Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Distinct Population Segment of the California Tiger Salamander in Sonoma County, 69717-69721 [05-22781]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:59 Nov 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
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.
69717
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
Author
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
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.
Fish and Wildlife Service
List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 5420
Forests and forest products,
Government contracts, Public lands,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
comment period.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\17NOP1.SGM
17NOP1
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 https://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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:59 Nov 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\17NOP1.SGM
17NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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: https://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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:59 Nov 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69719
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
E:\FR\FM\17NOP1.SGM
17NOP1
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:59 Nov 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\17NOP1.SGM
17NOP1
EP17NO05.002</GPH>
69720
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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:
I 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.
I Some or all of the alternative
designation, on the basis of economics.
I Vernal pool preserves owned and
managed by California Department of
Fish and Game (acreage estimate
currently unavailable).
69721
I Conservation banks owned by
private landowners and managed for the
benefit of California tiger salamander
and other vernal pool species (acreage
estimate currently unavailable).
features; or (5) other such areas that do
not contain sufficient PCEs to support
the California tiger salamander.
Future Refinements
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.
Economics
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
TABLE 1.—REVISED ECONOMIC
IMPACTS OF DESIGNATION
Land Development ...............
Land Development (UGB excluded) ..............................
Transportation .......................
Overall impact .......................
Annualized Impact ................
$195,863,729
128,008,620
426,000
196,289,729
17,316,226
TABLE 2.—IMPACTS BY CENSUS TRACT
UGB not excluded
FIPS
06097153300
06097153200
06097151201
06097153005
06097151311
06097151203
06097151100
06097151000
06097151402
06097151307
06097153501
06097152901
06097151308
06097153003
06097152904
06097151305
06097151301
06097151204
06097153006
06097153101
06097153102
Surplus
lost
UGB excluded
Cumulative
percentage
Surplus
lost
Cumulative
percentage
Transportation
impacts
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
$125,612,192
29,722,184
18,746,038
9,863,633
4,707,828
2,979,555
1,164,227
930,563
807,866
643,695
572,914
89,037
13,999
10,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
64.1
79.3
88.9
93.9
96.3
97.8
98.4
98.9
99.3
99.6
99.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
$80,588,264
23,572,824
9,252,835
7,005,753
980,615
2,775,813
1,164,227
930,563
640,000
514,830
572,896
10,000
........................
........................
........................
0
0
0
........................
........................
........................
63.0
81.4
88.6
94.1
97.9
96.2
97.1
98.6
99.1
100.0
99.6
100.0
........................
........................
........................
100.0
100.0
100.0
........................
........................
........................
$0
426,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total ..............................................................................
195,863,729
........................
128,008,620
........................
426,000
Author
Authority
The primary author of this notice is
the staff of the Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:59 Nov 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17NOP1.SGM
17NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 221 (Thursday, November 17, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69717-69721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22781]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 69718]]
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 https://
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 e-mail 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
[[Page 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: https://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 non-native 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
[[Page 69720]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17NO05.002
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
[[Page 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:
[squf] 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.
[squf] Some or all of the alternative designation, on the basis of
economics.
[squf] Vernal pool preserves owned and managed by California
Department of Fish and Game (acreage estimate currently unavailable).
[squf] 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UGB not excluded UGB excluded
---------------------------------------------------------------- Transportation
FIPS Cumulative Cumulative impacts
Surplus lost percentage Surplus lost 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
