[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 8, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11140-11154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-4173]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AI26


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation 
of Critical Habitat for Four Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal 
Pool Plants in California and Southern Oregon; Re-evaluation of Non-
Economic Exclusions From August 2003 Final Designation

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; confirmation.

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

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), confirm the non-
economic exclusions made to our previous final rule (August 6, 2003, 68 
FR 46683, effective September 5, 2003), which designated critical 
habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act), for 4 vernal pool crustaceans and 11 vernal pool plants. A total 
of approximately 1,184,513 ac (479,356 ha) of land falls within the 
boundaries of designated critical habitat. This estimate reflects 
exclusion of: Lands within the boundaries of Habitat Conservation 
Plans, National Wildlife Refuge lands and National fish hatchery lands 
(33,097 ac (13,394 ha)), State lands within ecological reserves and 
wildlife management areas (20,933 ac (8,471 ha)), Department of Defense 
lands within Beale and Travis Air Force Bases as well as Fort Hunter 
Liggett and Camp Roberts Army installations (64,259 ac (26,005 ha)), 
Tribal lands managed by the Mechoopda Tribe (644 ac (261 ha)), and the 
Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve (10,200 ac (4,128 ha)) from the 
final designation. The area estimate does not reflect the exclusion of 
lands within the California counties of Butte, Madera, Merced, 
Sacramento, and Solano, which are excluded from the final designation 
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act and pending further analysis as 
directed by the October 29, 2004, order by the court.
    This critical habitat designation requires us to consult under 
section 7 of the Act with regard to actions authorized, funded, or 
carried out by a Federal agency. Section 4 of the Act requires us to 
consider economic and other relevant impacts when specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. We solicited data and comments 
from the public on all aspects of the proposed rule, including data on 
economic and other impacts of the designation.

[[Page 11141]]


DATES: This document confirms the non-economic exclusions made to our 
previous final rule (August 6, 2003, 68 FR 46683, effective September 
5, 2003), and this document is effective on March 8, 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 Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage, Room W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Roessler, at the Sacramento 
Fish and Wildlife Office address above (telephone (916) 414-6600; 
facsimile (916) 414-6710).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble

Designation of Critical Habitat Provides Little Additional Protection 
to Species

    In 30 years of implementing the Act, the Service has found that the 
designation of statutory critical habitat provides little additional 
protection to most listed species, while consuming significant amounts 
of available conservation resources. The Service's present system for 
designating critical habitat has evolved since its original statutory 
prescription into a process that provides little real conservation 
benefit, is driven by litigation and the courts rather than biology, 
limits our ability to fully evaluate the science involved, consumes 
enormous agency resources, and imposes huge social and economic costs. 
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 are paramount to 
successful conservation actions, we have consistently found that, in 
most circumstances, the designation of critical habitat is of little 
additional value for most listed species, yet it consumes large amounts 
of conservation resources. Sidle (1987) stated, ``Because the Act can 
protect species with and without critical habitat designation, critical 
habitat designation may be redundant to the other consultation 
requirements of section 7.'' Currently, only 473 species or 37 percent 
of the 1,264 listed species in the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the 
Service have designated critical habitat. We address the habitat needs 
of all 1,264 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. The Service believes that it is these measures that may 
make the difference between extinction and survival for many species.
    We note, however, that a recent judicial opinion, Gifford Pinchot 
Task Force v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, has invalidated 
the Service's regulation defining destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat. We are currently reviewing the decision to 
determine what effect it may have on the outcome of consultations 
pursuant to Section 7 of the Act.
    In crafting the Act, Congress provided guidance for the exercise of 
discretion by the Secretary in making critical habitat decisions. We 
have applied the guidance in this rulemaking. Section 3(5)(a) of the 
Act, defines critical habitat as ``(i) the specific areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in 
accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act, on which are 
found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the 
conservation of the species and (II) which may require special 
management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is 
listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act, upon 
a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species.''
    Section 3(5)(C) of the Act further provides that ``except in those 
circumstances determined by the Secretary, critical habitat shall not 
include the entire geographical area which can be occupied by the 
threatened or endangered species.'' ``These provisions of section 3 
authorize the exercise of discretion in determining (1) whether special 
management considerations or protections may be required; (2) whether 
unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the species; and 
(3) the extent to which the entire area which can be occupied by the 
species should be included in critical habitat.''
    Finally, section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the Secretary to exclude 
any area from critical habitat, after considering the economic impact 
and any other relevant impact of a designation, upon a determination 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless the failure to 
designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction 
of the species concerned.
    The Congressional record is clear that Congress contemplated 
occasions where the Secretary could exclude the entire designation. In 
addition, the discretion that Congress anticipated would be exercised 
in Section 4(b)(2) of the Act is extremely broad. ``The consideration 
and weight given to any particular impact is completely within the 
Secretary's discretion. * * *'' (Congressional Research Service 1982).
    Given that section 4(a)(3)(A) of the Act requires that critical 
habitat be designated concurrently with making a determination that a 
species is an endangered species or a threatened species, we are 
mindful of the Congressional intent with respect to listing as we 
designate critical habitat. For example, section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), states that we must consider in listing 
determinations, among factors, ``the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms'' (so-called ``Factor D''); and ``other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence'' (referred to as ``Factor 
E'').
    Section 4(b)(1)(A) requires us also to ``tak[e] into account those 
efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any 
political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such 
species, whether by predator control, protection of habitat and food 
supply, or other conservation practices, within any area under its 
jurisdiction, or on the high seas.'' Read together, sections 4(a)(1) 
and 4(b)(1)(A), as reflected in our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(f), 
require us to take into account any State or local laws, regulations, 
ordinances, programs, or other specific conservation measures that 
either positively or negatively affect a species' status (i.e., 
measures that create, exacerbate, reduce, or remove threats identified 
through the section 4(a)(1) analysis). The manner in which the section 
4(a)(1) factors are framed supports this conclusion. Factor (D) for 
example, ``the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms'' indicates 
that overall we might find existing regulatory mechanisms adequate to 
justify a determination not to list a species. Factor (E) in section 
4(a)(1) (any ``manmade factors affecting [the species'] continued 
existence'') requires us to consider the pertinent laws, regulations, 
programs, and other specific actions of any entity that either 
positively or negatively affect the species. Thus, the analysis 
outlined in

[[Page 11142]]

section 4 of the Act requires us to consider the conservation efforts 
of not only State and foreign governments but also of Federal agencies, 
Tribal governments, businesses, organizations, or individuals that 
positively affect the species' status. The section 4 analysis for 
listing determinations is relevant to our exercise of discretion in 
critical habitat designations, although it must be stressed that 
analysis in no way limits the Secretary's discretion.

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat

    We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate 
critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging 
critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have 
subjected 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, to respond to 
Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to 
comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result, 
listing petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list 
critically imperiled species, and final listing determinations on 
existing proposals are all significantly delayed. The accelerated 
schedules of court-ordered designations have left the Service with 
almost no ability to provide for adequate public participation or to 
ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before making decisions on 
listing and critical habitat proposals due to the risks associated with 
noncompliance with judicially imposed deadlines. This in turn fosters a 
second round of litigation in which those who fear adverse impacts from 
critical habitat designations challenge those designations. The cycle 
of litigation appears endless, is very expensive, and in the final 
analysis provides relatively little additional protection to listed 
species.
    The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the 
cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of 
the economic effects, 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. None of these costs result in any benefit to the 
species that is not already afforded by the protections of the Act 
enumerated earlier, and they directly reduce the funds available for 
direct and tangible conservation actions.

Background

    On September 24, 2002, we published a proposed rule to designate 
critical habitat, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act), for 4 vernal pool crustaceans and 11 vernal pool plants 
(67 FR 59884). The four vernal pool crustaceans involved in this 
critical habitat designation are the Conservancy fairy shrimp 
(Branchinecta conservatio), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta 
longiantenna), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), and 
vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi). The 11 vernal pool 
plant species are Butte County meadowfoam (Limnanthes floccosa ssp. 
californica), Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens), Hoover's 
spurge (Chamaesyce hooveri), fleshy (or succulent) owl's-clover 
(Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta), Colusa grass (Neostapfia 
colusana), Greene's tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei), hairy Orcutt grass 
(Orcuttia pilosa), Sacramento Orcutt grass (Orcuttia viscida), San 
Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis), slender Orcutt grass 
(Orcuttia tenuis), and Solano grass (Tuctoria mucronata). We proposed a 
total of 128 units of critical habitat for these 15 vernal pool 
species, totaling approximately 672,920 hectares (ha) (1,662,762 acres 
(ac)) in 36 counties in California and one county in Oregon. In 
accordance with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(2), we opened a 60-
day comment period on this proposal which closed on November 25, 2002.
    All the species live in vernal pools (shallow depressions that hold 
water seasonally), swales (shallow drainages that carry water 
seasonally), and ephemeral freshwater habitats. None are known to occur 
in riverine waters, marine waters, or other permanent bodies of water. 
The vernal pool habitats of these species have a discontinuous 
distribution west of the Sierra Nevada that extends from southern 
Oregon through California into northern Baja California, Mexico. The 
species have all adapted to the generally mild climate and seasonal 
periods of inundation and drying that help make the vernal pool 
ecosystems of California and southern Oregon unique.
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that the Secretary of the 
Interior designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best 
scientific and commercial data available, after taking into 
consideration the economic impact, impact to national security, and any 
other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical 
habitat. The Secretary may exclude any area from critical habitat if 
she determines that the benefit of such exclusion outweighs the 
benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, 
unless the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will 
result in the extinction of the species concerned. Thus, to fulfill our 
requirement to consider the potential economic impacts of the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool species, we 
conducted an analysis of the potential economic impacts on the proposed 
designation and published a notice on November 21, 2002 (67 FR 70201), 
announcing the availability of our draft economic analysis (DEA). The 
notice opened a 30-day public comment period on the draft economic 
analysis and extended the comment period on the proposed critical 
habitat designation.
    During the development of the final designation, we reviewed the 
lands proposed as critical habitat based on public comments and any new 
information that may have become available and refined the boundaries 
of the proposal to remove lands determined not to be essential to the 
conservation of the 15 vernal pool species. We then took into 
consideration the potential economic impacts of the designation, 
impacts on national security, and other relevant factors such as 
partnerships, existing management of the lands being considered, and 
the effect of designation on the conservation of the species whose 
critical habitat was covered by the designation. Next, we determined 
whether the benefits of excluding certain lands from the final 
designation of critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool species 
outweighed the benefit of including them in the designation, and 
whether the specific exclusions would result in the extinction of any 
of the species involved. The final rule made two types of exclusions, 
lands excluded from the final designation based on economic effects of 
the designation and lands excluded due to other considerations. Lands 
excluded due to other considerations included lands within specific 
National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries; Department of Defense 
lands; Tribal lands; State Wildlife Areas and Ecological Reserves; and 
lands covered by habitat conservation plans or other management plans 
that provide a benefit for the species. Lands proposed

[[Page 11143]]

as critical habitat in Butte, Madera, Merced, Sacramento, and Solano 
Counties were excluded based on potential economic impacts. Thus, on 
July 15, 2003, we made a final determination of critical habitat for 
the 15 vernal pool species; the final rule was published in the Federal 
Register on August 6, 2003 (68 FR 46684). A total of approximately 
744,067 ac (301,114 ha) of land were identified as within the 
boundaries of the designated critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool 
species.
    In January 2004, Butte Environmental Council and several other 
organizations filed a complaint alleging that we: (1) Violated both the 
Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by excluding over 1 
million acres from the final designation of critical habitat for the 15 
vernal pool species; (2) violated mandatory notice-and-comment 
requirements under the Act and APA; and (3) engaged in an unlawful 
pattern, practice, and policy by failing to properly consider the 
economic impacts of designating critical habitat. On October 28, 2004, 
the court signed a Memorandum and Order in that case. The Memorandum 
and Order remanded the final designation to the Service in part. In 
particular, the court ordered us to: (1) Reconsider the exclusions from 
the final designation of critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool 
species, with the exception of those lands within the 5 California 
counties that were excluded based on potential economic impacts, and 
publish a new final determination as to those lands within 120 days; 
and (2) reconsider the exclusion of the 5 California counties based on 
potential economic impacts and publish a new final determination no 
later than July 31, 2005. The court did not alter the August 6, 2003, 
final designation.
    In order to more completely comply with the court order, on 
December 28, 2004, we reopened the comment period for 30 days (69 FR 
77700) on the designation, to solicit any new information concerning 
the benefits of excluding and including the lands the final rule 
excluded on the basis of noneconomic considerations. Comments received 
during this 30-day comment period are addressed herein.
    This notice addresses the first requirement of the remand--the 
reconsideration of the lands excluded for noneconomic considerations 
from the final designation of critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool 
species. Those lands within the 5 California counties that were 
excluded based on potential economic impacts will be addressed through 
a future Federal Register document, upon completion of the economic 
analysis currently underway.
    Table 1 lists each specific area that was excluded from the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool 
species, based on policy by category and size. The total area shown is 
the cumulative critical habitat area for all 15 species. Many of the 
critical habitat boundaries for each species overlap and as a result 
the actual total critical habitat area would be less.

   Table 1.--Approximate Areas of Critical Habitat Exclusions for the
       Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Plants in California and Oregon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Exclusion area                      Acres     Hectares
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) and Fish Hatchery Exclusions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento NWR Complex............................     19,363      7,836
San Francisco Bay NWR.............................        617        250
San Luis NWR Complex..............................     18,014      7,290
Kern NWR Complex..................................      4,894      1,980
Coleman Nat. Fish Hatchery........................         13          5
                                                   ------------
    Total.........................................     42,914     17,367
---------------------------------------------------
                    Department of Defense Exclusions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beale Air Force Base *............................     10,033      4,060
Travis Air Force Base *...........................      9,651      3,906
Fort Hunter Liggett...............................     16,583      6,711
Camp Roberts......................................     33,937     13,734
                                                   ------------
    Total.........................................     70,204     28,410
---------------------------------------------------
                         Tribal Land Exclusions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mechoopda Tribe...................................        644        261
                                                   ------------
    Total.........................................        644        261
---------------------------------------------------
    State Wildlife Areas (WA) and Ecological Reserve (ER) Exclusions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allensworth ER....................................      1,141        462
Battle Creek WA...................................        637        258
Big Sandy WA......................................        478        194
Boggs Lake ER.....................................         50         20
Butte Creek Canyon ER.............................        0.4       0.16
Calhoun Cut ER....................................      3,021      1,223
Carrizo Plains ER.................................        455        184
Dales Lake ER.....................................        754        305
Fagen Marsh ER....................................        420        170
Grizzly Island WA.................................         10          4
Hill Slough WA....................................      1,559        631
North Grasslands WA...............................          5          2
Oroville WA.......................................         39         16
Phoenix Field ER..................................          7          3

[[Page 11144]]

 
San Joaquin River ER..............................        278        113
Stone Corral ER...................................      3,074      1,244
Thomes Creek ER...................................        447        181
                                                   ------------
    Total.........................................     12,373      5,007
---------------------------------------------------
     Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) and Cooperatively Managed Land
                               Exclusions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skunk Hollow HCP..................................        239         97
Western Riverside Multiple Species HCP............      5,730      2,319
Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve.............      4,246      1,718
San Joaquin County Multiple Species HCP...........         10          4
                                                   ------------
    Total.........................................     10,224      4,138
                                                   ------------
        Grand Total...............................    136,358    55,182
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Beale and Travis AFB have approved INRMPs and are not designated
  critical habitat based on 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the September 24, 2002, proposed critical habitat designation 
(67 FR 59884) and subsequent Federal Register notices concerning the 15 
vernal pool species (67 FR 70201 and 68 FR 12336), we requested all 
interested parties to submit comments on the specifics of the proposal, 
including information related to the critical habitat designation, unit 
boundaries, species occurrence information and distribution, land use 
designations that may affect critical habitat, potential economic 
effects of the proposed designation, benefits associated with critical 
habitat designation, potential exclusions and the associated rationale 
for the exclusions, and methods used to designate critical habitat.
    In the December 28, 2004, reopening of public comment period for 
noneconomic exclusions related to critical habitat designation (69 FR 
77700), we requested all interested parties to submit comments on the 
specifics of the proposal, including information related to amount and 
distribution of habitat, essential habitat, rationale for including or 
excluding habitat, benefits associated with including or excluding 
critical habitat designation, current or planned activities on proposed 
critical habitat, and public participation in designating critical 
habitat.
    We contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies, county 
governments, elected officials, and other interested parties and 
invited them to comment. This was accomplished through telephone calls, 
letters, and news releases faxed and/or mailed to affected elected 
officials, media outlets, local jurisdictions, interest groups and 
other interested individuals. In addition, we invited public comment 
through the publication of legal notices in numerous newspaper and news 
media throughout California and Oregon. In 2002, we provided 
notification of the DEA and proposed rule to all interested parties. At 
the request of Congressman Cardoza's Office, the Merced County Board of 
Supervisors, and the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors, we held 
two public meetings to explain the December 28, 2004, Federal Register 
notice regarding the noneconomic exclusions to the public and requested 
that they provide comments. We provided contacts where they could 
direct questions regarding the proposed designation. We also posted the 
associated material on our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office internet 
site following the publication on December 28, 2004. Additionally, we 
made available to the public upon request individual maps of the 
noneconomic exclusions.
    We received a total of 955 comment letters during the first 3 
comment periods, and 17 on the most recent comment period, which ended 
on January 27, 2005. Comments were received from Federal, Tribal, State 
and local agencies, and private organizations and individuals. We 
reviewed all comments received, for this and previous rules, for 
substantive issues and new information on the proposed exclusions and 
other information regarding the vernal pool plants and vernal pool 
crustaceans. Similar comments were grouped into several general issue 
categories relating specifically to the proposed critical habitat 
determination, the proposed exclusions, and the Draft Economic 
Analysis, and are identified below.

Peer Review

    For a discussion of the peer review of vernal pool critical habitat 
designation, please refer to our August 6, 2003, final designation (68 
FR 46684).

State Agencies

    For a discussion of the State Agency comments on the vernal pool 
critical habitat designation, please refer to our August 6, 2003, final 
designation (68 FR 46684).

Other Public Comments and Responses

    We address other substantive comments and accompanying information 
in the following summary. Relatively minor editing changes and 
reference updates suggested by commenters have been incorporated into 
this final rule or the final economic analysis, as appropriate.

Issue 1--Habitat and Species-Specific Information

    Comment 1: One commenter suggested that created vernal pool habitat 
should not be used as a method of mitigation for impacts to existing 
vernal pool habitat.
    Our Response: Preservation of naturally occurring vernal pool 
complexes remains a key component to conservation for vernal pool 
species. In designating critical habitat areas we evaluated the 
importance of including created vernal pool habitat within the 
designated areas. We have determined that created vernal pool areas do 
provide essential habitat for many of the vernal pool species and are a 
key component toward their conservation.
    Comment 2: The military, notably the California Army National 
Guard,

[[Page 11145]]

specifically Camp Roberts and Fort Hunter Liggett, and the U.S. Air 
Force, specifically Beale Air Force Base and Travis Air Force Base, 
requested that critical habitat not be designated on the four bases. In 
addition, the Solano County Board of Supervisors requested that Travis 
Air Force Base, in particular, not be included in critical habitat 
designation. Another commenter had concerns that vernal pool habitat 
for federally listed vernal pool species within Travis Air Force Base 
was not adequately protected from military activities that occur on the 
base. This commenter requested that vernal pool habitat within Travis 
Air Force Base be designated as critical habitat.
    Our Response: The two Air Force Bases have approved INRMPs and were 
excluded through section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act. The two Army National 
Guard Reserves Bases were excluded through section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 
since the benefits of excluding outweigh the benefits of including 
those vernal pool areas within the designation. For a summary of our 
comments regarding the exclusion of lands occupied by these bases, 
please refer to our August 6, 2003, final designation (68 FR 46684) and 
the Exclusions section below. No significant changes to vernal pool 
habitat and the management of this habitat have occurred since these 
military bases were evaluated for exclusion from critical habitat 
designation in the August 6, 2003, final rule. All of these bases have 
draft or final Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans (INRMPs) 
and the Service has completed or is currently working on consultations 
on these through the section 7 consultation process. We recognize that 
the military is implementing measures to conserve existing locations of 
federally listed vernal pool species and the habitat they occupy. In 
addition, section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that the Secretary of the 
Interior designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best 
scientific and commercial data available, after taking into 
consideration the economic impact, impact to national security, and any 
other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical 
habitat. The Secretary may exclude any area from critical habitat if 
she determines that the benefit of such exclusion outweighs the 
benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, 
unless the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will 
result in the extinction of the species concerned.
    Comment 3: Travis Air Force Base stated that in the August 6, 2003, 
final designation (68 FR 46684) we indicated that the exclusion acreage 
at Travis AFB is 9,651 acres. Travis AFB stated that the correct 
acreage is 5,128 acres of fee owned land and 1,255 acres in lesser 
interests, such as easements and rights of way.
    Response: The acreage figures identified in the proposed rule 
issued on December 27, 2004 (69 FR 77700), reflected the accumulated 
critical habitat total for each of the species within the Travis Air 
Force boundary. As a result the total acreage identified was higher.
    Comment 4: One commenter stated that critical habitat has to be 
occupied by the species at the time the species is listed, needs to 
contain the features essential to the conservation of the species, and 
may require special management considerations or protections. This 
commenter stated that that the 10 acres under discussion in the San 
Joaquin County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan should 
continue to be excluded because this area is already afforded special 
management considerations or protections.
    Our Response: We agree that this area is already under special 
management consideration and afforded protection by virtue of the San 
Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan 
and have excluded the area covered under this HCP from this 
designation. For further discussion on the legal definition of critical 
habitat, refer to our August 6, 2003, final rule (68 FR 46684).
    Comment 5: During the comment period for the proposed rule (67 FR 
59884) and the December 28, 2004, proposed rule (69 FR 77700), the 
Mechoopda Tribe requested the exclusion of their land in Butte County 
from critical habitat designation. The Mechoopda Tribe's Environmental 
Department stated that they have implemented measures through a 
comprehensive management plan to further the protection and 
conservation of vernal pool ecosystems on their land.
    Our Response: As a result of meeting with the Tribe and discussing 
the details of their management plan, we have determined that it is 
appropriate to exclude the Mechoopda lands from the current 
designation. We recognize that the Tribe is implementing measures to 
conserve existing locations of federally listed vernal pool species and 
the habitat they occupy. In addition, we note that under the tribe's 
existing management, vernal pool complexes have remained intact and 
able to support the species that rely on them. For a more detailed 
discussion summary of our comments regarding the exclusion of lands 
occupied by the Tribe and a more detailed description of the Tribe's 
voluntary measures to benefit the conservation of listed species, 
please refer to the discussion later in this rule.
    Comment 6: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requested that 
critical habitat not be designated on the Carrizo Plains National 
Monument due to current management and protection of vernal pool 
resources within BLM's jurisdiction.
    Our Response: The BLM's management plan implements measures to 
conserve existing locations of federally listed vernal pool species and 
their habitat. The Service is currently consulting on this plan through 
the section 7 consultation process. If we determine that the lands of 
the Carrizo Plains National Monument merits exclusion, we will solicit 
additional comments on such an exclusion when we reopen the comment 
period for the draft economic analysis in the spring of 2005. Those 
comments and any comments already received will be fully considered 
before sending a final rule to the Federal Register.
    Comment 7: The Placer County Board of Supervisors stated that 
Critical Habitat Unit 12 for the vernal pool fairy shrimp should be 
excluded from designation because the Placer Legacy Habitat 
Conservation Plan, which is currently under development, will provide 
adequate protection of federally listed vernal pool species in this 
region. The Board of Supervisors stated that because the Placer Legacy 
HCP is similar to other HCPs, such as the Western Riverside Multiple 
Species HCP, and would provide for the conservation of vernal pools and 
listed vernal pool crustaceans, the Placer Legacy HCP should therefore 
similarly be excluded from critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: The scope of this notice was to seek comments on 
those areas previously excluded for noneconomic reasons. However, we 
will consider all comments we receive and if additional proposed 
exclusions result from those comments, we will solicit additional 
comments on exclusions when we re-open the comment period for the draft 
economic analysis in the spring of 2005. Those comments and any 
comments already received will be fully considered before sending a 
final rule to the Federal Register.
    Comment 8: One commenter stated that the existing designation of 
critical habitat for vernal pool species should be expanded. 
Specifically, areas adjacent to the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological 
Reserve should be considered for critical habitat designation because

[[Page 11146]]

these areas, as well as areas within the ER, are threatened by runoff 
from development on adjacent unprotected lands.
    Our Response: The area proposed as critical habitat within the 
Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve has been excluded, as part of the 
Western Riverside MSHCP, under 4(b)(2) of the Act. In our original 
proposal we proposed to designate only those areas essential to the 
conservation of the vernal pool fairy shrimp and the vernal pool 
complexes in which it occurs. In our mapping of the area we believe we 
captured those areas, which were essential to maintain water quality 
and hydrology of the vernal pools and vernal pool complexes within the 
proposed unit. We determined that areas outside the proposed designated 
areas were not essential for the conservation of the species or its 
habitat. In addition, the scope of this notice was to seek comments on 
those areas previously excluded for noneconomic reasons. We will 
solicit additional comments on exclusions when we reopen the comment 
period for the draft economic analysis in the spring of 2005. Those 
comments and any comments already received will be fully considered 
before sending a final rule to the Federal Register.
    Comment 9: One commenter requested that lands covered in the Skunk 
Hollow vernal pool basin should continue to be excluded, and if 
critical habitat designation is necessary, it should only include the 
136-acre Barry Jones Wetland Mitigation Bank.
    Our Response: This area is already under special management 
considerations and afforded protection as part of the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP. Therefore, we have determined that it would be 
appropriate to exclude the area covered under this HCP from this 
designation. For more detail on our reasons for exclusions please refer 
to the specific discussion in this rule.
    Comment 10: Two commenters stated that the Western Riverside 
Multiple Species HCP is not designed to adequately review environmental 
effects on unprotected vernal pool habitats in this area.
    Our Response: Critical habitat is only one of many conservation 
tools for federally listed species. HCPs are one of the most important 
tools for conserving habitat and reconciling economic land use with the 
conservation of listed species on non-Federal lands. Designation of 
critical habitat does not afford protection to species or habitat 
unless there is a federal nexus, lands protected under HCPs are 
protected regardless of the designation of critical habitat. Section 
4(b)(2) allows us to exclude from critical habitat designation areas 
where the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, 
provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the 
species. We believe that in most instances, the benefits of excluding 
HCPs from critical habitat designations will far outweigh the benefits 
of including them. For this designation, we find that the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion for the Western Riverside 
MSHCP issued for the covered federally listed species. In particular, 
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act states that HCPs must meet issuance 
criteria, including minimizing and mitigating any take of the listed 
species covered by the permit to the maximum extent practicable, and 
that the taking must not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the 
survival and recovery of the species in the wild.
    Comment 11: Congressman Dennis Cardoza and one other commenter 
concurred with our previous noneconomic exclusions of lands from 
designation of critical habitat. In addition, they further stated that 
all lands with conservation easements that are managed for the 
protection of listed vernal pool species should also be excluded from 
vernal pool critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: The scope of this notice was to seek comments on 
those areas previously excluded for non-economic reasons. We will 
consider comments requesting additional exclusions and will propose any 
additional exclusions with opportunity for comments when we reopen the 
comment period for the draft economic analysis in the spring of 2005. 
Those comments, and any comments already received, will be fully 
considered before sending a final rule to the Federal Register.
    Comment 12: Commenters associated with California Native Plant 
Society (CNPS) and Butte Environmental Council stated that lands 
excluded for policy and noneconomic reasons are essential to the 
survival and recovery of endangered vernal pool species, and therefore 
should be designated as vernal pool critical habitat. CNPS emphasized 
that vernal pool habitat on Department of Defense lands should be 
included in the designation of vernal pool critical habitat.
    Our Response: There is minimal benefit from designating critical 
habitat for the vernal pool species within areas that are currently 
excluded because these lands, such as State-owned Wildlife Areas, 
Ecological Reserves, National Fish and Wildlife Refuges and Hatcheries, 
are already managed for the conservation of wildlife. HCPs that have 
been excluded from the rule for the same reason, they are already 
managed for conservation under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, which 
states that HCPs must meet issuance criteria, including minimizing and 
mitigating any take of the listed species covered by the permit to the 
maximum extent practicable, and that the taking must not appreciably 
reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in 
the wild. Furthermore, an HCP application must itself be consulted 
upon. While this consultation will not look specifically at the issue 
of adverse modification to critical habitat, unless critical habitat 
has already been designated in the proposed plan area, it will 
determine if the HCP permit would jeopardize the species in the plan 
area. In addition, protections afforded by HCPs, management plans, and 
other landscape management programs go beyond any protections provided 
by a critical habitat designation. A critical habitat designation only 
protects areas that are subject to a federal action. HCPs and other 
management plans are not dependent on federal action to provide species 
protection.
    In response to the CNPS concerns regarding exclusions of Department 
of Defense lands, section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that the 
Secretary of the Interior shall designate or revise critical habitat 
based upon the best scientific and commercial data available, after 
taking into consideration the economic impact, impact to national 
security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular 
area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude any area from 
critical habitat if she determines that the benefit of such exclusion 
outweighs the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical 
habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical habitat 
will result in the extinction of the species concerned. The two AFBs 
were not eligible for designation through operation of section 
4(a)(3)(B) of the Act as they had approved INRMPs, which provided for 
the conservation of the species. The two ANGR bases were excluded 
through section 4(b)(2) of the Act, since the benefits of excluding 
outweigh the benefits of including those vernal pool areas within the 
designation. For a detailed discussion of our noneconomic exclusion 
analysis used in our final designation of critical habitat for the 15 
vernal pool species, please refer to our August 6, 2003, final 
designation (68 FR 46684) and in the Exclusions section below.
    Comment 13: One commenter stated that prior designations and 
economic analyses do not properly account for the

[[Page 11147]]

recovery standard and the mitigation requirements expressed by the 
court in Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
378 F.3d 1059, 1070 (9th Cir. 2004). This commenter stated that certain 
areas within Critical Habitat Unit 12 in western Placer County should 
be excluded, specifically the Placer Vineyards site and the Rioso 
property, because the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) are absent. 
They also stated, along with an additional commenter, that other areas 
outside this critical habitat unit should actually be included because 
PCEs are present.
    Our Response: With regard to including additional areas for 
critical habitat designation, the scope of this notice was to reexamine 
our previous noneconomic exclusions and to more fully explain our 
rationale for any noneconomic exclusions we make subsequent to the re-
examination. We will consider all comments received, and if we propose 
additional exclusions for non-economic reasons or any other reason, we 
will propose those exclusions and solicit additional comments when we 
reopen the comment period for the draft economic analysis in the spring 
of 2005. Those comments and any comments already received will be fully 
considered before sending a final rule to the Federal Register. We will 
be considering the impact of the recent 9th Circuit decision (Gifford 
Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059, 
1070 (9th Cir. 2004)) in the economic analysis conducted for this final 
rule.
    Comment 14: One commenter requested that the Service incorporate 
results from Dr. Bob Holland's recent work regarding biogeographic 
distribution of vernal pool species in relation to their edaphic (soil 
related) requirements. The commenter also requested that the Service 
link critical habitat designation to recovery plans as long as critical 
habitat deadlines are enforced.
    Our Response: It is the goal of the Service to utilize the most 
recent scientific information available. In the development of this 
designation, we contacted numerous species experts and other members of 
the scientific community, including Dr. Holland. In developing critical 
habitat designations, we analyze all pertinent scientific and 
commercial information available to make our final determinations. This 
information would include any scientific information that was used in 
the development of recovery plans for the specific species. In the case 
of the 15 vernal pool species, we used, among other sources of 
information, scientific information gathered during the recovery 
planning process. On November 18, 2004, the draft Vernal Pool Recovery 
Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems in California and Southern Oregon was 
published in the Federal Register (69 FR 67601). We used the scientific 
information compiled in the draft recovery plan in this final 
determination; however, we will re-examine the designation in light of 
any significant information should we become aware of such information 
and make a final determination by July 31, 2005.

Issue 2--Costs and Regulatory Burden

    Comment 15: The military, notably the California Army National 
Guard, specifically Camp Roberts and Fort Hunter Liggett, and the U.S. 
Air Force, specifically Beale Air Force Base, requested that critical 
habitat be excluded on the four bases. Designation of critical habitat 
would increase the costs and regulatory requirements and hamper the 
military from carrying out its mission objectives for the bases. 
Designation of critical habitat would adversely affect national 
security by diminishing the military's ability to support realistic and 
effective military operations.
    Our Response: We have not designated critical habitat on two AFBs 
based on section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act and excluded the two Army Bases 
from final designation of critical habitat pursuant to section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act. Please refer to the Relationship of Critical Habitat to 
Military Lands section of this final rule for a detailed discussion of 
our rationale for not including or excluding these military bases 
pursuant to section 4(a)(3)(B) or 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    Comment 16: The Placer County Board of Supervisors and one other 
commenter stated that critical habitat designation within the County 
places a disproportionate amount of the regulatory burden on western 
Placer County. Western Placer County contains the infrastructure to 
support the majority of the projected growth within the entire County 
and, therefore, growth in this portion of the County would be hindered 
by the regulatory burden of the designation of critical habitat.
    Our Response: The scope of this notice and resulting analysis was 
to seek comment on the noneconomic exclusions previously excluded in 
our final determination of critical habitat (68 FR 46684). We will be 
conducting a new economic analysis and will finalize economic 
exclusions in the final rule in July 2005. This comment will also be 
addressed at that time.
    Comment 17: One commenter suggested that the National Wildlife 
Refuges, State Wildlife Areas, and Ecological Reserves all provide 
economic benefits from wildlife viewing, photography, hunting, and 
fishing. The Commenter requested that the Service quantify these 
benefits using visitation records as part of the Service's re-
evaluation of special lands exclusions.
    Our Response: We agree that National Wildlife Refuges, State 
Wildlife Areas and Ecological Reserves provide benefits in the form of 
recreational opportunities. However, these benefits will remain 
regardless of whether these areas are designated as critical habitat. 
These benefits are not due to a critical habitat designation, rather, 
they result from the legal authorities establishing these areas, such 
as the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the Refuge 
Recreation Act, and other authorities, all of which are independent of 
critical habitat designations.

Issue 3--Procedural Concerns

    Comment 18: One commenter stated that the 30-day comment period for 
the proposed rule violated 50 CFR 424.16(c)(2) and requested that we 
extend the comment period on the re-evaluation of noneconomic 
exclusions for a total or 60 days to allow for additional outreach to 
interested parties.
    Our Response: An additional public comment period of at least 30 
days will open once the draft economic analysis has been completed 
prior to the finalization of the rule in July.
    Comment 19: One commenter stated that the maps of the lands being 
considered for removal from the exempt status were not readily 
available and accessible to the public in a timely manner.
    Our Response: Maps and Geographic Information System (GIS) maps of 
the final designation published in August of 2003 (68 FR 46684) were 
available through our Sacramento and Regional Web sites as identified 
in the proposed rule (69 FR 77700). Specific maps identifying the 
exclusion areas and any other information requested by the public were 
made available upon request on an individual basis. Because this 
rulemaking is subject to a court-imposed deadline, the accelerated 
schedules of this designation as well as budget and staffing 
constraints had left us with a limited amount of time and resources to 
post maps for the December 28, 2004, Federal Register document 
specifically identifying each exclusion area.

[[Page 11148]]

    Comment 20: One commenter stated that the Interior Secretary should 
not use broad discretion to override critical habitat designation 
decisions that are made by Service biologists, as exemplified by the 
proposed special lands exemptions, because it opens the door for 
political manipulation. The commenter noted that economic factors are 
important and relevant, but should not be allowed to impede recovery, 
particularly when interim analysis fails to quantify benefits. In 
addition, this commenter stated that biology, rather than politics, 
should be the driving force behind critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate 
critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial 
information 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 exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas 
as critical habitat. The Congressional record is clear that Congress 
contemplated occasions where the Secretary could exclude the entire 
designation. In addition, the discretion that Congress anticipated 
would be exercised in Section 4(b)(2) of the Act is extremely broad. 
``The consideration and weight given to any particular impact is 
completely within the secretary's discretion'' (Congressional Research 
Service 1982). We cannot exclude areas from critical habitat when the 
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species concerned. We 
will be analyzing the economic costs associated with the proposed 
designation and re-evaluate the economic exclusions based on the new 
analysis when it becomes available. The public will have an opportunity 
to comment on the analysis at that time.

Summary of Changes From the Previous Final Rule

    In development of the original final designation of critical 
habitat for Four Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal Pool Plants 
in California and Southern Oregon, significant revisions to the 
proposed critical habitat designation were made based on review of 
public comments received on the proposed designation, the Draft 
Economic Analysis (DEA), and further evaluation of existing protection 
on lands proposed as critical habitat. These revisions relied on legal 
authorities and requirements provided in the Act. This re-evaluation of 
those exclusions relies on the same legal authorities.
    In analyzing the proposed exclusions, we contacted representatives 
from State Wildlife Areas and Ecological Reserves, the four military 
bases, and the Mechoopda Tribe to verify that no significant changes to 
vernal pool habitat or their management have occurred since the August 
6, 2003, final rule. After reviewing the public comments received and 
the previously proposed and final designations of critical habitat for 
the 4 vernal pool crustaceans and 11 vernal pool plants in California 
and southern Oregon, we find that the noneconomic exclusions were based 
on the best available science and that the benefits of excluding these 
areas outweighs the benefits of inclusion. As a result we have 
determined that no significant boundary changes to the noneconomic 
exclusions should occur to the August 6, 2003, final rule (68 FR 
46684). Where we have received new information was included in our 
reanalysis. In addition, we have expanded our discussion of the 
analysis conducted on each of the exclusions.

Critical Habitat

    This rule focuses on the reanalysis and evaluation of the non-
economic exclusions from critical habitat. For that reason, much of the 
August 6, 2003, final rule describing the basis for designation is 
unchanged. Accordingly, for all discussions other than those related to 
non-economic exclusions we refer you to the August 6, 2003, final 
designation (68 FR 46684).
    On the basis of the final economic analysis and other relevant 
impacts, as outlined under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and the economic 
effects associated with this rule, certain exclusions were made to our 
final designation. The Service will be reanalyzing the economic effects 
of the critical habitat designation over the entire designation. Our 
original rule excluded five Counties: Butte, Madera, Merced, 
Sacramento, and Solano Counties. That exclusion was based on a 
comparison of the economic effects of the designation among the 
counties, and excluded those with relatively higher effects. At the 
time, the economic effects were aggregated on a countywide basis, which 
limited our ability to make exclusions on anything less than a county-
level. Pursuant to the October 28, 2004, court order, the Service is 
reanalyzing the economic effects of the entire designation and will 
make its final critical habitat designation and any economic exclusions 
based on this more detailed analysis. A Federal Register notice 
announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis will be 
published and the public will have the opportunity to comment on the 
document.

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

    Section 318 of fiscal year 2004 the National Defense Authorization 
Act (Public Law No. 108-136) amended the Endangered Species Act to 
address the relationship of Integrated Natural Resources Management 
Plans (INRMPs) to critical habitat by adding a new section 4(a)(3)(B). 
This provision prohibits the Service from designating as critical 
habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by 
the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject 
to an INRMP prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 
670a), if the Secretary of the Interior determines in writing that such 
plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is 
proposed for designation.
    This provision was added subsequent to our final designation of 
critical habitat in 2003. However, its provisions apply to this 
designation. Accordingly the Service does not have the authority to 
designate Beale Air Force Base or Travis Air Force Base as those 
facilities have existing INRMPs that provide a benefit to the species.

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

    As noted earlier, section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical 
habitat shall be designated, and revised, on the basis of the best 
available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic 
impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of 
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. An area may be 
excluded from critical habitat if it is determined that the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying a particular area as 
critical habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical 
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. The following 
paragraphs will provide detail as to the basis for the non-economic 
exclusions that we have analyzed and found appropriate.
    A total of approximately 1,184,513 ac (479,356 ha) of land falls 
within the boundaries of designated critical habitat of those lands we 
propose to exclude:
     Lands within the boundaries of Habitat Conservation Plans,
     National Wildlife Refuge lands and National fish hatchery 
lands (33,097 ac (13,394 ha)),
     State lands within ecological reserves and wildlife 
management areas (20,933 ac (8,471 ha)),
     Department of Defense lands within Fort Hunter Liggett 
Army installation (16,583 ac (6,711 ha)),
     Tribal lands managed by the Mechoopda Tribe (644 ac (261 
ha)),

[[Page 11149]]

     The Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve (10,200 ac 
(4,128 ha)) from the final designation.

Habitat Conservation Plans

(1) Benefits of Inclusion
    The benefits of including HCPs or NCCP/HCPs in critical habitat are 
small to nonexistent. The principal benefit of any designated critical 
habitat is that federally funded or authorized activities in such 
habitat that may affect it require consultation under section 7 of the 
Act. Such consultation would ensure that adequate protection is 
provided to avoid adverse modification of critical habitat. An HCP 
application must be itself consulted upon. While this consultation will 
not look specifically at the issue of adverse modification to critical 
habitat, unless critical habitat has already been designated within the 
proposed plan area, it will determine if the HCP jeopardizes the 
species in the plan area. Therefore, any federal activity that is 
consistent with the terms of the HCP and IA would be very unlikely to 
have an effect on the primary constituent elements of habitat that 
would otherwise be designated as critical habitat would not serve the 
intended conservation role for the species.
    HCPs/NCCPs are already designed to ensure the long-term survival of 
covered species within the entire plan area rather than just those 
areas with a federal nexus. Where we have approved HCPs or NCCP/HCPs, 
lands will normally be protected in reserves and other conservation 
lands by the terms of the HCPs or NCCP/HCPs and their Implementing 
Agreements (IAs). These HCPs or NCCP/HCPs and IAs include management 
measures and protections for conservation lands designed to protect, 
restore, and enhance their value as habitat for covered species and 
provide the same benefits for any species that relies on the same 
ecosystems.
    Another possible benefit to including these lands is that the 
designation of critical habitat can serve to educate landowners and the 
public regarding the potential conservation value of an area. This may 
focus and contribute to conservation efforts by other parties by 
clearly delineating areas of high conservation value for certain 
species. However in the case of HCCP/NCCPs the public notice and 
comment and final publication in the Federal Register of the final 
provisions provide virtually the same notice as a critical habitat 
designation.
    Because of the above, we conclude that any benefits that accrue to 
habitat in an HCP from a critical habitat designation are small to non-
existant.
(2) Benefits of Exclusion
    The benefits of excluding HCPs from critical habitat are 
significant. In an approved HCP, lands that might ordinarily be 
identified as critical habitat for covered species will normally be 
protected in reserves and other conservation lands by the terms of the 
HCP and its associated implementing agreement (IA). Since these large 
regional HCPs address land use within the plan boundaries, habitat 
issues within the plan boundaries have been addressed in the HCP and 
the consultation on its associated permit. In the consultation we are 
required to if the action jeopardizes the listed species. In the case 
of critical habitat we analyze whether the function of the habitat for 
recovery of the species will be reduced or eliminated by the proposed 
action.
    Designating these areas will likely have an adverse impact on the 
partnerships that we have developed with the local jurisdiction(s) and 
project proponents in the development of the HCP and NCCP/HCP, and in 
the management of the other excluded areas to benefit the species. 
Excluding these areas will promote future partnerships, and avoid 
duplicative regulatory burden on cooperating parties. We have received 
substantial comments from various parties in comment periods on this 
and many other critical habitat rules that those regulatory burdens can 
be significant to private and public parties. In part, it is to avoid 
the regulatory costs associated with project-by-project consultations 
that provides an incentive for private landowners to enter into HCPs. 
The Service achieves far more conservation when entire regions can be 
subject to the HCP permit issuance standards instead of just projects 
with a federal nexus. Failure to exclude HCPs from critical habitat 
removes any incentive for landowners to voluntarily participate in HCPs 
and thus removes any protection for lands with no federal nexus.

San Joaquin County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)

    The San Joaquin County Multi-Species Conservation Plan (SJMSCP) 
covers the entirety of San Joaquin County and identifies the vernal 
pool fairy shrimp and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp as covered 
species. The SJMSCP has identified areas where growth and development 
are expected to occur (build-out areas). A portion of one of these 
build-out areas overlaps with the San Joaquin Unit 18 for vernal pool 
fairy shrimp. The SJMSCP has been finalized and includes participants 
from seven cities; the County of San Joaquin, the San Joaquin Council 
of Governments; various water districts within the County; the 
California Department of Transportation; East Bay Municipal Utility 
District; and the San Joaquin Area Flood Control District. The SJMSCP 
is a subregional plan under the State's Natural Community Conservation 
Planning (NCCP) program and was developed in cooperation with 
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Within the county wide 
planning area of the SJMSCP, approximately 71, 837 ac (29,071 ha) of 
diverse habitats are proposed for conservation. The proposed 
conservation of 71, 837 ac (29,071 ha) will compliment other, existing 
natural and open space areas that are already conserved through other 
means (e.g., State Parks, USFWS, and County Park lands). For a complete 
discussion of this HCP, please refer to our August 6, 2003, final 
designation (68 FR 46684).

Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)

    The Western Riverside MSHCP has been finalized since the issuance 
of the August 6, 2003, rule. The Western Riverside MSHCP includes 
participants from 14 cities; the County of Riverside, including the 
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; the County Waste 
Department; the California Department of Transportation; and the 
California Department of Parks and Recreation. The Western Riverside 
MSHCP is a subregional plan under the State's Natural Community 
Conservation Planning (NCCP) program and was developed in cooperation 
with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Within the 1.26-
million-acre (510,000-ha) planning area of the MSHCP, approximately 
153,000 ac (62,000 ha) of diverse habitats are proposed for 
conservation. The proposed conservation of 153,000 ac (62,000 ha) will 
compliment other, existing natural and open space areas that are 
already conserved through other means (e.g., State Parks, USFS, and 
County Park lands). For a complete discussion of this HCP, please refer 
to our August 6, 2003, final designation (68 FR 46684).
    The Skunk Hollow mitigation bank (the correct title is the Barry 
Jones Wetland Mitigation Bank) and the Santa Rosa Plateau Preserve are 
within the planning area of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Both of 
these areas are conserved as part of the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP. The management actions undertaken as part of the Western 
Riverside County

[[Page 11150]]

MSHCP benefit the endangered Riverside fairy shrimp, threatened 
Navarretia fossalis, and the endangered Oructtia californica-vernal 
pool species, which are included as covered species under this regional 
HCP, will provide equal conservation benefits for the vernal pool fairy 
shrimp.
    The Skunk Hollow vernal pool basin (Unit 35) consists of a single, 
large vernal pool and its essential associated watershed in western 
Riverside County and is part of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. 
Several federally listed species have been documented as occurring in 
the Skunk Hollow vernal pool basin. These include the vernal pool fairy 
shrimp (Simovich, in litt. 2001), the Riverside fairy shrimp (Service 
2001), Navarretia fossalis, and Orcuttia californica (Service 1998). 
The vernal pool complex and watershed are also currently protected as 
part of a reserve established within an approved wetland mitigation 
bank in the Rancho Bella Vista HCP area, and as part of the 
conservation measures contained in the Assessment District 161 
Subregional HCP (AD161 HCP), all of which are now incorporated into the 
Western Riverside County MSHCP. Although the Skunk Hollow does not 
identify the vernal pool fairy shrimp as a covered species it does list 
the endangered Riverside fairy shrimp as a covered species and protects 
the vernal pool habitat within the area. Since a critical habitat 
designation is designed to conserve the habitat type or ecosystem (in 
this case vernal pools) and not the species specifically, the HCP and 
associated reserve and mitigation bank don't need to name the species 
specifically in order to provide benefits, as long as the ecosystem 
upon which the species relies is preserved. In this case, since species 
which rely on the same ecosystem are the target of the HCP and 
mitigation bank, we are able to conclude that the plan will provide the 
necessary management to protect the critical habitat. In addition, 
since the entire habitat area is addressed under the HCP, preserve, and 
mitigation bank and not just habitat with a federal nexus, the existing 
management already provides more protection than can be provided by a 
critical habitat designation.
    The Western Riverside County MSHCP also encompasses lands within 
the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve (SRPER) (Unit 34 for vernal 
pool fairy shrimp), an area that covers approximately 8,300 ac (3360 
ha) near the town of Murrieta, California. The SRPER is situated on a 
large mesa composed of basaltic and granitic substrates and contains 
one of the largest vernal pool complexes remaining in southern 
Riverside County. Several endemic vernal species are known to occur 
within the complex, including the vernal pool fairy shrimp, Riverside 
fairy shrimp, Santa Rosa fairy shrimp (Linderiella santarosae), 
Orcuttia californica, Brodiaea filifolia (Thread-leaved brodiaea), and 
Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii (San Diego button-celery.) 
Established in 1984, the SRPER is owned by The Nature Conservancy 
(TNC), and is cooperatively managed by TNC, the Riverside County 
Regional Park and Open Space District, CDFG, and the Service.
    TNC has transferred ownership of SRPER to CDFG. As a signatory to 
the agreement, CDFG has will oversee the SRPER in a manner consistent 
with the present conservation management scheme agreed to by the 
cooperating agencies. The CDFG has a broad authority to protect lands 
and conserve species (Fish and Game Code Sec. Sec.  2700 et seq.). 
Designation of critical habitat would not have any beneficial effect of 
the present management of the vernal pool complex on the SRPER.

(1) Benefits of Inclusion

    The principal benefit of any designated critical habitat is that 
federally funded or authorized activities in such habitat require 
consultation under section 7 of the Act. Such consultation would ensure 
that adequate protection is provided to avoid adverse modification of 
critical habitat. Where HCPs are in place, our experience indicates 
that this benefit is small or nonexistent. The issuance of a permit 
(under section 10(a) of the Act) in association with an HCP application 
is subject to consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. During 
consultation on permit issuance, we must address the issue of 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for vernal pool 
species and any other species protected by the plan. In an approved 
HCP, lands we ordinarily would define as critical habitat for covered 
species will normally be protected in reserves and other conservation 
lands by the terms of the HCP and its its associated implementing 
agreement (IA). Since these large regional HCPs address land use within 
the plan boundaries, habitat issues within the plan boundaries have 
been addressed in the HCP and the consultation on the permit associated 
with the HCP. This requires us to make a determination as to the 
appreciable reduction in the survival and recovery of a listed species, 
in the case of critical habitat by reducing the function of the habitat 
so designated. Therefore, any federal activity that is consistent with 
the terms of the HCP and IA would be very unlikely to have an effect on 
the primary constituent elements of habitat that would otherwise be 
designated as critical habitat would not serve the intended 
conservation role for the species.
    We have determined that the management and protections afforded the 
vernal pool fairy shrimp in the build-out areas through the SJMSHCP and 
the Western Riverside County MSHCP are adequate for the long-term 
conservation of these species. In addition, protections afforded by 
HCPs, management plans, and other landscape management programs go 
beyond any protections provided by a critical habitat designation. A 
critical habitat designation only protects areas that are subject to a 
federal action. HCPs and other management plans are not dependent on 
federal action to provide species protection. The Western Riverside 
County MSHCP provides protection for the affected vernal pool complex 
and its associated watershed in perpetuity. Therefore it addresses the 
primary conservation needs of the species by protecting the ecosystem 
upon which it relies. The management and protections afforded the 
vernal pool and Riverside fairy shrimp provide for the long-term 
conservation of this pool and vernal pool fairy shrimp.
    The education benefits of critical habitat, including informing the 
public of areas that are important for long-term survival and 
conservation of the species, are essentially the same as those that 
would occur from the public notice and comment procedures required to 
establish a HCP or NCCP/HCP, as well as the public participation that 
occurs in the development of many regional HCPs or NCCP/HCPs. 
Therefore, the benefits of designating these areas as critical habitat 
are low.

(2) Benefits of Exclusion

    In contrast, the benefits of excluding these areas from critical 
habitat, are more significant. Designating these areas will likely have 
an adverse impact on the partnerships that we have developed with the 
local jurisdiction and project proponents in the development of the HCP 
and NCCP/HCP, and in the management of the other excluded areas to 
benefit the species. Excluding these areas will promote future 
partnerships, and avoid duplicative regulatory burden on cooperating 
parties. We have received substantial comments from various parties in 
comment periods on this and many other critical habitat rules that 
those regulatory burdens can be significant to private and public

[[Page 11151]]

parties. Excluding these areas from critical habitat removes those 
concerns and provides an incentive to place lands that would not 
ordinarily be protected under regulatory management to protect the 
ecosystem.

(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to consider other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic and national security impacts, when 
designating critical habitat. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes 
us to issue to non-Federal entities a permit for the incidental take of 
endangered and threatened species. This permit allows a non-Federal 
landowner to proceed with an activity that is legal in all other 
respects, but that results in the incidental taking of a listed species 
(i.e., take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying 
out of an otherwise lawful activity). The Act specifies that an 
application for an incidental take permit must be accompanied by a 
conservation plan, and specifies the content of such a plan. The 
purpose of such an HCP is to describe and ensure that the effects of 
the permitted action on covered species are adequately minimized and 
mitigated, and that the action does not appreciably reduce the survival 
and recovery of the species.
    Approved and permitted HCPs are designed to ensure the long-term 
survival of covered species within the plan area. Where we have an 
approved HCP, the areas we ordinarily would designate as critical 
habitat for the covered species will be protected through the terms of 
the HCPs and their IAs. These HCPs and IAs include management measures 
and protections that are crafted to protect, restore, and enhance their 
value as habitat for covered species. We have reviewed and evaluated 
HCPs, NCCP/HCPs, and other cooperatively managed lands at the SRPER 
currently with approved and implemented management plans within the 
areas being designated as critical habitat for the vernal pool 
crustaceans and plants. Based on this evaluation, we find that the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designating the Western 
Riverside County MSHCP, and a portion of the San Joaquin County NCCP/
MSHCP as critical habitat.
    For these reasons, then, we believe that designation of critical 
habitat has little benefit in areas covered by these HCPs, as the 
referenced HCP and its associated IA are legally operative and 
adequately protects the habitat or ecosystem upon which the listed 
species rely and for which critical habitat is being designated. We 
also believe that the measures being taken by the managers of the Santa 
Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve will conserve and benefit the vernal 
pool fairy shrimp. The exclusion of the HCP areas and Ecological 
Reserve from the designation will not result in the extinction of the 
vernal pool fairy shrimp.

Relationship of Critical Habitat to National Wildlife Refuge and 
National Fish Hatchery Lands

    We have determined that proposed critical habitat units on the 
Sacramento, San Francisco Bay, San Luis, and Kern National Wildlife 
Refuge Complexes, and the Coleman National Fish Hatchery Complex, 
warrant exclusion pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act because the 
benefits of excluding these lands from final critical habitat outweigh 
the benefits of their inclusion. For a complete discussion of these 
NWRs and NFHLs, please refer to our August 6, 2003 final designation 
(68 FR 46684).

(1) Benefits of Inclusion

    There is minimal benefit from designating critical habitat for the 
vernal pool species within National Wildlife Refuge and National Fish 
Hatchery lands because these lands are already managed for the 
conservation of wildlife. The benefits of including these lands are 
low, since their purpose is to preserve natural resource values, a 
purpose that is not incompatible with critical habitat designation.
    Critical habitat designation provides little gain in the way of 
increased recognition for special habitat values on lands that are 
expressly managed to protect and enhance those values. All of these 
refuges are developing comprehensive resource management plans that 
will provide for protection and management of all trust resources, 
including federally listed species and sensitive natural habitats. 
These plans, and many of the management actions undertaken to implement 
them must also complete consultation under section 7 of the Act. The 
comprehensive resource management plan for the Kern National Wildlife 
Refuge Complex has been completed and the associated biological opinion 
concluded that its implementation would not jeopardize the continued 
existence of these species (Service 2004). Therefore, any federal 
activity that is consistent with the terms of the comprehensive 
resource management plan would be very unlikely to have an effect on 
the primary constituent elements of habitat that would otherwise be 
designated as critical habitat would not serve the intended 
conservation role for the species.

(2) Benefits of Exclusion

    The consultation requirement associated with critical habitat on 
the National Wildlife Refuge and Fish Hatchery lands would require the 
use of resources to ensure regulatory compliance that could otherwise 
be used for on-the-ground management of the targeted listed or 
sensitive species. Therefore, the benefits of exclusion include 
relieving additional regulatory burden that might be imposed by the 
critical habitat, which could divert resources from substantive 
resource protection to procedural regulatory efforts.

(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion

    We believe that the benefit of including these lands in critical 
habitat is low because they already are publicly owned and managed to 
protect and enhance unique and important natural resource values. In 
addition, by designating these lands the Service would be required to 
conduct internal consultations on activities to determine whether they 
adversely modify critical habitat. This extra and unnecessary 
regulatory process will require funding that must be diverted from the 
management of the resource. The Service would prefer to allocate 
taxpayer funds to actions that more directly benefit species on the 
ground. Exclusion of these lands will not increase the likelihood that 
management activities would be proposed which would appreciably 
diminish the value of the habitat for conservation of the species. 
Further, such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the vernal 
pool species. We, therefore, conclude that the benefits of excluding 
refuge and Fish Hatchery lands from the final critical habitat 
designation outweigh the benefits of including them.
    In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have excluded 
lands within the Sacramento, San Francisco Bay, San Luis, and Kern 
National Wildlife Refuge Complexes, and the Coleman National Fish 
Hatchery Complex from final critical habitat.

Relationship of Critical Habitat to State-Managed Ecological Reserves 
and Wildlife Areas

    We contacted local California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 
resource managers and staff at the various locations to verify that no 
significant changes to vernal pool habitat and the management of this 
habitat have occurred since the August

[[Page 11152]]

6, 2003, final rule. These areas continue to be managed for the benefit 
of common and special-status species and their habitats.
    We proposed as critical habitat, but have now considered for 
exclusion from the final designation, the CDFG owned lands within the 
Battle Creek, Big Sandy, Grizzly Island, Hill Slough, North Grasslands, 
and Oroville Wildlife Areas and State-owned lands within Allensworth, 
Boggs Lake, Butte Creek Canyon, Calhoun Cut, Carrizo Plains, Dales 
Lake, Fagan Marsh, Phoenix Field, San Joaquin River, Stone Corral, and 
Thomes Creek Ecological Reserves. These State Managed Ecological 
Reserves and Wildlife Areas were excluded from critical habitat 
designation in our August 6, 2003, final designation (68 FR 46684).

(1) Benefits of Inclusion

    The designation of critical habitat would require consultation with 
us for any action undertaken, authorized, or funded by a Federal agency 
that may affect the species or its designated critical habitat. 
However, the management objects for State ecological reserves already 
include specifically managing for targeted listed and sensitive 
species; therefore, the benefit from additional consultation is likely 
also to be minimal.
    The State of California establishes ecological reserves to protect 
threatened or endangered native plants, wildlife, or aquatic organisms 
or specialized habitat types, both terrestrial and nonmarine aquatic, 
or large heterogeneous natural gene pools (Fish and Game Code Sec.  
1580). They are to be preserved in a natural condition, or are to be 
provided some level of protection as determined by the commission, for 
the benefit of the general public to observe native flora and fauna and 
for scientific study or research (Fish and Game Code Sec.  1584). 
Wildlife areas are for the purposes of propagating, feeding, and 
protecting birds, mammals, and fish (Fish and Game Code Sec.  1525); 
however, they too provide habitat and are managed for the benefit of 
listed and sensitive species (CDFG in litt. 2003).
    Take of species except as authorized by State Fish and Game Code is 
prohibited on both State ecological reserves and wildlife areas (Fish 
and Game Code Sec.  1530 and Sec.  1583). While public uses are 
permitted on most wildlife areas and ecological reserves, such uses are 
only allowed at times and in areas where listed and sensitive species 
are not adversely affected (CDFG in litt. 2003). The management 
objectives for these State lands include: ``to specifically manage for 
targeted listed and sensitive species to provide protection that is 
equivalent to that provided by designation of critical habitat; to 
provide a net benefit to the species through protection and management 
of the land; to ensure adequate information, resources, and funds are 
available to properly manage the habitat; and to establish conservation 
objectives, adaptive management, monitoring and reporting processes to 
assure an effective management program, and monitoring and reporting 
processes to assure an effective management program (CDFG, in litt. 
2003).'' In summary, we believe that the benefits of inclusion for 
these lands are minimal as these lands already are publicly owned and 
managed to protect and enhance unique and important natural resource 
values. Therefore, any federal activity that is consistent with the 
State code for activity on both State ecological reserves and wildlife 
areas would be very unlikely to have an effect on the primary 
constituent elements of habitat that would otherwise be designated as 
critical habitat would not serve the intended conservation role for the 
species.

(2) Benefits of Exclusion

    While the consultation requirement associated with critical habitat 
on the CDFG ecological reserves and wildlife areas add little benefit, 
it would require the use of resources to ensure regulatory compliance 
that could otherwise be used for on-the-ground management of the 
targeted listed or sensitive species, in addition, there is no 
guarantee that any federal action that would require consultation would 
take place on such as the state preserves. In the past, the State has 
expressed a concern that the designation of these lands and associated 
regulatory requirements may cause delays that could be expected to 
reduce their ability to respond to vernal pool management issues that 
arise on the ecological reserves and wildlife areas. Therefore, the 
benefits of exclusion include relieving additional regulatory burden 
that might be imposed by the designation of critical habitat for vernal 
pool species, which could divert resources from substantive resource 
protection to procedural regulatory efforts.

(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion

    We believe that the benefits of inclusion for these lands are low 
as these lands already are publicly-owned and managed by a wildlife 
agency to protect and enhance unique and important natural resource 
values. Therefore, designation of critical habitat would add little 
value. The benefits of exclusion are higher, as federal actions on 
these lands may result in the need for consultation, most often on 
activities that would enhance wildlife conservation. These 
consultations would result in additional administrative burdens without 
significant accompanying conservation benefits.
    We, therefore, conclude that the benefits of excluding CDFG 
ecological reserves and wildlife areas from the final critical habitat 
designation outweigh the benefits of including them. Such exclusion 
will not result in the extinction of the vernal pool species. Further, 
we do not believe that such exclusion will increase the likelihood that 
activities would be proposed that would appreciably diminish the value 
of the habitat for the conservation of these species.
    In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have excluded 
California Department of Fish and Game-owned lands within the Battle 
Creek, Big Sandy, Grizzly Island, Hill Slough, North Grasslands, and 
Oroville Wildlife Areas and State-owned lands within Allensworth, Boggs 
Lake, Butte Creek Canyon, Calhoun Cut, Carrizo Plains, Dales Lake, 
Fagan Marsh, Phoenix Field, San Joaquin River, Stone Corral, and Thomes 
Creek Ecological Reserves.

Relationship of Critical Habitat to Military Lands

    As stated above we are prohibited from designating Military lands 
with approved INRMPs as critical habitat according to section 
4(a)(3)(B) of the Act as long as 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.
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to base critical habitat 
designations on the best scientific and commercial data available, 
after taking into consideration the economic and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. It also 
requires us to gather information regarding the designation of critical 
habitat and the effects thereof from all relevant sources, including 
the Unites States Air Force and the United States Army. The following 
discussions are provided on Travis AFB, Beale AFB, Camp Roberts, and 
Fort Hunter Liggett.

Travis Air Force Base

    Travis AFB has several vernal pool complexes that support the 
vernal pool fairy shrimp and Lasthenia conjugens and also contain PCEs 
for Neostapfia

[[Page 11153]]

colusana, Conservancy fairy shrimp, Tuctoria mucronata, and vernal pool 
tadpole shrimp. As a result of wetland surveys, Travis AFB had 
identified 235 vernal pools on approximately 100 ac (40 ha) of the 
1,100 ac (445 ha) that are not developed on the base. To date, only 
Lasthenia conjugens and the vernal fairy shrimp have been discovered on 
Travis AFB within these 100 ac (40 ha). Travis AFB has a Service 
approved INRMP in place that provides a benefit for the vernal pool 
fairy shrimp and Lasthenia conjugens and provides protection of the 
PCEs for Neostapfia colusana, Conservancy fairy shrimp, Tuctoria 
mucronata, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. As a result we are 
prohibited from designating critical habitat on Travis AFB in 
compliance with our section 4(a)(3)(B) responsibilities.

Beale Air Force Base

    Beale AFB has several substantial vernal pool complexes that 
support the vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp, 
especially on the western side of the base. Beale AFB completed their 
INRMP in 1999. The completed INRMP provides for management and 
conservation of vernal pools with the base and establishes a Vernal 
Pool Conservation and Management Area to protect vernal pool complexes 
on the western side of the base. Beale AFB has provided an updated 
INRMP for the Service's review. The Beale AFB is also currently 
preparing a Habitat Conservation Management Plan (HCMP) for the area. 
We will consult with Beale AFB under section 7 of the Act on the 
development and implementation of the revised INRMP, HCMP and base 
comprehensive plan. A final revised and Service approved INRMP is 
expected to be completed by March 2005. Beale AFB has a Service 
approved INRMP in place that provides a benefit for the vernal pool 
fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. As a result we are 
prohibited from designating critical habitat on Beale AFB in compliance 
with our section 4(a)(3)(B) responsibilities.

Camp Roberts

    Camp Roberts has substantial vernal pool complexes that support the 
vernal pool fairy shrimp. Camp Roberts completed their INRMP in 1999. 
The completed INRMP provides for the vernal pool fairy shrimp. We will 
consult with Camp Roberts under section 7 of the Act on the development 
and implementation of the INRMP. Camp Roberts has a final INRMP in 
place that provides a benefit for the vernal pool fairy shrimp. As a 
result we are prohibited from designating critical habitat on Camp 
Roberts (13,247 ha (33,117 ac)) in compliance with our section 
4(a)(3)(B) responsibilities.

Fort Hunter Liggett

    Fort Hunter Liggett (6,519 ha (16,298 ac)) and Camp Roberts (13,247 
ha (33,117 ac)) occur in San Luis Obispo and Monterey Counties. Fort 
Hunter Liggett has submitted draft INRMPs for our review. We are 
currently reviewing the INRMPs and expect completion of the section 7 
consultation by April 2005. Fort Hunter Ligget has several substantial 
vernal pool complexes that support the vernal pool fairy shrimp.

(1) Benefits of Inclusion

    Inclusion of these military lands could provide additional areas of 
conserved species habitat. However, the principal benefit of any 
designated critical habitat is that federally funded or authorized 
activities in such habitat that may affect it require consultation 
under section 7 of the Act. Such consultation would ensure that 
adequate protection is provided to avoid adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The military also has an obligation under the Sykes 
Act, and Section 7(a)(1) of the Act to conserve threatened and 
endangered species on lands under its jurisdiction. Therefore, the 
benefits of inclusion are low.

(2) Benefits of Exclusion

    Military operations in training areas with listed fairy shrimp at 
Fort Hunter Liggett could be modified, activities affected include the 
use of field artillery pieces, range training, drop zone use, and use 
of tank trails or roads. One of these training areas contains a multi-
purpose range complex that only occurs at four military bases in the 
country (FHL 2002b). Consistent access to the facility is critical 
because comparable facilities at other locations are scheduled for use 
several months to years in advance. Initiating and completing section 7 
consultations that would arise from a critical habitat designation 
would likely result in alterations to, and delays in, training 
schedules at the multi-purpose range complex. If critical habitat is 
designated on these bases, the military would need to consider and 
possibly implement alternatives that modify the timing, location, and 
intensity of training activities. Failure to complete the training and 
activities these bases are intended for would adversely affect national 
security.

(3) The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion

    Based on the above considerations, and consistent with the 
direction provided in section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have determined 
that the benefits of excluding Fort Hunter Liggett as critical habitat 
for vernal pool fairy shrimp (Unit 29) outweigh the benefits of 
including them as critical habitat for vernal pool species. We base 
this determination on the need for maintaining mission-critical 
military training activities. Further, we have determined that 
excluding Fort Hunter Liggett will not result in the extinction of the 
vernal pool fairy shrimp.

Relationship of Critical Habitat to Tribal Lands

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to gather information 
regarding the designation of critical habitat and the effects thereof 
from all relevant sources, including Indian Pueblos and Tribes. In 
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206, American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act 
(June 5, 1997); the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments, and Executive Order 13175, we recognize the need to 
consult with federally recognized Indian Tribes on a Government-to-
Government basis. The Secretarial Order 3206 ``American Indian Tribal 
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered 
Species Act (1997)'' provides that critical habitat should not be 
designated in an area that may impact Tribal trust resources unless it 
is determined to be essential to conserve a listed species.

The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion

    The benefits of including the Tribe's land are limited to minor 
educational benefits. Because one or more of the species occupies all 
these areas, consultation on federal actions will occur regardless of 
whether critical habitat is designated. While some additional benefit 
might accrue from these adverse modification analyses, we expect them 
to be small. Tribal areas represent a small proportion of this 
designation and the tribe has demonstrated the will and ability to 
manage these lands in a manner that preserves their conservation 
benefits. The benefits of excluding these areas from being designated 
as critical habitat are more significant, and include our policy of 
maintaining a government-to-government relationship with tribes, as

[[Page 11154]]

well as encouraging the continued development and implementation of 
special management measures. For Tribal Lands, the Mechoopda Tribe has 
their own environmental agency, the Mechoopda Environmental Protection 
Agency, which is responsible for the management of the Tribe's natural 
resources, and which recognizes the importance of implementing 
conservation measures that will contribute to the conservation of 
federally listed species on their lands. The Mechoopda Tribe have 
already demonstrated their willingness to work with us to address the 
habitat needs of listed species that may occur on Mechoopda lands. The 
exclusion of critical habitat for the Mechoopda trust lands is 
consistent with our published policies on Native American natural 
resource management by allowing the Mechoopda Tribe to manage their own 
natural resources.
    Based on the above considerations, and consistent with the 
direction provided in section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have determined 
that the benefits of excluding Mechoopda Tribal land as critical 
habitat outweigh the benefits of including it as critical habitat for 
the vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Unit 4) and will not result in the 
extinction of the vernal pool tadpole shrimp. For a complete discussion 
of these Tribal lands, please refer to our August 6, 2003, final 
designation (68 FR 46684).

Exclusion Summary

    We have reviewed the overall effect of excluding from the 
designated critical habitat for the vernal pool species lands covered 
by the following authorities: The above-mentioned approved HCPs, the 
State, national wildlife refuges, national fish hatcheries, Tribal 
trusts, and military installations, and we have determined that the 
benefits of excluding these areas outweigh the benefits of including 
them in this critical habitat designation. The exclusion of vernal pool 
critical habitat in Butte, Madera, Merced, Solano, and Sacramento 
Counties, California, will be evaluated in a future Federal Register 
document. The lands removed from critical habitat as a result of these 
exclusions will not jeopardize the long-term survival and conservation 
of the species or lead to their extinction.

Economic Analysis

    An economic analysis of the effect of critical habitat in the 36 
counties in California and 1 county in Oregon was conducted for the 
final rule. For a complete discussion of the economic analysis, please 
refer to our August 6, 2003, final rule (68 FR 46684). A re-analysis of 
the economic impacts of critical habitat designation in the five 
counties that were excluded in the final rule will be conducted in a 
future Federal Register document.

Required Determinations

    We have reviewed our analyses of Required Determinations and 
subsequent conclusions that were made in the August 6, 2003, final rule 
designating critical habitat for the 15 vernal pool species (68 FR 
46684). On the basis that we are affirming our treatment and decisions 
of noneconomic exclusions from the August 2003 final rule and are 
making no additional exclusions or changes to the designation, we 
believe that our previous conclusions stand. Thus, we refer the public 
to our previous analyses and conclusions of the Required Determinations 
in the August 6, 2003, final rule.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others, 
is available upon request from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 
(see ADDRESSES section).

Authors

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Sacramento 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

    Dated: February 28, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-4173 Filed 3-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P