Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Piperia yadonii, 44069-44073 [E7-15193]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 7, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44069-44073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-15193]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AU34


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Piperia yadonii (Yadon's Piperia)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period, notice of 
availability of draft economic analysis, and amended Required 
Determinations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening 
of the comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat 
for Piperia yadonii (Yadon's piperia). We also announce the 
availability of the draft economic analysis of the proposed critical 
habitat designation and an amended Required Determinations section of 
the proposal. The draft economic analysis for Piperia yadonii 
identifies estimated costs associated with conservation efforts for 
Piperia yadonii to range from $9.6 to $12.9 million (undiscounted) over 
a 20-year period as a result of the proposed designation of critical 
habitat, including those costs coextensive with listing and recovery. 
Discounted future costs are estimated to be $7.1 to $9.6 million ($0.47 
to $0.63 million annualized) at a 3 percent discount rate or $5.1 to 
$6.8 million ($0.45 to $0.60 million annualized) at a 7 percent 
discount rate. The amended Required Determinations section provides our 
determination concerning compliance with applicable statutes and 
Executive Orders that we have deferred until the information from the 
draft economic analysis of this proposal was available. We are 
reopening the comment period for the proposed rule to allow all 
interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the 
proposed rule, the associated draft economic analysis, and the amended 
Required Determinations section. Comments previously submitted need not 
be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record as 
part of this comment period, and will be fully considered in 
preparation of the final designation.

DATES: We will accept public comments until September 6, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments and materials to us by any 
one of the following methods:

[[Page 44070]]

    (1) You may mail or hand-deliver written comments and information 
to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola 
Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003.
    (2) You may fax your comments to 805/644-3958.
    (3) You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: 
fw8piya@fws.gov, or to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. For directions on how to file comments 
electronically, see the ``Public Comments Solicited'' section below. In 
the event that our Internet connection is not functional, please submit 
your comments by one of the alternate methods mentioned above.
    Copies of the draft economic analysis and the proposed rule for 
critical habitat designation are available on the Internet at https://
www.fws.gov/ventura or from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office at the 
address and contact numbers above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Steeck, Ecologist, or Connie 
Rutherford, Listing and Recovery Coordinator, Ventura Fish and Wildlife 
Office, at the address listed in ADDRESSES (telephone 805/644-1766; 
facsimile 805/644-3958).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments Solicited

    During this reopened comment period we solicit comments on the 
proposed critical habitat designation (71 FR 61546; October 18, 2006), 
this document, and our draft economic analysis of the proposed 
designation. We will consider information and recommendations from all 
interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments 
concerning:
    (1) The reasons why habitat should or should not be designated as 
critical habitat under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 
including whether the benefit of designation would outweigh threats to 
the species caused by designation such that the designation of critical 
habitat is prudent;
    (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of Piperia 
yadonii habitat, what areas within the geographical area occupied by 
Piperia yadonii at the time of listing and that contain the features 
that are essential to the conservation of the species should be 
included in the designation and why, and what areas outside of the 
geographical area occupied at the time of listing are essential to the 
conservation of the species and why;
    (3) Our mapping methodology and criteria used for determining 
critical habitat as well as any additional information on features 
essential for the conservation of the species;
    (4) The possible impacts of the proposed designation of critical 
habitat on land use designation and current or planned activities.
    (5) Information on whether, and, if so, how many of, the State and 
local environmental protection measures referenced in the draft 
economic analysis were adopted largely as a result of the listing of 
Piperia yadonii, and how many were either already in place at the time 
of listing or enacted for other reasons;
    (6) Information on whether the draft economic analysis identifies 
all State and local costs and benefits attributable to the proposed 
critical habitat designation, and information on any costs or benefits 
that have been inadvertently overlooked;
    (7) Information on whether the draft economic analysis makes 
appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and likely 
regulatory changes that would be imposed as a result of the designation 
of critical habitat;
    (8) Information on 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;
    (9) Information related to the expectation that the Pebble Beach 
Company Del Monte Forest Preservation and Development Plan, for which a 
permit has recently been denied by the California Coastal Commission, 
will go forward;
    (10) Information on areas that could potentially be 
disproportionately impacted by Piperia yadonii critical habitat 
designation. The draft economic analysis indicates the potential 
economic effects of undertaking conservation efforts for this species 
in particular areas within Monterey County. Based on this information, 
we may consider excluding portions of these areas from the final 
designation per our discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act;
    (11) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other 
potential impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in 
particular, any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of 
including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts; the reasons 
why our conclusion that the proposed designation of critical habitat 
would not result in a disproportionate effect on small businesses 
should or should not warrant further consideration; and other 
information that would indicate that the designation of critical 
habitat would or would not have any impacts on small entities;
    (12) Information on whether the draft economic analysis 
appropriately identifies all costs that could result from the 
designation;
    (13) 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;
    (14) Whether the benefit of excluding any particular area from the 
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act outweighs 
the benefit of including the area in the designation; and
    (15) Economic data on the incremental effects that would result 
from designating any particular area as critical habitat.
    The Secretary shall designate critical habitat on the basis of the 
best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other 
relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. 
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.
    Comments and information submitted during the initial comment 
period on the October 18, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 61546) need not be 
resubmitted. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and 
materials concerning the draft economic analysis and the proposed rule 
by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES section). Our final 
designation of critical habitat will take into consideration all 
comments and any additional information we receive during both comment 
periods. On the basis of public comment on the draft economic analysis, 
the critical habitat proposal, and the final economic analysis, we may, 
during the development of our final determination, find that areas 
proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.
    Please submit electronic comments in an ASCII file format and avoid 
the use of special characters and encryption. Please also include 
``Attn: RIN 1018-AU34'' in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a 
confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, 
please contact the persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.
    Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or 
other

[[Page 44071]]

personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware 
that your entire comment--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 
ask us in your comment to withhold from public view your personal 
identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do 
so. Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical 
habitat, will be available for public inspection, by appointment during 
normal business hours, at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office at the 
address listed under ADDRESSES.
    Copies of the proposed rule and draft economic analysis are 
available on the Internet at: https://www.fws.gov/ ventura/. You may 
also obtain copies of the proposed rule and draft economic analysis by 
contacting the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office at the address listed 
in ADDRESSES, or by calling 805/644-1766 extension 301.

Background

    Pursuant to the terms of a December 21, 2004, settlement agreement, 
we agreed to submit for publication in the Federal Register a proposed 
critical habitat designation for Piperia yadonii on or before October 
5, 2006. We published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for 
Piperia yadonii on October 18, 2006 (71 FR 61546). The proposed 
critical habitat totals approximately 2,306 acres (ac) (930 hectares 
(ha)) for Piperia yadonii in Monterey County, California.
    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 proposed actions, 
in accordance with 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 and commercial 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. Based on the October 18, 2006, 
proposed rule to designate critical habitat for Piperia yadonii (71 FR 
61546), we have prepared a draft economic analysis of the proposed 
critical habitat designation for Piperia yadonii.
    The draft economic analysis is intended to quantify the economic 
impacts of all potential conservation efforts for Piperia yadonii; some 
of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether critical 
habitat is designated. The draft economic analysis provides estimated 
costs of conservation-related measures that are likely to be associated 
with future economic activities that may adversely affect the habitat 
within the proposed boundaries over a twenty year period. It also 
considers past costs associated with conservation of the species from 
the time it was listed (August 12, 1998; 63 FR 43100). For a further 
description of the methodology of the analysis, see section 4 
(methodology) of the draft economic analysis.
    Based on our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of 
critical habitat for Piperia yadonii costs associated with conservation 
efforts for Piperia yadonii are estimated to be approximately $9.6 to 
$12.9 million (undiscounted) over a 20-year period as a result of the 
proposed designation of critical habitat, including those costs 
coextensive with listing and recovery. Discounted future costs are 
estimated to be $7.1 to $9.6 million ($0.47 to $0.63 million 
annualized) at a 3 percent discount rate or $5.1 to $6.8 million ($0.45 
to $0.60 million annualized) at a 7 percent discount rate.
    The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic 
effects of actions relating to the conservation of Piperia yadonii, 
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 Piperia yadonii in areas containing features essential 
to the conservation of the species. The draft analysis considers both 
economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat 
conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the ``opportunity 
costs'' associated with the commitment of resources to comply with 
habitat protection measures (e.g., lost economic opportunities 
associated with restrictions on land use).
    The draft 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 analysis looks retrospectively at 
costs that have been incurred since the date Piperia yadonii was listed 
as endangered (August 12, 1998; 63 FR 43100) and considers those costs 
that may occur in the 20 years following a designation of critical 
habitat. Forecasts of economic conditions and other factors beyond this 
point would be speculative.
    As stated earlier, we solicit data and comments from the public on 
the 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. 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 
would not result in the extinction of the species.

Required Determinations--Amended

    In our October 18, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 61546), 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 Order (E.O.) 13132; 
E.O. 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 E.O. 12866 
and the Regulatory Flexibility

[[Page 44072]]

Act, E.O. 13211, E.O. 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 novel legal and policy issues. 
Based on our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of 
critical habitat for Piperia yadonii costs associated with conservation 
efforts for Piperia yadonii are estimated to be approximately $9.6 to 
$12.9 million (undiscounted) over a 20-year period as a result of the 
proposed designation of critical habitat, including those costs 
coextensive with listing and recovery. Discounted future costs are 
estimated to be $7.1 to $9.6 million ($0.47 to $0.63 million 
annualized) at a 3 percent discount rate or $5.1 to $6.8 million ($0.45 
to $0.60 million annualized) at a 7 percent discount rate. As described 
in the draft economic analysis, two entities are anticipated to 
experience the highest estimated costs. These include Pebble Beach 
Company, with potential economic impacts estimated at $6.9 million 
(undiscounted) over 20 years; and a single developer, with potential 
economic impacts ranging from $0.47 to $3.5 million (undiscounted) over 
20 years. Therefore, based on our draft economic analysis, we have 
determined that the proposed designation of critical habitat for 
Piperia yadonii will not 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) did not formally review the proposed rule.
    Further, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal Agencies 
promulgating regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office of 
Management and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to 
Circular A-4, once it has been determined that the Federal regulatory 
action is appropriate, the agency will then need to consider 
alternative regulatory approaches. Since the determination of critical 
habitat is a statutory requirement pursuant to the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we must 
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 provided 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 (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. Based on 
comments received, this determination is subject to revision as part of 
the final rulemaking.
    According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small 
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and 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 
Piperia yadonii would affect a substantial number of small entities, we 
considered the number of small entities affected within particular 
types of economic activities (e.g., residential and commercial 
development). We considered each industry or category individually to 
determine if certification is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of 
small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their 
activities have any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are 
unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by 
the designation of critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat 
only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by 
Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are not affected by the 
designation.
    If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final, 
Federal agencies must consult with us under section 7 of the Act if 
their activities may affect designated critical habitat. Consultations 
to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 
would be incorporated into the existing consultation process.
    In our draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat 
designation, we evaluate the potential economic effects on small 
business entities resulting from conservation actions related to the 
listing of Piperia yadonii and proposed designation of critical 
habitat. We determined from our draft analysis that the small business 
entities that may be affected include two nonprofit organizations 
(Elkhorn Slough Foundation and Del Monte Forest Foundation), one city 
government (City of Pacific Grove), and one private developer. 
Estimated costs over 20 years to the two nonprofit organizations range 
from $2,037 to $48,554 per year at a 3 percent discount rate; estimated 
costs to the City of Pacific Grove are $1,331 per year at a 3 percent 
discount rate; and estimated costs to the private developer are 
$168,359 per year at a 3 percent discount rate.
    Potential impacts described in Section VI of the draft economic 
analysis for the Elkhorn Slough Foundation, Del Monte Forest 
Foundation, and the City of Pacific Grove are predominantly due to 
carrying out management activities (including trail maintenance, sign 
installation, invasive species management, and erosion control) that 
any entity engaged in the conservation of park lands and natural lands 
would

[[Page 44073]]

normally undertake. The number of potentially affected park lands and 
natural lands are few compared to the total amount of lands in Monterey 
County that are within park lands, natural lands, preserves, and 
conservation easements. As a result, entities that are engaged in 
natural lands management in the Monterey County area as a whole are not 
expected to be measurably affected by Piperia yadonii conservation.
    Potential impacts described in Section VI of the draft economic 
analysis for one single developer are based on the cost of possible 
mitigation measures and range from a negligible cost of $0 to $3.0 
million if a permit to develop the developer's property were denied. 
The number of potentially affected developers is small compared to the 
total number of housing developers in the Monterey County area. As a 
result, entities that are engaged in housing construction in the 
Monterey County areas as a whole are not expected to be measurably 
affected by Piperia yadonii conservation. From this analysis, we have 
determined that this proposed designation will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211 
on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, 
and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy 
Effects when undertaking certain actions. One critical habitat unit 
(Vierra Canyon) comprises private lands overlain by a utility easement 
held by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company maintains power lines that cross this unit; however, because 
the company does not plan to develop this land any further, the 
designation of critical habitat is not expected to have an adverse 
effect on energy production. Although the proposed designation of 
critical habitat for Piperia yadonii is considered a significant 
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 because it raises novel legal and 
policy issues, it is not expected to significantly affect energy 
supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a 
significant action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), 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 Piperia yadonii, the impacts on 
nonprofits and small governments is expected to be small. There is no 
record of consultations between the Service and any of these 
governments since Piperia yadonii was listed as endangered on August 
12, 1998 (63 FR 43100). It is likely that small governments involved 
with developments and infrastructure projects will be interested 
parties or involved with projects involving section 7 consultations for 
Piperia yadonii 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 Piperia yadonii would 
significantly or uniquely affect these small governmental entities. As 
such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of 
proposing critical habitat for Piperia yadonii. 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 proposed designation of critical habitat for Piperia 
yadonii does not pose significant takings implications.

Author

    The primary author of this notice is the staff of the Ventura Fish 
and Wildlife Office.

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: July 26, 2007.
David M. Verhey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
 [FR Doc. E7-15193 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P