Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the San

60134 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules

Dated: October 1, 2004. not functional, please submit comments requirements of section 7.’’ Currently, Julie MacDonald, by the alternate methods mentioned only 445 species or 36 percent of the Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and above. 1,244 listed species in the U.S. under Wildlife and Parks. 4. You may fax your comments to the jurisdiction of the Service have [FR Doc. 04–22541 Filed 10–6–04; 8:45 am] 805/644–3958. designated critical habitat. We address BILLING CODE 4310–55–C The complete file for this finding is the habitat needs of all 1,244 listed available for public inspection, by species through conservation appointment, during normal business mechanisms such as listing, section 7 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR hours at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife consultations, the Section 4 recovery Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, planning process, the Section 9 Fish and Wildlife Service 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA protective prohibitions of unauthorized 93003. take, Section 6 funding to the States, 50 CFR Part 17 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For and the Section 10 incidental take RIN 1018–AT78 the San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa permit process. The Service believes Island fox, and Santa Cruz Island fox, that it is these measures that may make Endangered and Threatened Wildlife contact Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, the difference between extinction and and Plants; Proposed Designation of Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office at the survival for many species. Critical Habitat for the San Miguel address given above (telephone 805/ We note, however, that a recent 9th Island Fox, Santa Rosa Island Fox, 644–1766; facsimile 805/644–3958). For Circuit judicial opinion, Gifford Pinchot Santa Cruz Island Fox, and Santa the Santa Catalina Island fox, contact Task Force v. United States Fish and Catalina Island Fox Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Wildlife Service, has invalidated the Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Service’s regulation defining destruction AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA (telephone or adverse modification of critical Interior. 760/431–9440; facsimile 760/431–9624). habitat. We are currently reviewing the ACTION: Proposed rule. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: decision to determine what effect it may have on the outcome of consultations SUMMARY: The San Miguel Island fox, Preamble pursuant to Section 7 of the Act. Santa Rosa Island fox, Santa Cruz Island fox, and Santa Catalina Island fox were Designation of Critical Habitat Provides Procedural and Resource Difficulties in listed as endangered species under the Little Additional Protection to Species Designating Critical Habitat Endangered Species Act of 1973, as In 30 years of implementing the Act, We have been inundated with amended (Act), on March 5, 2004. We the Service has found that the lawsuits for our failure to designate do not find any habitat on the four designation of statutory critical habitat critical habitat, and we face a growing islands occupied by the foxes that meets provides little additional protection to number of lawsuits challenging critical the definition of critical habitat under most listed species, while consuming habitat determinations once they are the Act. Because there is no habitat that significant amounts of available made. These lawsuits have subjected the meets the definition of critical habitat conservation resources. The Service’s Service to an ever-increasing series of for the island fox subspecies, there is present system for designating critical court orders and court-approved none to propose, and we are proposing habitat has evolved since its original settlement agreements, compliance with that zero critical habitat be designated. statutory prescription into a process that which now consumes nearly the entire We solicit data and comments from provides little real conservation benefit, listing program budget. This leaves the the public on all aspects of this is driven by litigation and the courts Service with little ability to prioritize its proposed finding. Unless we receive rather than biology, limits our ability to activities to direct scarce listing information during the comment period fully evaluate the science involved, resources to the listing program actions that indicates there is habitat which consumes enormous agency resources, with the most biologically urgent meets the definition of critical habitat, and imposes huge social and economic species conservation needs. we will not be preparing an economic costs). The Service believes that The consequence of the critical analysis. additional agency discretion would habitat litigation activity is that limited DATES: We will consider comments allow our focus to return to those listing funds are used to defend active received by December 6, 2004. actions that provide the greatest benefit lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, to the species most in need of (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, you may submit your comments and protection. and to comply with the growing number materials concerning this proposal by of adverse court orders. As a result, Role of Critical Habitat in Actual listing petition responses, the Service’s any one of several methods: Practice of Administering and 1. You may submit written comments own proposals to list critically Implementing the Act and information to the Field Supervisor, imperiled species, and final listing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura While attention to and protection of determinations on existing proposals are Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola habitat is paramount to successful all significantly delayed. Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003. conservation actions, we have The accelerated schedules of court 2. You may hand-deliver written consistently found that, in most ordered designations have left the comments to our Ventura Office, at the circumstances, the designation of Service with almost no ability to address given above. critical habitat is of little additional provide for adequate public 3. You may send comments by value for most listed species, yet it participation or to ensure a defect-free electronic mail (e-mail) to: consumes large amounts of conservation rulemaking process before making [email protected]. Please see the resources. Sidle (1987) stated, ‘‘Because decisions on listing and critical habitat Public Comments Solicited section the Act can protect species with and proposals due to the risks associated below for file format and other without critical habitat designation, with noncompliance with judicially- information about electronic filing. In critical habitat designation may be imposed deadlines. This in turn fosters the event that our Internet connection is redundant to the other consultation a second round of litigation in which

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:34 Oct 06, 2004 Jkt 205002 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07OCP1.SGM 07OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 60135

those who fear adverse impacts from finalize the listing and for failure to time it [was] listed that are essential for critical habitat designations challenge publish a final determination regarding the conservation of the species.’’ those designations. The cycle of critical habitat (Center for Biological In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) litigation appears endless, is very Diversity v. Williams, et al. No. CV–03– of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR expensive, and in the final analysis 2729 AHM (C.D. Cal.)). In settlement of 424.12, in determining which areas to provides relatively little additional that lawsuit, we agreed to submit the propose as critical habitat, we are protection to listed species. final listing determination to the required to base critical habitat The costs resulting from the Federal Register on or by March 1, determinations on the best scientific designation include legal costs, the cost 2004, and if prudent, submit a proposed and commercial data available and to of preparation and publication of the rule to designate critical habitat to the consider those physical and biological designation, the analysis of the Federal Register on or by October 1, features (primary constituent elements economic effects and the cost of 2004, and a final determination (PCEs)) that are essential to the requesting and responding to public regarding critical habitat on or by conservation of the species, and that comment, and in some cases the costs November 1, 2005. The final rule listing may require special management of compliance with the National the four subspecies of the island fox as considerations and protection. These Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). None endangered was published on March 5, include, but are not limited to: space for of these costs result in any benefit to the 2004 (69 FR 10335). individual and population growth and species that is not already afforded by for normal behavior; food, water, air, the protections of the Act enumerated Critical Habitat light, minerals, or other nutritional or earlier, and they directly reduce the Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as physiological requirements; cover or funds available for direct and tangible amended, and implementing regulations shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, conservation actions. (50 CFR 424.12) require that we and rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected Background designate critical habitat, to the maximum extent prudent and from disturbance or are representative of The Island fox is taxonomically determinable, at the time a species is the historic geographical and ecological divided into six subspecies that are each listed as endangered or threatened. distributions of a species. limited in range to a single island Designation is not prudent when one or The island fox, however, is a habitat (Gilbert et al. 1990; Wayne et al. 1991; both of the following situations exist: (1) generalist in all aspects of its life Collins 1991a, 1993; Goldstein et al. The species is threatened by taking or history. It does not require particular 1999). Each subspecies is reproductively other human activity, and identification habitats for food, cover, breeding, and isolated from the others by a minimum of critical habitat can be expected to denning sites. The foxes are of 5 kilometers (3 miles) of ocean opportunistic omnivores, and eat a wide increase the degree of such threat to the waters. For further information about variety of plants (e.g., grass, fruits, and species, or (2) such designation of the subspecies’ taxonomy, description, berries) and animals (e.g., insects, birds, critical habitat would not be beneficial distribution, habitat, life history, and mice) in whatever habitat they find to the species. threats, please refer to the March 5, them (69 FR 10336). As such the foxes 2004, final listing rule (69 FR 10335), in Critical habitat is defined in section use all the habitat available on each of which we determined that four of the 3(5)(a) of the Act as: (i) The specific the islands, including riparian, oak subspecies were endangered. Regarding areas within the geographical area woodland, pine woodland, chaparral, the past, present, and future threats occupied by a species, at the time it is coastal sage scrub, maritime scrub, and faced by these taxa in determining the listed in accordance with the Act, on grasslands. In general, some of these listing status, the threats are primarily which are found those physical or habitats contain cover from aerial due to predation from golden eagles (on biological features (I) essential to the predation, and the nature of the cover is San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz conservation of the species and (II) that not habitat specific. Reproduction in the islands) or canine distemper virus (on may require special management island foxes is also not limited to a Santa Catalina Island). Other threats considerations or protection; and (ii) specific habitat; the foxes may locate include disease, natural events, non- specific areas outside the geographical their simple den sites in any habitat native herbivores and on Santa Catalina area occupied by a species at the time where they find natural shelter (e.g., Island, competition from feral cats, and it is listed, upon a determination that brush pile, rock crevice, hollow stump, road mortality, all of which could such areas are essential for the or log) (Laughrin 1977). All habitat diminish or destroy the small extant conservation of the species. available on the islands on which the populations. See Tables 1–4, in our final ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use of all fox is found can be and is used by the listing rule, for summaries of the status, methods and procedures needed to fox. We are not aware of any existing or and major threats, faced by the four bring the species to the point at which anticipated threats to the island subspecies as well as the conservation listing under the Act is no longer habitats. Accordingly, there is currently actions undertaken to protect each of necessary. no information to support a conclusion the subspecies, and the effectiveness of In the March 5, 2004, final listing that any specific habitat within these such measures (69 FR 10335, March 5, rule, we determined that designation of areas are essential. Therefore, we do not 2004). critical habitat was prudent for the believe that there are areas within the island foxes. As discussed more fully subspecies’ habitat that contain features Previous Federal Actions below, we now find there are no that are essential to the conservation of On December 10, 2001, we published ‘‘specific areas on which are found the species. a proposal to list four subspecies of those physical or biological features (I) Adverse effects to the fox that have island fox as endangered (66 FR 63654). essential to the conservation of the occurred in these areas have been a Please refer to this proposed rule for species and (II) that may require special result of activities, such as disease information on Federal actions prior to management considerations or (canine distemper) and predation from December 10, 2001. On April 22, 2003, protection.’’ Further, there are no golden eagles, which threaten the Center for Biological Diversity filed ‘‘specific areas outside the geographical individual island foxes rather than suit against the Service for failure to area occupied by [the] species at the island fox habitat. While the habitat of

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:34 Oct 06, 2004 Jkt 205002 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07OCP1.SGM 07OCP1 60136 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules

island foxes on all islands has been thus, there is no area that is located Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 subject to substantial human-induced outside the current range of the species et seq.) changes over the past 150 years and on Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Unless we receive information during these changes have resulted in some Catalina Islands. With respect to San the comment period that indicates there adverse effects to island foxes, they are Miguel Island, in 1999, the NPS is habitat which meets the definition of unlikely to have directly caused the captured 14 (4 males and 10 females) of critical habitat, we will not be preparing observed declines. This species’ the 15 remaining foxes from San Miguel an economic analysis. If we prepare an precarious situation derives mostly from Island to protect the subspecies from economic analysis, our assessment of predation on the foxes themselves and further losses from predation by golden economic effect will be completed prior disease (canine distemper) and not from eagles and to initiate a captive to final rulemaking based upon review any particular action that caused habitat propagation program. The remaining of the draft economic analysis prepared degradation. Furthermore, habitat does wild island fox, a lone female, evaded pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the ESA not appear to be a factor limiting the capture efforts until September 2003, and E.O. 12866. current population growth rate, nor is it when she was captured and brought Executive Order 13211 likely to limit future population growth. into captivity. As of 2003, then, there Because there are no habitat threats to were no island foxes remaining in the On May 18, 2001, the President issued the island foxes, we conclude that no an Executive Order (E.O. 13211) on wild on San Miguel Island. Four years’ areas require special management regulations that significantly affect captive breeding has increased the considerations or protection. energy supply, distribution, and use. captive San Miguel Island fox Conservation of the foxes depends on E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare addressing non-habitat related threats. population to 38 individuals. These Statements of Energy Effects when As discussed, declines have been individuals are in two captive breeding undertaking certain actions. This caused largely by predation and disease, facilities on San Miguel Island, and the proposed rule does not designate critical and these effects will be addressed NPS and the recovery team will be habitat for the four island fox through section 7 consultation with releasing some of the foxes back into the subspecies. Therefore, no regulatory Federal agencies under the jeopardy wild on San Miguel Island in the next effects will derive from this action; it is standard of the Act and through the month or two as soon as they are no not a significant energy action, and no section 9 prohibitions of the Act to the longer threatened by predation (C. Benz, Statement of Energy Effects is required. extent applicable. No benefit would pers. comm., 2004). Therefore, we are Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 accrue from a critical habitat considering all the islands occupied by U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) designation with respect to the effects of foxes. If reintroduction does not occur predation and disease on individual within the next month or two, however, In accordance with the Unfunded foxes because the regulatory effects of and San Miguel Island is unoccupied for Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et critical habitat designations apply to a time longer, we still would find no seq.), the Service makes the following adverse modification or destruction of unoccupied areas essential to the findings: (a) This rule will not produce habitat, not to effects that result in conservation of the fox, as conservation a Federal mandate, and (b) we do not mortality of individual foxes. Although of the foxes is dependent upon removal believe that this rule will significantly not relevant to our determination with of predation. or uniquely affect small governments. Because we are not proposing to regard to critical habitat, we note that In summary, we do not find any the threats that do exist will also be designate any areas of critical habitat, habitat within the islands that meets the addressed by the conservation actions of this rule will result in no regulatory definition of critical habitat. Because the National Park Service (NPS), the impact on any entities. there is no habitat that meets the Nature Conservancy, and the Catalina Takings Island Conservancy on the islands. definition of critical habitat for the Moreover, again because the threats island fox subspecies, there is none to We are not designating critical habitat faced by the species are not habitat- propose, and we are proposing that zero in this proposed rule, and therefore, this based, there would be no informational critical habitat be designated. proposed designation of critical habitat for the four island fox subspecies does benefit to the designation. Required Determinations In accordance with the Act, a critical not pose significant takings habitat designation can include areas Regulatory Planning and Review implications. outside the species’ current range if we Federalism determine that these areas are essential In accordance with Executive Order We are not designating critical habitat to the conservation of the species. We 12866, this document is a significant in this proposed rule, and therefore, this have not found any areas outside the rule in that it may raise novel legal and proposed designation of critical habitat current range of the species to be policy issues, but it is not anticipated to for the four island fox subspecies does essential for the conservation of the have an annual effect on the economy not have significant Federalism effects. species. Our best data suggests that on of $100 million or more or affect the A Federalism assessment is not all the islands with the exception of San economy in a material way. This rule required. Miguel, the island fox subspecies still does not designate critical habitat. occupy all island-based habitat,1 and Unless we receive information during Civil Justice Reform the comment period that indicates there In accordance with Executive Order 1 is habitat which meets the definition of Since the final listing rule was published, 12 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has captive foxes were released into the wild on Santa critical habitat, we will not be preparing determined that the rule does not Rosa Island; 4 of the 12 were later returned to an economic analysis. captivity, and 1 of the 12 was killed by a golden unduly burden the judicial system and eagle (NPS 2004). Currently, there are at least 7 meets the requirements of sections 3(a) adult foxes in the wild on Santa Rosa Island and the recovery team are considering additional about 50 in captivity (NPS 2004), and thus we now releases of foxes back into the wild on Santa Rosa and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are not consider Santa Rosa Island to be occupied habitat. Island in the next month or two (C. Benz, Service, designating critical habitat in However, as with San Miguel Island, the NPS and pers. comm. 2004). accordance with the provisions of the

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:34 Oct 06, 2004 Jkt 205002 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07OCP1.SGM 07OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 60137

Endangered Species Act so this rule assertion was upheld in the courts of the Authors does not burden the judicial system. Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. The primary author of this notice is Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996). the staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) Service. Government-to-Government This rule does not contain any new Proposed Regulation Promulgation collections of information that require Relationship With Tribes approval by OMB under the Paperwork In accordance with the President’s Accordingly, we propose to amend Reduction Act. This rule will not memorandum of April 29, 1994, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title impose recordkeeping or reporting ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, requirements on State or local With Native American Tribal as set forth below: governments, individuals, businesses, or Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive organizations. An agency may not PART 17—[AMENDED] Order 13175, and the Department of the conduct or sponsor, and a person is not Interior’s Manual at 512 DM 2, we required to respond to, a collection of 1. The authority citation for part 17 readily acknowledge our responsibility information unless it displays a continues to read as follows: to communicate meaningfully with currently valid OMB control number. recognized Federal Tribes on a Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. National Environmental Policy Act government-to-government basis. We 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. We are not proposing to designate any are not proposing to designate any areas areas as critical habitat. It is our position as critical habitat. No tribal lands are 2. Amend § 17.11(h) revising the that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do essential for the conservation of the San entries for ‘‘Fox, San Miguel Island, not need to prepare environmental Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island Santa Catalina Island, Santa Cruz Island, analyses as defined by the National fox, Santa Cruz Island fox, and Santa Santa Rosa Island’’ under ‘‘MAMMALS’’ Environmental Policy Act in connection Catalina Island fox. in the list of Endangered and with designating critical habitat under References Cited Threatened Wildlife to read as follows: the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We published a notice A complete list of all references cited § 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife. outlining our reasons for this in this proposed rule is available upon determination in the Federal Register request from the Ventura Fish and * * * * * on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). (h) * * *

Species Vertebrate popu- Historic range lation where endan- Status When listed Critical Special Common name Scientific name gered or threatened habitat rules

******* MAMMALS

******* Fox, San Miguel Is- Urocyon littoralis U.S.A. (CA) ...... Entire ...... E ...... 742 17.97(a) ... NA land. litoralis. Fox, Santa Catalina Urocyon littoralis U.S.A. (CA) ...... Entire ...... E ...... 742 17.97(a) ... NA Island. catalinae. Fox, Santa Cruz Is- Urocyon littoralis U.S.A. (CA) ...... Entire ...... E ...... 742 17.97(a) ... NA land. santacruzae. Fox, Santa Rosa Is- Urocyon littoralis U.S.A. (CA) ...... Entire ...... E ...... 742 17.97(a) ... NA land. santarosae.

*******

3. Amend part 17 by adding a new (a) Animals. This paragraph (a) (ii) There are no specific habitat areas § 17.97 to read as follows: identifies the primary constituent essential to the conservation of this elements and specific habitat areas species. § 17.97 Species for which critical habitat is (2) Fox, Santa Catalina Island prudent but not designated. essential to the conservation of animal species for which we determined (Urocyon littoralis catalinae). This section includes animal and critical habitat to be prudent but did not (i) No primary constituent elements plant species for which we have designate for policy and statutory have been identified for the Santa determined critical habitat to be reasons. We will list these species in the Catalina Island fox. prudent, but for which we did not same order as they appear in § 17.11(h). (ii) There are no specific habitat areas designate critical habitat under the Act essential to the conservation of this for policy and statutory reasons. We (1) Fox, San Miguel Island (Urocyon species. identify these species, their primary littoralis litoralis). (3) Fox, Santa Cruz Island (Urocyon constituent elements, and the specific (i) No primary constituent elements littoralis santacruzae). habitat areas essential to their have been identified for the San Miguel (i) No primary constituent elements conservation to further public Island fox. have been identified for the Santa Cruz awareness and conservation efforts. Island fox.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:34 Oct 06, 2004 Jkt 205002 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07OCP1.SGM 07OCP1 60138 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules

(ii) There are no specific habitat areas ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, The Santa Barbara County salamanders essential to the conservation of this you may submit your comments and are geographically separate from all species. materials concerning this proposed rule other California tiger salamanders. (4) Fox, Santa Rosa Island (Urocyon by any one of several methods: Historically, the Santa Barbara County littoralis santarosae). (1) You may submit written comments California tiger salamanders inhabited (i) No primary constituent elements and information to the Field Supervisor, low-elevation (below 1,400 feet (427 have been identified for the Santa Rosa U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura meters)) vernal pools and ephemeral Island fox. Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola ponds, and associated coastal scrub, (ii) There are no specific habitat areas Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003, or by grassland, and oak savannah plant essential to the conservation of this facsimile 805/644–3958. communities of the Santa Maria, Los species. (2) You may hand-deliver written Alamos, and Santa Rita valleys. (b) [Reserved] comments to our office, at the address The loss of the California tiger salamander’s upland habitat is the Dated: October 1, 2004. given above. (3) You may send comments by single most important factor Julie MacDonald, electronic mail (e-mail) to contributing to the species’ status. Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and [email protected]. Please see the Additional threats to this species Wildlife and Parks. Public Comments Solicited section include threats to the aquatic habitat, [FR Doc. 04–22542 Filed 10–6–04; 8:45 am] below for file format and other predation and competition by BILLING CODE 4310–55–P information about electronic filing. In introduced or non-native species, the event that our Internet connection is habitat fragmentation, contaminants, not functional, please submit your hybridization with non-native tiger DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR comments by the alternate methods salamanders, disease, and over-grazing. On January 19, 2000, we published an Fish and Wildlife Service mentioned above. Comments and materials received, as emergency rule to list the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger 50 CFR Part 17 well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposed critical salamander as endangered (65 FR 3096), habitat rule, will be available for public concurrently with a proposed rule (65 RIN 1018–AT44 inspection, by appointment, during FR 3110) to list the species as endangered. We published a final rule Endangered and Threatened Wildlife normal business hours at the above address. You may obtain copies of the listing the Santa Barbara County DPS of and Plants; Designation of Critical the California tiger salamander as Habitat for the California Tiger draft economic analysis for the California tiger salamander in Santa endangered on September 21, 2000 (65 Salamander (Ambystoma FR 57242). On May 23, 2003, we californiense) in Santa Barbara County Barbara County by contacting the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office at the proposed to list the Central California AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, above address. The draft economic population of California tiger Interior. analysis and the proposed rule for salamander as a threatened DPS. In the same Federal Register notice we also ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of critical habitat designation also are available on the Internet at http:// proposed to downlist the Sonoma public comment period and notice of County DPS and Santa Barbara County availability of draft economic analysis. ventura.fws.gov/. In the event that our Internet connection is not functional, DPS of California tiger salamander, from SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and please obtain copies of documents endangered to threatened status (68 FR Wildlife Service (Service) announce the directly from the Ventura Fish and 28648). The Federal Register notice also availability of a draft economic analysis Wildlife Office. included a proposed special rule that would exempt existing routine ranching for the proposed designation of critical FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: habitat for the California tiger activities from the prohibitions of the Katie Drexhage (telephone 805/549– Act. On August 4, 2004, we determined salamander (Ambystoma californiense) 3811; facsimile 805/549–3233 or in Santa Barbara County (here after threatened status for the California tiger Michael McCrary (telephone 805/644– salamander rangewide (69 FR 47212). referred to as ‘‘California tiger 1766; facsimile 805/644–3958), Ventura salamander’’) under the Endangered We also finalized the special rule for the Fish and Wildlife Office, at the address species rangewide, which exempts Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). listed above. We are also reopening the public existing routine ranching activities. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 25, 2003, the comment period for the proposal to Environmental Defense Center and designate critical habitat for this species Background Center for Biological Diversity filed a to allow all interested parties to The California tiger salamander is a complaint challenging our failure to comment on the proposed rule and the large and stocky salamander, with a designate critical habitat for the Santa associated draft economic analysis. broad, rounded snout. Adult males may Barbara County DPS of the California Comments previously submitted on the reach a total length of 8.2 inches (in) tiger salamander (Environmental proposed rule need not be resubmitted (20.8 centimeters (cm)) while females Defense Center et al. v. U. S. Fish and as they have been incorporated into the are slightly smaller, reaching about 6.8 Wildlife Service et al., EVCD 03–00195 public record as a part of this reopening in (17.3 cm) in length. The top of the (C.D.Cal)). By order dated August 7, of the comment period, and will be fully salamander can have white or pale 2003, the district court ordered us to considered in preparation of the final yellow spots or bars on a black publish a proposed rule to designate rule. background. The underside varies from critical habitat for the California tiger DATES: We will accept all comments almost uniform white or pale yellow to salamander. On January 22, 2004, we received on or before November 8, 2004. a varying pattern of white or pale yellow proposed to designate critical habitat for Any comments that we receive after the and black. This species is restricted to the Santa Barbara DPS of California tiger closing date may not be considered in California and does not overlap with salamander (69 FR 3064). the final decision on this proposal. any other species of tiger salamander. Approximately 13,920 acres (5,633

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:34 Oct 06, 2004 Jkt 205002 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07OCP1.SGM 07OCP1