Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California Tiger Salamander

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: January 22, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 14)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 3064-3094]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22ja04-26]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AT44

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Santa Barbara County Distinct
Population Segment of the California Tiger Salamander

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
designate critical habitat for the Santa Barbara County Distinct
Vertebrate Population Segment (DPS) of the California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense) (referred to here as the California tiger
salamander) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

[[Page 3065]]

amended (Act). In total, approximately 13,920 acres (ac) (5,633
hectares (ha)) fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical
habitat designation. The proposed critical habitat is located in Santa
Barbara County, California.
Critical habitat identifies specific areas that are essential to
the conservation of a listed species and, with respect to areas within
the geographic range occupied by the species, areas that may require
special management considerations or protection. The primary
constituent elements for the California tiger salamander are aquatic
and upland areas where suitable breeding and nonbreeding habitats are
interspersed throughout the landscape, and are interconnected by
continuous dispersal habitat. All areas proposed for designation as
critical habitat for the California tiger salamander contain one or
more of the primary constituent elements.
Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider economic and other
relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
Section 7 of the Act prohibits destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by
any Federal agency. We solicit data and comments from the public on all
aspects of this proposal, including data on the economic and other
impacts of designation. We may revise this proposal to incorporate or
address new information received during the comment period.

DATES: We will accept comments from all interested parties until March
22, 2004. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at
the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by March 8, 2004.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods:
1. You may submit written comments and information to the Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003.
2. You may hand-deliver written comments to our Ventura Office, at
the address given above.
3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to
fw1CTSCH@r1.fws.gov. Please see the Public Comments Solicited section
below for file format and other information about electronic filing.
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite
B, Ventura, California (telephone 805-644-1766).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and
Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California,
(telephone 805-644-1766; facsimile 805-644-3958).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments Solicited

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments or
suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party
concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments
particularly are sought concerning:
(1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined
to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including
whether the benefit of designation will outweigh any threats to the
species due to designation;
(2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of
California tiger salamander habitat, and what habitat is essential to
the conservation of the species and why;
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
(4) Any foreseeable economic or other potential impacts resulting
from the proposed designation and, in particular, any impacts on small
entities; and
(5) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating
public concerns and comments.
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials
concerning this proposal by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES
section). Please submit Internet comments to fw1CTSCH@r1.fws.gov in
ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form
of encryption. Please also include ``Attn: California tiger
salamander'' in your e-mail subject header and your name and return
address in the body of your message. If you do not receive a
confirmation from the system that we have received your Internet
message, contact us directly by calling our Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office at phone number 805-644-1766. Please note that the Internet
address fw1CTSCH@r1.fws.gov will be closed out at the termination of
the public comment period.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold
their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to
the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which
we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity,
as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or
address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your
comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make
all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and materials received will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above
address.

Designation of Critical Habitat Provides Little Additional Protection
to Species

In 30 years of implementing the Act, the Service has found that the
designation of statutory critical habitat provides little additional
protection to most listed species, while consuming significant amounts
of available conservation resources. The Service's present system for
designating critical habitat has evolved since its original statutory
prescription into a process that provides little real conservation
benefit, is driven by litigation and the courts rather than biology,
limits our ability to fully evaluate the science involved, consumes
enormous agency resources, and imposes huge social and economic costs.
The Service believes that additional agency discretion would allow our
focus to return to those actions that provide the greatest benefit to
the species most in need of protection.

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and
Implementing the Act

While attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to
successful conservation actions, we have consistently found that, in
most circumstances, the designation of critical habitat is of little
additional value for most listed species, yet it

[[Page 3066]]

consumes large amounts of conservation resources. Sidle (1987) stated,
``Because the Act can protect species with and without critical habitat
designation, critical habitat designation may be redundant to the other
consultation requirements of section 7.'' Currently, only 306 species
or 25 percent of the 1,211 listed species in the U.S. under the
jurisdiction of the Service have designated critical habitat. We
address the habitat needs of all 1,211 listed species through
conservation mechanisms such as listing, section 7 consultations, the
Section 4 recovery planning process, the Section 9 protective
prohibitions of unauthorized take, Section 6 funding to the States, and
the Section 10 incidental take permit process. The Service believes
that it is these measures that may make the difference between
extinction and survival for many species.

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat

We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate
critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging
critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have
subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and
court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now
consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the
Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct
scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most
biologically urgent species conservation needs.
The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that
limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to
Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to
comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result,
listing petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list
critically imperiled species, and final listing determinations on
existing proposals are all significantly delayed.
The accelerated schedules of court ordered designations have left
the Service with almost no ability to provide for adequate public
participation or to ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before
making decisions on listing and critical habitat proposals due to the
risks associated with noncompliance with judicially-imposed deadlines.
This in turn fosters a second round of litigation in which those who
fear adverse impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those
designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless, is very
expensive, and in the final analysis provides relatively little
additional protection to listed species.
The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the
cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of
the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to
public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with NEPA all
are part of the cost of critical habitat designation. None of these
costs result in any benefit to the species that is not already afforded
by the protections of the Act enumerated earlier, and they directly
reduce the funds available for direct and tangible conservation
actions.

Background

The California tiger salamander was first described as a distinct
species, Ambystoma californiense, by Gray in 1853 from specimens
collected in Monterey (Grinnell and Camp 1917). Storer (1925) and
Bishop (1943) likewise considered the California tiger salamander to be
a distinct species. However, Dunn (1940), Gehlbach (1967), and Frost
(1985) classified the California tiger salamander as a subspecies
(Ambystoma tigrinum californiense) within the A. tigrinum complex.
Based on recent morphological and genetic work, geographic isolation,
and ecological differences among the members of the A. tigrinum
complex, the California tiger salamander is currently considered to be
a distinct species (Shaffer and Stanley 1991; Jones 1993; Shaffer and
McKnight 1996; Irschick and Shaffer 1997) and was recognized as such in
the November 21, 1991, Annual Notice of Review (56 FR 58804). The
recent literature has uniformly accepted this position (Petranka 1998).
The California tiger salamander is a large terrestrial salamander
with a broad, rounded snout. Adults may reach a total length of 8.2 in,
with males generally averaging about 8 in and females averaging 6.8 in.
The small eyes have black irises and protrude from the head. Coloration
consists of white or pale yellow spots or bars on a black background on
the back and sides and a yellowish belly. Males can be distinguished
from females, especially during the breeding season, by their swollen
cloacae (a common chamber into which the intestinal, urinary, and
reproductive canals discharge), more developed tail fins, and larger
overall size (Loredo and Van Vuren 1996).
California tiger salamanders are restricted to California, and
their range does not overlap with any other species of tiger salamander
(Stebbins 1985). Within California, the Santa Barbara County DPS is
separated from the remainder of the range of the species by the Coast
Ranges, particularly the La Panza and Sierra Madre Ranges, and the
Carrizo Plain, which extends into the Temblor Range in eastern San Luis
Obispo and western Kern Counties (Shaffer et al. 1993).
Santa Barbara County California tiger salamanders constitute a DPS
with a potential range that is approximately 10 percent of Santa
Barbara County's 2,738 square miles (mi 2). Historically,
the range likely included what are now urbanized areas of the Cities of
Santa Maria and Orcutt. Much of the species' habitat in Santa Barbara
County has been lost or degraded by urban development and conversion of
rangeland to intensive agriculture, including vineyards. Forty-six
breeding ponds have been documented within the County.
The 46 known California tiger salamander breeding ponds appear to
be distributed in 6 general areas, which we refer to as ``populations''
or ``subpopulations'': western Santa Maria/Orcutt, eastern Santa Maria,
western Los Alamos/Careaga, eastern Los Alamos, the Purisima Hills, and
the Santa Rita Valley. Because known ponds in different populations are
separated from each other by a minimum of 2.49 miles (mi), which is
approximately twice the maximum distance that California tiger
salamanders have been observed to travel from a breeding pond, these
areas are treated as separate, unconnected populations for the purposes
of this critical habitat designation. However, some areas with
potential breeding ponds that have never been surveyed for California
tiger salamanders may link these areas, especially around the Purisima
Hills and Santa Rita Valley populations.
Although California tiger salamanders spend most of their lives in
upland habitats, their reproduction is tied to aquatic habitats. The
salamanders breeding in and living around a pool or seasonal pond, or a
local complex of pools or seasonal ponds, constitute a local
population. Historically, California tiger salamanders bred primarily
in natural vernal pools, but they also breed successfully in human-made
stock ponds created for ranching and agricultural purposes.
Migrations to and from breeding ponds occur during the rainy season
(November to May), with the greatest activity from December to February
(Storer 1925; Loredo and Van Vuren 1996; Trenham et al. 2000). Breeding
migrations are strongly associated with rainfall events. Breeding may
occur in

[[Page 3067]]

one major bout or during a prolonged period of several months,
depending on the rainfall pattern. During drought years, adults
(particularly females) migrate in low numbers. Males consistently
arrive at the breeding pond before females and stay approximately 40
days, which is 4 times longer than females stay (Loredo and Van Vuren
1996; Trenham et al. 2000).
Female California tiger salamanders mate and lay their eggs singly
or in small groups, typically attached to vegetation near the edge of
the breeding pond (Twitty 1941; Shaffer et al. 1993). After breeding,
adults leave the pond and return to small mammal burrows within upland
habitats (Loredo et al. 1996; Trenham 2001), although they may continue
to come out nightly for approximately the next 2 weeks to feed (Shaffer
et al. 1993).
California tiger salamander eggs require 2 to 4 weeks to hatch into
larvae (Storer 1925). After 3 to 6 months of development, the larvae
metamorphose (change into a different physical form) into terrestrial
juveniles. Amphibian larvae must grow to a critical minimum body size
before they can metamorphose (Wilbur and Collins 1973). The longer the
ponding duration, the larger the larvae and metamorphosed juveniles are
able to grow, and the more likely they are to survive and reproduce
(Pechmann et al. 1989; Semlitsch et al. 1988; Morey 1998; Trenham
1998b). The larvae will perish if a site dries before metamorphosis is
complete (Anderson 1968; Feaver 1971).
In the late spring or early summer, before the ponds dry
completely, metamorphosed juveniles leave them and enter upland
habitat. This emigration occurs in both wet and dry conditions (Loredo
and Van Vuren 1996; Loredo et al. 1996). Unlike during their winter
migration, the wet conditions that California tiger salamanders prefer
do not generally occur during the months when their breeding ponds
begin to dry. As a result, juveniles may be forced to leave their ponds
on rainless nights. Under these conditions, they may move only short
distances to find temporary upland sites for the dry summer months,
waiting until the next winter's rains to move further into suitable
upland refugia. Once juvenile California tiger salamanders leave their
birth ponds for upland refugia, they typically do not return to ponds
to breed for an average of 4 to 5 years. However, they remain active in
the uplands, coming to the surface during rainfall events to disperse
or forage (Trenham and Shaffer, unpublished manuscript).

Habitat Requirements and Characteristics

The California tiger salamander inhabits low-elevation (typically
below 1,400 ft (ft)), vernal pools and seasonal ponds and the
associated grassland, oak savannah, and coastal scrub plant communities
of the Santa Maria, Los Alamos, and Santa Rita Valleys in northwestern
Santa Barbara County (Shaffer et al. 1993; Service 2000).
The aquatic component of the California tiger salamander's habitat
consists of temporary ponded freshwater habitats. Historically, the
vernal pools constituted the majority of California tiger salamander
breeding habitat. Vernal pools typically form in topographic
depressions underlain by an impervious layer (such as claypan, hardpan,
or volcanic strata) that prevents downward percolation of water. Vernal
pool hydrology is characterized by ponding of water during the late
fall, winter, and spring, followed by complete desiccation during the
summer dry season (Holland and Jain 1998).
In Santa Barbara County, California tiger salamanders are found in
three general types of natural vernal pools, including (1) dunal or
deflational pools and ponds in sandy terraces; (2) isolated fold and
fault sag ponds within ridges or valleys; and (3) fluvial ponds of
varying origins in intermittent drainages within or along the margins
of terraces.
In addition to vernal pools and seasonal ponds, California tiger
salamanders also use small artificial water bodies such as stockponds
for breeding (Stebbins 1985; Zeiner et al. 1988; Shaffer et al. 1993).
However, stockponds often are poorer habitat for California tiger
salamanders than natural vernal pools. Hydroperiods may be so short
that larvae cannot metamorphose (e.g., early drawdown of irrigation
ponds), or so long that predatory fish and bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana)
can colonize the pond (Shaffer et al. 1993; Seymour and Westphal 1994).
Permanent wetlands can support breeding California tiger salamanders if
fish are not present, but extirpation of the salamander population is
likely if fish are introduced (Shaffer et al. 1993; Seymour and
Westphal 1994). Artificial ponds also require ongoing maintenance and
are often temporary structures. Periodic maintenance to remove silt
from stockponds or to reinforce or strengthen berms may also cause a
temporary loss of habitat.
Regardless of pond type, breeding ponds need to be inundated (hold
water) for a minimum of 12 weeks to allow for successful metamorphosis.
California tiger salamanders spend the majority of their lives in
upland habitats. The upland component of California tiger salamander
habitat typically consists of grassland savannah with scattered oak
trees. However, in Santa Barbara County, some occupied California tiger
salamander breeding ponds exist within mixed grassland and woodland
habitats, and a few ponds are found in woodlands, scrub, or chaparral
habitats.
Within these upland habitats, adult California tiger salamanders
spend the greater part of their lives in the underground burrows of
small mammals, especially the burrows of California ground squirrels
(Spermophilus beecheyi) and valley pocket gophers (Thommomys bottae)
(Barry and Shaffer 1994), at depths ranging from 7.9 in to 3.3 ft
beneath the ground surface (Trenham 2001). These burrows provide food
for California tiger salamanders, as well as protection from the sun
and wind associated with the dry California climate that can cause
dessication (drying out) of amphibian skin. Although California tiger
salamanders are members of a family of ``burrowing'' salamanders,
California tiger salamanders are not known to create their own burrows
in the wild, likely due to the hardness of soils in the California
ecosystems in which they are found. Put simply, California tiger
salamanders require small mammal burrows for survival. Because they
live underground in the burrows of mammals, they are rarely encountered
even where abundant.
The burrows may be active or inactive, but because they collapse
within 18 months if not maintained, an active population of burrowing
mammals is necessary to sustain sufficient underground refugia for the
species (Loredo et al. 1996). Adult California tiger salamanders are
rarely found on the surface or under logs or other debris, but they
will emerge from their burrows to move around and apparently forage
(Trenham and Shaffer unpublished manuscript).
Little is known about what California tiger salamanders are doing
while in burrows, as they are difficult to observe while underground.
Although the upland burrows inhabited by California tiger salamanders
have often been referred to as ``aestivation'' sites, which implies a
state of inactivity, most evidence suggests that California tiger
salamanders remain active in their underground dwellings. Trenham
(2001) recorded underground movements within burrow systems, and other

[[Page 3068]]

researchers have observed active California tiger salamanders using
fiberoptic or infrared scopes (Semonsen 1998; Michael van Hattem,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, pers. comm. 2003). Because
California tiger salamanders arrive at breeding ponds in good condition
and are heavier when entering a pond than when leaving, researchers
have long inferred that the California tiger salamanders are feeding
while underground. Recent direct observations have confirmed this
(Trenham 2001; van Hattem, pers. comm. 2003). Thus, ``upland'' or
``nonbreeding'' habitat is a more accurate description of the
terrestrial areas used by California tiger salamanders.

Dispersal and Migration

Movements made by California tiger salamanders can be grouped into
two main categories: (1) Breeding migration; and (2) interpond
dispersal. Breeding migration is the movement of salamanders to and
from a pond from the surrounding upland habitat. After metamorphosis,
juveniles move away from breeding ponds into the surrounding uplands,
where they live continuously for several years (on average, 4 years).
Upon reaching sexual maturity, most individuals return to their natal/
birth pond to breed, while 20 percent disperse to other ponds (Trenham
et al. 2001). Following breeding, adult California tiger salamanders
return to upland habitats, where they may live for one or more years
before breeding again (Trenham et al. 2000).
California tiger salamanders are known to travel large distances
from breeding ponds into upland habitats. Maximum distances moved are
generally difficult to establish for any species, but California tiger
salamanders have been recorded to disperse 1.2 mi (2 kilometers (km))
from breeding ponds. California tiger salamanders are known to travel
between breeding ponds; one study found that 20 to 25 percent of the
individuals captured at one pond were recaptured later at ponds
approximately 1,900 and 2,200 ft away (Trenham et al. 2001).
On the Stanford University campus, California tiger salamanders
have moved up to 1 mi from their natal/breeding ponds. In Santa Barbara
County, an adult California tiger salamander was found more than 1.2 mi
from a breeding pond (S. Sweet, in litt. 1998). In addition to
traveling long distances during migration to or dispersal from ponds,
California tiger salamanders actually reside in burrows that are far
from ponds. In Santa Barbara County, an adult California tiger
salamander was seen in the mouth of a burrow 1,900 ft from the nearest
known breeding pond in June, a month when California tiger salamander
dispersal is unlikely (Rob Schoenholtz, biologist, LSA Associates,
pers. comm. 2002). At one site in Contra Costa County, hundreds of
California tiger salamanders have been captured three years in a row in
upland habitat approximately 0.5 mi (2,640 ft) from the nearest
breeding pond (Sue Orloff, biologist, IBIS Environmental, in litt.
2003).
Although the observations above show that California tiger
salamanders can travel far, typically they stay closer to breeding
ponds. Evidence suggests that juvenile California tiger salamanders
disperse further into upland habitats than adult California tiger
salamanders. A trapping study conducted in Solano County during winter
2002-03 found that juveniles used upland habitats further from breeding
ponds than adults (Trenham and Shaffer, unpublished manuscript). More
juvenile salamanders were captured at distances of 328, 656, and 1,312
ft (100, 200 and 400 meters (m), respectively) from a breeding pond
than at 164 ft (50 m). Large numbers (approximately 20 percent of total
captures) were found 1,312 ft (400 m) from a breeding pond. Fitting a
distribution curve to the data revealed that 95 percent of juvenile
salamanders could be found within 2,099 ft (640 m) of the pond, with
the remaining 5 percent being found at even greater distances.
Preliminary results from the 2003-04 trapping efforts detected juvenile
California tiger salamanders at even further distances, with a large
proportion of the total salamanders caught at 2,297 ft (700 m) from the
breeding pond (Trenham et al., unpublished data). Surprisingly, most
juveniles captured, even those at 700 m, were still moving away from
ponds (Ben Fitzpatrick, University of California at Davis, pers. comm.
2004). In Santa Barbara County, juvenile California tiger salamanders
have been trapped approximately 1,200 ft (366 m) away while dispersing
from their natal pond (Science Applications International Corporation
(SAIC), unpublished data). These data show that many California tiger
salamanders travel far while still in the juvenile stage.
Post-breeding movements away from breeding ponds by adults appear
to be much smaller. During post-breeding emigration, radio-equipped
adult California tiger salamanders were tracked to burrows 62 to 813 ft
(19 to 248 m) from their breeding ponds (Trenham, 2001). These reduced
movements may be due to adult California tiger salamanders having
depleted physical reserves post-breeding, or also due to the drier
weather conditions that can occur during the period when adults leave
the ponds.
The spatial distribution of California tiger salamanders in the
uplands surrounding breeding ponds is a key issue for conservation
planning. Although it might be supposed that California tiger
salamanders will move only short distances if abundant burrows are
found near their ponds, this is not the case. In the aforementioned
study in Solano County, while abundant burrows are available near the
pond, a nearly equal number of California tiger salamanders were
captured at 328, 656, and 1,312 ft (100, 200 and 400 m, respectively)
from the breeding pond (Trenham and Shaffer, unpublished manuscript).
Similarly, Trenham (2001) tracked salamanders to burrows up to 814 ft
(248 m) from a breeding pond, although burrows were abundant at
distances nearer to the pond. In addition, rather than staying in a
single burrow, most individuals used several successive burrows at
increasing distances from the pond.
Although the studies discussed above provide an approximation of
the distances that California tiger salamanders regularly move from
their breeding ponds, upland habitat features will drive the details of
movements in a particular landscape. Unlike other ambystomatid
salamanders, California tiger salamanders and other tiger salamanders
are grassland animals, and do not favor forested areas as corridors for
movement or long-term residence. Trenham (2001) found that radio-
tracked adults favored grasslands with scattered large oaks, over more
densely wooded areas. A drift-fence survey at a Santa Barbara County
pond that is bordered by a strawberry field found that many emigrating
juveniles moved towards the strawberry field; however, no adults were
captured entering the pond from this direction. Most of the California
tiger salamanders entered the pond from extensive, overgrazed grassy
flats rather than sandhill or eucalyptus habitats in other quadrants
(Steve Sykes, University of California at Santa Barbara, unpublished
data 2003).
Based on radio-tracked adults, there is no indication that certain
habitat types are favored as corridors for terrestrial movements
(Trenham 2001). In addition, at two ponds completely encircled by drift
fences and pitfall traps, captures of arriving adults and dispersing
new metamorphs were

[[Page 3069]]

distributed roughly evenly around the ponds. Thus, it appears that
dispersal into the terrestrial habitat occurs randomly with respect to
direction and habitat types.
Most California tiger salamanders breed in the pond where they
hatched and developed as larvae, and we refer to these aggregations at
specific breeding ponds as populations. Because random events, such as
disease or droughts, may occasionally extirpate local populations
(i.e., drive them to local extinction), maintaining interpond dispersal
is important for the long-term viability of California tiger
salamanders in an area. In Monterey County, Trenham et al. (2001)
showed that a significant minority of California tiger salamanders
dispersed to other ponds. In that study, more than 20 percent of both
first-time and experienced breeders were recaptured breeding at ponds
other than where they were last captured. Documented dispersers had
moved up to 2,200 ft (670 m), and, based on a projected exponential
relationship between dispersal probability and distance, less than 1
percent of dispersers are likely to move between ponds separated by
0.70 mi (1,158 m). The frequency of dispersal among subpopulations will
ultimately depend on the distance between the ponds or complexes and
also on the intervening habitat (e.g., salamanders may move more
quickly through grassland than through more densely vegetated
scrublands).
Adults may migrate long distances between summering and breeding
sites. The distance from breeding sites may depend on local topography
and vegetation, the distribution of ground squirrel or other rodent
burrows, and climatic conditions (Stebbins 1989; Hunt 1998).
Observations of California tiger salamanders on the surface away from
ponds (presumably migrating to or from the breeding pond, moving from
one burrow to another, or in search of food) almost inevitably coincide
with recent rainfall, suggesting that surface movement is limited to
periods of precipitation.
For a sustainable breeding population to exist, we need to ensure
that a sufficient fraction of the adult and juvenile salamanders
hatched in a given pond survive their excursions into the surrounding
uplands and return to breed again. Taylor and Scott (1997) determined
that for sustainable populations of a demographically similar species,
Ambystoma opacum, survivorship in the uplands should be at least 70
percent per year. Because in Monterey County natural annual mortality
in an undeveloped landscape was roughly 30 percent (Trenham et al.
2000), we need to ensure that upland habitat modifications in Santa
Barbara County do not appreciably increase mortality.

Previous Federal Actions

On September 18, 1985, we published the Vertebrate Notice of Review
(NOR) (50 FR 37958), which included the California tiger salamander as
a category 2 candidate species for possible future listing as
threatened or endangered. Category 2 candidates were those taxa for
which information contained in our files indicated that listing may be
appropriate but for which additional data were needed to support a
listing proposal. The January 6, 1989, and November 21, 1991, candidate
NORs (54 FR 554 and 56 FR 58804, respectively) also included the
California tiger salamander as a category 2 candidate, soliciting
information on the status of the species.
On February 21, 1992, we received a petition from Dr. H. Bradley
Shaffer of the University of California at Davis, to list the
California tiger salamander as an endangered species. We published a
90-day petition finding on November 19, 1992 (57 FR 54545), concluding
that the petition presented substantial information indicating that
listing may be warranted. On April 18, 1994, we published a 12-month
petition finding (59 FR 18353) that the listing of the California tiger
salamander was warranted but precluded by higher priority listing
actions. We elevated the species to category 1 status at that time,
which was reflected in the November 15, 1994, Animal NOR (59 FR 58982).
Category 1 candidates were those taxa for which we had on file
sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to
support preparation of listing proposals. On April 10, 1995, Pub. L.
104-6 imposed a moratorium on listings and critical habitat
designations and rescinded $1.5 million funding from our listing
program. The moratorium was lifted and listing funding was restored
through passage of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act on April 26,
1996. We discontinued the use of different categories of candidates in
the NOR published February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7596), and defined
``candidate species'' as those meeting the definition of former
category 1. We maintained the California tiger salamander as a
candidate species in that NOR, as well as in subsequent NORs published
on September 19, 1997 (62 FR 49398), October 25, 1999 (64 FR 57533),
and October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54808).
On January 19, 2000, we published an emergency rule listing the
Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander as
endangered (65 FR 3096) together with a proposed rule to list the DPS
as endangered (65 FR 3110). On September 21, 2000, we listed the Santa
Barbara County DPS as endangered (65 FR 57242). On May 23, 2003, we
published a proposed rule (1) to list the Central California DPS of the
California tiger salamander as a threatened species, (2) to downlist
both the Santa Barbara County and the Sonoma County DPSs of the
California tiger salamander from endangered to threatened status, and
(3) to exempt existing routine ranching operations under Section 4(d)
of the Act from the take prohibition of section 9 of the Act in the
event we list the Central California DPS and reclassify either the
Santa Barbara County or Sonoma County DPSs from endangered to
threatened (68 FR 28648). We have not yet published final decisions on
any of the proposals in this proposed rule.
On February 25, 2003, the Environmental Defense Center and Center
for Biological Diversity filed a complaint challenging our failure to
designate critical habitat for the Santa Barbara County DPS of the
California tiger salamander (Environmental Defense Center et al. v.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., EVCD 03-00195 (C.D.Cal)). By an
order dated August 7, 2003, the district court ordered us to publish a
proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Santa Barbara DPS
by January 15, 2004. This proposed rule complies with the court order.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the
time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of
the species and (II) that may require special management considerations
or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are
necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to the point
at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 requires consultation on
Federal actions that are likely to

[[Page 3070]]

result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
In our regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define destruction or adverse
modification as ``a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably
diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and
recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but are not
limited to, alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or
biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to
be critical.'' Aside from the added protection that may be provided
under section 7, the Act does not provide other forms of protection to
lands designated as critical habitat. Because consultation under
section 7 of the Act does not apply to activities on private or other
non-Federal lands that do not involve a Federal nexus, critical habitat
designation would not afford any additional protections under the Act
against such activities.
To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat must
first be ``essential to the conservation of the species.'' Critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide
essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are
found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR
424.12(b)).
Section 4 requires that we designate critical habitat at the time
of listing and based on what we know at the time of the designation.
When we designate critical habitat at the time of listing or under
short court-ordered deadlines, we will often not have sufficient
information to identify all areas of critical habitat. We are required,
nevertheless, to make a decision and thus must base our designations on
what, at the time of designation, we know to be critical habitat.
Within the geographic area occupied by the species, we will
designate only areas currently known to be essential. Essential areas
should already have the features and habitat characteristics that are
necessary to sustain the species. We will not speculate about what
areas might be found to be essential if better information became
available, or what areas may become essential over time. If the
information available at the time of designation does not show that an
area provides essential life cycle needs of the species, then the area
should not be included in the critical habitat designation. Within the
geographic area occupied by the species, we will not designate areas
that do not now have the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50
CFR 424.12(b), that provide essential life cycle needs of the species.
We have also excluded from this proposal some areas within the range of
the species where California tiger salamanders are currently found,
areas of suitable habitat where they might potentially occur, and some
localities where they historically occurred. Only areas considered
essential to the conservation of the species are included in this
proposal.
Our regulations state that, ``The Secretary shall designate as
critical habitat areas outside the geographic area presently occupied
by the species only when a designation limited to its present range
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species' (50 CFR
424.12(e)). Accordingly, when the best available scientific and
commercial data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the
species so require, we will not designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographic area occupied by the species.
Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species
Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271),
provides criteria, establishes procedures, and provides guidance to
ensure that decisions made by the Service represent the best scientific
and commercial data available. It requires Service biologists, to the
extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific
and commercial data available, to use primary and original sources of
information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat. When determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary
source of information should be the listing package for the species.
Additional information may be obtained from a recovery plan, articles
in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and
counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological
assessments, unpublished materials, and expert opinion or personal
knowledge.
Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of
critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that may
eventually be determined to be essential for the conservation of the
species. For these reasons, all should understand that critical habitat
designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is
unimportant to California tiger salamanders. Areas outside the critical
habitat designation will continue to be subject to conservation actions
that may be implemented under section 7(a)(1), and to the regulatory
protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the
section 9 take prohibition, as determined on the basis of the best
available information at the time of the action. We specifically
anticipate that federally funded or assisted projects affecting listed
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species
conservation planning efforts if new information available to these
planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Methods

In determining areas that are essential to conserve the California
tiger salamander, we used the best scientific and commercial data
available. We have reviewed the overall approach to the conservation of
the California tiger salamander undertaken by local, State, and Federal
agencies operating within the species' range since its listing in 2000,
and recommended to us by the California tiger salamander recovery team.
We have also reviewed available information that pertains to the
habitat requirements of this species. The material included data in
reports submitted during section 7 consultations and by biologists
holding section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits; research published in
peer-reviewed articles and presented in academic theses and agency
reports; and regional Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages.

Primary Constituent Elements

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical
habitat, we are required to base critical habitat determinations on the
best scientific and commercial data available and to consider those
physical and biological features (primary constituent elements (PCEs))
that are essential to the conservation of the species, and that may
require special management considerations and protection. These
include, but are not limited to: space for individual and population
growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or
other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter;
sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of
offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of

[[Page 3071]]

the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
The areas proposed for designation as critical habitat for the
California tiger salamander are designed to provide sufficient aquatic
habitat for breeding and upland habitat as refugia for adults to
maintain and sustain populations of California tiger salamanders
throughout their range, and provide those habitat components essential
for the conservation of the species. Due to the complex life history
and dispersal capabilities of California tiger salamanders, and the
dynamic nature of the environments in which they are found, the primary
constituent elements described below should be found throughout the
units that are being designated as critical habitat. Special
management, such as habitat rehabilitation efforts (e.g., removal of
nonnative predators, control of introduced tiger salamanders, erosion
and sediment control measures), may be necessary throughout the area
being designated. Critical habitat for California tiger salamanders
will provide for breeding and nonbreeding habitat and for dispersal
between these habitats, as well as allowing for an increase in the size
of California tiger salamander populations, which is essential to the
conservation of the subspecies.
Critical habitat includes: essential aquatic habitat, essential
upland nonbreeding season habitat with underground refugia, and
dispersal habitat connecting occupied California tiger salamander
locations to each other.
Based on our current knowledge of the life history and ecology of
the species and the relationship of its essential life history
functions to its habitat, as summarized above in the Background
section, we have determined that the California tiger salamander
requires the following primary constituent elements:
(1) Standing bodies of fresh water, including natural and man-made
(e.g., stock) ponds, vernal pools, and dune ponds, and other ephemeral
or permanent water bodies that typically become inundated during winter
rains and hold water for a sufficient length of time (i.e., 12 weeks)
necessary for the species to complete the aquatic portion of its life
cycle.
(2) Barrier-free uplands adjacent to breeding ponds that contain
small mammal burrows, including but not limited to burrows created by
the California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) and Botta's
pocket gopher (Thommomys bottae). Small mammals are essential in
creating the underground habitat that adult California tiger
salamanders depend upon for food, shelter, and protection from the
elements and predation.
(3) Upland areas between breeding locations (PCE 1) and areas with
small mammal burrows (PCE 2) that allow for dispersal among such sites.
We describe the relationship between each of these PCEs and the
conservation of the salamander in more detail below.
The essential aquatic habitat described as the first PCE is
essential for California tiger salamander breeding and for providing
space, food, and cover necessary to sustain early life history stages
of California tiger salamanders. Breeding habitat consists of fresh
water bodies, including natural and man-made (e.g., stock) ponds,
vernal pools, and dune ponds. To be considered essential, aquatic
habitats must have the potential to hold water for a minimum of 12
weeks in the winter or spring in a year of average rainfall because
this is the amount of time needed for juveniles to complete
metamorphosis and become capable of surviving in upland habitats.
During periods of drought or less-than-average rainfall, these breeding
sites may not hold water long enough for individuals to complete
metamorphosis, but these sites would still be considered essential
because they constitute breeding habitat in years of average rainfall.
Without its essential aquatic habitat, the California tiger salamander
would not survive, as no breeding could occur.
Associated upland habitat containing underground refugia described
as the second PCE is essential for the survival of adult California
tiger salamanders and juveniles that have recently undergone
metamorphosis. Adult and juvenile California tiger salamanders are
terrestrial, and they enter aquatic habitats only for short periods of
time to breed. For the majority of their life cycle, California tiger
salamanders depend for survival on upland habitats containing
underground refugia in the form of small mammal burrows. These
underground refugia provide protection from the hot, dry weather
typical of Santa Barbara County in the nonbreeding season. California
tiger salamanders also find food in small mammal burrows and rely on
the burrows for protection from predators. The presence of small
burrowing mammal populations is essential for constructing and
maintaining burrows.
The dispersal habitat described as the third PCE is essential for
the conservation of the California tiger salamander. Protecting the
ability of California tiger salamanders to move freely across the
landscape in search of breeding ponds is essential in maintaining gene
flow and for recolonization of sites that are temporarily extirpated.
Lifetime reproductive success for California and other tiger
salamanders is low. Trenham et al. (2000) found the average female bred
1.4 times and produced 8.5 young that survived to metamorphosis per
reproductive effort. This resulted in roughly 11 metamorphic offspring
over the lifetime of a female. In part, this low reproductive success
is due to the extended time it takes for 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, many breed only
once. Combined with low survivorship of metamorphosed individuals (in
some populations, less than 5 percent of marked juveniles survive to
become breeding adults (Trenham et al. 2000)), reproductive output in
most years is not sufficient to maintain populations. This trend
suggests that the species requires occasional ``boom'' breeding events
to prevent extirpation (temporary or permanent loss of the species from
a particular habitat) or extinction (Trenham et al. 2000). With such
low recruitment, isolated populations are susceptible to unusual,
randomly occurring natural events as well as from human-caused factors
that reduce breeding success and individual survival. Factors that
repeatedly lower breeding success in isolated pools can quickly
extirpate a population. Therefore, a critical element for successful
conservation is the maintenance of sets of interconnected sites that
are within the ``rescue'' distance of other ponds (Trenham et al.
2001).
Dispersal habitat described as the third PCE is also essential in
preserving the California tiger salamander's population structure. The
life history and ecology of the California tiger salamander make it
likely that this species has a metapopulation structure (Hanski and
Gilpin 1991). A metapopulation is a set of local populations or
breeding sites within an area, where typically migration from one local
population or breeding site to other areas containing suitable habitat
is possible, but not routine. Movement between areas containing
suitable habitat (i.e., dispersal) is restricted due to inhospitable
conditions around and between areas of suitable habitat. Because many
of the areas of suitable habitat may be small and support small numbers
of salamanders, local extinction of these small units may be common. A
metapopulation's

[[Page 3072]]

persistence depends on the combined dynamics of these local extinctions
and the subsequent recolonization of these areas through dispersal
(Hanski and Gilpin 1991; Hanski 1994).
Essential dispersal habitat generally consists of upland areas
adjacent to essential aquatic habitat that are not isolated from
breeding ponds by barriers that California tiger salamanders cannot
cross. Essential dispersal habitat provides connectivity among
California tiger salamander breeding ponds. While California tiger
salamanders can bypass many obstacles, and do not require a particular
type of habitat for dispersal, the habitat connecting essential aquatic
habitat must be free of barriers (e.g., a physical or biological
feature that prevents salamanders from dispersing beyond the feature).
Examples of barriers are areas of steep topography devoid of soil or
vegetation and State Highway 101. Agricultural lands such as row crops,
orchards, vineyards, and pastures do not constitute barriers to the
dispersal of California tiger salamanders. In general, we propose
critical habitat that allows for dispersal between breeding locations
within 0.70 mi (1,158 m) of each other; however, we decreased or
increased this distance based on site-specific conditions within each
unit.
In summary, the primary constituent elements consist of three
components. At a minimum, this will include suitable breeding locations
and associated uplands surrounding these water bodies that are
connected by dispersal habitat that is free of barriers.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

To identify areas that are essential to the conservation of the
California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County, we first looked at
the potential range of the species, as was mapped in spring of 2000 by
biologists who had conducted California tiger salamander surveys
throughout Santa Barbara County. The boundaries of the potential range
were developed based on topography, geology, and survey information. In
some areas (e.g., Vandenberg Air Force Base), seemingly appropriate
habitat was excluded based on several years of negative survey results.
Other areas (e.g., the Solomon Hills) had slopes too steep to support
ponding necessary for California tiger salamander breeding. Other areas
of intact habitat adjacent to known ponds were included, and areas with
extensive ponded wetland habitat (e.g., Guadalupe Lakes) were also
included.
We then focused on areas within the range where we had credible
records (e.g., museum voucher specimens, reports filed by biologists
holding section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits) indicating California
tiger salamander presence. The known locations of California tiger
salamanders fall into six disparate areas of Santa Barbara County. Our
conservation strategy for the DPS focuses on providing sufficient
breeding and upland habitat to ensure high enough adult survival to
maintain and sustain existing populations of California tiger
salamanders in each of these six areas within the County. Each of the
six areas has a unique combination of habitat types, breeding pond
types, landscape features, surrounding land uses, and topography.
Because so few extant populations exist, and the threats to these are
substantial, we determined that these six areas were essential to the
conservation of the species.
Conserving California tiger salamanders over the long term requires
a three-pronged approach: (1) Protecting the hydrology and water
quality of breeding pools and ponds; (2) retaining or providing for
connectivity between breeding locations for genetic exchange and
recolonization; and (3) protecting sufficient upland habitat around
each breeding location to allow for high enough adult survival to
maintain a breeding population over the long term. An explanation of
how we determined the amount of upland habitat that is essential for
the conservation of the California tiger salamander in each critical
habitat unit is described in more detail below.
Once we identified the known breeding locations, we mapped the
upland watershed of each pond based on aerial photographs taken in 2002
(AirPhotoUSA Inc. 2002) overlain with topographic relief lines.
Protecting the watersheds of breeding ponds is essential for two
reasons: (1) To ensure that the amount of water entering the pond is
not altered too much (which can allow for colonization of breeding
sites by bullfrogs and fish, which can prey upon California tiger
salamander eggs and larvae); and (2) to preserve water quality by
minimizing the entry of sediments and other contaminants to the
breeding ponds. Therefore, our proposed critical habitat boundaries
include the watersheds of all known breeding ponds.
We then identified the upland habitat surrounding the ponds where
juvenile and adult California tiger salamanders live during the
majority of their life cycle. To determine a general guideline for the
amount of upland habitat necessary to support a population of adult
California tiger salamanders, we reviewed the primary literature
regarding California tiger salamander upland habitat use, including
Trenham (2000), Trenham et al. (2000), and Trenham and Shaffer
(unpublished manuscript). We also reviewed information from other
biologists who have conducted upland habitat use studies but have not
yet written up the results (e.g., Sue Orloff, Steve Sykes, SAIC--see
Background section).
Extensive data indicate that California tiger salamanders do not
remain primarily in burrows close to breeding ponds, but instead move
some distance out into the surrounding landscape. As described in the
Background section, California tiger salamanders have been found up to
1.2 mi (2 kms) from breeding ponds. However, most California tiger
salamanders are found closer to the ponds. Two studies conducted in
Monterey and Solano Counties provide the best available data on upland
movement distances. First, the mark-recapture study of Trenham et al.
(2001) showed that California tiger salamanders commonly moved between
ponds separated by 2,200 ft (670 m), suggesting that movements of this
magnitude are not rare. Second, the ongoing study at Olcott Lake
(Solano County) has directly documented the presence of high densities
of juvenile and adult California tiger salamanders at upland locations
at least 1,312 ft (400 m) from this breeding pond. Recent trapping
efforts captured large numbers (representing 16 percent of total
captures) of juvenile salamanders at 2,296 ft (700 m) (Trenham et al.
unpublished data). Trenham and Shaffer (unpublished manuscript)
determined that conserving upland habitats within 2,200 ft (670 m) of
breeding ponds would protect 95 percent of California tiger salamanders
at their study location in Solano County. Based upon this information,
we focused on protecting upland areas within 2,200 ft of a known
breeding pond. Protecting an upland habitat area with a radius of 2,200
ft around a single pond yields a minimum area of 350 ac, but depending
on the size of the pond, can be more than that.
We used 2,200 ft or 350 ac as a guide for the amount of upland
habitat around known breeding locations to be mapped as critical
habitat for the purposes of preserving California tiger salamanders
within small mammal burrows (PCE 2). However, although the studies
discussed above provide an approximation of the distances that
California tiger salamanders can move from their breeding ponds in
search of suitable upland refugia, we recognize that upland habitat
features will influence California tiger salamander

[[Page 3073]]

movements in a particular landscape. Therefore, where we had site-
specific information on those features such as land use, topography,
and geologic landform, we altered critical habitat lines to reflect
that information. In some locations, we protected a shorter distance
than 2,200 ft if: (1) Commercial or residential developed areas were
present (e.g., Santa Maria); (2) the upland habitat was separated from
the breeding habitat by a substantial barrier (e.g., State Highway
101); (3) the habitat type within that distance was unsuitable for
California tiger salamanders (e.g., hard chaparral); or (4) the area
did not provide underground refugia because it could not support small
mammal burrowing systems due to geological features such as fractured
shales. We also excluded areas based on a combination of topography and
geology. If soil and vegetative conditions are appropriate, California
tiger salamanders can traverse areas of steep topography. Some steep
areas do not support soils or vegetation that allow for California
tiger salamanders to traverse. Therefore, we excluded areas that we
know to be both steep and devoid of vegetation or burrowing mammal
potential.
In some cases, we extended the boundary of critical habitat beyond
2,200 ft if (1) potential but unsurveyed breeding locations were
present that would augment California tiger salamander populations; (2)
no barriers to California tiger salamander dispersal were present and
the habitat was suitable; (3) watershed boundaries for known breeding
ponds exceed distances of 2,200 ft; or (4) the upland area between
breeding ponds was conducive to California tiger salamander travel
because dispersal between ponds within the units is essential for
California tiger salamander gene flow.
We excluded most areas of frequently harvested agricultural lands
from the boundaries of critical habitat areas. Agricultural lands were
only included if they were directly adjacent to known breeding ponds,
thereby substantially reducing upland refugia for California tiger
salamanders breeding in that pond, or were important for connectivity
between known breeding locations, or in the case of the two units
within the Santa Maria Valley, so little California tiger salamander
upland habitat is left that restoration is necessary to provide
sufficient upland refugia to sustain a population of adult California
tiger salamanders.
To determine the areas to be mapped within each unit for the
purposes of dispersal (i.e., PCE 3), we used a distance of 0.70 mi
(1,158 m) as a general guide. The only known study we are aware of that
specifically investigated movement of California tiger salamanders
between breeding ponds projected that 0.70 mi (1,158 m) would encompass
99 percent of interpond dispersal (Trenham et al. 2000). However, we
recognize that (as with movements in search of suitable underground
refugia) upland habitat features influence California tiger salamander
movements within a particular landscape. Thus, we altered critical
habitat unit boundaries to reflect site specific knowledge where we had
it. In some units, we protected a shorter dispersal distance than 0.70
mi (1,158 m) for similar reasons as described for PCE 2 (e.g., barriers
prevented movement, no ponds existed in a given direction).
In one unit (the eastern Santa Maria Unit) we propose to include a
dispersal corridor that extends a greater distance than 0.70 mi (1,158
m) between breeding locations. Given the observations by S. Sweet (in
litt. 1998), which detect an adult California tiger salamander 1.2 mi
from the closest breeding location, and S. Orloff's (in litt. 2003)
detections of hundreds of California tiger salamanders approximately
0.5 mi from the closest breeding location, we determined the longer
corridor within this unit was justified because of the relatively flat,
barrier-free terrain between the breeding locations. We determined that
the connection between the two known breeding areas is essential for
the conservation of the California tiger salamander in this area,
because without it these locations would become isolated and much more
susceptible to extirpation.
We are proposing to designate critical habitat on lands that are
considered essential to the conservation of the California tiger
salamander. These areas have the primary constituent elements described
above.
All of the known locations for the California tiger salamander in
Santa Barbara County occur on non-Federal and private lands. Section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes us to issue permits for the take of
listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activities. An incidental
take permit application must be supported by a habitat conservation
plan (HCP) that identifies conservation measures that the permittee
agrees to implement for the species to minimize and mitigate the
impacts of the requested incidental take. We often exclude non-Federal
public lands and private lands that are covered by an existing
operative HCP and executed implementation agreement (IA) under section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from designated critical habitat because the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion as discussed
in section 4(b)(2) of the Act. In the case of the California tiger
salamander, no lands are covered by an existing operative HCP. We are
aware of three HCPs under development; however, these draft HCPs are
not proposed for exclusion because we have not yet made an initial
determination that they meet our issuance criteria and are ready for
public notice and comment.
When defining critical habitat boundaries, we made an effort to
exclude all developed areas, such as towns, housing developments, and
other lands unlikely to contain primary constituent elements essential
for California tiger salamander conservation. However, our minimum
mapping unit does not exclude all developed lands, such as lands
supporting outbuildings, paddocks, roads, paved areas, lawns, and other
lands unlikely to contain the primary constituent elements. Federal
actions limited to these areas would not trigger a section 7
consultation, unless they affect the species and/or the primary
constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat.
In summary, we propose six areas where populations of California
tiger salamander are known to occur as critical habitat because we
believe protection of those areas is essential to the conservation of
the species. We then mapped as critical habitat sufficient habitat to
ensure the conservation of the California tiger salamander.

Special Management Considerations

Management of the critical habitat areas in a manner that provides
for the conservation of the California tiger salamander is essential.
Areas in need of management include not only the immediate locations
where the species may be present, but additional areas adjacent to
these that can provide for normal population fluctuations that may
occur in response to natural and unpredictable events. The California
tiger salamander may be dependent upon habitat components beyond the
immediate areas where individuals of the species occur, if these areas
support the presence of small mammals or are important in maintaining
ecological processes such as hydrology, expansion of distribution,
recolonization, and maintenance of natural predator-prey relationships.
Our recommendations for special management that is needed for the
critical habitat of the California tiger salamander are:

[[Page 3074]]

(1) Aquatic habitats should be free of non-native and introduced
predators, such as bullfrogs and fish. We recommend that bullfrogs and
fish within known or potential breeding ponds for the California tiger
salamander should be removed. We recommend that human-made stockponds
managed to prevent colonization by these predators.
(2) Disturbance to aquatic habitats should be minimized during the
breeding season to minimize disturbance to the California tiger
salamander's more sensitive life stages, and to reduce sedimentation
and erosion into water bodies. Researchers and monitors should only
enter ponds during the breeding season when the conservation benefits
of obtaining scientific information outweigh the negative effects of
disturbance.
(3) We recommend that stock pond maintenance occur after the
breeding season.
(4) Aquatic habitats should be protected from contamination by
chemicals such as those used for agricultural purposes. Operators
should use best management practices to avoid contaminating wetlands.
Ranchers should avoid placing salt licks for livestock adjacent to
breeding ponds.
(5) Small mammal populations should be not be eliminated to provide
California tiger salamanders with essential underground refugia used
for foraging, protection from predators, and shelter from the elements.
(6) Upland habitats between breeding ponds should be managed to
allow for successful California tiger salamander dispersal and to
minimize impassable barriers. Sources of mortality such as roads should
be designed to allow for safe California tiger salamander passage.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

We are proposing six units as critical habitat for the California
tiger salamander. The critical habitat areas described below constitute
our best assessment at this time of the areas essential for the
conservation of the California tiger salamander. The six areas
designated as critical habitat are: (1) Western Santa Maria/Orcutt; (2)
eastern Santa Maria; (3) western Los Alamos/Careaga; (4) eastern Los
Alamos; (5) Purisima Hills; and (6) Santa Rita.
The approximate area encompassed within each proposed critical
habitat unit is shown in Table 1.

Table 1.--Critical Habitat Units Proposed for the California Tiger
Salamander
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit
boundaries, not just the areas supporting primary constituent elements.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat unit Acres Hectares
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Western Santa Maria/Orcutt................... 4,349 1,760
2. Eastern Santa Maria.......................... 2,985 1,208
3. Western Los Alamos/Careaga................... 2,181 882
4. Eastern Los Alamos........................... 1,302 527
5. Purisima..................................... 2,359 955
6. Santa Rita................................... 744 301
-----------------------
Total....................................... 13,920 5,633
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The majority of these acres occur on privately owned land. We know of
no Federal, State, tribal, or military lands within these boundaries. A
small portion of land within the western Santa Maria/Orcutt Unit is
owned by local jurisdictions, including the County of Santa Barbara and
the Laguna County Sanitation District.
Critical habitat includes California tiger salamander habitat
throughout the species' range in Santa Barbara County, California.
Brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they are essential for
the conservation of the California tiger salamander, are presented
below. Each unit contains essential aquatic, upland, and dispersal
habitat. Each unit is occupied by California tiger salamanders based
upon observations recorded since 2000.

Unit 1: Western Santa Maria/Orcutt

Unit 1 consists of 4,349 ac (1,760 ha) west and southwest of the
City of Santa Maria, mostly in unincorporated areas of the County and
the community of Orcutt. This area encompasses the known California
tiger salamander breeding sites extending from the Casmalia Hills on
the south to the Santa Maria Airport on the north and from west of
Black Road eastward to Highway 135. The unit contains 11 known
California tiger salamander breeding ponds and several water bodies
that could potentially support breeding California tiger salamanders
but that have never been surveyed.
Seven of the known breeding ponds in this unit occur on the Orcutt
Dune Sheet. The Orcutt Dune Sheet is an ancient windblown sand deposit
that covers the southern one-half to two-thirds of the Santa Maria
Valley (Hunt 1993). All natural California tiger salamander breeding
sites occurring on the sheet are classified as dunal or deflation pools
and ponds, a type of California tiger salamander breeding pond
occurring only within the two units within the Santa Maria Valley. The
four remaining known ponds occur along the base of the Casmalia Hills,
just off the southwestern edge of the Orcutt Dune Sheet.
Based on an examination of aerial photographs taken in the late
1920's and late 1930's, the Orcutt Dune Sheet contained more potential
breeding sites for California tiger salamanders than all other occupied
habitat in Santa Barbara County combined. This area has suffered the
greatest loss of potential California tiger salamander breeding and
upland habitat. At least 500 vernal wetlands were present on the Orcutt
Dune Sheet in 1938 aerial photographs, less than 150 were present in
2000. This number of ponds represents a 75 percent loss of these
habitats (Larry Hunt, biological consultant, pers. comm. 2003).
Population growth and the concomitant residential and commercial
development are the greatest threat to California tiger salamanders
within this unit. The City of Santa Maria currently sustains a
population of 82,148 people and is anticipated to reach a population of
110,800 people by 2020, with an annual growth rate of 1.8 percent
(Santa Barbara County Association of Governments 2002). Annexations to
further development are proposed in the remaining California tiger
salamander habitat (Marc Bierdzinski, Santa Maria Community Development
Department 2003).
Several development projects have been proposed within the Unit.
The Santa Maria Airport District proposes to build a 400-ac (162-ha)
research park and golf course just south of the airport on a parcel
with three known California tiger salamander breeding ponds (Rincon
2002). The Orcutt Community Plan identifies Key Site 22 as a site for
60 percent buildout to a maximum of 3,000 units of dwellings (Santa
Barbara County 2002). This site lies entirely within the critical
habitat unit. Additional proposed development projects include Union
Valley Parkway (City of Santa Maria 2003) and expansion of the Laguna
County Sanitation District's wastewater treatment plan.
This unit is essential to the conservation of the California tiger
salamander because it constitutes the largest number of occupied ponds
on the Orcutt Dune Sheet, a rare and disappearing habitat type.
California tiger salamanders in this location may be adapted to unique
conditions not found in other units. It is critical for the

[[Page 3075]]

conservation of the species to conserve the California tiger salamander
within the range of habitat types where it is found in nature.
Protecting a variety of habitat conditions will increase the ability of
the species to survive stochastic events.
This unit also requires special management to conserve California
tiger salamanders. One pond is known to have introduced fish, another
is subject to berm failure, and bullfrogs breed in close proximity to a
third site. Addressing these threats through special management is
essential for the conservation of the California tiger salamander.

Unit 2: Eastern Santa Maria

This unit covers a portion of the eastern half of the Orcutt Dune
Sheet, but is separated from the western Santa Maria Valley unit by a
broad area of urban and agricultural development, including State
Highways 135 and 101. The unit is 2,985 ac (1,208 ha) in size and is
bordered by State Highway 101 on the west, the Solomon Hills on the
south, the Sisquoc River on the east, and the Santa Maria River
floodplain on the north. Although this area is at least as large as the
area encompassed by the western Santa Maria Valley populations, only
four known ponds exist here. All the ponds have had substantial
alterations to the surrounding upland habitats, and substantial
fragmentation of the habitat between breeding ponds has occurred.
Restoration of upland habitat and the creation of additional breeding
ponds within this unit will be essential to allow a self-sustaining
California tiger salamander population to persist. At least 10
additional ponds that appear suitable for California tiger salamander
breeding exist within the unit.
California tiger salamander upland habitat in this area has
experienced widespread losses due to the conversion of rangeland for
agricultural purposes. Some proposed projects further threaten the
remaining California tiger salamander habitat, including the 2000-ac
Bradley Ranch proposed development project (John L. Wallace &
Associates 2002), scattered low-density residential development, two
soil remediation projects, and the construction of a radio tower.
All of the extant and most of the potential ponds lie on the Orcutt
Dune Sheet at an average elevation of 530 ft above sea level (range =
390-601 ft above sea level). Because this unit represents one of only
two units on the Orcutt Dune sheet, it is essential to the conservation
of the species in that California tiger salamanders here are adapted to
conditions not found in two-thirds of its range. The unit requires
special management in the form of restoration, erosion control, and
implementation of measures to minimize the number of California tiger
salamanders killed on roads. The unit also represents an area that in
large part is not slated for residential development, in contrast to
the western Santa Maria area. Because of this and the fact that many of
the converted upland habitats remain as open space, this unit has high
restoration potential.

Unit 3: Western Los Alamos/Careaga

This unit consists of 2,181 ac (883 ha) to the west of Highway 101,
bordered on the west by the Careaga Divide. This unit includes the
location where the California tiger salamander was first discovered in
Santa Barbara County in the 1960s. Nine ponds within this unit have
been documented as breeding habitat by California tiger salamanders.
Five of these ponds are natural ponds, three are human-made bermed
agricultural/oil field impoundments, and one is a scour pool situated
in a tributary to Canada de Las Flores Creek. Several other
agricultural impoundments are located within dispersal distance of the
California tiger salamander breeding ponds in the western Los Alamos
valley. These human-made ponds may also be used by California tiger
salamanders for breeding.
In contrast to the dunal or deflation ponds found in the two units
to the north within the Santa Maria Valley, the natural breeding ponds
within the Western Los Alamos/Careaga Unit are found in structural
basin ponds. These ponds occur in the valleys or depressions along the
axes of the synclines. The natural ponds within the unit occur along
the axis of the Los Alamos Syncline and an unnamed syncline occurring
parallel to and west of the Los Alamos Syncline.
The area in the southeastern half of the unit was proposed for
conversion to vineyards. The landowner in this area supports California
tiger salamander conservation and has been working with the lessee to
develop a vineyard proposal that would conserve California tiger
salamanders breeding in the known ponds.
This unit is essential to the conservation of the California tiger
salamander because it contains some of the highest-quality natural
California tiger salamander breeding pools remaining in the County. The
Careaga Divide pond, located on the western side of the unit, is one of
the most unique and pristine vernal ponds where California tiger
salamanders breed. The wetland is unusual in that it is enclosed on two
sides by an extensive and dense coast live oak woodland and on the
north and east by coastal sage scrub and grasslands. The unit also
provides large blocks of continuous unfragmented upland habitat with
few known sources of mortality, all occurring within a working
rangeland landscape. The unit requires special management in the form
of fish removal from at least one pond and sediment control at three
ponds.

Unit 4: Eastern Los Alamos

This unit consists of 1,302 ac (527 ha) on the Los Robles Ranch,
which is located south of Highway 101 and southeast of the town of Los
Alamos. The population is currently comprised of four ponds that have
been used by California tiger salamanders for breeding. Two of the
ponds are natural structural basin ponds found in depressions that are
believed to be associated with the inferred location of the Los Alamos
Syncline (Dibblee 1993). The other two ponds are bermed agricultural
impoundments located in an unnamed, intermittent drainage located 1.0
to 1.5 mi southeast of the two natural ponds. Although there are three
other unsurveyed human-made ponds in the immediate vicinity of the
eastern Los Alamos population, only one is believed to have a
hydrologic regime that could support breeding by California tiger
salamanders. This bermed vineyard reservoir is located on the north
side of the small hill that borders the northeast side of Los Robles
Pond 1.
The property within the Unit was purchased in the 1990s for the
purpose of vineyard development. California tiger salamanders were
discovered on the property shortly after the listing in 2000 (Monk and
Associates 2000). The property owner approached us about developing an
HCP to cover vineyard installation in 2001; however, we have not
received a permit application pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) for the
site.
Given the small number of known breeding populations, this unit is
essential for the conservation of the California tiger salamander
because, in spite of its location adjacent to State Highway 101, the
habitat within this unit is of high quality. In addition, the
contiguous block of habitat within the unit is free of fragmentation
and is of sufficient size to maintain a self-sustaining population of
California tiger salamanders. Furthermore, the populations within this
unit constitute the easternmost location of the species.

[[Page 3076]]

As with the Western Lost Alamos/Careaga Unit, the natural ponds on the
site are structural basin ponds formed by compressional forces between
the transverse and coastal ranges.
The unit requires special management in the form of maintenance of
the two human-made breeding ponds, measures to reduce road mortality,
and preservation of water quality.

Unit 5: Purisima Hills

Unit 5 consists of 2,359 ac (955 ha) along the crest and south
slope of the west-central portion of the Purisima Hills. The unit
encompasses 14 of the 16 documented breeding ponds in the
subpopulation. The portion of the Purisima Hills that contains suitable
habitat lies upon the lower Careaga Formation, bounded to the east-
southeast by outcrops of Sisquoc Formation, and bounded to the west-
northwest by badlands topography of sandier horizons within the upper
Careaga Formation. Neither the Sisquoc nor the upper Careaga formations
will retain water in unlined ponds. Pond elevations range from 500 to
1400 ft.
The documented breeding localities are all stock ponds, most of
which were constructed in the mid to late 1950s (Thomas Silva, Sr.,
pers. comm. 2001); of these, only one may have been based on a
preexisting natural depression. The unit also contains a large natural
vernal lake referred to as Laguna Seca. Although Laguna Seca did not
contain California tiger salamanders during surveys conducted in 2002,
it was likely the natural source of California tiger salamanders for
the human-made ponds in the Purisima Hills to the south and southwest
of the pond. Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and mosquitofish
(Gambusia affinis) were recorded during surveys in 2002 (Paul Collins,
Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, pers. comm. 2002). The
introduced fish likely preclude successful breeding, although adult
California tiger salamanders are inevitably present in the adjacent
uplands, given the successful breeding occurring in the other known
ponds in the vicinity. We have been working with the landowners in this
area on a proposed fish removal project. Based on present knowledge of
the distribution and history of occupied ponds, the pattern of
California tiger salamander presence in the ponds within the Purisima
Hills indicates a considerable role for dispersing animals, as all 16
localities have been colonized sometime in the past 40 to 50 years.
This unit is essential for the conservation of the California tiger
salamander. Although the majority of occupied ponds are human made and
thus require frequent maintenance, the unit is the most remote of all
the units and has the fewest documented threats. Because of the
steepness of the topography, conversion to farmland or high-intensity
development is not feasible. The unit is unique in that it is steeper
terrain and is more densely vegetated than all other units. This
location contains the only known California tiger salamander breeding
ponds completely surrounded by coastal sage chaparral vegetation. Of
the 16 ponds, 4 are surrounded by grasslands, 3 are enclosed in
chaparral, and the remainder have mixed grassland/chaparral habitats
within a 328-ft (100-m) radius (2 of these 9 also have oak woodland
components). Few other locations in Santa Barbara are within chaparral
or mixed chaparral habitats. Therefore, California tiger salamanders
within this unit are adapted to unique habitat conditions.
The Purisima Unit is also essential in that it provides a linkage
between the Santa Rita Unit to the southwest and the Western Los
Alamos/Careaga Unit to the north. Although many of the units may be
permanently separated from each other by urban development and State
Highway 101, these three units still likely retain some connectivity.
Preliminary genetic analyses of five loci indicate high levels of gene
exchange between the Purisima and Western Los Alamos units, despite a
distance of almost 4 mi between these units (Wes Savage, University of
California at Davis, unpublished data). Several stockponds which have
never been surveyed lie between the units; some of these ponds are
likely occupied by California tiger salamanders and provide genetic
exchange between the two proposed critical habitat units. The Santa
Rita Unit is a similar distance from the Purisima Unit, but appears to
have slightly less genetic exchange than the other two units (W.
Savage, unpublished data).
The unit also requires special management. Because the ponds are
human-made stock ponds, they are subject to failure. Two potential
locations have breached dams and do not hold water, two are silted up,
and four dry out soon after rainfall events. Special management can
restore these ponds and augment the California tiger salamander
populations within the unit. Special management is also needed to
remove introduced fish from Laguna Seca.

Unit 6: Santa Rita Valley

This 744-ac (301 ha) unit constitutes the southernmost locality for
California tiger salamanders in Santa Barbara County. The unit is
bisected by Highway 246, a heavily traveled thoroughfare between the
towns of Buellton and Lompoc. Two confirmed breeding locations
(representing three ponds) lie in the general Santa Rita Valley;
however, one of these is a human-made pond isolated from other units
and is not included within the boundaries of critical habitat. The
other confirmed breeding locality consists of two hydrobasins within 50
ft of one another and adjacent to Highway 246. Adult California tiger
salamanders were often found dead on roads after rain events during the
1980s. Three ponds on a neighboring property to the east and two ponds
on the south side of Highway 246 likely formed a complex with this pond
in the past; however, the ponds to the east were degraded by introduced
fish and vineyards, while Highway 246 forms a substantial barrier to
the southern ponds. The ponds south of Highway 246 have never been
surveyed for California tiger salamanders. Although one landowner
reported finding a California tiger salamander in a water pump in 2000,
we have been unable to obtain permission to conduct surveys to confirm
or refute this record.
The known ponds are based on natural features developed on an
active syncline in the Careaga Formation east of the Santa Rita-Drum
Canyon divide along the north side of California Highway 246. The ponds
are natural but have been excavated so that the smaller pond appears to
retain water year round.
This unit is essential to the conservation of the California tiger
salamander because it constitutes the only extant population remaining
within the Santa Rita valley. As stated previously, given the small
number of remaining breeding locations, all six units are essential. In
addition, due to the numbers of salamanders found dead on the roads in
the 1980s, the ponds were likely productive in the past. Highway 246
constitutes the main threat to the breeding location; furthermore,
Caltrans has proposed to widen this road, which would substantially
infringe upon the footprint of the ponds. Even without widening, the
mortality by vehicular traffic and contaminated runoff entering the
pond provide substantial threats to the breeding site.
The unit requires special management. Based on past observations,
mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) and sunfish (Lepomis spp.) occurred in
these ponds (Service 2000). We do not know if fish currently exist in
the ponds (the ponds dry completely

[[Page 3077]]

in most years); however, if they do, they should be removed to conserve
this population. In addition, bullfrogs have also been reported (Grace
McLaughlin, Service, pers. obs. 2000) and should also be removed. The
precarious position of the pond directly adjacent to a busy road
requires measures to reduce the threat contaminants entering the pond
and to enhance survival of California tiger salamanders attempting to
cross the road. In addition, connectivity to potential breeding
locations to the south of the highway should be facilitated in some
manner. The California tiger salamander science subteam of the recovery
team recommends restoring or creating additional ponds in this unit,
due to the risk of extinction associated with having only one breeding
location. Because California tiger salamander population dynamics
involve several connecting breeding populations, increasing the number
of breeding ponds in this unit is necessary to conserve the population.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In our
regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define destruction or adverse
modification as ``a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably
diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and
recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but are not
limited to: alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or
biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to
be critical.'' However, in a March 15, 2001, decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service et al., F.3d 434), the Court found our definition
of destruction or adverse modification to be invalid. In response to
this decision, we are reviewing the regulatory definition of adverse
modification in relation to the conservation of the species.
Individuals, organizations, States, local governments, and other non-
Federal entities are affected by the designation of critical habitat
only if their actions occur on Federal lands, require a Federal permit,
license, or other authorization, or involve Federal funding.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its
critical habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are
codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to confer with us on any action that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
Conference reports provide conservation recommendations to assist the
agency in eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the proposed
action. The conservation recommendations in a conference report are
advisory. If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated,
section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify
its critical habitat. 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. Through this consultation, we
would ensure that the permitted actions do not destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the
project, if any are identifiable. ``Reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions
identified during consultation that can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of the action, that are consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and
jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically feasible, and
that the Director believes would avoid destruction or adverse
modification of 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 critical
habitat is subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law.
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of
consultation or conference with us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated
critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical
habitat. Conference reports assist the agency in eliminating conflicts
that may be caused by the proposed action, and may include
recommendations on actions to eliminate conflicts with, or adverse
modifications to, proposed critical habitat. The conservation
recommendations in a conference report are advisory.
We may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal
agency. Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain
an opinion that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if critical
habitat were designated. We may adopt the formal conference report as
the biological opinion when the critical habitat is designated, if no
substantial new information or changes in the action alter the content
of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
Activities on Federal lands that may affect the California tiger
salamander or its critical habitat will require section 7 consultation.
Activities on private or State lands requiring a permit from a Federal
agency, such as a permit from the Army Corps under section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from the Service, or some
other Federal action, including funding (e.g., Federal Highway
Administration or Federal Emergency Management Agency funding), will
also continue to be subject to the section 7 consultation process.
Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat and
actions on non-Federal and private lands that are not federally funded,
authorized, or permitted do not require section 7 consultation.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat include those that appreciably reduce the value of critical
habitat for both the survival and recovery of the California tiger
salamander. Within critical habitat, this pertains only to those areas
containing primary constituent elements. We note that such activities
may also jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
To properly portray the effects of critical habitat designation, we
must first compare the section 7 requirements for actions that may
affect critical habitat with the requirements for actions that may
affect a listed species.

[[Page 3078]]

Section 7 prohibits actions funded, authorized, or carried out by
Federal agencies from jeopardizing the continued existence of a listed
species or destroying or adversely modifying the listed species'
critical habitat. Actions likely to ``jeopardize the continued
existence'' of a species are those that would appreciably reduce the
likelihood of the species' survival and recovery. Actions likely to
``destroy or adversely modify'' critical habitat are those that would
appreciably reduce the value of critical habitat for the survival and
recovery of the listed species.
Common to both definitions is an appreciable detrimental effect on
both survival and recovery of a listed species. Given the similarity of
these definitions, actions likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat would almost always result in jeopardy to the species
concerned, particularly when the area of the proposed action is
occupied by the species concerned. Designation of critical habitat in
areas occupied by the California tiger salamander is not likely to
result in a regulatory burden above that already in place due to the
presence of the listed species.
Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in areas
currently occupied by the species to ensure that their actions do not
jeopardize the continued existence of the species. These actions
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the United States
by the Army Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
(2) Regulation of water flows, damming, diversion, and
channelization by any Federal agency;
(3) Road construction and maintenance, right-of-way designation,
and regulation funded or permitted by the Federal Highway
Administration;
(4) Voluntary conservation measures by private landowners funded by
the Natural Resources Conservation Service;
(5) Regulation of airport improvement activities by the Federal
Aviation Administration;
(6) Licensing of construction of communication sites by the Federal
Communications Commission; and,
(7) Funding of activities by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Department of Energy, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Federal Highway Administration, or any other Federal agency.
All lands proposed for designation as critical habitat are within
the geographic area occupied by the species (based on observations made
within the last 3 years), and are likely to be used by the California
tiger salamander, whether for foraging, breeding, growth of larvae and
juveniles, dispersal, migration, genetic exchange, or sheltering. Thus,
we consider all critical habitat units to be occupied by the species.
Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in areas
currently occupied by the species or if the species may be affected by
the action to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued
existence of the species. Therefore, we believe that the designation of
critical habitat is not likely to result in a significant regulatory
burden above that already in place due to the presence of the listed
species. Few additional consultations are likely to be conducted due to
the designation of critical habitat. Nevertheless, at any given time
some portions of a unit may not be occupied by California tiger
salamanders, due to climatic fluctuations, changes in population
numbers, flood events, or other causes. Additional consultations could
arise if a project is proposed within an unoccupied portion of a
critical habitat unit and the primary constituent elements may be
adversely affected by the project.

Application of Section 3(5)(A) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act

Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species on which are
found those physical and biological features (I) essential to the
conservation of the species and (II) which may require special
management considerations and protection. As such, for an area to be
designated as critical habitat for a species, it must meet both
provisions of the definition. In those cases where a specific area does
not provide those physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, it has been our policy to not include the
area in designated critical habitat. Likewise, if an area determined to
be biologically essential has an adequate management plan that covers
the species, then special management and protection are already being
provided. These areas would not meet the second provision of the
definition and would not be proposed as critical habitat.
We consider a current plan to provide adequate management or
protection if it meets three criteria: (1) The plan is complete and
provides a conservation benefit to the species (i.e., the plan must
maintain or provide for an increase in the species' population, or the
enhancement or restoration of its habitat within the area covered by
the plan); (2) the plan provides assurances that the conservation
management strategies and actions will be implemented (i.e., those
responsible for implementing the plan are capable of accomplishing the
objectives, and have an implementation schedule or adequate funding for
implementing the management plan); and (3) the plan provides assurances
that the conservation strategies and measures will be effective (i.e.,
it identifies biological goals, has provisions for reporting progress,
and is of a duration sufficient to implement the plan and achieve the
plan's goals and objectives).
Further, section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat
shall be designated, and revised, on the basis of the best available
scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact,
and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as
critical habitat. An area may be excluded from critical habitat if it
is determined that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
specifying a particular area as critical habitat, unless the failure to
designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction
of the species. Consequently, we may exclude an area from critical
habitat based on economic impacts, or other relevant impacts such as
preservation of conservation partnerships or military readiness
considerations, if we determine that the benefits of excluding an area
from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including the area in
critical habitat, provided that exclusion will not result in the
extinction of the species.
In summary, we use both the definitions in section 3(5)(A) and the
provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act to evaluate those specific
areas that are proposed for designation as critical habitat as well as
for those areas that are subsequently finalized (i.e., designated as
critical habitat). On that basis, it has been our policy to not include
in proposed critical habitat, or exclude from designated critical
habitat, those areas: (1) Not biologically essential to the
conservation of a species, (2) covered by an individual (project-
specific) or regional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that covers the
subject species, (3) covered by a complete and approved Integrated
Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP) for specific DOD
installations, (4) covered by an adequate management plan or agreement
that protects the primary constituent elements of the habitat.
We have not excluded any lands from this proposal pursuant to
section 3(5)(A) and 4(b)(2) of the Act. No HCPs that

[[Page 3079]]

include the California tiger salamander are near completion, the
proposal does not include any DOD installations, and no management
plans that protect the California tiger salamander have been developed.
During the proposal period, we hope to work with private landowners on
developing conservation agreements that would protect the species. If
these are finalized, we may exclude them from final critical habitat
for the California tiger salamander.

Economic Analysis

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of
designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas
from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such
exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as part of
critical habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat if
such exclusion would result in the extinction of the species.
An analysis of the economic impacts of proposing critical habitat
for the California tiger salamander is being prepared. We will announce
the availability of the draft economic analysis as soon as it is
completed, at which time we will seek public review and comment. At
that time, copies of the draft economic analysis will be available for
downloading from the Internet at http://ventura.fws.gov, or by
contacting the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office directly (see ADDRESSES
section)

Peer Review

In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound
data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send these peer reviewers
copies of this proposed rule immediately following publication in the
Federal Register. We will invite these peer reviewers to comment,
during the public comment period, on the specific assumptions and
conclusions regarding the proposed designation of critical habitat.
We will consider all comments and information received during the
comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final
rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.

Public Hearings

The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,
if requested. Requests for public hearings must be made in writing at
least 15 days prior to the close of the public comment period. We will
schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and
announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings in the Federal
Register and local newspapers at least 15 days prior to the first
hearing.

Clarity of the Rule

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations and
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to
make this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to
questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the
proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain
technical jargon that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format
of the proposed rule (grouping and order of the sections, use of
headings, paragraphing, and so forth) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is
the description of the notice in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? (5) What
else could we do to make this proposed rule easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments on how we could make this proposed rule
easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of
the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You
may e-mail your comments to this address: Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

This document has been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), in accordance with Executive Order 12866. OMB makes the
final determination under Executive Order 12866. We are preparing a
draft economic analysis of this proposed action, which will be
available for public comment, to determine the economic consequences of
designating the specific area as critical habitat.
Within these areas, the types of Federal actions or authorized
activities that we have identified as potential concerns are:
(1) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the United States
by the Army Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
(2) Regulation of water flows, damming, diversion, and
channelization by any Federal agency;
(3) Road construction and maintenance, right-of-way designation,
and regulation funded or permitted by the Federal Highways
Administration;
(4) Voluntary conservation measures by private landowners funded by
the Natural Resources Conservation Service;
(5) Regulation of airport improvement activities by the Federal
Aviation Administration;
(6) Licensing of construction of communication sites by the Federal
Communications Commission; and,
(7) Funding of activities by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Department of Energy, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Federal Highway Administration, or any other Federal agency.
The availability of the draft economic analysis will be announced
in the Federal Register and in local newspapers so that it is available
for public review and comments.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to 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 (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to require Federal agencies to
provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. 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. The
SBREFA also amended the RFA to require a certification statement. We
are hereby certifying that this proposed rule will not have a
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations,

[[Page 3080]]

and small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city
and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents, as well as
small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees,
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to
these small entities are significant, we considered the types of
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this 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 would affect a substantial number of small
entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within
particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing development,
grazing, oil and gas production, timber harvesting, etc.). We
considered each industry individually to determine if certification is
appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially
affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal
involvement; some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal
involvement and so will not be affected by critical habitat
designation. Designation of critical habitat only affects activities
conducted, funded, or permitted by Federal agencies; non-Federal
activities are not affected by the designation.
If this critical habitat designation is finalized, Federal agencies
must consult with us if their activities may affect designated critical
habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing
consultation process.
Since the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger
salamander was listed (2000), we have conducted approximately five
formal consultations involving this species. These formal
consultations, which all involved Federal actions, included a sewer
line installation, an expansion and upgrade of wastewater treatment
facilities, pond restoration activities, one bridge replacement, and
one culvert removal. These five consultations resulted in non-jeopardy
biological opinions.
We also conducted approximately 21 informal consultations since
this species was listed. These informal consultations concerned
activities such as repair, maintenance, or improvement of drainage and
wastewater treatment facilities, cleanup of a superfund facility,
closed landfill repair activities, soil remediation activities, oil
well and sump closures, vineyard development, and other developments
authorized by various federal agencies or review of National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit applications to State water quality
agencies by developers, municipalities, mines, businesses, and others.
Informal consultations regarding the California tiger salamander
usually resulted in recommendations to employ erosion control measures,
conduct certain activities by hand, and avoid small mammal burrows,
relied on current State water quality standards for protection of water
quality, and resulted in little to no modification of the proposed
activities. In reviewing these past informal consultations and the
activities involved in light of proposed critical habitat, we do not
believe the outcomes would have been different in areas designated as
critical habitat.
In summary, we have considered whether this proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities, and we have concluded that it would not. Future
consultations are not likely to affect a substantial number of small
entities. We have no indication that the types of activities we review
under section 7 of the Act will change significantly in the future.
There would be no additional section 7 consultations resulting from
this rule as all six of the proposed critical habitat units are
currently occupied by California tiger salamanders, and the
consultation requirement would be triggered by the presence of a listed
species.
This rule would result in major project modifications only when
proposed activities with a Federal nexus would destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat. While this may occur, it is not expected to
occur frequently enough to affect a substantial number of small
entities. Therefore, we are certifying that the proposed designation of
critical habitat for the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California
tiger salamander will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, and an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required. This determination will be
revisited after the close of the comment period and revised, if
necessary, in the final rule.
This discussion is based upon the information regarding potential
economic impact that is available to us at this time. This assessment
of economic effect may be modified prior to final rulemaking based upon
review of the draft economic analysis prepared pursuant to section
4(b)(2) of the ESA and E.O. 12866. This analysis is for the purposes of
compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and does not reflect our
position on the type of economic analysis required by New Mexico Cattle
Growers Assn. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir.
2001).

Executive Order 13211

On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O.
13211) on regulations that significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to
prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions.
This proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the California
tiger salamander is not a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, and it 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 will use the economic analysis to further evaluate this
situation.

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have
significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is
not required. The designation of critical habitat affects only Federal
agency actions. The rule will not increase or decrease the current
restrictions on private property concerning take of the California
tiger salamander. Due to current public knowledge of the species'
protection, the prohibition against take of the species both within and
outside of the designated areas, and the fact that critical habitat
provides no incremental restrictions, we do not anticipate that
property values will be affected by the proposed critical habitat
designation. While real estate market values may temporarily decline
following designation, due to the perception that critical habitat
designation may impose additional regulatory burdens on land use, we
expect any such impacts to be short term. Additionally, critical
habitat

[[Page 3081]]

designation does not preclude development of HCPs and issuance of
incidental take permits. Owners of areas that are included in the
designated critical habitat will continue to have opportunity to use
their property in ways consistent with the survival of the California
tiger salamander.

Federalism

In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with DOI and Department of Commerce policy, we
requested information from, and coordinated development of, this
proposed critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource
agencies in California. The designation of critical habitat in areas
currently occupied by the California tiger salamander imposes no
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 essential to the conservation of the species are more
clearly defined, and the primary constituent elements of the habitat
necessary to the survival of the species are specifically identified.
While making this definition and identification does not alter where
and what federally sponsored activities may occur, it may assist these
local governments in long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-
by-case section 7 consultations to occur).

Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. This
proposed rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the
primary constituent elements within the designated areas to assist the
public in understanding the habitat needs of the California tiger
salamander.

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. 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

We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental
Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in connection with
regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This final determination
does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.

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, and the Department
of 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 determined that
there are no tribal lands essential for the conservation of the
California tiger salamander. Therefore, designation of critical habitat
for the California tiger salamander has not been designated on Tribal
lands.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author(s)

The primary author of this package is the Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office staff.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. In Sec. 17.11(h), revise the entry for ``Salamander, California
tiger, Santa Barbara County DPS'' under ``AMPHIBIANS'' to read as
follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------- population where Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed Critical habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Amphibians

* * * * * * *
Salamander, California tiger, Ambystoma U.S.A. (CA)...... Entire........... E 677E, 702........ 17.95(d)......... NA
Santa Barbara County DPS. californiense.

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3082]]

3. In Sec. 17.95(d), revise the entry for ``Ambystoma
californiense'' under ``AMPHIBIANS'' to read as follows:

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
(d) Amphibians.
* * * * *
Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California
Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Santa Barbara County,
California, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the
Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California
tiger salamander are the habitat components that provide:
(i) Standing bodies of fresh water, including natural and man-made
(e.g., stock) ponds, vernal pools, and dune ponds, and other ephemeral
or permanent water bodies that typically become inundated during winter
rains and hold water for a sufficient length of time (i.e., 12 weeks)
necessary for the species to complete the aquatic portion of its life
cycle.
(ii) Barrier-free uplands adjacent to breeding ponds that contain
small mammal burrows, including but not limited to burrows created by
the California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) and Botta's
pocket gopher (Thommomys bottae). Small mammals are essential in
creating the underground habitat that adult California tiger
salamanders depend upon for food, shelter, and protection from the
elements and predation.
(iii) Upland areas between breeding locations and areas with small
mammal burrows that allow for dispersal among such sites.
(3) Critical habitat does not include existing features and
structures, such as buildings, aqueducts, airports, roads, and other
developed areas not containing one or more of the primary constituent
elements.

Critical Habitat Map Units

(4) Data layers defining map units were created on a base of USGS
7.5' quadrangles, and critical habitat units were then mapped using
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.

(5) Note: Map 1 (index map) follows.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 3083]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP22JA04.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 3084]]

(6) Unit 1: Western Santa Maria/Orcutt Unit, Santa Barbara County,
California.

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Guadalupe, Santa
Maria, Orcutt and Casmalia. Lands bounded by UTM Zone 10, NAD 1927
coordinates (E, N): 727900, 3864900; 728200, 3864800; 729400, 3864600;
729400, 3864100; 729600, 3864100; 729600, 3864000; 729900, 3864000;
729900, 3864300; 730100, 3864100; 730300, 3864100; 730400, 3864200;
730900, 3864200; 731000, 3864000; 731200, 3864000; 731300, 3864100;
731700, 3863800; 731700, 3863700; 733500, 3863700; 733600, 3863900;
733700, 3864100; 733700, 3864200; 734400, 3864200; 734400, 3862400;
733000, 3862400; 733000, 3862300; 732800, 3862300; 732700, 3862400;
731800, 3862400; 731800, 3862100; 732000, 3862100; 732000, 3861800;
731800, 3861800; 731800, 3861600; 731500, 3861500; 731200, 3861600;
731300, 3861800; 730700, 3862000; 730600, 3862000; 730500, 3861800;
730100, 3862000; 729800, 3862100; 728900, 3862500; 728800, 3862500;
728600, 3862300; 728500, 3862200; 728300, 3862100; 727500, 3862100;
727200, 3861800; 726900, 3861400; 726800, 3861700; 726700, 3861900;
726500, 3862100; 726400, 3862300; 726100, 3862400; 725900, 3862700;
725800, 3862900; 725900, 3863100; 726200, 3863300; 726400, 3863600;
726400, 3864000; 726500, 3864300; 726500, 3864700; 726600, 3864800;
726700, 3864900; 727900, 3864900.

(ii) Note: Unit 1 (Map 2) follows.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 3085]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP22JA04.001
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 3086]]

(7) Unit 2: Eastern Santa Maria Unit, Santa Barbara County,
California.

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Guadalupe, Santa
Maria, Twitchell Dam, Orcutt and Sisquoc. Lands bounded by UTM Zone 10,
NAD 1927 coordinates (E, N): 737400, 3864500; 737500, 3864600; 737400,
3864700; 737400, 3864800; 737500, 3864800; 737800, 3865100; 739600,
3865100; 739600, 3864300; 742500, 3864300; 742900, 3864000; 742800,
3863700; 742900, 3863500; 743000, 3863200; 743100, 3863000; 743200,
3862900; 743300, 3862800; 743400, 3862600; 743600, 3862300; 743700,
3862200; 743700, 3861800; 743500, 3861700; 743400, 3861600; 743200,
3861500; 743100, 3861300; 743000, 3861100; 742800, 3861000; 742500,
3861100; 741200, 3861100; 741200, 3861500; 740900, 3861500; 740900,
3861900; 740700, 3862100; 740400, 3862500; 740300,3862700;
740300,3863100; 738600, 3863500; 738500, 3863700; 738000, 3864200;
737800, 3864200; 737700, 3864300; 737600, 3864400; 737500, 3864400;
737400, 3864500.

(ii) Note: Unit 2 (Map 3) follows.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 3087]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP22JA04.002
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 3088]]

(8) Unit 3: Western Los Alamos/Careaga Unit, Santa Barbara County,
California.

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Orcutt and Sisquoc.
Lands bounded by UTM Zone 10, NAD 1927 coordinates (E, N): 739900,
3853000; 740200, 3853300; 740200, 3853700; 740100, 3853800; 740200,
3853900; 740300, 3853900; 740300, 3854100; 740200, 3854300; 740100,
3854500; 740100, 3854600; 740000, 3854600; 740000, 3854700; 740100,
3854800; 740200, 3855000; 740300, 3855100; 740400, 3855000; 740500,
3855000; 740600, 3854900; 741000, 3854800; 741300, 3854700; 741700,
3854600; 741800, 3854200; 741900, 3853900; 742000, 3853800; 742100,
3853600; 742300, 3853400; 742400, 3853600; 742600, 3853600; 742700,
3853500; 742700, 3853600; 742800, 3853700; 742900, 3853600; 743000,
3853500; 743100, 3853600; 743100, 3853700; 743200, 3853700; 743300,
3853900; 743400, 3853700; 743600, 3853500; 743700, 3853300; 743900,
3853100; 744200, 3852900; 744700, 3852600; 745200, 3852300; 745500,
3852100; 745600, 3852000; 745600, 3851900; 745500, 3851700; 745500,
3851500; 745400, 3851300; 745300, 3851300; 745200, 3851200; 745100,
3851200; 745000, 3851300; 744800, 3851500; 744500, 3851500; 744400,
3851600; 744300, 3851600; 744200, 3851700; 744100, 3851700; 744000,
3851800; 743000, 3851800; 742700, 3852100; 742600, 3852200; 742600,
3852300; 742500, 3852300; 742400, 3852200; 742300, 3852100; 742000,
3852100; 741800, 3852200; 741700, 3852200; 741600, 3852300; 741500,
3852300; 741400, 3852400; 741200, 3852500; 741000, 3852800; 740900,
3852900; 740600, 3852900; 740200, 3852800; 740000, 3852700; 739900,
3852800; 739900, 3853000.

(ii) Note: Unit 3 (Map 4) follows.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 3089]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP22JA04.003
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C?£
[[Page 3090]]

(9) Unit 4: Eastern Los Alamos Unit, Santa Barbara County,
California.

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Los Alamos and Zaca
Creek. Lands bounded by UTM Zone 10, NAD 1927 coordinates (E, N):
750500, 3846400; 750200, 3846600; 750200, 3847200; 750600, 3847200;
751100, 3847100; 751900, 3847000; 752000, 3847000; 752400, 3846900;
752600, 3846800; 753900, 3846200; 754000, 3846200; 754000, 3845900;
754100, 3845300; 754200, 3845200; 754100, 3845100; 753900, 3845100;
753900, 3844900; 753800, 3845000; 753600, 3844800; 753500, 3845200;
753300, 3845200; 753300, 3845300; 753200, 3845400; 753100, 3845400;
753000, 3845500; 752900, 3845500; 753000, 3845400; 752900, 3845300;
752900, 3845200; 752800, 3845200; 752800, 3845300; 752600, 3845300;
752600, 3845400; 752500, 3845500; 752300, 3845500; 751700, 3845500;
751700, 3845200; 751300, 3845400; 751100, 3845600; 751000, 3845600;
750900, 3845500; 750800, 3845800; 750500, 3845900; 750500, 3846000;
750400, 3846000; 750400, 3846100; 750500, 3846100; 750500, 3846400.

(ii) Note: Unit 4 (Map 5) follows.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 3091]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP22JA04.004
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 3092]]

(10) Units 5 and 6: The Purisima Hills and Santa Rita Units, Santa
Barbara County, California.

(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Lompoc and Los Alamos.
Lands bounded by UTM Zone 10, NAD 1927 coordinates (E, N): 740300,
3843800; 740400, 3844100; 740400, 3844200; 740500, 3844400; 740500,
3844600; 740600, 3845000; 740700, 3845000; 741200, 3845100; 741400,
3845100; 741500, 3845100; 741600, 3844900; 742100, 3844900; 742200,
3844900; 742400, 3845000; 742600, 3845200; 742700, 3845400; 742700,
3845500; 742600, 3845600; 742600, 3845700; 742700, 3845800; 742900,
3845800; 743000, 3845800; 743400, 3845900; 743500, 3846000; 743600,
3846000; 743700, 3845900; 743800, 3845900; 743800, 3845800; 743900,
3845700; 743900, 3845600; 743800, 3845400; 743800, 3845300; 743800,
3844800; 743900, 3844600; 744000, 3844500; 744100, 3844500; 744200,
3844700; 744300, 3844800; 744400, 3844800; 744500, 3844700; 744500,
3844400; 744400, 3844300; 744400, 3844100; 744300, 3844000; 744300,
3843900; 744400, 3843900; 744400, 3843800; 744300, 3843700; 744200,
3843700; 744100, 3843600; 743500, 3843600; 743400, 3843500; 743200,
3843400; 743000, 3843300; 742900, 3843200; 742800, 3843000; 742800,
3842900; 742900, 3842800; 742800, 3842700; 742700, 3842600; 742500,
3842400; 742500, 3842300; 742400, 3842200; 742400, 3842100; 742300,
3842000; 742200, 3842000; 742200, 3842100; 742100, 3842300; 742000,
3842400; 741900, 3842300; 741900, 3842200; 741800, 3842200; 741700,
3842100; 741600, 3842100; 741500, 3842200; 741200, 3842300; 741000,
3842300; 740900, 3842500; 740800, 3842600; 740700, 3842700; 740400,
3843000; 740300, 3843200; 740300, 3843800.
(ii) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Los Alamos. Lands
bounded by UTM Zone 10, NAD 1927 coordinates (E, N): 745900, 3837900;
746000, 3837800; 746100, 3837800; 746300, 3838000; 746500, 3837900;
746700, 3838000; 746700, 3838100; 746800, 3838200; 746900, 3838200;
747000, 3838300; 747200, 3838400; 747300, 3838300; 747200, 3837900;
747100, 3837500; 747000, 3837500; 746900, 3837300; 746900, 3837100;
747000, 3836900; 747400, 3836500; 747700, 3836300; 747900, 3836200;
747700, 3836000; 747600, 3836000; 747300, 3835700; 747200, 3835700;
746800, 3835700; 746600, 3835900; 746300, 3836100; 746100, 3836100;
745800, 3836700; 745800, 3837400; 745900, 3837900.

(iii) Note: Units 5 and 6 (Map 6) follow.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 3093]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP22JA04.005
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 3094]]

* * * * *

Dated: January 14, 2004.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 04-1296 Filed 1-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California Tiger Salamander

Local Navigation