Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53999 

(vii) The Hybrid III Six-Year-Old 

Child Parts/Drawing List, dated June 1, 

2009. 

(2) A procedures manual entitled, 

‘‘Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, 

and Inspection (PADI) of the Hybrid III 

6-Year-Old Child Crash Test Dummy 

(H–III6C), Beta Version, June 1, 2009’’; 

* * * * * 

(b) The Director of the Federal 

Register approved the materials 

incorporated by reference in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

Copies of the materials may be 

inspected at the Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

telephone (202) 366–9826, and at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA), and in 

electronic format through 

Regulations.gov. For information on the 

availability and inspection of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. For information on 

the availability and inspection of this 

material at Regulations.gov, call 1–877– 

378–5457, or go to: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

(c) * * * 

(1) The drawings and specifications 

package, the parts list, and the PADI 

document referred to in paragraphs 

(a)(1), and (a)(2) of this section, are 

available in electronic format through 

www.Regulations.gov and in paper 

format from Leet-Melbrook, Division of 

New RT, 18810 Woodfield Road, 

Gaithersburg, MD 20879, (301) 670– 

0090. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 572.121 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2) introductory 

text (the table is not amended) to read 

as follows: 

§ 572.121 General description. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Procedures for Assembly, 

Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of 

the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy, 

Alpha version, dated June 1, 2009. 

Issued: October 15, 2009. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E9–25241 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS-R8-ES-2009-0062; 92210–1117–0000– 

B4] 

[RIN 1018–AW85] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Buena Vista Lake shrew 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

revise our designation of critical habitat 

for the Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex 

ornatus relictus) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

Our proposal is the same as the 

proposed critical habitat we published 

on August 19, 2004 (69 FR 51417). In 

total, approximately 4,649 acres (ac) 

(1,881 hectares (ha)) occur within the 

boundaries of the proposed revised 

critical habitat designation. The 

proposed revised critical habitat is 

located in the Central Valley floor of 

Kern County, California. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that we 

receive information on or before 

December 21, 2009. We must receive 

requests for public hearings, in writing, 

at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

December 7, 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 

on Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0062. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: Docket no. 

FWS-R8-ES-2009-0062; 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: 

Daniel Russell, Acting Listing 

Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife 

Office, 2800 Cottage Way, 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 intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal to revise 

critical habitat will be as accurate and 

as effective as possible. Therefore, we 

request comments or suggestions on this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) The reasons we should or should 

not revise the designation of habitat as 

‘‘critical habitat’’ under section 4 of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

including whether there are threats to 

the species 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: 

• Areas that provide habitat for the 

Buena Vista Lake shrew (herein after 

referred to as the shrew) that we did not 

discuss in our August 19, 2004 (69 FR 

51417) proposed critical habitat rule, 

• Areas containing the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

shrew that we should include in the 

revised designation and why, 

• Areas proposed that do not contain 

features essential for the conservation of 

the species and why, and 

• Areas not occupied at the time of 

listing that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and why. 

(3) Land-use designations and current 

or planned activities in the areas 

proposed as revised critical habitat, as 

well as their possible effects on 

proposed revised critical habitat. 

(4) Comments or information that may 

assist us in identifying or clarifying the 

physical and biological features. 

(5) How the proposed revised critical 

habitat boundaries could be refined to 

more closely circumscribe the 

landscapes identified as containing the 

features essential to the species’ 

conservation. 

(6) Any probable economic, national 

security, or other relevant impacts of 

designating any area that may be 

included in the final designation. We 

are particularly interested in any 

impacts on small entities or families, 

and the benefits of including or 

excluding areas that exhibit these 

impacts. 

(7) Whether any specific areas being 

proposed as revised critical habitat 

should be excluded under section 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
54000 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the 

benefits of potentially excluding any 

particular area outweigh the benefits of 

including that area under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act. 

(8) Information on any quantifiable 

potential economic impacts of the 

proposed designation of critical habitat. 

(9) Whether we could improve or 

modify our approach to designating 

critical habitat in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to better 

accommodate public concerns and 

comments. 

You may submit your comments on 

this proposed rule by one of the 

methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. If you submit information via 

http://www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission — including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If you submit a 

hardcopy that includes personal 

identifying information, you may 

request at the top of your document that 

we withhold this personal identifying 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. We will post all 

hardcopy submissions on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and information that we 

receive will be available for you to 

review at http://www.regulations.gov, or 

you may make an appointment during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the 

designation of revised critical habitat in 

this proposed rule. There is no new 

information on the biology, distribution, 

or abundance of the shrew since the 

time the species was listed. For more 

information on the shrew, refer to the 

final listing rule published in the 

Federal Register on March 6, 2002 (67 

FR 10101). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On August 19, 2004, we proposed 

critical habitat for the shrew on 

approximately 4,649 ac (1,881 ha) in 

Kern County, California (69 FR 51417). 

On January 24, 2005, we published a 

final rule (70 FR 3438) designating 84 ac 

(34 ha) of critical habitat for the shrew 

in Kern County, California. The 

decrease in acreage from the areas we 

proposed to the areas we designated 

resulted from exclusions under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act and, to a small degree, 

refinements in our mapping of critical 

habitat boundaries. 

On October 2, 2008, the Center for 

Biological Diversity filed a complaint in 

the U.S. District Court for the Eastern 

District of California challenging the 

Service’s designation of critical habitat 

for the shrew (Center for Biological 

Diversity v. United States Fish and 

Wildlife, et al., Case No. 08-CV-01490- 

AWI-GSA). A July 9, 2009, settlement 

agreement stipulates the Service will, 

within 90 days of the signed agreement, 

submit to the Federal Register for 

publication a new proposal of critical 

habitat for the species which 

encompasses the same geographic area 

as the August 19, 2004, (69 FR 51417) 

proposed designation. Additionally, the 

Service agreed to submit to the Federal 

Register for publication, on or before 

March 22, 2012, a final determination 

on revised critical habitat for the shrew. 

The current designation of critical 

habitat for the Buena Vista Lake shrew 

(70 FR 3438, January 24, 2005) remains 

in full force and effect until we publish 

a new final rule revising critical habitat 

for the shrew. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(i) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

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) which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(ii) specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

under the Act are no longer necessary. 

Such methods and procedures include, 

but are not limited to, all activities 

associated with scientific resources 

management such as research, census, 

law enforcement, habitat acquisition 

and maintenance, propagation, live 

trapping, and transplantation, and, in 

the extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against Federal agencies 

carrying out, funding, or authorizing the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) requires 

consultation on Federal actions that 

may affect critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect land ownership or establish a 

refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 

other conservation area. Such 

designation does not allow the 

government or public to access private 

lands. Such designation does not 

require implementation of restoration, 

recovery, or enhancement measures by 

non-Federal landowners. Where a 

landowner seeks or requests Federal 

agency funding or authorization for an 

action that may affect a listed species or 

critical habitat, the consultation 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) would 

apply, but even in the event of a 

destruction or adverse modification 

finding, Federal action agency’s and the 

applicant’s obligation is not to restore or 

recover the species, but to implement 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

For inclusion in a critical habitat 

designation, the habitat within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it was listed must 

contain the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species, and be included only if 

those features may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. Critical habitat designations 

identify, to the extent known using the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available, habitat areas that provide 

essential life cycle needs of the species 

(areas on which are found the physical 

and biological features (PBFs) laid out 

in the appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement for the conservation of the 

species). Under the Act and regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.12, we can designate 

critical habitat in areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed only when 

we determine that those areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species and that designation limited to 

those areas occupied at the time of 

listing would be inadequate to ensure 

the conservation of the species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available. Further, our Policy on 

Information Standards Under the 

Endangered Species Act (published in 

the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act 

(section 515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 54001 

Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we determine which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include the recovery plan for the 

species, articles in peer-reviewed 

journals, conservation plans developed 

by States and counties, scientific status 

surveys and studies, biological 

assessments, or other unpublished 

materials and expert opinion or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is often dynamic, and species 

may move from one area to another over 

time. Furthermore, we recognize that 

critical habitat designated at a particular 

point in time may not include all of the 

habitat areas that we may later 

determine are necessary for the recovery 

of the species. For these reasons, a 

critical habitat designation does not 

signal that habitat outside the 

designated area is unimportant or may 

not be required for recovery of the 

species. 

Areas that are important to the 

conservation of the species, but are 

outside the critical habitat designation, 

will continue to be subject to 

conservation actions we implement 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. Areas 

that support populations are also subject 

to the regulatory protections afforded by 

the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as 

determined on the basis of the best 

available scientific information at the 

time of the agency action. Federally 

funded or permitted projects affecting 

listed species outside their designated 

critical habitat areas may still result in 

jeopardy findings in some cases. 

Similarly, critical habitat designations 

made on the basis of the best available 

information at the time of designation 

will not control the direction and 

substance of future recovery plans, 

habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or 

other species conservation planning 

efforts if new information available at 

the time of these planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Physical and Biological Features 

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

and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in 

determining which areas within the 

geographical area occupied at the time 

of listing to propose as critical habitat, 

we consider the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. These include, but are not 

limited to: 

(1) Space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; 

(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or 

other nutritional or physiological 

requirements; 

(3) Cover or shelter; 

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or 

rearing (or development) of offspring; 

and 

(5) Habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historic, geographical, and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

We consider the specific physical and 

biological features (PBFs) to be the 

primary constituent elements of habitat 

laid out in the appropriate quantity and 

spatial arrangement essential for the 

conservation of the species. We derive 

the physical and biological features 

from the primary constituent elements 

(PCEs) for this species as they were 

described in the August 19, 2004 (69 FR 

51417) proposed designation of critical 

habitat for the Buena Vista Lake shrew. 

Please refer to the Proposed Regulation 

Promulgation Section of this document 

and the previous proposed designation 

(69 FR 51417, August 19, 2004) for a 

description of PCEs. 

Proposed Revised Critical Habitat 

Designation 

Under the terms of the July 9, 2009, 

settlement agreement, we propose 

revised critical habitat for the shrew that 

matches the proposed designation we 

published on August 19, 2004 (69 FR 

51417). See the Proposed Regulation 

Promulgation section of this document, 

which is the same as that which we 

published in 2004. The proposed 

designation includes five units which 

constitute approximately 4,649 ac (1,881 

ha), located in the Central Valley floor 

of Kern County, California. Please see 

the August 19, 2004 (69 FR 51417), 

notice for details regarding methods, 

criteria, critical habitat unit 

descriptions, and special management 

considerations or protection for the 

proposed revised critical habitat 

designation. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that actions they fund, 

authorize, or carry out are not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. However, decisions by the 

courts of appeals for the Fifth and Ninth 

Circuits have invalidated our regulatory 

definition of ‘‘destruction or adverse 

modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02) (see 

Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th

Cir 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 

442F (5th Cir 2001)). Instead, we rely 

upon the statutory provisions of the Act 

to make that determination. Under the 

statutory provisions of the Act, the key 

factor in determining whether an action 

will destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat is whether, with implementation 

of the proposed Federal action, the 

affected critical habitat would remain 

functional (or retain those PCEs that 

relate to the ability of the area to 

support the species) to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species. 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to evaluate their actions with respect to 

any species that is proposed or listed as 

endangered or threatened and with 

respect to its critical habitat, if any is 

proposed or designated. Regulations 

implementing this interagency 

cooperation provision of the Act are 

codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with the 

Service on any action that is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

species proposed for listing or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. This is a 

procedural requirement only, as any 

conservation recommendations in a 

conference report or opinion are strictly 

advisory. However, once proposed 

species become listed, or proposed 

critical habitat is designated as final, the 

full prohibitions of section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act apply to any Federal action. The 

primary utility of the conference 

procedures is to maximize the 

opportunity for a Federal agency to 

adequately consider proposed species 

and critical habitat and avoid potential 

delays in implementing their proposed 

action as a result of the section 7(a)(2) 

compliance process, should those 

species be listed or the critical habitat 

designated. 

We may conduct conferences either 

informally or formally. We typically use 

informal conferences as a means of 

providing advisory conservation 

recommendations to assist the agency in 

eliminating conflicts that the proposed 

action may cause with respect to the 

proposed critical habitat. We typically 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
54002 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

use formal conferences when the 

Federal agency or the Service believes 

the proposed action is likely to 

adversely affect a species proposed for 

listing or degrade proposed critical 

habitat in some manner. 

We generally provide the results of an 

informal conference in a conference 

report, while we provide the results of 

a formal conference in a conference 

opinion. We typically prepare 

conference opinions on proposed 

critical habitat in accordance with 

procedures contained at 50 CFR 402.14, 

as if the proposed critical habitat was 

already designated. If no substantial 

new information or changes in the 

action alter the content of the opinion, 

we may adopt the conference opinion as 

the biological opinion when the critical 

habitat is designated (see 50 CFR 

402.10(d)). 

If a species is listed or critical habitat 

is designated, section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of such a species or 

to destroy or adversely modify its 

critical habitat. Activities on State, 

tribal, local, or private lands requiring a 

Federal permit (such as a permit from 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from us 

under section 10 of the Act) or involving 

some other Federal action (such as 

funding from the Federal Highway 

Administration, Federal Aviation 

Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency) are 

subject to the section 7(a)(2) 

consultation process. Federal actions 

not affecting listed species or critical 

habitat, and actions on State, tribal, 

local, or private lands that are not 

federally funded, authorized, or 

permitted, do not require section 7(a)(2) 

consultations. 

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. At the conclusion of this 

consultation, the Service will issue 

either: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

If we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

result in jeopardy to a listed species or 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of critical habitat, we also provide 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

the project, if any are identifiable, to 

avoid these outcomes. We define 

‘‘reasonable and prudent alternatives’’ 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, 

•Can be implemented consistent with 

the scope of the Federal agency’s legal 

authority and jurisdiction, 

• Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

•Would, in the Director’s opinion, 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of the listed species or 

destroying or adversely modifying 

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 a new 

species is listed or critical habitat is 

subsequently designated that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action. Consequently, 

some Federal agencies may need to 

request reinitiation of consultation with 

us on actions for which formal 

consultation has been completed, if 

those actions with discretionary 

involvement may affect subsequently 

listed species or designated critical 

habitat. 

Application of the Jeopardy and 

Adverse Modification Standards 

Jeopardy Standard 

Currently, the Service applies an 

analytical framework for Buena Vista 

Lake shrew jeopardy analyses that relies 

heavily on the importance of known 

populations to the species’ survival and 

recovery. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

analysis is focused not only on these 

populations but also on the habitat 

conditions necessary to support them. 

The jeopardy analysis usually 

expresses the survival and recovery 

needs of Buena Vista Lake shrew in a 

qualitative fashion without making 

distinctions between what is necessary 

for survival and what is necessary for 

recovery. Generally, the jeopardy 

analysis focuses on the range-wide 

status of Buena Vista Lake shrew, the 

factors responsible for that condition, 

and what is necessary for this species to 

survive and recover. An emphasis is 

also placed on characterizing the 

conditions of Buena Vista Lake shrew in 

the area affected by the proposed 

Federal action and the role of affected 

populations in the survival and recovery 

of the species. That context is then used 

to determine the significance of adverse 

and beneficial effects of the proposed 

Federal action and any cumulative 

effects for purposes of making the 

jeopardy determination. 

Adverse Modification Standard 

The key factor related to the adverse 

modification determination is whether, 

with implementation of the proposed 

Federal action, the affected critical 

habitat would continue to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species. Generally, the conservation role 

of Buena Vista Lake shrew critical 

habitat units is to support the various 

life-history needs and provide for the 

conservation of the species. Activities 

that may destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat are those that alter the 

PCEs to an extent that appreciably 

reduces the conservation value of 

critical habitat for Buena Vista Lake 

shrew. 

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

to briefly evaluate and describe in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat those 

activities involving a Federal action that 

may destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. Activities that may destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat may 

also jeopardize the continued existence 

of 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. 

These actions include, but are not 

limited to: 

(1) Actions that would affect riparian 

or wetland areas by any Federal Agency. 

Such activities could include, but are 

not limited to, flood control or changes 

in water banking activities. These 

activities could eliminate or reduce the 

habitat necessary for the reproduction, 

sheltering, or growth of Buena Vista 

Lake shrews. 

(2) Actions that would affect the 

regulation of water flows by any Federal 

agency. Such activities could include, 

but are not limited to, damming, 

diversion, and channelization. These 

activities could eliminate or reduce the 

habitat necessary for the reproduction, 

sheltering, or growth of Buena Vista 

Lake shrews. 

(3) Actions that would involve 

regulations funded or permitted by the 

Federal Highway Administration. (We 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 54003 

note that the Federal Highway 

Administration does not fund the 

routine operations and maintenance of 

the State highway system.) Such 

activities could include, but are not 

limited to, new road construction and 

right-of-way designation. These 

activities could eliminate or reduce 

riparian or wetland habitat along river 

crossings necessary for reproduction, 

sheltering, or growth of Buena Vista 

Lake shrews. 

(4) Actions that would involve 

regulation of airport improvement 

activities by the Federal Aviation 

Administration. Such activities could 

include, but are not limited to, the 

creation or expansion of airport 

facilities. These activities could 

eliminate or reduce riparian or wetland 

habitat necessary for the reproduction, 

sheltering, foraging, or growth of Buena 

Vista Lake shrews. 

(5) Actions that would involve 

licensing of construction of 

communication sites by the Federal 

Communications Commission. Such 

activities could include, but are not 

limited to, the installation of new radio 

equipment and facilities. These 

activities could eliminate or reduce the 

habitat necessary for the reproduction, 

sheltering, foraging, or growth of Buena 

Vista Lake shrews. 

(6) Actions that would involve 

funding of activities by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Department of Energy, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 

Federal Highway Administration, or any 

other Federal agency. Such activities 

could include, but are not limited to, 

activities associated with the cleaning 

up of Superfund sites, erosion control 

activities, and flood control activities. 

These activities could eliminate or 

reduce upland or aquatic habitat for 

Buena Vista Lake shrews. 

(7) Actions that would affect waters of 

the United States authorized by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers under section 

404 of the Clean Water Act. Such 

activities could include, but are not 

limited to, placement of fill into 

wetlands. These activities could 

eliminate or reduce the habitat 

necessary for the reproduction, feeding, 

or growth of Buena Vista Lake shrews. 

All lands within this proposed 

revised designation as critical habitat 

are within the historical geographic area 

occupied by the species, and are likely 

to be used by the shrew whether for 

foraging, breeding, growth of juveniles, 

dispersal, migration, genetic exchange, 

or sheltering. We consider all lands 

included in this proposed revised 

designation to be essential to the 

survival of the species. Federal agencies 

already consult with us on activities in 

areas currently occupied by the species, 

and also one whether the species may 

be affected by the action, to ensure that 

their actions do not jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species. 

Therefore, we believe that the revised 

designation of critical habitat is not 

likely to result in a significant 

regulatory burden above that already in 

place due to the presence of the listed 

species. Few additional consultations 

are likely to be conducted due to the 

revised designation of critical habitat. 

Exemptions 

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 

1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 

required each military installation that 

includes land and water suitable for the 

conservation and management of 

natural resources to complete an 

integrated natural resources 

management plan (INRMP) by 

November 17, 2001. An INRMP 

integrates implementation of the 

military mission of the installation with 

stewardship of the natural resources 

found on the base. Each INRMP 

includes: 

• An assessment of the ecological 

needs on the installation, including the 

need to provide for the conservation of 

listed species; 

• A statement of goals and priorities; 

• A detailed description of 

management actions to be implemented 

to provide for these ecological needs; 

and 

• A monitoring and adaptive 

management plan. 

Among other things, each INRMP 

must, to the extent appropriate and 

applicable, provide for fish and wildlife 

management; fish and wildlife habitat 

enhancement or modification; wetland 

protection, enhancement, and 

restoration where necessary to support 

fish and wildlife; and enforcement of 

applicable natural resource laws. 

The National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108- 

136) amended the Act to limit areas 

eligible for designation as critical 

habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) 

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 

now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not 

designate as critical habitat any lands or 

other geographical areas owned or 

controlled by the Department of 

Defense, or designated for its use, that 

are subject to an integrated natural 

resources management plan prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 

U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines 

in writing that such plan provides a 

benefit to the species for which critical 

habitat is proposed for designation.’’ 

There are no Department of Defense 

lands with a completed INRMP within 

the proposed revised critical habitat 

designation. 

Economic Analysis 

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

to designate critical habitat on the basis 

of the best scientific and commercial 

information available and to consider 

the economic and other relevant 

impacts of designating a particular area 

as critical habitat. We may exclude areas 

from critical habitat upon a 

determination that the benefits of such 

exclusions outweigh the benefits of 

specifying such areas as part of critical 

habitat. We cannot exclude such areas 

from critical habitat if such exclusion 

would result in the extinction of the 

species. 

The primary purpose of the economic 

analysis is to estimate the potential 

economic impacts associated with the 

designation of revised critical habitat for 

the Buena Vista Lake shrew. This 

information is intended to assist the 

Secretary in making decisions about 

whether the benefits of excluding 

particular areas from the designation 

outweigh the benefits of including those 

areas in the designation. The economic 

analysis considers the economic 

efficiency effects that may result from 

the designation, including habitat 

protections that may be co-extensive 

with the listing of the species. It also 

addresses distribution of impacts, 

including an assessment of the potential 

effects on small entities and the energy 

industry. This information can be used 

by the Secretary to assess whether the 

effects of the designation might unduly 

burden a particular group or economic 

sector. 

The analysis focuses on the direct and 

indirect costs of the rule. However, 

economic impacts to land use activities 

can exist in the absence of critical 

habitat. These impacts may result from, 

for example, local zoning laws, State 

natural resource laws, and enforceable 

management plans and best 

management practices applied by other 

State and Federal agencies. Economic 

impacts that result from these types of 

protections are not included in the 

analysis as they are considered to be 

part of the regulatory and policy 

baseline. Our economic analysis 

evaluated the potential future effects 

associated with the listing of this 

species as endangered under the Act, as 

well as any potential effect of the 

critical habitat designation above and 

beyond those regulatory and economic 

impacts associated with listing. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
54004 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Following the publication of the 

previous proposed critical habitat 

designation (69 FR 51417), we 

conducted an economic analysis to 

estimate the potential economic effect of 

the designation. On November 30, 2004, 

we published a notice of availability for 

the draft economic analysis of the 

proposed critical habitat designation (69 

FR 69578). The economic analysis 

included both retrospective, or predesignation, and prospective, or postdesignation, economic costs to various 

entities as a result of Buena Vista Lake 

shrew conservation activities. 

Retrospective costs are those costs 

estimated to have occurred from the 

time the species was listed in April 

2002 until the proposal of critical 

habitat in August 2004. The estimated 

retrospective cost is $122,237. These 

costs were primarily certain 

administrative costs associated with the 

preparation of a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan at the Kern National 

Wildlife Refuge critical habitat unit 

(CHU) and the section 7 consultation 

related to the preparation of a biological 

opinion related to a habitat conservation 

plan (HCP) at the Goose Lake proposed 

CHU. 

Values presented in the draft 

economic analysis are in 2004 dollars 

and are calculated at 3 and 7 percent 

discount rates. Total prospective costs 

range from $6.7 to $14.2 million under 

a 3 percent discount rate, and $4.8 to 

$10.1million under a 7 percent rate. 

Thus, prospective average annual costs 

range from $452,266 to $955,833. These 

costs include effects on agricultural 

producers adjacent or proximate to three 

CHUs, biological monitoring, HCP 

development, and supplemental water 

purchases. The ranges reflect totals with 

and without supplemental water for 

Kern Lake, Coles Levee, and Kern Fan 

Water Recharge CHUs. Both the Kern 

National Wildlife Refuge and Goose 

Lake CHUs are assumed to require 

supplemental water, and thus do not 

contribute to this range of costs. 

However, the economic analysis 

prepared for the 2004 critical habitat 

designation does not accurately reflect 

the full range of potential economic 

impacts that may result from this 

proposed revision to Buena Vista Lake 

shrew critical habitat. 

We are preparing a new draft 

economic analysis of the economic 

impacts of this proposed revision to 

critical habitat for the shrew. Upon 

completion of the new draft economic 

analysis, we will announce its 

availability in the Federal Register and 

reopen the public comment period on 

the proposed revised designation and 

the new draft economic analysis. At that 

time, copies of the draft economic 

analysis will be available for 

downloading from the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or by contacting 

the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 

directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section). 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy 

published in the Federal Register 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 peer review is to ensure that 

our revised critical habitat designation 

is based on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses. We have 

invited these peer reviewers to comment 

during this public comment period on 

our specific assumptions and 

conclusions in this proposed 

designation of revised critical habitat. 

We will consider all comments and 

information we receive during this 

comment period on this proposed rule 

during our preparation of a final 

determination. 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. Requests must be received 

within 45 days after the date of 

publication of this proposed rule in the 

Federal Register. Such requests must be 

sent to the address shown in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

We will schedule public hearings on 

this proposal, if any are requested, and 

announce the dates, times, and places of 

those hearings, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the hearing. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review— 

Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this 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 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996, whenever an agency must publish 

a notice of rulemaking for any proposed 

or final rule, it must prepare and make 

available for public comment a 

regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended RFA to 

require Federal agencies to provide a 

certification statement of the factual 

basis for certifying that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

At this time, we lack the available 

economic information necessary to 

provide an adequate factual basis for the 

required RFA finding. Therefore, we 

defer the RFA finding until completion 

of the new draft economic analysis 

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

Act and E.O. 12866. Upon completion of 

the new draft economic analysis, we 

will announce its availability in the 

Federal Register and reopen the public 

comment period on the proposed 

revised designation and the new draft 

economic analysis. We will include 

with this announcement, as appropriate, 

an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

or a certification that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

accompanied by the factual basis for 

that determination. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

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

seq.), we make the following findings: 

(a) This rule would 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 [T]ribal 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 54005 

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 [T]ribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(b) We do not believe that this rule 

would significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. Therefore, a Small 

Government Agency Plan is not 

required. However, we will further 

evaluate this issue as we conduct our 

economic analysis, and review and 

revise this assessment if appropriate 

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 

designating revised critical habitat for 

the Buena Vista Lake shrew in a takings 

implications assessment. The takings 

implications assessment concludes that 

this designation of revised critical 

habitat for this species does not pose 

significant takings implications for 

lands within or affected by the 

designation. 

Federalism 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this proposed rule does 

not have significant Federalism effects. 

A Federalism assessment is not 

required. In keeping with Department of 

the Interior and Department of 

Commerce policy, we requested 

information from, and coordinated 

development of, this proposed revised 

critical habitat designation with 

appropriate State resource agencies in 

California. The designation may have 

some benefit to these governments 

because the areas that contain the 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species are more clearly defined, 

and the physical and biological features 

of the habitat necessary to the 

conservation of the species are 

specifically identified. This information 

does not alter where and what federally 

sponsored activities may occur. 

However, it may assist local 

governments in long-range planning 

(rather than having them wait for caseby-case section 7 consultations to 

occur). 

Where State and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) would be required. 

While non-Federal entities that receive 

Federal funding, assistance, or permits, 

or that otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform), the Office of the 

Solicitor has determined that the rule 

does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the Order. We have proposed 

designating revised critical habitat in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Act. This proposed rule uses standard 

property descriptions and identifies the 

physical and biological features within 

the designated areas to assist the public 

in understanding the habitat needs of 

the this species. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). This rule will not impose 

recordkeeping or reporting requirements 

on State or local governments, 

individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses as 

defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) in connection with designating 

critical habitat under the Act. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). This position was upheld by the 

U.S. court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 

F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 

516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful, etc. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
54006 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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), E.O. 13175, 

and the Department of the Interior’s 

manual at 512 DM 2, we readily 

acknowledge our responsibility to 

communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 ‘‘American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act’’, we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have determined that there are no 

tribal lands occupied at the time of 

listing that contain the features essential 

for the conservation, and no tribal lands 

that are essential for the conservation 

for the Buena Vista Lake shrew. 

Therefore, we have not proposed to 

designate revised critical habitat for this 

species on tribal lands. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

an Executive Order (E.O. 13211; Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) on regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 

requires agencies to prepare Statements 

of Energy Effects when undertaking 

certain actions. We do not expect it to 

significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use. Because this action 

is not a significant energy action, no 

Statement of Energy Effects is required. 

However, we will further evaluate this 

issue as we conduct our economic 

analysis, and review and revise this 

assessment as warranted. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available on http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Field Supervisor, Sacramento 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

Author(s) 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Sacramento 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 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. Amend § 17.95(a) by revising the 

entry for ‘‘Buena Vista Lake Shrew 

(Sorex ornatus relictus)’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and 

wildlife. 

(a) Mammals. 

* * * * * 

Buena Vista Lake Shrew (Sorex ornatus 

relictus) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Kern County, California, on the maps 

below. 

(2) The primary constituent elements 

of critical habitat for the Buena Vista 

Lake shrew are the habitat components 

that provide: 

(i) Riparian or wetland communities 

supporting a complex vegetative 

structure with a thick cover of leaf litter 

or dense mats of low-lying vegetation; 

(ii) Suitable moisture supplied by a 

shallow water table, irrigation, or 

proximity to permanent or semipermanent water; and 

(iii) A consistent and diverse supply 

of prey. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

existing features and structures, such as 

buildings, aqueducts, airports, roads, 

and other developed areas not 

containing one or more of the primary 

constituent elements. 

(4) Data layers defining map units 

were created on a base of USGS 7.5’ 

quadrangles, and critical habitat units 

were then mapped using Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates. 

(5) Note: Map 1 (index map) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 54007 

(6) Unit 1a: Kern National Wildlife 

Refuge, Kern County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

maps Hacienda Ranch, California, and 

Lost Hills NE, California, land bounded 

by the following UTM 11 NAD 27 

coordinates (E, N): 261370, 3955645; 

261384, 3955731; 261457, 3955912; 

261502, 3955985; 261534, 3956044; 

261643, 3955967; 261679, 3955949; 

261775, 3955967; 261797, 3955981; 

261784, 3956017; 261779, 3956062; 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALSEP21OC09.023</GPH>
54008 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

261802, 3956149; 261829, 3956249; 

261815, 3956326; 261788, 3956417; 

261784, 3956621; 261734, 3956675; 

261711, 3956716; 261716, 3956762; 

261756, 3956784; 261788, 3956825; 

261793, 3956862; 261797, 3957157; 

261806, 3957170; 261825, 3957175; 

261943, 3957120; 261993, 3957107; 

262179, 3957093; 262297, 3957089; 

262315, 3957071; 262424, 3956857; 

262469, 3956771; 262479, 3956739; 

262479, 3956707; 262465, 3956685; 

262460, 3956671; 262460, 3956644; 

262465, 3956607; 262469, 3956566; 

262479, 3956535; 262465, 3956494; 

262451, 3956453; 262447, 3956417; 

262447, 3956385; 262460, 3956367; 

262488, 3956362; 262519, 3956385; 

262551, 3956417; 262598, 3956482; 

262561, 3956219; 262543, 3956086; 

262536, 3956035; 262456, 3955981; 

262429, 3955903; 262397, 3955881; 

262347, 3955858; 262320, 3955844; 

262265, 3955822; 262224, 3955799; 

262197, 3955776; 262202, 3955763; 

262220, 3955744; 262256, 3955717; 

262288, 3955704; 262383, 3955694; 

262438, 3955690; 262487, 3955684; 

262486, 3955677; 262477, 3955610; 

261938, 3955627; 261370, 3955645; 

returning to 261370, 3955645. 

(ii) The map of Unit 1a appears at 

paragraph (8)(ii) of this entry. 

(7) Unit 1b: Kern National Wildlife 

Refuge, Kern County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Lost Hills NW, California, and Lost 

Hills NE, California; land bounded by 

the following UTM 11 NAD 27 

coordinates (E, N): 263287, 3957189; 

263287, 3957174; 263304, 3957163; 

263343, 3957160; 263390, 3957139; 

263399, 3957115; 263411, 3957100; 

263438, 3957086; 263459, 3957050; 

263464, 3957023; 263464, 3957003; 

263506, 3957003; 263553, 3956997; 

263589, 3956964; 263607, 3956929; 

263613, 3956887; 263607, 3956834; 

263613, 3956801; 263627, 3956748; 

263621, 3956686; 263571, 3956638; 

263547, 3956617; 263550, 3956573; 

263539, 3956532; 263500, 3956505; 

263453, 3956490; 263402, 3956502; 

263390, 3956511; 263382, 3956463; 

263364, 3956416; 263328, 3956381; 

263287, 3956363; 263236, 3956360; 

263207, 3956354; 263180, 3956321; 

263147, 3956271; 263097, 3956241; 

263053, 3956232; 262988, 3956226; 

262931, 3956250; 262878, 3956283; 

262822, 3956309; 262786, 3956318; 

262745, 3956315; 262688, 3956318; 

262662, 3956321; 262650, 3956327; 

262674, 3956499; 262715, 3956472; 

262748, 3956455; 262783, 3956458; 

262816, 3956458; 262854, 3956443; 

262899, 3956428; 262961, 3956389; 

263005, 3956372; 263053, 3956386; 

263091, 3956431; 263142, 3956484; 

263195, 3956526; 263239, 3956520; 

263254, 3956502; 263272, 3956540; 

263296, 3956603; 263334, 3956647; 

263384, 3956662; 263423, 3956647; 

263423, 3956674; 263450, 3956703; 

263473, 3956727; 263482, 3956757; 

263467, 3956780; 263467, 3956810; 

263470, 3956831; 263473, 3956854; 

263461, 3956860; 263426, 3956866; 

263384, 3956869; 263340, 3956902; 

263319, 3956949; 263310, 3956976; 

263293, 3957006; 263275, 3957020; 

263248, 3957041; 263207, 3957047; 

263162, 3957056; 263136, 3957080; 

263115, 3957136; 263109, 3957171; 

263109, 3957195; 263287, 3957189; 

returning to 263287, 3957189. 

(ii) The map of Unit 1b appears at 

paragraph (8)(ii) of this entry. 

(8) Unit 1c: Kern National Wildlife 

Refuge, Kern County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Lost Hills NW, California, and Lost 

Hills NE, California; land bounded by 

the following UTM 11 NAD 27 

coordinates (E, N): 262564, 3955705; 

262575, 3955694; 262592, 3955680; 

262623, 3955677; 262864, 3955666; 

263540, 3955646; 264029, 3955635; 

264946, 3955607; 266049, 3955565; 

266680, 3955534; 266700, 3955531; 

266714, 3955523; 266714, 3955495; 

266588, 3955497; 266243, 3955511; 

264214, 3955584; 262687, 3955626; 

262572, 3955629; 262528, 3955647; 

262530, 3955660; 262533, 3955685; 

262536, 3955706; 262564, 3955705; 

returning to 262564, 3955705. 

(ii) Note: Map 2 (Units 1a, 1b, and 1c) 

follows: 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 54009 

(9) Unit 2: Goose Lake, Kern County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Semitropic, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 

27 coordinates (E, N): 269741, 3939122; 

269841, 3939090; 269931, 3939074; 

270005, 3939064; 270065, 3939048; 

270081, 3939030; 270117, 3939010; 

270185, 3938968; 270273, 3938860; 

270351, 3938749; 270403, 3938691; 

270443, 3938671; 270484, 3938649; 

270502, 3938621; 270544, 3938573; 

270598, 3938547; 270660, 3938527; 

270782, 3938449; 270824, 3938423; 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALSEP21OC09.024</GPH>
54010 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

270848, 3938423; 270878, 3938431; 

270930, 3938449; 271005, 3938452; 

271020, 3938439; 271064, 3938409; 

271120, 3938353; 271186, 3938269; 

271260, 3938173; 271286, 3938125; 

271286, 3938079; 271278, 3938035; 

271288, 3937959; 271318, 3937905; 

271334, 3937887; 271392, 3937893; 

271444, 3937905; 271556, 3937957; 

271578, 3937939; 271623, 3937907; 

271635, 3937885; 271639, 3937855; 

271653, 3937819; 271667, 3937785; 

271685, 3937767; 271727, 3937751; 

271749, 3937735; 271761, 3937702; 

271761, 3937658; 271763, 3937582; 

271765, 3937570; 271777, 3937548; 

271793, 3937526; 271843, 3937504; 

271905, 3937470; 272025, 3937400; 

272087, 3937372; 272123, 3937328; 

272141, 3937312; 272143, 3937294; 

272139, 3937274; 272125, 3937250; 

272091, 3937212; 271995, 3937122; 

271931, 3937068; 271911, 3937040; 

271901, 3937004; 271901, 3936914; 

271901, 3936848; 271903, 3936802; 

271907, 3936750; 271915, 3936716; 

271935, 3936700; 271969, 3936702; 

272009, 3936706; 272037, 3936694; 

272047, 3936674; 272061, 3936638; 

272075, 3936580; 272067, 3936533; 

272065, 3936457; 272083, 3936371; 

272089, 3936307; 272085, 3936191; 

272067, 3936127; 272067, 3936087; 

272101, 3936007; 272181, 3935911; 

272241, 3935853; 272379, 3935749; 

272429, 3935687; 272504, 3935603; 

272525, 3935587; 272573, 3935555; 

272625, 3935533; 272669, 3935517; 

272703, 3935479; 272729, 3935427; 

272763, 3935380; 272810, 3935344; 

272858, 3935316; 272864, 3935290; 

272860, 3935258; 272822, 3935212; 

272790, 3935148; 272788, 3935086; 

272808, 3935024; 272802, 3934974; 

272814, 3934916; 272882, 3934818; 

272920, 3934764; 272964, 3934686; 

272998, 3934652; 273032, 3934632; 

273064, 3934608; 273084, 3934508; 

273090, 3934444; 273126, 3934370; 

273172, 3934302; 273216, 3934257; 

273234, 3934231; 273242, 3934185; 

273244, 3934139; 273228, 3934101; 

273208, 3934081; 273158, 3934055; 

273122, 3934045; 273076, 3934041; 

273018, 3934049; 272956, 3934067; 

272940, 3934071; 272890, 3934081; 

272870, 3934079; 272850, 3934077; 

272832, 3934055; 272824, 3934035; 

272828, 3933995; 272832, 3933957; 

272850, 3933923; 272876, 3933881; 

272912, 3933819; 272922, 3933791; 

272946, 3933753; 273012, 3933641; 

273014, 3933611; 273004, 3933579; 

272980, 3933575; 272946, 3933579; 

272916, 3933593; 272898, 3933597; 

272854, 3933621; 272818, 3933637; 

272800, 3933637; 272788, 3933625; 

272780, 3933601; 272763, 3933575; 

272743, 3933571; 272705, 3933585; 

272665, 3933669; 272445, 3933945; 

272411, 3933951; 272379, 3933963; 

272317, 3933995; 272227, 3934081; 

272177, 3934169; 272139, 3934245; 

272135, 3934294; 272115, 3934362; 

272063, 3934402; 272011, 3934470; 

271817, 3934758; 271739, 3934912; 

271711, 3935000; 271663, 3935054; 

271596, 3935112; 271514, 3935154; 

271470, 3935200; 271364, 3935298; 

271310, 3935413; 271296, 3935477; 

271304, 3935523; 271304, 3935571; 

271254, 3935639; 271156, 3935723; 

271082, 3935797; 271040, 3935817; 

271006, 3935859; 270976, 3935873; 

270910, 3935887; 270824, 3935911; 

270712, 3935979; 270624, 3936038; 

270598, 3936089; 270550, 3936181; 

270528, 3936215; 270488, 3936249; 

270419, 3936275; 270327, 3936295; 

270265, 3936325; 270199, 3936375; 

270135, 3936421; 270089, 3936463; 

270033, 3936493; 269891, 3936500; 

269745, 3936506; 269603, 3936566; 

269575, 3936586; 269523, 3936650; 

269503, 3936684; 269513, 3936714; 

269557, 3936768; 269633, 3936788; 

269761, 3936784; 269835, 3936788; 

270035, 3936782; 270071, 3936778; 

270153, 3936728; 270285, 3936688; 

270417, 3936680; 270550, 3936690; 

270716, 3936690; 271054, 3936732; 

271166, 3936772; 271242, 3936820; 

271312, 3936896; 271324, 3936926; 

271314, 3936962; 271300, 3937002; 

271266, 3937064; 271260, 3937094; 

271278, 3937156; 271290, 3937256; 

271286, 3937368; 271278, 3937422; 

271222, 3937530; 271164, 3937596; 

271150, 3937632; 271136, 3937652; 

271084, 3937668; 271038, 3937699; 

270979, 3937746; 270981, 3937783; 

270987, 3937969; 270960, 3938011; 

270868, 3938143; 270728, 3938249; 

270692, 3938259; 270628, 3938259; 

270606, 3938273; 270500, 3938387; 

270435, 3938483; 270401, 3938521; 

270373, 3938543; 270315, 3938561; 

270287, 3938569; 270113, 3938769; 

269941, 3938928; 269843, 3938962; 

269715, 3939032; 269585, 3939032; 

269563, 3939032; 269543, 3939040; 

269533, 3939054; 269533, 3939074; 

269543, 3939096; 269567, 3939110; 

269591, 3939120; 269621, 3939122; 

269659, 3939144; 269685, 3939146; 

269709, 3939138; 269741, 3939122; 

returning to 269741, 3939122. 

(ii) Note: Map 3 (Unit 2) follows: 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 54011 

(10) Unit 3: Kern Fan Water Recharge 

Area, Kern County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

maps Tupman, California, and Stevens, 

California, land bounded by the 

following UTM 11 NAD 27 coordinates 

(E, N): 295516, 3908835; 295279, 

3908837; 295290, 3909235; 295839, 

3909235; 295839, 3909605; 296123, 

3909598; 296123, 3910008; 296939, 

3909995; 296945, 3910388; 297306, 

3910388; 297306, 3910580; 298301, 

3910571; 298305, 3911170; 298614, 

3911161; 298617, 3911357; 299013, 

3911357; 299021, 3911981; 300650, 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALSEP21OC09.025</GPH>
54012 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

3911934; 300666, 3912745; 301491, 

3912726; 301496, 3913131; 301878, 

3913131; 301885, 3913492; 302639, 

3913467; 302689, 3913456; 302875, 

3913452; 302953, 3913467; 303501, 

3913456; 303499, 3913377; 303346, 

3913377; 303182, 3913345; 303096, 

3913310; 302950, 3913206; 302850, 

3913113; 302800, 3913024; 302782, 

3912942; 302764, 3912860; 302686, 

3912771; 302671, 3912700; 302664, 

3912300; 302261, 3912303; 302250, 

3911900; 301850, 3911907; 301827, 

3910972; 301270, 3910731; 301149, 

3910709; 300352, 3910586; 298760, 

3909525; 298405, 3909289; 298306, 

3909259; 296918, 3909128; 295881, 

3909023; 295832, 3908998; 295780, 

3908939; 295750, 3908877; 295710, 

3908847; 295653, 3908837; returning to 

295516, 3908835. 

(ii) Note: Map 4 (Unit 3) follows: 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 54013 

(11) Unit 4: Coles Levee Unit, Kern 

County, California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

maps Tupman, and Buena Vista 

Lakebed, California, land bounded by 

the following UTM 11 NAD 27 

coordinates (E, N): 287308, 3908077; 

287165, 3908138; 287172, 3908222; 

287285, 3908192; 287341, 3908153; 

287414, 3908098; 287610, 3908020; 

287614, 3907949; 287624, 3907898; 

287631, 3907847; 287668, 3907818; 

287716, 3907803; 287779, 3907811; 

287843, 3907787; 287915, 3907750; 

288008, 3907711; 288058, 3907689; 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALSEP21OC09.026</GPH>
54014 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

288114, 3907658; 288160, 3907643; 

288138, 3907573; 288150, 3907533; 

288182, 3907490; 288229, 3907431; 

288272, 3907372; 288298, 3907314; 

288284, 3907242; 288348, 3907166; 

288396, 3907126; 288453, 3907045; 

288530, 3906966; 288583, 3906909; 

288667, 3906812; 288705, 3906757; 

288744, 3906700; 288796, 3906619; 

288848, 3906542; 288901, 3906392; 

288938, 3906357; 288998, 3906330; 

289020, 3906301; 289045, 3906261; 

289081, 3906173; 289115, 3906128; 

289131, 3906076; 289119, 3906028; 

289135, 3906004; 289165, 3905928; 

289197, 3905879; 289271, 3905813; 

289358, 3905761; 289389, 3905735; 

289480, 3905654; 289597, 3905561; 

289758, 3905425; 289910, 3905291; 

290046, 3905162; 290070, 3905143; 

290115, 3904972; 290125, 3904923; 

290185, 3904904; 290200, 3904868; 

290206, 3904784; 290205, 3904694; 

290207, 3904637; 290218, 3904594; 

290234, 3904560; 290251, 3904514; 

290244, 3904477; 290234, 3904437; 

290242, 3904380; 290275, 3904275; 

290324, 3904182; 290376, 3904078; 

290418, 3903999; 290467, 3903903; 

290499, 3903856; 290545, 3903769; 

290575, 3903699; 290601, 3903641; 

290624, 3903595; 290673, 3903473; 

290708, 3903444; 290705, 3903422; 

290695, 3903396; 290733, 3903335; 

290771, 3903227; 290793, 3903070; 

290795, 3903016; 290802, 3902968; 

290815, 3902899; 290812, 3902870; 

290794, 3902836; 290778, 3902637; 

290775, 3902582; 290802, 3902553; 

290785, 3902492; 290764, 3902406; 

290768, 3902275; 290782, 3902151; 

290776, 3902124; 290744, 3902068; 

290668, 3901981; 290608, 3901920; 

290572, 3901811; 290459, 3901742; 

290454, 3901756; 290386, 3901852; 

290407, 3901876; 290507, 3901957; 

290601, 3902026; 290671, 3902088; 

290699, 3902164; 290699, 3902230; 

290693, 3902301; 290694, 3902410; 

290690, 3902504; 290694, 3902638; 

290701, 3902789; 290711, 3902878; 

290722, 3903028; 290722, 3903129; 

290696, 3903214; 290677, 3903290; 

290619, 3903389; 290577, 3903475; 

290495, 3903653; 290439, 3903768; 

290401, 3903848; 290347, 3903947; 

290298, 3904071; 290224, 3904237; 

290169, 3904357; 290152, 3904432; 

290141, 3904507; 290139, 3904575; 

290113, 3904653; 290087, 3904717; 

290060, 3904773; 290050, 3904836; 

290030, 3904894; 290008, 3904975; 

289979, 3905056; 289927, 3905163; 

289868, 3905242; 289805, 3905291; 

289745, 3905342; 289684, 3905386; 

289617, 3905441; 289518, 3905517; 

289397, 3905610; 289269, 3905708; 

289176, 3905781; 289124, 3905822; 

289088, 3905884; 289068, 3905932; 

289055, 3905970; 289036, 3906012; 

289029, 3906057; 289016, 3906107; 

289006, 3906162; 288994, 3906200; 

288973, 3906236; 288940, 3906273; 

288835, 3906369; 288791, 3906415; 

288729, 3906457; 288672, 3906513; 

288656, 3906561; 288651, 3906608; 

288641, 3906669; 288619, 3906723; 

288598, 3906761; 288545, 3906827; 

288415, 3906958; 288351, 3907026; 

288255, 3907123; 288204, 3907179; 

288155, 3907233; 288109, 3907278; 

288080, 3907311; 288060, 3907340; 

288028, 3907386; 287992, 3907412; 

287960, 3907420; 287893, 3907455; 

287829, 3907486; 287774, 3907509; 

287709, 3907532; 287645, 3907569; 

287613, 3907589; 287570, 3907640; 

287558, 3907682; 287537, 3907740; 

287491, 3907756; 287471, 3907781; 

287449, 3907839; 287435, 3907900; 

287419, 3907959; 287365, 3908021; 

returning to 287308, 3908077. 

(ii)Note: Map 5 (Unit 4) follows: 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 54015 

(12) Unit 5: Kern Lake, Kern County, 

California. 

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 

map Coal Oil Canyon, California, land 

bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 

27 coordinates (E, N): 312996, 3887027; 

312953, 3887034; 312911, 3887047; 

312886, 3887054; 312657, 3887298; 

313456, 3887299; 313458, 3887806; 

313823, 3887799; 313823, 3887314; 

313786, 3887267; 313696, 3887224; 

313618, 3887189; 313491, 3887139; 

313363, 3887112; 313298, 3887107; 

313231, 3887112; 313193, 3887142; 

313168, 3887157; 313136, 3887152; 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALSEP21OC09.027</GPH>
54016 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

313091, 3887112; 313056, 3887072; 

returning to 312996, 3887027. 

(ii) Note: Map 6 (Unit 5) follows: 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALSEP21OC09.028</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 54017 

* * * * * Dated: October 7, 2009 

Thomas L. Strickland 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks 

[FR Doc. E9–25242 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS