Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for Santa Ana Sucker, 38441-38451 [2010-15953]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 127 (Friday, July 2, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38441-38451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-15953]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0072]
[92210-1117-0000-B4]
RIN 1018-AW23


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical 
Habitat for Santa Ana Sucker

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are reopening the 
comment period on our December 9, 2009, proposed revised designation of 
critical habitat for Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae) under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are reopening the 
comment period for an additional 30 days to allow all interested 
parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed 
revised critical habitat designation, the draft economic analysis (DEA) 
associated with the proposed critical habitat designation, proposed 
revisions to one subunit, and the amended Required Determinations 
section of the preamble. We are also announcing the location and time 
of a public hearing to receive public comments on the proposal. If you 
submitted comments previously, you do not need to resubmit them because 
we have already incorporated them into the public record and will fully 
consider them in preparation of the final rule.

DATES: Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the 
following methods: We will consider comments that we receive on or 
before August 2, 2010.
    Public hearing: We will hold a public hearing on this proposed rule 
on July 21, 2010, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the 
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R8-
ES-2009-0072.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2009-0072; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    Public hearing: We will hold a public hearing at Ayres Suites 
Corona West, 1900 W Frontage Road, Corona, CA 92882.
    We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 
Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone (760) 431-
9440; facsimile (760) 431-5901. If you use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TDD) you may call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from the proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific data available and will be as 
accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or 
information from other concerned government agencies, the scientific 
community, industry, and other interested parties during this reopened 
comment period on the proposed rule to revise critical habitat

[[Page 38442]]

for Santa Ana sucker that was published in the Federal Register on 
December 9, 2009 (74 FR 65056), including the DEA of the proposed 
revised critical habitat designation, the changes to proposed critical 
habitat in Subunit 1A, the considered exclusion of critical habitat in 
Subunits 1B and 1C, and the amended required determinations section 
provided in this document. We are particularly interested in comments 
concerning:
    (1) The reasons we should or should not revise the designation of 
habitat as ``critical habitat'' for Santa Ana sucker under section 4 of 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including whether the benefit of designation would outweigh any 
threats to the species caused by the designation, such that the 
designation of critical habitat is prudent.
    (2) Specific information on:
 Areas that provide habitat for Santa Ana sucker that we did 
not discuss in the proposed revised critical habitat rule;
 Areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at 
the time of listing that contain the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species which may require special 
management considerations or protection, that we should include in the 
revised designation and reason(s) why (see the Physical and Biological 
Features section of the revised proposed rule published December 9, 
2009 (74 FR 65056), for further discussion);
 Areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at 
the time of listing that are essential for the conservation of the 
species and why; and
 Special management considerations or protections that may be 
required for the features essential to the conservation of the Santa 
Ana Sucker identified in the proposed revised rule, including managing 
for the potential effects of climate change.
    (3) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on this species and the critical habitat areas we are 
proposing.
    (4) How the proposed revised critical habitat boundaries could be 
refined to more closely circumscribe the areas identified as containing 
the features essential to the species' conservation.
    (5) Specific information on our proposed designation of City Creek, 
Plunge Creek, and the Santa Ana River above Seven Oaks Dam to provide 
habitat for future reintroduction of Santa Ana sucker to augment the 
Santa Ana sucker population in the Santa Ana River. See Critical 
Habitat Units section of the revised proposed rule (74 FR 65056), for 
further discussion.
    (6) Specific information on Santa Ana sucker, habitat conditions, 
and the presence of physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species in Subunit 1B below Prado Dam.
    (7) Specific information on the sediment contribution from 
tributaries to the Santa Ana River below Prado Dam (Subunit 1B).
    (8) Specific information on the Santa Ana sucker, habitat 
conditions, and the presence of potential permanent barriers to 
movement in Big Tujunga Wash (Subunit 3A), particularly between the Big 
Tujunga Canyon Road Bridge and the Big Tujunga Dam. See Critical 
Habitat Units section of the December 9, 2009, revised proposed rule 
((74 FR 65056), for further discussion.
    (9) Land-use designations and current or planned activities in the 
areas proposed as critical habitat, as well as their possible effects 
on the proposed critical habitat.
    (10) Information that may assist us in identifying or clarifying 
the PCEs. See the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) section of the 
revised proposed rule (74 FR 65056), for further discussion.
    (11) Specific information on instream gradient (slope) limitations 
of the species. In the proposed rule, we assume that Santa Ana suckers 
are unable to occupy stream sections where the instream slope exceeds 7 
degrees. See the PCEs section of the December 9, 2009, proposed rule 
(74 FR 65056), for further discussion.
    (12) Any probable economic, national security, or other impacts of 
designating particular areas as critical habitat, and, in particular, 
any impacts on small entities (e.g., small businesses or small 
governments), and the benefits of including or excluding areas that 
exhibit these impacts.
    (13) Whether any specific areas being proposed as critical habitat 
should be excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the 
benefits of potentially excluding any particular area outweigh the 
benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. See 
the Exclusions section of the December 9, 2009, the revised proposed 
rule (74 FR 65056), and the Additional Areas Currently Considered for 
Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section of this document for 
further discussion.
    (14) The potential exclusion of Subunits 1B and 1C under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act based on the benefits to the species provided by 
implementation of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat 
Conservation Plan and Santa Ana Sucker Conservation Program and, 
whether the benefits of exclusion of these areas outweigh the benefits 
of including this area as critical habitat, and why. See Additional 
Areas Currently Considered for Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act section below and Exclusions section of the December 9, 2009, 
revised proposed rule (74 FR 65056) for further discussion.
    (15) Specific conservation that has been achieved for Santa Ana 
sucker or its habitat as a result of the Santa Ana Sucker Conservation 
Program, Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation 
Plan, or other conservation or management programs within proposed 
revised critical habitat.
    (16) Information on any quantifiable economic costs or benefits of 
the proposed revised designation of critical habitat.
    (17) Information on the extent to which the description of 
potential economic impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate.
    (18) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be 
improved or modified in any way to provide an opportunity for greater 
public participation and understanding, or to assist us in 
accommodating public concerns and comments.
    If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (74 
FR 65056) during the initial comment period from December 9, 2009, to 
February 8, 2010, please do not resubmit them. These comments are 
included in the public record for this rulemaking, and we will fully 
consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final 
determination concerning the revised critical habitat for Santa Ana 
sucker will take into consideration all written comments and any 
additional information we receive during both comment periods. On the 
basis of public comments, we may, during the development of our final 
determination, find that areas within the proposed revised critical 
habitat designation do not meet the definition of critical habitat, 
that some modifications to the described boundaries are appropriate, or 
that areas may or may not be appropriate for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning our proposed 
revised rule, the associated DEA, and our amended required 
determinations

[[Page 38443]]

by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    If you submit a comment via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire 
submission--including any personal identifying information--will be 
posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hard copy that 
includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top 
of your document that we withhold this information from public review. 
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will 
post all hard copy comments on https://www.regulations.gov. Please 
include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to verify 
any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used to prepare this notice, will be available for 
public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, 
during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section). You may obtain copies of the proposed revised 
critical habitat (74 FR 65056) and the DEA on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0072, or by mail from 
the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section).

Public Hearings

    The public hearings will take place on July 21, 2010, from 1 p.m. 
to 3 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at Ayres Suites Corona West, 1900 
W. Frontage Road, Corona, CA 92882. The public hearing location is 
wheelchair-accessible. If you plan to attend the public hearing and 
need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other 
reasonable accommodation, please notify the US FWS (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 3 business days in advance. Include your 
contact information as well as information about your specific needs.

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for Santa Ana 
sucker in this document. For more detailed information on the taxonomy, 
biology, and ecology of Santa Ana sucker, please refer to the final 
listing rule published in the Federal Register on April 12, 2000 (65 FR 
19686); the designation and revision of critical habitat for Santa Ana 
sucker published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2004 (69 FR 
8839); and on January 4, 2005 (70 FR 426); respectively; and the second 
proposed revision of critical habitat for Santa Ana sucker published in 
the Federal Register on December 9, 2009 (74 FR 65056), or the Carlsbad 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section).
    California Trout, Inc., et al. filed suit against the Service on 
November 15, 2007, alleging that the January 4, 2005, final designation 
of critical habitat violated provisions of the Act and Administrative 
Procedure Act [(California Trout, Inc., et al., v. United States Fish 
and Wildlife, et al., Case No. 07-CV-05798 (N.D. Cal.) transferred Case 
No. CV 08-4811 (C.D. Cal.)]. The plaintiffs alleged that our January 4, 
2005, revised critical habitat designation for Santa Ana sucker was 
insufficient for various reasons and should include the Santa Clara 
River population. We entered into a stipulated settlement agreement 
with plaintiffs that was approved by the District Court on January 21, 
2009. Pursuant to the District Court Order, we committed to submit a 
proposed revised critical habitat designation for Santa Ana sucker to 
the Federal Register by December 1, 2009, and submit a revised critical 
habitat designation to the Federal Register by December 1, 2010. We 
published the proposed revised critical habitat designation in the 
Federal Register on December 9, 2009 (74 FR 65056).
    Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as ``(i) 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 (I) essential to the conservation of 
the species and (II) which may require special management 
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in 
accordance with [the Act], upon a determination by the Secretary that 
such areas are essential for the conservation of the species'' (16 
U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i) and (ii)). 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 that may 
affect critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their 
proposed actions under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.

Draft Economic Analysis

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical 
habitat based upon the best scientific data available after taking into 
consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any 
other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical 
habitat.
    We prepared a DEA (Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEC) 2010) that 
identifies and analyzes the potential impacts associated with the 
proposed revised critical habitat designation for Santa Ana sucker 
published in the Federal Register on December 9, 2009 (74 FR 65056). 
The DEA looks retrospectively at costs incurred since the April 12, 
2000 (65 FR 19686), listing of Santa Ana sucker as a threatened 
species. The DEA quantifies the economic impacts of all potential 
conservation efforts for Santa Ana sucker. However, some of these costs 
will likely be incurred regardless of whether or not we finalize the 
revised critical habitat. The economic impact of the proposed revised 
critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both 
``with critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.'' The 
``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the 
analysis, considering protections that are already in place for the 
species (such as protections under the Act and other Federal, State, 
and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents costs 
incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The 
``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts 
associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for 
the species. Incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts 
are those not expected to occur absent the critical habitat designation 
for Santa Ana sucker. In other words, incremental costs are those 
attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat above and 
beyond the baseline costs. The DEA also qualitatively discusses the 
potential incremental economic benefits associated with the designation 
of critical habitat. The incremental impacts are the impacts we may 
consider in the revised designation of critical habitat relative to 
areas that may be excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The 
analysis forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely to 
occur if we finalize the proposed revised critical habitat designation.
    The revised DEA (made available with the publication of this notice 
and referred to throughout this document unless otherwise noted) 
estimates the foreseeable economic impacts of the proposed revised 
critical habitat designation for Santa Ana sucker. The DEA describes 
economic impacts of Santa Ana sucker conservation efforts associated 
with the following categories

[[Page 38444]]

of activities: (1) Water management; (2) residential and commercial 
development; (3) transportation-related projects; (4) point sources of 
pollution including the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor line; (5) 
recreational activities; and (6) commercial and recreational mining.
    Baseline economic impacts are those impacts that result from 
listing and other conservation efforts for Santa Ana sucker. 
Conservation efforts related to water management, transportation, and 
development activities constitute the majority of total baseline costs 
(approximately 90 percent of post-designation upper-bound baseline 
impacts when a 7 percent discount rate is used) in areas of proposed 
revised critical habitat. Conservation efforts related to point source 
pollution and off-highway vehicle recreation comprise the remaining 
approximate 10 percent of post-designation upper-bound baseline impacts 
when a 7 percent discount rate is used. Total future baseline impacts 
are estimated to be $22.6 to $29.8 million ($1.99 to $2.62 million 
annualized) in present value terms using a 7 percent discount rate over 
the next 20 years (2011 to 2030) in areas proposed as revised critical 
habitat (IEC 2010, p. ES-3).
    Conservation efforts related to water management activities, 
transportation projects, and residential and commercial development 
projects comprise most (90 percent) of the quantified incremental 
impacts for the proposed revised critical habitat rule. Impacts 
associated with transportation projects make up the largest portion of 
post-designation upper-bound incremental impacts, accounting for 38 to 
53 percent of the forecast incremental impacts when a 7 percent 
discount rate is used. The DEA estimates total potential incremental 
economic impacts in areas proposed as revised critical habitat over the 
next 20 years (2011 to 2030) to be $6.87 million to $9.45 million 
($606,000 to $834,000 annualized) in present value terms applying a 7 
percent discount rate (IEC 2010, p. ES-2).
    The DEA 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 
(such as lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on 
land use). The DEA 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 government agencies, private businesses, and 
individuals. The DEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with 
residential and commercial development and public projects and 
activities, such as economic impacts on water management and 
transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy 
industry. Decision makers can use this information to assess whether 
the effects of the revised critical habitat designation might unduly 
burden a particular group or economic sector.

Changes to Proposed Revised Critical Habitat

    In this document, we are proposing revisions to Subunit 1A as 
identified and described in the proposed revised critical habitat 
designation that published in the Federal Register on December 9, 2009 
(74 FR 65056). We received a public comment that identified specific 
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it was listed that may be essential for the conservation of Santa Ana 
sucker. The purpose of the revision described below is to ensure that 
all areas are evaluated uniformly and equally to determine the areas 
that meet the definition of critical habitat for Santa Ana sucker. The 
area we are proposing to add to Subunit 1A contains the physical and 
biological features essential for the conservation of the species. The 
change we propose to Subunit 1A does not alter the description of this 
subunit (see ``Critical Habitat Units'' section in the proposed revised 
rule (74 FR 65070)); however, a revised map including this new area is 
included in this document. We briefly describe the change made for 
Subunit 1A below. As a result of this revision, the overall area 
proposed for critical habitat, including all units and subunits, is 
approximately 9,643 acres (ac) (3,902 hectares (ha)), an increase of 
approximately 38 ac (15 ha) from the 9,605 ac (3,887 ha) that we 
proposed as critical habitat in the December 9, 2009, proposed revised 
critical habitat designation (74 FR 65056). A summary of the total area 
of each proposed subunit is presented in Table 1. Additionally, we are 
considering for exclusion lands covered by the Western Riverside County 
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Western Riverside County 
MSHCP), described below in detail.

  Table 1. Summary of subunits proposed as critical habitat. Area estimates and land ownership for Santa Ana sucker proposed revised critical habitat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Ownership
                                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
                  Unit                             Counties                                   State or Local                            Total Area\2\
                                                                            Federal             Government            Private
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Unit 1: Santa Ana River
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 1A: Upper Santa Ana River         San Bernardino                  284 ac (115 ha)        95 ac (38 ha)     1559 ac (631 ha)    1,938 ac (784 ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 1B: Santa Ana River               San Bernardino and                 13 ac (5 ha)    2,390 ac (967 ha)    2,301 ac (931 ha)   4,704 ac\1\ (1,903
                                           Riverside                                                                                                 ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 1C: Lower Santa Ana River         Riverside and Orange                0 ac (0 ha)        56 ac (23 ha)      711 ac (288 ac)   767 ac\1\ (311 ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Unit 1 Total                    287 ac (116 ha)  2,541 ac (1,028 ha)  4,570 ac (1,849 ha)  7,409 ac (2,998 ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Unit 2: San Gabriel River
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 38445]]

 
Unit 2: San Gabriel River                 Los Angeles                     917 ac (371 ha)          0 ac (0 ha)        83 ac (34 ha)    1,000 ac (405 ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Unit 3: Big Tujunga Creek
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 3A: Big Tujunga and Haines        Los Angeles                      242 ac (98 ha)          0 ac (0 ha)      947 ac (383 ha)    1,189 ac (481 ha)
 Creeks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 3B: Gold, Delta, and Stone        Los Angeles                       44 ac (18 ha)          0 ac (0 ha)          0 ac (0 ha)        44 ac (18 ha)
 Creeks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Unit 3 Total                    286 ac (116 ha)          0 ac (0 ha)      947 ac (383 ha)    1,233 ac (499 ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Total                         1,490 ac (603 ha)  2,541 ac (1,028 ha)  5,600 ac (2,266 ha)  9,643 ac (3,902 ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Contains areas being considered for exclusion in the final critical habitat rule under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
\2\ Values in this table may not sum due to rounding.

Subunit 1A: Upper Santa Ana River

    We received a comment indicating that we did not include in the 
proposed revised critical habitat designation a portion of the upper 
Santa Ana River watershed that meets the definition of critical 
habitat, is essential for the conservation of the species, and is a 
site for possible reintroduction or refugia (i.e., area that provides 
for establishment of populations with minimal to no threats) for Santa 
Ana sucker. We reviewed aerial imagery, topographic maps, and 
information in our files for this area and verified that a portion of 
Plunge Creek meets the definition of critical habitat for Santa Ana 
sucker. Plunge Creek, a tributary of the Santa Ana River, is located in 
San Bernardino County upstream of the Santa Ana River's confluence with 
City Creek. Plunge Creek above Greenspot Road and north into the 
foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains is relatively unmodified, as 
are the other areas proposed for critical habitat designation in 
Subunit 1A. The approximate 3-mi (4.83-km) section of Plunge Creek that 
we are now proposing as critical habitat encompasses 11.1 ac (4.5 ha) 
of land owned by the U.S. Forest Service and 26.6 ac (10.7 ha) of 
privately owned land.
    We determined that this area contains PCEs 1-7 and is essential for 
the conservation of the species. While we do not have information 
indicating this creek is currently occupied, we believe it is 
reasonable to assume that Santa Ana sucker could have inhabited these 
waters before the existing barriers to dispersal were present. The area 
that we are proposing for critical habitat designation maintains a 
perennial flow of cool and clear (not turbid) water, has a diverse 
composition of substrates, and a complex system of riffles, runs, 
pools, and shallow marginal areas covered with native riparian 
vegetation that would provide highly suitable habitat for 
reintroduction or establishment of a refugia population of Santa Ana 
sucker (OCWD 2009, pp. 5-66-69, 6-2, 6-6).
    In addition to including the Plunge Creek area as proposed revised 
critical habitat, we are clarifying the description of Subunit 1A, 
(Upper Santa Ana River). The area proposed for critical habitat 
designation (74 FR 65056) in the upper Santa Ana River includes 
approximately 0.2 mi (0.32 km) of Bear Creek (identified as the Santa 
Ana River in the December 9, 2009, proposed rule) above its confluence 
with the Santa Ana River.
    As stated in the December 9, 2009, proposed revised critical 
habitat designation (74 FR 65056), it is essential to maintain areas of 
suitable habitat in the Santa Ana River watershed where Santa Ana 
suckers could be reintroduced or areas that provide refugia necessary 
to decrease the risk of extirpation in the Santa Ana River or 
extinction due to stochastic events and provide for species' recovery. 
Like other areas proposed for designation as critical habitat for the 
purpose of reintroduction or establishment of a refugia population of 
Santa Ana sucker, Plunge Creek is also likely to require active 
management to transport individuals back to the upstream areas if they 
were flushed downstream during a flood event (74 FR 65071). We 
encourage public comment regarding the addition of the Plunge Creek 
area as proposed critical habitat in Subunit 1A (see Public Comments 
section above).

Additional Areas Currently Considered For Exclusion Under Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 
(MSHCP)

    The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a regional, multi-
jurisdictional HCP encompassing about 1.26 million ac (510,000 ha) in 
western Riverside County. The Western Riverside County MSHCP addresses 
146 listed and unlisted ``covered species,'' including the Santa Ana 
sucker. Participants in the Western Riverside County MSHCP include 16 
cities; the County of Riverside, including the Riverside County Flood 
Control and Water Conservation Agency (County Flood Control), Riverside 
County Transportation Commission, Riverside County Parks and Open Space 
District, and Riverside County Waste Department; California Department 
of Parks and Recreation; and the California Department of 
Transportation. The Western Riverside County MSHCP was designed to 
establish a multi-species conservation program that minimizes and 
mitigates the effects of expected habitat loss and associated 
incidental take of covered species. The Service issued a single 
incidental take permit on June 22, 2004 (Service 2004), under section 
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to 22 permittees under the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP for a period of 75 years.

[[Page 38446]]

    Specifically, the Secretary is considering whether to exercise his 
discretion to exclude 3,048 ac (1,234 ha) in Unit 1 (portions of 
Subunits 1B and 1C) within the Western Riverside County MSHCP plan area 
(see table 2 for the acreage of land being considered for exclusion in 
each subunit). We are considering the exclusion of non-Federal lands 
that are either owned by or under the jurisdiction of permittees under 
the Western Riverside County MSHCP. There are approximately 1,036 ac 
(420 ha) in Subunit 1B and 23 ac (10 ha) in Subunit 1C that are within 
the plan boundary of Western Riverside County MSHCP but are not being 
considered for exclusion because they are owned by non-permittees of 
the Western Riverside County MSHCP or are federally owned.

Table 2. Santa Ana sucker proposed critical habitat areas considered for
 exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act under the Western Riverside
               County MSHCP, presented per land ownership.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permittees under the Western
   Riverside County MSHCP            Subunit 1B            Subunit 1C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County of Riverside                   428 ac (173 ha)       19 ac (8 ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Norco                          234 ac (95 ha)  .................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Riverside                       52 ac (21 ha)  .................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riverside County Flood                324 ac (131 ha)       13 ac (5 ha)
 Control and Water
 Conservation Agency (County
 Flood Control)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riverside County Parks and             215 ac (87 ha)  .................
 Open Space District
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Department of                                   54 ac (22 ha)
 Parks and Recreation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Department of                  3 ac (1 ha)  .................
 Transportation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State of California                 1,125 ac (455 ha)  .................
 (Wildlife Conservation
 Board in collaboration with
 California Department of
 Fish and Game and Riverside
 County Parks and Open Space
 District)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private                               577 ac (234 ha)        6 ac (2 ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total land considered for         2,957 ac (1,197 ha)      91 ac (37 ha)
 exclusion*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values in this table may not sum due to rounding.

    The Western Riverside County MSHCP will establish approximately 
153,000 ac (61,917 ha) of new conservation lands (Additional Reserve 
Lands) to complement the approximately 347,000 ac (140,426 ha) of pre-
existing natural and open space areas (Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) 
lands). These PQP lands include those under ownership of public or 
quasi-public agencies, and also permittee-owned or controlled open-
space areas. Collectively, the Additional Reserve Lands and PQP lands 
form the overall Western Riverside County MSHCP Conservation Area. The 
configuration of the 153,000 acres (61,916 ha) of Additional Reserve 
Lands is based on textual descriptions of habitat conservation 
necessary to meet the conservation goals for all covered species within 
the bounds of the approximately 310,000-ac (125,453-ha) Criteria Area 
and is determined as implementation of the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP takes place.
    The Western Riverside County MSHCP identifies five conservation 
objectives that will be implemented to provide long-term conservation 
of the Santa Ana sucker:
    (1) Include within the Western Riverside County MSHCP Conservation 
Area 3,480 ac (1,408 ha) of habitat for the Santa Ana sucker, including 
the Santa Ana River within the natural river bottom and banks;
    (2) Include within the MSHCP Conservation Area the following areas 
(known as core areas for this species in the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP): Upstream of River Road, between River Road and Prado Dam, and 
downstream of Prado Dam; the known spawning areas at Sunnyslope Creek 
and within the area just below Mission Boulevard upstream to the Rialto 
Drain; and refugia and dispersal areas including the Market Street 
Seep, Mount Rubidoux Creek, Anza Park Drain, Arroyo Tequesquite, Hidden 
Valley Drain, and Evans Lake Drain;
    (3) Include within the MSHCP Conservation Area the natural river 
bottom and banks of the Santa Ana River from the Orange County and 
Riverside County line to the upstream boundary of the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP plan area, including the adjacent upland habitat, where 
available, to provide shade and suitable microclimate conditions (such 
as alluvial terraces and riparian vegetation);
    (4) Within the MSHCP Conservation Area, the Reserve Managers 
responsible for the areas identified in Objectives 2 and 3 will assess 
barriers to sucker movement and the need for connectivity and identify 
measures to restore connectivity to be implemented as feasible; and
    (5) Within the MSCHP Conservation Area, the Reserve Managers 
responsible for the areas identified in Objectives 2 and 3 will assess 
threats to the sucker from degraded habitat (such as reduced water 
quality, loss of habitat, presence of nonnative predators and 
vegetation), identify areas of the watershed that are necessary for 
successful sucker spawning, identify areas for creation of stream 
meanders, and pool riffle complexes and reestablishment of native 
riparian vegetation as appropriate and feasible, and identify and 
implement management measures to address threats and protect critical 
areas (Dudek and Associates, Inc. 2003, pp. F-19-20; Service 2004, p. 
258).
    Additionally, riparian and riverine areas located within and 
outside of the Western Riverside County MSHCP Conservation Area are 
subject to the ``Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/
Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools'' policy presented in Section 6.1.2 of 
the Western Riverside County MSHCP, Volume I. This policy provides for 
the avoidance and minimization of impacts to riparian and riverine 
habitats, if feasible. According to the plan, unavoidable impacts will 
be mitigated such that the lost habitat functions and values related to 
covered

[[Page 38447]]

species will be replaced (Dudek and Associates, Inc. 2003, pp. 6-24).
    The goal of conserving 3,480 ac (1,408 ha) of habitat for the Santa 
Ana sucker in the Western Riverside County MSHCP Conservation Area 
relies primarily on coordinated management of existing PQP lands and to 
a lesser extent on acquisition or other dedications of land assembled 
from within the Criteria Area (i.e., the Additional Reserve Lands). We 
internally mapped a ``Conceptual Reserve Design,'' which illustrates 
existing PQP lands and predicts the geographic distribution of the 
Additional Reserve Lands based on our interpretation of the textual 
descriptions of habitat conservation necessary to meet conservation 
goals. Our Conceptual Reserve Design is intended to predict one 
possible future configuration of the eventual approximately 153,000 ac 
(61,916 ha) of Additional Reserve Lands in conjunction with the 
existing PQP lands, including the approximate 3,480 ac (1,408 ha) of 
Santa Ana sucker habitat, intended to be conserved to meet the goals 
and objectives of the plan (Service 2004, pp. 257-258). In our analysis 
of conservation for the Santa Ana sucker under the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP, we anticipate that, over the term of the permit, up to 
443 ac (179 ha) of Santa Ana sucker habitat will be impacted within the 
plan area (Service 2004, p. 260).
    The preservation and management of approximately 3,480 ac (1,408 
ha) of Santa Ana sucker habitat under the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP is intended to contribute to the conservation and ultimate 
recovery of this species. The Santa Ana sucker is at risk due to its 
small population sizes and specifically threatened by habitat 
destruction, degradation, and fragmentation; dewatering; reductions in 
water quality; fire; recreational activities; and competition and 
predation from nonnative species within the plan area (Service 2004, 
pp. 254-255). The Western Riverside County MSHCP is intended to reduce 
threats to this species and the physical and biological features 
essential to its conservation as the plan is implemented by placing 
large blocks of habitat into preservation throughout the Conservation 
Area. The plan also generates funding for long-term management of 
conserved lands for the benefit of the species it protects. Core Areas 
identified for preservation and conservation include upstream of River 
Road, between River Road and Prado Dam, and downstream of Prado Dam; 
the known spawning areas at Sunnyslope Creek and within the area just 
below Mission Boulevard upstream to the Rialto Drain; and refugia and 
dispersal areas including the Market Street Seep, Mount Rubidoux Creek, 
Anza Park Drain, Arroyo Tequesquite, Hidden Valley Drain, and Evans 
Lake Drain (Dudek and Associates, Inc. 2003, p. F-20; Service 2004, p. 
258).
    The Western Riverside County MSHCP has several measures in place 
intended to ensure the plan is implemented in a way that conserves 
Santa Ana sucker in accordance with the species-specific criteria and 
objectives for this species. Permittee-owned PQP lands are to be 
managed in a manner that contributes to the conservation of the covered 
species. In the event that a permittee elects to alter their PQP lands 
such that they would not contribute to the conservation of covered 
species, lands would need to be replaced at a minimum 1:1 ratio. The 
proposed critical habitat designation includes lands owned by non-
permittees of the Western Riverside County MSHCP in Subunit 1B and 
portions of Subunit 1C. The Western Riverside County MSHCP states that 
non-permitteeowned lands will be managed through Memorandums of 
Understanding or other appropriate agreements (MSHCP Implementation 
Agreement 2003, p. 60). Additional Reserve Lands would be acquired 
consistent with the plan criteria and conserved. The collective 
management of PQP and Additional Reserve Lands in accordance with the 
plan is intended to contribute to conservation of Santa Ana sucker.
    The Western Riverside County MSHCP permittees are required to 
implement management and monitoring activities within the Additional 
Reserve Lands and PQP-owned lands. They must conduct baseline surveys 
at known occupied locations within the first 5 years of the plan and 
conduct additional surveys every 8 years to verify occupancy at a 
minimum of 75 percent of the MSHCP Conservation Area the Core Areas 
(listed above). Additionally, permittees and Reserve Managers must work 
cooperatively with Federal, State, and local agencies on conservation 
measures addressing connectivity and movement, nonnative predator 
removals, and riparian and instream vegetation maintenance or 
enhancement (Dudek and Associates, Inc. 2003, pp. F-23-25; Service 
2004, p. 259).
    The Western Riverside County MSHCP incorporates several processes 
that allow for Service oversight and participation in program 
implementation. These processes include: (1) Consultation with the 
Service on development of a long-term management and monitoring plan 
that addresses covered species; (2) submission of annual monitoring 
reports; (3) annual status meetings with the Service; and (4) 
submission of annual implementation reports to the Service (Service 
2004, pp. 9-10).
    The majority of the lands that are being considered for exclusion 
within the Western Riverside County MSHCP are PQP lands that could be 
conserved through the implementation of the plan. Lands within Subunit 
1B that are being considered for exclusion (2,957 ac (1,197 ha)) are 
owned by the County of Riverside, the cities of Norco and Riverside, 
the Riverside County Open Space and Parks, the Riverside County Flood 
Control District, the California Department of Parks and Recreation, 
the California Department of Transportation, the State of California 
Wildlife Conservation Board (which manages the area known as the Hidden 
Valley Wildlife Area and is comprised of the California Department of 
Fish and Game and Riverside County Open Space and Parks) and private 
land owners (see Table 2). Lands (91 ac (37 ha)) within Subunit 1C that 
are being considered for exclusion are owned by the County of 
Riverside, the Riverside County Flood Control District, the California 
Department of Parks and Recreation, and private land owners (see Table 
2). Within the proposed revised critical habitat designation, no 
Additional Reserve Lands have been secured since the time of the 
approval of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Under the incidental 
take permit for the Western Riverside County MSHCP (Service 2004, pp. 
253-261), impacts to Santa Ana sucker habitat within the plan area are 
limited to a total of 443 acres (179 ha). In summary, the Secretary is 
considering exercising his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
to exclude 3,048 ac (1,234 ha) of proposed critical habitat for the 
Santa Ana sucker within Western Riverside County MSHCP permittee-owned 
or controlled lands in Subunits 1B and 1C.
    The 2000 final listing rule for the Santa Ana sucker identified the 
following primary threats to the Santa Ana sucker: Habitat destruction, 
natural and human-induced changes in streamflows, urban development and 
related land-use practices, intensive recreation, introduction of 
nonnative competitors and predators, and demographics associated with 
small populations (65 FR 19686; April 12, 2000). Implementation of the 
Western Riverside County MSHCP is intended to help alleviate these 
threats through a regional planning effort rather than

[[Page 38448]]

through a project-by-project approach, and outlines species-specific 
objectives and criteria for the conservation of the Santa Ana sucker. 
In the final revised critical habitat rule for the Santa Ana sucker, we 
will analyze the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of this area from 
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We encourage public 
comment regarding our consideration of areas in Subunits 1B and 1C for 
exclusion (see Public Comments section above).

Required Determinations--Amended

    In our proposed revised rule published in the Federal Register on 
December 9, 2009 (74 FR 65056), we indicated that we would defer 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 became 
available in the DEA. We have now made use of the DEA to make these 
determinations. In this document, we affirm the information in our 
proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory 
Planning and Review), EO 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice 
Reform), E.O. 12630 (Takings), 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). However, based on the DEA 
data, we are amending our required determinations concerning the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), E.O. 13211 (Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) (5 U.S.C. 802(2)), 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), 
as described below. 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. 
Our analysis for determining whether the proposed designation would 
result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities follows. Based on comments we receive, we may revise 
this determination as part of a final rulemaking.
    According to the Small Business Administration, 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 revised designation of critical 
habitat for Santa Ana sucker would affect a substantial number of small 
entities, we consider the number of small entities affected within 
particular types of economic activities, such as residential and 
commercial development. In order to determine whether it is appropriate 
for our agency to certify that this rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we 
considered each industry or category individually. If we finalize this 
proposed revised critical habitat designation, Federal agencies must 
consult with us under section 7 of the Act if their activities may 
affect designated critical habitat. Incremental impacts to small 
entities may occur as a result of a required consultation under section 
7 of the Act. Additionally, even in the absence of a Federal nexus, 
incremental impacts may still result because, for example, a city may 
request project modifications due to the designation of critical 
habitat via its review under the California Environmental Quality Act 
(CEQA). Consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing 
consultation process due to the current status of Santa Ana sucker 
under the Act as a threatened species.
    In the DEA, we evaluate the potential economic effects on small 
business entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions 
related to the proposed revision to critical habitat for Santa Ana 
sucker. The DEA is based on the estimated incremental impacts 
associated with the proposed rulemaking as described in Chapters 3 
through 7 of the DEA. The SBREFA analysis evaluates the potential for 
economic impacts related to several categories, including: (1) Water 
management, (2) residential and commercial development, and (3) 
transportation activities (IEC 2010, p. A-7). On the basis of our draft 
analysis, we have determined that no incremental impacts attributed to 
water management or transportation activities are expected to be borne 
by entities that meet the definition of small entities (IEC 2010, p. A-
7-8). Potential impact in these sectors are expected to be borne by 
water management agencies, States, Federal agencies and other 
governmental non-governmental agencies that are not considered to be 
small business entities. However, the DEA concludes that the proposed 
rulemaking potentially may affect small entities in the residential and 
commercial development sector (IEC 2010, p. A-8). There are 25,300 
businesses involved in development activities within San Bernardino, 
Riverside, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties and, of these, 24,800 are 
considered small. The DEA estimates that 67 small entities may be 
affected, with estimated revenues of $2.8 million per entity. Assuming 
impacts are shared equally among entities, the analysis concludes that 
the annualized impacts may represent approximately 0.16 percent of 
annual revenues. However, this assumption is likely to overstate the 
actual impacts to small development firms because some or all of the 
costs of Santa Ana sucker conservation efforts to development 
activities may ultimately be borne by current landowners in the form of 
reduced land values. Many of these landowners may be individuals or 
families that are not legally considered to be businesses. No NAICS 
code exists for landowners, and the SBA does not provide a definition 
of a small landowner.
    To evaluate whether this proposed rule will result in a significant 
effect on a substantial number of small business entities, we first 
determined whether the proposed regulation will likely affect a 
substantial number of entities. Guidance from the Small Business

[[Page 38449]]

Administration (SBA) indicates that if ``more than just a few'' small 
business entities in a given sector are affected by a proposed 
regulation, then a substantial number of entities may be affected. 
``More than just a few'' is not defined, and SBA suggests that a case-
by-case evaluation be done. The DEA prepared for the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the Santa Ana sucker predicts that 
67 out of 24,800 small business entities in the residential and 
commercial development sector may be affected by the rule. Adopting a 
conservative approach in our analysis, we conclude that 67 entities 
equate to ``more than just a few'' small entities and, therefore, a 
substantial number of small business entities may be affected by the 
rule.
    Next, we determined if the proposed revised designation of critical 
habitat would result in a significant economic effect on those 67 small 
business entities. There is no specific guidance under the RFA as to 
what constitutes a significant effect or at what scale the effect is 
measured - nationally or regionally. In implementing the RFA, the 
Service evaluates potential effects on a regional or local scale which, 
in most instances, results in a more conservative analysis. For the 
proposed revised critical habitat rule the Service relied on a 
threshold of three percent of annual revenues to evaluate whether the 
potential economic impacts of the designation on small business 
entities in the residential and commercial development sector may be 
significant. The DEA estimates that the annualized impacts of the 
proposed revised rule on the 67 potentially affected entities would be 
of 0.16 percent of their annual sales revenue. We have determined that 
a potential economic impact of a fraction of one percent of annual 
revenues is not significant.
    In summary, we considered whether the proposed revised critical 
habitat designation would result in a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. On the basis of our draft 
economic analysis, we determined that there would be a substantial 
number of small business entities potential affected by the proposed 
designation (67 entities), but that the estimated economic effect of 
less than one percent of annual revenues is not significant. For the 
above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify 
that, if promulgated, the proposed revised critical habitat for Santa 
Ana sucker would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 13211--Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations 
that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. 
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy 
Effects when undertaking certain actions. The OMB's guidance for 
implementing this Executive Order outlines nine outcomes that may 
constitute ``a significant adverse effect'' when compared to no 
regulatory action. Based on an analysis conducted for this designation, 
we determined that the final designation of critical habitat for Santa 
Ana Sucker is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, 
distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant 
energy 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, 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. First, it excludes ``a condition of federal 
assistance.'' Second, 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. ``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.''
    Critical habitat designation 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. Designation of critical habitat may indirectly impact non-
Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, 
or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal 
agency. 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 DEA of the proposed revised designation of 
critical habitat for Santa Ana sucker, we do not believe that this rule 
would significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it 
would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any 
year; that is, it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The DEA concludes incremental impacts may 
occur due to administrative costs of section 7 consultations for 
development, transportation, and flood control projects activities; 
however, these are not expected to affect small governments. 
Incremental impacts stemming from various species conservation and 
development control activities are expected to be borne by the Federal 
Government, California Department of Transportation, California 
Department of Fish and Game, Riverside County, Riverside County Flood 
Control and Water Conservation District, and City of Perris, which are 
not considered small governments. Consequently, we do not believe that 
the revised critical habitat designation would significantly or 
uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a Small Government 
Agency Plan is not required.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references we cited in the proposed rule and 
in this document is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov or by contacting the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

[[Page 38450]]

Author

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the 
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
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 further amend part 17, subchapter B of 
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to 
be amended at 74 FR 65056, December 9, 2009, as follows:

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 Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae) 
in Sec.  17.95(e), which was proposed to be revised on December 9, 
2009, at 74 FR 65056, is proposed to be further amended by revising 
paragraph (e)(6)(i)(B) as follows:
    a. By revising the introductory text of paragraph (e)(6)(i)(B);
    b. By removing the map of subunit 1A; and
    c. By adding a new map of subunit 1A in its place, as set forth 
below.


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (e) Fishes.
* * * * *
Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae)
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) Map of Subunit 1A (Plunge Creek) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S

[[Page 38451]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY10.004

* * * * *

    Dated: June 18, 2010
Will Shafroth,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2010-15953 Filed 7-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C