Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Distinct Population Segment of the California Tiger Salamander in Sonoma County, 61591-61595 [05-21205]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
comments in subsequent action based
on this proposed rule. Please note that
if we receive adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be
severed from the remainder of the rule,
we may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
We do not plan to open a second
comment period, so anyone interested
in commenting should do so at this
time. If we do not receive adverse
comments, no further activity is
planned. For further information, please
see the direct final action.
Dated: August 31, 2005.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 05–21265 Filed 10–24–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018–AU23
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the Distinct Population
Segment of the California Tiger
Salamander in Sonoma County
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
comment period and notice of
availability of draft economic analysis.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce the
reopening of the comment period on the
proposed designation of critical habitat
for the distinct population segment
(DPS) of the California tiger salamander
in Sonoma County and the availability
of the draft economic analysis of the
proposed designation of critical habitat.
The draft economic analysis identifies
potential costs of approximately $336
million over a 20-year period or
approximately $17 million per year as a
result of the proposed designation of
critical habitat, including those costs
coextensive with listing. We are
reopening the comment period to allow
all interested parties an opportunity to
comment simultaneously on the
proposed rule and the associated draft
economic analysis. Comments
previously submitted need not be
resubmitted as they will be incorporated
into the public record as part of this
comment period, and will be fully
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:22 Oct 24, 2005
Jkt 208001
considered in preparation of the final
rule.
DATES: We will accept public comments
until November 14, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and
materials may be submitted to us by any
one of the following methods:
1. You may submit written comments
and information to the Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800
Cottage Way, Suite W–2605,
Sacramento, CA 95825;
2. You may hand-deliver written
comments and information to our
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, at
the above address, or fax your
comments to 916/414–6713; or
3. You may send comments by
electronic mail (e-mail) to:
fw1sonoma_tiger_salamander@fws.gov.
For directions on how to file comments
electronically, see the ‘‘Public
Comments Solicited’’ section. In the
event that our Internet connection is not
functional, please submit your
comments by the alternate methods
mentioned above.
Copies of the draft economic analysis
and the proposed rule for critical habitat
designation are available on the Internet
at https://www.fws.gov/pacific/
sacramento or from the Sacramento Fish
and Wildlife Office at the address and
contact numbers above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Arnold Roessler, Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office, at the address above
(telephone 916/414–6600; facsimile
916/414–6713).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments Solicited
We will accept written comments and
information during this reopened
comment period. We solicit comments
on the original proposed critical habitat
designation (70 FR 44301; August 2,
2005) and on our draft economic
analysis of the proposed designation.
We will consider information and
recommendations from all interested
parties. We are particularly interested in
comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why any habitat
should or should not be determined to
be critical habitat, as provided by
section 4 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), including whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of including such area as part
of critical habitat;
(2) Specific information on the
amount and distribution of California
tiger salamander (CTS) habitat in
Sonoma County, and what habitat is
essential to the conservation of this
species and why;
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61591
(3) Land use designations and current
or planned activities in the subject area
and their possible impacts on proposed
habitat;
(4) Information on whether, and if so,
how many of the State and local
environmental protection measures
referenced in the draft economic
analysis were adopted largely as a result
of the listing of the Sonoma County
population of the CTS, and how many
were either already in place or enacted
for other reasons;
(5) Whether the draft economic
analysis identifies all State and local
costs attributable to the proposed
critical habitat designation, and
information on any costs that have been
inadvertently overlooked;
(6) Whether the draft economic
analysis makes appropriate assumptions
regarding current practices and likely
regulatory changes imposed as a result
of the designation of critical habitat;
(7) Whether the draft economic
analysis correctly assesses the effect on
regional costs associated with any land
use controls that may derive from the
designation of critical habitat;
(8) The draft economic analysis
indicates potentially disproportionate
impacts to areas within Sonoma County.
Based on this information, we are
considering excluding portions of these
areas from the final designation per our
discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act. We are specifically seeking
comment and additional information on
areas within Sonoma County that could
be potentially be disproportionately
impacted by a CTS critical habitat
designation;
(9) Any foreseeable economic or other
impacts resulting from the proposed
designation of critical habitat, and in
particular, any impacts on small entities
or families; does our conclusion that the
proposed designation of critical habitat
will not result in a disproportionate
effect to small businesses warrant
further consideration, and other
information that would indicate that the
designation of critical habitat would or
would not have any impacts on small
entities or families;
(10) Whether the draft economic
analysis appropriately identifies all
costs that could result from the
designation; and
(11) Whether our approach to critical
habitat designation could be improved
or modified in any way to provide for
greater public participation and
understanding, or to assist us in
accommodating public concern and
comments.
An area may be excluded from critical
habitat if it is determined that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
E:\FR\FM\25OCP1.SGM
25OCP1
61592
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
benefits of including a particular area as
critical habitat, unless the failure to
designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the
species. We may exclude an area from
designated critical habitat based on
economic impacts, national security, or
any other relevant impact.
All previous comments and
information submitted during the initial
comment period on the August 2, 2005,
proposed rule (70 FR 44301) need not be
resubmitted. If you wish to comment,
you may submit your comments and
materials concerning the draft economic
analysis and the proposed rule by any
one of several methods (see ADDRESSES
section). Our final designation of critical
habitat will take into consideration all
comments and any additional
information we received during both
comment periods. On the basis of public
comment on this analysis and on the
critical habitat proposal, and the final
economic analysis, we may during the
development of our final determination
find that areas proposed are not
essential, are appropriate for exclusion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or not
appropriate for exclusion.
Please submit electronic comments in
an ASCII file format and avoid the use
of special characters and encryption.
Please also include ‘‘Attn: RIN 1018–
AU23’’ and your name and return
address in your e-mail message. If you
do not receive a confirmation from the
system that we have received your email message, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Our practice is to make comments,
including names and home addresses of
respondents, available for public review
during regular business hours.
Individual respondents may request that
we withhold their home addresses from
the rulemaking record, which we will
honor to the extent allowable by law. In
some circumstances, we would
withhold from the rulemaking record a
respondent’s identity, as allowable by
law. If you wish for us to withhold your
name and/or address, you must state
this prominently at the beginning of
your comments. However, we will not
consider anonymous comments. We
will make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and materials received, as
well as supporting documentation used
in preparation of the proposal to
designate critical habitat, will be
available for inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:22 Oct 24, 2005
Jkt 208001
hours, at the Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office at the address listed
under ADDRESSES.
Copies of the proposed rule and draft
economic analysis are available on the
Internet at: https://www.fws.gov/pacific/
sacramento/. You may also obtain
copies of the proposed rule and
economic analysis from the Sacramento
Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES), or by calling 916/414–6600.
Background
We published a proposed rule to
designate critical habitat for a distinct
population segment of the CTS in
Sonoma County on August 2, 2005 (70
FR 44301). The proposed critical habitat
totaled approximately 74,223 acres (ac)
(30,037 hectares (ha)) in Sonoma
County. This proposed critical habitat
does not include areas within Santa
Barbara County or the Central Valley or
Central Coast of California. A final
critical habitat designation for the
distinct population segment of the CTS
in Santa Barbara County was published
on November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68568),
and a final critical habitat designation
for the Central population of the CTS
was published on August 23, 2005 (70
FR 49380). Per settlement agreement, we
will submit for publication in the
Federal Register a final critical habitat
designation for the CTS in Sonoma
County on or before December 1, 2005.
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as the specific areas within
the geographic area occupied by a
species, at the time it is listed in
accordance with the Act, on which are
found those physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species and that may require special
management considerations or
protection, and specific areas outside
the geographic area occupied by a
species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species. If the proposed rule is made
final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit
destruction or 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(b)(2) of the Act requires that
we designate or revise critical habitat
based upon the best scientific and
commercial data available, after taking
into consideration the economic or any
other relevant impact of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. Based
on the August 2, 2005, proposed rule to
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
designate critical habitat for the CTS in
Sonoma County, we have prepared a
draft economic analysis of the proposed
critical habitat designation.
The current draft economic analysis
estimates the foreseeable economic
impacts of the proposed critical habitat
designation on government agencies and
private businesses and individuals. The
economic analysis identifies potential
costs of approximately $336 million
over a 20-year period or approximately
$17 million per year as a result of the
proposed critical habitat designation,
including those costs coextensive with
listing. The analysis measures lost
economic efficiency associated with
residential and commercial
development, and public projects and
activities, such as economic impacts on
transportation projects, the energy
industry, and Federal lands. However,
no Federal lands are within the
proposed critical habitat boundary.
The draft economic analysis considers
the potential economic effects of actions
relating to the conservation of the CTS
in Sonoma County, including costs
associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of
the Act, and including those attributable
to designating critical habitat. It further
considers the economic effects of
protective measures taken as a result of
other Federal, State, and local laws that
aid habitat conservation for the CTS in
essential habitat areas. The draft
analysis considers both economic
efficiency and distributional effects. In
the case of habitat conservation,
efficiency effects generally reflect the
‘‘opportunity costs’’ associated with the
commitment of resources to comply
with habitat protection measures (e.g.,
lost economic opportunities associated
with restrictions on land use). This
analysis also addresses how potential
economic impacts are likely to be
distributed, including an assessment of
any local or regional impacts of habitat
conservation and the potential effects of
conservation activities on small entities
and the energy industry. This
information can be used by decisionmakers to assess whether the effects of
the designation might unduly burden a
particular group or economic sector.
Finally, this draft analysis looks
retrospectively at costs that have been
incurred since the date the species was
listed as a threatened species and
considers those costs that may occur in
the 20 years following a designation of
critical habitat.
As stated earlier, we solicit data and
comments from the public on this draft
economic analysis, as well as on all
aspects of the proposal. We may revise
the proposal, or its supporting
documents, to incorporate or address
E:\FR\FM\25OCP1.SGM
25OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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.
Costs related to conservation activities
for the proposed CTS critical habitat
pursuant to sections 4, 7, and 10 of the
Act are estimated to be approximately
$336 million from 2005 to 2025.
Overall, the residential and commercial
industry is calculated to experience the
highest estimated costs. The draft
analysis was conducted at the census
tract level. Of the 57 census tracts that
are part of this current proposal, six are
identified as census tracts responsible
for over 80% of the most impacted
areas. Annualized impacts of costs
attributable to the proposed critical
habitat designation are projected to be
approximately $17 million.
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, it is not
anticipated to have 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) did not
formally review the proposed rule.
Further, Executive Order 12866
directs Federal Agencies promulgating
regulations to evaluate regulatory
alternatives (Office of Management and
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:22 Oct 24, 2005
Jkt 208001
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
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996),
whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the 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. 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 the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the
CTS would affect a substantial number
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61593
of small entities, we considered the
number of small entities affected within
particular types of economic activities
(e.g., residential and commercial
development). 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 draft economic analysis of the
proposed critical habitat designation,
we evaluated the potential economic
effects on small business entities
resulting from conservation actions
related to the listing of the CTS and
proposed designation of its critical
habitat. We determined from our
analysis that the small business entities
that may be affected are firms in the
new home construction sector. We
estimated the number of affected small
businesses and calculated the number of
houses built per small firm. It appears
that the annual number of affected small
firms is far less than one in Sonoma
County. Note that if one firm closed in
the first year, then this same firm would
be affected in subsequent years. The
number of small firms will not decrease
every year. These firms may be affected
by activities associated with the
conservation of the CTS, inclusive of
activities associated with listing,
recovery, and critical habitat. Critical
habitat is not expected to result in
significant small business impacts. In
the development of our final
designation, we will explore potential
alternatives to minimize impacts to any
affected small business entities. These
alternatives may include the exclusion
of all or portions of the critical habitat
units in these counties. As such, we
expect that any final designation of
critical habitat for the distinct
population segment of the CTS in
Sonoma County.
We do not believe that the designation
of critical habitat for the CTS in Sonoma
County will result in a disproportionate
effect to small business entities.
E:\FR\FM\25OCP1.SGM
25OCP1
61594
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
However, we are seeking comment on
potentially excluding areas from the
final critical habitat designation if it is
determined that there will be a
substantial and significant impact to
small real estate development
businesses in the county.
Critical habitat designation for the
CTS is expected to have the largest
impacts on the market for developable
land. The proposed critical habitat
designation for CTS occurs in a number
of rapidly growing areas. Regulatory
requirements to avoid onsite impacts
and mitigate offsite affect the welfare of
both producers and consumers. In the
scenario presented here, mitigation
requirements increase the cost of
development, and avoidance
requirements are assumed to reduce the
construction of new housing. In this
scenario, the proposed critical habitat
designation is expected to impose losses
of over $336 million over the 20-year
study period.
The economic impacts of the
proposed critical habitat designation
vary widely even with the county. That
is, the impacts of designation are
frequently localized. This finding is
sensible from an economic point of view
and is consistent with the teachings of
urban economics. Housing prices vary
over urban areas, typically declining as
the location of the house becomes more
remote. Critical habitat is not evenly
distributed across the landscape, and
large impacts may result if a particular
area has a large fraction of developable
land in critical habitat. Some areas have
few alternate sites for development, or
have highly rationed housing resulting
in high prices. Any of these factors may
cause the cost of critical habitat
designation to increase.
The precise spatial scale of the
analysis permits identification of
specific locations, or parts of individual
critical habitat units, that result in the
largest economic impacts. The maps
contained at the end of the draft
economic analysis are instructive in this
regard. The maps identify the census
tracts within the counties where the
impacts are predicted to occur.
Please refer to our draft economic
analysis of the proposed critical habitat
designation for a more detailed
discussion of potential economic
impacts.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:22 Oct 24, 2005
Jkt 208001
proposed rule is considered a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866
because it raises novel legal and policy
issues, but it is not expected to
significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, or use. 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; Aid to Families with
Dependent Children work programs;
Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social
Services Block Grants; Vocational
Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care,
Adoption Assistance, and Independent
Living; Family Support Welfare
Services; and Child Support
Enforcement.) ‘‘Federal private sector
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon the private sector, except (i) a
condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.’’
The designation of critical habitat
does not impose a legally binding duty
on non-Federal government entities or
private parties. Under the Act, the only
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies
must ensure that their actions do not
destroy or adversely modify critical
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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) As discussed in the draft economic
analysis of the proposed designation of
critical habitat for the CTS in Sonoma
County, the impacts on nonprofits and
small governments are expected to be
negligible. There is no record of
consultations between the Service and
any of these governments since the
distinct population segment of the CTS
in Sonoma County was emergency listed
in 2002. It is likely that small
governments involved with
developments and infrastructure
projects will be interested parties or
involved with projects involving section
7 consultations for the distinct
population segment of the CTS in
Sonoma County within their
jurisdictional areas. Any costs
associated with this activity are likely to
represent a small portion of a local
government’s budget. Consequently, we
do not believe that the designation of
critical habitat for the distinct
population segment of the CTS in
Sonoma County will significantly or
uniquely affect these small
governmental 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 Sonoma County
population of CTS. Critical habitat
designation does not affect landowner
actions that do not require Federal
funding or permits, nor does it preclude
development of habitat conservation
programs or issuance of incidental take
permits to permit actions that do require
Federal funding or permits to go
forward. In conclusion, the designation
of critical habitat for the Sonoma
E:\FR\FM\25OCP1.SGM
25OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules
County population of CTS does not pose
significant takings implications.
Author
The primary author of this notice is
the staff of the Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Service.
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[I.D. 101905C]
Fisheries off the West Coast States
and in the Western Pacific; Pacific
Coast Groundfish Fishery; Notice of
Intent to Prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement or Environmental
Assessment for Fishing Conducted
Under the Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery Management Plan
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS) or
environmental assessment (EA);
announcement of public scoping period;
request for written comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS, in cooperation with
the Pacific Fishery Management Council
(Council), announces its intention to
prepare an EIS or an EA in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) to assess the impacts of the
2007–2008 Pacific Coast groundfish
fishery specifications and management
measures on the human, biological, and
physical environment.
DATES: Public scoping opportunities for
the 2007–2008 Pacific Coast groundfish
fishery specifications and management
measures EIS (or EA) will occur during
meetings of the Council and its advisory
bodies starting with the October 31–
November 4, 2005, Council meeting and
continuing through the June 11–16,
2006, when the Council is scheduled to
determine their final preferred
alternative (see SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION). However, only written
comments provided to the Council
15:22 Oct 24, 2005
Jkt 208001
You may submit comments
on suggested alternatives and potential
impacts identified by I.D. 101905 by any
of the following methods:
• E-mail: (pfmc.comments@noaa.gov
and write ‘‘2007–2008 groundfish
specifications EIS’’ in subject line).
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov.
• Fax: 503–820–2299.
• Mail: Dr. Donald McIsaac,
Executive Director, Pacific Fishery
Management Council, 7700 NE
Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland,
OR 97220–1384.
The scoping document will be
available on the Council’s website
(www.pcouncil.org)or by written request
from the Pacific Fishery Management
Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place,
Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220–1384.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
John DeVore, Groundfish Fishery
Management Coordinator; phone: 503–
820–2280 and e-mail:
John.DeVore@noaa.gov or Kathe Hawe,
NMFS Northwest Region NEPA
Coordinator; phone: 206–526–6161 and
email: Kathe.Hawe@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
Dated: October 14, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 05–21205 Filed 10–24–05; 8:45 am]
VerDate Aug<31>2005
office through November 25, 2005, will
be considered in a scoping document
summarizing the public’s issues and
alternatives raised by the public, which
may be evaluated in the EIS (or EA).
Background and Need for Agency
Action
There are more than 80 species
managed under the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
(groundfish FMP), eight of which have
been declared overfished. The
groundfish stocks support an array of
commercial, recreational, and Indian
tribal fishing interests in state and
Federal waters off the coasts of
Washington, Oregon, and California. In
addition, groundfish are also harvested
incidentally in non-groundfish fisheries,
most notably, the trawl fisheries for
pink shrimp, ridgeback prawns,
California halibut, and sea cucumber.
The proposed action is needed to
establish commercial and recreational
harvests levels in 2007–2008 that will
ensure groundfish stocks are maintained
at, or restored to, sizes and structures
that will produce the highest net benefit
to the nation, while balancing
environmental and social values.
The Proposed Action
The proposed action is to implement
management measures consistent with
the requirements of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61595
Act) that constrain total fishing
mortality during 2007–2008 within
limits that maintain fish stocks at, or
rebuild them to, a level capable of
producing maximum sustained yield, or
to a stock size less than this if such
stock size results in long-term net
benefit to the nation.
These fishing mortality limits are
harvest specifications that include
acceptable biological catches (ABCs)
and optimum yields (OYs) for
groundfish species or species groups in
need of particular protection; OYs may
be represented by harvest guidelines or
quotas for species that need individual
management. Separate sets of ABCs and
OYs will be specified for 2007 and 2008
as part of the multi-year management
cycle for groundfish. The allocation of
commercial OYs between the open
access and limited entry segments of the
fishery is also part of the proposed
action.
The FMP, as amended by Amendment
17, requires that the groundfish
specifications be evaluated and revised
as necessary every two years, with
separate ABCs and OYs established for
each of the two years in the biennial
period. Management measures designed
to achieve the OYs will be established
for each year and, as in the past, may
vary from period to period within any
one year. These specifications and
management measures will be
published in the Federal Register of the
first fishing year in the biennium (2007).
The Magnuson-Stevens Act and the
groundfish FMP also require that NMFS
implement actions to prevent
overfishing and to rebuild overfished
stocks. These specifications include fish
caught in state ocean waters (zero to
three nautical miles (nm) offshore) as
well as fish caught in the U.S. exclusive
economic zone (3 to 200 nm offshore).
Alternatives
NEPA requires that agencies evaluate
reasonable alternatives to the proposed
action in an EIS. The purpose and need
for agency action determines the range
of reasonable alternatives. A
preliminary set of alternatives will be
developed during the October 31–
November 4, 2005, Council meeting.
Alternatives will be structured around a
range of ABCs/OYs for assessed
groundfish species. This range of ABCs/
OYs is based on stock assessments,
including new assessments for 23 of the
groundfish species managed under the
FMP.
For some species, ABC/OY ranges that
would be used to develop alternatives
may be based on consultations by the
Council with state and federal agencies,
Indian tribes, and the affected public on
E:\FR\FM\25OCP1.SGM
25OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 25, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61591-61595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21205]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AU23
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Distinct Population Segment of the California
Tiger Salamander in Sonoma County
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and notice of
availability of draft economic analysis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening
of the comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat
for the distinct population segment (DPS) of the California tiger
salamander in Sonoma County and the availability of the draft economic
analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat. The draft
economic analysis identifies potential costs of approximately $336
million over a 20-year period or approximately $17 million per year as
a result of the proposed designation of critical habitat, including
those costs coextensive with listing. We are reopening the comment
period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment
simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic
analysis. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they
will be incorporated into the public record as part of this comment
period, and will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.
DATES: We will accept public comments until November 14, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and materials may be submitted to us by any
one of the following methods:
1. You may submit written comments and information to the Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-
2605, Sacramento, CA 95825;
2. You may hand-deliver written comments and information to our
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address, or fax your
comments to 916/414-6713; or
3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
fw1sonoma_tiger_salamander@fws.gov. For directions on how to file
comments electronically, see the ``Public Comments Solicited'' section.
In the event that our Internet connection is not functional, please
submit your comments by the alternate methods mentioned above.
Copies of the draft economic analysis and the proposed rule for
critical habitat designation are available on the Internet at https://
www.fws.gov/pacific/sacramento or from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office at the address and contact numbers above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Roessler, Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office, at the address above (telephone 916/414-6600;
facsimile 916/414-6713).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments Solicited
We will accept written comments and information during this
reopened comment period. We solicit comments on the original proposed
critical habitat designation (70 FR 44301; August 2, 2005) and on our
draft economic analysis of the proposed designation. We will consider
information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are
particularly interested in comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined
to be critical habitat, as provided by section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
including whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
including such area as part of critical habitat;
(2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of
California tiger salamander (CTS) habitat in Sonoma County, and what
habitat is essential to the conservation of this species and why;
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject area and their possible impacts on proposed habitat;
(4) Information on whether, and if so, how many of the State and
local environmental protection measures referenced in the draft
economic analysis were adopted largely as a result of the listing of
the Sonoma County population of the CTS, and how many were either
already in place or enacted for other reasons;
(5) Whether the draft economic analysis identifies all State and
local costs attributable to the proposed critical habitat designation,
and information on any costs that have been inadvertently overlooked;
(6) Whether the draft economic analysis makes appropriate
assumptions regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes
imposed as a result of the designation of critical habitat;
(7) Whether the draft economic analysis correctly assesses the
effect on regional costs associated with any land use controls that may
derive from the designation of critical habitat;
(8) The draft economic analysis indicates potentially
disproportionate impacts to areas within Sonoma County. Based on this
information, we are considering excluding portions of these areas from
the final designation per our discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act. We are specifically seeking comment and additional information on
areas within Sonoma County that could be potentially be
disproportionately impacted by a CTS critical habitat designation;
(9) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the
proposed designation of critical habitat, and in particular, any
impacts on small entities or families; does our conclusion that the
proposed designation of critical habitat will not result in a
disproportionate effect to small businesses warrant further
consideration, and other information that would indicate that the
designation of critical habitat would or would not have any impacts on
small entities or families;
(10) Whether the draft economic analysis appropriately identifies
all costs that could result from the designation; and
(11) Whether our approach to critical habitat designation could be
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating
public concern and comments.
An area may be excluded from critical habitat if it is determined
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
[[Page 61592]]
benefits of including a particular area as critical habitat, unless the
failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the
extinction of the species. We may exclude an area from designated
critical habitat based on economic impacts, national security, or any
other relevant impact.
All previous comments and information submitted during the initial
comment period on the August 2, 2005, proposed rule (70 FR 44301) need
not be resubmitted. If you wish to comment, you may submit your
comments and materials concerning the draft economic analysis and the
proposed rule by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES section).
Our final designation of critical habitat will take into consideration
all comments and any additional information we received during both
comment periods. On the basis of public comment on this analysis and on
the critical habitat proposal, and the final economic analysis, we may
during the development of our final determination find that areas
proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, or not appropriate for exclusion.
Please submit electronic comments in an ASCII file format and avoid
the use of special characters and encryption. Please also include
``Attn: RIN 1018-AU23'' and your name and return address in your e-mail
message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we
have received your e-mail message, please contact the person listed
under For Further Information Contact.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold
their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to
the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold
from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by
law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must
state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, we
will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or
businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical
habitat, will be available for inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours, at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at
the address listed under ADDRESSES.
Copies of the proposed rule and draft economic analysis are
available on the Internet at: https://www.fws.gov/pacific/sacramento/.
You may also obtain copies of the proposed rule and economic analysis
from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES), or by
calling 916/414-6600.
Background
We published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for a
distinct population segment of the CTS in Sonoma County on August 2,
2005 (70 FR 44301). The proposed critical habitat totaled approximately
74,223 acres (ac) (30,037 hectares (ha)) in Sonoma County. This
proposed critical habitat does not include areas within Santa Barbara
County or the Central Valley or Central Coast of California. A final
critical habitat designation for the distinct population segment of the
CTS in Santa Barbara County was published on November 24, 2004 (69 FR
68568), and a final critical habitat designation for the Central
population of the CTS was published on August 23, 2005 (70 FR 49380).
Per settlement agreement, we will submit for publication in the Federal
Register a final critical habitat designation for the CTS in Sonoma
County on or before December 1, 2005.
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the specific
areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it
is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and
that may require special management considerations or protection, and
specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the
time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential
for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made
final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or 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(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise
critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data
available, after taking into consideration the economic or any other
relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
Based on the August 2, 2005, proposed rule to designate critical
habitat for the CTS in Sonoma County, we have prepared a draft economic
analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation.
The current draft economic analysis estimates the foreseeable
economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation on
government agencies and private businesses and individuals. The
economic analysis identifies potential costs of approximately $336
million over a 20-year period or approximately $17 million per year as
a result of the proposed critical habitat designation, including those
costs coextensive with listing. The analysis measures lost economic
efficiency associated with residential and commercial development, and
public projects and activities, such as economic impacts on
transportation projects, the energy industry, and Federal lands.
However, no Federal lands are within the proposed critical habitat
boundary.
The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic
effects of actions relating to the conservation of the CTS in Sonoma
County, including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the
Act, and including those attributable to designating critical habitat.
It further considers the economic effects of protective measures taken
as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat
conservation for the CTS in essential habitat areas. The draft analysis
considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the
case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the
``opportunity costs'' associated with the commitment of resources to
comply with habitat protection measures (e.g., lost economic
opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). This analysis
also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be
distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts
of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation
activities on small entities and the energy industry. This information
can be used by decision-makers to assess whether the effects of the
designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector.
Finally, this draft analysis looks retrospectively at costs that have
been incurred since the date the species was listed as a threatened
species and considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years
following a designation of critical habitat.
As stated earlier, we solicit data and comments from the public on
this draft economic analysis, as well as on all aspects of the
proposal. We may revise the proposal, or its supporting documents, to
incorporate or address
[[Page 61593]]
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.
Costs related to conservation activities for the proposed CTS
critical habitat pursuant to sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act are
estimated to be approximately $336 million from 2005 to 2025. Overall,
the residential and commercial industry is calculated to experience the
highest estimated costs. The draft analysis was conducted at the census
tract level. Of the 57 census tracts that are part of this current
proposal, six are identified as census tracts responsible for over 80%
of the most impacted areas. Annualized impacts of costs attributable to
the proposed critical habitat designation are projected to be
approximately $17 million.
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, it is not anticipated to have 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) did not formally review the proposed rule.
Further, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal Agencies
promulgating regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office of
Management and 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 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the 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. 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 the proposed designation of critical habitat for
the CTS would affect a substantial number of small entities, we
considered the number of small entities affected within particular
types of economic activities (e.g., residential and commercial
development). 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 draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat
designation, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small
business entities resulting from conservation actions related to the
listing of the CTS and proposed designation of its critical habitat. We
determined from our analysis that the small business entities that may
be affected are firms in the new home construction sector. We estimated
the number of affected small businesses and calculated the number of
houses built per small firm. It appears that the annual number of
affected small firms is far less than one in Sonoma County. Note that
if one firm closed in the first year, then this same firm would be
affected in subsequent years. The number of small firms will not
decrease every year. These firms may be affected by activities
associated with the conservation of the CTS, inclusive of activities
associated with listing, recovery, and critical habitat. Critical
habitat is not expected to result in significant small business
impacts. In the development of our final designation, we will explore
potential alternatives to minimize impacts to any affected small
business entities. These alternatives may include the exclusion of all
or portions of the critical habitat units in these counties. As such,
we expect that any final designation of critical habitat for the
distinct population segment of the CTS in Sonoma County.
We do not believe that the designation of critical habitat for the
CTS in Sonoma County will result in a disproportionate effect to small
business entities.
[[Page 61594]]
However, we are seeking comment on potentially excluding areas from the
final critical habitat designation if it is determined that there will
be a substantial and significant impact to small real estate
development businesses in the county.
Critical habitat designation for the CTS is expected to have the
largest impacts on the market for developable land. The proposed
critical habitat designation for CTS occurs in a number of rapidly
growing areas. Regulatory requirements to avoid onsite impacts and
mitigate offsite affect the welfare of both producers and consumers. In
the scenario presented here, mitigation requirements increase the cost
of development, and avoidance requirements are assumed to reduce the
construction of new housing. In this scenario, the proposed critical
habitat designation is expected to impose losses of over $336 million
over the 20-year study period.
The economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation
vary widely even with the county. That is, the impacts of designation
are frequently localized. This finding is sensible from an economic
point of view and is consistent with the teachings of urban economics.
Housing prices vary over urban areas, typically declining as the
location of the house becomes more remote. Critical habitat is not
evenly distributed across the landscape, and large impacts may result
if a particular area has a large fraction of developable land in
critical habitat. Some areas have few alternate sites for development,
or have highly rationed housing resulting in high prices. Any of these
factors may cause the cost of critical habitat designation to increase.
The precise spatial scale of the analysis permits identification of
specific locations, or parts of individual critical habitat units, that
result in the largest economic impacts. The maps contained at the end
of the draft economic analysis are instructive in this regard. The maps
identify the census tracts within the counties where the impacts are
predicted to occur.
Please refer to our draft economic analysis of the proposed
critical habitat designation for a more detailed discussion of
potential economic impacts.
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 because it
raises novel legal and policy issues, but it is not expected to
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. 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; Aid to
Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food
Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State
Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living;
Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement.)
``Federal private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would
impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a
condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. 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) As discussed in the draft economic analysis of the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the CTS in Sonoma County, the
impacts on nonprofits and small governments are expected to be
negligible. There is no record of consultations between the Service and
any of these governments since the distinct population segment of the
CTS in Sonoma County was emergency listed in 2002. It is likely that
small governments involved with developments and infrastructure
projects will be interested parties or involved with projects involving
section 7 consultations for the distinct population segment of the CTS
in Sonoma County within their jurisdictional areas. Any costs
associated with this activity are likely to represent a small portion
of a local government's budget. Consequently, we do not believe that
the designation of critical habitat for the distinct population segment
of the CTS in Sonoma County will significantly or uniquely affect these
small governmental 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 Sonoma County population of CTS.
Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner actions that do
not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude
development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental
take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or
permits to go forward. In conclusion, the designation of critical
habitat for the Sonoma
[[Page 61595]]
County population of CTS does not pose significant takings
implications.
Author
The primary author of this notice is the staff of the Sacramento
Fish and Wildlife Service.
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: October 14, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-21205 Filed 10-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
