Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Hine's Emerald Dragonfly, 13061-13068 [07-1368]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
III. What Is Our Proposed Action?
EPA is proposing to approve revisions
to New Jersey’s regulations as described
above. The State of New Jersey has
adopted the above rule revisions in
accordance with state rulemaking
procedures. EPA is therefore proposing
to approve the revisions to New Jersey’s
Operating Permits Rule, codified at
N.J.A.C. 7:27–22, as a revision to New
Jersey’s Operating Permit Program.
erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is
also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This proposed action merely
proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies
that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule
proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable
duty beyond that required by state law,
it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4).
This proposed rule also does not have
tribal implications because it will not
have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Mar 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This proposed rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing State Operating Permit
Programs submitted pursuant to title V
of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve
such regulations provided that they
meet the requirements of the Clean Air
Act and EPA’s regulations codified at 40
CFR part 70. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove such regulations for
failure to use VCS. It would, thus, be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews such regulations,
to use VCS in place of a State regulation
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This proposed
rule does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 6, 2007.
Alan J. Steinberg,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. E7–5026 Filed 3–19–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018–AU74
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the Hine’s Emerald
Dragonfly
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Revised proposed rule;
reopening of comment period and
notice of availability of draft economic
analysis, and amended Required
Determinations.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13061
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period
and the availability of the draft
economic analysis for the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the
endangered Hine’s emerald dragonfly
(Somatochlora hineana) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). We are also revising our
proposed rule, published on July 26,
2006 (71 FR 42442), to include an
additional proposed critical habitat unit
in Door County, Wisconsin, and
amending the Required Determinations
for the proposal. The draft economic
analysis forecasts that costs associated
with conservation activities for the
Hine’s emerald dragonfly would range
from $16.8 million to $46.7 million in
undiscounted dollars over the next 20
years. In discounted terms, potential
economic costs are estimated to be $13.3
to $34.5 million (using a 3 percent
discount rate) and $10.5 to $25.2
million (using a 7 percent discount
rate). In annualized terms, potential
costs are expected to range from $0.8 to
$2.3 million annually (annualized at 3
percent) and $0.9 to $2.4 million
annually (annualized at 7 percent). We
are reopening the public comment
period to allow all interested parties an
opportunity to comment simultaneously
on the proposed rule, our revision to the
proposed rule, the associated draft
economic analysis, and the amended
Required Determinations. Comments
previously submitted need not be
resubmitted as they will be incorporated
into the public record and fully
considered in preparation of the final
rule.
We will accept public comments
until April 3, 2007.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment,
you may submit your comments and
information concerning this proposal,
identified by ‘‘Attn: Hine’s Emerald
Dragonfly Critical Habitat,’’ by any one
of several methods:
(1) Mail or hand-deliver to: John
Rogner, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Chicago Illinois
Ecological Services Field Office, 1250 S.
Grove, Suite 103, Barrington, IL 60010.
(2) Send by electronic mail (e-mail) to
hedch@fws.gov. Please see the Public
Comments Solicited section below for
file format and other information about
electronic filing.
(3) Fax your comments to: (847) 381–
2285.
(4) Submit comments via the Federal
eRulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
13062
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
John
Rogner, Field Supervisor, Chicago
Illinois Ecological Services Field Office,
1250 S. Grove, Suite 103, Barrington,
Illinois 60010 (telephone (847) 381–
2253, extension 28; facsimile (847) 381–
2285).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Public Comments Solicited
We intend that any final action
resulting from the proposal will be as
accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, comments or suggestions
from the public, other concerned
governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
interested party concerning the
proposed rule are hereby solicited.
Comments particularly are being sought
concerning:
(1) The reasons any habitat should or
should not be determined to be critical
habitat as provided by section 4 of the
Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including
whether the benefit of designation will
outweigh any adverse impacts to the
species due to designation;
(2) Specific information on the
amount and distribution of Hine’s
emerald dragonfly habitat, particularly
what areas should be included in the
designations that were occupied at the
time of listing and that contain features
that are essential for the conservation of
the species and why; and what areas
that were not occupied at the time of
listing are essential to the conservation
of the species and why;
(3) Information that would add further
clarity or specificity to the physical and
biological features determined to be
essential for the conservation of the
Hine’s emerald dragonfly (i.e., primary
constituent elements), particularly
whether the primary constituent
elements as described fulfill the needs
for the various life stages of the Hine’s
emerald dragonfly (e.g., whether old
fields adjacent to and in near proximity
to larval areas are essential features);
(4) Whether lands not currently
occupied by the species should be
included in the designation, and if so,
the basis for such an inclusion;
(5) Whether the methodology used to
map critical habitat units captures all of
the biological and physical features
essential to the conservation of the
Hine’s emerald dragonfly;
(6) Land use designations and current
or planned activities in the subject areas
and their possible impacts on proposed
critical habitat;
(7) Whether the benefit of exclusion
in any particular area outweigh the
benefits of inclusion under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Mar 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
(8) Any foreseeable economic,
national security, or other potential
impacts resulting from the proposed
designation and, in particular, any
impacts on small entities;
(9) We are considering excluding
areas under the jurisdiction of the
Hiawatha National Forest in Michigan,
the Mark Twain National Forest in
Missouri, and the Missouri Department
of Conservation and units under private
ownership in Missouri from the final
designation of critical habitat under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act on the basis of
conservation programs and
partnerships. We will also review other
relevant information for units being
proposed in this rule as we receive it to
determine whether other units may be
appropriate for exclusion from the final
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act. We specifically solicit comment on
the inclusion or exclusion of such areas
and:
(a) Whether these areas have features
that are essential to the conservation of
the species or are otherwise essential to
the conservation of the species;
(b) Whether these, or other areas
proposed, but not specifically addressed
in this proposal, warrant exclusion;
(c) Relevant factors that should be
considered by us when evaluating the
basis for not designating these areas as
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act;
(d) Whether management plans in
place adequately provide conservation
measures and protect the Hine’s
emerald dragonfly, its habitat, and
features essential to its conservation;
(e) Whether designation would assist
in the regulation of any threats not
addressed by existing management
plans; and
(f) Whether designating these lands
may result in an increased degree of
threat to the species on these lands;
(10) 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;
(11) 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;
(12) 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;
(13) Whether the draft economic
analysis appropriately identifies all
costs and benefits that could result from
the designation; and
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(14) 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.
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 note that comments
merely stating support or opposition to
the actions under consideration without
providing supporting information,
although noted, will not be considered
in making a determination, as section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations to be made ‘‘solely on
the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.’’ Please
submit comments electronically to
hedch@fws.gov in ASCII or Microsoft
Word file format. Please also include
‘‘Attn: Hine’s Emerald Dragonfly Critical
Habitat’’ 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 e-mail,
contact us directly by calling the
Chicago Illinois Ecological Services
Field Office at telephone number (847)
381–2253. Please note that the e-mail
address hedch@fws.gov will be closed
out at the termination of the public
comment period.
Our practice is to make comments,
including names and home addresses of
respondents, available for public review
during regular business hours.
Individual respondents may request that
we withhold their home addresses from
the rulemaking record, which we will
honor to the extent allowable by law.
There also may be circumstances in
which we would withhold from the
rulemaking record a respondent’s
identity, as allowable by law. If you
wish us to withhold your name and/or
address, you must state this
prominently at the beginning of your
comment, but you should be aware that
the Service may be required to disclose
your name and address pursuant to the
Freedom of Information Act. However,
we will not consider anonymous
comments. We will make all
submissions from organizations or
businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and materials received will
be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the address indicated in the
ADDRESSES section.
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Copies of the draft economic analysis
and the proposed rule for critical habitat
designation are available on the Internet
at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/
Endangered/ or from the Chicago
Illinois Ecological Services Field Office
(see ADDRESSES).
Our final designation of critical
habitat will take into consideration all
comments and any additional
information we received during both
comment periods. Previous comments
and information submitted during the
initial comment period on the July 26,
2006, proposed rule (71 FR 42442) need
not be resubmitted. On the basis of
information received during the public
comment periods, we may, during the
development of our final critical habitat
determination, find that areas proposed
are not essential, are appropriate for
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, or are not appropriate for
exclusion. An area may be excluded
from critical habitat if it is determined
that the benefits of such exclusion
outweigh the 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.
Background
The Hine’s emerald dragonfly has
bright emerald-green eyes and a metallic
green body with yellow stripes on its
sides. Its body is about 2.5 inches (in)
(6.4 centimeters (cm) long; its wingspan
reaches about 3.3 in (8.4 cm). It lives in
calcareous (high in calcium carbonate),
spring-fed marshes and sedge meadows
overlaying dolomite bedrock. Threats
that resulted in the species’ listing on
January 26, 1995 (60 FR 5267) include
habitat destruction, contamination of
wetlands by pesticides or other
pollutants, and decreases in the amount
or quality of ground water flowing to the
dragonfly’s habitat.
On July 26, 2006, we published a
proposed rule to designate critical
habitat for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly
(71 FR 42442). In total, approximately
27,689 acres (ac) (11,205 hectares (ha))
fall within the boundaries of the
proposed critical habitat designation in
49 units located in Cook, DuPage, and
Will Counties in Illinois; Alpena,
Mackinac, and Presque Isle Counties in
Michigan; Dent, Iron, Morgan, Phelps,
Reynolds, Ripley, Shannon,
Washington, and Wayne Counties in
Missouri; and Door and Ozaukee
Counties in Wisconsin. We are
considering excluding, under section
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Mar 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
4(b)(2) of the Act, all 26 units in
Missouri and 2 units in Michigan from
the final critical habitat designation. In
the proposal, we addressed a number of
general issues that are relevant to the
exclusions we are considering,
including conservation partnerships on
non-Federal lands, conservation
agreements, and National Forest plans.
As a result of corrections described
below, the proposed critical habitat now
encompasses approximately 27,836
acres (ac) (11,264 hectares (ha)),
including those areas we are
considering for exclusion from the final
designation. Other than the changes
described herein, the proposed rule of
July 26, 2006, remains intact. We will
submit for publication in the Federal
Register a final critical habitat
designation for the Hine’s emerald
dragonfly on or before May 7, 2007.
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.
Additional Proposed Critical Habitat
Unit
As discussed in the July 26, 2006,
proposal (71 FR 42442), additional sites
in Wisconsin were evaluated to
determine if they are essential for the
conservation of the Hine’s emerald
dragonfly. Based on our evaluation of
research results from 2006 fieldwork,
we have determined that Kellner’s Fen
in Door County, Wisconsin, is essential
to the conservation of Hine’s emerald
dragonfly. We are, therefore, proposing
to include it in the critical habitat
designation. Adult Hine’s emerald
dragonflies have been observed in this
area, but breeding has not been
confirmed. The additional proposed
critical habitat unit, Wisconsin Unit 11,
is described below.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13063
Wisconsin Unit 11—Door County,
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Unit 11 consists of
approximately 147 acres (59 hectares) in
Door County, Wisconsin. This unit was
not known to be occupied at the time of
listing. All primary constituent elements
for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly are
present in this unit. Adults have been
observed in this unit over multiple
years. Male patrolling behavior has been
observed, and crayfish burrows are
present. The unit consists of larval and
adult habitat, including a floating sedge
mat and lowland and upland conifer
and deciduous forest. This unit is
essential to the conservation of the
species because it provides for the
redundancy and resilience of
populations in this portion of the
species’ range, where habitat is under
threat from multiple factors. Known
threats to the primary constituent
elements which may require special
management or protections include loss
of habitat due to residential and/or
commercial development, alteration of
the hydrology of the wetlands,
contamination of surface and ground
water, logging, and invasive plants. All
land in the unit is privately owned.
Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that
we designate 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. We have prepared a
draft economic analysis based on the
July 26, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR
42442) to designate critical habitat for
the Hine’s emerald dragonfly; the
additional proposed unit in Door
County, Wisconsin, is included in that
analysis. The draft economic analysis
estimates the reasonably foreseeable
economic impacts of Hine’s emerald
dragonfly conservation measures within
the proposed critical habitat
designation. The analysis measures lost
economic efficiency associated with (1)
Residential and commercial
development, (2) water use, (3) utility
and road maintenance, (4) road and
railway use, (5) species management,
and (6) recreation. The draft economic
analysis considers the potential
economic effects of all actions relating
to the conservation of the Hine’s
emerald dragonfly, including costs
associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of
the Act, and those attributable to
designating critical habitat.
The draft economic analysis considers
the potential economic effects of all
actions relating to the conservation of
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
13064
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
the Hine’s emerald dragonfly, including
costs coextensive with listing. 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 Hine’s
emerald dragonfly in proposed critical
habitat areas. The draft analysis
considers both economic efficiency and
distributional effects. In the case of
habitat conservation, efficiency effects
generally reflect lost economic
opportunities associated with
restrictions on land use (opportunity
costs). 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 endangered and considers
those costs that may occur in the 20
years following 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
new information received during the
comment period.
The draft economic analysis forecasts
that costs associated with conservation
activities for the Hine’s emerald
dragonfly would range from $16.8
million to $46.7 million in
undiscounted dollars over the next 20
years. In discounted terms, potential
economic costs are estimated to be $13.3
to $34.5 million (using a 3 percent
discount rate) and $10.5 to $25.2
million (using a 7 percent discount
rate). In annualized terms, potential
costs are expected to range from $0.8 to
$2.3 million annually (annualized at 3
percent) and $0.9 to $2.4 million
annually (annualized at 7 percent).
Overall, the residential and commercial
development industry is calculated to
experience the highest estimated costs.
According to the draft economic
analysis, the forecast cost of Hine’s
emerald dragonfly development-related
losses range from $13.0 to $22.6 million
(undiscounted) over 20 years, or $10.1
to $15.9 million assuming a 3 percent
discount rate, and $8.0 to $11.2
assuming a 7 percent discount rate.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Mar 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
Required Determinations—Amended
In our July 26, 2006, proposed rule
(71 FR 42442), we indicated that we
were 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; the National
Environmental Policy 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.
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 from $16.8 to $46.6
million in undiscounted 2006 dollars. In
discounted terms, potential economic
costs are estimated to be $13.3 to $34.5
million (using a 3 percent discount rate)
and $10.5 to $25.2 million (using a 7
percent discount rate). In annualized
terms, potential costs are expected to
range from $0.8 to $2.3 million annually
(annualized at 3 percent) and $0.9 to
$2.4 million annually (annualized at 7
percent). Therefore, we do not believe
that the proposed designation of critical
habitat for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly
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 draft economic analysis.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 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 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
(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 (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
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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 Hine’s
emerald dragonfly critical habitat
designation would affect a substantial
number of small entities, we considered
the number of small entities affected
within particular types of economic
activities (such as 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.
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.
In our draft economic analysis, we
evaluated the potential economic effects
on small business entities resulting from
conservation actions related to the
listing of the Hine’s emerald dragonfly
and proposed designation of its critical
habitat. This analysis estimated
prospective economic impacts due to
the implementation of Hine’s emerald
dragonfly conservation efforts in six
categories: Development activities,
water use, utility and infrastructure
maintenance, road and railway use,
species management and habitat
protection activities, and recreation. The
following is a summary of information
contained in the draft economic
analysis:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Mar 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
(a) Development Activities
According to the draft economic
analysis, the forecast cost of Hine’s
emerald dragonfly development-related
losses ranges from $13.0 to $22.6
million (undiscounted) over 20 years, or
$10.1 to $15.9 million assuming a 3
percent discount rate and $8.0 to $11.2
assuming a 7 percent discount rate. The
costs consist of the following: (1) Losses
in residential land value in Wisconsin
and Michigan due to potential
limitations on residential development;
(2) impacts to Material Services
Corporation (MSC) quarrying operations
in Illinois; and (3) dragonfly
conservation efforts associated with the
construction of the Interstate 355
Extension. Given the small average size
and value of private land parcels in
Wisconsin and Michigan, the noninstitutional landowners (those for
which land value losses were computed;
institutionally owned properties do not
have assessed property values) are most
likely individuals, who are not
considered small entities by the SBA.
MSC has 800 employees in Illinois and
Indiana, and was recently purchased by
Hanson, PLC, which has more than
27,000 employees worldwide. The SBA
Small Business Standard for Crushed
and Broken Limestone Mining and
Quarrying industry sector is 500
employees. Therefore, MSC is not
considered a small entity. The
conservation-related costs associated
with the construction of the Interstate
355 Extension are borne by the Illinois
Tollway Authority. The Illinois Tollway
Authority does not meet the definition
of a small entity. As a result of this
information, we have determined that
the proposed designation is not
anticipated to have a significant effect
on a substantial number of small
development businesses.
(b) Water Use
According to the draft economic
analysis, the forecast cost of Hine’s
emerald dragonfly water use-related
losses range from $46,000 to $7.0
million (undiscounted) over 20 years, or
$33,000 to $5.4 million assuming a 3
percent discount rate and $21,000 to
$4.0 million assuming a 7 percent
discount rate. Public water systems may
incur costs associated with drilling deep
water aquifer wells. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has
defined small entity water systems as
those that serve 10,000 or fewer people.
None of the municipalities that could be
required to construct deep aquifer wells
as a result of conservation efforts for the
Hine’s emerald dragonfly has
populations below 10,000. As a result of
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13065
this information, we have determined
that the proposed designation is not
anticipated to have a substantial effect
on a substantial number of small
municipalities.
(c) Utility and Infrastructure
Maintenance
According to the draft economic
analysis, the forecast cost of Hine’s
emerald dragonfly utility and
infrastructure maintenance-related
losses is estimated to be $1.5 million
(undiscounted) over 20 years, or $1.3
million assuming a 3 percent discount
rate and $1.1 million assuming a 7
percent discount rate. The costs are
associated with necessary utility and
infrastructure maintenance using
dragonfly-sensitive procedures. Within
proposed critical habitat units,
Commonwealth Edison is responsible
for electrical line maintenance, county
road authorities for road maintenance,
and MidWest Generation for railroad
track maintenance in Illinois units 1 and
2. Neither company is considered a
small entity. As a result of this
information, we have determined that
the proposed designation is not
anticipated to have a significant effect
on a substantial number of small
entities.
(d) Road and Railway Use
According to the draft economic
analysis, the forecast cost of Hine’s
emerald dragonfly road and railway userelated losses range from $1.7 to $15.0
million (undiscounted) over 20 years, or
$1.5 to $11.7 million assuming a 3
percent discount rate and $1.3 to $8.8
million assuming a 7 percent discount
rate. The costs are associated with
necessary railway upgrades for
dragonfly conservation. MidWest
Generation is responsible for railroad
track improvements in Illinois. Neither
MidWest Generation nor the individual
travelers who would be affected by
slower road speeds are considered small
entities. As a result of this information,
we have determined that the proposed
designation is not anticipated to have a
significant effect on a substantial
number of small entities.
(e) Species Management and Habitat
Protection Activities
According to the draft economic
analysis, the forecast cost of Hine’s
emerald dragonfly species management
and habitat protection-related losses is
estimated at $886,000 (undiscounted)
over 20 years, or $710,000 assuming a
3 percent discount rate and $563,000
assuming a 7 percent discount rate. The
costs primarily consist of species
monitoring, maintenance of habitat,
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
13066
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
invasive species and feral hog control,
and beaver dam mitigation. Species
management and habitat protection
costs will be borne by The Nature
Conservancy (Wisconsin chapter), The
Ridges Sanctuary, the Service, the U.S.
Forest Service, the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, and
the Missouri Department of
Conservation. None of those entities
meets the definition of a small entity. As
a result of this information, we have
determined that the proposed
designation is not anticipated to have a
significant effect on a substantial
number of small entities.
erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
(f) Recreation
According to the draft economic
analysis, the forecast cost of Hine’s
emerald dragonfly recreation-related
losses are estimated at $19,000.
Recreational off-road vehicles and
equestrian activities have the potential
to alter Hine’s emerald dragonfly habitat
and extirpate populations. The costs are
associated with mitigating the effects of
those recreational activities. Those costs
will be borne by the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources,
Missouri Department of Conservation,
the U.S. Forest Service, and various
county police departments. None of
those entities meets the definition of a
small entity. As a result of this
information, we have determined that
the proposed designation is not
anticipated to have a significant effect
on a substantial number of small
entities.
Based on the previous, sector-bysector analysis, we have determined that
this proposed critical habitat
designation would not result in a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
Executive Order (E.O.) 13211 on
regulations that significantly affect
energy supply, distribution, and use.
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare
Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. This
proposed rule is considered a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 due
to 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. The MidWest Generation
facilities that rely on the transportation
of coal through Illinois Units 1 and 2
generate 1,960 megawatts of electricity.
The dragonfly conservation measures
advocated by the Service (through a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Mar 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
‘‘Right-of-Way Management Team’’
formed as a result of an informal
consultation that was done on a 404
permit to reestablish the use of the rail
line), are not intended to alter the
operation of these facilities. Rather, the
recommended conservation activities
focus on improving maintenance and
railway upgrades. Thus, no energyrelated impacts associated with Hine’s
emerald dragonfly 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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 nonFederal government entities or private
parties. Under the Act, the only
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies
must ensure that their actions do not
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. Non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding,
assistance, permits, or otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal
agency for an action may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical
habitat. However, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests
squarely on the Federal agency.
Furthermore, to the extent that nonFederal entities are indirectly impacted
because they receive Federal assistance
or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act would not apply; nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large
entitlement programs listed above on to
State governments.
(b) As discussed in the draft economic
analysis of the proposed designation of
critical habitat for the Hine’s emerald
dragonfly, the impacts on nonprofits
and small governments are expected to
be negligible. It is likely that small
governments involved with
development and infrastructure projects
will be interested parties or involved
with projects involving section 7
consultations for the Hine’s emerald
dragonfly 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
Hine’s emerald dragonfly will
significantly or uniquely affect these
small governmental entities. As such, a
Small Government Agency Plan is not
required.
Takings
In accordance with E.O. 12630
(‘‘Government Actions and Interference
with constitutionally Protected Private
Property Rights’’), we have analyzed the
potential takings implications of
proposing critical habitat for the Hine’s
emerald dragonfly. 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 this species does
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
not pose significant takings
implications.
PART 17—[AMENDED]
Author
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
The primary author of this notice is
Kris Lah of the Chicago Illinois
Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES section).
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 Hine’s
emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora
hineana) in § 17.95(i), which was
proposed to be added on July 26, 2006,
at 71 FR 42442, is proposed to be
amended by adding an additional
proposed critical habitat unit as follows:
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Accordingly, we propose to amend
part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Mar 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
§ 17.95
Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.
*
*
*
(i) Insects.
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00020
*
*
*
*
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13067
Hine’s emerald dragonfly
(Somatochlora hineana)
*
*
*
*
*
(30) Wisconsin Unit 11, Door County,
Wisconsin.
(i) Wisconsin Unit 11: Door County.
Located in T27N, R26E, SE 1⁄4 Sec. 11,
Sec. 12, NW 1⁄4 Sec. 13, and NE 1⁄4 Sec.
14 of the Sturgeon Bay East 7.5’ USGS
topographic quadrangle. Lands are
located south of County Road TT, east
of Mathey Road, north of Buffalo Ridge
Trail, west of Lake Forest Park Road
(also County Road TT), about 11⁄2 miles
west of the City of Sturgeon Bay, and
include portions of Kellner’s Fen.
(ii) Note: Map of Wisconsin proposed
critical habitat Unit 11 (Wisconsin Map
7) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
13068
*
*
*
Dated: March 14, 2007.
David M. Verhey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 07–1368 Filed 3–15–07; 5:05 pm]
*
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Mar 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
EP20MR07.000
erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
*
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 20, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13061-13068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1368]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AU74
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Hine's Emerald Dragonfly
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Revised proposed rule; reopening of comment period and notice
of availability of draft economic analysis, and amended Required
Determinations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period and the availability of the
draft economic analysis for the proposed designation of critical
habitat for the endangered Hine's emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora
hineana) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We
are also revising our proposed rule, published on July 26, 2006 (71 FR
42442), to include an additional proposed critical habitat unit in Door
County, Wisconsin, and amending the Required Determinations for the
proposal. The draft economic analysis forecasts that costs associated
with conservation activities for the Hine's emerald dragonfly would
range from $16.8 million to $46.7 million in undiscounted dollars over
the next 20 years. In discounted terms, potential economic costs are
estimated to be $13.3 to $34.5 million (using a 3 percent discount
rate) and $10.5 to $25.2 million (using a 7 percent discount rate). In
annualized terms, potential costs are expected to range from $0.8 to
$2.3 million annually (annualized at 3 percent) and $0.9 to $2.4
million annually (annualized at 7 percent). We are reopening the public
comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to
comment simultaneously on the proposed rule, our revision to the
proposed rule, the associated draft economic analysis, and the amended
Required Determinations. Comments previously submitted need not be
resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record and
fully considered in preparation of the final rule.
DATES: We will accept public comments until April 3, 2007.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and
information concerning this proposal, identified by ``Attn: Hine's
Emerald Dragonfly Critical Habitat,'' by any one of several methods:
(1) Mail or hand-deliver to: John Rogner, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Chicago Illinois Ecological Services Field
Office, 1250 S. Grove, Suite 103, Barrington, IL 60010.
(2) Send by electronic mail (e-mail) to hedch@fws.gov. Please see
the Public Comments Solicited section below for file format and other
information about electronic filing.
(3) Fax your comments to: (847) 381-2285.
(4) Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
[[Page 13062]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Rogner, Field Supervisor, Chicago
Illinois Ecological Services Field Office, 1250 S. Grove, Suite 103,
Barrington, Illinois 60010 (telephone (847) 381-2253, extension 28;
facsimile (847) 381-2285).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments Solicited
We intend that any final action resulting from the proposal will be
as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments or
suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party
concerning the proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments
particularly are being sought concerning:
(1) The reasons any habitat should or should not be determined to
be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.), including whether the benefit of designation will outweigh
any adverse impacts to the species due to designation;
(2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of Hine's
emerald dragonfly habitat, particularly what areas should be included
in the designations that were occupied at the time of listing and that
contain features that are essential for the conservation of the species
and why; and what areas that were not occupied at the time of listing
are essential to the conservation of the species and why;
(3) Information that would add further clarity or specificity to
the physical and biological features determined to be essential for the
conservation of the Hine's emerald dragonfly (i.e., primary constituent
elements), particularly whether the primary constituent elements as
described fulfill the needs for the various life stages of the Hine's
emerald dragonfly (e.g., whether old fields adjacent to and in near
proximity to larval areas are essential features);
(4) Whether lands not currently occupied by the species should be
included in the designation, and if so, the basis for such an
inclusion;
(5) Whether the methodology used to map critical habitat units
captures all of the biological and physical features essential to the
conservation of the Hine's emerald dragonfly;
(6) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
(7) Whether the benefit of exclusion in any particular area
outweigh the benefits of inclusion under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act;
(8) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential
impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any
impacts on small entities;
(9) We are considering excluding areas under the jurisdiction of
the Hiawatha National Forest in Michigan, the Mark Twain National
Forest in Missouri, and the Missouri Department of Conservation and
units under private ownership in Missouri from the final designation of
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act on the basis of
conservation programs and partnerships. We will also review other
relevant information for units being proposed in this rule as we
receive it to determine whether other units may be appropriate for
exclusion from the final designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
We specifically solicit comment on the inclusion or exclusion of such
areas and:
(a) Whether these areas have features that are essential to the
conservation of the species or are otherwise essential to the
conservation of the species;
(b) Whether these, or other areas proposed, but not specifically
addressed in this proposal, warrant exclusion;
(c) Relevant factors that should be considered by us when
evaluating the basis for not designating these areas as critical
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act;
(d) Whether management plans in place adequately provide
conservation measures and protect the Hine's emerald dragonfly, its
habitat, and features essential to its conservation;
(e) Whether designation would assist in the regulation of any
threats not addressed by existing management plans; and
(f) Whether designating these lands may result in an increased
degree of threat to the species on these lands;
(10) 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;
(11) 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;
(12) 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;
(13) Whether the draft economic analysis appropriately identifies
all costs and benefits that could result from the designation; and
(14) 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.
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 note that comments merely stating support or
opposition to the actions under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations to be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available.'' Please submit comments electronically
to hedch@fws.gov in ASCII or Microsoft Word file format. Please also
include ``Attn: Hine's Emerald Dragonfly Critical Habitat'' 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 e-mail, contact us directly by calling the
Chicago Illinois Ecological Services Field Office at telephone number
(847) 381-2253. Please note that the e-mail address hedch@fws.gov will
be closed out at the termination of the public comment period.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold
their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to
the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which
we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity,
as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or
address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your
comment, but you should be aware that the Service may be required to
disclose your name and address pursuant to the Freedom of Information
Act. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all
submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and materials received will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address
indicated in the ADDRESSES section.
[[Page 13063]]
Copies of the draft economic analysis and the proposed rule for
critical habitat designation are available on the Internet at https://
www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/ or from the Chicago Illinois Ecological
Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
Our final designation of critical habitat will take into
consideration all comments and any additional information we received
during both comment periods. Previous comments and information
submitted during the initial comment period on the July 26, 2006,
proposed rule (71 FR 42442) need not be resubmitted. On the basis of
information received during the public comment periods, we may, during
the development of our final critical habitat determination, find that
areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion. An
area may be excluded from critical habitat if it is determined that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 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.
Background
The Hine's emerald dragonfly has bright emerald-green eyes and a
metallic green body with yellow stripes on its sides. Its body is about
2.5 inches (in) (6.4 centimeters (cm) long; its wingspan reaches about
3.3 in (8.4 cm). It lives in calcareous (high in calcium carbonate),
spring-fed marshes and sedge meadows overlaying dolomite bedrock.
Threats that resulted in the species' listing on January 26, 1995 (60
FR 5267) include habitat destruction, contamination of wetlands by
pesticides or other pollutants, and decreases in the amount or quality
of ground water flowing to the dragonfly's habitat.
On July 26, 2006, we published a proposed rule to designate
critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly (71 FR 42442). In
total, approximately 27,689 acres (ac) (11,205 hectares (ha)) fall
within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation in
49 units located in Cook, DuPage, and Will Counties in Illinois;
Alpena, Mackinac, and Presque Isle Counties in Michigan; Dent, Iron,
Morgan, Phelps, Reynolds, Ripley, Shannon, Washington, and Wayne
Counties in Missouri; and Door and Ozaukee Counties in Wisconsin. We
are considering excluding, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, all 26
units in Missouri and 2 units in Michigan from the final critical
habitat designation. In the proposal, we addressed a number of general
issues that are relevant to the exclusions we are considering,
including conservation partnerships on non-Federal lands, conservation
agreements, and National Forest plans.
As a result of corrections described below, the proposed critical
habitat now encompasses approximately 27,836 acres (ac) (11,264
hectares (ha)), including those areas we are considering for exclusion
from the final designation. Other than the changes described herein,
the proposed rule of July 26, 2006, remains intact. We will submit for
publication in the Federal Register a final critical habitat
designation for the Hine's emerald dragonfly on or before May 7, 2007.
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.
Additional Proposed Critical Habitat Unit
As discussed in the July 26, 2006, proposal (71 FR 42442),
additional sites in Wisconsin were evaluated to determine if they are
essential for the conservation of the Hine's emerald dragonfly. Based
on our evaluation of research results from 2006 fieldwork, we have
determined that Kellner's Fen in Door County, Wisconsin, is essential
to the conservation of Hine's emerald dragonfly. We are, therefore,
proposing to include it in the critical habitat designation. Adult
Hine's emerald dragonflies have been observed in this area, but
breeding has not been confirmed. The additional proposed critical
habitat unit, Wisconsin Unit 11, is described below.
Wisconsin Unit 11--Door County, Wisconsin
Wisconsin Unit 11 consists of approximately 147 acres (59 hectares)
in Door County, Wisconsin. This unit was not known to be occupied at
the time of listing. All primary constituent elements for the Hine's
emerald dragonfly are present in this unit. Adults have been observed
in this unit over multiple years. Male patrolling behavior has been
observed, and crayfish burrows are present. The unit consists of larval
and adult habitat, including a floating sedge mat and lowland and
upland conifer and deciduous forest. This unit is essential to the
conservation of the species because it provides for the redundancy and
resilience of populations in this portion of the species' range, where
habitat is under threat from multiple factors. Known threats to the
primary constituent elements which may require special management or
protections include loss of habitat due to residential and/or
commercial development, alteration of the hydrology of the wetlands,
contamination of surface and ground water, logging, and invasive
plants. All land in the unit is privately owned.
Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate 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. We have
prepared a draft economic analysis based on the July 26, 2006, proposed
rule (71 FR 42442) to designate critical habitat for the Hine's emerald
dragonfly; the additional proposed unit in Door County, Wisconsin, is
included in that analysis. The draft economic analysis estimates the
reasonably foreseeable economic impacts of Hine's emerald dragonfly
conservation measures within the proposed critical habitat designation.
The analysis measures lost economic efficiency associated with (1)
Residential and commercial development, (2) water use, (3) utility and
road maintenance, (4) road and railway use, (5) species management, and
(6) recreation. The draft economic analysis considers the potential
economic effects of all actions relating to the conservation of the
Hine's emerald dragonfly, including costs associated with sections 4,
7, and 10 of the Act, and those attributable to designating critical
habitat.
The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic
effects of all actions relating to the conservation of
[[Page 13064]]
the Hine's emerald dragonfly, including costs coextensive with listing.
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 Hine's emerald dragonfly in proposed critical
habitat areas. The draft analysis considers both economic efficiency
and distributional effects. In the case of habitat conservation,
efficiency effects generally reflect lost economic opportunities
associated with restrictions on land use (opportunity costs). 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 endangered and
considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years following
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 new information
received during the comment period.
The draft economic analysis forecasts that costs associated with
conservation activities for the Hine's emerald dragonfly would range
from $16.8 million to $46.7 million in undiscounted dollars over the
next 20 years. In discounted terms, potential economic costs are
estimated to be $13.3 to $34.5 million (using a 3 percent discount
rate) and $10.5 to $25.2 million (using a 7 percent discount rate). In
annualized terms, potential costs are expected to range from $0.8 to
$2.3 million annually (annualized at 3 percent) and $0.9 to $2.4
million annually (annualized at 7 percent). Overall, the residential
and commercial development industry is calculated to experience the
highest estimated costs. According to the draft economic analysis, the
forecast cost of Hine's emerald dragonfly development-related losses
range from $13.0 to $22.6 million (undiscounted) over 20 years, or
$10.1 to $15.9 million assuming a 3 percent discount rate, and $8.0 to
$11.2 assuming a 7 percent discount rate.
Required Determinations--Amended
In our July 26, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 42442), we indicated
that we were 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; the National
Environmental Policy 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.
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 from $16.8 to $46.6 million in
undiscounted 2006 dollars. In discounted terms, potential economic
costs are estimated to be $13.3 to $34.5 million (using a 3 percent
discount rate) and $10.5 to $25.2 million (using a 7 percent discount
rate). In annualized terms, potential costs are expected to range from
$0.8 to $2.3 million annually (annualized at 3 percent) and $0.9 to
$2.4 million annually (annualized at 7 percent). Therefore, we do not
believe that the proposed designation of critical habitat for the
Hine's emerald dragonfly 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 draft economic analysis.
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, 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 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 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 (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 (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
[[Page 13065]]
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 Hine's emerald dragonfly critical
habitat designation would affect a substantial number of small
entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within
particular types of economic activities (such as 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.
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.
In our draft economic analysis, we evaluated the potential economic
effects on small business entities resulting from conservation actions
related to the listing of the Hine's emerald dragonfly and proposed
designation of its critical habitat. This analysis estimated
prospective economic impacts due to the implementation of Hine's
emerald dragonfly conservation efforts in six categories: Development
activities, water use, utility and infrastructure maintenance, road and
railway use, species management and habitat protection activities, and
recreation. The following is a summary of information contained in the
draft economic analysis:
(a) Development Activities
According to the draft economic analysis, the forecast cost of
Hine's emerald dragonfly development-related losses ranges from $13.0
to $22.6 million (undiscounted) over 20 years, or $10.1 to $15.9
million assuming a 3 percent discount rate and $8.0 to $11.2 assuming a
7 percent discount rate. The costs consist of the following: (1) Losses
in residential land value in Wisconsin and Michigan due to potential
limitations on residential development; (2) impacts to Material
Services Corporation (MSC) quarrying operations in Illinois; and (3)
dragonfly conservation efforts associated with the construction of the
Interstate 355 Extension. Given the small average size and value of
private land parcels in Wisconsin and Michigan, the non-institutional
landowners (those for which land value losses were computed;
institutionally owned properties do not have assessed property values)
are most likely individuals, who are not considered small entities by
the SBA. MSC has 800 employees in Illinois and Indiana, and was
recently purchased by Hanson, PLC, which has more than 27,000 employees
worldwide. The SBA Small Business Standard for Crushed and Broken
Limestone Mining and Quarrying industry sector is 500 employees.
Therefore, MSC is not considered a small entity. The conservation-
related costs associated with the construction of the Interstate 355
Extension are borne by the Illinois Tollway Authority. The Illinois
Tollway Authority does not meet the definition of a small entity. As a
result of this information, we have determined that the proposed
designation is not anticipated to have a significant effect on a
substantial number of small development businesses.
(b) Water Use
According to the draft economic analysis, the forecast cost of
Hine's emerald dragonfly water use-related losses range from $46,000 to
$7.0 million (undiscounted) over 20 years, or $33,000 to $5.4 million
assuming a 3 percent discount rate and $21,000 to $4.0 million assuming
a 7 percent discount rate. Public water systems may incur costs
associated with drilling deep water aquifer wells. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has defined small entity water systems
as those that serve 10,000 or fewer people. None of the municipalities
that could be required to construct deep aquifer wells as a result of
conservation efforts for the Hine's emerald dragonfly has populations
below 10,000. 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 municipalities.
(c) Utility and Infrastructure Maintenance
According to the draft economic analysis, the forecast cost of
Hine's emerald dragonfly utility and infrastructure maintenance-related
losses is estimated to be $1.5 million (undiscounted) over 20 years, or
$1.3 million assuming a 3 percent discount rate and $1.1 million
assuming a 7 percent discount rate. The costs are associated with
necessary utility and infrastructure maintenance using dragonfly-
sensitive procedures. Within proposed critical habitat units,
Commonwealth Edison is responsible for electrical line maintenance,
county road authorities for road maintenance, and MidWest Generation
for railroad track maintenance in Illinois units 1 and 2. Neither
company is considered a small entity. As a result of this information,
we have determined that the proposed designation is not anticipated to
have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.
(d) Road and Railway Use
According to the draft economic analysis, the forecast cost of
Hine's emerald dragonfly road and railway use-related losses range from
$1.7 to $15.0 million (undiscounted) over 20 years, or $1.5 to $11.7
million assuming a 3 percent discount rate and $1.3 to $8.8 million
assuming a 7 percent discount rate. The costs are associated with
necessary railway upgrades for dragonfly conservation. MidWest
Generation is responsible for railroad track improvements in Illinois.
Neither MidWest Generation nor the individual travelers who would be
affected by slower road speeds are considered small entities. As a
result of this information, we have determined that the proposed
designation is not anticipated to have a significant effect on a
substantial number of small entities.
(e) Species Management and Habitat Protection Activities
According to the draft economic analysis, the forecast cost of
Hine's emerald dragonfly species management and habitat protection-
related losses is estimated at $886,000 (undiscounted) over 20 years,
or $710,000 assuming a 3 percent discount rate and $563,000 assuming a
7 percent discount rate. The costs primarily consist of species
monitoring, maintenance of habitat,
[[Page 13066]]
invasive species and feral hog control, and beaver dam mitigation.
Species management and habitat protection costs will be borne by The
Nature Conservancy (Wisconsin chapter), The Ridges Sanctuary, the
Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, and the Missouri Department of Conservation. None of those
entities meets the definition of a small entity. As a result of this
information, we have determined that the proposed designation is not
anticipated to have a significant effect on a substantial number of
small entities.
(f) Recreation
According to the draft economic analysis, the forecast cost of
Hine's emerald dragonfly recreation-related losses are estimated at
$19,000. Recreational off-road vehicles and equestrian activities have
the potential to alter Hine's emerald dragonfly habitat and extirpate
populations. The costs are associated with mitigating the effects of
those recreational activities. Those costs will be borne by the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Missouri Department of
Conservation, the U.S. Forest Service, and various county police
departments. None of those entities meets the definition of a small
entity. As a result of this information, we have determined that the
proposed designation is not anticipated to have a significant effect on
a substantial number of small entities.
Based on the previous, sector-by-sector analysis, we have
determined that this proposed critical habitat designation would not
result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211
on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution,
and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule is
considered a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 due to
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. The MidWest Generation facilities that rely on the
transportation of coal through Illinois Units 1 and 2 generate 1,960
megawatts of electricity. The dragonfly conservation measures advocated
by the Service (through a ``Right-of-Way Management Team'' formed as a
result of an informal consultation that was done on a 404 permit to
reestablish the use of the rail line), are not intended to alter the
operation of these facilities. Rather, the recommended conservation
activities focus on improving maintenance and railway upgrades. Thus,
no energy-related impacts associated with Hine's emerald dragonfly
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
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 Hine's emerald dragonfly, the
impacts on nonprofits and small governments are expected to be
negligible. It is likely that small governments involved with
development and infrastructure projects will be interested parties or
involved with projects involving section 7 consultations for the Hine's
emerald dragonfly 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 Hine's emerald dragonfly
will significantly or uniquely affect these small governmental
entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
proposing critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly. 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 this
species does
[[Page 13067]]
not pose significant takings implications.
Author
The primary author of this notice is Kris Lah of the Chicago
Illinois 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 Hine's emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora
hineana) in Sec. 17.95(i), which was proposed to be added on July 26,
2006, at 71 FR 42442, is proposed to be amended by adding an additional
proposed critical habitat unit as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(i) Insects.
* * * * *
Hine's emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana)
* * * * *
(30) Wisconsin Unit 11, Door County, Wisconsin.
(i) Wisconsin Unit 11: Door County. Located in T27N, R26E, SE \1/4\
Sec. 11, Sec. 12, NW \1/4\ Sec. 13, and NE \1/4\ Sec. 14 of the
Sturgeon Bay East 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Lands are located
south of County Road TT, east of Mathey Road, north of Buffalo Ridge
Trail, west of Lake Forest Park Road (also County Road TT), about 1\1/
2\ miles west of the City of Sturgeon Bay, and include portions of
Kellner's Fen.
(ii) Note: Map of Wisconsin proposed critical habitat Unit 11
(Wisconsin Map 7) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 13068]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20MR07.000
* * * * *
Dated: March 14, 2007.
David M. Verhey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 07-1368 Filed 3-15-07; 5:05 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C