5946 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AF32

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Determination of

Critical Habitat for the Coastal

California Gnatcatcher

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), propose

designation of critical habitat for the

coastal California gnatcatcher pursuant

to the Endangered Species Act of 1973,

as amended (Act). The proposed critical

habitat unit boundaries encompasses

approximately 323,726 hectares

(799,916 acres) of gnatcatcher habitat in

Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San

Bernardino, and San Diego Counties,

California. The actual area containing

gnatcatcher habitat is smaller.

Critical habitat identifies specific

areas, both occupied and unoccupied,

that are essential to the conservation of

a listed species and that may require

special management considerations or

protection. The primary constituent

elements for the gnatcatcher are those

habitat components that are essential for

the primary biological needs of foraging,

nesting, rearing of young, intra-specific

communication, roosting, dispersal,

genetic exchange, or sheltering (Atwood

1990). Areas that do not currently

contain all of the primary constituent

elements, but that could develop them

in the future, may be essential to the

conservation of the species and may be

designated as critical habitat.

Proposed critical habitat does not

include lands covered by an existing,

legally operative, incidental take permit

for the coastal California gnatcatcher

under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. The

Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs)

provide for special management and

protection under the terms of the permit

and the lands covered by them are

therefore not proposed for inclusion in

the critical habitat.

In areas where HCPs have not yet had

permits issued, we have proposed

critical habitat for lands encompassing

core populations of gnatcatchers and

areas essential for habitat connectivity

which may require special management

considerations or protections.

We solicit data and comments from

the public on all aspects of this

proposal, including data on economic

and other impacts of the designation

and our approaches for handling HCPs.

We may revise this proposal to

incorporate or address new information

received during the comment period.

DATES: Comments: We will consider

comments received by April 7, 2000.

Public Hearings: The dates of three

public hearings scheduled for this

proposal are:

1. Los Angeles and Orange Counties—

February 15, 2000.

2. San Diego County—February 17,

2000.

3. Riverside and San Bernardino

Counties—February 23, 2000.

All public hearings will be held from

1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to

8:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments: If you wish to

comment, you may submit your

comments and materials concerning this

proposal by any one of several methods.

You may submit written comments

and information to the Field Supervisor,

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, 2730 Loker

Avenue West, Carlsbad, California

92008.

You may hand-deliver written

comments to our Carlsbad Fish and

Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 2730 Loker Avenue West,

Carlsbad, California 92008.

You may send comments by

electronic mail (e-mail) to

fw1cagn@fws.gov. Please submit

comments in ASCII file format and

avoid the use of special characters and

encryption. Please include ‘‘Attn: [RIN

number]’’ and your name and return

address in your e-mail message. If you

do not receive a confirmation from the

system that we have received your email message, contact us directly by

calling our Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife

Office at phone number 760–431–9440.

Public Hearings: Three public

hearings are scheduled. Public hearing

locations are:

1. Los Angeles and Orange Counties—

Sheraton Anaheim Hotel, 1015

West Ball Road, Anaheim,

California.

2. San Diego County—San Diego Hilton

Mission Valley, 901 Camino del Rio

South, San Diego, California.

3. Riverside and Bernardino Counties—

Holiday Inn Select Riverside, 3400

Market Street, Riverside, California.

Availability of Documents: Comments

and materials received, as well as

supporting documentation used in the

preparation of this proposed rule, will

be available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife

Office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and

Wildlife Office, at the above address

(telephone: 760/431–9440; facsimile

760/431–9624). For information about

western Los Angeles County, contact the

Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and

Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 2493 Portola Road Suite B,

Ventura, California 93003 (telephone:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The insectivorous coastal California

gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica

californica) is a small (length 11

centimeters (4.5 inches), weight 6 grams

(0.2 ounces)), long-tailed member of the

old-world warbler and gnatcatcher

family Sylviidae (American

Ornithologist Union 1998). The bird’s

plumage is dark blue-gray above and

grayish-white below. The tail is mostly

black above and below. The male has a

distinctive black cap which is absent

during the winter. Both sexes have a

distinctive white eye-ring.

The coastal California gnatcatcher is

one of three subspecies of the California

gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). This

taxon is restricted to coastal southern

California and northwestern Baja

California, Mexico, from Ventura and

San Bernardino Counties, California,

south to approximately El Rosario,

Mexico, at about 30° north latitude

(American Ornithologists’ Union 1957,

Atwood 1991, Banks and Gardner 1992,

Garrett and Dunn 1981). An evaluation

of the historic range of the coastal

California gnatcatcher indicates that

about 41 percent of its latitudinal

distribution is within the United States

and 59 percent within Baja California,

Mexico (Atwood 1990). A more detailed

analysis, based on elevational limits

associated with gnatcatcher locality

records, reveals that a significant

portion (65 to 70 percent) of the coastal

California gnatcatcher’s historic range

may have been located in southern

California rather than Baja California

(Atwood 1992). The analysis suggested

that the species occurs below about 912

meters (m) (3,000 feet (ft)) in elevation.

Of the approximately 8,700 historic or

current locations used in the analysis

for this proposed rule, more than 99

percent were below 770 m (2,500 ft).

The coastal California gnatcatcher was

considered locally common in the mid1940s although a decline in the extent

of its habitat was noted (Grinnell and

Miller 1944). By the 1960s, this species

had apparently experienced a

significant population decline in the

United States that has been attributed to

widespread destruction of its habitat.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5947

Pyle and Small (1961) reported that ‘‘the

California subspecies is very rare, and

lack of recent records of this race

compared with older records may

indicate a drastic reduction in

population.’’ Atwood (1980) estimated

that no more than 1,000 to 1,500 pairs

remained in the United States. He also

noted that remnant portions of its

habitat were highly fragmented with

nearly all being bordered on at least one

side by rapidly expanding urban

centers. Subsequent reviews of coastal

California gnatcatcher status by Garrett

and Dunn (1981) and Unitt (1984)

paralleled the findings of Atwood

(1980). The species was listed as

threatened in March 1993, due to

habitat loss and fragmentation resulting

from urban and agricultural

development, and the synergistic effects

of cowbird parasitism and predation (58

FR 16742).

The coastal California gnatcatcher

typically occurs in or near sage scrub

habitat, which is a broad category of

vegetation that includes the following

plant communities as classified by

Holland (1986): Venturan coastal sage

scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub,

maritime succulent scrub, Riversidean

sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan

(areas created when sediments from the

stream are deposited) scrub, southern

coastal bluff scrub, and coastal sagechaparral scrub. Based upon dominant

species, these communities have been

further divided into series such as black

sage, brittlebush, California buckwheat,

California buckwheat-white sage,

California encelia, California sagebrush,

California sagebrush-black sage,

California sagebrush-California

buckwheat, coast prickly-pear, mixed

sage, purple sage, scalebroom, and

white sage (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf

1995).

The majority of plant species found in

sage scrub habitat are low-growing,

drought-deciduous shrubs and subshrubs. Generally speaking, most types

of sage scrub are dominated by one or

more of the following— California

sagebrush (Artemisia californica),

buckwheats (Eriogonum fasciculatum

and E. cinereum), encelias (Encelia

californica and E. farinosa), and various

sages (commonly Salvia mellifera, S.

apiana, and S. leucophylla). Sage scrub

often occurs in a patchy, or mosaic,

distribution pattern throughout the

range of the gnatcatcher.

Gnatcatchers also use chaparral

(shrubby plants adapted to dry summers

and moist winters), grassland, and

riparian (areas near a source of water)

habitats where they occur in proximity

to sage scrub. These non-sage scrub

habitats are used for dispersal and

foraging (Atwood et al. 1998; Campbell

et al. 1998). Availability of these nonsage scrub areas may be essential during

certain times of the year, particularly

during drought conditions, for dispersal,

foraging, or nesting.

A comprehensive overview of the life

history and ecology of the coastal

California gnatcatcher is provided by

Atwood (1990) and is the basis for much

of the discussion presented below. The

coastal California gnatcatcher is nonmigratory and defends breeding

territories ranging in size from 1 to 6

hectares (ha) (2 to 14 acres (ac)).

Reported home ranges vary in size from

5 to 15 ha (13 to 39 ac) for this species

(Mock and Jones 1990). The breeding

season of the coastal California

gnatcatcher extends from late February

through July with the peak of nest

initiations (startups) occurring from

mid-March through mid-May. Nests are

composed of grasses, bark strips, small

leaves, spider webs, down, and other

materials and are often located in

California sagebrush about 1 m (3 ft)

above the ground. Nests are constructed

over a 4- to 10-day period. Clutch size

averages four eggs. The incubation and

nestling periods encompass about 14

and 16 days, respectively. Both sexes

participate in all phases of the nesting

cycle. Although the coastal California

gnatcatcher may occasionally produce

two broods in one nesting season, the

frequency of this behavior is not known.

Juveniles are dependent upon, or

remain closely associated with, their

parents for up to several months

following departure from the nest and

dispersal from their natal (place of birth)

territory.

Dispersal of juveniles generally

requires a corridor of native vegetation

providing certain foraging and shelter

requisites to link larger patches of

appropriate sage scrub vegetation (Soule ́

1991). These dispersal corridors

facilitate the exchange of genetic

material and provide a path for

recolonization of areas from which the

species has been extirpated (Soule ́ 1991

and Galvin 1998). It has been suggested

that ‘‘natal dispersal [through corridors]

is therefore an important aspect of the

biology of [a] * * * nonmigratory,

territorial bird * * * [such as] the

California gnatcatcher * * *’’ Galvin

(1998). Although it has also been

suggested that juvenile coastal

California gnatcatchers are capable of

dispersing long distances (up to 22

kilometers (14 miles)) across fragmented

and highly disturbed sage scrub habitat,

such as found along highway and utility

corridors or remnant mosaics of habitat

adjacent to developed lands, generally

the species disperses short distances

through contiguous, undisturbed habitat

(Bailey and Mock 1998, Famolaro and

Newman 1998, and Galvin 1998).

Moreover, it is likely that populations

will experience increased juvenile

mortality in fragmented habitats where

dispersal distances are greater than

average (Atwood et al. 1998). This

would be particularly true if dispersal

was across non-or sub-optimal habitats

that function as population sinks (areas

where mortality is greater than

reproduction rates) (Soule ́ 1991).

Previous Federal Action

On March 30, 1993, we published a

final rule determining the gnatcatcher to

be a threatened species (58 FR 16741).

In making this determination, we relied,

in part, on taxonomic studies conducted

by Dr. Jonathan Atwood of the Manomet

Bird Observatory. As is standard

practice in the scientific community, we

cited the conclusions by Dr. Atwood in

a peer reviewed, published scientific

article pertaining to the subspecific

taxonomy of the gnatcatcher (Atwood

1991).

On December 10, 1993, we published

a final special rule concerning the take

of the gnatcatcher pursuant to section

4(d) of the Act (58 FR 63088). This rule

defines the conditions for which

incidental take of the gnatcatcher

resulting from certain land-use practices

regulated by State and local

governments through the Natural

Community Conservation Planning Act

of 1991 (NCCP) would not be a violation

of section 9 of the Act. We found that

implementation of the special 4(d) rule

and the NCCP program provides for

conservation and management of the

gnatcatcher and its habitat in a manner

consistent with the purposes of the Act.

The Endangered Species Committee

of the Building Industry Association of

Southern California and other plaintiffs

filed a suit challenging the listing on

several grounds, but primarily based on

our conclusions regarding gnatcatcher

taxonomy. In a Memorandum Opinion

and Order filed in the U. S. District

Court for the District of Columbia

(District Court) on May 2, 1994, the

District Court vacated the listing

determination, holding that the

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary)

should have made available the

underlying data that formed the basis of

Dr. Atwood’s conclusions on the

taxonomy of the gnatcatcher.

Following the District Court’s

decision, Dr. Atwood released his data

to the Service. We made these data

available to the public for review and

comment on June 2, 1994 (59 FR 28508).

By order dated June 16, 1994, the

District Court reinstated the threatened

5948 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

status of the gnatcatcher pending a

determination by the Secretary whether

the listing should be revised or revoked

in light of the public review and

comment of Dr. Atwood’s data. On

March 27, 1995, we published a

determination to retain the threatened

status for the gnatcatcher (60 FR 15693).

At the time of the listing, we

concluded that designation of critical

habitat for the gnatcatcher was not

prudent because such designation

would not benefit the species and

would make the species more

vulnerable to activities prohibited under

section 9 of the Act. We were aware of

several instances of apparently

intentional habitat destruction that had

occurred during the listing process. In

addition, most land occupied by the

gnatcatcher was in private ownership,

and we did not believe a designation of

critical habitat to be of benefit because

of a lack of a Federal nexus (critical

habitat has regulatory applicability only

for activities carried out, funded, or

authorized by a Federal agency).

On May 21, 1997, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an

opinion (Natural Resources Defense

Council v. U.S. Department of the

Interior, 113 F. 3d 1121) that required us

to issue a new decision regarding the

prudency of determining critical habitat

for the gnatcatcher. In this opinion, the

Court held that the ‘‘increased threat’’

criterion in the regulations may justify

a not prudent finding only when we

have weighed the benefits of

designation against the risks of

designation. Secondly, with respect to

the ‘‘not beneficial’’ criterion explicit in

the regulations, the Court ruled that our

conclusion that designation of critical

habitat was not prudent because it

would fail to control the majority of

land-use activities within critical habitat

was inconsistent with Congressional

intent that the not prudent exception to

designation should apply ‘‘only in rare

circumstances.’’ The Court noted that a

substantial portion of gnatcatcher

habitat would be subject to a future

Federal nexus sufficient to trigger

section 7 consultation requirements

regarding critical habitat. Thirdly, the

Circuit Court determined that our

conclusion that designation of critical

habitat would be less beneficial to the

species than another type of protection

(e.g., State of California Natural

Communities Conservation Program

(NCCP) efforts) did not absolve us from

the requirement to designate critical

habitat. The Court also criticized the

lack of specificity in our analysis.

On February 8, 1999, we published a

notice of determination in the Federal

Register (64 FR 5957) regarding the

prudency of designating critical habitat

for the gnatcatcher. We found that the

designation of critical habitat was

prudent on Federal lands within the

range of the gnatcatcher and nonFederal

lands where a current or likely future

Federal nexus exists. We determined

that designating critical habitat on

private lands lacking a current or likely

future Federal nexus or any lands

subject to the provision of an approved

HCP under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act

and/or an approved NCCP under which

the gnatcatcher is a covered species

would provide no additional benefit to

the species. Further, we determined that

the threats (e.g., activities prohibited

under section 9 of the Act) from

designating critical habitat on private

lands would outweigh the benefits in

certain areas.

On August 4, 1999, in response to a

motion filed by the Natural Resources

Defense Council, the U.S. District Court

for the Central District of California

ordered the Service to propose critical

habitat by October 4, 1999. In response

to this order and in preparation of a

proposal using our prudency

determination (64 FR 5957), we had

difficulty delineating critical habitat

because of the uncertainty regarding

likely future Federal nexuses. Since

publication of the determination, we

discovered that the Federal nexuses

relied on in our prudency determination

for several development projects no

longer existed. Conversely, other

projects were found to have current

Federal nexuses, which were lacking

when we developed the prudency

determination. Given the

unpredictability of determining whether

a Federal nexus is likely to exist on any

given parcel of private land, we have

reevaluated our previous conclusion

and now conclude that there may be a

regulatory benefit from designating

critical habitat for the gnatcatcher on

private lands now lacking an

identifiable Federal nexus because such

lands may have a nexus to a Federal

agency action in the future.

In our prudency determination (64 FR

5957), we described the threat posed by

vandalism towards the gnatcatcher and

its habitat, largely coastal sage scrub.

We cited several cases under

investigation by our Law Enforcement

Division and various newspaper articles

regarding this threat. We determined

that the designation of critical habitat

would increase the instances of habitat

destruction and exacerbate threats to the

gnatcatcher. Therefore, we concluded

that the threat posed by vandalism that

would result from designating private

lands lacking a Federal nexus as critical

habitat would outweigh the benefit that

would be provided. We acknowledged

that critical habitat may provide some

benefit by highlighting areas where the

species may occur or areas that are

important to recovery. However, we

stated that such locational data are well

known, and designation of critical

habitat on private lands may incite some

members of the public and increase

incidences of habitat vandalism above

current levels.

We have reconsidered our evaluation

in the prudency determination of the

threats posed by vandalism. We have

determined that the threats to the

gnatcatcher and its habitat from the

specific instances of habitat destruction

we identified do not outweigh the

broader educational, and any potential

regulatory and other possible benefits,

that a designation of critical habitat

would provide for this species. The

instances of likely vandalism, though

real, were relatively isolated given the

wide-ranging habitat of the gnatcatcher.

Additionally, having determined that

the existence of current or likely future

Federal nexuses is an unreliable basis

upon which to include or exclude

private lands as critical habitat, we are

not compelled to identify specific

scattered parcels of private land with

presumptive Federal nexuses. Instead,

we are able to use a landscape approach

in identifying areas for critical habitat

designation that does not appear to

highlight individual parcels of private

land. Consequently, we conclude that

designating critical habitat on private

lands will not increase incidences of

habitat vandalism above current levels

for this species. In contrast, a

designation of critical habitat will

provide some educational benefit by

formally identifying on a range-wide

basis those areas essential to the

conservation of the species and, thus,

the areas likely to be the focus of our

recovery efforts for the gnatcatcher.

Therefore, we conclude that the benefits

of designating critical habitat on

nonFederal lands essential for the

conservation of the gnatcatcher

outweigh the risks of increased

vandalism resulting from such

designation.

The Service considered the existing

status of lands in designating areas as

critical habitat. Section 10(a) of the Act

authorizes us to issue permits for the

taking of listed species incidental to

otherwise lawful activities. Incidental

take permit applications must be

supported by a HCP that identifies

conservation measures that the

permittee agrees to implement for the

species to minimize and mitigate the

impacts of the requested incidental take.

NonFederal lands that are covered by an

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5949

existing operative permit issued for

California gnatcatcher under section

10(a)(1)(B) of the Act receive special

management and protection under the

terms of the permit and are therefore not

being proposed for inclusion in critical

habitat.

We expect that critical habitat may be

used as a tool to help identify areas

within the range of the California

gnatcatcher most critical for the

conservation of the species, and we will

encourage development of HCPs for

such areas on nonFederal lands. We

consider HCPs to be one of the most

important methods through which

nonFederal landowners can resolve

endangered species conflicts. We

provide technical assistance and work

closely with applicants throughout

development of HCPs to help identify

special management considerations for

the California gnatcatcher. HCPs

provide a package of protection and

management measures sufficient to

address the conservation needs of the

species. Therefore, we have not

included any lands covered by an

existing legally-operative incidental take

permit for California gnatcatcher in this

proposed critical habitat designation.

In light of our decision to reconsider

the prudency determination, we needed

additional time to revise the

determination (64 FR 5957) and develop

a proposed critical habitat rule based on

the revised determination. We therefore

requested an extension of 120 days in

which to reevaluate prudency and

propose critical habitat, which the

District Court granted. The Court also

ordered us to publish a final critical

habitat rule by September 30, 2000.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3

of the Act as—(i) the specific areas

within the geographic area occupied by

a species, at the time it is listed in

accordance with the Act, on which are

found those physical or biological

features (I) essential to the conservation

of the species and (II) that may require

special management considerations or

protection and; (ii) specific areas

outside the geographic area occupied by

a species at the time it is listed, upon

a determination that such areas are

essential for the conservation of the

species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use

of all methods and procedures that are

necessary to bring an endangered or a

threatened species to the point at which

listing under the Act is no longer

necessary.

Critical habitat identifies specific

areas, both occupied and unoccupied,

that are essential to the conservation of

a listed species and that may require

special management considerations or

protection. Areas that do not currently

contain all of the primary constituent

elements, but that could develop them

in the future, may be essential to the

conservation of the species and may be

designated as critical habitat.

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 adverse

modification or destruction of proposed

critical habitat. Aside from the added

protection that may be provided under

section 7, the Act does not provide other

forms of protection to lands designated

as critical habitat. Because consultation

under section 7 of the Act does not

apply to activities on private or other

nonFederal lands that do not involve a

Federal nexus, critical habitat

designation would not afford any

protection under the Act against such

activities.

Designating critical habitat does not,

in itself, lead to recovery of a listed

species. Designation does not create a

management plan, establish a preserve

area where no actions are allowed,

establish numerical population goals,

prescribe specific management actions

(inside or outside of critical habitat), or

directly affect areas not designated as

critical habitat. Specific management

recommendations for areas designated

as critical habitat are most appropriately

addressed in recovery plans and

management plans, and through section

7 consultation and section 10 HCPs.

Section 3(5)(C) of the Act generally

requires that not all areas that can be

occupied by a species be designated as

critical habitat. Therefore, not all areas

containing the primary constituent

elements are necessarily essential to the

conservation of the species. Areas that

contain one or more of the primary

constituent elements that may support

gnatcatchers, but are not included

within critical habitat boundaries,

would be considered under other parts

of the Act and/or other conservation

laws and regulations.

Methods

In determining areas that are essential

to conserve the gnatcatcher, we used the

best scientific and commercial data

available. This included data from

research and survey observations

published in peer reviewed articles;

regional Geographic Information System

(GIS) coverages; habitat evaluation

models for the San Diego County

Multiple Species Conservation Plan

(MSCP), the North San Diego County

Multiple Habitat Conservation Plans

(MHCP), and the North County Subarea

of the MSCP for Unincorporated San

Diego County; approved HCPs; and data

collected from reports submitted by

biologists holding section 10(a)(1)(A)

recovery permits. Following the listing

of the species, a concerted effort was

undertaken to survey significant

portions of the species’ range in San

Diego and Orange Counties for the

purpose of developing and

implementing HCPs, and more recently,

surveys of varying intensity have been

conducted in Los Angeles, Riverside,

San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties.

Primary Constituent Elements

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i)

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR

424.12 in determining which areas to

propose as critical habitat, we are

required to base critical habitat

determinations on the best scientific

and commercial data available and to

consider those physical and biological

features that are essential to the

conservation of the species and that may

require special management

considerations and protection. Such

requirements include but are not limited

to—space for individual and population

growth, and for normal behavior; food,

water, air, light, minerals, or other

nutritional or physiological

requirements; cover or shelter; sites for

breeding, reproduction, rearing of

offspring; and habitats that are protected

from disturbance or are representative of

the historic geographical and ecological

distributions of a species.

The areas we are proposing to

designate as critical habitat provide

some or all of those habitat components

essential for the primary biological

needs of the gnatcatcher also called

primary constituent elements.

The primary constituent elements for

the gnatcatcher are those habitat

components that are essential for the

primary biological needs of foraging,

nesting, rearing of young, intra-specific

communication, roosting, dispersal,

genetic exchange, or sheltering (Atwood

1990). Primary constituent elements are

provided in undeveloped areas,

including agricultural lands, that

support or have the potential to support,

through natural successional processes,

various types of sage scrub or chaparral,

grassland, and riparian habitats where

they occur proximally to sage scrub and

where they may be utilized for

biological needs such as breeding and

foraging (Atwood et al. 1998, Campbell

et al. 1998). Primary constituent

elements associated with the biological

5950 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

needs of dispersal are also found in

undeveloped areas, including

agricultural lands, that provide or could

provide connectivity or linkage between

or within larger core areas, including

open space and disturbed areas

containing introduced plant species that

may receive only periodic use.

Primary constituent elements include,

but are not limited to, the following

plant communities—Venturan coastal

sage scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub,

maritime succulent scrub, Riversidean

sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan

scrub, southern coastal bluff scrub, and

coastal sage-chaparral scrub (Holland

1986). Based upon dominant species,

these communities have been further

divided into series such as black sage,

brittlebush, California buckwheat,

California buckwheat-white sage,

California encelia, California sagebrush,

California sagebrush-black sage,

California sagebrush-California

buckwheat, coast prickly-pear, mixed

sage, purple sage, scalebroom, and

white sage (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf

1995). Dominant plants within these

communities include California

sagebrush, buckwheats, encelias, and

various sages (commonly Salvia

mellifera, S. apiana, and S.

leucophylla). Other commonly

occurring plants include coast

goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), bush

monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus),

Mexican elderberry (Sambucus

mexicana), bladderpod (Isomeris

arborea), deerweed (Lotus scoparius),

chaparral mallow (Malacothamnus

fasciculatum), laurel sumac (Malosma

laurina), and several species of Rhus (R.

integrifolia, R. ovata, and R. trilobata).

Succulent species, such as boxthorn (Lycium

spp.), cliff spurge (Euphorbia misera),

jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis), and

various species of cacti (Opuntia

littoralis, O. prolifera, and Ferocactus

viridescens), and live-forever (Dudleya

spp.), are represented in maritime

succulent scrub, coast prickly-pear

scrub, and southern coastal bluff scrubs.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical

Habitat

We considered several qualitative

criteria in the selection and proposal of

specific areas or units for gnatcatcher

critical habitat. Such criteria focused on

designating units—(1) Throughout the

geographical and elevational range of

the species; (2) within various occupied

plant communities, such as Venturan

coastal sage scrub, Diegan coastal sage

scrub, maritime succulent scrub,

Riversidean sage scrub, Riversidean

alluvial fan scrub, southern coastal bluff

scrub, and coastal sage-chaparral scrub;

(3) in documented areas of large,

contiguous blocks of occupied habitat

(i.e., core population areas); and/or in

areas that link core populations areas

(i.e., linkage areas). These criteria are

similar to criteria used to identify

reserve/preserve lands in approved

HCPs covering the gnatcatcher.

To identify proposed critical habitat

units, we first examined those lands

identified for conservation under

approved HCPs covering the

gnatcatcher. These planning efforts

utilized habitat evaluation models,

gnatcatcher occurrence data, and reserve

design criteria to identify reserve

systems of core gnatcatcher populations

and linkage areas that are essential for

the conservation of the species.

We then evaluated those areas where

on-going habitat conservation planning

efforts have resulted in the preparation

of biological analyses that identify

habitat important for the conservation of

the gnatcatcher. These include—the

Western Riverside County MSHCP, the

Rancho Palos Verdes MSHCP, the North

San Diego County MHCP, the North

County Subarea of the MSCP for

Unincorporated San Diego County, and

the Southern Subregion of Orange

County’s NCCP. We used those

biological analyses in concert with data

regarding current gnatcatcher

occurrences—(1) sage scrub vegetation,

(2) elevation, and (3) connectivity to

identify those lands that are essential for

the conservation of the gnatcatcher

within the respective planning area

boundaries.

Finally, we evaluated other lands for

their conservation value for the

gnatcatcher. We delimited a study area

by selecting geographic boundaries

based on the following—(1) gnatcatcher

occurrences, (2) sage scrub vegetation,

(3) elevation, and (4) connectivity to

other gnatcatcher occurrences. We

determined conservation value based on

the presence of, or proximity to,

significant gnatcatcher core populations

and/or sage scrub, sage scrub habitat

quality, parcel or habitat patch size,

surrounding land-uses, and potential to

support resident gnatcatchers and/or

facilitate movement of birds between

known habitat areas.

Proposed Critical Habitat Units are

defined by specific map units that have

been delineated using public land

survey (PLS) sections (generally one

square mile) or Universal Transverse

Mercator (UTM) coordinates in Spanish

Land Grant areas (areas which have not

been surveyed for inclusion into PLS).

On Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton

we used training area boundaries and

UTM coordinates. Within the Orange

County NCCP Central/Coastal

Subregions we used boundaries of select

Existing Land Use and North Ranch

Policy Plan areas.

We did not map critical habitat in

sufficient detail to exclude all

developed areas such as towns, housing

developments, and other lands unlikely

to contain primary constituent elements

essential for gnatcatcher conservation.

Within the delineated critical habitat

unit boundaries, only lands where one

or more constituent elements are found

are proposed for critical habitat.

Existing features and structures within

proposed areas, such as buildings,

roads, aqueducts, railroads, and other

features, do not contain one or more of

the primary constituent elements.

Therefore, these areas are not proposed

for critical habitat.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

The approximate area of proposed

critical habitat by county and land

ownership is shown in Table 1.

Proposed critical habitat includes

gnatcatcher habitat throughout the

species’ range in the United States (i.e.,

Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San

Bernardino, and San Diego Counties,

California). Lands proposed are under

private, State, and Federal ownership,

with Federal lands including lands

managed by the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), Department of

Defense (DOD), Service, and Forest

Service. Lands proposed as critical

habitat have been divided into 15

Critical Habitat Units. A brief

description of each unit and reasons for

proposing it as critical habitat are

presented below.

Table 1. Approximate proposed

critical habitat area (hectares (acres)) by

county and land ownership. Estimates

reflect the total area within critical

habitat unit boundaries, without regard

to the presence of primary constituent

elements. The area actually proposed as

critical habitat is therefore less than that

indicated in Table 1.

County Federal* Local/state Private Total

Los Angeles ............................................................................................................... 4,407 ha ...... 1,066 ha ...... 28,795 ha .... 34,268 ha

(10,890 ac) .. (2,633 ac) .... (71,151 ac) .. (84,675 ac)

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5951

County Federal* Local/state Private Total

Orange ....................................................................................................................... 1,428 ha ...... 3,736 ha ...... 34,128 ha .... 39,346 ha

(3,529 ac) .... (9,232 ac) .... (84,463 ac) .. (97,224 ac)

Riverside .................................................................................................................... 7,378 ha ...... 7,430 ha ...... 90,726 ha .... 105,534 ha

(18,230 ac) .. (18,360 ac) .. (224,181 ac) (260,771 ac)

San Bernardino .......................................................................................................... 2,952 ha ...... 352 ha ......... 29,666 ha .... 32,971 ha

(7,295 ac) .... (870 ac) ....... (73,304 ac) .. (81,470 ac)

San Diego .................................................................................................................. 35,767 ha .... 2,597 ha ...... 73,243 ha .... 111,607 ha

(88,378 ac) .. (6,418 ac) .... (180,981 ac) (275,777 ac)

Total ................................................................................................................ 51,932 ha .... 15,181 ha .... 256,558 ha .. 323,726 ha

(128,322 ac) (37,513 ac) .. (634,080 ac) (799,916 ac)

*Federal lands include Bureau of Land Management, Department of Defense, National Forest, and Fish and Wildlife Service lands.

Unit 1: San Diego Multiple Species

Conservation Program (MSCP)

Unit 1 encompasses approximately

20,697 ha (51,141 ac) within the MSCP

planning area. Lands proposed contain

core gnatcatcher populations, sage scrub

and areas providing connectivity

between core populations and sage

scrub. Proposed critical habitat includes

lands within the MSCP planning areas

that have not received incidental take

permits for the gnatcatcher under

section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. This

includes lands essential to the

conservation of the gnatcatcher within:

the cities of Chula Vista, El Cajon, and

Santee; major amendment areas within

the San Diego County Subarea Plan; the

Otay-Sweetwater Unit of the San Diego

National Wildlife Refuge Complex; and

water district lands owned by

Sweetwater Authority, Helix Water

District and Otay Water District.

Unit 2: Marine Corps Air Station,

Miramar

Unit 2 encompasses approximately

4,859 ha (12,007 ac) on Marine Corps

Air Station, Miramar (Station). Lands

proposed include areas identified as

occupied by core gnatcatcher

populations in the Station’s proposed

Integrated Natural Resource

Management Plan as well as canyons

and corridors that provide east-west and

north-south linkages to defined preserve

lands adjacent to this unit.

Unit 3: Multiple Habitat Conservation

Open Space Program (MHCOSP) for San

Diego County

Unit 3 encompasses approximately

6,014 ha (14,860 ac) within the

MHCOSP. Lands proposed include a

core population of gnatcatchers on the

Cleveland National Forest south of State

Route 78 near the upper reaches of the

San Diego River. It also includes

important corridors of sage scrub for

connectivity.

Unit 4: North San Diego County

Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan

(MHCP)

Unit 4 encompasses approximately

28,542 ha (70,526 ac) within the MHCP

planning area in northwestern San

Diego County. Lands proposed contain

core gnatcatcher populations and sage

scrub identified by the San Diego

Association of Governments’ (SANDAG)

‘‘Gnatcatcher Habitat Evaluation

Model,’’ dated March 24, 1999, as high

or moderate value. In addition, areas

proposed provide connectivity between

habitat valued as high or moderate. This

unit also provides connectivity between

core gnatcatcher populations within

adjacent units.

Unit 5: Marine Corps Base Camp

Pendleton

Unit 5 encompasses approximately

20,613 ha (50,935 ac) on Marine Corps

Base Camp Pendleton (Base). Areas

proposed include 26 training areas and

portions of an additional 9 training

areas (refer to the legal description for

this unit for the names of the training

areas affected). The Base contains a

substantial coastal corridor of

gnatcatcher-occupied sage scrub that

provides the primary linkage between

San Diego populations and those in

southern Orange County (Unit 8).

Another corridor of gnatcatcheroccupied sage scrub occurs along the

Santa Margarita River valley that

branches inland, connecting with

habitat in the Fallbrook Naval Weapons

Station (Unit 6) and further north into

southwestern Riverside County (Unit

12).

Unit 6: Fallbrook Naval Weapons

Station

Unit 6 encompasses approximately

3,606 ha (8,909 ac) on Fallbrook Naval

Weapons Station in northern San Diego

County. The unit provides a significant

segment of a corridor of sage scrub

between core gnatcatcher populations

on Camp Pendleton (Unit 5) and

populations in southwestern Riverside

County (Unit 12).

Unit 7: North County Subarea of the

MSCP for Unincorporated San Diego

County

Unit 7 encompasses approximately

27,295 ha (67,446 ac) within the

planning area for the North County

Subarea of the MSCP for San Diego

County. Lands proposed contain several

core gnatcatcher populations and sage

scrub identified as high or moderate

value. In addition, proposed areas

provide connectivity between habitat

valued as high or moderate. This unit

constitutes the primary inland linkage

between San Diego populations and

those in southwestern Riverside County

(Unit 12).

Unit 8: Southern NCCP Subregion of

Orange County

Unit 8 encompasses approximately

27,828 ha (68,763 ac) within the

planning area for the Southern NCCP

Subregion of Orange County. This unit

contains significant core populations

and provides the primary linkage for

core populations on Marine Corps Base

Camp Pendleton (Unit 5) to those

further north in Orange County (Unit 9).

Unit 9: Central/Coastal NCCP

Subregions of Orange County (Central/

Coastal NCCP)

Unit 9 encompasses approximately

2,337 ha (5,776 ac) within the Orange

County Central/Coastal NCCP planning

area. It includes lands containing core

gnatcatcher populations and sage scrub

habitat determined to be essential for

the conservation and recovery of the

gnatcatcher within select Existing-Use

Areas, the western portion of the North

Ranch Policy Plan Area (i.e., west of

State Route 241), and the designated

reserve (panhandle portion) of Marine

Corps Air Station El Toro.

Unit 10: Palos Verdes Peninsula

Subregion, Los Angeles County

Unit 10 encompasses approximately

5,588 ha (13,808 ac) within the

5952 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

subregional planning area for the Palos

Verdes Peninsula in Los Angeles

County, including the City of Rancho

Palos Verdes MSHCP area. This unit

includes a core gnatcatcher population

and sage scrub habitat.

Unit 11: East Los Angeles County-Matrix

NCCP Subregion of Orange County

Unit 11 encompasses approximately

22,130 ha (54,682 ac) within the

Montebello, Chino-Puente Hills, East

Coyote Hills and West Coyote Hills area.

The unit provides the primary

connectivity between core gnatcatcher

populations and sage scrub habitat

within the Central/Coastal Subregions of

the Orange County NCCP (Unit 9), the

Western Riverside County MSHCP (Unit

12), and the Bonelli Regional Park core

population within the North Los

Angeles linkage (Unit 14).

Unit 12: Western Riverside County

Multiple Species Habitat Conservation

Plan (MSHCP)

Unit 12 encompasses approximately

106,908 ha (264,167 ac) within the

proposed planning area for the Western

Riverside County MSHCP. Lands

proposed include core populations

within the Temecula/Murietta/Lake

Skinner region and the Lake Elsinore/

Lake Mathews region. Also proposed are

regions of connectivity and additional

core populations that occur along the I–

15 corridor, the Lake Perris area, the

Alessandro Heights area, the Box Spring

Mountains/The Badlands, and along the

foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains

into the Chino-Puente Hills. These areas

provide connectivity between core

populations within Riverside County

and to populations in San Diego, San

Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles

Counties. Unit 12 encompasses some of

the Core Reserves established under the

Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat HCP. The Lake

Mathews/Estelle Mountain, Steele Peak,

Lake Perris/San Jacinto Core Reserves,

the Potrero Area of Critical

Environmental Concern, and the

Southwestern Riverside County MultiSpecies Reserve provide essential

habitat for the gnatcatcher and,

therefore, have been proposed for

designation as critical habitat.

Unit 13: San Bernardino Valley MSHCP,

San Bernardino County

Unit 13 encompasses approximately

30,076 ha (74,316 ac) along the foothills

of the San Gabriel Mountains and

within the Jurupa Hills on the border of

San Bernardino and Riverside Counties.

The unit includes lands within the San

Bernardino National Forest and on

Norton Air Force Base. This unit

contains breeding gnatcatcher

populations and constitutes a primary

linkage between western Riverside

County (Unit 12) and eastern Los

Angeles County (Unit 11).

Unit 14: East Los Angeles County

Linkage

Unit 14 encompasses approximately

3,384 ha (8,361 ac) in eastern Los

Angeles County along the foothills of

the San Gabriel Mountains. Its main

function is in establishing the primary

east-west connectivity of sage scrub

habitat between core gnatcatcher

populations in San Bernardino County

(Unit 13) to those in southeastern Los

Angeles County (Unit 11).

Unit 15: Western Los Angeles County

Unit 15 encompasses approximately

13,897 ha (34,339 ac) in western Los

Angeles county along the foothills of the

San Gabriel Mountains. It includes

breeding gnatcatcher populations and

sage scrub habitat in the Placerita, Box

Springs Canyon, and Plum Canyon

areas. This unit encompasses the

northern distributional extreme of the

gnatcatcher’s current range.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires

Federal agencies, including the Service,

to ensure that actions they fund,

authorize, or carry out do not destroy or

adversely modify critical habitat to the

extent that the action appreciably

diminishes the value of the critical

habitat for the survival and recovery of

the species. Individuals, organizations,

States, local governments, and other

nonFederal entities are affected by the

designation of critical habitat only if

their actions occur on Federal lands,

require a Federal permit, license, or

other authorization, or involve Federal

funding.

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

designated or proposed. Regulations

implementing this interagency

cooperation provision of the Act are

codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section

7(a)(4) 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

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 actions

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 we

would ensure 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 conferencing 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 a biological

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5953

designated, if no significant 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 the coastal California gnatcatcher

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

(Army Corps) under section 404 of the

Clean Water Act, or some other Federal

action, including funding (e.g., Federal

Highway Administration, Federal

Aviation Administration, or Federal

Emergency Management Agency) will

also continue to be subject to the section

7 consultation process. Federal actions

not affecting listed species or critical

habitat and actions on nonFederal lands

that are not federally funded or

permitted do not require section 7

consultation.

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us

to evaluate briefly in any proposed or

final regulation that designates critical

habitat those activities involving a

Federal action that may adversely

modify such habitat or that may be

affected by such designation. Activities

that may destroy or adversely modify

critical habitat include those that alter

the primary constituent elements to an

extent that the value of critical habitat

for both the survival and recovery of the

gnatcatcher is appreciably reduced. We

note that such activities may also

jeopardize the continued existence of

the species. Activities that, when

carried out, funded, or authorized by a

Federal agency, may directly or

indirectly adversely affect critical

habitat include, but are not limited to—

(1) Removing, thinning, or destroying

gnatcatcher habitat (as defined in the

primary constituent elements

discussion), whether by burning or

mechanical, chemical, or other means

(e.g., woodcutting, grubbing, grading,

overgrazing, construction, road

building, mining, herbicide application,

etc.) and

(2) Appreciably decreasing habitat

value or quality through indirect effects

(e.g., noise, edge effects, invasion of

exotic plants or animals, or

fragmentation).

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. Actions

likely to ‘‘jeopardize the continued

existence’’ of a species are those that

would appreciably reduce the

likelihood of the species’ survival and

recovery. Actions likely to ‘‘destroy or

adversely modify’’ critical habitat are

those that would appreciably reduce the

value of critical habitat for the survival

and recovery of the listed species.

Common to both definitions is an

appreciable detrimental effect on both

survival and recovery of a listed species.

Given the similarity of these definitions,

actions likely to destroy or adversely

modify critical habitat would almost

always result in jeopardy to the species

concerned, particularly when the area of

the proposed action is occupied by the

species concerned. In those cases,

critical habitat provides little additional

protection to a species, and the

ramifications of its designation are few

or none. However, if occupied habitat

becomes unoccupied in the future, there

is a potential benefit to critical habitat

in such areas.

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.

These actions include, but are not

limited to—

(1) Regulation of activities affecting

waters of the United States by the Army

Corps of Engineers under section 404 of

the Clean Water Act;

(2) Regulation of water flows,

damming, diversion, and channelization

by Federal agencies;

(3) Regulation of grazing, mining, and

recreation by the BLM or Forest Service;

(4) Road construction and

maintenance, right of way designation,

and regulation of agricultural activities;

(5) Regulation of airport improvement

activities by the Federal Aviation

Administration jurisdiction;

(6) Military training and maneuvers

on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton

and Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar

and other applicable DOD lands;

(7) Construction of roads and fences

along the International Border with

Mexico, and associated immigration

enforcement activities by the

Immigration and Naturalization Service;

(8) Hazard mitigation and postdisaster repairs funded by the Federal

Emergency Management Agency;

(9) Construction of communication

sites licensed by the Federal

Communications Commission; and

(10) Activities funded by the U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Department of Energy, or any other

Federal agency.

All proposed critical habitat is within

the geographical area occupied by the

species and is likely used by

gnatcatchers, whether by reproductive,

territorial birds, or by birds merely

moving through the area. Thus, in a

broad sense, we consider all critical

habitat to be occupied by the species.

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, thus we do not

anticipate additional regulatory

protection will result from critical

habitat designation.

Relationship to Incidental Take Permits

Issued Under Section 10

Several habitat conservation planning

efforts have been completed within the

range of the gnatcatcher. Principal

among these are NCCP efforts in Orange

and San Diego Counties. NCCP plans

completed and permitted to date have

resulted in the conservation of 40,208

ha (99,310 ac) of gnatcatcher habitat.

In southwestern San Diego County,

the development of the MSCP has

resulted in our approval of three subarea

plans under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the

Act. These three southern subarea plans

account for approximately 95 percent of

the gnatcatcher habitat in southern San

Diego County. When fully implemented,

the MSCP will result in the

establishment of conservation areas that

collectively contain 28,844 ha (71,274

ac) of coastal sage scrub vegetation

within a 69,573-ha (171,917-ac) preserve

area.

Additionally, we have approved the

Orange County Central-Coastal NCCP/

HCP and issued an incidental take

permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the

Act. Implementation of the plan will

result in the conservation of 15,677 ha

(38,738 ac) of Reserve lands, which

contain 7,621 ha (18,831 ac) of coastal

sage scrub.

The gnatcatcher habitat in the

approved planning areas in San Diego

and Orange Counties was selected, with

our technical assistance and that of the

California Department of Fish and Game

(CDFG), for permanent preservation and

configuration into a biologically viable

interlocking system of reserves by the

local jurisdictions. The reserve system

established within the approved

planning areas includes those habitat

areas that we consider essential to the

long-term survival and recovery of the

gnatcatcher. In addition, the plans detail

management measures for the reserve

lands that protect, restore, and enhance

their value as gnatcatcher habitat.

The essential gnatcatcher habitat that

is within planning areas is permanently

5954 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

protected in the habitat reserves; no

additional private lands within the

planning areas warrant designation as

critical habitat. Because the gnatcatcher

habitat preserved in the planning areas

is managed for the benefit of the

gnatcatcher under the terms of the

plans, and associated section 10

(a)(1)(B) permits there are no

‘‘additional management considerations

or protections’’ required for those lands.

Therefore, we have determined that

private lands within approved HCP

planning areas and covered by an

existing section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for

the gnatcatcher do not meet the

definition of critical habitat in the Act,

and we are not proposing designation of

such lands as critical habitat.

We also have approved several

smaller multiple species HCPs in San

Diego Riverside, Los Angeles, and

Orange Counties. These include,

Bennett Property, Meadowlark Estates,

Fieldstone, and Poway Subarea Plan in

San Diego County; Coyote Hills East and

Shell Oil in Orange County; Ocean

Trails in Los Angeles County; and Lake

Mathews in Riverside County. These

efforts have resulted in the protection of

3,743 ha (9,250 ac) of gnatcatcher

habitat.

The currently approved and permitted

HCPs are designed to ensure the longterm survival of covered species,

including the gnatcatcher, within the

plan areas. The reserve lands and other

conservation lands that require

protection under these approved plans

encompass those lands essential for the

survival and recovery of the gnatcatcher.

The HCPs and implementation

agreements outline management

measures and protections for the

conservation lands that are crafted to

protect, restore, and enhance their value

as gnatcatcher habitat. Because

appropriate management and protection

of areas essential for the conservation of

the gnatcatcher are required under these

approved and permitted plans, we do

not believe these areas meet the

definition of critical habitat nor do we

believe they require designation.

As is the case with existing approved

gnatcatcher HCPs, the gnatcatcher plans

currently under development will

provide for protection and management

of habitat areas essential for the

conservation of the gnatcatcher while

directing development and habitat

modification to nonessential areas of

lower habitat value. The HCP

development process provides an

opportunity for more intensive data

collection and analysis regarding the

use of particular habitat areas by

gnatcatchers. The process also enables

us to conduct detailed evaluations of the

importance of such lands to the long

term survival of the species in the

context of constructing a biologically

configured system of interlinked habitat

blocks. We fully expect that HCPs

undertaken by local jurisdictions (e.g.,

counties, cities) and other parties will

identify, protect, and provide

appropriate management for those

specific lands within the boundaries of

the plans that are essential for the longterm conservation of the species. We

believe and fully expect that our

analyses of these proposed HCPs and

proposed permits under section 7 will

show that covered activities carried out

in accordance with the provisions of the

HCPs and permits will not result in

destruction or adverse modification of

critical habitat.

We provide technical assistance and

work closely with applicants throughout

the development of HCPs to identify

appropriate conservation management

and lands essential for the long-term

conservation of the gnatcatcher. Several

HCP efforts are now underway for the

gnatcatcher and other listed and nonlisted species, in Orange, Los Angeles,

Riverside, San Bernardino, and San

Diego Counties in areas proposed herein

as critical habitat. These HCPs, coupled

with appropriate adaptive management,

should provide for the conservation of

the species. We are soliciting comments

on whether future approval of HCPs and

issuance of section 10(a)(1)(B) permits

for the gnatcatcher should trigger

revision of designated critical habitat to

exclude lands within the HCP area and,

if so, by what mechanism (see Public

Comments Solicited section).

Relationship to the 4(d) Special Rule for

the Gnatcatcher

On December 10, 1993, a final special

rule concerning take of the gnatcatcher

was published pursuant to section 4(d)

of the Act (58 FR 63088). Under the 4(d)

special rule, incidental take of

gnatcatchers is not considered to be a

violation of section 9 of the Act if—(1)

Take results from activities conducted

pursuant to the requirements of the

NCCP and in accordance with an

approved NCCP plan for the protection

of coastal sage scrub habitat, prepared

consistent with the State of California’s

Conservation and Process Guidelines

(Guidelines) dated November 1993; and

(2) the Service issues written

concurrence that the plan meets the

standards for issuance of an incidental

take permit under 50 CFR 17.32(b)(2).

Within enrolled subregions actively

engaged in the preparation of an NCCP

plan, the take of gnatcatchers will not be

a violation of section 9 of the Act if such

take results from activities conducted in

accordance with the Guidelines. The

Guidelines limit habitat loss during the

interim planning period to no more than

5 percent of coastal sage scrub with

lower long-term conservation potential

in existence at the time of adoption of

the 4(d) special rule.

The Guidelines specify criteria to

evaluate the long-term conservation

potential of sage scrub that is proposed

for loss during the period that NCCP

plans are being developed to assist

participating jurisdictions in providing

interim protection for areas that support

habitat that is likely to be important to

conservation of the gnatcatcher. These

jurisdictions are—the Southern and

Matrix subregions of Orange County; the

cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and San

Dimas in Los Angeles County; MSCP

subareas in the cities of Santee, El

Cajon, Chula Vista, and Coronado; the

MHCP Subregion of northwestern San

Diego County; the North County

Subarea of San Diego’s MSCP; San

Diego County’s MHCOSP; and six water

districts in San Diego County.

We intend that participating

jurisdictions will be able to continue to

apply the 4(d) special rule within

designated critical habitat and to issue

Habitat Loss Permits, with the joint

concurrence of us and the CDFG,

provided the jurisdictions are actively

working to complete their subarea plans

and adhere to the Guidelines. To be

consistent with the Guidelines, the

jurisdictions must find, and we and

CDFG must concur, that:

1. The proposed habitat loss is

consistent with the interim loss criteria

in the Guidelines and with any

subregional process if established by the

subregion:

(a) the habitat loss does not

cumulatively exceed the 5 percent

guideline;

(b) the habitat loss will not preclude

connectivity between areas of high

habitat values;

(c) the habitat loss will not preclude

or prevent the preparation of the

subregional NCCP;

(d) the habitat loss has been

minimized and mitigated to the

maximum extent practicable in

accordance with section 4.3 of the

Guidelines.

2. The habitat loss will not

appreciably reduce the likelihood of the

survival and recovery of listed species

in the wild, and

3. The habitat loss is incidental to

otherwise lawful activities.

Because, in addition to avoiding

jeopardy to the gnatcatcher, the

Guidelines direct habitat loss to areas

with low long-term conservation

potential that will not preclude

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5955

development of adequate NCCP plans

and ensure that connectivity between

areas of high habitat value will be

maintained, we believe that allowing a

small percentage of habitat loss within

designated critical habitat pursuant to

the 4(d) rule is not likely to adversely

modify or destroy critical habitat by

appreciably reducing its value for both

the survival and recovery of the species.

When we make a final critical habitat

determination, we will prepare a new

biological opinion on the 4(d) rule to

formally evaluate the effects of the rule

on designated critical habitat.

Requests for copies of the regulations

on listed wildlife and inquiries about

prohibitions and permits may be

addressed to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Branch of Endangered Species,

911 NE. 11th Ave., Portland, OR 97232

(telephone 503–231–2063, facsimile

503–231–6143).

Economic Analysis

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

to designate critical habitat on the basis

of the best scientific and commercial

data available and to consider the

economic and other relevant impacts of

designating a particular area as critical

habitat. We may exclude areas from

critical habitat upon a determination

that the benefits of such exclusions

outweigh the benefits of specifying such

areas as critical habitat. We cannot

exclude such areas from critical habitat

when such exclusion will result in the

extinction of the species. Although we

could not identify any incremental

effects of this proposed critical habitat

designation above those impacts of

listing, we will conduct an economic

analysis to further evaluate this finding.

We will conduct the economic analysis

for this proposal prior to a final

determination. When the draft economic

analysis is completed, we will announce

its availability with a notice in the

Federal Register, and we will reopen

the comment period for 30 days at that

time to accept comments on the

economic analysis or further comment

on the proposed rule.

Public Comments Solicited

It is our intent that any final action

resulting from this proposal will be as

accurate and as effective as possible.

Therefore, we solicit comments or

suggestions from the public, other

concerned governmental agencies, the

scientific community, industry or any

other interested party concerning this

proposed rule.

In this proposed rule, we do not

propose to designate critical habitat on

nonFederal lands within the boundaries

of an existing approved HCP and

covered by an existing legally operative

incidental take permit for California

gnatcatchers issued under section

10(a)(1)(B) of the Act because the

existing HCPs provide for development

in nonessential areas and establish longterm commitments to conserve the

species and areas essential to the

conservation of the gnatcatcher.

Therefore, we believe that such areas do

not meet the definition of critical habitat

because they do not need special

management considerations or

protection. However, we are specifically

soliciting comments on the

appropriateness of this approach and on

the following or other alternative

approaches for critical habitat

designation in areas covered by existing

approved HCPs:

(1) Designate critical habitat without

regard to existing HCP boundaries and

allow the section 7 consultation process

on the issuance of the incidental take

permit to ensure that any take we

authorized will not destroy or adversely

modify critical habitat;

(2) Designate reserves, preserves, and

other conservation lands identified by

approved HCPs, on the premise that

they encompass areas that are essential

to conservation of the species within the

HCP area and that will continue to

require special management protection

in the future. Under this approach, all

other lands covered by existing

approved HCPs where incidental take

for the gnatcatcher is authorized under

a legally operative permit pursuant to

section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act would be

excluded from critical habitat.

The amount of critical habitat we

designate for the gnatcatcher in a final

rule may either increase or decrease,

depending upon which approach we

adopt for dealing with designation in

areas of existing approved HCPs.

Additionally, we are seeking

comments on critical habitat

designation relative to future HCPs.

Several conservation planning efforts

are now underway for the gnatcatcher

(and other listed and nonlisted species)

in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San

Bernardino, and San Diego Counties in

areas we are proposing as critical

habitat. For areas where HCPs are

currently under development, we are

proposing to designate critical habitat

for areas that we believe are essential to

the conservation of the species and need

special management or protection. We

invite comments on the appropriateness

of this approach.

In addition, we invite comments on

the following or other approaches for

addressing critical habitat within the

boundaries of future approved HCPs

upon issuance of section 10(a)(1)(B)

permits for the gnatcatcher—

(1) Retain critical habitat designation

within the HCP boundaries and use the

section 7 consultation process on the

issuance of the incidental take permit to

ensure that any take we authorize will

not destroy or adversely modify critical

habitat;

(2) Revise the critical habitat

designation upon approval of the HCP

and issuance of the section 10(a)(1)(B)

permit to retain only preserve areas, on

the premise that they encompass areas

essential for the conservation of the

species within the HCP area and require

special management and protection in

the future. Assuming that we conclude,

at the time an HCP is approved and the

associated incidental take permit is

issued, that the plan protects those areas

essential to the conservation of the

gnatcatcher, we would revise the critical

habitat designation to exclude areas

outside the reserves, preserves, or other

conservation lands established under

the plan. Consistent with our listing

program priorities, we would publish a

proposed rule in the Federal Register to

revise the critical habitat boundaries;

(3) As in (2) above, retain only

preserve lands within the critical habitat

designation, on the premise that they

encompass areas essential for

conservation of the species within the

HCP area and require special

management and protection in the

future. However, under this approach,

the exclusion of areas outside the

preserve lands from critical habitat

would occur automatically upon

issuance of the incidental take permit.

The public would be notified and have

the opportunity to comment on the

boundaries of the preserve lands and the

revision of designated critical habitat

during the public review and comment

process for HCP approval and

permitting;

(4) Remove designated critical habitat

entirely from within the boundaries of

an HCP when the plan is approved

(including preserve lands), on the

premise that the HCP establishes longterm commitments to conserve the

species and no further special

management or protection is required.

Consistent with our listing program

priorities, we would publish a proposed

rule in the Federal Register to revise the

critical habitat boundaries; or

(5) Remove designated critical habitat

entirely from within the boundaries of

HCPs when the plans are approved

(including preserve lands), on the

premise that the HCP establishes longterm commitments to conserve the

species and no additional special

management or protection is required.

5956 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

This exclusion from critical habitat

would occur automatically upon

issuance of the incidental take permit.

The public would be notified and have

the opportunity to comment on the

revision of designated critical habitat

during the public notification process

for HCP approval and permitting.

Additionally, we are seeking

comments on the following—

(1) The reasons why any habitat

should or should not be determined to

be critical habitat as provided by section

4 of the Act, including whether the

benefits of designation will outweigh

any threats to the species due to

designation or other consequences to

conservation of the gnatcatcher resulting

from designation;

(2) Specific information on the

amount and distribution of gnatcatchers

and what habitat is essential to the

conservation of the species and why;

(3) Land use practices and current or

planned activities in the subject areas

and their possible impacts on proposed

critical habitat;

(4) Any foreseeable economic or other

impacts resulting from the proposed

designation of critical habitat, in

particular, any impacts on small entities

or families; and

(5) Economic and other values

associated with designating critical

habitat for the gnatcatcher such as those

derived from non-consumptive uses

(e.g., hiking, camping, bird-watching,

enhanced watershed protection,

improved air quality, increased soil

retention, ‘‘existence values,’’ and

reductions in administrative costs).

Our practice is to make comments,

including names and home addresses of

respondents, available for public review

during regular business hours.

Individual respondents may request that

we withhold their home address from

the rulemaking record, which we will

honor to the extent allowable by law.

There also may be circumstances in

which we would withhold from the

rulemaking record a respondent’s

identity, as allowable by law. If you

wish us to withhold your name and/or

address, you must state this

prominently at the beginning of your

comment. However, we will not

consider anonymous comments. We

will make all submissions from

organizations or businesses, and from

individuals identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of

organizations or businesses, available

for public inspection in their entirety.

Peer Review

In accordance with our policy

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR

34270), we will seek the expert opinions

of at least three appropriate and

independent specialists regarding this

proposed rule. The purpose of such

review is to ensure decisions are based

on scientifically sound data,

assumptions, and analyses. We will

send these peer reviewers copies of this

proposed rule immediately following

publication in the Federal Register. We

will invite these peer reviewers to

comment, during the public comment

period, on the specific assumptions and

conclusions regarding the proposed

designation of critical habitat.

We will consider all comments and

data received during the 60-day

comment period on this proposed rule

during preparation of a final

rulemaking. Accordingly, the final

decision may differ from this proposal.

Public Hearings

The Act provides for one or more

public hearings on this proposal, if

requested. Given the large geographic

extent covered by this proposal, the

high likelihood of multiple requests,

and the need to publish the final

determination by September 30, 2000,

we have scheduled three hearings. The

hearings are scheduled to be held in

Anaheim for Los Angeles and Orange

Counties on February 15, 2000; in San

Diego for San Diego County on February

17, 2000; and in Riverside for Riverside

and San Bernardino Counties on

February 23, 2000. Written comments

submitted during the comment period

will receive equal consideration as

comments presented at a public hearing.

For additional information on public

hearings see the ADDRESSES section.

Clarity of the Rule

Executive Order 12866 requires each

agency to write regulations and notices

that are easy to understand. We invite

your comments on how to make this

proposed rule easier to understand

including answers to questions such as

the following—(1) Are the requirements

in the document clearly stated? (2) Does

the proposed rule contain technical

language or jargon that interferes with

the clarity? (3) Does the format of the

proposed rule (grouping and order of

sections, use of headings, paragraphing,

etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the

description of the proposed rule in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of

the preamble helpful in understanding

the document? (5) What else could we

do to make the proposed rule easier to

understand?

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

This document has been reviewed by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), in accordance with Executive

Order 12866. OMB makes the final

determination under Executive Order

12866.

(a) This rule will not have an annual

economic effect of $100 million or

adversely affect an economic sector,

productivity, jobs, the environment, or

other units of government. A costbenefit and economic analysis is not

required. The coastal California

gnatcatcher was listed as a threatened

species in 1993. In fiscal years 1998

through 2000 we have conducted 50

formal section 7 consultations with

other Federal agencies to ensure that

their actions would not jeopardize the

continued existence of the gnatcatcher.

We have also issued an estimated 15

section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take

permits for entities that have prepared

HCPs for areas where the species occurs.

The areas proposed for critical habitat

are currently occupied by the coastal

California gnatcatcher. Under the Act,

critical habitat may not be adversely

modified by a Federal agency action; it

does not impose any restrictions on

nonFederal persons unless they are

conducting activities funded or

otherwise sponsored or permitted by a

Federal agency (see Table 2 below).

Section 7 requires Federal agencies to

ensure that they do not jeopardize the

continued existence of the species.

Based upon our experience with the

species and its needs, we conclude that

any Federal action or authorized action

that could potentially cause an adverse

modification of the proposed critical

habitat would currently be considered

as ‘‘jeopardy’’ under the Act.

Accordingly, the designation of

currently occupied areas as critical

habitat does not have any incremental

impacts on what actions may or may not

be conducted by Federal agencies or

nonFederal persons that receive Federal

authorization or funding. NonFederal

persons that do not have a Federal

‘‘sponsorship’’ of their actions are not

restricted by the designation of critical

habitat (they continue to be bound by

the provisions of the Act concerning

‘‘take’’ of the species).

(b) This rule will not create

inconsistencies with other agencies’

actions. As discussed above, Federal

agencies have been required to ensure

that their actions do not jeopardize the

continued existence of the coastal

California gnatcatcher since the listing

in 1993. The prohibition against adverse

modification of critical habitat is not

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5957

expected to impose any additional

restrictions to those that currently exist

because all proposed critical habitat is

occupied. Because of the potential for

impacts on other Federal agency

activities, we will continue to review

this proposed action for any

inconsistencies with other Federal

agency actions.

(c) This rule will not materially affect

entitlements, grants, user fees, loan

programs, or the rights and obligations

of their recipients. Federal agencies are

currently required to ensure that their

activities do not jeopardize the

continued existence of the species, and

as discussed above we do not anticipate

that the adverse modification

prohibition (resulting from critical

habitat designation) will have any

incremental effects.

(d) This rule will not raise novel legal

or policy issues. The proposed rule

follows the requirements for

determining critical habitat contained in

the Endangered Species Act.

TABLE 2.—IMPACTS OF GNATCATCHER LISTING AND CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION

Categories of activities Activities potentially affected by species listing only 1

Additional activities potentially affected by

critical habitat designation 2

Federal Activities Potentially Affected 3.Activities such as removing, thinning, or destroying gnatcatcher habitat (as defined in the

primary constituent elements discussion), whether by burning or mechanical, chemical, or

other means (e.g. woodcutting, grubbing, grading, overgrazing, construction, road building,

mining, herbicide application, etc.) and appreciably decreasing habitat value or quality

through indirect effects (e.g. noise, edge effects, invasion of exotic plants or animals, or

fragmentation that the Federal Government carries out.

None

Private Activities Potentially Affected 4.Activities such as removing, thinning, or destroying gnatcatcher habitat (as defined in the

primary constituent elements discussion), whether by burning or mechanical, chemical, or

other means (e.g. woodcutting, grubbing, grading, overgrazing, construction, road building,

mining, herbicide application, etc.) and appreciably decreasing habitat value or quality

through indirect effects (e.g. noise, edge effects, invasion of exotic plants or animals, or

fragmentation that require a Federal action (permit, authorization, or funding).

None

1This column represents the activities potentially affected by listing the gnatcatcher as a threatened species (March 30, 1993; 58 FR 16741)

under the Endangered Species Act. 2This column represents the activities potentially affected by the critical habitat designation in addition to those activities potentially affected by

listing the species. 3Activities initiated by a Federal agency.

4 Activities initiated by a private entity that may need Federal authorization or funding.

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

et seq.)

In the economic analysis, we will

determine whether designation of

critical habitat will have a significant

effect on a substantial number of small

entities. As discussed under Regulatory

Planning and Review above, this rule is

not expected to result in any restrictions

in addition to those currently in

existence. As indicated on Table 1 (see

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

section) we have designated property

owned by Federal, State and local

governments, and private property.

Within these areas, the types of

Federal actions or authorized activities

that we have identified as potential

concerns are:

(1) Regulation of activities affecting

waters of the United States by the Army

Corps of Engineers under section 404 of

the Clean Water Act;

(2) Regulation of water flows,

damming, diversion, and channelization

by Federal agencies;

(3) Regulation of grazing, mining, and

recreation by the BLM or Forest Service;

(4) Road construction and

maintenance, right of way designation,

and regulation of agricultural activities;

(5) Regulation of airport improvement

activities by the Federal Aviation

Administration jurisdiction;

(6) Military training and maneuvers

on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton

and Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar

and other applicable DOD lands;

(7) Construction of roads and fences

along the International Border with

Mexico, and associated immigration

enforcement activities by the

Immigration and Naturalization Service;

(8) Hazard mitigation and postdisaster repairs funded by the Federal

Emergency Management Agency;

(9) Construction of communication

sites licensed by the Federal

Communications Commission; and

(10) Activities funded by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Department of Energy, or any other

Federal agency.

Many of these activities sponsored by

Federal agencies within the proposed

critical habitat areas are carried out by

small entities (as defined by the

Regulatory Flexibility Act) through

contract, grant, permit, or other Federal

authorization. As discussed in section 1

above, these actions are currently

required to comply with the listing

protections of the Act, and the

designation of critical habitat is not

anticipated to have any additional

effects on these activities.

For actions on nonFederal property

that do not have a Federal connection

(such as funding or authorization), the

current restrictions concerning take of

the species remain in effect, and this

rule will have no additional restrictions.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))

In the economic analysis, we will

determine whether designation of

critical habitat will cause (a) any effect

on the economy of $100 million or

more, (b) any increases in costs or prices

for consumers, individual industries,

Federal, State, or local government

agencies, or geographic regions in the

economic analysis, or (c) any significant

adverse effects on competition,

employment, investment, productivity,

innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

In accordance with the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et

seq.):

(a) This rule will not ‘‘significantly or

uniquely’’ affect small governments. A

Small Government Agency Plan is not

required. Small governments will only

be affected to the extent that any Federal

funds, permits or other authorized

activities must ensure that their actions

will not adversely affect the critical

habitat. However, as discussed in

5958 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

section 1, these actions are currently

subject to equivalent restrictions

through the listing protections of the

species, and no further restrictions are

anticipated.

(b) This rule will not produce a

Federal mandate of $100 million or

greater in any year, that is, it is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

The designation of critical habitat

imposes no obligations on State or local

governments.

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order

12630, the rule does not have significant

takings implications. A takings

implication assessment is not required.

As discussed above, the designation of

critical habitat affects only Federal

agency actions. The rule will not

increase or decrease the current

restrictions on private property

concerning take of the coastal California

gnatcatcher. Due to current public

knowledge of the species protection, the

prohibition against take of the species

both within and outside of the

designated areas, and the fact that

critical habitat provides no incremental

restrictions, we do not anticipate that

property values will be affected by the

critical habitat designation.

Additionally, critical habitat

designation does not preclude

development of habitat conservation

plans and issuance of incidental take

permits. Landowners in areas that are

included in the designated critical

habitat will continue to have

opportunity to utilize their property in

ways consistent with the survival of the

gnatcatcher.

Federalism

In accordance with Executive Order

13132, the rule does not have significant

Federalism effects. A Federalism

assessment is not required. The

designation of critical habitat in areas

currently occupied by the coastal

California gnatcatcher imposes no

additional restrictions to those currently

in place, and therefore has little

incremental impact on State and local

governments and their activities. The

designation may have some benefit to

these governments in that the areas

essential to the conservation of the

species are more clearly defined, and

the primary constituent elements of the

habitat necessary to the survival of the

species are specifically identified. While

this definition and identification does

not alter where and what federally

sponsored activities may occur, it may

assist these local governments in long

range planning (rather than waiting for

case by case section 7 consultations to

occur).

Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has

determined that the rule does not

unduly burden the judicial system and

meets the requirements of sections 3(a)

and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We designate

critical habitat in accordance with the

provisions of the Endangered Species

Act and plan public hearings on the

proposed designation during the

comment period. The 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

gnatcatcher.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

This rule does not contain any

information collection requirements for

which OMB approval under the

Paperwork Reduction Act is required.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that an

Environmental Assessment and/or an

Environmental Impact Statement as

defined by the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 need not be prepared

in connection with regulations adopted

pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A

notice outlining our reason for this

determination was published in the

Federal Register on October 25, 1983

(48 FR 49244). This proposed rule does

not constitute a major Federal action

significantly affecting the quality of the

human environment.

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) and 512

DM 2, we readily acknowledge our

responsibility to communicate

meaningfully with recognized Federal

Tribes on a government-to-government

basis. The Appendix to Secretarial

Order 3206 ‘‘American Indian Tribal

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust

Responsibilities, and the Endangered

Species Act’’ (1997) provides that

critical habitat shall not be designated

in an area that may impact Tribal trust

resources unless it is determined

essential to conserve a listed species.

The Appendix further provides that in

designating critical habitat; ‘‘the Service

shall evaluate and document the extent

to which the conservation needs of a

listed species can be achieved by

limiting the designation to other lands.’’

We have determined that there are no

Tribal lands essential for the

conservation of the gnatcatcher because

they do not support core gnatcatcher

populations, nor do they provide

essential linkages between core

populations. Therefore, we are not

proposing to designate critical habitat

for the gnatcatcher on Tribal lands.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

in this proposed rule is available upon

request from the Carlsbad Fish and

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author. The primary author of this

notice is Douglas Krofta (see ADDRESSES

section)

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to amend

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as

set forth below:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

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

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

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. In § 17.11(h) revise the entry for

‘‘Gnatcatcher, coastal California’’’ under

‘‘BIRDS’’ to read as follows:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5959

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate

population

where endangered

or threatened

Status When listed Critical habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

* * * * * **

BIRDS

* * * * * **

Gnatcatcher, coastal

California.

Polioptila .....................

californica ...................

californica ...................

U.S.A. (CA), ...............

Mexico ........................

do T 496 17.95(b) 17.41(b)

* * * * * **

3. In § 17.95 add critical habitat for

the coastal California gnatcatcher

(Polioptila californica californica) under

paragraph (b) in the same alphabetical

order as this species occurs in

§ 17.11(h), to read as follows:

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.

* * * * *

(b) Birds.

* * * * *

Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila

californica californica)

1. Critical Habitat Units are depicted for

Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San

Bernardino, and San Diego Counties,

California, on the maps below.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

5960 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

2. Within these areas, the primary constituent elements for the gnatcatcher are those habitat components that are essential for

the primary biological needs of foraging, nesting, rearing of young, intra-specific communication, roosting, dispersal, genetic exchange,

or sheltering (Atwood 1990). Primary constituent elements are provided in undeveloped areas, including agricultural lands, that support

or have the potential to support, through natural successional processes, various types of sage scrub or support chaparral, grassland,

and riparian habitats where they occur proximal to sage scrub and where they may be utilized for biological needs such as breeding

and foraging (Atwood et al. 1998, Campbell et al. 1998). Primary constituent elements associated with the biological needs of dispersal

are also found in undeveloped areas, including agricultural lands, that provide or could provide connectivity or linkage between

or within larger core areas, including open space and disturbed areas that may receive only periodic use.

Primary constituent elements include, but are not limited to, the following plant communities: Venturan coastal sage scrub, Diegan

coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub, Riversidean sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan scrub, southern coastal bluff scrub,

and coastal sage-chaparral scrub (Holland 1986). Based upon dominant species, these communities have been further divided into

series such as black sage, brittlebush, California buckwheat, California buckwheat-white sage, California encelia, California sagebrush,

California sagebrush-black sage, California sagebrush-California buckwheat, coast prickly-pear, mixed sage, purple sage, scalebroom,

and white sage (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). Dominant species within these plant communities include California sagebrush (Artemisia

californica), buckwheats (Eriogonum fasciculatum and E. cinereum), encelias (Encelia californica and E. farinosa), and various sages

(commonly Salvia mellifera, S. apiana, and S. leucophylla). Other commonly occurring plants include coast goldenbush (Isocoma

menziesii), bush monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus), Mexican elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), bladderpod (Isomeris arborea), deerweed

(Lotus scoparius), chaparral mallow (Malacothamnus fasciculatum), and laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), and several species of Rhus

(R. integrifolia, R. ovata, and R. trilobata). Succulent species, such as boxthorn (Lycium spp.), cliff spurge (Euphorbia misera), jojoba

(Simmondsia chinensis), and various species of cacti (Opuntia littoralis, O. prolifera, and Ferocactus viridescens), and live-forever

(Dudleya spp.), are represented in maritime succulent scrub, coast prickly-pear scrub, and southern coastal bluff scrubs.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5961

3. Critical habitat does not include nonFederal lands covered by a legally operative incidental take permit for the coastal California

gnatcatcher issued under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act on or before February 7, 2000.

Map Unit 1: San Diego County MSCP, San Diego County, California. From USGS 1:100,000 quadrangle maps San Diego (1980)

and El Cajon (1982), California. Lands defined by the boundaries of the Otay-Sweetwater Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife

Refuge Complex and the San Miguel Major Amendment Area for the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program. Lands within

T. 12 S., R. 01 E., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 28 and 33; T. 12 S., R. 01 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian,

secs. 20 and 30; T. 13 S., R. 01 E., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, sec. 5; T. 13 S., R. 02 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian,

sec. 12; T. 13 S., R. 03 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 2, 10, and 13; T. 14 S., R. 01 W., San Bernardino Principal

Meridian, secs. 29 and 32; T. 14 S., R. 02 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, sec. 35; T. 15 S., R. 01 E., San Bernardino

Principal Meridian, sec. 9; T. 15 S., R. 01 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 3–5; T. 15 S., R. 02 E., San Bernardino

Principal Meridian, sec. 6; T. 15 S., R. 02 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 2, 3, and 12; T. 15 S., R. 03 W., San

Bernardino Principal Meridian, sec. 9; T. 16 S., R. 01 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, sec. 5; T. 17 S., R. 01 E., San Bernardino

Principal Meridian, secs. 19, 27, and 33–35; T. 17 S., R. 01 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 5, 10, 11, 15–17, 23–

28, and 33; T. 18 S., R. 01 E., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 3–5, 8, 9, 16, 19, 28–30, 32, and 33; T. 18 S., R. 01

W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 13, 17, 18, and 20–23. The following lands within Rincon del Diablo Land Grant:

UTM coordinates (X, Y) 497000, 3667600; 497100, 3667600; 500000, 3664000; 497000, 3662400; 497000, 3667600. The following lands

within San Bernardino (Snook) Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 492200, 3661600; 495500, 3661600; 495500, 3658500; 497200,

3658500; 497000, 3657000; 496600, 3656700; 490600, 3656700; 490600, 3660000; 492200, 3660000; 492200, 3661600. The following

lands within Canada de San Vicente y Mesa del Padre Barona Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 515000, 3651400; 515000, 3650400;

513300, 3650400; 513300, 3651100; 515000, 3651400. The following lands within El Cajon Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 501000,

3640000; 503600, 3640400; 503600, 3635600; 502000, 3635600; 502000, 3634100; 500300, 3634100; 500300, 3637200; 498100, 3637200;

501000, 3640000; 511600, 3638900; 511700, 3638900; 511700, 3634000; 508400, 3634000; 508400, 3635600; 510000, 3635600; 510000,

3638500; 511600, 3638900; 497000, 3632500; 502000, 3632500; 502000, 3627600; 500300, 3627600; 500300, 3629200; 498700, 3629200;

498700, 3630900; 497000, 3630900; 497000, 3632500. The following lands within Mission San Diego Land Grant: UTM coordinates

(X, Y) 497000, 3632500; 502000, 3632500; 502000, 3627600; 500300, 3627600; 500300, 3629200; 498700, 3629200; 498700, 3630900;

497000, 3630900; 497000, 3632500. The following lands within Mission San Diego and Pueblo Lands of San Diego Land Grants:

UTM coordinates (X, Y) 481600, 3637800; 485800, 3637400; 485800, 3636600; 484200, 3636600; 484200, 3635900; 483400, 3635900;

483400, 3635100; 489700, 3635100; 489700, 3635900; 490600, 3635900; 490600, 3636500; 489000, 3636500; 489000, 3635800; 488000,

3635800; 488000, 3636600; 488900, 3636600; 488900, 3637300; 491700, 3637300; 491700, 3636600; 492300, 3636600; 492300, 3635800;

493100, 3635800; 493100, 3634300; 491500, 3634300; 491500, 3633400; 489800, 3633400; 489800, 3632600; 489000, 3632600; 489000,

3634400; 485800, 3634400; 485800, 3633900; 483300, 3633900; 483300, 3634500; 482500, 3634500; 482500, 3635900; 481600, 3635900;

481600, 3637800. The following lands within Jamacho and La Nacion Land Grants: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 500300, 3619600; 504500,

3619600; 504500, 3619500; 504000, 3618000; 503000, 3617800; 502000, 3617800; 502000, 3617200; 500300, 3616200; 498700, 3616200;

498700, 3617900; 500300, 3617900; 500300, 3619600. The following lands within La Nacion, Otay (Dominguez), and Otay (Estudillo)

Land Grants: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 498700, 3614600; 500500, 3614600; 501500, 3611300; 500400, 3611300; 500400, 3608200; 502000,

3608200; 502000, 3606500; 503600, 3606500; 503600, 3609800; 505200, 3609800; 505200, 3613000; 506900, 3613000; 506900, 3608000;

507000, 3607000; 507000, 3606000; 506300, 3606400; 505300, 3606400; 505300, 3606000; 501900, 3604900; 499900, 3604900; 497000,

5962 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

3607600; 497000, 3609700; 495400, 3609700; 495400, 3613100; 498700, 3613100; 498700, 3614600. The following lands within Jamul

Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 514600, 3613200; 515200, 3613200; 515200, 3612700; 514000, 3611000; 510000, 3610000; 510000,

3612000; 511900, 3613000; 513000, 3613000; 513000, 3613100; 514600, 3613100; 514600, 3613200.

Map Unit 2: Marine Corps Station, Miramar, San Diego County, California. From USGS 1:100,000 quadrangle maps El Cajon (1982)

and San Diego (1980), California. Lands within the following: T. 15 S., R. 3 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, SE. 1⁄4 sec.

9; S. 1⁄2 sec. 12. Lands within T. 14 S., R. 2 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, E.1⁄2 sec. 35. Federal lands within T. 15

S., R. 2 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, sec. 2; S. 1⁄2 sec. 7; S. 1⁄2 sec. 8; S1⁄2 sec. 9; sec. 10 except SE. 1⁄4. Lands within

T. 14 S., R. 1 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, E. 1⁄2 sec. 31; sec. 32. Lands within T. 15 S., R. 1 W., San Bernardino

Principal Meridian, NE. 1⁄4 sec. 6; sec. 5; S. 1⁄2 sec. 7; and sec. 8. Lands within T. 15 S., R. 2 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian,

SE. 1⁄4 sec. 12. The following lands within El Cajon Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 501000, 3640000; 503600, 3640400; 503600,

3635600; 502000, 3635600; 502000, 3634100; 500300, 3634100; 500300, 3637200; 498100, 3637200; 501000, 3640000. The following

lands within Mission San Diego and Pueblo Lands of San Diego Land Grants: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 481600, 3637800; 485800,

3637400; 485800, 3636600; 484200, 3636600; 484200, 3635900; 483400, 3635900; 483400, 3635100; 489700, 3635100; 489700, 3635900;

490600, 3635900; 490600, 3636500; 489000, 3636500; 489000, 3635800; 488000, 3635800; 488000, 3636600; 488900, 3636600; 488900,

3637300; 491700, 3637300; 491700, 3636600; 492300, 3636600; 492300, 3635800; 493100, 3635800; 493100, 3634300; 491500, 3634300;

491500, 3633400; 489800, 3633400; 489800, 3632600; 489000, 3632600; 489000, 3634400; 485800, 3634400; 485800, 3633900; 483300,

3633900; 483300, 3634500; 482500, 3634500; 482500, 3635900; 481600, 3635900; 481600, 3637800.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5963

Map Unit 3: Multiple Habitat Conservation Open Space Program (MHCOSP), San Diego County, California. From USGS 1:100,000

quadrangle map Borrego Valley, California (1983). Lands within T. 12 S., R. 01 E., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 28

and 33; T. 13 S., R. 02 E., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 22–27, 35, and 36; T. 13 S., R. 03 E., San Bernardino Principal

Meridian, secs. 17–19, and 31; T. 14 S., R. 02 E., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 1–3, 12, and 13; T. 14 S., R. 03 E.,

San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 6 and 7; T. 15 S., R. 02 E., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 5 and 6.

5964 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Map Unit 4: North San Diego County MHCP, San Diego County, California. From USGS 1:100,000 quadrangle map Oceanside,

California (1984). Lands within T. 10 S., R. 04 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 22–24, 27, 28, and 33; T. 11 S., R.

01 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, sec. 31; T. 11 S., R. 02 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 20, 21, 27–29,

and 32–35; T. 11 S., R. 04 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 1–3, 9, 11, 12, 16–21, 29–33, and 35; T. 11 S., R. 05

W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 12–14, and 23–25; T. 12 S., R. 01 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 6,

7, 17–20, and 30; T. 12 S., R. 02 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 1 and 2; T. 12 S., R. 03 W., San Bernardino Principal

Meridian, secs. 6, 18, 19, 22, 23, and 27-35; T. 12 S., R. 04 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 12, 13, 21–28, and 33–

36; T. 13 S., R. 02 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, sec. 12; T. 13 S., R. 03 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs.

2–6, 8–10, and 13; T. 13 S., R. 04 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 1–3, 11, 24–26, and 35. The following lands within

Guajome Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 473300, 3679600; 474600, 3679600; 477300, 3677800; 477200, 3677700; 477200, 3677800;

475700, 3677800; 475700, 3676300; 475600, 3676300; 474000, 3677300; 474000, 3677800; 473300, 3677800; 472000, 3678000; 473300,

3679600. The following lands within Agua Hedionda Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 474000, 3672000; 475700, 3670900; 475700,

3668100; 477100, 3668100; 478000, 3664000; 470700, 3664000; 470700, 3666500; 469200, 3666500; 469200, 3668200; 470800, 3668200;

470800, 3669800; 469400, 3669800; 470000, 3672000; 474000, 3672000; excluding UTM coordinates (X, Y) 474100, 3666500; 474100,

3664900; 475600, 3664900; 475600, 3666500; 474100, 3666500. The following lands within Rincon del Diablo Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 492000, 3672000; 492700, 3669600; 491600, 3669600; 492000, 3672000; 497000, 3667600; 497100, 3667600; 500000, 3664000;

497000, 3662400; 497000, 3667600; 497000, 3662100; 497100, 3662100; 497400, 3661600; 497400, 3661500; 497000, 3661500; 497000,

3662100; 492200, 3661600; 495500, 3661600; 495500, 3658500; 497200, 3658500; 497000, 3657000; 496600, 3656700; 490600, 3656700;

490600, 3660000; 492200, 3660000; 492200, 3661600. The following lands within Los Vallecitos de San Marcos Land Grant: UTM

coordinates (X, Y) 479000, 3669000; 479100, 3669000; 479100, 3668000; 478800, 3668000; 479000, 3669000. The following lands within

San Bernardino (Snook) Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 492200, 3661600; 495500, 3661600; 495500, 3658500; 497200, 3658500;

497000, 3657000; 496600, 3656700; 490600, 3656700; 490600, 3660000; 492200, 3660000; 492200, 3661600. The following lands within

Los Encinitos and San Dieguito Land Grants: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 475000, 3660000; 480000, 3661000; 480000, 3656700; 479500,

3656700; 479500, 3658300; 476300, 3658300; 476300, 3657400; 476200, 3657400; 475000, 3660000; 477000, 3655100; 477900, 3655100;

477900, 3652000; 477800, 3652000; 477000, 3653000.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5965

Map Unit 5: Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California. From USGS 1:100,000 quadrangle map Oceanside,

California (1984). Lands within T. 11 S., R. 05 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, sec. 22. The following lands within Santa

Margarita y Las Flores Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 440400, 3727400; 442300, 3727400; 447000, 3724000; 450100, 3719400;

450100, 3718600; 451100, 3718600; 451700, 3718100; 451700, 3715400; 452700, 3715400; 452700, 3713600; 451700, 3713600; 451700,

3712700; 451600, 3712700; 451600, 3702900; 451500, 3702900; 451500, 3702200; 450000, 3702200; 450000, 3700700; 448500, 3700700;

448500, 3701600; 447000, 3701600; 447000, 3700100; 445900, 3700100; 445100, 3701700; 445100, 3704800; 443600, 3704800; 443600,

3702700; 443000, 3701600; 441900, 3701600; 441900, 3703200; 440300, 3703200; 440300, 3701700; 438700, 3701700; 438700, 3703200;

437200, 3703200; 437200, 3704700; 443200, 3704700; 442000, 3708000; 442000, 3714500; 440500, 3714500; 440500, 3709200; 437000,

3711000; 437500, 3713000; 438900, 3713000; 438900, 3716100; 442100, 3716100; 442100, 3719300; 440400, 3719300; 440400, 3721000;

442100, 3721000; 442100, 3724100; 440400, 3724100; 440400, 3727400; 449800, 3692900; 451400, 3692900; 451400, 3691300; 453200,

3691300; 453200, 3689700; 455000, 3689700; 455000, 3688000; 453000, 3688000; 449800, 3690900; 449800, 3692900; 469200, 3691000;

470900, 3691000; 470900, 3684400; 475100, 3684400; 470800, 3680600; 470800, 3682700; 469200, 3682700; 469200, 3684400; 466100,

3684400; 466100, 3687800; 469200, 3687800; 469200, 3691000; 458200, 3688000; 459800, 3688000; 459800, 3686200; 461200, 3686200;

461200, 3681300; 459600, 3681300; 459600, 3682700; 458200, 3682700; 458200, 3684500; 456500, 3684500; 456500, 3686200; 458200,

3686200; 458200, 3688000; 462600, 3678000; 467700, 3678000; 467700, 3677700; 464400, 3674700; 462400, 3674700; 462600, 3675400.

The Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Station Designated Areas (1996); Alpha One; Alpha Two; Bravo One; Bravo Two; Bravo Three;

Juliett; Lima; Mike; November; Oscar One; Tango; Uniform; Victor; Agriculture Lease Area (North); 52 Area; 62 Area; 63 Area; 64

Area; San Onofre Housing Area; State Park Lease Area; Red Beach, White Beach; Asistencia de Las Flores; Edson Range Impact

Area; Agriculture Lease Area (South); Mass 3; and Golf Course.

5966 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Map Unit 6: Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station, San Diego County, California. From USGS 1:100,000 quadrangle map Oceanside,

California (1984): The following lands within the Santa Margarita y Las Flores Land Grant: Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station. The

following Federal Lands associated with the Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station within T. 9 S., R. 4 W., San Bernardino Principal

Meridian, secs. 35 and 36; T. 10 S., R. 4 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 1 and 2.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5967

Map Unit 7: North County Subarea of the MSCP for Unincorporated San Diego County, California. From USGS 1:100,000 quadrangle

map Oceanside, California (1984). Lands within T. 09 S., R. 02 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 19, 20, and 29–32;

T. 09 S., R. 03 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 1–16, 22–26, and 36; T. 09 S., R. 04 W., San Bernardino Principal

Meridian, secs. 12 and 13; T. 10 S., R. 02 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 5–8, 17–20, 31, and 32; T. 10 S., R. 03

W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 12–14, 19-26, and 29–36; T. 11 S., R. 02 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs.

4–9 and 16–18; T. 11 S., R. 03 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 1–6 and 10–13; T. 13 S., R. 01 E., San Bernardino

Principal Meridian, secs. 4, 5, 7, 8, 24, 25, 35, and 36; T. 13 S., R. 01 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, sec. 12; T. 13

S., R. 02 E., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 19–21, 28–30, 33, and 34; T. 14 S., R. 02 E., San Bernardino Principal Meridian,

sec. 4. The following lands within Santa Margarita y Las Flores Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 477000, 3697000; 476100,

3694000; 475700, 3694000; 475700, 3696200; 477000, 3697000. The following lands within Monserate Land Grant: UTM coordinates

(X ,Y) 485000, 3693000; 488000, 3689000; 487000, 3685000; 484000, 3685900; 482200, 3685900; 482200, 3689200; 483800, 3689200;

483800, 3692500; 485000, 3693000. The following lands within Valle de Paro (or Santa Maria) Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X,

Y) 511700, 3660000; 511700, 3656700; 506800, 3656700; 506800, 3656800; 511000, 3660000; 511700, 3660000; 514900, 3655200; 515300,

3655200; 515400, 3651900; 515000, 3651900; 515000, 3651700; 513300, 3651700; 513300, 3653600; 514900, 3653600; 514900, 3655200.

The following lands within Canada de San Vicente y Mesa del Padre Barona Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 516000, 3655000;

520000, 3655000; 519000, 3653000; 518100, 3652200; 518100, 3653600; 516400, 3653600; 516500, 3653300; 516500, 3651900; 516300,

3651900; 516000, 3653000; 519000, 3653000; 523000, 3652000; 523000, 3651000; 519800, 3649500; 519800, 3651900; 518500, 3651900;

518500, 3652000; 515000, 3651400; 515000, 3650400; 513300, 3650400; 513300, 3651100.

5968 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Map Unit 8: Southern NCCP Subregion of Orange County, California. From USGS 1:100,000 quadrangle maps Oceanside (1984)

and Santa Ana (1985), California. Lands within T. 06 S., R. 06 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 6, 7, 18, 19, 30, and

32; T. 06 S., R. 07 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 1–4, 9–14, and 23–25; T. 07 S., R. 06 W., San Bernardino Principal

Meridian, sec. 9; T. 07 S., R. 07 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 30 and 31; T. 07 S., R. 08 W., San Bernardino

Principal Meridian, secs. 24, 25, and 36; T. 08 S., R. 07 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 4, 7–9, 16–18, 21, 23, and

26; T. 08 S., R. 068 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, sec. 13. The following lands within Boca de La Playa, Canada de

Los Alisos, Mission Viejo/La Paz, and Trabuco Land Grants: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 440400, 3727400; 442300, 3727400; 447000,

3724000; 450100, 3719400; 450100, 3718600; 451100, 3718600; 451700, 3718100; 451700, 3715400; 452700, 3715400; 452700, 3713600;

451700, 3713600; 451700, 3712700; 451600, 3712700; 451600, 3702900; 451500, 3702900; 451500, 3702200; 450000, 3702200; 450000,

3700700; 448500, 3700700; 448500, 3701600; 447000, 3701600; 447000, 3700100; 445900, 3700100; 445100, 3701700; 445100, 3704800;

443600, 3704800; 443600, 3702700; 443000, 3701600; 441900, 3701600; 441900, 3703200; 440300, 3703200; 440300, 3701700; 438700,

3701700; 438700, 3703200; 437200, 3703200; 437200, 3704700; 443200, 3704700; 442000, 3708000; 442000, 3714500; 440500, 3714500;

440500, 3709200; 437000, 3711000; 437500, 3713000; 438900, 3713000; 438900, 3716100; 442100, 3716100; 442100, 3719300; 440400,

3719300; 440400, 3721000; 442100, 3721000; 442100, 3724100; 440400, 3724100; 440400, 3727400.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5969

Map Unit 9: NCCP for Central/Coastal Subregions of Orange County (Central/Coastal NCCP), Orange County, California. From USGS

1:100,000 quadrangle maps Santa Ana (1985) and Oceanside (1984), California. Lands defined by the boundary of the designated

reserve within Marine Corps Air Station El Toro within the Natural Communities Conservation Plan for the Central/Coastal Subregions.

Lands within T. 06 S., R. 07 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, sec. 4; T. 07 S., R. 08 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian,

secs. 25 and 36. The following lands within Canon de Santa Ana and Lomas de Santiago Land Grants: UTM coordinates (X, Y)

412300, 3759800; 414500, 3759800; 414500, 3759700; 418100, 3759700; 418100, 3759600; 421100, 3759600; 421700, 3757500; 429300,

3756300; 429300, 3751500; 435600, 3751500; 435600, 3749900; 437200, 3749900; 437200, 3748000; 438000, 3748000; 437800, 3746600;

437100, 3746600; 437100, 3748000; 430700, 3748000; 430700, 3749800; 429200, 3749800; 429200, 3751400; 427800, 3751400; 427800,

3749900; 424400, 3749900; 424400, 3751500; 422800, 3751500; 422800, 3754600; 421200, 3754600; 421200, 3753100; 419400, 3753100;

419400, 3754700; 416100, 3754700; 416100, 3756400; 414500, 3756400; 414500, 3758000; 409800, 3758000; 409000, 3759000; 412300,

3759700; 412300, 3759800. The following lands within Canada de Los Alisos and Trabuco Land Grants: UTM coordinates (X, Y)

440400, 3727400; 442300, 3727400; 447000, 3724000; 450100, 3719400; 450100, 3718600; 451100, 3718600; 451700, 3718100; 451700,

3715400; 452700, 3715400; 452700, 3713600; 451700, 3713600; 451700, 3712700; 451600, 3712700; 451600, 3702900; 451500, 3702900;

451500, 3702200; 450000, 3702200; 450000, 3700700; 448500, 3700700; 448500, 3701600; 447000, 3701600; 447000, 3700100; 445900,

3700100; 445100, 3701700; 445100, 3704800; 443600, 3704800; 443600, 3702700; 443000, 3701600; 441900, 3701600; 441900, 3703200;

440300, 3703200; 440300, 3701700; 438700, 3701700; 438700, 3703200; 437200, 3703200; 437200, 3704700; 443200, 3704700; 442000,

3708000; 442000, 3714500; 440500, 3714500; 440500, 3709200; 437000, 3711000; 437500, 3713000; 438900, 3713000; 438900, 3716100;

442100, 3716100; 442100, 3719300; 440400, 3719300; 440400, 3721000; 442100, 3721000; 442100, 3724100; 440400, 3724100; 440400,

3727400.

5970 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Map Unit 10: Palos Verdes Peninsula Subregion, Los Angeles County, California. From USGS 1:100,000 quadrangle map Long

Beach, California (1981). The following lands within Los Palos Verdes Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 369800, 3739900; 370700,

3739900; 370700, 3738700; 372100, 3738700; 372100, 3739900; 373800, 3739900; 373800, 3737100; 377200, 3737100; 377200, 3738500;

380400, 3738500; 380400, 3736900; 378700, 3736900; 378700, 3731800; 376500, 3731800; 369000, 3734000; 368700, 3735900; 368700,

3739300; 369800, 3739900.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5971

Map Unit 11: East Los Angeles-Orange County Matrix NCCP Subregion of Orange County, Los Angeles County and Orange County,

California. From USGS 1:100,000 quadrangle maps Long Beach (1981), Los Angeles (1983), San Bernardino (1982), and Santa Ana

(1985), California. Lands within T. 01 S., R. 09 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 28 and 33; T. 02 S., R. 08 W., San

Bernardino Principal Meridian, sec. 31; T. 02 S., R. 09 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, and

32–36; T. 02 S., R. 10 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 20, 29, and 30; T. 02 S., R. 11 W., San Bernardino Principal

Meridian, secs. 3, 9, 10, 13–16, 21–23, 25, 26, and 36; T. 03 S., R. 08 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 6, 7, 14, 17,

and 18; T. 03 S., R. 10 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 1–3. The following lands within La Puente and San Jose

Dalton et al. Land Grants: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 424400, 3774200; 427700, 3774200; 427700, 3769200; 424400, 3769200; 424400,

3767900; 424200, 3767600; 419600, 3767600; 419600, 3766000; 417900, 3766000; 417900, 3769300; 424400, 3769300; 424400, 3774200.

The following lands within Paso de Bartolo (Pico), Potrero Grande, San Antonion (Lugo), San Francisquito (Dalton), and unnamed

Land Grants: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 401800, 3767900; 401800, 3764400; 398600, 3764400; 398600, 3767900; 401800, 3767900. The

following lands within Paso de Bartolo (Pico) Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 403400, 3764500; 405100, 3764500; 405000, 3762000;

403500, 3761300; 401700, 3761300; 401700, 3763000; 403400, 3763000; 403400, 3764500. The following lands within La Puente Land

Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 405500, 3764500; 408400, 3764500; 408400, 3761400; 406000, 3762000; 406000, 3763000; 405500,

3764500. The following lands within Canon de Santa Ana, La Habra, La Puente, Lomas de Santiago, Rincon de La Brea, San Juan

Cajon de Santa Ana, Santiago de Santa Ana, and unnamed Land Grants: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 412300, 3759800; 414500, 3759800;

414500, 3759700; 418100, 3759700; 418100, 3759600; 421100, 3759600; 421700, 3757500; 429300, 3756300; 429300, 3751500; 435600,

3751500; 435600, 3749900; 437200, 3749900; 437200, 3748000; 438000, 3748000; 437800, 3746600; 437100, 3746600; 437100, 3748000;

430700, 3748000; 430700, 3749800; 429200, 3749800; 429200, 3751400; 427800, 3751400; 427800, 3749900; 424400, 3749900; 424400,

3751500; 422800, 3751500; 422800, 3754600; 421200, 3754600; 421200, 3753100; 419400, 3753100; 419400, 3754700; 416100, 3754700;

5972 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

416100, 3756400; 414500, 3756400; 414500, 3758000; 409800, 3758000; 409000, 3759000; 412300, 3759700; 412300, 3759800. The

following lands within Santa Ana del Chino (addition to) Land Grants: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 425900, 3759600; 429300, 3759600;

429300, 3757000; 426700, 3757100; 425900, 3758700; 425900, 3759600. The following lands within La Habra and Los Coyotes Land

Grants: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 409700, 3753300; 412900, 3753300; 412900, 3750000; 408300, 3750000; 408300, 3751700; 409700,

3751700; 409700, 3753300. The following lands within San Juan Cajon de Santa Ana Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 416100,

3751600; 417800, 3751600; 417800, 3749900; 416100, 3749900; 416100, 3751600.

Map Unit 12: Western Riverside County MSHCP, Riverside County, California. From USGS 1:100,000 quadrangle maps Santa Ana

(1985) and San Bernardino (1982), California. Lands defined by the boundary of the Lake Perris/San Jacinto Core Reserve. Lands

within T. 01 S., R. 05 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 29 and 31–33; T. 01 S., R. 06 W., San Bernardino Principal

Meridian, sec. 35; T. 02 S., R. 02 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 8, 16–21, and 28–33; T. 02 S., R. 03 W., San

Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 7, 8, 13–29, and 36; T. 02 S., R. 04 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 9–16, 21–

24, 27–29, and 32–34; T. 02 S., R. 05 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 4 and 6; T. 02 S., R. 06 W., San Bernardino

Principal Meridian, secs. 1–3; T. 03 S., R. 01 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 19, 20, and 29–32; T. 03 S., R. 02

W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 2–6, 8–11, 13–15, 21–26, and 36; T. 03 S., R. 03 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian,

secs. 21and 29; T. 03 S., R. 04 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 5–7; T. 03 S., R. 05 W., San Bernardino Principal

Meridian, secs. 1, 12–1420–24, and 27; T. 03 S., R. 07 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 29–33; T. 03 S., R. 08 W.,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5973

San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 25 and 36; T. 04 S., R. 01 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, sec. 5; T. 04 S., R.

02 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 20 and 28–32; T. 04 S., R. 03 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 25

and 36; T. 04 S., R. 04 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 27, 28, 32, and 33; T. 04 S., R. 05 W., San Bernardino Principal

Meridian, secs. 28–34; T. 04 S., R. 06 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 16, 18, 21, 22, 25–30, and 32–36; T. 04 S.,

R. 07 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 4, 5, 9–11, 13, 14, 24, and 25; T. 05 S., R. 01 W., San Bernardino Principal

Meridian, secs. 28–31 and 33; T. 05 S., R. 02 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 5, 6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21, 29, and

33–36; T. 05 S., R. 03 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 18–20, 29, and 30; T. 05 S., R. 04 W., San Bernardino Principal

Meridian, secs. 4, 8, 9, 12–14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26–30, and 32–34; T. 05 S., R. 05 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian,

secs. 2–11, 13–16, 18, 19, and 22–28; T. 05 S., R. 06 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 1–4, 9–14, and 24; T. 06 S.,

R. 01 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 4, 7–9, 16–20, and 29–31; T. 06 S., R. 02 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian,

secs. 3, 4, 10, 12–17, 19, 20, 22–25, and 34–36; T. 06 S., R. 03 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 24, 25, 29–33, and

36; T. 06 S., R. 04 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 3, 4, 9, 10, 13–15, 24, and 25; T. 07 S., R. 01 E., San Bernardino

Principal Meridian, secs. 16–21 and 27–34; T. 07 S., R. 01 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 2–18, 24, 25, and 32–

36; T. 07 S., R. 02 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 1, 2, 6, 7, and 11–22; T. 07 S., R. 03 W., San Bernardino Principal

Meridian, secs. 1–4, 11–13, and 24; T. 08 S., R. 01 E., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 4–10, 15, and 16; T. 08 S., R.

01 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 1–5; T. 08 S., R. 03 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 23–28 and 31–

36. The following lands within Jurupa (Rubidoux) and Jurupa (Stearns) Land Grants: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 463100, 3766300; 463100,

3762500; 461400, 3762500; 461400, 3765700; 463100, 3766300; 459900, 3765100; 459900, 3764100; 457400, 3764100; 457400, 3764200;

459900, 3765100. The following lands within Canon de Santa Ana, Lomas de Santiago Land Grants: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 412300,

3759800; 414500, 3759800; 414500, 3759700; 418100, 3759700; 418100, 3759600; 421100, 3759600; 421700, 3757500; 429300, 3756300;

429300, 3751500; 435600, 3751500; 435600, 3749900; 437200, 3749900; 437200, 3748000; 438000, 3748000; 437800, 3746600; 437100,

3746600; 437100, 3748000; 430700, 3748000; 430700, 3749800; 429200, 3749800; 429200, 3751400; 427800, 3751400; 427800, 3749900;

424400, 3749900; 424400, 3751500; 422800, 3751500; 422800, 3754600; 421200, 3754600; 421200, 3753100; 419400, 3753100; 419400,

3754700; 416100, 3754700; 416100, 3756400; 414500, 3756400; 414500, 3758000; 409800, 3758000; 409000, 3759000; 412300, 3759700;

412300, 3759800. The following lands within El Sobrante de San Jacinto Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 463000, 3750000;

463100, 3748500; 463100, 3746300; 461400, 3746300; 461400, 3747900; 458200, 3747900; 458200, 3746300; 456700, 3746300; 456700,

3743200; 460000, 3743200; 460000, 3741600; 463300, 3741600; 463300, 3739000; 456000, 3739000; 452000, 3742000; 452800, 3743200;

453700, 3743200; 453700, 3744800; 455300, 3744800; 455300, 3746500; 456400, 3746500; 456400, 3749600; 458100, 3749600; 463000,

3750000. The following lands within La Sierra (Yorba) Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 440400, 3749500; 440400, 3748000; 443700,

3748000; 443700, 3746600; 444100, 3746600; 444100, 3745300; 443900, 3745300; 438700, 3747900; 438700, 3749500; 440400, 3749500;

444500, 3744900; 447300, 3744900; 447300, 3743200; 450500, 3743200; 450000, 3741000; 448000, 3741000; 444500, 3744800; 444500,

3744900. The following lands within San Jacinto Viejo Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 497000, 3730400; 502000, 3730400; 502000,

3726400; 500300, 3725800; 500300, 3728000; 497000, 3729000; 497000, 3730400. The following lands within La Laguna (Stearns)

Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 466000, 3730000; 467000, 3730000; 467600, 3728600; 465500, 3728600; 466000, 3730000; 472000,

3725000; 472200, 3723900; 472200, 3723800; 471300, 3723800; 471300, 3724500. The following lands within Temecula Land Grant:

UTM coordinates (X, Y) 480000, 3718000; 481000, 3718000; 483400, 3715700; 480900, 3715700; 480900, 3717300; 480200, 3717300;

480200, 3717400; 480000, 3718000; 484100, 3714100; 484100, 3715100; 485200, 3714100; 484100, 3714100; 488000, 3712000; 488700,

3710900; 487500, 3710900; 487500, 3702000; 480800, 3701000; 480800, 3703700; 482500, 3703700; 482500, 3705300; 484200, 3705300;

484200, 3710900; 485800, 3710900; 485800, 3713600; 488000, 3712000. The following lands within Santa Rosa (Morino) Land Grant:

UTM coordinates (X, Y) 488000, 3712000; 488700, 3710900; 487500, 3710900; 487500, 3702000; 480800, 3701000; 480800, 3703700;

482500, 3703700; 482500, 3705300; 484200, 3705300; 484200, 3710900; 485800, 3710900; 485800, 3713600; 488000, 3712000; 478300,

3700700; 479900, 3700700; 479900, 3700600; 479000, 3700000; 478300, 3700600. The following lands within San Jacinto Neuvo y

Potrero Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 490000, 3754000; 490900, 3752800; 488900, 3752800; 488900, 3749600; 487200, 3749600;

487200, 3753000; 490000, 3754000; 490500, 3751300; 492100, 3751300; 493900, 3749600; 490500, 3749600; 490500, 3751300; 482300,

3744800; 484000, 3744800; 484000, 3741600; 485700, 3741600; 485700, 3740000; 490400, 3740000; 489000, 3739000; 485600, 3739100;

485600, 3739900; 482300, 3739900; 482300, 3744800. The following lands within Pauba Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 503000,

3715000; 501800, 3713000; 498700, 3713000; 498700, 3711400; 497300, 3711400; 497300, 3711100; 495700, 3711100; 495700, 3711000;

493500, 3711000; 493500, 3710900; 492300, 3710900; 492300, 3711000; 492000, 3712000; 502000, 3716000; 503000, 3715000; 498700,

3709700; 500400, 3709700; 506000, 3707000; 506300, 3706400; 504800, 3706400; 504800, 3706300; 498700, 3706300.

5974 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Map Unit 13: San Bernardino Valley MSHCP, San Bernardino County, California. From USGS 1:100,000 quadrangle map San

Bernardino, California (1982). Lands within T. 01 N., R. 03 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 16–19, 21, 22, 26–28, 30,

and 33–36; T. 01 N., R. 04 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 5, 6, 9–15, and 24; T. 01 N., R. 05 W., San Bernardino

Principal Meridian, secs. 1, 4, 7, 8, 17–20, and 29; T. 01 N., R. 06 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 13–22 and 27–

30; T. 01 N., R. 07 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 13–16, and 19–24. T. 01 N., R. 08 W., San Bernardino Principal

Meridian, sec. 24; T. 01 S., R. 02 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 5–9, 14–18, 20–22, 28, and 31–33; T. 01 S., R.

03 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 1, 4, 8, 9, 12–16, and 36; T. 02 N., R. 05 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian,

secs. 21, 27, 28, 33, and 35; T. 02 S., R. 02 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 6–10; T. 02 S., R. 03 W., San Bernardino

Principal Meridian, secs. 1–6 and 8–12; T. 02 S., R. 04 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, sec. 1. The following lands within

Muscupiabe Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 461600, 3788400; 463000, 3788400; 464800, 3787300; 464800, 3786900; 466300,

3786900; 466400, 3785500; 466400, 3785200; 467000, 3785200; 469300, 3785100; 469700, 3785100; 472000, 3784000; 473700, 3781900;

466400, 3781900; 466400, 3778600; 464700, 3778600; 464700, 3780200; 461400, 3780200; 459000, 3782000; 459000, 3783600; 461400,

3783600; 461400, 3784200; 461600, 3786200; 461600, 3788400; excluding UTM coordinates 463200, 3785100; 463200, 3782000; 464700,

3782000; 464700, 3785100; 463200, 3785100. The following lands within Cucamonga Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 437000,

3781000; 445000, 3781000; 445000, 3778800; 437000, 3778800; 437000, 3781000. The following lands within San Bernardino Land

Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 479200, 3773800; 480100, 3773800; 480100, 3772200; 480900, 3772200; 480900, 3770500; 479200,

3770500; 479200, 3773800; 488000, 3767300; 489700, 3767300; 489700, 3765700; 488900, 3765700; 488900, 3764100; 488000, 3764100;

488000, 3767300; 489700, 3764100; 493700, 3764100; 493700, 3762400; 489600, 3762400; 489700, 3764100.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5975

Map Unit 14: East Los Angeles County Linkage, Los Angeles County, California. From USGS 1:100,000 quadrangle map Los Angeles,

California (1983). Lands within T. 01 N., R. 08 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 19–24; T. 01 N., R. 09 W., San Bernardino

Principal Meridian, secs. 22–27, 34, and 35; T. 01 S., R. 09 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, sec. 2. The following lands

within Cucamonga Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 437000, 3781000; 445000, 3781000; 445000, 3778800; 437000, 3778800; 437000,

3781000. The following lands within San Jose (Dalton et al.) and San Jose Addition Land Grants: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 427000,

3776000; 427300, 3775700; 424400, 3775700; 424400, 3776500; 427000, 3776000.

5976 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

Map Unit 15: Western Los Angeles County, California. From USGS 1:100,000 quadrangle map Los Angeles, California (1983).

Lands within T. 03 N., R. 14 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 6, 7, 18, and 19; T. 03 N., R. 15 W., San Bernardino

Principal Meridian, secs. 1, 4–9, and 15–24; T. 04 N., R. 14 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 18, 19, 30, and 31; T.

04 N., R. 15 W., San Bernardino Principal Meridian, secs. 7–11, 13–36. The following lands within Ex Mission de San Fernando

Land Grant: UTM coordinates (X, Y) 369500, 3799000; 369600, 3799000; 370200, 3798700; 364300, 3798700; 364300, 3798800; 369500,

3799000.

Dated: February 1, 2000.

Donald J. Barry,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and

Parks.

[FR Doc. 00–2600 Filed 2–2–00; 1:12 pm]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P