Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening of the Comment Period on Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, 39227-39231 [05-13402]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 129 / Thursday, July 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(1) One of the multiple applications is
submitted as a priority application; and
(2) The remaining non-priority
applications do not face a mutually
exclusive challenge.
3. Section 73.865 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 73.865 Assignment and transfer of LPFM
authorizations.
A change in the name of an LPFM
licensee where no change in ownership
or control is involved may be
accomplished by written notification by
the licensee to the Commission.
4. Section 73.870 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 73.870 Processing of LPFM broadcast
station applications.
(a) Except as provided in § 73.872(c),
a minor change for an LP100 station
authorized under this subpart is limited
to transmitter site relocations of 5.6
kilometers or less. Except as provided in
§ 73.872(c), a minor change for an LP10
station authorized under this subpart is
limited to transmitter site relocations of
3.2 kilometers or less. Minor changes of
LPFM stations may include changes in
frequency to adjacent or IF frequencies
or, upon a technical showing of reduced
interference, to any frequency.
*
*
*
*
*
5. Section 73.871 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 73.871 Amendment of LPFM broadcast
station applications.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Only minor amendments to new
and major change applications will be
accepted after the close of the pertinent
filing window. Subject to the provisions
of this section, such amendments may
be filed as a matter of right by the date
specified in the FCC’s Public Notice
announcing the acceptance of such
applications. For the purposes of this
section, and except as provided in
§ 73.872(c), minor amendments are
limited to:
(1) Site relocations of 3.2 kilometers
or less for LP10 stations;
(2) Site relocations of 5.6 kilometers
or less for LP100 stations;
(3) Changes in ownership where the
original party or parties to an
application retain more than a 50
percent ownership interest in the
application as originally filed; and
(4) Other changes in general and/or
legal information.
*
*
*
*
*
6. Section 73.872 is amended by
revising paragraphs (c) introductory
text, (c)(1), and (d)(1) to read as follows:
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:01 Jul 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
§ 73.872 Selection procedure for mutually
exclusive LPFM applications.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Voluntary time-sharing. If
mutually exclusive applications have
the same point total, any two or more of
the tied applicants may propose to share
use of the frequency by submitting,
within 90 days of the release of a public
notice announcing the tie, a time-share
proposal. Such proposals shall be
treated as amendments to the time-share
proponents’ applications and shall
become part of the terms of the station
license. Such proposals may include
amendments to the applications
proposing to relocate the transmitter to
a central location between the proposed
transmitter sites, notwithstanding the
site relocation limits set forth in
§§ 73.870 and 73.871. Where such
proposals include all of the tied
applications, all of the tied applications
will be treated as tentative selectees;
otherwise, time-share proponents’
points will be aggregated to determine
the tentative selectees.
(1) Time-share proposals shall be in
writing and signed by each time-share
proponent, and shall satisfy the
following requirements:
(i) The proposal must specify the
proposed hours of operation of each
time-share proponent;
(ii) The proposal must not include
simultaneous operation of the timeshare proponents;
(iii) Each time-share proponent must
propose to operate for at least 10 hours
per week; and
(iv) If the time-share proponents
propose to relocate the transmitter site
to a central location beyond the site
relocation limits set forth in § 73.871,
the proposal must demonstrate that the
proposed transmitter site is centrally
located.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) If a tie among mutually exclusive
applications is not resolved through
time-sharing in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section, the tied
applications will be reviewed for
acceptability and applicants with tied,
grantable applications will be eligible
for equal, successive license terms of no
less than one year each for a total
combined term of eight years, in
accordance with § 73.873. Eligible
applications will be granted
simultaneously, and the sequence of the
applicants’ license terms will be
determined by the sequence in which
they file applications for licenses to
cover their construction permits based
on the day of filing, except that eligible
applicants proposing same-site facilities
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39227
will be required, within 30 days of
written notification by Commission
staff, to submit a written settlement
agreement as to construction and license
term sequence. Failure to submit such
an agreement will result in the dismissal
of the applications proposing same-site
facilities and the grant of the remaining,
eligible applications.
*
*
*
*
*
7. Section 73.3598 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 73.3598
Period of construction.
(a) Each original construction permit
for the construction of a new TV, AM,
FM, or International Broadcast; low
power TV; TV translator; TV booster;
FM translator; FM booster; or LPFM
station, or to make changes in such
existing stations, shall specify a period
of three years from the date of issuance
of the original construction permit
within which construction shall be
completed and application for license
filed.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–13369 Filed 7–6–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018–AT88
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Reopening of the
Comment Period on Proposed
Designation of Critical Habitat for the
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
public comment period.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period
for the proposal to designate critical
habitat for the southwestern willow
flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)
to allow all interested parties to
comment on the proposed critical
habitat designation under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);
the draft economic analysis; draft
environmental assessment; and the
associated required determinations
discussed below.
Comments previously submitted on
the October 12, 2004, proposed rule (69
FR 60705), and the December 13, 2004
(69 FR 72161), March 31, 2005 (70 FR
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
39228
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 129 / Thursday, July 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules
16474), and April 28, 2005 (70 FR
21988), publications, need not be
resubmitted as they have been
incorporated into the public record and
will be fully considered in preparation
of the final rule.
DATES: We will consider all comments
received from interested parties by July
18, 2005. Any comments received after
the closing date may not be considered
in the final determination on the
proposal.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment,
you may submit your comments and
materials by any one of several methods:
1. You may submit written comments
and information by mail or handdelivery to Steve Spangle, Field
Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services
Field Office, 2321 W. Royal Palm Road,
Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona 85021.
2. Written comments may be sent by
facsimile to (602) 242–2513.
3. You may send your comments by
electronic mail (e-mail) to
WIFLcomments@fws.gov.
You may obtain copies of the critical
habitat proposal and supporting maps,
draft economic analysis, and draft
environmental assessment by mail by
contacting the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, or by
visiting our Web site at https://
arizonaes.fws.gov/SWWF_PCH_Oct.htm.
You may review comments and
materials received, and review
supporting documentation used in
preparation of this proposed rule by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor,
Arizona Ecological Services Office
(telephone 602–242–0210, facsimile
602–242–2513).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
We proposed to designate for the
southwestern willow flycatcher
approximately 376,095 acres (ac)
(152,124 hectares (ha)) [including
approximately 1,556 stream miles (2,508
stream kilometers)] of critical habitat,
which includes various stream segments
and their associated riparian areas, not
exceeding the 100-year floodplain or
flood-prone area, on a combination of
Federal, State, tribal, and private lands
in southern California, southern
Nevada, southwestern Utah, southcentral Colorado, Arizona, and New
Mexico. The proposed rule was
published in the Federal Register (69
FR 60705) on October 12, 2004,
pursuant to a court order.
On September 30, 2003, in response
to a complaint brought by the Center for
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:01 Jul 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
Biological Diversity, the U.S. District
Court of New Mexico instructed us to
propose critical habitat by September
30, 2004, and publish a final rule by
September 30, 2005. Additional
background information is available in
the October 12, 2004, proposal to
designate critical habitat.
Critical habitat identifies specific
areas that are essential to the
conservation of a listed species and that
may require special management
considerations or protection. If the
proposed rule is made final, section 7 of
the Act will prohibit adverse
modification of critical habitat by any
activity funded, authorized, or carried
out by any Federal agency. Federal
agencies proposing actions affecting
areas designated as critical habitat must
consult with us on the effects of their
proposed actions, pursuant to section
7(a)(2) of the Act.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we
consider economic and other relevant
impacts prior to making a final decision
on what areas to designate as critical
habitat. We may revise the proposal, or
its supporting documents, to
incorporate or address new information
received during the comment period. In
particular, we may exclude an area from
critical habitat if we determine that the
benefits of excluding the area outweigh
the benefits of including the area as
critical habitat, provided such exclusion
will not result in the extinction of the
species. During the comment period we
anticipate receiving Tribal conservation
plans and conservation plans from local
government entities with authority over
areas covered under the proposed
designation. We note that areas covered
under such plans, received during the
comment period, will be considered for
exclusion in the final rule pursuant to
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Additionally,
as noted in our proposal, we will
consider excluding, pursuant to section
4(b)(2) of the Act, (1) legally operative
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) that
cover the species and provide
assurances that the conservation
measures for the species will be
implemented and effective, as well as
draft HCPs that cover the species, have
undergone public review and comment,
and provide assurances that the
conservation measures for the species
will be implemented and effective (i.e.,
pending HCPs), (2) National Wildlife
Refuges with Comprehensive
Conservation Plans (CCPs) or
conservation programs that provide
assurances that the conservation
measures for the species will be
implemented and effective, (3) water
systems that provide flood control or
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
water supply benefits, and (4) tribal
lands.
Pursuant to 50 CFR 424.16(c)(2), we
may extend or reopen a comment period
upon finding that there is good cause to
do so. In our proposed rule, we
withheld our determination of whether
this designation would be in
compliance with certain Executive
orders and statutes until we completed
our draft economic analysis of the
proposed designation so that we would
have the factual basis for our
determination. This notice serves to
provide the factual basis for this
determination, as outlined below. We
deem this consideration as sufficient
cause to reopen the comment period.
We are required by court order to
complete the final designation of critical
habitat for the southwestern willow
flycatcher by September 30, 2005. To
meet this date, all comments on or
proposed revisions to the proposed rule
need to be submitted to us by July 18,
2005 (see DATES).
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 address, which
we will honor to the extent allowable by
law. If you wish us to withhold your
name or address, you must state this
request prominently at the beginning of
your comments. However, we will not
consider anonymous comments. To the
extent consistent with applicable law,
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.
Required Determinations—Amended
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order
12866, this document is a significant
rule because it may raise novel legal and
policy issues. However, based on our
draft economic analysis, it is not
anticipated that the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the
southwestern willow flycatcher will
result in an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
affect the economy in a material way.
Due to the timeline for publication in
the Federal Register, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has not
formally reviewed the proposed rule or
accompanying economic analysis.
Further, Executive Order 12866
directs Federal Agencies promulgating
regulations to evaluate regulatory
alternatives (Office of Management and
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 129 / Thursday, July 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Budget, Circular A–4, September 17,
2003). Pursuant to Circular A–4, once it
has been determined that the Federal
regulatory action is appropriate, then
the agency will need to consider
alternative regulatory approaches. Since
the determination of critical habitat is a
statutory requirement pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
we must then evaluate alternative
regulatory approaches, where feasible,
when promulgating a designation of
critical habitat.
In developing our designations of
critical habitat, we consider economic
impacts, impacts to national security,
and other relevant impacts pursuant to
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the
discretion allowable under this
provision, we may exclude any
particular area from the designation of
critical habitat providing that the
benefits of such exclusion outweighs the
benefits of specifying the area as critical
habitat and that such exclusion would
not result in the extinction of the
species. As such, we believe that the
evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion
of particular areas, or combination
thereof, in a designation constitutes our
regulatory alternative analysis.
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
SBREFA), 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
effect 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 an
agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As
noted above, in our proposed rule we
withheld our determination of whether
this designation would result in a
significant effect as defined under
SBREFA until we completed our draft
economic analysis of the proposed
designation so that we would have the
factual basis for our determination.
According to the Small Business
Administration (SBA), small entities
include small organizations, such as
independent nonprofit organizations
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
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:01 Jul 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 designation as well as 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 this proposed
designation of critical habitat for the
southwestern willow flycatcher would
affect a substantial number of small
entities, we considered the number of
small entities affected within particular
types of economic activities (e.g., water
management and supply, livestock
grazing, land development, recreation).
We considered each industry or
category 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 the designation of critical
habitat. Designation of critical habitat
only affects activities conducted,
funded, permitted or authorized by
Federal agencies; non-Federal activities
are not affected by the designation.
If this proposed critical habitat
designation is made final, 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.
In our economic analysis of this
proposed designation we evaluated the
potential economic effects on small
business entities and small governments
resulting from conservation actions
related to the listing of this species and
proposed designation of its critical
habitat. We evaluated small business
entities in four categories: Water
management and supply activities,
livestock grazing, land development,
and recreation. The following summary
of the information contained in
Appendix A of the draft economic
analysis provides the basis for our
determination.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39229
Water Management and Water Supply
Activities
Under one scenario analyzed in the
draft economic analysis, water operators
are assumed to be required to change
their management regimes to avoid
adverse affects to southwestern willow
flycatcher habitat, resulting in a loss of
water for beneficial use (i.e. reservoir
pools will be limited to current levels in
order to avoid inundation of
southwestern willow flycatcher habitat).
Facilities assessed under this scenario
include Lake Hodges, Cuyamaca
Reservoir, Vail Dam, Pleasant Valley
Reservoir, Isabella Dam, Hoover Dam,
Parker Dam, Alamo Dam, Roosevelt
Dam, and Horseshoe Dam. Under this
scenario, it is expected that this
economic cost will result in higher
water prices to commercial and
residential users; however, we find that
no small businesses are directly
impacted under this scenario.
Some water users may be more
directly affected by changes in water
supply that could occur as a result of
southwestern willow flycatcher
conservation activities, specifically,
agricultural users dependent on the
drought reserves provided by these
systems. Appendix A of the draft
economic analysis provides a profile of
the agricultural users that are at greatest
risk from direct losses in water supply
under this scenario. The four water
systems that provide water to
agricultural users include Lake Isabella
(including the North Kern Water Storage
District, the Buena Vista Storage
District, and the City of Bakersfield
Water Resources Department); Roosevelt
and Horseshoe (the Salt River Project
operates six reservoirs and dams on the
Salt and Verde Rivers); Coolidge Dam
(San Carlos Irrigation Project); and
Lower Colorado River (water from the
Colorado River is diverted to six States
and is used for every purpose, including
agricultural uses).
Livestock Grazing Activities
Impacts to livestock grazing include
an estimated reduction in the level of
grazing effort within the proposed
designation of 89,300 AUM (animal unit
months), of which 1,300 are federally
permitted, and 88,000 are on private
lands. The AUM reduction could
represent approximately 1 percent of
AUMs for each of 105 affected ranchers
holding Federal grazing permits in the
proposed designation cumulatively over
20 years. On non-Federal lands, impacts
on grazing efforts are more uncertain,
since maps describing the overlap of
privately grazed lands and the
designation are not available. However,
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
39230
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 129 / Thursday, July 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules
if each ranch affected is small, then 0 to
110 ranches cumulatively over 20 years
could experience a total reduction in
private lands grazing effort. We believe
that this would represent approximately
0.3 percent of beef cow operations in
affected States. However, we will
continue to evaluate the potential
economic impacts by determining the
number of AUMs per region and the
number of ranches per the region to
determine if our assessment is accurate.
Land Development Activities
Impacts to development activities
within the proposed designation
include land value loss, other project
modifications, California Environmental
Quality Act costs, and project delay
costs in the Mojave and Santa Ana
Management Units in California. It was
determined in the draft economic
analysis that less than 1 percent of land
developers will be affected, and 0.02
percent of annual revenues of small
land developers in this area may be lost.
Recreation Activities
Impacts to recreation activities
include limitations on vehicle use, fires,
and cigarette smoking in two areas near
Roosevelt Lake on the Tonto National
Forest, and fewer trips to the area for
hunting and fishing for a total annual
impact of approximately 0.25 percent of
annual small business revenues in Gila
County.
Based on this data we have
determined that this proposed
designation would not affect a
substantial number of small businesses
involved in or affected by water
management and supply activities,
livestock grazing, land development,
and recreation. Further, we have
determined that this proposed
designation would also not result in a
significant effect to the annual sales of
those small businesses impacted by this
proposed designation. As such, we are
certifying that this proposed designation
of critical habitat would not result in a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Please refer to Appendix A of our draft
economic analysis of this designation
for a more detailed discussion of
potential economic impacts to small
business entities.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
Executive Order (E.O.) 13211 on
regulations that significantly affect
energy supply, distribution, and use.
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare
Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. This
proposed rule is considered a significant
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:01 Jul 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 due
to it potentially raising novel legal and
policy issues, but it is not expected to
significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, or use. Appendix B of the
draft economic analysis provides a
detailed discussion and analysis of this
determination. Specifically, two criteria
were determined to be relevant to this
analysis: (1) reductions in electricity
production in excess of 1 billion
kilowatt-hours per year or in excess of
500 megawatts of installed capacity, and
(2) increases in the cost of energy
production in excess of 1 percent. The
draft analysis finds that no net
reduction in electricity production is
anticipated, and thus we do not
anticipate that the suggested OMB
threshold of 1 billion kilowatt hours
will be exceeded. In addition, total
financial impacts related to
southwestern willow flycatcher
conservation activities ($2.7 million
annually) represent 0.02 percent of the
estimated annual baseline cost of
regional energy production, and this is
well below the 1 percent threshold
suggested by OMB. Therefore, this
action is not a significant 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),
the Service makes the following
findings:
(a) This rule will not produce a
Federal mandate. In general, a Federal
mandate is a provision in legislation,
statute, or regulation that would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
tribal governments, or the private sector,
and includes both ‘‘Federal
intergovernmental mandates’’ and
‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C.
658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon State, local, or tribal
governments,’’ with two exceptions. It
excludes ‘‘a condition of federal
assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty
arising from participation in a voluntary
Federal program,’’ unless the regulation
‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or
more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under
entitlement authority,’’ if the provision
would ‘‘increase the stringency of
conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps
upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal
Government’s responsibility to provide
funding’’ and the State, local, or tribal
governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust
accordingly. (At the time of enactment,
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
these entitlement programs were:
Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child
Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services
Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation
State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living;
Family Support Welfare Services; and
Child Support Enforcement.) ‘‘Federal
private sector mandate’’ includes a
regulation that ‘‘would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private
sector, except (i) a condition of Federal
assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal
program.’’
The designation of critical habitat
does not impose a legally binding duty
on non-Federal Government entities or
private parties. Under the Act, the only
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies
must ensure that their actions do not
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. Non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding,
assistance, permits, or otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal
agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical
habitat. However, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests
squarely on the Federal agency.
Furthermore, to the extent that nonFederal entities are indirectly impacted
because they receive Federal assistance
or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act would not apply; nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large
entitlement programs listed above on to
State governments.
(b) The economic analysis discusses
potential impacts of critical habitat
designation for the southwestern willow
flycatcher on water management
activities, administrative costs, livestock
grazing, residential and commercial
development activities, Tribes,
transportation activities, recreation
activities, and fire management
activities. The analysis estimates that
annual costs of the rule could range
from $29.2 to $39.5 million annually
using the most likely costs scenario.
Impacts are largely anticipated to affect
water operators and Federal and State
agencies, with some effects on livestock
grazing operations, land development
activities, and recreation activities.
Impacts on small governments are not
anticipated, or they are anticipated to be
passed through to consumers. For
example, costs to water operations
would be expected to be passed on to
consumers in the form of price changes.
Consequently, for the reasons discussed
above, we do not believe that the
designation of critical habitat for the
southwestern willow flycatcher will
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 129 / Thursday, July 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules
significantly or uniquely affect small
government entities. As such, a Small
Government Agency Plan is not
required.
Takings
In accordance with Executive Order
12630 (‘‘Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Private Property Rights’’), we
have analyzed the potential takings
implications of proposing critical
habitat for the southwestern willow
flycatcher in a takings implications
assessment. The takings implications
assessment concludes that this proposed
designation of critical habitat for the
southwestern willow flycatcher does not
pose significant takings implications.
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: June 30, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 05–13402 Filed 7–6–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[I.D. 062005C]
Endangered and Threatened Species:
Recovery Plan Preparation for 16
Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs)
of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead
National Marine Service
(NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of intent; request for
information.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS announces its intent to
develop recovery plans for 16 ESUs of
Pacific salmon and steelhead in the
Northwest listed as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and requests
information from the public. NMFS is
required by the ESA to develop and
implement recovery plans for the
conservation and survival of listed
species. NMFS is working with state,
Federal, tribal and local entities in
Washington, Oregon and Idaho to
produce draft recovery plans by
December 2005.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:01 Jul 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
All information must be received
no later than 5 p.m. Pacific Daylight
Time on September 6, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Information may be
submitted by any of the following
methods:
• E-mail: The mailbox address for
submitting e-mail information for
recovery planning is
RecoveryInfo.nwr@noaa.gov. Please
include in the subject line of the e-mail
comment the identifier ‘‘Information for
ESA Recovery Planning, Attention:
(insert name of appropriate NMFS
Recovery Coordinator)’’ and specify the
recovery domain to which your
information applies (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
• Federal e-rulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov
• Mail: Submit written comments and
information to Salmon Recovery Branch
Chief, NMFS, Salmon Recovery
Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard,
Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon, 97232–
1274. Please identify information as
regarding the ‘‘Information for ESA
Recovery Planning.’’
• Hand Delivery/Courier: NMFS,
Salmon Recovery Division, 1201 NE
Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland,
Oregon, 97232–1274. You can handdeliver written information to our office
at the street address above. Business
hours are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: 503–872–2737. Please identify
the fax comment as regarding
‘‘Information for Recovery Plans’’ and
specify the recovery domain to which
your information applies (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
NMFS, Northwest Region, Salmon
Recovery Division, and contact the
recovery coordinator listed below for
the area in which you are interested.
Additional salmon-related materials are
available on the Internet at
www.nwr.noaa.gov.
Puget Sound Recovery Domain:
Elizabeth Babcock, (phone: 206–526–
4505), email address:
Elizabeth.Babcock@noaagov; Upper
Columbia Recovery Domain: Lynn
Hatcher, (phone: 509–962–8911 x 223),
email address: Lynn.Hatcher@noaa.gov;
Mid Columbia Recovery Domain: Paula
Burgess, (phone: 503–808–6525), email
address: Paula.Burgess@noaa.gov;
Willamette/Lower Columbia Recovery
Domain: Patty Dornbusch, (phone: 503–
230–5430), email address:
Patty.Dornbusch@noaa.gov; Oregon
Coast Recovery Domain: Rosemary
Furfey, (phone: 503–231–2149), email
address: Rosemary.Furfey@noaa.gov;
Snake River Recovery Domain: David
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39231
Mabe, (phone: 208–378–5698), email
address: David.Mabe@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS is
charged with the recovery of Pacific
salmon and steelhead species listed
under the ESA. Recovery under the Act
means that listed species and their
ecosystems are restored, and their future
secured, so that the protections of the
ESA are no longer necessary.
There are 15 ‘‘distinct population
segments’’ or ESUs of salmon and
steelhead listed as threatened or
endangered in Oregon, Washington, and
Idaho:
Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha): Upper Willamette River;
Lower Columbia River; Upper Columbia
River Spring-run; Puget Sound; Snake
River Fall-run; and Snake River Spring/
Summer-run.
Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta):
Hood Canal summer-run; Columbia
River.
Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus
nerka): Snake River; Ozette Lake.
Steelhead Salmon (Oncorhynchus
mykiss): Upper Willamette River; Lower
Columbia River; Middle Columbia
River; Upper Columbia River; Snake
River Basin.
NMFS has proposed to list Oregon
Coast coho and the Lower Columbia
River coho ESUs as threatened (69 FR
33102; June 14, 2004). If these ESUs are
listed, they will be included in the
Oregon Coast and Willamette/Lower
Columbia River recovery planning
efforts. Notice of recovery plans for the
Southern Oregon/Northern California
Coast coho ESU will be announced
separately with other California ESUs.
The ESA requires that NMFS develop
and implement recovery plans for the
conservation and survival of endangered
and threatened species. These recovery
plans provide blueprints to determine
priority recovery actions for funding
and implementation. The ESA specifies
that recovery plans must include: (1) a
description of site-specific management
actions as may be necessary to achieve
the plan’s goals for the conservation and
survival of the species; (2) objective,
measurable criteria, which when met,
would result in the species being
removed from the list; and (3) estimates
of the time and costs required to achieve
the plan’s goal and achieve intermediate
steps toward that goal. NMFS will take
into consideration information provided
during this comment period to prepare
draft recovery plans.
In order to develop recovery plans
that address multiple species in an
ecosystem context, NMFS organized the
listed and proposed ESUs in the
Northwest into six recovery areas or
E:\FR\FM\07JYP1.SGM
07JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 129 (Thursday, July 7, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39227-39231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13402]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AT88
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening of the
Comment Period on Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period for the proposal to designate
critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax
traillii extimus) to allow all interested parties to comment on the
proposed critical habitat designation under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); the draft economic
analysis; draft environmental assessment; and the associated required
determinations discussed below.
Comments previously submitted on the October 12, 2004, proposed
rule (69 FR 60705), and the December 13, 2004 (69 FR 72161), March 31,
2005 (70 FR
[[Page 39228]]
16474), and April 28, 2005 (70 FR 21988), publications, need not be
resubmitted as they have been incorporated into the public record and
will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.
DATES: We will consider all comments received from interested parties
by July 18, 2005. Any comments received after the closing date may not
be considered in the final determination on the proposal.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and
materials by any one of several methods:
1. You may submit written comments and information by mail or hand-
delivery to Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological
Services Field Office, 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix,
Arizona 85021.
2. Written comments may be sent by facsimile to (602) 242-2513.
3. You may send your comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to
WIFLcomments@fws.gov.
You may obtain copies of the critical habitat proposal and
supporting maps, draft economic analysis, and draft environmental
assessment by mail by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, or by visiting our Web site at https://
arizonaes.fws.gov/SWWF_PCH_Oct.htm. You may review comments and
materials received, and review supporting documentation used in
preparation of this proposed rule by appointment, during normal
business hours, at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor,
Arizona Ecological Services Office (telephone 602-242-0210, facsimile
602-242-2513).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
We proposed to designate for the southwestern willow flycatcher
approximately 376,095 acres (ac) (152,124 hectares (ha)) [including
approximately 1,556 stream miles (2,508 stream kilometers)] of critical
habitat, which includes various stream segments and their associated
riparian areas, not exceeding the 100-year floodplain or flood-prone
area, on a combination of Federal, State, tribal, and private lands in
southern California, southern Nevada, southwestern Utah, south-central
Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. The proposed rule was published in
the Federal Register (69 FR 60705) on October 12, 2004, pursuant to a
court order.
On September 30, 2003, in response to a complaint brought by the
Center for Biological Diversity, the U.S. District Court of New Mexico
instructed us to propose critical habitat by September 30, 2004, and
publish a final rule by September 30, 2005. Additional background
information is available in the October 12, 2004, proposal to designate
critical habitat.
Critical habitat identifies specific areas that are essential to
the conservation of a listed species and that may require special
management considerations or protection. If the proposed rule is made
final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit adverse modification of
critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by
any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting areas
designated as critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of
their proposed actions, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we consider economic and other
relevant impacts prior to making a final decision on what areas to
designate as critical habitat. We may revise the proposal, or its
supporting documents, to incorporate or address new information
received during the comment period. In particular, we may exclude an
area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of
excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as
critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the
extinction of the species. During the comment period we anticipate
receiving Tribal conservation plans and conservation plans from local
government entities with authority over areas covered under the
proposed designation. We note that areas covered under such plans,
received during the comment period, will be considered for exclusion in
the final rule pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Additionally, as
noted in our proposal, we will consider excluding, pursuant to section
4(b)(2) of the Act, (1) legally operative Habitat Conservation Plans
(HCPs) that cover the species and provide assurances that the
conservation measures for the species will be implemented and
effective, as well as draft HCPs that cover the species, have undergone
public review and comment, and provide assurances that the conservation
measures for the species will be implemented and effective (i.e.,
pending HCPs), (2) National Wildlife Refuges with Comprehensive
Conservation Plans (CCPs) or conservation programs that provide
assurances that the conservation measures for the species will be
implemented and effective, (3) water systems that provide flood control
or water supply benefits, and (4) tribal lands.
Pursuant to 50 CFR 424.16(c)(2), we may extend or reopen a comment
period upon finding that there is good cause to do so. In our proposed
rule, we withheld our determination of whether this designation would
be in compliance with certain Executive orders and statutes until we
completed our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation so
that we would have the factual basis for our determination. This notice
serves to provide the factual basis for this determination, as outlined
below. We deem this consideration as sufficient cause to reopen the
comment period.
We are required by court order to complete the final designation of
critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher by September
30, 2005. To meet this date, all comments on or proposed revisions to
the proposed rule need to be submitted to us by July 18, 2005 (see
DATES).
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 address, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law.
If you wish us to withhold your name or address, you must state this
request prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, we will
not consider anonymous comments. To the extent consistent with
applicable law, 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.
Required Determinations--Amended
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule because it may raise novel legal and policy issues.
However, based on our draft economic analysis, it is not anticipated
that the proposed designation of critical habitat for the southwestern
willow flycatcher will result in an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to
the timeline for publication in the Federal Register, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has not formally reviewed the proposed rule
or accompanying economic analysis.
Further, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal Agencies
promulgating regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office of
Management and
[[Page 39229]]
Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to Circular A-4,
once it has been determined that the Federal regulatory action is
appropriate, then the agency will need to consider alternative
regulatory approaches. Since the determination of critical habitat is a
statutory requirement pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we must then evaluate
alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when promulgating a
designation of critical habitat.
In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider
economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant
impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion
allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from
the designation of critical habitat providing that the benefits of such
exclusion outweighs the benefits of specifying the area as critical
habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of
the species. As such, we believe that the evaluation of the inclusion
or exclusion of particular areas, or combination thereof, in a
designation constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis.
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 SBREFA), 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 effect 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
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. As noted above, in
our proposed rule we withheld our determination of whether this
designation would result in a significant effect as defined under
SBREFA until we completed our draft economic analysis of the proposed
designation so that we would have the factual basis for our
determination.
According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations 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
designation as well as 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 this proposed designation of critical habitat for
the southwestern willow flycatcher would affect a substantial number of
small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected
within particular types of economic activities (e.g., water management
and supply, livestock grazing, land development, recreation). We
considered each industry or category 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
the designation of critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat
only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted or authorized by
Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are not affected by the
designation.
If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final,
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.
In our economic analysis of this proposed designation we evaluated
the potential economic effects on small business entities and small
governments resulting from conservation actions related to the listing
of this species and proposed designation of its critical habitat. We
evaluated small business entities in four categories: Water management
and supply activities, livestock grazing, land development, and
recreation. The following summary of the information contained in
Appendix A of the draft economic analysis provides the basis for our
determination.
Water Management and Water Supply Activities
Under one scenario analyzed in the draft economic analysis, water
operators are assumed to be required to change their management regimes
to avoid adverse affects to southwestern willow flycatcher habitat,
resulting in a loss of water for beneficial use (i.e. reservoir pools
will be limited to current levels in order to avoid inundation of
southwestern willow flycatcher habitat). Facilities assessed under this
scenario include Lake Hodges, Cuyamaca Reservoir, Vail Dam, Pleasant
Valley Reservoir, Isabella Dam, Hoover Dam, Parker Dam, Alamo Dam,
Roosevelt Dam, and Horseshoe Dam. Under this scenario, it is expected
that this economic cost will result in higher water prices to
commercial and residential users; however, we find that no small
businesses are directly impacted under this scenario.
Some water users may be more directly affected by changes in water
supply that could occur as a result of southwestern willow flycatcher
conservation activities, specifically, agricultural users dependent on
the drought reserves provided by these systems. Appendix A of the draft
economic analysis provides a profile of the agricultural users that are
at greatest risk from direct losses in water supply under this
scenario. The four water systems that provide water to agricultural
users include Lake Isabella (including the North Kern Water Storage
District, the Buena Vista Storage District, and the City of Bakersfield
Water Resources Department); Roosevelt and Horseshoe (the Salt River
Project operates six reservoirs and dams on the Salt and Verde Rivers);
Coolidge Dam (San Carlos Irrigation Project); and Lower Colorado River
(water from the Colorado River is diverted to six States and is used
for every purpose, including agricultural uses).
Livestock Grazing Activities
Impacts to livestock grazing include an estimated reduction in the
level of grazing effort within the proposed designation of 89,300 AUM
(animal unit months), of which 1,300 are federally permitted, and
88,000 are on private lands. The AUM reduction could represent
approximately 1 percent of AUMs for each of 105 affected ranchers
holding Federal grazing permits in the proposed designation
cumulatively over 20 years. On non-Federal lands, impacts on grazing
efforts are more uncertain, since maps describing the overlap of
privately grazed lands and the designation are not available. However,
[[Page 39230]]
if each ranch affected is small, then 0 to 110 ranches cumulatively
over 20 years could experience a total reduction in private lands
grazing effort. We believe that this would represent approximately 0.3
percent of beef cow operations in affected States. However, we will
continue to evaluate the potential economic impacts by determining the
number of AUMs per region and the number of ranches per the region to
determine if our assessment is accurate.
Land Development Activities
Impacts to development activities within the proposed designation
include land value loss, other project modifications, California
Environmental Quality Act costs, and project delay costs in the Mojave
and Santa Ana Management Units in California. It was determined in the
draft economic analysis that less than 1 percent of land developers
will be affected, and 0.02 percent of annual revenues of small land
developers in this area may be lost.
Recreation Activities
Impacts to recreation activities include limitations on vehicle
use, fires, and cigarette smoking in two areas near Roosevelt Lake on
the Tonto National Forest, and fewer trips to the area for hunting and
fishing for a total annual impact of approximately 0.25 percent of
annual small business revenues in Gila County.
Based on this data we have determined that this proposed
designation would not affect a substantial number of small businesses
involved in or affected by water management and supply activities,
livestock grazing, land development, and recreation. Further, we have
determined that this proposed designation would also not result in a
significant effect to the annual sales of those small businesses
impacted by this proposed designation. As such, we are certifying that
this proposed designation of critical habitat would not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Please refer to Appendix A of our draft economic analysis of this
designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic
impacts to small business entities.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211
on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution,
and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule is
considered a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 due to it
potentially raising novel legal and policy issues, but it is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Appendix B of the draft economic analysis provides a detailed
discussion and analysis of this determination. Specifically, two
criteria were determined to be relevant to this analysis: (1)
reductions in electricity production in excess of 1 billion kilowatt-
hours per year or in excess of 500 megawatts of installed capacity, and
(2) increases in the cost of energy production in excess of 1 percent.
The draft analysis finds that no net reduction in electricity
production is anticipated, and thus we do not anticipate that the
suggested OMB threshold of 1 billion kilowatt hours will be exceeded.
In addition, total financial impacts related to southwestern willow
flycatcher conservation activities ($2.7 million annually) represent
0.02 percent of the estimated annual baseline cost of regional energy
production, and this is well below the 1 percent threshold suggested by
OMB. Therefore, this action is not a significant 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), the Service makes the following findings:
(a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,'' with
two exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of federal assistance.'' It
also excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary
Federal program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing
Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually
to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,''
if the provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of
assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal
Government's responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local,
or tribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. (At the
time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants;
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services;
and Child Support Enforcement.) ``Federal private sector mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above on to State governments.
(b) The economic analysis discusses potential impacts of critical
habitat designation for the southwestern willow flycatcher on water
management activities, administrative costs, livestock grazing,
residential and commercial development activities, Tribes,
transportation activities, recreation activities, and fire management
activities. The analysis estimates that annual costs of the rule could
range from $29.2 to $39.5 million annually using the most likely costs
scenario. Impacts are largely anticipated to affect water operators and
Federal and State agencies, with some effects on livestock grazing
operations, land development activities, and recreation activities.
Impacts on small governments are not anticipated, or they are
anticipated to be passed through to consumers. For example, costs to
water operations would be expected to be passed on to consumers in the
form of price changes. Consequently, for the reasons discussed above,
we do not believe that the designation of critical habitat for the
southwestern willow flycatcher will
[[Page 39231]]
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a
Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
proposing critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher in a
takings implications assessment. The takings implications assessment
concludes that this proposed designation of critical habitat for the
southwestern willow flycatcher does not pose significant takings
implications.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: June 30, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-13402 Filed 7-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P