[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 193 (Thursday, October 6, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58361-58366]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20050]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AT75
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Designation of Critical Habitat for Brodiaea filifolia (Thread-Leaved
Brodiaea)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period and notice of
availability of draft economic analysis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period on the proposed designation of
critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia, and the availability of a
draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical
habitat. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested
parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule
and the associated draft economic analysis. Comments previously
submitted on this proposed rule need not be resubmitted as they have
already been incorporated into the public record and will be fully
considered in our final determination.
DATES: We will accept public comments and information until October 20,
2005.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and materials may be submitted to us by any
one of the following methods:
1. You may submit written comments and information to Jim Bartel,
Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley
Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011;
[[Page 58362]]
2. You may hand-deliver written comments and information to our
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at the above address, or fax your
comments to 760/431-9624; or
3. You may send your comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to
[email protected]. For directions on how to submit electronic
comments, see the ``Public Comments Solicited'' section. In the event
that our Internet connection is not functional, please submit your
comments by the alternate methods mentioned above.
You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and draft economic
analysis by mail or by visiting our Web site at http://carlsbad.fws.gov. You may review comments and materials received and
review supporting documentation used in preparation of this proposed
rule by appointment, during normal business hours, at the Carlsbad Fish
and Wildlife Field Office (address provided above).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address (telephone 760/431-9440;
facsimile 760/431-9624).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Comments Solicited
We will accept written comments and information during this
reopened comment period. We solicit comments on the original proposed
critical habitat designation, published in the Federal Register on
December 8, 2004 (69 FR 71284), and on our draft economic analysis of
the proposed designation. We will consider information and
recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly
interested in comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined
to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act),
including whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
specifying such area as part of the critical habitat;
(2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of Brodiaea
filifolia and its habitat, and which habitat features and geographic
areas are essential to the conservation of this 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) Information on how many of the State and local environmental
protection measures referenced in the draft economic analysis were
adopted largely as a result of the listing of Brodiaea filifolia, and
how many were either already in place or enacted for other reasons;
(5) Any foreseeable economic, environmental, or other impacts
resulting from the proposed designation or coextensively from other
related factors;
(6) Any foreseeable economic, environmental, or other benefits
resulting from the proposed designation, or coextensive from other
related factors;
(7) Whether the draft economic analysis identifies all State and
local costs attributable to the proposed critical habitat designation,
and information on any costs that have been inadvertently overlooked;
(8) Whether the draft economic analysis makes appropriate
assumptions regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes
imposed as a result of the designation of critical habitat;
(9) Whether the draft economic analysis correctly assesses the
effect on regional costs associated with land use controls that derive
from the designation of critical habitat;
(10) Whether the economic analysis appropriately identifies all
costs that could result from the designation, in particular, any
impacts on small entities or families;
(11) Whether the designation would result in disproportionate
economic impacts to specific areas that should be evaluated for
possible exclusion under 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final designation;
(12) Whether it is appropriate that the analysis does not include
the costs of project modification that are the result of informal
consultation only;
(13) Whether there is information about areas that could be used as
substitutes for the economic activities planned in critical habitat
areas that would offset the costs and allow for the conservation of
critical habitat areas;
(14) How our approach to critical habitat designation could be
improved or modified to provide for greater public participation and
understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concern and
comments; and
(15) Whether we should consider the exclusion of critical habitat
within the municipalities that have a disproportionate number of small
entities that could potentially be impacted, such as San Dimas, San
Juan Capistrano, or San Bernardino.
All previous comments and information submitted during the initial
comment period on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted. If you
wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning
the draft economic analysis and the proposed rule by any one of several
methods (see ADDRESSES section). Our final determination regarding
designation of critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia will take into
consideration all comments and any additional information received
during both comment periods. On the basis of public comment on this
analysis and on the critical habitat proposal, and on the final
economic analysis, we may during the development of our final
determination find that areas proposed are not essential, are
appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not
appropriate for exclusion.
Please submit electronic comments in an ASCII file and avoid the
use of any special characters or any form of encryption. Also, please
include ``Attn: Brodiaea filifolia'' and your name and return address
in your e-mail message regarding the Brodiaea filifolia proposed rule
or the draft economic analysis. If you do not receive a confirmation
from the system that we have received your e-mail message, please
submit your comments in writing using one of the alternate methods
described in the ADDRESSES section.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold
their home address, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law.
There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a
respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold
your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the
beginning of your comments. However, we will not consider anonymous
comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or
businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical
habitat, will be available for public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Copies of the proposed critical
habitat rule for Brodiaea filifolia and the draft economic analysis are
also available on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/carlsbad/BRFI.htm. In the event that our internet connection is not functional,
please obtain copies of documents directly
[[Page 58363]]
from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.
Background
On December 8, 2004, we published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register (69 FR 71284) to designate critical habitat for Brodiaea
filifolia pursuant to the Act. We proposed to designate a total of
approximately 4,690 acres (ac) (1,898 hectares (ha)) of critical
habitat in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, and San Diego counties,
California. The first comment period for the Brodiaea filifolia
proposed critical habitat rule closed on February 7, 2005. For more
information on this species, refer to the final rule listing this
species as threatened, published in the Federal Register on October 13,
1998 (63 FR 54975).
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the specific
areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it
is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and
that may require special management considerations or protection, and
specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the
time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential
for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made
final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or
carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions
affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on
the effects of their proposed actions, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of
the Act.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise
critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial
data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact,
impact to national security, and any other relevant impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We have prepared a
draft economic analysis of the December 8, 2004 (69 FR 71284), proposed
designation of critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia.
The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic
effects of actions relating to the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia,
including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and
including those attributable to designating critical habitat. It
further considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as
a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat
conservation for Brodiaea filifolia in habitat areas with features
essential to the conservation of this taxon. The analysis considers
both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of
habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the
``opportunity costs'' associated with the commitment of resources to
comply with habitat protection measures (e.g., lost economic
opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). This analysis
also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be
distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts
of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation
activities on small entities and the energy industry. This information
can be used by decision-makers to assess whether the effects of the
designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector.
Finally, this analysis looks retrospectively at costs that have been
incurred since the date the species was listed as an endangered species
and considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years following the
designation of critical habitat.
This analysis determined that costs involving conservation measures
for Brodiaea filifolia would be incurred for activities involving
residential, industrial, and commercial development; water supply;
flood control; transportation; agriculture; the development of HCPs;
and the management of military bases, other Federal lands, and other
public or conservation lands.
Pre-designation costs include those Brodiaea filifolia-related
conservation activities associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the
Act that have accrued since the time that Brodiaea filifolia was listed
as threatened (63 FR 54975; October 13, 1998), but prior to the final
designation of critical habitat. The total pre-designation costs
associated with critical habitat proposed for inclusion are estimated
to be $2.9 million to $3.0 million on a present value basis and $2.4 to
$2.5 million expressed in undiscounted dollars. Pre-designation costs
associated with areas excluded from the proposed designation are
estimated to be $110,000 to $180,000 on a present value basis and
$100,000 to $150,000 expressed in undiscounted dollars.
Post-designation effects would include likely future costs
associated with Brodiaea filifolia conservation efforts in the 20-year
period following the final designation of critical habitat in December
2005 (effectively 2005 through 2024). If critical habitat is designated
as proposed, total costs are estimated to be $12.2 million to $14.7
million on a present value basis and $12.2 to $16.9 million expressed
in undiscounted dollars (an annualized cost of $0.6 to $0.8 million
annually). However, if all habitat with features essential to the
conservation of the taxon were designated critical habitat in a final
rule, total costs would be expected to range between $24.5 and $43.6
million over the next 20 years (an annualized cost of $1.2 to $2.2
million).
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues.
However, because the draft economic analysis indicates the potential
economic impact associated with a designation of all habitat with
features essential to the conservation of this species would total no
more than $2.2 million per year, we do not anticipate that this rule
would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
affect the economy in a material way. Due to the time line for
publication in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) did not formally review the proposed rule.
Executive Order 12866 directs Federal Agencies promulgating
regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office of Management
and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to Circular A-
4, once it has been determined that the Federal regulatory action is
appropriate, then the agency will need to consider alternative
regulatory approaches. Since the determination of critical habitat is a
statutory requirement pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we must then evaluate
alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when promulgating a
designation of critical habitat.
In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider
economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant
impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion
allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from
the designation of critical habitat providing that the benefits of such
exclusion outweighs the benefits of specifying the area as critical
habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of
the species. As such, we believe that the evaluation of the inclusion
or exclusion of particular areas, or combination thereof, in a
designation constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis.
[[Page 58364]]
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the 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. In our proposed rule,
we withheld our determination of whether this designation would result
in a significant effect as defined under SBREFA until we completed our
draft economic analysis of the proposed designation so that we would
have the factual basis for our determination.
According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a
typical small business firm's business operations.
To determine if this proposed designation of critical habitat for
Brodiaea filifolia would affect a substantial number of small entities,
we considered the number of small entities affected within particular
types of economic activities (e.g., residential, industrial, and
commercial development). We considered each industry or category
individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In
estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also
considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some
kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so
will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal
activities are not affected by the designation.
If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final,
Federal agencies must consult with us if their activities may affect
designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the
existing consultation process. Our analysis determined that costs
involving conservation measures for Brodiaea filifolia would be
incurred for activities involving residential, industrial, and
commercial development; water supply; flood control; transportation;
agriculture; the development of HCPs; and the management of military
bases, other Federal lands, and other public or conservation lands.
In our economic analysis of this proposed designation, we evaluated
the potential economic effects on small business entities resulting
from conservation actions related to the listing of this species and
proposed designation of its critical habitat. Critical habitat
designation is expected to result in additional costs to real estate
development projects due to mitigation and other conservation costs
that may be required. The affected land is located within Los Angeles,
San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego counties and under
private ownership by individuals who will either undertake a
development project on their own or sell the land to developers for
development. For businesses involved with land development, the
relevant threshold for ``small'' is annual revenues of $6 million or
less. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code
237210 is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in servicing
land (e.g., excavation, installing roads and utilities) and subdividing
real property into lots for subsequent sale to builders. Land
subdivision precedes actual construction, and typically includes
residential properties, but may also include industrial and commercial
properties.
The Draft Economic Analysis (See Section 3.2.1) estimates that 390
acres within proposed critical habitat are projected to be developed
over the next 20 years. The analysis assumes that as a result of
Brodiaea filifolia conservation activities, 95 percent of the acres are
conserved, and the plant is salvaged from the remaining five percent.
As a result, landowners of 100 percent of these acres bear costs of B.
filifolia conservation activities.
To estimate the number of landowners potentially impacted by
Brodiaea filifolia conservation activities, the analysis estimates the
average parcel size within essential habitat units in each county that
contains essential habitat and compares it to the estimate of affected
acres in these areas. At the aggregate county level, in units proposed
for inclusion, one individual may be impacted in Los Angeles County,
one individual may be impacted in San Bernardino County, 22 individuals
may be impacted in Orange County, and 27 individuals may be impacted in
San Diego County. Note that this estimate may be understated if habitat
partially overlaps several parcels or overstated if one person owns
more than one parcel with B. filifolia.
The loss in land value experienced by an individual landowner will
depend on how much of a parcel is inhabited by Brodiaea filifolia, the
extent to which development activities can be planned around sensitive
areas, and the existence of alternative uses of the property that do
not threaten the plant or its habitat. For example, if B. filifolia
exists on only a small portion of the parcel that can be incorporated
into existing open space requirements, then a small percentage of the
land value is lost. However, if B. filifolia is found throughout the
parcel, most or all of development value of that parcel may be lost. In
such a circumstance, the parcel may continue to derive value from
other, nondevelopment-oriented uses.
Effects on Homebuyers and Small Construction Firms
The Draft Economic Analysis (DEA) (See Section 3.2.2) estimates a
potential shift in the supply of housing resulting from increased land
scarcity. Scenario Two assumes that as a result of on-site conservation
requirements, less land is available for development, and therefore
fewer new homes are built. Under this scenario, small construction
firms may be indirectly affected. This analysis uses a methodology used
by Charles River Associates (CRA) to estimate the potential impact to
small construction firms. The analysis uses the following steps to
estimate the number of firms potentially affected:
(1) The analysis estimates the number of new homes typically built
by a small
[[Page 58365]]
construction firm in one year. Average annual revenues for a small
construction firm are $694,000. Using the average construction costs
for a single family home of $236,000 obtained from CRA's vernal pool
analysis, a small firm is assumed to build on average three houses a
year ($694,000/$236,000 = 2.9).
(2) Next, the analysis estimates the number of homes that would
have been built by small businesses in the absence of Brodiaea
filifolia conservation efforts. As described in Section 3.2.2 of the
DEA, the analysis predicts 316 homes will not be built in cities with
habitat proposed for designation (summarized in Exhibit A-2 of the
DEA). In an analysis of building permits in Sacramento County conducted
by CRA, researchers determined that 22 percent of permits for single
family dwellings were requested by small businesses. This analysis
assumes that a similar proportion of new home construction activity is
conducted by small construction firms in the five Southern California
counties included in this analysis. As shown in Exhibit A-2 of the DEA,
multiplying 22 percent by the number of homes not built in each county
provides an estimate of lost home construction for small firms.
(3) Next, using the number of homes not built by small firms, the
analysis estimates the number of small businesses affected. Results of
this calculation are presented in Exhibit A-2. At the high-end,
assuming that each lost house would have been built by a separate firm,
the number of firms potentially affected is equal to the number of lost
homes. For a low-end estimate, the number of houses not built is
divided by the average number of houses built per year by small firms
(three houses). In summary, in a given municipality containing proposed
critical habitat, between one and 18 small construction firms may be
affected annually by Brodiaea filifolia conservation activities. In
Hemet, Moreno Valley, and Perris, where habitat is excluded from
proposed critical habitat, approximately nine to 82 small firms could
be affected if habitat were designated. The impact to affected small
businesses is estimated to be between one-third and all of their
revenues for the year, depending on the estimate of the number of
businesses affected. Note that the impact to small construction firms
may be overstated. As discussed in Section 3 of the DEA, the analysis
of lost housing units is partial equilibrium in nature (e.g., does not
consider substitution of displaced development to other nearby areas),
which is consistent with the best currently available empirical
information. If, instead, homes not built in these municipalities are
constructed in neighboring communities unaffected by brodiaea
conservation activities, the impact to small construction firms is
likely to be less than presented in Exhibit A-2. As a result, impacts
to these firms are more likely overstated than understated in this
analysis.
Based on these data, we have determined that this proposed
designation would not result in a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, in particular to land developers
or farmers in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, and San
Diego counties. We may also exclude areas from the final designation if
it is determined that these localized areas have an impact to a
substantial number of businesses and a significant proportion of their
annual revenues. As such, we are certifying that this proposed
designation of critical habitat would not result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Please refer
to Appendix A of our draft economic analysis of this designation for a
more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts to small
business entities.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211
on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution,
and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant action, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required. Please refer to Appendix A of our draft
economic analysis of this proposed designation for a more detailed
discussion of potential effects on energy supply.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C.
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
(a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants;
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services;
and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above on to State governments.
(b) The United States Forest Service manages Cleveland National
Forest (units 5a and 5b); Orange County's Department of Harbors,
Beaches and Parks manages Aliso-Wood Canyon Regional Park (unit 3) and
Casper's Regional Park (unit 4); and the Glendora
[[Page 58366]]
Community Conservancy manages the Conservancy (unit 1a) of the same
name. With the exception of the Glendora Community Conservancy, these
entities exceed the threshold established for small governments
(service population of 50,000 or less). Therefore, the Glendora
Community Conservancy is the only land manager considered in this
screening analysis.
The DEA (See Section 6) estimates potential costs to public and
private land management entities. Of the entities analyzed, the
Glendora Community Conservancy is the only small entity. This section
estimates potential impacts of Brodiaea filifolia conservation
activities to the Conservancy.
The Conservancy's overall annual budget ranges from $15,000 to
$30,000 and includes such elements as insurance, discounted land taxes,
weed abatement, and trail maintenance. The analysis estimates that
potential future costs associated with Brodiaea filifolia conservation
activities at the Conservancy may range from $1,600 to $2,600 on an
annualized basis (assuming a seven percent discount rate). These costs
represent approximately 11 percent to 17 percent of annual expenditures
assuming the low-end estimate of the annual budget ($15,000) and 5
percent to 9 percent assuming the high-end estimate ($30,000).
Considering that the Glendora Community Conservancy is in the business
of conservation, this is not an unexpected expenditure for the
Conservancy. Consequently, we do not believe that the designation of
critical habitat for B. filifolia will significantly or uniquely affect
any small governmental entity addressed in the DEA. As such, a Small
Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
proposing critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia. Critical habitat
designation does not affect landowner actions that do not require
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. In
conclusion, the designation of critical habitat for B. filifolia does
not pose significant takings implications.
Author
The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: September 26, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-20050 Filed 10-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P