[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 8, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12155-12181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-5414]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AF98
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Determination of Critical Habitat for the Alameda Whipsnake
(Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
designate critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act), for the Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis
lateralis euryxanthus). A total of approximately 164,663 hectares
(406,708 acres) of land fall within the boundaries of the proposed
critical habitat designation. Proposed critical habitat is located in
Contra Costa, Alameda, San Joaquin, and Santa Clara counties,
California. If this proposal is made final, section 7 of the Act, which
prohibits destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by
any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency,
would apply to the designated critical habitat for the Alameda
whipsnake. Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider economic and
other impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
We solicit data and comments from the public on all aspects of this
proposal, including data on economic and other impacts of the
designation and our approaches for handling habitat conservation plans
(HCPs). We may revise this proposal to incorporate or address new
information received during the comment period.
DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by May 8,
2000. Public hearing requests must be received by April 24, 2000.
[[Page 12156]]
ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods.
1. You may submit written comments and information to the Field
Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605, Sacramento, California 95825;
or
2. You may hand-deliver written comments to our Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way,
Suite W-2605, Sacramento, California 95825; or
3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to
[email protected]. Please submit comments in ASCII file
format and avoid the use of special characters and encryption. Please
include ``Attn: RIN 1018-AF98'' and your name and return address in
your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the
system that we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly
by calling our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at telephone 916/
414-6600.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Davis or Heather Bell, at the
above address (telephone 916/414-6600).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Alameda whipsnake is a member of the genus Masticophis. The
Alameda whipsnake is a slender, fast-moving, diurnal snake with a broad
head, large eyes, and slender neck. Alameda whipsnakes range from 91 to
122 centimeters (3 to 4 feet) in length. The dorsal surface is sooty
black in color with a distinct yellow-orange stripe down each side. The
anterior portion of the ventral surface is orange-rufous colored, the
midsection is cream colored, and the posterior and tail are pinkish.
The adult Alameda whipsnake virtually lacks black spotting on the
ventral surface of the head and neck. Juveniles may show very sparse or
weak black spots. Another common name for the Alameda whipsnake is the
``Alameda striped racer'' (Riemer 1954, Jennings 1983, Stebbins 1985).
The Alameda whipsnake is one of two subspecies of the California
whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis). The chaparral whipsnake (Masticophis
lateralis lateralis) is distributed from northern California, west of
the Sierran crest and desert, to central Baja California. The Alameda
whipsnake is restricted to a small portion of this range, primarily the
inner Coast Range in western and central Contra Costa and Alameda
Counties.
The distribution in California, of both subspecies, coincides
closely with chaparral (Jennings 1983, Stebbins 1985). Recent telemetry
data indicate that, although home ranges of Alameda whipsnakes are
centered on shrub communities, whipsnakes frequently venture into
adjacent habitats, including grassland, oak savanna, and occasionally
oak-bay woodland. Most telemetry locations are within 50 meters (m)
(170 feet (ft)) of scrub habitat, but distances of greater than 150 m
(500 ft) occur (Swaim 1994). Initial data indicate that adjacent
habitats may play a crucial role in certain life history and
physiological needs of the Alameda whipsnake, but the full extent has
yet to be determined. Telemetry data indicate that whipsnakes remain in
grasslands for periods ranging from a few hours to several weeks at a
time. Grassland habitats are used by male whipsnakes most extensively
during the mating season in spring. Female whipsnakes use grassland
areas most extensively after mating, possibly in their search for
suitable egg-laying sites (Swaim 1994).
Rock outcrops are an important feature of Alameda whipsnake habitat
because they provide retreat opportunities for whipsnakes and promote
lizard populations. Lizards, especially the western fence lizard
(Sceloporus occidentalis), appear to be the most important prey item of
whipsnakes (Stebbins 1985; Swaim 1994; Harry Green, Museum of
Vertebrate Zoology, U.C. Berkeley, pers. comm. 1998), although other
prey items are taken, including skinks, frogs, snakes, and birds
(Stebbins 1985, Swaim 1994). Most radio telemetry locations for
whipsnakes were within the distribution of major rock outcroppings and
talus (Swaim 1994).
Alameda whipsnakes have been found in association with a variety of
shrub communities including diablan sage scrub, coyote bush scrub, and
chamise chaparral (Swaim 1994), also classified as coastal scrub, mixed
chaparral, and chamise-redshank chaparral (Mayer and Laudenslayer
1988). However, the type of vegetation may have less to do with
preference by the whipsnake than the extent of the canopy, slope
exposure, the availability of retreats such as rock outcrops and rodent
burrows, and prey species composition and abundance (Swaim 1994; K.
Swaim, Swaim Biological Consulting, pers. comm. 1999). Alameda
whipsnakes have been sighted or found dead a significant distance from
the nearest shrub community (K. Swaim, pers. comm. 1999). The reasons
for such movements are unknown.
Initial studies indicated that Alameda whipsnakes occurred where
the canopy was open (less than 75 percent of the total area within the
scrub or chaparral community was covered by shrub crown) or partially
open (between 75 and 90 percent of the total area was covered with
shrub crown), and only seldom did whipsnakes occur in closed canopy
(greater than 90 percent of the area was covered by shrub crown).
However, trapping efforts may have been biased due to the difficulty of
setting traps in dense scrub (Swaim 1994; K. Swaim, pers. comm. 1999).
Core areas (areas of concentrated use) of the Alameda whipsnake
most commonly occur on east, south, southeast, and southwest facing
slopes (Swaim 1994). However, recent information indicates that
whipsnakes do make use of north facing slopes in more open stands of
scrub habitat (K. Swaim, pers. comm. 1999).
Adult snakes appear to have a bimodal seasonal activity pattern
with peaks during the spring mating season and a smaller peak during
late summer and early fall. Although short above-ground movements may
occur during the winter, Alameda whipsnakes generally retreat in
November into a hibernaculum (shelter used during the snake's dormancy
period) and emerge in March. Courtship and mating occur from late-March
through mid-June. During this time, males move around throughout their
home ranges, while females appear to remain at or near their
hibernaculum, where mating occurs. Suspected egg-laying sites for two
females were located in grassland with scattered shrub habitat. Male
home ranges of 1.9 to 8.7 hectares (ha) (4.7 to 21.5 acres (ac)) (mean
of 5.5 ha or 13.6 ac) were recorded, and showed a high degree of
spatial overlap. Several individual snakes monitored for nearly an
entire activity season appeared to maintain a stable home range.
Movements of these individuals were multi-directional, and individual
snakes returned to specific areas and retreat sites after long
intervals of non-use. Snakes had one or more core areas within their
home range, while large areas of the home range received little use
(Swaim 1994).
Previous Federal Action
The September 18, 1985, Notice of Review (50 FR 37958) included the
Alameda whipsnake as a category 2 candidate species for possible future
listing as endangered or threatened. Category 2 candidates were those
taxa for which listing as threatened or endangered might be warranted,
but for which adequate data on biological
[[Page 12157]]
vulnerability and threats were not available to support issuance of
listing proposals. The January 6, 1989, Notice of Review (54 FR 554)
solicited information on its status as a category 2 candidate species.
The Alameda whipsnake was moved to category 1 in the November 21, 1991,
Notice of Review (56 FR 58804) on the basis of significant increases in
habitat loss and threats occurring throughout its range. Category 1
candidates were defined as taxa for which we had on file substantial
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support
preparation of listing proposals. On February 4, 1994, we published a
proposed rule in the Federal Register (59 FR 5377) to list the Alameda
whipsnake as an endangered species. On December 5, 1997, we published a
final rule listing the Alameda whipsnake as threatened (62 FR 64306).
On March 4, 1999, the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity,
the Center for Biological Diversity, and Christians Caring for Creation
filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California against the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the
Department of the Interior (Secretary), for failure to designate
critical habitat for seven species: the Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis
lateralis euryxanthus), the Zayante band-winged grasshopper
(Trimerotropis infantilis), the Morro shoulderband snail
(Helminthoglypta walkeriana), the Arroyo southwestern toad (Bufo
microscaphus californicus), the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys
merriami parvus), the spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri), and the
Steller's eider (Polysticta stelleri) (Southwest Center for Biological
Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, CIV 99-1003 MMC).
On November 5, 1999, William Alsup, U.S. District Judge, dismissed
the plaintiffs' lawsuit pursuant to a settlement agreement entered into
by the parties. Publication of this proposed rule is consistent with
that settlement agreement.
Absent the settlement agreement, the processing of this proposed
rule does not conform with our current Listing Priority Guidance for
fiscal year 2000 published in the Federal Register on October 22, 1999
(64 FR 57114). The guidance clarifies the order in which we will
process rulemakings. Highest priority is processing emergency listing
rules for any species determined to face a significant and imminent
risk to its well-being (Priority 1). Second priority (Priority 2) is
processing final determinations on proposed additions to the lists of
endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Third priority is
processing new proposals to add species to the lists. The processing of
administrative petition findings (petitions filed under section 4 of
the Act) is the fourth priority. We are processing this proposed rule
in compliance with the above-mentioned settlement agreement.
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 consideration
or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon 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 species or a threatened species to the
point at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we base critical habitat
proposals upon the best scientific and commercial data available, after
taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant
impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may
exclude areas from critical habitat designation when the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the areas within critical
habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in extinction of the
species (section 4(b)(2) of the Act).
Designation of critical habitat can help focus conservation
activities for a listed species by identifying areas that contain the
physical and biological features that are essential for conservation of
that species. Designation of critical habitat alerts the public as well
as land-managing agencies to the importance of these areas.
Critical habitat also identifies areas that may require special
management considerations or protection, and may provide protection to
areas where significant threats to the species have been identified.
Critical habitat receives protection from destruction or adverse
modification through required consultation under section 7 of the Act
with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal
agency. Section 7 also requires conferences on Federal actions that are
likely to result in the adverse modification or destruction of proposed
critical habitat. Aside from the protection that may be provided under
section 7, the Act does not provide other forms of protection to lands
designated as critical habitat.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult
with us to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or
endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. ``Jeopardize the continued
existence'' (of a species) is defined as an appreciable reduction in
the likelihood of survival and recovery of a listed species.
``Destruction or adverse modification'' (of critical habitat) is
defined as a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes
the value of critical habitat for the survival and recovery of the
listed species for which critical habitat was designated. Thus, the
definitions of ``jeopardy'' to the species and ``adverse modification''
of critical habitat are nearly identical (50 CFR 402.02). When multiple
units of critical habitat are designated, each unit may serve as the
basis of a jeopardy analysis if protection of different facets of the
species' life cycle or its distribution are essential to the species as
a whole for both its survival and recovery.
Designating critical habitat does not, in itself, lead to recovery
of a listed species. Designation does not create or mandate a
management plan, establish numerical population goals, prescribe
specific management actions (inside or outside of critical habitat), or
directly affect areas not designated as critical habitat. Specific
management recommendations for critical habitat are most appropriately
addressed in recovery plans and management plans, and through section 7
consultation.
Critical habitat identifies specific areas that are essential to
the conservation of a listed species and that may require special
management considerations or protection. Areas that do not currently
contain the habitat components necessary for the primary biological
needs of a species but are likely to develop them in the future may be
essential to the conservation of the species and may be designated as
critical habitat.
We did not propose to designate critical habitat for the Alameda
whipsnake within the proposed or final listing rulemaking because, at
the time of listing, we knew of no Federal lands within the five
whipsnake populations. We also believed that the possibility of Federal
agency involvement on private and public, non-Federal lands was
[[Page 12158]]
remote. Based on information available at the time of listing, we
believed that only 20 percent of known whipsnake habitat occurred on
private lands, and anticipated that urban development on private lands
would occur only along the periphery of whipsnake populations. In
addition, we believed that the need for active fire management programs
at this urban-wildland interface would preclude those private lands
from being considered habitat essential to the conservation of the
species. We found that critical habitat designation was not prudent due
to lack of any significant benefit beyond that conferred by listing.
Since the Alameda whipsnake was listed, we have found that there
are a greater number of Federal actions that could trigger the need for
an interagency consultation than was believed at the time the Alameda
whipsnake was listed. We are now aware of federally owned lands that
occur within the range of the Alameda whipsnake, including several
Bureau of Land Management parcels in the Mount Diablo-Black Hills
population area. In addition, an Alameda whipsnake was recently
captured on land owned by the U.S. Department of Energy at their Site
300 facility, a Federal site previously unknown to be inhabited by
Alameda whipsnakes. We are also aware of a number of activities with a
Federal nexus on private lands within whipsnake populations, including
activities associated with the issuance of Clean Water Act section 404
permits and Federal Emergency Management Agency fire protection
projects.
We now believe that private lands play a more important role in
whipsnake conservation than was originally believed. An increasing
amount of private land has been found to be occupied by the Alameda
whipsnake, comprising more than 20 percent of land within the five
whipsnake populations. Large amounts of occupied, high-value Alameda
whipsnake habitat occur on private lands that are evenly distributed
throughout all five whipsnake population areas. We now believe that
areas that are essential to the conservation of the species include
private lands.
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 that are essential to conservation of
the species and that may require special management considerations or
protection. Such requirements 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, or
rearing of offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and habitats that
are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic
geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
The areas we are proposing to designate as critical habitat provide
some or all of those habitat components essential for the primary
biological needs of the Alameda whipsnake, also called primary
constituent elements.
The primary constituent elements for the Alameda whipsnake are
those habitat components that are essential for the primary biological
needs of foraging, sheltering, breeding, maturation, and dispersal. The
primary constituent elements are found, or could develop, in areas that
support or have the potential to support scrub communities, including
mixed chaparral, chamise-redshank chaparral, coastal scrub, and annual
grassland and oak woodlands that lie adjacent to scrub habitats. In
addition, the primary constituent elements for the Alameda whipsnake
may be found in grasslands and various oak woodlands that are linked to
scrub habitats by substantial rock outcrops or riparian corridors.
Other habitat features that provide a source of cover for the whipsnake
during dispersal or are near scrub habitats and contain habitat
features (e.g., rock outcrops) that support adequate prey populations
may also contain primary constituent elements for the Alameda
whipsnake. Within these communities, Alameda whipsnakes require plant
canopy covers that supply a suitable range of temperatures for the
species' normal behavioral and physiological requirements (including
but not limited to foraging, breeding, and maturation). Openings in the
plant canopy or scrub/grassland edge provide sunning and foraging
areas. Corridors of plant cover and retreats (including rock outcrops)
sufficient to provide for dispersal between areas of habitat, and plant
community patches of sufficient size to prevent the deleterious effects
of isolation (such as inbreeding or the loss of a subpopulation due to
a catastrophic event) are also essential. Within these plant
communities, specific habitat features needed by whipsnakes include,
but are not limited to, small mammal burrows, rock outcrops, talus, and
other forms of cover to provide temperature regulation, shelter from
predators, egg laying sites, and winter hibernaculum. Many of these
same elements are important in maintaining prey species. Adequate
insect populations are necessary to sustain prey populations.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
We considered several qualitative criteria in the selection and
proposal of specific areas or units for Alameda whipsnake critical
habitat. Such criteria focused on designating units (1) throughout the
geographic and elevation range of the species; (2) within various
occupied plant communities, such as diablan sage scrub, coyote bush
scrub, and chamise chaparral; (3) in areas of large, contiguous blocks
of occupied habitat; and (4) in areas that link contiguous blocks of
occupied habitat (i.e., linkage areas).
Methods
In developing critical habitat for the Alameda whipsnake, we used
data on known Alameda whipsnake locations to initially identify
important areas. Through the use of 1998 and 1999 1:12,000 aerial
photos and 1994 digital orthophotos, we examined the extent of suitable
habitat that was in the vicinity of known whipsnake locations. Critical
habitat includes both suitable habitat and areas that link suitable
habitat, as these links facilitate movement of individuals between
habitat areas and are important for dispersal and gene flow (Beier and
Noss 1998). We have determined seven separate units of critical
habitat, five of which represent primary breeding, feeding, and
sheltering areas, while the other two represent corridors (See attached
figures). The range of these critical habitat units extends in the
south from Wauhab Ridge, Del Valle area to Cedar Mountain Ridge, in
Santa Clara County; north to the northernmost extent of suitable
habitat in Contra Costa County; west to the westernmost extent of the
inner Coastal Range; and in the east, to the easternmost extent of
suitable habitat. We could not depend solely on federally owned lands
for critical habitat designation as they are limited in geographic
location, size, and habitat quality. In addition to federally owned
lands, we propose to designate critical habitat on non-Federal public
lands and privately owned lands, including California Department of
Parks and Recreation lands, regional and local park lands, and water
district lands.
[[Page 12159]]
Areas proposed for designation as critical habitat meet the
definition of critical habitat under section 3 of the Act in that they
are within the geographical areas occupied by the species, are
essential to conservation of the species, and are in need of special
management considerations or protection.
In selecting areas of proposed critical habitat, we attempted to
avoid developed areas such as towns, intensive agricultural areas such
as vineyards, and other lands unlikely to contribute to Alameda
whipsnake conservation. Given the short period of time in which we were
required to complete this proposed rule, we were unable to map critical
habitat in sufficient detail to exclude all such areas. However, within
the delineated proposed critical habitat boundaries, only lands
containing or lands likely to develop those habitat components
essential for the primary biological needs of the Alameda whipsnake are
considered critical habitat. Existing features and structures within
the critical habitat boundary, such as buildings, roads, canals,
railroads, large water bodies, and other features not currently
containing or likely to develop these habitat components, are not
considered critical habitat. Two areas, the north and south corridor
(unit 6 connecting units 1 and 2; and unit 7 connecting units 3 and 5),
contain some urban development. These two corridors are extremely
narrow, and, therefore, maintaining as much area within these corridors
as possible to ensure the long-term connectivity between whipsnake
populations is important. As stated above, urban structures that occur
within these two units are not considered critical habitat for the
Alameda whipsnake. These two units may not provide sufficient habitat
necessary to allow for breeding, and offer limited opportunities of
foraging and sheltering. However, these areas should be considered
critical habitat as they provide for the vital function of dispersal.
We considered the existing status of lands in designating areas as
critical habitat. Section 10(a) of the Act authorizes us to issue
permits for the taking of listed species incidental to otherwise lawful
activities. Incidental take permit applications 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. Currently, no
approved HCPs cover the Alameda whipsnake or its habitat. However, we
expect critical habitat may be used as a tool to help identify areas
within the range of the Alameda whipsnake that are most critical for
the conservation of the species. We will encourage development of HCPs
for such areas on non-Federal lands because we consider HCPs to be one
of the most important methods through which non-Federal landowners can
resolve endangered species conflicts. We provide technical assistance
and work closely with applicants throughout development of HCPs to help
identify special management considerations for the Alameda whipsnake.
We intend for HCPs to provide a package of protection and management
measures sufficient to address the conservation needs of the species.
We are currently drafting a recovery plan for the Alameda
whipsnake. Recovery actions proposed within this draft recovery plan
will include a more thorough analysis of recovery needs of the Alameda
whipsnake. Therefore, we may amend critical habitat at a later date
based on information gained through the recovery planning process.
In summary, the proposed critical habitat areas described below
constitute our best assessment of areas needed for the species'
conservation.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
The approximate area of proposed critical habitat by county and
land ownership is shown in Table 1. Proposed critical habitat includes
Alameda whipsnake habitat throughout the species' range in the United
States (i.e., Contra Costa, Alameda, San Joaquin, and Santa Clara
Counties, California). Lands proposed are under private, State, and
Federal ownership, with Federal lands including lands managed by the
Bureau of Land Management and the U.S.Department of Energy. Lands
proposed as critical habitat have been divided into seven Critical
Habitat Units. In determining areas that are essential for the survival
and recovery of the species, we used the best scientific information
available. This information included habitat suitability and site-
specific species information. To date, only initial research has been
done to identify and define specific habitat needs of Alameda
whipsnakes, and no comprehensive surveys have been conducted to
quantify their distribution or abundance. Only limited and preliminary
habitat assessment and whipsnake presence work has begun on the
Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300,
East Bay Regional Park District's Tilden Park, San Francisco Water
District's San Antonio Reservoir, Contra Costa Water District's Los
Vaqueros Reservoir, East Bay Municipal Utility District's San Leandro
Watershed and Siesta Valley, Pleasanton Ridge Conservation Bank, and
Signature Properties' Bailey Ranch. Some small parcels have also been
surveyed; however, these surveys were in conjunction with development
and, in most cases, that habitat has been destroyed.
We emphasized areas containing most of the verified Alameda
whipsnake occurrences, especially recently identified locations. To
maintain genetic and demographic interchange that will help maintain
the viability of a regional metapopulation, we included corridor areas
that allow movement between areas supporting Alameda whipsnakes. These
corridors or connecting areas, while supporting some habitat suitable
for foraging, shelter, breeding, and maturation, were primarily
included to facilitate dispersal.
Table 1
[Approximate area encompassing proposed critical habitat in hectares (ha) (acres (ac)) by county and land
ownership. Area estimates reflect critical habitat unit boundaries, not the primary constituent elements
within.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local/State
County Federal land* land Private land Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda..................................... 202 ha 26,440 ha 56,166 ha 82,808 ha
(500 ac) (65,492 ac) (139,124 ac) (205,116 ac)
Contra Costa................................ 32 ha 31,970 ha 35,276 ha 67,278 ha
(80 ac) (79,189 ac) (87,378 ac) (166,647 ac)
San Joaquin................................. 495 ha 525 ha 4,945 ha 5,965 ha
(1,225 ac) (1,300 ac) (12,250 ac) (14,775 ac)
[[Page 12160]]
Santa Clara................................. NA 4,037 ha 4,106 ha 8,143 ha
(10,000 ac) (10,170 ac) (20,170 ac)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 729 ha 62,972 ha 100,493 ha 164,194 ha
(1,805 ac) (155,981 ac) (248,922 ac) (406,708 ac)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes the Bureau of Land Management and Department of Energy land.
A brief description of each critical habitat unit and our reasons
for proposing those areas as critical habitat for the Alameda whipsnake
are given below:
Unit 1: Tilden-Briones Unit
Unit 1 encompasses approximately 16,113 ha (39, 815 ac) within the
Tilden-Briones unit and is the most northwestern unit of the five
Alameda whipsnake metapopulations and represents primary breeding,
feeding, and sheltering habitat for the whipsnake. Most of this unit
occurs in Contra Costa County, except for the southwestern tip which
occurs in Alameda County. This unit is bordered to the north by State
Highway 4 and the cities of Pinole, Hercules, and Martinez; to the
south by State Highway 24 and the City of Orinda Village; to the west
by Interstate 80 and the cities of Berkeley, El Cerrito, and Richmond;
and to the east by Interstate 680 and the City of Pleasant Hill. A
substantial amount of public land exists within this unit, including
East Bay Regional Park District's Tilden, Wildcat, and Briones Regional
Parks and East Bay Municipal Utilities District watershed lands.
Unit 2: Oakland-Las Trampas Unit
Unit 2 encompasses approximately 21,922 ha (54,170 ac) within the
Oakland-Las Trampas unit and occurs south of the Tilden-Briones unit
and north of the Hayward-Pleasanton Ridge unit and represents primary
breeding, feeding, and sheltering habitat for the Alameda whipsnake.
This unit is split evenly between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
This unit is surrounded to the north by State Highway 24 and the cities
of Orinda, Moraga, and Lafayette; to the south by Interstate Highway
580 and the City of Castro Valley; to the West by State Highway 13 and
Interstate Highway 580 and the cities of Oakland and San Leandro; and
to the east by Interstate Highway 680 and the cities of Danville, San
Ramon, and Dublin. The Oakland-Las Trampas unit also contains
substantial amounts of public land including East Bay Regional Park
District's Redwood and Anthony Chabot Regional Parks, Las Trampas
Regional Wilderness, and additional East Bay Municipal Utilities
District watershed lands.
Unit 3: Hayward-Pleasanton Ridge Unit
Unit 3 encompasses approximately 12,955 ha (32,011 ac) within the
Hayward-Pleasanton Ridge unit and occurs south of the Oakland-Las
Trampas unit and northwest of the Sunol-Cedar Mountain unit and
represents primary breeding, feeding, and sheltering habitat for the
Alameda whipsnake. This unit occurs solely in Alameda County. This unit
is surrounded by Interstate Highway 580 to the north; Niles Canyon Road
(State Highway 84) to the south; the cities of Hayward and Union City
to the west and Interstate Highway 680 and the City of Pleasanton to
the east. This unit is bisected by Palomares Canyon Road, which runs
from Interstate Highway 580 to Niles Canyon Road. Greater than 30
percent of this unit occurs within public ownership including Garin,
Dry Creek, and Pleasanton Ridge Regional Parks and other East Bay
Regional Park District holdings. The privately owned Pleasanton Ridge
Conservation Bank also occurs in the northeastern section of this unit.
Unit 4: Mount Diablo-Black Hills Unit
Unit 4 encompasses approximately 40,386 ha (99,794 ac) within the
Mount Diablo-Black Hills unit and completely encompasses Mount Diablo
State Park and surrounding lands and represents primary Alameda
whipsnake breeding, feeding, and sheltering habitat. A majority of this
unit occurs in Contra Costa County, however the southern tip of this
unit dips into Alameda County. This unit is surrounded by State Highway
4 and the cities of Clayton, Pittsburg and Antioch to the north; open
grassland within Tassajara Valley just below the Alameda/Contra Costa
County line to the south; the cities of Concord, Walnut Creek, and
Danville to the west; and, to the east, by large expanses of grassland
occurring west of State Highway 4, near the cities of Oakley and
Brentwood. This unit contains large expanses of public lands including
two small Bureau of Land Management parcels; Mount Diablo State Park;
Contra Costa Water District's Los Vaqueros Reservoir watershed; and
Contra Loma, Black Diamond Mines, Morgan Territory, and Round Valley
Regional Parks, and other East Bay Regional Park District holdings.
Other public lands include lands owned by the Save Mount Diablo
Foundation and the City of Walnut Creek. Two large, privately owned
gravel quarries occur within this unit.
Unit 5: Sunol-Cedar Mountain Unit
Unit 5 encompasses approximately 69,335 ha (171,328 ac) within the
Sunol-Cedar Mountain unit and is the largest and the southernmost of
the seven critical habitat units and represents primary breeding,
feeding, and sheltering habitat for the Alameda whipsnake. A majority
of this unit occurs in Alameda County, however it does overlap with
western San Joaquin and northern Santa Clara Counties. The northern
boundary of this unit runs parallel to State Highway 84 and Corral
Hollow Road, south of the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore and Tesla
Road. The southern boundary lies below Calaveras Reservoir and captures
all of Wauhab and Cedar Ridges in Santa Clara County and stretches to
the east, north of the Alameda-San Joaquin-Santa Clara-Stanislaus
County intersection. The western boundary lies east of Interstate
Highway 680 and the greater San Jose urban areas. The eastern boundary
lies within San Joaquin County a few miles east of the Alameda County
line. This unit includes East Bay Regional Park District's Sunol,
Mission Peak, Ohlone, Camp Ohlone, and Del Valle complex, and San
Francisco Water District's Del Valle (San Antonio Reservoir) watershed.
In addition, the Department of Energy's Site 300 and California
Department of Parks and Recreation's Carnegie Recreation Area occur
within the unit.
[[Page 12161]]
Unit 6: Caldecott Tunnel Unit
Unit 6 encompasses approximately 2,203 ha (5,445 ac) within the
Caldecott Tunnel unit and occurs between units 1 and 2 where State
Highway 24 tunnels under the Berkeley Hills for approximately 1.2
kilometers (4,000 feet) and represents a connector between units 1 and
2. This unit occurs solely in Contra Costa County. All suitable Alameda
whipsnake habitat that occurs in this unit is privately owned.
Unit 7: Niles Canyon/Sunol Unit
Unit 7 encompasses approximately 1,677 ha (4,145 ac) within the
Niles Canyon/Sunol unit and occurs between units 3 and 5 and lies south
of State Highway 84 (Niles Canyon Road); north and west of Interstate
680; and east of the City of Fremont and represents a connector between
units 3 and 5. This unit occurs solely in Alameda County. This unit
includes East Bay Regional Park District's Vargus Plateau and San
Francisco Water District watershed lands. Impediments to whipsnake
movement between units 3 and 7 include Alameda Creek, a 0.3-0.6-meter
(12-24-inch) high concrete barrier that lies south of Niles Canyon Road
and north of Alameda Creek, railroad tracks that run along both sides
of Alameda Creek, and heavy vehicular traffic along Niles Canyon Road.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out do
not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat to the extent that the
action appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat for the
survival and recovery of the species. Individuals, organizations,
States, local governments, and other non-Federal entities are affected
by the designation of critical habitat only if their actions occur on
Federal lands, require a Federal permit, license, or other
authorization, or involve Federal funding.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its
critical habitat, if any is designated or proposed. Regulations
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are
codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies
to confer with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a proposed species or result in destruction or
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. Conference reports
provide conservation recommendations to assist the agency in
eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The
conservation recommendations in a conference report are advisory. If a
species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section 7(a)(2)
requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions they authorize, fund,
or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
such a species or to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Through this consultation, we would ensure that
the permitted actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the
project, if any are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent alternatives
are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during
consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the
intended purpose of the action, that are consistent with the scope of
the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are
economically and technologically feasible, and that the Director
believes would avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical
habitat is subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law.
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of
consultation or conferencing with us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed if those actions may affect designated
critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical
habitat.
We may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal
agency. Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain
a biological opinion that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if
critical habitat were designated. We may adopt the formal conference
report as the biological opinion when the critical habitat is
designated, if no significant new information or changes in the action
alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
Activities on Federal lands that may affect the Alameda whipsnake
or its critical habitat will require section 7 consultation. Activities
on private or State lands requiring a permit from a Federal agency,
such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps)
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or some other Federal action,
including funding (e.g., Federal Highway Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, or Federal Emergency Management Agency) will
also continue to be subject to the section 7 consultation process.
Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat and
actions on non-Federal lands that are not federally funded or permitted
do not require section 7 consultation.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to describe in any proposed
or final regulation that designates critical habitat those activities
involving a Federal action that may destroy or adversely modify such
habitat or that may be affected by such designation. Activities that
may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat include those that
alter the primary constituent elements to the extent that the value of
critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of the Alameda
whipsnake is appreciably diminished. We note that such activities may
also jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Such activities
may include, but are not limited to:
(1) Removing, thinning, or destroying vegetation, whether by
burning or mechanical, chemical, or other means (e.g., fuels
management, bulldozing, herbicide application, grazing, etc.) that have
not been approved by the Service, exclusive of routine clearing of fuel
breaks around urban boundaries that were constructed before the listing
of the whipsnake on December 5, 1997;
(2) Water transfers, diversion, or impoundment, groundwater
pumping, irrigation, or other activity that causes barriers or
deterrents to dispersal, inundates habitat, or significantly converts
habitat (e.g., conversion to urban development, vineyards,
landscaping);
(3) Recreational activities that significantly deter the use of
suitable
[[Page 12162]]
habitat areas by Alameda whipsnakes or alter habitat through associated
maintenance activities (e.g., off-road vehicle parks, golf courses, and
hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding trails);
(4) Sale, exchange, or lease of Federal land containing suitable
habitat that is likely to result in the habitat being destroyed or
appreciably degraded; and
(5) Construction activities that destroy or appreciably degrade
suitable habitat (e.g., urban development, building of recreational
facilities such as off-road vehicle parks and golf courses, road
building, drilling, mining, quarrying, and associated reclamation
activities).
To properly portray the effects of critical habitat designation, we
must first compare the section 7 requirements for actions that may
affect critical habitat with the requirements for actions that may
affect a listed species. Section 7 prohibits actions funded,
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies from jeopardizing the
continued existence of a listed species or destroying or adversely
modifying the listed species' critical habitat. Actions likely to
``jeopardize the continued existence'' of a species are those that
would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the species' survival and
recovery. Actions likely to ``destroy or adversely modify'' critical
habitat are those that would appreciably reduce the value of critical
habitat for the survival and recovery of the listed species.
Common to both definitions is an appreciable detrimental effect on
both survival and recovery of a listed species. Given the similarity of
these definitions, actions likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat would almost always result in jeopardy to the species
concerned, particularly when the area of the proposed action is
occupied by the species concerned. In those cases, critical habitat
provides little additional protection to a species, and the
ramifications of its designation are few or none. However, if occupied
habitat becomes unoccupied in the future, there is a potential benefit
to critical habitat in such areas.
If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will
constitute destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat,
contact the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES section).
Designation of critical habitat could affect Federal agency
activities including, but not limited to:
(1) Sale, exchange, or lease of lands owned by the Bureau of Land
Management or the Department of Energy;
(2) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the United States
by the Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act;
(3) Regulation of water flows, water delivery, damming, diversion,
and channelization by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of
Engineers;
(4) Regulation of grazing, recreation, or mining by the Bureau of
Land Management;
(5) Funding and implementation of disaster relief projects by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, including vegetation clearing to
reduce the risk of a catastrophic wildfire event;
(6) Funding and regulation of new road construction by the Federal
Highways Administration;
(7) Funding of low-interest loans to facilitate the construction of
low income housing by the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(8) Clearing of vegetation by the Department of Energy;
(9) Promulgation of air and water quality standards under the Clean
Air Act and the Clean Water Act and the cleanup of toxic waste and
superfund sites under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and
(10) Issuance of Endangered Species Act section 10(a)(1)(B) permits
by the Fish and Wildlife Service for Habitat Conservation Plans.
Relationship to Incidental Take Permits Issued Under Section 10
As stated earlier, there are no approved HCPs within the proposed
critical habitat designation. However, future HCPs are probable.
In the event that future HCPs covering the Alameda whipsnake are
developed within the proposed critical habitat, we will work with
applicants to ensure the HCPs provide for protection and management of
habitat areas essential for the conservation of the Alameda whipsnake,
while directing development and habitat modification to nonessential
areas of lower habitat value. The HCP development process provides an
opportunity for more intensive data collection and analysis regarding
the use of particular habitat areas by the Alameda whipsnake. The
process also enables us to conduct detailed evaluations of the
importance of such lands to the long-term survival of the species in
the context of constructing a biologically configured system of
interlinked habitat blocks. We fully expect that HCPs undertaken by
local jurisdictions (e.g., counties, cities) and other parties will
identify, protect, and provide appropriate management for those
specific lands within the boundaries of the plans that are essential
for the long-term conservation of the species. We believe that our
analyses of these proposed HCPs and proposed permits under section 7
will show that covered activities carried out in accordance with the
provisions of the HCPs and permits will not result in destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.
We will provide technical assistance and work closely with
applicants throughout the development of HCPs to identify appropriate
conservation management and lands essential for the long-term
conservation of the Alameda whipsnake. Preliminary HCPs exist for
listed and non-listed species within the range of the Alameda whipsnake
in areas proposed herein as critical habitat. By definition, these
HCPs, coupled with appropriate adaptive management, should provide for
the conservation of the species. We are soliciting comments on whether
future approval of HCPs, and issuance of section 10(a)(1)(B) permits
for the Alameda whipsnake, should trigger revision of designated
critical habitat to exclude lands within the HCP area and, if so, by
what mechanism (see Public Comments Solicited section).
Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data
available and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of
designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas
from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such
exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical
habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species. Although we
could not identify any incremental effects of this proposed critical
habitat designation above those impacts of listing, we will conduct an
economic analysis to further evaluate this finding. We will conduct the
economic analysis for this proposal prior to a final determination.
When the draft economic analysis is completed, we will announce its
availability with a notice in the Federal Register, and we will reopen
the comment period for 30 days at that time to accept comments on the
economic analysis or further comment on the proposed rule.
[[Page 12163]]
Public Comments Solicited
We intend for any final action resulting from this proposal to be
as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested
party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments
concerning:
(1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined
to be critical habitat for the Alameda whipsnake as provided by section
4 of the Act, including whether the benefits of designation will
outweigh any threats to the species due to designation;
(2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of Alameda
whipsnakes and their habitat, and what habitat is essential to the
conservation of the species and why;
(3) Land use practices and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
(4) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the
proposed designation of critical habitat, in particular, any impacts on
small entities or families; and
(5) Economic and other values associated with designating critical
habitat for the Alameda whipsnake such as those derived from non-
consumptive uses e.g., hiking, camping, bird-watching, enhanced
watershed protection, improved air quality, increased soil retention,
``existence values,'' and reductions in administrative costs).
Additionally, we are seeking comments on critical habitat
designation relative to future HCPs, similar to our request in the
coastal California gnatcatcher proposed rule (65 FR 5945). Future
conservation planning efforts are possible within the range of the
Alameda whipsnake in areas we are proposing as critical habitat. In
these areas, we propose to designate critical habitat for areas that we
believe are essential to the conservation of the species and need
special management or protection. We invite comments on the
appropriateness of this approach and other approaches for critical
habitat within the boundaries of future approved HCPs upon issuance of
section 10(a)(1)(B) permits for the Alameda whipsnake:
(1) Retain critical habitat designation within the HCP boundaries
and use the section 7 consultation process on the issuance of the
incidental take permit to ensure that any take we authorize will not
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat;
(2) Revise the critical habitat designation upon approval of the
HCP and issuance of the section 10(a)(1)(B) permit to retain only
preserve areas, on the premise that they encompass areas essential for
the conservation of the species within the HCP area and require special
management and protection in the future. Assuming that we conclude, at
the time an HCP is approved and the associated incidental take permit
is issued, that the plan protects those areas essential to the
conservation of the Alameda whipsnake, we would revise the critical
habitat designation to exclude areas outside the reserves, preserves,
or other conservation lands established under the plan. Consistent with
our listing program priorities, we would publish a proposed rule in the
Federal Register to revise the critical habitat boundaries;
(3) As in (2) above, retain only preserve lands within the critical
habitat designation, on the premise that they encompass areas essential
for conservation of the species within the HCP area and require special
management and protection in the future. However, under this approach,
the exclusion of areas outside the preserve lands from critical habitat
would occur automatically upon issuance of the incidental take permit.
The public would be notified and have the opportunity to comment on the
boundaries of the preserve lands and the revision of designated
critical habitat during the public review and comment process for HCP
approval and permitting;
(4) Remove designated critical habitat entirely from within the
boundaries of an HCP when the plan is approved (including preserve
lands), on the premise that the HCP establishes long-term commitments
to conserve the species and no further special management or protection
is required. Consistent with our listing program priorities, we would
publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register to revise the critical
habitat boundaries; or
(5) Remove designated critical habitat entirely from within the
boundaries of HCPs when the plans are approved (including preserve
lands), on the premise that the HCP establishes long-term commitments
to conserve the species and no additional special management or
protection is required. This exclusion from critical habitat would
occur automatically upon issuance of the incidental take permit. The
public would be notified and have the opportunity to comment on the
revision of designated critical habitat during the public notification
process for HCP approval and permitting.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold
their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to
the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold
from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by
law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must
state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we
will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or
businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. All
comments, including written and e-mail, must be received in our
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office by May 8, 2000.
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate
and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose
of such review is to ensure listing decisions are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send
these peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule immediately following
publication in the Federal Register. We will invite these peer
reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on the specific
assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed designation of
critical habitat.
We will consider all comments and information received during the
60-day comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a
final rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearings
The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,
if requested. Should a public hearing be requested, then we will
announce the date, time, and place for the hearing in the Federal
Register and local newspapers at least 15 days prior to the hearing.
Clarity of the Rule
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations/
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to
make this notice easier to understand including answers to questions
such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the notice clearly
stated? (2) Does the notice
[[Page 12164]]
contain technical language or jargon that interferes with the clarity?
(3) Does the format of the notice (grouping and order of sections, use
of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the
description of the notice in the ``Supplementary Information'' section
of the preamble helpful in understanding the notice? What else could we
do to make the notice easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this
notice easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs,
Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington,
DC 20240. You may e-mail your comments to this address:
E[email protected].
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), under Executive Order 12866.
(a) This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100
million or more or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity,
jobs, the environment, or other units of government. The Alameda
whipsnake was listed as an endangered species in 1997. No formal
section 7 consultations with other Federal agencies have been
conducted. In addition, no HCPs for areas in which the Alameda
whipsnake occurs have been done.
The areas proposed for critical habitat are currently occupied by
the Alameda whipsnake. Under the Endangered Species Act, critical
habitat may not be destroyed or adversely modified by a Federal agency
action; the Act does not impose any restrictions on non-Federal persons
unless they are conducting activities funded or otherwise sponsored or
permitted by a Federal agency (see Table 2 below). Section 7 requires
Federal agencies to ensure that they do not jeopardize the continued
existence of the species. Based upon our experience with the species
and its needs, we conclude that any Federal action or authorized action
that could potentially cause an adverse modification of the proposed
critical habitat would currently be considered as ``jeopardy'' under
the Act. Accordingly, the designation of currently occupied areas as
critical habitat does not have any incremental impacts on what actions
may or may not be conducted by Federal agencies or non-Federal persons
that receive Federal authorization or funding. Non-Federal persons that
do not have a Federal ``sponsorship'' of their actions are not
restricted by the designation of critical habitat (however, they
continue to be bound by the provisions of the Act concerning ``take''
of the species).
(b) This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies'
actions. As discussed above, Federal agencies have been required to
ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of
the Alameda whipsnake since the listing in 1997. The prohibition
against adverse modification of critical habitat is not expected to
impose any additional restrictions to those that currently exist
because all proposed critical habitat is occupied. Because of the
potential for impacts on other Federal agencies activities, we will
continue to review this proposed action for any inconsistencies with
other Federal agency actions.
(c) This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
Federal agencies are currently required to ensure that their activities
do not jeopardize the continued existence of the species, and as
discussed above we do not anticipate that the adverse modification
prohibition (from critical habitat designation) will have any
incremental effects.
(d) This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. The
proposed rule follows the requirements for determining critical habitat
contained in the Endangered Species Act.
Table 2.--Impacts of Alameda Whipsnake Listing and Critical Habitat Designation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional activities
Activities potentially affected by species listing potentially affected by
Categories of activities only \1\ critical habitat
designation \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Activities Potentially Activities such as removing, thinning, or destroying None.
Affected \3\. Alameda whipsnake habitat (as defined in the primary
constituent elements discussion), whether by burning
or mechanical, chemical, or other means (e.g., fuels
management, bulldozing, herbicide application,
grazing, etc.); water transfers, diversion, or
impoundment, groundwater pumping, irrigation, or
other activity that causes barriers or deterrents to
dispersal, inundates habitat, or significantly
converts habitat (e.g., conversion to urban
development, vineyards, landscaping); recreational
activities that significantly deter the use of
suitable habitat areas by Alameda whipsnakes or
alter habitat through associated maintenance
activities (e.g., off-road vehicle parks, golf
courses, and hiking, mountain biking, and horseback
riding trails); sale, exchange, or lease of Federal
land that contains suitable habitat that is likely
to result in the habitat being destroyed or
appreciably degraded; and construction activities
that destroy or appreciably degrade suitable habitat
(e.g., urban development, building of recreational
facilities such as off-road vehicle parks and golf
courses, road building, drilling, mining, quarrying
and associated reclamation activities) that the
Federal Government carries out.
[[Page 12165]]
Private and other non-Federal Activities such as removing, thinning, or destroying None.
Activities Potentially Affected Alameda whipsnake habitat (as defined in the primary
\4\. constituent elements discussion), whether by burning
or mechanical, chemical, or other means (e.g., fuels
management, bulldozing, herbicide application,
grazing, etc.); water transfers, diversion, or
impoundment, groundwater pumping, irrigation, or
other activity that causes barriers or deterrents to
dispersal, inundates habitat, or significantly
converts habitat (e.g., conversion to urban
development, vineyards, landscaping, etc.);
recreational activities that significantly deter the
use of suitable habitat areas by Alameda whipsnakes
or alter habitat through associated maintenance
activities (e.g., off-road vehicle parks, golf
courses, and hiking, mountain biking, and horseback
riding trails); and construction activities that
destroy or appreciably degrade suitable habitat
(e.g., urban development, building of recreational
facilities such as off-road vehicle parks and golf
courses, road building, drilling, mining, quarrying
and associated reclamation activities) that require
a Federal action (permit, authorization, or funding).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This column represents the activities potentially affected by listing the Alameda whipsnake as a threatened
species (December 5, 1997; 62 FR 64306) under the Endangered Species Act.
\2\ This column represents the activities potentially affected by the critical habitat designation in addition
to those activities potentially affected by listing the species.
\3\ Activities initiated by a Federal agency.
\4\ Activities initiated by a private or other non-Federal entity that may need Federal authorization or
funding.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
In the economic analysis (under section 4 of the Act), we will
determine whether designation of critical habitat will have a
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities. As
discussed under Regulatory Planning and Review above, this rule is not
expected to result in any restrictions in addition to those currently
in existence. As indicated on Table 1 (see Proposed Critical Habitat
Designation section), we designated property owned by Federal, State,
and local governments, and private property.
Within these areas, the types of Federal actions or authorized
activities that we have identified as potential concerns are:
(1) Sale, exchange, or lease of lands owned by the Bureau of Land
Management or the Department of Energy;
(2) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the United States
by the Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act;
(3) Regulation of water flows, water delivery, damming, diversion,
and channelization by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of
Engineers;
(4) Regulation of grazing, recreation, or mining by the Bureau of
Land Management;
(5) Funding and implementation of disaster relief projects by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, including vegetation clearing to
reduce the risk of a catastrophic wildfire event;
(6) Funding and regulation of new road construction by the Federal
Highways Administration;
(7) Funding of low-interest loans to facilitate the construction of
low-income housing by the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(8) Clearing of vegetation by the Department of Energy;
(9) Promulgation of air and water quality standards under the Clean
Air Act and the Clean Water Act and the cleanup of toxic waste and
superfund sites under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and
(10) Issuance of Endangered Species Act section 10(a)(1)(B) permits
by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Many of these activities sponsored by Federal agencies within the
proposed critical habitat areas are carried out by small entities (as
defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act) through contract, grant,
permit, or other Federal authorization. As discussed above, these
actions are currently required to comply with the listing protections
of the Act, and the designation of critical habitat is not anticipated
to have any additional effects on these activities.
For actions on non-Federal property that do not have a Federal
connection (such as funding or authorization), the current restrictions
concerning take of the species remain in effect, and this rule will
have no additional restrictions.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))
In the economic analysis, we will determine whether designation of
critical habitat will cause (a) any effect on the economy of $100
million or more, (b) any increases in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or
geographic regions, or (c) any significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises. As discussed above, we anticipate that the designation of
critical habitat will not have any additional effects beyond those
resulting from listing the species.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.):
(a) This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. Small
governments will be affected only to the extent that any of their
actions involving Federal funding or authorization must not destroy or
adversely modify the critical habitat. However, as discussed above,
these actions are currently subject to equivalent restrictions through
the listing protections of the species, and no further restrictions are
anticipated to result from critical habitat designation.
(b) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year, i.e., it is not a
[[Page 12166]]
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
Takings
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have
significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is
not required. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat
affects only Federal agency actions. The rule will not increase or
decrease the current restrictions on private property concerning take
of the Alameda whipsnake. Due to current public knowledge of the
species' protection, the prohibition against take of the species both
within and outside of the designated areas, and the fact that critical
habitat provides no incremental restrictions, we do not anticipate that
property values will be affected by the critical habitat designation.
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of
Commerce policy, the Service requested information from and coordinated
development of this critical habitat proposal with appropriate State
resource agencies in California, as well as during the listing process.
We will continue to coordinate any future designation of critical
habitat for the Alameda whipsnake with the appropriate State agencies.
The designation of critical habitat the Alameda whipsnake imposes no
additional restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, has
little incremental impact on State and local governments and their
activities. The designation may have some benefit to these governments
in that the areas essential to the conservation of the species are more
clearly defined, and the primary constituent elements of the habitat
necessary to the survival of the species are specifically identified.
While making this definition and identification does not alter where
and what federally sponsored activities may occur, doing so may assist
these local governments in long-range planning (rather than waiting for
case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We designate critical habitat in accordance with the
provisions of the Act, and plan public meetings on the proposed
designation during the comment period. The rule uses standard property
descriptions and identifies the primary constituent elements within the
designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat
needs of the Alameda whipsnake.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements
for which Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act is required.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental
Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in connection with
regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and the Department of the Interior's
requirement at 512 DM 2 we understand that recognized Federal Tribes
must be related to on a Government-to-Government basis. The 1997
Secretarial Order on Native Americans and the Endangered Species Act
clearly states that Tribal lands should not be designated unless
absolutely necessary for the conservation of the species. According to
the Secretarial Order, ``Critical habitat shall not be designated in an
area that may impact Tribal trust resources unless it is determined
essential to conserve a listed species. In designating critical
habitat, the Services shall evaluate and document the extent to which
the conservation needs of a listed species can be achieved by limiting
the designation to other lands.'' The proposed designation of critical
habitat for the Alameda whipsnake does not contain any Tribal lands or
lands that we have identified as impacting Tribal trust resources.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is
available upon request from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES section).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are Jason Davis and Heather
Bell, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons given in the preamble, we propose to amend 50 CFR
part 17 as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. In 17.11(h) revise the entry for ``Whipsnake, Alameda'' under
``REPTILES'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reptiles
* * * * * * *
Whipsnake, Alameda (=striped Masticophis U.S.A. (CA)........ Entire............. T 628 17.95(c) NA
racer). lateralis
euryxanthus.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12167]]
3. Amend 17.95(c) by adding critical habitat for the Alameda
whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) in the same alphabetical
order as this species occurs in 17.11(h).
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(c) Reptiles.
* * * * *
ALAMEDA WHIPSNAKE (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus)
1. Critical habitat units are depicted for Alameda, Contra Costa,
San Joaquin and Santa Clara Counties, California, on the maps below.
2. Within these areas, the primary constituent elements are those
habitat components that are essential for the primary biological needs
of foraging, sheltering, breeding, maturation, and dispersal. The
primary constituent elements are found, or could develop, in areas that
support or have the potential to support scrub communities including
mixed chaparral, chamise-redshank chaparral, and coastal scrub; and
annual grassland and various oak woodlands that lie adjacent to scrub
habitats. In addition, the primary constituent elements for the Alameda
whipsnake may be found in grasslands and various oak woodlands that are
linked to scrub habitats by substantial rock outcrops or riparian
corridors. Other habitat features that provide a source of cover for
the whipsnake during dispersal or lie in reasonable proximity to scrub
habitats and contain habitat features (e.g., rock outcrops) that
support adequate prey populations may also contain primary constituent
elements for the Alameda whipsnake.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U
[[Page 12168]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR00.006
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Map Unit 1: Alameda and Contra Costa counties, California. From
1992 Orthophoto quads, Mount Diablo Base Meridian, California: T.2 N.,
R.4 W., S\1/2\
[[Page 12169]]
sec. 13, SE\1/4\ sec. 23, N\1/2\ SE\1/4\ sec. 24, sec. 25, N\1/2\ SE\1/
4\ sec. 26, E\1/2\ sec. 27, E\1/2\ sec. 34 secs. 35-36; T.2 N., R.3 W.,
S\1/2\ sec. 15, S\1/2\ sec. 16, SW\1/4\ sec. 18, secs. 19-22, S\1/2\
NW\1/4\ sec. 23, SW\1/4\ sec. 24, secs. 25-36; T.2 N., R.2 W., S\1/2\
sec. 30, sec. 31, SW\1/4\ sec 32; T.1 N., R.4 W., secs. 1-2, S\1/2\
sec. 3, sec. 4, SE\1/4\ sec. 5, N\1/2\ SE\1/4\ sec. 8, secs. 9-15, N\1/
2\ sec. 16, N\1/2\ SE\1/4\ sec. 21, secs. 22-26, NE\1/4\ sec. 27, N\1/
2\ SE\1/4\ sec. 36; T.1 N., R.3 W., secs. 1-24, N\1/2\ sec. 25, N\1/2\
sec. 26, N\1/2\ sec. 27, S\1/2\ NW\1/4\ sec. 28, secs. 29-32; T.1. N.,
R.2 W., secs. 5-7, S\1/2\ NW\1/4\ sec. 8, W\1/2\ sec. 17, secs. 18-19,
W\1/2\ sec. 29, sec. 30; T.1 S., R.3 W., N\1/2\ sec. 5, N\1/2\ sec. 6.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U
[[Page 12170]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR00.007
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Map Unit 2: Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California. From
1992 Orthophoto quads, Mount Diablo Base Meridian, California: T. 1 N.,
R. 3 W.,
[[Page 12171]]
SE\1/4\ sec. 35, S\1/2\ NW\1/4\ sec. 36; T. 1. N., R. 2 W., SW\1/4\
sec. 31, S\1/2\ sec. 33, SW\1/4\ sec. 34; T. 1 S., R. 3 W., sec. 1,
E\1/2\ sec. 2, NE\1/4\ sec. 12, SW\1/2\ sec. 13, S\1/2\ sec. 14, S\1/2\
sec. 15, secs. 22-27, SE\1/4\ sec. 28, NE\1/4\ sec. 34, N\1/2\ SE\1/4\
sec. 35, sec. 36; T. 1 S., R. 2 W., S\1/2\ sec. 2, secs. 3-6, N\1/2\
SE\1/4\ sec. 7, secs. 8-11, SW\1/4\ sec. 12, S\1/2\ NW sec. 13, secs.
14-17, SE\1/4\ sec. 18, S\1/2\ NE\1/4\ sec. 19, secs, 20-36; T.1 S., R.
1 W., SW\1/4\ sec. 19, SW\1/4\ sec. 29, S\1/2\ NW\1/4\ sec. 30, secs.
31-32; T. 2 S., R. 3 W., N\1/2\ SE\1/4\ sec. 1, NE\1/4\ sec. 12, S\1/2\
sec. 13, N\1/2\ sec. 24; T. 2 S., R. 2 .W., secs. 1-18, E\1/2\ sec. 19,
secs. 20-30, N\1/2\ SE \1/4\ sec. 31, sec. 32, N\1/2\ sec. 33, N\1/2\
sec. 34, N\1/2\ SW\1/4\ sec. 35, sec. 36; T. 2 S., R. 1 W., W\1/4\ sec.
4, secs. 5-6, S\1/2\ sec. 16, secs. 17-21, S\1/2\ NW\1/4\ sec. 22, W\1/
2\ sec. 26, secs. 27-34, W\1/2\ sec. 35; T. 3 S., R. 1 W., NW\1/4\ sec.
2, secs. 3-4, N\1/2\ SE\1/4\ sec. 5, N\1/2\ sec. 6; T. 3 S., R. 2 W.,
N\1/2\ sec. 1.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U
[[Page 12172]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR00.008
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Map Unit 3: Alameda County, California. From 1992 Orthophoto quads,
Mount Diablo Base Meridian, California: T. 3 S., R. 2 W., sec. 1, sec.
[[Page 12173]]
12, E\1/2\ sec. 13, SW\1/4\ sec. 24, sec. 25, NE\1/4\ sec. 26, secs.
35-36; T. 3 S., R. 1 W., SW\1/4\ sec. 2, S\1/2\ sec. 3, S\1/2\ sec. 4,
S\1/2\ NW\1/4\ sec. 5, S\1/2\ NE\1/4\ sec. 6, secs. 7-11, SW\1/4\ sec.
12, secs. 13-36; T. 3 S., R. 1 E., W\1/2\ sec. 19, S\1/2\ NW\1/4\ sec.
30, sec. 31, S\1/2\ sec. 32; T. 4 S., R. 2 W., NE\1/4\ sec. 1; T. 4 S.,
R. 1 W., secs. 1-6, NE\1/4\ sec. 7, secs. 8-12, NE\1/4\ sec. 14, N\1/2\
SW\1/4\ sec. 15, sec. 16, N\1/2\ SE\1/4\ sec. 17, NE\1/4\ sec. 21; T. 4
S., R. 1 E., W\1/2\ sec. 4, secs. 5-8, W\1/2\ sec. 9, NW\1/4\ sec. 16.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U
[[Page 12174]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR00.009
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Map Unit 4: Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California. From
1992 Orthophoto quads, Mount Diablo Base Meridian, California: T. 2 N.,
R. 1 W.,
[[Page 12175]]
SE\1/4\ sec. 36; T. 2 N., R. 1 E., S\1/2\ NW\1/4\ sec. 27, S\1/2\ NE\1/
4\ sec. 28, S\1/2\ sec. 29, SE\1/4\ sec. 30, S\1/2\ NE\1/4\ sec. 31,
secs. 32-34, S\1/2\ sec. 35; T. 1 N., R 2 W., S\1/2\ sec. 25, SE\1/4\
sec. 26, N\1/2\ sec. 36; T. 1 N., R. 1 W., sec. 1, SE\1/4\ sec. 2,
SE\1/4\ sec. 8, S\1/2\ sec. 9, sec. 12, N\1/2\ SE\1/4\ sec.13, W\1/2\
sec. 14, S\1/2\ NE\1/4\ sec. 15, sec. 17, N\1/2\ SE\1/4\ sec. 20, secs.
21-28, E\1/2\ SW\1/4\ sec. 29, S\1/2\ sec. 30, sec. 31, secs. 32-36; T.
1 N., R. 1. E., W\1/2\ sec. 1, secs. 2-11, sec. 12, secs. 13-36; T. 1
N., R. 2 E., SW\1/4\ sec. 7, W\1/2\ sec. 18, sec. 19, S\1/2\ sec. 20,
SW\1/4\ sec. 21, secs. 28-33, S\1/2\ sec. 34; T.1 S., R. 1 W., secs. 1-
5, N\1/2\ SE\1/4\ sec. 6, sec. 8, N\1/2\ SW\1/4\ sec. 9, secs. 10-15,
NW\1/4\ sec. 16, NE\1/4\ sec. 17, N\1/2\ SE\1/4\ sec. 23, sec. 24, N\1/
2\ sec. 25; T. 1 S., R. 1 E., secs. 1-29, N\1/2\sec. 30, NE\1/4\ sec.
32, sec. 33-36; T. 1 S., R. 2 E., SW\1/4\ sec. 2, secs. 3-10, S\1/2\
NW\1/4\ sec. 11, W\1/2\ sec. 13, secs. 14-36; T. 2 S., R. 1 E., secs.
1-3, N\1/2\ sec. 10, N\1/2\ sec. 11, sec. 12; T. 2 S., R. 2 E., NW\1/4\
sec. 1, secs. 2-10, W\1/2\ sec. 11, N\1/2\ sec. 15, sec. 16-17, E\1/2\
sec. 18.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U
[[Page 12176]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR00.010
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Map Unit 5: Alameda, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, and Santa Clara
Counties, California. From 1992 Orthophoto quads, Mount Diablo Base
Meridian,
[[Page 12177]]
California: T.3 N., R.1 E., SE\1/4\ sec. 21, S\1/2\ sec. 22, S\1/2\
NW\1/4\ sec. 23, SW\1/4\ sec. 24, S\1/2\ NW\1/4\ sec. 25, secs. 26-27,
E\1/2\ sec. 28, SE\1/4\ sec. 29, NE\1/4\ sec. 32, secs. 33-36; T.3 S.,
R. 2 E., SW\1/4\ sec. 19, SE\1/4\ sec. 21, S\1/2\ NE\1/4\ sec. 22, S\1/
2\ NW\1/4\ sec. 23, SE\1/4\ sec. 24, secs. 25-36; T.3 S., R.3 E., S\1/
2\ sec. 24, secs. 25-26, S\1/2\ NE\1/4\ sec. 27, S\1/2\ NW\1/4\ sec.
28, S\1/2\ NE\1/4\ sec. 29, S\1/2\ NW\1/4\ sec. 30, secs. 31-36; T.3
S., R.4 E., S\1/2\ sec. 19, S\1/2\ sec. 20, S\1/2\ sec. 21, SW\1/4\
sec. 27, secs. 28-33, S\1/2\ NW\1/4\ sec. 34; T.4 S., R.1 W., E\1/2\
sec. 25, E\1/2\ sec. 36; T.4 S, R.1 E., secs. 1-4, E\1/2\ sec. 9, secs.
10-15, E\1/2\ sec. 16, SE\1/4\ sec. 19, S\1/2\ sec. 20, S\1/2\ NE\1/4\
sec. 21, secs. 22-36; T.4 S., R.2 E., secs. 1-36; T.4 S., R.3 E., secs.
1-36; T.4 S., R.4 E., W\1/2\ sec. 2, secs. 3-10, W\1/2\ sec. 11, W\1/2\
sec. 11, W\1/2\ sec. 14, secs. 15-22,W\1/2\ sec. 23, W\1/2\ sec. 26,
secs. 27-34, W\1/2\ sec. 35; T.5 S., R.1 E., secs. 1-29, N\1/2\ SE\1/4\
sec. 30, N\1/2\ sec. 33, N\1/2\ SE\1/4\ sec. 34, secs. 35-36; T.5 S.,
R.2 E., secs. 1-35, N\1/2\ SW\1/4\ sec. 36; T.5 S., R.3 E., secs. 1-24,
N\1/2\ sec. 26, N\1/2\ SW\1/4\ sec. 27, secs. 28-30, N\1/2\ sec. 31,
N\1/2\ sec. 32; T.5. S., R.4 E., W\1/2\ sec. 2, secs. 3-9, N\1/2\ SW\1/
4\ sec. 10, N\1/2\ SW\1/4\ sec. 16, secs. 17-18, N\1/2\ sec. 19; T.6
S., R.1 E., sec. 1, N\1/2\ sec. 2; T.6 S., R.2 E., N\1/2\ sec. 3, N\1/
2\ sec. 4, N\1/2\ sec. 5, N\1/2\ sec.6.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U
[[Page 12178]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR00.011
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Map Unit 6: Contra Costa County, California. From 1992 Orthophoto
quads, Mount Diablo Base Meridian, California: T.1 N., R.4 W., SE\1/4\
sec. 36;
[[Page 12179]]
T.1 N., R.3 W., SW\1/4\ sec. 31, S\1/2\ sec. 33; T.1 S., R.4 W., S\1/2\
NE \1/4\ sec. 1, NE\1/4\ sec. 12; T.1 S., R.3 W., W\1/2\ sec. 3, secs.
4-6, N\1/2\ SE\1/4\ sec. 7, secs. 8-10, secs. 14-15, N\1/2\ SE\1/4\
sec. 16, N\1/2\ sec. 17, NE\1/4\ sec. 18.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U
[[Page 12180]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MR00.012
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Map Unit 7: Alameda County, California. From 1992 Orthophoto quads,
Mount Diablo Base Meridian, California: T.4 S., R.1 W., SE\1/4\ sec.
10,
[[Page 12181]]
S\1/2\ sec. 11, S\1/2\ sec. 12, secs. 13-14, E\1/2\ sec. 15, NE\1/4\
sec. 23, NW\1/4\ sec. 24; T.4 S., R.1 E., S\1/2\ sec. 7, S\1/2\ sec. 8,
sec. 9, secs. 16-18, NE\1/4\ sec. 19, NE\1/4\ sec. 20, sec. 21, W\1/2\
sec. 27, N\1/2\ sec. 28.
Dated: February 29, 2000.
Donald J. Barry,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 00-5414 Filed 3-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U