Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69717 

governments. The rule would impose no 

requirements on any of these entities. 

We have already shown, in the previous 

paragraphs of this section of the 

preamble, that the change proposed in 

this rule would not have effects 

approaching $100 million per year on 

the private sector. Therefore, BLM is not 

required to prepare a statement 

containing the information required by 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference With 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights (Takings) 

The proposed rule is not a 

government action capable of interfering 

with constitutionally protected property 

rights. The rule would allow BLM to 

contract out one step in the timber 

volume measurement process, and 

would not provide for the taking or 

reduction in value of, or any other effect 

on any private property. Therefore, the 

Department of the Interior has 

determined that the rule would not 

cause a taking of private property or 

require further discussion of takings 

implications under this Executive 

Order. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The proposed rule will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the states, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. It would not apply 

to states or local governments or state or 

local governmental entities. Therefore, 

in accordance with Executive Order 

13132, BLM has determined that this 

proposed rule does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant 

preparation of a federalism assessment. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform 

Under Executive Order 12988, the 

Office of the Solicitor has determined 

that this proposed rule would not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

that it meets the requirements of 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, we have found that this 

proposed rule does not include policies 

that have Tribal implications. There are 

no substantial direct effects on one or 

more Indian Tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian Tribes. 

There will be some small economic 

benefit to scalers and scaling bureaus, 

and therefore to any American Indians 

that may be employed by or otherwise 

financially connected to such entities. 

There are, however, no policy 

implications that require consultation 

with Indian Tribes. 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13211, BLM has determined that the 

proposed rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the energy supply, 

distribution, or use, including a shortfall 

in supply or price increase. The rule 

does not relate to energy supply, 

distribution, or use in any respect. 

Executive Order 13352, Facilitation of 

Cooperative Conservation 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13352, BLM has determined that this 

proposed rule is purely administrative 

and does not affect cooperative 

conservation. This proposed rule takes 

appropriate account of and considers 

the interests of persons with ownership 

or other legally recognized interests in 

land or other natural resources because 

it does not interfere with such interests. 

The proposed rule solely affects a 

Federal responsibility not involving 

state or local participation, and has no 

impact on public health and safety. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

These proposed regulations do not 

contain information collection 

requirements that the Office of 

Management and Budget must approve 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

Author 

The principal authors of this 

proposed rule are Kenny McDaniel, 

Manager, Gunnison Field Office, 

Colorado, Scott Lieurance, Forester—

Senior Specialist, Washington Office, 

and Lyndon Werner, Forester, Oregon 

State Office, assisted by Ted Hudson, 

Senior Regulatory Specialist, 

Washington Office, Bureau of Land 

Management. 

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 5420 

Forests and forest products, 

Government contracts, Public lands, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: November 3, 2005. 

Chad Calvert, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and 

Minerals Management. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in 

the preamble and under the authorities 

stated below, BLM proposes to amend 

43 CFR part 5420 as set forth below: 

PART 5420—PREPARATION FOR 

SALE 

1. The authority citation for part 5420 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 61 Stat. 681, as amended, 69 

Stat. 367; Sec. 5, 50 Stat. 875; 30 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.; 43 U.S.C. 1181e. 

Subpart 5422—Volume Measurements 

2. Amend section 5422.2 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 5422.2 Scale sales. 

* * * * * 

(b) (1) BLM may order third party 

scaling after determining that all of the 

following factors exist: 

(i) A timber disaster has occurred; 

(ii) A critical resource loss is 

imminent; and 

(iii) Measurement practices listed in 

§ 5422.1 and paragraph (a) of this 

section are inadequate to permit orderly 

disposal of the damaged timber. 

(2) BLM may also order third party 

scaling, only by scalers or scaling 

bureaus under contract to BLM, for the 

scaling of density management timber 

sales when the quadratic mean diameter 

of the trees to be cut and removed is 

equal to or less than 20 inches. 

(3) Third party scaling volumes must 

be capable of being equated to BLM 

standards in use for timber depletion 

computations, to insure conformance 

with sustained yield principles. 

[FR Doc. 05–22779 Filed 11–16–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU23 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Distinct Population 

Segment of the California Tiger 

Salamander in Sonoma County 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

69718 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce the 

reopening of the comment period on the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the Sonoma County population of 

the California tiger salamander. We are 

reopening the comment period to allow 

all interested parties an opportunity to 

comment simultaneously on the 

proposed rule and an alternative we are 

considering in our approach to this 

designation. We are considering a final 

designation of 21,298 ac (8,519 ha) or 

less due to an alternative methodology 

for designating critical habitat (see 

discussion below). The final critical 

habitat rule is due to the Federal 

Register on December 1, 2005. 

Comments previously submitted need 

not be resubmitted as they will be 

incorporated into the public record as 

part of this comment period, and will be 

considered in preparation of the final 

rule. 

DATES: We will accept public comments 

until November 28, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

materials may be submitted to us by any 

one of the following methods: 

1. You may submit written comments 

and information to the Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 

Cottage Way, Suite W–2605, 

Sacramento, CA 95825; 

2. You may hand-deliver written 

comments and information to our 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, at 

the above address, or fax your 

comments to 916/414–6713; or 

3. You may send comments by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to: 

fwsonoma_tiger_salamander@fws.gov. 

For directions on how to file comments 

electronically, see the ‘‘Public 

Comments Solicited’’ section. In the 

event that our Internet connection is not 

functional, please submit your 

comments by the alternate methods 

mentioned above. 

Copies of the proposed rule and draft 

economic analysis for critical habitat 

designation are available on the Internet 

at http://www.fws.gov/sacramento or 

from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife 

Office at the address and contact 

numbers above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Arnold Roessler, Sacramento Fish and 

Wildlife Office, at the address above 

(telephone 916/414–6600; facsimile 

916/414–6713). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

We will accept written comments and 

information during this reopened 

comment period. We solicit comments 

on the original proposed critical habitat 

designation (70 FR 44301; August 2, 

2005), on our draft economic analysis of 

the proposed designation, and on the 

alternative included with this notice. 

We will consider information and 

recommendations from all interested 

parties. We are particularly interested in 

comments concerning: 

(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 benefit of designation will outweigh 

any threats to the species due to 

designation; 

(2) Specific information on the 

amount and distribution of California 

tiger salamander (CTS) habitat proposed 

to be designated in this alternative, what 

areas should be included in the 

designation or which should not 

compared to the original proposed 

critical habitat; 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

habitat; 

(4) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security, or other potential 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

designation and this alternative and, in 

particular, any impacts on small 

entities; and 

(5) Whether our approach to 

designating critical habitat could be 

improved or modified in any way to 

provide for greater public participation 

and understanding, or to assist us in 

accommodating public concern and 

comments. 

(6) The local governments of Sonoma 

County including the county itself are 

considering adopting a county-wide 

conservation plan preceded by an 

interim operating agreement to protect 

the salamander until the local plan can 

be finalized and formally adopted. If the 

interim implementation agreement can 

be finalized in time, the Service will 

include the existence of the plan in its 

determination of critical habitat for both 

the purposes of a 3(5)(A) determination 

and a 4(b)(2) determination. We are 

continuing to request comment on the 

Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy, 

as requested in the proposed rule, the 

interim agreement and whether the 

Service should consider them in 

determinations under 4(b)(2) under the 

Act. 

An area may be excluded from critical 

habitat if it is determined that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of including the particular area 

as critical habitat, unless the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. We may exclude an area from 

designated critical habitat based on 

economic impacts, national security, or 

any other relevant impact. 

All previous comments and 

information submitted during the initial 

comment period on the August 2, 2005, 

proposed rule (70 FR 44301) and the 

reopened comment period following the 

October 25, 2005, notice of availability 

of the draft economic analysis (70 FR 

61591) need not be resubmitted. If you 

wish to comment, you may submit your 

comments and materials concerning the 

draft economic analysis and the 

proposed rule by any one of several 

methods (see ADDRESSES section). Our 

final designation of critical habitat will 

take into consideration all comments 

and any additional information we 

received during both comment periods. 

On the basis of public comment on this 

analysis and on the critical habitat 

proposal, and the final economic 

analysis, we may, during the 

development of our final determination, 

find that areas proposed do not meet the 

definition of critical habitat, are 

appropriate for exclusion under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate 

for exclusion. 

Please submit electronic comments in 

an ASCII file format and avoid the use 

of special characters and encryption. 

Please also include ‘‘Attn: RIN 1018–

AU23’’ 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, please contact the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

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 addresses from 

the rulemaking record, which we will 

honor to the extent allowable by law. In 

some circumstances, we would 

withhold from the rulemaking record a 

respondent’s identity, as allowable by 

law. If you wish for us to withhold your 

name and/or address, you must state 

this prominently at the beginning of 

your comments. 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. 

Comments and materials received, as 

well as supporting documentation used 

in preparation of the proposal to 

designate critical habitat, will be 

available for inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69719 

hours, at the Sacramento Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). 

Copies of the proposed rule and draft 

economic analysis are available on the 

Internet at: http://www.fws.gov/ 

sacramento/. You may also obtain 

copies of the proposed rule and 

economic analysis from the Sacramento 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES), or by calling 916/414–6600. 

Background 

Previous Federal Actions 

The Sonoma County Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS) of the 

California tiger salamander was 

emergency listed as endangered on July 

22, 2002 (67 FR 47726). On March 19, 

2003, we made a final determination of 

endangered status for the Sonoma 

County DPS of the California tiger 

salamander (68 FR 13498). 

On August 2, 2005, we proposed to 

designate a total of 74,223 acres (30,037 

hectares) as critical habitat in Sonoma 

County, California (70 FR 44301). The 

majority of the proposed designation 

occurs on privately owned lands. No 

known Tribal lands have been included 

in the proposed designation. 

Alternative Under Consideration 

Current Proposal 

We are considering a final designation 

of 21,298 ac (8,519 ha) or less due to an 

alternative methodology for identifying 

critical habitat and mapping 

refinements. We are also requesting 

information regarding possible 

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

Endangered Species Act (Act). See 

discussion below. Pursuant to court 

order, the final critical habitat rule is 

due to the Federal Register on 

December 1, 2005. 

For information on the primary 

constituent elements (PCEs) for the 

California tiger salamander Sonoma 

County DPS, see the proposed rule 

(August 2, 2005; 70 FR 44301). The 

PCEs remain the same as in the 

proposed rule. 

Methodology/Criteria To Identify the 

Alternative Under Consideration 

In the proposed critical habitat rule 

for the Sonoma population of the 

California tiger salamander, we 

identified the historical and potential 

range of the species in Sonoma County, 

utilizing all known breeding and adult 

locality data and GIS resources available 

to this office. We are currently taking 

into consideration comments received 

from the public and beginning to outline 

possible exclusions from habitat 

containing features essential to the 

conservation of the species as outlined 

below. In the course of these 

refinements, we have developed an 

alternative that we are now considering 

for designation. 

Conserving California tiger 

salamanders over the long term requires 

a three-pronged approach: (1) Protecting 

the hydrology and water quality of 

breeding pools and ponds; (2) retaining 

or providing for connectivity between 

breeding locations for genetic exchange 

and recolonization; and (3) protecting 

sufficient upland habitat around each 

breeding location to allow for enough 

adult survival to maintain a breeding 

population over the long term. We have 

developed this alternative to focus on 

providing sufficient breeding and 

upland habitat to maintain and sustain 

existing populations of salamanders in 

documented breeding sites (vernal pool 

complexes) identified within Sonoma 

County. 

The final listing rule identified the 

Sonoma County DPS California tiger 

salamander as occupying at least eight 

known breeding sites consisting of 

vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, and 

other water bodies surrounded by 

supporting upland and dispersal 

habitats (i.e., vernal pool complexes) 

with varying levels of fragmentation due 

to urban development. These complexes 

are generally described as the (1) Hall 

Road Preserve; (2) FEMA/ Broadmore 

North Preserve; (3) Engel Preserve; (4) 

Northwest Air Center; (5) Southwest Air 

Center; (6) North Air Center; (7) Wright 

Avenue; and (8) South Ludwig Avenue 

(68 FR 13498, March 19, 2003). These 

eight breeding sites (vernal pool 

complexes) are distributed in the City of 

Santa Rosa, and the immediate 

associated unincorporated areas, an area 

approximately 5 mi (8 km) by 4 mi (6 

km) wide. California tiger salamanders 

were also known to occur south to the 

Cotati area. Four additional known 

breeding sites were converted into 

unsuitable habitat in the two years prior 

to listing, and a fifth breeding site near 

Cotati was converted to unsuitable 

habitat shortly after the emergency 

listing went into effect. 

Consistent with the methodology used 

to map habitat containing features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Santa Barbara and Central populations 

of the California tiger salamander, we 

began mapping habitat by buffering 

known salamander breeding locations 

by a distance of 0.70 mi (1.1 km) to 

capture dispersal and upland habitat 

use. Trenham et al. (2001), investigated 

movements of California tiger 

salamanders between breeding ponds 

and projected that 0.70 mi (1.1 km) 

would encompass 99 percent of all 

interpond dispersal (Trenham et al. 

2001). 

Buffering known breeding sites by 

0.70 m (1.1 km) will also encompass 

both the breeding habitat and the 

upland habitat surrounding the ponds 

where juvenile and adult California tiger 

salamanders live during the majority of 

their life cycle. California tiger 

salamanders frequently move from their 

breeding ponds in search of suitable 

upland refugia. A mark-recapture study 

demonstrated that California tiger 

salamanders commonly moved between 

ponds separated by 2,200 ft (671 m) 

(Trenham et al. 2001), and in another 

study, 16 percent of juvenile captures 

occurred at 2,296 ft (700 m) (Trenham 

et al. 2001). Trenham and Shaffer (in 

review) estimated that conserving 

upland habitats within 2,200 ft (671 m) 

of breeding ponds would protect 95 

percent of California tiger salamanders 

at their study location in Solano County. 

Finally, a buffer of 0.70 m (1.1 km) will 

help protect breeding site watersheds, 

which is important for two reasons: (1) 

to ensure that the amount of water 

entering the pond is not altered in a 

manner that would allow for 

colonization of breeding sites by nonnative predators, which can prey upon 

California tiger salamander eggs and 

larvae; and (2) to preserve water quality 

by minimizing the entry of sediments 

and other contaminants to the breeding 

ponds. 

See Figure 1 for map of an alternative 

we are considering in our approach to 

this designation for the Sonoma County 

DPS of the California tiger salamander. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

69720 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C New Information 

Occupation Since Time of Listing 

We have new records of California 

tiger salamanders within the same 

vernal pool complexes in which 

salamanders were known at the time of 

listing. We have also identified one 

additional breeding site containing a 

complex of vernal pools generally 


EP17NO05.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69721 

described as the Duer/Kelly Farms site, 

located west of the Hall Road Preserve 

and north of the intersection of Highway 

12 and Duer Road. Any of the breeding 

sites or vernal pool complexes may 

contain one or more breeding pools in 

a given year, and the number and 

location of breeding pools within a 

complex varies from one year to 

another. Individual salamanders have 

been detected both in breeding pools 

and in the surrounding uplands (e.g., 

road kills, trapping during surveys). 

Potential Exclusions 

There are no federal lands or 

approved habitat conservation plans 

within the proposed designation. The 

following exclusions to the alternative 

under section 4(b)(2) may be 

considered: 

■ Most or all of the alternative 

designation, on the basis of the 

conservation benefits that will be 

provided by the draft Santa Rosa Plain 

Conservation Strategy. 

■ Some or all of the alternative 

designation, on the basis of economics. 

■ Vernal pool preserves owned and 

managed by California Department of 

Fish and Game (acreage estimate 

currently unavailable). 

■ Conservation banks owned by 

private landowners and managed for the 

benefit of California tiger salamander 

and other vernal pool species (acreage 

estimate currently unavailable). 

Future Refinements 

At this time we are unable to further 

refine the attached map, however, we 

recognize that upland habitat features 

will influence California tiger 

salamander movements within a 

particular landscape. Therefore, where 

we have site-specific information on 

those features, such as land use, 

topography, and geologic landform, we 

intend to restrict the proposed essential 

habitat lines to reflect that information. 

Examples of features we intend to 

remove from the final designation of 

critical habitat would likely include: (1) 

Commercial or residential developed 

areas; (2) upland habitat separated from 

the breeding habitat by a substantial 

barrier (e.g., State Highway); (3) habitat 

types within dispersal distance 

unsuitable for California tiger 

salamanders; (4) areas that do not 

provide underground refugia because 

they cannot support small mammal 

burrowing systems due to geological 

features; or (5) other such areas that do 

not contain sufficient PCEs to support 

the California tiger salamander. 

Economics 

The economic impact of the 

alternative on land development is 

$195,863,729. The revised impact on 

transportation projects is $426,000. The 

total revised cost of designation is thus 

$196,289,729, or $17,316,226 

annualized over 20 years. In the event 

that portions of critical habitat within 

the urban growth boundaries are 

excluded, the cost drops to 

$128,008,620. These findings are 

summarized in Table 1. Table 2 displays 

these impacts by census tract, as well as 

impacts if the portion of each tract 

within the urban growth boundary 

(UGB) is excluded. 

TABLE 1.—REVISED ECONOMIC

IMPACTS OF DESIGNATION

Land Development ............... $195,863,729 

Land Development (UGB excluded) .............................. 128,008,620 

Transportation ....................... 426,000 

Overall impact ....................... 196,289,729 

Annualized Impact ................ 17,316,226 

TABLE 2.—IMPACTS BY CENSUS TRACT

FIPS 

UGB not excluded UGB excluded 

Transportation 

Surplus impacts 

lost 

Cumulative 

percentage 

Surplus 

lost 

Cumulative 

percentage 

06097153300 ....................................................................... $125,612,192 64.1 $80,588,264 63.0 $0 

06097153200 ....................................................................... 29,722,184 79.3 23,572,824 81.4 426,000 

06097151201 ....................................................................... 18,746,038 88.9 9,252,835 88.6 0 

06097153005 ....................................................................... 9,863,633 93.9 7,005,753 94.1 0 

06097151311 ....................................................................... 4,707,828 96.3 980,615 97.9 0 

06097151203 ....................................................................... 2,979,555 97.8 2,775,813 96.2 0 

06097151100 ....................................................................... 1,164,227 98.4 1,164,227 97.1 0 

06097151000 ....................................................................... 930,563 98.9 930,563 98.6 0 

06097151402 ....................................................................... 807,866 99.3 640,000 99.1 0 

06097151307 ....................................................................... 643,695 99.6 514,830 100.0 0 

06097153501 ....................................................................... 572,914 99.9 572,896 99.6 0 

06097152901 ....................................................................... 89,037 100.0 10,000 100.0 0 

06097151308 ....................................................................... 13,999 100.0 ........................ ........................ 0 

06097153003 ....................................................................... 10,000 100.0 ........................ ........................ 0 

06097152904 ....................................................................... 0 100.0 ........................ ........................ 0 

06097151305 ....................................................................... 0 100.0 0 100.0 0 

06097151301 ....................................................................... 0 100.0 0 100.0 0 

06097151204 ....................................................................... 0 100.0 0 100.0 0 

06097153006 ....................................................................... 0 100.0 ........................ ........................ 0 

06097153101 ....................................................................... 0 100.0 ........................ ........................ 0 

06097153102 ....................................................................... 0 100.0 ........................ ........................ 0 

Total .............................................................................. 195,863,729 ........................ 128,008,620 ........................ 426,000 

Author 

The primary author of this notice is 

the staff of the Sacramento Fish and 

Wildlife Office. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.). 

Dated: November 10, 2005. 

Craig Manson, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 05–22781 Filed 11–16–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P