[Federal Register: October 6, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 193)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 58361-58366]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]



Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AT75

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Designation of Critical Habitat for Brodiaea filifolia (Thread-Leaved 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period and notice of 
availability of draft economic analysis.


SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 
reopening of the public comment period on the proposed designation of 
critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia, and the availability of a 
draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical 
habitat. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested 
parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule 
and the associated draft economic analysis. Comments previously 
submitted on this proposed rule need not be resubmitted as they have 
already been incorporated into the public record and will be fully 
considered in our final determination.

DATES: We will accept public comments and information until October 20, 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and materials may be submitted to us by any 
one of the following methods:
    1. You may submit written comments and information to Jim Bartel, 
Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley 
Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011;

[[Page 58362]]

    2. You may hand-deliver written comments and information to our 
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at the above address, or fax your 
comments to 760/431-9624; or
    3. You may send your comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to 
fw1cfwo_brfi@fws.gov. For directions on how to submit electronic 

comments, see the ``Public Comments Solicited'' section. In the event 
that our Internet connection is not functional, please submit your 
comments by the alternate methods mentioned above.
    You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and draft economic 
analysis by mail or by visiting our Web site at http://carlsbad.fws.gov.
 You may review comments and materials received and 

review supporting documentation used in preparation of this proposed 
rule by appointment, during normal business hours, at the Carlsbad Fish 
and Wildlife Field Office (address provided above).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad 
Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address (telephone 760/431-9440; 
facsimile 760/431-9624).

    We will accept written comments and information during this 
reopened comment period. We solicit comments on the original proposed 
critical habitat designation, published in the Federal Register on 
December 8, 2004 (69 FR 71284), and on our draft economic analysis of 
the proposed designation. We will consider information and 
recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly 
interested in comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined 
to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), 
including whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
specifying such area as part of the critical habitat;
    (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of Brodiaea 
filifolia and its habitat, and which habitat features and geographic 
areas are essential to the conservation of this species and why;
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
    (4) Information on how many of the State and local environmental 
protection measures referenced in the draft economic analysis were 
adopted largely as a result of the listing of Brodiaea filifolia, and 
how many were either already in place or enacted for other reasons;
    (5) Any foreseeable economic, environmental, or other impacts 
resulting from the proposed designation or coextensively from other 
related factors;
    (6) Any foreseeable economic, environmental, or other benefits 
resulting from the proposed designation, or coextensive from other 
related factors;
    (7) Whether the draft economic analysis identifies all State and 
local costs attributable to the proposed critical habitat designation, 
and information on any costs that have been inadvertently overlooked;
    (8) Whether the draft economic analysis makes appropriate 
assumptions regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes 
imposed as a result of the designation of critical habitat;
    (9) Whether the draft economic analysis correctly assesses the 
effect on regional costs associated with land use controls that derive 
from the designation of critical habitat;
    (10) Whether the economic analysis appropriately identifies all 
costs that could result from the designation, in particular, any 
impacts on small entities or families;
    (11) Whether the designation would result in disproportionate 
economic impacts to specific areas that should be evaluated for 
possible exclusion under 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final designation;
    (12) Whether it is appropriate that the analysis does not include 
the costs of project modification that are the result of informal 
consultation only;
    (13) Whether there is information about areas that could be used as 
substitutes for the economic activities planned in critical habitat 
areas that would offset the costs and allow for the conservation of 
critical habitat areas;
    (14) How our approach to critical habitat designation could be 
improved or modified to provide for greater public participation and 
understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concern and 
comments; and
    (15) Whether we should consider the exclusion of critical habitat 
within the municipalities that have a disproportionate number of small 
entities that could potentially be impacted, such as San Dimas, San 
Juan Capistrano, or San Bernardino.
    All previous comments and information submitted during the initial 
comment period on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted. If you 
wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning 
the draft economic analysis and the proposed rule by any one of several 
methods (see ADDRESSES section). Our final determination regarding 
designation of critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia will take into 
consideration all comments and any additional information received 
during both comment periods. On the basis of public comment on this 
analysis and on the critical habitat proposal, and on the final 
economic analysis, we may during the development of our final 
determination find that areas proposed are not essential, are 
appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not 
appropriate for exclusion.
    Please submit electronic comments in an ASCII file and avoid the 
use of any special characters or any form of encryption. Also, please 
include ``Attn: Brodiaea filifolia'' and your name and return address 
in your e-mail message regarding the Brodiaea filifolia proposed rule 
or the draft economic analysis. If you do not receive a confirmation 
from the system that we have received your e-mail message, please 
submit your comments in writing using one of the alternate methods 
described in the ADDRESSES section.
    Our practice is to make comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular 
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold 
their home address, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. 
There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a 
respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold 
your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the 
beginning of your comments. However, we will not consider anonymous 
comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or 
businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as 
representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available 
for public inspection in their entirety.
    Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical 
habitat, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, 
during normal business hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 
at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Copies of the proposed critical 
habitat rule for Brodiaea filifolia and the draft economic analysis are 
also available on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/carlsbad/BRFI.htm.
 In the event that our internet connection is not functional, 

please obtain copies of documents directly

[[Page 58363]]

from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.


    On December 8, 2004, we published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register (69 FR 71284) to designate critical habitat for Brodiaea 
filifolia pursuant to the Act. We proposed to designate a total of 
approximately 4,690 acres (ac) (1,898 hectares (ha)) of critical 
habitat in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, and San Diego counties, 
California. The first comment period for the Brodiaea filifolia 
proposed critical habitat rule closed on February 7, 2005. For more 
information on this species, refer to the final rule listing this 
species as threatened, published in the Federal Register on October 13, 
1998 (63 FR 54975).
    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the specific 
areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it 
is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical 
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and 
that may require special management considerations or protection, and 
specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the 
time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential 
for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made 
final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or 
carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions 
affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on 
the effects of their proposed actions, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of 
the Act.
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise 
critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial 
data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, 
impact to national security, and any other relevant impacts of 
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We have prepared a 
draft economic analysis of the December 8, 2004 (69 FR 71284), proposed 
designation of critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia.
    The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic 
effects of actions relating to the conservation of Brodiaea filifolia, 
including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and 
including those attributable to designating critical habitat. It 
further considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as 
a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat 
conservation for Brodiaea filifolia in habitat areas with features 
essential to the conservation of this taxon. The analysis considers 
both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of 
habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the 
``opportunity costs'' associated with the commitment of resources to 
comply with habitat protection measures (e.g., lost economic 
opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). This analysis 
also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be 
distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts 
of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation 
activities on small entities and the energy industry. This information 
can be used by decision-makers to assess whether the effects of the 
designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. 
Finally, this analysis looks retrospectively at costs that have been 
incurred since the date the species was listed as an endangered species 
and considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years following the 
designation of critical habitat.
    This analysis determined that costs involving conservation measures 
for Brodiaea filifolia would be incurred for activities involving 
residential, industrial, and commercial development; water supply; 
flood control; transportation; agriculture; the development of HCPs; 
and the management of military bases, other Federal lands, and other 
public or conservation lands.
    Pre-designation costs include those Brodiaea filifolia-related 
conservation activities associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the 
Act that have accrued since the time that Brodiaea filifolia was listed 
as threatened (63 FR 54975; October 13, 1998), but prior to the final 
designation of critical habitat. The total pre-designation costs 
associated with critical habitat proposed for inclusion are estimated 
to be $2.9 million to $3.0 million on a present value basis and $2.4 to 
$2.5 million expressed in undiscounted dollars. Pre-designation costs 
associated with areas excluded from the proposed designation are 
estimated to be $110,000 to $180,000 on a present value basis and 
$100,000 to $150,000 expressed in undiscounted dollars.
    Post-designation effects would include likely future costs 
associated with Brodiaea filifolia conservation efforts in the 20-year 
period following the final designation of critical habitat in December 
2005 (effectively 2005 through 2024). If critical habitat is designated 
as proposed, total costs are estimated to be $12.2 million to $14.7 
million on a present value basis and $12.2 to $16.9 million expressed 
in undiscounted dollars (an annualized cost of $0.6 to $0.8 million 
annually). However, if all habitat with features essential to the 
conservation of the taxon were designated critical habitat in a final 
rule, total costs would be expected to range between $24.5 and $43.6 
million over the next 20 years (an annualized cost of $1.2 to $2.2 

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a 
significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues. 
However, because the draft economic analysis indicates the potential 
economic impact associated with a designation of all habitat with 
features essential to the conservation of this species would total no 
more than $2.2 million per year, we do not anticipate that this rule 
would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
affect the economy in a material way. Due to the time line for 
publication in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) did not formally review the proposed rule.
    Executive Order 12866 directs Federal Agencies promulgating 
regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office of Management 
and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to Circular A-
4, once it has been determined that the Federal regulatory action is 
appropriate, then the agency will need to consider alternative 
regulatory approaches. Since the determination of critical habitat is a 
statutory requirement pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 
as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we must then evaluate 
alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when promulgating a 
designation of critical habitat.
    In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider 
economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant 
impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion 
allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from 
the designation of critical habitat providing that the benefits of such 
exclusion outweighs the benefits of specifying the area as critical 
habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of 
the species. As such, we believe that the evaluation of the inclusion 
or exclusion of particular areas, or combination thereof, in a 
designation constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis.

[[Page 58364]]

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In our proposed rule, 
we withheld our determination of whether this designation would result 
in a significant effect as defined under SBREFA until we completed our 
draft economic analysis of the proposed designation so that we would 
have the factual basis for our determination.
    According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small 
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit 
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small 
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the 
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this 
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. 
In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a 
typical small business firm's business operations.
    To determine if this proposed designation of critical habitat for 
Brodiaea filifolia would affect a substantial number of small entities, 
we considered the number of small entities affected within particular 
types of economic activities (e.g., residential, industrial, and 
commercial development). We considered each industry or category 
individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In 
estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also 
considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some 
kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so 
will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat. 
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, 
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal 
activities are not affected by the designation.
    If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final, 
Federal agencies must consult with us if their activities may affect 
designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the 
existing consultation process. Our analysis determined that costs 
involving conservation measures for Brodiaea filifolia would be 
incurred for activities involving residential, industrial, and 
commercial development; water supply; flood control; transportation; 
agriculture; the development of HCPs; and the management of military 
bases, other Federal lands, and other public or conservation lands.
    In our economic analysis of this proposed designation, we evaluated 
the potential economic effects on small business entities resulting 
from conservation actions related to the listing of this species and 
proposed designation of its critical habitat. Critical habitat 
designation is expected to result in additional costs to real estate 
development projects due to mitigation and other conservation costs 
that may be required. The affected land is located within Los Angeles, 
San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego counties and under 
private ownership by individuals who will either undertake a 
development project on their own or sell the land to developers for 
development. For businesses involved with land development, the 
relevant threshold for ``small'' is annual revenues of $6 million or 
less. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 
237210 is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in servicing 
land (e.g., excavation, installing roads and utilities) and subdividing 
real property into lots for subsequent sale to builders. Land 
subdivision precedes actual construction, and typically includes 
residential properties, but may also include industrial and commercial 
    The Draft Economic Analysis (See Section 3.2.1) estimates that 390 
acres within proposed critical habitat are projected to be developed 
over the next 20 years. The analysis assumes that as a result of 
Brodiaea filifolia conservation activities, 95 percent of the acres are 
conserved, and the plant is salvaged from the remaining five percent. 
As a result, landowners of 100 percent of these acres bear costs of B. 
filifolia conservation activities.
    To estimate the number of landowners potentially impacted by 
Brodiaea filifolia conservation activities, the analysis estimates the 
average parcel size within essential habitat units in each county that 
contains essential habitat and compares it to the estimate of affected 
acres in these areas. At the aggregate county level, in units proposed 
for inclusion, one individual may be impacted in Los Angeles County, 
one individual may be impacted in San Bernardino County, 22 individuals 
may be impacted in Orange County, and 27 individuals may be impacted in 
San Diego County. Note that this estimate may be understated if habitat 
partially overlaps several parcels or overstated if one person owns 
more than one parcel with B. filifolia.
    The loss in land value experienced by an individual landowner will 
depend on how much of a parcel is inhabited by Brodiaea filifolia, the 
extent to which development activities can be planned around sensitive 
areas, and the existence of alternative uses of the property that do 
not threaten the plant or its habitat. For example, if B. filifolia 
exists on only a small portion of the parcel that can be incorporated 
into existing open space requirements, then a small percentage of the 
land value is lost. However, if B. filifolia is found throughout the 
parcel, most or all of development value of that parcel may be lost. In 
such a circumstance, the parcel may continue to derive value from 
other, nondevelopment-oriented uses.

Effects on Homebuyers and Small Construction Firms

    The Draft Economic Analysis (DEA) (See Section 3.2.2) estimates a 
potential shift in the supply of housing resulting from increased land 
scarcity. Scenario Two assumes that as a result of on-site conservation 
requirements, less land is available for development, and therefore 
fewer new homes are built. Under this scenario, small construction 
firms may be indirectly affected. This analysis uses a methodology used 
by Charles River Associates (CRA) to estimate the potential impact to 
small construction firms. The analysis uses the following steps to 
estimate the number of firms potentially affected:
    (1) The analysis estimates the number of new homes typically built 
by a small

[[Page 58365]]

construction firm in one year. Average annual revenues for a small 
construction firm are $694,000. Using the average construction costs 
for a single family home of $236,000 obtained from CRA's vernal pool 
analysis, a small firm is assumed to build on average three houses a 
year ($694,000/$236,000 = 2.9).
    (2) Next, the analysis estimates the number of homes that would 
have been built by small businesses in the absence of Brodiaea 
filifolia conservation efforts. As described in Section 3.2.2 of the 
DEA, the analysis predicts 316 homes will not be built in cities with 
habitat proposed for designation (summarized in Exhibit A-2 of the 
DEA). In an analysis of building permits in Sacramento County conducted 
by CRA, researchers determined that 22 percent of permits for single 
family dwellings were requested by small businesses. This analysis 
assumes that a similar proportion of new home construction activity is 
conducted by small construction firms in the five Southern California 
counties included in this analysis. As shown in Exhibit A-2 of the DEA, 
multiplying 22 percent by the number of homes not built in each county 
provides an estimate of lost home construction for small firms.
    (3) Next, using the number of homes not built by small firms, the 
analysis estimates the number of small businesses affected. Results of 
this calculation are presented in Exhibit A-2. At the high-end, 
assuming that each lost house would have been built by a separate firm, 
the number of firms potentially affected is equal to the number of lost 
homes. For a low-end estimate, the number of houses not built is 
divided by the average number of houses built per year by small firms 
(three houses). In summary, in a given municipality containing proposed 
critical habitat, between one and 18 small construction firms may be 
affected annually by Brodiaea filifolia conservation activities. In 
Hemet, Moreno Valley, and Perris, where habitat is excluded from 
proposed critical habitat, approximately nine to 82 small firms could 
be affected if habitat were designated. The impact to affected small 
businesses is estimated to be between one-third and all of their 
revenues for the year, depending on the estimate of the number of 
businesses affected. Note that the impact to small construction firms 
may be overstated. As discussed in Section 3 of the DEA, the analysis 
of lost housing units is partial equilibrium in nature (e.g., does not 
consider substitution of displaced development to other nearby areas), 
which is consistent with the best currently available empirical 
information. If, instead, homes not built in these municipalities are 
constructed in neighboring communities unaffected by brodiaea 
conservation activities, the impact to small construction firms is 
likely to be less than presented in Exhibit A-2. As a result, impacts 
to these firms are more likely overstated than understated in this 
    Based on these data, we have determined that this proposed 
designation would not result in a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, in particular to land developers 
or farmers in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, and San 
Diego counties. We may also exclude areas from the final designation if 
it is determined that these localized areas have an impact to a 
substantial number of businesses and a significant proportion of their 
annual revenues. As such, we are certifying that this proposed 
designation of critical habitat would not result in a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Please refer 
to Appendix A of our draft economic analysis of this designation for a 
more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts to small 
business entities.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211 
on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, 
and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy 
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule is not 
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. 
Therefore, this action is not a significant action, and no Statement of 
Energy Effects is required. Please refer to Appendix A of our draft 
economic analysis of this proposed designation for a more detailed 
discussion of potential effects on energy supply.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
    (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal 
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work 
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; 
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; 
and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate'' 
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the 
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a 
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal 
funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or 
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly 
impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above on to State governments.
    (b) The United States Forest Service manages Cleveland National 
Forest (units 5a and 5b); Orange County's Department of Harbors, 
Beaches and Parks manages Aliso-Wood Canyon Regional Park (unit 3) and 
Casper's Regional Park (unit 4); and the Glendora

[[Page 58366]]

Community Conservancy manages the Conservancy (unit 1a) of the same 
name. With the exception of the Glendora Community Conservancy, these 
entities exceed the threshold established for small governments 
(service population of 50,000 or less). Therefore, the Glendora 
Community Conservancy is the only land manager considered in this 
screening analysis.
    The DEA (See Section 6) estimates potential costs to public and 
private land management entities. Of the entities analyzed, the 
Glendora Community Conservancy is the only small entity. This section 
estimates potential impacts of Brodiaea filifolia conservation 
activities to the Conservancy.
    The Conservancy's overall annual budget ranges from $15,000 to 
$30,000 and includes such elements as insurance, discounted land taxes, 
weed abatement, and trail maintenance. The analysis estimates that 
potential future costs associated with Brodiaea filifolia conservation 
activities at the Conservancy may range from $1,600 to $2,600 on an 
annualized basis (assuming a seven percent discount rate). These costs 
represent approximately 11 percent to 17 percent of annual expenditures 
assuming the low-end estimate of the annual budget ($15,000) and 5 
percent to 9 percent assuming the high-end estimate ($30,000). 
Considering that the Glendora Community Conservancy is in the business 
of conservation, this is not an unexpected expenditure for the 
Conservancy. Consequently, we do not believe that the designation of 
critical habitat for B. filifolia will significantly or uniquely affect 
any small governmental entity addressed in the DEA. As such, a Small 
Government Agency Plan is not required.


    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of 
proposing critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia. Critical habitat 
designation does not affect landowner actions that do not require 
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat 
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit 
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. In 
conclusion, the designation of critical habitat for B. filifolia does 
not pose significant takings implications.


    The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Carlsbad 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).


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

    Dated: September 26, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-20050 Filed 10-5-05; 8:45 am]