[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 169 (Wednesday, August 31, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54346-54372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21945]
[[Page 54345]]
Vol. 76
Wednesday,
No. 169
August 31, 2011
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment of
California Tiger Salamander; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2011 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 54346]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0044; MO 92210-0-0009]
RIN 1018-AW86
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Sonoma County Distinct
Population Segment of California Tiger Salamander
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate
revised critical habitat for the Sonoma County distinct population
segment of the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense)
(Sonoma California tiger salamander) under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, approximately 47,383 acres (19,175
hectares) of land are being designated as revised critical habitat for
the Sonoma California tiger salamander.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on September 30, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This final rule and the associated final economic analysis
are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments
and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in
preparing this final rule, are available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage
Way, W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825; telephone 916-414-6600; facsimile
916-414-6713.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Moore, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800
Cottage Way, W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825; telephone 916-414-6600;
facsimile 916-414-6713. If you use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
It is our intent to discuss in this final rule only those topics
directly relevant to the development and designation of critical
habitat for the Sonoma California tiger salamander under the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). For more information on the biology and ecology
of the California tiger salamander, refer to the final listing rule
published in the Federal Register on March 19, 2003 (68 FR 13498). For
information on the California tiger salamander critical habitat in
Sonoma County, refer to the proposed rule to designate critical habitat
for the Sonoma California tiger salamander published in the Federal
Register on August 18, 2009 (74 FR 41662). We published information on
the associated draft economic analysis for the proposed rule to
designate critical habitat and changes to the proposed rule in the
Federal Register on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 2863). A subsequent
proposed change to include additional area in our proposal to designate
critical habitat was published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2011
(76 FR 36068).
Previous Federal Actions
On March 19, 2003, we listed the Sonoma California tiger salamander
as endangered (68 FR 13498; March 19, 2003). At that time, we
determined that our budget for listing actions was not sufficient to
complete concurrent designation of critical habitat for the species. On
October 13, 2004, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (Center for Biological Diversity et
al. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al. (Case No. C-04-4324-FMS
(N.D. Cal. 2005))), which in part challenged the failure of designating
critical habitat for the Sonoma California tiger salamander. On
February 3, 2005, the District Court approved a settlement agreement
that required the Service to submit a final determination on the
proposed critical habitat designation for publication in the Federal
Register on or before December 1, 2005.
On August 2, 2005 (70 FR 44301), the Service published a proposed
rule to designate approximately 74,223 acres (ac) (30,037 hectares
(ha)) of critical habitat, and on November 17, 2005, we published a
revised proposed rule indicating we were considering approximately
21,298 ac (8,519 ha) for the final designation (70 FR 69717). In the
2005 revised proposed rule, we proposed critical habitat in areas
within the range where, at that time, we had credible records of
breeding, as reported by biologists that were permitted by the Service
to survey for the California tiger salamander. On December 14, 2005,
the Service published a final rule in the Federal Register (70 FR
74137), which identified four areas essential to the conservation of
the species, consisting of 17,418 ac (7,049 ha) located mostly west of
the developed portions of Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, and Cotati, in
Sonoma County. Each one of the areas contained the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and
represented a breeding center for the species. However, based on a
conservation strategy that was then under development by local
governments and organizations, all the areas were excluded in the final
rule, resulting in a designation of zero (0) ac (0 ha) of critical
habitat.
On February 29, 2008, we received a notice of intent to sue from
the Center for Biological Diversity that challenged the Service's final
designation of critical habitat, claiming that it was not based on the
best available scientific information. On May 5, 2009, the Court
approved a stipulated settlement agreement in which the Service agreed
to publish a revised proposed rule within 90 days that encompassed the
same geographic area as the August 2005 proposal. The proposed rule
that published in the Federal Register on August 18, 2009 (74 FR
41662), complies with the May 5, 2009, stipulated agreement. The
Service also agreed in the May 5, 2009, stipulated settlement agreement
to submit a final rule to the Federal Register on or before July 1,
2011. On June 9, 2011, the Court approved an extension to submit a
final rule to the Federal Register on or before September 1, 2011. The
extension was granted to accommodate a public comment period on
modification of the proposed critical habitat based on information
received during the previous January 18, 2011, public comment period.
On August 4, 2004, we listed the Central population of the
California tiger salamander as a threatened Distinct Population Segment
(DPS) (69 FR 47211). At that time, we reclassified the California tiger
salamander as threatened throughout its range, removing the Santa
Barbara County and Sonoma County populations as separately listed DPSs
(69 FR 47241). On August 18, 2005, as a result of litigation on the
reclassification of the Santa Barbara and Sonoma County DPSs of the
California tiger salamander (Center for Biological Diversity et al. v.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service et al. (Case No. C-04-4324-WHA
(N.D. Cal. 2005))), the District Court of Northern California sustained
the portion of the 2004 final rule pertaining to listing the Central
California tiger salamander as threatened, with a special rule, and
vacated the 2004 rule with regard to the Santa Barbara County and
Sonoma County DPSs, reinstating their prior listing as endangered. We
made the necessary changes to the
[[Page 54347]]
information included in the Code of Federal Regulations in the
regulatory section of the January 18, 2011, revised proposed rule to
designate critical habitat for the Sonoma California tiger salamander
(76 FR 2863), and are finalizing the changes in this final rule.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
revised designation of critical habitat for the Sonoma California tiger
salamander during three comment periods. The first comment period
opened with the publication of the proposed rule in the Federal
Register on August 18, 2009 (74 FR 41662), and closed on October 19,
2009. We also requested comments on the revised revision to our
proposed critical habitat designation and associated draft economic
analysis during a comment period that opened January 18, 2011, and
closed on February 17, 2011. This public comment period was associated
with the publication of the revised proposed rule in the Federal
Register on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 2863). Lastly, we requested
comments on a second revised proposed critical habitat designation
during a comment period that opened June 21, 2011, and closed on July
5, 2011, and was associated with the publication of the second revised
proposed rule in the Federal Register on June 21, 2011 (76 FR 36068).
We did not receive any requests for a public hearing; however, we held
a public informational meeting in Santa Rosa, California, on June 29,
2011. We contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies;
scientific organizations; tribes; and other interested parties and
invited them to comment on the proposed rule and draft economic
analysis during these comment periods.
During the first comment period, we received 53 comment letters
directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation. During
the second comment period, we received 35 comment letters addressing
either the proposed critical habitat designation or the draft economic
analysis. During the third comment period, we received 8 comment
letters addressing the critical habitat designation and economic
analysis. These totals do not include duplicate submissions. All
substantive information provided during these comment periods has
either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is
addressed below.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from three knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and
conservation biology principles. We received a response from one peer
reviewer.
We reviewed the comments received from the peer reviewer for
substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for
the Sonoma California tiger salamander. The peer reviewer generally
concurred with our methods and conclusions and provided additional
information with regard to known occurrences, clarifications, and
suggestions to improve the final revised critical habitat rule,
including suggestions about areas that the reviewer considered to be
more important than others for critical habitat designation. The
reviewer's comments are addressed in the following summary and
incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Peer Reviewer Comments
Comment 1: The peer reviewer and other commenters noted that there
are three known breeding sites in the Roblar Road area. The peer
reviewer reviewed aerial photographs and performed reconnaissance
visits to the area and observed several other potential breeding ponds
in the vicinity of the Roblar Road breeding sites. The peer reviewer
commented that the Roblar Road area likely consists of a metapopulation
with multiple known breeding sites. The peer reviewer recommended that
we include the area within a minimum of 1.3 miles (mi) (2 kilometers
(km)) from each of the three Roblar breeding sites in designated
critical habitat. The 1.3 mi area (2 km) is based on observations of
California tiger salamanders from the nearest breeding ponds (Sweet
1998).
Our Response: In the June 21, 2011, revised proposed rule (76 FR
36068), we added 4,945 ac (2,001 ha) in the Roblar Road area to the
revised critical habitat designation in response to the peer reviewer's
recommendation that we include these recent breeding records, and we
requested public comment on this addition to our revised proposal. The
Roblar Road area supports the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species, is contiguous with habitat that was
proposed as critical habitat in 2009 and 2011, and is within the
geographical area that was considered occupied at the time of listing.
Comment 2: The peer reviewer noted that the northern extent of
proposed critical habitat has no documented occurrences and includes
the area from the Sonoma County airport to the Windsor area (north of
Guerneville Road). Other commenters also stated that areas north of
Santa Rosa Creek and Mark West Creek do not support the Sonoma
California tiger salamander. These commenters stated that this area has
little value for the recovery of the species due to past and current
urbanization and fragmentation of habitat, and this area would not
likely support viable populations of the Sonoma California tiger
salamander.
Our Response: We revised the critical habitat designation boundary
in this final revised rule to remove infill parcels (isolated parcels
surrounded by developed areas) within the town of Windsor, the town of
Windsor Sphere of Influence, infill parcels east of the Sonoma County
airport, and parcels on the east side of U.S. Highway 101 and north of
Mark West Creek. The infill parcels are highly fragmented, are not
known to be occupied by the Sonoma California tiger salamander, do not
contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, are not needed for the survival or
recovery of the species, and are not otherwise essential for the
conservation of the species. The areas north of Guerneville Road
retained in this final critical habitat designation have the physical
or biological features essential to conserve the Sonoma California
tiger salamander, although some areas that are managed for intense
agricultural activities (e.g., vineyards, row crops, orchards) may
currently have only one primary constituent element (e.g., dispersal
habitat). They may be restored to high-quality Sonoma California tiger
salamander habitat that would also provide breeding and suitable upland
habitat, which could then contribute to the recovery of the species.
Therefore, the retained areas are essential for the conservation of the
species because they comprise large, contiguous habitat that provides
upland dispersal areas for the Sonoma California tiger salamander, they
contain at least one of the essential features, and they have the
potential for restoration to high-quality habitat.
Comment 3: The peer reviewer suggested that critical habitat should
be extended south to the Rainsville Road area. The peer reviewer stated
that this southern area contains the primary constituent elements
(seasonal wetlands for breeding and grasslands for terrestrial refugia
and dispersal). The peer reviewer also noted that he has a reliable
anecdotal observation by an amateur herpetologist of an adult
[[Page 54348]]
Sonoma California tiger salamander in the Rainsville Road area.
Our Response: The area south of Pepper Road including the
Rainsville Road area, along both sides of U.S. Highway 101, was removed
in the January 18, 2011, revised proposed rule and is not included in
this final critical habitat rule because we do not currently consider
this area to be essential to the conservation of the species. Although
there is an anecdotal report from the 1990s of a Sonoma California
tiger salamander observation along Rainsville Road, we are not aware of
confirmed observations of the Sonoma California tiger salamander within
this area. This area has been fragmented by industrial and residential
development and roadways, including the major north-south highway, U.S.
Highway 101. More than 20 percent of the land generally south of Pepper
Road and west of U.S. Highway 101 is delineated as 100-year floodplain
for the Petaluma River and generally bisects the Rainsville Road area.
We generally do not consider lands within the 100-year floodplain to
contain suitable breeding habitat for the Sonoma California tiger
salamander, and the floodplain fragments the remaining undeveloped land
in this area. We do not find the remaining upland habitat to be
adjacent or within dispersal distance from breeding ponds nor to be
dispersal habitat between locations occupied by the Sonoma California
tiger salamander. Therefore, we do not find the Rainsville Road area to
contain the PCEs necessary for the Sonoma California tiger salamander.
Comments From States
Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the
State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt
regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.'' No
comments were received from the State regarding the proposal to revise
critical habitat for the Sonoma California tiger salamander.
Public Comments
Unit Designation
Comment 4: Several comments included specific recommendations about
how the critical habitat unit should be delineated, including comments
regarding specific areas that should be included or removed from the
final revised designation.
Our Response: We used the best scientific information available in
determining the extent of the critical habitat boundaries, and we
revised our final rule based on peer review and public comments
received. We mapped only those areas that contained the physical or
biological features essential to conserve the Sonoma California tiger
salamander. When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every
effort to avoid including developed areas such as buildings, paved
areas, and other structures that lack the primary constituent elements
for the Sonoma California tiger salamander. The scale of the maps
prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of
Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed
areas. Any such structures, and the land under them, that have been
inadvertently left inside the critical habitat boundaries shown on the
maps of this final rule, have been excluded by text in this rule, and
are not designated as critical habitat. These developed and
nonessential habitat areas do not contain the primary constituent
elements and as such are not considered critical habitat. We did not
exclude from critical habitat designation any areas based on the
Conservation Strategy, because an implementation plan has not been
completed by local governments and there are no regional Habitat
Conservation Plans in this area.
Comment 5: Several comments pertained to areas on the east side of
U.S Highway 101 and north of Mountain View Avenue. Commenters noted
that critical habitat designation should exclude undeveloped or
partially developed parcels that are completely or predominately
surrounded by developed areas, because such isolated vacant `infill'
parcels lack the requisite primary constituent elements for the Sonoma
California tiger salamander, such parcels cannot support the isolated
self-sustaining populations, and the parcels are inaccessible to the
Sonoma California tiger salamander attempting to disperse from other
areas.
Our Response: The critical habitat designation no longer includes
the urbanized centers of Santa Rosa, Windsor, Bennett Valley, Rohnert
Park, and Cotati, including some areas on the east side of U.S. Highway
101. These urban centers consist almost exclusively of hardened,
developed landscapes. The remnant open space within these areas is
limited to small, isolated parcels within a matrix of urban
development. We do not consider the remnant open space within these
city centers as essential for the conservation of the Sonoma California
tiger salamander because these areas would not likely contribute to the
survival or recovery of the species.
Comment 6: One commenter requested that four properties located in
the easterly portion of the City of Rohnert Park and the southeasterly
portion of the County of Sonoma not be included in the final revised
critical habitat designation based on past negative surveys for Sonoma
California tiger salamander, e-mail communication from the Service
confirming that proposed projects at these properties would not likely
result in ``take'' of the Sonoma California tiger salamander, and
information revealing that three of the properties are in the ``no
effect'' category in the Programmatic Biological Opinion for U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Permitted Projects that May Affect California Tiger
Salamander and Three Endangered Plant Species on the Santa Rosa Plain,
California, 2007 (Programmatic Biological Opinion).
Our Response: The final revised critical habitat designation does
not include the properties located in the easterly portion of the City
of Rohnert Park and the southeasterly portion of the County of Sonoma,
based on existing habitat conditions, fragmentation, and isolation. We
determined that the area does not contain the physical or biological
features and is not essential for the conservation of the species. For
these reasons, the critical habitat unit boundary has been revised in
this final revised designation to remove the general area south of the
intersection of Martinez Drive and Petaluma Hill Road and south of
Gladstone Way, Rohnert Park, California, and north of Roberts Ranch
Road.
Comment 7: One commenter recommended that major water courses and
areas within the 100-year floodplain should not be excluded from the
revised critical habitat designation without a better understanding of
the function and values of the 100-year floodplain to the Sonoma
California tiger salamander.
Our Response: The 100-year floodplain does not likely support
Sonoma California tiger salamander breeding because seasonal pools
within the 100-year floodplain are subject to flooding from perennial
sources (such as the Laguna de Santa Rosa wetlands), and the pools
within the floodplain support predators of Sonoma California tiger
salamander. Periodically flooded uplands within the 100-year floodplain
may be considered Sonoma California tiger salamander habitat if located
near predator-free breeding pools (Conservation Strategy Team 2005a,
Appendix E). However, Sonoma California tiger salamander occurrence
information from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)
(2010) indicates that, despite intensive focus on the Sonoma California
tiger salamander, to date no occurrences have
[[Page 54349]]
been identified within the 100-year floodplain. The Conservation
Strategy notes the reason that this species has not been located within
the floodplain may be due to the lack of suitable upland habitat within
the floodplain during the wet season (Conservation Strategy Team 2005b,
Appendix L). However, some areas of the 100-year floodplain have been
included as critical habitat in this final rule in order to maintain
connectivity between breeding locations, and these areas are important
for dispersal in some locations. The Service, therefore, has determined
that most of the 100-year floodplain lacks the physical and biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the Sonoma
California tiger salamander, and the areas themselves are not
considered essential to the conservation of the species. However, the
100-year floodplain areas may provide some benefits for connectivity,
dispersal, foraging, and cover for the Sonoma California tiger
salamander when the area is not flooded.
Comment 8: Several commenters stated that areas north of Santa Rosa
Creek or north of Mark West Creek are inappropriate and not likely
essential for designation of critical habitat based on the following:
(1) Sonoma California tiger salamanders have not been observed
north of Mark West Creek. Mark West Creek is a geographic barrier
between areas populated by the Sonoma California tiger salamander, and
the only breeding site north of Santa Rosa Creek is a transplanted
breeding site (i.e., Alton Lane Mitigation Site), and
(2) These areas are not adequate to serve as Sonoma California
tiger salamander mitigation habitat based on the Programmatic
Biological Opinion and Conservation Strategy.
Our Response: In areas occupied at the time of listing, the
designation of critical habitat is based on an evaluation of areas that
contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Sonoma California tiger salamander. The Service is
not aware of information that demonstrates that Mark West Creek is a
geographic barrier to Sonoma California tiger salamander movement or
information demonstrating that Sonoma California tiger salamanders do
not or could not occupy areas north of Mark West Creek. The
Programmatic Biological Opinion and the Conservation Strategy identify
areas north of Mark West Creek as supporting potential habitat for the
Sonoma California tiger salamander. A portion of the area north of Mark
West Creek is included as revised critical habitat in this final rule.
This area is generally located west of Windsor Road, south of Shiloh
Road, east of the 100-year floodplain and north of Mark West Creek.
Specific infill parcels within the town of Windsor, east of the Sonoma
County Airport, and parcels on the east side of U.S. Highway 101 north
of Mark West Creek are not included in the final revised designation.
Comment 9: A commenter requested that Santa Rosa City Farm lands
not be excluded from revised critical habitat based on the importance
of the lands to the recovery of the Sonoma California tiger salamander.
Another commenter requested that the Santa Rosa City Farm lands be
excluded from the designation.
Our Response: The Santa Rosa City Farms were not excluded from
revised critical habitat. Currently, known breeding occurs immediately
adjacent to, and some known breeding occurs within, the Santa Rosa City
Farm lands, making this an important area for restoration. We believe
the Santa Rosa City Farm lands are important to the survival and
recovery of the Sonoma California tiger salamander, and meet the
criteria for and definition of critical habitat for this species.
Restoration of the Santa Rosa City Farm lands and compatible land use
may provide exceptional opportunities for the Sonoma California tiger
salamander (which exhibits metapopulation characteristics) to be less
susceptible to local extirpation. Because the Santa Rosa City Farm
lands are contiguous to some of the largest known concentrations of
Sonoma California tiger salamanders, there may exist opportunities for
the Sonoma California tiger salamander to recover from land uses that
are incompatible with the natural history of the species.
Comment 10: A commenter requested that the 75-ac (30-ha) parcel
located within the City of Rohnert Park known as Sonoma Mountain
Village (an area comprised of the former Hewlett Packard/Agilent
Technology Campus) be removed from critical habitat designation. The
commenter stated that the 75-ac (30-ha) parcel is frequently disturbed
by regular farming activities, such as frequent discing, which the
commenter noted precludes burrows and crevices necessary for Sonoma
California tiger salamander aestivation. The commenter stated that
frequent disturbances and the removal of cover turn the farmed area
into poor upland habitat for the Sonoma California tiger salamander.
The commenter also stated that the 75-ac (30-ha) parcel drains quickly
and has no identified wetland areas suitable for Sonoma California
tiger salamander breeding.
Our Response: The 75 ac (30 ha) of land known as Sonoma Mountain
Village within the City of Rohnert Park, an area comprised of the
former Hewlett Packard/Agilent Technology Campus, was surveyed for
Sonoma California tiger salamanders in 2005. Adult Sonoma California
tiger salamanders were captured. The site, although disturbed by
farming and discing activities, is less than 0.5 mi (0.8 km) from known
breeding habitat, supports upland habitat and upland dispersal habitat
for Sonoma California tiger salamanders, and meets the criteria for and
definition of critical habitat for this species.
Comment 11: One commenter requested that we work with the Federated
Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) in furtherance of the government-
to-government relationship between the Tribe and the United States. The
commenter further requested that we allow the Tribe to manage
approximately 252 ac (102 ha) of reservation lands created on October
1, 2010, under a tribal management plan, rather than include the lands
within designated critical habitat. The commenter noted that a 66-ac
(27-ha) portion of the reservation will be developed as a resort hotel
and casino, and that the development project has been addressed through
an Environmental Impact Statement and associated Record of Decision.
The commenter also noted that the National Indian Gaming Commission has
completed consultation on the project with the Service, resulting in a
completed Biological Opinion on the project. The commenter indicated
that the Tribe is in the process of completing the tribal management
plan.
Our Response: As part of our Federal responsibilities under the
President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government
Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951),
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments), Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the
Endangered Species Act), 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. We have worked with the Federated Indians of Graton
Rancheria in regards to this designation of revised critical habitat
and to further government-to-government relationships. We consulted
with the National Indian Gaming
[[Page 54350]]
Commission (Commission) in 2009 for the proposed Graton Rancheria
Casino and Hotel Project, City of Rohnert Park, Sonoma County,
California and issued a biological opinion to the Commission (File
Number 81420-2009-F-0336).
The proposed project entails 82 ac (33 ha) of a casino-hotel
development, 170 ac (69 ha) of recycled water sprayfields, flood
storage ponds, and open space. Approximately 87 ac (35 ha) are to be
conserved off-site to benefit the Sonoma California tiger salamander.
The 87 ac (35 ha) of off-site conservation is based on mitigation
ratios described in the Conservation Strategy. The 87 ac (35 ha)
consist of purchasing Sonoma California tiger salamander credits at a
mitigation bank, or the purchase of land providing suitable habitat
where Sonoma California tiger salamanders are known to occur, and
protecting the land with a conservation easement. The establishment of
an off-site preserve by the applicant, if chosen, must meet additional
requirements as described in the biological opinion, such as third
party management pursuant to a Service-approved resource management
plan, performance monitoring, maintenance monitoring, compliance
reporting, adaptive management planning, and a funding mechanism to
assure long-term management and monitoring. The proposed action also
includes development of a management plan for the 170 ac (69 ha) except
those portions planned for use as treated wastewater retention ponds.
The Tribe has developed and finalized a management plan that
provides for the long-term protection of species through adaptive
management measures that preferentially conserve rare habitats and
habitats known or likely to be occupied by the threatened and
endangered species known to occur in the Santa Rosa Plain wetland or
vernal pool habitats, including the Sonoma California tiger salamander.
The Service reviewed the management plan and agrees that it provides
for the conservation of the Sonoma California tiger salamander. We have
determined that the benefits of exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act exceed the benefits of including these lands within the critical
habitat designation, and the Secretary has exercised his discretion to
exclude approximately 252 ac (102 ha) of Graton Rancheria trust lands
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. See the Exclusions section below for
more information regarding exclusion of these tribal lands.
Comment 12: One commenter noted that Secretarial Order 3206
involving American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act, does not require the
exclusion of tribal trust lands from critical habitat designation. The
commenter noted that the Secretarial Order requires the Service to
recognize ``the contribution to be made by affected Indian tribes,
throughout the process and prior to finalization and close of the
public comment period, in the review of proposals to designate critical
habitat and evaluate economic impacts of such proposals with
implications for tribal trust resources or the exercise of tribal
rights'' (Secretarial Order 3206, Sec. 3(B)(3)). Further, the commenter
noted that the Secretarial Order provides that the Service ``shall
evaluate and document the extent to which the conservation needs of the
listed species can be achieved by limiting the designation to other
lands'' (Secretarial Order 3206, Sec. 3(B)(4)).
Our Response: The commenter is correct in his description of
Secretarial Order 3206. It further states that ``Critical habitat shall
not be designated in such areas unless it is determined essential to
the conservation of the species.'' (Secretarial Order 3206, Sec.
3(B)(4)) We have determined that the tribal trust lands are occupied
with the physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species. Therefore, we considered exclusion of tribal trust
lands under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. As noted in our response to
Comment 11 above, we are excluding approximately 252 ac (102 ha) of
tribal trust lands under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from this final
designation because we received a management plan that provides
protection for the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the Sonoma California tiger salamander, and because we
have determined that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion for this parcel. See the Exclusions section of this final
rule for more information.
Comment 13: One commenter noted that the Roblar Road area is in the
Americano Estero watershed, while most of the proposed critical habitat
is in the Santa Rosa Plain. The commenter suggested that any impacts to
tiger salamanders in the Americano Estero watershed should be mitigated
within the same watershed. The commenter also provided some information
regarding the proposed development of a rock quarry in the area.
Our Response: Designation of critical habitat identifies the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species and does not evaluate impacts or suggest mitigation for
specific projects. Under Section 7 or 10 of the Act, projects are
evaluated on an individual basis, and mitigation may occur if there are
anticipated adverse effects of the project. The mitigation location is
usually evaluated and determined on a case by case basis, however it is
possible for mitigation to occur in a different watershed within the
range of the Sonoma California tiger salamander.
Comment 14: One commenter requested that the Service review the
location of the critical habitat boundary on the east side of U.S.
Highway 101 in the vicinity of Cotati, Highway 116, Old Redwood Highway
and Commerce Avenue, and consider using U.S. Highway 101 as the actual
boundary due to the fact that the area currently included in the
proposed critical habitat unit is a very small area that seems to be
developed on all sides.
Our Response: The Service reviewed the area described, using aerial
photography and available survey information. One or more primary
constituent elements and confirmed observations of the Sonoma
California tiger salamander occur within the area in question. For
these reasons, we have determined that the area meets the definition of
critical habitat for the California tiger salamander and should remain
in this final revised designation.
Economic Analysis
Comment 15: One comment states that the draft economic analysis
(DEA) is inadequate because it acknowledges that ``significant
uncertainty exists'' over whether measures to avoid jeopardy of the
species will also avoid adverse modification of critical habitat, but
fails to quantify costs associated with measures recommended
specifically to avoid adverse modification.
Our Response: The economic analysis focuses on estimating impacts
to economic activities that are reasonably foreseeable. Given (a) The
significant uncertainty regarding the types of projects that may lead
to an adverse modification finding in the future and the conservation
measures that may be requested to avoid adverse modification, and (b)
the lack of precedent for the Service to request additional
conservation measures to avoid jeopardy; the final economic analysis
(FEA) does not forecast incremental impact stemming from conservation
measures implemented to avoid adverse modification of critical habitat.
The FEA acknowledges this uncertainty and explains why no incremental
impacts are forecast in multiple places, including the ``Key Sources of
Uncertainty'' section of the Executive Summary. A detailed description
of
[[Page 54351]]
how the FEA estimates incremental impacts is presented in Section 3.3.
Comment 16: A number of comments state that the DEA is flawed
because it fails to quantify costs associated with the designation such
as costs of surveying for the salamander and purchasing mitigation
credits.
Our Response: In areas where surveying occurs, the FEA considers
the cost of surveying to be a baseline impact. Baseline impacts stem
from protections afforded the species absent critical habitat. The
methodology used to separately identify baseline and incremental
impacts is discussed in Section 2.3 of the FEA. Language has been added
to Section 2.3 of the FEA to clarify where surveying occurs and why the
cost of surveying is considered a baseline impact. Similarly, the cost
of purchasing mitigation credits is considered a baseline impact.
Baseline impacts specific to development activities are discussed in
detail in Section 3.2. Section 3.2 notes that a discussion of
mitigation requirements is included ``only to provide a qualitative
description of potential baseline impacts of CTS conservation.''
Comment 17: One comment states that critical habitat designation
could delay a planned development project, potentially making it
unviable. If the project does not move forward, jobs could be lost, and
the City's ability to meet future housing obligations under the
Regional Housing Needs Assessment could be compromised.
Our Response: As shown in Exhibit 2-2, the FEA assumes that
critical habitat may result in additional administrative effort, such
as staff time and costs, to address adverse modification in section 7
consultations. Depending on the type of section 7 consultation, the
direct cost of this additional administrative effort for each
consultation is expected to range from $405 to $9,025. As such, the
analysis attempts to capture the increased costs associated with the
increased complexity of consultations following critical habitat
designation. While time delay associated with the need to consult can
be considered an indirect, incremental impact of the designation, it is
unlikely that the additional administrative effort required due to
critical habitat designation would result in a measureable delay or
cause a project to become unviable.
Comment 18: One comment states that the DEA makes no effort to
describe the revenue or income profile of small building construction
companies that may be affected by the critical habitat designation. The
commenter suggests that the small business analysis (Appendix A) be
revised to include a comparison between the estimated costs of critical
habitat designation and the approximate income or revenue of small
building construction companies.
Our Response: Appendix A of the FEA has been revised to include a
comparison between the estimated incremental impact to building
construction companies and a range of average revenues for small
building construction entities from the Risk Management Association.
These data from the Risk Management Association are not available at
the county-level, so national data are used. This analysis finds that
if all incremental impacts to construction companies are borne by a
single small construction company, the estimated annualized impacts
would represent, on average, between 0.04 percent and 1.27 percent of
annual revenues.
Comment 19: One comment states that the DEA only identifies
building construction companies as small businesses that may experience
significant economic impacts. The commenter points out that other
industries, such as the vineyard and wine industry, could be
significantly affected by the proposed rule.
Our Response: Appendix A of the FEA explains that incremental
impacts to the transportation industry are forecast to be incurred by
CALTRANS, a State agency that does not meet the definition of a small
business. Similarly, incremental impacts to utilities are limited to
the administrative cost of an intra-Service consultation that is borne
solely by the Service. Potential impacts to other activities including
agriculture and mitigation bank establishment are discussed in Chapter
4 of the FEA. No incremental impacts to these activities are forecast;
therefore, small businesses in these industries are not expected to be
affected. In particular, the section 7 consultation history contains no
past consultations on agricultural conversion projects, such as
vineyard conversion. Further, communications with the U.S. Army Corps
Regulatory Division indicate that no section 404 permit requests for
agricultural conversion projects have occurred in the recent past
within the study area. Given the lack of precedent for an agricultural
wetland conversion project, this analysis does not estimate the number
of future agricultural wetland conversion projects or the incremental
impacts stemming from the additional administrative cost of addressing
adverse modification during section 7 consultation for such projects. A
discussion of impacts to small businesses in the agriculture and
mitigation bank establishment industries has been added to Appendix A
of the FEA.
Summary of Changes From the 2009 Proposed Rule
The following paragraphs provide specific information on the
changes between the 2009 proposed rule and this final revised
designation. First, we describe the changes that were made between the
2009 proposed rule (74 FR 41662) and the January 18, 2011, revised
proposed rule (76 FR 2863). In the 2011 revision, we refined our
critical habitat proposal to better reflect the occupied and potential
range of the species as suggested in the Conservation Strategy mapping
criteria (Conservation Strategy Team 2005a, Appendix E) and the
Programmatic Biological Opinion. We also added area in the vicinity of
Lichau Creek and Railroad Avenue, in the southernmost region of the
Santa Rosa Plain, to reflect new information on the presence of Sonoma
California tiger salamander breeding within the area.
Other areas that were removed in the revised proposed rule include
the urbanized centers of Santa Rosa, Bennett Valley, Rohnert Park, and
Cotati. These urban centers consist almost exclusively of hardened,
developed landscapes. The remnant natural habitat within these areas is
limited to small, isolated parcels within a matrix of urban
development. These areas are not included in the final rule because
developed areas (lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other
structures) lack the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, according to section 3(5)(A) of the Act.
We also do not consider the remnant open space within these city
centers as essential for the conservation of the Sonoma California
tiger salamander.
Most of the Laguna de Santa Rosa 100-year floodplain was removed in
the revised proposed rule and is not included in this final revised
designation, because we do not consider the area essential to the
conservation of the species. In the Santa Rosa Plain area, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain is generally not
believed to support Sonoma California tiger salamander breeding because
seasonal pools within the 100-year floodplain are subject to flooding
from perennial sources (such as the Laguna de Santa Rosa), which leads
to a high likelihood that pools within the floodplain will support
Sonoma California tiger salamander predators. However, periodically
flooded uplands within the 100-year floodplain may be considered Sonoma
California tiger salamander habitat if these pools are
[[Page 54352]]
located near predator-free breeding pools (Conservation Strategy 2005a,
Appendix E). Occurrence information from the California Natural
Diversity Database (CNDDB) (2010) indicates that, despite intensive
focus on the Sonoma California tiger salamander to date, no occurrences
have been identified within the 100-year floodplain. The fact that this
species has not been located within the floodplain may be due to the
lack of suitable upland habitat within the floodplain during the wet
season (Conservation Strategy Team 2005b, Appendix L). We, therefore,
have determined that most of the 100-year floodplain lacks the physical
and biological features essential to the conservation of the Sonoma
California tiger salamander and, therefore, does not meet the
definition of critical habitat.
As noted above, the bulk of the floodplain is not included in this
final critical habitat rule. A segment of the 100-year floodplain that
is located between the Stony Point Conservation Area (near Wilfred
Avenue) and the Northwest Cotati Conservation Area (near Nahmens Road)
is retained within the critical habitat to reduce fragmentation of the
northern and southern breeding concentrations within the unit by
allowing for potential dispersal and genetic exchange. This retained
segment is further bounded by Llano Road on the west and the western
edge of the urban growth boundary of Cotati, California (near the
northern terminus of Helman Lane), on the east.
Additionally, in the January 18, 2011, revised proposed rule we
removed several areas of small remnant open parcels that occur between
the eastern periphery of suburban Sebastopol and the western edge of
the 100-year floodplain. These areas are not included in the final
revised designation. We do not consider these areas essential to the
conservation of the species because the undeveloped lands are small in
size, are isolated from each other by development, are isolated from
breeding habitat on the eastern side of the floodplain by the 100-year
floodplain and the Laguna de Santa Rosa, and are not known to be
occupied or contain the physical or biological features.
The area south of Pepper Road including the Rainsville Road area,
along both sides of U.S. Highway 101, was removed in the January 18,
2011, revised proposed rule and is not included in this final critical
habitat rule because we do not currently consider this area to be
essential to the conservation of the species. This area has been
fragmented by industrial and residential development and roadways,
including the major north-south highway, U.S. Highway 101. More than 20
percent of the land generally south of Pepper Road and west of U.S.
Highway 101 is delineated as 100-year floodplain for the Petaluma
River. We generally do not consider lands within the 100-year
floodplain to contain suitable breeding habitat for the Sonoma
California tiger salamander, and the floodplain fragments the remaining
undeveloped land in this area. Although there is an anecdotal report
from the 1990s of a Sonoma California tiger salamander observation
along Rainsville Road, we are not aware of confirmed observations of
the Sonoma California tiger salamander within this area.
On June 21, 2011 (76 FR 36068), we published an additional revised
proposed rule to include 4,945 ac (2,001 ha) located in the general
area of Roblar Road in the proposed critical habitat unit. This
addition to the proposed critical habitat unit is within the area that
was considered occupied at the time of listing. We added the Roblar
Road area to the proposed designation and include it in the final
designation, based on information we received during the public review
process. Additional information used to determine the boundaries of the
addition included aerial photographs, reconnaissance visits to the
area, and observations of Sonoma California tiger salamander habitat.
Refinements that we've made to the proposed designation in this
final rule to designate critical habitat include the removal of infill
parcels within the town of Windsor and the town of Windsor Sphere of
Influence, infill parcels east of the Sonoma County airport, and
parcels on the east side of U.S. Highway 101 north of Mark West Creek.
The removed parcels are highly fragmented by urban development, are not
known to be occupied, do not contain the physical or biological
features or is otherwise essential for the conservation of the species,
and are not essential to the survival or recovery of the Sonoma
California tiger salamander. A sliver of the eastern edge of the
proposed critical habitat that is east of U.S. Highway 101 between Mark
West Creek and the City of Santa Rosa has also been eliminated from
this final designation. We do not consider this area essential to the
conservation of the Sonoma California tiger salamander because it is a
long linear strip of land confined by development, and is isolated from
other areas containing the physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the species by a major four-lane highway that would
be a significant barrier to dispersal.
Lastly, this final revised rule does not include the area east of
Rohnert Park. We have determined that, even though the area contains
some of the physical and biological features, this area is not
essential to the conservation of the Sonoma California tiger salamander
because this area is not known to be occupied and existing habitats are
fragmented and isolated. We have concluded that the area east of
Rohnert Park is not essential to the survival or recovery of the
species. For these reasons, the critical habitat unit boundary is
revised in this final designation to remove the area that is east of
Rohnert Park, generally south of the line that extends from the
northeastern edge of the City of Rohnert Park (in the immediate
vicinity of Gladstone Way), through the intersection of Martinez Drive
and Petaluma Hill Road, and generally north of Roberts Ranch Road.
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) 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:
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) 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 pursuant to 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 requirement that Federal agencies
[[Page 54353]]
ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of 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) of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction
or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner 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 physical and biological features which are essential to
the conservation of the species and which may require special
management considerations or protection. Critical habitat designations
identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial
data available, those physical and biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food,
cover, and protected habitat), focusing on the principal biological or
physical constituent elements (primary constituent elements) within an
area that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide,
soil type). We consider primary constituent elements to be the elements
of physical and biological features within the species range that are
essential to the conservation of the species. In the case of the Sonoma
California tiger salamander, the primary constituent elements include
those specific aquatic and upland habitats determined through use of
our methodology and criteria as discussed below.
Under the Act, we can designate critical habitat in 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. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited
to its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of
the species. When the best available scientific data do not demonstrate
that the conservation needs of the species require such additional
areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species. An area currently occupied
by the species but that was not occupied at the time of listing may,
however, be essential to the conservation of the species and may be
included in the critical habitat designation.
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 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 are determining 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 dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. Climate change will be a particular challenge for
biodiversity because the interaction of additional stressors associated
with climate change and current stressors may push species beyond their
ability to survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326). The synergistic
implications of climate change and habitat fragmentation are the most
threatening facet of climate change for biodiversity (Hannah et al.
2005, p. 4). Current climate change predictions for terrestrial areas
in the Northern Hemisphere indicate warmer air temperatures, more
intense precipitation events, and increased summer continental drying
(Field et al. 1999, pp. 1-3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al.
2005, p. 6; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p.
1181). Climate change may lead to increased frequency and duration of
severe storms and droughts (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et
al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015).
The information currently available on the effects of global
climate change and increasing temperatures does not make sufficiently
precise estimates of the location and magnitude of the effects. Nor are
we currently aware of any climate change information specific to the
habitat of the Sonoma California tiger salamander that would indicate
what areas may become important to the species in the future.
Therefore, we are unable to determine what additional areas, if any,
may be appropriate to include in the final critical habitat for this
species to address the effects of climate change.
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, both inside and outside the critical habitat
designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions
implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some
cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to
contribute to recovery of this species. 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
[[Page 54354]]
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
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied at the time of listing to designate as
critical habitat, we consider the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species and 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 historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical and biological features required
for the Sonoma California tiger salamander from studies of this
species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described in the
Critical Habitat section of the proposed rule to designate critical
habitat published in the Federal Register on August 18, 2009 (74 FR
41662), and in the information presented below. Additional information
can be found in the final listing rule published in the Federal
Register on March 19, 2003 (68 FR 13498). We have determined that the
Sonoma California tiger salamander requires the following physical and
biological features.
The physical and biological features for the Sonoma population
include:
1. Aquatic habitat;
2. Upland nonbreeding habitat with underground refugia; and
3. Dispersal habitat connecting occupied Sonoma California tiger
salamander locations.
Aquatic Habitat
Standing bodies of fresh water (including natural and manmade
(e.g., stock) ponds, vernal pools, and other ephemeral or permanent
water bodies) that typically support inundation during winter rains and
hold water for a minimum of 12 consecutive weeks in a year of average
rainfall, are features that are essential for population breeding and
for providing space, food, and cover necessary to sustain early life-
history stages of larval and juvenile Sonoma California tiger
salamanders. The 12 consecutive-week time frame includes the onset of
winter rains that initially fill pools or ponds and signal to adults to
move to these areas for breeding. Spring rains maintain pool
inundation, allowing larvae the time in the water that is needed to
grow into metamorphosed juveniles so that they can then become capable
of surviving in upland habitats. During periods of drought or less-
than-average rainfall, these sites may not hold water long enough for
individuals to complete metamorphosis; however, these sites still meet
the definition of critical habitat for the species because they
constitute breeding habitat in years of average rainfall. Without areas
that have these essential features, the Sonoma California tiger
salamander would not survive, continue to reproduce, and develop
juveniles that grow into adult salamanders to complete their life
cycles.
Upland Nonbreeding Habitat With Underground Refugia
Upland habitats containing underground refugia have features that
are essential for the survival of adult salamanders and juvenile
salamanders that have recently undergone metamorphosis. Adult and
juvenile Sonoma California tiger salamanders are primarily terrestrial.
Adult Sonoma California tiger salamanders enter aquatic habitats only
for relatively short periods of time to breed. For the majority of
their life cycle, Sonoma California tiger salamanders depend on upland
habitats containing underground refugia in the form of small mammal
burrows or other underground structures for their survival. These
burrows provide protection from the hot, dry weather typical of
California in the nonbreeding season. Sonoma California tiger
salamanders also find food in these refugia and rely on them for
protection from predators. The presence of small burrowing mammal
populations is a key element for the survival of Sonoma California
tiger salamanders, because the small mammals construct burrows that are
then used by Sonoma California tiger salamanders. Because Sonoma
California tiger salamanders do not construct burrows of their own,
without the continuing presence of small mammal burrows in upland
habitats, Sonoma California tiger salamanders would not be able to
survive.
Dispersal Habitat Connecting Occupied Sonoma California Tiger
Salamander Locations
Dispersal habitat for this species is upland area adjacent to
aquatic habitats, which provides connectivity among suitable Sonoma
California tiger salamander aquatic breeding and upland nonbreeding
habitats. Even though Sonoma California tiger salamanders can bypass
many obstacles and do not require a particular type of habitat for
dispersal, the areas connecting habitats with the essential aquatic and
upland features need to be accessible (no physical or biological
attributes that prevent access to adjacent areas) to function
effectively as dispersal habitat. Agricultural lands, such as row
crops, orchards, vineyards, and pastures, do not constitute barriers to
the dispersal of Sonoma California tiger salamanders; however, a busy
highway or freeway may constitute a barrier. The extent to which any
attribute is a barrier is a function of the specific geography of the
area and the extent to which the attribute limits salamander access to
suitable aquatic and upland habitat.
Dispersal habitat is needed for the conservation of the Sonoma
California tiger salamander. Protecting the ability of Sonoma
California tiger salamanders to move freely across the landscape in
search of suitable aquatic and upland habitats is essential for
maintaining gene flow and for recolonization of sites where Sonoma
California tiger salamanders may have become temporarily extirpated.
Lifetime reproductive success for the California tiger salamander and
other tiger salamanders may be naturally low. Trenham et al. (2000, p.
372) found that the average female bred 1.4 times over her lifetime and
produced 8.5 young that survived to metamorphosis, per reproductive
effort. This reproduction results in approximately 12 metamorphic
offspring over the lifetime of a female. In part, this low reproductive
rate may be due to the extended time that it takes California tiger
salamanders to reach sexual maturity; most do not breed until 4 or 5
years of age. While individuals may survive for more than 10 years, it
appears that many individuals breed only once in their lifetime. This
presumed low breeding rate combined with a hypothesized low
survivorship of metamorphosed individuals, indicate that reproductive
output may be only barely sufficient to maintain populations of
California tiger salamanders.
[[Page 54355]]
Dispersal habitats help to preserve the population structure of the
Sonoma California tiger salamander. The life history and ecology of the
Sonoma California tiger salamander indicate that it is likely that this
species has a metapopulation structure. A metapopulation is a set of
populations within an area that are linked by immigration and
emigration. Migration from one local occurrence or breeding site to
other areas containing suitable habitat is possible, but may not be
routine (Trenham 1998, p. 42; Trenham et al. 2001, p. 3519). Movement
(dispersal) between areas containing suitable upland and aquatic
habitats may be restricted due to inhospitable conditions around and
between areas of suitable habitats. Because many of the areas of
suitable habitat may be small and support small numbers of salamanders,
local extirpation in these small areas may be common. The persistence
of a metapopulation depends on the combined dynamics of local
extinctions and the subsequent recolonization of areas through
dispersal (Hanski and Gilpin 1991, pp. 7-9; Hanski 1994, p. 151).
Primary Constituent Elements for the Sonoma California Tiger Salamander
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of Sonoma California tiger salamanders in areas occupied
at the time of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent
elements. We consider primary constituent elements (PCEs) to be the
elements of physical and biological features that provide for the
species' life-history processes and are essential to the conservation
of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species'
life-history processes, we determine that the PCEs specific to Sonoma
California tiger salamanders are:
(1) Standing bodies of fresh water (including natural and manmade
(e.g., stock) ponds, vernal pools, and other ephemeral or permanent
water bodies) that typically support inundation during winter and early
spring, and hold water for a minimum of 12 consecutive weeks in a year
of average rainfall.
(2) Upland habitats adjacent to and accessible from breeding ponds
that contain small mammal burrows or other underground refugia that the
species depends upon for food, shelter, and protection from the
elements and predation.
(3) Accessible upland dispersal habitat between locations occupied
by the species that allow for movement between such sites.
With this designation of critical habitat, we intend to identify
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
the species, through the identification of the primary constituent
elements on the landscape sufficient to support the life-history
processes of the species. The specific area designated as critical
habitat in this final designation is currently occupied by the Sonoma
California tiger salamander and contains the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain the features that are essential to the conservation
of the species and which may require special management considerations
or protection. Within the single unit proposed as critical habitat in
this final designation, we find that the features essential to the
conservation of the Sonoma California tiger salamander may require
special management considerations or protection to ameliorate the
threats outlined below:
1. Activities that would threaten the suitability of Sonoma
California tiger salamander breeding ponds, such as introduction of
nonnative predators, including nonnative bullfrogs and nonnative fish;
2. Activities that could disturb or disrupt the hydrology of
aquatic breeding habitat, such as heavy equipment operation (e.g.,
bulldozers or deep ripping), ground disturbance (e.g., discing),
maintenance projects (e.g., pipelines, roads, power lines), land
conversion to vineyards, off-road travel, or recreation;
3. Activities that impair the water quality of aquatic breeding
habitat (e.g., pesticides, increased nitrogen input through recycled
water or dairy operations);
4. Activities that would reduce small mammal populations or their
burrows to the point that there are insufficient underground refugia,
which are used by Sonoma California tiger salamanders for foraging,
protection from predators, and shelter from the elements (e.g.,
discing, deep ripping, land conversion to vineyards, rodent control in
existing vineyards); and
5. Activities that create barriers impassable by salamanders, or
those activities that increase mortality in upland dispersal habitat
between extant breeding occurrences.
In the case of the Sonoma California tiger salamander, natural
repopulation of sites where the Sonoma California tiger salamander has
been extirpated is likely not possible without human assistance and
landowner cooperation. Examples of such proactive activities that
benefit the Sonoma California tiger salamander include enhancement or
creation of breeding ponds and control of nonnative predators. These
are the types of proactive, voluntary conservation efforts that are
necessary to prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of many
other species as well (Wilcove and Lee 2004, p. 639; Shogren et al.
1999, p. 1260; Wilcove and Chen 1998, p. 1407; Wilcove et al. 1996, pp.
3-5).
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best
scientific and commercial data available to designate critical habitat.
We reviewed available information pertaining to the habitat
requirements of this species. In accordance with the Act and its
implementing regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we considered whether
designating additional areas--outside those currently occupied as well
as those occupied at the time of listing--are necessary to ensure the
conservation of the species. We are designating critical habitat only
in areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the
time of listing in 2003. We are not designating any areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species because the occupied area is
sufficient for the conservation of the species.
In the 2009 proposed rule, we reviewed the overall approach to the
conservation of the Sonoma California tiger salamander undertaken by
local, State, and Federal agencies operating within the species' range
within Sonoma County, and those efforts related to the Conservation
Strategy being undertaken by the resource agencies, local governments,
and representatives from the environmental and building communities.
We based the extent of the proposed critical habitat for the Sonoma
California tiger salamander on historical and current range of the
species, as well as the Conservation Strategy. Historical records for
the species and its habitat have been documented throughout the Santa
Rosa Plain and into the Petaluma
[[Page 54356]]
River watershed. Major water courses or floodplains were used to
delineate boundaries where information on their location and extent was
available. In addition, we used aerial photography to examine
historical and current habitat as well as land use patterns.
We also reviewed available information that pertains to the upland
and aquatic habitat requirements of this species. Based on the best
available information, we included areas where the species historically
occurred, or currently occurs, or has the potential to occur based on
the suitability of habitat. We identified areas that represent the
range of environmental, ecological, and genetic variation of the Sonoma
California tiger salamander, and contain the necessary PCEs (see
Primary Constituent Elements for the Sonoma California Tiger
Salamander, above).
After identifying the PCEs, we used the PCEs in combination with
information on Sonoma California tiger salamander locations, geographic
distribution, vegetation, topography, geology, soils, distribution of
Sonoma California tiger salamander occurrences within and between
vernal pool types, watersheds, current land uses, scientific
information on the biology and ecology of the Sonoma California tiger
salamander, and conservation principles to identify essential habitat
in the proposed rule. As a result of this process, the critical habitat
unit possesses both aquatic and upland habitat types that exhibit a
range of topography, landscape features, and surrounding land uses that
are representative of the geographical range and environmental
variability of habitat for the Sonoma California tiger salamander.
The critical habitat unit in this final designation was delineated
by digitizing a polygon (map unit) using ArcView (Environmental Systems
Research Institute, Inc.) GIS program. The polygon was created by
modifying the Potential Range of the Sonoma Santa Rosa Plain
Conservation Strategy California tiger salamander polygon as identified
in the Map (California Department of Fish and Game 2005, p. 1). We
evaluated the historic and current geographic range and potential
suitable habitat, and identified areas not containing PCEs (see Primary
Constituent Elements for the Sonoma California Tiger Salamander) in
this final designation.
When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final
rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as
lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such
lands lack physical and biological features for the Sonoma California
tiger salamander. The scale of the maps we prepared under the
parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may
not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands
inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps
of this final rule have been excluded by text in the rule and are not
designated as critical habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving
these lands will not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless
the specific action would affect the physical and biological features
in the adjacent critical habitat.
We are designating as critical habitat lands that we have
determined were occupied at the time of listing and contain sufficient
physical and biological features to support life-history processes
essential for the conservation of the Sonoma California tiger
salamander. Furthermore, we have determined that the areas we are
designating as critical habitat in this final rule are essential for
the conservation of the species.
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating a single unit as critical habitat for the Sonoma
California tiger salamander. The critical habitat area described below
constitutes our best assessment at this time of the area that meets the
definition of critical habitat. The single unit (Santa Rosa Plain Unit)
is within the geographical area occupied at the time of listing.
Santa Rosa Plain Unit
This unit is located on the Santa Rosa Plain in central Sonoma
County and contains approximately 47,383 ac (19,175 ha), which includes
745 ac (301 ha) of State lands, 744 ac (301 ha) of city lands, 498 ac
(202 ha) of county lands, 9 ac (4 ha) of individually owned tribal
trust land, and 45,387 ac (18,367 ha) of private lands. No Federal
lands are included in this proposed unit. The unit is partially
bordered on the west by the generalized eastern boundary of the 100-
year Laguna de Santa Rosa floodplain, on the southwest by Hensley Road,
on the south by Pepper Road (northwest of Petaluma), on the east
generally by and near Petaluma Hill Road or by the urban centers of
Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park, and on the north by the Town of Windsor.
This unit is characterized by vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, and
associated grassland habitat. This unit contains the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the Sonoma
California tiger salamander, and is within the geographical area
occupied at the time of listing. The critical habitat unit supports
vernal pool complexes and manmade ponds that are currently known to
support breeding Sonoma California tiger salamanders (PCE 1), upland
habitats with underground refugia (PCE 2), and upland dispersal habitat
allowing movement between occupied sites (PCE 3). A segment of the 100-
year floodplain that is located between the Stony Point Conservation
Area (near Wilfred Avenue) and the Northwest Cotati Conservation Area
(near Nahmens Road) is included within the final designation to prevent
fragmentation of the northern and southern breeding concentrations
within the unit, by allowing for potential dispersal and genetic
exchange.
The physical and biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sonoma California tiger salamander may require special
management considerations or protection to minimize impacts from
nonnative predators on otherwise suitable breeding habitat, disturbance
of aquatic breeding habitats, activities that impair the water quality
of aquatic breeding habitat, activities that reduce underground
refugia, creation of impassable barriers, and disruption of vernal pool
complex processes (see Special Management Considerations or Protections
section above). Primary threats to the Sonoma California tiger
salamander include habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation.
Secondary threats include predation and competition from introduced
exotic species, possible commercial overutilization, disease,
hybridization with nonnative salamanders, various chemical
contaminants, road-crossing mortality, and rodent control operations.
The Sonoma California tiger salamander is also vulnerable to chance
environmental or demographic events (to which small populations are
particularly vulnerable). The combination of the Sonoma California
tiger salamander biology and its specific habitat requirements makes
this animal highly susceptible to random events, such as drought or
disease. Such events are not usually a concern until the number of
breeding sites, refugia habitat, or geographic distribution become
severely limited, as is the case with the Sonoma California tiger
salamander.
General land use in the unit includes urban and rural development,
which has taken place for over 100 years in this area. For the past 25
years, urban growth has encroached into areas
[[Page 54357]]
inhabited by the Sonoma California tiger salamander. Voters in the
cities of Cotati, Rohnert Park, and Santa Rosa have established urban
growth boundaries for their communities. This is intended to accomplish
the goal of city-centered growth, resulting in rural and agricultural
land uses being maintained between the urbanized areas. Therefore, it
can be reasonably expected that rural land uses will continue into the
foreseeable future. There are also acreages of publicly owned property
and preserves located in the Santa Rosa Plain, which will further
protect against development. Some of the areas within these urban
growth boundaries, however, include lands inhabited by Sonoma
California tiger salamanders. Agricultural practices, including
discing, have also disturbed seasonal wetlands and upland habitat on
the Santa Rosa Plain. However, some agricultural practices, such as
grazed pasture, have protected habitat from intensive development.
Conservation planning efforts for the Sonoma California tiger
salamander include the development of the Conservation Strategy by the
Conservation Strategy Team, which was made up of representatives of
government agencies and interested parties. The Conservation Strategy
identifies specific areas that are likely to contribute the most for
the conservation, survival, and recovery of the Sonoma California tiger
salamander. There are eight conservation areas and one Southwest Santa
Rosa Preserve System that are important to the long-term survival and
recovery of the Sonoma California tiger salamander. The purpose of the
conservation areas is to ensure that preservation occurs throughout the
range of the Sonoma California tiger salamander. The designation of
conservation areas is based upon the following factors: (1) Known
distribution of Sonoma California tiger salamander, (2) presence of
suitable Sonoma California tiger salamander habitat, (3) presence of
large blocks of natural or restorable land, and (4) adjacency to
existing preserves. These areas are essential for the Sonoma California
tiger salamander, support the critical habitat primary constituent
elements, and encompass the majority of all known occurrences of the
Sonoma California tiger salamander. The critical habitat unit is larger
than the conservation areas described and provides for potential
dispersal and expansion opportunities of local Sonoma California tiger
salamander populations, and the critical habitat unit includes areas
that may be restored from incompatible land management.
Although the Conservation Strategy was drafted in 2005, to date,
local governmental agencies have not yet been able to complete the
implementing ordinances. However, the Service has incorporated many of
the recommendations and concepts of the Conservation Strategy in the
Programmatic Biological Opinion to benefit the Sonoma California tiger
salamander.
Several conservation and mitigation banks have been established
within the areas identified for conservation, and many are protected by
a conservation easement or are owned by the California Department of
Fish and Game. Additionally, the banks are all managed to benefit the
Sonoma California tiger salamander.
In the January 18, 2011, revised proposed rule (76 FR 2863), we
indicated that in the final rule we may consider exclusion of all or
some of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria of California's 252-
ac (102-ha) parcel of tribal trust land that overlapped proposed
critical habitat. We noted the potential exclusion would occur under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We are now excluding the 252-ac (102-ha)
parcel under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Further discussion is provided
below in the section Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals 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, 442 (5th
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether,
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role
for the species.
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. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require 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 the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(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, or
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the
[[Page 54358]]
continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid the likelihood
of 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 we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Application of the ``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. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical and
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for the Sonoma California tiger
salamander. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to
support life-history needs of the species and provide for the
conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Examples of activities that, when authorized, funded, or carried
out by a Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and therefore
should result in consultation for the Sonoma California tiger
salamander include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would compromise the function of vernal pools,
swales, ponds (natural and manmade), and other seasonal wetlands as
described in the Primary Constituent Elements for the Sonoma California
Tiger Salamander section (see PCE 1). Such activities could include,
but are not limited to, constructing new structures, vineyards, and
roads; discing; grading; and activities resulting in water diversion.
These activities could destroy Sonoma California tiger salamander
breeding sites, alter the hydrological regime necessary for successful
larval metamorphosis, and eliminate or reduce the habitat necessary for
the growth and reproduction of the Sonoma California tiger salamander.
(2) Actions that would significantly affect water quality,
chemistry, or temperature. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to, the release of chemicals, biological pollutants, or heated
effluents into the surface water or connected ground water. These
activities could alter water conditions to levels that are beyond the
tolerances of one or more life stages of the Sonoma California tiger
salamander and could thereby result in direct or cumulative adverse
effects.
(3) Actions that would significantly fragment and isolate aquatic
and upland habitat. Such activities could include, but are not limited
to, constructing new structures and new roads. These activities could
limit or prevent the dispersal of Sonoma California tiger salamanders
from breeding sites to upland habitat, or vice versa, due to barriers
to movement, including structures, certain types of curbs, or increased
traffic density. These activities could compromise the metapopulation
structure of the Sonoma population by reducing opportunities for
recolonization of some sites that may have experienced natural local
extinctions.
(4) Actions that would significantly compromise upland habitat
function and value that provides food, cover or dispersal opportunities
for the Sonoma California tiger salamander. Such activities could
include, but are not limited to, use of rodenticides or insecticides,
discing, deep ripping, and grading. These activities could eliminate or
reduce the availability of subsurface refugia, or could reduce or
eliminate the prey species required for the survival of adult and
juvenile Sonoma California tiger salamanders.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Amendment 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:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) 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 within the proposed
critical habitat designation. Therefore, we are not exempting lands
from this final designation of critical habitat for the Sonoma
California tiger salamander pursuant to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the
Act.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines
that the
[[Page 54359]]
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such
area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on
the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such
area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species.
In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well as the
legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion
regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any
factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we must
identify the benefits of including the area in the designation,
identify the benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and
determine whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his
discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result
in the extinction of the species.
When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of
actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of mapping
critical habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that
may apply to critical habitat.
When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan that provides
equal to or more conservation than a critical habitat designation would
provide.
In the case of the Sonoma California tiger salamander, the benefits
of critical habitat include public awareness of Sonoma California tiger
salamander presence and the importance of habitat protection, and in
cases where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for
the Sonoma California tiger salamander due to the protection from
adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat. Since the
Sonoma California tiger salamander was listed in 2003, numerous
projects on privately owned lands have had a Federal nexus that
triggered consultation under section 7 of the Act. Since completion of
the Programmatic Biological Opinion, permitted projects have
compensated for effects to Sonoma California tiger salamanders
resulting in conservation for the Sonoma California tiger salamander.
When we evaluate the value of a conservation plan in considering
the benefits of exclusion, we consider a variety of factors, including
but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized; how it provides for
the conservation of the essential physical and biological features;
whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation
management strategies and actions contained in a conservation plan will
be implemented into the future; whether the conservation strategies in
the plan are likely to be effective; and whether the plan contains a
monitoring program or adaptive management to ensure that the
conservation measures are effective and can be adapted in the future in
response to new information.
After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of
exclusion, we carefully weigh the benefits of inclusion and the
benefits of exclusion to evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion
outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis indicates that the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, we then
determine whether exclusion would result in extinction. If exclusion of
an area from critical habitat will result in extinction, we will not
exclude it from the designation.
Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as
well as any additional public comments received, we evaluated whether
certain lands in the proposed critical habitat were appropriate for
exclusion from this final designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of
the Act. The Secretary has determined to exercise his discretion to
exclude approximately 252 ac (102 ha) of tribal trust lands belonging
to the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria (Tribe) from critical
habitat designation for the Sonoma California tiger salamander. These
lands are excluded because the Secretary determined that:
(1) The conservation value of the lands and essential features
contained therein will be preserved for the foreseeable future by
existing or future protective actions;
(2) It is appropriate for exclusion under the ``other relevant
factor'' provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act, as the benefits of
excluding these lands outweigh the benefit of including these lands in
the designation, and exclusion will not lead to the extinction of the
species; and
(3) The exclusion will foster continuation, strengthening, and
encouragement of partnerships.
We take into consideration our partnership and existing
conservation actions that the Tribe has implemented or are currently
implementing when conducting our analysis under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act in this final critical habitat designation. We also take into
consideration conservation actions that are planned as part of our on-
going commitment to the government-to-government relationship with
tribes. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the Secretary to exclude
areas from critical habitat based on economic or other relevant impacts
if the Secretary determines that the benefits of such exclusion
outweigh the benefits of designating the area as critical habitat.
However, an exclusion cannot occur if it will result in the extinction
of the species concerned. For further explanation of the exclusion of
approximately 252 ac (102 ha) of tribal trust lands belonging to the
Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria see ``Exclusions Based on
Other Relevant Impacts'' section below.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we prepared a draft economic analysis of the
proposed critical habitat designation and related factors (IEC 2010).
The draft economic analysis, dated December 3, 2010, was made available
for public review and comment from January 18, 2011, through February
17, 2011 (76 FR 2863) and again from June 21, 2011, through July 5,
2011 (76 FR 36068). Following the close of the two comment periods, a
final economic analysis (dated July 27 2011) of the potential economic
effects of the designation was developed taking into consideration the
public comments and any new information (IEC 2011). In the final
economic analysis, an addendum covers the potential economic impacts of
including the Roblar Road addition in the final critical habitat
designation.
The intent of the final economic analysis (FEA) is to quantify the
economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the Sonoma
California tiger salamander. Some of these costs will likely be
incurred regardless of whether we designate critical habitat; these are
baseline costs. The economic impact of the final critical habitat
designation is analyzed by comparing both ``with critical habitat'' and
``without critical habitat''
[[Page 54360]]
scenarios. The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the
baseline for the analysis, considering protections already in place for
the species (e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State,
and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs
incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The
``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts
associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for
the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated
impacts are those not expected to occur absent the designation of
critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs
are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat
above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we consider in
the final designation of critical habitat. The analysis looks
retrospectively at baseline impacts incurred since the species was
listed, and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely to
occur with the designation of critical habitat.
The FEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to
be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional
impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of
conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and
individuals. The FEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with
residential and commercial development and public projects and
activities, such as economic impacts on water management and
transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy
industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether
the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group
or economic sector. Finally, the FEA looks qualitatively at costs that
have been incurred since 2003 (year of the species' listing) (68 FR
13498; March 19, 2003), and considers those costs that may occur in the
25 years following the designation of critical habitat, which has been
determined to be the appropriate period for analysis because limited
planning information is available for most activities to forecast
activity levels for projects beyond a 25-year timeframe. The FEA
quantifies economic impacts of the Sonoma California tiger salamander
conservation efforts associated with the following categories of
activity: (1) Commercial and residential development, (2)
transportation projects, and (3) utility and pipeline construction and
maintenance activities. In addition, the FEA identifies potential
economic impacts to agriculture and mitigation banks, but concludes
that these activities are not likely to incur measurable economic
impacts as a result of the designation of critical habitat.
Our economic analysis did not identify any disproportionate costs
that are likely to result from the designation, and the incremental
impacts stem entirely from the administrative cost of Section 7
consultation. Consequently, we have determined not to exert our
discretion to exclude any areas from this designation of critical
habitat for the Sonoma California tiger salamander based on economic
impacts.
A copy of the FEA with supporting documents may be obtained by
contacting the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) or
by downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national
security impact might exist. In preparing this final rule, we have
determined that the lands within the designation of critical habitat
for the Sonoma California tiger salamander are not owned or managed by
the Department of Defense, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on
national security. Consequently, the Secretary is not exerting his
discretion to exclude any areas from this final designation based on
impacts on national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
Table 1 below provides approximate areas of lands that meet the
definition of critical habitat, but are excluded under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act from this final critical habitat rule.
Table 1--Exemptions and Areas Excluded by Critical Habitat Unit in This Final Designation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas meeting the
Basis for definition of critical Areas exempted or
Unit Specific area exclusion/ habitat in acres excluded in acres
exemption (hectares) (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Rosa Plain............. Lands Owned and Section 4(b)(2) 252 ac (102 ha)....... 252 ac (102 ha).
Managed by the of the Act;
Federated Graton
Indians of Rancheria
Graton Natural
Rancheria. Resources
Management Plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land and Resource Management Plans, Conservation Plans, or Agreements
Based on Conservation Partnerships
We consider a current land management or conservation plan (HCPs as
well as other types) to provide adequate management or protection if it
meets the following criteria:
(1) The plan is complete and provides the same or better level of
protection for the species and features essential to its conservation
than that provided by critical habitat designation;
(2) There is a reasonable expectation that the conservation
management strategies and actions will be implemented for the
foreseeable future, based on past practices, written guidance, or
regulations; and
(3) The plan provides conservation strategies and measures
consistent with currently accepted principles of conservation biology
and that these measures will be effective in conserving the species.
We believe that the Graton Rancheria Natural Resources Management
Plan
[[Page 54361]]
fulfills the above criteria, and are excluding non-Federal lands
covered by this plan that provide for the conservation of the Sonoma
California tiger salamander.
Graton Rancheria Natural Resources Management Plan
The Graton Rancheria Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP)
covers 252 ac (102 ha) that are tribal trust lands (Reservation)
belonging to the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. The NRMP was
finalized in March 2011 and will be implemented through tribal
ordinances. The NRMP codifies the protections afforded in the 2009
Biological Opinion on the Proposed Graton Rancheria Casino and Hotel
Project, City of Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California (Graton
Biological Opinion (Service File 81420-2009-F-0336).
Approximately 82 ac (33 ha) in the northeastern and central portion of
the Reservation will be developed as a casino with a hotel and
supporting facilities and infrastructure, and this area will be
compensated for by conserving additional lands for the Sonoma
California tiger salamander off-site of the project area as identified
in the Graton Biological Opinion and the NRMP (Analytical Environmental
Services 2011).
The remaining 170-ac (69-ha) southern portion of the Reservation is
located primarily within the 100-year floodplain of the Laguna de Santa
Rosa and may provide dispersal habitat for the Sonoma California tiger
salamander during times when the area is not flooded. The NRMP provides
for the long-term protection of the species through adaptive management
measures that preferentially conserve rare habitats and habitats known
or likely to be occupied by threatened and endangered species known to
occur in the Santa Rosa Plain wetland or vernal pool habitats,
including the Sonoma California tiger salamander, and four listed
plants: Sonoma sunshine, Burke's goldfields, many-flowered navarretia,
and Sebastopol meadowfoam. The NRMP also provides for the long-term
protection of the Sonoma California tiger salamander by conserving
lands in perpetuity to compensate for loss of habitat associated with
development, by applying mitigation ratios equivalent to those listed
in the biological opinion. These lands will not be developed and will
be managed as open space in perpetuity under the NRMP. Management of
the 170 ac (69 ha) will focus on techniques including mowing and
livestock grazing to maintain Sonoma California tiger salamander
wetland, upland, and dispersal habitat (Analytical Environmental
Services 2011). The 170 ac (69 ha) is described as a holding area. Land
within the holding area may be converted to developed areas or
preservation areas through the implementation of the guidelines of the
NRMP and specific Tribal action. Preservation areas are defined as
areas protected and actively managed as sensitive biological habitat
for the long-term.
All of the approximately 252 ac (102 ha) of tribal trust lands that
we are excluding are within the Santa Rosa Plain Unit.
Benefits of Inclusion
The principle benefit of including an area in a critical habitat
designation is the requirement of Federal agencies to ensure that
actions that they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to
result in the destruction or adverse modification of any designated
critical habitat, which is the regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act under which consultation is completed. Federal agencies must
consult with the Service on actions that may affect critical habitat
and must avoid destroying, or adversely modifying, critical habitat.
Federal agencies must also consult with us on actions that may affect a
listed species, and refrain from undertaking actions that are likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of such species. The analysis of
effects to critical habitat is a separate and different analysis from
that of the effects to the species. Therefore, the difference in
outcomes of these two analyses represents the regulatory benefit of
critical habitat. For some species (including the Sonoma California
tiger salamander), and in some locations, the outcome of these analyses
will be similar, because effects to habitat will often also result in
effects to the species. However, the regulatory standard is different,
as the jeopardy analysis investigates the action's impact to survival
and recovery of the species, while the adverse modification analysis
investigates the action's effects to the designated habitat's
contribution to conservation. This will, in many instances, lead to
different results and different regulatory requirements. Thus, critical
habitat designations may provide greater benefits to the recovery of a
species than would listing alone. Critical habitat may provide a
regulatory benefit for the Sonoma California tiger salamander when
there is a Federal nexus present for a project that might adversely
modify critical habitat.
The consultation provisions under section 7(a) of the Act
constitute the regulatory benefits of designating lands as critical
habitat. As discussed above, Federal agencies must consult with us on
actions that may affect critical habitat and must avoid destroying or
adversely modifying critical habitat. Critical habitat may provide a
regulatory benefit for the Sonoma California tiger salamander when
there is a Federal nexus present for a project that might adversely
modify critical habitat. With respect to the Graton Rancheria land, we
expect development projects within the Reservation to require a section
404 permit under the Clean Water Act from the Army Corps of Engineers
and a permit from the National Indian Gaming Commission. Therefore,
critical habitat designation in the Santa Rosa Plain Unit would provide
an additional regulatory benefit to the conservation of the Sonoma
California tiger salamander by prohibiting adverse modification of
habitat essential for the conservation of this species.
As discussed above, the NRMP provides beneficial protection of
Sonoma California tiger salamander habitat that is considered necessary
for the survival and recovery of the species. Therefore, for activities
covered under the NRMP, we believe that protections provided by the
designation of critical habitat will be redundant with protections
provided by the NRMP, at least in conserved areas. However, the NRMP
does not prohibit spray irrigation or development from occurring in
areas that have not yet been conserved in a preservation area within
the Reservation, as defined in the NRMP. These threats are significant
and ongoing within the range of the Sonoma California tiger salamander
in habitat that has not been conserved and managed to benefit the
species.
Another possible benefit of including lands in critical habitat is
public education regarding the potential conservation value of an area
that may help focus conservation efforts on areas of high conservation
value for certain species. Any information about the Sonoma California
tiger salamander and its habitat that reaches a wide audience,
including parties engaged in conservation activities, is valuable. The
inclusion of lands in the Sonoma California tiger salamander critical
habitat designation that are owned by or under the jurisdiction of the
Reservation could be beneficial to the species, because while the NRMP
establishes conservation goals for the Sonoma California tiger
salamander and identifies criteria for identifying habitat to be
conserved, the critical habitat designation specifically identifies
those lands essential to the conservation of the species and which may
require
[[Page 54362]]
special management considerations or protection. The process of
proposing critical habitat provided an opportunity for peer review and
public comment on habitat we determined meets the definition of
critical habitat. This process is valuable to landowners and managers
in prioritizing conservation and management of identified areas.
Information on the Sonoma California tiger salamander and its habitat
has also been provided to the public in the past through meetings,
educational materials provided by the local jurisdictions, and
recommendations provided in the Conservation Strategy. In general, we
believe the designation of critical habitat for the Sonoma California
tiger salamander will provide additional information for the public
concerning the importance of essential habitat that has not already
been available.
In summary, we believe that educational benefits are likely
realized when any information about the Sonoma California tiger
salamander and its habitat reaches a wide audience. The educational
benefits of critical habitat designation on the Reservation lands may
not be significant due to extensive past outreach and ongoing
conservation efforts such as the listing of Sonoma California tiger
salamander as endangered in 2003, the development and implementation of
the Conservation Strategy, and the Programmatic Biological Opinion. And
inclusion would enable an evaluation of adverse effects of spray
irrigation or development to critical habitat in areas that have not
yet been conserved in a preservation area within the Reservation.
Benefits of Exclusion
We believe the following benefits would be realized by forgoing
designation of critical habitat for the Sonoma California tiger
salamander on lands covered by the NRMP. These benefits include
allowing for continued meaningful collaboration and effective working
relationships with the Tribe to promote conservation of the Sonoma
California tiger salamander and its habitat.
We acknowledge our unique and distinctive Federal tribal trust
responsibility and obligation toward the Federated Indians of Graton
Rancheria and their reservation lands, as well as their tribal
sovereignty. We believe the exclusion of reservation lands from
critical habitat will help preserve the partnership we have developed
with the Tribe, reinforce those relationships we are building with
other tribes, and foster future partnerships and development of future
management plans with both Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and
other tribes. Therefore, excluding tribal reservation lands from
critical habitat provides the significant benefit of maintaining and
strengthening our existing conservation partnership and fostering new
tribal partnerships. The Tribe has developed a NRMP which provides
specific protection and management for the Sonoma California tiger
salamander and for the physical and biological features essential to
the conservation of the species, in most respects equal to or better
than the designation of critical habitat would provide. Exclusion of
the lands covered under the Graton Rancheria Natural Resources
Management Plan from critical habitat would help preserve the
partnerships we developed with the Federated Indians of Graton
Rancheria in the development of the Graton Biological Opinion, and will
also foster future partnerships and future conservation of the Sonoma
California tiger salamander. Additionally, the Tribe has made specific
commitments to conserve Sonoma California tiger salamander habitat. The
commitments include onsite and offsite management and conservation
consistent with the Biological Opinion and Conservation Strategy.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
The benefits of excluding the Reservation lands from critical
habitat outweigh the benefits of inclusion, based on the conservation
values outlined in the NRMP and summarized above. Any development of
the Reservation will follow the mitigation ratios in the Graton
Biological Opinion at off-site location(s) and will be managed in
perpetuity for the benefit of the Sonoma California tiger salamander.
The remainder will be primarily passively managed as a Holding Area or
Preservation Area.
We reviewed and evaluated the benefits of inclusion and the
benefits of exclusion of Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria
reservation lands as critical habitat for the Sonoma California tiger
salamander. Including reservation lands in the critical habitat
designation for the Sonoma California tiger salamander will provide
little additional regulatory protection under section 7(a) of the Act
when there is a Federal nexus, and educational benefits of designation
will be redundant with those achieved through listing and our
cooperative efforts working with the Tribe to conserve the Sonoma
California tiger salamander and the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. We recognize there may be
some ancillary benefit from other laws such as the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) resulting from designating these areas as critical habitat;
however, we consider these possible benefits to be marginal considering
the potential adverse impact that critical habitat designation could
have on our partnership with the Tribe. We believe past and future
coordination with the Tribe will provide sufficient education regarding
the Sonoma California tiger salamander habitat conservation needs on
tribal reservation lands, and therefore educational benefits for these
areas are small.
The benefits of excluding Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria
reservation lands from critical habitat are significant. Exclusion of
these lands from critical habitat will help preserve the partnership we
have developed and reinforce those we are building with other tribes,
and foster future partnerships and development of management plans. The
Tribe emphasized through a comment letter provided during the public
comment period their belief that designation of critical habitat on
tribal lands should not occur, especially on trust lands where the
designation would include Tribal lands subject to their tribal
management plan in preparation (Sarris 2010). We are committed to
working with our tribal partner to further the conservation of the
Sonoma California tiger salamander and other threatened and endangered
species. Therefore, in consideration of the relevant impact to our
government-to-government relationship with the Federated Indians of
Graton Rancheria and our current and future conservation partnerships,
and the development of an effective management plan which provides a
benefit for the species, we determined the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of inclusion in critical habitat designation for
these lands.
In summary, based on our unique and distinctive Federal tribal
trust responsibility and obligation towards the Tribe and the
development of a management plan which benefits the conservation of the
Sonoma California tiger salamander, we find that excluding the
Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria reservation lands from this final
critical habitat will preserve our partnership and foster future
habitat management and species conservation efforts with the Tribe.
These partnership benefits are significant and outweigh the limited
regulatory and educational benefits of including these lands in final
[[Page 54363]]
critical habitat for the Sonoma California tiger salamander.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
We determined that the exclusion of approximately 252 ac (102 ha)
of habitat from this final designation of critical habitat for the
Sonoma California tiger salamander will not result in extinction of the
species. The NRMP provides protection and long-term management of lands
that meet the definition of critical habitat for the Sonoma California
tiger salamander through on-site and off-site mitigation. Additionally,
the jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act for the Sonoma California
tiger salamander provides assurances that the species will not go
extinct as a result of exclusion from critical habitat designation. The
consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) and the attendant
requirement to avoid jeopardy to the Sonoma California tiger salamander
for projects with a Federal nexus will provide significant protection
to the species. Therefore, based on the above discussion, the Secretary
is exercising his discretion to exclude approximately 252 ac (102 ha)
of habitat in the Santa Rosa Plain Unit from this final critical
habitat designation.
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 rule under Executive
Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). OMB bases its
determination upon the following four criteria:
(1) 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.
(2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies' actions.
(3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants,
user fees, loan programs or the rights and obligations of their
recipients.
(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
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 (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), 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
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended
the 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. In this final rule, we are certifying that the critical
habitat designation for the Sonoma California tiger salamander will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The following discussion explains our rationale.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; as well as small businesses. Small businesses include
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees,
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts on
these small entities are significant, we consider the types of
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general,
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the rule could significantly affect a substantial
number of small entities, we consider the number of small entities
affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., small
business, small government jurisdiction, or small organization). We
apply the ``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to
determine if certification is appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not
explicitly define ``substantial number'' or ``significant economic
impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of
small entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers
the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area.
In some circumstances, especially with critical habitat designations of
limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and consider
whether the total number of small entities affected is substantial. In
estimating the number of small entities potentially affected, we also
consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities authorized,
funded, or carried out by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities
are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be
affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is
present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under
section 7 of the Act on activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
that may affect the Sonoma California tiger salamander. Federal
agencies also must consult with us if their activities may affect
critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat, therefore, could
result in an additional economic impact on small entities due to the
requirement to reinitiate consultation for ongoing Federal activities
(see Application of the ``Adverse Modification Standard'' section).
In our final economic analysis (FEA) of the critical habitat
designation, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small
business entities resulting from conservation actions related to the
listing of the Sonoma California tiger salamander and the designation
of critical habitat. The analysis is based on the estimated impacts
associated with the rulemaking as described in Chapters 2 through 4 and
Appendix A of the analysis and evaluates the potential for economic
impacts related to: (1) Residential and commercial development, (2)
transportation activities, (3) utility activities, (4) incremental
administrative costs and (5) the energy industry (IEC 2011, pp. 1-5, 1-
6). The FEA concludes that the proposed rulemaking may affect small
entities (IEC 2011, pp. A1-A-6).
Incremental impacts from the administrative costs of section 7
consultations on critical habitat associated with residential and
commercial development are expected for small entities. There are 1,911
businesses involved in development activities within Sonoma County, and
of these, 1,896 are considered small businesses. Therefore,
approximately 99
[[Page 54364]]
percent of all building construction companies in Sonoma County qualify
as small entities. Because information on specific third parties that
may be involved in future development consultations is lacking, the
analysis conservatively assumes that all of the entities involved in
future consultation efforts are small land subdivision companies.
Because the FEA calculates impacts to small businesses at the
County-wide scale, it likely overestimates the impacts associated with
critical habitat, which only covers approximately 4.2 percent of the
County. The FEA assumes annual revenues of up to $33.5 million per
small entity, and annualized impacts may be borne by all small land
subdivision companies. Annualized impacts to the construction industry
($6,630 applying a 7 percent discount rate) are estimated to be
significantly less than the annual revenues that could be generated by
a single small building construction entity. If all impacts are borne
by one single small construction company, the estimated annualized
impact would represent, on average, between 0.04 and 1.27 percent of
annual revenues (IEC 2011, p. A-6).
No other incremental impacts attributed to transportation or
utility activities are expected to be borne by entities that meet the
definition of small entities (IEC 2011, p. A-4). Other activities, such
as agricultural and mitigation bank establishment, are not expected to
be affected by the designation of critical habitat; therefore no
incremental impacts are expected to be borne by small entities (IEC
2011, pp. A-4, A-5).
In summary, we considered whether this designation would result in
a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities. Based on our analysis, we have determined that this rule will
affect a substantial number of small business entities in the building
construction sector, but since the effect is less than one percent of
estimated annual revenues, it is not considered to be a significant
economic impact. As a result, we concluded that this rule would not
result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Therefore, we are certifying that the designation of
critical habitat for the Sonoma California tiger salamander will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this
Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a
significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking the regulatory
action under consideration. The FEA concludes that incremental impacts
to utilities are limited to the administrative cost of intra-Service
consultation associated with a habitat conservation plan (HCP), which
does not involve third parties. Any other impacts are expected to occur
as a result of the listing of the Sonoma California tiger salamander,
regardless of the designation of critical habitat. The economic
analysis finds that none of these criteria are relevant to this
analysis. Thus, based on information in the economic analysis, energy-
related impacts associated with Sonoma California tiger salamander
conservation activities within critical habitat are not expected (IEC
2011, pp. 4-4, 4-5, A-7). As such, the designation of critical habitat
is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution,
or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and
no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. 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 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. 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.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because the lands being proposed for critical
habitat are mostly private lands with some other local government
lands. Given the distribution of this species, small governments will
not be uniquely affected by this proposed rule. Small governments will
not be affected at all unless they propose an action requiring Federal
funds, permits, or other authorization. Any such activity will require
that the involved Federal agency ensure that the action is not likely
to adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat. However, as
discussed above, Federal agencies are currently required to ensure that
any such activity
[[Page 54365]]
is not likely to jeopardize the species, and no further regulatory
impacts from the designation of critical habitat are anticipated.
Consequently, we do not believe that the critical habitat
designation would significantly or uniquely affect small government
entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights),
we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating
critical habitat for the Sonoma California tiger salamander in a
takings implications assessment. Critical habitat designation does not
affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or
permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation
programs or issuance of incidental take permits to allow actions that
do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. The takings
implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical
habitat for the Sonoma California tiger salamander does not pose
significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the
designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this 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 critical habitat designation with
appropriate State resource agencies in California. We did not receive
comments from State resource agencies. The designation of critical
habitat in areas currently occupied by the Sonoma California tiger
salamander imposes nominal additional restrictions to those currently
in place and, therefore, has little incremental impact on State and
local governments and their activities. The designation may have some
benefit to these governments in that the areas that contain the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species are more clearly defined, and the elements of the 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
case-by-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--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the Act. This final rule uses
standard property descriptions and identifies the elements of physical
and biological features essential to the conservation of the Sonoma
California tiger salamander within the designated areas to assist the
public in understanding the habitat needs of the species.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
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 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
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 pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (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)).
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), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), 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.
There are tribal lands determined to be occupied with features
essential to the conservation of the Sonoma California tiger
salamander, but these lands have been excluded under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act (see Exclusions section above).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited is available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this rulemaking are the staff members of the
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
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.
[[Page 54366]]
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the entry for ``Salamander,
California tiger'' under ``AMPHIBIANS'' in the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------- population where Critical
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat Special rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Amphibians
* * * * * * *
Salamander, California tiger.. Ambystoma U.S.A. (CA)..... U.S.A. (CA-- E 677E, 702....... 17.95(d)........ NA.
californiense. Santa Barbara
County).
Salamander, California tiger.. Ambystoma U.S.A. (CA)..... U.S.A. (CA-- T 744............. 17.95(d)........ 17.43(c).
californiense. Central
California).
Salamander, California tiger.. Ambystoma U.S.A. (CA)..... U.S.A. (CA-- E 729E, 734....... 17.95(d)........ NA.
californiense. Sonoma County).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. In Sec. 17.95, amend paragraph (d) by adding an entry for
``California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) in Sonoma
County'' in the same order that the species appears in the table at
Sec. 17.11(h), to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(d) Amphibians.
* * * * *
California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense)
* * * * *
California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) in Sonoma County
(52) The critical habitat unit for Sonoma County, CA, is depicted
on the map at paragraph (56)(ii) of this entry.
(53) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
California tiger salamander in Sonoma County consist of three
components:
(i) Standing bodies of fresh water (including natural and manmade
(e.g., stock)) ponds, vernal pools, and other ephemeral or permanent
water bodies) that typically support inundation during winter and early
spring, and hold water for a minimum of 12 consecutive weeks in a year
of average rainfall.
(ii) Upland habitats adjacent to and accessible from breeding ponds
that contain small mammal burrows or other underground refugia that the
species depends upon for food, shelter, and protection from the
elements and predation.
(iii) Accessible upland dispersal habitat between locations
occupied by the species that allow for movement between such sites.
(54) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of this rule.
(55) Critical habitat map unit. Data layers defining the map unit
were created on a base of USGS 7.5' quadrangles, and the critical
habitat unit was then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)
Zone 10N coordinates.
(56) Santa Rosa Plain Unit, Sonoma County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Healdsburg, Sebastopol, Santa
Rosa, Two Rock, Cotati, Petaluma, and Mark West Springs, California.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10N, North American Datum of
1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 515958, 4264938; 515962, 4264053;
515984, 4264053; 516127, 4264065; 516297, 4264083; 516355, 4264107;
516437, 4264134; 517201, 4264161; 517204, 4263316; 517184, 4263318;
517153, 4263345; 517102, 4263370; 517041, 4263383; 517026, 4263378;
516978, 4263360; 516950, 4263341; 516560, 4263330; 516550, 4263241;
516566, 4263225; 516596, 4263103; 516603, 4262920; 516639, 4262756;
516882, 4262184; 517289, 4261332; 517321, 4261275; 517412, 4261284;
517483, 4261292; 517708, 4261351; 517696, 4261470; 517729, 4261546;
517837, 4261601; 517897, 4261604; 518065, 4261551; 518158, 4261611;
518347, 4261695; 518446, 4261706; 518489, 4261763; 518681, 4261928;
518753, 4262034; 518804, 4262020; 518835, 4261981; 518917, 4261963;
519050, 4261983; 519174, 4262054; 519258, 4262077; 519354, 4262188;
519440, 4262142; 519490, 4262146; 519523, 4262261; 519601, 4262282;
519821, 4262275; 520947, 4261147; 521211, 4260905; 521220, 4260905;
521224, 4260890; 522751, 4259527; 522746, 4259517; 522746, 4259517;
522498, 4259511; 522499, 4259466; 522269, 4259465; 522054, 4259463;
522053, 4259665; 521895, 4259659; 521692, 4259652; 521697, 4259307;
521335, 4259298; 521336, 4259239; 521137, 4259235; 521138, 4259168;
521074, 4259170; 521166, 4259038; 521133, 4259035; 521189, 4258952;
521439, 4258587; 521509, 4258484; 521488, 4258481; 521416, 4258480;
521319, 4258480; 521182, 4258479; 521130, 4258476; 521104, 4258466;
521079, 4258449; 521063, 4258423; 521031, 4258396; 521012, 4258374;
520991, 4258352; 520960, 4258333; 520933, 4258341; 520923, 4258339;
520483, 4258336; 520486, 4257976; 520286, 4257974; 520286, 4257923;
520076, 4257921; 520076, 4257655; 520084, 4256913; 520089, 4255250;
519469, 4255249; 519468, 4255235; 519494, 4255223; 519509, 4255204;
519606, 4255119; 519608, 4254429; 519689, 4254430; 519681, 4253613;
519951, 4253613; 519952, 4253112; 520124, 4253213; 520204, 4253261;
520317, 4253313; 520424, 4253357; 520455, 4253364; 520495, 4253368;
520561, 4253373; 520664, 4253381; 520882, 4253399; 521157, 4253422;
521721, 4253471; 522039, 4253501; 522283, 4253533; 522398, 4253561;
522702, 4253659; 522794, 4253687; 523132, 4253743; 523335, 4253777;
523620, 4253831; 523903, 4253883; 523985, 4253642; 524334, 4253725;
524339, 4253163; 524347, 4252679; 524679, 4252724; 524674, 4252887;
524869,
[[Page 54367]]
4252913; 524860, 4252818; 524841, 4252674; 524824, 4252615; 524821,
4252524; 524819, 4252424; 524804, 4252370; 524789, 4252322; 524786,
4252230; 524785, 4252071; 524783, 4251757; 524782, 4251416; 524775,
4250427; 524819, 4250415; 525034, 4250436; 525188, 4250226; 525230,
4250293; 525249, 4250591; 525431, 4250592; 525427, 4251250; 525524,
4251251; 525516, 4251382; 525608, 4251435; 525606, 4251596; 525590,
4251596; 525585, 4251704; 525793, 4251706; 525799, 4251564; 525805,
4251491; 525823, 4251438; 525853, 4251375; 525897, 4251317; 525955,
4251247; 525991, 4251204; 526055, 4251122; 526081, 4251084; 526093,
4251068; 526098, 4251059; 526187, 4250895; 526242, 4250791; 526303,
4250656; 526414, 4250450; 526491, 4250305; 526565, 4250168; 526626,
4250055; 526640, 4250027; 526668, 4249975; 526681, 4249951; 526739,
4249844; 526883, 4249511; 527003, 4249235; 527144, 4248912; 527258,
4248648; 527321, 4248504; 527380, 4248408; 527440, 4248306; 527498,
4248233; 527541, 4248179; 527567, 4248146; 527591, 4248116; 527670,
4248094; 528274, 4247630; 528624, 4247465; 528892, 4247336; 528892,
4247336; 528934, 4247301; 528969, 4247271; 529006, 4247230; 528260,
4247180; 527910, 4247172; 527460, 4247161; 527439, 4247159; 527057,
4247158; 526768, 4247152; 526640, 4247144; 526240, 4247140; 526244,
4246930; 526243, 4246848; 525406, 4246839; 525373, 4246838; 525370,
4246838; 525128, 4246839; 525070, 4246841; 525090, 4246766; 525100,
4246710; 525107, 4246661; 525111, 4246582; 525106, 4246526; 525103,
4246500; 525097, 4246473; 525082, 4246451; 525067, 4246414; 525065,
4246315; 525055, 4246235; 525037, 4246098; 525037, 4245942; 525017,
4245837; 525022, 4245567; 525015, 4245313; 525028, 4245041; 525028,
4245041; 525028, 4245040; 525023, 4244756; 525024, 4244737; 525018,
4244737; 524971, 4244646; 524751, 4244643; 524749, 4244670; 524755,
4244695; 524764, 4244722; 524369, 4244718; 524367, 4244750; 524362,
4244781; 524342, 4244829; 524341, 4245039; 524330, 4245147; 524327,
4245304; 524266, 4245304; 523930, 4245300; 523936, 4245291; 523897,
4245221; 523830, 4245259; 523800, 4245206; 523740, 4245165; 523901,
4245442; 524073, 4245457; 524091, 4245470; 524090, 4245550; 524531,
4245557; 524528, 4245929; 524350, 4245930; 524349, 4246155; 524005,
4246155; 524008, 4245557; 523064, 4245550; 523009, 4245549; 522605,
4245550; 522607, 4245039; 522605, 4244956; 522642, 4244950; 522752,
4244931; 522868, 4244924; 522938, 4244910; 523037, 4244867; 523092,
4244862; 523170, 4244827; 523539, 4244841; 523486, 4244744; 523526,
4244718; 523515, 4244700; 523503, 4244684; 523489, 4244674; 523600,
4244617; 523686, 4244589; 523794, 4244556; 523847, 4244556; 523927,
4244556; 523946, 4244554; 523963, 4244555; 523971, 4244550; 523978,
4244550; 523983, 4244463; 523974, 4244457; 524015, 4244405; 524037,
4244364; 524074, 4244278; 524112, 4244184; 524124, 4244185; 524145,
4244134; 524133, 4244134; 524179, 4244019; 524229, 4243956; 524256,
4243896; 524268, 4243881; 524311, 4243849; 524377, 4243813; 524451,
4243774; 524531, 4243736; 524592, 4243702; 524672, 4243653; 524733,
4243603; 524782, 4243553; 524832, 4243496; 524866, 4243439; 524919,
4243340; 525003, 4243271; 525069, 4243234; 525096, 4243229; 525119,
4243187; 525134, 4243089; 525146, 4243127; 525176, 4243074; 525246,
4243058; 525344, 4243040; 525385, 4243015; 525463, 4242950; 525479,
4242931; 525509, 4242834; 525460, 4242825; 525371, 4242803; 525371,
4242802; 525379, 4242766; 525384, 4242743; 525383, 4242743; 525329,
4242726; 525328, 4242725; 525328, 4242725; 525327, 4242702; 525360,
4242636; 525303, 4242593; 525304, 4242592; 525343, 4242551; 525427,
4242434; 525530, 4242293; 525529, 4242292; 525437, 4242100; 525302,
4242095; 525148, 4242150; 525112, 4242171; 525113, 4242274; 525119,
4242395; 525089, 4242387; 525049, 4242372; 524969, 4242324; 524962,
4242281; 524947, 4242224; 524948, 4242224; 524947, 4242223; 524994,
4242202; 525048, 4242178; 525049, 4242178; 525026, 4242101; 525003,
4242023; 525002, 4242021; 525052, 4241984; 525054, 4241931; 525126,
4241920; 525203, 4241893; 525277, 4241865; 525324, 4241932; 525379,
4241928; 525379, 4241929; 525380, 4241956; 525380, 4241956; 525554,
4241888; 525554, 4241888; 525539, 4241824; 525539, 4241823; 525586,
4241824; 525627, 4241826; 525678, 4241828; 525726, 4241824; 525790,
4241828; 525856, 4241844; 525937, 4241764; 525995, 4241707; 526035,
4241679; 526122, 4241751; 526218, 4241829; 526262, 4241807; 526337,
4241783; 526337, 4241783; 526330, 4241715; 526330, 4241714; 526328,
4241646; 526326, 4241597; 526325, 4241545; 526322, 4241543; 526196,
4241529; 526088, 4241515; 526058, 4241446; 525835, 4241237; 525878,
4241186; 525929, 4241234; 526000, 4241164; 525944, 4241110; 526019,
4241039; 526225, 4241236; 526254, 4241213; 526341, 4241295; 526335,
4241343; 526362, 4241340; 526456, 4241156; 526583, 4241157; 526586,
4241207; 526641, 4241208; 526600, 4241344; 526835, 4241346; 526964,
4241346; 527206, 4241345; 527271, 4241234; 527694, 4241231; 527592,
4241427; 527606, 4241441; 527762, 4241442; 527835, 4241474; 527894,
4241465; 527957, 4241438; 527971, 4241442; 527990, 4241432; 528042,
4241446; 528057, 4241467; 528090, 4241479; 528112, 4241514; 528293,
4241521; 528334, 4241542; 528322, 4241944; 529126, 4241952; 529136,
4242368; 529942, 4242371; 529961, 4241555; 530777, 4241576; 531213,
4241584; 531213, 4241584; 531212, 4241577; 531212, 4241565; 531213,
4241561; 531213, 4241549; 531214, 4241539; 531215, 4241530; 531216,
4241522; 531218, 4241515; 531222, 4241496; 531224, 4241491; 531235,
4241477; 531243, 4241467; 531247, 4241462; 531252, 4241459; 531148,
4241274; 531128, 4241282; 531001, 4241056; 531012, 4241049; 530840,
4240755; 530599, 4240752; 530599, 4240760; 530453, 4240760; 530220,
4240758; 529960, 4240755; 529954, 4240737; 529962, 4240737; 529964,
4240304; 529560, 4240298; 529560, 4240279; 529286, 4240278; 529161,
4240277; 529138, 4240274; 529138, 4240269; 528996, 4240267; 528747,
4240266; 528751, 4239945; 528653, 4239944; 528546, 4239942; 528546,
4239933; 528471, 4239934; 528345, 4239934; 528210, 4239938; 528211,
4239926; 528216, 4239911; 528224, 4239898; 528225, 4239884; 528244,
4239861; 528263, 4239839; 528260, 4239802; 528257, 4239766; 528281,
4239737; 528299, 4239674; 528329, 4239644; 528365, 4239626; 528395,
4239588; 528396, 4239547; 528383, 4239522; 528383, 4239486; 528467,
4239395; 528470, 4239382; 528523, 4239327; 528572, 4239220; 528638,
4239134; 528715, 4239051; 528789, 4239013; 528842, 4238970; 528867,
4238967; 528944, 4238985; 528977, 4238975; 529035, 4238937; 529061,
4238859; 529089, 4238805; 529168, 4238719; 529186, 4238674; 529202,
4238476; 529222, 4238445; 529288, 4238428; 529319, 4238410; 529342,
4238380; 529390, 4238342; 529398, 4238248; 529355, 4238131; 529353,
4238088; 529366, 4238055; 529366, 4237940; 529346, 4237894; 529298,
4237833; 529298, 4237760; 529288, 4237747; 529227, 4237726; 529225,
4237706; 529255, 4237671; 529266, 4237633; 529301, 4237587; 529301,
[[Page 54368]]
4237556; 529301, 4237556; 529279, 4237513; 529274, 4237478; 529243,
4237442; 529227, 4237415; 529195, 4237363; 529179, 4237303; 529147,
4237180; 529122, 4237089; 529110, 4237044; 529098, 4236997; 529075,
4236959; 528986, 4236865; 528941, 4236847; 528883, 4236797; 528802,
4236726; 528710, 4236645; 528690, 4236643; 528624, 4236663; 528504,
4236630; 528443, 4236614; 528428, 4236598; 528382, 4236524; 528114,
4236779; 527845, 4237034; 527644, 4237225; 527577, 4237288; 527528,
4237336; 527477, 4237364; 527408, 4237403; 527356, 4237414; 527314,
4237418; 527267, 4237416; 527136, 4237408; 526957, 4237397; 526778,
4237386; 526511, 4237369; 525796, 4237326; 525255, 4237292; 525065,
4237280; 524935, 4237298; 524704, 4237329; 524459, 4237362; 524276,
4237392; 524216, 4237396; 524156, 4237400; 524096, 4237396; 523962,
4237391; 523863, 4237390; 523790, 4237390; 523736, 4237379; 523735,
4237378; 523735, 4237378; 523701, 4237372; 523334, 4237331; 523124,
4237315; 522752, 4237325; 522523, 4237483; 522330, 4237495; 522203,
4237501; 522091, 4237502; 522019, 4237486; 521903, 4237456; 521751,
4237374; 521416, 4237245; 520924, 4237058; 520715, 4236933; 520469,
4236563; 519656, 4236570; 519591, 4236725; 519597, 4236804; 519593,
4236893; 519534, 4236982; 519509, 4237065; 519513, 4237207; 519519,
4237410; 519508, 4237513; 519513, 4237560; 519644, 4237689; 519749,
4237854; 519828, 4238299; 519985, 4238796; 520064, 4239163; 519666,
4239301; 519083, 4239251; 518726, 4239185; 518455, 4238949; 518408,
4238918; 517833, 4238941; 517755, 4238933; 515591, 4239010; 515470,
4239008; 515452, 4239009; 515449, 4239056; 515449, 4239057; 515449,
4239057; 515450, 4239095; 515435, 4241446; 515745, 4241442; 515750,
4241442; 515751, 4241441; 515960, 4241437; 515958, 4241650; 515958,
4241650; 516184, 4241647; 516184, 4241649; 516476, 4241982; 516591,
4242098; 516629, 4242123; 516629, 4242123; 516631, 4242125; 516616,
4243019; 516964, 4243034; 516961, 4243299; 516961, 4243299; 516957,
4243382; 518721, 4243366; 519748, 4243368; 520411, 4243363; 520380,
4245219; 520274, 4245428; 520129, 4245551; 520127, 4245552; 520176,
4245594; 520200, 4245630; 520181, 4246130; 520221, 4246427; 520220,
4246428; 520222, 4246456; 520222, 4246517; 520223, 4246579; 520222,
4246577; 520225, 4246616; 520221, 4246774; 520214, 4246852; 520205,
4246990; 520193, 4247283; 520121, 4247294; 519763, 4247380; 519748,
4247387; 519735, 4247394; 519727, 4247398; 519712, 4247402; 519636,
4247424; 519580, 4247425; 519530, 4247389; 519523, 4247381; 519515,
4247373; 519516, 4247360; 519507, 4247387; 519510, 4247395; 519516,
4247404; 519492, 4247437; 519486, 4247445; 519460, 4247491; 519453,
4247503; 519413, 4247571; 519400, 4247572; 519392, 4247573; 519388,
4247574; 519381, 4247575; 519366, 4247575; 519354, 4247574; 519339,
4247574; 519327, 4247575; 519316, 4247573; 519308, 4247574; 519287,
4247574; 519270, 4247582; 519252, 4247584; 519230, 4247590; 519203,
4247598; 519197, 4247600; 519163, 4247609; 519146, 4247617; 519125,
4247627; 519108, 4247645; 519097, 4247661; 519086, 4247673; 519070,
4247700; 519062, 4247717; 519062, 4247719; 519048, 4247747; 519031,
4247780; 519020, 4247811; 519005, 4247851; 519002, 4247866; 519000,
4247897; 519000, 4247919; 519006, 4247954; 519015, 4247972; 519028,
4248004; 519034, 4248019; 519043, 4248041; 519053, 4248080; 519061,
4248112; 519064, 4248129; 519062, 4248151; 519062, 4248175; 519061,
4248206; 519062, 4248223; 519065, 4248240; 519068, 4248257; 519071,
4248266; 519082, 4248290; 519092, 4248307; 519105, 4248328; 519115,
4248342; 519121, 4248350; 519133, 4248363; 519150, 4248374; 519173,
4248386; 519199, 4248394; 519228, 4248404; 519259, 4248418; 519292,
4248430; 519316, 4248442; 519340, 4248450; 519375, 4248465; 519399,
4248482; 519402, 4248484; 519412, 4248498; 519413, 4248508; 519411,
4248514; 519407, 4248523; 519400, 4248533; 519377, 4248549; 519369,
4248556; 519350, 4248568; 519331, 4248574; 519311, 4248577; 519285,
4248588; 519259, 4248597; 519238, 4248613; 519211, 4248626; 519200,
4248632; 519173, 4248642; 519128, 4248660; 519102, 4248670; 519084,
4248674; 519051, 4248679; 519033, 4248678; 519021, 4248676; 519003,
4248674; 518982, 4248668; 518950, 4248662; 518918, 4248659; 518880,
4248664; 518859, 4248670; 518849, 4248679; 518850, 4248689; 518854,
4248697; 518863, 4248703; 518876, 4248715; 518888, 4248724; 518900,
4248738; 518912, 4248748; 518935, 4248765; 518951, 4248781; 518967,
4248801; 518983, 4248821; 518994, 4248838; 519000, 4248851; 519003,
4248869; 519003, 4248885; 519003, 4248895; 519002, 4248911; 518997,
4248935; 518995, 4248960; 518993, 4249001; 518994, 4249018; 518999,
4249034; 519006, 4249056; 519018, 4249078; 519033, 4249094; 519052,
4249108; 519073, 4249118; 519095, 4249127; 519122, 4249133; 519151,
4249136; 519182, 4249140; 519203, 4249137; 519230, 4249137; 519257,
4249144; 519263, 4249153; 519261, 4249160; 519257, 4249165; 519248,
4249176; 519236, 4249188; 519223, 4249202; 519204, 4249216; 519188,
4249230; 519170, 4249239; 519156, 4249244; 519133, 4249246; 519114,
4249245; 519101, 4249244; 519078, 4249244; 519044, 4249248; 519006,
4249259; 518990, 4249263; 518975, 4249271; 518960, 4249285; 518945,
4249303; 518925, 4249330; 518918, 4249344; 518912, 4249356; 518904,
4249366; 518896, 4249372; 518883, 4249382; 518860, 4249391; 518834,
4249400; 518813, 4249410; 518796, 4249422; 518779, 4249435; 518756,
4249447; 518708, 4249473; 518687, 4249484; 518674, 4249489; 518659,
4249491; 518647, 4249488; 518627, 4249486; 518608, 4249488; 518588,
4249498; 518576, 4249507; 518563, 4249519; 518557, 4249528; 518554,
4249536; 518549, 4249551; 518543, 4249563; 518534, 4249575; 518519,
4249586; 518501, 4249598; 518482, 4249605; 518468, 4249608; 518444,
4249616; 518420, 4249617; 518400, 4249621; 518380, 4249625; 518365,
4249632; 518355, 4249641; 518336, 4249649; 518300, 4249652; 518283,
4249657; 518256, 4249654; 518226, 4249648; 518201, 4249643; 518179,
4249642; 518167, 4249643; 518156, 4249646; 518147, 4249652; 518137,
4249663; 518126, 4249680; 518118, 4249700; 518107, 4249723; 518096,
4249744; 518090, 4249766; 518082, 4249783; 518078, 4249801; 518079,
4249819; 518081, 4249836; 518087, 4249854; 518099, 4249867; 518116,
4249879; 518130, 4249882; 518147, 4249886; 518168, 4249897; 518178,
4249912; 518181, 4249925; 518182, 4249941; 518188, 4249951; 518194,
4249958; 518200, 4249963; 518206, 4249973; 518209, 4249982; 518209,
4249993; 518209, 4250008; 518213, 4250022; 518221, 4250029; 518228,
4250036; 518232, 4250050; 518228, 4250060; 518224, 4250063; 518217,
4250066; 518207, 4250067; 518190, 4250068; 518170, 4250070; 518153,
4250076; 518135, 4250081; 518121, 4250090; 518111, 4250108; 518107,
4250122; 518105, 4250135; 518102, 4250158; 518103, 4250172; 518107,
4250185; 518114, 4250209; 518117, 4250226; 518122, 4250252; 518132,
4250277; 518132, 4250278; 518112, 4250325; 518055, 4250363; 517988,
4250366; 517977, 4250346; 517965, 4250330; 517948, 4250308; 517940,
[[Page 54369]]
4250287; 517937, 4250266; 517933, 4250250; 517929, 4250224; 517924,
4250194; 517915, 4250171; 517895, 4250133; 517879, 4250105; 517870,
4250095; 517843, 4250074; 517822, 4250056; 517800, 4250030; 517751,
4249994; 517728, 4249974; 517697, 4249961; 517677, 4249957; 517648,
4249949; 517633, 4249949; 517612, 4249951; 517586, 4249958; 517574,
4249969; 517561, 4249984; 517555, 4249996; 517542, 4250025; 517538,
4250043; 517527, 4250075; 517524, 4250091; 517523, 4250104; 517527,
4250125; 517534, 4250146; 517541, 4250174; 517544, 4250201; 517543,
4250225; 517538, 4250250; 517529, 4250276; 517520, 4250301; 517506,
4250334; 517492, 4250364; 517479, 4250404; 517472, 4250419; 517468,
4250433; 517459, 4250447; 517449, 4250459; 517438, 4250461; 517428,
4250457; 517419, 4250450; 517408, 4250441; 517394, 4250434; 517374,
4250425; 517349, 4250416; 517330, 4250419; 517319, 4250428; 517303,
4250447; 517295, 4250457; 517279, 4250480; 517274, 4250487; 517266,
4250499; 517256, 4250522; 517253, 4250541; 517248, 4250557; 517244,
4250576; 517234, 4250597; 517224, 4250626; 517220, 4250646; 517222,
4250669; 517237, 4250695; 517254, 4250710; 517274, 4250721; 517290,
4250725; 517313, 4250729; 517334, 4250731; 517366, 4250729; 517395,
4250729; 517426, 4250730; 517453, 4250737; 517487, 4250743; 517508,
4250749; 517536, 4250763; 517567, 4250782; 517596, 4250802; 517625,
4250823; 517660, 4250848; 517683, 4250876; 517693, 4250895; 517699,
4250918; 517699, 4250918; 517672, 4251014; 517615, 4251099; 517523,
4251133; 517519, 4251137; 517499, 4251131; 517481, 4251127; 517469,
4251123; 517458, 4251121; 517434, 4251121; 517420, 4251125; 517405,
4251128; 517393, 4251126; 517383, 4251122; 517369, 4251114; 517354,
4251109; 517328, 4251099; 517301, 4251096; 517282, 4251090; 517264,
4251082; 517245, 4251076; 517219, 4251065; 517180, 4251059; 517157,
4251056; 517124, 4251047; 517094, 4251042; 517082, 4251040; 517065,
4251040; 517051, 4251044; 517034, 4251048; 517018, 4251048; 517001,
4251047; 516975, 4251041; 516962, 4251037; 516950, 4251032; 516931,
4251022; 516917, 4251017; 516898, 4251012; 516879, 4251011; 516860,
4251009; 516837, 4251006; 516828, 4251012; 516822, 4251023; 516819,
4251036; 516819, 4251049; 516820, 4251061; 516822, 4251076; 516823,
4251089; 516821, 4251105; 516815, 4251120; 516805, 4251129; 516792,
4251137; 516780, 4251137; 516757, 4251138; 516742, 4251141; 516730,
4251137; 516712, 4251132; 516689, 4251125; 516660, 4251114; 516647,
4251115; 516610, 4251118; 516579, 4251128; 516566, 4251138; 516561,
4251150; 516559, 4251160; 516558, 4251172; 516560, 4251187; 516560,
4251206; 516566, 4251226; 516564, 4251240; 516563, 4251242; 516558,
4251252; 516551, 4251263; 516546, 4251280; 516545, 4251299; 516549,
4251318; 516555, 4251333; 516565, 4251340; 516577, 4251350; 516588,
4251363; 516589, 4251379; 516585, 4251390; 516577, 4251405; 516567,
4251418; 516554, 4251433; 516538, 4251450; 516522, 4251474; 516515,
4251493; 516508, 4251518; 516504, 4251543; 516501, 4251576; 516499,
4251607; 516499, 4251634; 516507, 4251662; 516518, 4251678; 516529,
4251689; 516547, 4251695; 516561, 4251699; 516579, 4251702; 516595,
4251705; 516612, 4251712; 516622, 4251720; 516636, 4251733; 516636,
4251735; 516639, 4251861; 516588, 4251964; 516582, 4251968; 516572,
4251977; 516561, 4251993; 516558, 4251999; 516445, 4252055; 516283,
4252064; 516281, 4252065; 516280, 4252065; 516274, 4252064; 516264,
4252061; 516255, 4252058; 516243, 4252051; 516234, 4252042; 516215,
4252023; 516202, 4252010; 516185, 4252002; 516177, 4252001; 516156,
4251996; 516136, 4251991; 516115, 4251992; 516098, 4251999; 516083,
4252014; 516073, 4252031; 516071, 4252047; 516071, 4252057; 516070,
4252069; 516070, 4252083; 516067, 4252094; 516062, 4252102; 516055,
4252112; 516048, 4252123; 516042, 4252140; 516039, 4252151; 516036,
4252159; 516028, 4252165; 516025, 4252167; 516015, 4252170; 516002,
4252171; 515992, 4252178; 515986, 4252185; 515980, 4252188; 515968,
4252186; 515964, 4252180; 515963, 4252182; 515936, 4252199; 515936,
4252199; 515936, 4252212; 515932, 4252230; 515931, 4252247; 515938,
4252261; 515952, 4252274; 515967, 4252289; 515985, 4252310; 515998,
4252330; 516007, 4252353; 516024, 4252380; 516033, 4252395; 516034,
4252408; 516034, 4252417; 516031, 4252429; 516026, 4252444; 516022,
4252463; 516020, 4252487; 516022, 4252496; 516027, 4252519; 516036,
4252541; 516038, 4252554; 516033, 4252557; 516024, 4252554; 516019,
4252552; 516008, 4252545; 515999, 4252536; 515990, 4252528; 515979,
4252523; 515963, 4252524; 515949, 4252528; 515933, 4252533; 515923,
4252536; 515913, 4252534; 515901, 4252528; 515890, 4252521; 515871,
4252513; 515855, 4252502; 515830, 4252490; 515807, 4252484; 515786,
4252478; 515766, 4252478; 515757, 4252479; 515743, 4252490; 515732,
4252506; 515728, 4252515; 515723, 4252529; 515715, 4252540; 515708,
4252546; 515697, 4252548; 515681, 4252549; 515668, 4252554; 515652,
4252574; 515644, 4252590; 515630, 4252614; 515614, 4252640; 515606,
4252661; 515603, 4252673; 515604, 4252687; 515607, 4252699; 515613,
4252724; 515612, 4252731; 515607, 4252735; 515601, 4252735; 515592,
4252734; 515582, 4252731; 515567, 4252724; 515553, 4252716; 515533,
4252705; 515515, 4252701; 515500, 4252704; 515485, 4252707; 515461,
4252728; 515444, 4252747; 515435, 4252761; 515426, 4252780; 515426,
4252793; 515429, 4252808; 515436, 4252825; 515445, 4252845; 515457,
4252861; 515474, 4252882; 515479, 4252889; 515485, 4252899; 515485,
4252909; 515484, 4252920; 515480, 4252935; 515480, 4252952; 515480,
4252967; 515483, 4252984; 515485, 4252998; 515484, 4253007; 515480,
4253016; 515474, 4253025; 515465, 4253032; 515453, 4253041; 515438,
4253056; 515425, 4253070; 515415, 4253085; 515414, 4253100; 515418,
4253116; 515424, 4253124; 515439, 4253136; 515453, 4253141; 515467,
4253144; 515489, 4253149; 515503, 4253160; 515504, 4253160; 515515,
4253170; 515543, 4253187; 515558, 4253194; 515575, 4253200; 515595,
4253206; 515624, 4253211; 515643, 4253214; 515651, 4253220; 515662,
4253226; 515674, 4253223; 515684, 4253221; 515701, 4253215; 515720,
4253203; 515726, 4253194; 515733, 4253184; 515740, 4253174; 515750,
4253165; 515760, 4253155; 515773, 4253144; 515784, 4253130; 515788,
4253118; 515790, 4253106; 515793, 4253086; 515802, 4253078; 515811,
4253075; 515822, 4253066; 515834, 4253066; 515838, 4253074; 515838,
4253090; 515840, 4253109; 515845, 4253135; 515851, 4253152; 515858,
4253162; 515862, 4253170; 515864, 4253178; 515862, 4253190; 515860,
4253206; 515863, 4253236; 515864, 4253240; 515864, 4253241; 515852,
4253247; 515890, 4253375; 515895, 4253512; 515833, 4253674; 515615,
4253915; 515550, 4253943; 515510, 4253975; 515446, 4254021; 515445,
4254020; 515422, 4254013; 515412, 4254013; 515393, 4254017; 515376,
4254015; 515368, 4254008; 515357, 4253999; 515341, 4253984; 515321,
4253972; 515300, 4253973; 515276, 4253969; 515247, 4253971; 515218,
4253979; 515211, 4253986; 515196, 4254001; 515168, 4254022; 515157,
[[Page 54370]]
4254027; 515129, 4254028; 515119, 4254024; 515112, 4254016; 515109,
4254006; 515103, 4253995; 515096, 4253991; 515081, 4253984; 515063,
4253968; 515053, 4253954; 515044, 4253944; 515036, 4253938; 515020,
4253936; 515011, 4253928; 515002, 4253919; 514993, 4253922; 514992,
4253932; 514995, 4253940; 515002, 4253955; 515014, 4253976; 515033,
4254014; 515039, 4254041; 515035, 4254059; 515028, 4254072; 515021,
4254081; 515012, 4254095; 515001, 4254116; 514996, 4254132; 514985,
4254167; 514979, 4254189; 514974, 4254250; 514974, 4254251; 514969,
4254293; 514967, 4254336; 514967, 4254353; 514967, 4254355; 514969,
4254364; 514973, 4254371; 514981, 4254384; 514991, 4254417; 514991,
4254420; 514992, 4254436; 515007, 4254505; 515007, 4254506; 515010,
4254572; 515021, 4254618; 515026, 4254626; 515031, 4254634; 515035,
4254638; 515047, 4254648; 515061, 4254655; 515070, 4254658; 515087,
4254666; 515129, 4254691; 515186, 4254727; 515192, 4254727; 515198,
4254728; 515205, 4254729; 515212, 4254730; 515221, 4254731; 515233,
4254729; 515241, 4254725; 515245, 4254722; 515273, 4254690; 515286,
4254673; 515292, 4254659; 515294, 4254649; 515302, 4254594; 515343,
4254545; 515354, 4254540; 515361, 4254536; 515375, 4254534; 515384,
4254535; 515393, 4254536; 515406, 4254537; 515424, 4254537; 515431,
4254535; 515433, 4254537; 515511, 4254552; 515636, 4254618; 515647,
4254623; 515743, 4254736; 515838, 4254873; 515882, 4255052; 515848,
4255178; 515768, 4255382; 515630, 4255716; 515550, 4255895; 515549,
4255895; 515500, 4255889; 515476, 4255900; 515466, 4255906; 515457,
4255918; 515461, 4255934; 515466, 4255947; 515469, 4255965; 515471,
4255995; 515468, 4256021; 515463, 4256038; 515457, 4256050; 515446,
4256057; 515440, 4256058; 515425, 4256063; 515365, 4256069; 515344,
4256075; 515316, 4256070; 515296, 4256067; 515283, 4256060; 515267,
4256045; 515247, 4256030; 515233, 4256017; 515222, 4256003; 515197,
4255966; 515180, 4255943; 515177, 4255940; 515170, 4255942; 515167,
4255946; 515156, 4255985; 515154, 4256029; 515135, 4256077; 515129,
4256089; 515127, 4256106; 515126, 4256114; 515115, 4256136; 515108,
4256145; 515103, 4256148; 515081, 4256161; 515074, 4256166; 515057,
4256176; 515051, 4256185; 515049, 4256190; 515053, 4256194; 515061,
4256197; 515081, 4256199; 515103, 4256193; 515140, 4256193; 515152,
4256197; 515162, 4256201; 515164, 4256202; 515176, 4256209; 515196,
4256223; 515209, 4256237; 515216, 4256252; 515230, 4256281; 515233,
4256288; 515240, 4256293; 515240, 4256294; 515240, 4256295; 515234,
4256307; 515262, 4256367; 515287, 4256447; 515317, 4256636; 515277,
4256836; 515187, 4256950; 515103, 4257015; 515056, 4257056; 515055,
4257055; 515041, 4257062; 515028, 4257079; 515003, 4257133; 514992,
4257150; 514981, 4257158; 514968, 4257161; 514962, 4257161; 514956,
4257162; 514938, 4257158; 514927, 4257153; 514908, 4257151; 514893,
4257157; 514886, 4257159; 514879, 4257160; 514871, 4257158; 514858,
4257150; 514853, 4257146; 514798, 4257089; 514791, 4257082; 514779,
4257074; 514764, 4257068; 514747, 4257070; 514736, 4257073; 514721,
4257078; 514708, 4257080; 514690, 4257080; 514682, 4257080; 514669,
4257085; 514661, 4257093; 514659, 4257099; 514657, 4257115; 514661,
4257126; 514671, 4257143; 514695, 4257166; 514697, 4257169; 514701,
4257175; 514702, 4257180; 514701, 4257187; 514699, 4257196; 514697,
4257203; 514688, 4257224; 514685, 4257227; 514667, 4257248; 514633,
4257306; 514630, 4257309; 514630, 4257318; 514631, 4257319; 514630,
4257320; 514589, 4257648; 514590, 4257650; 514585, 4257653; 514575,
4257659; 514567, 4257671; 514564, 4257685; 514566, 4257699; 514567,
4257709; 514573, 4257722; 514582, 4257738; 514606, 4257759; 514629,
4257780; 514641, 4257795; 514666, 4257821; 514671, 4257825; 514680,
4257829; 514694, 4257834; 514706, 4257838; 514715, 4257846; 514742,
4257871; 514762, 4257894; 514773, 4257904; 514779, 4257911; 514788,
4257926; 514791, 4257939; 514792, 4257950; 514792, 4257961; 514791,
4257970; 514790, 4257973; 514784, 4257986; 514762, 4258024; 514758,
4258032; 514751, 4258044; 514749, 4258053; 514746, 4258070; 514744,
4258109; 514741, 4258113; 514740, 4258115; 514736, 4258119; 514726,
4258123; 514716, 4258129; 514702, 4258135; 514683, 4258152; 514673,
4258169; 514666, 4258182; 514659, 4258218; 514654, 4258240; 514652,
4258263; 514654, 4258288; 514660, 4258327; 514666, 4258351; 514667,
4258352; 514674, 4258359; 514684, 4258363; 514684, 4258364; 514695,
4258407; 514648, 4258566; 514610, 4258593; 514601, 4258599; 514585,
4258604; 514566, 4258610; 514560, 4258613; 514550, 4258620; 514521,
4258654; 514510, 4258660; 514487, 4258673; 514468, 4258680; 514451,
4258690; 514423, 4258704; 514390, 4258726; 514288, 4258813; 514257,
4258854; 514255, 4258861; 514256, 4258869; 514259, 4258873; 514264,
4258876; 514288, 4258880; 514309, 4258876; 514318, 4258877; 514327,
4258884; 514331, 4258894; 514335, 4258909; 514335, 4258928; 514326,
4258967; 514326, 4258972; 514326, 4258977; 514326, 4258981; 514329,
4258985; 514332, 4258989; 514338, 4258992; 514345, 4258995; 514362,
4258998; 514375, 4258999; 514396, 4258996; 514412, 4258988; 514428,
4258979; 514443, 4258973; 514445, 4258969; 514445, 4258971; 514509,
4258998; 514583, 4259053; 514724, 4259187; 514918, 4259367; 514980,
4259423; 514981, 4259423; 514986, 4259428; 514996, 4259435; 515007,
4259441; 515055, 4259449; 515253, 4259636; 515352, 4259727; 515469,
4259814; 515449, 4259933; 515509, 4260017; 515554, 4260058; 515588,
4260202; 515675, 4260407; 515718, 4260481; 515786, 4260513; 515861,
4260579; 515811, 4260636; 515735, 4260659; 515658, 4260661; 515576,
4260573; 515542, 4260544; 515472, 4260588; 515442, 4260639; 515456,
4260710; 515458, 4260810; 515460, 4260832; 515426, 4260827; 515389,
4260814; 515375, 4260804; 515324, 4260841; 515255, 4260882; 515194,
4260867; 515155, 4260862; 515038, 4260902; 515012, 4260823; 515013,
4260796; 515029, 4260774; 515027, 4260705; 515014, 4260674; 514940,
4260630; 514892, 4260623; 514835, 4260654; 514756, 4260727; 514744,
4260762; 514750, 4260796; 514717, 4260820; 514692, 4260866; 514669,
4260918; 514635, 4260934; 514639, 4260868; 514609, 4260810; 514558,
4260789; 514487, 4260775; 514427, 4260798; 514400, 4260838; 514405,
4260874; 514405, 4260928; 514370, 4260973; 514279, 4261001; 514279,
4260943; 514235, 4260852; 514170, 4260856; 514119, 4260881; 514041,
4260879; 513959, 4260877; 513923, 4260905; 513886, 4260952; 513851,
4260948; 513805, 4260907; 513772, 4260900; 513712, 4260878; 513681,
4260842; 513622, 4260828; 513581, 4260813; 513551, 4260793; 513503,
4260810; 513453, 4260859; 513409, 4260927; 513442, 4260967; 513481,
4261058; 513497, 4261140; 513489, 4261235; 513540, 4261320; 513742,
4261320; 513871, 4261328; 513976, 4261347; 514035, 4261369; 514145,
4261324; 514252, 4261335; 514358, 4261296; 514356, 4261220; 514383,
4261174; 514410, 4261122; 514465, 4261138; 514508, 4261148; 514504,
4261185; 514510, 4261238; 514506, 4261297; 514520, 4261365; 514652,
[[Page 54371]]
4261443; 514815, 4261561; 514761, 4261649; 514648, 4261587; 514607,
4261642; 514543, 4261651; 514484, 4261608; 514460, 4261560; 514393,
4261525; 514248, 4261599; 514131, 4261568; 514011, 4261546; 514025,
4261626; 513938, 4261628; 513832, 4261588; 513781, 4261620; 513759,
4261696; 513825, 4261766; 513817, 4261822; 513869, 4261898; 513979,
4261912; 514059, 4261890; 514126, 4261931; 514130, 4262043; 514129,
4262149; 514147, 4262235; 514128, 4262311; 514178, 4262445; 514235,
4262548; 514275, 4262607; 514318, 4262658; 514400, 4262694; 514456,
4262745; 514385, 4262802; 514383, 4262890; 514370, 4262964; 514448,
4263138; 514593, 4263244; 514650, 4263341; 514707, 4263450; 514720,
4263519; 514893, 4263564; 515032, 4263626; 515101, 4263688; 515209,
4263765; 515238, 4263930; 515138, 4264007; 515187, 4264092; 515197,
4264212; 515223, 4264267; 515321, 4264382; 515314, 4264453; 515310,
4264485; 515399, 4264533; 515507, 4264589; 515545, 4264608; 515604,
4264714; 515632, 4264739; 515712, 4264751; 515794, 4264773; 515853,
4264796; 515859, 4264834; 515872, 4264900; returning to 515958,
4264938.
(ii) Note: Map of Santa Rosa Plain Unit, follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
* * * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31AU11.000
* * * * *
[[Page 54372]]
Dated: August 17, 2011.
Rachel Jacobson,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2011-21945 Filed 8-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C