Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Astragalus ampullarioides, 56085-56094 [06-8191]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 3900
[WO–3201310–PP–OSHL]
RIN 1004–AD90
Commercial Oil Shale Leasing
Program
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of reopening of public
comment period.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) is reopening and
extending by 30 days, the public
comment period for the Advance Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)
published in the Federal Register on
August 25, 2006 (71 FR 50378). The
ANPR requested comments and
suggestions to assist in the writing of a
proposed rule to establish a commercial
leasing program for oil shale. In order to
provide the public with additional time
to prepare and submit comments, the
BLM is extending the comment period
30 days from the original comment
period closing date of September 25,
2006. The comment period is extended
to October 25, 2006.
DATES: We will accept comments and
suggestions on the ANPR until October
25, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Commenters may mail
written comments to the Bureau of Land
Management, Administrative Record,
Room 401LS, 1849 C Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20240; or hand-deliver
written comments to the Bureau of Land
Management, Administrative Record,
Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20036. Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. E-mail:
Comments_washington@blm.gov.
(Include ‘‘Attn: 1004–AD90’’)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information on the substance of the
Advance Notice, please contact Ted
Murphy at (202) 452–0350. For
information on procedural matters,
please contact Kelly Odom at (202) 452–
5028. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–
8339, to contact the above individuals
during business hours. FIRS is available
twenty-four hours a day, seven days a
week.
The BLM
published the ANPR on August 25, 2006
(71 FR 50378), and provided a 30-day
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:58 Sep 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
comment period that will end on
September 25, 2006. We are extending
the comment period on the ANPR until
October 25, 2006. The comment period
is being extended in order to provide
additional time for the public to prepare
and submit comments on the
commercial oil shale leasing program
that the BLM is developing.
As stated in the August 25, 2006,
ANPR, the BLM is particularly
interested in receiving comments on the
following questions relating to
regulations it is developing for an oil
shale commercial leasing program:
1. What should be the royalty rate and
point of royalty determination?
2. Should the regulations establish a
process for bid adequacy evaluation,
i.e., Fair Market Value determination, or
should the regulations establish a
minimum acceptable lease bonus bid?
3. How should diligent development
be determined?
4. What should be the minimum
production requirement?
5. Should there be provisions for
small tract leasing?
The BLM is also interested in
receiving any other comments regarding
content and structure of the oil shale
leasing program.
Dated: September 19, 2006.
Chad Calvert,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and
Minerals Management.
[FR Doc. 06–8198 Filed 9–25–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–84–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018–AU45
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Astragalus ampullarioides
(Shivwits Milk-Vetch) and Astragalus
holmgreniorum (Holmgren Milk-Vetch)
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Revised proposed rule;
reopening of public comment period,
notice of availability of draft economic
analysis and draft environmental
assessment, and revisions to proposed
critical habitat boundaries.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period
on the proposal to designate critical
habitat for Astragalus ampullarioides
(Shivwits milk-vetch) and Astragalus
holmgreniorum (Holmgren milk-vetch)
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56085
under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). We also
announce the availability of the draft
economic analysis for the proposed
designation of critical habitat for
Holmgren and Shivwits milk-vetches.
The draft economic analysis finds that,
over 20 years, post-designation costs for
Holmgren and Shivwits milk-vetch
conservation-related activities are
estimated to range between $8.8 and
$14.1 million in undiscounted 2006
dollars. In discounted terms, potential
post-designation economic costs are
estimated to be $8.5 to $13.0 million
(using a 3 percent discount rate) or $8.2
to $12.1 million (using a 7 percent
discount rate). In addition, we announce
the availability of a draft environmental
assessment that has been prepared in
accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) (NEPA). Finally, we
propose to revise boundary descriptions
for two critical habitat subunits:
Holmgren milk-vetch’s Unit 2a (Stucki
Spring) and Unit 2b (South Hills).
DATES: We will accept comments until
October 26, 2006.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on
the proposed rule, draft economic
analysis, or draft environmental
assessment, you may submit your
comments and materials to us by any
one of the following methods:
(1) E-mail: You may send comments
by electronic mail (e-mail) to
hsmilkvetch@fws.gov. Please see Public
Comments Solicited section below for
file format and other information about
electronic filing.
(2) Fax: You may fax comments to
(801) 975–3331.
(3) Mail or hand delivery/courier: You
may submit written comments to Larry
Crist, Acting Field Supervisor, Utah
Ecological Services Field Office, 2369
West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley
City, Utah 84119.
(4) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Larry Crist, Acting Field Supervisor,
Utah Ecological Services Field Office, at
the address listed in ADDRESSES
(telephone, 801–975–3330; facsimile,
801–975–3331).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments Solicited
We will accept written comments and
information during this reopened
comment period. We solicit comments
or suggestions from the public, other
concerned governmental agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any
other interested party concerning the
E:\FR\FM\26SEP1.SGM
26SEP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
56086
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
original proposed rule published in the
Federal Register on March 29, 2006 (71
FR 15966), revisions to the proposed
rule described in this document, the
draft economic analysis, and the draft
environmental assessment. In addition
to the points listed in the March 29,
2006, proposed rule, we particularly
seek comments concerning:
(1) The reasons 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 it is prudent to
designate critical habitat;
(2) Specific information on the
distribution of the Holmgren and
Shivwits milk-vetches, the amount and
distribution of the species’ habitat, and
which habitat contains the necessary
features (primary constituent elements)
essential to the conservation of these
species and why;
(3) Land-use designations and current
or planned activities in the subject area
and their possible impacts on these
species or proposed critical habitat;
(4) 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 concerns and
comments;
(5) Any foreseeable environmental
impacts directly or indirectly resulting
from the proposed designation of
critical habitat;
(6) Any foreseeable economic,
national security or other potential
impacts resulting from the proposed
designation of critical habitat, and in
particular, any impacts on small entities
or families;
(7) Whether the economic analysis
identifies all State and local costs
attributable to the proposed critical
habitat, and information on any costs
that have been inadvertently
overlooked;
(8) Whether the economic analysis
makes appropriate assumptions
regarding current practices and likely
regulatory changes imposed as a result
of the designation of critical habitat;
(9) Whether the economic analysis
correctly assesses the effect on regional
costs associated with land-use controls
that derive from the designation;
(10) Whether the critical habitat
designation will result in
disproportionate economic impacts to
specific areas that should be evaluated
for possible exclusion from the final
designation;
(11) Whether the economic analysis
appropriately identifies all costs that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:58 Sep 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
could result from the critical habitat
designation; and
(12) Whether the benefit of exclusion
in any particular area outweighs the
benefits of inclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act.
Comments previously submitted on
the March 29, 2006, proposed rule (71
FR 15966) need not be resubmitted as
they have been incorporated into the
record and will be fully considered in
preparation of the final rule. If you wish
to comment, you may submit your
comments and materials concerning this
proposal by any one of several methods
(see ADDRESSES). Our final designation
of critical habitat for the Holmgren and
Shivwits milk-vetches will take into
consideration all comments and any
additional information received during
both comment periods. Based on public
comment on the proposed rule, the draft
economic analysis, and the draft
environmental assessment, as well as on
the conclusions of the final economic
analysis and environmental assessment,
we may find during the development of
our final determination that some areas
proposed do not contain the features
that are essential to the conservation of
the species, are appropriate for
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, or are not appropriate for
exclusion.
Please submit electronic comments in
ASCII file format and avoid the use of
special characters or any form of
encryption. Please also include ‘‘Attn:
RIN 1018–AU45’’ in the subject line,
and your name and return address in
the body of your message. If you do not
receive a confirmation from the system
that we have received your Internet
message, 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. We will
not consider anonymous comments, and
we will make all comments available for
public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and materials received will
be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the Utah Ecological Services
Field Office at the address listed under
ADDRESSES.
You may obtain copies of the
proposed rule, draft economic analysis,
and draft environmental assessment by
mail from the Utah Ecological Services
Field Office at the address listed under
ADDRESSES or by visiting our Web site at
https://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/
plants/milkvetche/index.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Background
Holmgren and Shivwits milk-vetches
are members of the pea family
(Fabaceae or Leguminosae). Holmgren
milk-vetch is a stemless, herbaceous
(non-woody) perennial that produces
leaves and small purple flowers in the
spring. Shivwits milk-vetch is a
perennial, herbaceous plant with yellow
to cream-colored flowers that is
considered a tall member of the pea
family. Holmgren milk-vetch is known
from Mohave County, Arizona, and
Washington County, Utah. Shivwits
milk-vetch is known only from
Washington County in Utah. Threats to
both species that resulted in their listing
on September 28, 2001 (66 FR 49560),
include development of land for
residential and urban use, habitat
modification from human disturbances
such as off-road vehicle use,
competition with nonnative plant
species, and impacts from mining and
grazing.
On March 29, 2006, we proposed to
designate approximately 2,421 acres (ac)
(980 hectares (ha)) of critical habitat for
Shivwits milk-vetch, and 6,475 ac
(2,620 ha) of critical habitat for
Holmgren milk-vetch, which include
known occupied sites and associated
habitats containing the identified
primary constituent elements (71 FR
15966). The proposed designation
includes Federal, State, Tribal, and
private lands in Arizona and Utah. On
August 1, 2006, the Service announced
the availability of a draft recovery plan
for the two species (71 FR 43514). The
recovery plan identifies the areas
important for recovery; these areas
correspond to those we have proposed
as critical habitat.
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as the specific areas within
the geographical 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 geographical 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
E:\FR\FM\26SEP1.SGM
26SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2)
of the Act.
Draft Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that
we designate or revise critical habitat
based upon the best scientific data
available, after taking into consideration
the economic impact, impact on
national security, or any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area
as critical habitat. In compliance with
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have
prepared a draft economic analysis of
the March 29, 2006 (71 FR 15966),
proposed designation of critical habitat
for Holmgren and Shivwits milkvetches.
The draft economic analysis considers
the potential economic effects of actions
relating to the conservation of the two
milk-vetches, 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 two
milk-vetches in essential habitat areas.
The draft economic 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).
The draft economic 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, the draft
economic analysis looks retrospectively
at costs that have been incurred since
the date the two milk-vetches were
listed in 2001, and considers those costs
that may occur in the 20 years following
a designation of critical habitat.
Pre-designation (2001–2006) costs
associated with species conservation
activities are estimated to range from
$9.3 to $13.7 million in 2006 dollars.
Potential post-designation (2007–2026)
costs are estimated to range between
$8.8 and $14.1 million in undiscounted
2006 dollars. In discounted terms,
potential post-designation economic
costs are estimated to be $8.5 to $13.0
million (using a 3 percent discount rate)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:58 Sep 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
and $8.2 to $12.1 million (using a 7
percent discount rate). In annualized
terms, potential post-designation costs
are expected to range from $0.6 to $0.9
million annually (annualized at 3
percent) and $0.9 to $1.1 million
annually (annualized at 7 percent).
We solicit data and comments from
the public on the draft economic
analysis, as well as on all aspects of the
proposal to designate 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.
Draft Environmental Assessment;
National Environmental Policy Act
The draft environmental assessment
(EA) presents the purpose of and need
for critical habitat designation, the
Proposed Action and alternatives, and
an evaluation of the direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects of the alternatives
pursuant to the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA) as
implemented by the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations (40
CFR 1500 et seq.) and according to the
Department of the Interior’s NEPA
procedures.
The EA will be used by the Service to
decide whether or not critical habitat
will be designated as proposed, if the
Proposed Action requires refinement, or
if further analyses are needed through
preparation of an environmental impact
statement (EIS). If the Proposed Action
is selected as described, or with
minimal changes, and no further
environmental analyses are needed,
then a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) would be the appropriate
conclusion of this process.
Proposed Change to Boundaries of
Holmgren Milk-Vetch Units 2a and 2b
Following publication of the proposed
critical habitat rule on March 29, 2006,
we received updated information from
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
St. George Field Office, St. George, Utah
on plant habitat and occupancy. Based
on this information, we propose to
amend the boundaries of two subunits
for the Holmgren milk-vetch within
Unit 2 (Santa Clara): Unit 2a (Stucki
Spring) and Unit 2b (South Hills).
Corrected maps and boundary
descriptions are provided in the
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56087
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
section below.
We propose changes to Unit 2a
(Stucki Springs) and Unit 2b (South
Hills) based on 2006 field survey results
and comments contributed by BLM.
Field reconnaissance in 2006 by BLM
resulted in adjustment of boundaries to
better include Holmgren milk-vetch
habitat. Specific changes to Unit 2a
(Stucki Springs) include: (1) Extension
of the boundary to the north and west
that results in the inclusion of an
additional 139 ac (56.3 ha); and (2)
retraction of the boundary on the south
and southeast that results in the
deletion of 114 ac (46.2 ha). The
adjustment to the north and west further
captures watershed and some of the
formation contributing to the occupancy
of Holmgren milk-vetch, and better
reflects recent surveyed habitat and
occupancy. The retraction to the south
and southeast excludes habitat that is
not occupied by Holmgren milk-vetch.
Boundary adjustments for Unit 2a
(Stucki Springs) result in an increase of
proposed critical habitat in this subunits
from approximately 412 ac (168 ha) to
437 ac (177 ha).
Specific changes to Unit 2b (South
Hills) include: (1) The addition of 7 ac
(2.8 ha) to the northeast portion of the
subunit to include drainage patterns
from the ridgeline and slope of the
adjacent formation; (2) the deletion of
17 ac (6.9 ha) to the southeast to correct
a mapping error that proposed critical
habitat outside the area known to be
occupied by the taxon; and (3) the
realignment of the western boundary
100 feet (30 meters) to the east for
management purposes. Boundary
adjustments for Unit 2b (South Hills)
result in a decrease of proposed critical
habitat in this subunit from
approximately 147 ac (59 ha) to 129 ac
(52 ha).
Overall, therefore, the total proposed
critical habitat for the two milk-vetches
would be increased by only 8 ac (3.3 ha)
as a result of these proposed changes to
the boundaries of Holmgren milk-vetch
Units 2a and 2b.
Future Boundary Changes
Manmade features within the
boundaries of proposed designated,
mapped units, such as buildings, roads,
parking lots, and other paved areas, do
not contain any of the primary
constituent elements for Holmgren and
Shivwits milk-vetches and are not
considered critical habitat. Additional
efforts will be made to remove these
areas in the final critical habitat
designation for Holmgren and Shivwits
milk-vetches. However, any such
structures and the land under them
E:\FR\FM\26SEP1.SGM
26SEP1
56088
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
inadvertently left inside critical habitat
boundaries have been excluded by text
and are not designated as critical
habitat.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Required Determinations—Amended
In our March 29, 2006, proposed rule
(71 FR 15966), we indicated that we
would be deferring our determination of
compliance with several statutes and
Executive Orders until the information
concerning potential economic impacts
of the designation and potential effects
on landowners and stakeholders was
available in the draft economic analysis.
Those data are now available for our use
in making these determinations. In this
notice we are affirming the information
contained in the proposed rule
concerning Executive Orders 13132 and
Executive Order 12988; the Paperwork
Reduction Act; and the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
‘‘Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951). Based on
the information made available to us in
the draft economic analysis, we are
amending our Required Determinations,
as provided below, concerning
Executive Order 12866 and the
Regulatory Flexibility Act; Executive
Order 13211, Executive Order 12630;
and the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. We are also complying with NEPA
by preparation of a draft environmental
assessment of the critical habitat
proposal.
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order
12866, this document is a significant
rule because it may raise legal and
policy issues. Based on our draft
economic analysis, potential postdesignation (2007–2026) costs are
estimated to range between $8.8 and
$14.1 million in undiscounted 2006
dollars. In discounted terms, potential
economic costs are estimated to be $8.5
to $13.0 million (using a 3 percent
discount rate) and $8.2 to $12.1 million
(using a 7 percent discount rate). In
annualized terms, potential costs are
expected to range from $0.6 to $0.9
million annually (annualized at 3
percent) and $0.9 to $1.1 million
annually (annualized at 7 percent).
Therefore, we do not believe that the
proposed designation of critical habitat
for the Holmgren and Shivwits milkvetches would 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:58 Sep 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
Further, Executive Order 12866
directs Federal Agencies promulgating
regulations to evaluate regulatory
alternatives (OMB, Circular A–4,
September 17, 2003). Under Circular A–
4, once it has been determined that the
Federal regulatory action is appropriate,
the agency will need to consider
alternative regulatory approaches.
Because the determination of critical
habitat is a statutory requirement under
the Act, 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 under
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, provided that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh 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
(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C.
802(2)) (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.
Based upon our draft economic analysis
of the proposed designation, we provide
our analysis for determining whether
the proposed rule would result in a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This determination is subject to revision
based on comments received as part of
the final rulemaking.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
Holmgren and Shivwits milk-vetches
would affect a substantial number of
small entities, we considered the
number of small entities affected within
particular types of economic activities
(e.g., housing development, livestock
grazing, residential and related
development, recreation activities,
mining, and transportation). 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 the 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.
Our draft economic analysis of the
proposed critical habitat designation
evaluated the potential economic effects
on small business entities and small
governments resulting from
conservation actions related to the
listing of these species and proposed
designation of their critical habitat. The
activities affected by Holmgren and
Shivwits milk-vetches’ conservation
E:\FR\FM\26SEP1.SGM
26SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
efforts may include land development,
transportation and utility operations,
and conservation on public and tribal
lands. More than 98 percent of the
prospective economic costs (based on
upper-bound future undiscounted cost
figures) associated with conservation
activities for Holmgren and Shivwits
milk-vetches are expected to be borne
by Federal agencies (primarily BLM)
and state departments of transportation.
Thus, impacts to land development (i.e.,
BLM land disposal) and transportation
and utilities operations (i.e., Western
and Southern Corridor projects) are not
expected to affect small entities. The
following is a summary of the
information contained in the draft
economic analysis:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
(a) Development
According to the draft economic
analysis, Holmgren and Shivwits milkvetches’ development-related losses
account for approximately 71 percent of
forecast costs, and range from $7.2 to
$10.0 million (in 2006 dollars) over 20
years. The costs consist of losses in
Federal land value resulting from the
removal of BLM-administered public
lands from disposal status, meaning the
lands cannot be sold or exchanged for
private use. The only clearly directly
affected entity is the BLM, a large
government agency. Federal
governments are not defined as small
entities by the Small Business
Administration. As a result of this
information, we have determined that
the proposed designation is not
anticipated to have a substantial effect
on a substantial number of small
development businesses.
(b) Transportation and Utility
Operations
Potential costs to transportation and
utility operations in habitat proposed
for designation account for another 25
percent of forecast costs. Undiscounted
costs are estimated to range between
$1.0 and $3.5 million (in 2006 dollars)
over 20 years, or $0.8 to $2.5 million
assuming a 3 percent discount rate and
$0.6 to $1.7 million assuming a 7
percent discount rate. The amounts are
driven by project modification costs
associated with the Southern and
Western Corridor transportation
projects. These projects comprise more
than 95 percent of the transportation
and utility-related costs. These costs are
expected to be borne by state
departments of transportation. State
governments are not defined as small
entities by the Small Business
Administration. As a result of this
information, we have determined that
the proposed designation is not
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:58 Sep 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
anticipated to have a substantial effect
on a substantial number of
transportation and utility businesses.
Costs associated with utilities (power
lines) as a result of species conservation
activities is expected to be minimal,
with total pre-designation (2001–2006)
costs estimated around $3,000 (in 2006
dollars). No post-designation costs
(2007–2026) are anticipated, since no
foreseeable project is located within the
proposed critical habitat area.
(c) Conservation on Public and Tribal
Lands
Future costs associated with
managing critical habitat on public and
tribal lands account for an additional
three percent of forecast costs.
Undiscounted costs are estimated at
approximately $0.5 million (in 2006
dollars) over 20 years, or $0.4 million
assuming a 3 percent discount rate and
$0.3 million assuming a 7 percent
discount rate. The costs primarily
consist of ecological studies and habitat
monitoring by BLM and the United
States Geological Survey. These
activities constitute over 95 percent of
the conservation activities on public
and tribal lands.
In summary, three subunits (State
Line, South Hills, and Stucki Springs)
for Holmgren milk-vetch account for
more than 95 percent of total
undiscounted costs. We have
considered whether this proposed rule
would result in a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities, and we have concluded that it
would not. Federal agencies (primarily
BLM) and State Departments of
Transportation account for
approximately 74 and 25 percent of total
undiscounted costs, respectively.
Executive Order 13211—Energy
Supply, Distribution, and Use
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
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 potential
novel legal and policy issues, but it is
not expected to significantly affect
energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Appendix A of the draft economic
analysis provides a discussion and
analysis of this determination. OMB has
provided guidance for implementing
this Executive Order that outlines nine
outcomes that may constitute ‘‘a
significant adverse effect’’ when
compared to the situation without any
regulatory action being taken. The draft
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56089
economic analysis finds that none of
these criteria are relevant to this
analysis (no foreseeable utility project is
located within the proposed critical
habitat area). Thus, no energy-related
impacts associated with Holmgren and
Shivwits milk-vetches’ conservation
activities within proposed critical
habitat are expected. As such, the
proposed designation of critical habitat
is not expected to significantly affect
energy supplies, distribution, or use and
a Statement of Energy Effects is not
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 the following two
exceptions: It excludes ‘‘a condition of
federal assistance’’ and ‘‘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
E:\FR\FM\26SEP1.SGM
26SEP1
56090
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
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, or permits, or that otherwise
require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation
of critical habitat. 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 draft economic analysis
discusses potential impacts of critical
habitat designation for the Holmgren
and Shivwits milk-vetches on land
development, transportation and utility
operations, and conservation on public
and tribal lands. The analysis estimates
that costs of the rule could range from
$8.8 million to $14.1 million in
undiscounted dollars over 20 years.
Ninety-nine percent of the impacts are
anticipated to affect Federal agencies
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:28 Sep 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
(primarily BLM) and State Departments
of Transportation. Impacts on small
governments are not anticipated, or they
are anticipated to be passed through to
consumers. Consequently, we do not
believe that the designation of critical
habitat for the Holmgren and Shivwits
milk-vetches will significantly or
uniquely affect small government
entities. As such, a Small Government
Agency Plan is not required.
Executive Order 12630—Takings
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend
part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 17—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
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 Holmgren and Shivwits
milk-vetches in a takings implications
assessment. The takings implications
assessment concludes that this proposed
designation of critical habitat for the
Holmgren and Shivwits milk-vetches
does not pose significant takings
implications.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.
1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–
625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
Author
§ 17.96
The primary authors of this notice are
the staff of the Utah Ecological Services
Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2. Critical habitat for the Holmgren
milk-vetch (Astragalus holmgreniorum)
and Shivwits milk-vetch (Astragalus
ampullarioides) in § 17.96(a), which
was proposed to be added on March 29,
2006, at 71 FR 15966, is proposed to be
amended by revising the index map and
two of the critical habitat unit
descriptions for Holmgren milk-vetch as
follows:
Critical habitat—plants.
(a) Flowering plants.
*
*
*
*
*
Family Fabaceae: Astragalus
holmgreniorum (Holmgren Milk-vetch).
*
*
*
*
*
(5) Note: Index map (Map 5) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\26SEP1.SGM
26SEP1
56091
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:30 Sep 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26SEP1.SGM
26SEP1
EP26se06.004
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
56092
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
*
*
*
*
(7) Unit 2—Santa Clara Unit:
Washington County, Utah. This Unit
consists of two subunits: Stucki Spring
and South Hills.
(i) Unit 2a: Stucki Spring, Washington
County, Utah. Land bounded by the
UTM Zone 12 NAD 83 coordinates
(meters E, meters N): 263203, 4109419;
261650, 4109466; 261683, 4110718;
262761, 4110687; 263214, 4109938;
263203, 4109419.
(ii) Unit 2b: South Hills, Washington
County, Utah. Land bounded by the
UTM Zone 12 NAD 83 coordinates
(meters E, meters N): 263385, 4112054;
263932, 4112044; 263975, 4111990;
264261, 4111983; 263824, 4111209;
263504, 4111208; 263503, 4111213;
263502, 4111218; 263501, 4111220;
263498, 4111226; 263494, 4111234;
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:28 Sep 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
263489, 4111239; 263485, 4111243;
263481, 4111246; 263476, 4111248;
263475, 4111249; 263463, 4111252;
263462, 4111253; 263456, 4111254;
263454, 4111259; 263453, 4111262;
263447, 4111274; 263443, 4111280;
263427, 4111298; 263427, 4111298;
263418, 4111308; 263413, 4111323;
263409, 4111337; 263406, 4111354;
263406, 4111366; 263406, 4111383;
263406, 4111386; 263405, 4111403;
263405, 4111407; 263402, 4111422;
263400, 4111427; 263396, 4111440;
263394, 4111449; 263395, 4111455;
263397, 4111460; 263400, 4111464;
263405, 4111473; 263406, 4111478;
263407, 4111479; 263408, 4111493;
263408, 4111503; 263406, 4111515;
263405, 4111516; 263403, 4111529;
263402, 4111534; 263407, 4111547;
263409, 4111553; 263411, 4111568;
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
263412, 4111572; 263413, 4111592;
263412, 4111597; 263411, 4111609;
263409, 4111615; 263407, 4111620;
263405, 4111624; 263399, 4111631;
263398, 4111634; 263397, 4111644;
263401, 4111660; 263408, 4111679;
263421, 4111711; 263422, 4111714;
263429, 4111738; 263430, 4111746;
263431, 4111767; 263431, 4111772;
263428, 4111792; 263428, 4111822;
263430, 4111853; 263429, 4111860;
263428, 4111865; 263428, 4111866;
263420, 4111884; 263419, 4111888;
263421, 4111904; 263421, 4111913;
263417, 4111935; 263416, 4111937;
263405, 4111976; 263399, 4112013;
263398, 4112017; 263390, 4112041;
263390, 4112042; 263385, 4112054.
(iii) Note: Map of Unit 2 (Map 7) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\26SEP1.SGM
26SEP1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:58 Sep 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26SEP1.SGM
26SEP1
56093
EP26se06.005
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
56094
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
*
*
(4) Hand Delivery/Courier: You may
hand-deliver written documents to our
office (see ADDRESSES).
(5) Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim
Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish
and Wildlife Office, telephone, 760/
431–9440; facsimile, 760/431–9624.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
*
Dated: September 19, 2006.
David M. Verhey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 06–8191 Filed 9–25–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Public Comments Solicited
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018–AU77
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Prudency Determination
for the Designation of Critical Habitat
for Trichostema austromontanum ssp.
compactum
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of proposed finding.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), have
reconsidered whether designating
critical habitat for Trichostema
austromontanum ssp. compactum, a
plant, is prudent. This taxon was listed
as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),
on September 14, 1998; at that time we
determined that designation of critical
habitat was not prudent because
designation would increase the degree
of threat to the taxon and would not
benefit the taxon. As a consequence of
a settlement agreement we are
withdrawing our previous not prudent
finding. Further, on the basis of our
review and evaluation of the best
scientific and commercial information
available, we believe that designation of
critical habitat continues to be not
prudent for T. a. ssp. compactum. As a
result, we are proposing a new ‘‘not
prudent’’ determination for T. a. ssp.
compactum.
We will accept comments from
all interested parties until November 27,
2006.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on
the proposed finding, you may submit
your comments and materials identified
by RIN 1018–AU77, by any of the
following methods:
(1) E-mail:
fw8cfwocomments@fws.gov. Include
‘‘RIN 1018–AU77’’ in the subject line.
(2) Fax: 760/431–9624.
(3) Mail: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor,
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010
Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA
92011.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
DATES:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:58 Sep 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
We intend that any final action
resulting from this finding will be as
accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, comments or suggestions
from the public, other concerned
governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
interested party concerning this
proposed finding are hereby solicited.
Comments particularly are sought
concerning:
(1) Reasons that designation of critical
habitat may or may not be prudent for
T. a. ssp. compactum;
(2) Specific information on
management activities for this taxon and
how those activities do or do not
address threats identified in the listing
rule;
(3) The possible risks and benefits of
designating critical habitat for T. a. ssp.
compactum; and
(4) Ways in which we could improve
or modify this finding to increase public
participation and understanding.
If you wish to comment, you may
submit your comments and materials
concerning this proposal by any one of
several methods (see ADDRESSES
section). Please submit Internet
comments to
fw8cfwocomments@fws.gov in ASCII file
format and avoid the use of special
characters or any form of encryption.
Please also include ‘‘Attn: RIN 1018–
AU77’’ in your e-mail subject header
and your name and return address in
the body of your message. If you do not
receive a confirmation from the system
that we have received your Internet
message, contact us directly by calling
our Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at
phone number (760) 431–9440.
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 names and/or home
addresses, etc. but if you wish us to
consider withholding this information
you must state this prominently at the
beginning of your comments. In
addition, you must present rationale for
withholding this information. This
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
rationale must demonstrate that
disclosure would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Unsupported assertions will not meet
this burden. In the absence of
exceptional, documentable
circumstances, this information will be
released. We will always make
submissions from organizations or
businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as
representatives of or officials of
organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and materials received will
be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES).
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those
topics directly relevant to the not
prudent critical habitat determination.
For more information on biology and
ecology of Trichostema
austromontanum ssp. compactum, refer
to the final rule listing this taxon as
threatened published in the Federal
Register on September 14, 1998 (63 FR
49006).
Taxonomy and Description
Trichostema austromontanum ssp.
compactum, a member of the Lamiaceae
(mint family), was described by F.
Harlan Lewis (1945) based on
specimens collected in 1941 by M. L.
Hilend in Riverside County, California.
The taxon occurs only on the
northwestern margin of a single vernal
pool (Bauder 1999, p. 13). T. a. ssp.
compactum is a compact, soft-villous
(with long, shaggy hairs) annual plant,
approximately 4 inches (10 centimeters)
tall, with short internodes (stem
segments between leaves) (Lewis 1945,
p. 284–386, Lewis 1993, p. 732), elliptic
leaves, and blue flowers in a five-lobed
corolla. The two stamens are blue. The
fruit consists of four smooth, basally
joined nutlets. This taxon flowers in
July and August.
Threats
In the 1998 final listing rule, we
stated that trampling and low numbers
(small population size) threatened
Trichostema austromontanum ssp.
compactum (63 FR 49006). At the time
of listing there were reports of on-going
impacts caused by trampling associated
with hikers and horses. It was observed
that trampling by horses crushed plants
and also created depressions that
retained water where seeds and adult
plants of T. a. ssp. compactum drown
(Hamilton 1991, p 2, 22; Hamilton
1996). Since listing, the California
E:\FR\FM\26SEP1.SGM
26SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 26, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56085-56094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8191]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AU45
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Astragalus ampullarioides (Shivwits Milk-Vetch)
and Astragalus holmgreniorum (Holmgren Milk-Vetch)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Revised proposed rule; reopening of public comment period,
notice of availability of draft economic analysis and draft
environmental assessment, and revisions to proposed critical habitat
boundaries.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period on the proposal to designate
critical habitat for Astragalus ampullarioides (Shivwits milk-vetch)
and Astragalus holmgreniorum (Holmgren milk-vetch) under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also announce the
availability of the draft economic analysis for the proposed
designation of critical habitat for Holmgren and Shivwits milk-vetches.
The draft economic analysis finds that, over 20 years, post-designation
costs for Holmgren and Shivwits milk-vetch conservation-related
activities are estimated to range between $8.8 and $14.1 million in
undiscounted 2006 dollars. In discounted terms, potential post-
designation economic costs are estimated to be $8.5 to $13.0 million
(using a 3 percent discount rate) or $8.2 to $12.1 million (using a 7
percent discount rate). In addition, we announce the availability of a
draft environmental assessment that has been prepared in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq. ) (NEPA). Finally, we propose to revise boundary descriptions for
two critical habitat subunits: Holmgren milk-vetch's Unit 2a (Stucki
Spring) and Unit 2b (South Hills).
DATES: We will accept comments until October 26, 2006.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on the proposed rule, draft economic
analysis, or draft environmental assessment, you may submit your
comments and materials to us by any one of the following methods:
(1) E-mail: You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to
hsmilkvetch@fws.gov. Please see Public Comments Solicited section below
for file format and other information about electronic filing.
(2) Fax: You may fax comments to (801) 975-3331.
(3) Mail or hand delivery/courier: You may submit written comments
to Larry Crist, Acting Field Supervisor, Utah Ecological Services Field
Office, 2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, Utah 84119.
(4) Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Crist, Acting Field Supervisor,
Utah Ecological Services Field Office, at the address listed in
ADDRESSES (telephone, 801-975-3330; facsimile, 801-975-3331).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments Solicited
We will accept written comments and information during this
reopened comment period. We solicit comments or suggestions from the
public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other interested party concerning the
[[Page 56086]]
original proposed rule published in the Federal Register on March 29,
2006 (71 FR 15966), revisions to the proposed rule described in this
document, the draft economic analysis, and the draft environmental
assessment. In addition to the points listed in the March 29, 2006,
proposed rule, we particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The reasons 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 it is prudent to designate critical habitat;
(2) Specific information on the distribution of the Holmgren and
Shivwits milk-vetches, the amount and distribution of the species'
habitat, and which habitat contains the necessary features (primary
constituent elements) essential to the conservation of these species
and why;
(3) Land-use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject area and their possible impacts on these species or proposed
critical habitat;
(4) 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 concerns and comments;
(5) Any foreseeable environmental impacts directly or indirectly
resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat;
(6) Any foreseeable economic, national security or other potential
impacts resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat,
and in particular, any impacts on small entities or families;
(7) Whether the economic analysis identifies all State and local
costs attributable to the proposed critical habitat, and information on
any costs that have been inadvertently overlooked;
(8) Whether the economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions
regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a
result of the designation of critical habitat;
(9) Whether the economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on
regional costs associated with land-use controls that derive from the
designation;
(10) Whether the critical habitat designation will result in
disproportionate economic impacts to specific areas that should be
evaluated for possible exclusion from the final designation;
(11) Whether the economic analysis appropriately identifies all
costs that could result from the critical habitat designation; and
(12) Whether the benefit of exclusion in any particular area
outweighs the benefits of inclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Comments previously submitted on the March 29, 2006, proposed rule
(71 FR 15966) need not be resubmitted as they have been incorporated
into the record and will be fully considered in preparation of the
final rule. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods (see
ADDRESSES). Our final designation of critical habitat for the Holmgren
and Shivwits milk-vetches will take into consideration all comments and
any additional information received during both comment periods. Based
on public comment on the proposed rule, the draft economic analysis,
and the draft environmental assessment, as well as on the conclusions
of the final economic analysis and environmental assessment, we may
find during the development of our final determination that some areas
proposed do not contain the features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, are appropriate for exclusion under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.
Please submit electronic comments in ASCII file format and avoid
the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Please also
include ``Attn: RIN 1018-AU45'' in the subject line, and your name and
return address in the body of your message. If you do not receive a
confirmation from the system that we have received your Internet
message, 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. We will not consider anonymous comments, and we will
make all comments available for public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and materials received will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Utah
Ecological Services Field Office at the address listed under ADDRESSES.
You may obtain copies of the proposed rule, draft economic
analysis, and draft environmental assessment by mail from the Utah
Ecological Services Field Office at the address listed under ADDRESSES
or by visiting our Web site at https://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/
plants/milkvetche/index.htm.
Background
Holmgren and Shivwits milk-vetches are members of the pea family
(Fabaceae or Leguminosae). Holmgren milk-vetch is a stemless,
herbaceous (non-woody) perennial that produces leaves and small purple
flowers in the spring. Shivwits milk-vetch is a perennial, herbaceous
plant with yellow to cream-colored flowers that is considered a tall
member of the pea family. Holmgren milk-vetch is known from Mohave
County, Arizona, and Washington County, Utah. Shivwits milk-vetch is
known only from Washington County in Utah. Threats to both species that
resulted in their listing on September 28, 2001 (66 FR 49560), include
development of land for residential and urban use, habitat modification
from human disturbances such as off-road vehicle use, competition with
nonnative plant species, and impacts from mining and grazing.
On March 29, 2006, we proposed to designate approximately 2,421
acres (ac) (980 hectares (ha)) of critical habitat for Shivwits milk-
vetch, and 6,475 ac (2,620 ha) of critical habitat for Holmgren milk-
vetch, which include known occupied sites and associated habitats
containing the identified primary constituent elements (71 FR 15966).
The proposed designation includes Federal, State, Tribal, and private
lands in Arizona and Utah. On August 1, 2006, the Service announced the
availability of a draft recovery plan for the two species (71 FR
43514). The recovery plan identifies the areas important for recovery;
these areas correspond to those we have proposed as critical habitat.
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the specific
areas within the geographical 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 geographical 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
[[Page 56087]]
proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Draft Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise
critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after
taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national
security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat. In compliance with section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, we have prepared a draft economic analysis of the March 29, 2006
(71 FR 15966), proposed designation of critical habitat for Holmgren
and Shivwits milk-vetches.
The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic
effects of actions relating to the conservation of the two milk-
vetches, 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 two milk-vetches in essential habitat areas. The
draft economic 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).
The draft economic 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, the draft economic analysis looks
retrospectively at costs that have been incurred since the date the two
milk-vetches were listed in 2001, and considers those costs that may
occur in the 20 years following a designation of critical habitat.
Pre-designation (2001-2006) costs associated with species
conservation activities are estimated to range from $9.3 to $13.7
million in 2006 dollars. Potential post-designation (2007-2026) costs
are estimated to range between $8.8 and $14.1 million in undiscounted
2006 dollars. In discounted terms, potential post-designation economic
costs are estimated to be $8.5 to $13.0 million (using a 3 percent
discount rate) and $8.2 to $12.1 million (using a 7 percent discount
rate). In annualized terms, potential post-designation costs are
expected to range from $0.6 to $0.9 million annually (annualized at 3
percent) and $0.9 to $1.1 million annually (annualized at 7 percent).
We solicit data and comments from the public on the draft economic
analysis, as well as on all aspects of the proposal to designate
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.
Draft Environmental Assessment; National Environmental Policy Act
The draft environmental assessment (EA) presents the purpose of and
need for critical habitat designation, the Proposed Action and
alternatives, and an evaluation of the direct, indirect, and cumulative
effects of the alternatives pursuant to the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
(NEPA) as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality
regulations (40 CFR 1500 et seq.) and according to the Department of
the Interior's NEPA procedures.
The EA will be used by the Service to decide whether or not
critical habitat will be designated as proposed, if the Proposed Action
requires refinement, or if further analyses are needed through
preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). If the Proposed
Action is selected as described, or with minimal changes, and no
further environmental analyses are needed, then a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) would be the appropriate conclusion of this
process.
Proposed Change to Boundaries of Holmgren Milk-Vetch Units 2a and 2b
Following publication of the proposed critical habitat rule on
March 29, 2006, we received updated information from the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), St. George Field Office, St. George, Utah on plant
habitat and occupancy. Based on this information, we propose to amend
the boundaries of two subunits for the Holmgren milk-vetch within Unit
2 (Santa Clara): Unit 2a (Stucki Spring) and Unit 2b (South Hills).
Corrected maps and boundary descriptions are provided in the Proposed
Regulation Promulgation section below.
We propose changes to Unit 2a (Stucki Springs) and Unit 2b (South
Hills) based on 2006 field survey results and comments contributed by
BLM. Field reconnaissance in 2006 by BLM resulted in adjustment of
boundaries to better include Holmgren milk-vetch habitat. Specific
changes to Unit 2a (Stucki Springs) include: (1) Extension of the
boundary to the north and west that results in the inclusion of an
additional 139 ac (56.3 ha); and (2) retraction of the boundary on the
south and southeast that results in the deletion of 114 ac (46.2 ha).
The adjustment to the north and west further captures watershed and
some of the formation contributing to the occupancy of Holmgren milk-
vetch, and better reflects recent surveyed habitat and occupancy. The
retraction to the south and southeast excludes habitat that is not
occupied by Holmgren milk-vetch. Boundary adjustments for Unit 2a
(Stucki Springs) result in an increase of proposed critical habitat in
this subunits from approximately 412 ac (168 ha) to 437 ac (177 ha).
Specific changes to Unit 2b (South Hills) include: (1) The addition
of 7 ac (2.8 ha) to the northeast portion of the subunit to include
drainage patterns from the ridgeline and slope of the adjacent
formation; (2) the deletion of 17 ac (6.9 ha) to the southeast to
correct a mapping error that proposed critical habitat outside the area
known to be occupied by the taxon; and (3) the realignment of the
western boundary 100 feet (30 meters) to the east for management
purposes. Boundary adjustments for Unit 2b (South Hills) result in a
decrease of proposed critical habitat in this subunit from
approximately 147 ac (59 ha) to 129 ac (52 ha).
Overall, therefore, the total proposed critical habitat for the two
milk-vetches would be increased by only 8 ac (3.3 ha) as a result of
these proposed changes to the boundaries of Holmgren milk-vetch Units
2a and 2b.
Future Boundary Changes
Manmade features within the boundaries of proposed designated,
mapped units, such as buildings, roads, parking lots, and other paved
areas, do not contain any of the primary constituent elements for
Holmgren and Shivwits milk-vetches and are not considered critical
habitat. Additional efforts will be made to remove these areas in the
final critical habitat designation for Holmgren and Shivwits milk-
vetches. However, any such structures and the land under them
[[Page 56088]]
inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries have been
excluded by text and are not designated as critical habitat.
Required Determinations--Amended
In our March 29, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 15966), we indicated
that we would be deferring our determination of compliance with several
statutes and Executive Orders until the information concerning
potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on
landowners and stakeholders was available in the draft economic
analysis. Those data are now available for our use in making these
determinations. In this notice we are affirming the information
contained in the proposed rule concerning Executive Orders 13132 and
Executive Order 12988; the Paperwork Reduction Act; and the President's
memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with
Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951). Based on the
information made available to us in the draft economic analysis, we are
amending our Required Determinations, as provided below, concerning
Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act; Executive
Order 13211, Executive Order 12630; and the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. We are also complying with NEPA by preparation of a draft
environmental assessment of the critical habitat proposal.
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule because it may raise legal and policy issues. Based on
our draft economic analysis, potential post-designation (2007-2026)
costs are estimated to range between $8.8 and $14.1 million in
undiscounted 2006 dollars. In discounted terms, potential economic
costs are estimated to be $8.5 to $13.0 million (using a 3 percent
discount rate) and $8.2 to $12.1 million (using a 7 percent discount
rate). In annualized terms, potential costs are expected to range from
$0.6 to $0.9 million annually (annualized at 3 percent) and $0.9 to
$1.1 million annually (annualized at 7 percent). Therefore, we do not
believe that the proposed designation of critical habitat for the
Holmgren and Shivwits milk-vetches would 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 (OMB,
Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Under Circular A-4, once it has been
determined that the Federal regulatory action is appropriate, the
agency will need to consider alternative regulatory approaches. Because
the determination of critical habitat is a statutory requirement under
the Act, 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 under 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, provided that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh 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 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5
U.S.C. 802(2)) (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. Based upon our draft
economic analysis of the proposed designation, we provide our analysis
for determining whether the proposed rule would result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
determination is subject to revision based on comments received as part
of the final rulemaking.
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 Holmgren and Shivwits milk-vetches would affect a substantial
number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities
affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing
development, livestock grazing, residential and related development,
recreation activities, mining, and transportation). 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 the 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.
Our draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat
designation evaluated the potential economic effects on small business
entities and small governments resulting from conservation actions
related to the listing of these species and proposed designation of
their critical habitat. The activities affected by Holmgren and
Shivwits milk-vetches' conservation
[[Page 56089]]
efforts may include land development, transportation and utility
operations, and conservation on public and tribal lands. More than 98
percent of the prospective economic costs (based on upper-bound future
undiscounted cost figures) associated with conservation activities for
Holmgren and Shivwits milk-vetches are expected to be borne by Federal
agencies (primarily BLM) and state departments of transportation. Thus,
impacts to land development (i.e., BLM land disposal) and
transportation and utilities operations (i.e., Western and Southern
Corridor projects) are not expected to affect small entities. The
following is a summary of the information contained in the draft
economic analysis:
(a) Development
According to the draft economic analysis, Holmgren and Shivwits
milk-vetches' development-related losses account for approximately 71
percent of forecast costs, and range from $7.2 to $10.0 million (in
2006 dollars) over 20 years. The costs consist of losses in Federal
land value resulting from the removal of BLM-administered public lands
from disposal status, meaning the lands cannot be sold or exchanged for
private use. The only clearly directly affected entity is the BLM, a
large government agency. Federal governments are not defined as small
entities by the Small Business Administration. As a result of this
information, we have determined that the proposed designation is not
anticipated to have a substantial effect on a substantial number of
small development businesses.
(b) Transportation and Utility Operations
Potential costs to transportation and utility operations in habitat
proposed for designation account for another 25 percent of forecast
costs. Undiscounted costs are estimated to range between $1.0 and $3.5
million (in 2006 dollars) over 20 years, or $0.8 to $2.5 million
assuming a 3 percent discount rate and $0.6 to $1.7 million assuming a
7 percent discount rate. The amounts are driven by project modification
costs associated with the Southern and Western Corridor transportation
projects. These projects comprise more than 95 percent of the
transportation and utility-related costs. These costs are expected to
be borne by state departments of transportation. State governments are
not defined as small entities by the Small Business Administration. As
a result of this information, we have determined that the proposed
designation is not anticipated to have a substantial effect on a
substantial number of transportation and utility businesses.
Costs associated with utilities (power lines) as a result of
species conservation activities is expected to be minimal, with total
pre-designation (2001-2006) costs estimated around $3,000 (in 2006
dollars). No post-designation costs (2007-2026) are anticipated, since
no foreseeable project is located within the proposed critical habitat
area.
(c) Conservation on Public and Tribal Lands
Future costs associated with managing critical habitat on public
and tribal lands account for an additional three percent of forecast
costs. Undiscounted costs are estimated at approximately $0.5 million
(in 2006 dollars) over 20 years, or $0.4 million assuming a 3 percent
discount rate and $0.3 million assuming a 7 percent discount rate. The
costs primarily consist of ecological studies and habitat monitoring by
BLM and the United States Geological Survey. These activities
constitute over 95 percent of the conservation activities on public and
tribal lands.
In summary, three subunits (State Line, South Hills, and Stucki
Springs) for Holmgren milk-vetch account for more than 95 percent of
total undiscounted costs. We have considered whether this proposed rule
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities, and we have concluded that it would not. Federal
agencies (primarily BLM) and State Departments of Transportation
account for approximately 74 and 25 percent of total undiscounted
costs, respectively.
Executive Order 13211--Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use
On May 18, 2001, the President issued 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 potential novel
legal and policy issues, but it is not expected to significantly affect
energy supplies, distribution, or use. Appendix A of the draft economic
analysis provides a discussion and analysis of this determination. OMB
has provided guidance for implementing this Executive Order that
outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a significant adverse
effect'' when compared to the situation without any regulatory action
being taken. The draft economic analysis finds that none of these
criteria are relevant to this analysis (no foreseeable utility project
is located within the proposed critical habitat area). Thus, no energy-
related impacts associated with Holmgren and Shivwits milk-vetches'
conservation activities within proposed critical habitat are expected.
As such, the proposed designation of critical habitat is not expected
to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use and a
Statement of Energy Effects is not 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
the following two exceptions: It excludes ``a condition of federal
assistance'' and ``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
[[Page 56090]]
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, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat. 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 draft economic analysis discusses potential impacts of
critical habitat designation for the Holmgren and Shivwits milk-vetches
on land development, transportation and utility operations, and
conservation on public and tribal lands. The analysis estimates that
costs of the rule could range from $8.8 million to $14.1 million in
undiscounted dollars over 20 years. Ninety-nine percent of the impacts
are anticipated to affect Federal agencies (primarily BLM) and State
Departments of Transportation. Impacts on small governments are not
anticipated, or they are anticipated to be passed through to consumers.
Consequently, we do not believe that the designation of critical
habitat for the Holmgren and Shivwits milk-vetches will significantly
or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a Small
Government Agency Plan is not required.
Executive Order 12630--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 Holmgren and Shivwits milk-vetches
in a takings implications assessment. The takings implications
assessment concludes that this proposed designation of critical habitat
for the Holmgren and Shivwits milk-vetches does not pose significant
takings implications.
Author
The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Utah
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Critical habitat for the Holmgren milk-vetch (Astragalus
holmgreniorum) and Shivwits milk-vetch (Astragalus ampullarioides) in
Sec. 17.96(a), which was proposed to be added on March 29, 2006, at 71
FR 15966, is proposed to be amended by revising the index map and two
of the critical habitat unit descriptions for Holmgren milk-vetch as
follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Fabaceae: Astragalus holmgreniorum (Holmgren Milk-vetch).
* * * * *
(5) Note: Index map (Map 5) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 56091]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE06.004
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 56092]]
* * * * *
(7) Unit 2--Santa Clara Unit: Washington County, Utah. This Unit
consists of two subunits: Stucki Spring and South Hills.
(i) Unit 2a: Stucki Spring, Washington County, Utah. Land bounded
by the UTM Zone 12 NAD 83 coordinates (meters E, meters N): 263203,
4109419; 261650, 4109466; 261683, 4110718; 262761, 4110687; 263214,
4109938; 263203, 4109419.
(ii) Unit 2b: South Hills, Washington County, Utah. Land bounded by
the UTM Zone 12 NAD 83 coordinates (meters E, meters N): 263385,
4112054; 263932, 4112044; 263975, 4111990; 264261, 4111983; 263824,
4111209; 263504, 4111208; 263503, 4111213; 263502, 4111218; 263501,
4111220; 263498, 4111226; 263494, 4111234; 263489, 4111239; 263485,
4111243; 263481, 4111246; 263476, 4111248; 263475, 4111249; 263463,
4111252; 263462, 4111253; 263456, 4111254; 263454, 4111259; 263453,
4111262; 263447, 4111274; 263443, 4111280; 263427, 4111298; 263427,
4111298; 263418, 4111308; 263413, 4111323; 263409, 4111337; 263406,
4111354; 263406, 4111366; 263406, 4111383; 263406, 4111386; 263405,
4111403; 263405, 4111407; 263402, 4111422; 263400, 4111427; 263396,
4111440; 263394, 4111449; 263395, 4111455; 263397, 4111460; 263400,
4111464; 263405, 4111473; 263406, 4111478; 263407, 4111479; 263408,
4111493; 263408, 4111503; 263406, 4111515; 263405, 4111516; 263403,
4111529; 263402, 4111534; 263407, 4111547; 263409, 4111553; 263411,
4111568; 263412, 4111572; 263413, 4111592; 263412, 4111597; 263411,
4111609; 263409, 4111615; 263407, 4111620; 263405, 4111624; 263399,
4111631; 263398, 4111634; 263397, 4111644; 263401, 4111660; 263408,
4111679; 263421, 4111711; 263422, 4111714; 263429, 4111738; 263430,
4111746; 263431, 4111767; 263431, 4111772; 263428, 4111792; 263428,
4111822; 263430, 4111853; 263429, 4111860; 263428, 4111865; 263428,
4111866; 263420, 4111884; 263419, 4111888; 263421, 4111904; 263421,
4111913; 263417, 4111935; 263416, 4111937; 263405, 4111976; 263399,
4112013; 263398, 4112017; 263390, 4112041; 263390, 4112042; 263385,
4112054.
(iii) Note: Map of Unit 2 (Map 7) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 56093]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE06.005
[[Page 56094]]
* * * * *
Dated: September 19, 2006.
David M. Verhey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 06-8191 Filed 9-25-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C