[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 24, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68568-68609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25775]



[[Page 68567]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) 
in Santa Barbara County; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2004 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 68568]]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat for the Santa Barbara County population of California 
tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) (referred to here as 
California tiger salamander or CTS in Santa Barbara County) under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, 
approximately 11,180 acres (ac) (4,523 hectares (ha)) fall within the 
boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The critical habitat is 
located in northern Santa Barbara County, California. Collectively, we 
excluded a total of 2,740 ac (1,109 ha) of privately-owned lands from 
this final critical habitat designation.

DATES: This final rule is effective December 27, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, Ventura 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 805/644-
1766; facsimile 805/644-3958).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Designation of Critical Habitat Provides Little Additional Protection 
to Species

    In 30 years of implementing the Act, the Service has found that the 
designation of statutory critical habitat provides little additional 
protection to most listed species, while consuming significant amounts 
of available conservation resources. The Service's present system for 
designating critical habitat has evolved since its original statutory 
prescription into a process that provides little real conservation 
benefit, is driven by litigation and the courts rather than biology, 
limits our ability to fully evaluate the science involved, consumes 
enormous agency resources, and imposes huge social and economic costs. 
The Service believes that additional agency discretion would allow our 
focus to return to those actions that provide the greatest benefit to 
the species most in need of protection.

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and 
Implementing the Act

    While attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to 
successful conservation actions, we have consistently found that, in 
most circumstances, the designation of critical habitat is of little 
additional value for most listed species, yet it consumes large amounts 
of conservation resources. Sidle (1987) stated, ``Because the Act can 
protect species with and without critical habitat designation, critical 
habitat designation may be redundant to the other consultation 
requirements of section 7.'' Currently, only 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 judicially-imposed deadlines. 
This in turn fosters a second round of litigation in which those who 
fear adverse impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those 
designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless, is very 
expensive, and in the final analysis provides relatively little 
additional protection to listed species.
    The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the 
cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of 
the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to 
public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). None of these costs result in 
any benefit to the species that is not already afforded by the 
protections of the Act enumerated earlier, and they directly reduce the 
funds available for direct and tangible conservation actions.

Background

    For background information, please see the proposed designation of 
critical habitat for the Santa Barbara County Distinct Vertebrate 
Population Segment (DPS) of the California tiger salamander published 
on January 22, 2004 (69 FR 3064). That information is incorporated by 
reference into this final rule.

Previous Federal Action

    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

[[Page 68569]]

(C.D. Cal)). By an order dated August 7, 2003, the district court 
ordered us to publish a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for 
the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander by 
January 15, 2004, and a final rule by November 15, 2004. We published 
the proposed rule on January 22, 2004 (69 FR 3064).
    On August 4, 2004, we made a new determination regarding the 
listing status of the California tiger salamander. This determination 
changed the status of the Santa Barbara population. We determined that 
the California tiger salamander is threatened rangewide, and we 
published this finding along with a Special Rule exempting existing 
routine ranching practices throughout the species' range (69 FR 47212). 
New version: The rule included a detailed analysis of threats to the 
California tiger salamander, Central population, and a reclassification 
of the Santa Barbara County and Sonoma County populations. As a result, 
we removed these populations as separately listed DPSs, and listed the 
entire California tiger salamander species as threatened.
    We are issuing this final designation of critical habitat for the 
California tiger salamander in the Santa Barbara County portion of its 
range in compliance with the court's order (described above), noting 
that it does not include all portions of the range of the entity now 
listed. We anticipate completing the critical habitat designation for 
California tiger salamander rangewide through future rulemaking. We 
proposed critical habitat for the California tiger salamander, Central 
population, on August 10, 2004 (69 FR 48570).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, 
scientific organizations, and other interested parties and invited them 
to comment on the proposed critical habitat designation for the CTS in 
Santa Barbara County. In addition, we invited public comment through 
the publication of a notice in the Santa Barbara News-Press on January 
26, 2004, and the Santa Maria Times on January 28, 2004.
    In the January 22, 2004, proposed critical habitat designation (69 
FR 3064), we requested that all interested parties submit comments on 
the specifics of the proposal, including information related to the 
critical habitat designation, unit boundaries, species occurrence 
information and distribution, land use designations that may affect 
critical habitat, potential economic effects of the proposed 
designation, benefits associated with the critical habitat designation, 
potential exclusions and the associated rationale for the exclusions, 
and methods used to designate critical habitat. We also contacted all 
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, scientific 
organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to 
comment. This was accomplished through letters and news releases mailed 
to affected elected officials, media outlets, local jurisdictions, 
interest groups and other interested individuals. In addition, we 
invited public comment through the publication of legal notices in 
newspapers throughout Santa Barbara County.
    We received several requests for a public hearing and an extension 
of the comment period. We announced the reopening of the comment period 
and the date and time of the public hearing on April 13, 2004 (69 FR 
19364), and invited additional comments in letters to appropriate 
elected officials; Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific 
organizations; and other interested parties. We also published notices 
in several news sources, including the Federal Register, Santa Barbara 
News-Press, and the Santa Maria Times. We held a public hearing in 
Santa Maria, California, on May 11, 2004. Thirty-two individuals gave 
testimony on the proposed critical habitat designation for the CTS in 
Santa Barbara County.
    We provided notification of availability of the draft economic 
analysis (DEA) through letters and news releases faxed and/or mailed to 
affected elected officials, media outlets, local jurisdictions, and 
interest groups. We also published a notice of its availability in the 
Federal Register on October 7, 2004 (69 FR 60138) and made the DEA and 
associated material available on our Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office 
Internet site. The reopened comment period closed on November 8, 2004.
    We received a cumulative total of 71 comment letters and electronic 
mail messages (e-mails) during all of the comment periods. We reviewed 
all comments received for substantive issues and new information 
regarding the CTS in Santa Barbara County. We grouped the comments into 
three categories: peer review comments, State comments, or public 
comments. We grouped similar public comments into six general issue 
categories relating specifically to the proposed critical habitat 
determination and/or the DEA. Substantive comments and accompanying 
information have either been incorporated directly into the final rule, 
economic analysis documents, and/or they have been addressed in the 
following summary.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited review from at 
least three appropriate and independent specialists/experts regarding 
the proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure that our 
critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound data, 
assumptions, and analyses.
    We solicited peer review from 11 individuals who have detailed 
knowledge of and expertise in amphibian biology in general, or 
salamander biology specifically, as well in scientific principles and 
conservation biology. The individuals were asked to review and comment 
on the specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed 
designation of critical habitat. Three of the eleven reviewers 
submitted comments on the proposed designation. The three reviewers 
strongly endorsed the approach we used in our proposal that emphasized 
the importance of conserving aquatic habitat in the context of 
surrounding upland habitat. The reviewers felt that this approach is 
crucial for the conservation and long-term survival of the CTS in Santa 
Barbara County. They also stated that the rule placed appropriate 
emphasis on protecting the remaining habitat. All generally supported 
our methodology and conclusions.
    Comment (1) (Peer): One peer reviewer cited the importance of 
conserving the historical connectivity between the six critical habitat 
units and suggested that all lands surrounding and between Units 3 
(Western Alamos/Careaga), 4 (Eastern Los Alamos), 5 (Purisima Hills), 
and 6 (Santa Rita Valley) be included as critical habitat. The reviewer 
also suggested that additional historical locations of the CTS in Santa 
Barbara County be considered for critical habitat, and specifically 
recommended inclusion of the known pond near Unit 6 (Santa Rita Valley) 
and some upland habitat surrounding Unit 2 (Eastern Santa Maria).
    Our Response: Although we agree that preserving connectivity 
between known breeding ponds is essential for the conservation of the 
CTS in Santa Barbara County, we do not believe that unoccupied and 
historical locations are essential for the conservation of the species. 
The science subteam of the recovery team for CTS in Santa Barbara 
County determined that the CTS in Santa Barbara County could be 
conserved by protecting habitat in six disparate conservation areas, 
excluding

[[Page 68570]]

unoccupied and/or historical locations between these six conservation 
areas. These six conservation areas were identified over a series of 
meetings that took place between 2002 and 2003 (Service files 2002-
2003). These six conservation areas closely resemble the critical 
habitat units contained in this rule. The six units that we have 
designated as critical habitat provide for the essential life-cycle 
needs of the species, and provide the habitat components essential for 
the conservation of this species (i.e., the primary constituent 
elements (PCEs) described below in the Primary Constituent Elements 
section).

State Agencies

    We received comments from the California Department of 
Transportation (Caltrans). Technical data provided by Caltrans has been 
incorporated into, or addressed in, this final rule, while other issues 
raised by Caltrans are addressed below.
    Comment (2) (State): Caltrans commented that it is unclear why Unit 
1 (Western Santa Maria/Orcutt) extends to the western side of State 
Highway 1, from Black Road to Clark Road. Caltrans requested that this 
boundary be along the eastern State Highway right-of-way (ROW). 
Caltrans stated that the rule is written so that it is difficult to 
discern whether the State ROW is included in the boundary. Caltrans 
commented that, as currently written in the proposed rule, the State 
Highway appears to be the boundary. Caltrans stated that the boundary 
should be relocated outside the State ROW and clearly defined. Caltrans 
indicated that State ROWs are regularly disturbed and do not provide 
essential habitat for California tiger salamanders. Futhermore, 
Caltrans stated that including State ROWs is not necessary and would be 
prohibitive in terms of both staff time and unnecessary expenses to the 
State, and would provide little to no benefit to sensitive species.
    Our Response: ROWs are not included in this designation.
    Comment (3) (State): Caltrans stated that the maps provided in the 
Federal Register need to be more informative with a greater level of 
detail that accurately defines the boundaries of proposed critical 
habitat units. Caltrans suggested that the Service publish Geographic 
Information System (GIS) maps.
    Our Response: The maps in the Federal Register are meant to provide 
the general location and shape of critical habitat. The proposed rule 
also included Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates of the 
proposed critical habitat units. These legal descriptions are readily 
plotted and transferable to a variety of mapping formats, and are 
available electronically upon request for use with GIS programs. The 
scale of the legal descriptions is sufficiently detailed for locating 
the extent and configuration of the units.
    In addition, at the public hearing, the maps were expanded to wall 
size to assist the public in better understanding the proposal. These 
larger scale maps were also provided to individuals upon request. 
Furthermore, we provided direct assistance in response to written or 
telephone questions with regard to mapping and land ownership within 
the proposed designation.
    Comment (4) (State): Caltrans stated that clarification is needed 
where the rule reads ``Federal agencies already consult'' on activities 
that include ``road construction and maintenance, right-of-way 
designation, and regulation funded or permitted by the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA).'' Caltrans suggested that this be changed to 
read ``The FHWA funds new construction and does not fund the routine 
operations and maintenance of the State highway system.''
    Our Response: We have changed the language in the preamble to this 
final rule to reflect this clarification.

Other Public Comments and Responses

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

Issue 1--Habitat and Species Specific Information

    Comment (5): One commenter stated that historical populations of 
the salamander are unknown and could, in fact, be increasing. One 
commenter stated that many pictographs that exist in the traditional 
tribal domain of the Chumash (from Monterey to Malibu) display the 
California tiger salamander. The commenter concluded that this points 
to an amphibian that was very common among the Chumash culture and 
located over a wide area. Several commenters stated that not enough has 
been done to demonstrate that this amphibian is threatened.
    Our Response: The historical distribution and numbers of CTS in 
Santa Barbara County are not known. The CTS in Santa Barbara County is 
presently found in 6 disparate locations in northern Santa Barbara 
County. Because this species spends much of its life underground, only 
a portion of the total number of animals migrate to pools to breed each 
year and animals do not always breed in their natal pool or pond, 
estimates of the total number of CTS in Santa Barbara County are 
difficult to make. This difficulty has been noted by a number of 
biologists (Jennings and Hayes 1994; Shaffer et al. 1993).
    When making a listing determination, we carefully consider the best 
available scientific and commercial data regarding the historic and 
current ranges of the taxon under consideration, as well as the 
abundance of the species (if known), and the pattern, imminence, and 
magnitude of threats relative to the species' distribution. After 
completing such an analysis for the CTS in Santa Barbara County in 
2000, we listed the Santa Barbara County animals as an endangered DPS. 
Recently, we re-evaluated that determination in the context of 
California tiger salamanders rangewide. We determined that the best 
available evidence supports a threatened listing for a single species 
rangewide. The original analysis and our more recent analysis are 
available in our final rules that published in the Federal Register on 
(September 21, 2000, 65 FR 57242) and (August 4, 2004, 69 FR 47212).
    Comment (6): One commenter stated that there is no scientific proof 
that protecting habitat will protect a species from anything. Another 
commenter stated that critical habitat does not further the 
conservation efforts for protecting the California tiger salamander.
    Our Response: The fundamental importance of habitat to wildlife 
populations was established long ago (e.g., Grinnell 1917, 1928, as 
cited in Real and Levin 1991; Leopold 1933; Noss et al. 1997). ``[All] 
organisms require appropriate habitats if they are to survive'' 
(Ehrlich 1988, p. 22). Therefore, we conclude that the protection of 
habitat is an important conservation action. Habitat provides species 
with cover, shelter, protection from the elements and predation, and 
space to breed and raise offspring.
    In the case of the California tiger salamander, aquatic habitat is 
needed for breeding, and upland habitat is needed for foraging, 
sheltering, and protection from predation and the elements (such as the 
hot, dry weather typical of Santa Barbara County during the non-
breeding season). In addition, upland habitat located between aquatic 
habitats is essential in maintaining gene flow and for recolonization 
of sites that are temporarily extirpated.

[[Page 68571]]

    The designation of critical habitat can play a role in conserving 
the California tiger salamander. Designation ensures that federal 
agency actions affecting essential California tiger salamander habitat 
are carefully reviewed so that the habitat will remain functional to 
serve its intended conservation role.
    Comment (7): One commenter stated that the area designated for 
critical habitat is not threatened.
    Our Response: The known locations of CTS in Santa Barbara County 
fall into six disparate areas of Santa Barbara County. Habitat in these 
areas is threatened with loss and/or fragmentation (i.e., reduction in 
habitat quantity). We are also aware of several factors that may reduce 
habitat quality within these areas; the presence of introduced species 
which compete with or feed on California tiger salamanders; unsuitable 
grazing (see August 4, 2004, Special Rule in 69 FR at 47241), and 
disturbance from past oil production cleanup efforts. Each of the six 
areas has a distinctive combination of habitat types, breeding pond 
types, landscape features, surrounding land uses, and topography. 
Because of the existing population level, and the types of threats to 
these populations, we determined that these six areas were essential to 
the conservation of the species.
    Comment (8): One commenter stated that the Service should find 
critical habitat for the salamander to be not warranted. The commenter 
stated that the designation would provide a second layer of protection 
but the listing itself provides all that is required to protect the 
species.
    Our Response: The term, ``not warranted,'' applies to petition 
findings and is a result that is possible for a petition finding. We do 
not have a not warranted option for a critical habitat designation. We 
can find that critical habitat is not prudent but the courts have found 
that the not prudent exception is narrow and should be sparsely 
applied.
    The designation means that Federal agencies are required to consult 
with the Service on the impacts of actions they undertake, fund, or 
permit on designated critical habitat. While in many cases, these 
requirements may not provide substantial additional protection for most 
species, they do direct the Service to consider specifically whether a 
proposed action will affect the functionality of essential habitat to 
serve its intended conservation role for a species rather than to focus 
exclusively on whether the action is likely to jeopardize the species' 
continued existence. We agree, however, that even absent a critical 
habitat designation, Federal agencies are still required to consult on 
the impacts of their activities on listed species and their habitat.
    Comment (9): One commenter stated that the determination on page 
3073 of the proposed designation (January 22, 2004, 69 FR 3064) under 
Summary is not substantiated.
    Our Response: On page 3073 of the proposed rule, it reads ``In 
summary, we propose six areas where populations of California tiger 
salamander are known to occur as critical habitat because we believe 
protection of those areas is essential to the conservation of the 
species.'' As required under section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we identified those areas containing the 
physical and biological features (PCEs) that are essential to the 
conservation of the CTS in Santa Barbara County and their need for 
special management considerations or protections using the best 
scientific data available. Two of the three peer reviewers agree that 
the areas we are designating as critical habitat provide for the 
essential life-cycle needs of the CTS in Santa Barbara County and 
provide the habitat components essential for the conservation (PCEs) of 
this species. The third reviewer believes that the area included in the 
critical habitat designation should be expanded to include some 
unoccupied areas.
    Comment (10): One commenter stated that the Service failed to 
mention that most of Unit 2 has historically been cultivated.
    Our Response: The fact that an area has been cultivated 
historically does not necessarily make it unsuitable for California 
tiger salamanders. However, the trend in Santa Barbara County has been 
to move from dry farming and grazing to more intensive forms of 
agriculture such as row-cropping and vineyards. This trend resulted in 
the rapid loss of California tiger salamander upland habitat which was 
the primary threat to the species at the time of listing in 2000 
(September 21, 2000, 65 FR 57242). Although we are aware that most of 
Unit 2 (Eastern Santa Maria) has historically been cultivated, portions 
of Unit 2 are fallow and provide upland habitat for the CTS in Santa 
Barbara County. In addition, some cultivated lands in Unit 2 function 
as important connectivity habitat between ponds.

Issue 2--Costs and Regulatory Burden

    Comment (11): One commenter stated that the designation is an 
unneeded cost to the taxpayer and that much of the habitat features 
that make up this designation are already listed for other species 
within the area.
    Our Response: Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended, and our implementing regulations, state that critical habitat 
shall be designated for species listed under the Act.
    Certain critical habitat units for other listed species in the 
vicinity of CTS in Santa Barbara County may overlap with the critical 
habitat units designated for the California tiger salamander. This is 
the case with the final critical habitat designation for the La 
Graciosa thistle (Cirsium loncholepis). However, the habitat components 
essential for conservation (PCEs) differ for each of these species (for 
detailed information on the PCEs for the La Graciosa thistle, see the 
Primary Constituent Element section of the final rule (March 17, 2004, 
69 FR at 12559); for detailed information on the PCEs for the CTS in 
Santa Barbara County, see the Primary Constituent Element section of 
this rule). The habitat components essential for conservation of the La 
Graciosa thistle identified in the final critical habitat rule would 
aid in protection of California tiger salamander aquatic habitat, but 
the proposed rule does not include a sufficient amount of upland 
habitat to sustain a viable population of California tiger salamanders 
(69 FR 12559). Therefore, the critical habitat proposed for the La 
Graciosa thistly does not afford adequate protection for the CTS in 
Santa Barbara County.
    Critical habitat has recently been proposed for the California red-
legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) (April 13, 2004, 69 FR at 19626). A 
portion of the California red-legged frog proposed critical habitat 
(Unit 24, Santa Ynez River Unit) overlaps with the CTS in Santa Barbara 
County critical habitat (Unit 6, Santa Rita Valley). The habitat 
components essential for conservation of this species identified in the 
proposed California red-legged frog rule would aid in protection of 
California tiger salamander aquatic habitat, but the proposed rule does 
not include a sufficient amount of upland habitat to sustain a viable 
population of California tiger salamanders (69 FR 19627). Therefore, 
the critical habitat proposed for the California red-legged frog does 
not afford adequate protection for the CTS in Santa Barbara County.
    Comment (12): One commenter was concerned with potential loss of 
land value in urban areas or areas designated for development.
    Our Response: The economic analysis states that, because only about 
1 percent of the real estate supply in Santa Barbara County is likely 
to be set aside

[[Page 68572]]

for the CTS in Santa Barbara County, offsetting compensation measures 
are not expected to have a significant impact on the dynamics of the 
regional real estate market. While real estate market values may 
temporarily decline following designation due to the perception that 
critical habitat designation may impose additional regulatory burdens 
on land use, we expect any such impacts to be short term. Additionally, 
critical habitat designation does not preclude development of Habitat 
Conservation Plans (HCPs) and issuance of incidental take permits. 
Landowners within the boundaries of this critical habitat designation 
will continue to have the opportunity to use their property in ways 
consistent with the conservation of the CTS in Santa Barbara County. 
Therefore, we believe that, because of (1) the high degree of public 
awareness of the species in northern Santa Barbara County, (2) the 
prohibition against take of the species both within and outside of the 
designated critical habitat areas, and (3) the small percentage of the 
Santa Barbara County real estate supply involved, property values are 
not likely to be affected by the critical habitat designation in the 
long term.

Issue 3--Property Rights

    Comment (13): Several commenters expressed concern that the 
critical habitat designation would limit their land use practices or 
result in the loss of their lands. Specifically, one commenter stated 
that the government is proposing to condemn this private land or reduce 
its value to the owners. Another commenter stated that this rule would 
deny ranchers and farmers the use of their land. Another commenter was 
concerned that the designation would result in the loss of prime 
agricultural soils that are intensely farmed. One commenter was 
concerned with potential limits on irrigation and soil compaction. One 
commenter stated a concern regarding the additional time and money that 
would be needed in areas designated as critical habitat for oil spill 
cleanup.
    Our Response: These comments reflect a misunderstanding of 
regulatory effect of critical habitat designation. Critical habitat 
designations do not constitute a burden in terms of Federal laws and 
regulations on private landowners carrying out private activities. 
Unless a Federal approval or permit is required, or Federal funds are 
involved with a project proposed on private property, the critical 
habitat designation poses no regulatory burden for private landowners, 
and in particular, should not affect farming and ranching activities on 
private lands. Similarly, absent a future Federal nexus, the 
designation should not affect future land use plans. Routine ranching 
activities are also exempt from take under the 4(d) rule.
    While the designation of critical habitat does not constitute a 
regulation of private lands, the listing of the CTS in Santa Barbara 
County under the Endangered Species Act may affect private landowners. 
Actions which could result in take of California tiger salamanders 
(e.g., ground disturbing activities such as soil compaction or soil 
remediation activities) require an exemption from take following 
consultation under Section 7 or and incidental take permit under 
section 10 of the Act. Because the CTS in Santa Barbara County was 
listed in 2000, proposed actions on private lands that require Federal 
authorization or funding that may affect the species already undergo 
consultation under Section 7 to ensure that their actions are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Future 
consultations involving private lands will also analyze the effect of 
the proposed action on designated critical habitat.
    The Act also requires recovery planning for listed species. 
Recovery planning for CTS in Santa Barbara County may include 
recommendations for land acquisition or easements involving private 
landowners. These efforts would be undertaken with the cooperation of 
the landowners. We also work with landowners to identify activities and 
modifications to activities that will not result in take, to develop 
measures to minimize the potential for take, and to provide 
authorizations for take through section 7 and 10 of the Act. We 
encourage landowners to work in partnership with us to develop plans 
for ensuring that land uses can be carried out in a manner consistent 
with the conservation of listed species and will continue to do so 
following the designation to preserve the conservation value of 
critical habitat while compatible development proceeds.

Issue 4--Mapping Methodology

    Comment (14): Several commenters stated that the acreage proposed 
to be designated as critical habitat was too extensive.
    Our Response: We used the best scientific data available in the 
designation of critical habitat for the CTS in Santa Barbara County, as 
per section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12. The 
areas we are designating as critical habitat have the physical and 
biological features (primary constituent elements or PCEs) that are 
essential to the conservation of the CTS in Santa Barbara County and 
that may require special management or protections. Few populations of 
the California tiger salamander exist in Santa Barbara County, and the 
threats to these populations are substantial. The six areas we are 
designating as critical habitat are essential to conserve these 
populations and to the overall conservation of the species. Each of the 
three peer reviewers agree that the areas we are designating as 
critical habitat provide for the essential life-cycle needs of the 
California tiger salamander and provide the habitat components 
essential for the conservation (PCEs) of this species. One of the three 
believes that the area included in the critical habitat designation 
should be expanded to include unoccupied areas in some cases.
    Comment (15): Several commenters referred to additional acreage or, 
specifically, an additional 4,000 ac (1,619 ha) being protected for the 
CTS in Santa Barbara County by this designation.
    Our Response: We are not aware of the acreage or area to which the 
commenters are referring. To our knowledge, no lands in Santa Barbara 
County are currently set aside for the protection of the California 
tiger salamander.
    Comment (16): One commenter stated that lines drawn on the map are 
arbitrary. Another commenter stated that the acreage proposed for 
critical habitat has not been substantiated.
    Our Response: Our Policy on Information Standards Under the 
Endangered Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34271) and our U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information 
Quality Guidelines (2002) provide criteria, establish procedures, and 
provide guidance to ensure that our decisions represent the best 
scientific and commercial data available. They require our biologists, 
to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best 
scientific and commercial data available, to use primary and original 
sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate 
critical habitat.
    In determining areas that meet the definition of critical habitat 
for the CTS in Santa Barbara County, we used the best scientific and 
commercial data available. We have reviewed the overall approach to the 
conservation of the CTS in Santa Barbara County recommended to us by 
the science subteam of the recovery team for the CTS in Santa Barbara 
County (Service files 2002-

[[Page 68573]]

2003). We have also reviewed available information that pertains to the 
habitat requirements of this species. This material includes: data in 
reports submitted during section 7 consultations and by biologists 
holding section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits, research published in 
peer-reviewed articles and presented in academic theses and agency 
reports, and regional GIS coverages. Few populations of the California 
tiger salamander exist in Santa Barbara County and the protection of 
these populations is essential to the survival and recovery of the 
species as a whole. The six areas we are designating as critical 
habitat contain the essential primary constituent elements for the 
conservation of these populations and for the conservation of the 
entire species.
    Comment (17): One commenter stated that Unit 4 includes 
approximately 27 ac (11 ha) of cultivated vineyards directly south of 
Hwy 101 which should not be included in the critical habitat 
designation.
    Our Response: Vineyards can be used by California tiger salamanders 
for dispersal purposes (i.e., they provide connectivity between aquatic 
and upland habitats) and, if small mammal burrows are present, 
sheltering and foraging. The 27 ac (11 ha) of cultivated vineyards in 
Unit 4 provide essential connectivity between the known ponds within 
that critical habitat unit.
    Comment (18): One commenter opposed the inclusion of the Foley 
property, which is located on the edge of Unit 6 (Santa Rita Valley). 
This land is in existing vineyards. The commenter presumed that this 
inclusion was the result of a mapping error.
    Our Response: This vineyard was included as a result of a mapping 
error. We have removed this vineyard in the final critical habitat map 
for Unit 6.
    Comment (19): One commenter requested that Highway 246 and its 
shoulders be excluded from the designation.
    Our Response: We have removed Highway 246 and its shoulders (or 
ROWs) from this designation (see Criteria Used To Identify Critical 
Habitat section).
    Comment (20): One commenter stated that it is unclear what is meant 
by ``must hold water for a minimum of 12 weeks.''
    Our Response: We needed to specify a timeframe to identify how long 
water should remain in these ponds in order to support successful 
California tiger salamander metamorphosis. Twelve weeks was selected as 
the minimum ponding interval that will allow at least some California 
tiger salamanders to metamorphose. This assumes that eggs are laid late 
in the season when water temperatures are higher and development occurs 
at the maximum rate. When eggs are laid in November through January at 
lower water temperatures, California tiger salamanders probably cannot 
metamorphose within 12 weeks. Our goal in setting this criterion is to 
separate those ponds that, in an average or better year, can 
potentially produce California tiger salamander metamorphs from those 
ponds that are too ephemeral to be successful breeding sites in any but 
the wettest years.
    Comment (21): One commenter asked what period of time is used to 
determine a year of ``average'' rainfall. The commenter asked how we 
determined that a particular site retained water for 12 weeks during a 
year of average rainfall. The commenter asked if there is a reference 
year when rainfall was at or near average. The commenter asked what the 
source is for the rainfall and aquatic habitat site information.
    Our Response: Rainfall is commonly calculated using the average 
rainfall for the rainy season rather than for a full calendar year. In 
California, precipitation generally occurs from late fall to early 
spring. Average rainfall for northern Santa Barbara County for the 
1948-1949 through 2002-2003 rainy seasons averaged about 12.9 inches 
(in) (32.8 centimeters (cm)) (range, 4.3 in (10.9 cm) in 1971-1972 to 
32.5 in (82.6 cm) in 1997-1998) based on the rainfall station at Santa 
Maria, California (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmsca.html). We 
did not base our approach on a ``reference year.'' Our goal was to 
separate those ponds that, in an average or better year, can 
potentially produce California tiger salamander metamorphs from those 
ponds that are too ephemeral to be successful breeding sites in any but 
the wettest years. A pond that dries quickly in a ``dry'' year may 
still represent good habitat in a wetter year. Our minimum 12-week 
requirement is based on observations by Sam Sweet in Santa Barbara 
County (Dr. Sam Sweet, University of California at Santa Barbara, pers. 
comm. 2004). Similarly, Feaver (1971) reported that in Fresno County 
metamorphs leave pools 60 to 94 days (about 8-12 weeks) after eggs were 
laid. However, the length of time needed can be much longer in other 
parts of the range of the California tiger salamander. For example, in 
Monterey County metamorphs almost universally remained in ponds until 
May 1 (approximately 120 days (about 17 weeks) after eggs were laid) 
(Peter Trenham, U.S. Geological Survey, pers. comm. 2004).
    Comment (22): One commenter asked what the time frame is for a 
potential pool site to be considered viable or ``essential,'' and at 
what point does that expire (e.g., what if a pond held water for 12 
weeks one time 7 years ago?). After how many years of below-average 
rainfall does a site become excluded from ``aquatic habitat?''
    Our Response: As previously stated, a pond that dries quickly in a 
``dry'' year may still be good habitat in a wetter year. With this 
designation, we did not include habitats that are too short lived. We 
have no examples of sites that are not considered aquatic habitat for 
California tiger salamanders in Santa Barbara County because they have 
not held water for long periods of time. Because we have no examples of 
such circumstances, we have not specified a time frame which might 
apply.
    Comment (23): One commenter asked what grade or level is the cutoff 
point in elevation that is considered to be too steep for salamanders 
to cross.
    Our Response: We did not use a specific criterion in terms of 
degrees of slope in our analysis because of the complex interaction 
between variables. In general, we used slope as a surrogate estimator 
for soil depth and soil moisture retention, when combined with 
knowledge of vegetation, aspect, and underlying geology. For example, 
an extensive south-facing hillside with chaparral and bedrock outcrops 
at a lesser slope might be excluded, whereas a north-facing slope with 
oaks and with greater slope might not be excluded. The south-facing 
slope might have too few small mammal burrows with too little residual 
soil moisture in late summer and fall, and thus, would not be suitable 
upland habitat for California tiger salamanders.
    Comment (24): One commenter requested a detailed list of each type 
of vegetation that would be considered ``unsuitable'' and asked how 
dense this vegetation would need to be to exclude salamanders from 
passing through it or using the habitat around it.
    Our Response: Regarding vegetation types, our specific goal was to 
include habitat that California tiger salamanders would clearly use 
(grassland, oak woodland, oak savanna, long-lasting ephemeral pools), 
and exclude habitats that were marginal and thus, not critical to the 
conservation of the species. However, because a patch or swath of 
marginal habitat nested within high quality habitat could not be 
excluded, most of these types of exclusions were made along the margins 
of units. Because of this type of site-by-site variation, it is not 
practicable for us to develop a complete list of index plants.

[[Page 68574]]

    Regarding vegetation density, it is not practical for us to develop 
a specific criterion or vegetation thickness that would prevent 
salamanders from dispersing through vegetation. Density would be much 
greater to prevent dispersal in grassland habitat versus chaparral. We 
are unable to provide formal criteria to determine vegetation density 
due to the variation of vegetation present throughout the range of the 
California tiger salamander.
    Comment (25): One commenter requested a detailed list of every type 
of geologic barrier that is excluded from the proposed critical habitat 
rule.
    Our Response: An index of soil types or geologic formations cannot 
be developed because these categories (as formally defined by 
geologists, even at the finest scale of resolution) are rather broad. 
For example, lateral and vertical variation in the composition of the 
Paso Robles, or the Sisquoc, or the Careaga formations creates a range 
of suitable to unsuitable local soils, which is further complicated by 
slope, aspect, and geomorphological structure. The exact same bedrock 
on the crest of an anticline (a geological term for an arch of layered 
rock) will make for very different conditions than would occur at the 
bottom of a syncline (a trough of layered rock, opposite of an 
anticline). Because of these broad categories and variations in 
geological formations, we cannot provide an index of every type of 
geologic barrier.
    Comment (26): One commenter requested a list of each and every type 
of agricultural barrier that would have no potential for restoration. 
The commenter asked how close an otherwise excluded agricultural 
barrier would need to be in order to be included because it is ``next'' 
to a known breeding pond. The commenter asked for clarification of the 
statement that an agricultural barrier would be included if it provided 
upland refugia for the California tiger salamander around a known pond. 
The commenter asked if this includes all or only some of the 
``agricultural barriers.'' The commenter asked how the determination 
was made that an otherwise excluded agricultural barrier be included 
because it is important for connectivity between known breeding ponds. 
The commenter asked how large an area would need to be included to 
ensure connectivity between known breeding locations.
    Our Response: We have already excluded agricultural barriers that 
we determined had ``no potential for restoration.'' For example, we 
drew boundaries that ran along the edge of agricultural fields. In 
addition, we excluded most, but not all, areas of frequently harvested 
agricultural lands. We determined which agricultural lands in 
association with known breeding ponds to include in the critical 
habitat designation on a site-by-site basis. We based our determination 
on the importance of agricultural land as either ``upland refugia'' 
(defined as the 2,200-ft (671 m) area surrounding a breeding pond) or 
as connectivity habitat between ponds. We did not consider agricultural 
lands more than 2,200 ft (671 m) from known breeding ponds to be upland 
refugia; therefore, we did not include them in critical habitat. We 
also excluded areas closer than 2,200 ft (671 m) if we determined that 
the areas did not contain the PCEs for the CTS in Santa Barbara County.
    Using aerial photos, we also evaluated each agricultural area to 
identify barriers to California tiger salamander movements and 
agricultural areas of connectivity between breeding ponds. We 
considered ponds within 0.7 miles (mi) (1.1 kilometers (km) of each 
other to be within the dispersal distance of California tiger 
salamanders, therefore having connectivity value. If there was 
agricultural land between two ponds within 0.7 mi (1.1 km) of each 
other, we included the land because of its connectivity value unless 
there was a barrier that would prevent salamander movement between the 
ponds (e.g., a heavily traveled highway). For a more detailed 
discussion, see the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section.
    Accordingly, lands that are currently designated as critical 
habitat provide PCEs under current management practices. These lands 
were designated to provide protection from changes in management 
practices that would result in adverse modification of the critical 
habitat.
    Comment (27): One commenter requested a complete list of each and 
every ``other'' type of land that is ``unlikely to contain PCEs 
essential for California tiger salamander conservation'' so that this 
criteria can be replicated by a person outside of the Service.
    Our Response: It is not practicable for us to develop a complete 
list of each and every ``other'' type of land that is unlikely to 
contain PCEs. Determining if specific lands within the critical habitat 
boundaries do not have the PCEs for the California tiger salamander 
boundaries will have to be conducted on a case-by-case basis. We 
excluded areas that we could identify do not contain PCEs for the 
California tiger salamander. However, the PCEs for the California tiger 
salamander include lands essential for connectivity. Some lands which 
do not appear to provide suitable breeding or foraging habitat for the 
California tiger salamander are essential for connectivity (i.e., 
cultivated land). Protecting the ability of California tiger 
salamanders to move freely across the landscape in search of breeding 
ponds is essential in maintaining gene flow and for recolonization of 
sites that are temporarily extirpated.
    Comment (28): One commenter requested a detailed map of all ponds 
throughout the range of the CTS in Santa Barbara County. The commenter 
requested a copy of the science or references that were used to make 
this determination.
    Our Response: The California Tiger Salamander Habitat map can be 
purchased through the County of Santa Barbara (South Coast, 123 East 
Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101-2058; North Coast, 624 W. 
Foster Road, Santa Maria, CA 93455-3623). The map was created in spring 
of 2000 by biologists who had conducted California tiger salamander 
surveys throughout Santa Barbara County (references provided with map).
    Comment (29): One commenter requested that the land ratio formula 
be re-evaluated on the basis of individual applications rather than a 
``one shoe fits all'' approach.
    Our Response: We did not use a ``one shoe fits all'' approach. 
Rather, we evaluated lands within each unit separately, using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, to determine areas that best 
provide essential habitat for the California tiger salamander (see also 
response to comment 16). For each unit, we used 2,200 ft or 350 ac as a 
guide for the amount of upland habitat around known breeding locations 
to be mapped as critical habitat for the purposes of preserving 
California tiger salamanders within small mammal burrows (PCE 2). 
However, although various studies provide an approximation of the 
distances that California tiger salamanders can move from their 
breeding ponds in search of suitable upland refugia, we recognize that 
upland habitat features will influence California tiger salamander 
movements in a particular landscape. Therefore, where we had site-
specific information on those features such as land use, topography, 
and geologic landform, we altered critical habitat lines to reflect 
that information.
    Comment (30): One commenter suggested including additional 
unoccupied habitat in the final rule, such as pond watersheds, upland 
dispersal and burrowing areas, and

[[Page 68575]]

potentially suitable breeding ponds that are not occupied.
    Our Response: Although one peer reviewer stated that including some 
unoccupied areas in the designation would be appropriate, the other 
peer reviewers agreed with our approach of including occupied areas 
only and stated that the areas we are designating provide for the 
essential life-cycle needs of the species, and provide the habitat 
components essential for the conservation (PCEs) of this species. Based 
on recommendations from the science subteam of the recovery team for 
the CTS in Santa Barbara County (Service files 2002-2003), and our 
analysis of the best available scientific and commercial data, we 
determined that these areas or units provide for the essential life-
cycle needs of the species, and provide the habitat components 
essential for the conservation of the California tiger salamander. 
Therefore, we do not believe that it is necessary to the conservation 
of the California tiger salamander to designate critical habitat in 
unoccupied areas.
    Comment (31): One commenter stated that the Service failed to 
explain why the one known pond in Unit 6 (Santa Rita Valley) was left 
out of the designation and why it is not considered essential to the 
conservation of the California tiger salamander. The commenter stated 
that, although the pond is isolated, it is one of the two known 
breeding populations in that valley and should be included.
    Our Response: This pond likely has little or no connectivity due to 
the distance between it and other known or potential breeding ponds 
(over 2 miles), which is further than California tiger salamander 
dispersal distance. In addition, this pond occurs in a separate 
drainage and is separated from the other ponds by a steep ridge. 
Because of the isolation of the human-made pond in Unit 6, we do not 
believe it contains the primary constituent elements for the California 
tiger salamander and did not include it within the boundaries of 
critical habitat.

Issue 5--Economic Analysis

    Comment (32): One commenter stated that, as written in the 
proposal, the economic analysis of effects is biased regarding small 
businesses.
    Our Response: As set forth in our regulations found at 50 CFR 
424.19, the economic analysis is conducted after critical habitat has 
been proposed in a given area. As required under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), we published a 
notice of rulemaking for this proposed rule, and we prepared and made 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
Please refer to the Required Determinations section contained in this 
final rule for more information.
    Comment (33): Several commenters stated that an economic analysis 
should be completed and shared with the community prior to designating 
critical habitat.
    Our Response: We routinely prepare a draft of the economic analysis 
(DEA) on proposed critical habitat rules and release it for public 
comment before issuing a final critical habitat rule. We released the 
DEA for the California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County on 
October 7, 2004 (69 FR 60138) and accepted comments on the DEA from 
that date through November 8, 2004. This information has been used in 
our final determination.
    Comment (34): A few commenters were concerned with the short 
timeline for the economic analysis to be completed. The commenters 
reiterated that the economic analysis needs to be accurate and 
complete.
    Our Response: We frequently designate critical habitat under short, 
court-ordered deadlines. Even when our analyses are conducted under 
short time frames, we use the best scientific and commercial data 
available.
    Comment (35): Several commenters stated that the public should have 
the opportunity to comment on the economic analysis.
    Our Response: As part of the process by which all critical habitat 
rules are finalized, we solicit data and comments from the public on 
all aspects of critical habitat proposals, including data on the 
economic and other impacts of designation. We released the DEA for the 
California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County on October 7, 2004 
(69 FR 60138) and accepted comments on the DEA from that date through 
November 8, 2004.
    Comment (36): One commenter recommended that the DEA follow the 
methodology used by the California Resource Management Institute in 
examining economic impacts resulting from critical habitat designation 
for the California Coastal Gnatcatcher.
    Our Response: On August 15, 2003 the California Resource Management 
Institute (CRMI) released an economic analysis, authored by Dr. 
Sunding, of critical habitat designation entitled ``Economic Impacts of 
Critical Habitat Designation for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher'' 
(referred to as the CRMI study). The CRMI study relies on an economic 
model developed to assess the impacts of reductions in real estate 
product (e.g., residential and commercial buildings) in areas proposed 
for designation as critical habitat for the Coastal California 
Gnatcatcher.
    Despite addressing a different critical habitat rulemaking, the 
California Tiger Salamander Draft Economic Analysis (CTS DEA) and the 
CRMI study share a number of important analytical and methodological 
similarities. First, both studies agree that the primary economic 
impacts to real estate will result from (1) reduced real estate 
development, (2) project modification and regulatory compliance costs 
associated with species conservation activities, and (3) project delay.
    Second, both the CRMI approach and the DEA rely on demographic and 
land use projections obtained from public agencies to estimate future 
development pressure and the associated loss of development 
opportunities due to habitat set aside. Third, both approaches assume 
that all real estate development projects will be affected, regardless 
of the presence of a Federal nexus.
    Finally, both approaches estimate the total costs of species 
conservation activities without subtracting the impact of pre-existing 
baseline regulations (i.e., the cost estimates are fully co-extensive). 
It is important to note that in previous comparisons of the results of 
analyses prepared by the Service and CRMI, much of the difference in 
impact estimates resulted from the use of different assumptions 
regarding the necessity of a Federal nexus to generate costs and 
different assumptions about counting costs attributable co-extensively 
to baseline regulations (i.e., in previous Service analyses baseline 
costs were not counted).
    The DEA also includes a number of additional economic categories 
not evaluated in the CRMI study but these categories represent a 
relatively small component of the total economic impact (these include 
costs associated with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as 
well as those incurred by viticulture, road construction, utilities and 
airport facilities).
    Two analytical differences exist between the methodology applied in 
the DEA and the CRMI approach.
    1. Discounting: The two studies apply a different approach to 
evaluating economic impacts that occur over time. Specifically, the DEA 
applies a positive real discount rate to costs that occur in the future 
to account for the affect of the

[[Page 68576]]

time value of money. In contrast, the CRMI study assumes that the real 
discount rate will equal real property appreciation, and thus the 
timing of development has no impact on economic value. (The CRMI study 
does assume a positive discount rate to calculate the economic impact 
of delay.)
    2. Consumer Surplus: The DEA concludes that the California tiger 
salamander in Santa Barbara County critical habitat designation will 
primarily affect individual property owners/developers and not market 
prices or consumers of real estate. In contrast, CRMI study concludes 
that the Gnatcatcher critical habitat designation will lead to an 
increase in real estate market prices and thus a reduction in consumer 
surplus. The CRMI study calculates this reduction in consumer surplus 
and includes it in the total economic impact attributable to 
Gnatcatcher critical habitat designation.
    Chapter 3 of the DEA evaluates the potential for the California 
tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County critical habitat designation 
to reduce consumer surplus by increasing real estate market prices. The 
analysis concludes that critical habitat designation will not affect 
regional real estate markets or prices, and thus consumer surplus, 
because the total reduction in land supply is expected to represent a 
very small component of total future market demand in the region. 
Specifically, the upper-bound estimate of developable acres of habitat 
set-aside within critical habitat designation is estimated at about 1.1 
percent of future market growth in Santa Barbara County through 2030. 
Supply adjustments by developers, including increased density and/or 
project reconfigurations, are likely to further cancel the market 
impact of the relatively small land supply reduction created by 
critical habitat designation.
    Comment (37): Two commenters states that the economic analysis 
needs to calculate the loss in future earnings (or lost investment) 
from land that can not be developed as a result of critical habitat 
designation.
    Our Response: Potential earnings from real estate are reflected in 
real estate prices. Specifically, in a competitive market, the price of 
land is the best reflection of its future earning potential. The DEA 
calculates lost earnings from real estate by estimating land value 
losses associated with land that is projected to be dedicated as 
habitat rather than developed for profit. Specifically, the DEA assumes 
that each acre of projected real estate development within critical 
habitat designation will require 3 acres of land be set aside as 
habitat (i.e., a 3-to-1 offsetting compensation ratio). The prevailing 
market value of the habitat set aside is lost when the land is 
designated as habitat because the land no longer has earning potential. 
Land value losses are described in Chapter 3 of the DEA and presented 
in Table 6.
    Comment (38): One commenter stated that the DEA assumption of a 3-
to-1 offsetting compensation ratio is an underestimate.
    Our Response: The Service has not conducted a formal consultation 
concerning residential development effects on California tiger 
salamanders in Santa Barbara County and their habitat. The Service has 
conducted one consultation involving a construction project which 
involved only minimal habitat removal and no set-aside. Due to the lack 
of historical precedent, the DEA relies on an offsetting compensation 
ratio based on interviews with Service field biologists. The DEA 
acknowledges that actual offsetting compensation requirements are 
unknown but notes that the assumption of a 3-to-1 ratio is consistent 
with ratios resulting from consultations on other listed species with 
similar habitat needs and lies within the range of used in other 
critical habitat designation economic analyses. The actual offsetting 
compensation ratio used in any particular case will depend on a variety 
of factors unique to the circumstance at hand. The 3-to-1 assumption 
used in the DEA represents an average.
    Comment (39): A number of comments state that the DEA does not rely 
on appropriate real estate values to estimate land value losses from 
critical habitat designations.
    Our Response: To calculate land values for acreage expected to 
support at least one unit per acre, the DEA relies on the median sale 
price of a newly-constructed home in Santa Barbara County in 2004, as 
reported by DataQuick Information Systems. For acreage expected to 
support less than one unit per acre, the DEA relies on the median sale 
price of raw residential land in Santa Barbara County, as reported by 
DataQuick. As shown in Table 3 of the DEA, land values vary by the 
density of expected development. The Service maintains that DataQuick 
is an acceptable data source and that the Santa Barbara County market 
area is appropriate given the extent of the critical habitat 
designation.
    Comment (40): One comment states that the land value appreciation 
forecasted by the DEA is overly optimistic.
    Our Response: To estimate future appreciation in home values, the 
DEA relies on long-term historical trends which are appropriate for the 
26-year forecast utilized by the DEA. In particular, the DEA relies on 
the average of a 10-year and a 20-year trend of repeat sales and 
refinancing of the same properties in California. The price indexing of 
the same properties over time controls for potential changes in housing 
quality, location and size over time. These data were obtained from 
U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise 
Oversight.
    Comment (41): In order to quantify lost development opportunities 
within critical habitat designations, the DEA must rely on a projection 
of future demand for real estate within critical habitat designations. 
One commenter stated that the use of aggressive growth projections is 
arbitrary and that 100 percent buildout is not realistic. Further, the 
comment states that in-fill is likely to offset development in 
``greenfield'' areas.
    Our Response: The DEA endeavors to estimate economic impacts of a 
critical habitat designation using a conservative (i.e., overestimate 
rather than underestimate) approach. For this reason, the analysis 
relies upon aggressive development projections, generated by Santa 
Barbara County Planning and Development, which suggest that full 
buildout is realistic. It should be noted that the full buildout 
scenario relied upon by the DEA assumes that on-site habitat set aside 
for California tiger salamander reduces the development possible within 
a critical habitat designation. The assumption that in-fill will not 
satisfy projected demand is also made in an effort to estimate impacts 
conservatively.
    Comment (42): Two commenters stated that urban growth boundaries in 
Santa Maria and Orcutt may prevent development projected by the DEA.
    Our Response: The legal requirements of the growth boundary 
ordinances are complex and it is unclear how they may limit real estate 
development over the long term. For example, the Orcutt Community Plan 
allows for changes in growth limitations if in-fill development 
opportunities begin to disappear. In an effort to conservatively 
estimate the economic impacts resulting from forgone real estate 
development, the DEA implicitly assumes that local policies regarding 
growth will adapt to satisfy real estate demand as forecasted by the 
County.
    Comment (43): One comment states that the fractional ownership of 
land within CHD may result in project infeasibility due to offsetting 
compensation for impacts.

[[Page 68577]]

    Our Response: While fractional land ownership may impair project 
feasibility in some cases, the Service maintains that economic losses 
are accurately measured. A number of options are available to project 
proponents unable to go forward with a project due California tiger 
salamander conservation measures, including (1) buy adjacent land for 
habitat set-aside for project expansion, (2) buy off-site land for 
habitat set-aside or (3) scale the project to allow for habitat set-
aside. Over the long term it is very unlikely that any land parcel will 
be rendered totally useless by a critical habitat designation (a 
feasibility study of each parcel within critical habitat is beyond the 
scope of the DEA). While additional transaction costs and planning 
costs may be incurred, these additional costs are likely to be minor 
relative to the loss in land value captured by the DEA.
    Comment (44): One commenter stated that development projects 
currently undergoing the planning process are not sufficiently 
considered by the DEA.
    Our Response: The DEA does not examine each future development 
project individually. Future development forecasts are based on 
aggregate-level growth projections provided by Santa Barbara County 
Planning and Development. This approach allows the Service to estimate 
impacts farther into the future (i.e., 26 years) than a method that 
relies on assessing currently planned projects. Although not identified 
by name, impacts to development projects such as the Bradley Ranch are 
included in the DEA estimates, because these projects represent the 
fulfillment of near-term growth projected by the County.
    Comment (45): One commenter suggested that economic impacts should 
be estimated in perpetuity.
    Our Response: Page 17 of the DEA states that ``the analysis looks 
prospectively at future costs associated with the listing, critical 
habitat, and other related (California tiger salamander) protections * 
* * based on activities that are ``reasonably foreseeable,'' including 
but not limited to activities that are currently authorized, permitted 
or funded, or for which proposed plans are currently available to the 
public.'' The DEA time horizon corresponds to available population and 
housing forecasts available from Santa Barbara County. The Service does 
not have sufficient data to estimate future impacts in perpetuity with 
any level of certainty. However, it should be noted that land value 
losses represent losses in perpetuity since property values account for 
potential earnings in perpetuity.
    Comment (46): One commenter stated that development of all second 
tier agricultural land by 2015 is unlikely.
    Our Response: Page 35 of the DEA states that ``Second-tier 
agricultural lands are assumed to convert to residential use * * * 
beginning in 2015'' and that this ``allows 10 years for agricultural 
preservation contracts (i.e., Williamson Act) to be cancelled.'' The 
2015 date indicates when contracts will begin to expire. The analysis 
does not assume that all second-tier agricultural lands will be 
developed by 2015, but rather that they will develop between 2015 and 
2030.
    Comment (47): Various commenters suggested that the impacts of CHD 
on the CEQA process for projects located within CHD are not estimated 
correctly, some stating that costs are overstated and others asserting 
that they are understated.
    Our Response: The DEA estimates CEQA-related costs by assuming that 
projected future projects that might have qualified for a negative 
declaration or an exemption under CEQA will undergo an Environmental 
Impact Report and experience higher CEQA costs after a critical habitat 
designation. The elevated CEQA review and associated cost is 
attributable to new information provided by a critical habitat 
designation. Projected future projects are based on historical CEQA 
trends in Santa Barbara County, as reported by the State of 
California's CEQAnet database. Costs associated with various CEQA 
documents are based on interviews with a number of consulting firms 
specializing in CEQA analyses (see footnote 39 in the DEA for the names 
of these firms).
    Comment (48): One commenter stated that project delay would not 
result from CHD.
    Our Response: The DEA does not assume that all projects will 
experience delays. Rather, the DEA calculates delay costs based on the 
assumption that only projects commencing in the first year after a 
critical habitat designation will experience delays. These projects may 
not have planned to conduct California tiger salamander conservation 
activities. Projects beginning more than 12 months after a critical 
habitat designation will avoid delay by incorporating consideration of 
a critical habitat designation in standard project planning.
    Comment (49): One commenter called into question the use of a 7 
percent discount rate.
    Our Response: The most current Office of Management Budget (OMB) 
guidance on discounting practices to be used in regulatory analysis is 
provided in OMB Circular A-4.\1\ OMB circular A-4 states the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 
September 30, 1993; U.S. Office of Management and Budget, ``Circular 
A-4,'' September 17, 2003, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf.

    ``* * * A real discount rate of 7 percent should be used as a 
base-case for regulatory analysis. The 7 percent rate is an estimate 
of the average before-tax rate of return to private capital in the 
U.S. economy. It is a broad measure that reflects the returns to 
real estate and small business capital as well as corporate capital. 
It approximates the opportunity cost of capital, and it is the 
appropriate discount rate whenever the main effect of a regulation 
is to displace or alter the use of capital in the private sector.'' 
\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Ibid.

    Comment (50): One commenter stated that cattle grazing impacts 
should be addressed.
    Our Response: Impacts to cattle ranching are addressed on page 50 
of the DEA.
    Comment (51): One commenter stated that the DEA fails to consider 
the multiplier effects associated with lost investment opportunities as 
the critical habitat designation affects industry, residential, 
commercial, retail, and agricultural land uses.
    Our Response: Indirect ``multiplier'' effects are sometimes used to 
analyze the impact of major development projects or other economic 
activities on an economic region, often defined as a county or multi-
county area. The localized nature of critical habitat designations 
makes analysis using multipliers difficult, because multiplier data is 
unreliable at the sub-county level. In addition, real estate 
development, the primary sector expected to be affected by a critical 
habitat designation, is unlikely to be affected at the county level 
(see discussion in Chapter 3 of the DEA). That is, although 
construction activity may be redistributed throughout Santa Barbara 
County as a result of CHD, it is not expected to decline overall.
    Comment (52): Several commenters stated that the DEA inadequately 
addresses impacts to small businesses.
    Our Response: Appendix A analyzes impacts to small businesses in 
the land development and viticulture sectors. As described in this 
appendix, the DEA uses the best available data to identify the number 
of firms that might be affected by the critical habitat designation and 
to estimate impacts to those firms based on estimates of total impacts. 
Because it is nearly impossible to identify the specific small 
businesses

[[Page 68578]]

that will undertake development and viticulture projects within the 
critical habitat designation over a 26 year period (e.g., 115 small 
developers currently exist in Santa Barbara County), the assumptions 
relied upon in the analysis are reasonable.
    Comment (53): One commenter stated that the DEA fails to fully 
consider impacts associated with highway maintenance, such as us 101, 
Highways 246 and 135, which run through the middle of the critical 
habitat designation.
    Our Response: The primary focus of the DEA is to provide decision 
makers with an estimate of the impacts associated with the proposed 
rulemaking. Understanding the magnitude of historical impacts helps 
decision makers place future costs in context. The DEA estimates 
historical costs associated with viticulture, road construction, 
utilities and infrastructure projects, and the airport district 
development project using the best publicly-available data (see 
Chapters 4 and 5 of the DEA).
    Comment (54): A number of commenters stated that the DEA 
underestimates the historical cost of California tiger salamander 
conservation measures.
    Our Response: The primary focus of the DEA is to provide decision 
makers with an estimate of the impacts associated with the proposed 
rulemaking. Understanding the magnitude of historical impacts helps 
decision makers place future costs in context. However, because 
historical costs are not directly relied upon for decision making, a 
less precise cost estimate is acceptable.
    Comment (55): One commenter stated that costs associated with re-
planning projects originally intended for critical habitat areas are 
not captured by the analysis.
    Our Response: While some current projects may incur additional 
planning costs, future projects will be aware of habitat constraints 
before the planning process begins. For this reason, additional 
planning costs are expected to be minor.
    Comment (56): Numerous comments state that costs associated with 
litigation are not estimated by the DEA.
    Our Response: It is likely that potentially affected parties may 
incur administrative costs related to review of Federal documents such 
as the Proposed Rule in order, for example, to ensure their activities 
are appropriately considered in the economic analysis, or to request 
exemption from the rulemaking. The DEA considers only the direct and 
indirect costs associated with compliance with the rulemaking. The DEA 
does, however, include administrative costs of compliance with the 
rulemaking where appropriate, for example the administrative costs of 
section 7 consultation, which may similarly include review of Federal 
documents. In addition, the DEA focuses on activities that are 
considered reasonably foreseeable. The number, scope and timing of 
potential legal challenges associated with the rulemaking is difficult 
to quantify.
    Comment (57): Two commenters stated that costs associated with CTS 
conservation activities undertaken by public entities may result in an 
increased tax burden for the community.
    Our Response: While economic impacts born by the public sector are 
captured by the DEA, it is unclear if or how various jurisdictions 
might pass on their increased costs to taxpayers. However, it is 
important to note that these tax policy and cost allocation decisions 
are regarded as distributional rather than economic welfare effects. 
Given the high level on uncertainty associated with future tax and 
spending policy at the local and State level, The DEA does not forecast 
these effects.
    Comment (58): One comment states that the DEA limits its analysis 
of agricultural impacts of the critical habitat designation to 
viticulture.
    Our Response: The DEA addresses impacts to agriculture in Chapter 
4. Grazing activities are assumed to proceed as they do currently, a 
point bolstered by the Service's special rule, authorized under section 
of 4(d) of the ESA, to work cooperatively with ranchers. The DEA 
assumes that prime agricultural lands will not be affected by the 
critical habitat designation as these cultivated lands are not suitable 
habitat for California tiger salamander. In addition, the DEA estimates 
that all secondary agricultural land will be developed during the 
period of the study (Chapter 3), which results in higher costs than if 
habitat set-asides were applied to agricultural land. Finally, costs 
associated with vineyard conversion are calculated and presented in 
Tables 11 and 12.
    Comment (59): One commenter stated that the DEA should evaluate the 
impact of the critical habitat designation on conversions of rangeland 
to dry and irrigated crops.
    Our Response: The California tiger salamander consultation history 
does not contain any biological opinions addressing rangeland 
conversion to field crops. Given the lack of historical consultations, 
the DEA does not calculate any impact resulting from this project type. 
The Service will evaluate such conversions, if they occur, on a case-
by-case basis. Impacts related to vineyard conversion resulting from 
the critical habitat designation are calculated in Chapter 4 of the 
DEA.
    Comment (60): One commenter stated that the DEA should account for 
the impact of the critical habitat designation on CEQA costs for 
agriculture projects.
    Our Response: While the critical habitat designation will provide 
new information regarding California tiger salamanders in agricultural 
areas, it is unlikely that small agriculture projects would be required 
to prepare an Environmental Impact Report due to the critical habitat 
designation alone.
    Comment (61): One commenter stated that the DEA does not reflect 
any of the major economic benefits that would accrue to Santa Barbara 
County if the county was excluded from the critical habitat 
designation.
    Our Response: The economic impacts presented in the DEA reflect the 
estimated cost of the proposed critical habitat designation. Any areas 
that are excluded from the proposed designation (in the final 
designation) would avoid such impacts, which could be construed as the 
associated benefit, or cost avoidance.
    Comment (62): One commenter asked how will the Department consider 
economic impacts as part of the overall final designation.
    Our Response: Section (4)(b)(2) of the Act requires the Service to 
designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data 
available, after taking into consideration the economic impact and any 
other relevant impact, or specifying any particular areas as critical 
habitat. The Service may exclude areas from the critical habitat 
designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
including the areas within critical habitat, provided the exclusion 
will not result in the extinction of the species. The Service uses the 
information in the economic analysis to determine whether it should 
consider areas for exclusion for economic reasons.
    Comment (63): One commenter stated that the DEA falsely assumes 
that small rural residential development projects will not be subject 
to land set-asides.
    Our Response: The economic analysis shows total efficiency costs 
for the species in Santa Barbara County. Project modification and 
administrative costs are those costs associated with implementing 
species and habitat management efforts. These costs include the cost of 
offsetting compensation (i.e., land set-aside) for impacts to 
California tiger salamander habitat. Additionally

[[Page 68579]]

project modifications include minimization and avoidance measures to 
protect the California tiger salamander when a project in ongoing. Land 
set-asides make up the large majority of the total project modification 
cost. Estimation of the regional significance of land set-aside 
suggests that regional real estate markets will not be affected by 
California tiger salamander conservation efforts. One of the key 
assumptions of this analysis, see Exhibit ES-4, is the analysis does 
not assume that developers may satisfy multiple public land use 
requirements by setting aside California tiger salamander habitat on 
the project site. In reality, projects benefit from claiming that 
habitat protection provides open space, necessary buffering between 
incompatible land uses, flood control, and other functions. The use of 
habitat land in this way reduces the projects required dedication of 
land for other open space uses compared to a land use plant in which no 
habitat set aside is required. As shown in Table 2 ``Summary of Future 
Development Set-Aside within Proposed CTS CH (2005-2030)'' of the DEA, 
footnote (3) states ``* * * Note that some low-density land uses (e.g., 
rural residential) are assumed to not require land set-aside.
    Comment (64): One commenter stated critical habitat requirements 
overlap with other requirements that promote open space and thus should 
not be entirely accounted for as an impact; the commenter expressed 
concern that the estimates contained in the DEA inappropriately include 
costs associated with existing land-use requirements that serve to 
promote open space.
    Our Response: The primary purpose of the economic analysis is to 
estimate the impact of actions take to protect the federally listed 
California tiger salamander and its habitat. It attempts to quantify 
the economic effects of the designation of critical habitat, as well as 
the economic effects of protective measures taken as a result of the 
listing of the California tiger salamander. The economic analysis also 
complies with the direction from the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of 
Appeals, that, when deciding which areas to designate as critical 
habitat, the economic analysis informing that decision should include 
``co-extensive'' effects. The DEA discusses other relevant regulations 
and protection efforts as the protection of the California tiger 
salamander and its habitat is not limited to the Act. In general, this 
analysis errs on the side of conservatism in order to make certain the 
economic effects have not been missed. It treats as ``co-extensive'' 
other federal and State requirements that may result in overlapping 
protection measures (e.g., section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the 
California Environmental Quality Act). In some cases, however, non-
habitat related regulations will limit land use activities within 
critical habitat in ways that will directly or indirectly, benefit the 
California tiger salamander or its habitat (e.g. , local zoning 
ordinances). These impacts were not considered to be ``co-extensive'' 
with the California tiger salamander listing or designation.
    As stated in the DEA, 280, ``This analysis also endeavors to 
capture the net economic impact imposed on regulated entities, and the 
regional economy resulting from California tiger salamander 
conservation efforts. To the extent possible, the estimated net 
economic impact should account for any offsetting benefits that might 
accrue to the regulated community due to their habitat preservation 
activities. For example, in certain cases real estate development that 
effectively incorporates California tiger salamander habitat set-aside 
on-site might realize a value premium typically associated with 
additional open space. Any such premium will offset land preservation 
costs borne by landowners/developers. Unfortunately, reliable data 
revealing the premium that the market places on nearby open space in 
Southern California is not readily available. Moreover, the value 
premium associated with habitat preservation is likely to be limited 
given that the recreational uses associated with habitat preserves are 
generally restricted.''
    Comment (65): One commenter stated that DEA for the critical 
habitat designation for the California tiger salamander in Santa 
Barbara County does not identify and assess benefits.
    Our Response: The DEA, 440, Benefits section, states ``Given the 
limitations associated with estimating the benefits of proposed 
critical habitat designation for the California tiger salamander, the 
Service believes that the benefits of proposed critical habitat 
designations are best expressed in biological terms that can be weighed 
against the expected cost impacts of the rulemaking.'' The development 
of quantitative estimates associated with the benefits of critical 
habitat is impeded by the lack of available studies and information 
relating to the size and value of beneficial changes that are likely to 
occur as a result of listing a species or designating critical habitat.
    This analysis is used for helping the Service to decide whether to 
exclude areas and whether the exclusions outweigh the conservation 
benefits of inclusion. So, the economic analysis looks at the burden on 
the public of the regulation, and whether any areas have a 
disproportionate burden. The Service must then balance that against the 
benefits of including that area--including the benefits of the area to 
the species and the benefits of the species' existence and recovery. We 
do this in the 4(b)(2) discussion in our rules. We believe that 
monetizing may trivialize the benefits of critical habitat because 
there are no widely accepted ways for placing a dollar value on a 
biological benefit. In this analysis, several categories of benefits 
were identified, including preservation of open space and biodiversity, 
both of which are associated with species conservation.
    Comment (66): One commenter stated that the area within Unit 
1(Western Santa Maria/Orcutt), east of Black Road, and the area within 
Unit 2 (Eastern Santa Maria), west of Telephone Road, should both be 
excluded because of proposed future growth and development plans.
    Our Response: Section (4)(b)(2) of the Act requires the Service to 
designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data 
available, after taking into consideration the economic impact and any 
other relevant impact, or specifying any particular areas as critical 
habitat. The Service may exclude areas from the critical habitat 
designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
including the areas within critical habitat, provided the exclusion 
will not result in the extinction of the species. Based on the 
Service's analysis of the best available scientific and commercial 
data, we determined that these areas or units provide for the essential 
life-cycle needs of the species. The draft economic analysis shows that 
Units 1 or 2 carry over 98 percent of total estimated costs ($418.3 
million) for 52 percent of the total proposed acreage.
    Unit 1 (Western Santa Maria/Orcutt) is essential to the 
conservation of the California tiger salamander because it contains 37 
percent of the natural vernal pools for this population. Unit 1 
contains 7 (approximately 37 percent) of the 19 natural vernal ponds 
that occur in Santa Barbara County. ften, natural ponds do not require 
as much, if any, maintenance whereas artificial ponds require continual 
maintenance (e.g., berm repair, erosion control, sediment removal 
activities). Collectively, Unit 1 contains 12 known California tiger 
salamander breeding ponds and several water bodies that are suitable 
for breeding California tiger salamanders but that have never been 
surveyed. The 12 known breeding ponds in this unit constitute 
approximately 26 percent of

[[Page 68580]]

the known breeding ponds (46) in Santa Barbara County.
    Unit 2 (Eastern Santa Maria) ) is essential to the conservation of 
the California tiger salamander because it contains 21 percent of the 
natural vernal pools used for California tiger salamander breeding in 
Santa Barbara County (19 natural vernal ponds total). The unit contains 
4 known California tiger salamander breeding ponds and additional water 
bodies that are suitable for breeding California tiger salamanders but 
that have never been surveyed. All four known breeding ponds in Unit 2 
are natural vernal pools. As mentioned in the above description for 
Unit 1 (Western Santa Maria), often, natural ponds do not require as 
much, if any, maintenance whereas artificial ponds require continual 
maintenance (e.g., berm repair, erosion control, sediment removal 
activities).
    Comment (67): One commenter stated that the Service needs to 
reevaluate the critical habitat designation because the California 
tiger salamander no longer constitutes a DPS and as a result needs to 
conduct a new and revised economic analysis; Another commenter stated 
the economic analysis needs to consider the potential impacts across 
the entire range of the species (186,840 acres) rather than just the 
critical habitat designation's proposed designation of 13,920 acres.
    Our Response: On January 22, 2004, we proposed six units comprised 
on 13,920 in total for the California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara 
County (69 FR 3064). At the time this analysis was conducted, the 
California tiger salamander was listed as a DPS and we looked at the 
13,920 acres proposed as critical habitat. Exhibit ES-1 of the draft 
economic analysis details the description and acreage of each unit. The 
purpose of the draft economic analysis report is to identify and 
analyze the potential economic impacts associated with the designation 
of critical habitat for the California tiger salamander in Santa 
Barbara County. The geographic scope of the economic analysis focuses 
on the area being proposed for designation in northern Santa Barbara 
County, and not the entire range of the species. We will conduct an 
economic analysis for the California tiger salamander, Central 
population designation this fiscal year, and when we propose the Sonoma 
County portion of the California tiger salamander critical habitat, we 
will analyze the economic impacts of that portion of the designation.

Issue 6--Procedural Concerns

    Comment (68): One commenter stated that the critical habitat 
designation is not determinable due to lack of sufficient information 
regarding the space needed for individual and population growth, and 
for normal behavior; the species requirements for food, water, air, 
light, mineral, or other nutritional or physiological needs; the amount 
of cover or shelter required; the locations for breeding, reproduction 
or rearing of offspring; nor the location of habitats that are 
protected from disturbance or that are representative of historic 
geographical and ecological distributions of the species.
    Our Response: We believe that we have sufficient information to 
identify appropriately critical habitat for the California tiger 
salamander in Santa Barbara County. In our determination of the areas 
that meet the definition of critical habitat for the California tiger 
salamander, we used the best scientific and commercial data available 
(see also Response to Comment (16)).
    Several published, peer-reviewed studies have been conducted 
relating to the California tiger salamander's biology and its habitat 
needs. Included in this information is how far they have been found to 
disperse (i.e., space needed for individual and population growth and 
for normal behavior), the fact that they feed underground in small 
mammal burrows as adults and in aquatic habitat when juveniles (i.e., 
the species requirements for food), the need for ponded water for 
breeding purposes (i.e., the species' requirements for water and the 
locations for breeding, reproduction or rearing of offspring), and the 
fact that they spend most of their lives underground in small mammal 
burrows (i.e., the amount of cover or shelter required). For more 
species information, please refer to the Background section of the 
proposed critical habitat rule (January 22, 2004, 69 FR 3064).
    Comment (69): One commenter stated that the designation is not 
prudent due to the fact that the species continues to be 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 
and such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the 
species.
    Our Response: According to our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, a 
designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both or the 
following situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or 
other human activity and identification of critical habitat can be 
expected to increase the degree of such threat to the species or (2) 
such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the 
species. In the final rule listing the California tiger salamander in 
Santa Barbara County as endangered (September 21, 2000, 65 FR 57242), 
we found that a designation of critical habitat was prudent. Our 
reasoning is discussed in that final rule listing. We believe this 
rationale is still applicable.
    Comment (70): Several commenters stated that no public input was 
used in the designation.
    Our Response: The public is asked to provide comments on critical 
habitat proposals. The comments are fully considered as we make our 
final determination. We solicited data and comments from the public on 
all aspects of this proposal, including data on the economic and other 
impacts of designation. We had three public comment periods on the 
proposed rule (January 22, 2004, through March 22, 2004, April 13, 
2004, through May 28, 2004, and October 7, 2004, through November 8, 
2004). We also held a public hearing on our proposal to designate 
critical habitat for the Santa Barbara County population of California 
tiger salamanders on May 11, 2004, in Santa Maria, California. We 
conducted an informational meeting on March 10, 2004, in Santa Maria to 
discuss the methodology used to create the critical habitat units and 
what critical habitat means for landowners within the critical habitat 
boundaries. Written public comments were accepted at the public hearing 
and entered into the supporting record for the rulemaking. Oral 
comments given at the public hearings were also accepted into the 
supporting record. In making our decision on the critical habitat 
designation, we gave written comments the same weight as oral comments 
presented at hearings. See also Summary of Comments and Recommendations 
section above.
    Comment (71): One commenter generally agreed with, and supported, 
the designation, and requested that the Service make available to the 
public which areas, if any, will be left out of the final rule at the 
same time the economic analysis is released for comment.
    Our Response: Typically, we do not make a determination to exclude 
an area from final critical habitat based on economic considerations at 
the time the draft analysis is released. The determination is made at 
the end of the rulemaking process following our receipt and review of 
public comments on the proposed rule and draft economic analysis and 
following any

[[Page 68581]]

appropriate revisions to the draft economic analysis as we write the 
final critical habitat rule.
    Comment (72): One commenter stated that much of the farming and 
ranching around these areas build and use stock ponds, which 
salamanders use. However, these increased restrictions might make it so 
no one would want to continue to do this or other soil conservation 
projects. Another commenter stated that this designation has the 
potential to discourage many wildlife friendly ranching practices and 
further hinder new and ongoing restoration and conservation efforts.
    Our Response: We recognize the importance of landowner cooperation 
for conservation of listed species. This is true for the lands 
designated as critical habitat for the California tiger salamander, 
which are mostly under private ownership. We also recognize that 
critical habitat designations could potentially have a negative impact 
on voluntary partnerships with private landowners. Some landowners have 
been working with us to develop conservation easements on or Memoranda 
of Understanding for their properties to protect the California tiger 
salamander. These voluntary conservation efforts are not complete but 
are well under way. After weighing the benefits of including these 
areas as critical habitat with the benefits of excluding them, we 
concluded that the designation of critical habitat would have a net 
negative conservation effect in some situations, and we excluded those 
areas with completed Memoranda of Understanding regarding conservation 
actions from the final designation of critical habitat. See our 
discussion under the Relationship of Critical Habitat to Lands 
Implementing Approved Conservation Strategies below. We also 
acknowledged the importance of ranchlands to California tiger 
salamander conservation in our August 4, 2004, Special Rule exempting 
existing routine ranching practices from take of California tiger 
salamanders throughout the species' range (August 4, 2004, 69 FR 
47212).
    Comment (73): One commenter stated that the process for farmers and 
ranchers to obtain Federal funding through the Farm Bill is already too 
slow a process; the additional section 7 consultation would add more 
time to this.
    Our Response: All lands designated as critical habitat are within 
the geographic area occupied by the species (based on observations made 
within the last 3 years), and are likely to be used by the California 
tiger salamander, whether for foraging, breeding, growth of larvae and 
juveniles, dispersal, migration, genetic exchange, or sheltering. Thus, 
we consider all critical habitat units to be occupied by the species. 
Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in areas 
currently occupied by the species or if the species may be affected by 
the action to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued 
existence of the species. Therefore, we believe that the designation of 
critical habitat is not likely to result in significant additional 
regulatory burden above that already in place due to the presence of 
the listed species.
    Comment (74): One commenter recommended that the Service use the 
economic analysis prepared by David Sunding, Aaron Swoboda, and David 
Zilberman of the Center for Sustainable Resource Development in the 
College of Natural Resources at UC Berkeley, titled ``The Economic 
Costs of Critical Habitat Designation: Framework and Application to the 
Case of California Vernal Pools'' for a more realistic look at the true 
costs of designating critical habitat.
    Our Response: The Service has adopted numerous guidelines and 
procedures for developing critical habitat designations based upon the 
best information available. From time to time, these guidelines are 
altered, and we will consider any information that could make these 
designations more useful; however, we cannot adopt an outside source of 
guidance without considerable review and consideration. We appreciate 
the commenter's recommendation and will evaluate the referenced 
document for future critical habitat rules.
    Comment (75): Several commenters stated that, if the Santa Barbara 
County DPS of the California tiger salamander is downlisted to 
threatened as proposed in the May 2003 proposal (68 FR 28648), this 
might affect the final critical habitat rule.
    Our Response: Designation of critical habitat is required under the 
Act whether a species is threatened or endangered. In the final rule we 
have designated habitat in Santa Barbara County that is essential for 
the conservation of the California tiger salamander. Each of the six 
populations of California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County is 
essential to the survival and recovery of the species as a whole and 
this designation covers the habitat essential to conserve those six 
populations. Because our August 4, 2004, determination listed the 
California tiger salamander rangewide as threatened and eliminated the 
separate Santa Barbara County and Sonoma County DPS designations (69 FR 
47212), this final critical habitat designation will become part of the 
critical habitat ultimately designated for the species rangewide. We 
anticipate completing the critical habitat designation for California 
tiger salamander rangewide through future rulemaking. We proposed 
critical habitat for the central portion of the California tiger 
salamander's range (Central population) on August 10, 2004 (69 FR 
48570).
    Comment (76): One commenter referred to efforts being made by the 
Service and stakeholders working together towards the delisting of the 
California tiger salamander, and questioned why those efforts have 
stopped.
    Our Response: A species may be downlisted or delisted if a review 
of its status shows that it has either recovered to the point it is no 
longer threatened or endangered, or if the threats to its survival and 
recovery have been reduced to the extent that the species is no longer 
threatened or endangered. These downlisting or delisting criteria are 
usually established in a recovery plan; however, decisions on 
downlisting and delisting may be made based upon a review of current 
scientific evidence. Completing a recovery plan for the California 
tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County and rangewide is important to 
us. Efforts on the Santa Barbara County portion of the range have 
helped us determine which areas are essential to the conservation of 
the California tiger salamander addressed herein. We are currently 
discussing how to proceed most efficiently and effectively with 
recovery planning efforts in light of our August 4, 2004, determination 
listing California tiger salamander rangewide as threatened (69 FR 
47212).
    Comment (77): One commenter stated that the certification of SBREFA 
has no analysis and is not supported.
    Our Response: As required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), when we published the 
proposed critical habitat rule, we included an assessment of the 
proposed rule's effects under SBREFA and certified the rule would not 
have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities. We 
subsequently prepared and made available for public comment a draft 
economic analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small 
entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small 
government jurisdictions). Please refer to the Required

[[Page 68582]]

Determinations section contained in this final rule for more 
information.
    Comment (78): One commenter stated that the Service has failed to 
operate within the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), because its 
``collaborative'' approach (i.e., the recovery team) violates APA.
    Our Response: We have been working with a recovery team on a draft 
recovery plan for the California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara 
County. We have used some of the information gathered for the draft 
recovery plan in helping us determine areas essential to the 
conservation of the California tiger salamander addressed herein. We 
did not hold meetings with the recovery team or otherwise ask the 
recovery team to help identify critical habitat units. Our efforts in 
this process fully comply with the ESA, and the APA.
    Comment (79): One commenter asked how CEQA will, or how it is 
supposed to, review critical habitat designations. The commenter stated 
that critical habitat will prevent development without just cause.
    Our Response: The CEQA guidelines state that a project would have a 
significant effect on the environment (meaning the potential need to 
prepare an Environmental Impact Report) if it would substantially 
affect a rare or endangered species or its habitat. In the case of 
California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County, all of the 
critical habitat is occupied. Therefore, the critical habitat 
designation will not result in additional CEQA review solely on that 
basis.
    All Federal agencies must consult under section 7 of the Act with 
us to ensure that any action that they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or 
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat. Project proposals have been subject to our review 
process since the California tiger salamander was listed in 2000 (65 FR 
57242). We have provided our best assessment of what the effects of the 
section 7 consultation requirement may be for private landowners as 
well as for State agencies proposing activities with a Federal nexus 
within designated critical habitat. The commenter provides no factual 
support for the assertion that designation of critical habitat will 
prevent development.
    Comment (80): Several commenters stated that a Recovery Plan should 
be completed before critical habitat is designated.
    Our Response: Section 4 of the Act requires us to designate 
critical habitat at the time of listing to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable. In addition, we are under a court ordered deadline to 
complete critical habitat for the California tiger salamander in Santa 
Barbara County by November 15, 2004. While we agree that a recovery 
plan is a useful tool to assist us with determining which areas are 
essential for the conservation of a species, we are not at the liberty 
to postpone the final designation pending completion of a recovery 
plan. However, we have been working with a recovery team on a draft 
recovery plan for the California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara 
County and have used some of the information gathered for the draft 
recovery plan in helping us determine areas meeting the definition of 
critical habitat for the California tiger salamander addressed herein.
    Comment (81): Two commenters stated their concerns regarding the 
short timelines the Service has to prepare rules such as this critical 
habitat designation. The commenters stated that shortened time frames 
force the Service to work with fewer facts.
    Our Response: When we designate critical habitat at the time of 
listing or under short, court-ordered deadlines, we will often not have 
sufficient information to identify all areas of critical habitat. 
Nevertheless, we are required to make a decision and, thus, must base 
our designations on what, at the time of designation, we know to be 
critical habitat. In determining such areas, we used the best 
scientific and commercial data available, including information 
gathered by the science subteam of the recovery team for the CTS in 
Santa Barbara County (Service files 2002-2003).
    Comment (82): One commenter stated that their property is not 
located within the mapped areas but they have still been told that they 
need to hire biologists to assess the site for potential California 
tiger salamanders and their habitat.
    Our Response: California tiger salamanders could potentially occur 
throughout their range in northern Santa Barbara County. Most of the 
land is privately-owned and has not been surveyed. Surveys following 
specified protocols (available from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife 
Office) are recommended to assess the likelihood that California tiger 
salamanders are present on a particular property. Property with 
suitable habitat (aquatic or upland) within the range of the California 
tiger salamander may harbor California tiger salamanders. If so, any 
activities involving ground disturbance could result in take. Protocol 
surveys provide a useful tool to establish that California tiger 
salamanders are unlikely to be present on a specific property.
    Comment (83): A few commenters asked why, if critical habitat adds 
little protection to a listed species as stated in the language in the 
beginning of each critical habitat rule, then why does the Service 
continue to designate critical habitat?
    Our Response: Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended, and our implementing regulations, state that critical habitat 
shall be designated for species listed under the Act unless the 
Secretary determines that such designation is not prudent or not 
determinable.
    Comment (84): One commenter stated that the designation specifies 
the need for more ponds to be built and upland habitat to be restored 
and asked who would do this, as most of the critical habitat occurs on 
private land.
    Our Response: The measures mentioned in the proposed rule refer to 
recommendations made by the science subteam of the recovery team for 
the CTS in Santa Barbara County to enhance and protect California tiger 
salamander habitat (Service files 2002-2003). Critical habitat 
designations affect only activities that require Federal permits or 
funding, and do not require landowners to carry out special management 
or restrict use of their land. We have been, and will continue, to work 
with interested individuals, organizations, and agencies on a voluntary 
basis to implement conservation and recovery actions that will benefit 
the California tiger salamander.
    Comment (85): One commenter stated that the County of Santa Barbara 
incorporates critical habitat designations, such as the one for the 
California tiger salamander into their own regulations, which they then 
enforce.
    Our Response: We do not dictate how a local government, such as 
Santa Barbara County, uses critical habitat designations. However, from 
the point of view of the Federal government, a critical habitat 
designation does not allow either government or public access to 
private land, and similarly will not result in the closure of the area 
to access or use. If a species is listed or critical habitat is 
designated, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to insure that 
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to destroy or 
adversely modify its critical habitat.

[[Page 68583]]

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In preparing our final designation of critical habitat for the 
California tiger salamander, we reviewed comments received on the 
proposed designation of critical habitat. In addition to minor 
clarifications in the text pertaining to State and Federal projects and 
section 7 consultations (see State comment (4)), we made five changes 
to our proposed designation, as follows:
    (1) We made revisions to preamble based on information supplied by 
commenters which clarified the U.S. Federal Highway Administration's 
oversight during section 7 consultations.
    (2) Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we excluded properties with 
adequate management plans that cover the California tiger salamander 
and its habitat. For more information, refer to Exclusions Under 
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act below.
    (3) We excluded an existing vineyard from critical habitat Unit 6 
(Santa Rita Valley) that was included in the proposed rule as a result 
of a mapping error.
    (4) Based on comments on the proposed rule, we found that the 
generalized boundaries we employed were too inaccurate. Therefore, the 
final critical habitat boundaries were refined to more closely follow 
actual landscape features (such as roads) that can be more readily 
found on the ground. For example, the proposed critical habitat Unit 1, 
Western Santa Maria, showed the boundary extending slightly south of 
State Highway 1. The boundary for the final critical habitat for Unit 1 
stays north of State Highway 1.
    (5) Collectively, we excluded a total of 2,740 ac (1,109 ha) of 
privately-owned lands from this final critical habitat designation.

                             Table 1.--Proposed and Final Critical Habitat Acreages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Unit                                            Proposed/final acreage
===============================================================
1. Western Santa Maria/Orcutt.................................      4,349 ac (1,760 ha)      4,135 ac (1,673 ha)
2. Eastern Santa Maria........................................      2,985 ac (1,208 ha)      2,909 ac (1,177 ha)
3. Western Los Alamos/Careaga.................................        2,181 ac (882 ha)        1,451 ac (587 ha)
4. Eastern Los Alamos.........................................        1,302 ac (527 ha)            90 ac (36 ha)
5. Purisima Hills.............................................        2,359 ac (955 ha)        1,957 ac (792 ha)
6. Santa Rita Valley..........................................          744 ac (301 ha)          638 ac (258 ha)
                                                               --------------------------
    Total.....................................................     13,920 ac (5,633 ha)     11,180 ac (4,523 ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the 
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the 
time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those 
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of 
the species, and (II) that may require special management 
considerations or protection; and, (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. ``Conservation,'' as defined by the Act, means the use of all 
methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or a 
threatened species to the point at which listing under the Act is no 
longer necessary.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or 
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 also requires conferences on 
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat.
    To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat must 
contain the physical and biological features ``essential to the 
conservation of the species.'' Critical habitat designations identify, 
to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data 
available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs of the 
species (i.e., areas on which are found the primary constituent 
elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
    Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species 
Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), 
and our U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information Quality Guidelines 
(2002) provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to 
ensure that our decisions represent the best scientific and commercial 
data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent 
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and commercial 
data available, to use primary and original sources of information as 
the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When 
determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of 
information should be the listing package for the species. Additional 
information may be obtained from a recovery plan, articles in peer-
reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, 
scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other 
unpublished materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge.
    Critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside 
the designation is unimportant to the California tiger salamander in 
Santa Barbara County. Areas outside the critical habitat designation 
will continue to be subject to conservation actions that may be 
implemented under section 7(a)(1), and to the regulatory protections 
afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the section 9 
take prohibition, as determined on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of the action. We specifically anticipate that 
federally funded or assisted projects affecting listed species outside 
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy 
findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made 
on the basis of the best available information at the time of 
designation will not control the direction and substance of future 
recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species 
conservation planning efforts if new information available to these 
planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Methods

    Our methods for identifying the California tiger salamander 
critical habitat included in this final designation are identical to 
the methods we used in our proposal of critical habitat for the 
California tiger salamander, published on January 22, 2004 (69 FR 
3064).
    On August 10, 2004, we proposed critical habitat for the California 
tiger salamander, Central population, in four

[[Page 68584]]

regions: Central Valley, Southern San Joaquin Valley, East Bay, and 
Central Coast (69 FR 48570). The methods used to identify critical 
habitat in the Central designation are similar in nature to the methods 
used for the critical habitat designation for the CTS in Santa Barbara 
County; some methods differ as a result of differences in local 
biological and commercial data for each population. For example, the 
proposed designation for the California tiger salamander, Central 
population, includes an additional primary constituent element as a 
result of habitat features specific to that population (69 FR 48575).

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12, in determining what areas are critical habitat, we shall 
consider those physical and biological features that are essential to 
the conservation of the species and, within areas currently occupied by 
the species, that may require special management considerations or 
protection. These generally include, but are not limited to, the 
following: 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. 
Further, when considering the designation of critical habitat, we shall 
focus on the principal biological or physical constituent elements 
(i.e., PCEs) within the defined area that are essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    The specific PCEs required for California tiger salamander critical 
habitat are derived from the biological needs of the California tiger 
salamander as described below.
    The areas proposed for designation as critical habitat for the 
California tiger salamander are designed to provide sufficient aquatic 
habitat for breeding and upland habitat as refugia for adults to 
maintain and sustain populations of California tiger salamanders 
throughout their range, and provide those habitat components essential 
for the conservation of the species. Due to the complex life history 
and dispersal capabilities of California tiger salamanders, and the 
dynamic nature of the environments in which they are found, the primary 
constituent elements described below should be found throughout the 
units that are being designated as critical habitat. Critical habitat 
for California tiger salamanders will provide for breeding and 
nonbreeding habitat and for dispersal between these habitats, as well 
as allowing for an increase in the size of California tiger salamander 
populations, which is essential to the conservation of the subspecies.
    Critical habitat includes: Essential aquatic habitat, essential 
upland nonbreeding season habitat with underground refugia, and 
dispersal habitat connecting occupied California tiger salamander 
locations to each other. Based on our current knowledge of the life 
history and ecology of the species and the relationship of its 
essential life history functions to its habitat, as summarized in the 
Background section of the proposed critical habitat rule (69 FR 3064), 
we have determined that the California tiger salamander requires the 
following primary constituent elements: (1) Standing bodies of fresh 
water, including natural and man-made (e.g., stock) ponds, vernal 
pools, and dune ponds, and other ephemeral or permanent water bodies 
that typically become inundated during winter rains and hold water for 
a sufficient length of time (i.e., 12 weeks) necessary for the species 
to complete the aquatic portion of its life cycle. (2) Barrier-free 
uplands adjacent to breeding ponds that contain small mammal burrows. 
Small mammals are essential in creating the underground habitat that 
adult California tiger salamanders depend upon for food, shelter, and 
protection from the elements and predation. (3) Upland areas between 
breeding locations (PCE 1) and areas with small mammal burrows (PCE 2) 
that allow for dispersal among such sites.
    We describe the relationship between each of these PCEs and the 
conservation of the salamander in more detail below. The essential 
aquatic habitat described as the first PCE is essential for California 
tiger salamander breeding and for providing space, food, and cover 
necessary to sustain early life history stages of California tiger 
salamanders. Breeding habitat consists of fresh water bodies, including 
natural and man-made (e.g., stock) ponds, vernal pools, and dune ponds. 
To be considered essential, aquatic habitats must have the potential to 
hold water for a minimum of 12 weeks in the winter or spring in a year 
of average rainfall because this is the amount of time needed for 
juveniles to complete metamorphosis and become capable of surviving in 
upland habitats. During periods of drought or less-than average 
rainfall, these breeding sites may not hold water long enough for 
individuals to complete metamorphosis, but these sites would still be 
considered essential because they constitute breeding habitat in years 
of average rainfall. Without its essential aquatic habitat, the 
California tiger salamander would not survive, because no breeding 
could occur.
    Associated upland habitat containing underground refugia described 
as the second PCE is essential for the survival of adult California 
tiger salamanders and juveniles that have recently undergone 
metamorphosis. Adult and juvenile California tiger salamanders are 
terrestrial, and they enter aquatic habitats only for short periods of 
time to breed. For the majority of their life cycle, California tiger 
salamanders depend for survival on upland habitats containing 
underground refugia in the form of small mammal burrows. These 
underground refugia provide protection from the hot, dry weather 
typical of Santa Barbara County in the nonbreeding season. California 
tiger salamanders also find food in small mammal burrows and rely on 
the burrows for protection from predators. The dispersal habitat 
described as the third PCE is essential for the conservation of the 
California tiger salamander. Protecting the ability of California tiger 
salamanders to move freely across the landscape in search of breeding 
ponds is essential in maintaining gene flow and for recolonization of 
sites that are temporarily extirpated.
    Lifetime reproductive success for California and other tiger 
salamanders is low. Trenham et al. (2000) found the average female bred 
1.4 times and produced 8.5 young that survived to metamorphosis per 
reproductive effort. This resulted in roughly 11 metamorphic offspring 
over the lifetime of a female. In part, this low reproductive success 
is due to the extended time it takes for California tiger salamanders 
to reach sexual maturity: Most do not breed until 4 or 5 years of age. 
While individuals may survive for more than 10 years, many breed only 
once. Combined with low survivorship of metamorphosed individuals (in 
some populations, less than 5 percent of marked juveniles survive to 
become breeding adults (Trenham et al. 2000)), reproductive output in 
most years is not sufficient to maintain populations. This trend 
suggests that the species requires occasional ``boom'' breeding events 
to prevent extirpation (temporary or permanent loss of the species from 
a particular habitat) or extinction (Trenham et al. 2000).
    With such low recruitment, isolated populations are susceptible to 
unusual, randomly occurring natural events as

[[Page 68585]]

well as from human-caused factors that reduce breeding success and 
individual survival. Factors that repeatedly lower breeding success in 
isolated pools can quickly extirpate a population. Therefore, a 
critical element for successful conservation is the maintenance of sets 
of interconnected sites that are within the ``rescue'' distance of 
other ponds (Trenham et al. 2001). Dispersal habitat described as the 
third PCE is also essential in preserving the California tiger 
salamander's population structure. The life history and ecology of the 
California tiger salamander make it likely that this species has a 
metapopulation structure (Hanski and Gilpin 1991). A metapopulation is 
a set of local populations or breeding sites within an area, where 
typically migration from one local population or breeding site to other 
areas containing suitable habitat is possible, but not routine. 
Movement between areas containing suitable habitat (i.e., dispersal) is 
restricted due to inhospitable conditions around and between areas of 
suitable habitat. Because many of the areas of suitable habitat may be 
small and support small numbers of salamanders, local extinction of 
these small units may be common.
    A metapopulation's persistence depends on the combined dynamics of 
these local extinctions and the subsequent recolonization of these 
areas through dispersal (Hanski and Gilpin 1991; Hanski 1994). 
Essential dispersal habitat generally consists of upland areas adjacent 
to essential aquatic habitat that are not isolated from breeding ponds 
by barriers that California tiger salamanders cannot cross. Essential 
dispersal habitat provides connectivity among California tiger 
salamander breeding ponds. While California tiger salamanders can 
bypass many obstacles, and do not require a particular type of habitat 
for dispersal, the habitat connecting essential aquatic habitat must be 
free of barriers (e.g., a physical or biological feature that prevents 
salamanders from dispersing beyond the feature). Examples of barriers 
are areas of steep topography devoid of soil or vegetation and State 
Highway 101. Agricultural lands such as row crops, orchards, vineyards, 
and pastures do not constitute barriers to the dispersal of California 
tiger salamanders.
    In general, we are designating critical habitat that allows for 
dispersal between breeding locations within 0.70 mi (1,158 m) of each 
other; however, we decreased or increased this distance based on site-
specific conditions within each unit. In summary, the primary 
constituent elements consist of three components. At a minimum, this 
will include suitable breeding locations and associated uplands 
surrounding these water bodies that are connected by dispersal habitat 
that is free of barriers.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    To identify areas that are essential to the conservation of the 
California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County, we first looked at 
the potential range of the species in Santa Barbara County, as mapped 
in spring of 2000 by biologists who had conducted California tiger 
salamander surveys throughout Santa Barbara County. The boundaries of 
the potential range were developed based on topography, geology, and 
survey information. In some areas (e.g., Vandenberg Air Force Base), 
seemingly appropriate habitat was excluded based on several years of 
negative survey results. Other areas (e.g., the Solomon Hills) had 
slopes too steep to support ponding necessary for California tiger 
salamander breeding. Other areas of intact habitat adjacent to known 
ponds were included, and areas with extensive ponded wetland habitat 
(e.g., Guadalupe Lakes) were also included.
    We then focused on areas within the range where we had credible 
records (e.g., museum voucher specimens, reports filed by biologists 
holding section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits) indicating California 
tiger salamander presence. The known locations of California tiger 
salamanders fall into six disparate areas of Santa Barbara County. Our 
conservation strategy focuses on providing sufficient breeding and 
upland habitat to ensure high enough adult survival to maintain and 
sustain existing populations of California tiger salamanders in each of 
these six areas within the County. Each of the six areas has a 
distinctive combination of habitat types, breeding pond types, 
landscape features, surrounding land uses, and topography. Because of 
the population size, and the existing threats, we determined that 
conservation of each of these six populations and the habitats 
essential to support them is essential to the conservation of the 
California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County and to the species 
as a whole.
    Conserving California tiger salamanders over the long term requires 
a three-pronged approach: (1) Protecting the hydrology and water 
quality of breeding pools and ponds; (2) retaining or providing for 
connectivity between breeding locations for genetic exchange and 
recolonization; and (3) protecting sufficient upland habitat around 
each breeding location to allow for high enough adult survival to 
maintain a breeding population over the long term. An explanation of 
how we determined the amount of upland habitat that is essential for 
the conservation of the California tiger salamander in each critical 
habitat unit is described in more detail below.
    Once we identified the known breeding locations, we mapped the 
upland watershed of each pond based on aerial photographs taken in 2002 
(AirPhotoUSA Inc. 2002) overlain with topographic relief lines. 
Protecting the watersheds of breeding ponds is essential for two 
reasons: (1) To ensure that the amount of water entering the pond is 
not altered in a manner that would allow for colonization of breeding 
sites by bullfrogs and fish, which can prey upon California tiger 
salamander eggs and larvae and (2) to preserve water quality by 
minimizing the entry of sediments and other contaminants to the 
breeding ponds. Therefore, our critical habitat boundaries include the 
watersheds of all known breeding ponds.
    We then identified the upland habitat surrounding the ponds where 
juvenile and adult California tiger salamanders live during the 
majority of their life cycle. To determine a general guideline for the 
amount of upland habitat necessary to support a population of adult 
California tiger salamanders, we reviewed the primary literature 
regarding California tiger salamander upland habitat use, including 
Trenham (2001), Trenham et al. (2000), and Trenham and Shaffer 
(unpublished manuscript). We also reviewed information from other 
biologists who have conducted upland habitat use studies but have not 
yet written up the results (e.g., Sue Orloff, Steve Sykes, SAIC--see 
Background section of the proposed critical habitat rule (69 FR 3064)).
    Data indicate that California tiger salamanders do not remain 
primarily in burrows close to breeding ponds, but instead move some 
distance out into the surrounding landscape. As described in the 
Background section of the proposed critical habitat rule (69 FR 3064), 
California tiger salamanders have been found up to 1.2 mi (2 kms) from 
breeding ponds. However, most California tiger salamanders are found 
closer to the ponds. Two studies conducted in Monterey and Solano 
Counties provide the best available data on upland movement distances. 
First, the mark-recapture study of Trenham et al. (2001) showed that 
California tiger salamanders commonly moved between ponds separated by 
2,200 ft (671 m), suggesting that movements of this

[[Page 68586]]

magnitude are not rare. Second, the ongoing study at Olcott Lake 
(Solano County) has directly documented the presence of high densities 
of juvenile and adult California tiger salamanders at upland locations 
at least 1,312 ft (400 m) from this breeding pond. Recent trapping 
efforts captured large numbers (representing 16 percent of total 
captures) of juvenile salamanders at 2,296 ft (700 m) (Trenham et al. 
unpublished data). Trenham and Shaffer (unpublished manuscript) 
determined that conserving upland habitats within 2,200 ft (671 m) of 
breeding ponds would protect 95 percent of California tiger salamanders 
at their study location in Solano County. Based on this information, we 
focused on protecting upland areas within 2,200 ft (671 m) of a known 
breeding pond. Protecting an upland habitat area with a radius of 2,200 
ft (671 m) around a single pond yields a minimum area of 350 ac (145 
ha), but depending on the size of the pond, can be more than that.
    We used 2,200 ft (671 m) or 350 ac (145 ha) as a guide for the 
amount of upland habitat around known breeding locations to be mapped 
as critical habitat for the purposes of preserving California tiger 
salamanders within small mammal burrows (PCE 2). However, although the 
studies discussed above provide an approximation of the distances that 
California tiger salamanders can move from their breeding ponds in 
search of suitable upland refugia, we recognize that upland habitat 
features will influence California tiger salamander movements in a 
particular landscape. Therefore, where we had site-specific information 
on those features, such as land use, topography, and geologic landform, 
we altered critical habitat lines to reflect that information. In some 
locations, we protected a shorter distance than 2,200 ft (671 m) if: 
(1) Commercial or residential developed areas were present (e.g., Santa 
Maria), (2) the upland habitat was separated from the breeding habitat 
by a substantial barrier (e.g., State Highway 101); (3) the habitat 
type within that distance was unsuitable for California tiger 
salamanders (e.g., hard chaparral); or (4) the area did not provide 
underground refugia because it could not support small mammal burrowing 
systems due to geological features such as fractured shales. We also 
excluded areas based on a combination of topography and geology. If 
soil and vegetative conditions are appropriate, California tiger 
salamanders can traverse areas of steep topography. Some steep areas do 
not support soils or vegetation that allow for California tiger 
salamanders to traverse. Therefore, we excluded areas that we know to 
be both steep and devoid of vegetation or burrowing mammal potential.
    In some cases, we extended the boundary of critical habitat beyond 
2,200 ft (671 m) if (1) suitable but unsurveyed breeding locations were 
present that would augment California tiger salamander populations; (2) 
no barriers to California tiger salamander dispersal are present and 
the habitat is suitable; (3) watershed boundaries for known breeding 
ponds exceed distances of 2,200 ft (671 m); or (4) the upland area 
between breeding ponds was conducive to California tiger salamander 
travel and would facilitate dispersal between ponds within the units 
which is essential for California tiger salamander gene flow.
    We excluded most areas of frequently harvested agricultural lands 
from the boundaries of critical habitat areas. Agricultural lands were 
only included if they are directly adjacent to known breeding ponds, 
thereby providing the only available upland refugia for California 
tiger salamanders breeding in that pond, or providing essential 
connectivity between known breeding locations. In the case of the two 
units within the Santa Maria Valley, so little California tiger 
salamander good quality upland refugia habitat is left that restoration 
is necessary to provide sufficient good quality upland refugia to 
sustain a population of adult California tiger salamanders. Currently, 
the majority of habitat within these two units provide for dispersal 
purposes (i.e., they provide connectivity between aquatic and upland 
habitats).
    To determine the areas to be mapped within each unit for the 
purposes of dispersal (i.e. PCE 3), we used a distance of 0.70 mi (1.1 
km) as a general guide. The only known study we are aware of that 
specifically investigated movement of California tiger salamanders 
between breeding ponds projected that 0.70 mi (1.1 km) would encompass 
99 percent of interpond dispersal (Trenham et al. 2001; Trenham pers. 
comm. 2004) However, we recognize that (as with movements in search of 
suitable underground refugia) upland habitat features influence 
California tiger salamander movements within a particular landscape. 
Thus, we altered critical habitat unit boundaries to reflect site-
specific knowledge where it was available to us. In some units, we 
protected a shorter dispersal distance than 0.70 mi (1.1 km) for 
similar reasons as described for PCE 2 (e.g. barriers prevented 
movement, no ponds existed in a given direction).
    In one unit (the eastern Santa Maria Unit) we included a dispersal 
corridor of 1.2 mi, which extends a greater distance than 0.70 mi (1.1 
km) between breeding locations. In general, we designated critical 
habitat that allows for dispersal between breeding locations within 
0.70 mi (1,158 m) of each other; however, we decreased or increased 
this distance based on site-specific conditions within each unit. We 
determined the longer corridor within this unit was justified given the 
observations by S. Sweet (in litt. 1998), where he found an adult 
California tiger salamander 1.2 mi (1.9 km) from the closest breeding 
location within this unit, and because of the relatively flat, barrier-
free terrain between the breeding locations. We determined that the 
connection between the two known breeding areas is essential for the 
conservation of the California tiger salamander in this area, because, 
without it, these locations would become isolated and much more 
susceptible to extirpation.
    We are designating critical habitat on lands that contain the 
physical or biological features considered essential to the 
conservation of the California tiger salamander (see Primary 
Constituent Elements section).
    All of the known locations for the California tiger salamander in 
Santa Barbara County occur on non-Federal and private lands. Section 
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes us to issue permits for the take of 
listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activities. An incidental 
take permit application must be supported by a habitat conservation 
plan (HCP) that identifies conservation measures that the permittee 
agrees to implement for the species to minimize and mitigate the 
impacts of the requested incidental take. We often exclude non-Federal 
public lands and private lands that are covered by an existing 
operative HCP and executed implementation agreement (IA) under section 
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from designated critical habitat because the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion as discussed 
in section 4(b)(2) of the Act. In the case of the California tiger 
salamander, no lands are covered by an existing operative HCP. We are 
aware of three HCPs under development; however, we have not excluded 
these draft HCPs because we have not yet made an initial determination 
that they meet our issuance criteria and are ready for public notice 
and comment.
    When defining critical habitat boundaries, we made an effort to 
exclude all developed areas, such as towns, housing developments, and 
other

[[Page 68587]]

lands unlikely to contain PCEs essential for California tiger 
salamander conservation. However, our minimum mapping unit does not 
exclude all developed lands, such as lands supporting outbuildings, 
paddocks, roads, ROWs, paved areas, and lawns that do not contain PCEs. 
These areas are not included in the designation. These areas have been 
excluded by text and Federal actions limited to these areas would not 
trigger a section 7 consultation, unless they affect the species and/or 
the PCEs in adjacent critical habitat.
    In summary, we designate six areas where populations of California 
tiger salamander are known to occur as critical habitat because the 
primary constituent elements need protection and/or special management 
to ensure any change to existing management does not adversely modify 
the critical habitat and protection of those areas is essential to the 
conservation of the species. We then mapped as critical habitat 
sufficient habitat to ensure the conservation of the California tiger 
salamander.

Special Management Considerations or Protections

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas 
determined to be essential for conservation may require special 
management considerations or protections. Areas in need of management 
for the California tiger salamander include not only the immediate 
locations where the species may be present at a particular point in 
time, but additional areas adjacent to these that are essential to 
provide for normal population fluctuations that may occur in response 
to natural and unpredictable events. The California tiger salamander 
are dependent upon habitat components beyond the immediate areas where 
individuals of the species occur at any given time, because these areas 
are important in maintaining ecological processes such as hydrology, 
expansion of distribution, recolonization, and maintenance of natural 
predator-prey relationships, all of which are essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    We believe that the areas proposed for critical habitat may require 
special management considerations or protections due to the threats 
outlined below:
    (1) Non-native and introduced predators such as bullfrogs and fish.
    (2) Disturbance of aquatic breeding habitats during the breeding 
season.
    (3) Sedimentation and erosion into water bodies.
    (4) Contamination by chemicals such as those used for agricultural 
purposes.
    (5) Habitat loss due to construction of barriers or elimination of 
small mammal burrows.

Relationship to Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat shall be 
designated, and revised, on the basis of the best available scientific 
data after taking into consideration the economic impact, the effect on 
national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. An area may be excluded from 
critical habitat if it is determined, following an analysis, that the 
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying a 
particular area as critical habitat, unless the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species. Consequently, we may exclude an area from designated critical 
habitat based on economic impacts, the effect on national security, or 
other relevant impacts such as preservation of conservation 
partnerships, if we determine the benefits of excluding an area from 
critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including the area in 
critical habitat, provided the action of excluding the area will not 
result in the extinction of the species.
    In our critical habitat designations, we have used the provisions 
outlined in section 4(b)(2) of the Act to evaluate those specific areas 
that are proposed for designation as critical habitat and those areas 
that are subsequently finalized (i.e., designated). We have applied the 
provisions of this section of the Act to land meeting the definition of 
critical habitat of the subject species to evaluate excluding them from 
critical habitat. Lands that we have either excluded from or not 
included in critical habitat based on those provisions include those 
covered by: (1) Legally operative Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) 
that cover the species, and provide assurances that the conservation 
measures for the species will be implemented and effective; (2) draft 
HCPs that cover the species, have undergone public review and comment, 
and provide assurances that the conservation measures for the species 
will be implemented and effective (i.e., pending HCPs); (3) Tribal 
conservation plans that cover the species and provide assurances that 
the conservation measures for the species will be implemented and 
effective; (4) State conservation plans that provide assurances that 
the conservation measures for the species will be implemented and 
effective; (5) Fish and Wildlife Service Comprehensive Conservation 
Plans that provide assurances that the conservation measures for the 
species will be implemented and effective; and (6) adequate management 
plans or agreements that protect the primary constituent elements of 
the habitat.

Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating six units as critical habitat for the California 
tiger salamander. The critical habitat areas described below constitute 
our best assessment at this time of the areas essential for the 
conservation of the California tiger salamander. The six areas 
designated as critical habitat are: (1) Western Santa Maria/Orcutt; (2) 
eastern Santa Maria; (3) western Los Alamos/Careaga; (4) eastern Los 
Alamos; (5) Purisima Hills; and (6) Santa Rita Valley.
    The approximate area encompassed within each critical habitat unit 
is shown in Table 2.

     Table 2.--Final Critical Habitat Units for the California Tiger
                   Salamander in Santa Barbara County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Critical habitat unit                Acres         Hectares
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Western Santa Maria/Orcutt...........           4,135           1,673
2. Eastern Santa Maria..................           2,909           1,177
3. Western Los Alamos/Careaga...........           1,451             587
4. Eastern Los Alamos...................              90              36
5. Purisima Hills.......................           1,957             792
6. Santa Rita Valley....................             638             258
                                         -----------------
    Total...............................          11,180           4,523
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 68588]]

    The majority of the acreage occurs on privately owned land. We know 
of no Federal, State, tribal, or military lands within these 
boundaries. A small portion of land within the western Santa Maria/
Orcutt Unit is owned by local jurisdictions, including the county of 
Santa Barbara and the Laguna County Sanitation District.
    Critical habitat includes California tiger salamander habitat 
throughout the species' range in Santa Barbara County, California. 
Brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they are essential for 
the conservation of the California tiger salamander, are presented 
below. Each unit contains essential aquatic, upland, and dispersal 
habitat. Each unit is occupied by California tiger salamanders based 
upon observations recorded since 2000.

Unit 1: Western Santa Maria/Orcutt

    Modifications were made to this unit as a result of a revised 
mapping methodology, which resulted in more accurately showing the 
boundary of this unit. This modification resulted in the reduction from 
4,349 ac (1,760 ha) to 4,135 ac (1,673 ha).
    Unit 1 consists of 4,135 ac (1,673 ha) west and southwest of the 
city of Santa Maria, mostly in unincorporated areas of the County and 
the community of Orcutt. This area encompasses the known California 
tiger salamander breeding sites extending from the Casmalia Hills on 
the south to the Santa Maria Airport on the north and from west of 
Black Road eastward to Highway 135. This unit makes up 26 percent of 
the total area we have identified as containing the PCEs for the 
species and as being essential to the conservation of the species in 
Santa Barbara County. The unit contains 12 known California tiger 
salamander breeding ponds and several water bodies that are suitable 
for breeding California tiger salamanders but that have never been 
surveyed. The 12 known breeding ponds in this unit constitute 
approximately 26 percent of the known breeding ponds (46) in Santa 
Barbara County.
    Of even greater significance, Unit 1 contains 7 (approximately 37 
percent) of the 19 natural vernal ponds that occur in Santa Barbara 
County. These natural ponds occur on the Orcutt Dune Sheet, which 
contains soils that are unique to the Santa Maria Valley. The Orcutt 
Dune Sheet is an ancient, windblown sand deposit that covers the 
southern one-half to two-thirds of the Santa Maria Valley (Hunt 1993). 
All natural California tiger salamander breeding sites occurring on the 
sheet are classified as dunal or deflation pools and ponds, a type of 
California tiger salamander breeding pond occurring only within the two 
units within the Santa Maria Valley. The five remaining known ponds 
occur along the base of the Casmalia Hills, just off the southwestern 
edge of the Orcutt Dune Sheet.
    Population growth and the concomitant residential and commercial 
development are the greatest threat to California tiger salamanders 
within this unit. The city of Santa Maria currently sustains a 
population of 82,148 people and is anticipated to reach a population of 
110,800 people by 2020, with an annual growth rate of 1.8 percent 
(Santa Barbara County Association of Governments 2002). Annexations to 
further development are proposed in the remaining California tiger 
salamander habitat (Marc Bierdzinski, Santa Maria Community Development 
Department, pers. comm. 2003).
    The city of Santa Maria is the fastest growing city in Santa 
Barbara County, with a 26 percent increase in population in the 1990s 
(16,000 new residents). Santa Barbara County's population is projected 
to grow by at least 160,000 people in the next 30 years (Santa Barbara 
County Planning and Development 2002). Depending on housing densities, 
the county may need over 15,000 ac (6,070 ha) of residentially zoned 
land on which to build homes to meet this goal (Santa Barbara County 
Planning and Development 2002). All of the urban areas in the county 
except Santa Maria and Orcutt have nearly exhausted land zoned for 
residential development. The California Department of Housing and 
Community Development expects the county and cities to set aside land 
for over 17,500 homes in the next seven years (Santa Barbara County 
Planning and Development 2002). Approximately 3,600 ac (1,457 ha) of 
prime agricultural land has been annexed to meet the increase in 
population. Prime farmland east and west of Santa Maria currently 
designated by the City of Santa Maria as ``No Urban Development Areas'' 
are expected to face increasing pressure to develop as the city 
exhausts land available for development around 2010 (Santa Barbara 
County Planning and Development 2002).
    Several development projects have been proposed within Unit 1. The 
Santa Maria Airport District proposes to build a 400-ac (162-ha) 
research park and golf course just south of the airport on a parcel 
with three known California tiger salamander breeding ponds (Rincon 
2002). The Orcutt Community Plan identifies Key Site 22 as a site for 
60 percent buildout to a maximum of 3,000 units of dwellings (Santa 
Barbara County 2002). This site lies entirely within the critical 
habitat unit. Additional proposed development projects include Union 
Valley Parkway (City of Santa Maria 2003) and expansion of the Laguna 
County Sanitation District's wastewater treatment plan.
    In the West Santa Maria subpopulation, 78 percent of California 
tiger salamander upland habitat has been lost or separated from 
breeding ponds by fragmentation. Three large development projects 
(Mahoney Ranch, Key Site 22, and the Santa Maria Airport Research Park 
and Golf Course) threaten most of the remaining habitat. The Santa 
Maria Airport has worked with the Service to develop a plan that will 
minimize impacts to the California tiger salamander; however, one of 
the most productive ponds, the easternmost pond on the Santa Maria 
Airport property, will be permanently isolated from all other ponds on 
a 120-acre (49-ha) reserve once the Santa Maria Airport Research Park 
goes forward (Service files). A number of smaller development projects 
(Laguna Sanitation District Expansion, construction of three 
administrative buildings on Foster Road, Union Valley Parkway) also 
threaten to further reduce the available upland habitat and fragment 
the breeding ponds from each other.
    This unit is essential to the conservation of the California tiger 
salamander because it contains 37 percent of the natural vernal pools 
for this Santa Barbara population. It is critical for the conservation 
of the species to conserve the California tiger salamander within a 
range of habitat types as protecting a variety of habitat conditions 
will increase the ability of the species to survive stochastic events.
    This unit requires special management to continue efforts to 
protect PCEs essential for the conservation of California tiger 
salamanders. In particular, one pond is known to have introduced fish, 
another is subject to berm failure, and bullfrogs breed in close 
proximity to a third site. Managing these ponds to maintain the 
existing PCEs is essential for the conservation of the California tiger 
salamander. Addressing the removal of upland habitat (PCE 2) and 
dispersal habitat (PCE 3) due to building pressures through special 
management or protection is essential for the conservation of the 
California tiger salamander.

Unit 2: Eastern Santa Maria

    Modifications were made to this unit as a result of a revised 
mapping methodology, which resulted in more

[[Page 68589]]

accurately showing the boundary of this unit. This modification 
resulted in the reduction from 2,985 ac (1,208 ha) to 2,909 ac (1,177 
ha).
    This unit covers a portion of the eastern half of the Orcutt Dune 
Sheet, but is separated from the western Santa Maria Valley unit by a 
broad area of urban and agricultural development, including State 
Highways 135 and 101. The unit is 2,909 ac (1,177 ha) in size and is 
bordered by State Highway 101 on the west, the Solomon Hills on the 
south, the Sisquoc River on the east, and the Santa Maria River 
floodplain on the north. This unit makes up 26 percent of the total 
area we have identified as containing the PCEs for the species and as 
being essential to the conservation of the species in Santa Barbara 
County. The unit contains 4 known California tiger salamander breeding 
ponds and additional water bodies that are suitable for breeding 
California tiger salamanders but that have never been surveyed.
    The four known breeding ponds in Unit 2 are natural vernal pools. 
Therefore, Unit 2 represents approximately 21 percent of the natural 
vernal pools used for California tiger salamander breeding in Santa 
Barbara County (19 natural vernal ponds total). The four of the known 
breeding ponds in Unit 2 have had substantial alterations to the 
surrounding upland habitats, and substantial fragmentation of the 
habitat between breeding ponds has occurred.
    This unit contains primary constituent elements essential to the 
conservation of the California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County 
because it contains 21 percent of the natural vernal pools (PCE 1) in 
the Santa Barbara County population. It is critical for the 
conservation of the species to conserve the California tiger salamander 
within a range of habitat types as protecting a variety of habitat 
conditions will increase the ability of the species to survive 
stochastic events. At least 10 additional ponds that appear suitable 
for California tiger salamander breeding exist within the unit.
    As mentioned in the discussion under Unit 1, the Santa Maria Valley 
is quickly growing, and both Unit 1 and Unit 2 are facing increasing 
pressure due to development. Some proposed projects further threaten 
the remaining California tiger salamander habitat, including the 2000-
ac (809-ha) Bradley Ranch proposed development project (John L. Wallace 
& Associates 2002), scattered low-density residential development, two 
soil remediation projects, and the construction of a radio tower. 
Additionally, Unit 2 has also experienced some loss of California tiger 
salamander habitat due to illegally-conducted ground disturbing 
activities.

Unit 3: Western Los Alamos/Careaga

    Part of this unit was excluded from this final critical habitat 
designation because this area is actively managed for the protection 
and enhancement of California tiger salamander habitat (refer to 
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act). This modification 
resulted in the reduction from 2,181 ac (882 ha) to 1,451 ac (587 ha).
    This unit consists of 1,451 ac (587 ha) to the west of Highway 101, 
bordered on the west by the Careaga Divide. Four ponds within this unit 
have been documented as breeding habitat by California tiger 
salamanders. Several other agricultural impoundments are located within 
dispersal distance of the California tiger salamander breeding ponds in 
the western Los Alamos Valley. These human-made ponds may also be used 
by California tiger salamanders for breeding.
    In contrast to the dunal or deflation ponds found in the two units 
to the north within the Santa Maria Valley, the natural breeding ponds 
within the Western Los Alamos/Careaga Unit are found in structural 
basin ponds. These ponds occur in the valleys or depressions along the 
axes of the synclines. The natural ponds within the unit occur along 
the axis of the Los Alamos Syncline and an unnamed syncline occurring 
parallel to and west of the Los Alamos Syncline.
    This unit contains primary constituent elements essential to the 
conservation of the California tiger salamander because it contains 
some of the highest-quality natural California tiger salamander 
breeding pools remaining in the County. The Careaga Divide pond, 
located on the western side of the unit, is one of the most unique and 
pristine vernal ponds (PCE 1) where California tiger salamanders breed. 
The wetland is unique in that it is enclosed on two sides by extensive, 
dense coast live oak woodland, and by coastal sage scrub and 
grasslands. The unit also provides large blocks of continuous 
unfragmented upland habitat with few known sources of mortality, all 
occurring within a working rangeland landscape (PCE 2 and 3). The unit 
requires special management in the form of fish removal from at least 
one pond and sediment control at three ponds (PCE 1). This unit also 
requires protection and special management to reduce other threats, 
including berm failure and vineyard development proposals that could 
reduce aquatic, upland refugia and dispersal habitats (PCEs 1, 2 and 
3). The current surrounding land use is cattle grazing.

Unit 4: Eastern Los Alamos

    Part of this unit was excluded from this final critical habitat 
designation because this area is actively managed for the protection 
and enhancement of California tiger salamander habitat (refer to 
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below). This 
modification resulted in the reduction from 1,302 ac (527 ha) to 90 ac 
(36 ha).
    This unit consists of two separate parcels, one 27 ac (10.9 ha) 
parcel and one 63.7 ac (25.8 ha) parcel, for a total of 90 ac (36 ha). 
This unit is located south of Highway 101 and southeast of the town of 
Los Alamos. This population is currently comprised of four known 
California tiger salamander breeding ponds; however, the property on 
which these four ponds are located has been excluded from this 
designation due to a conservation strategy that the landowners have 
created to enhance existing and create additional California tiger 
salamander aquatic habitat.
    Given the small number of known breeding populations, the acreage 
remaining in this final designation contains primary constituent 
elements essential for the conservation of the California tiger 
salamander, because, despite its location adjacent to State Highway 
101, it provides essential upland habitat. In addition, the acreage 
remaining within this unit is essential to support a self-sustaining 
population of California tiger salamanders. Furthermore, the 
populations within this unit constitute the easternmost location of the 
species in Santa Barbara County. It is critical for the conservation of 
the species to conserve the California tiger salamander within the 
range of habitat types where it is found in nature. Protecting a 
variety of habitat conditions will increase the ability of the species 
to survive stochastic events.
    The unit requires special management to address the threats of road 
mortality and upland habitat loss.

Unit 5: Purisima Hills

    Part of this unit was excluded from this final critical habitat 
designation because this area is actively managed for the protection 
and enhancement of California tiger salamander habitat (refer to 
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section). This modification 
resulted in the reduction from 2,359 ac (955 ha) to 1,957 ac (792 ha).
    Unit 5 consists of 1,957 ac (792 ha) along the crest and south 
slope of the west-central portion of the Purisima Hills. The unit 
encompasses 14 of the 16

[[Page 68590]]

documented breeding ponds in the subpopulation. The portion of the 
Purisima Hills that contains suitable habitat lies upon the lower 
Careaga Formation, bounded to the east-southeast by outcrops of Sisquoc 
Formation, and bounded to the west-northwest by badlands topography of 
sandier horizons within the upper Careaga Formation. Neither the 
Sisquoc nor the upper Careaga formations will retain water in unlined 
ponds (PCE 1); thus, ponds require special management in the form of 
artificial lining with materials such as clay or butyl rubber sheeting. 
Pond elevations range from 500 to 1400 ft (152 to 427 m). The 
documented breeding localities are all stock ponds, most of which were 
constructed in the mid to late 1950s (Thomas Silva, Sr., pers. comm. 
2001); of these, only one may have been based on a preexisting natural 
depression.
    This unit contains the primary constituent elements essential for 
the conservation of the California tiger salamander. Although the 
occupied ponds in this unit are human made and thus require frequent 
maintenance, the unit is the most remote of all the units and has the 
fewest documented threats. Because of the steepness of the topography, 
conversion to farmland or high-intensity development is not feasible. 
However, the Service is aware of a recent proposal to develop 
ranchette-style houses throughout this unit within California tiger 
salamander dispersal distance of known ponds (Service files). The 
Service has not received a final proposal. The unit is unique in that 
it contains habitat unlike the other 5 units; it is steeper terrain and 
is more densely vegetated than all other units. This location contains 
the only known California tiger salamander breeding ponds completely 
surrounded by coastal sage chaparral vegetation. Few other locations in 
Santa Barbara County are within chaparral or mixed chaparral habitats.
    The Purisima Hills Unit is also essential in that it provides a 
linkage between the Santa Rita Valley Unit to the southwest and the 
Western Los Alamos/Careaga Unit to the north. Although many of the 
units may be permanently separated from each other by urban development 
and State Highway 101, these three units still likely retain some 
connectivity. Several stockponds that have never been surveyed lie 
between the units; genetic exchange between the two critical habitat 
units.
    The unit requires special management to address threats of habitat 
loss.

Unit 6: Santa Rita Valley

    Modifications were made to this unit to exclude an area on the edge 
of the unit that does not contain the primary constituent elements. 
This area was included in the proposed designation as a result of a 
mapping error. This modification resulted in the reduction from 744 ac 
(301 ha) to 638 ac (258 ha).
    This 638-ac (258-ha) unit constitutes the southernmost locality for 
California tiger salamanders in Santa Barbara County. The unit is 
bisected by Highway 246, a heavily traveled thoroughfare between the 
towns of Buellton and Lompoc. Two confirmed breeding locations 
(representing three ponds) lie in the Santa Rita Valley. However, one 
of these is a human-made pond isolated from other units and is not 
included within the boundaries of critical habitat. The other confirmed 
breeding locality consists of two hydrobasins within 50 ft (15 m) of 
one another and adjacent to Highway 246. Adult California tiger 
salamanders were often found dead on roads after rain events during the 
1980s. Three ponds on a neighboring property to the east and two ponds 
on the south side of Highway 246 likely formed a complex with this pond 
in the past. However, the ponds to the east were degraded by introduced 
fish and vineyards, while Highway 246 forms a substantial barrier to 
the southern ponds. The ponds south of Highway 246 have never been 
surveyed for California tiger salamanders. Although one landowner 
reported finding a California tiger salamander in a water pump in 2000, 
we have been unable to obtain permission to conduct surveys to confirm 
or refute this record.
    The known ponds are based on natural features developed on an 
active syncline in the Careaga Formation east of the Santa Rita-Drum 
Canyon divide along the north side of California Highway 246. The ponds 
are natural but have been excavated so that the smaller pond appears to 
retain water year round.
    This unit contains primary constituent elements essential to the 
conservation of the California tiger salamander because it constitutes 
the only extant subpopulation remaining within the Santa Rita Valley. 
As stated previously, given the small number of remaining breeding 
locations, all six units contain primary constituent elements that are 
essential. In addition, due to the numbers of salamanders found dead on 
the roads in the 1980s, the ponds were likely productive in the past. 
Highway 246 constitutes the main threat to the breeding location. 
Furthermore, Caltrans has proposed to widen this road, which would 
substantially infringe on the footprint of the ponds. Even without 
widening, the mortality by vehicular traffic and contaminated runoff 
entering the pond provide substantial threats to the breeding site.
    Because of the known threats due to the existence of the highway 
and the likelihood of section 7 consultations related to its widening 
it is likely that a number of special management requirements would 
result from consultations. The precarious position of the pond directly 
adjacent to a busy road may require measures to reduce the threat of 
contaminants entering the pond and to enhance survival of California 
tiger salamanders attempting to cross the road. In addition, 
connectivity to potential breeding locations to the south of the 
highway should be facilitated in some manner (PCE 3).

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are 
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In response 
to recent court decisions invalidating our regulatory definition of 
adverse modification under 402.2, we are not relying on that definition 
in this discussion of critical habitat effects. Instead in evaluating 
whether destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would 
occur, we rely on the statutory definition of critical habitat quoted 
earlier in this rule. We must analyze whether, if a proposed Federal 
agency action were implemented, critical habitat would remain 
functional to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is 
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its 
critical habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations 
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are 
codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 
Federal agencies to confer with us on any action that is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species or result in 
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. 
Conference reports provide conservation recommendations to assist the 
agency in eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the proposed 
action. The

[[Page 68591]]

conservation recommendations in a conference report are advisory. If a 
species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section 7(a)(2) 
requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, 
fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify its critical 
habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its 
critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must 
enter into consultation with us. Through this consultation, the action 
agency ensures that the permitted actions do not destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the 
project, if any are identifiable. ``Reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions 
identified during consultation that can be implemented in a manner 
consistent with the intended purpose of the action, that are consistent 
with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and 
jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically feasible, and 
that the Director believes would avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives 
can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or 
relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a 
reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where critical 
habitat is subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such 
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law. 
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of 
consultation or conference with us on actions for which formal 
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated 
critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical 
habitat.
    We may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal 
agency. Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain 
an opinion that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if critical 
habitat were designated. We may adopt the formal conference report as 
the biological opinion when the critical habitat is designated, if no 
substantial new information or changes in the action alter the content 
of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
    Activities on Federal lands that may affect this species or its 
critical habitat will require section 7 consultation. Activities on 
private or State lands requiring a permit from a Federal agency, such 
as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of 
the Clean Water Act, a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from the Service, or 
some other Federal action, including funding (e.g., Federal Highway 
Administration or Federal Emergency Management Agency funding), will 
also continue to be subject to the section 7 consultation process. 
Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat and 
actions on non-Federal and private lands that are not federally funded, 
authorized, or permitted do not require section 7 consultation.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat include those that would impair the functionality of the 
primary constituent elements within a critical habitat unit to serve 
their intended conservation role for the species. We note that such 
activities may also jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
    To properly portray the effects of critical habitat designation, we 
must first compare the section 7 requirements for actions that may 
affect critical habitat with the requirements for actions that may 
affect a listed species. Section 7 prohibits actions funded, 
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies from jeopardizing the 
continued existence of a listed species or destroying or adversely 
modifying the listed species' critical habitat.
    Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in areas 
currently occupied by the species to ensure that their actions do not 
jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Actions that may 
affect critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would affect waters of the United States by the 
Army Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Such activities 
could include, but are not limited to, erosion control activities and 
flood control activities. These activities could eliminate or reduce 
the habitat necessary for the reproduction or growth of California 
tiger salamanders.
    (2) Actions that would affect the regulation of water flows by any 
Federal agency. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
damming, diversion, and channelization. These activities could 
eliminate or reduce the habitat necessary for the reproduction or 
growth of California tiger salamanders.
    (3) Actions that would involve regulations funded or permitted by 
the Federal Highway Administration. (We note that the Federal Highway 
Administration does not fund the routine operations and maintenance of 
the State highway system.) Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to, new road construction and right-of-way designation. These 
activities could eliminate or reduce the upland habitat and/or 
dispersal habitat necessary for sheltering and foraging of California 
tiger salamanders, and necessary for connectivity between aquatic 
breeding habitats.
    (4) Actions that would involve voluntary conservation measures by 
private landowners funded by the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
stockpond maintenance and erosion control practices. These activities 
could eliminate or reduce upland and/or aquatic habitat for the 
California tiger salamander.
    (5) Actions that would involve regulation of airport improvement 
activities by the Federal Aviation Administration. Such activities 
could include, but are not limited to, the creation or expansion of 
airport facilities. These activities could eliminate or reduce upland 
and/or aquatic habitat for the California tiger salamander.
    (6) Actions that would involve licensing of construction of 
communication sites by the Federal Communications Commission. Such 
activities could include, but are not limited to, the installation of 
new radio equipment and facilities. These activities could eliminate or 
reduce the habitat necessary for the reproduction, sheltering, 
foraging, or growth of California tiger salamanders.
    (7) Actions that would involve funding of activities by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Federal Highway Administration, or any 
other Federal agency. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to, activities associated with the cleaning up of Superfund 
sites, erosion control activities, and flood control activities. These 
activities could eliminate or reduce upland and/or aquatic habitat for 
the California tiger salamander.
    The six critical habitat units are occupied by the species based on

[[Page 68592]]

observations made within the last four years. Additionally, all 
habitats within this designation are likely to be used by the 
California tiger salamander, whether for foraging, breeding, growth of 
larvae and juveniles, dispersal, migration, genetic exchange, or 
sheltering. Thus, all critical habitat units are occupied by the 
species. Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in 
areas currently occupied by the species or if the species may be 
affected by the action, to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize 
the continued existence of the species.

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat shall be 
designated, and revised, on the basis of the best available scientific 
data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national 
security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. An area may be excluded from 
critical habitat if it is determined that the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of specifying a particular area as critical 
habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical habitat 
will result in the extinction of the species.
    In our critical habitat designations, we use both the provisions 
outlined in sections 3(5)(A) and 4(b)(2) of the Act to evaluate those 
specific areas that we are considering proposing designating as 
critical habitat as well as for those areas that are formally proposed 
for designation as critical habitat. Lands we have found do not meet 
the definition of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) or have 
excluded pursuant to section 4(b)(2) include those covered by the 
following types of plans if they provide assurances that the 
conservation measures they outline will be implemented and effective: 
(1) Legally operative HCPs that cover the species, (2) draft HCPs that 
cover the species and have undergone public review and comment (i.e., 
pending HCPs), (3) Tribal conservation plans that cover the species, 
(4) State conservation plans that cover the species, and (5) National 
Wildlife Refuge System Comprehensive Conservation Plans.

Conservation Strategies

    We are excluding three properties from this final critical habitat 
designation that have conservation strategies in place for the 
California tiger salamander because we believe that they are 
appropriate for exclusion pursuant to the ``other relevant factor'' 
provisions of section 4(b)(2).
    One landowner, Mr. Scheller, in Unit 5 (Purisima Hills), has 
developed a conservation strategy for his property which supports the 
large natural vernal lake referred to as Laguna Seca (LOAL-11 on the 
Santa Barbara County California Tiger Salamander Habitat Map, August 
2001), its essential associated watershed, and other bodies of water 
that could potentially be used for breeding by the California tiger 
salamander. Although Laguna Seca did not contain California tiger 
salamanders during surveys conducted in 2002, it was likely the natural 
source of California tiger salamanders for the human-made ponds in the 
Purisima Hills to the south and southwest of the pond. Largemouth bass 
(Micropterus salmoides) and mosquitofish were recorded during surveys 
in 2002 (Paul Collins, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, pers. 
comm. 2002). The introduced fish likely preclude successful breeding, 
although adult California tiger salamanders are likely present in the 
adjacent uplands, given the successful breeding occurring in the other 
known ponds in the vicinity. Special management is needed to remove 
introduced fish from Laguna Seca. In the conservation strategy 
developed with Mr. Scheller, the landowner proposes special management 
considerations and protections for the California tiger salamander 
habitat on his property.
    The goals of the above conservation strategy for the Scheller 
property include:
    (1) Manage livestock grazing activities and maintenance of water 
sources in a way that is compatible with California tiger salamander in 
Santa Barbara County;
    (2) Manage to limit sediment input into the known and potential 
breeding ponds;
    (3) Limited or restricted use of chemicals within the watershed 
and/or within 2,200 ft (671 m) of the known and potential breeding 
ponds;
    (4) Use other methods compatible with the California tiger 
salamander to control the amount of vegetation around the known and 
potential breeding ponds if livestock are not available; and
    (5) Avoid introducing non-native predators into the known and 
potential breeding ponds.
    Kendall-Jackson Wine Estates, Ltd. (Kendall-Jackson) leases certain 
property in Unit 3 (Western Los Alamos/Careaga) and Unit 4 (Eastern Los 
Alamos). The property in Unit 3 (hereinafter, the Sainz property) is 
owned by the Darwin E. Sainz 1990 Trust, Darwin E. Sainz and Jeanette 
T. Sainz, trustees (hereinafter, the Sainz Family). The property in 
Unit 4 (hereinafter the Los Robles property) is owned by Jackson Family 
Investments II, LLC, an affiliate of Kendall-Jackson. Kendall-Jackson, 
in conjunction with each of these property owners, has developed a 
conservation plan for these properties. The Sainz property includes 
three known California tiger salamander breeding ponds (SISQ-1, SISQ-2, 
and SISQ-4, as referenced on the Santa Barbara County California Tiger 
Salamander Habitat Map, August 2001) and their essential associated 
watersheds. This area, located in the southeastern half of the Western 
Los Alamos/Careaga subpopulation, was proposed for conversion to 
vineyards prior to the listing of the salamander. Since listing, the 
lessee and the landowner have supported California tiger salamander 
conservation and have been working towards developing a vineyard 
proposal that would conserve California tiger salamanders breeding in 
the known ponds. We have worked with the landowner in this area on an 
erosion control project within the associated watershed of SISQ-1. In 
the conservation strategy for this property, special management 
considerations and protections are proposed for the California tiger 
salamander habitat.
    The Los Robles property in Unit 4 (Eastern Los Alamos) contains all 
four known California tiger salamander ponds in this subpopulation 
(LOAL-18, LOAL-19, ZACA-3, and ZACA-5, as referenced on the Santa 
Barbara County California Tiger Salamander Habitat Map, August 2001). 
Two of the ponds (LOAL-18 and LOAL-19) are natural structural basin 
ponds found in depressions. The other two ponds (ZACR-3 and ZACR-5) are 
bermed agricultural impoundments located in an unnamed, intermittent 
drainage located 1.0 to 1.5 miles southeast of the two natural ponds. 
In the conservation strategy for this property, Kendall-Jackson and its 
affiliate, the property owner, have agreed to special management 
considerations and protections for the California tiger salamander 
habitat. The Service and Kendall-Jackson are in the process of 
discussing further conservation opportunities for this property in 
connection with a development project recently proposed by Kendall-
Jackson.
    The goals of the above conservation strategies for the Sainz 
property and the Los Robles property include:
    (1) Elimination of sediment input into the known and potential 
breeding ponds;
    (2) Limited or restricted use of chemicals within the watershed 
and/or

[[Page 68593]]

within 2,200 ft (671 m) of the known and potential breeding ponds;
    (3) Use other methods compatible with the California tiger 
salamander to control the amount of vegetation around the known and 
potential breeding ponds if livestock are not available;
    (4) Enhancement of existing aquatic habitat and, in the case of the 
Los Robles property, creation of new aquatic habitat; and
    (5) Avoiding the introduction of non-native predators into the 
known and potential breeding ponds.
(1) Benefits of Inclusion
    Designation of critical habitat provides important information on 
those habitats and their primary constituent elements that are 
essential to the conservation of the species. This information is 
particularly important to any Federal agency, State, county, local 
jurisdiction, conservation organization, or private landowner that may 
be evaluating adverse actions or implementing conservation measures 
that involve those habitats. The benefit of a critical habitat 
designation would ensure that any actions authorized, funded, or 
carried out by a Federal agency would not likely destroy or adversely 
modify any critical habitat. All habitats within this designation are 
occupied. In the absence of critical habitat, any section 7 
consultation for potential adverse effects to the species would not 
ensure adverse modification of critical habitat is avoided; however, 
the consultation would ensure the proposed action would not jeopardize 
the continued existence of the species in the wild.
    Where conservation strategies are in place, our experience 
indicates that this benefit is small or non-existent. Currently 
approved conservation strategies are already designed to ensure the 
long-term survival of covered species within the plan area. Where we 
have an approved conservation strategy, lands that we ordinarily would 
define as critical habitat for covered species will normally be 
protected by the terms of the conservation strategy. These conservation 
strategies include management measures designed to protect, restore, 
and enhance the land's value as habitat for covered species. We have 
determined that the benefits of designating critical habitat on the 
three properties covered by the described conservation strategies are 
small.
(2) Benefits of Exclusion
    Approximately 80 percent of imperiled species in the United States 
occur partly or solely on private lands where the Service has little 
management authority (Wilcove et al. 1996). Proactive voluntary 
conservation efforts are necessary to prevent the extinction and 
promote the recovery of the California tiger salamander on private 
lands in northern Santa Barbara County.
    The Service believes that the California tiger salamander 
populations within the properties with conservation strategies will 
benefit substantially from landowner voluntary management actions due 
to a reduction in competition with non-native predators, a reduction in 
risk of chemically-altered aquatic habitats, a reduction in risk of 
loss of aquatic and upland habitat, and the enhancement and creation of 
aquatic habitat. The conservation benefits of critical habitat are 
primarily regulatory or prohibitive in nature. Where consistent with 
the discretion provided by the Act, the Service believes it is 
necessary to implement policies that provide positive incentives to 
private landowners to voluntarily conserve natural resources and that 
remove or reduce disincentives to conservation (Wilcove et al. 1998). 
Thus, we believe it is essential for the recovery of the California 
tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County to build on continued 
conservation activities such as these with a proven partner, and to 
provide positive incentives for other private landowners in Santa 
Barbara County who might be considering implementing voluntary 
conservation activities but have concerns about incurring incidental 
regulatory or economic impacts.
    In addition, recovery actions involving the enhancement and 
creation of aquatic habitat on private lands requires the voluntary 
cooperation of the landowner (Bean 2002; James 2002; Knight 1999; Main 
et al. 1999; Norton 2000; Shogren et al. 1999; Wilcove et al. 1998). 
Therefore, ``a successful recovery program is highly dependent on 
developing working partnerships with a wide variety of entities, and 
the voluntary cooperation of thousands of non-Federal landowners and 
others is essential to accomplishing recovery for listed species'' 
(Crouse et al. 2002). The land within this designation that is suitable 
for conservation of threatened and endangered species is mostly owned 
by private landowners; therefore, successful recovery of the California 
tiger salamander in northern Santa Barbara County is especially 
dependent upon working partnerships and the voluntary cooperation of 
non-Federal landowners.
(3) The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
    Based on the above considerations, and consistent with the 
direction provided in section 4(b)(2) of the Act and the recent Federal 
District Court decision concerning critical habitat (Center for 
Biological Diversity v. Norton, Civ. No. 01-409 TUC DCB D. Ariz. Jan. 
13, 2003), we have determined that the benefits of excluding the 
Scheller property in Unit 2, the Sainz property in Unit 3, and the Los 
Robles property in Unit 4 as critical habitat outweigh the benefits of 
including them as critical habitat for the California tiger salamander 
in Santa Barbara County.
    This conclusion is based on the following factors:
    1. The Scheller, Sainz, and Los Robles properties are currently 
being managed on a voluntary basis in cooperation with the Service, 
State, and other private organizations to achieve important 
conservation goals.
    2. Simple regulation of ``harmful activities'' is not sufficient to 
conserve these species. Landowner cooperation and support are required 
to prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of all of the listed 
species in northern Santa Barbara County due to the need to implement 
proactive conservation actions such as predator management, weed 
control, and aquatic habitat enhancement and creation. Exclusion of 
these properties from this critical habitat designation will help the 
Service maintain and improve this partnership by formally recognizing 
the positive contributions of Mr. Scheller, the Sainz Family and 
Kendall-Jackson and its affiliate to the recovery of the California 
tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County, and by streamlining or 
reducing unnecessary regulatory oversight.
    3. Given the current conservation strategies created and 
implemented by Mr. Scheller, the Sainz Family and Kendall-Jackson, the 
Service believes the additional regulatory and educational benefits of 
including these lands as critical habitat are relatively small. The 
designation of critical habitat can serve to educate the general public 
as well as conservation organizations regarding the potential 
conservation value of an area, but this goal is already being 
accomplished through the identification of this area in the management 
plans described above. Likewise, there will be little additional 
Federal regulatory benefit to the species because all units are already 
occupied by the California tiger salamander and a section 7 nexus 
already exists. The Service is unable to identify any other

[[Page 68594]]

potential benefits associated with critical habitat for these 
properties.
    4. Excluding these privately-owned lands with conservation 
strategies from critical habitat may, by way of example, provide 
positive social, legal, and economic incentives to other non-Federal 
landowners in northern Santa Barbara County who own lands that could 
contribute to listed species recovery if voluntary conservation 
measures on these lands are implemented (Norton 2000; Main et al. 1999; 
Shogren et al. 1999; Wilcove and Chen 1998).
    In conclusion, we find that the exclusion of critical habitat on 
Mr. Scheller's property, the Sainz property, and the Los Robles 
property would most likely have a net positive conservation effect on 
the recovery and conservation of the California tiger salamander in 
Santa Barbara County when compared to the positive conservation effects 
of a critical habitat designation. As described above, the overall 
benefits to these species of a critical habitat designation for these 
properties are relatively small. In contrast, we believe that this 
exclusion will enhance our existing partnership with these landowners, 
and it will set a positive example and provide positive incentives to 
other non-Federal landowners who may be considering implementing 
voluntary conservation activities on their lands. We conclude there is 
a higher likelihood of beneficial conservation activities occurring in 
these and other areas of northern Santa Barbara County without 
designated critical habitat than there would be with designated 
critical habitat on these properties.
(4) Exclusion of This Unit Will Not Cause Extinction of the Species
    In considering whether or not exclusion of these properties might 
result in the extinction of this species, the Service considered the 
impacts to the California tiger salamander. For the California tiger 
salamander populations located within the Western Los Alamos Unit, East 
Los Alamos Unit, and Purisima Hills Unit, it is the Service's 
conclusion that the conservation strategies agreed to by the landowners 
and, where applicable, lessees will provide as much or more net 
conservation benefits as would be provided if these preserves were 
designated as critical habitat. These conservation strategies, which 
are described above, will provide tangible proactive conservation 
benefits that will reduce the likelihood of extinction for the 
California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County and increase its 
likelihood of recovery. Extinction for this species as a consequence of 
this exclusion is unlikely because there are no known threats on these 
properties due to any current or reasonably anticipated Federal actions 
that might be regulated under section 7 of the Act. Further, these 
areas are already occupied and thereby benefit from the section 7 
protections of the Act, should such an unlikely Federal threat actually 
materialize. The exclusion of these preserves will not increase the 
risk of extinction to this species, and it may increase the likelihood 
this species will recover by encouraging other landowners to implement 
voluntary conservation activities as Mr. Scheller, the Sainz Family, 
and Kendall-Jackson and its affiliate have done. In sum, the above 
analysis concludes that an exclusion of these properties from final 
critical habitat for the California tiger salamander in northern Santa 
Barbara County will have a net beneficial impact with little risk of 
negative impacts. Therefore, the exclusion of these lands will not 
cause extinction and should in fact improve the chances of recovery for 
California tiger salamander.

Economic Analysis

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical 
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information 
available and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of 
designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas 
from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such 
exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as part of 
critical habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat if 
such exclusion would result in the extinction of the species.
    Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat 
designation, we conducted an economic analysis to estimate the 
potential economic effect of the designation. The draft analysis was 
made available for public review on October 7, 2004. We accepted 
comments on the draft analysis until November 8, 2004.
    Our proposed critical habitat rule pertained to the Santa Barbara 
County population of California tiger salamander. Therefore, our 
economic analysis evaluated the potential future effects associated 
with the listing of this species as endangered under the Act, as well 
as any potential effect of the critical habitat designation above and 
beyond those regulatory and economic impacts associated with listing.
    We received 18 comments on the draft economic analysis of the 
proposed designation. Following the close of the comment period, we 
considered comments, prepared responses to comments, and prepared a 
summary of revisions to economic issues based on final critical habitat 
designation. See Responses to Comments section above.

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. Due to 
the tight timeline for publication in the Federal Register, the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) has not formally reviewed this rule. We 
prepared a draft economic analysis of this proposed action to determine 
the economic consequences of designating the specific area as critical 
habitat. The draft economic analysis was made available for public 
comment, and we considered those comments during the preparation of 
this rule. The economic analysis indicates that this rule will not have 
an annual economic effect of $100 million or more. The economic employs 
a lower and upper scenario approach to the economic costs associated 
with each unit. The lower scenario is based on the development of all 
land that is currently zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial 
development by 2030. The upper scenario, which applies to only units 1, 
2, and 4, is based on the possibility that, in addition to the land 
already zoned for development (lower scenario), large amounts of 
additional agricultural lands within these units will also be 
developed. Based on the more certain lower scenario, the annualized 
economic effects of this designation are estimated to be $8,962,250; 
the estimate for the upper scenario is $35,369,906. We have excluded 
2,740 ac (1,109 ha) of privately owned lands analyzed in the draft 
economic analysis based on non-economic considerations so the direct 
economic impacts of the final designation is likely to be lower than 
this estimate. This is based on 26-year estimates.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare

[[Page 68595]]

and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis 
that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to require Federal agencies to 
provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to 
provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule 
will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of 
small entities. The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
also amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require a certification 
statement. We are hereby certifying that this rule will not have a 
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.
    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act does not 
explicitly define either ``substantial number'' or ``significant 
economic impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial 
number'' of small entities is affected by this designation, this 
analysis considers the relative number of small entities likely to 
sustain impacts in the area. Similarly, this analysis considers the 
relative cost of compliance on the revenues/profit margins of small 
entities in determining whether or not entities incur a ``significant 
economic impact.'' Only small entities that are expected to be directly 
affected by the designation are considered in this portion of the 
analysis. This approach is consistent with several judicial opinions 
related to the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Mid-Tex 
Electric Co-Op, Inc. v. FERC and American Trucking Associations, Inc. 
v. EPA).
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit 
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents, as well as 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. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we consider the types 
of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule as 
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general, 
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical 
small business firm's business operations.
    To determine if the rule would affect a substantial number of small 
entities, we consider the number of small entities affected within 
particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing development, 
grazing, oil and gas production, timber harvesting, etc.). In 
estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also 
consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some 
kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so 
will not be affected by critical habitat designation.
    Designation of critical habitat only affects activities carried 
out, authorized, or funded by Federal agencies; non-Federal activities 
are not affected by the designation. In areas where the species are 
present, Federal agencies are already required to consult with us under 
section 7 of the Act on activities that they carry out, authorize, or 
fund that may affect the Santa Barbara population of the California 
tiger salamander. When these critical habitat designations are 
finalized, Federal agencies must also consult with us if their 
activities may affect designated critical habitat. However, in areas 
where the species are present, we do not believe this will result in 
appreciable additional regulatory burdens on Federal agencies or their 
applicants because consultation would already be required because of 
the presence of the listed species.
    Based on the economic analysis, the land development industry and 
the viticulture industry may contain small entities potentially 
affected by California tiger salamander conservation activities. We 
address the potential impacts to small businesses in each of these 
industries below.

Land Development Small Business Impacts

    The SBA's size standards for private sector firms are based on the 
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The economic 
analysis identified NAICS Code number 237210 as most appropriate for 
analysis of land development impacts. According to the SBA size 
criterion, firms in this industry must have less than $6 million per 
year in gross revenues to be considered a small business. Although, 
under the RFA, individual landowners are not considered businesses, the 
economic analysis assumes that all landowners affected by California 
tiger salamander conservation in Santa Barbara County are businesses, 
which is likely to overstate the actual impacts to small land 
development firms. Based on this assumption, 97 percent of the land 
development firms in Santa Barbara County are small businesses. 
However, the share of total sales in the land development industry 
attributable to small businesses is approximately 54 percent. Thus, 
although the small businesses constitute a relatively large share of 
the total businesses, their share of total sales is significantly 
lower. For the land development industry, the total small business 
impact of California tiger salamander conservation is estimated to be 
about $4.5 million for the lower scenario in Santa Barbara County. The 
number of small land developers affected by California tiger salamander 
conservation annually is 3 percent of the total for the county for the 
lower scenario. If the upper scenario were to occur, the impacts to 
small land development firms would be considerably higher.

Viticulture Small Business Impacts

    According to the SBA size criterion, firms in the viticulture 
industry are considered small when fewer than 500 individuals are 
employed by the firm. Based on this size classification, all of the 
viticulture firms in Santa Barbara County are small businesses. For the 
viticulture industry, the total small business impact of California 
tiger salamander conservation is estimated to be about $467,000 in 
Santa Barbara County. The number of small viticulture firms affected by 
salamander conservation annually is about 1 percent of the typical 
annual sales for a small business in this industry.
    In summary, we have considered whether this rule would result in a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. 
We have concluded that this final designation of critical habitat for 
the California tiger salamander would not affect a substantial number 
of small entities. Therefore, we are certifying that the designation of 
critical habitat for the salamander will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and a final

[[Page 68596]]

regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on 
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and 
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This final rule to 
designate critical habitat for the California tiger salamander is not 
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. 
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no 
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
    (a) This rule does not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal 
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work 
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; 
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; 
and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate'' 
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the 
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above on to State governments.
    (b) Due to current public knowledge of the species' protection, and 
the prohibition against take of the species both within and outside of 
the designated areas, we do not anticipate that this rule will 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As such, a Small 
Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of 
designating critical habitat for the Santa Barbara population of the 
California tiger salamander in a takings implication assessment, which 
indicates that this rule would not pose significant takings 
implications. The takings implications assessment concludes that this 
final designation of critical habitat for the salamander does not pose 
significant takings implications.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with the Department of the Interior policies, we 
requested information from, and coordinated development of, this 
critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource agencies 
in California. The designation of critical habitat in areas currently 
occupied by the Santa Barbara County population of California tiger 
salamander imposes no additional restrictions to those currently in 
place and, therefore, has little incremental impact on State and local 
governments and their activities. The designation may have some benefit 
to the States and local resource agencies in that the areas essential 
to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the 
primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary to the survival 
of the species are specifically identified. While making this 
definition and identification does not alter where and what federally 
sponsored activities may occur, it may assist local governments in 
long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7 
consultations to occur).

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the 
Interior's Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does 
not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical 
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species 
Act. This rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the 
primary constituent elements within the designated areas to assist the 
public in understanding the habitat needs of the Santa Barbara County 
population of California tiger salamander.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain new or revised information collection 
for which OMB approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 
This rule will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on 
State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. 
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    It is our position that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not need 
to prepare environmental analyses as defined by the NEPA in connection 
with designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this 
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244). This assertion was upheld in the courts of the Ninth Circuit 
(Douglas County v.

[[Page 68597]]

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 have coordinated with 
federally recognized Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis. We 
have determined that there are no tribal lands essential for the 
conservation of the Santa Barbara County population of California tiger 
salamander. Therefore, we have not designated any critical habitat for 
the Santa Barbara County population of California tiger salamander on 
Tribal lands.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is 
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author(s)

    The primary author of this package is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

0
For the reasons outlined in the preamble, we amend part 17, subchapter 
B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as 
follows:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

0
2. In Sec.  17.11(h), revise the entry for ``Salamander, California 
tiger'' under ``AMPHIBIANS'' to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
            Amphibians
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Salamander, California tiger,      Ambystoma             U.S.A. (CA)........  U.S.A. (CA--         T                667E, 702,     17.95(d)     17.43(c)
 Santa Barbara County Population.   californiense.                             California).                                744
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  17.95(d) by adding critical habitat for the California 
tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) under ``AMPHIBIANS'' in the 
same alphabetical order as the species occurs in Sec.  17.11(h) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (d) Amphibians.
* * * * *

California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) in Santa Barbara 
County

    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Santa Barbara County, 
California, on the maps below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements (PCEs) of critical habitat for 
the California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County are the habitat 
components that provide:
    (i) Standing bodies of fresh water, including natural and man-made 
(e.g., stock) ponds, vernal pools, and dune ponds, and other ephemeral 
or permanent water bodies that typically become inundated during winter 
rains and hold water for a sufficient length of time (i.e., 12 weeks) 
necessary for the species to complete the aquatic portion of its life 
cycle (PCE 1).
    (ii) Barrier-free uplands adjacent to breeding ponds that contain 
small mammal burrows, including but not limited to burrows created by 
the California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) and Botta's 
pocket gopher (Thommomys bottae). Small mammals are essential in 
creating the underground habitat that adult California tiger 
salamanders depend upon for food, shelter, and protection from the 
elements and predation (PCE 2).
    (iii) Upland areas between breeding locations (PCE 1) and areas 
with small mammal burrows (PCE 2) that allow for dispersal among such 
sites (PCE 3).
    (3) Critical habitat does not include existing features and 
structures, such as buildings, aqueducts, airports, roads and their 
rights of way, and other developed areas not containing one or more of 
the primary constituent elements.
    (4) Final critical habitat units are described below. Coordinate in 
UTM Zone 10 with units in meters using North American Datum of 1927 
(NAD27).
    (5) Note: Map 1 (Index map) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 68598]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24NO04.001

    (6) Unit 1: Western Santa Maria/Orcutt Unit, Santa Barbara County, 
California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24, 000 scale quadrangle maps Guadalupe, Santa 
Maria, Orcutt and Casmalia. Lands bounded by UTM Zone 10, NAD 1927 
coordinates (E, N): 727389, 3864869; 727442, 3864843; 727875, 3864859;

[[Page 68599]]

729380, 3864569; 729392, 3864085; 729538, 3864085; 729549, 3863963; 
729918, 3863978; 729917, 3864206; 729992, 3864189; 729994, 3864102; 
730189, 3864034; 730274, 3864033; 730349, 3864133; 730426, 3864139; 
730428, 3864131; 730875, 3864121; 730995, 3863984; 731124, 3863944; 
731211, 3863935; 731326, 3864047; 731326, 3864050; 731327, 3864050; 
731552, 3863889; 731688, 3863776; 731694, 3863667; 732718, 3863684; 
733501, 3863695; 733710, 3864115; 734321, 3864137; 734356, 3862460; 
734012, 3862472; 733226, 3862481; 733120, 3862472; 732971, 3862446; 
732961, 3862352; 732793, 3862347; 732789, 3862453; 732392, 3862448; 
731780, 3862433; 731777, 3862409; 731782, 3862099; 731782, 3862030; 
731972, 3862034; 731974, 3861846; 731788, 3861839; 731793, 3861647; 
731514, 3861520; 731262, 3861619; 731322, 3861818; 730590, 3862072; 
730517, 3861874; 730107, 3862013; 729738, 3862138; 729602, 3862197; 
729340, 3862322; 729093, 3862435; 728920, 3862517; 728803, 3862577; 
728697, 3862427; 728611, 3862313; 728499, 3862215; 728390, 3862156; 
728264, 3862119; 728151, 3862116; 728010, 3862126; 727823, 3862142; 
727665, 3862155; 727578, 3862147; 727520, 3862128; 727450, 3862077; 
727373, 3861996; 727263, 3861874; 726913, 3861473; 726869, 3861542; 
726733, 3861881; 726625, 3862026; 726543, 3862111; 726454, 3862257; 
726385, 3862323; 726312, 3862358; 726267, 3862377; 726195, 3862392; 
726144, 3862402; 726090, 3862433; 726030, 3862494; 725866, 3862781; 
725844, 3862860; 725847, 3862927; 725875, 3862987; 725916, 3863037; 
726214, 3863309; 726378, 3863531; 726419, 3863641; 726444, 3864049; 
726467, 3864173; 726511, 3864261; 726568, 3864745; 726596, 3864786; 
726638, 3864810; 726727, 3864827; 726866, 3864836; 727389, 3864850; 
returning to coordinates 727389, 3864869.
    (ii) Note: Unit 1 (Map 2) follows:

[[Page 68600]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24NO04.002

    (7) Unit 2: Eastern Santa Maria Unit, Santa Barbara County, 
California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Guadalupe, Santa 
Maria, Twitchell Dam, Orcutt and Sisquoc. Lands bounded by UTM Zone

[[Page 68601]]

10, NAD 1927 coordinates (E, N): 737445, 3864756; 737472, 3864777; 
737515, 3864783; 737548, 3864786; 737572, 3864801; 737600, 3864838; 
737615, 3864865; 737648, 3864905; 737679, 3864932; 737706, 3864950; 
737727, 3864968; 737755, 3864987; 737776, 3865011; 737779, 3865041; 
738854, 3865078; 738849, 3865074; 739192, 3865081; 739600, 3865100; 
739600, 3864300; 742500, 3864300; 742836, 3864048; 742825, 3863984; 
742805, 3863899; 742825, 3863808; 742798, 3863736; 742798, 3863677; 
742838, 3863599; 742851, 3863501; 742890, 3863429; 742942, 3863357; 
742955, 3863266; 743020, 3863122; 743086, 3863004; 743164, 3862913; 
743256, 3862841; 743308, 3862763; 743308, 3862717; 743399, 3862573; 
743497, 3862417; 743536, 3862345; 743608, 3862286; 743608, 3862201; 
743703, 3861803; 743680, 3861801; 743607, 3861773; 743552, 3861732; 
743460, 3861709; 743363, 3861672; 743299, 3861589; 743194, 3861498; 
743115, 3861392; 743083, 3861277; 743028, 3861194; 742955, 3861153; 
742844, 3861112; 742794, 3861075; 742546, 3861098; 741338, 3861104; 
741329, 3861505; 740918, 3861507; 740918, 3861880; 740700, 3862100; 
740400, 3862500; 740300, 3862700; 740300, 3863100; 738600, 3863500; 
738531, 3863657; 738371, 3863925; 738322, 3863957; 738273, 3863974; 
738219, 3863986; 738136, 3864066; 738036, 3864163; 737987, 3864215; 
737938, 3864226; 737890, 3864212; 737838, 3864206; 737795, 3864232; 
737749, 3864266; 737718, 3864321; 737672, 3864378; 737595, 3864409; 
737512, 3864441; 737493, 3864445; 737485, 3864446; 737478, 3864479; 
737466, 3864522; 737472, 3864543; 737500, 3864555; 737536, 3864561; 
737576, 3864571; 737600, 3864589; 737594, 3864625; 737563, 3864640; 
737530, 3864668; 737487, 3864689; 737460, 3864701; 737448, 3864728; 
returning to coordinates 737445, 3864756
    (i) Note: Unit 2 (Map 3) follows:

[[Page 68602]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24NO04.003


[[Page 68603]]


    (8) Unit 3: Western Los Alamos/Careaga Unit, Santa Barbara County, 
California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Orcutt and Sisquoc. 
Lands bounded by UTM Zone 10, NAD 1927 coordinates (E, N): 739930, 
3852832; 739932, 3852861; 739942, 3852885; 739950, 3852898; 739953, 
3852908; 739948, 3852930; 739938, 3852953; 739930, 3852980; 739930, 
3853010; 739934, 3853028; 739949, 3853035; 740004, 3853033; 740031, 
3853036; 740050, 3853048; 740057, 3853058; 740069, 3853085; 740079, 
3853108; 740089, 3853128; 740102, 3853145; 740129, 3853157; 740152, 
3853178; 740159, 3853196; 740161, 3853220; 740164, 3853243; 740194, 
3853293; 740204, 3853313; 740211, 3853337; 740215, 3853373; 740224, 
3853418; 740236, 3853465; 740233, 3853508; 740236, 3853551; 740232, 
3853598; 740212, 3853658; 740197, 3853710; 740189, 3853748; 740175, 
3853778; 740179, 3853818; 740189, 3853838; 740207, 3853850; 740227, 
3853847; 740249, 3853838; 740273, 3853833; 740288, 3853838; 740309, 
3853865; 740314, 3853898; 740309, 3853934; 740295, 3853970; 740295, 
3854004; 740301, 3854056; 740297, 3854108; 740284, 3854159; 740273, 
3854198; 740261, 3854241; 740233, 3854288; 740219, 3854318; 740219, 
3854348; 740201, 3854378; 740179, 3854408; 740175, 3854438; 740185, 
3854482; 740205, 3854528; 740210, 3854580; 740189, 3854598; 740138, 
3854609; 740067, 3854618; 740058, 3854630; 740057, 3854650; 740068, 
3854705; 740086, 3854764; 740122, 3854832; 740145, 3854873; 740171, 
3854916; 740200, 3854958; 740227, 3854990; 740246, 3855003; 740268, 
3855011; 740299, 3855016; 740327, 3855016; 740394, 3855002; 740463, 
3854982; 740529, 3854949; 740587, 3854907; 740667, 3854871; 740749, 
3854847; 740853, 3854820; 741014, 3854780; 741358, 3854674; 741546, 
3854627; 741695, 3854596; 741696, 3854596; 741734, 3854379; 741759, 
3854299; 741781, 3854220; 741811, 3854104; 741858, 3853961; 741870, 
3853929; 741886, 3853898; 741906, 3853865; 741932, 3853833; 741976, 
3853784; 742010, 3853736; 742033, 3853682; 742054, 3853628; 742075, 
3853579; 742092, 3853547; 742113, 3853517; 742142, 3853481; 742183, 
3853444; 742227, 3853411; 742263, 3853385; 742305, 3853361; 742316, 
3853357; 742332, 3853353; 742346, 3853356; 742362, 3853362; 742371, 
3853371; 742375, 3853385; 742374, 3853410; 742374, 3853450; 742374, 
3853462; 742379, 3853481; 742385, 3853496; 742392, 3853507; 742401, 
3853515; 742411, 3853518; 742433, 3853515; 742447, 3853508; 742463, 
3853498; 742486, 3853490; 742511, 3853490; 742525, 3853492; 742539, 
3853496; 742565, 3853509; 742580, 3853517; 742594, 3853520; 742605, 
3853519; 742616, 3853515; 742626, 3853502; 742634, 3853485; 742643, 
3853466; 742653, 3853451; 742664, 3853433; 742687, 3853414; 742700, 
3853411; 742712, 3853411; 742723, 3853417; 742734, 3853429; 742742, 
3853451; 742741, 3853472; 742735, 3853490; 742727, 3853511; 742719, 
3853537; 742718, 3853556; 742720, 3853577; 742741, 3853616; 742753, 
3853632; 742766, 3853645; 742786, 3853648; 742809, 3853648; 742820, 
3853648; 742834, 3853645; 742856, 3853634; 742980, 3853487; 742994, 
3853477; 743010, 3853470; 743024, 3853466; 743040, 3853463; 743058, 
3853467; 743068, 3853470; 743074, 3853474; 743082, 3853492; 743087, 
3853504; 743090, 3853519; 743092, 3853546; 743094, 3853569; 743097, 
3853585; 743100, 3853593; 743100, 3853606; 743090, 3853656; 743091, 
3853667; 743104, 3853684; 743125, 3853694; 743146, 3853691; 743171, 
3853681; 743201, 3853671; 743217, 3853677; 743229, 3853688; 743247, 
3853721; 743259, 3853762; 743269, 3853790; 743277, 3853849; 743300, 
3853819; 743300, 3853818; 743323, 3853777; 743397, 3853668; 743403, 
3852407; 743404, 3851838; 743379, 3851848; 743310, 3851856; 743246, 
3851854; 743210, 3851862; 743160, 3851881; 743107, 3851862; 743071, 
3851848; 743035, 3851839; 743001, 3851841; 742976, 3851860; 742953, 
3851890; 742771, 3852099; 742735, 3852126; 742695, 3852156; 742663, 
3852192; 742649, 3852236; 742651, 3852268; 742642, 3852300; 742625, 
3852327; 742598, 3852357; 742575, 3852378; 742539, 3852388; 742505, 
3852386; 742458, 3852350; 742323, 3852141; 742287, 3852122; 742251, 
3852112; 742211, 3852124; 742169, 3852135; 742123, 3852135; 742080, 
3852131; 742051, 3852137; 742006, 3852145; 741962, 3852148; 741932, 
3852156; 741901, 3852177; 741880, 3852198; 741859, 3852205; 741829, 
3852198; 741806, 3852207; 741774, 3852219; 741753, 3852232; 741730, 
3852234; 741709, 3852230; 741694, 3852238; 741683, 3852257; 741666, 
3852279; 741645, 3852298; 741540, 3852314; 741527, 3852333; 741521, 
3852365; 741485, 3852388; 741464, 3852395; 741430, 3852405; 741413, 
3852426; 741362, 3852448; 741324, 3852462; 741273, 3852494; 741240, 
3852526; 741056, 3852733; 740995, 3852819; 740969, 3852874; 740948, 
3852919; 740914, 3852929; 740739, 3852925; 740638, 3852914; 740536, 
3852895; 740395, 3852862; 740249, 3852823; 740205, 3852807; 740165, 
3852787; 740120, 3852761; 740076, 3852741; 740029, 3852725; 739996, 
3852721; 739966, 3852736; 739949, 3852758; 739935, 3852794; returning 
to coordinates 739930, 3852832.
    (ii) Note: Unit 3 (Map 4) follows:

[[Page 68604]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24NO04.004

    (9) Unit 4: Eastern Los Alamos Unit, Santa Barbara County, 
California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Los Alamos and Zaca 
Creek. Lands bounded by UTM Zone 10, NAD 1927 coordinates (E, N): 
751549,

[[Page 68605]]

3847022; 751555, 3846792; 751152, 3846766; 751147, 3847077; 751215, 
3847070; return to coordinates 751549, 3847022; 752562, 3846818; 
752566, 3846816; 752568, 3846815; 753162, 3846522; 753190, 3846371; 
753198, 3846259; 752581, 3846225; 752562, 3846811; returning to 
coordinates 752562, 3846818.
    (ii) Note: Unit 4 (Map 5) follows:

[[Page 68606]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24NO04.005


[[Page 68607]]


    (10) Unit 5 (Purisima Hills) and Unit 6 (Santa Rita Valley), Santa 
Barbara County, California.
    (i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Lompoc and Los Alamos. 
Lands bounded by UTM Zone 10, NAD 1927 coordinates (E, N): 740315, 
3843441; 740315, 3843571; 740333, 3843694; 740344, 3843851; 740379, 
3844016; 740440, 3844211; 740465, 3844252; 740500, 3844403; 740514, 
3844454; 740523, 3844541; 740545, 3844615; 740543, 3844650; 740562, 
3844732; 740560, 3844813; 740574, 3844876; 740605, 3844928; 740632, 
3844951; 740687, 3844979; 740760, 3844996; 740805, 3845008; 740854, 
3845018; 740926, 3845027; 740998, 3845045; 741062, 3845070; 741215, 
3845097; 741303, 3845088; 741330, 3845084; 741406, 3845068; 741449, 
3845049; 741505, 3845008; 741534, 3844944; 741565, 3844878; 741622, 
3844831; 741696, 3844819; 741830, 3844848; 741927, 3844856; 742032, 
3844878; 742137, 3844897; 742187, 3844900; 743020, 3844746; 743600, 
3844639; 743544, 3845422; 743666, 3845536; 743782, 3845507; 743804, 
3845490; 743820, 3845487; 743817, 3845472; 743789, 3845364; 743754, 
3845216; 743731, 3845103; 743737, 3845037; 743766, 3844881; 743795, 
3844800; 743801, 3844755; 743885, 3844535; 743914, 3844487; 743935, 
3844452; 743955, 3844439; 743980, 3844433; 744015, 3844435; 744049, 
3844447; 744076, 3844462; 744101, 3844484; 744191, 3844607; 744256, 
3844716; 744267, 3844736; 744287, 3844751; 744316, 3844765; 744347, 
3844771; 744379, 3844771; 744398, 3844763; 744416, 3844745; 744431, 
3844716; 744453, 3844650; 744443, 3844611; 744459, 3844574; 744482, 
3844523; 744488, 3844488; 744482, 3844462; 744449, 3844433; 744425, 
3844386; 744406, 3844347; 744392, 3844304; 744379, 3844255; 744375, 
3844189; 744361, 3844156; 744334, 3844132; 744306, 3844106; 744283, 
3844062; 744275, 3844028; 744279, 3843987; 744291, 3843933; 744308, 
3843884; 744316, 3843839; 744320, 3843801; 744303, 3843764; 744258, 
3843733; 744257, 3843733; 744209, 3843711; 744131, 3843692; 744083, 
3843690; 744032, 3843674; 743962, 3843661; 743896, 3843643; 743768, 
3843616; 743739, 3843608; 743690, 3843610; 743673, 3843616; 743651, 
3843624; 743587, 3843624; 743548, 3843624; 743519, 3843624; 743488, 
3843616; 743467, 3843585; 743439, 3843558; 743414, 3843550; 743391, 
3843543; 743373, 3843538; 743327, 3843503; 743319, 3843489; 743303, 
3843462; 743280, 3843443; 743228, 3843421; 743222, 3843416; 743194, 
3843404; 743150, 3843392; 743095, 3843367; 743037, 3843328; 742969, 
3843276; 742924, 3843237; 742891, 3843194; 742856, 3843132; 742817, 
3843073; 742790, 3842998; 742767, 3842937; 742745, 3842914; 742741, 
3842893; 742755, 3842875; 742776, 3842844; 742796, 3842819; 742811, 
3842782; 742808, 3842754; 742808, 3842756; 742806, 3842745; 742724, 
3842689; 742714, 3842673; 742714, 3842654; 742699, 3842642; 742691, 
3842619; 742679, 3842599; 742658, 3842574; 742619, 3842523; 742600, 
3842496; 742580, 3842488; 742559, 3842481; 742528, 3842473; 742512, 
3842467; 742491, 3842453; 742469, 3842436; 742460, 3842407; 742452, 
3842376; 742446, 3842358; 742432, 3842352; 742423, 3842346; 742423, 
3842331; 742423, 3842321; 742415, 3842300; 742401, 3842292; 742382, 
3842284; 742366, 3842278; 742360, 3842263; 742347, 3842255; 742337, 
3842238; 742331, 3842214; 742325, 3842195; 742322, 3842177; 742333, 
3842156; 742333, 3842133; 742325, 3842113; 742308, 3842100; 742283, 
3842082; 742263, 3842053; 742215, 3842063; 742205, 3842084; 742199, 
3842144; 742189, 3842214; 742182, 3842267; 742162, 3842317; 742131, 
3842362; 742065, 3842407; 742020, 3842428; 741952, 3842434; 741925, 
3842430; 741907, 3842411; 741884, 3842343; 741859, 3842259; 741834, 
3842222; 741785, 3842199; 741678, 3842164; 741618, 3842152; 741524, 
3842191; 741449, 3842218; 741383, 3842245; 741322, 3842265; 741194, 
3842306; 741101, 3842329; 741029, 3842343; 740984, 3842374; 740953, 
3842407; 740908, 3842494; 740846, 3842572; 740805, 3842632; 740760, 
3842702; 740681, 3842796; 740578, 3842885; 740374, 3843079; 740346, 
3843118; 740329, 3843163; 740321, 3843192; 740323, 3843280; 740319, 
3843359; returning to coordinates 740315, 3843441.
    (ii) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Los Alamos. Lands 
bounded by UTM Zone 10, NAD 1927 coordinates (E, N): 745831, 3837355; 
745836, 3837400; 745868, 3837517; 745882, 3837595; 745885, 3837796; 
745931, 3837850; 745943, 3837841; 746054, 3837754; 746086, 3837749; 
746174, 3837796; 746193, 3837805; 746210, 3837817; 746240, 3837814; 
746238, 3837834; 746237, 3837848; 746238, 3837859; 746246, 3837885; 
746252, 3837904; 746264, 3837925; 746270, 3837939; 746273, 3837961; 
746333, 3837969; 746362, 3837961; 746389, 3837952; 746410, 3837932; 
746447, 3837910; 746481, 3837886; 746510, 3837871; 746524, 3837871; 
746574, 3837901; 746641, 3837941; 746671, 3837958; 746698, 3837971; 
746711, 3837990; 746719, 3838016; 746722, 3838057; 746732, 3838099; 
746754, 3838127; 746774, 3838153; 746800, 3838178; 746812, 3838172; 
746830, 3838154; 746849, 3838139; 746872, 3838143; 746890, 3838153; 
746910, 3838175; 746936, 3838195; 746973, 3838226; 747007, 3838275; 
747028, 3838292; 747042, 3838295; 747065, 3838297; 747100, 3838307; 
747126, 3838325; 747165, 3838333; 747192, 3838314; 747175, 3838300; 
747164, 3838280; 747130, 3838159; 747094, 3838014; 746951, 3837865; 
746923, 3837601; 746880, 3837223; 746875, 3837182; 746875, 3837180; 
746819, 3837113; 747089, 3836795; 747166, 3836717; 747266, 3836621; 
747421, 3836483; 747555, 3836383; 747819, 3836198; 747789, 3836153; 
747755, 3836094; 747708, 3836034; 747619, 3836017; 747525, 3836009; 
747485, 3835980; 747470, 3835953; 747470, 3835945; 747428, 3835918; 
747391, 3835882; 747345, 3835822; 747298, 3835796; 747255, 3835776; 
747202, 3835757; 747159, 3835786; 747080, 3835838; 747045, 3835853; 
747015, 3835866; 746987, 3835870; 746960, 3835858; 746907, 3835796; 
746883, 3835755; 746875, 3835741; 746860, 3835729; 746841, 3835737; 
746825, 3835750; 746722, 3835836; 746666, 3835870; 746586, 3835909; 
746526, 3835966; 746474, 3836020; 746369, 3836096; 746284, 3836134; 
746251, 3836133; 746219, 3836119; 746195, 3836119; 746169, 3836122; 
746153, 3836147; 746086, 3836247; 746015, 3836335; 745961, 3836422; 
745892, 3836592; 745874, 3836696; 745868, 3836781; 745884, 3836906; 
745884, 3836988; 745866, 3837121; 745866, 3837174; 745855, 3837241; 
745837, 3837310; returning to coordinates 745831, 3837355.
    (iii) Note: Units 5 and 6 (Map 6) follow:

[[Page 68608]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24NO04.006


[[Page 68609]]


* * * * *

    Dated: November 15, 2004.
Paul Hoffman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 04-25775 Filed 11-18-04; 1:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C