[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 23, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49380-49458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16234]
[[Page 49379]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the California Tiger Salamander, Central Population; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 49380]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AT68
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for the California Tiger Salamander, Central
Population
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are
designating critical habitat for the Central population of the
California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total,
approximately 199,109 acres (ac) (80,576 hectares (ha)) fall within the
boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The critical habitat is
located within 19 counties in California.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on September 22, 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, 2800 Cottage Way,
Sacramento, CA 95825 (telephone (916) 414-6600). The final rule,
economic analysis, and map will also be available via the Internet at
http://sacramento.fws.gov or by contacting the Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Roessler, Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office at the address above (telephone (916) 414-6600;
facsimile (916) 414-6712).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 is paramount to
successful conservation actions, we have consistently found that, in
most circumstances, the designation of critical habitat is of little
additional value for most listed species, yet it consumes large amounts
of conservation resources. Sidle (1987) stated, ``Because the Act can
protect species with and without critical habitat designation, critical
habitat designation may be redundant to the other consultation
requirements of section 7.'' Currently, only 473 species or 38 percent
of the 1,253 listed species in the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the
Service have designated critical habitat.
We address the habitat needs of all 1,253 listed species through
conservation mechanisms such as listing, Section 7 consultations, the
Section 4 recovery planning process, the Section 9 protective
prohibitions of unauthorized take, Section 6 funding to the States, and
the Section 10 incidental take permit process. The Service believes
that it is these measures that may make the difference between
extinction and survival for many species.
We note, however, that the August 6, 2004, Ninth Circuit judicial
opinion, Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish and Wildlife
Service) found our definition of adverse modification was invalid. In
response to the decision, the Director provided guidance to the Service
based on the statutory language.
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 and the cost of requesting and responding to
public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 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
A physical description of the California tiger salamander, its
taxonomy, distribution, life history, biology, habitat requirements and
characteristics, dispersal and migration, and other relevant
information is included in the Background sections of the final rule to
list the California tiger salamander as a threatened species (69 FR
47212; August 4, 2004) and the proposed rule to designate critical
habitat for the Central population of California tiger salamander (69
FR 48570; August 10, 2004). Additional relevant information may be
found in the final rules to list the Santa Barbara County population of
the California tiger salamander as endangered (65 FR 57242; September
21, 2000) and to list the Sonoma County population of the
[[Page 49381]]
California tiger salamander as endangered (68 FR 13498; March 19,
2003), and the final rule to designate critical habitat for the Santa
Barbara population (69 FR 68568; November 24, 2004).
Previous Federal Actions
On August 10, 2004, we published in the Federal Register a proposed
rule to designate critical habitat for the Central population of the
California tiger salamander (referred to hereinafter as ``CTS Central
population'') (69 FR 48570). On October 13, 2004, a complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(Center for Biological Diversity and Environmental Defense Council v.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al. (Case No. C-04 4324 FMS)), which
in part identified the failure of designating critical habitat for the
California tiger salamander in the central portion of its range. On
February 3, 2005, the district court approved a settlement agreement
between the parties that established an August 10, 2005, deadline for
final designation of critical habitat for the California tiger
salamander in the central portion of its range to be submitted to the
Federal Register for publication. This final rulemaking is being made
in order to meet the date established in accordance with the settlement
agreement. For a discussion of other previous Federal actions regarding
the California tiger salamander, please see the final rule to list the
Central population of the California tiger salamander as a threatened
species across its range (69 FR 47212, August 4, 2004). Other Federal
actions regarding California tiger salamander prior to May 2004 are
summarized in that final rule and are incorporated by reference.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Central population of
California tiger salamander in the proposed rule published on August
10, 2004 (69 FR 48570). We also contacted appropriate Federal, State,
and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested
parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule. In addition,
we held five public meetings/workshops between January 2005 and March
2005, in the following California locations: Fresno, Merced, Modesto,
Red Bluff, and Sacramento. During those public meetings we provided
information on the designation, accepted written comments from the
public, answered questions related to the designation, and provided
information on schedules and contacts for additional information and
subsequent open comment periods.
During the comment period that opened on August 10, 2004, and
closed on October 12, 2004, we received comments directly addressing
the proposed critical habitat designation: one from a peer reviewer,
one from a Federal agency, six from Department of Defense agencies, one
from a State agency, two from local government, and 34 from
organizations or individuals. We received a single request for a public
hearing prior to the deadline of September 24, 2004. Sacramento Fish
and Wildlife Office staff met with the requester and discussed the
Public Hearing process procedures and their client's critical habitat
concerns regarding Central Valley Region Unit 1 in Yolo County,
California. On March 9, 2005, we received a written withdrawal of the
public hearing request (Service in litt. 2005; Neasham in litt. 2005).
During the comment period that opened on July 18, 2005, and closed
on August 3, 2005, we received an additional 40 comments directly
addressing the proposed critical habitat designation and or the draft
economic analysis. Of these latter comments, three were from peer
reviewers, one from a Federal agency, and 32 were from organizations or
individuals. We received no additional State comments.
The comments we received were reviewed and the significant comments
were grouped into general issues specifically relating to the proposed
critical habitat designation for Central population of CTS, and are
addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final
rule, as appropriate.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions from 15 knowledgeable individuals
with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the species,
the geographic region in which the species occurs, and conservation
biology principles. We received a response from four of the peer
reviewers. Peer review comments are addressed in the following summary
and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Peer Reviewer Comments
Comment: The peer reviewer agreed with our approach to the long
term conservation of the species. The peer reviewer agreed that
conservation of the range of habitat types in which a species occurs
helps maintain local adaptations that are important for long term
viability.
Our Response: In our proposal to designate critical habitat we
identified those five approaches to conserve the Central population of
the California tiger salamander, and we continue to apply these
approaches in this final rule. To ensure the long term conservation of
the species, Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) were identified (see
Primary Constituent Element section), and critical habitat units are
designated consistent with these five principles.
Comment: The peer reviewer stated that the term, ``rescue ponds''
may be misapplied or misunderstood by the general public and suggested
using the more easily understood term, ``dispersal ponds'' instead.
Another reviewer suggested we specifically define the types of breeding
habitat.
Our Response: We agree and have replaced that term throughout this
final rule. The term ``dispersal ponds,'' which is defined as ponds
located away from the pond in which the adult or juvenile CTS was born,
encompasses the definition of ``rescue ponds.'' We have further refined
our description of the primary constituent elements including breeding
habitat in the final rule.
Issue 1: Department of Defense (DOD)
Comment: The Army has requested that their lands at Fort Hunter-
Liggett be exempted from final critical habitat designation based on
their Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) providing a
benefit to the CTS in accordance with section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Section 318 of fiscal year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act
(Pub. L. 108-136) amended section 4 of the Endangered Species Act to
address the relationship of INRMPs to critical habitat by adding a new
section 4(a)(3)(B). This provision prohibits us from designating as
critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or
controlled by the DOD, or designated for its use, that are subject to
an INRMP prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act, 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.
Our Response: We have determined that exclusion of Fort Hunter-
Liggett from final critical habitat for CTS under section 4(a)(3) of
the Act is appropriate.
Comment: The Army requested that areas identified for development
in their Installation-wide Multispecies Habitat Management Plan for
Former Fort Ord be excluded from critical habitat, in
[[Page 49382]]
accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, because they believe that
designation of critical habitat in those areas would result in economic
costs and delays such that the benefits of exclusion would outweigh the
benefits of inclusion. Specifically, they requested exclusion of the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Office (approximately 5 hectares
(ha)(13 acres(ac))) and Military Operations-Urban Terrain Facility
(MOUT) (approximately 22 ha (54 ac)) parcels, which are surrounded by
the approximately 6000-ha (15,000 ac) Natural Resource Management Area
(NRMA). The NRMA will be managed by BLM with the primary management
goals being conservation and enhancement of threatened and endangered
species. They also requested exclusion of a two percent development
allowance within the NRMA and of all existing paved roads and their
associated shoulders.
Our Response: The BLM Office and MOUT parcels are relatively small
areas which are already partially developed and are identified for
additional development. It is our intent to avoid developed areas
because they lack any PCEs in this designation. We have, therefore, not
included these areas in critical habitat (see description of Central
Coast Region, Unit 2).
The two percent development allowance within the NRMA would allow
for up to two percent of areas with natural vegetation to be converted
to buildings or other development-oriented uses, such as public access,
grazing, police and fire training, and education and research. However,
specific development plans do not exist. We cannot determine the
effects of excluding unknown development location(s) and, therefore, we
are not excluding them from critical habitat.
When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort
to avoid proposing the designation of developed areas such as
buildings, paved areas, boat ramps, and other structures that lack PCEs
for the Central population of the CTS. Any such structures
inadvertently left inside proposed critical habitat boundaries are not
considered part of the proposed unit. This also applies to the land on
which such structures sit directly. Therefore, Federal actions limited
to these areas would not trigger section 7 consultations, unless they
affect the species and/or PCEs in adjacent critical habitat.
Issue 2: Habitat and Species Specific Information
Comment: Habitat/species are not present on some selected lands
that have been proposed to be designated as critical habitat.
Our Response: We believe that we used the best scientific and
commercial information available in determining those areas essential
for the CTS proposed critical habitat designation. We revised the
proposed designation based on information received during the comment
periods and have adjusted the designation accordingly. In this final
designation, we used additional available information, such as detailed
aerial imagery, to refine and map critical habitat (please refer to the
Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat section). The areas
designated as final critical habitat are occupied and have habitat
features that are essential for the conservation of the species. Even
though an area may be mapped as critical habitat, individual
salamanders may or may not be present on any one parcel at all times
because some lands may function solely as dispersal habitat for the
species and individual salamanders would only be found on those lands
during migration.
Comment: The Service has not clearly established that the proposed
critical habitat areas are essential to the conservation of the CTS nor
provided an explanation of why some other occupied areas are not
essential. Also, the descriptions of the PCEs do not explain the basis
of what is essential to species conservation.
Our Response: To provide for the long term conservation of the
species, we identified those features essential to the conservation of
the species (see Primary Constituent Elements section). The criteria
used to designate critical habitat units is consistent with the
following five conservation principles: (1) Maintaining the current
genetic structure across the species range; (2) maintaining the current
geographic, elevational, and ecological distribution; (3) protecting
the hydrology and water quality of breeding pools and ponds; (4)
retaining or providing for connectivity between breeding locations for
genetic exchange and recolonization; and (5) protecting sufficient
barrier-free upland habitat around each breeding location to allow for
sufficient survival and recruitment to maintain a breeding population
over the long term. We excluded any areas that do not contain one or
more of the PCEs or that were determined not to be essential for the
conservation of the species because: (1) The area is highly degraded
and may not be restorable; (2) the area is small, highly fragmented, or
isolated and may provide little or no long term conservation value; and
(3) other areas within the geographic region were determined to be
sufficient to meet the species needs for conservation.
Comment: One commenter stated that critical habitat for the species
is not prudent and determinable.
Our Response: According to our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, a
designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both or the
following situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or
other human activity and identification of critical habitat can be
expected to increase the degree of such threat to the species, or (2)
such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the
species. In the final rule listing the Central population of the CTS as
threatened (August 4, 2004; 69 FR 47212), we found that a designation
of critical habitat was prudent and subsequently published a proposed
rule to designate critical habitat on August 10, 2004 (69 FR 48570). We
did not find any information indicating that designating critical
habitat would increase risk to this species and the large body of
scientific information available on the California tiger salamander
provides a sufficient basis for us to define PCEs and designate
critical habitat. Our reasoning is discussed in the final listing rule,
and we believe this rationale is still applicable.
Comment: Several comments stated that we have not conducted surveys
across most of the range of the species and haven't established what is
critical habitat for the species. Several commenters asserted that we
lack site-specific information (presence) across the range of the
species, and more studies are needed to determine critical habitat for
the species. One commenter requested that we postpone designating
critical habitat until site-specific surveys are completed over the
range of the species.
Our Response: We acknowledge that rangewide surveys over all areas
that the species may be distributed have not been conducted.
Nonetheless, we feel that we have sufficient peer-reviewed scientific
and commercial data regarding the range, distribution, biology, and
ecology of the Central population of the CTS to designate critical
habitat. Given the large body of existing CTS scientific and commercial
data, we feel that additional site-specific data is not necessary to
designate critical habitat for the Central population of the CTS. We
have used the best scientific and commercial data
[[Page 49383]]
that is available to determine what habitat features are essential for
the conservation of this species. We feel that additional surveys at
this time across the range of this species would be of little
assistance in developing an improved understanding of the PCEs for this
species.
Comment: One commenter stated that critical habitat is not needed
to stop development because most CTS habitat is not threatened by
development in the foreseeable future.
Our Response: The purpose of designating critical habitat is not to
stop development, but to provide for the conservation of the species.
The listing rule states that the species is threatened by development
in the foreseeable future by a variety of factors including habitat
destruction, degradation, and fragmentation due to urban development
and conversion to intensive agriculture, hybridization with nonnative
salamanders, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, nonnative predators, and
pesticide drift, and CTS continues to be threatened by these factors.
Comment: One commenter stated that the species is already protected
enough by private and Federal programs. A total of 15 percent of all
extant occurrences (96 breeding locations) and 3,326,807 acres of
habitat are protected by the Williamson Act or Food Security Zones.
Our Response: A critical habitat designation means that Federal
agencies are required to consult with the Service on the impacts of
actions they undertake, fund, or permit on designated critical habitat.
While in many cases, these requirements may not provide substantial
additional protection for most species, they do direct the Service to
consider specifically whether a proposed action will affect the
functionality of essential habitat to serve its intended conservation
role for a species rather than to focus exclusively on whether the
action is likely to jeopardize the species' continued existence. We
agree, however, that even absent a critical habitat designation,
Federal agencies are still required to consult on the impacts of their
activities on listed species and their habitat.
Fifteen percent of CTS breeding locations is an insufficient amount
of protected habitat for the conservation of the species, especially
when more than the breeding ponds themselves need protection in order
to conserve the species. To ensure the long term conservation of the
species, we identified those features essential to the conservation of
the species (see Primary Constituent Element section). The criteria we
used to designate critical habitat units is consistent with the five-
pronged approach identified earlier.
The California Land and Conservation Act, more commonly known as
the Williamson Act, has been an agricultural land protection program
since its enactment in 1965. In 1998, the California Legislature
enhanced the Williamson Act with farmland security zone provisions. The
Williamson Act is a voluntary program that offers tax incentives in
exchange for voluntary restrictive land uses for agricultural and
compatible open space uses under a minimum 10-year rolling contract
with local governments. The food security zone provisions offer a tax
reduction for a 20-year minimum rolling contract term. These contracted
areas may offer some limited protection from habitat destruction.
However, these contracts do not significantly provide for long term
conservation of the species, as they may not be renewed by the property
owner upon expiration and they can be canceled prior to the end of the
contract term, based upon board approval and payment of a cancellation
fee.
Comment: One commenter stated that critical habitat is not
warranted because the species is extant across its historical range and
half the range remains suitable.
Our Response: The term, ``not warranted,'' applies to a petition to
list the species as threatened or endangered and is a result that is
possible for a petition finding. We do not have a ``not warranted''
option for a critical habitat designation. Although we agree that
salamanders can still be found across their historical range and
habitat remains suitable, the species continues to be threatened by
destruction, fragmentation, and degradation of wetland and associated
upland habitats due to urban development, conversion of habitats to
intensive agriculture, predation by nonnative species, disease,
agricultural and landscape contaminants, rodent and mosquito control,
and hybridization with nonnative tiger salamanders now and in the
foreseeable future.
Issue 3: Unit Designations
Comment: One commenter stated that the units need to be connected.
Our Response: We disagree that all critical habitat units need to
be connected. We determined that the conservation of the species would
be best served if the PCEs include dispersal habitat for CTS to meet
the animal's requisite biological needs. For the proposed critical
habitat designation, we developed a specific strategy for determining
which areas would be considered critical habitat. Part of that strategy
was to connect separated CTS records based on the known dispersal
capabilities and continuous habitat between occurrences and/or breeding
locations. Connecting large areas of unknown occupancy which may or may
not support CTS, or the PCEs, would not materially contribute to the
conservation of the species. For more information, please see the
Criteria and Methodology sections.
Comment: Several commenters stated that the unit descriptions are
incomplete and, in some cases, inaccurate.
Our Response: In response to information provided during the two
public comment periods and the information received during the public
meeting and workshops, we made corrections to two of the proposed
critical habitat unit descriptions. We feel that we have provided
sufficient information for the public to generally understand the
location of each unit and are ready to assist individuals with any
additional information requests on the locations of the critical
habitat units. For further information on this designation and specific
units, please contact the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES section above).
Comment: One commenter stated that the PCE descriptions are
unclear.
Our Response: In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as
critical habitat, we are required to base critical habitat
determinations on the best scientific and commercial data available and
to consider those physical and biological features, the PCEs, that are
essential to the conservation of the species and that may require
special management considerations and protection. These include, but
are not limited to: Space for individual and population growth and for
normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other
nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for
breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of offspring; and
habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of
the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
The comment letter did not specify what was unclear about the PCEs
described in the proposed rule. For a full description of each of the
PCEs, please refer to the Primary Constituent Element section below.
[[Page 49384]]
Issue 4: Social and Economic Costs/Regulatory Burden
Comment: Several commenters asserted that critical habitat results
in an increased regulatory burden, increased landowner costs, and
restricts land uses and property rights.
Our Response: The economic analysis identifies the costs which
accrue as a result of the designation. These costs will be incurred
when a Federal approval or permit is required, or Federal funds are
involved with a project proposed on private property, the critical
habitat designation poses no regulatory burden for private landowners,
and in particular, should not affect farming and ranching activities on
private lands. Routine ranching activities are also exempt from take
under the 4(d) rule at 50 CFR 17.43(c).
While the designation of critical habitat does not itself result in
the regulation of non-federal actions on private lands, the listing of
the Central population of California tiger salamander under the
Endangered Species Act may affect private landowner's actions. Actions
which could result in take of California tiger salamanders (e.g.,
ground disturbing activities such as soil compaction or soil
remediation activities) require authorization for take following
consultation under Section 7 or an incidental take permit under section
10 of the Act. Because the Central population of CTS has been listed
since 2004, proposed actions on private lands that require Federal
authorization or funding that may affect the listed entity already
undergo consultation under Section 7 to ensure that their actions are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Future
consultations involving private lands will also analyze the effect of
the proposed action on designated critical habitat when a Federal nexus
exists.
Comment: One commenter stated that all critical habitat lands, not
just habitat, are now subject to Service jurisdiction.
Our Response: Federal agencies have the responsibility to consult
with us if a Federal action may affect a federally-listed species even
absent critical habitat designation for that species. This requirement
exists for all lands. We also determine whether a proposed project will
adversely modify or destroy any designated critical habitat. Private
individuals also share the same responsibility but may need to seek
authorization for incidental take under section 10 of the Act.
Comment: One commenter stated that critical habitat designation
burdens landowners with determining if their lands have PCEs and that
the costs of determining PCEs on private lands should be undertaken by
the Service. Other commenters stated that the designation of critical
habitat means that regulatory agencies will oversee agricultural and
ranching practices, that critical habitat will impact housing
development by delaying the development process and thereby increase
costs, and that the designation of critical habitat will increase
delays in permit processing.
Our Response: Designation of critical habitat in areas occupied by
the species does not necessarily result in a regulatory burden above
that already in place due to the presence of the listed species. The
Service will work with private landowners to identify activities and
modifications to activities that will not result in take, to develop
measures to minimize the potential for take, and to provide
authorizations for take through sections 7 and 10 of the Act. One
intention of critical habitat is to inform people of areas that contain
the features that are essential for the conservation of the species. We
encourage landowners to work in partnership with us to develop plans
that allow their land management and development practices to proceed
in a manner consistent with the conservation of listed species. The
California tiger salamander is already a federally-listed species, and
as such, development projects that may result in take of the species
are already required to consult with the Service under Section 7 or
Section 10 of the Act. Assuming a federal nexus exists, designation of
CH will not cause any additional delays to housing developments due to
consultation requirements.
Comment: A commenter stated that sections 7 and 10 of the Act
already sufficiently protect the species. Another commenter stated that
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) already has jurisdiction over
vernal pools that are used as CTS breeding ponds, so the Clean Water
Act (CWA) already protects the species and its habitat.
Our Response: Sections 7 and 10 of the Act function to ensure
activities that result in incidental take, or that may adversely affect
the species, will not jeopardize the existence of the species, while
the larger role of critical habitat functions to conserve the species.
The Act requires Federal agencies to consult with us on actions they
undertake, fund, or permit on designated critical habitat to ensure
that those actions do not adversely modify the designated critical
habitat. Although these requirements may not provide substantial
additional protection for many species, they direct the Service to
consider whether or not a proposed action would affect the
functionality of critical habitat to serve its intended conservation
role for a species rather than to focus exclusively on whether or not
the proposed action would be likely to jeopardize the species'
continued existence. We agree that even absent a critical habitat
designation, Federal agencies are still required to consult on the
effects of their activities on listed species. Finally, the Corps may
take jurisdiction over some of the aquatic breeding habitat of the CTS,
such as some vernal pools. However, not all CTS breeding habitat occurs
on Corps jurisdictional wetlands. Additionally, the CTS is a
terrestrial species that spends most of its adult life in the
surrounding uplands that are generally not under the jurisdiction of
the Corps. Therefore, we conclude that regulation of the discharge of
fill into waters of the United States by the Corps under Section 404 of
the CWA is inadequate to protect the Central population of CTS and its
habitat.
Comment: Many commenters claimed the Service violated the
Administrative Procedure Act and the Act because we should have
prepared an economic analysis first and then proposed critical habitat.
Our Response: Pursuant to the Act, and clarified in our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19, we are required to, ``after
proposing designation of [a critical habitat] area, consider the
probable economic and other impacts of the designation upon proposed or
ongoing activities.'' The purpose of the draft economic analysis is to
determine and evaluate the potential economic effects of the proposed
designation. In order to develop an economic analysis of the effects of
designating critical habitat, we need to have identified an initial
proposal for the designation of critical habitat. Following the
publication of our proposed designation of critical habitat for the
CTS, we developed a draft economic analysis of the proposed designation
that was released for public review and comment. The public was allowed
60 days to comment on the proposed designation and an additional 17
days to comment on both the draft economic analysis and proposed
designation.
Issue 5: Notification and Comment Period Comments
Comment: Several commenters stated that all private landowners were
not notified about the proposed designation of critical habitat, that
additional public
[[Page 49385]]
meetings are needed, and that the public was not given enough
opportunity to comment because the draft economic analysis was not
published at the same time or before the proposed rule to designate
critical habitat. Another commenter stated that the Service admits that
the proposed critical habitat was made without sufficient public
participation and without sufficient scientific rigor and review, so
the rule should be withdrawn until evidence is presented regarding
species conservation requirements.
Our Response: The proposed critical habitat designation was
published in the Federal Register on August 10, 2004 (69 FR 48570), and
we accepted comments from all interested parties for a 60-day comment
period, until October 12, 2004. On July 18, 2005, we reopened the
comment period for 17 days and made available the draft economic
analysis (70 FR 41183). We held five public workshops to provide
information on the CTS, and at those workshops, we discussed
opportunities for the public to comment and provide input and
information. We solicited comments from peer reviewers on the proposed
critical habitat designation for the CTS. We received general support
from experts in the fields of ecology, conservation, genetics,
taxonomy, and management reviewers of the proposed rule. In addition,
we are required to base critical habitat designations on the best
available scientific and commercial data available to us, to consider
those physical and biological features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, and to consider whether such areas may
require special management considerations and protection. Our
definition and explanation of the PCEs was peer reviewed and the
results of the review did not indicate that our definition or
description of the PCEs was lacking. Additionally, we have revised our
PCEs to more accurately and/or precisely identify those physical and
biological features essential to the species.
Comment: The Service should draft a recovery plan for the species
before critical habitat is proposed to be designated.
Our Response: Section 4 of the Act requires us to designate
critical habitat at the time of listing to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable. While we agree that a recovery plan is a useful tool
to assist us with determining which areas contain the habitat features
that are essential for the conservation of a species, we are unable to
postpone the final designation pending completion of a recovery plan.
Issue 6: Property Rights
Comment: The proposed critical habitat designation decreases land
values.
Our Response: We have finalized our draft economic analysis of the
impact of critical habitat designation by incorporating all substantive
comments received during the public comment periods (See Economic
Analysis section).
Comment: The Service needs to provide more information on which
agricultural practices are allowable, and when consultation with us
would be necessary owing to crop changes.
Our Response: Some farming practices benefit salamanders while
other practices may adversely affect salamanders. For example, drawing
down pond water for frost protection can conflict with CTS biological
needs; however, creating additional new ponds may benefit CTS if the
ponds stay inundated long enough during the period of juvenile
metamorphosis (approximately 12 weeks), with active, regular control of
nonnative species. Activities carried out, funded, or authorized by a
Federal agency (i.e., activities with a Federal nexus) require
consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act if they may affect a
federally listed species and/or its designated critical habitat. Our
experience with consultations on CTS is that few agricultural
activities have involved a Federal nexus and thus have not required a
consultation under section 7 of the Act. In regard to grazing, we do
not foresee any change in the ability of private landowners to graze
their property as a result of this designation due to the establishment
of the special 4(d) rule at 50 CFR 17.43(c). In addition, we anticipate
that many activities, including grazing, presently occurring in areas
designated as critical habitat can be managed to be compatible with the
needs of CTS and its habitat. We addressed many agricultural issues
during the public workshops and hearings that we held during the
process of listing the species. Any interested parties are welcome to
write us or call us (see ADDRESSES section) during regular business
hours to have us answer specific questions regarding agricultural
practices as they relate to CTS conservation.
Comment: The Service should compensate private landowners for
taking because critical habitat is designated.
Our Response: The designation of critical habitat does not mean
that private lands would be taken by the Federal government or
reasonable uses would not be allowed. We believe that, in accordance
with Executive Order 12630, this designation of critical habitat for
the CTS will not have significant takings implications. We determined
that: (1) The designation would result in little additional regulatory
burden above that currently in place due to the species being federally
listed because the majority of the designation is occupied by the
species, and (2) the designation of critical habitat will not affect
private lands in which there is not a Federal nexus. We do not
anticipate that property values, rights or ownership will be
significantly affected by the critical habitat designation.
Issue 7: Mapping
Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed designation of
critical habitat goes overboard, includes ``all geographic area,'' is
poorly defined, and should exclude nonhabitat areas from the
designation of critical habitat. Other commenters stated that the
Service made errors in mapping open spaces and developed areas as
critical habitat and that we used political boundaries as a basis for
critical habitat units.
Our Response: Of the estimated 936,204 ac (378,882 ha) of
California tiger salamander habitat, we have designated 199,109 ac
(80,576 ha). In our designation, we did not designate all the areas
where California tiger salamander are found, but instead focused on
areas where there are high concentrations of known occurrences and the
habitat is likely to persist in the future. In this designation, not
all geographic areas are critical habitat if those areas do not possess
any the PCEs as we identified in the proposed rule and this final rule.
We feel that we have clearly defined and described the three PCEs. All
designated critical habitat is occupied and contains at least one of
the three PCEs. Based on the clear PCE definitions, we believe that
landowners can identify the areas that contain the PCEs. We stated in
the proposed and final rules that areas that do not have PCEs are not
considered to be critical habitat, including roads, buildings, paved
areas, etc.
Comment: The Service used poor data and needs to do a better job
mapping areas that do not contain PCEs, such as buildings, roads,
parking lots. These mapping errors and inaccuracies need to be
corrected, and the Service should better describe which areas are and
are not critical habitat.
Our Response: In the proposed rule and this final rule, we used the
best scientific and commercial data available to develop critical
habitat for the species
[[Page 49386]]
and took into account the many comments that we received in developing
the final rule. We stated in the proposed rule and again in this final
rule that we could not map critical habitat in sufficient detail to
exclude each and every developed area or other areas that are unlikely
to contain the PCEs. However, when determining critical habitat
boundaries, we made every effort to avoid designating developed areas
such as buildings, paved areas, boat ramps, and other structures that
lack PCEs for the Central population of the California tiger
salamander. Any such structures inadvertently left inside proposed
critical habitat boundaries are not considered part of the unit. This
also applies to the land on which such structures sit directly.
Therefore, Federal actions limited to these areas would not trigger
section 7 consultations, unless they affect the species and/or primary
constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat.
Comment: A number of commenters identified specific areas that they
thought should not be designated as critical habitat.
Our Response: Where site-specific documentation was submitted to us
providing a rationale as to why an area should not be designated
critical habitat, we evaluated that information in accordance with the
definition of critical habitat pursuant to section 3(5)(A) of the Act
and the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We evaluated the
parcels to determine whether or not modifications to the proposal were
warranted. We further examined the proposed critical habitat areas and
refined the boundaries to exclude those areas that did not, or were not
likely to, contain the PCEs for the species, wherever technically
feasible. Please refer to the Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule
section for a more detailed discussion.
Comment: The Service violated the Act by not narrowly defining
critical habitat.
Our Response: We believe that we have followed the Congressional
intent of the Act by designating critical habitat to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable for California tiger salamander based on the
best scientific and commercial data available. We are required to
identify critical habitat ``by specific limits using reference points
and lines as found on standard topographic maps of the area'' (50 CFR
424.12(c)). We have delineated the boundaries of the critical habitat
units in this rule based on the best scientific and commercial data
available. The scale at which we mapped the extent of critical habitat
was based on the availability and accuracy of aerial photography and
GIS data layers used to develop the designation. In drawing our lines
for the proposed rule, we attempted to exclude areas that do not
contain essential occurrences of the species and habitat as defined by
the PCEs. On the basis of information obtained through public comments
and updated imagery and GIS data layers, we have been able to refine
the boundaries of critical habitat during the development of this final
rule. However, due to the limitations of our mapping scale, we were not
able to exclude all areas that do not contain the PCEs. We have
determined that existing manmade features and structures, such as
buildings, roads, railroads, airports, runways, other paved areas,
lawns, and other urban landscaped areas are not likely to contain one
or more of the PCEs. Because activities in these areas are unlikely to
affect PCEs (i.e., critical habitat for the species), a consultation
under section 7 of the Act would not be required.
Comment: The proposed designation should be withdrawn until the
consequences of the Gifford Pinchot court decision are appropriately
codified, after the Service conducts a formal rulemaking process.
Our Response: We are under an order to designate critical habitat.
The Director has issued guidance for the evaluation of critical habitat
effects when the Service consults which is based on the language of the
statute.
Comment: The Service lacks evidence for the scale and extent of
what is essential for the conservation of the species.
Our Response: To ensure the long term conservation of the species,
we identified those features essential to the conservation of the
species (see Primary Constituent Element section). The criteria used to
designate critical habitat units is consistent with the following five
conservation principles: (1) Maintaining the current genetic structure
across the species range; (2) maintaining the current geographic,
elevational, and ecological distribution; (3) protecting the hydrology
and water quality of breeding pools and ponds; (4) retaining or
providing for connectivity between breeding locations for genetic
exchange and recolonization; and (5) protecting sufficient barrier-free
upland habitat around each breeding location to allow for sufficient
survival and recruitment to maintain a breeding population over the
long term. We excluded areas that do not contain one or more of the
PCEs or did not contain the habitat features essential for the
conservation of the species because: (1) The area is highly degraded
and may not be restorable; (2) the area is small, highly fragmented, or
isolated and may provide little or no long term conservation value; and
(3) other areas within the geographic region were determined to be
sufficient to meet the species needs for conservation. The Act directs
us to identify specific areas, both occupied and unoccupied by a listed
species, that have the features essential to the conservation of the
species and that may require special management. Using the best
available scientific and commercial information, we have determined
those areas that would best conserve the species in the long term.
Those areas are described in terms of PCEs and habitat features and are
provided in this final rule.
Comment: The primary constituent elements are arbitrary, overly
broad, and do not provide for defensible critical habitat boundaries.
Our Response: We have determined the habitat features (PCEs) to be
essential for the conservation of the species. To ensure the long term
conservation of the species, we identified those features essential to
the conservation of the species (see Primary Constituent Elements
section). The criteria used to designate critical habitat units is
consistent with the following five conservation principles: (1)
Maintaining the current genetic structure across the species range; (2)
maintaining the current geographic, elevational, and ecological
distribution; (3) protecting the hydrology and water quality of
breeding pools and ponds; (4) retaining or providing for connectivity
between breeding locations for genetic exchange and recolonization; and
(5) protecting sufficient barrier-free upland habitat around each
breeding location to allow for sufficient survival and recruitment to
maintain a breeding population over the long term. We did not designate
areas that did not contain one or more of the PCEs or that were not
essential for the conservation of the species because: (1) The area is
highly degraded and may not be restorable; (2) the area is small,
highly fragmented, or isolated and may provide little or no long term
conservation value; and (3) other areas within the geographic region
were determined to be sufficient to meet the species needs for
conservation.
Comment: The Service failed to demonstrate that special management
considerations are needed to justify a critical habitat designation.
Our Response: Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the
Act as: (i) the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by
the species,
[[Page 49387]]
at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those physical or biological features that are (I) essential to the
conservation of the species and (II) that may require special
management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas
outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is
listed, upon determination that such areas are essential to the
conservation of the species. In our determination of critical habitat
for CTS, we have identified those areas of occupied habitat that
contain those features essential to the conservation of the species.
Areas that may require special management or protection have also been
identified (see Critical Habitat Designation section below).
Issue 8: 4(d) Rule
Comment: The 4(d) rule should include public lands like East Bay
Regional Park District, not just private lands.
Our Response: The final rule listing the CTS as threatened (69 FR
47212) finalized the 4(d) rule for the species rangewide, which exempts
existing routine ranching activities. Under the 4(d) rule, take of the
threatened Central population of CTS caused by existing routine
ranching activities on private or Tribal lands for activities that do
not have a Federal nexus would be exempt from section 9 of the Act.
Federal agencies have the responsibility to consult with the Service if
a Federal action may affect a federally-listed species because of their
section 7 responsibilities under the Act.
Issue 9: State Comments
We received one comment from the State of California during the
initial comment period. We did not receive any additional State
comments during the second comment period, which opened on July 18,
2005 (70 FR 41183).
State Comment: The California Department of Transportation provided
information regarding labeling errors on the Federal Register map for
Unit 4 of the Central Coast Region.
Our Response: We have revised the Federal Register maps to reflect
changes in the labeling.
Economic Analysis
Comment: Critical habitat will increase transaction costs, slow
sales, and reduce rental and developmental incomes.
Our Response: To the extent that they are documented, the economic
analysis captures costs related to the designation including those
enumerated by the commenter.
Comment: The proposed rule to designate critical habitat for CTS
violates Executive Order 13211. Specifically, the Service needs to
exclude energy producing lands or prepare a Statement of Energy Effects
and include those effects in the EA and discuss benefits and costs to
the species and energy production.
Our Response: The draft economic analysis considers potential
impacts on the energy section. This analysis examines planned power
production facilities within the study area for proximity to proposed
critical habitat. It finds the sites fall into one of two categories:
either they are too far from critical habitat to be affected, or are
within or near habitat but have already completed the environmental
mitigation process. In both cases, the incremental impacts of
designation are zero; the regulation is not expected to impact energy
production. This final rule to designate critical habitat for the
Central population of the CTS is not expected to significantly affect
energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a
significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required. For more details, please see the draft economic analysis,
section ``V.2 Economic Impacts on the Energy Industry.''
Comment: Several comments stated that the DEA underestimated the
delay in project completion resulting from Section 7 consultation.
Our Response: Delay times resulting from Section 7 consultation
were calculated based on a review of available Biological Opinions.
Delay time was calculated based on the average number of days from
submission of a completed application to the date of a final decision.
Comment: Several comments stated that mitigation costs in Alameda,
Contra Costa and Fresno Counties are higher than the figure used in the
DEA.
Our Response: Mitigation costs were derived from a survey of
mitigation banks, developers and consultants familiar with the
permitting process. We believe that these data represent the best
available information on mitigation costs in affected counties.
Comment: Several comments stated that the avoidance and mitigation
requirements and mitigation costs used in the DEA are inconsistent with
the recent Gifford Pinchot decision.
Our Response: Avoidance and mitigation requirements and mitigations
costs used in the DEA were based on interviews with those familiar with
the permitting process as well as a comprehensive examination of the
Service's consultation history. The Ninth Circuit has recently ruled
(``Gifford Pinchot'', 378 F.3d at 1071) that the Service's regulations
defining ``adverse modification'' of critical habitat are invalid. As a
result, there is some uncertainty involved in considering the costs due
to the fact that the consequences of designation are more difficult to
predict as Service cannot rely on decades of factual information based
on prior experience.
Comment: One comment stated that the DEA failed to provide a
balanced assessment of economic benefits and costs in relation to the
proposed critical habitat designation. The commenter also included a
general list of potential benefits that may be associated with the
designation of critical habitat and suggested that the Service should
include such effects in its economic analysis.
Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the Secretary to
designate critical habitat based on the best scientific data available
after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other
relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
The Service's approach for estimating economic impacts includes both
economic efficiency and distributional effects. The measurement of
economic efficiency is based on the concept of opportunity costs, which
reflect the value of goods and services foregone in order to comply
with the effects of the designation (e.g., lost economic opportunity
associated with restrictions on land use). Where data are available,
the economic analyses do attempt to measure the net economic impact.
However, no data was found that would allow for the measurement of such
an impact, nor was such information submitted during the public comment
period.
Most of the other benefit categories submitted by the commenter
reflect broader social values, which are not the same as economic
impacts. While the Secretary must consider economic and other relevant
impacts as part of the final decision-making process under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, the Act explicitly states that it is the
government's policy to conserve all threatened and endangered species
and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Thus the Service believes
that explicit consideration of broader social values for the species
and its habitat, beyond the more traditionally defined economic
impacts, is not necessary as Congress has already clarified the social
importance.
The Service notes that as a practical matter, the difficulty in
being able to
[[Page 49388]]
develop credible estimates of such values as they are not readily
observed through typical market transactions and can only be inferred
through advanced, tailor-made studies that are time consuming and
expensive to conduct. The Service currently lacks both the budget and
time needed to conduct such research before meeting our court-ordered
final rule deadline. In sum, the Service believes that society places
the utmost value on conserving any and all threatened and endangered
species and the habitats upon which they depend and thus needs only to
consider whether the economic impacts (both positive and negative) are
significant enough to merit exclusion of any particular area without
causing the species to go extinct.
Comment: Several comments noted that demographic projections used
in the DEA are inconsistent with certain development projects that are
either planned or under construction.
Our Response: The projections used in the analysis are believed by
CRA to be the best available. In some cases, they may overlook large,
individual development projects which are difficult to forecast. Where
such projects stand a reasonably foreseeable chance of being built, the
FEA has been modified to reflect their presence. Additionally, the FEA
incorporates up-to-date projections from the Association of Bay Area
Governments which were not available upon publication of the DEA.
Comment: Several comments asked that results be presented at a
finer level of detail than the census tract.
Our Response: The census tract is the smallest level of
geographical distinction for which data are readily available and
credible results can be obtained. Finer levels of detail give a false
sense of precision which is not supported by the data or model.
Comment: Several comments stated that the DEA did not adequately
consider impacts on agricultural landowners.
Our Response: The DEA calculates impacts on land values according
to the impact of critical habitat on the likelihood and profitability
of urban development.
Comment: One comment stated that the analysis only considered Phase
I of the SMUD Cosumnes power plant expansion, while ignoring the
effects of Phase II.
Our Response: The Phase I and Phase II of the Cosumnes power plant
have been removed from the designation based the PCEs not being present
and the area not meeting our criteria for designation (see ``Criteria
Used To Identify Critical Habitat'').
Comment: A commenter has asserted that there may be a conflict of
interest, because we have contracted with Dr. David Sunding and CRA
International to develop the economic analysis of this designation of
critical habitat for the Central population of the CTS because he
previously conducted a study of critical habitat economics funded by
the building industry and other commercial interests. The commenter
suggests that the use of an economic model originally developed in the
course of this study is inappropriate.
Our Response: We do not believe that hiring Dr. David Sunding and
CRA International to conduct the economic impact analysis of this
critical habitat designation, considering his prior receipt of research
funding from the building industry, establishes a conflict of interest.
CRA International performed a conflict check prior to initiating work
on the current study and no conflicts were discovered. Neither CRA nor
Dr. Sunding holds any financial interests that would be benefited as an
outcome of the analysis and subsequent critical habitat designation.
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
In preparing the final critical habitat designation for the Central
population of the CTS, we reviewed comments received on the proposed
designation. In addition to minor clarifications in the text pertaining
to the geographic regions, we made changes to our proposed designation,
as follows:
(1) We revised the proposed critical habitat units based on
comments and biological information received during the public comment
periods.
(2) Under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, we did not designate DOD
lands that have approved INRMPs in place which benefit the species.
Under sections 3(5)(a) and 4(b)(2) of the Act, we excluded properties
with adequate management plans that cover the CTS and its habitat. For
more information, refer to ``Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3)
and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' below.
(3) We adjusted the boundaries of the proposed units as feasible to
remove areas that do not contain the primary constituent elements or
were included in the proposed rule as a result of a mapping error.
(4) Collectively, we excluded or removed a total of approximately
183,556 ac (74,284 ha), of land from this final critical habitat
designation.
(a) The San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (East Bay
Region, Unit 4) is excluded from critical habit since it is actively
managed for the conservation of the species. The San Luis National
Wildlife Refuge Complex (Central Valley Region, Units 12 and 13) is
also excluded from critical habitat (see ``Application of Section
3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act''
below) for the same reason.
(b) Fort Hunter-Liggett (Central Coast Region, Unit 5a and 5b),
portions of Camp Parks (East Bay Region, Unit 18), and the Naval
Weapons Station at Concord (Central Valley Region, Unit 14) are
excluded from critical habitat units due to reasons of national
security and training mission readiness purposes. The Naval Weapons
Station at Concord has also been identified as an area with increased
economic costs and would be covered under the Draft East Contra Costa
Habitat Conservation Plan should this military facility be subject to
base closure.
(c) California Department of Fish and Game's Stone Corral
Ecological Reserve, Tulare Co. (Southern San Joaquin, Units 4 and 5b),
and Calhoun Cut Ecological Reserve in Solano Co. (portion of Central
Valley, Unit 2) are excluded from critical habitat based on management
plans and management practices being implemented for the areas.
Additionally, a portion of East Bay Region Unit 10 was excluded based
on an existing management plan for portions of the unit.
(d) Central Valley Units 14, 15, 16 and portions of Unit 17 (Contra
Costa Co.) were excluded based on the Draft East Contra Costa Habitat
Conservation Plan.
(e) The Southern San Joaquin Units 1, 2 and 3, Central Valley Unit
3, and East Bay Unit 10 were refined based on information received.
Please refer to Table 1 for the amount of area changed from
proposed to final. For a detailed discussion of all exclusions and
exemptions, please refer to ``Application of Section 3(5)(A) and
4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' below.
(5) We adjusted the Geographic Region boundary as a result of
published scientific literature (Shaffer et al. 2004). The boundary
identified in the proposed rule was based on the unpublished manuscript
(Shaffer et al. unpublished data) from which the final published
literature was developed. The resulting change in the boundary adjusted
the number of units in the Central Valley Region, the East Bay Region,
and the Central Coast Region. Unit 1 of East Bay Region (as identified
in the proposed rule) is now Unit 19 of the Central Valley Region and
Unit 4 of Central Coast Region (as identified in the proposed rule) is
now Unit 17 of the East Bay Region.
[[Page 49389]]
Table 1.--Proposed and Final Critical Habitat Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal lands State lands Other lands Total
Geographic region -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ac ha ac ha ac ha ac ha
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Valley:
Proposed.................... 14,708 5,952 2,416 978 172,013 69,611 189,137 76,541
Final................... 17 7 0 0 97,028 39,273 97,045 39,280
Southern San Joaquin:
Proposed.................... 0 0 5,386 2,180 27,239 11,023 32,625 13,203
Final................... 0 0 0 0 20,293 8,212 20,293 8,212
East Bay:
Proposed.................... 691 280 9,350 3,784 105,831 42,828 115,872 46,892
Final................... 20 8 2,767 1,120 66,086 26,744 68,873 27,872
Central Coast:
Proposed.................... 23,633 9,564 110 45 21,288 8,615 45,031 18,224
Final................... 0 0 110 45 12,788 5,175 12,898 5,220
Grand Totals:
Proposed.................... 39,032 15,796 17,262 6,986 326,371 132,078 382,665 154,860
Final................... 37 15 2,877 1,164 196,195 79,397 199,109 80,576
Change.................. 39,002 15,781 14,385 5,822 130,176 52,681 183,556 74,284
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the
time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of
the species and (II) that may require special management considerations
or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are
necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at
which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 requires consultation on
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat
does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness,
reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does
not allow government or public access to private lands.
To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat
within the area occupied by the species must first have features that
are ``essential to the conservation of the species.'' Critical habitat
designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific
and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide essential
life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are found the
primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
Habitat occupied at the time of listing may be included in critical
habitat only if the essential features thereon may require special
management or protection. Thus, we do not include areas where existing
management is sufficient to conserve the species. (As discussed below,
such areas may also be excluded from critical habitat pursuant to
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.) Accordingly, when the best available
scientific and commercial data do not demonstrate that the conservation
needs of the species so require, we will not designate critical habitat
in areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species at the
time of listing. An area currently occupied by the species but not
known to be occupied at the time of listing will likely contain those
features essential to the conservation of the species and, therefore,
included in the critical habitat designation.
The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271); and Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658);
and the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by the Service
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure
that decisions made by the Service represent the best scientific and
commercial data available. They require Service biologists, to the
extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific
and commercial data available, to use primary and original sources of
information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat. When determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary
source of information is generally the listing package for the species.
Additional information sources include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and
expert opinion or personal knowledge. All information is used in
accordance with the provisions of Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines
issued by the Service.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of what we know at the time of designation. Habitat is often
dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time.
Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not
include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to
be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons,
critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the
designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery.
Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information
at the time of the action. Federally funded or permitted
[[Page 49390]]
projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical
habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases.
Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best
available information at the time of designation will not control the
direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation
plans, or other species conservation planning efforts if new
information available to these planning efforts calls for a different
outcome.
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best
scientific and commercial data available in determining areas that
contain those features essential to the conservation of the CTS. We
have reviewed the overall approach to the conservation of the CTS
undertaken by local, State, and Federal agencies operating within the
species' range since its proposed listing in 2003 (68 FR 28648; May 23,
2003). We have also reviewed available information that pertains to the
upland and aquatic habitat requirements of this species. In our
designation, we included only areas that were occupied at the time of
listing. These areas were identified by recognized extant species
occurrences in CNDDB (2004). We determined critical habitat units on
the basis of maintaining self-sustaining extant occurrences that are
necessary for the conservation of the species. The critical habitat
units represent the genetic range of the Central population of the CTS,
and they include representative geographical and elevation ranges, as
well as higher density aggregations of extant occurrences within the
four geographical regions (see ``Criteria'' section below). The extant
occurrences within critical habitat units are a result of data
identified in reports submitted during section 7 consultations, data
from biologists holding section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits; research
published in peer-reviewed articles and presented in academic theses
and agency reports, and regional Geographic Information System (GIS)
coverages.
The critical habitat units were delineated by creating approximate
areas for the units by screen digitizing polygons (map units) using
ArcView (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a computer
GIS program. The polygons were created by overlaying extant CTS
location points with 0.7 mile buffers (CNDDB 2004) (see ``Criteria''
section below), and mapped vernal pool grassland habitats (Holland
1998a, 2003), or other vernal pool or grassland location information,
onto SPOT imagery (satellite aerial photography).
The resulting shape files (delineating historic geographical range
and potential suitable habitat within each of the four geographic
regions) were then evaluated. Elevation and hydrologic ranges were
further refined and land areas identified as non-habitat for the CTS
(i.e., not containing the primary constituent elements) (see Primary
Constituent Elements Section below) were avoided. We also included
applied information received during the comment periods that pertain to
the lack of suitable habitat areas on specific geographic areas that
were originally included in the proposed critical habitat designation.
We removed some areas because the areas do not contain one or more
PCEs. We excluded areas that do not contain one or more of the primary
constituent elements or were not essential for the conservation of the
species because: (1) The area is highly degraded and may not be
restorable; (2) the area is small, highly fragmented, or isolated and
may provide little or no long term conservation value; and (3) other
areas within the geographic region were determined to be sufficient to
meet the species needs for conservation.
Primary Constituent Elements
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical
habitat, we are required to base critical habitat determinations on the
best scientific and commercial data available and to consider those
physical and biological features, the PCEs, that are essential to the
conservation of the species, and that may require special management
considerations and protection. These include, but are not limited to:
Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior;
food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding,
reproduction, and rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats
that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the
historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
The four geographic regions used for designation as critical
habitat for the Central population of the CTS are designed to provide
needed aquatic and upland refugia habitats for adult salamanders to
maintain and sustain extant occurrences of CTS throughout their
geographic and genetic ranges and provide those habitat components
essential for the conservation of the species. Due to the complex life
history and dispersal capabilities of CTS, and to the dynamic nature of
the environments in which the species is found, the PCEs described
below are expected to be found throughout the units that are being
designated as critical habitat. Special management, such as habitat
rehabilitation efforts (e.g., removal of nonnative predators, control
of introduced (other) tiger salamanders, and erosion and sediment
control measures), may be necessary throughout the areas being
proposed. Critical habitat for the Central population of the CTS will
provide for breeding and nonbreeding habitats and for dispersal between
these habitats, as well as allowing for an increase in the size of CTS
populations. Critical habitat for the Central population of the CTS
includes essential aquatic habitat features, essential upland
(nonbreeding season) habitat features with underground refugia, and
essential dispersal habitat features connecting occupied CTS locations
to each other.
Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and
ecology of the species and the relationship of its essential life
history functions to its habitat, we have determined that the Central
population of the CTS requires the following primary constituent
elements:
(1) Standing bodies of fresh water (including natural and manmade
(e.g., stock)) ponds, vernal pools, and other ephemeral or permanent
water bodies which typically support inundation during winter rains and
hold water for a minimum of 12 weeks in a year of average rainfall.
(2) Upland habitats adjacent and accessible to and from breeding
ponds that contain small mammal burrows or other underground habitat
that CTS depend upon for food, shelter, and protection from the
elements and predation.
(3) Accessible upland dispersal habitat between occupied locations
that allow for movement between such sites.
We describe the relationship between each of these PCEs and the
conservation of the salamander in more detail below.
The requisite aquatic habitat described as the first PCE is
essential for the Central population of the CTS for providing space,
food, and cover necessary to support reproduction and to sustain early
life history stages of larval and juvenile CTS. Aquatic and breeding
habitats consist of fresh water bodies, including natural and
artificially made (e.g., stock) ponds, vernal pools, and vernal pool
complexes. To be considered essential, aquatic and breeding habitats
must have the capability to hold water for a minimum of 12 weeks in the
winter or spring in a year of average rainfall , the amount of time
needed for salamander larvae to
[[Page 49391]]
metamorphose into juveniles capable of surviving in upland habitats.
During periods of drought or less-than-average rainfall, these sites
may not hold water long enough for individuals to complete
metamorphosis; however, these sites would still be considered essential
because they constitute breeding habitat in years of average rainfall.
Without these essential aquatic and breeding habitats, the CTS would
not survive, reproduce, complete metamorphosis, and survive to
adulthood.
Essential upland habitats containing underground refugia described
as the second PCE are essential for the survival of the Central
population's adult CTS and juveniles that have recently undergone
metamorphosis. Adult and juvenile CTS are primarily terrestrial; adult
CTS enter aquatic habitats only for relatively short periods of time to
breed. For the majority of their life cycle, CTS survive within upland
habitats containing underground refugia in the form of small mammal
burrows. The Central population of the CTS cannot persist without
upland underground refugia. These underground refugia provide
protection from the hot, dry weather typical of California in the
nonbreeding season. The Central population of the CTS also forage in
the small mammal burrows and rely on the burrows for protection from
predators. The presence of small burrowing mammal populations is
essential for constructing and maintaining burrows. Without the
continuing presence of small mammal burrows in upland habitats, CTS
would not be able to survive.
The dispersal habitats described as the third PCE are essential for
the conservation of the Central population of the CTS. Protecting the
ability of California tiger salamander to move freely across the
landscape in search of suitable aquatic and upland habitats is
essential in maintaining gene flow and for recolonization of sites that
may become temporarily extirpated. Lifetime reproductive success for
the Central population of the California and other tiger salamanders is
naturally low. Trenham et al. (2000) found the average female bred 1.4
times and produced 8.5 young that survived to metamorphosis per
reproductive effort. This reproduction resulted in roughly 11
metamorphic offspring over the lifetime of a female. In part, this low
reproductive success is due to the extended time it takes for CTS to
reach sexual maturity; most do not breed until four or five years of
age. While individuals may survive for more than ten years, many breed
only once. Combined with low survivorship of metamorphosed individuals
(in some populations, fewer than 5 percent of marked juveniles survive
to become breeding adults (Trenham et al. 2000)), reproductive output
in most years is not sufficient to maintain populations. This trend
suggests that the species requires occasional large breeding events to
prevent extirpation (temporary or permanent loss of the species from a
particular habitat) or extinction (Trenham et al. 2000). With such low
recruitment, isolated populations are susceptible to unusual, randomly
occurring natural events, as well as human-caused factors that reduce
breeding success and individual survival. Factors that repeatedly lower
breeding success in isolated vernal pools or ponds can quickly
extirpate an occurrence of the species. Therefore, an essential element
for successful conservation is the presence and maintenance of sets of
interconnected sites that are within the dispersal distance of other
ponds (Trenham et al. 2001).
Dispersal habitats described as the third PCE are also essential in
preserving the Central population of the CTS's population structure.
The life history and ecology of the CTS make it likely that this
species has a metapopulation structure (Hanski and Gilpin 1991). A
metapopulation is a set of extant occurrences or breeding sites within
an area, where typical migration from one local occurrence or breeding
site to other areas containing suitable habitat is possible, but not
routine. Movement between areas containing suitable upland and aquatic
habitats (i.e., dispersal) is restricted due to inhospitable conditions
around and between areas of suitable habitats. Because many of the
areas of suitable habitats may be small and support small numbers of
salamanders, local extinction of these small units may be common. A
metapopulation's persistence depends on the combined dynamics of these
local extinctions and the subsequent recolonization of these areas
through dispersal (Hanski and Gilpin 1991; Hanski 1994).
Essential dispersal habitats generally consist of upland areas
adjacent to essential aquatic habitats that are not isolated from
essential aquatic habitats by barriers that Central population of the
CTS cannot cross. Essential dispersal habitats provide connectivity
among CTS suitable aquatic and upland habitats. While the Central
population of the CTS can bypass many obstacles, and do not require a
particular type of habitat for dispersal, the habitats connecting
essential aquatic and upland habitats need to be free of barriers
(e.g., a physical or biological feature that prevents salamanders from
dispersing beyond the feature) to function effectively. Examples of
barriers are areas of steep topography devoid of soil or vegetation.
Agricultural lands such as row crops, orchards, vineyards, and pastures
do not constitute barriers to the dispersal of CTS. We are designating
critical habitat that allows for dispersal between extant occurrences
within 0.70 mi (1.1 km) of each other. This distance is consistent with
the final listing rule (69 FR 47212; August 4, 2004) and the final
critical habitat designation for the CTS in Santa Barbara County (69 FR
68568; November 24, 2004). Trenham (pers comm. 2004) predicted that a
distance of 0.70 mi would capture 99 percent of all interpond movements
between breeding adults. Including interpond movements within the
critical habitat designation is essential to the conservation of the
species because these movements capture the extent of genetic exchange
between individuals and help support a long term conservation strategy
for this species.
In summary, the PCEs consist of three components. At a minimum,
these elements found in aquatic and upland habitats and connected
dispersal habitats that are free of barriers.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
We are designating critical habitat on lands that we have
determined are occupied at the time of listing and contain the PCEs and
those additional features found to be essential to the conservation of
the Central population of the CTS.
In our determination of critical habitat for the Central population
of the CTS, we selected areas that possess the physical and biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that
may require special management considerations or protection. After
identifying the principal PCEs that are essential to the conservation
of the CTS, we used the PCEs in combination with occurrence data;
geographic distribution; GIS data layers for habitat mapping;
vegetation, topography, watersheds, and current land uses; scientific
information on the biology and ecology of the CTS; and accepted
conservation principles for threatened or endangered species.
To identify areas that contain those features which are essential
to the conservation of the CTS within the occupied range of the Central
population of the CTS, we first looked at the range of the Central
population, as was reported and mapped by biologists who had conducted
CTS
[[Page 49392]]
surveys throughout the range of the species. The range boundaries were
developed based on the principles of conservation science, genetics of
the species, topography, geology, soils, vernal pool type distribution,
and survey information (CNDDB 2004; CDFG 1998). To the best of our
ability, we did not include non-habitat areas such as subdivisions,
intensive agricultural areas, or areas containing slopes too steep to
support aquatic habitats or upland refugia necessary for the
conservation of CTS.
We then focused on areas within the range where we had credible
records (e.g., museum voucher specimens, reports filed by biologists
holding section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits) indicating CTS presence
(CNDDB 2004). The known locations of Central population of the CTS fall
into four geographic regions of Central California. These geographic
regions correspond to the four regions identified by Shaffer et al.
(2004) outside Sonoma and Santa Barbara Counties and are separated by
either geological or topographical features, or ecological zones, or
both. Our conservation strategy for the Central population focuses on
those extant locations that provide sufficient aquatic and upland
habitats to ensure high enough adult survival to maintain and sustain
extant occurrences of CTS in each of these four geographic regions
within the range of the Central population of the species. Wherever
possible within these four geographical regions, we included denser
groups of aggregated extant occurrences that possessed the minimum size
resolution for long term preserve design and are representative of the
geographic extents of each separate genetic region. Each of the
critical habitat units possesses a unique combination of occupied
aquatic and upland habitat types, landscape features, surrounding land
uses, vernal pool types, ponds, geographical range, genetic
composition, and topography.
We determined that conserving the Central Population of the CTS
over the long term requires a five pronged approach: (1) Maintaining
the current genetic structure across the species range; (2) maintaining
the current geographic, elevational, and ecological distribution; (3)
protecting the hydrology and water quality of breeding pools and ponds;
(4) retaining or providing for connectivity between breeding locations
for genetic exchange and recolonization; and (5) protecting sufficient
barrier-free upland habitat around each breeding location to allow for
sufficient survival and recruitment to maintain a breeding population
over the long term. An explanation of how we determined the amount of
upland habitat which contained features that are essential for the
conservation of the CTS in each critical habitat unit is described
below in more detail.
Protecting the upland refugia as watersheds of occupied extant
occurrences of the Central population of the CTS is essential for four
reasons: (1) To provide terrestrial foraging, cover, and shelter for
CTS upland existence; (2) to ensure that the amount of water entering
an extant occupied aquatic habitat is not altered to such an extent to
allow predators (such as bullfrogs and fish) to colonize the site; (3)
to maintain the hydrologic functioning of the wetland to ensure
inundation periods (e.g. 12 week minimum in all but the driest years)
are maintained; and, (4) to preserve water quality by minimizing the
entry of sediments and other contaminants to the known occupied
habitat. Therefore, our critical habitat boundaries include the upland
refugia of watersheds containing known occupied occurrences within the
range of the Central population of the CTS.
We then identified the amount of upland habitat surrounding these
extant occurrences where adult CTS live during the majority of their
life cycle. To determine a general guideline for the amount of upland
habitat necessary to support an occurrence of adult CTS, we reviewed
the primary literature regarding CTS upland habitat use, including
Trenham (2000), Trenham et al. (2000 and 2001), and Trenham and Shaffer
(in review).
The best scientific peer-reviewed data indicate that CTS do not
remain primarily in burrows close to aquatic habitats and breeding
ponds, but instead move some distance out into the surrounding upland
landscapes. As described in the Background section, CTS have been found
up to 1.2 mi (2 km) from occupied occurrences. Two studies conducted in
Monterey and Solano counties provide the best available scientific data
on upland movement distances. First, the mark-recapture study of
Trenham et al. (2001) showed that CTS commonly moved between ponds
separated by 2,200 ft (670 m), suggesting that movements of this
magnitude are not rare. Second, the ongoing study at Olcott Lake
(Solano County) has directly documented the presence of high densities
of juvenile and adult CTS at upland locations at least 1,300 ft (400 m)
from this high quality breeding pond. In a recent trapping effort, 16
percent of total captures of juvenile salamanders occurred at 2,300 ft
(700 m) (Trenham et al. 2001). Trenham and Shaffer (in review)
determined that conserving upland habitats within 2,200 ft (670 m) of
breeding ponds would protect 95 percent of CTS at their study location
in Solano County. Protecting the needed upland habitat area with a
radius of 2,200 ft (670 m) around a single pond that has a 13 ft (10 m)
radius may yield a minimum area of 350 ac (140 ha). However, the size
of any occurrence or breeding pond may increase the total amount of
necessary aquatic and upland habitat space for survival of any known
occurrence.
We used 0.70 mi (1.1 km) dispersal distance (radius) as a guide for
the amount of upland habitat around known occupied extant occurrences
to be mapped as critical habitat for the purposes of preserving the
Central population of the CTS within small mammal burrows (PCE 2).
However, although the studies discussed above provide an approximation
of the distances that CTS can move from their aquatic habitats,
breeding ponds, and known occupied aquatic habitats in search of
suitable upland refugia, we recognize that upland habitat features will
influence CTS movements in a particular landscape. As a result, in some
designated units, we made adjustments to the upland areas to include
additional areas up to the watershed boundaries or to include habitat
containing the PCEs. In other cases, the critical habitat units were
reduced so as not to include non-habitat areas (those not exhibiting
the PCEs) from the designation.
Some agricultural lands were included if they were directly
adjacent to known extant occurrences and considered essential for
upland refugia or connectivity between occurrences and were not
considered a barrier to movement.
To determine the areas to be mapped within each unit for the
purposes of dispersal (i.e. PCE 3), we used a distance of 0.70 mi (1.1
km) as a general guide. The only known study we are aware of that
specifically investigated movement of California tiger salamanders
between breeding ponds projected that 0.70 mi (1.1 km) would encompass
99 percent of interpond dispersal (Trenham et al. 2001). However, we
recognize that (as with movements in search of suitable underground
refugia) upland habitat features influence CTS movements within a
particular landscape.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes us to issue permits for
the take of listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activities.
An incidental take permit application must be supported by a habitat
conservation plan (HCP) that identifies conservation measures that the
permittee agrees to
[[Page 49393]]
implement for the species to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the
requested incidental take. We often exclude from designated critical
habitat non-Federal public lands and private lands that are covered by
an existing operative HCP and executed implementation agreement (IA)
under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act because the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of inclusion as discussed in section 4(b)(2) of
the Act.
We are aware of five HCPs under various stages of development;
however, these draft HCPs are not proposed for exclusion because we
have not made a determination that they meet our issuance criteria nor
that they provide adequate conservation for CTS. In addition, they are
not ready for public notice and comment.
When defining critical habitat boundaries, we made an effort to
exclude all developed areas, such as towns, housing developments, and
other lands unlikely to contain primary constituent elements essential
for CTS conservation. However, our minimum mapping units do not allow
us to exclude all developed lands, such as outbuildings, roads, paved
areas, lawns, and other similar areas that are unlikely to contain any
of the PCEs in this rule. Federal actions limited to these non habitat
areas would not trigger a section 7 consultation, unless those proposed
actions would affect other threatened or endangered species and/or the
PCEs in adjacent critical habitat.
In summary, we designate as critical habitat four critical
geographical regions where the Central population of the CTS are known
to be extant because we believe protection of the units within these
four regions is essential to the conservation of the species. These
extant occurrences represent approximately 68 percent of all extant
occurrences across the range of the Central population of CTS. Using a
dispersal distance of 0.70 mi (1.1 km) from each of these occurrences,
the four geographical areas also include some other occurrences of the
CTS.
A brief discussion of each area designated as critical habitat is
provided in the unit descriptions below. Additional detailed
documentation concerning the essential nature of these areas is
contained in our supporting record for this rulemaking.
Special Management Considerations or Protections
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas
which contain those features determined to be essential for
conservation may require special management considerations or
protections. As we undertake the process of designating critical
habitat for a species, we first evaluate lands defined by those
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species for inclusion in the designation pursuant to section 3(5)(A) of
the Act. Secondly, we evaluate lands defined by those features to
assess whether they may require special management considerations or
protection.
We believe that the areas proposed for critical habitat may require
special management considerations or protections due to the threats
outlined below:
(1) Introduction of non-native predators such as bullfrogs and fish
can be significant threats to the California tiger salamander breeding
ponds in Sonoma County;
(2) Activities that could disturb aquatic breeding habitats during
the breeding season, such as heavy equipment operation, ground
disturbance, maintenance projects (e.g. pipelines, roads, powerlines),
off-road travel or recreation;
(3) Activities that impair the water quality of aquatic breeding
habitat;
(4) Activities that would reduce small mammal populations to the
point that there is insufficient underground refugia used by California
tiger salamander in Sonoma County for foraging, protection from
predators, and shelter from the elements;
(5) Activities that create barriers impassable for salamanders or
increase mortality in upland habitat between extant occurrences in
breeding habitat; and
(6) Activities that disrupt vernal pool complexes' ability to
support California tiger salamander breeding function.
Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating 31 units as critical habitat for the Central
population of the California tiger salamander throughout four
geographic regions. These final critical habitat areas described below
constitute our best assessment at this time of the areas that contain
those habitat features essential for the conservation of the Central
population of the CTS that may require special management. The four
regions containing critical habitat are: (1) The Central Valley Region;
(2) the Southern San Joaquin Valley Region; (3) the East Bay Region
(including Santa Clara Valley area); and (4) the Central Coast Region.
The maps in this final rule present a pictorial representation of the
four geographical areas (see Figure 1) and are not accurate with regard
to the exact dividing line between the Central Coast, Central Valley,
East Bay, and Southern San Joaquin geographical regions.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 49394]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AU05.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 49395]]
Although we are aware that some amounts of Federal, State, or local
government lands occur within these boundaries, the majority of these
areas of critical habitat designation occur on privately owned land.
The maps in the rule portion of this document begin with Map 7 and run
consecutively because they follow Maps 1-6 in the final critical
habitat rule for the CTS in Santa Barbara County, which was already
published in the Federal Register (69 FR 68568, November 24, 2004).
Also, Map 36 in the proposed critical habitat rule for the CTS in
Sonoma County already published in the Federal Register (70 FR 44301,
August 2, 2005).
Table 2 shows the approximate sizes of critical habitat units and
associated land ownership within each of the four geographical regions.
Table 2.--Approximate Sizes and Land Ownership of Critical Habitat Units by Geographical Region
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal lands State lands Other lands Total
Geographic region/proposed unit ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ac ha ac ha ac ha ac ha
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Valley Region
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1.......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,730 1,105 2,730 1,105
Unit 2.......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 5,699 2,306 5,699 2,306
Unit 3.......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 9,966 4,033 9,966 4,033
Unit 4.......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 9,603 3,886 9,603 3,886
Unit 5.......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 3,128 1,266 3,128 1,266
Unit 6.......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 23,491 9,506 23,491 9,506
Unit 7.......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 562 227 562 227
Unit 8.......................................................... 17 7 ......... ......... 3,996 1,617 4,013 1,624
Unit 9.......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 17,799 7,203 17,799 7,203
Unit 10......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 10,585 4,284 10,585 4,284
Unit 11......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 8,291 3,355 8,291 3,355
Unit 18......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1,178 477 1,178 477
------------
Area Total................................................ 17 7 ......... ......... 97,028 39,266 97,045 39,273
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern San Joaquin Region
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1a......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 3,808 1,541 3,808 1,541
Unit 1b......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 3,003 1,215 3,003 1,215
Unit 2.......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 4,961 2,008 4,961 2,008
Unit 3a......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1,626 658 1,626 658
Unit 3b......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,553 1,033 2,553 1,033
Unit 5.......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 4,342 1,757 4,342 1,757
------------
Area Total................................................ 0 0 0 0 20,293 8,212 20,293 8,212
-----------------------------------------------------------------
East Bay Region
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 3.......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 619 251 619 251
Unit 5.......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,814 1,139 2,814 1,139
Unit 6.......................................................... ......... ......... 2,767 1,120 5,209 2,108 7,976 3,228
Unit 7.......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 9,080 3,675 9,080 3,675
Unit 8.......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,535 1,026 2,535 1,026
Unit 9.......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,934 1,187 2,934 1,187
Unit 10a........................................................ ......... ......... ......... ......... 194 79 194 79
Unit 10b........................................................ ......... ......... ......... ......... 698 282 698 282
Unit 11......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 6,991 2,829 6,991 2,829
Unit 12......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 6,642 2,688 6,642 2,688
Unit 13......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,409 975 2,409 975
Unit 14......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,212 895 2,212 895
Unit 15A........................................................ ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,722 1,102 2,722 1,102
Unit 15B........................................................ ......... ......... ......... ......... 194 79 194 79
Unit 16......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 16,952 6,860 16,952 6,860
Unit 17......................................................... 20 8 ......... ......... 3,881 1,571 3,901 1,579
------------
Area Total................................................ 20 8 2,767 1,120 66,086 26,744 68,873 27,872
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Central Coast Region
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 3.......................................................... ......... ......... 110 45 3,555 1,439 3,665 1,483
Unit 6.......................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 9,233 3,736 9,233 3,736
------------
Area Total................................................ ......... ......... 110 45 12,788 5,175 12,898 5,219
============
Grand Totals.............................................. 37 15 2,877 1,164 196,195 79,397 199,109 80,576
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 49396]]
The critical habitat of the Central population of the California
tiger salamander represents occupied aquatic and upland habitats
throughout the species' range in California and includes selective
representative aquatic and upland habitat areas to capture the genetic,
geographic, and ecological variability of the species, which, when
taken together, should ensure the long term conservation of the
species. Genetic variation within the species is represented by units
within each of four large geographic regions `` Central Valley,
Southern San Joaquin, East Bay, and Central Coast. Brief descriptions
of the critical habitat units and reasons why these units are essential
for the conservation of the California tiger salamander are presented
below. To the best of our knowledge, each unit contains essential
occupied aquatic, upland, and dispersal habitat features. Table 3 below
contains the approximate area of critical habitat designated within
each county.
Table 3.--Approximate Critical Habitat Within Each County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed designation Final designation Change between proposed
---------------------------------------------------- and final designation
County -------------------------
Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Acres Hectares
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda........................... 67,599 27,356 1,178 477 66,421 26,880
Amador............................ 1,506 609 1,506 609 0 0
Calaveras......................... 4,944 2,001 3,606 1,459 1,338 542
Contra Costa...................... 43,232 17,496 0 0 43,232 17,495
Fresno............................ 16,375 6,627 7,416 3,001 8,959 3,626
Kern.............................. 1,496 605 1,496 605 0 0
Kings............................. 885 358 885 358 0 0
Madera............................ 17,413 7,047 15,089 6,106 2,325 941
Mariposa.......................... 321 130 321 130 0 0
Merced............................ 49,748 20,132 32,963 13,339 16,785 6,793
Monterey.......................... 32,392 13,109 4,159 1,683 28,233 11,426
Sacramento........................ 10,191 4,124 9,966 4,033 225 91
San Benito........................ 24,575 9,945 24,308 9,837 267 108
San Joaquin....................... 21,120 8,547 17,516 7,089 3,604 1,458
San Luis Obispo................... 7,736 3,131 7,736 3,131 0 0
Santa Clara....................... 42,751 17,301 39,450 15,965 3,301 1,336
Solano............................ 5,944 2,405 5,699 2,306 245 99
Stanislaus........................ 24,406 9,877 17,891 7,240 6,515 2,637
Tulare............................ 6,243 2,526 5,197 2,103 1,046 423
Yolo.............................. 3,789 1,533 2,730 1,105 1,059 429
--------------
Total......................... 382,666 154,860 199,109 80,577 183,557 74,283
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
are essential for the conservation of the Central population of the
CTS, below.
Central Valley Geographic Region
The Central Valley Geographic Region is generally found in an area
from northern Yolo County south and southeast to the northern half of
Madera County, including eastern Solano and Contra Costa counties. It
is 4.9 million ac (1.9 million ha) in size. Within the Central Valley
Geographic Region we are designating 12 critical habitat units for the
Central population of the California tiger salamander that total
approximately 97,045 ac (39,273 ha). The 12 critical habitat units
contain PCEs and include a total of 44 extant occurrences of CTS. The
12 units occur in four of 17 vernal pool regions within California.
These four regions are Solano-Colusa, Southeastern Sacramento Valley,
Southern Sierra Foothills, and San Joaquin Valley. The units are
distributed across the Region and represent the varying habitats and
environmental conditions available to the California tiger salamander
within the area. A fundamental concept in conservation biology is that
species that are protected across their ranges have lower chances of
extinction (Soule and Simberloff 1986; Noss et al. 2002). By including
units across the geographic range of the species within this region we
are conserving the diversity of the species and its habitat across its
range. Special management requirements for these units include
management of erosion and sedimentation, pesticide application,
introduction of predators such as bullfrogs and mosquito fish,
disturbance activities associated with development that may alter the
hydrologic functioning of the aquatic habitat and alter upland refugia
and dispersal habitat, and activities such as road development that may
result in barriers to dispersal.
Unit 1, Dunnigan Creek Unit, Yolo County
This unit is the only unit in Yolo County, encompasses
approximately 2,730 acres (1,105 ha). This unit contains all three of
the PCEs. Three extant occurrences of the species have been documented
within this unit. Unit 1 is essential to the conservation of the
species because it is needed to maintain the current geographic and
ecological distribution of the species within the Central Valley
Geographical Region. Unit 1 represents the northern portion of the
range and the represents the northern portion of the Solano-Colusa
vernal pool region. Unit 1 is roughly bordered by Interstate 5 on the
east, Bird Creek on the south, and Buckeye Creek on the north and west.
Land ownership is private. Threats that require special management
considerations for this unit include agricultural land conversion and
the introduction of predators such as mosquito fish into seasonal
wetlands for the control of mosquitoes.
Unit 2, Jepson Prairie Unit, Solano County
This unit encompasses approximately 5,699 ac (2,306 ha), and is
essential to the conservation of the species because it is needed to
maintain the current geographic and ecological distribution of the
species within the Central Valley
[[Page 49397]]
Geographic Region. Unit 2 represents the northwestern portion of the
species' distribution and represents the southern end of Solano-Colusa
vernal pool region in Solano County. This unit contains all three of
the PCEs and four extant occurrences of the species in one aggregation.
Unit 2 generally is located south of Dixon, west of State Route 113,
north of Creed Road, and east of Travis Air Force Base. This unit is
mostly privately owned but also includes some California Department of
Fish and Game lands. Threats that require special management
considerations for this unit include loss and destruction of occupied
habitat due to agricultural land conversion.
Unit 3, Southeastern Sacramento Unit, Sacramento County
This unit encompasses approximately 9,966 ac (4,033 ha), is the
only unit in Sacramento County, and is essential to the conservation of
the species because it is needed to maintain the current geographic and
ecological distribution of the species within the Central Valley
Geographic Region. Unit 3 represents the northern-central portion of
the range of the species, the southern portion of the Southeastern
Sacramento Valley vernal pool region, and is only one of a few occupied
areas in the Sacramento Valley. This unit contains all three of the
PCEs. A cluster of eight extant occurrences has been documented in this
unit. Unit 3 generally is bordered on the south by the Sacramento and
San Joaquin County border dividing line, Laguna Creek on the north, the
Sacramento and Amador County border dividing line on the east, and Alta
Mesa Road on the west. Land ownership is private. Threats that require
special management considerations for this unit include road
construction, agricultural land conversion, urban development, and
predators such as bullfrogs. Development and agricultural land
conversion could destroy or degrade aquatic habitat essential for
breeding and rearing; destroy, degrade, or fragment upland habitat
essential for growth, feeding, resting, and aestivation; or destroy,
degrade, or fragment habitat essential for dispersal and connectivity.
Aquatic predators such as bullfrogs require special management because
they can impair breeding success.
Unit 4, Northeastern San Joaquin Unit, and Amador Counties
This unit encompasses approximately 9,603 ac (3,886 ha), is the
only one in San Joaquin and Amador counties, and is essential to the
conservation of the species because it is needed to maintain the
current geographic and ecological distribution of the species within
the Central Valley Geographic Region. Unit 4 is the second unit in the
Southeastern Sacramento Valley vernal pool region. This unit contains
all three of the PCEs and five extant occurrences in one aggregation.
Unit 4 roughly is found over an area south of the San Joaquin and
Sacramento county dividing line, east of Day Creek Road, north of
Liberty Road, and west of Comanche and Jackson Valley Roads. Land
ownership is private. Threats that require special management
considerations for this unit include developments and associated road
construction that could destroy or degrade aquatic habitat essential
for breeding and rearing; destroy, degrade, or fragment upland habitat
essential for growth, feeding, resting, and aestivation; or destroy,
degrade, or fragment habitat essential for dispersal and connectivity.
Unit 5, Indian Creek Unit, Calaveras County
This unit encompasses appropriately 3,128 ac (1,266 ha). This unit
is essential to the conservation of the CTS because it is needed to
maintain the current geographic and ecological distribution of the
species within the Central Valley Geographic Region. Unit 5 represents
the northeastern portion of the range and the Southeastern Sacramento
Valley vernal pool region. Four extant occurrences of the species have
been documented in this unit. It contains all three PCEs and generally
is bordered by State Route 26 on the south and east, Warren Road on the
west, and State Route 12 on the north. Land ownership is private.
Threats that require special management considerations for this unit
include urban developments, agricultural land conversions, and
associated infrastructure including road construction that could
destroy or degrade aquatic habitat essential for breeding and rearing;
destroy, degrade, or fragment upland habitat essential for growth,
feeding, resting, and aestivation; or destroy, degrade, or fragment
habitat essential for dispersal and connectivity.
Unit 6, Rock Creek Unit, Calaveras, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus
Counties
This 23,491 ac (9,506 ha) unit is essential to the conservation of
the Central population of the California tiger salamander because it is
needed to maintain the current geographic and ecological distribution
of the species within the Central Valley Geographic Region. Unit 6
contains all three of the PCEs and represents the northern end of the
Southern Sierra Foothills vernal pool region and a portion of the east-
central portion of the San Joaquin Valley. This unit contains five
extant occurrences of the species in one aggregation. This unit is
approximately located west of San Joaquin County Road J6, north of
Sonora Road, east of Stanislaus County Road J12, and south of the
Calaveras River. Land ownership is private. Threats that require
special management considerations for this unit include urban
developments, agricultural land conversions, and associated
infrastructure including road construction, which could destroy or
degrade aquatic habitat essential for breeding and rearing; destroy,
degrade, or fragment upland habitat essential for growth, feeding,
resting, and aestivation; or destroy, degrade, or fragment habitat
essential for dispersal and connectivity.
Unit 7, Rodden Lake Unit, Stanislaus County
This unit contains approximately 562 ac (227 ha) and is essential
to the conservation of the species because it is needed to maintain the
current geographic and ecological distribution of the species within
the Central Valley Geographic Region. Unit 7 is located within the
northern end of the Southern Sierra Foothill vernal pool region in the
eastern San Joaquin Valley, the only unit near the Stanislaus River.
Three extant occurrences of the Central CTS have been documented within
this unit. This unit is roughly bounded by Horseshoe Road on the east,
Frankenheimer Road on the north, Twenty Eight Mile Road on the west,
and the Stanislaus River of the south. Land ownership is private.
Threats that require special management considerations for this unit
include urban developments, agricultural land conversions, and
associated infrastructure including road construction, which could
destroy or degrade aquatic habitat essential for breeding and rearing;
destroy, degrade, or fragment upland habitat essential for growth,
feeding, resting, and aestivation; or destroy, degrade, or fragment
habitat essential for dispersal and connectivity.
Unit 8, La Grange Ridge Unit, Stanislaus and Merced Counties
This unit contains approximately 4,013 ac (1,624 ha) and is
essential for the conservation of the Central CTS because it is needed
to maintain the current geographic and ecological distribution of the
species within the Central Valley Geographic Region. Unit 8 occurs
within the northeastern area of the 2,167,907 ac (877,352 ha) Southern
Sierra Foothills vernal pool region and represents the east central
portion of the species' distribution within the Central Valley
Geographic Region. It contains
[[Page 49398]]
five extant occurrences of the species and all three of the PCEs. This
unit is roughly defined as west of Cardoza Ridge, east of Los Cerritos
Road, south of State Route 132, and north of Fields Road. Land
ownership is private. Threats that require special management
considerations for this unit include Threats that require special
management considerations for this unit include urban developments,
agricultural land conversions, and associated infrastructure including
road construction that could destroy or degrade aquatic habitat
essential for breeding and rearing; destroy, degrade, or fragment
upland habitat essential for growth, feeding, resting, and aestivation;
or destroy, degrade, or fragment habitat essential for dispersal and
connectivity.
Unit 9, Fahrens Creek Unit, Merced County
This unit contains 17,799 ac (7,203 ha) and is essential for the
conservation of the species because it is needed to maintain the
current geographic and ecological distribution of the species within
the Central Valley Geographic Region. Unit 9 represents the 2,167,907
ac (877,352 ha) South Sierra Foothills vernal pool region in Merced
County, the central portion of the species' distribution in the eastern
San Joaquin Valley, and the south-eastern portion of the species'
distribution in the Central Valley Geographic Region. Twenty extant
occurrences of the species are documented in this unit. This unit is
located generally northeast from Merced, east of the Merced and
Mariposa county dividing line, north of Bear Creek, and south of the
Merced River. Land ownership of the unit is private. Threats that
require special management considerations for this unit urban
developments, agricultural land conversions, and associated
infrastructure including road construction which could destroy or
degrade aquatic habitat essential for breeding and rearing; destroy,
degrade, or fragment upland habitat essential for growth, feeding,
resting, and aestivation; or destroy, degrade, or fragment habitat
essential for dispersal and connectivity.
Unit 10, Miles Creek Unit, Merced County
This unit contains approximately 10,585 ac (4,284 ha) and is
essential to the conservation of the species because it is needed to
maintain the current geographic and ecological distribution of the
species within the Central Valley Geographic Region. Unit 10 is the
only other unit that occurs within the Southern Sierra Foothill vernal
pool region in Merced County and represents the central portion of the
species' distribution in the eastern San Joaquin Valley and the south-
eastern portion of the species' distribution in the Central Valley
Geographic Region. Nine extant occurrences have been documented within
this unit, which is located generally east of Owens Lake in Mariposa
County, west of Cunningham Road in Merced County, south of South Bear
Creek Road in Merced County, and north of Childs Avenue. Land ownership
is private. Threats that require special management considerations for
this unit include urban developments, agricultural land conversions,
and associated infrastructure including road construction which could
destroy or degrade aquatic habitat essential for breeding and rearing;
destroy, degrade, or fragment upland habitat essential for growth,
feeding, resting, and aestivation; or destroy, degrade, or fragment
habitat essential for dispersal and connectivity.
Unit 11, Rabbit Hill Unit, Madera County
This unit contains 8,291 ac (3,355 ha) and is essential to the
conservation of the species because it is needed to maintain the
current geographic and ecological distribution of the species within
the Central Valley Geographic Region. Unit 11 represents the Sierra
Foothills vernal pool region in Madera County and is the southernmost
unit within the Central Valley Geographic Region. This unit contains
all three of the primary constituent elements, including vernal pools
and upland dispersal habitats that support six extant occurrences of
the species. Unit 11 is generally located west of Hensley Lake, south
of Knowles Junction, west of the Daulton Mine, and north of the Fresno
River. Land ownership is private. Threats that require special
management considerations for this unit include urban developments,
agricultural land conversions, and associated infrastructure including
road construction which could destroy or degrade aquatic habitat
essential for breeding and rearing; destroy, degrade, or fragment
upland habitat essential for growth, feeding, resting, and aestivation;
or destroy, degrade, or fragment habitat essential for dispersal and
connectivity.
Units 12-17 have been excluded from the final designation. See
section ``Relationship of Critical Habitat to Habitat Conservation Plan
Lands--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act--for more
information.
Unit 18, Doolan Canyon Unit, Alameda County
This unit contains approximately 1,178 ac (477 ha) and is essential
to the conservation of the species because it is needed to maintain the
current geographic and ecological distribution of the species in the
Central Valley Geographic Region. Unit 18 represents the 485,120 ac
(196,328 ha) Livermore vernal pool region and the western portion of
the Central Valley Geographic Region. Two extant occurrences of the
species are found in this unit. Unit 18 is south of the Contra Costa
County line near Collier Canyon Road on the east and the south, and the
City of Dublin on the west. Land ownership is private. Threats that
require special management considerations for this unit include urban
developments, agricultural land conversions, and associated
infrastructure including road construction which could destroy or
degrade aquatic habitat essential for breeding and rearing; destroy,
degrade, or fragment upland habitat essential for growth, feeding,
resting, and aestivation; or destroy, degrade, or fragment habitat
essential for dispersal and connectivity.
Unit 19, Patterson Unit, Alameda
Unit 19 has been excluded based on economic reasons. See
``Relationship of Critical Habitat to Economic Impacts--Exclusions
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' for more information.
Southern San Joaquin Valley Geographic Region
The Southern San Joaquin Valley Geographic Region contains
approximately 1.4 million ac (566,580 ha) and is found from the
southern half of Madera County south to northeastern Kings County and
northwestern Tulare County. Within this Geographic Region we designate
four critical habitat units that total approximately 20,293 ac (8,212
ha). The four critical habitat units contain approximately 20 known
extant occurrences the Central population of the California tiger
salamander. The critical habitat units represent the San Joaquin Valley
and Southern Sierra Foothills vernal pool regions in the southern San
Joaquin Valley. It is critical to conserve the CTS within a range of
habitat types to capture the geographic, ecological, and genetic
variability found in nature. Protecting a variety of occupied habitats
and ecologic conditions will increase the ability of the species to
survive random environmental (e.g. predators), natural (e.g. disease),
demographic (e.g. low recruitment) or genetic (e.g. inbreeding) events.
[[Page 49399]]
The critical habitat units of the Southern San Joaquin Valley
Geographical Region are essential to the conservation of the California
tiger salamander because these units represent the range of geographic,
genetic, and ecological variation found in nature and they contain the
PCEs that support essential functions including, but not limited to,
breeding, metamorphosing, dispersing, feeding, sheltering, and
aestivating. Special management requirements for these units include
management of erosion and sedimentation, pesticide application,
introduction of predators such as bullfrogs and mosquito fish,
disturbance activities associated with development that may alter the
hydrologic functioning of the aquatic habitat, upland disturbance
activities that may alter upland refugia and dispersal habitat, and
activities such as road development and widening that may develop
barriers for dispersal.
Units 1a and 1b, Millerton Unit, Madera County
This 6,811 ac (2,756 ha) unit is comprised of two sub-units; Unit
1a (3,808 ac (1,541 ha)) and Unit 1b (3,003 ac (1,215 ha)). This unit
is essential to the conservation of the species because it is needed to
maintain the current geographic and ecological distribution of the
species in the Southern San Joaquin Geographic Region. Unit 1
represents the Southern Sierra Foothills vernal pool region, one of two
differing vernal pool regions in the Southern San Joaquin Geographic
Region, and the southeastern portion of the species' distribution in
the San Joaquin Valley. Unit 1 is the only unit within this vernal pool
region in Madera County. The two subunits contain nine extant
occurrences of the species. These subunits are located west of State
Highway 41 and generally north of the San Joaquin River. The eastern
boundary is approximately the western side of Millerton Lake, and the
northern boundary is south of Berry Hill along O'Neal Road. Land
ownership is private. Threats that require special management
considerations for this unit include urban development, agricultural
conversion, and associated infrastructure, including road construction,
which could destroy or degrade aquatic habitat essential for breeding
and rearing; destroy, degrade, or fragment upland habitat essential for
growth, feeding, resting, and aestivation; or destroy, degrade, or
fragment habitat essential for dispersal and connectivity.
Unit 2, Northeast Fresno, Fresno County
This unit is approximately 4,961 ac (2,008 ha) and is essential for
the conservation of the Central population of the California tiger
salamander because it is needed to maintain the current geographic and
ecological distribution of the species in the Southern San Joaquin
Geographic Region. Unit 2 represent the Southern Sierra Foothills
vernal pool region within Fresno County, the northern end of the
Southern San Joaquin Geographic Region, and the southern portion of the
species' distribution in the San Joaquin Valley. This unit contains all
three of the PCEs and 6 extant occurrence records This unit is located
northeast of Fresno, southwest of Millerton Lake, east of Friant Road,
and generally west of Academy. Land ownership is private. Threats that
require special management considerations for this unit include urban
development, agricultural conversion, and associated infrastructure
including road construction which could destroy or degrade aquatic
habitat essential for breeding and rearing; destroy, degrade, or
fragment upland habitat essential for growth, feeding, resting, and
aestivation; or destroy, degrade, or fragment habitat essential for
dispersal and connectivity.
Units 3a and 3b, Hills Valley Unit, Fresno and Tulare Counties
This 4,181 ac (1,692 ha) unit is comprised of the two subunits Unit
3a (1,626 ac (658 ha)) and Unit 3b (2,553 ac (1,033 ha)). This unit is
essential to the conservation of the Central population of the
California tiger salamander because it is needed to maintain the
current geographic and ecological distribution of the species in the
Southern San Joaquin Geographic Region. The subunits comprising Unit 3
represent the foothills of northwest Tulare County, the Southern Sierra
Foothills vernal pool region, and the southeastern portion of the
species' distribution within the San Joaquin Valley. These subunits
contain all three of the PCEs and five extant occurrences of the
species. This unit is located south of State Highway 180, generally
west of George Smith and San Creek Roads, north of Curtis Mountain, and
east of Cove Road. Land ownership is private. Threats that require
special management considerations for this unit include urban
development, agricultural conversion, and associated infrastructure
including road construction which could destroy or degrade aquatic
habitat essential for breeding and rearing; destroy, degrade, or
fragment upland habitat essential for growth, feeding, resting, and
aestivation; or destroy, degrade, or fragment habitat essential for
dispersal and connectivity.
Unit 4, Seville Unit, Tulare County
This 415 ac (168 ha) unit has been excluded from the final
designation. See section ``Relationship of Critical Habitat to State
Managed Ecological Reserve Land--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act'' for more information
Unit 5, Cottonwood Creek Unit, Tulare County
Unit 5 is approximately 4,342 ac (1,757 ha) and represents a
significant area at the very southernmost portion of the range of the
Central population of the California tiger salamander. This unit was
originally called unit 5A in the proposed designation. This unit is
essential to the conservation of the species because it is needed to
maintain the current geographic and ecological distribution of the
species within the Southern San Joaquin Geographic Region. Unit 5
represents a low-elevation vernal pool complex within the San Joaquin
Valley vernal pool region. Four extant occurrences have been documented
within this unit, which is roughly bordered by County Road J36 on the
north, Dinuba Road on the east, Avenue 352 on the south, and County
Road 112 on the west. Land ownership is mostly private. Threats that
require special management considerations for this unit include urban
development, agricultural conversion, and associated infrastructure
including road construction which could destroy or degrade aquatic
habitat essential for breeding and rearing; destroy, degrade, or
fragment upland habitat essential for growth, feeding, resting, and
aestivation; or destroy, degrade, or fragment habitat essential for
dispersal and connectivity.
Subunit 5B (629 ac (255 ha)) has been excluded from the final
designation. See section ``Relationship of Critical Habitat to State
Managed Ecological Reserve Land--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act'' for more information.
East Bay Geographic Region
The East Bay Geographic Region is found in Alameda County, south to
Santa Benito and Santa Clara counties, and west to the eastern portions
of San Joaquin and Merced Counties. The East Bay Region contains 2.4
million ac (971,280 ha) and has approximately 24,045 ac (9,731 ha) of
critical habitat. Within the East Bay Geographic Region we are
designating 14 critical habitat units for the California tiger
salamander that contain a number of extant occurrences of the Central
population of
[[Page 49400]]
the California tiger salamander. The 14 critical habitat units within
the Bay Area Geographic Region occur in the Livermore, Central Coast,
and San Joaquin vernal pool regions. Special management requirements
for these units include management of erosion and sedimentation,
pesticide application, introduction of predators such as bullfrogs and
mosquito fish, disturbance activities associated with development that
may alter the hydrologic functioning of the aquatic habitat, upland
disturbance activities that may alter upland refugia and dispersal
habitat, and activities such as road development and widening that may
develop barriers for dispersal.
It is critical to conserve the Central population of the California
tiger salamander within the range of habitat types to capture the
geographic and genetic variability found in nature. Protecting a
variety of occupied habitats and conditions will increase the ability
of the species to survive random environmental (e.g. predators),
natural (e.g. disease), demographic (e.g. low recruitment), or genetic
(e.g. inbreeding) events. The critical habitat units within the East
Bay Geographic Region are essential to the conservation of the Central
population of the California tiger salamander because these units
collectively maintain the geographic, genetic, and genetic variability
that currently exists within the range of the species. Some of the
designated units are in pristine condition as indicated by the best
scientific and commercial data, and habitat quality was another factor
which we considered in our determination of what habitat is essential.
Unit 1, Patterson Unit, Alameda County
This 5,267 ac (2,132 ha) unit was moved to the Central Valley
Region (see Unit 19 of Central Valley Region above). This unit has been
excluded based on economic reasons. See ``Relationship of Critical
Habitat to Economic Impacts--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act'' for more information.
Unit 2, Mendenhall Unit, Alameda County, was excluded from the
final designation based on economic reasons. See ``Relationship of
Critical Habitat to Economic Impacts--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)
of the Act'' for more information.
Unit 3, Alameda Creek Unit, Santa Clara County
This unit contains 619 ac (251 ha) and is essential to the
conservation of the species because it is needed to maintain the
current geographic and ecological distribution of the species within
the Bay Area Geographic Region. Unit 3 represents the north-central
portion of the Bay Area Geographic Region and the northwestern
Livermore vernal pool region. This unit contains all three of the PCEs
and three extant occurrences. Unit 3 generally is located north of
Calaveras Reservoir, east of Sugar Butte, west of Fremont, and south of
Livermore. Land ownership is a mixture of county parks and private
lands. Threats that require special management considerations for this
unit include urban development, agricultural conversion, and associated
infrastructure including road construction which could destroy or
degrade aquatic habitat essential for breeding and rearing; destroy,
degrade, or fragment upland habitat essential for growth, feeding,
resting, and aestivation; or destroy, degrade, or fragment habitat
essential for dispersal and connectivity. Feral pigs and bullfrogs may
require special management because can impair breeding success.
Unit 4, San Francisco Bay Unit, Alameda County
This 1,073 ac (434 ha) unit was excluded from the final critical
habitat designation. See section ``Relationship of Critical Habitat to
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge Land--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act'' for more information.
Unit 5, Poverty Ridge Unit, Santa Clara County
This unit is approximately 2,814 ac (1,139 ha) and is essential to
the conservation of the species because it is needed to maintain the
current geographic and ecological distribution of the species within
the Bay Area Geographic Region. Unit 5 represents the north-central
portion of the Bay Area Geographic Unit and the southern end of the
Livermore vernal pool region. It contains all three of the PCEs and six
extant occurrences of the species. This unit is generally located west
of Alum Rock, south of the Alameda and Contra Costa Counties dividing
line, west of Kincaid Road, and north of Master Hill. Land ownership is
private. Threats include conversion of grazing land to housing and
commercial development.
Unit 6, Smith Creek Unit, Santa Clara County
This unit is approximately 7,976 ac (3,228 ha) and is essential to
the conservation of the species because it is needed to maintain the
current geographic and ecological distribution of the species within
the Bay Area Geographic Region. Unit 6 represents the north-central
part of the range of the species within the Bay Area Geographic region
and the northern range of the Central Coast vernal pool region. This
unit contains all three of the PCEs and 10 extant occurrences of the
species. Unit 6 is generally located west of Sugarloaf Mountain, south
of Packard Ridge, east of Masters Hill, and north of Panochita Hill.
This unit contains county, private, and University of California-owned
lands. Threats that require special management considerations include
urban development, agricultural conversion, and associated
infrastructure including road construction which could destroy or
degrade aquatic habitat essential for breeding and rearing; destroy,
degrade, or fragment upland habitat essential for growth, feeding,
resting, and aestivation; or destroy, degrade, or fragment habitat
essential for dispersal and connectivity.
Unit 7, San Felipe Creek Unit, Santa Clara County
This unit is approximately 9,080 ac (3,675 ha) and is essential to
the conservation of the species because it is needed to maintain the
current geographic and ecological distribution of the species within
the Bay Area Geographic Region. Unit 7 represents the center of the Bay
Area Geographic Region and the north-central part of the Central Coast
vernal pool region. It contains all three of the PCEs and four extant
occurrences of the species. Unit 7 is generally located in west of
Silver Creek, south of Panochita Hill, east of Bollinger Mountain, and
north of Morgan Hill. Land ownership is private. Threats that require
special management considerations include urban development,
agricultural conversion, and associated infrastructure including road
construction which could destroy or degrade aquatic habitat essential
for breeding and rearing; destroy, degrade, or fragment upland habitat
essential for growth, feeding, resting, and aestivation; or destroy,
degrade, or fragment habitat essential for dispersal and connectivity.
Unit 8, Laurel Hill Unit, Santa Clara County
This unit is approximately 2,535 ac (1,026 ha) and is essential for
the conservation of the species because it is needed to maintain the
current geographic and ecological distribution of the species within
the Bay Area Geographic Region. Unit 8 represents the northwestern
portion of the species' range in the Bay Area Geographic Region and the
northwestern area of the Central Coast vernal pool region on the
western side of the Santa Clara Valley. This unit contains all three of
the PCEs and three extant occurrences. Unit 8
[[Page 49401]]
generally is located east of Morgan Hill, south of San Jose, west of
the Santa Cruz Mountains, and north of Croy Ridge. Land ownership is
private. Threats that require special management considerations for
this unit include urban development and associated infrastructure
including road construction which could destroy or degrade aquatic
habitat essential for breeding and rearing; destroy, degrade, or
fragment upland habitat essential for growth, feeding, resting, and
aestivation; or destroy, degrade, or fragment habitat essential for
dispersal and connectivity. Bullfrogs present in aquatic habitat may
require special management because they can impair breeding success.
Unit 9, Cebata Flat Unit, Santa Clara County
This unit contains approximately 2,934 ac (1,187 ha) and is
essential to the conservation of the species because it is needed to
maintain the current geographic and ecological distribution of the
species within the East Bay Geographic Area. Unit 9 represents the
center of the Bay Area Geographic Region and the central area of the
Central Coast vernal pool region. It contains all three of the PCEs and
three extant occurrences of the species. Unit 9 is generally located
west of Gilroy, south of Henry Coe State Park, east of Lake Mountain,
and north of Canada Road. Land ownership is private. Threats that
require special management considerations for this unit include urban
development, and associated infrastructure including road construction
which could destroy or degrade aquatic habitat essential for breeding
and rearing; destroy, degrade, or fragment upland habitat essential for
growth, feeding, resting, and aestivation; or destroy, degrade, or
fragment habitat essential for dispersal and connectivity. Bullfrogs
present in aquatic habitat may require special management because they
can impair breeding success.
Units 10a and 10b, Lions Peak Unit, Santa Clara County
This unit is comprised of 892 ac (360 ha) in two subunits: (Unit
10a (194 ac (79 ha) and Unit 10b (698 ac (282 ha). It is essential for
the conservation of the species because it is needed to maintain the
current geographic and ecological distribution of the species within
the Bay Area Geographic Region. Unit 10 represents only the second unit
on the west side of the Santa Clara Valley within the center of the Bay
Area Geographic Region and the center of the Central Coast vernal pool
region. It contains all three of the PCEs and six extant occurrences of
the species. Unit 10 is generally found east of State Highway 101,
south of Morgan Hill, north of Hecker Pass Highway, and west of Uvas
Reservoir. Land ownership is private. Threats that require special
management considerations for this unit include urban development and
associated infrastructure including road construction which could
destroy or degrade aquatic habitat essential for breeding and rearing;
destroy, degrade, or fragment upland habitat essential for growth,
feeding, resting, and aestivation; or destroy, degrade, or fragment
habitat essential for dispersal and connectivity. Bullfrogs present in
aquatic habitat may require special management because they can impair
breeding success.
Unit 11, Braen Canyon Unit, Santa Clara County
This unit is comprised of 6,991 ac (2,829 ha) of habitat and is
essential to the conservation of the species because it is needed to
maintain the current geographic and ecological distribution of the
species within the Bay Area Geographic Region. Unit 11 represents the
eastern central portion of the species range within the Bay Area
Geographic Region and the central portion of the Central Coast vernal
pool region. It contains all three of the PCEs and five extant
occurrences of the species. Unit 11 is found in southern Santa Clara
County generally west of Gilroy, south of Kelly Lake, east of Pacheco
Lake, and north of Jamison Road. Land ownership is private. Threats
that may require special management include erosion and sedimentation,
pesticide application, introduction of predators such as bullfrogs and
mosquito fish, disturbance activities associated with development that
may alter the hydrologic functioning of the aquatic habitat, upland
disturbance activities that may alter upland refugia and dispersal
habitat, and activities such as road development and widening that may
develop barriers for dispersal.
Unit 12, San Felipe Unit, Santa Clara and San Benito Counties
This unit is comprised of 6,642 ac (2,688 ha) of habitat and is
essential to the conservation of the species because it is needed to
maintain the current geographic and ecological distribution of the
species within the Bay Area Geographic Region. Unit 12 represents part
of the center of the distribution within the Bay Area Geographic Region
and the southernmost portion of Santa Clara County, northern San Benito
County, and center of the Central Coast vernal pool region. It contains
all three of the PCEs and 10 extant occurrences of the species. Unit 12
generally is found west of Camadero, south of Kickham Peak, east of San
Joaquin Peak, and north of Dunneville. Land ownership is private.
Threats include erosion and sedimentation, pesticide application,
introduction of predators such as bullfrogs and mosquito fish,
disturbance activities associated with development that may alter the
hydrologic functioning of the aquatic habitat, upland disturbance
activities that may alter upland refugia and dispersal habitat, and
activities such as road development and widening that may develop
barriers for dispersal.
Unit 13, Los Banos Unit, Merced County
This unit is comprised of 2,409 ac (975 ha) and is essential to the
conservation of the species because it is needed to maintain the
current geographic and ecological distribution of the species within
the Bay Area Geographic Region. Unit 13 represents a portion of the
southeastern range of the species within the Bay Area Geographic Region
and the San Joaquin Valley vernal pool region. It contains all three of
the PCEs and three extant occurrences of the species. Unit 13 generally
is located east of Los Banos Reservoir, north of Bullard Mountain, west
of Cathedral Peak, and south of San Luis Reservoir State Recreation
Area. Land ownership is private. Threats include erosion and
sedimentation, pesticide application, introduction of predators such as
bullfrogs and mosquito fish, disturbance activities associated with
development that may alter the hydrologic functioning of the aquatic
habitat, upland disturbance activities that may alter upland refugia
and dispersal habitat, and activities such as road development and
widening that may develop barriers for dispersal.
Unit 14, Landgon Unit, Merced County
This unit is comprised of 2,212 ac (895 ha) and is essential to the
conservation of the species because it is needed to maintain the
current geographic and ecological distribution of the species within
the Bay Area Geographic Region. Unit 14 represents the easternmost
distribution of the species within the Bay Area Geographic Region and
is the only other unit that occurs within the San Joaquin Valley vernal
pool region. It contains all of the PCEs and three extant occurrences
of the species. Unit 14 generally is found west of Sweeney Hill, south
of Gasten Bide Road, and north of Ortigalita Peak. Land ownership is
private. Threats include erosion and sedimentation, pesticide
application, introduction of predators such as bullfrogs and
[[Page 49402]]
mosquito fish, disturbance activities associated with development that
may alter the hydrologic functioning of the aquatic habitat, upland
disturbance activities that may alter upland refugia and dispersal
habitat, and activities such as road development and widening that may
develop barriers for dispersal.
Units 15A and 15B, Ana Creek Unit, San Benito County
This unit is approximately 3,165 ac (1,280 ha) and is essential to
the conservation of the species because it is needed to maintain the
current geographic and ecological distribution of the species within
the Bay Area Geographic Region. The unit is comprised of two subunits,
15A (2,722 ac (1,102 ha)) and 15B (194 ac (79 ha)). These subunits
represent the southwestern portion of the species' range within the Bay
Area Geographic Region and in the southern Central Coast vernal pool
region. They contain all three of the PCEs and nine extant occurrences
of the species. Unit 15A and B are generally located west of Hollister,
north of Tres Pinos, east of Cibo Peak, and south of Coyote Peak. Land
ownership is private. Threats include erosion and sedimentation,
pesticide application, introduction of predators such as bullfrogs and
mosquito fish, disturbance activities associated with development that
may alter the hydrologic functioning of the aquatic habitat, upland
disturbance activities that may alter upland refugia and dispersal
habitat, and activities such as road development and widening that may
develop barriers for dispersal.
Unit 16, Bitterwater Unit, San Benito County
This unit is approximately 16,952 ac (6,860 ha) and is essential to
the conservation of the species because it is needed to maintain the
current geographic and ecological distribution of the species within
the East Bay Geographic Region. Unit 16 represents the southernmost
range of the species within the Bay Area Geographic Region and the
southern end of the Central Coast vernal pool region. It contains all
three of the PCEs and nine extant occurrences of the species. Unit 16
generally is found south of Pinnacles, east of Hernandez Reservoir,
north of Lonoak, and west of Murphy Flat. Land ownership is private.
Threats include erosion and sedimentation, pesticide application,
introduction of predators such as bullfrogs and mosquito fish,
disturbance activities associated with development that may alter the
hydrologic functioning of the aquatic habitat, upland disturbance
activities that may alter upland refugia and dispersal habitat, and
activities such as road development and widening that may develop
barriers for dispersal.
Unit 17, Gloria Valley Unit, Monterey and San Benito Counties (Formerly
Central Coast Region, Unit 4)
This unit is comprised of 3,881 ac (1,571 ha) and is essential to
the conservation of the species because it is needed to maintain the
current geographic and ecological distribution of the species within
the East Bay Geographic Region. Unit 17 represents the northeastern
portion of the range of the species within the Bay Area Geographic
Region and the western area of the Central Coast vernal pool region. It
contains all three of the PCEs and 10 extant occurrences of the
species. Unit 17generally is located north of Soledad, east of the
Pinnacles National Monument, south of Tres Pinos, and west of Gonzales.
Land ownership is private. Threats include erosion and sedimentation,
pesticide application, introduction of predators such as bullfrogs and
mosquito fish, disturbance activities associated with development that
may alter the hydrologic functioning of the aquatic habitat, upland
disturbance activities that may alter upland refugia and dispersal
habitat, and activities such as road development and widening that may
develop barriers for dispersal.
Central Coast Geographic Region
The Central Coast Geographic Region is located from Monterey County
to northeastern San Luis Obispo County and northwestern Tulare County.
The Central Coast Geographic Region is 3.6 million ac (1.5 million ha)
in size and contains two critical habitat units for the Central
population of the California tiger salamander that total approximately
25,373 ac (10,268 ha). The critical habitat units within the Central
Coast Geographic Region contain 14 extant occurrences of California
tiger salamander that encompass a migration distance of 0.70 mi (1.1
km) from each cluster of known extant occurrences that compose the
critical habitat units. Critical habitat is designated within the
Central Coast, Livermore, and Carrizo vernal pool regions. Special
management requirements for these units include management of erosion
and sedimentation, pesticide application, introduction of predators
such as bullfrogs and mosquito fish, disturbance activities associated
with development that may alter the hydrologic functioning of the
aquatic habitat, upland disturbance activities that may alter upland
refugia and dispersal habitat, and activities such as road development
and widening that may develop barriers for dispersal.
It is essential to conserve the Central population of the
California tiger salamander within the range of habitat types to
capture the geographic and genetic variability found in nature.
Protecting a variety of occupied habitats and conditions will increase
the ability of the species to survive random environmental (e.g.
predators), natural (e.g. disease), demographic (e.g. low recruitment)
or genetic (e.g. inbreeding) events. The critical habitat units within
the Central Coast Geographic Region are essential to the conservation
of the Central population of the California tiger salamander because
these units collectively maintain the geographic, genetic, and genetic
variability that currently exists within the range of the species. Some
of the designated units are in pristine condition as indicated by the
best scientific and commercial data, and habitat quality was another
factor we considered in our determination of what habitat is essential.
Unit 1, Crazy Horse Canyon Unit, Monterey County
This 4,341 ac (1,757 ha) unit was excluded from the final critical
habitat designation. See section. See ``Relationship of Critical
Habitat to Economic Impacts--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act'' for more information.
Unit 2, Pilarcitos Canyon Unit, Monterey County
This 8,135 ac (3,292 ha) unit was excluded from the final critical
habitat designation. See section. See ``Relationship of Critical
Habitat to Economic Impacts--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act'' for more information.
Unit 3, Haystack Hill Unit, Monterey County
This unit is comprised of 3,665 ac (1,483 ha) and is essential to
the conservation of the species because it is needed to maintain the
current geographic and ecological distribution of the species within
the Central Coast Geographic Region. Unit 3 represents the center of
the Central Coast Geographic Region and the northwestern area of the
Central Coast vernal pool region. It contains all three of the PCEs and
10 extant occurrences of the species. Unit 3 generally is located north
of Soledad, east of Paloma Ridge, west of Jamesberg, and south of
Carmel Valley. Land ownership within this unit is a mixture of private
and
[[Page 49403]]
Hastings Natural History State Reserve. Threats include erosion and
sedimentation, pesticide application, introduction of predators such as
bullfrogs and mosquito fish, disturbance activities associated with
development that may alter the hydrologic functioning of the aquatic
habitat, upland disturbance activities that may alter upland refugia
and dispersal habitat, and activities such as road development and
widening that may develop barriers for dispersal.
Unit 4, Gloria Valley Unit, Monterey and San Benito Counties
This unit has been moved to the East Bay Region based on new
information on geographic boundaries (see unit 17 East Bay Region).
Units 5A and 5B, Fort Hunter Liggett Unit, Monterey County
These subunits were excluded from the final critical habitat
designation (15,395 ac (6,230 ha)). See ``Relationship of Critical
Habitat to Military Lands--Application of Section 4(a)(3) and
Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' for more information.
Unit 6, Choice Valley, Kern and San Luis Obispo Counties
This unit is comprised of 9,233 ac (3,736 ha) and is essential to
the conservation of the species because it is needed to maintain the
current geographic and ecological distribution of the species within
the Central Coast Geographic Region. Unit 6 represents the very
southern extension of the species' range in the Central Coast
Geographic Region and is the only unit within the Carrizo vernal pool
region. It contains all three of the PCEs and four extant occurrences
of the species. Unit 6 generally is located in an area north of the
Carrisa Highway, east of Antelope Valley, south of Cottonwood, and west
of Shandon. Land ownership is private. Threats include erosion and
sedimentation, pesticide application, introduction of predators such as
bullfrogs and mosquito fish, disturbance activities associated with
development that may alter the hydrologic functioning of the aquatic
habitat, upland disturbance activities that may alter upland refugia
and dispersal habitat, and activities such as road development and
widening that may develop barriers for dispersal.
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In our
regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define destruction or adverse
modification as ``a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably
diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and
recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but are not
limited to, alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or
biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to
be critical.''
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its
critical habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are
codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with
us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a proposed species or result in destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat. Conference reports provide conservation
recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may
be caused by the proposed action. We may issue a formal conference
report if requested by a Federal agency. Formal conference reports on
proposed critical habitat contain an opinion that is prepared according
to 50 CFR 402.14, as if critical habitat were designated. We may adopt
the formal conference report as the biological opinion when the
critical habitat is designated, if no substantial new information or
changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR
402.10(d)). The conservation recommendations in a conference report are
advisory.
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section
7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency)
must enter into consultation with us. Through this consultation, the
action agency ensures that their actions do not destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the
project, if any are identifiable. ``Reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions
identified during consultation that can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of the action, that are consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and
jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically feasible, and
that the Director believes would avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives
can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or
relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a
reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical
habitat is subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law.
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of
consultation or conference with us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated
critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy critical habitat.
Federal activities that may affect California tiger salamanders or
their critical habitat will require section 7 consultation. Activities
on private or State lands requiring a permit from a Federal agency,
such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section
404 of the Clean Water Act, a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from the
Service, or some other Federal action, including funding (e.g., Federal
Highway Administration or Federal Emergency Management Agency funding),
will also continue to be subject to the section 7 consultation process.
Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat and
actions on non-Federal and private lands that are not federally funded,
authorized, or permitted do not require section 7 consultation.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat may also jeopardize the continued existence of the California
tiger salamander. Federal activities that, when carried out, may
adversely affect critical habitat for the California tiger salamander
include, but are not limited to:
[[Page 49404]]
(1) Actions that would regulate activities affecting waters of the
United States by the Army Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act;
(2) Actions that change water flow regimes, damming, diversion, and
channelization by any Federal agency;
(3) Actions that include road construction and maintenance, right-
of-way designation, and regulation funded or permitted by the Federal
Highway Administration;
(4) Voluntary conservation measures by private landowners funded by
the Natural Resources Conservation Service;
(5) Actions regulating airport improvement activities by the
Federal Aviation Administration;
(6) Licensing of construction of communication sites by the Federal
Communications Commission; and
(7) Funding of activities by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Department of Energy, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Federal Highway Administration, or any other Federal agency.
We consider all critical habitat units to be occupied by the
species at the time of listing. In this designation, we included only
areas which were occupied at the time of listing. These areas were
identified by documented extant species occurrences in CNDDB (2004) at
the time of listing. We consider all of these units included in this
final designation to be essential to the conservation of the Central
population of the California tiger salamander because they represent
the geographic, genetic, and ecological variability found in nature,
but do not include all areas occupied by the species at the time of
listing. Collectively, they provide sufficient quantity, quality, and
distribution of habitat for the Central population of the California
tiger salamander to survive random environmental (e.g. predators),
natural (e.g. disease), demographic (e.g. low recruitment) or genetic
(e.g. inbreeding) events.
Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species on which are
found those physical and biological features (i) essential to the
conservation of the species and (ii) which may require special
management considerations or protection. Therefore, areas within the
geographic area occupied by the species that do not contain the
features essential for the conservation of the species are not, by
definition, critical habitat. Similarly, areas within the geographic
area occupied by the species that do not require special management or
protection also are not, by definition, critical habitat. To determine
whether an area requires special management, we first determine if the
essential features located there generally require special management
to address applicable threats. If those features do not require special
management, or if they do in general but not for the particular area in
question because of the existence of an adequate management plan or for
some other reason, then the area does not require special management.
We consider a current plan to provide adequate management or
protection if it meets two criteria: (1) The plan provides management,
protection or enhancement to the PCEs at least equivalent to that
provided by a critical habitat designation; and (2) the Service has
reasonable expectation the management, protection or enhancement
actions will continue for the foreseeable future.
Section 318 of fiscal year 2004 the National Defense Authorization
Act (Pub. L. 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.
Further, section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat
shall be designated, and revised, on the basis of the best available
scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat. An area may be excluded from
critical habitat if it is determined that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of specifying a particular area as critical
habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the species.
In our critical habitat designations, we use both the provisions
outlined in sections 3(5)(A) and 4(b)(2) of the Act to evaluate those
specific areas that we are consider proposing designating as critical
habitat as well as for those areas that are formally proposed for
designation as critical habitat. Lands we have found do not meet the
definition of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) or have excluded
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) include, but are not limited to, those
covered by the following types of plans if they provide assurances that
the conservation measures they outline will be implemented and
effective such as: (1) Legally operative HCPs that cover the species,
(2) draft HCPs that cover the species and have undergone public review
and comment (i.e., pending HCPs), (3) Tribal conservation plans that
cover the species, (4) State conservation plans that cover the species,
and (5) National Wildlife Refuge System Comprehensive Conservation
Plans.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes us to issue permits for
the take of listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activities.
An incidental take permit application must be supported by a HCP that
identifies conservation measures that the permittee agrees to implement
for the species to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the requested
incidental take. We exclude non-Federal public lands and private lands
that are covered by an existing operative HCP and executed
implementation agreement (IA) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from
designated critical habitat if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion as discussed in section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Before addressing the specifics of the benefits of the inclusion
and the benefits of exclusion of particular areas of the proposed
designation, we address some general points regarding the uncertainty
of describing those benefits.
The key to the benefits of inclusion, and a significant factor in
the benefits of exclusion, is the application of the prohibition of
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat as a result of
a federally-related action. The attendant requirement for action
agencies to consult with the Service in order to avoid adverse
modification of critical habitat can result in the modification of the
federal action. Any benefit to the species (or other benefit) caused by
such a project modification to avoid adverse modification of critical
habitat in a particular area is a benefit of designating that area as
critical habitat. Conversely, those project modifications can have
costs, negative consequences, or result in a loss of other benefits to
the species or society. Maintenance of the benefits that might
otherwise be forgone and avoidance of costs can be a primary benefit of
excluding an area from critical habitat.
[[Page 49405]]
There is necessarily some uncertainty involved in considering the
benefits accruing from either inclusion or exclusion of areas in the
designation, as required by section 4(b)(2), due to the fact that the
Service must anticipate the future federal actions and the results of
future consultations all of which are necessarily speculative. Further
uncertainty was created when the Ninth Circuit in Gifford Pinchot Task
Force v. USFWS, 378 F. 3d 1059 (Ninth Cir. 2004) invalidated the
Service's regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse
modification'' at 50 CFR 402.02 As a result, the consequences of
designation are more difficult than ever to predict as Service cannot
rely on decades of factual information based on prior experience.
While the Service has not yet promulgated a new regulatory
definition, the Director has issued guidance to help ensure that
section 7 consultations undertaken in the interim are consistent with
Gifford Pinchot.
Regarding the relationship between the benefits identified and
actions that may take place in the absence of critical habitat the
Service as a general matter engages in a broad consideration of the
impacts of the designation. However, when ultimately determining what
areas, if any, to exclude from a final designation, the Service only
weighs those impacts that will actually be affected by the decision of
whether or not to exclude the area.
Section 4(b)(2) requires the Secretary to designate critical
habitat ``after taking into consideration the economic impact, the
impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat.'' The statute
continues by authorizing the Secretary to ``exclude any area from
critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion
outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical
habitat,'' unless the exclusion will result in extinction of the
species.
Admittedly, due to the uncertainties discussed above, as well as
the additional uncertainty in assigning potential impacts among a
variety of causes, it is more difficult to identify those impacts
attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat than to
identify impacts from section 7 generally, or, even more broadly,
conservation efforts for the species. Our analysis relies on reasonable
assumptions about the relationship of the incremental impacts of the
designation as well as any broader effects we have identified. In many
cases, lacking a significant factual basis for the impacts due to the
short time the newer Gifford Pinchot standard has been in effect, we
rely on qualitative descriptions of those incremental impacts.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Military Lands--Application of
Section 4(a)(3)
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete, by November 17, 2001, an Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plan (INRMP). An INRMP integrates implementation of the
military mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural
resources found on military lands. Each INRMP includes an assessment of
the ecological needs on the installation, including the need to provide
for the conservation of listed species; a statement of goals and
priorities; a detailed description of management actions to be
implemented to provide for the ecological needs of listed species; and
a monitoring and adaptive management plan. We consult with the military
on the development and implementation of INRMPs for installations with
listed species. We are prohibited from designating as critical habitat
any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the DOD,
or designated for its use, that are subject to an INRMP prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act, 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. In
order to provide a benefit to the species, the INRMP must meet the
following three criteria: (1) A current INRMP must be complete and
provide a benefit to the species; (2) the plan must provide assurances
that the conservation management strategies will be implemented; and
(3) the plan must provide assurances that the conservation management
strategies will be effective, by providing for periodic monitoring and
revisions (adaptive management) as necessary. An INRMP integrates
implementation of the military mission of the installation with
stewardship of the natural resources found there. Each INRMP includes
an assessment of the ecological needs on the military installation,
including conservation provisions for listed species; a statement of
goals and priorities; a detailed description of management actions to
be implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and a monitoring
and adaptive management plan.
We have exempted lands owned by Naval Weapons Station-Concord, Camp
Parks, and Fort Hunter Liggett from the final critical habitat
designation pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act based on legally
operative INRMPs that provide a benefit to the California tiger
salamander. This includes portions of Central Valley Region Units 14
and 18 and portions of Central Coast Units 5a and 5b. Detailed
discussions of the exemptions of military lands are discussed by
installation below.
Naval Weapons Station--Concord and Camp Parks
The Department of the Navy, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach
Detachment, Concord (Detachment Concord) (Contra Costa County), and the
Parks Reserve Force Training Area (PRFTA) (Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties) (referred to as the Concord Naval Weapons Station and Camp
Parks respectively in the proposed rule) have approved INRMPs in place
that provide a benefit for the California tiger salamander. These two
military installations overlap portions of Central Valley Region units
14 and 18.
The Naval Weapons Station-Concord completed its INRMP in 1997, and
it was approved by the Service in July 2003. Conservation measures
included in the INRMP for the California tiger salamander at Detachment
Concord include: (1) Restricting military training and construction in
aquatic habitats known to support the salamander; (2) providing
information and education programs to base personnel and the public
regarding sensitive species and their habitats; (3) applying pesticides
for burrowing rodent control in areas where salamanders may occur in
accordance with those measures outlined in the final listing rule for
this species; and (4) providing funding and support for California
tiger salamander population census and habitat evaluation surveys. In
addition, the entire area proposed as critical habitat is being leased
for grazing in accordance with Natural Resource Conservation Service
guidelines. The purpose of the grazing program is to assist in
controlling noxious weeds, and the proceeds received from the program
assist in funding natural resource management programs at Detachment
Concord. The Secretary has determined that this INRMP provided a
benefit to the California tiger salamander, and therefore we are
exempting these lands from this critical habitat designation pursuant
to section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Camp Parks completed its INRMP, and it was approved by the Service
through a section 7 consultation in July
[[Page 49406]]
2003. The INRMP provides conservation measures for the California tiger
salamander and provides management direction on conserving listed and
imperiled species and their habitats on the base. In addition, Camp
Parks actively consults with us on all actions that may affect
California tiger salamander on the base and has implemented
conservation measures as recommended. Camp Parks has worked with us and
developed an Endangered Species Management Plan (ESMP) as an appendix
to its INRMP. The ESMP was drafted in part for the California tiger
salamander and includes nonnative predator control and other
conservation measures that benefit the salamander. Camp Parks has
already implemented several portions of the ESMP and had done so prior
to the final approval of the INRMP. Therefore, we have determined that
the INRMP, as implemented, provides a conservation benefit to the
California tiger salamander. As a result, the lands essential to the
conservation of the California tiger salamander on Camp Parks are
exempt from this designation of critical habitat pursuant to section
4(a)(3) of the Act.
Fort Hunter-Liggett
The Department of the Army, U.S. Army Reserve Command, Fort Hunter-
Liggett (Monterey County) has a completed INRMP in place that provides
a benefit to the California tiger salamander. We completed formal and
informal consultations on the effects of the INRMP on listed species in
March 2005. Central Coast Units 5a and 5b occur almost entirely on land
managed by Fort Hunter-Liggett. Fort Hunter-Liggett is an unusual case,
in that the best available information (Doty in litt. 2004) indicates
that all tiger salamanders there are hybrids between California tiger
salamanders and eastern tiger salamanders (A. tigrinum). However, the
INRMP includes commitments by the Army to implement appropriate
management and coordinate with the Service and researchers regarding
research on and management of hybrid tiger salamanders. The Army is
also planning to prepare an Endangered Species Management Plan that
will address both the California tiger salamander and the vernal pool
fairy shrimp. This plan should include provisions to protect vernal
pool habitat and to cooperatively plan and fund research on hybrid
tiger salamander management at Fort Hunter-Liggett. Because such
research could be helpful in developing techniques to reduce
hybridization as a threat to pure native California tiger salamanders,
we believe that actions at Fort Hunter-Liggett will provide a
conservation benefit for the California tiger salamander, even though
it is unlikely that pure populations remain there. Therefore, the lands
essential to the conservation of the California tiger salamander on
Fort Hunter-Liggett are exempt from this designation of critical
habitat pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge
Land--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Portions of the Warm Springs Unit of the Don Edwards San Francisco
National Wildlife Refuge were included in the proposed designation of
critical habitat (East Bay Region Unit 4, Alameda County, 275 ac). A
Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) has been developed by the refuge
staff for the California tiger salamander and its habitat on the
refuge. The Draft HMP would integrate seasonal cattle grazing,
prescribed burning, vegetation mowing, and herbicide treatment
enhancement measures to assist in the conservation of several listed
species, including the California tiger salamander. Vegetation
management through seasonal livestock grazing and properly timed
prescribed burning is anticipated to promote the establishment of
native plants and lengthen the vernal pool inundation period, thereby
enhancing breeding habitat for the California tiger salamander.
Livestock will be excluded from vernal pools that support high numbers
of California tiger salamanders until monitoring demonstrates that
grazing is beneficial to these species. Mowing and herbicide spraying
is expected to replace isolated stands of unpalatable, nonnative
vegetation with shorter plant species, which would benefit dispersing
or migrating California tiger salamander.
An intra-Service section 7 consultation was conducted on the Draft
HMP and a concurrence memorandum was completed in June 2003 (Service
2003). The memorandum stated that the management activities would not
likely adversely affect the California tiger salamander. The Draft HMP
is expected to be finalized in 2005. The remainder of the unit has
undergone section 7 consultation (Service 2004) and either has been
developed or was part of the on-site avoidance for the project and has
been protected through conservation easements and management measures
which have been put in place to conserve the California tiger
salamander on-site. These lands subsequently were deeded to the Refuge
and will be managed under the HMP. All essential habitat for the
California tiger salamander within the San Francisco Bay National
Wildlife Refuge is excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from
critical habitat based on the conservation benefits provided to the
California tiger salamander under the Refuge's draft management plan,
and conservation easements and ongoing management that has been put in
place on lands that have been deeded to the Refuge through the section
7 process.
San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Approximately 16,786 ac (6,793 ha) of land are proposed to be
designated as critical habitat for the California tiger salamander
within the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Complex in western Merced
County. Management goals and objectives of the Refuge include the
following objectives that provide conservation benefit for several
federally listed species that have been documented on the Refuge,
including the California tiger salamander: (1) Managing and providing
habitat for endangered or sensitive species; (2) maintaining and
enhancing the overall biodiversity associated with the existing mix of
vegetative communities; and, (3) providing an area for compatible
management oriented research and education/interpretation and
recreational programs which may include observation, photography,
hunting. Building upon the concepts originally outlined in the San
Joaquin Basin Action Plan, a detailed habitat restoration plan has been
developed for the West Bear Creek Unit. Fish and Wildlife Service staff
at San Luis NWR directed all aspects of the project planning, design,
and implementation. Local contractors and Refuge field crews did the
actual construction and wetlands development. Refuge staff and
volunteers implemented the native grassland and woody riparian habitat
restoration. In addition, the United States Bureau of Reclamation, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish
and Game, under a cooperative agreement called the San Joaquin Basin
Action Plan, are in the process of jointly developing a habitat
acquisition and wetland enhancement project in approximately 23,500
acres of lands within the Northern San Joaquin River Basin. All
essential habitat for the Central population of California tiger
salamander within the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Complex is
excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the
[[Page 49407]]
Act from critical habitat based on the current management goals of the
refuge to protect and enhance vernal pools and wetlands for threatened
and endangered species, including the California tiger salamander.
(1) Benefits of Inclusion
There is minimal benefit from designating critical habitat for the
California tiger salamander on National Wildlife Refuge lands because
these lands are already managed for the conservation of wildlife. The
primary benefit to designation of critical habitat is the requirement
that federal agencies consult with the Service to ensure that their
actions are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. If critical habitat were designated
in these areas, any future consultations would have to be undertaken
consistent with the decision in Gifford Pinchot. It is highly unlikely
that any federal action would be proposed, much less take place, that
would appreciably diminish the value of the habitat on the refuges for
the conservation of the California tiger salamander. As discussed in
detail above, a primary purpose of these refuges is to conserve fish,
wildlife, and plants and their habitat, such as the California tiger
salamander. As a result, we do not anticipate any action on either
refuge would destroy or adversely modify the areas proposed as critical
habitat. Therefore, including those areas in the final designation will
not lead to any changes to actions on the refuges to avoid destroying
or adversely modifying that habitat.
Moreover, both 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, have already undergone or will have to
undergo consultation under section 7 of the Act and be evaluated for
their consistency with the conservation needs of listed species.
Another possible benefit of including these lands as critical habitat
would be to educate the public regarding the conservation value of
these vernal pool areas and the Central population of California tiger
salamander. However, giving special management priority and emphasis to
the conservation of listed species, and public education and
interpretation, are priorities already established for the National
Wildlife Refuge System by the National Wildlife Refuge Administration
Act of 1966, as amended, and the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997. We believe that 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. Therefore, we conclude that the California tiger
salamander currently is realizing conservation benefits from existing
management on National Wildlife Refuges, and that designation of
critical habitat will not have any appreciable effect to either cause
the modification of a Federal action to avoid adverse modification, or
on the development or implementation of public education programs on
the two National Wildlife Refuge Complexes.
(2) Benefits of Exclusion
While the consultation requirement associated with critical habitat
on National Wildlife Refuge land adds little benefit, it would require
the use of resources to ensure regulatory compliance that could
otherwise be used for on-the-ground management of targeted listed or
sensitive species. Therefore, the benefits of exclusion include the
reduction of administrative costs of section 7 compliance by
eliminating the need for reinitiating the section 7 consultation
process to address newly-designated critical habitat on areas which
have undergone consultation in the past, and eliminating the need for a
separate analysis of the effects of an action on critical habitat in
future consultations.
(3) The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
The lands essential for the conservation of the California tiger
salamander on the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex
and the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge complex already are publicly
owned and managed to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants and their
habitats, including the California tiger salamander. In addition,
environmental education and interpretation are among the priority
public uses the refuge system. As a result, we conclude that the
benefits of excluding National Wildlife Refuge lands from the final
critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits of including them.
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.
Designation of critical habitat on the San Francisco and San Luis
National Wildlife Refuge Complexes provides redundant, but no
additional increment of conservation value for the California tiger
salamander in terms of management emphasis or public recognition or
education than currently exists. Further, such exclusion will not
result in the extinction of the California tiger salamander. In
accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have excluded lands
within the San Francisco Bay and San Luis National Wildlife Refuge
Complexes from final critical habitat. The total amount of refuge land
excluded from the final designation is approximately 17,601 ac (7,123
ha).
Relationship of Critical Habitat to State Managed Ecological Reserve
Land--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
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 section 580). They are to ``be preserved in a natural condition,
or which 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 section 584).
Take of species except as authorized by State Fish and Game Code is
prohibited on both State Ecological Reserves (section 583). While
public uses are permitted on most 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 * * *'' (CDFG in litt. 2003).
We proposed as critical habitat, but have now considered for
exclusion from the final designation, as described below, the
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) owned lands within the
Calhoun Cut and Stone Corral Ecological Reserves (Portion of Unit 2
Central Valley Region, and Unit 4 Southern San Joaquin Region).
[[Page 49408]]
(1) Benefits of Inclusion
There is minimal benefit from designating critical habitat for the
Central population of the California tiger salamander within the
ecological reserves because these lands are already managed for the
conservation of wildlife. The primary benefit to designation of
critical habitat is the requirement that federal agencies consult with
the Service to ensure that their actions are not likely to result in
the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. If
critical habitat were designated in these areas, any future
consultations would have to be undertaken consistent with the decision
in Gifford Pinchot. It is highly unlikely that any federal action would
be proposed, much less take place, that would appreciably diminish the
value of the habitat on the State ecological reserves for the
conservation of the California tiger salamander. As discussed in detail
above, a primary purpose of these reserves is 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 * * *'' (CDFG in litt. 2003). As
a result, we do not anticipate any action on either State-managed
ecological reserves which would destroy or adversely modify the areas
proposed as critical habitat. Therefore, including those areas in the
final designation will not lead to any changes to actions on the
ecological reserves to avoid destroying or adversely modifying that
habitat.
One possible benefit of including these lands as critical habitat
would be to educate the public regarding the conservation value of
these vernal pool areas and the Central population of California tiger
salamander. However, 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.
Additionally, the designation of critical habitat will not have any
appreciable effect on the development or implementation of public
education programs on these areas.
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 objectives for State ecological reserves
already include specifically managing for targeted listed and sensitive
species (CDFG in litt. 2003) such as the California tiger salamander;
therefore, the benefit from additional consultation is likely also to
be minimal.
(2) Benefits of Exclusion
While the consultation requirement associated with critical habitat
on State-managed ecological reserves adds little benefit, it would
require the use of resources to ensure regulatory compliance that could
otherwise be used for on-the-ground management of targeted listed or
sensitive species. Therefore, the benefits of exclusion include the
reduction of administrative costs of section 7 compliance by
eliminating the need for reinitiating the section 7 consultation
process to address newly-designated critical habitat on areas which
have undergone consultation in the past, and eliminating the need for a
separate analysis of the effects of an action on critical habitat in
future consultations.
(3) The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
The lands essential for the conservation of the Califonria tiger
salamander on the Calhoun Cut and Stone Corral Ecological Reserves
already are publicly owned and managed for targeted listed and
sensitive species, including the California tiger salamander. In
addition, the State has informed us that 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 as described above. The designation of
critical habitat will not have any appreciable effect on the
development or implementation of public education programs because
these lands already are publicly owned and 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.
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 Central
population of the California tiger salamander. Thus, designation of
critical habitat on the Calhoun Cut and Stone Corral Ecological
Reserves provides redundant, but no additional increment of
conservation value for the California tiger salamander in terms of
management emphasis or public recognition than currently exists. We
therefore conclude that the benefits of excluding the Calhoun Cut and
Stone Corral Ecological Reserves and from the final critical habitat
designation outweigh the benefits of including them. Further, such
exclusion will not result in the extinction of the California tiger
salamander. In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have
excluded California Department of Fish and Game owned lands within the
Calhoun Cut and Stone Corral Ecological Reserves in portions of Unit 2
(Central Valley Region) and Unit 4 (Southern San Joaquin Region). The
total amount of State-owned lands excluded within ecological reserves
is approximately 1,289 ac (522 ha).
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Habitat Conservation Plan Lands--
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to consider other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts, when designating critical
habitat. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes us to issue permits
for the take of listed wildlife species incidental to otherwise lawful
activities. Development of an HCP is a prerequisite for the issuance of
an incidental take permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
An incidental take permit application must be supported by an HCP that
identifies conservation measures that the permittee agrees to implement
for the species to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the permitted
incidental take. HCPs vary in size and may provide for incidental take
coverage and conservation management for one or many federally-listed
species. Additionally, more than one applicant may participate in the
development and implementation of an HCP. Large regional HCPs expand
upon the basic requirements set forth in section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act
because they reflect a voluntary, cooperative approach to large-scale
habitat and species conservation planning. Many of the large regional
HCPs in southern California have been, or are being, developed to
provide for the conservation of numerous federally-listed species and
unlisted sensitive species and the habitat that provides for their
biological needs. These HCPs are designed to proactively implement
conservation actions to address future projects that are anticipated to
occur
[[Page 49409]]
within the planning area of the HCP. However, given the broad scope of
these regional HCPs, not all projects envisioned to potentially occur
may actually take place. The State of California also has a NCCP
process that is very similar to the federal HCP process and is often
completed in conjunction with the HCP process. We recognize that many
of the projects with HCPs also have State-issued NCCPs. In the case of
approved regional HCPs and accompanying Implementing Agreements (IAs)
(e.g., those sponsored by cities, counties, or other local
jurisdictions) that provide for incidental take coverage, a primary
goal of these regional plans is to provide for the protection and
management of habitat essential for species conservation, while
directing development to other areas. We considered, but did not
designate as critical habitat, on lands within the Draft East Contra
Costa County HCP under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. This draft HCP
includes Central Valley Region Units 14, 15, 16, and a portion of Unit
17. We believe the benefits of excluding lands within this draft HCP
from the final critical habitat designation will outweigh the benefits
of including them. The following represents our rationale for excluding
these areas.
Draft East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (ECCHCP)
The draft ECCHCP has been drafted and we expect it to be available
for public review and comment in the fall of 2005. We expect a
finalized plan before the end of 2006. Participants in this HCP include
the County of Contra Costa; the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley,
and Pittsburg, California; the Contra Costa Water District; and the
East Bay Regional Park District. The draft ECCHCP encompasses the
eastern portion of Contra Costa County from approximately west of
Concord to Sand Mound Slough and Clifton Court Forebay on the east. The
draft ECCHCP is also a subregional plan under the State's Natural
Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) process and was developed in
cooperation with the California Department of Fish and Game. The draft
ECCHCP identifies the California tiger salamander as a covered species
and has identified areas where growth and development are expected to
occur, as well as several conservation measures, including (1)
preserving between 24,100-28,800 ac and restoring between 116-118 ac of
California tiger salamander habitat; (2) preserving major habitat
connections linking existing public lands; (3) incorporating a range of
habitat and population management and enhancement measures including
monitoring; (4) fully mitigating the impacts to covered species; (5)
maintaining ecosystem processes; and, (6) contributing to the recovery
of covered species. When the conservation measures are implemented they
will benefit California tiger salamander conservation by preserving and
restoring existing wetland and upland habitat and creating new wetland
habitat for the species. We expect that the draft ECCHCP will provide
substantial protection for all three of the primary constituent
elements for the Central population of the California tiger salamander,
and that protected lands will receive special management they require
through funding mechanisms that will be implemented under the ECCHCP.
(1) Benefits of Inclusion
The primary benefit to designation of critical habitat is the
requirement that federal agencies consult with the Service to ensure
that their actions are not likely to result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat. If critical habitat were
designated in these areas, primary constituent elements in these areas
would be protected from destruction or adverse modification by federal
actions using a conservation standard based on the Ninth Circuit's
decision in Gifford Pinchot. This requirement would be in addition to
the requirement that proposed Federal actions would not be likely to
jeopardize the species' continued existence. However, inasmuch as these
areas currently are occupied by the species, consultation for
activities which might adversely impact the species, including possibly
significant habitat modification (see definition of ``harm'' at 50 CFR
17.3) would be required, even without the critical habitat designation.
The requirement to conduct such consultation would occur regardless of
whether the authorization for incidental take occurs under either
section 7 or section 10 of the Act.
As discussed above, we expect the ECCHCP to provide substantial
protection of the PCEs and special management of essential habitat for
the Central population of the California tiger salamander on ECCHCP
conservation lands. We expect the ECCHCP to provide a greater level of
management for the Central population of the California tiger
salamander on private lands than would designation of critical habitat
on private lands. Moreover, inclusion of these non-Federal lands as
critical habitat would not necessitate additional management and
conservation activities that would exceed the approved ECCHCP and its
implementing agreement. As a result, we do not anticipate any action on
these lands would destroy or adversely modify the areas proposed as
critical habitat. Therefore, we do not expect that including those
areas in the final designation will lead to any changes to actions on
the conservation lands to avoid destroying or adversely modifying that
habitat.
A benefit of including an area as critical habitat designation is
the education of landowners and the public regarding the potential
conservation value of these areas. The inclusion of an area as critical
habitat may focus and contribute to conservation efforts by other
parties by clearly delineating areas of high conservation values for
certain species. However, we believe that this conservation benefit has
largely been achieved for the California tiger salamander through the
hearings and workshops that have been held in the East Bay area
associated with the listing of the species and subsequent proposal to
designate critical habitat.
(2) Benefits of Exclusion
The benefits of excluding lands within HCPs from critical habitat
designation include relieving landowners, communities, and counties of
any additional regulatory burden that might be imposed by a critical
habitat designation. Many HCPs, particularly large regional HCPs such
as the ECCHCP, take many years to develop and, upon completion, become
regional conservation plans that are consistent with the recovery
objectives for listed species that are covered within the plan area. In
fact, designating critical habitat in areas covered by a pending HCP
could result in the loss of species' benefits if participants abandon
the voluntary HCP process, in part because of the strength of the
perceived additional regulatory compliance that such designation would
entail. The time and cost of regulatory compliance for a critical
habitat designation do not have to be quantified for them to be
perceived as additional Federal regulatory burden sufficient to
discourage continued voluntary participation in plans targeting listed
species conservation.
Furthermore, an HCP or NCCP/HCP application must itself be
consulted upon. Such a consultation would review the effects of all
activities covered by the HCP which might adversely impact the species,
including possibly significant habitat modification (see definition of
``harm'' at 50 CFR 17.3), even without the critical habitat
designation. In addition, Federal actions
[[Page 49410]]
not covered by the HCP in areas occupied by listed species would still
require consultation under section 7 of the Act and would be reviewed
for possibly significant habitat modification in accordance with the
definition of harm referenced above. This standard also would apply to
all consultation conducted in the interim period prior to finalization
of the ECCHCP, whether incidental take exemption is provided under
section 7 or section 10 of the Act.
(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
We have reviewed and evaluated for the California tiger salamander.
Based on this evaluation, we find that the benefits of exclusion of the
lands essential to the conservation of the California tiger salamander
in the planning area for the draft ECCHCP outweigh the benefits of
including Central Valley Region, Units 14, 15, 16 and a portion of Unit
17 as critical habitat.
The exclusion of these lands from critical habitat will help
preserve the partnerships that we have developed with the local
jurisdiction and project proponent in the development of the ECCHCP.
The educational benefits of critical habitat, including informing the
public of areas that are essential for the long term conservation of
the species, are still accomplished from material provided on our Web
site and through public notice and comment procedures required to
establish the ECCHCP. The public also has been informed through the
public participation that occurs during the development of this
regional HCP. For these reasons, we believe that designating critical
habitat has little benefit in areas covered by the draft ECCHCP. We do
not believe that this exclusion would result in the extinction of the
species because the draft ECCHCP seeks to: (1) Preserve approximately
34,800 ac and restore between 234-368 ac of habitat that contains the
PCEs and is essential to the conservation of the Central population of
the California tiger salamander; (2) preserve major habitat connections
linking existing public lands; (3) incorporate a range of habitat and
population management and enhancement measures; (4) fully mitigate the
impacts of covered species, including the Central population of the
California tiger salamander; (5) maintain ecosystem processes; and (6)
contribute to the recovery of covered species.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Other Land--Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
East Bay Region Unit 10
A portion of East Bay Region Unit 10 warrants exclusion from the
final critical habitat designation. Based on information received
during the comment period, approximately 281 ac (114 ha) of the unit
currently consists of commercially or agriculturally developed property
and no longer contains one or more of the PCEs. Because the features
considered essential for the California tiger salamander are no longer
present as a result of the development, we have removed these lands
from the critical habitat designation.
An additional 591 ac (239 ha) has been designated as open space
areas as a result of the development. Conservation easements
specifically including measures to protect, preserve, and enhance
habitat for the California tiger salamander have been placed on the
open space areas. These open spaces areas still contain those features
considered essential for the California tiger salamander as identified
in this final rule and will be managed to protect those features.
(1) Benefits of Inclusion
There is minimal benefit from designating critical habitat for the
California tiger salamander within the open space areas because these
lands are already managed for the conservation of the California tiger
salamander. One possible benefit of including these lands as critical
habitat would be to educate the public regarding the conservation
values of these areas and the habitat they support. However, 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. Additionally, the
designation of critical habitat will not have any appreciable effect on
the development or implementation of public education programs in these
areas.
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 values of an area. This may
focus and contribute to conservation efforts of other parties by
clearly delineating areas of high conservation value for certain
species. However, this area already is publicly-owned by a non-Federal
entity, and we believe that 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. Additionally, we believe that this education benefit has
largely been achieved. The additional educational benefits that might
arise from critical habitat designation are largely accomplished
through the proposed rule and request for public comment that
accompanied the development of this critical habitat regulation. We
have accordingly determined that the benefits of designating critical
habitat on this property covered by the described conservation measures
above are small.
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 open space area management plan already includes specific
management actions targeting listed and sensitive species, including
the California tiger salamander; therefore, the benefit from additional
consultation is likely also to be minimal.
In summary, we conclude that the Central population of the
California tiger salamander currently is realizing conservation
benefits from existing management of these areas, and that designation
of critical habitat will not have any appreciable effect to either
cause the modification of a Federal action to avoid adverse
modification, or on the development or implementation of public
education programs.
(2) Benefits of Exclusion
While the consultation requirement associated with critical habitat
on the open space areas would provide 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, including the Central population of the
California tiger salamander. The benefits of exclusion include the
reduction of administrative costs by eliminating the need for a
separate analysis of the effects of an action on critical habitat in
future consultations, whether incidental take exemption is provided
through section 7 or section 10. The open space areas are currently
managed through a mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program (MMRP);
a Wildlife Management Plan (WMP); and a conservation easement that is
funded in perpetuity. The MMRP, WMP, and the conservation easement
specifically identify measures designed to protect, preserve, and
enhance habitat for the California tiger salamander. Such
[[Page 49411]]
measures include: (1) Create three new salamander breeding ponds; (2)
enhance an existing breeding pond; (3) place signage around sensitive
habitat; (4) implement a permanent bullfrog control program; (5)
prohibit new introduction of fish to any waters on the property; (6)
limit use of rodenticides and extent of rodent control; and (7) monitor
for noxious chemicals in ground and surface water. 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) 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 and the Federal
District Court decision concerning critical habitat (Center for
Biological Diversity v. Norton, Civ. No. 01-409 TUC DCB D. Ariz. Jan.
13, 2003), we have determined that the benefits of excluding a portion
of East Bay Region unit 10 as critical habitat outweigh the benefits of
including it as critical habitat for the Central population of the
California tiger salamander. This is because these lands are already
managed to protect and enhance unique and important natural resource
values specifically for the California tiger salamander. 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 the conservation of the species. In addition, we believe
that critical habitat designation provides little gain in the way of
increased public recognition for special habitat values on public lands
that are expressly managed to protect and enhance those values. We do
not believe that this exclusion would result in the extinction of the
species because the MMRP, WMP, and conservation easement seek to: (1)
Preserve approximately 591 ac of habitat; (2) enhance and create
breeding habitat; (3) incorporate a range of habitat and population
management and enhancement measures beneficial to the salamander; (4)
limit use of rodenticides and extent of rodent control; and (5) monitor
for noxious chemicals in ground and surface water.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Economic Impacts--Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
This section allows the Secretary to exclude areas from critical
habitat for economic reasons if she determines that the benefits of
such exclusion exceed the benefits of designating the area as critical
habitat, unless the exclusion will result in the extinction of the
species concerned. This is a discretionary authority Congress has
provided to the Secretary with respect to critical habitat. Although
economic and other impacts may not be considered when listing a
species, Congress has expressly required their consideration when
designating critical habitat.
In general, we have considered in making the following exclusions
that all of the costs and other impacts predicted in the economic
analysis may not be avoided by excluding the area, due to the fact that
all of the areas in question are currently occupied by the Central
population of CTS and there will be requirements for consultation under
Section 7 of the Act, or for permits under section 10 (henceforth
``consultation''), for any take of this species, which should also
serve to protect the species and its habitat, and other protections for
the species exist elsewhere in the Act and under State and local laws
and regulations. In conducting economic analyses, we are guided by the
10th Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling in the New Mexico Cattle Growers
Association case (248 F.3d at 1285), which directed us to consider all
impacts, ``regardless of whether those impacts are attributable co-
extensively to other causes.'' As explained in the analysis, due to
possible overlapping regulatory schemes and other reasons, there are
also some elements of the analysis that may overstate some costs.
Conversely, the Ninth Circuit has recently ruled (``Gifford
Pinchot'', 378 F.3d at 1071) that the Service's regulations defining
``adverse modification'' of critical habitat are invalid because they
define adverse modification as affecting both survival and recovery of
a species. The Court directed us to consider that determinations of
adverse modification should be focused on impacts to recovery. While we
have not yet proposed a new definition for public review and comment,
compliance with the Court's direction may result in additional costs
associated with the designation of critical habitat (depending upon the
outcome of the rulemaking). In light of the uncertainty concerning the
regulatory definition of adverse modification, our current
methodological approach to conducting economic analyses of our critical
habitat designations is to consider all conservation-related costs.
This approach would include costs related to sections 4, 7, 9, and 10
of the Act, and should encompass costs that would be considered and
evaluated in light of the Gifford Pinchot ruling.
In addition, we have received several credible comments on the
economic analysis contending that it underestimates, perhaps
significantly, the costs associated with this critical habitat
designation. Both of these factors should be considered in the test and
balancing against the possibility that some of the costs shown in the
economic analysis might be attributable to other factors, or are overly
high, and so would not necessarily be avoided by excluding the area for
which the costs are predicted from this critical habitat designation.
We recognize that we have excluded a significant portion of the
proposed critical habitat. Congress expressly contemplated that
exclusions under this section might result in such situations when it
enacted the exclusion authority. House Report 95-1625, stated on page
17: ``Factors of recognized or potential importance to human activities
in an area will be considered by the Secretary in deciding whether or
not all or part of that area should be included in the critical habitat
* * * In some situations, no critical habitat would be specified. In
such situations, the Act would still be in force prevent any taking or
other prohibited act * * * '' (emphasis supplied). We accordingly
believe that these exclusions, and the basis upon which they are made,
are fully within the parameters for the use of section 4(b)(2) set out
by Congress. In reaching our decision about which areas should be
excluded from the final critical habitat designation for economic
reasons, we considered the following factors to be important: (1) The
most costly census tracts, approximately the top 80 percent; (2) at or
near the 80 percent threshold, a substantial break in costs from one
census tract to the next that indicates disproportionate impacts; and
(3) costs of public works projects such as transportation or other
infrastructure.
The draft economic analysis published in the Federal Register on
July 18, 2005 (70 FR 41183) analyzed the economic effects of the
proposed critical habitat designation for the Central population of
California tiger salamander in 20 California counties. The economic
impacts of critical habitat designation vary widely among counties, and
even within counties. The counties most impacted by the critical
habitat designation to the new housing industry and public projects
include Alameda ($193 million), Contra Costa ($91 million), Monterey
($67 million),
[[Page 49412]]
Santa Clara ($33 million), San Benito ($23 million), and Fresno ($15
million). Further, economic impacts are unevenly distributed within
counties. The analysis was conducted at the census tract level,
resulting in a high degree of spatial precision.
Mitigation requirements increase the cost of development and
avoidance requirements are assumed to reduce the construction of new
housing. In the base scenario where critical habitat reduces the amount
of new housing, designation of critical habitat for the Central
population of the California tiger salamander is expected to impose
losses of over $441 million relating to lost development opportunity
over a 20-year period, between the present and 2025. A second scenario,
in which increased costs and the reduction in developable land are
accommodated through densification, or in other words, in the event
that on-site avoidance can be accomplished through density increases
alone, welfare losses from critical habitat for the Central population
of the California tiger salamander would be approximately $370 million
over the same 20-year period.
Alameda County is expected to experience the largest economic
impacts from critical habitat--over $193 million in surplus lost in the
rationed housing or base scenario. As shown in the map of impacts in
Alameda County, these impacts are concentrated in census tracts
northwest of Livermore and southeast of Pleasanton. Economic impacts
generally decline in those census tracts which are progressively
further of the developed city centers. The four most impacted counties
are the same in both scenarios: Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, and
Santa Clara. These counties appear to experience impacts that are
significantly larger than is the case in other counties `` nearly twice
as large as the next most impacted county. The ten most impacted
counties are identical under the two scenarios.
A copy of the final economic analysis with supporting documents are
included in our administrative record and may be obtained by contacting
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered Species (see
ADDRESSES section).
Application of Section 4(b)(2)--Economic Exclusion to 12 Census Tracts
We have considered, but are excluding from critical habitat for the
Central population of the California tiger salamander essential habitat
in the 12 census tracts and counties listed in Table 2.
Table 2.--Excluded Census Tracts and Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted welfare
Census tract County Welfare impact in impact in final
draft EA ($) EA ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06001450721................................ Alameda...................... $54,235,596 $68,357,184
06013355104................................ Contra Costa................. 37,728,800 43,721,380
06053010501................................ Monterey..................... 42,654,944 42,654,944
06001450701................................ Alameda...................... 44,538,812 37,760,320
06001451101................................ Alameda...................... 15,160,546 32,343,348
06001450100................................ Alameda...................... 8,283,346 30,483,876
06053014103................................ Monterey..................... 22,393,324 22,393,324
06085512100................................ Santa Clara.................. 14,745,986 22,264,860
06001441503................................ Alameda...................... 2,085,401 19,553,670
06013355200................................ Contra Costa................. 21,156,608 17,426,460
06069000600................................ San Benito................... 14,625,198 14,625,198
06019005515................................ Fresno....................... 13,393,774 13,393,774
--------------------------------
Total.................................. ............................. ................. 364,978,338
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The notice of availability of the draft economic analysis (70 FR
41183, July 18, 2005) solicited public comment on the potential
exclusion of high cost areas. As we finalized the economic analysis, we
identified high costs associated with the proposed critical habitat
designation to public projects in San Benito County. These public
projects were the widening of State Routes 25 and 156. The final
economic analysis indicates additional costs in census tracts in which
these projects were located were approximately $4.9 million for the two
projects. On the basis of the significance of these costs, we
determined that these two routes be excluded from the designation. In
addition, the economic analysis also identified a section of Highway
680 in Alameda County as having significant costs as a result of the
designation of critical habitat. The critical habitat unit associated
with the project area is one of those identified in Table 2 above for
exclusion and no additional exclusion of this area is necessary.
(1) Benefits of Inclusion of the 12 Excluded Census Tracts
The areas excluded are currently occupied by the Central population
of the California tiger salamander, as shown in Table 2. If these areas
were designated as critical habitat, any actions with a Federal nexus
which may adversely affect the critical habitat would require a
consultation with us, as explained above in the section of this notice
entitled ``Effects of Critical Habitat Designation''. Primary
constituent elements in these areas would be protected from destruction
or adverse modification by federal actions using a conservation
standard based on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Gifford Pinchot. This
requirement would be in addition to the requirement that proposed
Federal actions avoid likely jeopardy to the species' continued
existence. However, inasmuch as all these units are currently occupied
by the species, consultation for activities which may adversely affect
the species, including possibly significant habitat modification (see
definition of ``harm'' at 50 CFR 17.3), would be required, even without
the critical habitat designation. The requirement to conduct such
consultation would occur regardless of whether the authorization for
incidental take occurs under either section 7 or section 10 of the Act.
For the occupied areas there is still a requirement for a jeopardy
analysis to ensure Federal actions are note likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species.
We determined, however, in the economic analysis that designation
of critical habitat could result in approximately $364,978,338 in costs
in
[[Page 49413]]
these 12 census tracts, the majority of which are directly related to
residential development impacts. We believe that the potential decrease
in residential housing development that could be caused by this
designation of critical habitat for the Central population of the
California tiger salamander would minimize impacts to and potentially
provide some protection to the species, the vernal pool complexes and
ponds where they reside, and the physical and biological features
essential to the species' conservation (i.e., the primary constituent
elements). Thus, this decrease in residential housing development would
directly translate into a potential benefit to the species that would
result from this designation.
Another possible benefit of a critical habitat designation is
education of landowners and the public regarding the potential
conservation value of these areas. This may focus and contribute to
conservation efforts by other parties by clearly delineating areas of
high conservation values for certain species. However, we believe that
this education benefit has largely been achieved, or is being achieved
in equal measure by other means. Although we have not yet begun the
recovery planning process for the Central population of the California
tiger salamander the designation of critical habitat would assist in
the identification of potential core recovery areas for the species.
The critical habitat designation and recovery plan would provide
information geared to the general public, landowners, and agencies
about areas that are important for the conservation of the species and
what actions they can implement to further the conservation of the
Central population of the California tiger salamander within their own
jurisdiction and capabilities, and contains provisions for ongoing
public outreach and education as part of the recovery process.
In summary, we believe that inclusion of the 12 census tracts as
critical habitat would provide some additional Federal regulatory
benefits for the species. However, that benefit is limited to some
degree by the fact that the proposed critical habitat is occupied by
the species, and therefore there must, in any case, be consultation
with the Service over any Federal action which may affect the species
in those 12 census tracts. The additional educational benefits which
might arise from critical habitat designation are largely accomplished
through the multiple opportunities for public notice and comments which
accompanied the development of this regulation, publicity over the
prior litigation, and public outreach associated with the development
of the draft and, ultimately, the implementation of the final recovery
plan for the Central population of the California tiger salamander.
(2) Benefits of Exclusion of the 12 Excluded Census Tracts
The economic analysis conducted for this proposal estimates that
the costs associated with designating these 12 census tracts would be
approximately $364,978,338. Costs would be associated with the Central
population of the California tiger salamander in amounts shown in Table
2 above. By excluding these census tracts, some or all of these costs
will be avoided. Two important public-sector projects, widening of
State Routes 25 and 156, will avoid the costs associated with critical
habitat designation.
(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion of the 12
Census Tracts
We believe that the benefits from excluding these lands from the
designation of critical habitat--avoiding the potential economic and
human costs, both in dollars and jobs, predicted in the economic
analysis--exceed the educational and regulatory benefits which could
result from including those lands in this designation of critical
habitat.
We have evaluated and considered the potential economic costs on
the residential development industry relative to the potential benefit
for the Central population of the California tiger salamander and its
primary constituent elements derived from the designation of critical
habitat. We believe that the potential economic impact of up to
approximately $365 million on the development industry significantly
outweighs the potential conservation and protective benefits for the
species and their primary constituent elements derived from the
residential development not being constructed as a result of this
designation.
We also believe that excluding these lands, and thus helping
landowners avoid the additional costs that would result from the
designation, will contribute to a more positive climate for Habitat
Conservation Plans and other active conservation measures which provide
greater conservation benefits than would result from designation of
critical habitat--even in the post-Gifford Pinchot environment--which
requires only that the there be no adverse modification resulting from
actions with a Federal nexus. We therefore find that the benefits of
excluding these areas from this designation of critical habitat
outweigh the benefits of including them in the designation.
We believe that the required future recovery planning process would
provide at least equivalent value to the public, State and local
governments, scientific organizations, and Federal agencies in
providing information about habitat that contains those features
considered essential to the conservation of the Central population of
the California tiger salamander, and in facilitating conservation
efforts through heightened public awareness of the plight of the listed
species. Draft recovery plans would contains explicit objectives for
ongoing public education, outreach, and collaboration at local, state,
and federal levels, and between the private and public sectors, in
recovering the Central population of the California tiger salamander.
(4) Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
We believe that exclusion of these lands will not result in the
extinction of the Central population of the California tiger salamander
as these areas are considered occupied habitat. Actions which might
adversely affect the species are expected to have a Federal nexus, and
would thus undergo a section 7 consultation with the Service. The
jeopardy standard of section 7, and routine implementation of habitat
preservation through the section 7 process, as discussed in the
economic analysis, provide assurance that the species will not go
extinct. In addition, the species is protected from take under section
9 of the Act. The exclusion leaves these protections unchanged from
those that would exist if the excluded areas were designated as
critical habitat.
Critical habitat is being designated for the species in other areas
that will be accorded the protection from adverse modification by
Federal actions using the conservation standard based on the Ninth
Circuit decision in Gifford Pinchot. Additionally, the species occurs
on lands protected and managed either explicitly for the species, or
indirectly through more general objectives to protect natural values,
this provides protection from extinction while conservation measures
are being implemented. For example, the Central population of
California tiger salamander is protected on lands such as conservation
banks and other natural areas protected by perpetual conservation
easements and managed specifically for the species e.g., Jepson
Prairie. The species also occurs on lands
[[Page 49414]]
managed to protect and enhance wetland values under the Wetlands
Reserve Program of the Natural Resource Conservation Service. The
Central population of the California tiger salamander are protected on
lands such as conservation banks protected by perpetual conservation
easements and managed specifically for the species and its habitat,
e.g., , Fitzgerald Ranch Conservation Bank, Ohlone Conservation Bank,
and Viera Sandy Mush Conservation Bank; National Wildlife Refuges,
e.g., San Luis NWR Complex, and San Francisco Bay NWR Complex; and also
on a variety of natural areas managed to maintain and enhance natural
values, e.g., Grasslands Ecological Area.
We believe that exclusion of the 12 census tracts will not result
in extinction of the Central population of the California tiger
salamander as they are considered occupied habitat. Federal Actions
which might adversely affect the species would thus undergo a
consultation with the Service under the requirements of section 7 of
the Act. The jeopardy standard of section 7, and routine implementation
of habitat preservation as part of the section 7 process, as discussed
in the draft economic analysis, provide insurance that the species will
not go extinct. The exclusion leaves these protections unchanged from
those that would exist if the excluded areas were designated as
critical habitat.
Critical habitat is being designated for the Central population of
the California tiger salamander in other areas that will be accorded
the protection from adverse modification by federal actions using the
conservation standard based on the Ninth Circuit decision in Gifford
Pinchot. Additionally, the species occurs on lands protected and
managed either explicitly for the species, or indirectly through more
general objectives to protect natural values, this factor acting in
concert with the other protections provided under the Act for these
lands absent designation of critical habitat on them, and acting in
concert with protections afforded each species by the remaining
critical habitat designation for the species, lead us to find that
exclusion of these 12 census tracts will not result in extinction of
the Central population of the California tiger salamander.
Economic Analysis
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 such
exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical
habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species concerned.
Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat
designation, we conducted an economic analysis to estimate the
potential economic effect of the designation. The draft analysis was
made available for public review on July 18, 2005 (70 FR 41183). We
accepted comments on the draft analysis until August 3, 2005.
The primary purpose of the economic analysis is to estimate the
potential economic impacts associated with the designation of critical
habitat for the Central population of the CTS. This information is
intended to assist the Secretary in making decisions about whether the
benefits of excluding particular areas from the designation outweigh
the benefits of including those areas in the designation. This economic
analysis considers the economic efficiency effects that may result from
the designation, including habitat protections that may be co-extensive
with the listing of the species. It also addresses distribution of
impacts, including an assessment of the potential effects on small
entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by the
Secretary to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly
burden a particular group or economic sector.
This analysis focuses on the direct and indirect costs of the rule.
However, economic impacts to land use activities can exist in the
absence of critical habitat. These impacts may result from, for
example, local zoning laws, State and natural resource laws, and
enforceable management plans and best management practices applied by
other State and Federal agencies. Economic impacts that result from
these types of protections are not included in the analysis as they are
considered to be part of the regulatory and policy baseline.
A copy of the draft economic analysis with supporting documents is
included in our administrative record and may be obtained by contacting
us (see ADDRESSES section) or by downloading from the Internet at
http://sacramento.fws.gov/.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues,
but will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the tight timeline
for publication in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has not formally reviewed this rule. As explained above,
we prepared an economic analysis of this action. We used this analysis
to meet the requirement of section 4(b)(2) of the Act to determine the
economic consequences of designating the specific areas as critical
habitat. We also used it to help determine whether to exclude any area
from critical habitat, as provided for under section 4(b)(2), if we
determine that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of
specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless we
determine, based on the best scientific and commercial data available,
that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result
in the extinction of the species.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996),
whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for
any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the
effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to
require Federal agencies to provide a statement of factual basis for
certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA also amended the RFA
to require a certification statement.
Small entities include small organizations, such as independent
nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including
school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; and small businesses. Small businesses include
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than
[[Page 49415]]
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we consider the types
of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general,
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the rule could significantly affect a substantial
number of small entities, we consider the number of small entities
affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing
development, grazing, oil and gas production, timber harvesting). We
apply the ``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to
determine if certification is appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not
explicitly define ``substantial number'' or ``significant economic
impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of
small entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers
the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area.
In some circumstances, especially with critical habitat designations of
limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and consider
whether the total number of small entities affected is substantial. In
estimating the number of small entities potentially affected, we also
consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, or permitted by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities are
unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by
critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is present,
Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under section
7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may
affect CTS. Federal agencies also must consult with us if their
activities may affect critical habitat. Designation of critical
habitat, therefore, could result in an additional economic impact on
small entities due to the requirement to reinitiate consultation for
ongoing Federal activities.
In general, two different mechanisms in section 7 consultations
could lead to additional regulatory requirements for the approximately
four small businesses, on average, that may be required to consult with
us each year regarding their project's impact on the Central population
of the CTS and its habitat. First, if we conclude, in a biological
opinion, that a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species or adversely modify its critical habitat, we can
offer ``reasonable and prudent alternatives.'' Reasonable and prudent
alternatives are alternative actions that can be implemented in a
manner consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal
authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically
feasible, and that would avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of
listed species or result in adverse modification of critical habitat. A
Federal agency and an applicant may elect to implement a reasonable and
prudent alternative associated with a biological opinion that has found
jeopardy or adverse modification of critical habitat. An agency or
applicant could alternatively choose to seek an exemption from the
requirements of the Act or proceed without implementing the reasonable
and prudent alternative. However, unless an exemption were obtained,
the Federal agency or applicant would be at risk of violating section
7(a)(2) of the Act if it chose to proceed without implementing the
reasonable and prudent alternative(s).
Second, if we find that a proposed action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed animal or plant species,
we may identify reasonable and prudent measures designed to minimize
the amount or extent of take and require the Federal agency or
applicant to implement such measures through non-discretionary terms
and conditions. We may also identify discretionary conservation
recommendations designed to minimize or avoid the adverse effects of a
proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, help implement
recovery plans, or develop information that could contribute to the
recovery of the species.
Based on our experience with consultations pursuant to section 7 of
the Act for all listed species, virtually all projects-including those
that, in their initial proposed form, would result in jeopardy or
adverse modification determinations in section 7 consultations can be
implemented successfully with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and
prudent alternatives. These measures, by definition, must be
economically feasible and within the scope of authority of the Federal
agency involved in the consultation. We can only describe the general
kinds of actions that may be identified in future reasonable and
prudent alternatives. These are based on our understanding of the needs
of the species and the threats it faces, as described in the final
listing rule and this critical habitat designation. Within the final
critical habitat units, the types of Federal actions or authorized
activities that we have identified as potential concerns are:
(1) Activities affecting waters of the United States by the Corps
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
(2) Water flows, damming, diversion, and channelization implemented
or licensed by Federal agencies;
(3) Timber harvest, grazing, mining, and recreation by the U.S.
Forest Service and BLM;
(4) Road construction and maintenance, right-of-way designation,
and regulation of agricultural activities;
(5) Hazard mitigation and post-disaster repairs funded by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency; and
(6) Activities funded by the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.
Department of Energy, or any other Federal agency.
It is likely that a developer or other project proponent could
modify a project or take measures to protect the Central population of
the CTS. The kinds of actions that may be included if future reasonable
and prudent alternatives become necessary include conservation set-
asides, management of competing nonnative species, restoration of
degraded habitat, and regular monitoring. These are based on our
understanding of the needs of the species and the threats it faces, as
described in the final listing rule and proposed critical habitat
designation. These measures are not likely to result in a significant
economic impact to project proponents.
In summary, we have considered whether this would result in a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
We have determined, for the above reasons and based on currently
available information, that it is not likely to affect a substantial
number of small entities. Federal involvement, and thus section 7
consultations, would be limited to a subset of the area designated. The
most likely Federal involvement could include Corps permits, permits we
may issue under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, Federal Highway
Administration funding for road improvements, hydropower licenses
issued by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and regulation of
timber harvest, grazing, mining, and recreation by the U.S.
[[Page 49416]]
Forest Service and BLM. A regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et
seq.)
Under SBREFA, this rule is not a major rule. Our detailed
assessment of the economic effects of this designation is described in
the economic analysis. Based on the effects identified in the economic
analysis, we believe that this rule will not have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, will not cause a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers, and will not have significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises. Refer to the draft economic analysis for a
discussion of the effects of this determination.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This final rule to
designate critical habitat for the Central population of the CTS is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, Tribal
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. (At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants;
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services;
and Child Support Enforcement.) ``Federal private sector mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities who receive Federal
funding, assistance, permits or otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that
non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive
Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program,
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above
on to State governments.
(b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate
of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on
State or local governments. As such, Small Government Agency Plan is
not required.
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with DOI and Department of Commerce policy, we
requested information from, and coordinated development of, this final
critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource agencies
in California. The designation of critical habitat in areas currently
occupied by the Central population of the CTS imposes no additional
restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, has little
incremental impact on State and local governments and their activities.
The designation may have some benefit to these governments in that the
areas essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly
defined, and the PCEs of the habitat necessary to the survival of the
species are specifically identified. While making this definition and
identification does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur, it may assist these local governments in long-
range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur).
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We are designating critical habitat in accordance with
the provisions of the Act. This final rule uses standard property
descriptions and identifies the PCEs within the designated areas to
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the Central
population of the CTS.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule
will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or
local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
It is our position that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not need
to prepare environmental analyses as defined by the NEPA in connection
with designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244). This assertion was upheld in the courts of the Ninth Circuit
(Douglas County v.
[[Page 49417]]
Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698
(1996).
Government-to-Government Relationships With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of the Interior's Manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that
there are no tribal lands essential for the conservation of the Central
population of the CTS. Therefore, designation of critical habitat for
the Central population of the CTS has not been designated on Tribal
lands.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author
The primary author of this package is the Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11(h), revise the entry for ``Salamander, California
tiger, in Santa Barbara County Population'' in the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Amphibians
* * * * * * *
Salamander, California tiger..... Ambystoma U.S.A. (CA)........ U.S.A. (CA-- T 667E, 702, 17.95(d) 17.43(c)
californiense. California). 744
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. In Sec. 17.95(d), amend the entry for the designation of critical
habitat for California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) in
Santa Barbara County as follows:
0
a. Revise the entry's heading;
0
b. Immediately following the heading, add a new subheading;
0
c. Immediately following the map in paragraph (d)(10)(iii), add a new
subheading; and
0
d. Add paragraphs (11) through (51); to read as set forth below:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(d) Amphibians
* * * * *
California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense)
California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense)in Santa Barbara
County
* * * * *
Central Population of the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma
californiense)
(11) Critical habitat units are depicted for the Central population
of the California tiger salamander in California on the maps below.
(12) The PCEs of critical habitat for the Central population of the
California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) are the habitat
components that provide:
(i) Standing bodies of fresh water (including natural and manmade
(e.g., stock)) ponds, vernal pools, and other ephemeral or permanent
water bodies which typically support inundation during winter rains and
hold water for a minimum of 12 weeks in a year of average rainfall;
(ii) Upland habitats adjacent and accessible to and from breeding
ponds that contain small mammal burrows or other underground habitat
that CTS depend upon for food, shelter, and protection from the
elements and predation; and
(iii) Accessible upland dispersal habitat between occupied
locations that allow for movement between such sites.
(13) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures existing
on the effective date of this rule and not containing one or more of
the PCEs, such as buildings, aqueducts, airports, and roads, and the
land on which such structures are located.
(14) Critical habitat units are described below. Data layers
defining map units were created by screen digitizing habitat boundaries
using ArcMap GIS.
(15) Note: Map 7 (Index map) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 49418]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AU05.001
[[Page 49419]]
(16) Central Valley Region: Unit 1, Yolo County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Wildwood School, Dunnigan,
Bird Valley, Zamora. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83
coordinates (E,N): 586407, 4303194; 585908, 4303117; 585550, 4303309;
585255, 4303424; 584910, 4303603; 584500, 4303795; 584231, 4303962;
583975, 4304179; 583783, 4304551; 583988, 4305229; 584116, 4305537;
584321, 4305729; 584602, 4305997; 584615, 4306446; 584654, 4306689;
584922, 4306830; 585089, 4306906; 585370, 4307047; 585486, 4307355;
585914, 4307355; 586996, 4307355; 587000, 4306558; 587204, 4306457;
587208, 4305759; 587600, 4305747; 587609, 4305701; 587617, 4304857;
587488, 4304855; 587486, 4304740; 587486, 4304618; 586854, 4304617;
586795, 4304534; 586983, 4304309; 586935, 4304197; 586912, 4304035;
586970, 4303827; 586715, 4303400; returning to 586407, 4303194.
(ii) Note: Map 8 (Central Valley Region, Unit 1) follows:
[[Page 49420]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AU05.002
[[Page 49421]]
(17) Central Valley Region: Unit 2, Solano County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Dozier, and Birds Landing.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N):
601869, 4237342; 601865, 4236938; 601654, 4236932; 601647, 4237125;
601764, 4237131; 601764, 4237339; 601264, 4237328; 601264, 4237123;
601288, 4237127; 601297, 4236925; 601267, 4236923; 601266, 4236556;
601589, 4236551; 601590, 4236740; 601703, 4236734; 601710, 4236549;
602349, 4236539; 602884, 4237289; 602883, 4237336; returning to 601869,
4237342.; excluding land bounded by: 603666, 4238548; 604112, 4238500;
604463, 4238516; 604510, 4237050; 604494, 4233370; 601674, 4233354;
600161, 4233354; 599699, 4233386; 599667, 4238197; 602105, 4238197;
602375, 4238548; 602822, 4238548; 603666, 4238548
(ii) Note: Map 9 (Central Valley Region, Unit 2) follows:
[[Page 49422]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AU05.003
[[Page 49423]]
(18) Central Valley Region: Unit 3, Sacramento County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Clay, and Goose Creek.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N):
664836, 4248038; 665672, 4248010; 668028, 4248080; 667972, 4246477;
668014, 4245543; 668070, 4244525; 668098, 4244093; 667735, 4243954;
667443, 4243758; 667178, 4243424; 666927, 4242866; 666982, 4242588;
666885, 4242323; 666718, 4242016; 666606, 4241667; 666216, 4241361;
665644, 4241193; 665337, 4241207; 664947, 4241249; 664766, 4241124;
664362, 4241138; 664125, 4241110; 663790, 4240970; 663246, 4242100;
663149, 4242323; 662884, 4242936; 663316, 4243312; 663302, 4243758;
663051, 4243898; 662633, 4243954; 662563, 4244121; 662563, 4244665;
662368, 4244679; 661713, 4244706; 660626, 4244623; 660626, 4244804;
660723, 4245013; 660514, 4245180; 660500, 4245613; 660514, 4245919;
660654, 4246337; 660960, 4246672; 661072, 4247048; 660779, 4247146;
660695, 4247369; 660793, 4247732; 660904, 4248219; 661211, 4248526;
661629, 4248721; 664822, 4248735; 664905, 4248554; returning to 664836,
4248038; excluding land bounded by: 663699, 4245563; 663773, 4245470;
663872, 4245529; 663908, 4245484; 664132, 4245487; 664193, 4245525;
664343, 4245508; 664446, 4245534; 664455, 4245223; 664686, 4245225;
664681, 4245603; 664669, 4245660; 664669, 4245731; 664793, 4245767;
664776, 4245798; 664712, 4245836; 664686, 4245962; 664629, 4246000;
664643, 4246107; 664517, 4246081; 664512, 4246171; 664315, 4246178;
664236, 4246190; 663987, 4246188; 663813, 4245903; 663732, 4245860; and
returning to 663699, 4245563.; and excluding land bounded by: 663893,
4245225; 663790, 4245261; 663740, 4245213; 663759, 4244776; 663937,
4244476; 664146, 4244482; 664133, 4245143; returning to 663893,
4245225.
(ii) Note: Central Valley Region, Unit 3 is depicted on Map 10--
Units 3 and 4--see paragraph (19)(ii).
(19) Central Valley Region: Unit 4, Amador County, California, and
San Joaquin County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Goose Creek, Ione,
Clements, and Wallace. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83
coordinates (E,N): 672313, 4240429; 672654, 4240270; 672756, 4240232;
673017, 4240134; 673290, 4239940; 673438, 4239952; 673699, 4239838;
674062, 4239736; 674380, 4239498; 674698, 4239304; 674925, 4239089;
675039, 4238646; 675084, 4238248; 675039, 4237771; 675050, 4237658;
675175, 4237396; 675130, 4236954; 675346, 4236613; 675323, 4236045;
675198, 4235738; 675152, 4235409; 674653, 4235398; 674499, 4235346;
674346, 4235295; 674119, 4235023; 673812, 4234989; 673449, 4234864;
673188, 4234841; 673040, 4234455; 672961, 4234114; 672506, 4233944;
672313, 4234069; 672154, 4234160; 671723, 4233910; 671257, 4233774;
670905, 4233796; 670587, 4233830; 670246, 4233898; 670099, 4234160;
669905, 4234455; 669656, 4234637; 669292, 4234682; 669054, 4234682;
668883, 4234932; 668815, 4235295; 668747, 4235602; 668815, 4235977;
668622, 4236227; 668281, 4236499; 668020, 4236613; 667736, 4236806;
667566, 4237022; 667452, 4237408; 667566, 4237976; 667657, 4238135;
667816, 4238328; 667861, 4238441; 667804, 4238623; 667589, 4238827;
667555, 4239111; 667623, 4239339; 668009, 4239600; 668202, 4239827;
668497, 4240134; 668940, 4240395; 669201, 4240372; 669440, 4240327;
669803, 4240338; 670064, 4239906; 670269, 4239520; 670564, 4239463;
670928, 4239657; 671212, 4240099; 671564, 4240429; 671916, 4240406;
returning to 672313, 4240429.
(ii) Note: Unit 4 is depicted on Map 10--Units 3 and 4--which
follows:
[[Page 49424]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AU05.004
[[Page 49425]]
(20) Central Valley Region: Unit 5, Calaveras County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Goose Creek, Ione,
Clements, and Wallace. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83
coordinates (E,N): 683568, 4220263; 682958, 4220198; 682573, 4220519;
682460, 4220664; 682316, 4221113; 682316, 4221499; 682348, 4221772;
682508, 4222125; 682589, 4222494; 682974, 4222976; 683343, 4223345;
683279, 4223762; 683375, 4224067; 683343, 4224501; 683183, 4224790;
683086, 4225352; 683215, 4225657; 683456, 4225994; 683632, 4226170;
683953, 4226283; 684114, 4226411; 684467, 4226411; 684804, 4226267;
685157, 4226026; 685334, 4225496; 685350, 4224982; 685334, 4224549;
685510, 4224115; 685494, 4223682; 685382, 4223297; 685173, 4222976;
685029, 4222719; 684852, 4222205; 684772, 4221900; 684643, 4221483;
684531, 4220985; 684306, 4220664; 683921, 4220391; returning to 683568,
4220263.
(ii) Note: Central Valley Region, Unit 5 is depicted on Map 11--
Units 5, 6, and 7--see paragraph (22)(ii).
(21) Central Valley Region: Unit 6, Calaveras County, California,
Stanislaus County, California, and San Joaquin County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Valley Springs SW, Jenny
Lind, Farmington, and Bachelor Valley. Land bounded by the following
UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 686359, 4213033; 686987, 4212296;
687479, 4211559; 687315, 4210958; 687542, 4210371; 687779, 4209756;
687643, 4209128; 687725, 4208582; 688134, 4208308; 688544, 4207789;
688844, 4207298; 688571, 4206424; 688349, 4206061; 688544, 4205714;
688708, 4205277; 688372, 4204505; 686597, 4204505; 685277, 4204505;
684693, 4204235; 684316, 4203393; 683884, 4202567; 683811, 4201719;
683900, 4199972; 683710, 4199678; 683164, 4199104; 682563, 4198831;
682285, 4198727; 682126, 4198667; 681470, 4198503; 680869, 4198858;
680665, 4199223; 680627, 4200080; 679933, 4200062; 679777, 4200279;
679777, 4201016; 679882, 4201242; 680596, 4201279; 680584, 4201670;
680077, 4201672; 679832, 4202382; 679764, 4202757; 679752, 4203304;
679504, 4203338; 679531, 4203829; 679149, 4204048; 678630, 4204212;
678220, 4204649; 677810, 4204976; 677346, 4205495; 677264, 4206069;
677264, 4206834; 677483, 4207817; 678329, 4208145; 678603, 4208308;
678684, 4209100; 678821, 4209483; 680253, 4210794; 681850, 4211270;
681985, 4211350; 682777, 4211817; 683589, 4212297; 684384, 4212766;
685533, 4212474; 685557, 4212491; returning to 686359, 4213033.
(ii) Note: Central Valley Region, Unit 6 is depicted on Map 11--
Units 5, 6, and 7--see paragraph (22)(ii).
(22) Central Valley Region: Unit 7, Stanislaus County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Oakdale. Land bounded by
the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 693428, 4186960;
693463, 4186942; 693504, 4186969; 693517, 4186960; 693709, 4186853;
693941, 4186479; 694034, 4186323; 694003, 4186260; 693941, 4186198;
693900, 4186166; 693816, 4186086; 693771, 4186059; 693646, 4186006;
693588, 4185993; 693544, 4185975; 693544, 4185930; 693517, 4185877;
693526, 4185792; 693495, 4185805; 693459, 4185836; 693423, 4185823;
693397, 4185863; 693352, 4185859; 693330, 4185828; 693303, 4185756;
693298, 4185712; 693218, 4185689; 693191, 4185645; 693138, 4185640;
693080, 4185676; 693026, 4185671; 693000, 4185645; 692964, 4185582;
693000, 4185511; 693049, 4185493; 693018, 4185440; 693022, 4185386;
692995, 4185333; 692991, 4185284; 693058, 4185261; 693098, 4185243;
693093, 4185168; 692986, 4185177; 692527, 4185172; 692514, 4185243;
692506, 4185297; 692501, 4185303; 692478, 4185364; 692456, 4185413;
692420, 4185449; 692456, 4185515; 692509, 4185627; 692523, 4185716;
692523, 4185774; 692523, 4185823; 692433, 4185841; 692179, 4185850;
692152, 4185903; 692157, 4185966; 691916, 4186028; 691925, 4186064;
692010, 4186122; 692041, 4186175; 692090, 4186220; 692121, 4186260;
692179, 4186327; 692246, 4186349; 692277, 4186389; 692291, 4186421;
692273, 4186461; 692228, 4186470; 692144, 4186447; 692108, 4186434;
692108, 4186376; 692099, 4186323; 692019, 4186314; 691987, 4186345;
691970, 4186345; 691921, 4186345; 691880, 4186345; 691858, 4186385;
691858, 4186434; 691840, 4186452; 691800, 4186470; 691782, 4186496;
691747, 4186532; 691729, 4186568; 691738, 4186621; 691773, 4186675;
691818, 4186719; 691858, 4186746; 691903, 4186764; 691947, 4186795;
691987, 4186804; 692045, 4186804; 692144, 4186608; 692228, 4186626;
692326, 4186639; 692398, 4186644; 692478, 4186644; 692540, 4186768;
692607, 4186755; 692634, 4186786; 692670, 4186849; 692790, 4186933;
692848, 4186969; 692911, 4187000; 693026, 4187005; 693067, 4186951;
693125, 4186947; 693174, 4186951; 693200, 4187027; 693379, 4186987;
returning to 693428, 4186960.
(ii) Note: Central Valley Region, Unit 7 is depicted on Map 11--
Units 5, 6, and 7--which follows:
[[Page 49426]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AU05.005
[[Page 49427]]
(23) Central Valley Region: Unit 8, Stanislaus County, California,
and Merced County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles La Grange, and Snelling.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N):
725431, 4171496; 725601, 4170824; 725374, 4170317; 725561, 4169703;
725374, 4168849; 725587, 4168488; 725787, 4167394; 725257, 4165657;
725200, 4165472; 725093, 4164938; 724466, 4164337; 724132, 4164284;
723759, 4164284; 723267, 4164611; 723238, 4164631; 722571, 4165765;
722250, 4166366; 721817, 4167393; 723498, 4167406; 723802, 4167803;
723935, 4168465; 724279, 4168677; 724252, 4169047; 723894, 4169053;
723869, 4168849; 723432, 4168835; 723458, 4168663; 722664, 4168650;
722651, 4169074; 722584, 4170027; 723086, 4170091; 723352, 4169961;
723869, 4170371; 724200, 4170411; 724133, 4170861; 724199, 4171065;
724438, 4171245; 724888, 4171192; 724914, 4171391; 725153, 4171457;
returning to 725431, 4171496.
(ii) Note: Central Valley Region, Unit 8 is depicted on Map 12--
Units 8, 9, and 10--see paragraph (25)(ii).
(24) Central Valley Region: Unit 9, Merced County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Yosemite Lake, Haystack
Mtn., Merced, and Planada. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10,
NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 737111, 4141220; 736885, 4140606; 736578,
4140319; 735779, 4139868; 735411, 4139418; 735001, 4138885; 734755,
4138516; 734345, 4138352; 733977, 4138291; 733198, 4137390; 732850,
4137308; 732625, 4137738; 732707, 4138230; 732359, 4138414; 732133,
4138373; 731990, 4138230; 731969, 4138127; 731744, 4137922; 731457,
4137308; 731129, 4137082; 730904, 4137349; 730638, 4137697; 730310,
4137656; 729900, 4137717; 729593, 4137758; 729409, 4138127; 729368,
4138332; 729081, 4138516; 729224, 4138783; 729532, 4139008; 729511,
4139315; 729204, 4139418; 728897, 4139520; 729429, 4140278; 729224,
4140667; 728897, 4140933; 728692, 4140892; 728282, 4140708; 728118,
4140667; 727914, 4140729; 727729, 4141077; 727606, 4141077; 727442,
4141179; 727238, 4141282; 726848, 4141302; 726725, 4141445; 726643,
4141753; 726725, 4141937; 726562, 4142654; 726562, 4142838; 726439,
4142982; 726172, 4143084; 725660, 4143105; 725476, 4143187; 725599,
4143412; 725476, 4143822; 725333, 4143965; 725087, 4144026; 724943,
4144149; 724902, 4144477; 725066, 4144948; 725455, 4145235; 725968,
4145399; 726193, 4145522; 726480, 4145890; 726930, 4146095; 727381,
4146136; 727729, 4146485; 728180, 4146874; 728630, 4147263; 728897,
4147591; 729388, 4147795; 729900, 4147816; 730392, 4147857; 730945,
4148103; 731478, 4148021; 732010, 4147714; 732297, 4147283; 732338,
4146915; 732625, 4146525; 733034, 4146157; 733260, 4145890; 733260,
4145276; 733116, 4144784; 733362, 4144211; 733608, 4143801; 733854,
4143514; 734120, 4143289; 734550, 4142982; 735370, 4142797; 736189,
4142593; 736619, 4142470; 737111, 4141978; returning to 737111,
4141220.
(ii) Note: Central Valley Region, Unit 9 is depicted on Map 12--
Units 8, 9, and 10--see paragraph (25)(ii):
(25) Central Valley Region: Unit 10, Merced County, California, and
Mariposa County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Planada, and Owens
Reservoir. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates
(E,N): 745886, 4137625; 746150, 4137196; 746265, 4136981; 746447,
4136371; 746447, 4136305; 746529, 4136041; 746530, 4136009; 746546,
4135595; 746645, 4135364; 746760, 4135315; 746880, 4135309; 747140,
4135298; 747338, 4135067; 747519, 4134655; 747750, 4134226; 748031,
4133945; 748229, 4133533; 748311, 4133170; 748353, 4132808; 748361,
4132741; 748394, 4132625; 748394, 4132394; 748344, 4132047; 748328,
4131750; 748212, 4131371; 748064, 4131123; 747866, 4130579; 747684,
4130414; 747288, 4130232; 746826, 4130117; 746562, 4129952; 746100,
4129589; 745820, 4129275; 745605, 4128978; 745292, 4128714; 744863,
4128648; 744367, 4128632; 743856, 4128665; 743608, 4129209; 743608,
4129572; 743608, 4130232; 743641, 4130579; 743493, 4130793; 743179,
4130942; 743014, 4131107; 742684, 4131123; 742404, 4131255; 742288,
4131684; 742024, 4131750; 741727, 4131783; 741628, 4131684; 741150,
4131453; 741117, 4131932; 740820, 4132180; 740407, 4132163; 740061,
4132444; 740358, 4132757; 740589, 4132922; 740919, 4133153; 741249,
4133351; 741414, 4133417; 741826, 4133681; 742156, 4133929; 742585,
4134308; 742618, 4134556; 742371, 4134721; 742437, 4134853; 742470,
4135067; 742453, 4135331; 742486, 4135595; 742618, 4135727; 742668,
4135859; 742684, 4136255; 742668, 4136437; 742585, 4136800; 742783,
4136981; 742882, 4137097; 743146, 4137344; 743460, 4137410; 743740,
4137460; 744103, 4137559; 744450, 4137542; 744632, 4137592; 744863,
4137757; 745077, 4137790; 745393, 4137760; 745424, 4137757; returning
to 745886, 4137625.
(ii) Note: Central Valley Region, Unit 10 is depicted on Map 12--
Units 8, 9, and 10--which follows:
[[Page 49428]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AU05.006
[[Page 49429]]
(26) Central Valley Region: Unit 11, Madera County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Raymond. Land bounded by
the following UTM Zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 236646, 4118534;
236735, 4119457; 236919, 4119535; 237364, 4119940; 237297, 4120289;
237671, 4120535; 237749, 4120814; 237895, 4121224; 238305, 4121557;
238526, 4121737; 238726, 4121829; 239329, 4121896; 239728, 4121811;
240005, 4121943; 240340, 4122266; 240817, 4122475; 241265, 4122461;
241503, 4122431; 241714, 4122463; 242088, 4122454; 242236, 4122430;
242404, 4122240; 242517, 4121903; 242649, 4121386; 242729, 4121007;
242656, 4120563; 242498, 4120423; 242265, 4120288; 242025, 4120049;
241933, 4119770; 241837, 4119447; 241973, 4119229; 242224, 4118929;
242164, 4118469; 242064, 4118071; 242454, 4117612; 242521, 4117249;
242406, 4116852; 242463, 4116564; 242691, 4116146; 242868, 4115880;
243004, 4115423; 242888, 4115011; 242718, 4114693; 241980, 4114620;
241532, 4114633; 241135, 4114733; 240843, 4114856; 240549, 4115174;
240283, 4115221; 239933, 4115138; 239492, 4115032; 239192, 4115021;
238894, 4115279; 238776, 4115541; 238564, 4115973; 238623, 4116194;
238668, 4116431; 238374, 4116988; 238226, 4117252; 237848, 4117650;
237318, 4117788; 236903, 4118099; 236797, 4118315; returning to 236646,
4118534.
(ii) Note: Map 13 (Central Valley Region, Unit 11) follows:
[[Page 49430]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AU05.007
[[Page 49431]]
(27) Central Valley Region: Unit 18, Alameda County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Tassajara, and Livermore.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N):
606493, 4148131; 606445, 4148064; 606428, 4148018; 606432, 4147932;
606450, 4147848; 606466, 4147818; 606558, 4147771; 606599, 4147772;
606755, 4147834; 606834, 4147825; 606924, 4147745; 606959, 4147723;
606992, 4147438; 606865, 4146951; 606716, 4146634; 606357, 4146443;
606039, 4146380; 605807, 4146487; 605801, 4146507; 605762, 4146550;
605680, 4146592; 605678, 4146593; 605573, 4146697; 605446, 4146951;
605479, 4147194; 605495, 4147179; 605532, 4147116; 605552, 4147114;
605551, 4147218; 605591, 4147274; 605593, 4147302; 605461, 4147339;
605440, 4147342; 605404, 4147396; 605341, 4147607; 605300, 4147660;
605329, 4147701; 605322, 4147708; 605273, 4147694; 605244, 4147731;
605245, 4147738; 605236, 4147742; 605192, 4147798; 605044, 4148010;
605102, 4148319; 605127, 4148265; 605220, 4148111; 605251, 4148083;
605294, 4148086; 605431, 4148129; 605537, 4148188; 605655, 4148273;
605680, 4148317; 605768, 4148412; 605818, 4148448; 605900, 4148447;
605946, 4148417; 606075, 4148398; 606134, 4148371; 606201, 4148308;
606331, 4148228; 606492, 4148189; 606500, 4148167; returning to 606493,
4148131.
(ii) Note: Map 14 (Central Valley Region, Unit 18) follows:
[[Page 49432]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AU05.008
[[Page 49433]]
(28) Southern San Joaquin Region: Unit 1a, Madera County,
California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Little Table Mtn.,
Millerton Lake West, Lanes Bridge, and Friant. Land bounded by the
following UTM Zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 253140, 4094581;
253210, 4094842; 253281, 4095121; 253387, 4095398; 253645, 4095559;
253861, 4095616; 253852, 4096041; 253748, 4096349; 253653, 4096816;
253632, 4097047; 253685, 4097593; 253940, 4097984; 254341, 4098171;
254443, 4098377; 254346, 4098808; 254531, 4099222; 254727, 4099510;
254695, 4099849; 254591, 4100174; 254965, 4100204; 255341, 4100552;
255900, 4100711; 256220, 4100727; 256431, 4101262; 256505, 4101877;
256706, 4102254; 256840, 4102405; 257279, 4102626; 257811, 4102645;
258162, 4102587; 258498, 4102301; 258635, 4101955; 258734, 4101560;
258553, 4100933; 258138, 4100535; 257954, 4100347; 257908, 4100348;
257918, 4100725; 257542, 4100727; 257557, 4101144; 257113, 4101161;
256981, 4098268; 256639, 4098365; 255431, 4098363; 255427, 4097540;
256213, 4097523; 256203, 4096729; 254978, 4096742; 254920, 4094736;
254503, 4094762; 254503, 4094758; 253976, 4094771; 253976, 4094613;
253892, 4094501; 253919, 4094443; 253916, 4094397; 253914, 4094362;
253868, 4094365; 253822, 4094362; 253718, 4094252; 253710, 4094201;
253710, 4094200; 253701, 4094209; 253429, 4094386; 253140, 4094581.
(ii) Note: Southern San Joaquin Region, Unit 1a is depicted on--
Units 1a, 1b, and 2--see paragraph (30)(ii).
(29) Southern San Joaquin Region: Unit 1b, Madera County,
California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Lanes Bridge. Land bounded
by the following UTM Zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 251184, 4092207;
251205, 4092542; 251262, 4093159; 252944, 4093159; 253152, 4093075;
253259, 4093191; 253246, 4093164; 253246, 4092760; 253951, 4092757;
254008, 4092773; 254065, 4092790; 254068, 4092831; 254018, 4092849;
253977, 4092852; 253939, 4092895; 253937, 4092936; 253960, 4092986;
253988, 4093030; 254024, 4093028; 254075, 4093024; 254098, 4092992;
254134, 4092985; 254195, 4092981; 254190, 4092910; 254216, 4092832;
254223, 4092791; 254226, 4092744; 254465, 4092734; 254461, 4092342;
254633, 4092331; 254636, 4092535; 254698, 4092551; 254738, 4092615;
254757, 4092670; 254772, 4092746; 254777, 4092832; 254817, 4092901;
254877, 4092959; 254914, 4092978; 254971, 4092712; 254985, 4092375;
254980, 4092021; 254713, 4091436; 254292, 4091214; 253805, 4091086;
253542, 4090837; 253614, 4090584; 253836, 4090446; 253770, 4090238;
253503, 4089936; 253348, 4089733; 253173, 4089528; 253141, 4089490;
253105, 4089475; 252915, 4089348; 252875, 4089294; 252838, 4089192;
252842, 4089126; 252835, 4089116; 252636, 4088822; 252641, 4088627;
252573, 4088288; 252564, 4088242; 252170, 4087611; 251840, 4087437;
251615, 4087239; 251458, 4087089; 251407, 4087039; 251122, 4087288;
251185, 4087726; 251211, 4088132; 251215, 4088486; 251168, 4088861;
251100, 4089184; 251100, 4089751; 251111, 4089927; 251999, 4089960;
252301, 4089976; 252328, 4090400; 252364, 4090982; 252307, 4091198;
251941, 4091292; 251477, 4091232; 251191, 4091481; 251185, 4091658;
returning to 251184, 4092207.
(ii) Note: Southern San Joaquin Region, Unit 1b is depicted on Map
15--Units 1A, 1B, and 2--see paragraph (30)(ii).
(30) Southern San Joaquin Region: Unit 2, Fresno County,
California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Friant. Land bounded by the
following UTM Zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 259307, 4097734;
259442, 4097902; 259483, 4097988; 259743, 4097901; 260153, 4097663;
260490, 4097393; 260773, 4097110; 260916, 4096853; 261506, 4096656;
261810, 4096708; 262107, 4097203; 262261, 4097388; 262718, 4097625;
263193, 4097577; 263655, 4097318; 263988, 4096978; 264104, 4096298;
263703, 4095827; 263821, 4095465; 264110, 4095270; 264211, 4095169;
264294, 4094979; 264329, 4094398; 264769, 4094484; 264988, 4094446;
265443, 4094298; 265672, 4094337; 266030, 4094264; 265865, 4093902;
265521, 4093499; 265441, 4093345; 265199, 4093165; 264774, 4093047;
264401, 4093181; 264044, 4093188; 263971, 4093270; 264002, 4093471;
263856, 4093802; 263594, 4093711; 263462, 4093422; 263323, 4093192;
263373, 4093166; 263222, 4092989; 262867, 4092976; 262704, 4093198;
262451, 4093108; 262142, 4092986; 261885, 4092843; 261639, 4092593;
261510, 4092512; 261139, 4092518; 260841, 4092572; 260715, 4092261;
260534, 4092127; 260512, 4092123; 260039, 4092041; 259874, 4092120;
259842, 4092143; 259838, 4092231; 259887, 4092407; 259978, 4092494;
260034, 4092547; 260200, 4092731; 260241, 4092941; 260482, 4093245;
260433, 4093402; 260625, 4093897; 260461, 4094183; 260327, 4094416;
260317, 4094701; 260313, 4094838; 259541, 4096215; 259541, 4096227;
259623, 4096279; 259542, 4096507; 259542, 4096570; 259485, 4096704;
259472, 4096979; 259490, 4097262; 259412, 4097426; 259331, 4097555;
returning to 259307, 4097734.
(ii) Note: Southern San Joaquin Valley Region, Unit 2 is depicted
on Map 15--Units 1a, 1b, and 2--which follows:
[[Page 49434]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AU05.009
[[Page 49435]]
(31) Southern San Joaquin Region: Unit 3a, Fresno County,
California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Orange Cove North. Land
bounded by the following UTM Zone 11, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 290111,
4064680; 291311, 4064655; 292277, 4064495; 292897, 4064406; 293304,
4064906; 293877, 4065270; 294584, 4065309; 294577, 4064940; 294973,
4064926; 294962, 4064261; 294150, 4064279; 294132, 4063716; 293340,
4063754; 293311, 4063118; 292970, 4062774; 292103, 4062528; 291469,
4062793; 291158, 4063413; 291086, 4063868; 290091, 4063956; returning
to 290111, 4064680.
(ii) Note: Southern San Joaquin Region, Unit 3a is depicted on Map
16--Units 3A and 3B--see paragraph (32)(ii).
(32) Southern San Joaquin Region: Unit 3b, Fresno County,
California, and Tulare County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Orange Cove North, and
Tucker Mtn. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 11, NAD83
coordinates (E,N): 296384, 4058957; 296398, 4059181; 296564, 4059658;
298431, 4059652; 298432, 4059676; 298529, 4061925; 298738, 4062217;
298933, 4062407; 299169, 4062400; 299471, 4062349; 299655, 4062030;
299619, 4061457; 299860, 4060916; 299700, 4060350; 299740, 4059797;
300013, 4059606; 300483, 4059275; 301039, 4058965; 301116, 4058185;
300650, 4057538; 299855, 4057238; 299218, 4057453; 298847, 4057926;
298453, 4058427; 297933, 4058509; 297411, 4058567; 297115, 4058636;
296596, 4058743; returning to 296384, 4058957.
(ii) Note: Southern San Joaquin Valley Region, Unit 3b is depicted
on Map 16--Units 3a and 3b--which follows:
[[Page 49436]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AU05.010
[[Page 49437]]
(33) Southern San Joaquin Region: Unit 5, Kings County, California,
and Tulare County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Burris Park, Traver,
Monson, and Remnoy. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 11, NAD83
coordinates (E,N): 274730, 4029784; 275563, 4029744; 276147, 4030226;
276443, 4030631; 276461, 4031301; 277082, 4031301; 277215, 4031301;
278021, 4031581; 278032, 4031768; 279633, 4031751; 279157, 4032817;
280534, 4032802; 281370, 4033174; 282087, 4033164; 282812, 4033837;
282978, 4034239; 283924, 4034298; 284654, 4035065; 288568, 4034950;
288557, 4035728; 287806, 4035763; 287831, 4036538; 289234, 4036569;
289420, 4036545; 289388, 4034511; 288623, 4034511; 288596, 4034089;
287738, 4034107; 287670, 4034524; 286957, 4034603; 286918, 4034358;
284966, 4034398; 284896, 4033837; 283612, 4033835; 283601, 4033647;
283093, 4033631; 283051, 4033140; 282531, 4033101; 282523, 4032784;
282074, 4032765; 282062, 4031058; 280018, 4031127; 280070, 4030841;
278735, 4030571; 278537, 4030418; 278407, 4030226; 278030, 4030026;
278008, 4030027; 276325, 4030062; 276285, 4029617; 275634, 4029551;
275660, 4028843; 275341, 4028816; 275122, 4028323; 274758, 4027969;
274702, 4028196; returning to 274730, 4029784.
(ii) Note: Map 17 (Southern San Joaquin Valley Region, Unit 5)
follows:
[[Page 49438]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AU05.011
[[Page 49439]]
(34) East Bay Region: Unit 3, Santa Clara County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Calaveras Reservoir. Land
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 606493,
4148131; 606445, 4148064; 606428, 4148018; 606432, 4147932; 606450,
4147848; 606466, 4147818; 606558, 4147771; 606599, 4147772; 606755,
4147834; 606834, 4147825; 606924, 4147745; 606959, 4147723; 606992,
4147438; 606865, 4146951; 606716, 4146634; 606357, 4146443; 606039,
4146380; 605807, 4146487; 605801, 4146507; 605762, 4146550; 605680,
4146592; 605678, 4146593; 605573, 4146697; 605446, 4146951; 605479,
4147194; 605495, 4147179; 605532, 4147116; 605552, 4147114; 605551,
4147218; 605591, 4147274; 605593, 4147302; 605461, 4147339; 605440,
4147342; 605404, 4147396; 605341, 4147607; 605300, 4147660; 605329,
4147701; 605322, 4147708; 605273, 4147694; 605244, 4147731; 605245,
4147738; 605236, 4147742; 605192, 4147798; 605044, 4148010; 605102,
4148319; 605127, 4148265; 605220, 4148111; 605251, 4148083; 605294,
4148086; 605431, 4148129; 605537, 4148188; 605655, 4148273; 605680,
4148317; 605768, 4148412; 605818, 4148448; 605900, 4148447; 605946,
4148417; 606075, 4148398; 606134, 4148371; 606201, 4148308; 606331,
4148228; 606492, 4148189; 606500, 4148167; returning to 606493,
4148131.
(ii) Note: Map 18 (East Bay Region, Unit 3) follows:
[[Page 49440]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AU05.012
[[Page 49441]]
(35) East Bay Region: Unit 5, Santa Clara County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Calaveras Reservoir, and
Mt. Day. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates
(E,N): 611993, 4142407; 612080, 4142353; 612254, 4142429; 612417,
4142559; 612570, 4142679; 612668, 4142744; 612896, 4142712; 613157,
4142614; 613375, 4142483; 613560, 4142265; 613625, 4142113; 613669,
4141950; 613778, 4141819; 613963, 4141656; 614180, 4141406; 614246,
4141123; 614333, 4140851; 614267, 4140513; 614300, 4140296; 614191,
4139991; 614061, 4139795; 613832, 4139599; 613691, 4139480; 613527,
4139458; 613299, 4139534; 613081, 4139599; 612983, 4139686; 612809,
4139774; 612613, 4139752; 612504, 4139861; 612439, 4139948; 612254,
4139893; 612091, 4139991; 611971, 4140067; 610905, 4139741; 610208,
4139850; 609588, 4140546; 609621, 4141188; 609936, 4141656; 610415,
4141950; 610698, 4142026; 610763, 4142396; 610850, 4142570; 611025,
4142777; 611177, 4142918; 611340, 4142951; 611612, 4142799; 611884,
4142570; returning to 611993, 4142407.
(ii) Note: East Bay Region, Unit 5 is depicted on Map 19--Units 5,
6, 7, and 8--see paragraph (38)(ii).
(36) East Bay Region: Unit 6, Santa Clara County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Lick Observatory, and
Isabel Valley. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83
coordinates (E,N): 622442, 4134132; 622178, 4133537; 621384, 4132677;
620789, 4132346; 620326, 4131817; 619664, 4131156; 619003, 4131090;
618341, 4130891; 617283, 4130957; 616688, 4131553; 616489, 4132413;
615894, 4132876; 614769, 4133206; 613976, 4133008; 613248, 4133008;
612520, 4133140; 611793, 4133537; 611197, 4134198; 611131, 4135058;
612057, 4135654; 613050, 4135786; 613711, 4135852; 614637, 4135786;
615629, 4135654; 616026, 4135257; 616158, 4134860; 616555, 4134397;
617283, 4134198; 617746, 4133802; 618540, 4134000; 619069, 4134595;
620061, 4135654; 620921, 4135852; 621847, 4135786; 622442, 4135455;
622905, 4134661; returning to 622442, 4134132.
(ii) Note: East Bay Region, Unit 6 is depicted on Map 19--Units 5,
6, 7, and 8--see paragraph (38)(ii).
(37) East Bay Region: Unit 7, Santa Clara County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Lick Observatory, Isabel
Valley, Morgan Hill, and Mt. Sizer. Land bounded by the following UTM
Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 619400, 4126459; 619796, 4126327;
621053, 4126459; 621582, 4126393; 622641, 4126592; 623434, 4126592;
623964, 4126129; 624096, 4125467; 624096, 4124872; 623633, 4124277;
623699, 4123681; 622575, 4123417; 621384, 4123747; 620656, 4124210;
619796, 4124541; 619201, 4124078; 618540, 4123086; 618077, 4122094;
618143, 4120837; 618010, 4119779; 617217, 4118919; 616555, 4118919;
616158, 4119249; 615563, 4120043; 615100, 4121035; 614637, 4122028;
614703, 4122755; 615232, 4123218; 615629, 4123681; 615894, 4124343;
616026, 4124938; 616225, 4125070; 616489, 4126658; 616754, 4127187;
617217, 4127650; 617878, 4127650; 618804, 4127121; returning to 619400,
4126459.
(ii) Note: East Bay Region, Unit 7 is depicted on Map 19--Units 5,
6, 7, and 8--see paragraph (38)(ii).
(38) East Bay Region: Unit 8, Santa Clara County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Santa Teresa Hills. Land
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 607465,
4115477; 607584, 4115457; 607783, 4115457; 607902, 4115457; 608219,
4115417; 608517, 4115913; 608735, 4115913; 608973, 4115834; 609112,
4115695; 609291, 4115497; 609410, 4115338; 609529, 4115536; 609588,
4115675; 609727, 4115715; 609707, 4115834; 609767, 4116052; 609866,
4116211; 609927, 4116356; 609946, 4116348; 609990, 4116306; 610036,
4116246; 610131, 4116099; 610087, 4116065; 609930, 4115808; 609958,
4115742; 610012, 4115687; 610086, 4115410; 610096, 4115322; 610135,
4115089; 610138, 4115056; 610146, 4114967; 610194, 4114679; 610388,
4114391; 610474, 4114261; 610507, 4113796; 610840, 4113506; 610342,
4113592; 610045, 4113770; 609807, 4113850; 609092, 4114485; 608239,
4114068; 607584, 4114008; 606691, 4113909; 606036, 4114028; 605699,
4114266; 605401, 4114763; 605421, 4115080; 605461, 4115556; 605401,
4115715; 605123, 4115993; 605024, 4116152; 605084, 4116449; 605024,
4116648; 604945, 4116767; 605123, 4117144; 605481, 4117223; 605758,
4117104; 606076, 4116985; 606393, 4116826; 606671, 4116668; 606830,
4116449; 607108, 4116072; 607306, 4115953; 607247, 4115775; 607247,
4115695; 607346, 4115576; returning to 607465, 4115477.
(ii) Note: East Bay Region, Unit 6 is depicted on Map 19--Units 5,
6, 7, and 8--which follows:
[[Page 49442]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AU05.013
[[Page 49443]]
(39) East Bay Region: Unit 9, Santa Clara County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Gilroy. Land bounded by
the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 631716, 4102121;
631597, 4102061; 631279, 4102081; 630982, 4102220; 630644, 4102478;
630466, 4102915; 630466, 4103312; 630545, 4103669; 630823, 4103966;
631061, 4104205; 631220, 4104324; 631418, 4104621; 631418, 4104760;
631101, 4104978; 630922, 4105177; 630525, 4105673; 630347, 4106110;
630307, 4106506; 630188, 4106784; 630029, 4107280; 630267, 4107558;
630466, 4107657; 630704, 4107836; 631021, 4108015; 631299, 4108074;
631608, 4108074; 632003, 4107936; 632368, 4107679; 632506, 4107363;
632605, 4107017; 632921, 4105822; 632990, 4105289; 632704, 4104716;
632506, 4104410; 632487, 4103985; 632704, 4103531; 632743, 4103156;
632664, 4102879; 632566, 4102682; 632368, 4102405; 632093, 4102121;
returning to 631716, 4102121.
(ii) Note: East Bay Region, Unit 9 is depicted on Map 20--Units 9,
10a, 10b, 11, and 12--see paragraph (43)(ii).
(40) East Bay Region: Unit 10a, Santa Clara County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Mt. Madonna. Land bounded
by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 621036, 4103975;
620814, 4103967; 620501, 4104023; 620498, 4104024; 620493, 4104030;
620454, 4104197; 620640, 4104325; 620875, 4104403; 620983, 4104462;
621101, 4104491; 621238, 4104580; 621415, 4104727; 621611, 4104854;
621807, 4104903; 622072, 4104707; 622162, 4104667; 622146, 4104640;
621926, 4104390; 621741, 4104273; 621587, 4104150; 621234, 4104025;
returning to 621036, 4103975.
(ii) Note: East Bay Region, Unit 10a is depicted on Map 20--Units
9, 10a, 10b, 11, and 12--see paragraph (43)(ii).
(41) East Bay Region: Unit 10b, Santa Clara County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Gilroy, and Mt. Madonna.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N):
623013, 4101932; 623082, 4101638; 623121, 4101363; 623131, 4100981;
623033, 4100804; 622895, 4100755; 622758, 4100657; 622591, 4100500;
622573, 4100477; 622408, 4100545; 622373, 4100472; 622228, 4100526;
622167, 4100637; 622181, 4100752; 622102, 4100840; 621967, 4100895;
621852, 4101162; 621524, 4101274; 621477, 4101239; 621444, 4101255;
621189, 4101265; 621022, 4101353; 620787, 4101520; 620777, 4101706;
620885, 4101922; 620910, 4101980; 620947, 4101966; 621114, 4101924;
621263, 4101903; 621314, 4101852; 621397, 4101845; 621533, 4101885;
621594, 4102028; 621627, 4102049; 621676, 4102210; 621751, 4102302;
621833, 4102372; 621944, 4102424; 622126, 4102445; 622288, 4102596;
622376, 4102520; 622601, 4102442; 622788, 4102334; 622935, 4102158;
returning to 623013, 4101932.
(ii) Note: East Bay Region, Unit 10b is depicted on Map 20--Units
9, 10a, 10b, 11, and 12--see paragraph (43)(ii).
(42) East Bay Region: Unit 11, Santa Clara County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Gilroy Hot Springs. Land
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N):639775,
4106027; 640158, 4105923; 640506, 4105923; 641028, 4106271; 641272,
4106062; 641550, 4105471; 641724, 4105192; 642385, 4105018; 642594,
4104670; 642629, 4104183; 642803, 4103730; 642768, 4103138; 643221,
4102616; 643847, 4102477; 644404, 4101676; 644056, 4101537; 643847,
4101363; 643743, 4100632; 643256, 4100180; 642629, 4100180; 641968,
4100388; 641376, 4100214; 640854, 4100075; 640088, 4100180; 639740,
4100597; 639427, 4101259; 639531, 4101920; 639322, 4102268; 638905,
4102686; 638417, 4102999; 637860, 4103521; 637129, 4103904; 636990,
4104148; 636851, 4104983; 636920, 4105366; 637129, 4105679; 637582,
4106271; 638139, 4106584; 638626, 4106445; 639009, 4106376; 639392,
4106306; returning to 639775, 4106027.
(ii) Note: East Bay Region, Unit 11 is depicted on Map 20--Units 9,
10a, 10b, 11, and 12--see paragraph (43)(ii).
(43) East Bay Region: Unit 12, Santa Clara County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Gilroy Hot Springs, and
San Felipe. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83
coordinates (E,N): 643914, 4095004; 643892, 4094772; 643829, 4094369;
643956, 4093946; 644013, 4093764; 644006, 4093721; 644006, 4093721;
643977, 4093529; 643977, 4093529; 643891, 4092970; 643891, 4092969;
643891, 4092969; 643890, 4092963; 643849, 4092776; 643849, 4092775;
643848, 4092770; 643848, 4092768; 643832, 4092624; 643832, 4092620;
643832, 4092615; 643832, 4092614; 643837, 4092282; 643838, 4092065;
643838, 4091759; 643837, 4091756; 643835, 4091751; 643834, 4091746;
643832, 4091741; 643832, 4091736; 643831, 4091731; 643831, 4091726;
643831, 4091722; 643831, 4091719; 643842, 4091603; 643851, 4091516;
643851, 4091516; 643854, 4091478; 643856, 4091367; 643856, 4091367;
643856, 4091358; 643856, 4091355; 643857, 4091350; 643858, 4091345;
643858, 4091342; 643929, 4091037; 643974, 4090778; 643946, 4090690;
643913, 4090588; 643897, 4090567; 643894, 4090563; 643891, 4090559;
643889, 4090555; 643887, 4090550; 643887, 4090549; 643885, 4090546;
643885, 4090545; 643859, 4090480; 643830, 4090454; 643640, 4090475;
643365, 4090560; 643069, 4090729; 642709, 4090729; 642497, 4090878;
642370, 4091026; 642222, 4091216; 641989, 4091428; 641800, 4091569;
641735, 4091618; 641418, 4091809; 641227, 4092063; 641312, 4092317;
641333, 4092550; 641143, 4092656; 641164, 4092952; 640994, 4093079;
640993, 4093078; 640782, 4092994; 640529, 4092994; 640528, 4092994;
640527, 4092994; 640379, 4092846; 640042, 4092867; 639767, 4092888;
639534, 4092922; 639470, 4092931; 639415, 4092984; 639320, 4093078;
639172, 4093438; 639123, 4093490; 639085, 4093565; 639045, 4093645;
638953, 4093932; 638852, 4094180; 638579, 4094348; 638410, 4094221;
638357, 4094075; 638356, 4094072; 638325, 4093988; 638108, 4093823;
638054, 4093568; 638023, 4093382; 637914, 4092762; 637744, 4092545;
637310, 4092402; 636884, 4093142; 636699, 4093626; 636543, 4094032;
634886, 4094373; 634553, 4094838; 635056, 4095202; 635335, 4095039;
635676, 4095551; 635869, 4095659; 635916, 4095992; 636218, 4096062;
636815, 4096054; 637246, 4095872; 637712, 4096063; 638093, 4096084;
638833, 4095893; 639236, 4095724; 639553, 4095661; 639913, 4095512;
640146, 4095428; 640590, 4095110; 640929, 4094877; 640930, 4094879;
640931, 4094878; 641248, 4095217; 641481, 4095365; 641672, 4095513;
641968, 4095767; 642307, 4096021; 642771, 4096190; 643342, 4096042;
643660, 4095682; 643871, 4095280; returning to 643914, 4095004.
(ii) Note: East Bay Region, Unit 12 is depicted on Map 20--Units 9,
10a, 10b, 11, and 12--which follows:
[[Page 49444]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AU05.014
[[Page 49445]]
(44) East Bay Region: Unit 13, Merced County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Mariposa Peak, and Los
Banos Valley. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83
coordinates (E,N):670740, 4094185; 670879, 4093959; 670965, 4093691;
671019, 4093455; 670890, 4093358; 670632, 4093262; 670450, 4093101;
670299, 4093004; 670171, 4092864; 670010, 4092703; 669870, 4092242;
669645, 4092038; 669387, 4091802; 669248, 4091609; 669140, 4091383;
668947, 4091254; 668636, 4091233; 668314, 4091233; 668099, 4091169;
667949, 4090868; 667756, 4090729; 667380, 4090611; 667090, 4090428;
666886, 4090417; 666682, 4090568; 666210, 4090922; 666060, 4091104;
665996, 4091437; 665963, 4091974; 666232, 4092285; 666457, 4092424;
666800, 4092585; 667058, 4092661; 667273, 4092725; 667402, 4092832;
667616, 4092940; 667874, 4092929; 668153, 4092875; 668357, 4093079;
668421, 4093122; 668529, 4093326; 668400, 4093562; 668228, 4093669;
668228, 4093809; 668357, 4093991; 668582, 4094120; 668786, 4094131;
668872, 4094131; 668990, 4094152; 669173, 4094152; 669334, 4094152;
669559, 4094142; 669763, 4094163; 669956, 4094313; 670181, 4094399;
670439, 4094346; 670589, 4094292; returning to 670740, 4094185.
(ii) Note: Map 21 (East Bay Region, Unit 13) follows:
[[Page 49446]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AU05.015
[[Page 49447]]
(45) East Bay Region: Unit 14, Merced County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Ruby Canyon, and
Ortigalita Peak. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83
coordinates (E,N): 679370, 4078644; 679558, 4078303; 679567, 4078064;
679490, 4077773; 679396, 4077671; 679149, 4077483; 678901, 4077253;
679003, 4076945; 678799, 4076800; 678483, 4076536; 678295, 4076186;
678184, 4075947; 678082, 4075537; 677894, 4075401; 677646, 4075162;
677382, 4075042; 676989, 4075000; 676742, 4075017; 676409, 4075187;
676161, 4075477; 676008, 4075682; 676213, 4075862; 676349, 4075964;
676409, 4076143; 676366, 4076331; 676272, 4076442; 676119, 4076604;
676085, 4076647; 676042, 4076707; 676042, 4076886; 675999, 4077031;
675931, 4077210; 676025, 4077441; 676170, 4077475; 676469, 4077475;
676665, 4077569; 676836, 4077705; 677015, 4077893; 677279, 4077970;
677476, 4077927; 677732, 4078029; 677988, 4078234; 677954, 4078542;
677663, 4078618; 677390, 4078593; 677365, 4078576; 677365, 4078695;
677510, 4078968; 677595, 4079156; 677681, 4079233; 677826, 4079233;
678022, 4079267; 678372, 4079335; 678585, 4079352; 678816, 4079386;
679029, 4079327; 679353, 4079079; 679345, 4078926; 679336, 4078823;
returning to 679370, 4078644.
(ii) Note: Map 22 (East Bay Region, Unit 14) follows:
[[Page 49448]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AU05.016
[[Page 49449]]
(46) East Bay Region: Unit 15a, San Benito County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Tres Pinos. Land bounded
by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 648975, 4074659;
648866, 4074439; 648756, 4074518; 648584, 4074486; 648443, 4074424;
648345, 4074265; 647958, 4074729; 647957, 4074730; 647957, 4074730;
647737, 4074980; 647737, 4074980; 647686, 4075039; 647685, 4075039;
647683, 4075042; 647572, 4075156; 647267, 4075490; 647264, 4075493;
647261, 4075496; 647260, 4075497; 647205, 4075544; 647201, 4075547;
647197, 4075550; 647195, 4075551; 647136, 4075588; 647134, 4075589;
647129, 4075592; 647128, 4075592; 647066, 4075622; 647062, 4075623;
647059, 4075625; 646994, 4075648; 646992, 4075649; 646988, 4075650;
646985, 4075651; 646870, 4075678; 646867, 4075679; 646866, 4075679;
646057, 4075828; 646057, 4075828; 646015, 4075835; 646015, 4075836;
646014, 4075836; 645999, 4075838; 645995, 4075946; 645992, 4076037;
645986, 4076234; 645971, 4076906; 645969, 4077086; 645965, 4077530;
645965, 4077566; 645956, 4077596; 645946, 4077933; 645946, 4077933;
645953, 4077979; 645953, 4078182; 645953, 4078495; 645953, 4078809;
645953, 4079075; 645796, 4079341; 645828, 4079686; 646109, 4079873;
646313, 4080014; 646423, 4080265; 646517, 4080469; 646830, 4080672;
647080, 4080656; 647487, 4080641; 647738, 4080343; 647926, 4079920;
648036, 4079482; 647910, 4078903; 648004, 4078605; 648020, 4078245;
647910, 4077932; 647738, 4077728; 647534, 4077493; 647441, 4077258;
647503, 4077039; 647769, 4076929; 648145, 4076788; 648270, 4076679;
648396, 4076381; 648458, 4076052; 648458, 4075739; 648490, 4075598;
648662, 4075442; 648897, 4075175; returning to 648975, 4074659.
(ii) East Bay Region, Unit 15a is depicted on Map 23--Units 15a and
15b--see paragraph (47)(ii).
(47) East Bay Region: Unit 15b, San Benito County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Tres Pinos. Land bounded
by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 648559, 4073866;
648564, 4073866; 648565, 4073866; 648646, 4073750; 648239, 4073453;
647816, 4073500; 647566, 4073750; 647628, 4074283; 647628, 4074471;
647613, 4074690; 647558, 4074952; 647572, 4074937; 647623, 4074880;
647623, 4074880; 647623, 4074879; 647842, 4074630; 648249, 4074142;
648251, 4074140; 648254, 4074137; 648366, 4074023; 648373, 4074013;
648374, 4074012; 648377, 4074008; 648381, 4074004; 648384, 4074001;
648513, 4073885; 648514, 4073885; 648518, 4073882; 648522, 4073879;
648526, 4073876; 648530, 4073874; 648535, 4073872; 648540, 4073870;
648544, 4073868; 648549, 4073867; 648554, 4073866; returning to 648559,
4073866.
(ii) Note: East Bay Region, Unit 15b is depicted on Map 23--Units
15a and 15b--which follows:
[[Page 49450]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AU05.017
[[Page 49451]]
(48) East Bay Region: Unit 16, San Benito County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles San Benito, Topo Valley,
Rock Springs Peak, Pinalito Canyon, and Lonoak. Land bounded by the
following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 674357, 4038468;
674568, 4038151; 674859, 4038204; 675098, 4038733; 675468, 4038944;
676050, 4038918; 676262, 4038547; 676341, 4038230; 676791, 4038098;
677214, 4037965; 677664, 4037965; 678008, 4037965; 678908, 4037674;
679252, 4037357; 679622, 4037357; 680310, 4037542; 680813, 4037383;
681289, 4036881; 681448, 4036325; 681315, 4035822; 681157, 4035108;
680892, 4034843; 679992, 4034896; 679622, 4035187; 678961, 4035293;
678749, 4035029; 679490, 4034552; 679992, 4034129; 680231, 4033732;
680231, 4033362; 679860, 4033044; 679754, 4032806; 679754, 4032330;
679860, 4031854; 679754, 4031430; 679992, 4031060; 680310, 4030636;
680866, 4030266; 681077, 4029869; 680892, 4029578; 680601, 4029075;
680522, 4028705; 680866, 4028202; 681051, 4027832; 680892, 4027144;
680680, 4026694; 680389, 4026350; 679887, 4026059; 679728, 4025874;
679622, 4025477; 679199, 4025027; 678881, 4024763; 678564, 4024339;
677982, 4024075; 677585, 4023863; 677082, 4023916; 676764, 4024101;
676659, 4024525; 676421, 4024657; 676050, 4025001; 675944, 4025398;
675997, 4025662; 676024, 4025874; 676500, 4026271; 676738, 4026403;
676923, 4026668; 677056, 4026774; 677294, 4027065; 677638, 4027197;
677876, 4027144; 678114, 4027356; 678220, 4027832; 678061, 4028626;
677982, 4028996; 677532, 4029340; 677267, 4029763; 676712, 4030319;
676526, 4030927; 676923, 4031298; 677611, 4031642; 677849, 4032409;
677585, 4032912; 677214, 4033097; 676712, 4033282; 676156, 4033626;
675706, 4034155; 675389, 4034685; 675071, 4035055; 674542, 4035214;
674251, 4035452; 673933, 4035822; 673854, 4036007; 673669, 4036695;
673325, 4036907; 673060, 4037119; 672690, 4037410; 672452, 4037648;
672293, 4037912; 671658, 4038309; 671261, 4038759; 671076, 4039394;
671102, 4039897; 671023, 4040214; 670600, 4040611; 670176, 4040744;
669885, 4041167; 669674, 4041802; 669938, 4042384; 670309, 4042754;
670600, 4042860; 671129, 4042860; 671579, 4042675; 671790, 4042384;
671711, 4041908; 671499, 4041484; 671764, 4041193; 672028, 4041167;
672346, 4040929; 672663, 4040717; 672928, 4040400; 673060, 4040320;
673351, 4040109; 673854, 4039659; 674145, 4039288; 674277, 4038891;
returning to 674357, 4038468.
(ii) Note: Map 24 (East Bay Region, Unit 16) follows:
[[Page 49452]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AU05.018
[[Page 49453]]
(49) East Bay Region: Unit 17, San Benito County, California, and
Monterey County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Mount Johnson. Land bounded
by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 654222, 4043469;
654725, 4043363; 655413, 4043442; 655651, 4043072; 656048, 4042543;
656259, 4042331; 656392, 4041617; 656074, 4041405; 655571, 4041511;
655148, 4041326; 654803, 4041088; 654725, 4041035; 654381, 4041078;
654301, 4041087; 653719, 4041220; 653713, 4041222; 653474, 4041307;
653349, 4041352; 653301, 4041352; 653086, 4041352; 653060, 4041352;
652873, 4041352; 652555, 4041167; 652479, 4041178; 652474, 4041179;
652049, 4041243; 652026, 4041246; 651775, 4040954; 651708, 4040876;
651686, 4040872; 651417, 4040823; 651285, 4041114; 651308, 4041306;
651338, 4041564; 651345, 4041581; 651444, 4041828; 651444, 4041831;
651550, 4042252; 651593, 4042303; 651973, 4042754; 651990, 4042771;
652003, 4042784; 652449, 4043231; 652545, 4043638; 652555, 4043680;
651655, 4043866; 651364, 4044315; 651259, 4044845; 650941, 4045347;
650968, 4045824; 651166, 4045978; 651206, 4046009; 651232, 4046141;
651603, 4046353; 652079, 4046538; 652608, 4046538; 653217, 4046168;
653481, 4045744; 653508, 4045003; 653455, 4044342; 653587, 4043786;
returning to 654222, 4043469.
(ii) Note: Map 25 (East Bay Region, Unit 17) follows:
[[Page 49454]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AU05.019
[[Page 49455]]
(50) Central Coast Region: Unit 3, Monterey County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Rana Creek. Land bounded
by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 627509, 4030548;
627840, 4030382; 628072, 4030440; 628412, 4030573; 628645, 4030498;
628902, 4030506; 629208, 4030564; 629590, 4030473; 630029, 4030282;
630294, 4029984; 630361, 4029602; 630353, 4029296; 630278, 4028939;
630236, 4028649; 630427, 4028450; 630610, 4028201; 630701, 4027903;
630726, 4027588; 630684, 4027273; 630477, 4026991; 630319, 4026742;
629623, 4026518; 629233, 4026560; 628926, 4026684; 628711, 4026825;
628487, 4027074; 628155, 4027231; 627923, 4027463; 627650, 4027613;
627252, 4027596; 626845, 4027687; 626456, 4027969; 626373, 4028218;
626257, 4028591; 626074, 4028732; 625908, 4028906; 625784, 4029113;
625701, 4029403; 625701, 4029694; 625751, 4030034; 625933, 4030299;
626306, 4030606; 626688, 4030730; 627011, 4030763; 627301, 4030722;
returning to 627509, 4030548.
(ii) Note: Map 26 (Central Coast Region, Unit 3) follows:
[[Page 49456]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AU05.020
[[Page 49457]]
(51) Central Coast Region: Unit 6, Kern County, California, and San
Luis Obispo County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Orchard Peak, and Holland
Canyon. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates
(E,N): 757032, 3945151; 757374, 3944871; 757614, 3944675; 758116,
3944463; 758513, 3944172; 758831, 3943590; 759016, 3943193; 759360,
3942929; 759519, 3942770; 759545, 3942399; 759386, 3941950; 759254,
3941447; 758884, 3941076; 758487, 3941156; 758090, 3941553; 757693,
3941711; 757561, 3941579; 757481, 3941632; 757243, 3942002; 756873,
3942055; 756503, 3942241; 756264, 3942505; 755920, 3942876; 755815,
3943114; 755709, 3943431; 755497, 3943537; 755391, 3943616; 755180,
3943881; 754941, 3944093; 754730, 3944331; 754439, 3944516; 754068,
3944569; 754015, 3944860; 753724, 3944939; 753592, 3944860; 753275,
3945098; 752851, 3945151; 752428, 3945204; 752084, 3945521; 751925,
3945760; 751819, 3946104; 751793, 3946447; 751766, 3947030; 751608,
3947559; 751502, 3947903; 751026, 3948061; 750840, 3948405; 750814,
3948776; 750814, 3949120; 750523, 3949384; 750100, 3949622; 750047,
3949887; 750020, 3950152; 749835, 3950734; 749650, 3951025; 749676,
3951342; 749756, 3951739; 749888, 3952030; 750444, 3952295; 750840,
3952533; 751131, 3952718; 751634, 3952586; 751899, 3952559; 752243,
3952480; 752613, 3952030; 752878, 3951554; 752666, 3951051; 753063,
3950707; 753248, 3950390; 753328, 3950046; 753566, 3949781; 753804,
3949411; 753777, 3949014; 753804, 3948723; 754062, 3948505; 754306,
3948300; 754598, 3948035; 754862, 3947717; 755418, 3947321; 755629,
3946924; 755868, 3946421; 756238, 3946024; 756529, 3945680; 756820,
3945416; returning to 757032, 3945151.
(ii) Note: Map 27 (Central Coast Region, Unit 6) follows:
[[Page 49458]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AU05.021
Dated: August 10, 2005.
Julie MacDonald,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-16234 Filed 8-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C