Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered Status for the Neosho Mucket, Threatened Status for the Rabbitsfoot, and Designation of Critical Habitat for Both Species, 27171-27177 [2013-10990]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
27171
PART 107—Continued
Subpart
Title
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Subpart I of part 107 prescribes the approval process for persons who seek to be
an independent inspection agency to perform tests, inspections, verifications
and certifications of DOT specification cylinders or UN pressure receptacles.
Additionally, this subpart addresses the approval process for a person who engages in the requalification (e.g. inspection, testing, or certification), rebuilding,
or repair of a cylinder manufactured in accordance with a DOT specification or
a pressure receptacle in accordance with a UN standard, or under the terms of
a DOT special permit. This approval is commonly known as a requalifier identification number (RIN). Lastly, subpart I of part 107 addresses the approval procedures for persons who perform the manufacturing chemical analyses and
tests of DOT specification cylinders, special permit cylinders, or UN pressure
receptacles outside the United States. In the regulatory analysis of previous
rulemakings affecting subpart I of part 107, it was determined that the vast majority of entities subject to those rulemakings were small entities. Thus, due to
the number of small entities this subpart is estimated to affect, PHMSA is seeking comment on whether these regulations have a significant impact.
As discussed in the Background and
Purpose section above, Section 610 of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires
periodic reviews of existing regulations
with significant economic impact (5
U.S.C. 610(c)). In conducting this
review, PHMSA is seeking specific
comments on whether the Hazardous
Materials Program Procedures in 49 CFR
part 107, Subparts D, F and I have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. ‘‘Small
entities’’ include small businesses, notfor-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and
are not dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations under 50,000.
If your business or organization is a
small entity, or you represent a business
or organization that is a small entity and
the rules in 49 CFR part 107, Subparts
D, F, and I or 49 CFR parts 106, 107,
171have a significant economic impact
on your business or organization, please
submit a comment at: https://
www.regulations.gov/ (Docket No.
PHMSA–2013–0027) explaining the
following:
1. How and to what degree these rules
affect you;
2. Any complaints or comments you
may have concerning the covered rules;
3. The complexity of the covered
rules;
4. The extent to which the rules
overlap, duplicate or conflict with other
Federal rules, and to the extent feasible,
with State and local government rules;
and
5. The extent of the economic impact
on you and why you believe the
economic impact is significant.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 May 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 30,
2013 under authority delegated in 49 CFR
part 106.
Magdy El-Sibaie,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous
Materials Safety Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013–10897 Filed 5–8–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2012–0031; FWS–
R4–ES–2013–0007; 4500030113]
RIN 1018–AX73; 1018–AZ30
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Proposed Endangered
Status for the Neosho Mucket,
Threatened Status for the Rabbitsfoot,
and Designation of Critical Habitat for
Both Species
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
comment period.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce the
reopening of the public comment period
on our October 16, 2012, proposed
listing and designation of critical habitat
for the Neosho mucket (Lampsilis
rafinesqueana) and rabbitsfoot
(Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica)
mussels under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also
announce the availability of a draft
economic analysis (DEA) and draft
environmental assessment of the
proposed designation of critical habitat
and an amended required
determinations section of the proposal.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
We are reopening the comment period
to allow all interested parties an
opportunity to comment simultaneously
on the revised proposed rule, the
associated DEA and draft environmental
assessment, and the amended required
determinations section. Comments
previously submitted need not be
resubmitted, as they will be fully
considered in preparation of the final
rules.
We will consider all comments
received or postmarked on or before
June 10, 2013. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES,
below) must be received by 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on the closing date.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: You
may obtain a copy of the proposed rule
on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2012–0031 or by mail
from the Arkansas Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain
a copy of the draft economic analysis
and the draft environmental assessment
at Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2013–0007.
Written comments: You may submit
written comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Submit comments
on the listing proposal to Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2012–0031, and submit
comments on the critical habitat
proposal and associated draft economic
analysis and draft environmental
assessment to Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–
2013–0007. See SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for an explanation of the
two dockets.
(2) By hard copy: Submit comments
on the listing proposal by U.S. mail or
hand-delivery to: Public Comments
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\09MYP1.SGM
09MYP1
27172
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–ES–2012–
0031; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
Submit comments on the critical habitat
proposal, draft economic analysis, and
draft environmental assessment by U.S.
mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–
ES–2013–0007; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
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
Boggs, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Arkansas Ecological
Services Field Office, 110 South Amity
Road, Suite 300, Conway, AR 72032; by
telephone 501–513–4475; or by
facsimile 501–513–4480. Persons who
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Public Comments
We will accept written comments and
information during this reopened
comment period on our proposed listing
determination and proposed critical
habitat designation for the Neosho
mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) and
rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica
cylindrica) mussels that was published
in the Federal Register on October 16,
2012 (77 FR 63440), our draft economic
analysis (DEA) and draft environmental
assessment of the proposed designation,
and the amended required
determinations provided in this
document. We are also notifying the
public that we will publish two separate
rules for the final listing determination
and the final critical habitat
determination for the Neosho mucket
and rabbitsfoot mussels. The final
listing rule will publish under the
existing Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2012–
0031 and the final critical habitat
designation will publish under Docket
No. FWS–R4–ES–2013–0007.
We request that you provide
comments specifically on our listing
determination under Docket No. FWS–
R4–ES–2012–0031.
We request that you provide
comments specifically on the critical
habitat determination and related draft
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 May 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
economic analysis and draft
environmental assessment under Docket
No. FWS–R4–ES–2013–0007. We are
particularly interested in comments
concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or
should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical
habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether
there are threats to these species from
human activity, the degree of which can
be expected to increase due to the
designation, and whether that increase
in threat outweighs the benefit of
designation such that the designation of
critical habitat is not prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of
each species’ habitat;
(b) What areas occupied by the
species at the time of listing that contain
features essential for the conservation of
these species we should include in the
designation and why; and
(c) What areas not occupied at the
time of listing are essential to the
conservation of these species and why.
(3) Land use designations and current
or planned activities in the subject areas
and their possible impacts on proposed
critical habitat.
(4) Any foreseeable economic,
national security, or other relevant
impacts that may result from
designating any area that may be
included in the final designation. We
are particularly interested in any
impacts on small entities and the
benefits of including or excluding areas
from the proposed designation that are
subject to these impacts.
(5) The projected and reasonably
likely impacts of climate change on the
critical habitat we are proposing.
(6) Whether our approach to
designating critical habitat could be
improved or modified in any way to
provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to assist us in
accommodating public concerns and
comments.
(7) Information on the extent to which
the description of economic impacts in
the DEA is complete and accurate.
(8) The likelihood of adverse social
reactions to the designation of critical
habitat, as discussed in the DEA and
draft environmental assessment, and
how the consequences of such reactions,
if likely to occur, would relate to the
conservation and regulatory benefits of
the proposed critical habitat
designation.
If you submitted comments or
information on the proposed rule (77 FR
63440) during the initial comment
period from October 16, 2012, to
December 17, 2012, please do not
resubmit them. We have incorporated
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
them into the public record as part of
the comment period, and we will fully
consider them in the preparation of our
final determination. Our final
determination concerning critical
habitat 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 proposed are not
essential, are appropriate for exclusion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are
not appropriate for exclusion.
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning the proposed rule,
DEA, or draft environmental assessment
by one of the methods listed in
ADDRESSES. We request that you send
comments only by the methods
described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit a comment via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. We will post all
hardcopy comments on https://
www.regulations.gov as well. If you
submit a hardcopy comment 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.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing the proposed rule,
draft economic analysis, and draft
environmental assessment will be
available for public inspection on
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS–R4–ES–2012–0031 and Docket
No. FWS–R4–ES–2013–0007, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Arkansas Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain
copies of the proposed rule, the DEA,
and the draft environmental assessment
on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2012–0031 and Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2013–0007, or by mail
from the Arkansas Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those
topics directly relevant to the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the
Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot in this
document. For more information on the
two mussels, their fish hosts, or their
habitats, or more information than we
provide below concerning previous
E:\FR\FM\09MYP1.SGM
09MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Federal actions for these mussels, refer
to the proposed listing determination
and proposed designation of critical
habitat published in the Federal
Register on October 16, 2012 (77 FR
63440), which is available online at
https://www.regulations.gov (at Docket
No. FWS–R4–ES–2012–0031 or Docket
No. FWS–R4–ES–2013–0007) or from
the Arkansas Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Previous Federal Actions
On October 16, 2012, we published a
proposed rule to list the Neosho mucket
(Lampsilis rafinesqueana) as an
endangered species and the rabbitsfoot
(Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica) mussel
as a threatened species under the Act
and to designate critical habitat for these
two mussels (77 FR 63440). We
proposed to designate approximately
779.1 river kilometers (rkm) (484.1 river
miles (rmi)) of critical habitat for the
Neosho mucket in the Cottonwood, Elk,
Fall, Illinois, Neosho, Shoal, Spring,
North Fork Spring, and Verdigris Rivers
in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and
Oklahoma. The proposed critical habitat
for the Neosho mucket is located in:
• Benton and Washington Counties,
Arkansas;
• Allen, Chase, Cherokee, Coffey, Elk,
Greenwood, Labette, Montgomery,
Neosho, Wilson, and Woodson
Counties, Kansas;
• Jasper, Lawrence, McDonald, and
Newton Counties, Missouri; and
• Adair, Cherokee, and Delaware
Counties, Oklahoma.
We proposed to designate 2,664 rkm
(1,655 rmi) (as amended in this
document; see Changes from the
Proposed Rule, below) of critical habitat
for the rabbitsfoot in the Neosho, Spring
(Arkansas River system), Verdigris,
Black, Buffalo, Little, Ouachita, Saline,
Middle Fork Little Red, Spring (White
River system), South Fork Spring,
Strawberry, White, St. Francis, Big
Sunflower, Big Black, Paint Rock, Duck,
Tennessee, Red, Ohio, Allegheny,
Green, Tippecanoe, Walhonding,
Middle Branch North Fork Vermilion,
and North Fork Vermilion Rivers and
Bear, French, Muddy, Little Darby and
Fish Creeks in Alabama, Arkansas,
Kansas, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. The
proposed critical habitat for the
rabbitsfoot is located in:
• Colbert, Jackson, Madison, and
Marshall Counties, Alabama;
• Arkansas, Ashley, Bradley, Clark,
Cleveland, Dallas, Drew, Fulton, Grant,
Hot Spring, Independence, Izard,
Jackson, Lawrence, Little River, Marion,
Monroe, Montgomery, Newton,
Ouachita, Randolph, Saline, Searcy,
Sevier, Sharp, Van Buren, White, and
Woodruff Counties, Arkansas;
• Allen and Cherokee Counties,
Kansas;
• Ballard, Green, Hart, Livingston,
Logan, Marshall, and McCracken
Counties, Kentucky;
• Massac, Pulaski, and Vermilion
Counties, Illinois;
• Carroll, Pulaski, Tippecanoe, and
White Counties, Indiana;
• Hinds, Sunflower, Toshimingo, and
Warren Counties, Mississippi;
• Jasper, Madison, and Wayne
Counties, Missouri;
• Coshocton, Madison, Union, and
Williams Counties, Ohio;
• McCurtain and Rogers Counties,
Oklahoma;
• Crawford, Erie, Mercer, and
Venango Counties, Pennsylvania; and
• Hardin, Hickman, Marshall, Maury,
and Robertson Counties, Tennessee.
That proposal had a 60-day comment
period, ending December 17, 2012.
Critical Habitat
Section 3 of the Act defines critical
habitat 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 critical habitat must consult
with us on the effects of their proposed
actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
We are changing the proposed rule of
October 16, 2012 (77 FR 63440) to revise
the total number of river kilometers
(km) for the proposed designation of
rabbitsfoot critical habitat. However, the
beginning and ending points of the
proposed critical habitat designation, as
well as the unit descriptions (as
described in the proposed critical
habitat rule), remain the same.
The change in mapping was necessary
due to an oversight in methods used for
estimating the unit length in proposed
critical habitat Unit RF7. The new
methodology uses a better technique for
following the curve and meander of the
river channel, which results in an
additional 1.4 river kilometers (rkm)
(0.9 river mile (rmi)) of proposed critical
habitat. An additional change in
mapping, for Unit RF5, resulted from a
mapping error. A short segment in the
middle of Unit RF5 was not included;
the addition of this segment added 0.8
rkm (0.5 rmi) to Unit RF5 and resulted
in a corresponding increase to the
private ownership river miles adjacent
to Units RF5 and RF7.
The following table shows the revised
number of river kilometers (rkm) and
river miles (rmi) and ownership of
adjacent riparian lands for the proposed
designation of critical habitat for
rabbitsfoot in Units RF5 and RF7. The
data in this table replace the data
provided in Table 5 of the proposed rule
at 77 FR 63440 (October 16, 2012).
State & local
government
rkm; rmi
Federal
rkm; rmi
Critical habitat units
27173
Private
rkm; rmi
Tribal* (subset
of private)
rkm; rmi
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Rabbitsfoot
Unit RF5: Saline River .....................................................................................
0
22.3; 13.9
266.8; 165.8
0
Unit RF7: Middle Fork Little Red River ...........................................................
0
0
24.7; 15.4
0
Total rabbitsfoot ........................................................................................
328.1; 203.9
137.9; 85.7
2,197.5;
1,365.3
86.9; 54.0
Total for both species ........................................................................
357.6; 222.2
147.7; 91.8
2,937.3;
1,825.3
189.9; 118.0
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 May 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09MYP1.SGM
09MYP1
27174
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Consideration of Impacts Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that
we designate or revise critical habitat
based upon the best scientific data
available, after taking into consideration
the economic impact, impact on
national security, or any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area
as critical habitat. We may exclude an
area from critical habitat if we
determine that the benefits of excluding
the area outweigh the benefits of
including the area as critical habitat,
provided such exclusion will not result
in the extinction of the species.
When considering the benefits of
inclusion for an area, we consider the
additional regulatory benefits that an
area would receive from consultation
regarding adverse modification or
destruction as a result of actions with a
Federal nexus (activities conducted,
funded, permitted, or authorized by
Federal agencies), the educational
benefits of mapping areas containing
features that are essential to the
recovery of the listed species, and any
benefits that may result from
designation due to State or Federal laws
that may apply to critical habitat.
When considering the benefits of
exclusion, we consider, among other
things, whether exclusion of a specific
area is likely to result in conservation;
the continuation, strengthening, or
encouragement of partnerships; or
implementation of a management plan.
In the case of these two mussels, the
benefits of critical habitat include
public awareness of the presence of the
mussels and the importance of habitat
protection, and, where a Federal nexus
exists, increased habitat protection for
the two mussels due to protection from
adverse modification or destruction of
critical habitat. In practice, situations
with a Federal nexus exist primarily on
Federal lands or for projects undertaken,
funded, or permitted by Federal
agencies.
We have not proposed to exclude any
areas from critical habitat. However, the
final decision on whether to exclude
any areas will be based on the best
scientific and commercial data available
at the time of the final designation,
including information obtained during
the comment period and information
about the economic impact of the
designation. Accordingly, our DEA
concerning the proposed critical habitat
designation is available for review and
comment (see ADDRESSES).
Draft Economic Analysis
The purpose of the DEA is to identify
and analyze the potential economic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 May 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
impacts associated with the proposed
critical habitat designation for the
Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot. The
DEA separates conservation measures
into two distinct categories according to
‘‘without critical habitat’’ and ‘‘with
critical habitat’’ scenarios. The ‘‘without
critical habitat’’ scenario represents the
baseline for the analysis, considering
protections otherwise afforded to the
two mussels (e.g., under the Federal
listing and other Federal, State, and
local regulations). The ‘‘with critical
habitat’’ scenario describes the
incremental impacts specifically due to
designation of critical habitat for these
species. In other words, these
incremental conservation measures and
associated economic impacts would not
occur but for the designation.
Most courts have held that the Service
only needs to consider the incremental
impacts imposed by the critical habitat
designation over and above those
impacts imposed as a result of listing
the species. For example, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals reached this
conclusion twice within the last few
years, and the U.S. Supreme Court
declined to hear any further appeal from
those rulings. (See Arizona Cattle
Growers’ Assoc. v. Salazar, 606 F.3d
116, (9th Cir. June 4, 2010) cert. denied,
179 L. Ed. 2d 300, 2011 U.S. LEXIS
1362, 79 U.S.L.W. 3475 (2011); Home
Builders Association of Northern
California v. United States Fish &
Wildlife Service, 616 F. 3rd 983 (9th Cir.
2010) cert. denied, 179 L. Ed. 2d 300,
2011 U.S. LEXIS 1362, 79 U.S.L.W. 3475
(2011).)
However, the prevailing court
decisions in the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals do not allow the incremental
analysis approach. Instead, the Tenth
Circuit requires that the Service
consider both the baseline economic
impacts imposed due to listing the
species and the additional incremental
economic impacts imposed by
designating critical habitat. (See New
Mexico Cattle Growers Ass’n v. FWS,
248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. May 11, 2001).)
As a consequence, an economic analysis
for critical habitat that is being proposed
for designation within States that fall
within the jurisdiction of the Tenth
Circuit (as this designation does) should
include a coextensive cost evaluation,
which addresses, and quantifies to the
extent feasible, all of the conservationrelated impacts associated with the
regulatory baseline (those resulting
under the jeopardy standard under
section 7 of the Act, and under sections
9 and 10 of the Act). In other words, the
allocation of impacts should show those
that are part of the regulatory baseline
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and those that are unique to the critical
habitat designation.
Conservation measures implemented
under the baseline (without critical
habitat) scenario are described
qualitatively within the DEA, but
economic impacts associated with these
measures are not quantified. Economic
impacts are only quantified for
conservation measures implemented
specifically due to the designation of
critical habitat (i.e., incremental
impacts). For a further description of the
methodology of the analysis, see
Chapter 2, ‘‘FRAMEWORK FOR THE
ANALYSIS’’ of the DEA.
The DEA provides estimated costs of
the foreseeable potential economic
impacts of the proposed critical habitat
designation for the two mussels over the
next 20 years, which was determined to
be the appropriate period for analysis
because limited planning information is
available for most activities to forecast
activity levels for projects beyond a 20year timeframe. It identifies potential
incremental costs as a result of the
proposed critical habitat designation;
these are those costs attributed to
critical habitat over and above those
baseline costs attributed to listing. The
DEA quantifies economic impacts of
conservation efforts for the two mussels
associated with the following categories
of activity: (1) Water management; (2)
timber management, agriculture, and
grazing; (3) mining; (4) oil and gas
development; (5) transportation (roads,
highways, bridges) and utilities; (6)
development; and (7) recreation.
The DEA concluded that the types of
conservation efforts requested by the
Service during section 7 consultation
regarding the two mussels were not
expected to change due to critical
habitat designation. The Service
believes that results of consultation
under the adverse modification and
jeopardy standards are likely to be
similar because the ability of these
species to exist is very closely tied to
the quality of their habitats, and
significant alterations of their occupied
habitat that could result in adverse
modification would also result in
jeopardy to the species.
The DEA concludes that incremental
impacts of critical habitat designation
are limited to additional administrative
costs of consultations and that indirect
incremental impacts are unlikely to
result from the designation of critical
habitat for the two mussels. The present
value of the total direct (administrative)
incremental cost of critical habitat
designation is $4,400,000 over the next
20 years assuming a 7 percent discount
rate, or $290,000 on an annualized
basis. Transportation and utility
E:\FR\FM\09MYP1.SGM
09MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
activities are likely to be subject to the
greatest incremental impacts at
$1,400,000 over the next 20 years,
followed by timber, agriculture, and
grazing at $960,000; development at
$760,000; other (animal and biological
control, prescribed burns, land clearing,
bank stabilization, habitat or shoreline
restoration) at $530,000; oil and gas
development at $320,000; water flow
management at $190,000; water quality
management at $120,000; and mining at
$71,000.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting
data and comments from the public on
the DEA, as well as all aspects of the
proposed rule and our amended
required determinations. We may revise
the proposed rule or supporting
documents to incorporate or address
information we receive during the
public 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, provided
the exclusion will not result in the
extinction of this species.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Draft Environmental Assessment
The purpose of an environmental
assessment is to identify and disclose
the environmental consequences
associated with the proposed critical
habitat designation for the Neosho
mucket and rabbitsfoot in compliance
with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). We
evaluated a variety of issues related to
the human environment that could
potentially be affected by the
designation of critical habitat for the
two mussels, including conservation of
the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot,
water resources, energy development
and production, socioeconomic
conditions and environmental justice,
and cumulative effects. Our draft
environmental assessment concerning
the proposed critical habitat designation
is available for review and comment
(see ADDRESSES).
Required Determinations—Amended
In our October 12, 2011, proposed
rule (76 FR 63360), 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 data to make these
determinations. In this document, we
affirm the information in our proposed
rule concerning Executive Orders
(E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 (Regulatory
Planning and Review), E.O. 13132
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 May 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
(Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply,
Distribution, and Use), the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.), and the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
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. 12630
(Takings), the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and
the President’s memorandum of April
29, 1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government
Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951).
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 of 1996
(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
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 effects 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 the agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA
to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual
basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Based on our DEA 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 we receive,
we may revise this determination as part
of our 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
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
27175
$11.5 million in annual business, and
agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine
if potential economic impacts to these
small entities are significant, we
considered the types of activities that
might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation as well as types of
project modifications that may result. In
general, the term ‘‘significant economic
impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm’s business
operations.
To determine if the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the
two mussels would affect a substantial
number of small entities, we considered
the number of small entities affected
within particular types of economic
activities, such as water management,
timber management, agriculture and
grazing, mining, oil and gas
development, transportation and
utilities, and development and
recreation. In order to determine
whether it is appropriate for our agency
to certify that the proposed rule would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities, we considered each industry or
category individually. In estimating the
numbers of small entities potentially
affected, we also considered whether
their activities have any Federal
involvement. Critical habitat
designation will not affect activities that
do not have any Federal involvement;
designation of critical habitat only
affects activities conducted, funded,
permitted, or authorized by Federal
agencies. If we finalize the proposed
listing for these species, in the areas
where they are present Federal agencies
will already be required to consult with
us under section 7 of the Act on
activities they fund, permit, or
implement that may affect the species.
If we finalize this proposed critical
habitat designation, consultations to
avoid the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat will be
incorporated into the existing
consultation process.
In the DEA, we evaluated the
potential economic effects on small
entities resulting from implementation
of conservation actions related to the
proposed designation of critical habitat
for the two mussels. We anticipate that
11 small entities could be affected by
water flow management consultations in
a single year at a cost of $410 each,
representing less than 0.007 percent of
annual revenues. Eleven small entities
could be affected by water quality
management consultations within a
single year at a cost of $340 each,
representing less than 1 percent of
annual revenues. Forty-one small
E:\FR\FM\09MYP1.SGM
09MYP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27176
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
entities could be affected by timber,
agriculture, and grazing consultations
within a single year, at a cost of $470,
representing less than 0.028 percent of
annual revenues. Four small entities
could be affected by mining
consultations within a single year, at a
cost of $430, representing less than
0.005 percent of annual revenues.
Fourteen small entities could be affected
by oil and gas development
consultations within a single year, at a
cost of $460, representing less than
0.006 percent of annual revenues. Fortythree small entities could be affected by
development and recreation
consultations within a single year, at a
cost of $410, representing less than
0.007 percent of annual revenues. Sixtyeight small entities could be affected by
transportation and utility consultations
within a single year, at a cost of $450,
representing 0.005 percent of annual
revenues. Thirty-five small entities
could be affected by other consultations
within a single year, at a cost of $400,
representing 0.005 percent of annual
revenues. Please refer to the DEA of the
proposed critical habitat designation for
a more detailed discussion of potential
economic impacts.
The Service’s current understanding
of recent case law is that Federal
agencies are only required to evaluate
the potential impacts of rulemaking on
those entities directly regulated by the
rulemaking; therefore, they are not
required to evaluate the potential
impacts to those entities not directly
regulated. The designation of critical
habitat for an endangered or threatened
species only has a regulatory effect
where a Federal action agency is
involved in a particular action that may
affect the designated critical habitat.
Under these circumstances, only the
Federal action agency is directly
regulated by the designation, and,
therefore, consistent with the Service’s
current interpretation of RFA and recent
case law, the Service may limit its
evaluation of the potential impacts to
those identified for Federal action
agencies. Under this interpretation,
there is no requirement under the RFA
to evaluate potential impacts to entities
not directly regulated, such as small
businesses. However, Executive Orders
12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies
to assess the costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives in
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and
qualitative terms. Consequently, it is the
current practice of the Service to assess
to the extent practicable these potential
impacts, if sufficient data are available,
whether or not this analysis is believed
by the Service to be strictly required by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 May 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
the RFA. In other words, while the
effects analysis required under the RFA
is limited to entities directly regulated
by the rulemaking, the effects analysis
under the Act, consistent with the E.O.
regulatory analysis requirements, can
take into consideration impacts to both
directly and indirectly impacted
entities, where practicable and
reasonable.
In summary, we have considered
whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Information for this analysis
was gathered from the Small Business
Administration, stakeholders, and the
Service. We have identified 227 small
entities that may be impacted by the
proposed critical habitat designation in
a single year. For the above reasons and
based on currently available
information, we certify that, if
promulgated, the proposed critical
habitat designation would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business
entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses as
defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons
for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244). This position was upheld by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied
516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). However, when
the range of the species includes States
within the Tenth Circuit, as is the case
with the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot,
under the Tenth Circuit ruling in Catron
County Board of Commissioners v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429
(10th Cir. 1996), we will undertake a
NEPA analysis for critical habitat
designation. Accordingly, we have
completed a draft environmental
assessment to identify and disclose the
environmental consequences resulting
from the proposed designation of
critical habitat for the Neosho mucket
and rabbitsfoot. Our preliminary
determination is that the designation of
critical habitat for the Neosho mucket
and rabbitsfoot would not have direct
impacts on the environment. However,
we will further evaluate this issue as we
complete our final environmental
assessment.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E.O. 12630 (Takings)
In accordance with E.O. 12630
(Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private
Property Rights), we have analyzed the
potential takings implications of
designating critical habitat for the
Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot in a
takings implications assessment. As
discussed above, the designation of
critical habitat affects only Federal
actions. Although private parties that
receive Federal funding, assistance, or
require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for an action may be
indirectly impacted by the designation
of critical habitat, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests
squarely on the Federal agency. The
DEA found that no significant economic
impacts are likely to result from the
designation of critical habitat for the
Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot. Because
the Act’s critical habitat protection
requirements apply only to Federal
agency actions, few conflicts between
critical habitat and private property
rights should result from this
designation. Based on information
contained in the DEA and described
within this document, it is not likely
that economic impacts to a property
owner would be of a sufficient
magnitude to support a takings action.
Therefore, the takings implications
assessment concludes that this
designation of critical habitat for the
Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot does not
pose significant takings implications for
lands within or affected by the
designation.
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
Potentially affected Tribes include:
the Osage Nation, Cherokee Nation,
United Keetowah Band of Cherokee
Indians, Choctaw Nation, Delaware
Tribe of Indians, and Peoria Tribe. On
April 19, 2011, we notified the United
Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians and
Delaware Tribe of Indians via email
regarding tribal lands potentially
affected by our proposal to list Neosho
mucket and rabbitsfoot and to designate
critical habitat for each species. The
Peoria Tribe and Osage Nation also were
notified via email on February 15, 2011,
and we then followed up with
subsequent email correspondence. The
Cherokee Nation and Choctaw Nation
were notified via email on April 20 and
21, 2011, respectively, via email and
telephone. Lands proposed to be
designated as critical habitat do not
represent riparian land ownership by
any Tribe, represent only tribal
E:\FR\FM\09MYP1.SGM
09MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
jurisdictional areas, are not managed by
any Tribe, and are on otherwise
privately owned lands. We considered
the Tribes’ comments, which were
limited to providing tribal land and
jurisdictional area maps and biological
data for the two mussels, during
preparation of the proposed rule.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 May 08, 2013
Jkt 229001
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are
the staff members of the Arkansas
Ecological Services Field Office and the
Southeast Region, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES).
Dated: May 1, 2013.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013–10990 Filed 5–8–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
27177
E:\FR\FM\09MYP1.SGM
09MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27171-27177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10990]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0031; FWS-R4-ES-2013-0007; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AX73; 1018-AZ30
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Endangered Status for the Neosho Mucket, Threatened Status for the
Rabbitsfoot, and Designation of Critical Habitat for Both Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening
of the public comment period on our October 16, 2012, proposed listing
and designation of critical habitat for the Neosho mucket (Lampsilis
rafinesqueana) and rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica) mussels
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also
announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) and draft
environmental assessment of the proposed designation of critical
habitat and an amended required determinations section of the proposal.
We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an
opportunity to comment simultaneously on the revised proposed rule, the
associated DEA and draft environmental assessment, and the amended
required determinations section. Comments previously submitted need not
be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the
final rules.
DATES: We will consider all comments received or postmarked on or
before June 10, 2013. Comments submitted electronically using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: You may obtain a copy of the proposed
rule on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2012-0031 or by mail from the Arkansas Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain a copy of
the draft economic analysis and the draft environmental assessment at
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0007.
Written comments: You may submit written comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments on the listing proposal to Docket
No. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0031, and submit comments on the critical habitat
proposal and associated draft economic analysis and draft environmental
assessment to Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0007. See SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for an explanation of the two dockets.
(2) By hard copy: Submit comments on the listing proposal by U.S.
mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
[[Page 27172]]
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2012-0031; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. Submit comments on the
critical habitat proposal, draft economic analysis, and draft
environmental assessment by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2013-0007; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. 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 Boggs, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office, 110
South Amity Road, Suite 300, Conway, AR 72032; by telephone 501-513-
4475; or by facsimile 501-513-4480. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We will accept written comments and information during this
reopened comment period on our proposed listing determination and
proposed critical habitat designation for the Neosho mucket (Lampsilis
rafinesqueana) and rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica) mussels
that was published in the Federal Register on October 16, 2012 (77 FR
63440), our draft economic analysis (DEA) and draft environmental
assessment of the proposed designation, and the amended required
determinations provided in this document. We are also notifying the
public that we will publish two separate rules for the final listing
determination and the final critical habitat determination for the
Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot mussels. The final listing rule will
publish under the existing Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0031 and the final
critical habitat designation will publish under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2013-0007.
We request that you provide comments specifically on our listing
determination under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0031.
We request that you provide comments specifically on the critical
habitat determination and related draft economic analysis and draft
environmental assessment under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0007. We are
particularly interested in comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including whether there are threats to these species from human
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not
prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of each species' habitat;
(b) What areas occupied by the species at the time of listing that
contain features essential for the conservation of these species we
should include in the designation and why; and
(c) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential to
the conservation of these species and why.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included
in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts
on small entities and the benefits of including or excluding areas from
the proposed designation that are subject to these impacts.
(5) The projected and reasonably likely impacts of climate change
on the critical habitat we are proposing.
(6) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating
public concerns and comments.
(7) Information on the extent to which the description of economic
impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate.
(8) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation
of critical habitat, as discussed in the DEA and draft environmental
assessment, and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to
occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the
proposed critical habitat designation.
If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (77
FR 63440) during the initial comment period from October 16, 2012, to
December 17, 2012, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated
them into the public record as part of the comment period, and we will
fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our
final determination concerning critical habitat 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 proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed
rule, DEA, or draft environmental assessment by one of the methods
listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the
methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit a comment via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted
on the Web site. We will post all hardcopy comments on https://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment 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.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, draft economic
analysis, and draft environmental assessment will be available for
public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2012-0031 and Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0007, or by appointment,
during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the proposed rule, the DEA, and the
draft environmental assessment on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0031 and Docket No.
FWS-R4-ES-2013-0007, or by mail from the Arkansas Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Neosho mucket and
rabbitsfoot in this document. For more information on the two mussels,
their fish hosts, or their habitats, or more information than we
provide below concerning previous
[[Page 27173]]
Federal actions for these mussels, refer to the proposed listing
determination and proposed designation of critical habitat published in
the Federal Register on October 16, 2012 (77 FR 63440), which is
available online at https://www.regulations.gov (at Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2012-0031 or Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0007) or from the Arkansas
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Previous Federal Actions
On October 16, 2012, we published a proposed rule to list the
Neosho mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) as an endangered species and
the rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica) mussel as a threatened
species under the Act and to designate critical habitat for these two
mussels (77 FR 63440). We proposed to designate approximately 779.1
river kilometers (rkm) (484.1 river miles (rmi)) of critical habitat
for the Neosho mucket in the Cottonwood, Elk, Fall, Illinois, Neosho,
Shoal, Spring, North Fork Spring, and Verdigris Rivers in Arkansas,
Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. The proposed critical habitat for the
Neosho mucket is located in:
Benton and Washington Counties, Arkansas;
Allen, Chase, Cherokee, Coffey, Elk, Greenwood, Labette,
Montgomery, Neosho, Wilson, and Woodson Counties, Kansas;
Jasper, Lawrence, McDonald, and Newton Counties, Missouri;
and
Adair, Cherokee, and Delaware Counties, Oklahoma.
We proposed to designate 2,664 rkm (1,655 rmi) (as amended in this
document; see Changes from the Proposed Rule, below) of critical
habitat for the rabbitsfoot in the Neosho, Spring (Arkansas River
system), Verdigris, Black, Buffalo, Little, Ouachita, Saline, Middle
Fork Little Red, Spring (White River system), South Fork Spring,
Strawberry, White, St. Francis, Big Sunflower, Big Black, Paint Rock,
Duck, Tennessee, Red, Ohio, Allegheny, Green, Tippecanoe, Walhonding,
Middle Branch North Fork Vermilion, and North Fork Vermilion Rivers and
Bear, French, Muddy, Little Darby and Fish Creeks in Alabama, Arkansas,
Kansas, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. The proposed critical habitat
for the rabbitsfoot is located in:
Colbert, Jackson, Madison, and Marshall Counties, Alabama;
Arkansas, Ashley, Bradley, Clark, Cleveland, Dallas, Drew,
Fulton, Grant, Hot Spring, Independence, Izard, Jackson, Lawrence,
Little River, Marion, Monroe, Montgomery, Newton, Ouachita, Randolph,
Saline, Searcy, Sevier, Sharp, Van Buren, White, and Woodruff Counties,
Arkansas;
Allen and Cherokee Counties, Kansas;
Ballard, Green, Hart, Livingston, Logan, Marshall, and
McCracken Counties, Kentucky;
Massac, Pulaski, and Vermilion Counties, Illinois;
Carroll, Pulaski, Tippecanoe, and White Counties, Indiana;
Hinds, Sunflower, Toshimingo, and Warren Counties,
Mississippi;
Jasper, Madison, and Wayne Counties, Missouri;
Coshocton, Madison, Union, and Williams Counties, Ohio;
McCurtain and Rogers Counties, Oklahoma;
Crawford, Erie, Mercer, and Venango Counties,
Pennsylvania; and
Hardin, Hickman, Marshall, Maury, and Robertson Counties,
Tennessee.
That proposal had a 60-day comment period, ending December 17,
2012.
Critical Habitat
Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat 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 critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their
proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
We are changing the proposed rule of October 16, 2012 (77 FR 63440)
to revise the total number of river kilometers (km) for the proposed
designation of rabbitsfoot critical habitat. However, the beginning and
ending points of the proposed critical habitat designation, as well as
the unit descriptions (as described in the proposed critical habitat
rule), remain the same.
The change in mapping was necessary due to an oversight in methods
used for estimating the unit length in proposed critical habitat Unit
RF7. The new methodology uses a better technique for following the
curve and meander of the river channel, which results in an additional
1.4 river kilometers (rkm) (0.9 river mile (rmi)) of proposed critical
habitat. An additional change in mapping, for Unit RF5, resulted from a
mapping error. A short segment in the middle of Unit RF5 was not
included; the addition of this segment added 0.8 rkm (0.5 rmi) to Unit
RF5 and resulted in a corresponding increase to the private ownership
river miles adjacent to Units RF5 and RF7.
The following table shows the revised number of river kilometers
(rkm) and river miles (rmi) and ownership of adjacent riparian lands
for the proposed designation of critical habitat for rabbitsfoot in
Units RF5 and RF7. The data in this table replace the data provided in
Table 5 of the proposed rule at 77 FR 63440 (October 16, 2012).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal*
Federal rkm; State & local Private rkm; (subset of
Critical habitat units rmi government rmi private) rkm;
rkm; rmi rmi
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabbitsfoot
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit RF5: Saline River.......................... 0 22.3; 13.9 266.8; 165.8 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unit RF7: Middle Fork Little Red River.......... 0 0 24.7; 15.4 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total rabbitsfoot........................... 328.1; 203.9 137.9; 85.7 2,197.5; 86.9; 54.0
1,365.3
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total for both species.................. 357.6; 222.2 147.7; 91.8 2,937.3; 189.9; 118.0
1,825.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 27174]]
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise
critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after
taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national
security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat
if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the
benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such
exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider
the additional regulatory benefits that an area would receive from
consultation regarding adverse modification or destruction as a result
of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded,
permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits
of mapping areas containing features that are essential to the recovery
of the listed species, and any benefits that may result from
designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical
habitat.
When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. In the case of
these two mussels, the benefits of critical habitat include public
awareness of the presence of the mussels and the importance of habitat
protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat
protection for the two mussels due to protection from adverse
modification or destruction of critical habitat. In practice,
situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal lands or for
projects undertaken, funded, or permitted by Federal agencies.
We have not proposed to exclude any areas from critical habitat.
However, the final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be
based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time
of the final designation, including information obtained during the
comment period and information about the economic impact of the
designation. Accordingly, our DEA concerning the proposed critical
habitat designation is available for review and comment (see
ADDRESSES).
Draft Economic Analysis
The purpose of the DEA is to identify and analyze the potential
economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat
designation for the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot. The DEA separates
conservation measures into two distinct categories according to
``without critical habitat'' and ``with critical habitat'' scenarios.
The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for
the analysis, considering protections otherwise afforded to the two
mussels (e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and
local regulations). The ``with critical habitat'' scenario describes
the incremental impacts specifically due to designation of critical
habitat for these species. In other words, these incremental
conservation measures and associated economic impacts would not occur
but for the designation.
Most courts have held that the Service only needs to consider the
incremental impacts imposed by the critical habitat designation over
and above those impacts imposed as a result of listing the species. For
example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reached this conclusion
twice within the last few years, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to
hear any further appeal from those rulings. (See Arizona Cattle
Growers' Assoc. v. Salazar, 606 F.3d 116, (9th Cir. June 4, 2010) cert.
denied, 179 L. Ed. 2d 300, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 1362, 79 U.S.L.W. 3475
(2011); Home Builders Association of Northern California v. United
States Fish & Wildlife Service, 616 F. 3rd 983 (9th Cir. 2010) cert.
denied, 179 L. Ed. 2d 300, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 1362, 79 U.S.L.W. 3475
(2011).)
However, the prevailing court decisions in the Tenth Circuit Court
of Appeals do not allow the incremental analysis approach. Instead, the
Tenth Circuit requires that the Service consider both the baseline
economic impacts imposed due to listing the species and the additional
incremental economic impacts imposed by designating critical habitat.
(See New Mexico Cattle Growers Ass'n v. FWS, 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir.
May 11, 2001).) As a consequence, an economic analysis for critical
habitat that is being proposed for designation within States that fall
within the jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit (as this designation does)
should include a coextensive cost evaluation, which addresses, and
quantifies to the extent feasible, all of the conservation-related
impacts associated with the regulatory baseline (those resulting under
the jeopardy standard under section 7 of the Act, and under sections 9
and 10 of the Act). In other words, the allocation of impacts should
show those that are part of the regulatory baseline and those that are
unique to the critical habitat designation.
Conservation measures implemented under the baseline (without
critical habitat) scenario are described qualitatively within the DEA,
but economic impacts associated with these measures are not quantified.
Economic impacts are only quantified for conservation measures
implemented specifically due to the designation of critical habitat
(i.e., incremental impacts). For a further description of the
methodology of the analysis, see Chapter 2, ``FRAMEWORK FOR THE
ANALYSIS'' of the DEA.
The DEA provides estimated costs of the foreseeable potential
economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation for the
two mussels over the next 20 years, which was determined to be the
appropriate period for analysis because limited planning information is
available for most activities to forecast activity levels for projects
beyond a 20-year timeframe. It identifies potential incremental costs
as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation; these are
those costs attributed to critical habitat over and above those
baseline costs attributed to listing. The DEA quantifies economic
impacts of conservation efforts for the two mussels associated with the
following categories of activity: (1) Water management; (2) timber
management, agriculture, and grazing; (3) mining; (4) oil and gas
development; (5) transportation (roads, highways, bridges) and
utilities; (6) development; and (7) recreation.
The DEA concluded that the types of conservation efforts requested
by the Service during section 7 consultation regarding the two mussels
were not expected to change due to critical habitat designation. The
Service believes that results of consultation under the adverse
modification and jeopardy standards are likely to be similar because
the ability of these species to exist is very closely tied to the
quality of their habitats, and significant alterations of their
occupied habitat that could result in adverse modification would also
result in jeopardy to the species.
The DEA concludes that incremental impacts of critical habitat
designation are limited to additional administrative costs of
consultations and that indirect incremental impacts are unlikely to
result from the designation of critical habitat for the two mussels.
The present value of the total direct (administrative) incremental cost
of critical habitat designation is $4,400,000 over the next 20 years
assuming a 7 percent discount rate, or $290,000 on an annualized basis.
Transportation and utility
[[Page 27175]]
activities are likely to be subject to the greatest incremental impacts
at $1,400,000 over the next 20 years, followed by timber, agriculture,
and grazing at $960,000; development at $760,000; other (animal and
biological control, prescribed burns, land clearing, bank
stabilization, habitat or shoreline restoration) at $530,000; oil and
gas development at $320,000; water flow management at $190,000; water
quality management at $120,000; and mining at $71,000.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the
public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our
amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or
supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive
during the public 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, provided the
exclusion will not result in the extinction of this species.
Draft Environmental Assessment
The purpose of an environmental assessment is to identify and
disclose the environmental consequences associated with the proposed
critical habitat designation for the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot in
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.). We evaluated a variety of issues related to the human
environment that could potentially be affected by the designation of
critical habitat for the two mussels, including conservation of the
Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot, water resources, energy development and
production, socioeconomic conditions and environmental justice, and
cumulative effects. Our draft environmental assessment concerning the
proposed critical habitat designation is available for review and
comment (see ADDRESSES).
Required Determinations--Amended
In our October 12, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 63360), 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 data to make these determinations. In this
document, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 (Regulatory Planning and
Review), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and Use), the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), and the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 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. 12630
(Takings), the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-
to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments'' (59
FR 22951).
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 of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 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 effects 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 the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Based on our DEA 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 we receive, we may revise this
determination as part of our 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 designation of critical habitat for
the two mussels would affect a substantial number of small entities, we
considered the number of small entities affected within particular
types of economic activities, such as water management, timber
management, agriculture and grazing, mining, oil and gas development,
transportation and utilities, and development and recreation. In order
to determine whether it is appropriate for our agency to certify that
the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, we considered each industry or
category individually. In estimating the numbers of small entities
potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have
any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation will not affect
activities that do not have any Federal involvement; designation of
critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted,
or authorized by Federal agencies. If we finalize the proposed listing
for these species, in the areas where they are present Federal agencies
will already be required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act
on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the
species. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation,
consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat will be incorporated into the existing consultation
process.
In the DEA, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small
entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions related
to the proposed designation of critical habitat for the two mussels. We
anticipate that 11 small entities could be affected by water flow
management consultations in a single year at a cost of $410 each,
representing less than 0.007 percent of annual revenues. Eleven small
entities could be affected by water quality management consultations
within a single year at a cost of $340 each, representing less than 1
percent of annual revenues. Forty-one small
[[Page 27176]]
entities could be affected by timber, agriculture, and grazing
consultations within a single year, at a cost of $470, representing
less than 0.028 percent of annual revenues. Four small entities could
be affected by mining consultations within a single year, at a cost of
$430, representing less than 0.005 percent of annual revenues. Fourteen
small entities could be affected by oil and gas development
consultations within a single year, at a cost of $460, representing
less than 0.006 percent of annual revenues. Forty-three small entities
could be affected by development and recreation consultations within a
single year, at a cost of $410, representing less than 0.007 percent of
annual revenues. Sixty-eight small entities could be affected by
transportation and utility consultations within a single year, at a
cost of $450, representing 0.005 percent of annual revenues. Thirty-
five small entities could be affected by other consultations within a
single year, at a cost of $400, representing 0.005 percent of annual
revenues. Please refer to the DEA of the proposed critical habitat
designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic
impacts.
The Service's current understanding of recent case law is that
Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential impacts of
rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking;
therefore, they are not required to evaluate the potential impacts to
those entities not directly regulated. The designation of critical
habitat for an endangered or threatened species only has a regulatory
effect where a Federal action agency is involved in a particular action
that may affect the designated critical habitat. Under these
circumstances, only the Federal action agency is directly regulated by
the designation, and, therefore, consistent with the Service's current
interpretation of RFA and recent case law, the Service may limit its
evaluation of the potential impacts to those identified for Federal
action agencies. Under this interpretation, there is no requirement
under the RFA to evaluate potential impacts to entities not directly
regulated, such as small businesses. However, Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives in quantitative (to the extent
feasible) and qualitative terms. Consequently, it is the current
practice of the Service to assess to the extent practicable these
potential impacts, if sufficient data are available, whether or not
this analysis is believed by the Service to be strictly required by the
RFA. In other words, while the effects analysis required under the RFA
is limited to entities directly regulated by the rulemaking, the
effects analysis under the Act, consistent with the E.O. regulatory
analysis requirements, can take into consideration impacts to both
directly and indirectly impacted entities, where practicable and
reasonable.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Information for this analysis was gathered from the
Small Business Administration, stakeholders, and the Service. We have
identified 227 small entities that may be impacted by the proposed
critical habitat designation in a single year. For the above reasons
and based on currently available information, we certify that, if
promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business
entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses as defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in
connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was
upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S.
1042 (1996)). However, when the range of the species includes States
within the Tenth Circuit, as is the case with the Neosho mucket and
rabbitsfoot, under the Tenth Circuit ruling in Catron County Board of
Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th
Cir. 1996), we will undertake a NEPA analysis for critical habitat
designation. Accordingly, we have completed a draft environmental
assessment to identify and disclose the environmental consequences
resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat for the
Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot. Our preliminary determination is that
the designation of critical habitat for the Neosho mucket and
rabbitsfoot would not have direct impacts on the environment. However,
we will further evaluate this issue as we complete our final
environmental assessment.
E.O. 12630 (Takings)
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot in a takings implications
assessment. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat
affects only Federal actions. Although private parties that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or require approval or authorization from
a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly impacted by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely
on the Federal agency. The DEA found that no significant economic
impacts are likely to result from the designation of critical habitat
for the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot. Because the Act's critical
habitat protection requirements apply only to Federal agency actions,
few conflicts between critical habitat and private property rights
should result from this designation. Based on information contained in
the DEA and described within this document, it is not likely that
economic impacts to a property owner would be of a sufficient magnitude
to support a takings action. Therefore, the takings implications
assessment concludes that this designation of critical habitat for the
Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot does not pose significant takings
implications for lands within or affected by the designation.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
Potentially affected Tribes include: the Osage Nation, Cherokee
Nation, United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians, Choctaw Nation,
Delaware Tribe of Indians, and Peoria Tribe. On April 19, 2011, we
notified the United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians and Delaware
Tribe of Indians via email regarding tribal lands potentially affected
by our proposal to list Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot and to designate
critical habitat for each species. The Peoria Tribe and Osage Nation
also were notified via email on February 15, 2011, and we then followed
up with subsequent email correspondence. The Cherokee Nation and
Choctaw Nation were notified via email on April 20 and 21, 2011,
respectively, via email and telephone. Lands proposed to be designated
as critical habitat do not represent riparian land ownership by any
Tribe, represent only tribal
[[Page 27177]]
jurisdictional areas, are not managed by any Tribe, and are on
otherwise privately owned lands. We considered the Tribes' comments,
which were limited to providing tribal land and jurisdictional area
maps and biological data for the two mussels, during preparation of the
proposed rule.
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office and the Southeast Region,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: May 1, 2013.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-10990 Filed 5-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
