60134 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: October 1, 2004. 

Julie MacDonald, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 04–22541 Filed 10–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AT78 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the San Miguel 

Island Fox, Santa Rosa Island Fox, 

Santa Cruz Island Fox, and Santa 

Catalina Island Fox

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The San Miguel Island fox, 

Santa Rosa Island fox, Santa Cruz Island 

fox, and Santa Catalina Island fox were 

listed as endangered species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act), on March 5, 2004. We 

do not find any habitat on the four 

islands occupied by the foxes that meets 

the definition of critical habitat under 

the Act. Because there is no habitat that 

meets the definition of critical habitat 

for the island fox subspecies, there is 

none to propose, and we are proposing 

that zero critical habitat be designated. 

We solicit data and comments from 

the public on all aspects of this 

proposed finding. Unless we receive 

information during the comment period 

that indicates there is habitat which 

meets the definition of critical habitat, 

we will not be preparing an economic 

analysis.

DATES: We will consider comments 

received by December 6, 2004.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, 

you may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposal by 

any one of several methods: 

1. You may submit written comments 

and information to the Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola 

Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003. 

2. You may hand-deliver written 

comments to our Ventura Office, at the 

address given above. 

3. You may send comments by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to: 

fw1islandfox@r1.fws.gov. Please see the 

Public Comments Solicited section 

below for file format and other 

information about electronic filing. In 

the event that our Internet connection is 

not functional, please submit comments 

by the alternate methods mentioned 

above. 

4. You may fax your comments to 

805/644–3958. 

The complete file for this finding is 

available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife 

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 

93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa 

Island fox, and Santa Cruz Island fox, 

contact Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, 

Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office at the 

address given above (telephone 805/

644–1766; facsimile 805/644–3958). For 

the Santa Catalina Island fox, contact 

Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden 

Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA (telephone 

760/431–9440; facsimile 760/431–9624).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble 

Designation of Critical Habitat Provides 

Little Additional Protection to Species

In 30 years of implementing the Act, 

the Service has found that the 

designation of statutory critical habitat 

provides little additional protection to 

most listed species, while consuming 

significant amounts of available 

conservation resources. The Service’s 

present system for designating critical 

habitat has evolved since its original 

statutory prescription into a process that 

provides little real conservation benefit, 

is driven by litigation and the courts 

rather than biology, limits our ability to 

fully evaluate the science involved, 

consumes enormous agency resources, 

and imposes huge social and economic 

costs). The Service believes that 

additional agency discretion would 

allow our focus to return to those 

actions that provide the greatest benefit 

to the species most in need of 

protection. 

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual 

Practice of Administering and 

Implementing the Act 

While attention to and protection of 

habitat 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 445 species or 36 percent of the 

1,244 listed species in the U.S. under 

the jurisdiction of the Service have 

designated critical habitat. We address 

the habitat needs of all 1,244 listed 

species through conservation 

mechanisms such as listing, section 7 

consultations, the Section 4 recovery 

planning process, the Section 9 

protective prohibitions of unauthorized 

take, Section 6 funding to the States, 

and the Section 10 incidental take 

permit process. The Service believes 

that it is these measures that may make 

the difference between extinction and 

survival for many species. 

We note, however, that a recent 9th 

Circuit judicial opinion, Gifford Pinchot 

Task Force v. United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service, has invalidated the 

Service’s regulation defining destruction 

or adverse modification of critical 

habitat. We are currently reviewing the 

decision to determine what effect it may 

have on the outcome of consultations 

pursuant to Section 7 of the Act. 

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 judiciallyimposed deadlines. This in turn fosters 

a second round of litigation in which 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 60135

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

The Island fox is taxonomically 

divided into six subspecies that are each 

limited in range to a single island 

(Gilbert et al. 1990; Wayne et al. 1991; 

Collins 1991a, 1993; Goldstein et al.

1999). Each subspecies is reproductively 

isolated from the others by a minimum 

of 5 kilometers (3 miles) of ocean 

waters. For further information about 

the subspecies’ taxonomy, description, 

distribution, habitat, life history, and 

threats, please refer to the March 5, 

2004, final listing rule (69 FR 10335), in 

which we determined that four of the 

subspecies were endangered. Regarding 

the past, present, and future threats 

faced by these taxa in determining the 

listing status, the threats are primarily 

due to predation from golden eagles (on 

San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz 

islands) or canine distemper virus (on 

Santa Catalina Island). Other threats 

include disease, natural events, nonnative herbivores and on Santa Catalina 

Island, competition from feral cats, and 

road mortality, all of which could 

diminish or destroy the small extant 

populations. See Tables 1–4, in our final 

listing rule, for summaries of the status, 

and major threats, faced by the four 

subspecies as well as the conservation 

actions undertaken to protect each of 

the subspecies, and the effectiveness of 

such measures (69 FR 10335, March 5, 

2004). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On December 10, 2001, we published 

a proposal to list four subspecies of 

island fox as endangered (66 FR 63654). 

Please refer to this proposed rule for 

information on Federal actions prior to 

December 10, 2001. On April 22, 2003, 

the Center for Biological Diversity filed 

suit against the Service for failure to 

finalize the listing and for failure to 

publish a final determination regarding 

critical habitat (Center for Biological 

Diversity v. Williams, et al. No. CV–03–

2729 AHM (C.D. Cal.)). In settlement of 

that lawsuit, we agreed to submit the 

final listing determination to the 

Federal Register on or by March 1, 

2004, and if prudent, submit a proposed 

rule to designate critical habitat to the 

Federal Register on or by October 1, 

2004, and a final determination 

regarding critical habitat on or by 

November 1, 2005. The final rule listing 

the four subspecies of the island fox as 

endangered was published on March 5, 

2004 (69 FR 10335). 

Critical Habitat 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as 

amended, and implementing regulations 

(50 CFR 424.12) require that we 

designate critical habitat, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, at the time a species is 

listed as endangered or threatened. 

Designation is not prudent when one or 

both of 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. 

Critical habitat is defined in section 

3(5)(a) of the Act as: (i) 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 (I) essential to the 

conservation of the species and (II) that 

may require special management 

considerations or protection; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

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 needed to 

bring the species to the point at which 

listing under the Act is no longer 

necessary. 

In the March 5, 2004, final listing 

rule, we determined that designation of 

critical habitat was prudent for the 

island foxes. As discussed more fully 

below, we now find there are no 

‘‘specific areas 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.’’ Further, there are no 

‘‘specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by [the] species at the 

time it [was] listed that are essential for 

the conservation of the species.’’

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 (primary constituent elements 

(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 island fox, however, is a habitat 

generalist in all aspects of its life 

history. It does not require particular 

habitats for food, cover, breeding, and 

denning sites. The foxes are 

opportunistic omnivores, and eat a wide 

variety of plants (e.g., grass, fruits, and 

berries) and animals (e.g., insects, birds, 

mice) in whatever habitat they find 

them (69 FR 10336). As such the foxes 

use all the habitat available on each of 

the islands, including riparian, oak 

woodland, pine woodland, chaparral, 

coastal sage scrub, maritime scrub, and 

grasslands. In general, some of these 

habitats contain cover from aerial 

predation, and the nature of the cover is 

not habitat specific. Reproduction in the 

island foxes is also not limited to a 

specific habitat; the foxes may locate 

their simple den sites in any habitat 

where they find natural shelter (e.g., 

brush pile, rock crevice, hollow stump, 

or log) (Laughrin 1977). All habitat 

available on the islands on which the 

fox is found can be and is used by the 

fox. We are not aware of any existing or 

anticipated threats to the island 

habitats. Accordingly, there is currently 

no information to support a conclusion 

that any specific habitat within these 

areas are essential. Therefore, we do not 

believe that there are areas within the 

subspecies’ habitat that contain features 

that are essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

Adverse effects to the fox that have 

occurred in these areas have been a 

result of activities, such as disease 

(canine distemper) and predation from 

golden eagles, which threaten 

individual island foxes rather than 

island fox habitat. While the habitat of 

60136 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

1Since the final listing rule was published, 12 

captive foxes were released into the wild on Santa 

Rosa Island; 4 of the 12 were later returned to 

captivity, and 1 of the 12 was killed by a golden 

eagle (NPS 2004). Currently, there are at least 7 

adult foxes in the wild on Santa Rosa Island and 

about 50 in captivity (NPS 2004), and thus we now 

consider Santa Rosa Island to be occupied habitat. 

However, as with San Miguel Island, the NPS and 

the recovery team are considering additional 

releases of foxes back into the wild on Santa Rosa 

Island in the next month or two (C. Benz, Service, 

pers. comm. 2004).

island foxes on all islands has been 

subject to substantial human-induced 

changes over the past 150 years and 

these changes have resulted in some 

adverse effects to island foxes, they are 

unlikely to have directly caused the 

observed declines. This species’

precarious situation derives mostly from 

predation on the foxes themselves and 

disease (canine distemper) and not from 

any particular action that caused habitat 

degradation. Furthermore, habitat does 

not appear to be a factor limiting the 

current population growth rate, nor is it 

likely to limit future population growth. 

Because there are no habitat threats to 

the island foxes, we conclude that no 

areas require special management 

considerations or protection. 

Conservation of the foxes depends on 

addressing non-habitat related threats.

As discussed, declines have been 

caused largely by predation and disease, 

and these effects will be addressed 

through section 7 consultation with 

Federal agencies under the jeopardy 

standard of the Act and through the 

section 9 prohibitions of the Act to the 

extent applicable. No benefit would 

accrue from a critical habitat 

designation with respect to the effects of 

predation and disease on individual 

foxes because the regulatory effects of 

critical habitat designations apply to 

adverse modification or destruction of 

habitat, not to effects that result in 

mortality of individual foxes. Although 

not relevant to our determination with 

regard to critical habitat, we note that 

the threats that do exist will also be 

addressed by the conservation actions of 

the National Park Service (NPS), the 

Nature Conservancy, and the Catalina 

Island Conservancy on the islands. 

Moreover, again because the threats 

faced by the species are not habitatbased, there would be no informational 

benefit to the designation. 

In accordance with the Act, a critical 

habitat designation can include areas 

outside the species’ current range if we 

determine that these areas are essential 

to the conservation of the species. We 

have not found any areas outside the 

current range of the species to be 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. Our best data suggests that on 

all the islands with the exception of San 

Miguel, the island fox subspecies still 

occupy all island-based habitat,1 and 

thus, there is no area that is located 

outside the current range of the species 

on Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa 

Catalina Islands. With respect to San 

Miguel Island, in 1999, the NPS 

captured 14 (4 males and 10 females) of 

the 15 remaining foxes from San Miguel 

Island to protect the subspecies from 

further losses from predation by golden 

eagles and to initiate a captive 

propagation program. The remaining 

wild island fox, a lone female, evaded 

capture efforts until September 2003, 

when she was captured and brought 

into captivity. As of 2003, then, there 

were no island foxes remaining in the 

wild on San Miguel Island. Four years’

captive breeding has increased the 

captive San Miguel Island fox 

population to 38 individuals. These 

individuals are in two captive breeding 

facilities on San Miguel Island, and the 

NPS and the recovery team will be 

releasing some of the foxes back into the 

wild on San Miguel Island in the next 

month or two as soon as they are no 

longer threatened by predation (C. Benz, 

pers. comm., 2004). Therefore, we are 

considering all the islands occupied by 

foxes. If reintroduction does not occur 

within the next month or two, however, 

and San Miguel Island is unoccupied for 

a time longer, we still would find no 

unoccupied areas essential to the 

conservation of the fox, as conservation 

of the foxes is dependent upon removal 

of predation.

In summary, we do not find any 

habitat within the islands that meets the 

definition of critical habitat. Because 

there is no habitat that meets the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

island fox subspecies, there is none to 

propose, and we are proposing that zero 

critical habitat be designated. 

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 it is not anticipated to 

have an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more or affect the 

economy in a material way. This rule 

does not designate critical habitat. 

Unless we receive information during 

the comment period that indicates there 

is habitat which meets the definition of 

critical habitat, we will not be preparing 

an economic analysis. 

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

et seq.) 

Unless we receive information during 

the comment period that indicates there 

is habitat which meets the definition of 

critical habitat, we will not be preparing 

an economic analysis. If we prepare an 

economic analysis, our assessment of 

economic effect will be completed prior 

to final rulemaking based upon review 

of the draft economic analysis prepared 

pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the ESA 

and E.O. 12866. 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

an Executive Order (E.O. 13211) on 

regulations that significantly affect 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. This 

proposed rule does not designate critical 

habitat for the four island fox 

subspecies. Therefore, no regulatory 

effects will derive from this action; it 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.), the Service makes the following 

findings: (a) This rule will not produce 

a Federal mandate, and (b) we do not 

believe that this rule will significantly 

or uniquely affect small governments. 

Because we are not proposing to 

designate any areas of critical habitat, 

this rule will result in no regulatory 

impact on any entities. 

Takings 

We are not designating critical habitat 

in this proposed rule, and therefore, this 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the four island fox subspecies does 

not pose significant takings 

implications. 

Federalism 

We are not designating critical habitat 

in this proposed rule, and therefore, this 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the four island fox subspecies does 

not have significant Federalism effects. 

A Federalism assessment is not 

required. 

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 not 

designating critical habitat in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 60137

Endangered Species Act so this rule 

does not burden the judicial system. 

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 

We are not proposing to designate any 

areas as critical habitat. It is our position 

that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do 

not need to prepare environmental 

analyses as defined by the National 

Environmental Policy Act 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. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 

1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996). 

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), 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 

are not proposing to designate any areas 

as critical habitat. No tribal lands are 

essential for the conservation of the San 

Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island 

fox, Santa Cruz Island fox, and Santa 

Catalina Island fox. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this proposed rule is available upon 

request from the Ventura Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

Authors 

The primary author of this notice is 

the staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below:

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows:

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

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

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend § 17.11(h) revising the 

entries for ‘‘Fox, San Miguel Island, 

Santa Catalina Island, Santa Cruz Island, 

Santa Rosa Island’’ under ‘‘MAMMALS’’

in the list of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife 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 

* * * * * * * 

MAMMALS

* * * * * * * 

Fox, San Miguel Island.Urocyon littoralis 

litoralis.

U.S.A. (CA) ............. Entire ....................... E ......... 742 17.97(a) ... NA 

Fox, Santa Catalina 

Island.

Urocyon littoralis 

catalinae.

U.S.A. (CA) ............. Entire ....................... E ......... 742 17.97(a) ... NA 

Fox, Santa Cruz Island.Urocyon littoralis 

santacruzae.

U.S.A. (CA) ............. Entire ....................... E ......... 742 17.97(a) ... NA 

Fox, Santa Rosa Island.Urocyon littoralis 

santarosae.

U.S.A. (CA) ............. Entire ....................... E ......... 742 17.97(a) ... NA 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * * * 

3. Amend part 17 by adding a new 

§ 17.97 to read as follows:

§ 17.97 Species for which critical habitat is 

prudent but not designated. 

This section includes animal and 

plant species for which we have 

determined critical habitat to be 

prudent, but for which we did not 

designate critical habitat under the Act 

for policy and statutory reasons. We 

identify these species, their primary 

constituent elements, and the specific 

habitat areas essential to their 

conservation to further public 

awareness and conservation efforts. 

(a) Animals. This paragraph (a) 

identifies the primary constituent 

elements and specific habitat areas 

essential to the conservation of animal 

species for which we determined 

critical habitat to be prudent but did not 

designate for policy and statutory 

reasons. We will list these species in the 

same order as they appear in § 17.11(h). 

(1) Fox, San Miguel Island (Urocyon 

littoralis litoralis). 

(i) No primary constituent elements 

have been identified for the San Miguel 

Island fox. 

(ii) There are no specific habitat areas 

essential to the conservation of this 

species. 

(2) Fox, Santa Catalina Island 

(Urocyon littoralis catalinae). 

(i) No primary constituent elements 

have been identified for the Santa 

Catalina Island fox. 

(ii) There are no specific habitat areas 

essential to the conservation of this 

species. 

(3) Fox, Santa Cruz Island (Urocyon 

littoralis santacruzae). 

(i) No primary constituent elements 

have been identified for the Santa Cruz 

Island fox. 

60138 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) There are no specific habitat areas 

essential to the conservation of this 

species. 

(4) Fox, Santa Rosa Island (Urocyon 

littoralis santarosae). 

(i) No primary constituent elements 

have been identified for the Santa Rosa 

Island fox. 

(ii) There are no specific habitat areas 

essential to the conservation of this 

species. 

(b) [Reserved]

Dated: October 1, 2004. 

Julie MacDonald, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 04–22542 Filed 10–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AT44 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the California Tiger 

Salamander (Ambystoma 

californiense) in Santa Barbara County

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

public comment period and notice of 

availability of draft economic analysis. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) announce the 

availability of a draft economic analysis 

for the proposed designation of critical 

habitat for the California tiger 

salamander (Ambystoma californiense) 

in Santa Barbara County (here after 

referred to as ‘‘California tiger 

salamander’’) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

We are also reopening the public 

comment period for the proposal to 

designate critical habitat for this species 

to allow all interested parties to 

comment on the proposed rule and the 

associated draft economic analysis. 

Comments previously submitted on the 

proposed rule need not be resubmitted 

as they have been incorporated into the 

public record as a part of this reopening 

of the comment period, and will be fully 

considered in preparation of the final 

rule.

DATES: We will accept all comments 

received on or before November 8, 2004. 

Any comments that we receive after the 

closing date may not be considered in 

the final decision on this proposal.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, 

you may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by any one of several methods: 

(1) You may submit written comments 

and information to the Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola 

Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003, or by 

facsimile 805/644–3958. 

(2) You may hand-deliver written 

comments to our office, at the address 

given above. 

(3) You may send comments by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to 

fw1ctsch@r1.fws.gov. Please see the 

Public Comments Solicited section 

below for file format and other 

information about electronic filing. In 

the event that our Internet connection is 

not functional, please submit your 

comments by the alternate methods 

mentioned above. 

Comments and materials received, as 

well as supporting documentation used 

in preparation of the proposed critical 

habitat rule, will be available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the above 

address. You may obtain copies of the 

draft economic analysis for the 

California tiger salamander in Santa 

Barbara County by contacting the 

Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office at the 

above address. The draft economic 

analysis and the proposed rule for 

critical habitat designation also are 

available on the Internet at http://

ventura.fws.gov/. In the event that our 

Internet connection is not functional, 

please obtain copies of documents 

directly from the Ventura Fish and 

Wildlife Office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Katie Drexhage (telephone 805/549–

3811; facsimile 805/549–3233 or 

Michael McCrary (telephone 805/644–

1766; facsimile 805/644–3958), Ventura 

Fish and Wildlife Office, at the address 

listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The California tiger salamander is a 

large and stocky salamander, with a 

broad, rounded snout. Adult males may 

reach a total length of 8.2 inches (in) 

(20.8 centimeters (cm)) while females 

are slightly smaller, reaching about 6.8 

in (17.3 cm) in length. The top of the 

salamander can have white or pale 

yellow spots or bars on a black 

background. The underside varies from 

almost uniform white or pale yellow to 

a varying pattern of white or pale yellow 

and black. This species is restricted to 

California and does not overlap with 

any other species of tiger salamander. 

The Santa Barbara County salamanders 

are geographically separate from all 

other California tiger salamanders. 

Historically, the Santa Barbara County 

California tiger salamanders inhabited 

low-elevation (below 1,400 feet (427 

meters)) vernal pools and ephemeral 

ponds, and associated coastal scrub, 

grassland, and oak savannah plant 

communities of the Santa Maria, Los 

Alamos, and Santa Rita valleys. 

The loss of the California tiger 

salamander’s upland habitat is the 

single most important factor 

contributing to the species’ status. 

Additional threats to this species 

include threats to the aquatic habitat, 

predation and competition by 

introduced or non-native species, 

habitat fragmentation, contaminants, 

hybridization with non-native tiger 

salamanders, disease, and over-grazing. 

On January 19, 2000, we published an 

emergency rule to list the Santa Barbara 

County DPS of the California tiger 

salamander as endangered (65 FR 3096), 

concurrently with a proposed rule (65 

FR 3110) to list the species as 

endangered. We published a final rule 

listing the Santa Barbara County DPS of 

the California tiger salamander as 

endangered on September 21, 2000 (65 

FR 57242). On May 23, 2003, we 

proposed to list the Central California 

population of California tiger 

salamander as a threatened DPS. In the 

same Federal Register notice we also 

proposed to downlist the Sonoma 

County DPS and Santa Barbara County 

DPS of California tiger salamander, from 

endangered to threatened status (68 FR 

28648). The Federal Register notice also 

included a proposed special rule that 

would exempt existing routine ranching 

activities from the prohibitions of the 

Act. On August 4, 2004, we determined 

threatened status for the California tiger 

salamander rangewide (69 FR 47212). 

We also finalized the special rule for the 

species rangewide, which exempts 

existing routine ranching activities.

On February 25, 2003, the 

Environmental Defense Center and 

Center for Biological Diversity filed a 

complaint challenging our failure to 

designate critical habitat for the Santa 

Barbara County DPS of the California 

tiger salamander (Environmental 

Defense Center et al. v. U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service et al., EVCD 03–00195 

(C.D.Cal)). By order dated August 7, 

2003, the district court ordered us to 

publish a proposed rule to designate 

critical habitat for the California tiger 

salamander. On January 22, 2004, we 

proposed to designate critical habitat for 

the Santa Barbara DPS of California tiger 

salamander (69 FR 3064). 

Approximately 13,920 acres (5,633