[Federal Register: August 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 146)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 44078-44082]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]



Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AT84

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Arkansas River Basin Population 
of the Arkansas River Shiner

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of availability of draft economic 
analysis and draft environmental assessment, and notice of public 


SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 
availability of the draft economic analysis and draft environmental 
assessment for the proposal to designate critical habitat for the 
Arkansas River Basin population of the Arkansas River shiner (Notropis 
girardi) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. 
The draft economic analysis finds that, over the next 20 years, costs 
associated with Arkansas River shiner conservation activities are 
forecast to range from $9 to $11 million per year. In constant dollars, 
the draft economic analysis estimates there will be an economic impact 
of $198 million over the next 20 years. The greatest economic impacts 
are expected to occur to concentrated animal feeding operations, oil 
and gas production, and water management activities, in that order. 
Comments previously submitted on the October 6, 2004, proposed rule (69 
FR 59859) during both the initial and extended comment periods (April 
28, 2005, 70 FR 21987), need not be resubmitted as they have been 
incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in 
preparation of the final rule. We will hold three public informational 
sessions and hearings (see DATES and ADDRESSES sections).

DATES: Comments must be submitted directly to the Service (see 
ADDRESSES section) on or before August 31, 2005 of this document, or at 
the public hearings.
    We will hold public informational sessions from 4 p.m. to 5:15 
p.m., followed by a public hearing from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., on the 
following dates:
    1. August 15, 2005: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma;
    2. August 17, 2005: Amarillo, Texas;
    3. August 18, 2005: Liberal, Kansas.

ADDRESSES: Meetings: The public informational sessions and hearings 
will be held at the following locations:

[[Page 44079]]

    1. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Conservation Education Center 
Auditorium, Oklahoma City Zoological Park, 2101 NE 50th Street, 
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 73111;
    2. Amarillo, Texas: Auditorium, Texas A&M Agricultural Experiment 
Station, 6500 Amarillo Boulevard West, Amarillo, Texas, 79106; and
    3. Liberal, Kansas: Meeting Rooms, Seward County Activities Center, 
810 Stadium Road, Liberal, Kansas, 67901.
    Disabled persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to 
attend and participate in the public hearing should contact Jerry 
Brabander, Field Supervisor, Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office, 
at the phone number and address below as soon as possible. In order to 
allow sufficient time to process requests, please call no later than 3 
days before the hearing. Information regarding this proposal is 
available in alternative formats upon request.
    If you wish to comment on the proposed rule, draft economic 
analysis, or draft environmental assessment, you may submit your 
comments and materials by any one of several methods:
    1. You may submit written comments and information by mail or hand-
delivery to the Oklahoma Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 222 South Houston, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74127-8909.
    2. Written comments may be sent by facsimile to 918-581-7467.
    3. You may send your comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to 
r2arshinerch@fws.gov. For directions on how to submit electronic filing 

of comments, see the ``Public Comments Solicited'' section below.
    You may obtain copies of the draft economic analysis and draft 
environmental assessment by mail or by visiting our Web site at http://ifw2es.fws.gov/Oklahoma/shiner.htm.
 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 above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Brabander, Field Supervisor, 
Oklahoma Office (telephone 918-581-7458; facsimile 918-581-7467).


Public Comments Solicited

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit 
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested 
party concerning the proposed rule, the draft economic analysis, and 
the draft environmental assessment. On the basis of public comment, 
during the development of our final determination, we may 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. We 
particularly seek 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 Act, including 
whether the benefits of designation will outweigh any threats to the 
species resulting from designation;
    (2) Specific information on the distribution of the Arkansas River 
shiner, the amount and distribution of the species' habitat, and which 
habitat is essential to the conservation of the species, and why;
    (3) Land-use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject area and their possible impacts on the species or proposed 
critical habitat;
    (4) Whether our approach to listing or critical habitat designation 
could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public 
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating 
public concerns and comments;
    (5) Any foreseeable economic, environmental, or other impacts 
resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat or 
coextensively from the proposed listing, and in particular, any impacts 
on small entities or families;
    (6) Whether the economic analysis identifies all State and local 
costs. If not, what other costs should be included;
    (7) Whether the economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions 
regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a 
result of the listing of the species or the designation of critical 
    (8) Whether the economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on 
regional costs associated with land- and water-use controls that derive 
from the designation;
    (9) Whether the designation will result in disproportionate 
economic impacts to specific areas that should be evaluated for 
possible exclusion from the final designation;
    (10) Whether the economic analysis appropriately identifies all 
costs that could result from the designation or coextensively from the 
listing; and
    (11) Any information as to possible costs associated with instream 
flow requirements for the shiner downstream of Sanford Dam.
    Our practice is to make comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular 
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold 
their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to 
the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which 
we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, 
as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or 
address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your 
comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make 
all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals 
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations 
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. 
Comments and materials received will be available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above 
    If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials 
concerning this proposal by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES 
section). Please submit electronic comments in ASCII file format and 
avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Please 
also include your name and return address in the body of your message. 
If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have 
received your Internet message, contact us directly by calling our 
Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office at (918) 581-7458.


    On October 6, 2004 (69 FR 59859), we proposed to designate as 
critical habitat a total of approximately 2,002 kilometers (1,244 
miles) of linear distance of rivers, including 91.4 meters (300 feet) 
of adjacent riparian areas measured laterally from each bank. This 
distance includes areas that we are proposing to exclude that are 
discussed below. The areas that we have determined to be essential to 
the conservation of the Arkansas River shiner include portions of the 
Canadian River (often referred to as the South Canadian River) in New 
Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma, the Beaver/North Canadian River of 
Oklahoma, the Cimarron River in Kansas and Oklahoma, and the Arkansas 
River in Arkansas, Kansas, and Oklahoma.
    In developing this proposal, we evaluated those lands determined to 
be essential to the conservation of the

[[Page 44080]]

Arkansas River shiner to ascertain if any specific areas would be 
appropriate for exclusion from the final critical habitat designation 
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. On the basis of our preliminary 
evaluation, we believe that the benefits of excluding the Beaver/North 
Canadian River of Oklahoma and the Arkansas River in Arkansas, Kansas, 
and Oklahoma from the final critical habitat for the Arkansas River 
Shiner outweigh the benefits of their inclusion.
    On September 30, 2003, in a complaint brought by the New Mexico 
Cattle Growers Association and 16 other plaintiffs, the U.S. District 
Court of New Mexico instructed us to propose critical habitat by 
September 30, 2004, and publish a final rule by September 30, 2005. The 
proposed rule was signed on September 30, 2004, and published in the 
Federal Register on October 6, 2004 (69 FR 59859). Additional 
background information is available in the October 6, 2004, proposed 
    Critical habitat identifies specific areas that are essential to 
the conservation of a listed species and that may require special 
management considerations or protection. If the proposed rule is made 
final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit 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 of the Act requires that we consider economic and other 
relevant impacts prior to making a final decision on what areas to 
designate as critical habitat. We are announcing the availability of a 
draft economic analysis and draft environmental assessment for the 
proposal to designate certain areas as critical habitat for the 
Arkansas River shiner. We may revise the proposal, or its supporting 
documents, to incorporate or address new information received during 
the comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical 
habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area 
outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, 
provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the 
    Costs related to conservation activities for the proposed Arkansas 
River shiner critical habitat pursuant to sections 4, 7, and 10 of the 
Act are estimated to be approximately $9 to $11 million dollars on an 
annualized basis. The low end of this range assumes zero impact to 
private agricultural activities and lower-bound estimates for all other 
activities; the high-end of this range assumes upper-bound estimates 
for private agriculture and all other activities. The total impact in 
constant dollars is $198 million over the next 20 years. The total 
impacts in constant dollars are the following for each of the economic 
sectors impacted (from Exhibit ES-4a in executive summary of the draft 
economic analysis): $7.3 to 20.4 million for administrative costs; 
$31.8 million for water operations; $28.6 to 57 million for oil and 
gas; $68.7 million for CAFOs; $3.6 million for Federal farm assistance; 
$5.9 million for grazing; $0.9 million for agricultural crops; $0.1 to 
$0.5 million for transportation; and $9.3 million for recreation.
    As noted in our proposed rule, in developing critical habitat 
designations, we have also recognized under section 4(b)(2) 
partnerships and conservation programs or efforts that provide a 
conservation benefit to the subject species. In the case of Arkansas 
River shiner, it is our intent to recognize future conservation 
efforts. In this regard we have met with the Arkansas River Shiner 
Coalition (Coalition), whose mission is to ease the regulatory burdens 
of designated critical habitat for its members and to work with the 
Service toward the eventual recovery of the Arkansas River shiner. The 
Coalition represents several agricultural and ranching associations, 
water service providers, groundwater conservation districts, and other 
groups in Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. The Coalition has developed 
an Arkansas River shiner management plan and intends to submit it to us 
during the current comment period. If we receive a plan from the 
Coalition, we will evaluate the conservation measures being provided to 
or planned for the Arkansas River shiner when making our final 
determination of critical habitat, and we may exclude areas pursuant to 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act if we find that the benefits of their 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of their inclusion.

Required Determinations--Amended

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a 
significant rule because it may raise novel legal and policy issues. 
However, based on our draft economic analysis, it is not anticipated 
that the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Arkansas 
River shiner will result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the 
timeline for publication in the Federal Register, the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has not formally reviewed the proposed rule 
or accompanying economic analysis.

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996, whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. As noted above, 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 
    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 the proposed designation of critical habitat for 
the Arkansas River shiner would affect a substantial number of small 
entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within 
particular types of

[[Page 44081]]

economic activities (e.g., concentrated animal feeding operations, oil 
and gas, agriculture, livestock grazing, and recreation). 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.
    In our draft economic analysis of this proposed designation, we 
evaluated the potential economic effects on small business entities and 
small governments resulting from conservation actions related to the 
listing of this species and proposed designation of its critical 
habitat. We evaluated small business entities in five categories: 
Concentrated animal feeding operations, oil and gas, agriculture, 
livestock grazing, and recreation. The following summary of the 
information contained in Appendix A of the draft economic analysis 
provides the basis for our determination.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
    Arkansas River shiner conservation activities have the potential to 
affect approximately 67 of the 4,125 small animal feeding businesses 
(roughly 1.6 percent) located within States that contain proposed 
shiner habitat and impacted CAFOs (Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas). The 
watersheds with highest potential impacts to small CAFOs are the Lower 
Canadian (Unit 1b of proposed critical habitat) and the Lower Cimarron-
Skeleton (Unit 3 of proposed critical habitat). Impacts are possible in 
the form of additional compliance costs related to a number of 
potential requirements, including increased storage capacity in 
wastewater retention structures and various monitoring and testing 
activities. These compliance costs may lead to financial stress at up 
to 33 facilities. Upper-bound estimates of potential impacts result 
from conservative assumptions (that is, assumptions that are intended 
to overstate rather than understate costs) regarding the number and 
type of project modifications required of CAFO facilities as summarized 
in Section 6 of the draft economic analysis.
Oil and Gas Production Activities
    Project modifications to oil and gas activities resulting from 
Arkansas River shiner conservation activities will have minimal effects 
on small oil and gas and pipeline businesses in counties that contain 
proposed Arkansas River shiner habitat. Impacts are expected to be 
limited to additional costs of compliance for oil and gas projects. 
Assuming that each potentially impacted well and pipeline represent 
individual well and pipeline businesses, annual compliance costs are 
roughly 0.14 percent of estimated 1997 revenues for potentially 
impacted small oil and gas well production businesses and 0.09 percent 
of estimated 1997 revenues for potentially impacted small pipeline 
businesses in these counties. As noted in the draft economic analysis, 
1997 revenue data is the most current available data from the United 
States Economic Census.
    While Arkansas River shiner conservation activities have not 
impacted private crop production since the listing of the species in 
1998, the draft economic analysis considers that farmers may make 
decisions that lead to reductions in crop production within proposed 
critical habitat. Section 7 of the draft economic analysis presents a 
scenario in which farmers choose to retire agricultural land from 
production in order to avoid section 9 take of the species (``take'' 
means to harass, harm, pursue, or collect, or attempt to engage in any 
such conduct). The screening analysis estimates that up to 14 small 
farms in States that contain proposed Arkansas River shiner habitat 
could be impacted under this scenario. This represents a small 
percentage (less than one percent) of total farm operations in these 
Livestock Grazing
    Limitations on livestock grazing may impact ranchers in the region. 
As discussed in Section 7 of the draft economic analysis, Arkansas 
River shiner conservation activities could result in a reduction in the 
level of grazing effort within proposed Arkansas River shiner habitat 
on non-Federal lands. On non-Federal lands, however, impacts are 
uncertain, because maps describing the overlap of privately grazed 
lands and the proposed designation are not available (i.e., that 
portion of each ranch which could be impacted by the designation). If 
each affected ranch is small, then approximately 20 to 43 ranches 
annually could experience losses in cattle grazing opportunities as a 
result of Arkansas River shiner conservation activities on non-Federal 
lands. This represents a small percentage (less than one percent for 
the upper-bound estimate) of beef cow operations in those States where 
habitat is proposed for designation.
    As detailed in Section 9 of the draft economic analysis, 
limitations on off road vehicle (ORV) use at the Rosita ORV area within 
Lake Meredith National Recreation Area in Hutchinson County, Texas, 
during the months of July to September may result in up to 23,299 lost 
visitor days annually. These lost visitor days represent 2.4 percent of 
the three-year average of total visitor trips to Lake Meredith National 
Recreation Area (2002 to 2004), and roughly 25 percent of annual ORV 
visitor trips to Rosita from 2000 to 2004. Recreation-related sales 
generated by small businesses in Hutchinson County, Texas, are 
estimated at $88.5 million. Thus, the total annual impact of reduced 
consumer expenditure ($897,00 to $1.3 million annually) is equivalent 
to 1.0 to 1.5 percent of small business revenues of affected industries 
in Hutchinson County. While small business impacts are likely to be 
minimal at the county level, some individual small businesses may 
experience greater impacts. However, data to identify which businesses 
will be affected or to estimate specific impacts to individual small 
businesses are not available.
    Based on this data we have determined that this proposed 
designation would not affect a substantial number of small businesses 
involved in concentrated animal feeding operations, oil and gas, 
agriculture, livestock grazing, and recreation. Further, we have 
determined that this proposed designation would also not result in a 
significant effect to the annual sales of those small businesses 
impacted by this proposed designation. 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.

[[Page 44082]]

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. The proposed rule is 
considered a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 due to it 
potentially raising novel legal and policy issues, but it is not 
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. 
Appendix B of the draft economic analysis provides a detailed 
discussion and analysis of this determination. Specifically, three 
criteria were determined to be relevant to this analysis: (1) 
Reductions in crude oil supply in excess of 10,000 barrels per day 
(bbls); (2) reductions in natural gas production in excess of 25 
million Mcf per year; and (3) increases in the cost of energy 
production in excess of one percent. The draft economic analysis 
determines that the oil and gas industry is not likely to experience 
``a significant adverse effect'' as a result of Arkansas River shiner 
conservation activities. Therefore, this action is not a significant 
action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
    (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,'' with 
two exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of federal assistance.'' It 
also excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary 
Federal program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing 
Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually 
to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' 
if the provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of 
assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 
Government's responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, 
or tribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. (At the 
time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; 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 economic analysis discusses potential impacts of critical 
habitat designation for the Arkansas River shiner including 
administrative costs, water management activities, oil and gas 
activities, concentrated animal feeding operations, agriculture, and 
transportation. The analysis estimates that annual costs of the rule 
could range from $12.7 to $16.3 million per year. Concentrated animal 
feeding operations (CAFOs), oil and gas production, and water 
management activities are expected to experience the greatest economic 
impacts related to shiner conservation activities, in that order of 
relevant impact. Impacts on small governments are not anticipated, or 
they are anticipated to be passed through to consumers. For example, 
costs to CAFOs would be expected to be passed on to consumers in the 
form of price changes. Consequently, for the reasons discussed above, 
we do not believe that the designation of critical habitat for the 
Arkansas River shiner will significantly or uniquely affect small 
government entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not 


    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 the Arkansas River shiner in a takings 
implications assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes 
that this proposed designation of critical habitat for the Arkansas 
River shiner does not pose significant takings implications.

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

    Dated: July 21, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-15164 Filed 7-29-05; 8:45 am]