[Federal Register: November 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 212)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 67676-67681]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03no10-29]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0078; MO 92210-0-0009-B4]
RIN 1018-AW53
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical
Habitat for Astragalus jaegerianus (Lane Mountain Milk-Vetch)
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 comment period on our April 1, 2010, proposed revised
designation of critical habitat for Astragalus jaegerianus (Lane
Mountain milk-vetch) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). We also announce the availability of a draft economic
analysis (DEA) of the proposed revised designation of critical habitat
for Astragalus jaegerianus 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 the items listed above. Comments previously submitted need
not be resubmitted and will be fully considered in preparation of the
final rule.
DATES: We will consider public comments we receive on or before
December 3, 2010. Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time
on the closing date. 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:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R8-
ES-2009-0078.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2009-0078; 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).
[[Page 67677]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Connie Rutherford, Listing and
Recovery Coordinator, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola
Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003; telephone (805) 644-1766; facsimile
(805) 644-3958. 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
will be based on the best scientific data available and will be as
accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or
information from other concerned government agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other interested party during this reopened
comment period on the proposed revised designation of critical habitat
for Astragalus jaegerianus published in the Federal Register on April
1, 2010 (75 FR 16404), including the draft economic analysis of the
proposed revised designation of critical habitat for A. jaegerianus and
the amended required determinations provided in this document. We will
consider information and recommendations from all interested parties.
We are particularly interested in comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not revise the designation
of habitat as ``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether there are threats to the
species from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to
increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat
outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of
critical habitat is not prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
The amount and distribution of Astragalus jaegerianus
habitat,
What areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing that contain features essential to the
conservation of the species we should include in the designation and
why, and
What areas outside the geographical area occupied at the
time of listing are essential to the conservation of the species and
why.
(3) Land-use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible effects on proposed revised critical
habitat for Astragalus jaegerianus.
(4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small
entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas from the
proposed designation that exhibit these impacts.
(5) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation
of critical habitat, as discussed in the DEA, and how the consequences
of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation
and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
(6) Comments or information that may assist us in identifying or
clarifying the primary constituent elements and the resulting physical
and biological features essential to the conservation of Astragalus
jaegerianus.
(7) How the proposed revised critical habitat boundaries could be
refined to more closely circumscribe the landscapes identified as
essential.
(8) Information on the potential effects of climate change on
Astragalus jaegerianus and its habitat.
(9) Any foreseeable impacts on energy supplies, distribution, and
use resulting from the proposed revised designation and, in particular,
any impacts on electricity production, and the benefits of including or
excluding any particular areas that exhibit these impacts.
(10) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public
participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public
concerns and comments.
(11) Information on whether the DEA makes appropriate assumptions
regarding current practices and any regulatory changes that likely may
occur if we designate proposed revised critical habitat for Astragalus
jaegerianus.
(12) Information on the accuracy of our methodology in the DEA for
distinguishing baseline and incremental costs, and the assumptions
underlying the methodology.
(13) Information on whether the DEA correctly assesses the effect
on regional costs associated with any land use controls that may result
from the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for
Astragalus jaegerianus.
(14) Information on whether the proposed revised designation of
critical habitat will result in disproportionate economic impacts to
specific areas or small businesses, including small businesses in the
land development sector in San Bernardino County.
(15) Information on whether the DEA identifies all costs that could
result from the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for
Astragalus jaegerianus.
(16) Economic data on the incremental costs of designating a
particular area as revised critical habitat.
If you submitted comments or information on the proposed revised
rule (75 FR 16404) during the initial comment period from April 1,
2010, to June 1, 2010, please do not resubmit them. We will incorporate
them into the public record as part of this comment period, and we will
fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our
final determination concerning revised critical habitat will take into
consideration all written comments and any additional information we
receive during both comment periods. On the basis of public comments,
we may, during the development of our final determination, find that
areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning our proposed
rule, the associated DEA, and our amended required determinations by
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not
consider comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in
the ADDRESSES section.
If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted
on the Web site. If you submit a hard copy comment that includes
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your
document that we withhold this information from public review. However,
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all
hard copy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive (and have received), as well as
supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule and
DEA, will be available for public inspection on http://
www.regulations.gov (Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2009-0078), or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and DEA by mail from the
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT),
by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://
www.regulations.gov (Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2009-0078), or on our Web
site at http://www.fws.gov/ventura.
[[Page 67678]]
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for Astragalus
jaegerianus in this document. For more information on previous Federal
actions concerning A. jaegerianus, refer to the proposed revised
designation of critical habitat published in the Federal Register on
April 1, 2010 (75 FR 16404). Additional information on A. jaegerianus
may also be found in the final listing rule published in the Federal
Register on October 6, 1998 (63 FR 53596), and the proposed designation
of critical habitat for A. jaegerianus in the Federal Register on April
6, 2004 (69 FR 18018). These documents are available on the Ventura
Fish and Wildlife Office Web site at http://www.fws.gov/ventura.
On April 8, 2005 (70 FR 18220), we published our final designation
of critical habitat for Astragalus jaegerianus. Because we excluded all
proposed acreage from the designation, the final designation included
zero (0) acres (0 hectares). On December 19, 2007, the 2005 critical
habitat determination was challenged by the Center for Biological
Diversity (Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish and
Wildlife Service et al., Case No. CV-07-08221-JFW-JCRx). In a
settlement agreement accepted by the court on June 27, 2008, we agreed
to reconsider the critical habitat designation for A. jaegerianus. The
settlement stipulated that we submit a proposed revised critical
habitat rule for A. jaegerianus to the Federal Register for publication
on or before April 1, 2010, and submit a final revised determination on
the proposed critical habitat rule to the Federal Register for
publication on or before April 1, 2011.
Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas
within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is
listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and
that may require special management considerations or protection, and
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at
the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is
made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or
carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions
affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on
the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the
Act.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from
critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of such exclusion
outweigh the benefits of including that particular area as critical
habitat, unless failure to designate that specific area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. We may exclude an
area from designated critical habitat based on economic impacts,
national security, or any other relevant impact, including but not
limited to the value and contribution of continued, expanded, or newly
forged conservation partnerships.
When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of
actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted,
or authorized by Federal agencies); the educational benefits of mapping
areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the
listed species; and any benefits that may result from designation due
to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat.
When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. In the case of
Astragalus jaegerianus, the benefits of critical habitat include public
awareness of the presence of A. jaegerianus and the importance of
habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased
habitat protection for A. jaegerianus due to protection from adverse
modification or destruction of critical habitat. In practice,
situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal lands or for
projects undertaken by Federal agencies.
Draft Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise
critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data
available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact
on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. We prepared a DEA of our April 1,
2010 (75 FR 16404), proposed revised designation of critical habitat
for Astragalus jaegerianus.
The intent of the DEA is to identify and analyze the potential
economic impacts associated with the proposed revised designation of
critical habitat for Astragalus jaegerianus. The DEA quantifies the
economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for A.
jaegerianus; some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of
whether we designate revised critical habitat. The economic impact of
the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for A. jaegerianus
is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with critical habitat'' and
``without critical habitat.'' The ``without critical habitat'' scenario
represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections
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 and may include costs incurred in the future. 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 designation of
critical habitat for the species. 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. The analysis
looks retrospectively at baseline impacts incurred since we listed the
species, and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely to
occur if we finalize the proposed revised designation of critical
habitat for the A. jaegerianus. For a further description of the
methodology of the analysis, see Chapter 2, ``Framework for the
Analysis,'' of the DEA.
The current DEA estimates the foreseeable economic impacts of the
proposed revised designation of critical habitat for Astragalus
jaegerianus by identifying the potential resulting incremental costs.
The DEA analyzed economic impacts of A. jaegerianus conservation
efforts on the following activities: Recreational OHV use, recreational
surface mining, and wind energy development. It also assessed possible
indirect impacts to economic activities as the result of possible
applications of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and
regulatory uncertainty or delay. The DEA considers future baseline and
incremental impacts over the next 20 years (2011 to 2030), which was
determined to be the appropriate period for analysis because limited
planning information is available for most
[[Page 67679]]
activities to forecast activity levels for projects beyond a 20-year
timeframe.
The DEA estimates that no economic impacts are likely to result
from the designation of critical habitat. The main reason for this
conclusion is that approximately 79 percent of the designated area is
Federal land that is either being managed for Astragalus jaegerianus
conservation by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under the guidance
of the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, as modified by the
West Mojave Plan, or is being held by the Department of Defense (DOD).
Because the DOD acquired these lands as mitigation for the expansion of
Fort Irwin, it will not permit any ground-disturbing activities on
them. Ultimately, the DOD will transfer the lands to the BLM, and BLM
will manage them as part of the Coolgardie Mesa and West Paradise Areas
of Critical Environmental Concern. The Service, DOD, and BLM do
anticipate consultation on the land transfer, but expect that the
consultation would be informal and not require a formal biological
opinion under section 7 of the Act. An additional reason that no
economic impacts are likely to result from the designation of critical
habitat is that the private lands (remaining 21 percent of designation
interspersed in a checkerboard fashion among the BLM ACECs lands) occur
in a remote region where access, development, and construction are
limited. Also land use activities specifically within ACECs are
limited. These private lands are being targeted through the WMP for
acquisition by Federal agencies from willing sellers to eventually
become part of one of the two ACECs. No section 7 consultations have
occurred regarding activities on private lands within the area since
the listing of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in 1990. The
federally threatened desert tortoise occurs throughout the area that we
have proposed as critical habitat; critical habitat for the desert
tortoise also completely overlaps the areas proposed as critical
habitat for A. jaegerianus. Consequently, based on discussions with
land managers and the lack of consultations on private lands in this
area since the listing of the desert tortoise, we do not anticipate any
land use changes that will result in future consultations.
The DEA also discusses the potential benefits associated with the
designation of critical habitat. The primary intended benefit of
critical habitat is to support the conservation of endangered and
threatened species, such as Astragalus jaegerianus. However, economic
benefits are not quantified or monetized in the DEA. As described in
the DEA, modifications to future projects are unlikely given the
extensive baseline protections already provided to A. jaegerianus
habitat, the anticipated lack of economic activity, and lack of a
Federal nexus on privately owned, unprotected parcels.
The DEA considered 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). 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, small entities, and the
energy industry. We can use this information to assess whether the
effects of the revised designation might unduly burden a particular
group or economic sector.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the
public on the DEA, as well as on all aspects of the proposed revised
designation of critical habitat, and our amended required
determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or the economic
analysis to incorporate or address information we receive during this
public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from
critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the
area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat,
provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the
species.
Required Determinations--Amended
In our proposed rule dated April 1, 2010 (75 FR 16404), we
indicated that we would defer our determination of compliance with
several statutes and executive orders until the information concerning
potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on
landowners and stakeholders became available in the DEA. We have now
made use of the DEA to make these determinations. In this document, we
affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning Executive Order
(E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings),
E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the President's
memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with
Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951). Based on the DEA
data, we are also affirming our required determinations made in the
proposed rule concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), and
E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and Use).
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 802(2)),
whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for
any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the
effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 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 our analysis for determining whether
the proposed rule would result in a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Based on comments we receive, we
may revise this determination as part of a final rulemaking.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
[[Page 67680]]
To determine if the proposed revised designation of critical
habitat for Astragalus jaegerianus 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 this rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we
considered each industry or category individually. In estimating the
numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered
whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat
designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal
involvement; designation of critical habitat only affects activities
conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. Some
kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so
will not be affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where
the species is present, Federal agencies already are required to
consult with us under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund,
permit, or implement that may affect A. jaegerianus. If the proposed
critical habitat designation is finalized, consultations to avoid the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be
incorporated into the existing consultation process.
In the DEA of the proposed revised designation of critical habitat,
we evaluated the potential economic effects resulting from
implementation of conservation actions related to the proposed revised
designation of critical habitat. The DEA estimates that no economic
impacts are likely to result from the designation of critical habitat
for Astragalus jaegerianus. This determination is based on the fact
that approximately 79 percent of the proposed critical habitat is
already subject to conservation measures that benefit the plant.
Economic impacts are unlikely in the remaining 21 percent, given the
limited potential for future economic activity and the low probability
of a Federal nexus that would require consultation with the Service.
Based on that analysis, no impacts to small entities are expected as a
result of the proposed critical habitat designation. Please refer to
chapter 3 of the DEA for a more detailed discussion of our analysis.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Information for this analysis was gathered from the
Small Business Administration, stakeholders, and the Service. For the
reasons discussed above, and based on currently available information,
we certify that if promulgated, the proposed designation would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business
entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
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 an agency to prepare a Statement of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. We implement this
executive order using the Office of Management and Budget's guidance
which outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a significant
adverse effect'' when compared to no regulatory action. As discussed in
chapter 3, the DEA finds that this proposed revised critical habitat
designation is expected not to have any impacts on the energy industry.
As a result, 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. 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. ``Federal private
sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) as a condition of
Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
Critical habitat designation does not impose a legally binding duty
on non-Federal government entities or private parties. Under the Act,
the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that
their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under
section 7. Designation of critical habitat may indirectly impact non-
Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits,
or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal
agency for an action that may affect designated 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) As discussed in the DEA of the proposed designation of critical
habitat for Astragalus jaegerianus, we do not believe that this rule
would significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it
would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any
year; that is, it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The DEA concludes that critical habitat
designation for A. jaegerianus is not likely to result in incremental
direct or indirect impacts to economic activities. Because no
incremental costs are anticipated, no small entities are expected to be
affected by the designation. Consequently, we do not believe that the
revised critical habitat designation would significantly or uniquely
affect small government entities. As such, a Small Government Agency
Plan is not required.
References Cited
A complete list of all references we cited in the proposed rule and
in this document is available on the internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
[[Page 67681]]
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Ventura
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: October 25, 2010.
Will Shafroth,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish & Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2010-27773 Filed 11-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P