Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Navarretia Fossalis, 60658-60694 [05-20147]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60658-60694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20147]



[[Page 60657]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for Navarretia Fossalis (Spreading Navarretia); Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 18, 2005 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 60658]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AT86


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Navarretia Fossalis (Spreading Navarretia)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat for Navarretia fossalis (spreading navarretia) 
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In 
total, approximately 652 acres (ac) (264 hectares (ha)) fall within the 
boundary of the critical habitat designation. The designated critical 
habitat is within San Diego and Los Angeles Counties, California. We 
have exempted or excluded approximately 18,747 ac (7,586 ha) of habitat 
with essential features in Riverside and San Diego Counties from this 
designation of critical habitat.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on November 17, 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 92011 (telephone: 760/
431-9440). The final rule, economic analysis (EA), and map are also 
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) 431-9624).

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 Navarretia fossalis, 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 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). On December 9, 2004, the Director issued 
guidance to be used in making section 7 adverse modification 
determinations.

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

[[Page 60659]]

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the identification and final designation of critical habitat for 
Navarretia fossalis in this rule. For more information on this species, 
beyond what is presented in the following paragraph, refer to the final 
rule listing this species as threatened published in the Federal 
Register on October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54975), and the proposed critical 
habitat rule published in the Federal Register on October 1, 2004 (69 
FR 60110). Additional information can also be found in the Recovery 
Plan for the Vernal Pools of Southern California (Recovery Plan) 
finalized on September 3, 1998 (Service 1998).
    Navarretia fossalis, a member of Polemoniaceae (Phlox family), is a 
low, mostly spreading or ascending, annual herb, 4 to 6 inches (in) (10 
to 15 centimeters (cm)) tall. This species grows in vernal pools, clay 
flats, irrigation ditches, alkali grasslands, alkali playas, and alkali 
sinks (Dudek and Associates, Inc. 2003; Spencer 1997). N. fossalis is 
distributed from northwestern Los Angeles County and western Riverside 
County, south through coastal San Diego County, California to 
northwestern Baja California, Mexico (Moran 1977; Oberbauer 1992). 
Fewer than 30 populations exist in the United States (63 FR 54975). 
Nearly 60 percent of the known populations are concentrated in three 
locations: Otay Mesa in southern San Diego County, along the San 
Jacinto River in western Riverside County, and near Hemet in Riverside 
County (Service 1998). We estimate that less than 300 ac (120 ha) of 
habitat in the United States was occupied by this species (63 FR 
54975). In Mexico, N. fossalis is known from fewer than 10 populations 
clustered in three areas: along the international border, on the 
plateaus south of the Rio Guadalupe, and on the San Quintin coastal 
plain (Moran 1977).

Previous Federal Action

    For more information on previous federal actions concerning 
Navarretia fossalis, refer to the final listing rule published in the 
Federal Register on October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54975). Efforts necessary 
for the recovery of N. fossalis are presented in the Recovery Plan 
(Service 1998).
    At the time of listing, we concluded that designation of critical 
habitat for Navarretia fossalis was not prudent because such 
designation would not benefit the species. 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 N. fossalis (CBD, et al. v. Norton, No. 01-CV-2101 
(S.D. Cal.)). A second lawsuit asserting the same claim was filed 
against the DOI and us by the Building Industry Legal Defense 
Foundation (BILD) on November 21, 2001 (BILD v. Norton, No. 01-CV-2145 
(S.D. Cal.)). The parties in both cases agreed to a remand of the 
critical habitat determinations to us for additional consideration. In 
an order dated July 1, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Southern 
District of California directed us to reconsider our not prudent 
finding and publish a proposed critical habitat rule for N. fossalis, 
if prudent, on or before January 30, 2004. In a motion to modify the 
July 1, 2002 order, the DOI and we requested that the due date for the 
N. fossalis proposed rule be extended until October 1, 2004 and the due 
date for the designation of final critical habitat be extended to 
October 1, 2005. This motion was granted on September 9, 2003. The 
proposed critical habitat rule was signed on October 1, 2004 and 
published in the Federal Register on October 7, 2004 (69 FR 60110).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from peer reviewers and the public on 
the proposed designation of critical habitat for Navarretia fossalis 
(69 FR 60110) and on the draft economic analysis during two separate 
comment periods noticed in the Federal Register. We also contacted 
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific 
organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment 
on the proposed rule and draft economic analysis.
    During the comment period for the proposed rule that opened on 
October 7, 2004, and closed on December 6, 2004, we received 4 comments 
directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation: 1 from a 
peer reviewer, 1 from a Federal agency, and 2 from organizations or 
individuals. During the comment period that opened on August 31, 2005, 
and closed on September 14, 2005, we received 8 comment letters 
directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation and the 
draft economic analysis. In general all of the comments supported the 
general idea of the designation of critical habitat, however most of 
the commenters made suggestions or comments on sections of the 
designation and draft economic analysis that they felt required 
revision. Comments received were grouped into general issues categories 
relating to the proposed critical habitat designation for N. fossalis 
and economic analysis 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 only one of 
the peer reviewers. The peer reviewer provided additional information, 
clarifications of occurrences, and suggestions to improve the final 
critical habitat rule (i.e., improvements to the primary constituent 
elements, identification of essential occurrences, and correction of 
factual errors). In general the peer reviewer agreed with designating 
critical habitat for Navarretia fossalis, however, the peer reviewer 
found the document in need of substantial revision.
    We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewer and the 
public for substantive issues and new information regarding critical 
habitat for Navarretia fossalis. All comments are addressed in the 
following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    1. Comment: The peer reviewer submitted several separate comments 
on Navarretia fossalis and the Western Riverside Multiple Species 
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). These comments emphasized the 
importance of including in the final rule a clear, detailed explanation 
of the Western Riverside MSHCP, its associated Implementing Agreement 
(IA), the Service's formal section 7 consultation for the MSHCP, and 
the Service's responsibilities and authority under the MSHCP as they 
relate N. fossalis.
    Our Response: We appreciate the peer reviewer's concerns regarding 
the MSHCP and its associated documents. We have incorporated detailed 
information on these documents as they relate to Navarretia fossalis 
into this rule under the section titled ``Relationship of Critical 
Habitat to Approved Habitat Conservation Plans''. For further 
information, the MSHCP and its associated IA are available via the

[[Page 60660]]

Internet at https://rcip.org/conservation.htm. The Service's formal 
section 7 consultation and Conceptual Reserve Design map are available 
via the Internet at https://www.fws.gov/pacific/carlsbad/WRV_MSHCP_
BO.htm.
    2. Comment: The peer reviewer disagreed with our decision to 
exclude critical habitat based on the presence of an existing habitat 
conservation plan, specifically the Western Riverside MSHCP. Comments 
submitted included the statement that the Service failed to provide an 
adequate basis for the exclusion of critical habitat, that our decision 
to exclude critical habitat based on the MSHCP's ability to protect the 
species habitat was not adequately supported, and that there are 
federal agencies that are signatory to the MSHCP and therefore critical 
habitat should be identified for those projects and agencies operating 
outside the MSHCP.
    Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows us to consider 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 an area 
as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. We 
have determined that benefits of excluding non-Federal lands covered by 
the Western Riverside MSHCP outweigh the benefits of including non-
Federal lands as critical habitat. Additionally, we have included a 
more detailed analysis of the benefits of this habitat conservation 
plan (HCP) in this final rule under the ``Relationship of Critical 
Habitat to Approved Habitat Conservation Plans'' section.
    3. Comment: The peer reviewer disagreed with the Service's 
statement in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section that designation of 
critical habitat provides little additional protection to species. 
Concern was expressed that a critical habitat proposal was not the 
appropriate venue for a discussion of the resource and procedural 
difficulties in designating critical habitat. It was suggested that 
critical habitat could be used as a tool to manage or end threats to 
the species, such as manure dumping. Additionally, it was suggested 
that critical habitat designation would give more recognition and 
attention to Navarretia fossalis habitat.
    Our Response: As discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 
and other sections of this and other critical habitat designations, we 
believe that (in most cases) various conservation mechanisms provide 
greater incentives and conservation benefits than does the designation 
of critical habitat. These include section 7 consultations, the section 
4 recovery planning process, the section 9 protective prohibitions of 
unauthorized take, section 6 funding to the States, the section 10 
incidental take permit process, and cooperative programs with private 
and public landholders and tribal nations.
    While we concur that critical habitat designation can provide some 
level of species protection by addressing cumulative effects of 
numerous impacts to the habitat in certain circumstances, this can only 
be provided if there is a Federal nexus for those agencies planning 
actions that may impact the designated habitat. We are unaware of any 
Federal nexus that would generally apply to application of soil 
amendments such as the dumping of manure. While designation of critical 
habitat may give the species habitat more recognition and attention, it 
is our experience that landowners generally react negatively to having 
their property designated as critical habitat. Consequently, this is a 
strong disincentive for them to cooperate in the conservation of the 
species in question.
    4. Comment: The peer reviewer disagreed with the Service's 
statement that the exclusion of critical habitat based on existing HCPs 
offers ``unhindered, continued ability to seek new partnerships with 
future HCP participants.'' The reviewer believed the Service should 
continue working cooperatively with partners on HCPs and other 
conservation efforts once critical habitat has been designated, and 
asked that we provide further explanation of how the designation of 
critical habitat may impede cooperative conservation efforts, such as 
the MSHCP.
    Our Response: Both HCPs and critical habitat designations are 
designed to provide conservation measures to protect species and their 
habitats. The advantage of seeking new conservation partnerships 
(through HCPs or other means) is they can offer active management and 
other conservation measures for the habitat on a full-time and 
predictable basis. Critical habitat designations only prevent adverse 
modification of the habitat where there is a Federal nexus to the 
modifying activity. The designation of critical habitat may remove 
incentives to participate in the HCP processes, in part because of 
added regulatory uncertainty, increased costs to plan development and 
implementation, weakened stakeholder support, delayed approval and 
development of the plan, and greater vulnerability to legal challenge. 
We look forward to working with HCP applicants to ensure that their 
plans meet the issuance criteria and that designation of critical 
habitat on lands where an HCP is in development does not delay the 
approval and implementation of their HCP. As stated in our response 
under Comment 4 above, it is our experience that landowners generally 
react negatively to having their property designated as critical 
habitat. Additionally, HCPs offer conservation of covered species 
whether or not the area is designated as critical habitat.
    5. Comment: The peer reviewer suggested expanding the discussion on 
Special Management Considerations. Recommendations included citing 
specific language from the Act to support our statement that occupied 
habitat may be included in critical habitat only if the essential 
features may require special management or protection, and clarifying 
the extent and limitations of management measures proposed under the 
MSHCP. The reviewer was concerned that the MSHCP had not yet resulted 
in the implementation of management actions that would address threats 
to the species, such as soil chemistry alteration resulting from manure 
dumping.
    Our Response: As stated in the ``Critical Habitat'' section of the 
proposed rule, section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as 
the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by the species 
on which are found those physical and biological features (i) essential 
to the conservation of the species and (ii) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. Within the ``Special 
Management Considerations'' section below, we have expanded our 
discussion to address this comment. We have also provided a more 
detailed discussion of the management measures proposed under the MSHCP 
(see ``Relationship of Critical Habitat to Approved Habitat 
Conservation Plans'' section).
    6. Comment: The peer reviewer suggested incorporating changes into 
the final rule to better address the unique status of plants under the 
Act, including the limited protection plants are provided under section 
9 of the Act, and the assistance critical habitat could provide to the 
protection and recovery of Navarretia fossalis.
    Our Response: As stated in the ``Effects of Critical Habitat 
Designation'' section of the proposed rule, Section 7

[[Page 60661]]

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. 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. The designation of 
critical habitat would not change this. Navarretia fossalis is 
currently known to occur predominantly on private lands. If occupied 
private lands were designated as critical habitat, any actions with a 
Federal nexus that might adversely affect critical habitat would 
require a consultation with us. However, consultation for activities 
(e.g., habitat modification) with a Federal nexus which might adversely 
impact the species in occupied habitat would be required even without 
the critical habitat designation. Since there is no prohibition against 
take of listed plants on private lands, activities without a Federal 
nexus which might adversely impact the species or its habitat would not 
require consultation with us even with a critical habitat designation.
    7. Comment: The peer reviewer believes that threats to the species 
are not adequately addressed in the proposed rule. Additional threats 
to discuss include the following: (1) Manure spreading which buries the 
seed bank, introduces vast quantities of organic material and 
nutrients, and alters soil composition and chemistry allowing for the 
invasion of alkali intolerant weeds; (2) activities posed by MSHCP 
covered projects such as the State Route 79 Realignment Project, the 
Ramona Expressway, and the San Jacinto River Flood Control Project; 
and, (3) non-seasonal flows which may result from future development.
    Our Response: We address the threats of manure spreading, MSHCP 
covered projects, and non-seasonal flows in the ``Relationship of 
Critical Habitat to Approved Habitat Conservation Plans'' and ``Special 
Management Considerations or Protections'' sections of this final rule.

Public Comments

    1. Comment: One commenter indicated they were interested in working 
with us to plan for the conservation of Navarretia fossalis. This 
commenter indicated that more conservation could be achieved through 
partnerships with private land owners than through the designation of 
critical habitat. The commenter believed the largest benefit of the 
critical habitat process was that it provided information to land 
owners of what areas are important for N. fossalis conservation and 
would not provide any extra protection.
    Our Response: We are currently in the process of contacting and 
working with this land owner to create a partnership that will result 
in the conservation of Navarretia fossalis at this location.
    2. Comment: One commenter disagreed with our exclusion of 
Department of Defense (DOD) lands under section 4(b)(2) of the Act as 
well as the exemption of DOD lands covered by an Integrated Natural 
Resources Management Plan (INRMP) under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The 
commenter disagreed with removing these lands from the designation of 
critical habitat because they did not believe that the INRMP provides 
the same conservation protections to Navarretia fossalis that critical 
habitat would.
    Our Response: Section 318 of fiscal year 2004 the National Defense 
Authorization Act (Public Law 108-136) amended the Endangered Species 
Act to address the relationship of INRMPs to critical habitat by adding 
a new section 4(a)(3). 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.
    The lands at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar and Marine 
Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton are covered by approved INRMPs that 
identify sensitive natural resources with various resource conservation 
requirements and management concerns, and both INRMPs provide a benefit 
to Navarretia fossalis. As a result of the INRMPs on both there have 
been base wide surveys for vernal pools and sensitive species that 
occur in vernal pool habitat. These surveys are then used to create 
maps for conservation management and to facilitate training in a way 
that can co-exist with the sensitive resources (for more details, see 
the Section ``Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions under 
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act.''
    3. Comment: One commenter stated that the goals outlined in the 
Recovery Plan (Service 1998) should be included in this document.
    Our Response: It is our policy to use the original scientific 
research that was used to create the Recovery Plan in identifying 
critical habitat. The reader is encouraged to refer to the Recovery 
Plan to better understand the goals outlined in that document.
    4. Comment: One commenter stated that HCPs fail to address 
degradation of habitat (e.g., off-road vehicle impacts on vernal pools) 
inside the reserves. The commenter believes that critical habitat 
designation in these areas would provide additional funding 
opportunities for law enforcement presence through a variety of state 
and federal funding mechanisms.
    Our Response: The Service believes that the designation of critical 
habitat within HCPs would do little to reduce the impacts caused to 
Navarretia fossalis by unauthorized activities occurring in reserve 
areas. These activities lack a federal nexus and therefore would be 
unaffected by the designation of critical habitat. In most areas there 
are local ordinances that make such unauthorized activities against the 
law. These laws should be enforced in order to avoid degradation to the 
sensitive resources that the HCPs have been created to protect.
    5. Comment: One commenter supported our decision to exclude 
critical habitat based on the presence of an existing HCP. The 
commenter stated that the MSHCP provides protection for covered species 
and sensitive habitats, including Navarretia fossalis and its habitat. 
The commenter expressed concern that the designation of critical 
habitat within HCP boundaries would undermine partnerships with 
landowners that were developed during the HCP planning process. The 
commenter further stated that landowners participated in the regional 
MSHCP planning effort in part to prevent the inefficient and 
ineffective project-by-project regulation that is associated with 
designated critical habitat, and that designating critical habitat in 
this area would subject landowners to two different regulatory 
processes that would be a financial burden.
    Our Response: As stated in the ``Relationship of Critical Habitat 
to Approved Habitat Conservation Plans'' section of the proposed rule, 
we agree that the MSHCP benefits the conservation of Navarretia 
fossalis and the benefits of excluding lands covered under the MSHCP 
outweigh the benefits of including such lands. We also recognize that 
the designation of critical habitat may remove incentives to 
participate in the HCP processes, in part because of added regulatory 
uncertainty, increased costs to plan development and implementation, 
weakened stakeholder support, delayed approval

[[Page 60662]]

and development of the plan, and greater vulnerability to legal 
challenge. We believe HCPs are one of the most important tools for 
reconciling land use with the conservation of listed species on non-
Federal lands. We look forward to working with HCP applicants to ensure 
their plans meet the issuance criteria and that designation of critical 
habitat on lands where an HCP is in development does not delay the 
approval and implementation of their HCP.
    6. Comment: One commenter disagreed with our decision to exclude 
critical habitat based on the presence of an existing HCP. The 
commenter stated that not all agencies are signatory to the MSHCP, and 
therefore, critical habitat should be identified for those projects and 
agencies operating outside the MSHCP. The commenter was concerned that 
the reason for habitat exclusions did not have a scientific basis.
    Our Response: See the response to Peer Reviewer Comment 4 above.
    7. Comment: One commenter believed threats to the species were not 
adequately addressed in the proposed rule and the MSHCP. The commenter 
suggested discussing the threats of manure spreading and non-seasonal 
flows which may result from future development.
    Our Response: See the response to Peer Reviewer Comment 7 above.
    8. Comment: One commenter stated that failure to designate critical 
habitat within HCP boundaries would be a disincentive for landowners to 
develop future HCPs.
    Our Response: We disagree with this comment. It has been our 
experience that many different stakeholders participate in creating an 
HCP. It is important for these stakeholders to continue to have a good 
working relationship with us after the planning process is completed. 
We have found that the negative reaction of landowners to the 
subsequent designation of critical habitat can threaten the 
partnerships on which a functioning HCP is built.
    9. Comment: One commenter stated that it is incumbent upon the 
Service to designate areas as critical habitat if they are identified 
as ``essential habitat'' based on the definition of critical habitat.
    Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows us to consider the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Areas 
identified as habitat with essential features 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 an area as critical 
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. We have 
determined that the benefits of exclusion of habitat with essential 
features covered by the City of San Diego Subarea Plan and County of 
San Diego Subarea Plan, City of Carlsbad HMP, and Western Riverside 
County MSHCP outweigh the benefits of inclusion. See the ``Relationship 
of Critical Habitat to Approved Habitat Conservation Plans'' section 
for a detailed discussion. We exempted critical habitat at Marine Corps 
Air Station Miramar and Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton under section 
4(a)(3) of the Act because their respective Integrated Natural 
Resources Management Plans provide a benefit to Navarretia fossalis.
    In addition, the Service in this and other notices has been using 
the term ``essential habitat'' as shorthand for ``areas eligible for 
designation as critical habitat''. We recognize that this might cause 
confusion with the provisions of the Act that areas unoccupied at the 
time of listing may be designated by the Secretary as ``essential to 
the conservation of the species'' and so included in a critical habitat 
designation. The use of the term ``essential habitat'' in this and past 
notices is not a determination by the Service or the Secretary that 
this habitat is, within the terms of the Act, essential to the 
conservation of the species, unless the use of the term is accompanied 
by an express statement that the Secretary has made such a 
determination. In either event, however, we have authority under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude any such area.
    10. Comment: One commenter stated that connectivity between 
essential habitat units is lacking.
    Our Response: Connectivity between habitat units is likely 
important for the long-term conservation of vernal pools. However, we 
do not have adequate information at this time to quantify the extent of 
the area needed to maintain connectivity between vernal pool habitats. 
Therefore, we are unable to designate these areas as critical habitat.
    11. Comment: One commenter stated that the Service should consider 
multiple variables (e.g., life strategy, disturbance probability, 
potential habitat, population size, recovery from disturbance, habitat 
suitability, predation, and competition) when determining the size of 
plant conservation areas and critical habitat units. Another commenter 
stated that the purpose of critical habitat designation is not only to 
prevent extinction but to facilitate recovery, as supported by case 
law. The commenter stated that the critical habitat proposal failed to 
include areas of unoccupied suitable habitat that would provide for 
recovery opportunities, including genetic exchange and migration in 
response to climate change.
    Our Response: In making this designation of critical habitat we 
considered all of the published and unpublished literature on this 
species. This literature included information on the life history, 
habitat requirements, distribution, population sizes, and restoration 
of Navarretia fossalis. This information was used to identify the 
primary constituent elements and habitat areas with features essential 
to the conservation of N. fossalis. Other information which would have 
been helpful to the process of designating critical habitat, such as 
information about pollinators or the population genetics of this 
species was not available. 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. In addition, the designation of critical habitat 
provides only restrictions on adverse modification to that habitat 
where there is a Federal nexus for the modification. It provides no 
mechanism for positive conservation actions that might be beneficial to 
the species, such as additional review of or increased efforts toward 
restoration and recovery.

Public Comments on the Draft Economic Analysis

    1. Comment: One commenter states that the Draft Economic Analysis 
(DEA) quantifies costs for projects that do not overlap occupied 
habitat for Navarretia fossalis and that the proposed critical habitat 
is much larger than the occupied habitat, exaggerating the economic 
impacts.
    Our Response: As described in Section 5.1, Table 6 of the DEA, past 
development projects outside of the footprint of any proposed critical 
habitat designation have impacted the species habitat within the lands 
proposed for designation. In recognition of this relationship, the DEA 
appropriately quantifies the costs of the project modifications 
implemented at the offsite development projects to protect the species 
and habitat within the proposed designation. This is consistent with 
the scope of analysis described in Section 1.2: The analysis considers 
the cost of

[[Page 60663]]

species and habitat conservation, not solely costs associated with 
projects within occupied habitat.
    2. Comment: A comment provided on the DEA asserts that the 
methodology used to quantify development impacts is questionable as it 
does not examine and quantify the cost of purchasing the reserves for 
the various habitat conservation plans (HCPs); that land will have to 
be purchased or obtained through mitigation deductions and that 
projects may have to be modified to avoid impacts to vernal pools and 
vernal pool watersheds. The comment also states the DEA does not 
analyze the potential loss of developable private lands or the 
potential cost of transfer of ownership of lands for mitigation.
    Our Response: Section 2.2.2.1 of the DEA describes the model 
applied to estimate impacts to development. The DEA assumes that 
development is allowed in habitat areas if appropriate project 
modifications and/or mitigation activities are undertaken, and/or 
mitigation fees paid. That is, this open city modeling approach assumes 
that land is not lost to development, but instead that development 
occurs with mitigation. Further, the various HCPs that encompass the 
proposed critical habitat designation do not describe the exact 
location or timing of each acre of private land to be acquired for the 
HCP reserves. However, as described in Section 5.2.4.1, current and 
forecasted land use and population growth rates were available from the 
counties to spatially forecast future development within the proposed 
critical habitat units.
    The Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 
(MSHCP) has implemented a one-time mitigation fee for future 
development within the boundaries of the MSHPC. These funds will be 
used by the County to finance the future acquisition of lands for the 
MSHCP reserve and are captured by the DEA (Section 5.2.5). The 
remaining HCPs do not contain a mitigation fee component to their 
program. As outlined in Section 5.2.2, however, conservation and 
mitigation activities for all the HCPs, including the MSHCP, can be on-
site or off-site and can be accomplished by: restoration and 
enhancement; creation; purchasing preservation credits from a 
conservation bank; or purchasing vernal pool habitat from a private 
land owner and preserving wetted acreage. To account for the range of 
mitigation ratios among HCPs and the variety of mitigation measures 
available to the developer for conservation, the analysis presents the 
costs incurred by development for Navarretia fossalis conservation as a 
range. While options for mitigation exist, by applying the least costly 
measure to the low-end of the range of mitigation ratios and the most 
costly measure to the high-end of the range of mitigation ratios, the 
DEA captures and reports the costs associated with possible 
combinations of mitigation ratios and conservation efforts forecast to 
be used to offset impacts to the species and habitat.
    3. Comment: One commenter suggests that information on specific, 
planned development projects should be reviewed.
    Our Response: Throughout the development of the DEA, past and 
current development within the proposed critical habitat units was 
researched. As described in Table 6 of Section 5.1, several development 
projects are currently in progress and representatives from these 
companies were contacted to determine the details and status of the 
projects. The DEA captures the impacts of mitigating these projects 
based on information obtained from these representatives. Data are not 
available on all future development projects during the 20 year 
forecast period; thus, where specific information is unavailable, the 
analysis estimates average costs of impacts to development on a per-
acre rather than per-project basis.
    4. Comment: United States Marine Corps Air Station Miramar (MCAS 
Miramar) comments that the area is indeed part of a military airfield 
and that while no new development is currently planned, it cannot 
commit to stating that there will be no new development, or re-
development, of airfield associated facilities within Unit NI2 during 
the next 20 years.
    Our Response: The DEA is consistent with this comment as post-
designation effects estimated by the DEA are based only on activities 
that are ``reasonably foreseeable'' as described in Section 1.3. 
Furthermore, the DEA quantifies development impacts on developable 
land, and only 3.5 acres of the unit (677 acres) are vacant and 
available for development. The remaining acres are either already 
developed or undevelopable. The DEA does not anticipate impacts to 
redevelopment of already developed land as the primary constituent 
elements (PCEs) for the species do not exist within the footprint of 
the existing development (i.e., buildings, runways, and roads).
    5. Comment: A comment from Los Angeles County Department of 
Regional Planning states that the DEA should acknowledge that 
designation of critical habitat Units 1A and 1B should not impose a 
financial burden on the owners of that property because development of 
the southern portion of that property, if approved, would allow a 
reasonable return on their investment with the preservation of the 
habitat.
    Our Response: The DEA identifies and quantifies where possible 
costs of Navarretia fossalis conservation efforts. In determining the 
impact to projects of N. fossalis habitat conservation, the acreage of 
developable land in Units 1A and 1B was obtained from Los Angeles 
County Department of Regional Planning. This information is contained 
in Table 13, Acreage by Current Land Use Category and Habitat Unit, and 
identifies 471.1 acres of developable land in Unit 1A and 58.5 acres in 
Unit 1B. The DEA estimates a range of potential impacts that may be 
associated with development projects on the specified number of acres 
within these units as summarized in Section 5.2.5 Estimation Results: 
Cost of Mitigation Fees and Conservation Activities. The DEA 
anticipates that conservation of N. fossalis and habitat will not 
preclude development.
    6. Comment: One commenter states that the description of the 
Western Riverside MSHCP does not explain how the MSHCP will conserve 
essential habitat for Navarretia fossalis, and the economic impacts of 
implementing this plan. The commenter further states the analysis 
should note the amount of potential MSHCP reserve acreage in each 
critical habitat unit and the amount of essential habitat that will be 
conserved in each unit.
    Our Response: The economic impacts of implementing the MSHCP for 
Navarretia fossalis are captured in the DEA through the quantification 
of mitigation fees and of the costs of project modifications as 
described in Section 5.2.5. The mitigation fee collected from future 
development will be used to finance the acquisition of lands for the 
reserve and certain improvements necessary to implement the goals and 
objectives of the MSHCP. As described in Section 4.4.4, the MSHCP is 
criteria based, and the quantity and location of acres that will be 
added to the reserve within each critical habitat unit is not known 
with certainty.
    7. Comment: A comment provided by the California Native Plant 
Society (CNPS) and Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) states that 
the cost estimates of species conservation as provided in the DEA 
conflict with those estimated in the Western Riverside MSHCP and the 
San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP), which are less. 
Therefore, either the

[[Page 60664]]

DEA or the HCPs contain errors in its impact estimates.
    Our Response: Section 8.2.1 of the MSHCP describes the costs of 
implementing the plan, including costs to acquire reserve lands, manage 
and monitor the reserve area, and general administration of the MSHCP. 
The County estimates these costs will total almost $1 billion during 
the first 25 years of the MSHCP. The MSCP similarly describes the costs 
of financing the plan's implementation. These impacts as described in 
the plans, however, are not directly comparable to the economic impact 
of Navarretia fossalis conservation as quantified in the DEA. 
Primarily, the policy actions being analyzed are different. The MSHCP 
and MSCP estimate the costs of acquiring and managing reserve areas and 
other conservation actions for the multiple species covered under the 
plan. Further, the geographic scope of the plans are different from 
that of the potential critical habitat designation.
    8. Comment: According to one comment, the Draft Economic Analysis 
(DEA) fails to include impacts to the proposed expansion of the Ramona 
Expressway and the construction of a dam across the San Jacinto River.
    Our Response: The Ramona Expressway is part of the State Route 79 
project described in Section 6.1.1.2 of the DEA. Consultants hired by 
Cal Trans for this project were contacted during the development of the 
DEA and indicated that it is too early to estimate what project 
modifications or mitigation may be required. Further, research 
undertaken during the development of the DEA did not identify a dam 
across the San Jacinto River and additional research conducted in 
response to public comment has also not identified a dam construction 
project on the San Jacinto River. In the case that this comment is 
referencing the San Jacinto River Flood Control Project, the associated 
costs are captured in Section 6.2 of the DEA.
    9. Comment: A comment provided by MCAS Miramar identifies future 
actions to protect the species in addition to those quantified in the 
DEA. These include (1) vernal pool basin delineation, (2) 
identification of restoration and re-establishment opportunities, (3) 
flora and fauna inventories, (4) maintenance and monitoring selected 
vernal pool areas, (5) establishment of an interpretive walk, (6) 
installation of signs and fencing, and (7) funding for an established 
burn study.
    Our Response: The DEA details conservation costs at MCAS Miramar in 
Section 6.4.1, Table 38. Research undertaken during the development of 
the DEA and following receipt of this comment confirms that the costs 
estimated in the DEA capture these categories of impact. The first, 
third, and fourth actions described in the comment letter are included 
in ``Vernal Pool Mapping/Survey'' as quantified in the DEA. The DEA 
also includes $10,000 annually for maintenance and monitoring (action 
number four) in the category ``Vernal Pool Management.'' ``Public 
Education,'' as quantified in the DEA, includes $10,000 for the 
interpretive walk (action number five) and $80,000 for signs (action 
number six), and ``Vernal Pool fire Effects Study'' as quantified 
includes $25,000 for the burn study in 2006 (action number 7).
    10. Comment: MCAS Miramar also comments that the DEA incorrectly 
explains the decision of where to locate the MV22 Osprey aircraft. In 
fact, there are three alternative basing locations for the MV22 Osprey 
on MCAS Miramar being evaluated; only one however overlaps with habitat 
that has features essential to the conservation of Navarretia fossalis. 
While this will be considered in evaluating the location alternatives, 
it is likely that the MV22 will be located at MCAS Miramar, potentially 
within the essential habitat for N. fossalis.
    Our Response: Section 6.4.1 of the DEA describes this project. This 
comment provides further information on the decision-making process but 
does not change the economic impacts to MCAS Miramar as described in 
the DEA.
    11. Comment: One comment states that the report appears biased 
because it implies that low income farmers are the principal landowners 
within the essential habitat being reviewed, and that the report does 
not provide a review of the economic status of the private landowners 
in the affected areas.
    Our Response: The DEA considers the status of public and private 
land ownership; however, the identity of every private landowner within 
the 31,086 acres of habitat with essential features is unknown. As 
described in Section 6.8, approximately one-third of all habitat with 
essential features is classified as agriculture land, and this 
agriculture land represents 65 percent of the developable acres. 
Considering farmers own a large percentage of the areas with essential 
features and developable land, the use of farmers as an example of a 
group of individuals that could be impacted in Section 1.1 is 
considered appropriate.
    12. Comment: One commenter requests that more detail be provided on 
local regulations that protect Navarretia fossalis habitat within San 
Diego, Los Angeles, and Riverside counties.
    Our Response: Section 4 of the DEA includes discussion of the 
relevant Federal, State, and local regulations that provide protection 
to the species and its habitat.
    13. Comment: One comment states that the DEA fails to discuss the 
potential U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) jurisdiction of the 
vernal pools found in Los Angeles County.
    Our Response: As described in Section 5.2.3, the DEA assumes that 
vernal playa habitat occurring in Los Angeles County is under USACE 
jurisdiction.
    14. Comment: Three commenters suggest the economic analysis should 
be limited to the 4,301 acres proposed for critical habitat rather than 
the 31,086 acres of essential habitat, which comprise lands proposed 
for designation, excluded from designation, and not included in the 
designation.
    Our Response: Conducting the economic analysis for all lands that 
contain the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species allows the Service to fully describe the 
economic costs of designating and excluding critical habitat.
    15. Comment: A comment provided asserts that the DEA needs to 
explain the difference between ``excluded'' and ``not included'' lands 
and how these two designations would affect the management of the 
species.
    Our Response: The term ``excluded'' refers to lands that meet the 
definition of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act and 
were excluded as critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The 
term ``not included'' refers to lands that meet the definition of 
critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act and were exempted as 
critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. In both cases, no 
critical habitat was designated and section 7(a)(2) of the Act would 
not apply.
    16. Comment: Three commenters request an extension of the public 
comment period and/or suggest the public review period was too brief.
    Our Response: We were unable to extend the comment period or have a 
lengthy comment period because of the court-ordered deadline to publish 
the final rule.

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

[[Page 60665]]

petition. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) did not 
provide comments on the proposed rule or on the draft economic analysis 
to designate critical habitat for Navarretia fossalis.

Department of Defense (DOD) Comments

    We received comments from the U.S. Navy (Navy) regarding the 
proposed designation of critical habitat on Marine Corps Base, Camp 
Pendleton (MCB Camp Pendleton) regarding the proposed designation of 
critical habitat. No other Federal agencies submitted comments on this 
critical habitat.
    1. Comment: The Navy believes that MCB Camp Pendleton's INRMP 
provides a benefit to Navarretia fossalis and should be exempt from 
critical habitat under 4(a)(3) of the Act. The Navy assured us that MCB 
Camp Pendleton is committed to implementing the INRMP by using an 
ecosystem approach to conservation.
    Our Response: In the proposed rule, we excluded ``mission critical 
training areas'' on MCB Camp Pendleton under section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
due to the effect of critical habitat on national security. However, 
MCP Camp Pendleton provided us with information that required us to re-
evaluate the benefits of their INRMP to Navarretia fossalis. As a 
result, we have determined that their INRMP benefits the species and 
MCB Camp Pendleton is exempt from critical habitat pursuant to section 
4(a)(3) of the Act (see ``Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions 
under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' for a detailed discussion).
    2. Comment: The Navy stated that the consideration of the potential 
impacts to MCB Camp Pendleton's military mission from the proposed 
critical habitat supports exclusion under 4(b)(2) of the Act of lands 
that have value for military training and operations in the event that 
4(a)(3) of the act was not warranted. They stated that the benefits of 
avoiding adverse impacts to military readiness capabilities make 
exclusion of MCB Camp Pendleton's lands both necessary and supportable.
    Our Response: All DOD lands with habitat features essential for 
Navarretia fossalis on MCB Camp Pendleton are exempt from being 
designated as critical habitat pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act, 
and therefore, no exclusions are necessary under section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act. For additional information, please see our responses to comment 2 
under Public Comments and comment 1 above. Also see Application of 
Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act for a 
detailed discussion of the application of section 4(a)(3) of the Act.

Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule

    In developing the final critical habitat designation for Navarretia 
fossalis, we reviewed public comments received on the proposed rule and 
draft economic analysis; conducted further evaluation of lands included 
as proposed critical habitat; and refined our mapping boundaries. Based 
on our analysis we made several changes to the proposed rule, including 
refining the mapping area and changes based on sections 4(a)(3) and 
4(b)(2) of the Act.
    We refined our mapping criteria to better delineate habitat with 
essential features. When we reviewed our mapped critical habitat units 
we found there were areas that did not contain the physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of Navarretia 
fossalis. For example, some areas contained land that was downhill from 
vernal pool complexes containing N. fossalis. This adjacent land may 
act as a buffer and contribute to the overall health of the vernal pool 
ecosystem, but did not contain the primary constituent elements (PCEs) 
for this species. In other areas buildings or paved roads were included 
in our proposed designation. In most cases this was due to our minimum 
grid cell size of 100 meters (328 feet), but where the majority of the 
grid was developed, we eliminated these grid cells from critical 
habitat. There were also areas on MCAS Miramar where we had new survey 
data which did not support our analysis of specific areas that we 
proposed as having essential features. Even though these areas are 
exempt from critical habitat under 4(a)(3) of the Act, we felt it was 
important to clarify that these areas are not considered essential for 
the species at this time. These refinements resulted in a reduction in 
the amount of land designated as critical habitat in Units 1A, 2, 3, 
4E, 5A and 5D (see Table 1). Areas exempt from the designation of 
critical habitat under sections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2) of the Act were 
also refined, resulting in further reduction of the amount of land 
designated as habitat with essential features. Overall these 
refinements resulted in a reduction of habitat for N. fossalis from 
31,086 ac (12,580 ha) to 22,804 ac (9,228 ha).
    In the proposed rule, we excluded ``mission critical training 
areas'' on MCB Camp Pendleton under 4(b)(2) of the Act due to the 
effect of critical habitat on national security. However, MCP Camp 
Pendleton provided us with information that required us to re-evaluate 
the benefits of their INRMP to Navarretia fossalis. As a result, we 
have determined that their INRMP benefits the species and are now 
exempting ``mission critical training areas'' on MCB Camp Pendleton 
from final critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see 
``Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act'' for a detailed 
discussion).

Areas Removed from Critical Habitat Designation

    We re-evaluated our proposed critical habitat unit boundaries, 
refined our mapping methodology, and used new information to remove 
additional lands that do not contain the physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of Navarretia fossalis. These 
removed lands are as follows (see Table 1):
    1. Unit 2: San Diego North Coastal Mesas Critical Habitat Unit, San 
Diego County. We removed approximately 117.5 ac (48 ha) of land because 
these areas have been developed or no longer contribute to the 
hydrology of the vernal pools that support Navarretia fossalis.
    2. Unit 3: San Diego Central Coastal Mesas Critical Habitat Unit, 
San Diego County. We removed approximate 72 ac (29 ha) because the 
known occurrences have been lost to residential development and the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of 
Navarretia fossalis are no longer present.
    3. Unit 4: San Diego Inland Valleys Critical Habitat Unit, San 
Diego County. We removed Subunit 4A (10 ac) (4 ha) and Subunit 4B (42 
ac) (17 ha) in the City of San Marcos because these areas do not 
currently support Navarretia fossalis, there is no current information 
that Navarretia fossalis occurs within Subunit 4A and Subunit 4B, there 
is no information that these vernal pool areas contain the physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of Navarretia 
fossalis. We removed portions of Subunit 4E in downtown Ramona (531 ac) 
(215 ha) and in other areas of the Ramona Grasslands (2,335 ac) (945 
ha) (the remaining portions of Subunit 4E) because the vernal pool 
areas within downtown Ramona and in the other areas of the Ramona 
Grasslands do not currently support Navarretia fossalis, none of the 
historical occurrences are believed to be extant, there is no current 
information that N. fossalis occurs within downtown Ramona or in the 
other areas of the Ramona Grasslands, and there is no information that 
these vernal pool areas contain the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of N. fossalis.
    4. Unit 5: San Diego Southern Coastal Mesas Critical Habitat Unit, 
San Diego

[[Page 60666]]

County. We removed Subunit 5D (150 ac) (61 ha) because there is no 
current or historical information that Navarretia fossalis occurs 
within Subunit 5D, there is no information that these vernal pool areas 
contain the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of N. fossalis; a portion of land identified as containing 
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of 
N. fossalis in the proposed rule has been developed for the Border 
Infrastructure System and no longer contribute to the hydrology of the 
vernal pools; and (4) the vernal pool restoration work being conducted 
at Arnie's Point is for the San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta 
sandiegonensis) and Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) 
and not to offset any losses to N. fossalis.
    In addition to the above revisions, we made adjustments to the 
boundaries of the areas included in the critical habitat designation. 
Adjustments were made for two reasons: (1) A selection of the 328-ft 
(100-m) grid cells used for Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 
mapping contained mostly urbanized land that is non-essential to the 
species; and, (2) grid cells containing all or mostly upland habitat 
not directly contributing to the hydrology of the vernal pools were 
removed. Since these areas do not contain the PCEs, we removed them 
from the final critical habitat designation.

  Table 1.--Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule Designating Critical Habitat (CH) for Navarretia fossalis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Reduction
                                                   Proposed CH                    Final CH            (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles County--
    Cruzan Mesa (Unit 1A)................  534 ac.....................  294 ac.....................           45
                                           216 ha.....................   119 ha....................
    Plum Canyon (Unit 1B)................  62 ac......................  32 ac......................           48
                                           25 ha......................  13 ha......................
San Diego County--
    Poinsettia Lane Commuter Station       143 ac.....................  22 ac......................           85
     (Unit 2).                             58 ha......................  9 ha.......................
    Santa Fe Valley (Unit 3).............  143 ac.....................  0 ac.......................          100
                                           58 ha......................  0 ha.......................
    San Marcos (Unit 4A).................  10 ac......................  0 ac.......................          100
                                           4 ha.......................  0 ha.......................
    San Marcos (Unit 4B).................  42 ac......................  0 ac.......................          100
                                           17 ha......................  0 ha.......................
    San Marcos (Subunit 4C1 and 4C2).....  99 ac......................  73 ac......................           26
                                           40 ha......................  30 ha......................
    San Marcos (Unit 4D).................  10 ac......................  7 ac.......................           30
                                           4 ha.......................   3 ha......................
    Ramona (Unit 4E).....................  2,866 ac...................  86 ac......................           97
                                           1,160 ha...................  35 ha......................
    Sweetwater Vernal Pools (Unit 5A)....  136 ac.....................  89 ac......................           35
                                           55 ha......................  36 ha......................
    Otay River Valley (Unit 5B)..........  42 ac......................  42 ac......................            0
                                           17 ha......................  17 ha......................
    Otay Mesa (Unit 5C)..................  64 ac.....................