3703900; 463300, 3703900; 463300, 3704000; 463200, 3704000; 
463200, 3704100; 463100, 3704100; 463100, 3704500; 463200, 3704500; 
463200, 3704600; 463400, 3704600; 463400, 3704800; 463200, 3704800; 
463200, 3704900; 463100, 3704900; 463100, 3705400; 463300, 3705400; 
463300, 3705500; 463400, 3705500; 463400, 3705600; 463500, 3705600; 
463500, 3705700; 463300, 3705700; 463300, 3705800; 463100, 3705800; 
463100, 3705900; 462900, 3705900; 462900, 3706000; 462800, 3706000; 
462800, 3706100; 462600, 3706100; 462600, 3706300; 462500, 3706300; 
462500, 3706800; 462600, 3706800; 462600, 3707000; 463100, 3707000; 
463100, 3707100; 463300, 3707100; 463300, 3707200; 463400, 3707200; 
463400, 3707300; 463500, 3707300; 463500, 3707400; returning to 464300, 
3707400.
    (ii) Subunit 5b: Devil's Canyon; land bounded by the following UTM 
coordinates (E, N): 465000, 3702200; 464800, 3702200; 464800, 3702100; 
464500, 3702100; 464500, 3702200; 464300, 3702200; 464300, 3702700; 
464400, 3702700; 464400, 3702800; 464800, 3702800; 464800, 3702700; 
464900, 3702700; 464900, 3702600; 465000, 3702600; returning to 465000, 
3702200; and land bounded by 465000, 3702200; 465400, 3702200; 465400, 
3702100; 465500, 3702100; 465500, 3701500; 465400, 3701500; 465400, 
3701300; 465300, 3701300; 465300, 3701200; 464800, 3701200; 464800, 
3701300; 464700, 3701300; 464700, 3701700; 464800, 3701700; 464800, 
3702000; 464900, 3702000; 464900, 3702100; 465000, 3702100; returning 
to 465000, 3702200.
    (iii) Map of proposed critical habitat units 5a and 5b for Brodiaea 
filifolia (Thread-leaved brodiaea) follows:

[[Page 71314]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08DE04.032


[[Page 71315]]


    (11) Map of proposed critical habitat units 4g-i, 5a and 5b and 
excluded eligible habitat for Brodiaea filifolia (Thread-leaved 
brodiaea), Orange, Riverside and San Diego Counties follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08DE04.033

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 71316]]

    (12) Map Unit 6: Oceanside, San Diego County, California, from USGS 
1:24,000 quadrangle map San Luis Rey, California.
    (i) Subunit 6a: Alta Creek; land bounded by the following UTM 
coordinates (E, N): 469300, 3673300; 469300, 3673100; 469400, 3673099; 
469400, 3672800; 469100, 3672900; 469000, 3672900; 469000, 3673000; 
468900, 3673000; 468900, 3673300; returning to 469300, 3673300.
    (ii) Subunit 6b: Mesa Drive; land bounded by the following UTM 
coordinates (E, N): 469000, 3674300; 468900, 3674300; 468900, 3674500; 
469000, 3674500 returning to 469000, 3674300.
    (iii) Subunit 6c: Oceanside East/Mission Avenud; land bounded by 
the following UTM coordinates (E, N): 471400, 3676300; 471500, 3676300; 
471500, 3676200; 471600, 3676200; 471600, 3676100; 471600, 3676000; 
471600, 3675900; 471600, 3675800; 471500, 3675800; 471500, 3675700; 
471400, 3675700; 471300, 3675700; 471200, 3675700; 471200, 3675800; 
471100, 3675800; 471100, 3675900; 471100, 3676000; 471100, 3676100; 
471100, 3676200; 471200, 3676200; 471200, 3676300; 471300, 3676300; 
returning to 471400, 3676300.
    (iv) Subunit 6d: Taylor/Darwin; land bounded by the following UTM 
coordinates (E, N): 475100, 3677200; 475100, 3677000; 475400, 3676900; 
475300, 3676700; 475300, 3676600; 475100, 3676500; 474900, 3676500; 
474800, 3676300; 474700, 3676300; 474700, 3676600; 474800, 3676700; 
474800, 3677000; 474900, 3677100; returning to 475100, 3677200.
    (13) Map Unit 7: San Diego County, California, from USGS 1:24,000 
quadrangle maps San Luis Rey, Rancho Santa Fe, and San Marcos, 
California.
    (i) Subunit 7a: Fox-Miller; land bounded by the following UTM 
coordinates (E, N): 473900, 3666900; 474200, 3666800; 474400, 3666700; 
474400, 3666600; 474500, 3666400; 474400, 3666400; 474200, 3666300; 
474100, 3666200; 474000, 3666200; 474000, 3666300; 473600, 3666300; 
473600, 3666600; 473800, 3666600; 473800, 3666700; 473900, 3666800; 
returning to 473900, 3666900.
    (ii) Subunit 7b: Rancho Carrillo; land bounded by the following UTM 
coordinates (E,N): 478300, 3665200; 478400, 3665200; 478400, 3664500; 
478300, 3664500; 478300, 3664600; 478100, 3664600; 478100, 3664800; 
478200, 3664800; 478200, 3665000; 478300, 3665000; returning to 478300, 
3665200.
    (14) Map Unit 8: San Marcos, San Diego County, California, from 
USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps San Marcos and Rancho Santa Fe, 
California.
    (i) Subunit 8a: Rancho Santa Fe Road North; land bounded by the 
following UTM coordinates (E, N): 478700, 3665300; 478700, 3665200; 
478800, 3665200; 478800, 3665000; 478700, 3665000; 478700, 3664700; 
478800, 3664700; 478800, 3664500; 478900, 3664500; 478900, 3664100; 
478700, 3664100; 478700, 3664000; 478600, 3664000; 478600, 3664300; 
478500, 3664300; 478500, 3665300; returning to 478700, 3665300.
    (ii) Subunit 8b: Rancho Santalina/Loma Alta; land bounded by the 
following UTM coordinates (E, N): 482000, 3668900; 482200, 3668900; 
482200, 3668300; 482400, 3668100; 482400, 3668000; 482100, 3668300; 
482100, 3668700; 482000, 3668500; 482000, 3668300; 481900, 3668200; 
482000, 3668100; 482200, 3667900; 482200, 3667800; 482100, 3667800; 
481900, 3668000; 481700, 3668400; 481700, 3668600; returning to 482000, 
3668900.
    (iii) Subunit 8c: Grand Avenue; land bounded by the following UTM 
coordinates (E, N): 482000, 3667300; 482000, 3667100; 481800, 3667100; 
481800, 3667300; returning to 482000, 3667300.
    (iv) Subunit 8d: Upham; land bounded by the following UTM 
coordinates (E, N): 481600, 3666800; 481700, 3666800; 481900, 3666700; 
482100, 3666700; 482100, 3666800; 482300, 3666800; 482300, 3666400; 
482200, 3666400; 482000, 3666300; 481900, 3666300; 481900, 3666200; 
482000, 3665900; 481900, 3665900; 481900, 3665800; 481700, 3665800; 
481700, 3665900; 481600, 3666100; 481400, 3666100; 481400, 3666300; 
481700, 3666300; 481700, 3666200; 481800, 3666200; 481800, 3666400; 
481500, 3666400; 481500, 3666600; 481600, 3666600; returning to 481600, 
3666800.
    (v) Subunit 8e: Linda Vista; land bounded by the following UTM 
coordinates (E, N): 483000, 3666500; 483100, 3666500; 483100, 3666400; 
483000, 3666400; 483000, 3666300; 482800, 3666300; 482800, 3666600; 
482900, 3666600; 482900, 3666700; 483000, 3666700; returning to 483000, 
3666500.
    (15) (i) Map Unit 9: Double LL Ranch; San Diego County, California. 
From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Rancho Santa Fe, California, land 
bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E, N): 479700, 3658600; 
479700, 3658200; 479800, 3658200; 479800, 3657900; 479500, 3657900; 
479500, 3658000; 479600, 3658000; 479600, 3658100; 479400, 3658100; 
479400, 3658400; 479300, 3658400; 479300, 3658600; returning to 479700, 
3658600.
    (ii) Map of proposed critical habitat units 6a-d, 7a-b, 8a-e and 9 
for Brodiaea filifolia (Thread-leaved brodiaea), San Diego County, 
follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 71317]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08DE04.034


[[Page 71318]]


    (16) (i) Map Unit 10: Highland Valley, San Diego County, 
California. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map San Pasqual, California, 
land bounded by the following UTM coordinates (E, N): 505500, 3655100; 
505500, 3655000; 505600, 3655000; 505600, 3654600; 505500, 3654600; 
505500, 3654500; 505200, 3654500; 505200, 3654600; 505100, 3654600; 
505100, 3654700; 505000, 3654700; 505000, 3655000; 505100, 3655000; 
505100, 3655100; returning to 505500, 3655100.
    (ii) Map of proposed critical habitat unit 10 for Brodiaea 
filifolia (Thread-leaved brodiaea), San Diego County, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08DE04.035

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 71319]]

* * * * *

    Dated: November 30, 2004.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 04-26687 Filed 12-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P