19184 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

695340, 4528284; 695343, 4528285; 

695347, 4528287; 695353, 4528287; 

695360, 4528288; 695371, 4528287; 

695382, 4528284; 695393, 4528278; 

695403, 4528271; 695412, 4528266; 

695424, 4528264; 695434, 4528266; 

695443, 4528270; 695450, 4528279; 

695453, 4528289; 695457, 4528300; 

695461, 4528308; 695466, 4528314; 

695472, 4528320; 695476, 4528326; 

695482, 4528336; 695489, 4528346; 

695495, 4528354; 695502, 4528364; 

695507, 4528368; 695515, 4528368; 

695525, 4528365; 695533, 4528363; 

695542, 4528361; 695555, 4528356; 

695565, 4528354. 

(iii) Tract 3c: 695160, 4528323; 

695149, 4528321; 695141, 4528322; 

695137, 4528325; 695132, 4528330; 

695129, 4528332; 695119, 4528334; 

695103, 4528336; 695093, 4528337; 

695084, 4528340; 695076, 4528344; 

695070, 4528348; 695064, 4528355; 

695060, 4528363; 695058, 4528370; 

695056, 4528380; 695055, 4528388; 

695057, 4528396; 695062, 4528410; 

695066, 4528420; 695072, 4528429; 

695077, 4528435; 695083, 4528441; 

695091, 4528446; 695098, 4528450; 

695107, 4528452; 695115, 4528454; 

695120, 4528455; 695127, 4528456; 

695131, 4528455; 695139, 4528455; 

695146, 4528453; 695150, 4528451; 

695155, 4528448; 695167, 4528438; 

695175, 4528426; 695180, 4528420; 

695184, 4528417; 695187, 4528416; 

695194, 4528412; 695204, 4528405; 

695209, 4528403; 695218, 4528401; 

695227, 4528401; 695236, 4528401; 

695243, 4528400; 695252, 4528397; 

695259, 4528393; 695264, 4528388; 

695268, 4528381; 695269, 4528370; 

695265, 4528362; 695260, 4528356; 

695247, 4528349; 695237, 4528345; 

695223, 4528343; 695209, 4528340; 

695200, 4528337; 695190, 4528334; 

695180, 4528330; 695169, 4528326; 

695160, 4528323. 

(iv) Tract 3d: 695576, 4528864; 

695583, 4528864; 695587, 4528864; 

695595, 4528864; 695602, 4528863; 

695606, 4528862; 695608, 4528861; 

695613, 4528857; 695628, 4528846; 

695637, 4528842; 695645, 4528841; 

695652, 4528840; 695660, 4528839; 

695666, 4528838; 695673, 4528832; 

695677, 4528826; 695681, 4528818; 

695686, 4528807; 695690, 4528798; 

695693, 4528790; 695696, 4528781; 

695698, 4528771; 695698, 4528763; 

695700, 4528752; 695703, 4528743; 

695706, 4528737; 695710, 4528728; 

695711, 4528721; 695710, 4528712; 

695706, 4528705; 695697, 4528698; 

695688, 4528695; 695675, 4528694; 

695662, 4528694; 695648, 4528697; 

695633, 4528700; 695616, 4528704; 

695601, 4528706; 695588, 4528707; 

695576, 4528704; 695562, 4528703; 

695551, 4528704; 695541, 4528705; 

695535, 4528708; 695531, 4528714; 

695530, 4528725; 695533, 4528735; 

695537, 4528741; 695545, 4528748; 

695553, 4528751; 695563, 4528754; 

695567, 4528757; 695571, 4528763; 

695572. 

(v) Note: Map of Unit 3 is provided at 

paragraph (7)(vi) of this entry. 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 4, 2009. 

Jane Lyder, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary, Department of 

the Interior. 

[FR Doc. E9–9234 Filed 4–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R8–ES–2008–0089; 81420–1117–8B10 

B4] 

RIN 1018–AV90 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revised Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the California RedLegged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period, notice of availability 

of draft economic analysis, and 

amended required determinations. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

reopening of the comment period on our 

September 16, 2008, proposed revised 

designation of critical habitat for the 

California red-legged frog under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We also announce the 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis (DEA), a revision to proposed 

critical habitat Unit MEN–1, and an 

amended required determinations 

section of the proposal. We are 

reopening the comment period to allow 

all interested parties an opportunity to 

comment simultaneously on the 

proposed revision of critical habitat 

(including the changes to proposed 

critical habitat Unit MEN–1), the 

associated DEA, and the amended 

required determinations section. 

Comments previously submitted on this 

rulemaking do not need to be 

resubmitted. These comments have 

already been incorporated into the 

public record and will be fully 

considered in preparation of the final 

rule. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received on or before May 28, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018– 

AV90; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 

222, Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Moore, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage 

Way, Room W–2605, Sacramento, CA 

95825; telephone 916–414–6600; 

facsimile 916–414–6712. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We will accept written comments and 

information during this reopened 

comment period on our proposed 

revision to critical habitat for the 

California red-legged frog published in 

the Federal Register on September 16, 

2008 (73 FR 53492), as revised by this 

notice, the DEA of the proposed revised 

designation, and the amended required 

determinations provided in this 

document. We will consider 

information and recommendations from 

all interested parties. We are 

particularly interested in comments 

concerning: 

(1) The reasons why we should or 

should not designate habitat as critical 

habitat under section 4 of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether 

there are threats to the subspecies from 

human activity, the degree of which can 

be expected to increase due to the 

designation, and whether that increase 

in threat outweighs the benefit of 

designation such that the designation of 

critical habitat is not prudent. 

(2) Specific information on: 

• The amount and distribution of 

California red-legged frog habitat, 

• Locations within the geographical 

area occupied at the time of listing that 

contain features essential to the 

conservation of the subspecies that we 

should include in the designation and 

why, and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 19185 

• Locations not within the 

geographical area occupied at the time 

of listing that are essential to the 

conservation of the subspecies and why. 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

revised critical habitat. 

(4) Probable economic, national 

security, or other impacts of designating 

particular areas as critical habitat. We 

are particularly interested in any 

impacts on small entities, and the 

benefits of including or excluding areas 

that exhibit these impacts. 

(5) The potential exclusion of nonFederal lands covered by the East 

Contra Costa County Habitat 

Conservation Plan (ECCHCP) from final 

revised critical habitat, and whether 

such exclusion is appropriate and why. 

(6) The potential exclusion of nonFederal lands owned and managed by 

the East Bay Regional Park District 

within the boundaries of the ECCHCP 

from final revised critical habitat, and 

whether such exclusion is appropriate 

and why. 

(7) The potential exclusion of nonFederal lands covered by the Western 

Riverside County Multiple Species 

Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) 

from final revised critical habitat, and 

whether such exclusion is appropriate 

and why. 

(8) The potential exclusion of nonFederal lands covered by the Bonny 

Doon Settlement Ponds Habitat 

Conservation Plan from final revised 

critical habitat, and whether such 

exclusion is appropriate and why. 

(9) Whether the lands proposed as 

critical habitat on Department of 

Defense land at Vandenberg Air Force 

Base in Santa Barbara County and Camp 

San Luis Obispo in San Luis Obispo 

County should be exempted under 

section 4(a)(3) of the Act or excluded 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and 

why. 

(10) Whether the U.S. Forest Service 

lands managed under the Sierra Nevada 

Forest Plan Amendment within the 

units being proposed as critical habitat 

should be excluded and why under 

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

(11) Whether Unit CAL–1 (Young’s 

Creek) in Calaveras County should be 

excluded and why under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act. 

(12) Whether changes made to the 

proposed critical habitat Unit MEN–1 in 

Mendocino County appropriately reflect 

the current knowledge of the subspecies 

distribution and occurrence within the 

area and whether that area should be 

designated as critical habitat. 

(13) Whether there are areas we 

previously designated, but did not 

include in our proposed revision to 

critical habitat, that should be 

designated as critical habitat. 

(14) Information on the extent to 

which any Federal, State, and local 

environmental protection measures we 

reference in the DEA were adopted 

largely as a result of the subspecies’ 

listing. 

(15) Information on whether the DEA 

identifies all Federal, State, and local 

costs and benefits attributable to the 

proposed revision of critical habitat, and 

information on any costs or benefits that 

we may have overlooked. 

(16) Information on whether the DEA 

makes appropriate assumptions 

regarding current practices and any 

regulatory changes that likely may occur 

if we designate revised critical habitat. 

(17) Information on whether the DEA 

correctly assesses the effect on regional 

costs associated with any land use 

controls that may result from the revised 

designation of critical habitat. 

(18) Information on areas that the 

revised critical habitat designation 

could potentially impact to a 

disproportionate degree. 

(19) Information on whether the DEA 

identifies all costs that could result from 

the proposed revised designation. 

(20) Information on any quantifiable 

economic benefits of the revised 

designation. 

(21) Whether the benefits of excluding 

any particular area outweigh the 

benefits of including that area under 

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

(22) Economic data on the 

incremental costs of designating a 

particular area as revised critical 

habitat. 

(23) Whether we could improve or 

modify our approach to designating 

critical habitat to provide for greater 

public participation and understanding, 

or assist us in accommodating public 

concerns and comments. 

(24) Any foreseeable impacts on 

energy supplies, distribution, and use 

resulting from the proposed designation 

and, in particular, any impacts on 

electricity production, and the benefits 

of including or excluding areas that 

exhibit these impacts. 

If you submitted comments or 

information on the proposed revised 

rule (73 FR 53492) during the initial 

comment period from September 16, 

2008, to November 17, 2008, please do 

not resubmit them. These comments are 

included in the public record for this 

rulemaking and we will fully consider 

them in the preparation of our final 

determination. Our final determination 

concerning revised critical habitat will 

take into consideration all written 

comments and any additional 

information we receive during both 

comment periods. On the basis of public 

comments, we may, during the 

development of our final determination, 

find that areas within those proposed do 

not meet the definition of critical 

habitat, that some modifications to the 

described boundaries are appropriate, or 

that areas are appropriate for exclusion 

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

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning the proposed 

revised rule or DEA by one of the 

methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. We will not consider comments 

sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not 

listed in the ADDRESSES section. 

If you submit a comment via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

comment—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If you submit a 

hardcopy comment that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed revised 

rule, will be available for public 

inspection on http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

You may obtain copies of the original 

proposed revision of critical habitat and 

the DEA on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, on the Sacramento 

Fish and Wildlife Office web page at 

http://www.fws.gov/sacramento, or by 

contacting the Sacramento Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Background 

For more information on previous 

Federal actions concerning the 

California red-legged frog, refer to the 

proposed revised designation of critical 

habitat published in the Federal 

Register on September 16, 2008 (73 FR 

53492). On December 12, 2007, the 

Center for Biological Diversity filed a 

complaint in the U.S. District Court for 

the Northern District of California 

challenging our designation of critical 

habitat for the California red-legged frog 

(Center for Biological Diversity v. 

Kempthorne, et al., Case No. C–07– 

6404–WHA). On April 2, 2008, the court 

entered a consent decree requiring a 

proposed revised critical habitat rule to 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
19186 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

be submitted to the Federal Register by 

August 29, 2008, and a final revised 

critical habitat designation to be 

submitted to the Federal Register by 

August 31, 2009. 

Section 3 of the Act defines critical 

habitat as the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by a species, 

at the time it is listed in accordance 

with the Act, on which are found those 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species and 

that may require special management 

considerations or protection, and 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by a species at the time 

it is listed, upon a determination that 

such areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species. If the 

proposed rule is made final, section 7 of 

the Act will prohibit destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

by any activity funded, authorized, or 

carried out by any Federal agency. 

Federal agencies proposing actions 

affecting areas designated as critical 

habitat must consult with us on the 

effects of their proposed actions, under 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act. 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

may exclude an area from critical 

habitat if we determine that the benefits 

of such exclusion outweigh the benefits 

of including that particular area as 

critical habitat, unless failure to 

designate that specific area as critical 

habitat will result in the extinction of 

the species. In making a decision to 

exclude areas, we consider the 

economic impact, impact on national 

security, or any other relevant impact of 

the designation. 

Change in Nomenclature 

Until recently the red-legged frog was 

recognized as two conspecific 

subspecies, Rana aurora aurora and 

Rana aurora draytonii. Recent genetic 

analysis of the Rana aurora/draytonii 

complex has concluded that the two 

Rana aurora subspecies are in fact 

separate species (Shaffer et al. 2004, pp. 

2667–2677, Frost et al. 2006, p. 370). 

Separate species status was originally 

proposed for R. aurora and R. draytonii 

by Baird & Girard (1852, pp. 174–177), 

but they were later reclassified as a 

single species with two subspecies 

(Camp 1917, pp. 115–125). Slater (1939, 

pp. 145–149) later recognized R. 

cascadae as a separate species more 

closely related to R. aurora. R. draytonii 

differs from R. aurora, the Northern redlegged frog, both physically and 

behaviorally. Adult R. draytonii tend to 

be larger and longer (35 to 40 

millimeters (mm) (1.4 to 1.6 inches (in.)) 

than adult R. aurora (Hayes and 

Miyamoto 1984, pp. 1018–1022) and 

have dorsal spots with usually lighter 

centers (Stebbins 1951, p. 334). R. 

draytonii has paired vocal sacs and 

typically calls from the air, while R. 

aurora lacks vocal sacs and typically 

calls from underwater (Hayes and 

Krempels 1986, pp. 929–932; Licht 

1969, p. 1290). Based on the genetic 

analysis by Shaffer et al. (2004), the 

herpetological community, academic 

and governmental researchers, and 

biologists have accepted the raise to 

species level and nomenclature change 

for the California red-legged frog. As a 

result, we are proposing to make a 

nomenclature change to the California 

red-legged frog from Rana aurora 

draytonii to Rana draytonii and have 

included those proposed changes in the 

regulatory section of this rule to be 

published in the Code of Federal 

Regulations when this rule is made 

final. For the purposes of this 

document, however, we will use the 

subspecies designation. 

Changes to Proposed Revised Critical 

Habitat 

In this document we are proposing 

revisions to the area of proposed revised 

critical habitat in Unit MEN–1 in 

Mendocino County as described in the 

September 16, 2008, revised proposed 

rule (73 FR 53492). This revision 

involves adjusting the boundaries of the 

proposed revised critical habitat to 

better reflect new subspecies occurrence 

data within the area and the habitat 

surrounding those records. The original 

revised proposal used information from 

the California Natural Diversity 

Database (CNDDB), which identified a 

grouping of California red-legged frog 

occurrence records in the Greenwood 

Creek watershed. Based on new genetic 

information, these records have been 

identified as Rana aurora aurora or as 

containing a greater proportion of R. 

aurora aurora genetic characteristics 

than those records identified south of 

Mills Creek. As a result we are 

proposing to revise the revised critical 

habitat for MEN–1 to include those 

areas where the records south of Mills 

Creek are of either pure R. aurora 

draytonii or of frogs with a greater 

proportion of R. aurora draytonii 

genetic characteristics. Revised unit and 

boundary descriptions and a revised 

map for the proposed critical habitat 

Unit MEN–1 are included with this 

notice. 

MEN–1, Mills Creek (26,875 ac (10,876 

ha)) 

This unit is located along the coast 

north and west of Manchester, 

California, including the majority of the 

Mills Creek watershed in Mendocino 

County. MEN–1 contains aquatic habitat 

for breeding and non-breeding activities 

(PCE 1 and PCE 2), and upland habitat 

for foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 

3 and PCE 4). The records within the 

unit were identified subsequent to 

listing as northern Mendocino County 

was thought to be outside the known 

range of the subspecies. Subsequent 

genetic research has identified the 

subspecies in Mendocino County 

(Shaffer et al. 2004, p. 2676). This unit 

is currently occupied and contains the 

following essential features: permanent 

and ephemeral aquatic habitats 

consisting of streams and natural and 

man-made ponds surrounded by 

emergent vegetation and marshland 

with upland comprised of forested 

timber that provides for breeding and 

upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and 

foraging. The unit also contains 

freshwater pond and stream habitats 

associated with upland dune complexes 

near the coast. Additionally, the unit 

represents the northernmost extent of 

the subspecies range along the coast of 

California and may be genetically 

significant to the subspecies (Shaffer et 

al. 2004, p. 2676). The essential features 

in this unit may require special 

management considerations or 

protection due to land management 

activities, which may alter aquatic and 

upland habitats and thereby result in 

the predation and desiccation of egg 

masses or direct death of adults. The 

unit consists of approximately 86 acres 

(ac) (35 hectares (ha)) of Federal land, 

296 ac (120 ha) of State land, 92 ac (37 

ha) of Tribal land, and 26,400 ac (10,683 

ha) of private land. 

Draft Economic Analysis 

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

we designate or revise critical habitat 

based upon the best scientific and 

commercial data available, after taking 

into consideration the economic impact, 

impact on national security, or any 

other relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. We 

have prepared a draft economic analysis 

of our September 16, 2008 (73 FR 

53492), proposed revised rule to 

designate critical habitat for the 

California red-legged frog. 

The intent of the DEA is to identify 

and analyze the potential economic 

impacts associated with the proposed 

revised critical habitat designation for 

the California red-legged frog. 

Additionally, the economic analysis 

looks retrospectively at costs incurred 

since the May 23, 1996 (61 FR 25813), 

listing of the California red-legged frog 

as threatened. The DEA quantifies the 

economic impacts of all potential 

conservation efforts for the California 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 19187 

red-legged frog; some of these costs will 

likely be incurred regardless of whether 

we designate revised critical habitat. 

The economic impact of the proposed 

revised critical habitat designation is 

analyzed by comparing scenarios both 

‘‘with critical habitat’’ and ‘‘without 

critical habitat.’’ The ‘‘without critical 

habitat’’ scenario represents the baseline 

for the analysis, considering protections 

already in place for the species (for 

example, under the Federal listing and 

other Federal, State, and local 

regulations). The baseline, therefore, 

represents the costs incurred regardless 

of whether critical habitat is designated. 

The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ scenario 

describes the incremental impacts 

associated specifically with the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. The incremental conservation 

efforts and associated impacts are those 

not expected to occur absent the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. In other words, the incremental 

costs are those attributable solely to the 

designation of critical habitat above and 

beyond the baseline costs; these are the 

costs we may consider in the final 

designation of critical habitat. The 

analysis looks retrospectively at 

baseline impacts incurred since the 

species was listed, and forecasts both 

baseline and incremental impacts likely 

to occur if we finalize the proposed 

revised critical habitat. 

The DEA estimates the foreseeable 

economic impacts of the proposed 

revised critical habitat designation. The 

economic analysis identifies potential 

incremental costs as a result of the 

proposed revised critical habitat 

designation; these are those costs 

attributed to critical habitat over and 

above those baseline costs coextensive 

with listing. The DEA describes 

economic impacts of California redlegged frog conservation efforts 

associated with the following categories 

of activity: (1) Residential and 

Commercial Development; (2) Water 

Management; (3) Agriculture; (4) 

Ranching/Grazing; (5) Timber Harvest; 

(6) Transportation; (7) Fire Management; 

(8) Utility and Oil and Gas Pipeline 

Construction and Maintenance; and (9) 

Habitat and Vegetation Management. 

The baseline economic impacts are 

those impacts that result from listing 

and other conservation efforts for the 

California red-legged frog. Conservation 

efforts related to development activities 

constitute the majority of total baseline 

costs (approximately 72 to 73 percent) 

in areas of proposed revised critical 

habitat. Impacts to agriculture make up 

the majority of the remainder of the 

costs associated with the proposed 

revised designation. The total future 

baseline impacts are estimated to be 

$2.38 billion to $2.50 billion ($180 

million to $188 million on an 

annualized basis), assuming a 3 percent 

discount rate, or $1.65 billion to $1.74 

billion ($152 million to $160 million on 

an annualized basis), assuming a 7 

percent discount rate, through the year 

2030. 

The majority of incremental impacts 

attributed to the proposed revised 

critical habitat designation are expected 

to be related to development 

(approximately 78 percent) followed by 

agricultural impacts (approximately 22 

percent). Impacts to all other activities 

represent less than one percent of the 

total incremental impacts. The DEA 

estimates total potential incremental 

economic impacts in areas proposed as 

revised critical habitat over the next 22 

years (2009 to 2030) to be $1.04 billion 

to $1.10 billion ($93.7 million to $97.9 

million annualized) in present value 

terms using a 3 percent discount rate, 

and $721 million to $767 million ($67.9 

to $72.0 million annualized) in present 

value terms using a 7 percent discount 

rate. 

The DEA considers both economic 

efficiency and distributional effects. In 

the case of habitat conservation, 

efficiency effects generally reflect the 

‘‘opportunity costs’’ associated with the 

commitment of resources to comply 

with habitat protection measures (e.g., 

lost economic opportunities associated 

with restrictions on land use). The DEA 

also addresses how potential economic 

impacts are likely to be distributed, 

including an assessment of any local or 

regional impacts of habitat conservation 

and the potential effects of conservation 

activities on government agencies, 

private businesses, and individuals. The 

DEA measures lost economic efficiency 

associated with residential and 

commercial development and public 

projects and activities, such as 

economic impacts on water 

management and transportation 

projects, Federal lands, small entities, 

and the energy industry. Decisionmakers can use this information to 

assess whether the effects of the revised 

designation might unduly burden a 

particular group or economic sector. 

As we stated earlier, we are soliciting 

data and comments from the public on 

the DEA, as well as on all aspects of the 

proposed revised critical habitat rule 

and our amended required 

determinations. The final revised 

critical habitat rule may differ from the 

proposed revised rule based on new 

information we receive during the 

public comment periods. In particular, 

we may exclude an area from critical 

habitat if we determine that the benefits 

of excluding the area outweigh the 

benefits of including the area as critical 

habitat, provided the exclusion will not 

result in the extinction of the 

subspecies. 

Required Determinations—Amended 

In our proposed rule dated September 

16, 2008 (73 FR 53492), we indicated 

that we would defer our determination 

of compliance with several statutes and 

Executive Orders until the information 

concerning potential economic impacts 

of the designation and potential effects 

on landowners and stakeholders became 

available in the DEA. We have now 

made use of the DEA to make these 

determinations. In this document, we 

affirm the information in our proposed 

rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 

13132, E.O. 12988, the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, the National 

Environmental Policy Act, and the 

President’s memorandum of April 29, 

1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government 

Relations with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951). However, 

based on the DEA data, we revised our 

required determinations concerning 

E.O. 12866 and the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, E.O. 13211 (Energy, 

Supply, Distribution, and Use), the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and 

E.O. 12630 (Takings). 

Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 

12866) 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this 

proposed rule is not significant and has 

not reviewed this proposed rule under 

Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). 

OMB bases its determination upon the 

following four criteria: 

(a) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(b) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(c) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

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

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 802(2)), whenever 

an agency is required to publish a notice 

of rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
19188 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., 

small businesses, small organizations, 

and small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of an 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Based on our DEA of the proposed 

revised designation, we provide our 

analysis for determining whether the 

proposed rule would result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Based on comments we receive, we may 

revise this determination as part of a 

final rulemaking. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations, such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and small businesses 

(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 

include manufacturing and mining 

concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term significant economic 

impact is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

To determine if the proposed revised 

designation of critical habitat for the 

California red-legged frog would affect a 

substantial number of small entities, we 

consider the number of small entities 

affected within particular types of 

economic activities, such as residential 

and commercial development. In order 

to determine whether it is appropriate 

for our agency to certify that this rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, we considered each industry or 

category individually. In estimating the 

numbers of small entities potentially 

affected, we also considered whether 

their activities have any Federal 

involvement. Critical habitat 

designation will not affect activities that 

do not have any Federal involvement. 

Designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities conducted, funded, 

permitted, or authorized by Federal 

agencies. Some kinds of activities are 

unlikely to have any Federal 

involvement and so will not be affected 

by critical habitat designation. In areas 

where the species is present, Federal 

agencies already are required to consult 

with us under section 7 of the Act on 

activities they fund, permit, or 

implement that may affect the California 

red-legged frog. Federal agencies also 

must consult with us if their activities 

may affect critical habitat. 

In the DEA of the proposed revision 

to critical habitat, we evaluate the 

potential economic effects on small 

business entities resulting from 

implementation of conservation actions 

related to the proposed revision to 

critical habitat for the California redlegged frog. The DEA identifies the 

estimated incremental impacts 

associated with the proposed 

rulemaking as described in Chapters 4 

through 13 of the DEA, and evaluates 

the potential for economic impacts 

related to activity categories including 

urban development, water management, 

agriculture, grazing and ranching, 

timber harvest activities, transportation, 

utility pipeline construction and 

maintenance, fire management 

activities, and habitat management. The 

DEA concludes that the incremental 

impacts resulting from this rulemaking 

that may be borne by small businesses 

will be associated with urban 

development and agriculture. 

Incremental impacts are either not 

expected for the other types of activities 

considered or, if expected, will not be 

borne by small entities. 

As discussed in Appendix A of the 

DEA, the largest impacts of the 

proposed rule on small businesses 

would result from section 7 

consultations with the Service on 

development projects not subject to an 

existing habitat conservation plan. The 

analysis assumes full build out of all 

acres identified as likely to be 

developed (as defined in Chapter 4 of 

the DEA) within the next 22 years. The 

DEA (exhibit 4–5) identifies 

approximately 2,226 ac (860 ha) of 

potentially developable land 

attributable to the designation of critical 

habitat (incremental impact). Assuming 

an 100-acre (40-hectare) average 

development size, this yields 

approximately 22 development projects 

over the next 22 years, or approximately 

1 project annually. The analysis also 

assumes that one developer is required 

per development project, and that all of 

these developers are small businesses. 

As a result, the incremental impact due 

to critical habitat is estimated to range 

from $25 to $27 million at a 7 percent 

discount rate per small business 

developer over the next 22 years. We 

realize that this may be on 

overestimation of real costs because of 

the assumptions involved. 

The incremental costs attributed to 

agriculture are explained in Chapter 6 of 

the DEA. As described in Chapter 6, a 

stipulated injunction issued by the U.S. 

District Court for the Northern District 

of California will restrict pesticide 

application in designated critical 

habitat. The analysis assumes that the 

affected lands will be taken out of 

production; to the extent that there are 

alternative beneficial uses of 

agricultural land (e.g., organic farming 

or grazing), this analysis may overstate 

future economic impacts. To estimate 

the potential incremental impact on 

small farmers, the total cropland value 

by county (assumed to be taken out of 

production) was divided by the number 

of small farmers to estimate per-farm 

impacts. According to the DEA, the 

designation of critical habitat would 

affect 499 farms over the next 22 years. 

Total impacts are anticipated to range 

between $156 and $169 million, or 

$313,000 to $338,000 per farm. Exhibit 

A–4 presents impacts by county, per 

small business farmer. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether the proposed rule would result 

in a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

a result of the uncertainty that exists 

regarding both the numbers of entities 

that may be impacted by the proposed 

rule and the degree of impact on 

individual entities, we have developed 

an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) (DEA Appendix A). 

However, due to the number of 

uncertainties identified in the DEA, we 

have prepared this IRFA without first 

making the threshold determination of 

whether the proposed critical habitat 

designation could be certified as not 

having a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This IRFA is intended to improve the 

Service’s understanding of the effects of 

the proposed rule on small entities and 

to identify opportunities to minimize 

these impacts in the final rulemaking. 

Executive Order 13211—Energy Supply, 

Distribution, and Use 

E.O. 13211 requires agencies to 

prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions that 

may affect the supply, distribution, and 

use of energy. This proposed revision to 

critical habitat for the California redVerDate Nov<24>2008 17:28 Apr 27, 2009 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM 28APP1

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 19189 

legged frog is not considered a 

significant regulatory action under E.O. 

12866. OMB’s guidance for 

implementing this Executive Order 

outlines nine outcomes that may 

constitute ‘‘a significant adverse effect’’ 

when compared to no regulatory action. 

As highlighted in Chapter 10 (Exhibits 

10–2 and 10–3), a number of oil and gas 

companies own and operate pipelines 

that pass through the study area, and 

Waste Management and the Linde 

Group plan to build the world’s largest 

landfill gas plant in ALA–2. However, 

the incremental impact to these entities 

over the next 22 years is solely 

attributable to the costs of section 7 

consultation and no measurable impacts 

to the quantity or cost of energy 

production and distribution are likely to 

result from the designation of critical 

habitat (such as a reduction in 

electricity production or an increase in 

the cost of energy production or 

distribution), and a Statement of Energy 

Effects is not required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), 

the Service makes the following 

findings: 

(a) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

Tribal governments, or the private 

sector, and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or Tribal 

governments,’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and Tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

Critical habitat designation does not 

impose a legally binding duty on nonFederal Government entities or private 

parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. Designation of 

critical habitat may indirectly impact 

non-Federal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action that may destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat. However, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above on to State 

governments. 

(b) We do not believe that this rule 

would significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because it would 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 DEA concludes incremental 

impacts may occur due to project 

modifications that may need to be made 

for development and Tribal activities; 

however, these are not expected to affect 

small governments as the costs 

attributed to development is limited to 

private lands and not those owned by 

local governments. Consequently, we do 

not believe that the revised critical 

habitat designation would significantly 

or uniquely affect small government 

entities. As such, a Small Government 

Agency Plan is not required. 

Executive Order 12630—Takings 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(‘‘Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights’’), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

proposing revised critical habitat for the 

California red-legged frog in a takings 

implications assessment. Our takings 

implications assessment concludes that 

the proposed revision to critical habitat 

for the California red-legged frog does 

not pose significant takings 

implications. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references we 

cited in the proposed rule and in this 

document is available on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov or by 

contacting the Sacramento Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this 

rulemaking are the staff members of the 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

For the reasons outlined in the 

preamble, we propose to amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

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 

‘‘Frog, California red-legged,’’ under 

‘‘AMPHIBIANS,’’ to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population where 

endangered or 

threatened 

Status When 

listed 

Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

* * * * * * * 

AMPHIBIANS


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
19190 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population where 

endangered or 

threatened 

Status When 

listed 

Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

* * * * * * * 

Frog, California redlegged.Rana draytonii ............. U.S.A. (CA), Mexico .... Entire ................ T .............. 583 17.95(d) 17.43 

* * * * * * * 

3. Section 17.95, as proposed to be 

revised on September 16, 2008 (73 FR 

53492), is proposed to be further 

amended, as follows: 

A. In paragraph (a), in the Critical 

habitat for the California red-legged frog, 

by removing the scientific name ‘‘Rana 

aurora draytonii’’, and adding the 

scientific name ‘‘Rana draytonii’’ in its 

place, and 

B. Revising paragraph (d)(13) as set 

forth below. 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(d) Amphibians. 

* * * * * 

California Red-Legged Frog (Rana 

draytonii) 

* * * * * 

(13) Unit MEN–1: Mendocino County, 

California. From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangles Cold Spring, Eureka Hill, 

Mallo Pass Creek, and Point Arena. 

(i) Land bounded by the following 

UTM zone 10, NAD 1983 coordinates (E, 

N): 443694, 4322801; 443753, 4322799; 

443831, 4322807; 443933, 4322804; 

444066, 4322760; 444270, 4322717; 

444325, 4322702; 444354, 4322595; 

444390, 4322528; 444430, 4322489; 

444537, 4322433; 444586, 4322394; 

444667, 4322308; 444693, 4322290; 

444746, 4322240; 444777, 4322201; 

444798, 4322163; 444833, 4322075; 

444853, 4322034; 444868, 4322015; 

444911, 4322014; 444968, 4322006; 

445006, 4321980; 445064, 4321914; 

445106, 4321838; 445118, 4321807; 

445145, 4321758; 445175, 4321748; 

445262, 4321770; 445287, 4321757; 

445312, 4321722; 445366, 4321682; 

445394, 4321656; 445450, 4321612; 

445479, 4321569; 445486, 4321525; 

445506, 4321495; 445544, 4321448; 

445567, 4321433; 445609, 4321438; 

445667, 4321438; 445710, 4321415; 

445722, 4321383; 445739, 4321353; 

445886, 4321304; 445966, 4321295; 

446016, 4321260; 446038, 4321224; 

446070, 4321112; 446087, 4321091; 

446117, 4321029; 446144, 4320941; 

446193, 4320761; 446221, 4320736; 

446274, 4320697; 446319, 4320635; 

446451, 4320391; 446476, 4320336; 

446528, 4320259; 446616, 4320179; 

446673, 4320150; 446734, 4320127; 

446793, 4320111; 446843, 4320105; 

446908, 4320083; 447011, 4320041; 

447045, 4320024; 447068, 4320031; 

447101, 4320064; 447139, 4320117; 

447180, 4320199; 447227, 4320210; 

447266, 4320205; 447306, 4320195; 

447351, 4320194; 447394, 4320214; 

447424, 4320255; 447467, 4320365; 

447485, 4320382; 447521, 4320380; 

447611, 4320364; 447722, 4320332; 

447805, 4320287; 447886, 4320218; 

447919, 4320153; 447951, 4320066; 

447969, 4319988; 447983, 4319889; 

447981, 4319825; 447958, 4319651; 

447940, 4319611; 447916, 4319542; 

447922, 4319483; 447971, 4319445; 

448103, 4319392; 448196, 4319365; 

448343, 4319374; 448430, 4319368; 

448482, 4319347; 448547, 4319333; 

448652, 4319342; 448785, 4319365; 

448853, 4319365; 448939, 4319385; 

449030, 4319417; 449128, 4319442; 

449227, 4319448; 449352, 4319472; 

449490, 4319517; 449548, 4319570; 

449597, 4319628; 449666, 4319695; 

449733, 4319755; 449789, 4319784; 

449875, 4319792; 449979, 4319807; 

450035, 4319807; 450150, 4319759; 

450210, 4319703; 450282, 4319596; 

450420, 4319414; 450504, 4319347; 

450635, 4319305; 450673, 4319272; 

450743, 4319196; 450810, 4319130; 

450914, 4319048; 450966, 4319022; 

451092, 4318916; 451162, 4318828; 

451226, 4318719; 451194, 4318654; 

451170, 4318562; 451149, 4318452; 

451099, 4318235; 451063, 4318107; 

451042, 4318062; 450935, 4317981; 

450859, 4317956; 450782, 4317952; 

450714, 4317937; 450597, 4317880; 

450510, 4317818; 450481, 4317760; 

450473, 4317700; 450495, 4317605; 

450510, 4317454; 450512, 4317340; 

450520, 4317297; 450521, 4317204; 

450494, 4317128; 450486, 4317090; 

450486, 4317057; 450518, 4317008; 

450570, 4316902; 450600, 4316891; 

450624, 4316875; 450749, 4316850; 

450769, 4316841; 450786, 4316828; 

450839, 4316774; 450855, 4316749; 

450889, 4316685; 450900, 4316624; 

450909, 4316605; 450925, 4316588; 

450980, 4316547; 451041, 4316487; 

451106, 4316437; 451168, 4316381; 

451257, 4316313; 451327, 4316268; 

451352, 4316246; 451377, 4316209; 

451391, 4316172; 451417, 4316124; 

451467, 4316018; 451479, 4315983; 

451505, 4315878; 451510, 4315844; 

451509, 4315823; 451504, 4315804; 

451502, 4315781; 451458, 4315652; 

451442, 4315626; 451407, 4315587; 

451328, 4315533; 451284, 4315450; 

451273, 4315417; 451261, 4315362; 

451266, 4315318; 451251, 4315220; 

451270, 4315196; 451302, 4315145; 

451333, 4315115; 451353, 4315088; 

451369, 4315056; 451407, 4315001; 

451487, 4314929; 451527, 4314884; 

451570, 4314852; 451584, 4314832; 

451575, 4314812; 451531, 4314761; 

451501, 4314714; 451476, 4314644; 

451466, 4314587; 451453, 4314558; 

451418, 4314529; 451352, 4314505; 

451294, 4314491; 451151, 4314476; 

451049, 4314502; 450897, 4314504; 

450827, 4314485; 450753, 4314459; 

450723, 4314445; 450621, 4314367; 

450591, 4314336; 450558, 4314328; 

450524, 4314325; 450478, 4314335; 

450448, 4314346; 450393, 4314379; 

450307, 4314414; 450275, 4314435; 

450217, 4314487; 450180, 4314513; 

450154, 4314527; 450136, 4314528; 

450095, 4314515; 450080, 4314502; 

450073, 4314481; 450067, 4314432; 

450059, 4314412; 450050, 4314395; 

450011, 4314365; 449948, 4314325; 

449863, 4314289; 449837, 4314281; 

449782, 4314280; 449663, 4314313; 

449646, 4314320; 449541, 4314406; 

449491, 4314461; 449478, 4314469; 

449428, 4314487; 449376, 4314501; 

449346, 4314504; 449303, 4314491; 

449277, 4314477; 449249, 4314454; 

449233, 4314434; 449227, 4314420; 

449201, 4314393; 449180, 4314383; 

449152, 4314377; 449106, 4314376; 

449037, 4314386; 448999, 4314396; 

448972, 4314396; 448930, 4314388; 

448909, 4314377; 448838, 4314329; 

448811, 4314315; 448748, 4314292; 

448666, 4314308; 448627, 4314328; 

448552, 4314343; 448431, 4314264; 

448417, 4314255; 448395, 4314250; 

448353, 4314262; 448321, 4314276; 

448291, 4314293; 448254, 4314321; 

448212, 4314359; 448159, 4314397; 

448145, 4314425; 448139, 4314447; 

448128, 4314512; 448105, 4314550; 

448064, 4314682; 448041, 4314742; 

447981, 4314831; 447953, 4314863; 

447825, 4314997; 447804, 4315012; 

447718, 4315043; 447642, 4315058; 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 19191 

447566, 4315083; 447535, 4315087; 

447484, 4315072; 447379, 4315047; 

447350, 4315045; 447289, 4315057; 

447205, 4315062; 447152, 4315058; 

447121, 4315049; 447108, 4315023; 

447105, 4314998; 447112, 4314819; 

447127, 4314749; 447140, 4314719; 

447195, 4314628; 447201, 4314597; 

447229, 4314525; 447231, 4314491; 

447228, 4314463; 447200, 4314378; 

447188, 4314354; 447158, 4314262; 

447143, 4314230; 447126, 4314210; 

447092, 4314181; 447047, 4314063; 

446999, 4313912; 446968, 4313845; 

446955, 4313824; 446926, 4313793; 

446911, 4313781; 446851, 4313747; 

446820, 4313719; 446785, 4313679; 

446763, 4313642; 446746, 4313591; 

446742, 4313514; 446749, 4313495; 

446822, 4313419; 446846, 4313381; 

446885, 4313345; 446995, 4313304; 

447044, 4313279; 447133, 4313254; 

447175, 4313227; 447262, 4313158; 

447301, 4313116; 447330, 4313072; 

447351, 4313052; 447375, 4313021; 

447395, 4312988; 447441, 4312938; 

447455, 4312902; 447467, 4312842; 

447500, 4312740; 447528, 4312683; 

447555, 4312613; 447579, 4312526; 

447582, 4312493; 447497, 4312491; 

447347, 4312527; 447316, 4312531; 

447190, 4312558; 447147, 4312559; 

447108, 4312546; 447023, 4312509; 

446997, 4312510; 446929, 4312528; 

446904, 4312529; 446876, 4312524; 

446810, 4312498; 446701, 4312427; 

446698, 4312358; 446660, 4312227; 

446637, 4312169; 446590, 4312099; 

446554, 4312026; 446522, 4311999; 

446501, 4311988; 446447, 4311974; 

446426, 4311965; 446364, 4311921; 

446346, 4311900; 446328, 4311873; 

446299, 4311818; 446289, 4311794; 

446284, 4311722; 446276, 4311691; 

446259, 4311663; 446230, 4311626; 

446206, 4311600; 446182, 4311580; 

446070, 4311529; 446038, 4311519; 

446019, 4311506; 446005, 4311485; 

445993, 4311458; 445962, 4311356; 

445891, 4311224; 445875, 4311201; 

445788, 4311116; 445724, 4311029; 

445670, 4310960; 445644, 4310929; 

445615, 4310903; 445559, 4310863; 

445536, 4310852; 445471, 4310833; 

445416, 4310807; 445318, 4310702; 

445267, 4310672; 445159, 4310668; 

445095, 4310678; 444881, 4310647; 

444754, 4310641; 444634, 4310655; 

444565, 4310659; 444455, 4310546; 

444408, 4310515; 444345, 4310483; 

444326, 4310477; 444217, 4310454; 

444184, 4310425; 444165, 4310357; 

444141, 4310311; 444029, 4310153; 

443992, 4310117; 443938, 4310087; 

443912, 4310068; 443818, 4309984; 

443738, 4309898; 443702, 4309851; 

443687, 4309826; 443679, 4309807; 

443673, 4309764; 443708, 4309721; 

443758, 4309682; 443785, 4309656; 

443835, 4309583; 443885, 4309537; 

443970, 4309441; 443981, 4309425; 

443988, 4309404; 443982, 4309360; 

443936, 4309239; 443934, 4309212; 

443938, 4309125; 443936, 4309057; 

443932, 4309024; 443919, 4308998; 

443900, 4308978; 443808, 4308942; 

443755, 4308909; 443738, 4308891; 

443791, 4308802; 443816, 4308751; 

443825, 4308738; 443916, 4308619; 

443971, 4308552; 444039, 4308477; 

444132, 4308361; 444178, 4308279; 

444204, 4308240; 444272, 4308156; 

444318, 4308088; 444334, 4308060; 

444392, 4307866; 444408, 4307829; 

444424, 4307816; 444405, 4307816; 

444353, 4307837; 444304, 4307845; 

444194, 4307846; 444112, 4307837; 

443989, 4307802; 443836, 4307774; 

443680, 4307737; 443601, 4307714; 

443377, 4307684; 443141, 4307612; 

442935, 4307552; 442882, 4307540; 

442745, 4307493; 442552, 4307470; 

442237, 4307422; 442148, 4307413; 

442128, 4307398; 442115, 4307395; 

442054, 4307365; 442001, 4307333; 

441881, 4307259; 441819, 4307207; 

441776, 4307182; 441711, 4307152; 

441681, 4307145; 441575, 4307166; 

441454, 4307226; 441351, 4307281; 

441248, 4307317; 441024, 4307329; 

440921, 4307226; 440862, 4307213; 

440795, 4307212; 440715, 4307218; 

440624, 4307211; 440505, 4307186; 

440472, 4307174; 440427, 4307149; 

440402, 4307138; 440274, 4307148; 

440225, 4307257; 440122, 4307360; 

440020, 4307414; 439886, 4307499; 

439886, 4307571; 439832, 4307686; 

439778, 4307795; 439735, 4307898; 

439729, 4308019; 439584, 4308086; 

439505, 4308171; 439433, 4308285; 

439342, 4308370; 439251, 4308467; 

439221, 4308667; 439166, 4308818; 

439100, 4308909; 439021, 4308957; 

438888, 4309018; 438858, 4309151; 

438803, 4309211; 438731, 4309339; 

438652, 4309447; 438573, 4309526; 

438519, 4309605; 438513, 4309641; 

438410, 4309732; 438259, 4309792; 

438095, 4309865; 437964, 4309936; 

437946, 4309954; 437887, 4310001; 

437815, 4310050; 437717, 4310138; 

437707, 4310146; 437678, 4310234; 

437593, 4310422; 437526, 4310621; 

437526, 4310749; 437635, 4310785; 

437738, 4310785; 437895, 4310664; 

438041, 4310567; 438016, 4310385; 

438022, 4310240; 438228, 4310016; 

438585, 4309938; 438652, 4309956; 

438670, 4310022; 438755, 4310022; 

438918, 4310016; 439039, 4310016; 

439136, 4310113; 439318, 4310107; 

439469, 4310113; 439663, 4310143; 

439796, 4310174; 439838, 4310204; 

440032, 4310204; 440165, 4310392; 

440141, 4310500; 440092, 4310628; 

440056, 4310730; 440074, 4310779; 

440135, 4310827; 440159, 4311027; 

440159, 4311148; 440147, 4311227; 

440147, 4311366; 440237, 4311505; 

440244, 4311584; 440244, 4311663; 

440244, 4311699; 440352, 4311892; 

440449, 4312026; 440371, 4312134; 

440262, 4312207; 440183, 4312213; 

440116, 4312207; 440038, 4312231; 

439989, 4312310; 439983, 4312419; 

439947, 4312498; 439874, 4312582; 

439911, 4312697; 439893, 4312812; 

439808, 4312933; 439759, 4313012; 

439741, 4313115; 439790, 4313121; 

439941, 4313066; 440007, 4312982; 

440086, 4312915; 440116, 4312818; 

440092, 4312758; 440189, 4312721; 

440135, 4312649; 440153, 4312576; 

440213, 4312498; 440310, 4312552; 

440486, 4312504; 440546, 4312479; 

440588, 4312516; 440643, 4312534; 

440667, 4312619; 440764, 4312740; 

440915, 4312812; 441079, 4312818; 

441218, 4312818; 441430, 4312861; 

441648, 4312927; 441775, 4313042; 

441884, 4313224; 441811, 4313399; 

441660, 4313545; 441617, 4313660; 

441424, 4313684; 441381, 4313847; 

441321, 4313944; 441290, 4314029; 

441363, 4314125; 441363, 4314222; 

441369, 4314392; 441351, 4314440; 

441212, 4314555; 441169, 4314628; 

441157, 4314815; 441054, 4314973; 

441054, 4315154; 440885, 4315336; 

440824, 4315499; 440697, 4315548; 

440316, 4315530; 440116, 4315536; 

439941, 4315457; 439778, 4315427; 

439566, 4315421; 439215, 4315481; 

439172, 4315838; 439251, 4316068; 

439318, 4316238; 439414, 4316365; 

439729, 4316371; 439996, 4316491; 

440050, 4316516; 440038, 4316698; 

439959, 4316952; 439826, 4317127; 

439820, 4317315; 439771, 4317424; 

439838, 4317757; 439886, 4317968; 

439953, 4318217; 439971, 4318374; 

440056, 4318670; 440141, 4319015; 

440143, 4319025; 440189, 4319251; 

440231, 4319397; 440334, 4319403; 

440425, 4319330; 440613, 4319421; 

440734, 4319530; 440837, 4319627; 

441054, 4319675; 441206, 4319711; 

441418, 4319748; 441418, 4319917; 

441611, 4319954; 441726, 4320144; 

441626, 4320204; 441608, 4320409; 

441605, 4320443; 441446, 4320538; 

441421, 4320652; 441392, 4320784; 

441453, 4321002; 441465, 4321230; 

441649, 4321332; 441790, 4321409; 

441972, 4321510; 442151, 4321497; 

442234, 4321687; 442037, 4321827; 

441843, 4321965; 441600, 4322137; 

441466, 4322232; 441421, 4322386; 

441355, 4322607; 441279, 4322863; 

441395, 4323046; 441675, 4323230; 

441859, 4323249; 442036, 4323268; 

442207, 4323285; 442382, 4323304; 

442488, 4323370; 442526, 4323453; 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
19192 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

442556, 4323518; 442559, 4323524; 

442685, 4323642; 442648, 4323741; 

442649, 4323740; 442780, 4323626; 

442806, 4323610; 442880, 4323597; 

442930, 4323582; 442973, 4323563; 

443023, 4323526; 443057, 4323470; 

443078, 4323427; 443085, 4323374; 

443085, 4323326; 443092, 4323280; 

443116, 4323243; 443217, 4323205; 

443281, 4323150; 443330, 4323082; 

443380, 4323024; 443626, 4322826; 

returning to 443694, 4322801. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit MEN–1 for the 

California red-legged frog follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

Dated: April 12, 2009. 

Will Shafroth, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Department of the 

Interior. 

[FR Doc. E9–9141 Filed 4–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP28AP09.006</GPH>