Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Allium munzii, 33015-33033 [05-11167]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 7, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33015-33033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11167]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AJ10


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Allium munzii (Munz's onion)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
176 acres (ac) (71 hectares (ha)) of Federal land as critical habitat 
for the Federally endangered Allium munzii (Munz's onion) pursuant to 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The designated 
critical habitat is within the Cleveland National Forest at Elsinore 
Peak in western Riverside County, California.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on July 7, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours, at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92009 (telephone: 760/
431-9440). The final rule, economic analysis (EA), and map will also be 
available via the Internet at https://carlsbad.fws.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office (telephone 760/431-9440; facsimile 760/431-9618).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Designation of Critical Habitat Provides Little Additional Protection 
to Species

    In 30 years of implementing the ESA, the Service has found that the 
designation of statutory critical habitat provides little additional 
protection to most listed species, while consuming significant amounts 
of conservation resources. The Service's present system for designating 
critical habitat is driven by litigation rather than biology, limits 
our ability to fully evaluate the science involved, consumes enormous 
agency resources, and imposes huge social and economic costs. The 
Service believes that additional agency discretion would allow our 
focus to return to those actions that provide the greatest benefit to 
the species most in need of protection.

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 ESA 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 473 species, or 38 percent 
of the 1,253 listed species in the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the 
Service, have designated critical habitat.
    We address the habitat needs of all 1,253 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. In the case of listed 
plants, such as Allium munzii, Section 9 of the Act prohibits any 
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from removing 
and reducing to possession any such species from areas under Federal 
jurisdiction; maliciously damaging or destroying any such species on 
such area; or removing, cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying 
any such species on any other area in knowing violation of any law or 
regulation of any state or in the course of any violation of a State 
criminal trespass law. The Service believes that it is these measures 
that may make the difference between extinction and survival for many 
species.
    We note, however, that two courts found our definition of adverse 
modification to be invalid (March 15, 2001, decision of the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service et al., F.3d 434, and the August 6, 2004, Ninth 
Circuit judicial opinion, Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States 
Fish and Wildlife Service). In response to these decisions, we are 
reviewing the regulatory definition of adverse modification in relation 
to the conservation of the species.

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat

    We have been inundated with lawsuits regarding critical habitat 
designation, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging 
critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have 
subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and 
court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now 
consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the 
Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct 
scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most 
biologically urgent species conservation needs.
    The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that 
limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits and to comply 
with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result, the 
Service's own proposals to undertake conservation actions based on 
biological priorities are significantly delayed.
    The accelerated schedules of court-ordered designations have left 
the Service with almost no ability to provide for additional public 
participation beyond that minimally required by the Administrative 
Procedures Act (APA), the Act, and the Service's implementing 
regulations, or to take additional time for review of comments and 
information to ensure the rule has addressed all the pertinent issues 
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 will suffer adverse impacts from these decisions challenge 
them. The cycle of litigation appears endless, is very expensive, and 
in the final analysis provides 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 the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); all are part of the cost of 
critical habitat designation. These costs result in minimal benefits to 
the species that are not already afforded by the protections

[[Page 33016]]

of the Act enumerated earlier, and they directly reduce the funds 
available for direct and tangible conservation actions.

Background

    We intend to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the 
designation of critical habitat in this final rule. For more 
information on Allium munzii, please refer to the final listing rule 
published in the Federal Register on October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54975), 
proposed critical habitat rule published in the Federal Register on 
June 4, 2004 (69 FR 31569), and the notice of availability of the draft 
economic analysis (DEA) and reopening of the public comment period for 
Allium munzii published in the Federal Register on December 1, 2004 (69 
FR 69878).

Previous Federal Action

    Please refer to the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for 
Allium munzii (69 FR 31569) and the notice of availability of the draft 
economic analysis and reopening of the public comment period for Allium 
munzii (69 FR 69878) for more information on previous Federal actions 
concerning Munz's onion.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from the public on the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for Allium munzii (69 FR 31569) and the 
notice of availability of the draft economic analysis and reopening of 
the public comment period for Allium munzii ( 69 FR 69878). We also 
contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific 
organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment 
on the proposed rule.
    During the comment period that opened on June 4, 2004, and closed 
on August 3, 2004, we received 7 comment letters directly addressing 
the proposed critical habitat designation: 3 from peer reviewers, 1 
from a Federal agency, and 3 from organizations or individuals. During 
the comment period that opened on December 1, 2004, and closed on 
January 3, 2005, we received 4 comment letters directly addressing the 
proposed critical habitat designation and the draft economic analysis. 
Of these latter comments, 1 was from a Federal agency, and 3 were from 
organizations. One commenter concurred with the designation of critical 
habitat for Allium munzii and 8 commenters recommended modifications to 
the proposed designation. Comments received were grouped into general 
issues specifically relating to the proposed critical habitat 
designation for Allium munzii and are addressed in the following 
summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate. We did not 
receive any requests for a public hearing.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), we solicited expert opinions from five knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with 
the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and 
conservation biology principles. We received responses from three of 
the peer reviewers. The peer reviewers provided additional information, 
clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final critical habitat 
rule. These recommendations included clarification of occurrences, 
improvements to the primary constituent elements, identification of 
essential occurrences, and correction of factual errors. Two of the 
peer reviewers recommended that the essential habitat and occurrences 
within the Western Riverside County Multiple-Species Habitat 
Conservation Plan (MSHCP) be designated as critical habitat. One of the 
peer reviewers agreed with the designation of critical habitat at 
Elsinore Peak and expressed cautious support of the areas excluded 
within the Western Riverside County MSHCP under section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and 
incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
    We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the 
public for substantive issues and new information regarding critical 
habitat for Allium munzii, and addressed them in the following summary.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    Comment 1. Two peer reviewers disagreed with our exclusion of 
critical habitat within the Western Riverside County MSHCP based on our 
justification of the ``presumed effectiveness of approved and draft 
habitat conservation plans, in particular, the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP,'' and their concerns that ``known localities within the 
jurisdiction of the MSHCP currently have no established reserves, or 
proposed management procedures for this species.''
    Our Response. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the ``Secretary may 
exclude any area from critical habitat if he determines that the 
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such 
areas as part of critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the 
best scientific and commercial data available, that the failure to 
designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction 
of the species concerned.'' We evaluated the benefits of excluding 
critical habitat against the benefits of including critical habitat 
within approved Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), including the 
Western Riverside County MSHCP, the Rancho Bella Vista HCP, and the 
Long-Term Stephen's Kangaroo Rat (SKR) HCP. A major benefit of 
exclusion is that it will allow us to continue to work with the 
signatory agencies in Riverside County (for the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP) in a spirit of cooperation and partnership and to 
encourage landowners, local jurisdictions, and other entities to work 
cooperatively with us to develop HCPs in other areas. A possible 
benefit of including critical habitat on such lands is education about 
the species and its habitat needs. However, we considered that this 
educational benefit has largely already been met by the public 
participation process that occurred in the development of approved 
HCPs, including the Western Riverside County MSHCP, and therefore, that 
this would not be a particularly important benefit of critical habitat 
designation. Maps depicting the distribution and location of Allium 
munzii are widely available to the public as part of the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP planning process. We have concluded, therefore, 
that the benefits of excluding critical habitat from such lands exceed 
the value of including the lands as critical habitat. See additional 
discussion under ``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act.''
    Our approval of the Western Riverside County MSHCP indicates our 
strong belief that the plan will be effective in conserving Allium 
munzii. The Western Riverside County MSHCP provides specific 
conservation objectives to ensure that suitable habitat and known 
populations of Allium munzii will persist. Under the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP, at least 21,260 ac (8,604 ha) of modeled habitat for 
Allium munzii will be included in the MSHCP Conservation Area. The 
permittees will implement management and monitoring practices within 
the Additional Reserve Lands, including surveys for Allium munzii. 
Cooperative management and monitoring are anticipated on public and PQP 
lands. Surveys for Allium munzii will be conducted at least every 8 
years to verify occupancy at a minimum of 75 percent of the known 
locations. If surveys document that the distribution of Allium munzii 
has

[[Page 33017]]

declined below this 75 percent threshold, management measures will be 
triggered, as appropriate, to meet the species-specific objectives. 
Other management actions described in the MSHCP include addressing 
competition with non-native plant species, clay mining, off-road 
vehicle use, and disking activities. Implementation of these management 
actions will help to avoid and minimize adverse effects to Allium 
munzii. Thus, the Western Riverside County MSHCP establishes reserves 
and management procedures for Allium munzii.
    The Western Riverside County MSHCP provides a greater level of 
management for Allium munzii on private lands than would designation of 
critical habitat on private lands. The designation of critical habitat 
only affects activities conducted, funded, or permitted by Federal 
agencies. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely 
to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Critical 
habitat designation on private (non-Federal) lands would not obligate 
or trigger any requirement by a private (non-Federal) landowner to 
manage their lands to conserve Allium munzii.
    All known occurrences of this species would be protected: (1) By 
approved HCPs (Rancho Bella Vista and SKR HCPs); (2) on existing PQP 
lands, proposed conceptual reserve design lands, and lands targeted for 
conservation within the Western Riverside County MSCHP; and (3) in 
areas where a conservation strategy authorized through the section 7 
consultation process has provided for protection and long-term 
management of Allium munzii. Thus, we have concluded that the exclusion 
of such lands would not result in the extinction of Allium munzii. 
Please see ``Relationship of Critical Habitat to Approved Habitat 
Conservation Plans and Other Approved Conservation Strategies'' for a 
more detailed discussion.
    Comment 2. Two peer reviewers recommended that critical habitat be 
designated for additional known occurrences/populations and areas of 
suitable clay soils. These are: (1) Known occurrences at Harford 
Springs and Harford Springs County Park and adjacent clay habitat on 
the Gavilan Plateau (Elemental Occurrence (EO) 2); (2) all of the 
occurrences on and adjacent to Estelle Mountain (EO 9); (3) an 
occurrence south of Steele Peak (no element occurrence identified, 
possibly EO 15); (4) all of the habitat on Elsinore Peak and all 
localities on Elsinore Peak (EO 13); (5) an occurrence in the Temescal 
Wash near Indian Wash, and the area between Indian Wash and Horsethief 
Wash south of DePalma Road in Temescal Canyon (EO3 and EO8); (6) 
occurrences on the southern flank of Alberhill Mountain (EO 6); (7) 
occurrences on Bachelor Mountain (EO 12); and (8) an occurrence on 
North Domenigoni Hills (EO 10).
    One of the peer reviewers did not recommend critical habitat for 
the occurrences at Skunk Hollow (Rancho Bella Vista HCP) (EO 4), Briggs 
and Scott Roads (EO 14), or Indian Truck Trail and De Palma Roads 
(Sycamore Creek) (EO 7) because of the small size, fragmentation, and 
impacts to these populations. The peer reviewers did not provide the EO 
numbers for these populations and we attempted to match their 
descriptions with the EO for our response.
    Our Response. Considered together, the three categories of (1) 
approved HCPs (Rancho Bella Vista and SKR HCPs); (2) existing PQP 
lands, proposed conceptual reserve design lands, and lands targeted for 
conservation within the Western Riverside County MSCHP; and (3) lands 
where conservation strategies approved through the section 7 
consultation process have provided protection, long-term management, 
and funding to conserve Allium munzii provide a significant level of 
conservation for Allium munzii. Thus, all of the occurrences of Allium 
munzii within (1) approved HCPs (Rancho Bella Vista and SKR); (2) 
existing PQP lands, proposed conceptual reserve design lands, and lands 
targeted for conservation within the Western Riverside County MSCHP; 
and (3) on lands where conservation strategies approved through the 
section 7 consultation process have provided protection, long-term 
management, and funding to conserve Allium munzii.
    Within PQP lands, the species occurs on lands in: (1) The southern 
border of Harford Springs County Park (owned by the County of 
Riverside) (EO 2); (2) Barry Jones Wetland Mitigation Bank (previously 
called the Skunk Hollow Wetland Mitigation Bank) (private lands) (EO 
4); (3) Lake Mathews--Estelle Mountain Reserve northwest of the Estelle 
Mountain summit in the Gavilan Hills (owned by the County of Riverside) 
(EO 9); (4) Southwestern Riverside County Multi-Species Reserve 
(SRCMSR) in the north Domenigoni Hills on either side of Old Mine Road 
(owned by the Metropolitan Water District) (EO 10); (5) SRCMSR lands at 
Lake Skinner (owned by the Bureau of Land Management and Metropolitan 
Water District) (EO 11); (6) SRCMSR lands on the south slope of 
Bachelor Mountain (owned by the Metropolitan Water District) (EO 12); 
and (7) Elsinore Peak on the Cleveland National Forest (EO 13).
    Within proposed conceptual reserve lands, lands specifically 
targeted to be included within the Reserve, and/or within the Narrow 
Endemic Plant Species Survey Area, the plant occurs in: (1) Private 
lands across Ida Leona Road in the Gavilan Hills adjacent to Harford 
Springs County Park (EO 2); (2) private land immediately adjacent to 
the Sycamore Creek development, northwest of I-15 and Indian Truck 
Trail Road, in Temescal Canyon (EO 3 and EO 8); (3) Upper Dawson Canyon 
in the Gavilan Hills (EO 5); (4) private land on the south side of 
Alberhill Mountain, west of I-15, in the City of Lake Elsinore (EO 6); 
(5) private land east of I-15, west of De Palma's Italian Village, 
between Indian Canyon and Horsethief Canyon (EO7); (6) west of 
Lindenberger Road, 0.8 miles (mi) south of Scott Road, southeast of Sun 
City on a 36.3-ac (15 ha) parcel conserved as the result of a 
conservation strategy approved through the section 7 consultation 
process regarding a Sempra gas pipeline (Service 2001) and on a 65.5-ac 
(27 ha) parcel conserved as a result of a conservation strategy 
approved through the section 7 consultation process associated with the 
Warmington development (Service 2002) (EO 14); (7) northern boundary of 
the City of Lake Elsinore, within the North Peak Specific Plan Area on 
lands purchased and conserved by Riverside County (EO 15); (8) 1.2 mi 
northeast of the intersection of Lake Street and I-15 (EO 16); (9) land 
owned by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California on the 
north slope of Bachelor Mountain (EO 17); (10) Temescal Valley, west of 
I-15, between Nichols Road and Riverside Drive, on a low hill adjacent 
to Collier Marsh (Alberhill Marsh); and (11) near Temescal Wash (EO 
18).
    In addition, at least 21,260 ac (8,604 ha) of modeled habitat for 
Allium munzii will be included in the MSHCP Conservation Area (Service 
2004). According to the Western Riverside County MSHCP, at least 13 
localities within Temescal Valley and the southwestern portion of Plan 
Area, including the following Core Areas, are to be included within the 
MSHCP Conservation Area (County of Riverside 2002): (1) Harford Springs 
Park (EO 2); and (2) a population on private lands in Temescal Valley 
(EO 5), Alberhill (EO 6), De Palma Road (EO 7), Estelle Mountain (EO 
9), Domenigoni Hills (EO

[[Page 33018]]

10), Lake Skinner (EO 11), Bachelor Mountain (EO 12), Elsinore Peak (EO 
13), Scott Road (EO 14), North Peak (EO 15), and northeast of Alberhill 
(EO 16). Populations that are currently on public lands or within 
preservation areas include Harford Springs Park (about half the plants 
and habitat) (EO 2) and at Estelle Mountain (EO 7), North Domenigoni 
Hills (EO 10), Bachelor Mountain (two populations) (EO 11 and EO 12), 
North Peak (EO 15), and Cleveland National Forest lands at Elsinore 
Peak (EO 13) (County of Riverside 2002).
    The occurrence at the Sycamore Creek development (EO 3 and EO 8) 
receives management (funded through the homeowners' association; the 
management plan is to be provided to the resource agencies prior to any 
construction actions by the developer) as part of a conservation 
strategy approved through the section 7 consultation process. The 
occurrence on private lands west of Lindenberger Road (EO 14) receives 
management as part of a conservation strategy approved through section 
7 consultation processes for a Southern California Gas Company gas 
pipeline and the Warmington development.
    Thus, the nine occurrences recommended to be designated as critical 
habitat by the peer reviewers (EO 2, EO 3, EO 8, EO 6, EO 9, EO 10, EO 
12, EO 13, and EO 15) are already conserved (1) within approved HCPs 
(Rancho Bella Vista and SKR HCPs); (2) on existing PQP lands, proposed 
conceptual reserve design lands, and lands targeted for conservation 
within the Western Riverside County MSCHP; and (3) on lands where 
conservation strategies approved through the section 7 consultation 
process have provided protection, long-term management, and funding to 
conserve Allium munzii. We have excluded these lands, except for the 
occurrence on U.S. Forest Service lands, under section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act in this final rule.
    Comment 3. One peer reviewer noted that the large population of 
Allium munzii on State of California lands immediately adjacent to the 
Cleveland National Forest lands at Elsinore Peak is subject to 
increasing levels of off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. The commenter 
expressed concern that excluding this area from critical habitat may 
lead to further OHV (and other) damage to this population and would not 
give the State of California incentive to prevent this impact.
    Our Response. The Cleveland National Forest requested approval from 
the State Lands Commission to place barriers on State lands to 
discourage unauthorized OHV use in this area (U.S. Forest Service 
2002). We do not agree that the exclusion of critical habitat from the 
State lands may lead to further OHV damage or that the designation of 
critical habitat would give the State an incentive to prevent this 
activity. Designation of critical habitat only affects activities 
conducted, funded, or permitted by Federal agencies. Activities lacking 
any Federal nexus, such as OHV activity on State lands, would not be 
affected by the critical habitat designation.
    Comment 4. One peer reviewer suggested that the Service ``needs to 
designate areas that are ``critical'' to the species, and review the 
current management and protection procedures.
    Our Response. The definition of critical habitat includes areas 
containing the physical or biological features (1) essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. If the physical or biological 
features are not essential or may not require special management 
considerations or protection, then the area would not meet the 
definition of critical habitat. Please see ``Special Management 
Considerations and Protection'' for a further discussion of this 
subject.
    Comment 5. Two peer reviewers (and a public review commenter) 
questioned the number and description of occurrences of Allium munzii 
described in the proposed rule.
    Our Response. The proposed rule stated that there are 19 
occurrences of Allium munzii according to the California Natural 
Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CNDDB 2004). We have reviewed the CNDDB 
records to clarify any discrepancies in the number of occurrences of 
Allium munzii (Service 2003). The CNDDB reported 21 element occurrences 
(EO) (Service 2003). Of these records, EO 1 is extirpated and EO 19 is 
an error. Thus, we concluded that there were 19 occurrences. Our 
further review of the CNDDB indicates that EO 20 and EO 21 are older 
records and have not been recently verified, and EO 3 and EO 8 may 
represent the same population and should be treated as a single 
occurrence. Hence, in the final rule, we describe 16 extant populations 
of Allium munzii (see also ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical 
Habitat'' for a listing of these 16 populations).

Comments Related to Designation and Exclusion of Critical Habitat

    Comment 1. Several commenters disagreed with our exclusion of 
critical habitat within approved HCPs including the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP. They stated that we did not provide any scientific or 
biological reasons for not including critical habitat within the 
boundaries of HCPs including the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
    Our Response. We disagree. Please see our response to Peer Reviewer 
Comment 1 for a detailed explanation.
    Comment 2. A commenter recommended that critical habitat be 
expanded to include important populations within HCP areas, including 
the extensive population on Alberhill, Harford County Park and adjacent 
lands, and North Peak.
    Our Response. We disagree. Please see our response to Peer Reviewer 
Comment 2 for a detailed explanation.
    Comment 3. A commenter stated that the Cleveland National Forest 
should not be designated as critical habitat because these lands are 
within the boundary of the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
    Our Response. We agree that the Cleveland National Forest lands are 
within the Western Riverside County MSHCP Plan Area. However, unlike 
private landowners and local jurisdictions, Federal agencies, such as 
the U.S. Forest Service, do not receive take authorization for any 
species covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP. While lands 
within the Cleveland National Forest were considered as part of the 
environmental baseline, the U.S. Forest Service is not a signatory 
agency to the Western Riverside County MSHCP, nor is it they bound to 
comply with the regional HCP. Thus, we have only excluded private lands 
within the Western Riverside County MSHCP from critical habitat 
designation in this and other final critical habitat designation rules.

Comments Related to the Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat

    Comment 1. We received several comment letters related to the draft 
economic analysis (DEA) and proposed designation of critical habitat 
for the Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project (LEAPS).
    Our Response. We analyzed the information contained in the comment 
letters, soil maps, aerial photography, and distribution of Allium 
munzii populations along the easternmost edge of the proposed critical 
habitat unit. No known populations of Allium munzii occur within the 
LEAPS transmission line corridor, and the nearest population is west of 
the corridor on soils mapped as Bosanko clay (identified as a clay soil 
in the primary constituent element 1) and Las Posas gravelly 
loam (identified as a soil series of sedimentary or igneous origin with 
a clay subsoil in

[[Page 33019]]

primary constituent element 1). The soil maps indicate that 
the LEAPS transmission corridor crosses soils mapped as Cieneba-rock 
outcrop complex and the available information indicates that Allium 
munzii does not occur on this soil type. Thus, we have not included the 
LEAPS transmission corridor in the designation of critical habitat in 
the final rule. Since no critical habitat is being designated within 
the LEAPS transmission corridor, we did not, and do not need to, 
consider economic impacts related to the LEAPS project.
    Comment 2. A commenter stated that the DEA fails to clearly state 
that critical habitat has no legal implications on private lands and no 
burden on his/her property absent Federal nexus.
    Our Response. A description of the legal implications of critical 
habitat can be found in this Final Rule under ``Effects of Critical 
Habitat Designation.''
    Comment 3. We received several comments concerning the scope of the 
economic analysis. One commenter stated that distributing costs among 
other endangered species likely to co-exist with Allium munzii violates 
the co-extensive analysis that is required, while another commenter 
stated that the cost of Allium munzii conservation should not include 
costs associated with the listing of Allium munzii or other regulatory 
requirements (such as NEPA) that afford protection to the species.
    Our Response. The primary purpose of the economic analysis is to 
estimate the potential economic impacts associated with the designation 
of critical habitat for Allium munzii. The Act defines critical habitat 
to mean those specific areas that are essential to the conservation of 
the species. The Act also defines conservation to mean the use of all 
methods and procedures necessary to bring any endangered species or 
threatened species to the point at which the measures of the Act are no 
longer necessary. Thus we interpret the Act to mean that the economic 
analysis should include all of the economic impacts associated with the 
conservation of the species, which may include some of the effects 
associated with listing because the species was listed prior to the 
proposed designation of critical habitat. We note that the Act 
generally requires critical habitat to be designated at the time of 
listing, and, that had we conducted an economic analysis at that time, 
the impacts associated with listing would not be readily 
distinguishable from those associated with critical habitat 
designation.
    The DEA discusses other relevant regulations and protection efforts 
for other listed species that include Allium munzii and its habitat. In 
general, the analysis errs conservatively in order to make certain the 
economic effects have not been missed. It treats as ``co-extensive'' 
other Federal and State requirements that may result in overlapping 
protection measures (e.g., California Environmental Quality Act) for 
the plant. In some cases, however, non-habitat-related regulations will 
limit land use activities within critical habitat in ways that will 
directly or indirectly benefit Allium munzii or its habitat (e.g., 
local zoning ordinances). These impacts were not considered to be ``co-
extensive'' with Allium munzii listing or designation for two reasons. 
First, such impacts would occur even if Allium munzii were not listed. 
Second, we must be able to differentiate economic impacts solely 
associated with the conservation of Allium munzii and its habitat in 
order to understand whether the benefit of excluding any particular 
area from Allium munzii critical habitat outweighs the benefit of 
including the area.
    The economic analysis distributes the cost of conserving Allium 
munzii habitat equally among the number of other listed species likely 
to co-exist with Allium munzii as indicated by the historical 
consultations. None of the past Allium munzii consultations focused 
solely on Munz's onion but rather on other listed animal species co-
occurring in the area. Within a biological opinion that covers several 
species, we are unable to accurately segregate out the cost for an 
individual species from the rest of the species covered in the 
biological opinion.
    Comment 5. A few commenters stated that the DEA failed to address 
the implications of the Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States 
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 378 F.3d 1059, 1069 (Ninth Circuit 
2004) ruling on future Allium munzii conservation costs.
    Our Response: The Service notes that a recent Ninth Circuit 
judicial opinion, Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. USFWS, has invalidated 
the Service's regulation defining destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat. The Service is currently reviewing the decision to 
determine what effect it (and to a limited extent Center for Biological 
Diversity v. Bureau of Land Management (Case No. C-03-2509-SI, N.D. 
Cal.)) may have on the outcome of consultations pursuant to section 7 
of the Act.
    Comment 6. A commenter stated that additional explanation should be 
provided concerning the reasons behind the cost variation for the three 
historical real estate projects involving Service consultation on 
Allium munzii.
    Our Response. The EA estimates the historical costs associated with 
the Allium munzii conservation efforts on real estate development 
projects based on information contained within the three past 
consultations that included Allium munzii (Rancho Bella Vista, Sycamore 
Creek development, and the Warmington Murrieta Scott Road LLC 
subdivision). Each consultation addressed the impacts of the proposed 
action not only to Allium munzii but also to other listed species. The 
impacts to each project varied based on the amount of habitat being 
affected and the degree of impact. In general, projects that had to 
preserve more habitat had higher economic costs because the land could 
not be put to its highest economic use.
    Comment 7. A commenter stated that the DEA overestimates the 
historical cost associated with the conservation of Allium munzii 
because it inappropriately assumes that the cost affiliated with the 
conservation of Allium munzii is equally weighted with the other 
covered species when in fact conservation efforts for animal species 
involve higher costs than plant species.
    Our Response. While animal species may in fact involve higher level 
of monitoring and active management efforts, the DEA errs 
conservatively in order to make certain the past economic effects 
associated with the conservation of Allium munzii have not been 
understated.
    Comment 8. A commenter stated that the $30,000 estimate for Allium 
munzii's portion of the Western Riverside MSHCP preparation cost is an 
overestimation, because the section in the document addressing the 
plant is boilerplate rather than compiled from detailed research.
    Our Response. The DEA estimates the portion of the MSHCP 
preparation cost attributable to Allium munzii by equally distributing 
the total cost of the MSHCP preparation among 145 species covered by 
the MSHCP. While other covered species may in fact involve higher level 
of research and documentation, the DEA errs conservatively in order to 
make certain economic effects have not been understated. Although this 
is a simplistic approach for estimating the historical coextensive cost 
for Allium munzii, we do not believe that the error introduced by this 
method will have a significant effect on our final critical habitat 
decision.
    Comment 9. A commenter stated that the DEA fails to acknowledge any 
benefit of conserving a species that is threatened by extinction from

[[Page 33020]]

developments. The same commenter also requested that the final EA 
incorporate a quantitative estimate of benefits of open space since 
conservation of Allium munzii contributes to overall preservation of 
open space.
    Our Response. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the Secretary to 
designate critical habitat based on the best scientific data available 
after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other 
relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. 
Our approach for estimating economic impacts includes both economic 
efficiency and distributional effects. The measurement of economic 
efficiency is based on the concept of opportunity costs, which reflects 
the value of goods and services foregone in order to comply with the 
effects of the designation (e.g., lost economic opportunity associated 
with restrictions on land use). Where data are available, our analyses 
do attempt to measure the net economic impact. For example, the 
analysis recognizes the potential for benefits associated with the 
preservation of open space. It describes that in certain cases real 
estate development that effectively incorporates the Allium munzii 
habitat set-aside on-site might realize a value premium typically 
associated with additional open space. Any such premium will offset 
land preservation costs borne by landowners/developers. However, while 
this scenario remains a possibility, reliable data revealing the 
premium that the market places on nearby open space in Southern 
California is not readily available. Moreover, the value premium 
associated with habitat preservation is likely to be limited given that 
recreational uses associated with habitat preserves may be generally 
restricted to low-impact activities.
    The value of open space, along with other ancillary benefits, 
reflects broader social values, which are not the same as economic 
impacts. While the Secretary must consider economic and other relevant 
impacts as part of the final decision-making process under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, the Act explicitly states that it is the 
government's policy to conserve all threatened and endangered species 
and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Thus we believe that 
explicit consideration of broader social values for the species and its 
habitat, beyond the more traditionally defined economic impacts, is not 
necessary as Congress has already clarified the social importance for 
us. As a practical matter, we note the difficulty in being able to 
develop credible estimates of such values as they are not readily 
observed through typical market transactions.
    Comment 10. A commenter stated that the DEA should explain how 
future management costs of Allium munzii habitat were estimated given 
that management requirements have not been clearly identified by the 
Western Riverside MSHCP/Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCP).
    Our Response. The MSHCP budget reveals an average annual management 
cost of approximately $84 per acre, in 2004 dollars. Because the MSHCP 
does not list specific management requirements for Allium munzii, the 
Service relies on this overall per-acre cost to estimate future 
management cost for Allium munzii. We believe this to be a reasonable 
estimate to use in forecasting conservation costs.
    Comment 11. A commenter stated that, contrary to a statement made 
in the DEA that not every acre in the habitat contains Allium munzii or 
the primary constituent elements of habitat, the essential habitats all 
have primary constituent elements by definition.
    Our Response. This statement has been corrected in the EA.

Comments From States

    Section 4(i) of the Act states, the Secretary shall submit to the 
State agency a written justification for her failure to adopt 
regulations consistent with the State agency's comments or petition. 
The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) did not provide 
comments on the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for Allium 
munzii or the draft economic analysis for critical habitat for Allium 
munzii. In the case of other proposed rules for critical habitat, CDFG 
has supported the exclusion of NCCPs/HCPs that covered the particular 
species of interest. Consistent with their previous comments on other 
critical habitat rules, we have excluded critical habitat for Allium 
munzii from lands within the Western Riverside County MSHCP and other 
approved HCPs. No State lands are designated as critical habitat for 
Allium munzii.

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

    We are not including critical habitat along the eastern boundary of 
the Western Riverside County Unit because the area does not contain the 
primary constituent elements for Allium munzii. The soil maps indicate 
that the LEAPS transmission corridor crosses soils mapped as Cieneba-
rock outcrop complex and the available information indicates that 
Allium munzii does not occur on this soil type. Thus, we have not 
included the LEAPS transmission corridor in the designation of critical 
habitat in the final rule. This revision has resulted in a reduction 
from the proposed critical habitat of 227 ac (92 ha) to 176 ac (71 ha) 
in the final rule.

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. No specific 
areas outside the geographical area occupied by Allium munzii at the 
time of listing are designated as critical habitat in this final rule. 
The area designated as critical habitat (Elsinore Peak in the Cleveland 
National Forest) was described in the final listing rule (63 FR 54975).
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or 
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 requires consultation on 
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat 
does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, 
reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does 
not allow government or public access to private lands.
    To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat 
within the area occupied by the species must first have features that 
are ``essential to the conservation of the species.'' Critical habitat 
designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific 
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)).
    Habitat occupied at the time of listing may be included in critical 
habitat only if the essential features thereon may require special 
management or

[[Page 33021]]

protection. Thus, we do not include areas where existing management is 
sufficient to conserve the species. (As discussed below, such areas may 
also be excluded from critical habitat pursuant to section 4(b)(2).) 
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 at the time of listing. An area currently 
occupied by the species but that was not known to be occupied at the 
time of listing will likely be essential to the conservation of the 
species and, therefore, will be included in the critical habitat 
designation.
    The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271), and Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658) 
and the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by the 
Service, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance 
to ensure that decisions made by the Service represent the best 
scientific and commercial data available. They require Service 
biologists 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 is generally the listing 
package for the species. Additional information sources include the 
recovery plan for the species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, 
conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status 
surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished 
materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge. All information is 
used in accordance with the provisions of Section 515 of the Treasury 
and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines 
issued by the Service.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Habitat is often 
dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. 
Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not 
include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to 
be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, 
critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the 
designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery.
    Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the 
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information 
at the time of the action. Federally funded or permitted projects 
affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat 
areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, 
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or 
other species conservation planning efforts if new information 
available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Methods

    As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best 
scientific and commercial data available in determining areas that are 
essential to the conservation of Allium munzii. These included data 
from research and survey observations published in peer-reviewed 
articles and other documents, regional Geographic Information System 
(GIS) vegetation, soil, and species coverages (including layers for 
Riverside County), and data compiled in the CNDDB. In addition, 
information provided in comments on the proposed critical habitat 
designation and draft economic analysis were evaluated and considered 
in the development of the final designation for Allium munzii. We 
designated no areas outside of the geographic area presently occupied 
by the species.
    After all the information about the known occurrences of Allium 
munzii was compiled, we created maps indicating the essential habitat 
associated with each of the occurrences. We used the information 
outlined above to aid in this task. The essential habitat was mapped 
using GIS and refined using topographical and aerial map coverages. 
These essential habitat areas were further refined by discussing each 
area in detail with Fish and Wildlife Service biologists familiar with 
each area.
    After creating a GIS coverage of the essential areas, we created 
legal descriptions of the essential areas. We used a 100-meter grid to 
establish Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) North American Datum 27 
(NAD 27) coordinates which, when connected, provided the boundaries of 
the essential 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 (primary constituent elements (PCEs)) 
that are essential to the conservation of the species, and that may 
require special management considerations and protection. These 
include, but are not limited to: Space for individual and population 
growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or 
other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; 
sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of 
offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic geographical and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    The specific primary constituent elements or biological and 
physical features required for Allium munzii are derived from the 
biological needs of the species as described in the background section 
of the proposed critical habitat rule (69 FR 31569).

Space for Individual and Population Growth and Food, Water, Air, Light, 
Minerals, or Other Nutritional or Physiological Requirements

    Allium munzii is restricted to mesic clay soils in western 
Riverside County, California, along the southern edge of the Perris 
basin (primary constituent elements 1 and 2). The 
clay soils are scattered in a band several miles wide and extending 40 
miles from Gavilan Hills to west of Temescal Canyon and Lake Elsinore 
at the eastern foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains and along the 
Elsinore Fault Zone to the southwestern foothills of the San Jacinto 
Mountains near Lake Skinner. Clay soil associations include Altamont, 
Auld, Bosanko, Claypit and Porterville clay soil types. At least one 
population (North Domenigoni Hills) was reported by Bramlet in 1991 to 
be associated with pyroxenite outcrops instead of clay (CNDDB 2003). 
Rounded cobbles and boulders are embedded within clay, which has a 
sticky, adobe consistency when wet and large cracks when dry. Allium 
munzii is typically found on the more mesic sites within the clay 
deposits (Boyd 1988). These mesic areas

[[Page 33022]]

within the clay deposits typically support grassland vegetation within 
a surrounding scrub community. Allium munzii occurs at elevations from 
984 to 3,511 feet (ft) (300 to 1,070 meters (m)), and on level or 
slightly sloping lands.
    The Western Riverside County Unit contains Bosanko clay soils 
identified as a clay soil series of sedimentary origin as well as Las 
Posas gravelly loam (identified as a soil series of sedimentary or 
igneous origin with a clay subsoil) at a suitable elevation for this 
species (primary constituent element 1 and 3). This 
unit is also within open native and non-native grassland plant 
communities (primary constituent element 1). The soils, 
aspect, elevation, and plant communities present in this unit provide 
space for individual and population growth. The soils, aspect, and 
elevation of the unit (primary constituent element 3) provide 
food, water, air, light, minerals and other nutritional and 
physiological requirements for Allium munzii.

Sites for Reproduction, Germination, or Pollination

    Allium munzii is typically found in open native grasslands and, 
increasingly, non-native grasslands, which can be either the dominant 
community or found in a mosaic with Riversidean sage scrub, scrub oak 
chaparral, chamise chaparral, coast live oak woodland, or peninsular 
juniper woodland and scrub (Holland 1986). Based upon the dominant 
species, the plant communities where Allium munzii is found have been 
further divided into series which include, but are not limited to, 
California annual grassland, nodding needlegrass, purple needlegrass, 
foothill needlegrass, black sage, white sage, California buckwheat, 
California buckwheat-white sage, California sagebrush, California 
sagebrush-black sage, California sagebrush-California buckwheat, mixed 
sage, chamise, chamise-black sage, coast live oak, scrub oak, and 
California juniper (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1994).
    A characteristic ``clay soil flora'' is associated with the island-
like clay deposits in southwestern Riverside County. This includes 
herbaceous annuals, such as Harpagonella palmeri (Palmer's grappling 
hook), Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina (knot-weed spine 
flower), Achyrachaena mollis, Ancistrocarphus filagineus, Convolvulus 
simulans (small-flowered morning-glory), Erodium macrophyllum, and 
Microseris doulasii spp. Platycarpha (small-flowered microseris), and 
herbaceous perennials, such as Fritillaria biflora (chocolate lily), 
Sanicula bipinnatifida (purple sanicle), S. arguta (snakeroot), 
Lomatium utriculatum (common lomatium), L. dasycarpum (lace parsnip), 
Dodecatheon clevelandii (Cleveland's shooting star), Bloomeria crocea 
(goldenstar), Chlorogalum parviflorum (soaproot), Dudleya multicaulis 
(many-stemmed dudleya), Allium haematochiton (red-skinned onion) and A. 
munzii (Boyd 1988). The plant communities within this unit provide 
sites for reproduction, germination, or pollination.

Disturbance, Protection, and the Historical Geographical Distributions

    The area designated as critical habitat is within the Cleveland 
National Forest (see also Western Riverside County Unit, Riverside 
County, California for a description of this unit). This locality 
represents the southwesternmost and highest elevation occurrence of 
Allium munzii. The Elsinore Peak population is considered to be the 
most undisturbed and pristine of any of the known occurrences of this 
species (Boyd and Mistretta 1991) (primary constituent element 
2). This population is estimated to be more than 1,000 plants 
and is ranked as a top conservation priority by a working group 
assembled by the California Department of Fish and Game (Mistretta 
1993). The Forest Service developed the Allium munzii Species 
Management Guide to ensure that ``National Forest lands are managed to 
maintain viable populations of all native plants and animals'' (U.S. 
Forest Service 1992). Thus, this location represents a significant 
habitat that is protected from disturbance and is within the historical 
geographical distribution of this species.

Primary Constituent Elements for Allium munzii

    Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and 
ecology of the species and the requirements of the habitat to sustain 
the essential life history functions of the species, we have determined 
that primary constituent elements for Allium munzii are:
    (1) Clay soil series of sedimentary origin (e.g., Altamont, Auld, 
Bosanko, Claypit, Porterville), or clay lenses (pockets of clay soils) 
of such that may be found as unmapped inclusions in other soil series, 
or soil series of sedimentary or igneous origin with a clay subsoil 
(e.g., Cajalco, Las Posas, Vallecitos), found on level or slightly 
sloping landscapes; generally between the elevations of 985 ft and 
3,500 ft (300 m and 1,068 m) above mean sea level (AMSL), and as part 
of open native or non-native grassland plant communities and ``clay 
soil flora'' which can occur in a mosaic with Riversidean sage scrub, 
chamise chaparral, scrub oak chaparral, coast live oak woodland, and 
peninsular juniper woodland and scrub; or
    (2) Alluvial soil series of sedimentary or igneous origin (e.g., 
Greenfield, Ramona, Placentia, Temescal) and terrace escarpment soils 
found as part of alluvial fans underlying open native or non-native 
grassland plant communities that can occur in a mosaic with Riversidean 
sage scrub generally between the elevations of 985 ft and 3,500 ft (300 
m and 1,068 m) AMSL, or Pyroxenite deposits of igneous origin found on 
Bachelor Mountain as part of non-native grassland and Riversidean sage 
scrub generally between the elevations of 985 ft and 3,500 ft (300 m 
and 1,068 m) AMSL; and
    (3) Clay soils or other soil substrate as described above with 
intact, natural surface and subsurface structure that have been 
minimally altered or unaltered by ground-disturbing activities (e.g., 
disked, graded, excavated, re-contoured); and,
    (4) Within areas of suitable clay soils, microhabitats that are 
moister than surrounding areas because of (A) north or northeast 
exposure or (B) seasonally available moisture from surface or 
subsurface runoff.
    All areas designated as critical habitat for Allium munzii are 
within the geographic area occupied by the species, were known to be 
occupied at the time of listing, and contain one or more primary 
constituent elements (e.g., soil, associated plant community) essential 
for its conservation.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    All areas known to support extant populations of Allium munzii are 
considered essential habitat for the species because they include those 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. Allium munzii is known only from a narrow geographical 
range and, within that range, is limited to clay soils. Currently 16 
populations of this plant are known to exist. Extant populations of 
Allium munzii occur at the following locations: (1) Southern border of 
Harford Springs County Park and extending onto private lands across Ida 
Leona Road in the Gavilan Hills (population estimates from surveys 
between 1986 and 1998 range from 2,000 to 51,000 plants) (EO 2); (2) 
private land immediately adjacent to the Sycamore Creek development, 
northwest of I-15 and Indian Truck Trail Road, in Temescal Canyon

[[Page 33023]]

(estimate of approximately 300 plants) (EO 3 and 8); (3) Barry Jones 
Wetland Mitigation Bank (Skunk Hollow Wetland Conservation Bank) 
(approximately 250 plants) (EO 4); (4) private land on the south flank 
of Upper Dawson Canyon in the Gavilan Hills (estimate of approximately 
2,000 plants) (EO 5); (5) private land on the south side of Alberhill 
Mountain, west of I-15, in the City of Lake Elsinore (estimate of 
approximately 7,700 plants) (EO 6); (6) private land east of I-15, west 
of De Palma's Italian Village, between Indian Canyon and Horsethief 
Canyon (estimate of approximately 1,000 plants) (EO7); (7) Lake 
Mathews--Estelle Mountain Reserve northwest of the Estelle Mountain 
summit in the Gavilan Hills (estimate of approximately 2,000 plants 
based on a 1986 survey) (EO 9); (8) Southwestern Riverside County 
Multi-Species Reserve (SRCMSR) in the north Domenigoni Hills on either 
side of Old Mine Road (estimate of approximately 440 plants) (EO 10); 
(9) south slope of Bachelor Mountain, along a maintenance road 
associated with Lake Skinner Dam (population estimates from surveys 
conducted between 1989 and 1992 range from 200 and 4,400 plants) (EO 
11); (10) south slope of Bachelor Mountain, about a mile east of the 
population described above (9) (estimate of approximately 150 
plants) (EO 12); (11) Elsinore Peak, west of the City of Lake Elsinore, 
on the Cleveland National Forest and adjacent State of California lands 
(population estimate of more than 1,000 plants) (EO 13); (12) west of 
Lindenberger Road, 0.8 miles south of Scott Road, southeast of Sun City 
on a 36.3-acre (15 ha) parcel and on a 65.5-acre (27 ha) associated 
with the Warmington development (estimate of approximately 1,000 plants 
prior to project impacts) (EO 14); (13) northern boundary of the City 
of Lake Elsinore, within the North Peak Specific Plan Area on lands 
purchased and conserved by Riverside County (estimate of several 
thousand plants) (EO 15); (14) private lands northeast of Alberhill, 
1.0 miles north of I-15 and 1.2 miles northeast of the intersection of 
Lake Street and I-15 (estimate of approximately 300 plants) (EO 16); 
(15) land owned by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 
on the north slope of Bachelor Mountain (estimate of 2 plants) (EO 17); 
and (16) Temescal Valley, west of I-15, between Nichols Road and 
Riverside Drive, on a low hill adjacent to Collier Marsh (Alberhill 
Marsh) and near Temescal Wash (population estimate not known) (EO 18).
    We are designating critical habitat on lands we have determined 
were occupied at the time of listing and contain the primary 
constituent elements and those additional areas found to be essential 
to the conservation of Allium munzii.
    Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes us to issue permits for 
the take of listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activities. 
An incidental take permit application must be supported by a habitat 
conservation plan (HCP) that identifies conservation measures that the 
permittee agrees to implement for the species to minimize and mitigate 
the impacts of the requested incidental take. We often exclude non-
Federal public lands and private lands that are covered by an existing 
operative HCP and executed implementation agreement (IA) under section 
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from designated critical habitat because the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion as discussed 
in section 4(b)(2) of the Act. All but one occurrence of Allium munzii 
are in areas subject to: (1) Management plans related to approved HCPs 
(Rancho Bella Vista and SKR HCPs); (2) existing PQP lands, proposed 
conceptual reserve design lands, and lands targeted for conservation 
within the Western Riverside County MSCHP; and (3) conservation 
strategies approved through the section 7 consultation process that 
have provided protection, long-term management, and funding to conserve 
Allium munzii.
    When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort 
to avoid designating developed areas such as buildings, paved areas, 
radio and communication towers, and other structures that lack PCEs for 
Allium munzii. Any such structures inadvertently left inside designated 
critical habitat boundaries are not considered part of the designated 
unit. This also applies to the land on which such structures sit 
directly. Therefore, Federal actions limited to these areas would not 
trigger section 7 consultations, unless they affect the species and/or 
primary constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat.
    A brief discussion of the area designated as critical habitat is 
provided in the description below. Additional detailed documentation 
concerning the essential nature of this area is contained in our 
supporting record for this rulemaking.

Special Management Considerations or Protections

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas 
determined to be essential for conservation may require special 
management considerations or protections. As we undertake the process 
of designating critical habitat for a species, we first evaluate lands 
defined by those physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species for inclusion in the designation pursuant 
to section 3(5)(A) of the Act. Secondly, we th