Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2863 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable VCS. 

This action does not involve changes 

to the technical standards related to test 

methods or monitoring methods; thus, 

the requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272) do not apply. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule does not involve special 

consideration of environmental justicerelated issues as required by Executive 

Order 12898, Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994), because it does not change any 

regulatory requirements, it merely 

corrects and clarifies existing 

requirements. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 

63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: January 10, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–765 Filed 1–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0044; MO 

92210–0–0009] 

RIN 1018–AW86 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Sonoma County Distinct 

Population Segment of the California 

Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma 

californiense) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Revised proposed rule; 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce the 

reopening of the comment period on our 

August 18, 2009, proposed designation 

of critical habitat for the Sonoma 

County Distinct Population Segment of 

the California tiger salamander 

(Ambystoma californiense) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. We also announce revisions 

to the proposed critical habitat unit, as 

it was described in the proposed rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 18, 2009 (74 FR 41662), and 

announce the availability of the draft 

economic analysis for the revised 

proposed critical habitat designation 

and an amended required 

determinations section of the proposal. 

We are reopening the comment period 

for an additional 30 days to allow all 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment simultaneously on the revised 

proposed critical habitat, the associated 

draft economic analysis, and the 

amended required determinations 

section. Comments previously 

submitted need not be resubmitted and 

will be fully considered in preparation 

of the final rule. 

DATES: We will consider public 

comments received on or before 

February 17, 2011. Comments must be 

received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on 

the closing date. Any comments that we 

receive after the closing date may not be 

considered in the final decision on this 

action. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0044. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R8– 

ES–2009–0044; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Moore, Field Supervisor, or 

Karen Leyse, Listing Coordinator, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage 

Way, Room W–2605, Sacramento, CA 

95825; telephone 916–414–6600; 

facsimile 916–414–6713. Persons who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this revised proposed 

rule will be based on the best scientific 

data available and will be as accurate 

and as effective as possible. We will 

accept written comments and 

information during this reopened 

comment period on our amended 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the Sonoma County Distinct 

Population Segment of the California 

tiger salamander that was published in 

the Federal Register on August 18, 2009 

(74 FR 41662), our draft economic 

analysis (DEA) of the proposed 

designation, and the amended required 

determinations provided in this 

document. We will consider 

information and recommendations from 

all interested parties. 

Therefore, during this reopened 

comment period we request comments 

or information from the public, other 

concerned government agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or other 

interested party on: (1) The proposed 

rule to designate critical habitat for the 

Sonoma County Distinct Population 

Segment (DPS) of the California tiger 

salamander that was published in the 

Federal Register on August 18, 2009 (74 

FR 41662), the revisions to proposed 

critical habitat described herein (see 

Revisions to Proposed Critical Habitat 

section), and the DEA of the revised 

proposed designation; (2) the 

considered exclusion of critical habitat; 

and (3) the amended Required 

Determinations section provided in this 

document. We are particularly 

interested in comments concerning: 

(1) The proposed critical habitat 

designation (which comprises a single 

critical habitat unit), as revised in this 

WReier-Aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1

2864 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

notice (see the Revisions to Proposed 

Critical Habitat section, below). 

(2) The reasons we should or should 

not designate the revised proposed 

habitat as ‘‘critical habitat’’ under 

section 4 of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.), including whether there 

are threats to the species from human 

activity, the degree to which such 

threats can be expected to increase due 

to designation, and whether that 

increase in threat outweighs the benefit 

of designation such that the designation 

of critical habitat is not prudent. 

(3) Specific information on: 

(a) The amount and distribution of 

California tiger salamander habitat, 

including areas that provide habitat for 

the Sonoma County DPS of the 

California tiger salamander that we did 

not discuss in this revised proposed 

critical habitat rule; 

(b) Areas within the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing that contain the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species which may 

require special management 

considerations or protection, that we 

should include in the designation and 

reason(s) why (see Primary Constituent 

Elements (PCEs) section of the revised 

proposed rule for further discussion); 

and 

(c) Areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing that are essential for the 

conservation of the species, why the 

areas are essential, and whether they 

should be included in the designation. 

(4) Additional information concerning 

the range, distribution, and population 

size of this species, including the 

locations of any additional populations 

of the Sonoma County DPS of the 

California tiger salamander that would 

help us further refine the boundaries of 

critical habitat. 

(5) Information that may assist us in 

clarifying the primary constituent 

elements. 

(6) Land-use designations and current 

or planned activities in the area 

proposed as critical habitat, as well as 

their possible effects on the revised 

proposed critical habitat. 

(7) How the revised proposed critical 

habitat boundaries could be refined to 

more closely circumscribe the areas 

identified as containing the features 

essential to the species’ conservation. In 

particular, we are interested in specific 

information on the southeasterly portion 

of the revised critical habitat that is east 

of Petaluma Hill Road and south of 

Martinez Drive, and that is delineated as 

a ‘‘no effect’’ area in Enclosure 1 

(California Department of Fish and 

Game 2008) of the ‘‘Programmatic 

Biological Opinion for the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers Permitted Projects 

that May Affect California Tiger 

Salamander and Three Endangered 

Plant Species on the Santa Rosa Plain, 

California’’ (Corps File Number 

223420N) (Service 2007). To date, there 

have been no known detections of the 

salamander in this area. However, 

satellite imagery of the area suggests 

that PCEs are present within the area. In 

addition, the area is contiguous with 

other portions of the revised proposed 

critical habitat where breeding 

salamanders have been located since the 

development of the Santa Rosa Plain 

Conservation Strategy (Conservation 

Strategy). 

(8) Any probable economic, national 

security, or other impacts of designating 

particular areas as critical habitat, and, 

in particular, any impacts on small 

entities (e.g., small businesses or small 

governments), and the benefits of 

including or excluding areas that exhibit 

these impacts. 

(9) Whether any specific areas being 

proposed as critical habitat should be 

excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, and whether the benefits of 

potentially excluding any particular 

area outweigh the benefits of including 

that area under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. See the Areas Previously 

Considered For Exclusion Under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below 

and the Exclusions section of the 

proposed rule (74 FR 41662; August 18, 

2009) for further discussion. 

(10) Information on any Tribal lands 

that occur in areas being proposed as 

critical habitat, including whether these 

lands are held in fee or trust. 

(11) Whether we could improve or 

modify our approach to designating 

critical habitat in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding or to better accommodate 

public concerns and comments. 

(12) Information on any quantifiable 

economic costs or benefits of the 

proposed designation of critical habitat. 

(13) Information on the extent to 

which the description of potential 

economic impacts in the DEA is 

complete and accurate. 

If you submitted comments or 

information on the proposed rule (74 FR 

41662; August 18, 2009) during the 

initial comment period from August 18, 

2009, to October 19, 2009, please do not 

resubmit them. These comments are 

included in the public record for this 

rulemaking and we will fully consider 

them in the preparation of our final 

determination. Our final determination 

concerning the designation of critical 

habitat for the Sonoma County DPS of 

the California tiger salamander will take 

into consideration all written comments 

and any additional information we 

receive during both comment periods. 

On the basis of public comments, we 

may, during the development of our 

final determination, find that areas 

within the proposed critical habitat 

designation do not meet the definition 

of critical habitat, that some 

modifications to the described 

boundaries are appropriate, or that areas 

may or may not be appropriate for 

exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this revised 

proposed rule, the DEA associated with 

this revised proposed critical habitat 

designation, and the amended required 

determinations by one of the methods 

listed in the ADDRESSES section. 

If you submit a comment via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If your submission is 

made via a hard copy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hard copy comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. Please 

include sufficient information with your 

comments to allow us to verify any 

scientific or commercial information 

you include. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation 

used to prepare this notice, will be 

available for public inspection at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), Sacramento Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section). You may 

obtain copies of the proposed 

designation of critical habitat (74 FR 

41662) and the DEA on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0044, or by mail 

from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section). 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat in this 

revised proposed rule. Information on 

the taxonomy, distribution, life history, 

biology, and other information about the 

California tiger salamander is included 

in the Background section of the final 

rule to list the California tiger 

salamander as a threatened species, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2865 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47212). 

Additional relevant information may be 

found in the final rules to list the Santa 

Barbara County DPS (65 FR 57242; 

September 21, 2000) and the Sonoma 

County DPS of the California tiger 

salamander (68 FR 13498; March 19, 

2003); the proposed rules to designate 

critical habitat for the California tiger 

salamander in Santa Barbara County (69 

FR 3064; January 22, 2004) and the 

Central population of the species’ range 

(69 FR 48570; August 10, 2004); and the 

final rules to designate critical habitat 

for the California tiger salamander in 

Santa Barbara County (69 FR 68568; 

November 24, 2004) and the Central 

population (70 FR 49380; August 23, 

2005). The information contained in the 

previous Federal Register documents 

was used in developing this revised 

proposed rule. 

We now propose revisions to the 

proposed critical habitat unit for the 

Sonoma County DPS of the California 

tiger salamander (see Revisions to 

Proposed Critical Habitat section); 

accordingly, approximately 50,855 acres 

(ac) (20,580 hectares (ha)) in Sonoma 

County, California, meet the definition 

of critical habitat and comprise this 

single revised proposed critical habitat 

unit. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On August 4, 2004, we listed the 

Central California population of the 

California tiger salamander as a 

threatened DPS (69 FR 47211). At that 

time, we reclassified the California tiger 

salamander as threatened throughout its 

range, removing the Santa Barbara 

County and Sonoma County 

populations as separately listed DPSs 

(69 FR 47241). 

On August 18, 2005, as a result of 

litigation regarding the August 4, 2004, 

final rule (69 FR 47211) on the 

reclassification of the California tiger 

salamander DPSs (Center for Biological 

Diversity et al. v. United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service et al. (Case No. C–04– 

4324–WHA (N.D. Cal. 2005))), the 

District Court of Northern California 

sustained the portion of the 2004 final 

rule pertaining to listing the Central 

California tiger salamander as 

threatened, with a special rule, and 

vacated the 2004 rule with regard to the 

Santa Barbara County and Sonoma 

County DPSs, reinstating their prior 

listing as endangered. We are making 

the necessary changes to the 

information included in the Code of 

Federal Regulations in the regulatory 

section of this rule, and we will finalize 

the changes in the final critical habitat 

for the Sonoma County DPS of the 

California tiger salamander. 

With respect to critical habitat, on 

October 13, 2004, a complaint was filed 

in the U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of California (Center 

for Biological Diversity et al. v. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service et al. (Case No. C– 

04–4324–FMS (N.D. Cal. 2005))), which 

in part challenged the failure of 

designating critical habitat for the 

California tiger salamander in Sonoma 

County. On February 3, 2005, the 

District Court approved a settlement 

agreement that required the Service to 

submit a final determination on the 

proposed critical habitat designation for 

publication in the Federal Register on 

or before December 1, 2005. On August 

2, 2005 (70 FR 44301), the Service 

published a proposed rule to designate 

approximately 74,223 ac (30,037 ha) of 

critical habitat, and on November 17, 

2005, we published a revised proposed 

rule indicating we were considering 

approximately 21,298 ac for the final 

designation (70 FR 69717). In the 2005 

revised proposed rule, we proposed 

critical habitat in areas within the range 

where, at that time, we had credible 

records of breeding, as reported by 

biologists that were permitted by the 

Service to survey for the salamander. On 

December 14, 2005, the Service 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register (70 FR 74138), which identified 

four subunits of critical habitat, 

consisting of 17,418 ac (7,049 ha) 

located mostly west of the developed 

portions of Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, 

and Cotati, in Sonoma County. Each one 

of the subunits represented a breeding 

center for the species. In the final rule, 

the Service excluded all proposed 

critical habitat, resulting in a 

designation of zero (0) acres of critical 

habitat. 

On February 29, 2008, we received a 

notice of intent to sue from the Center 

for Biological Diversity that challenged 

the Service’s final designation of critical 

habitat, claiming that it was not based 

on the best available scientific 

information. On May 5, 2009, the Court 

approved a stipulated settlement 

agreement where the Service agreed to 

publish a revised proposed rule within 

90 days that encompassed the same 

geographic area as the August 2005 

proposal. The proposed rule, published 

on August 18, 2009 (74 FR 41662), 

complies with the May 5, 2009, 

stipulated agreement. 

Section 3 of the Act defines critical 

habitat as the specific areas within the 

geographical 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 essential 

to the conservation of the species that 

may require special management 

considerations or protection, and 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed, upon a determination by the 

Secretary that such areas are essential 

for the conservation of the species. If the 

proposed rule is made final, section 7 of 

the Act will prohibit destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

by any activity funded, authorized, or 

carried out by any Federal agency. 

Federal agencies proposing actions 

affecting critical habitat must consult 

with us on the effects of their proposed 

actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. 

Revisions to Proposed Critical Habitat 

In this notice, we are revising the 

proposed Unit 1 (Santa Rosa Plain Unit), 

as described in the August 2, 2005 (70 

FR 44301), and August 18, 2009 (74 FR 

41662), proposed rules. In the August 2, 

2005, proposed critical habitat rule, we 

identified the historic and potential 

range of the species in Sonoma County, 

utilizing historic information and all 

known breeding and adult locality data 

available at that time. Subsequently, the 

November 17, 2005, proposed revised 

rule (70 FR 69717) limited the proposed 

critical habitat to areas containing 

essential physical and biological 

features that were located within 0.7 

mile (mi) (1.1 kilometers (km)) of known 

breeding sites, thereby focusing the 

proposed critical habitat designation on 

providing sufficient breeding habitat 

and upland habitat to maintain and 

sustain existing salamanders in 

documented breeding sites. The 

November 2005 proposed revision did 

not include other areas within the Santa 

Rosa Plain that contained the essential 

physical and biological features. Based 

on the May 5, 2009, stipulated 

settlement described above, we 

published a proposed critical habitat 

rule on August 18, 2009 (74 FR 41662), 

that encompassed the same geographic 

areas as the original August 2, 2005, 

proposed rule (70 FR 44301). 

The purpose of this revision to the 

proposed critical habitat is to better 

delineate the areas that contain the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species and 

that meet the definition of critical 

habitat for the California tiger 

salamander in Sonoma County. In 

general, this revision involves adjusting 

the boundaries of the proposed critical 

habitat Unit 1 to better reflect the 

occupied and potential range of the 

species as reflected in the Conservation 

Strategy mapping criteria (Conservation 

Strategy Team 2005a, Appendix E), that 

was developed subsequent to the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1

2866 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

August 2, 2005, proposed rule (74 FR 

41662). In addition, this revision 

considers recent documentation of adult 

salamanders with potential breeding 

habitat in additional areas within the 

proposed critical habitat, including the 

areas in the vicinity of Lichau Creek and 

Railroad Avenue (WRA Environmental 

Consultants 2005, pp. 3–8), and recent 

findings of California tiger salamanders 

at the Horn wetland mitigation bank 

(Monk 2010, pers. com.). 

As a result of this revision, the area 

proposed for critical habitat in Unit 1 is 

50,855 ac (20,580 ha), rather than the 

74,223 ac (30,037 ha) identified in the 

August 18, 2009, proposed rule. The 

revised unit is now bordered on the 

west by the generalized eastern 

boundary of the 100-year Laguna de 

Santa Rosa floodplain, on the south by 

Pepper Road (northwest of Petaluma), 

on the east by the foothills of the 

Sonoma Mountains, and on the north by 

Windsor Creek. The northern boundary 

of the revised proposed critical habitat 

and the non-developed portions of the 

eastern boundary remain very close to 

the previously proposed boundaries. 

Other boundary adjustments are 

described below. A small addition to the 

southeastern edge of Unit 1 is within the 

geographic range occupied by the 

species at the time of listing and 

contains the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. A revised map for the 

proposed critical habitat unit in Sonoma 

County is included in this notice. 

The framers of the Conservation 

Strategy generally did not consider areas 

within the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year 

floodplain as areas suitable to support 

salamander breeding because seasonal 

pools within the 100-year floodplain are 

subject to flooding from perennial 

sources (such as the Laguna de Santa 

Rosa), and provide a high likelihood of 

supporting salamander predators in 

pools within the floodplain. In the 

Conservation Strategy, periodically 

flooded uplands within the 100-year 

floodplain may be considered 

salamander habitat if located near 

predator-free breeding pools 

(Conservation Strategy Team 2005a, 

Appendix E). Occurrence information 

from the California Natural Diversity 

Database (CNDDB) (2010) indicates that, 

despite intensive focus on the 

salamander within the Santa Rosa Plain, 

to date no occurrences have been 

identified within the 100-year 

floodplain. The fact that this species has 

not been located within the floodplain 

may be due to the lack of suitable 

upland habitat within the floodplain 

during the wet season (Conservation 

Strategy Team 2005b, Appendix L). The 

Service, therefore, has determined that 

most of the 100-year floodplain lacks 

the physical and biological features and 

is not essential for the conservation of 

the California tiger salamander. 

To revise the proposed critical habitat 

boundary along the floodplain, we used 

a process that generalizes the floodplain 

boundary in order to smooth complex 

lines, removing the bulk of the 

floodplain from proposed critical 

habitat while retaining smaller areas 

along the eastern border of the 

floodplain. A segment of the 100-year 

floodplain that is located between the 

Stony Point Conservation Area (near 

Wilfred Avenue) and the Northwest 

Cotati Conservation Area (near 

Nahmens Road) is retained within the 

revised proposed critical habitat to 

reduce fragmentation of the northern 

and southern breeding concentrations 

within the unit by allowing for potential 

dispersal and genetic exchange. This 

retained segment is further bounded by 

Llano Road on the west and the western 

edge of the urban growth boundary of 

Cotati, California (near the northern 

terminus of Helman Lane), on the east. 

Additionally, this revised proposed 

critical habitat unit no longer includes 

several areas of small remnant open 

parcels that occur between the eastern 

periphery of suburban Sebastopol and 

the western edge of the 100-year 

floodplain. We do not consider these 

areas essential for the conservation of 

the species because the undeveloped 

lands are small in size, are isolated from 

each other by development, are isolated 

by the 100-year floodplain and the 

Laguna de Santa Rosa from breeding 

habitat on the eastern side of the 

floodplain, are not known to be 

occupied, and do not contain the PCEs 

in the correct quantity and spatial 

arrangement to provide for the 

conservation of the species. 

This revised proposed critical habitat 

designation no longer includes the 

urbanized centers of Santa Rosa, 

Bennett Valley, Rohnert Park, and 

Cotati. These urban centers consist 

almost exclusively of hardened, 

developed landscapes. The remnant 

natural habitat within these areas is 

limited to small, isolated parcels within 

a matrix of urban development. These 

areas have been removed in this revised 

proposal because developed areas (lands 

covered by buildings, pavement, and 

other structures) lack the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species according to 

section 3(5)(A) of the Act. We also do 

not consider the remnant natural habitat 

within these city centers as essential for 

the conservation of the salamander. 

However, areas on the periphery of 

urban areas remain within the revised 

proposed critical habitat boundary. The 

scale of the map we prepared under the 

parameters for publication within the 

Code of Federal Regulations is not 

sufficient to reflect the exclusion of 

developed lands, while retaining open 

lands that provide the features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

Any such developed lands that have 

been left inside critical habitat 

boundaries shown on the maps of this 

revised proposed rule are excluded by 

text and are not proposed for 

designation as critical habitat because 

they either do not contain the physical 

or biological features essential to the 

species or are not considered essential 

for the species. Therefore, when the 

critical habitat is finalized, a Federal 

action involving these undesignated 

lands would not trigger a section 7 

consultation, nor, with respect to 

critical habitat, would it require an 

analysis to determine adverse 

modification in these undesignated 

areas, unless the specific action would 

affect the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species in the adjacent designated 

critical habitat. 

In the southernmost region of the 

Santa Rosa Plain, the critical habitat 

unit boundary has been revised as 

follows. In the vicinity of Lichau Creek 

and Railroad Avenue, additional acreage 

reflects new information on the 

presence of salamander breeding within 

the area. The area south of Pepper Road, 

along both sides of U.S. Highway 101, 

is not included in the revised proposed 

critical habitat because we do not 

currently consider this area to be 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. This area has been fragmented 

by industrial and residential 

development and roadways, including 

the major north-south interstate 

highway, U.S. Highway 101. More than 

20 percent of the open land generally 

south of Pepper Road and west of U.S. 

Highway 101 is delineated as 100-year 

floodplain for the Petaluma River. As 

discussed above, we generally do not 

consider lands within the 100-year 

floodplain to contain suitable breeding 

habitat for the salamander. Suitable 

upland habitat may also be lacking 

during the wet season (Conservation 

Strategy Team 2005b, Appendix L). The 

floodplain fragments the remaining 

undeveloped land in this area. Although 

there is an anecdotal report from the 

1990s of a California tiger salamander 

observation along Rainsville Road, we 

are not aware of confirmed observations 

of the California tiger salamander within 

this area. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2867 

Areas Previously Considered for 

Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that 

we designate or revise critical habitat 

based upon the best scientific data 

available, after taking into consideration 

the economic impact, impact on 

national security, or any other relevant 

impact of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat. We may exclude an 

area from critical habitat if we 

determine that the benefits of excluding 

the area outweigh the benefits of 

including the area as critical habitat, 

provided such exclusion will not result 

in the extinction of the species. 

When considering the benefits of 

inclusion for an area, we consider the 

additional regulatory benefits that area 

would receive from the protection from 

adverse modification or destruction as a 

result of actions with a Federal nexus 

(activities conducted, funded, 

permitted, or authorized by Federal 

agencies), the educational benefits of 

mapping areas containing essential 

features that aid in the recovery of the 

listed species, and any benefits that may 

result from designation due to State or 

Federal laws that may apply to critical 

habitat. 

When considering the benefits of 

exclusion, we consider, among other 

things, whether exclusion of a specific 

area is likely to result in conservation; 

the continuation, strengthening, or 

encouragement of partnerships; or 

implementation of a management plan. 

In the December 14, 2005, final rule 

(70 FR 74138), we evaluated those lands 

determined to have essential features, in 

order to ascertain if any specific areas 

were appropriate for exemption or 

exclusion from critical habitat under 

sections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

On the basis of that evaluation, we 

determined that the benefits of 

excluding lands under appropriate 

management for the Sonoma County 

DPS of the California tiger salamander 

outweighed the benefits of their 

inclusion within critical habitat. 

Consequently, we excluded the entire 

proposed critical habitat for the Sonoma 

County DPS of the California tiger 

salamander under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, based in part on the expectation 

that the Conservation Strategy would be 

implemented. We determined that the 

Conservation Strategy would provide 

conservation benefits that would be 

superior to a critical habitat designation. 

We also determined that critical habitat 

designation might hinder the progress of 

the Conservation Strategy by 

discouraging the involvement of local 

jurisdictions and private landowners, 

without providing any 

counterbalancing, proactive 

conservation benefit. However, at that 

time, we acknowledged the potential for 

revisiting the critical habitat designation 

should changed circumstances occur, 

such as unsuccessful finalization or 

implementation of the Conservation 

Strategy. 

The Conservation Strategy 

Implementation Plan has not been 

developed or implemented by local 

agencies during the period since the 

publication of the December 14, 2005, 

final critical habitat rule (70 FR 74138). 

Therefore, at this time, we do not 

believe that the Conservation Strategy 

provides a sufficient basis for exclusion 

of the unit from critical habitat 

designation. Any exclusion of critical 

habitat based on potential economic 

costs will be presented in the final rule. 

We are not proposing to exclude any 

areas from critical habitat at this time. 

In the final rule, we may consider 

exclusion of all or some of the Federated 

Indians of Graton Rancheria of 

California’s 254-ac (103-ha) parcel of 

Tribal trust land that currently overlaps 

with proposed critical habitat. This 

potential exclusion would occur under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act and by taking 

into consideration Secretarial Order 

3206 involving American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal–Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act. However, the final decision 

on whether to exclude any areas will be 

based on the best scientific data 

available at the time of the final 

designation, including information 

obtained during the comment period 

and information about the economic 

impact of designation. 

Draft Economic Analysis 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that 

we designate critical habitat based upon 

the best scientific data available, after 

taking into consideration the economic 

impact, impact on national security, or 

any other relevant impact of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

We prepared a DEA (IEC 2010) to 

identify and analyze the potential 

economic impacts associated with this 

revised proposed critical habitat for the 

Sonoma County DPS of the California 

tiger salamander. 

The DEA (made available with the 

publication of this notice) estimates the 

foreseeable economic impacts of this 

revised proposed critical habitat (IEC 

2010). The economic analysis presented 

in the DEA uses the historical record to 

inform its assessment of potential future 

impacts of critical habitat. The analysis 

forecasts both baseline and incremental 

impacts likely to occur after the revised 

proposed rule is finalized. The DEA 

identifies economic impacts to the 

following activities as a result of the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Sonoma County DPS of the California 

tiger salamander: (1) Commercial and 

residential development, (2) 

transportation projects, and (3) utility 

and pipeline construction and 

maintenance activities. In addition, the 

DEA identifies potential economic 

impacts to agriculture and mitigation 

banks, but concludes that these 

activities are not likely to incur 

measurable economic impacts due to 

the designation of critical habitat. To 

provide an understanding of the 

potential economic impacts, this 

analysis determines the scope and scale 

of economic activities within the 

revised proposed critical habitat; 

identifies threats to California tiger 

salamander habitat associated with 

these economic activities; identifies 

conservation measures that may be 

implemented to avoid or minimize these 

threats; and to the extent feasible, 

quantifies the economic costs of these 

measures. 

The DEA describes the economic 

impacts of all potential conservation 

efforts for the Sonoma County DPS of 

the California tiger salamander; some of 

these costs will likely be incurred 

regardless of whether we designate 

critical habitat. The economic impact of 

the revised proposed critical habitat 

designation is analyzed by comparing 

scenarios both ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 

and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’ The 

‘‘without critical habitat’’ scenario 

represents the baseline for the analysis, 

considering protections that are already 

in place for the species (such as 

protections under the Act and other 

Federal, State, and local regulations). 

The baseline, therefore, represents the 

costs incurred regardless of whether 

critical habitat is designated. The ‘‘with 

critical habitat’’ scenario describes the 

incremental impacts associated 

specifically with the designation of 

critical habitat for the species. The 

incremental conservation efforts and 

associated impacts are those not 

expected to occur absent the critical 

habitat designation for the Sonoma 

County DPS of the California tiger 

salamander. In other words, the 

incremental costs are those attributable 

solely to the designation of critical 

habitat above and beyond the baseline 

costs; these are the costs we may 

consider in the final designation of 

critical habitat when evaluating the 

benefits of excluding particular areas 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The 

analysis looks retrospectively at 

WReier-Aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1

2868 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

baseline impacts incurred since the 

species was listed, and forecasts both 

baseline and incremental impacts likely 

to occur if we finalize the revised 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

For a further description of the 

methodology of the analysis, see 

Chapter 2, ‘‘Framework for the 

Analysis,’’ of the DEA (IEC 2010). 

The DEA provides estimated costs of 

the foreseeable potential economic 

impacts of the proposed critical habitat 

designation for the Sonoma County DPS 

of the California tiger salamander over 

the next 25 years, which was 

determined to be the appropriate period 

for analysis because limited planning 

information is available for most 

activities to forecast activity levels for 

projects beyond a 25-year timeframe. 

The DEA identifies potential 

incremental costs as a result of the 

proposed critical habitat designation; 

these are those costs attributed to 

critical habitat over and above those 

baseline costs attributed to listing. 

The DEA considers both economic 

efficiency and distributional effects. In 

the case of habitat conservation, 

efficiency effects generally reflect the 

‘‘opportunity costs’’ associated with the 

commitment of resources required to 

accomplish species and habitat 

protection. The DEA also addresses how 

potential economic impacts are likely to 

be distributed, including an assessment 

of any local or regional impacts of 

habitat conservation and the potential 

effects of conservation activities on 

government agencies, private 

businesses, and individuals. The DEA 

measures lost economic efficiency 

associated with residential and 

commercial development and public 

projects and activities, such as 

economic impacts on agriculture and 

transportation projects, Federal lands, 

small entities, and the energy industry. 

Decision-makers can use this 

information to assess whether the effects 

of the critical habitat designation might 

unduly burden a particular group or 

economic sector. 

Baseline economic impacts are those 

impacts that result from listing and 

other conservation efforts for the 

California tiger salamander. The DEA 

quantifies baseline costs due to the 

administrative cost of section 7 

consultations. Additional baseline 

impacts stem from conservation 

measures applied to avoid jeopardy and 

take of California tiger salamanders as 

well as other conservation measures 

unrelated to the designation of critical 

habitat. Potential baseline impacts to 

development stem from two main 

sources: (1) Minimization and 

mitigation measures applied as part of 

the section 404 permit process pursuant 

to the Clean Water Act; and (2) 

measures taken to avoid jeopardy of the 

California tiger salamander as part of 

section 7 consultation. Mitigation 

requirements are defined by the Service 

in its Programmatic consultation with 

the Corps (Service 2007) and are 

considered baseline costs. 

Approximately 80 percent of future 

development projects are expected to 

require mitigation. Mitigation credits 

sold recently range from $100,000 to 

$130,000 per acre in this area. 

The DEA revealed that all incremental 

impacts stem entirely from the 

administrative costs of section 7 

consultation on commercial and 

residential development projects, and 

on transportation and utility activities. 

Significant uncertainty exists regarding 

whether the Service will require 

additional conservation measures 

specifically to avoid adverse 

modification of critical habitat in future 

section 7 consultations, and what such 

measures might entail. As a result, the 

analysis does not forecast incremental 

impacts due to such measures. The DEA 

estimates total potential incremental 

economic impacts in areas proposed as 

critical habitat over the next 25 years 

(2011 to 2035) to be approximately 

$465,000 ($39,900 annualized) in 

present value terms applying a 7 percent 

discount rate (IEC 2010, p. ES–4), and 

$685,000 ($39,300 annualized) in 

present value terms applying a 3 percent 

discount rate (IEC 2010, Appendix B). 

Impacts associated with section 7 

consultations on development projects 

total $441,000 ($37,900 annualized), 

applying a 7 percent discount rate, and 

make up the largest portion of postdesignation incremental impacts, 

accounting for 95 percent of the forecast 

incremental impacts. Incremental 

impacts to transportation represent the 

next largest source of incremental 

impacts, and total $22,500 (applying a 7 

percent discount rate), which represents 

5 percent of total incremental impacts. 

The present value administrative cost of 

impacts associated with utility activities 

is $1,290 (applying a 7 percent discount 

rate), and represents less than 1 percent 

of the overall incremental impacts. 

The greatest incremental impacts are 

forecast to occur within the Santa Rosa 

Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) 

($209,000 present value impacts 

discounted at 7 percent), and make up 

45 percent of the overall incremental 

impacts. The second largest incremental 

impacts are predicted to occur within 

the Windsor UGB, with present value 

impacts at $136,000 (applying a 7 

percent discount rate) comprising 29 

percent of the overall incremental 

impacts. Incremental impacts to 

Petaluma, which are forecast to incur 

the least amount of incremental 

impacts, are estimated at $10,100 of 

present value impacts (discounted at 7 

percent), and make up 2 percent of the 

overall incremental impacts. Only a 

small portion of the Petaluma UGB 

intersects with the revised proposed 

critical habitat. The DEA concerning the 

proposed critical habitat designation is 

available for review and comment (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Required Determinations—Amended 

In our proposed rule published in the 

Federal Register on August 18, 2009 (74 

FR 41662), we indicated that we would 

defer our determination of compliance 

with several statutes and Executive 

Orders until the information concerning 

potential economic impacts of the 

designation and potential effects on 

landowners and stakeholders became 

available in the DEA. We have now 

made use of the DEA to make these 

determinations. In this document, we 

affirm the information in our proposed 

rule concerning the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 

(Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 

13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform), E.O. 12630 (Takings), 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, the 

National Environmental Policy Act, and 

the President’s memorandum of April 

29, 1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government 

Relations with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951). However, 

based on the DEA, we are amending our 

required determinations concerning the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.), and E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) (5 

U.S.C. 802(2))), 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), as 

described below. 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. Based on our DEA for the 

revised proposed critical habitat, we 

provide our analysis for determining 

WReier-Aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2869 

whether the revised proposed 

designation would result in a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Based on 

comments we receive during the public 

comment period, we may revise this 

determination as part of a final 

rulemaking. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, 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 

(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 

include manufacturing and mining 

concerns with fewer than 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. Private 

developers may be considered small 

entities if their annual income is not 

greater than $33.5 million. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as 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 operations. 

To determine if the revised proposed 

critical habitat for the Sonoma County 

DPS of the California tiger salamander 

would affect a substantial number of 

small entities, we consider the number 

of small entities affected by particular 

types of economic activities, such as 

residential and commercial 

development. In order to determine 

whether it is appropriate for our agency 

to certify that this rule would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, we 

considered each industry or category 

individually. In estimating the numbers 

of small entities potentially affected, we 

also considered whether their activities 

have any Federal involvement. Critical 

habitat designation will not affect 

activities that do not have any Federal 

involvement; designation of critical 

habitat only affects activities conducted, 

funded, permitted, or authorized by 

Federal agencies. In areas where the 

Sonoma County DPS of the California 

tiger salamander 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 the species. 

Additionally, even in the absence of a 

Federal nexus, indirect incremental 

impacts may result if, for example, a 

city requests project modifications via 

the city’s review under the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), due 

to the designation of critical habitat. If 

we finalize this proposed critical habitat 

designation, consultations to avoid the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat would be incorporated 

into the existing consultation process on 

the Sonoma County DPS of the 

California tiger salamander, because it is 

listed as endangered under the Act. 

In the DEA, we evaluate the potential 

economic effects on small business 

entities resulting from the 

implementation of conservation actions 

related to the revised proposed critical 

habitat for the Sonoma County DPS of 

the California tiger salamander. This 

analysis is based on the estimated 

incremental impacts associated with the 

proposed rulemaking as described in 

Chapters 2 through 4 of the DEA. The 

SBREFA analysis evaluates the potential 

for economic impacts related to several 

categories, including: (1) Residential 

and commercial development, (2) 

transportation activities, (3) utility 

activities, and (4) incremental 

administrative costs (IEC 2010, 

Appendix A). The DEA concludes that 

the proposed rulemaking may affect 

small entities (IEC 2010, Appendix A). 

Incremental impacts from the 

administrative costs of section 7 

consultations on critical habitat 

associated with residential and 

commercial development are expected 

for small entities. There are 1,911 

businesses involved in development 

activities within Sonoma County and, of 

these, 1,896 are considered small 

businesses. Therefore, approximately 99 

percent of all building construction 

companies in Sonoma County qualify as 

small entities. Because information on 

specific third parties that may be 

involved in future development 

consultations is lacking, the analysis 

conservatively assumes that all of the 

entities involved in future consultation 

efforts are small land subdivision 

companies. Because the DEA calculates 

impacts to small businesses at the 

County-wide scale, it likely 

overestimates the impacts associated 

with this revised proposed critical 

habitat, which only covers a portion of 

the County. 

The DEA assumes annual revenues of 

up to $33.5 million per small entity, and 

annualized impacts may be borne by all 

small land subdivision companies. 

Annualized impacts to the construction 

industry ($6,630 applying a 7 percent 

discount rate) are estimated to be 

significantly less than the annual 

revenues that could be generated by a 

single small building construction 

entity. If all impacts are borne by one 

single small construction company, the 

estimated annualized impact would 

represent less than 0.1 percent of the 

maximum total annual revenues (IEC 

2010, Appendix A). No other 

incremental impacts attributed to 

transportation or utility activities are 

expected to be borne by entities that 

meet the definition of small entities (IEC 

2010, Appendix A). Please refer to the 

DEA of the proposed critical habitat 

designation for a more detailed 

discussion of potential economic 

impacts. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether the revised proposed critical 

habitat would result in a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. For the above 

reasons and based on currently available 

information, we certify that, if 

promulgated, the revised proposed 

critical habitat for the Sonoma County 

DPS of the California tiger salamander 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

business entities. Therefore, an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required. 

Executive Order 13211—Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

Federal agencies to prepare Statements 

of Energy Effects when undertaking 

certain actions. The Office of 

Management and Budget’s guidance for 

implementing this Executive Order 

outlines nine outcomes that may 

constitute ‘‘a significant adverse effect’’ 

when compared to no regulatory action. 

As discussed in Chapter 4 and 

Appendix A, the DEA finds that none of 

these criteria are relevant to this 

analysis (IEC 2010, Appendix A). The 

DEA concludes that incremental 

impacts to utilities are limited to the 

administrative cost of intra-Service 

consultation associated with a habitat 

conservation plan (HCP), which does 

not involve third parties. Any other 

impacts are expected to occur as a result 

of the listing of the California tiger 

salamander, regardless of the 

designation of critical habitat. 

Therefore, the rule will not affect energy 

supply, distribution, or use. Designation 

of critical habitat is not expected to lead 

to any adverse outcomes (such as a 

reduction in electricity production or an 

increase in the cost of energy 

production or distribution), and a 

WReier-Aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1

2870 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Statement of Energy Effects is not 

required. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 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. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

The Federated Indians of Graton 

Rancheria in California is the only Tribe 

that may be affected by this proposed 

revised critical habitat rule. 

Approximately 254 ac (103 ha) of Tribal 

lands could be designated. The 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office has 

entered into discussion with the Tribe 

regarding the proposed revised 

designation in preparation of this 

revised rule. We will be contacting the 

Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria 

and requesting comments regarding the 

status of the California tiger salamander 

on lands under Tribal ownership and 

management. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references we 

cited in the proposed rule and in this 

document is available on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

contacting the Sacramento Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

Author(s) 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Sacramento 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to further 

amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 

I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as proposed to be amended 

at 74 FR 41662, August 18, 2009, as 

follows: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– 

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

2. The entry for ‘‘Salamander, 

California tiger’’ under ‘‘AMPHIBIANS’’ 

in the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife at § 17.11(h) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened 

Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

*******

AMPHIBIANS 

* * * * * * * 

Salamander, California tiger.Ambystoma 

californiense.

U.S.A. (CA) ............ U.S.A. (CA—Santa 

Barbara County).

E 677E, 702 17.95(d) NA 

Salamander, California tiger.Ambystoma 

californiense.

U.S.A. (CA) ............ U.S.A. (CA—Central California).T 744 17.95(d) 17.43(c) 

Salamander, California tiger.Ambystoma 

californiense.

U.S.A. (CA) ............ U.S.A. (CA— 

Sonoma County).

E 729E, 734 17.95(d) NA 

* * * * * * * 

3. Critical habitat for the California 

tiger salamander (Ambystoma 

californiense) in Sonoma County at 

§ 17.95(d) is proposed to be amended by 

revising the heading, paragraph (53)(i), 

and the map at paragraph (56) to read 

as follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(d) Amphibians. 

* * * * * 

California Tiger Salamander 

(Ambystoma californiense) 

* * * * * 

California Tiger Salamander 

(Ambystoma californiense) in Sonoma 

County 

* * * * * 

(53) * * * 

(i) Standing bodies of fresh water 

(including natural and manmade (e.g., 

stock)) ponds, vernal pools, and other 

ephemeral or permanent water bodies 

that typically support inundation during 

winter and early spring and hold water 

for a minimum of 12 consecutive weeks 

in a year of average rainfall. 

* * * * * 

(56) * * * 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2871 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 30, 2010. 

Will Shafroth, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2011–843 Filed 1–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 110104009–1009–01] 

RIN 0648–BA25 

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch 

Sharing Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to approve 

and implement changes to the Pacific 

Halibut Catch Sharing Plan (Plan) for 

the International Pacific Halibut 

Commission’s (IPHC or Commission) 

regulatory Area 2A off Washington, 

Oregon, and California (Area 2A). NMFS 

proposes to implement the portions of 

the Plan and management measures that 

are not implemented through the IPHC. 

This includes Tribal regulations and the 

sport fishery allocations and 

management measures for Area 2A. 

These actions are intended to enhance 

the conservation of Pacific halibut, to 

provide greater angler opportunity 

where available, and to protect 

overfished groundfish species from 

being incidentally caught in the halibut 

fisheries. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed 

changes to the Plan and on the proposed 

domestic Area 2A halibut management 


WReier-Aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1EP18JA11.002</GPH>