[Federal Register: July 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 138)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 42054-42059]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20jy10-27]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0073]
[92210-1117-0000-B4]
RIN 1018-AW54
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical
Habitat for Brodiaea filifolia (Thread-leaved Brodiaea)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period on our December 8, 2009,
proposed revised designation of critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia
(thread-leaved brodiaea) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis
(DEA) and an amended required determinations section of the proposal.
We are reopening the comment period for an additional 30 days to allow
all interested parties an opportunity to comment on all of the above.
If you submitted comments previously, you do not need to resubmit them
because we have already incorporated them into the public record and
will fully consider them in our final determination.
DATES: We will consider public comments received on or before August
19, 2010. Any comments that we receive after the closing date may not
be considered in the final decision on this action.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
[[Page 42055]]
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0073.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-
R8-ES-2009-0073; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington,
VA 22203.
We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010
Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone (760) 431-
9440; facsimile (760) 431-5901. 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 intend that any final action resulting from the proposed rule is
based on the best scientific data available and will be accurate and as
effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information
from other concerned government agencies, the scientific community,
industry, or any other interested parties during this reopened comment
period on our proposed rule to revise critical habitat for Brodiaea
filifolia, which we published in the Federal Register on December 8,
2009 (74 FR 64930), the DEA of the proposed designation, and the
amended required determinations provided in this document. We are
particularly interested in comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not revise the critical
habitat under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether there are
threats to Brodiaea filifolia from human activity, the type of human
activity causing these threats, the degree of which can be expected to
increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threats
outweighs the benefit of designation, such that the designation of
critical habitat is not prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
Areas that provide habitat for Brodiaea filifolia that we
did not discuss in our proposed revised critical habitat rule (December
8, 2009; 74 FR 64930).
Areas containing the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of B. filifolia that we should include in
the final critical habitat designation and why. Include information on
the distribution of these essential features and what special
management considerations or protections may be required to maintain or
enhance them.
Areas we proposed as revised critical habitat that do not
contain the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species and that should therefore not be designated
as critical habitat.
Areas not occupied at the time of listing that are
essential for the conservation of the species and why.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
areas occupied by the species, and their possible impacts on proposed
revised critical habitat.
(4) How the proposed revised critical habitat boundaries could be
refined to more closely circumscribe landscapes identified as
containing the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species.
(5) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts that may result from designating particular areas as critical
habitat, and, in particular, any impacts to small entities (e.g., small
businesses or small governments), and the benefits of including or
excluding areas from the proposed revised designation that exhibit
these impacts.
(6) Whether any specific subunits being proposed as revised
critical habitat should be excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any particular area
outweigh the benefits of including that area in critical habitat.
(7) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation
of critical habitat, and how the consequences of such reactions, if
they occur, would relate to the conservation of the species and
regulatory benefits of the proposed revised critical habitat
designation.
(8) Information on the extent to which the description of potential
economic impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate, and specifically:
Whether there are incremental costs of critical habitat
designation (e.g., costs attributable solely to the designation of
critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia) that have not been
appropriately identified or considered in our economic analysis,
including costs associated with future administrative costs or project
modifications that may be required by Federal agencies related to
section 7 consultation under the Act; and
Whether there are incremental economic benefits of
critical habitat designation that are not appropriately identified or
considered in our economic analysis.
(9) The potential effects of climate change on this species and its
habitat and whether the critical habitat may adequately account for
these potential effects.
(10) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate concerns and comments.
If you submitted comments or information on the proposed revised
rule (74 FR 64930) during the initial comment period from December 8,
2009, to February 8, 2010, please do not resubmit them. These comments
are included in the public record for this rulemaking, and we will
fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our
final determination concerning the revised critical habitat for
Brodiaea filifolia will take into consideration all written comments
and any additional information we receive during both comment periods.
On the basis of public comments, we may, during the development of our
final determination, find that areas within the proposed revised
critical habitat designation do not meet the definition of critical
habitat, that some modifications to the described boundaries are
appropriate, or that areas may or may not be appropriate for exclusion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning our proposed
rule, the associated DEA, and our amended required determinations
section by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section.
If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission--including any personal identifying information--will be
posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hard copy that
includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top
of your document that we withhold this information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will
post all hard copy comments on http://www.regulations.gov. Please
include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to verify
any scientific or commercial information you include.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation used to prepare this notice, will be available for public
inspection at http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during
normal business
[[Page 42056]]
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain
copies of the proposed revision of critical habitat (74 FR 64930) and
the DEA on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS-R8-ES-2009-0073, or by mail from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for Brodiaea
filifolia in this notice. For more information on previous Federal
actions concerning B. filifolia, see the 2005 designation of critical
habitat published in the Federal Register on December 13, 2005 (70 FR
73820), see the proposed revised designation of critical habitat
published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2009 (74 FR 64930), or
contact the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
The Center for Biological Diversity filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on December 19,
2007, challenging our designation of critical habitat for Brodiaea
filifolia and Navarretia fossalis (Center for Biological Diversity v.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service et al., Case No. 07-CV-2379-W-
NLS). This lawsuit challenged the validity of the information and
reasoning we used to exclude areas from the 2005 critical habitat
designation for B. filifolia. We reached a settlement agreement on July
25, 2008, in which we agreed to reconsider critical habitat designation
for B. filifolia. The settlement stipulated that we submit a proposed
revised critical habitat designation for B. filifolia to the Federal
Register for publication by December 1, 2009, and submit a final
critical habitat designation to the Federal Register for publication by
December 1, 2010. We published the proposed revised critical habitat
designation in the Federal Register on December 8, 2009 (74 FR 64930).
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
which 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.
Draft Economic Analysis
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, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat.
We prepared a DEA (Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc) 2010)
that identifies and analyzes the potential impacts associated with the
proposed revised designation of critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia
that we published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2009 (74 FR
64930). The DEA looks retrospectively at costs incurred since the
October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54975), listing of B. filifolia as threatened.
The DEA quantifies the economic impacts of all potential conservation
efforts for B. filifolia; some of these costs will likely be incurred
regardless of whether or not we finalize the revised critical habitat
rule. The economic impact of the proposed revised critical habitat
designation is analyzed by comparing a ``without critical habitat''
scenario with a ``with critical habitat'' scenario. The ``without
critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the analysis,
considering protections already in place for the species (for example,
under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local
regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs incurred
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The ``with
critical habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts
associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for
the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated
impacts are those not expected to occur absent the critical habitat
designation for B. filifolia. In other words, the incremental costs are
those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat above
and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we may consider in
the final designation of critical habitat relative to areas that may be
excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The analysis looks
retrospectively at baseline impacts incurred since the species was
listed, and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely to
occur if we finalize the proposed revised critical habitat.
The 2010 DEA (made available with the publication of this notice
and referred to as the DEA throughout this document unless otherwise
noted) estimates the foreseeable economic impacts of the proposed
revised critical habitat designation for Brodiaea filifolia. The
economic analysis identifies potential incremental costs as a result of
the proposed revised critical habitat designation, which are those
costs attributed to critical habitat over and above those baseline
costs coextensive with listing. It also discusses the benefits of
critical habitat designation. These benefits are primarily presented in
a qualitative manner. The DEA describes economic impacts of B.
filifolia conservation efforts associated with the following categories
of activity: (1) Residential and commercial development; (2)
transportation, utility, and flood control projects; and (3) public and
conservancy lands management.
Baseline economic costs are those that result from listing and
other conservation efforts for Brodiaea filifolia. The baseline costs
are assuming a 7 percent discount rate and are identified in Appendix E
of the DEA (IEc 2010, Appendix E-1). Impacts associated with baseline
protection for B. filifolia within the proposed revised critical
habitat designation are estimated to be $5.31 million to $8.16 million
(approximately $486,000 to $720,000 annualized) over the next 20 years
(2011-2030). Baseline impacts to development are estimated to be $4.60
million to $7.46 million. This represents approximately 83 to 89
percent of the total baseline impacts. Baseline impacts to
transportation, utility, and flood control activities are estimated to
be $657,000. This represents approximately 8 to 12 percent of the total
baseline impacts. Baseline impacts to public and conservancy lands
management are estimated to be $49,500. This represents approximately
0.6 to 0.9 percent of the total baseline impacts.
Incremental impacts associated with the proposed revised critical
habitat designation are estimated to be $425,000 to $529,000
(approximately $37,500 to $46,700 annualized), assuming a 7 percent
discount rate, over the next 20 years (2011-2030). These impacts are
due to a reduction in land value following the designation of critical
habitat for Brodiaea filifolia and the cost of section 7 consultation
for pipeline maintenance activities (IEc 2010, p. ES-9). Incremental
impacts to development
[[Page 42057]]
are estimated to be $207,000 to $311,000. This represents approximately
49 to 59 percent of the total incremental impacts. No incremental costs
related to public and conservancy lands management are expected from
the designation (IEc 2010, p. ES-10).
The DEA considers both economic efficiency and distributional
effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects
generally reflect the ``opportunity costs'' associated with the
commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures
(such as lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on
land use). The DEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are
likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or
regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of
conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and
individuals. The DEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with
residential and commercial development and public projects and
activities, such as economic impacts on transportation, utility, flood
control projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy
industry. Decisionmakers can use this information to assess whether the
effects of the revised designation might unduly burden a particular
group or economic sector.
Required Determinations---Amended
In our proposed rule published in the Federal Register on December
8, 2009 (74 FR 64930), we indicated that we would defer our
determination of compliance with several statutes and Executive Orders
until the information concerning potential economic impacts of the
designation and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders became
available in the DEA. We have now made use of the DEA to make these
determinations.
In this document, we affirm the information in our December 8,
2009, proposed rule (74 FR 64930) concerning Executive Order (E.O.)
12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O.
12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Paperwork Reduction Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, and the President's memorandum of April 29,
1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951). However, based on the DEA data, we are
amending our required determinations concerning the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use), E.O. 12630 (Takings), and the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (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),
as described below. However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is
required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Based on our DEA of the proposed revised designation, we provide the
analysis for our determination whether or not 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 a final rulemaking.
According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a
typical small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the proposed revised 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, such as residential and
commercial development. In order to determine whether it is appropriate
for our agency to certify that the rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we
considered each industry or category individually.
If we finalize the proposed revised critical habitat designation,
Federal agencies must consult with us under section 7 of the Act if
their activities may affect designated critical habitat. Incremental
impacts to small entities may occur as a direct result of a required
consultation under section 7 of the Act. Additionally, even in the
absence of a Federal nexus, indirect incremental impacts may still
result because, for example, a city may request project modifications
due to the designation of critical habitat via its review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Consultations to avoid the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be
incorporated into the existing consultation process because Brodiaea
filifolia is federally listed as a threatened species under the Act.
In the DEA, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small
business entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions
related to the proposed revision to critical habitat for Brodiaea
filifolia (IEc 2010, Appendix A, pp. 1-7). The analysis was based on
the estimated incremental impacts associated with the proposed
rulemaking as described in sections 3 through 5 of the DEA. The SBREFA
analysis evaluated the potential for economic impacts related to
several categories, including: (1) Residential and commercial
development; (2) transportation, utility, and flood control projects;
and (3) management of public and conservation lands (IEc 2010, Appendix
A, p. 4).
The DEA found there are no incremental impacts related to the
management of public and conservation lands. Impacts to small entities
are only anticipated due to residential and commercial development. No
impacts are anticipated due to transportation, utility, and flood
control because the incremental costs are associated with activities
conducted by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,
which is not a small business or government as defined by the Small
Business Administration (IEc 2010, Appendix A, p. 4).
The DEA estimated that there will be approximately 23 landowners
impacted over the next 20 years with an incremental impact estimated to
be
[[Page 42058]]
$311,000 assuming a 7 percent discount rate. This impact is related to
the decrease in land value for areas designated as critical habitat and
may be borne by the current landowner in the form of percent of average
value lost. In a regional context, we looked at the number of
homeowners in each county as a representation of the total number of
property owners in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and
San Diego Counties. There are approximately 443,000 to over 1.6 million
homeowners in these counties (IEc 2010, Appendix A, p. 5). The 23
landowners that may be impacted represent approximately less than 1
percent of the total number of landowners in Los Angeles, San
Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and San Diego Counties. We do not
believe that this represents a substantial number of landowners.
Additionally, we evaluated the decrease in property value by looking at
the average parcel value by county and the percent of the value lost.
We found that the land value lost ranged from 0.02 to 17.3 percent of
the total value (IEc 2010, Appendix A, pp. 5-6). To some individual
property owners this may represent a significant impact, but on a
regional scale we do not believe an incremental impact of $311,000 in
reduced land value represents a significant economic impact. As a
result of this analysis, we find that the designation of critical
habitat for Brodiaea filifolia will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we considered whether the proposed revised designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently
available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed
revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Executive Order 13211--Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use
On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations
that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use.
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain actions. The Office of Management and
Budget's guidance for implementing this Executive Order outlines nine
outcomes that may constitute ``a significant adverse effect'' when
compared to no regulatory action. As discussed in Appendix A, the DEA
finds that none of these outcomes are possible in the context of this
analysis (IEc 2010, Appendix A, pp. 7-8). The DEA concludes that no
incremental impacts on the production, distribution, or use of energy
are forecast associated specifically with this rulemaking (IEc 2010,
Appendix A, p. 7). Therefore, designation of critical habitat is not
expected to lead to any adverse outcomes (such as a reduction in
electricity production or an increase in the cost of energy production
or distribution), and a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the Service
makes the following findings:
(a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments,'' with
two exceptions. First, it excludes ``a condition of federal
assistance.'' Second, it also excludes ``a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal program,'' unless the regulation
``relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000
or more is provided annually to State, local, and Tribal governments
under entitlement authority,'' if the provision would ``increase the
stringency of conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or
otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide
funding'' and the State, local, or Tribal governments ``lack
authority'' to adjust accordingly. ``Federal private sector mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
Critical habitat designation does not impose a legally binding duty
on non-Federal government entities or private parties. The only
regulatory effect is that under section 7 of the Act, which requires
that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat may
indirectly impact non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding,
assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action that may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habirat. 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 onto State governments.
(b) As discussed in the DEA of the proposed revised designation of
critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia, we do not believe that this
rule will significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it
will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any
year; that is, it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The DEA concludes that incremental
impacts may occur due to conservation costs associated with residential
and commercial development, and with transportation, utility, and flood
control projects; however, these are not expected to affect small
governments (IEc 2010, Appendix A, p. 4). Incremental impacts
associated with these activities are expected to be borne by the
Transportation Corridor Agencies and San Diego Gas and Electric, which
are not considered small governments. Consequently, we do not believe
that the proposed revised critical habitat designation would
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a
Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Executive Order 12630 -- Takings
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we analyzed the potential takings implications of proposing
revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia in a takings
implications assessment. 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. The proposed revised critical habitat for
B. filifolia does not pose significant takings implications for the
above reasons.
[[Page 42059]]
References Cited
A complete list of all references we cited in the proposed rule and
in this document is available on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or by contacting the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 7, 2010
Eileen Sobeck,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2010-17708 Filed 7-19- 10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE S