[Federal Register: June 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 115)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 34566-34570]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]



Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AT91

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Fender's Blue Butterfly 
(Icaricia icarioides fenderi), Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii 
(Kincaid's Lupine), and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

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


SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening 
of the public comment period on the proposal to designate critical 
habitat for the Fender's blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi, 
Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid's lupine), and Erigeron 
decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette daisy) and the availability of the 
draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical 
habitat. The draft economic analysis has been completed and we are 
publishing a notice of availability in the Federal Register and 
requesting comments. The economic analysis for the prairie species 
concluded that the potential future costs associated with conservation 
activities for the species are estimated to range from $25.3 to $52.7 
million over 20 years in undiscounted 2006 dollars. Costs are estimated 
to range from $19.1 to $40.3 million over 20 years, or $1.3 to 2.7 
million annually using a three percent discount rate. Costs are 
estimated to range from $15.3 to $32.6 million over 20 years, or $1.4 
to $3.1 annually using a seven percent discount rate. The

[[Page 34567]]

activities affected by species conservation efforts may include 
development, management of public and conservancy lands 
(``conservation''), transportation operations, and the Benton County 
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). We are reopening the comment period to 
allow all interested parties to comment simultaneously on the proposed 
rule and the associated draft economic analysis. Comments previously 
submitted need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the 
public record as part of this comment period, and will be fully 
considered in preparation of the final rule.

DATES: We will accept public comments until June 30, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and materials may be submitted to us by any 
one of the following methods:
    (1) Mail: You may submit written comments and information to Kemper 
McMaster, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish 
and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR 
    (2) Delivery: You may hand-deliver written comments to our Oregon 
Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address.
    (3) Fax: You may fax your comments to 503/231-6195.
    (4) E-mail: You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to 
fw1willamettech@fws.gov. Please see the Public Comments Solicited 

section below for file format and other information about electronic 
    (5) Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the instructions found there for submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kemper McMaster, Field Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 
SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266 (telephone 503/231-6179; 
facsimile 503/231-6195).


Public Comments Solicited

    We are soliciting comments on the original proposed critical 
habitat designation that was published in the Federal Register on 
November 2, 2005 (70 FR 66492) and on our draft economic analysis of 
the proposed designation. Copies of the proposed rule to designate 
critical habitat and the draft economic analysis are available on the 
Internet at: http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/ESA-Actions/WillValleyPage.asp
 or from our Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office at the 

address and contact numbers above. We are particularly interested in 
comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons 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 (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et al.), including 
whether it is prudent to designate critical habitat.
    (2) Specific information on the Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus 
sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens and 
their habitat, and which habitat or habitat components (i.e., physical 
and biological features) are essential to their conservation, such as 
soil moisture gradient, microsite preferences, and light requirements;
    (3) Specific information on: the amount and distribution of the 
Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and 
Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens habitat; what areas should be 
included in the designations that were occupied at the time of listing 
and contain the features that are essential to the conservation of the 
species and why; what areas were not occupied at the time of listing 
but are essential to the conservation of the species and why;
    (4) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat; 
we specifically solicit information including:
    (a) The benefits provided by a management plan; specifically 
describe how the plan addresses each primary constituent element (PCE) 
in the absence of designated critical habitat; describe conservation 
benefits to Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, 
or Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens; include citations that point to 
the certainty of implementation of those aspects of the management 
    (b) The benefits of excluding from the critical habitat designation 
the areas covered by the management plan; we are especially interested 
in knowing how partnerships may be positively or negatively affected by 
a designation, or through exclusion from critical habitat, and costs 
associated with designation; and
    (c) With specific reference to section 4(a)(3) of the Act, we 
request information from the Department of Defense to assist the 
Secretary of the Interior in making a determination as to whether any 
proposed critical habitat overlaps with lands, administered by or under 
the control of the Department of Defense, covered by an Integrated 
Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) that benefits the 
conservation of the species;
    (5) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential 
impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any 
impacts on small entities;
    (6) 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 assist us in accommodating 
public concerns and comments;
    (7) Whether the economic analysis adequately addresses the likely 
effects and resulting costs arising from State laws as a result of the 
proposed critical habitat designation;
    (8) Whether the analysis adequately addresses the indirect effects;
    (9) Whether the analysis accurately defines and captures 
opportunity costs;
    (10) Whether the economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on 
regional costs (e.g., housing costs) associated with land use controls 
that could arise from the designation of critical habitat for these 
three species;
    (11) Whether the designation of critical habitat will result in 
disproportionate economic or other impacts to specific areas that 
should be evaluated for possible exclusion from the final designation;
    (12) Whether the economic analysis is consistent with the Service's 
listing regulations because this analysis should identify all costs 
related to the designation of critical habitat for these three species; 
    (13) Whether the benefits of exclusion in any particular area 
outweigh the benefits of inclusion under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    All previous comments and information submitted during the initial 
comment period need not be resubmitted. Our final determination on the 
proposed critical habitat will take into consideration all comments and 
any additional information received. However, we will not consider 
anonymous comments.
    Please submit electronic comments in an ASCII file format and avoid 
the use of special characters and encryption. Please also include ``RIN 
1018-AT91'' and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If 
you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received 
your e-mail message, please contact us directly (see ADDRESSES 
section). Please note that the Internet address fw1willamettech@fws.gov 
will be unavailable at the termination of the public comment period.
    Our practice is to make comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review

[[Page 34568]]

during regular business hours. We will not consider anonymous comments 
and we will make all comments available for public inspection in their 
entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours in the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service Office at the above address.


    On November 2, 2005, we published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register (70 FR 66492) to designate approximately 3,089 acres (1,250 
hectares (ha)) as critical habitat for Fender's blue butterfly, 724 
acres (293 ha) as critical habitat for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 
kincaidii, and 718 acres (291 ha) as critical habitat for Erigeron 
decumbens var. decumbens. The proposed critical habitat is located in 
Polk, Benton, Yamhill, Lane, Marion, Linn, and Douglas Counties, 
Oregon, and Lewis County, Washington. The original comment period on 
the proposed critical habitat rule closed on January 3, 2006. On April 
21, 2006, we published a notice in the Federal Register (71 FR 20636) 
to reopen the comment period and provide notice of a public hearing; 
the comment period closed on May 19, 2006.
    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 based upon the best scientific and commercial data 
available, after taking into consideration the economic or any other 
relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. 
Based upon the previously published proposal to designate critical 
habitat for the Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 
kincaidii, and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens, we have prepared a 
draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation.
    The draft economic analysis addresses the impacts of conservation 
efforts for these three species on activities occurring on lands 
proposed for designation as well as those proposed for exclusion. The 
analysis measures lost economic efficiency associated with land 
development activities, transportation operations, conservation-
oriented land management on public and private lands, development of 
the Benton County Habitat Conservation Plan, and administrative costs 
related to the section 7 consultation process.
    The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic 
effects of actions relating to the conservation of the Fender's blue 
butterfly, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and Erigeron decumbens 
var. decumbens, 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 the Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus 
sulphureus ssp. kincaidii and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens in 
essential habitat areas. 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). The study also analyzes 
whether a particular group or economic sector bears an undue proportion 
of the impacts, with specific analysis of the impacts to small entities 
and potential impacts on energy availability. Finally, this analysis 
estimates economic impacts to activities from 2000 (the year of the 
final listing for the species) to 2026 (20 years from the year of final 
designation of critical habitat). Forecasts of economic conditions and 
other factors beyond the next 20 years would be speculative.
    We solicit data and comments from the public on the draft economic 
analysis, as well as on all aspects of the proposal to designate 
critical habitat. We may revise the proposal, or its supporting 
documents, to incorporate or address new information received during 
the comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical 
habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area 
outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, 
provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the 
    Costs related to conservation activities for the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus 
sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens 
pursuant to sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act are estimated to be 
approximately $25.3 to $52.7 million over 20 years in undiscounted 2006 
dollars. Costs are estimated to range from $19.1 to $40.3 million over 
20 years, or $1.3 to 2.7 million annually using a three percent 
discount rate. Cost estimates using a seven percent discount rate range 
from $15.3 to $32.6 million over 20 years, or $1.4 to $3.1 annually.

Required Determinations--Amended

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a 
significant rule because it may raise novel legal and policy issues. On 
the basis of our draft economic analysis, the designation of critical 
habitat for these species is not anticipated to have an annual effect 
on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a 
material way. Due to the timeline for publication in the Federal 
Register, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not formally 
reviewed the proposed rule.
    Further, 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, the agency will then 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, we must then evaluate alternative regulatory 
approaches, where feasible, when promulgating a designation of critical 
    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 outweigh 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

[[Page 34569]]

thereof, in a designation constitutes our regulatory alternative 

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 
Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and 
Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens 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 and 
commercial development, forestry, and agriculture). We considered each 
industry or category individually to determine if certification is 
appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially 
affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal 
involvement; some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal 
involvement and so will not be affected by the designation of critical 
habitat. Designation of critical habitat only affects activities 
conducted, funded, permitted or authorized by Federal agencies; non-
Federal activities are not affected by the designation.
    If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final, 
Federal agencies must consult with us if their activities may affect 
designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the 
existing consultation process.
    In our 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 these three species 
and proposed designation of critical habitat. We determined from our 
analysis that the small business entities that may be affected are 
agriculture and forestry. Approximately 85 percent (i.e., 1,794 acres 
(726 ha)) of the estimated 2,120 acres (858 ha) of privately owned land 
within the proposed critical habitat designation is classified as 
agricultural land. The remaining 327 acres (132 ha) is classified as 
various types of forest land, most of which is white oak forest, which 
has no commercial value.
    On the basis of our analysis of Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus 
sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens 
conservation measures, we determined that approximately 195 small 
agriculture operations could be impacted by conservation measures for 
these three species. These agriculture operations represent 
approximately 1.2 percent of the number of small farms and ranches 
operating within the eight counties that encompass the proposed 
critical habitat designation. The percent of small agriculture 
operations impacted ranges from a low of approximately 0.1 percent in 
Marion and Lewis counties to a high of 4.6 percent in Benton County. 
The conservation measures for the three species are not expected to 
impact the profitability of these small agriculture operations, as the 
existing agricultural use of the privately owned lands that encompass 
the proposed critical habitat designation is not likely to be impacted.
    Based on the past and existing land use, it appears the 
agricultural value of these lands is as grassland/pasture, and 
livestock grazing, if not intensive, would not further degrade or 
destroy the prairie habitat. While farm profits are not expected to be 
affected by species conservation, impacted small agriculture businesses 
are expected to lose between $383 (Douglas County) and $118,785 
(Yamhill County) in land value per farm due to species conservation. 
Considering that the average market value of a farm's assets (i.e., 
land, buildings, machinery, and equipment) in the affected counties 
ranges from approximately $375,000 (Lewis County) to $650,000 (Marion, 
Polk, Yamhill, and Linn counties), the economic impacts of species 
conservation to the small agriculture operator is expected to range 
from as little as 0.1 percent (Douglas and Linn counties) of the value 
of an operator's farm assets to as much as 18.2 percent (Yamhill 
County) of an operator's farm assets. The 16 small agriculture 
operators in Yamhill County are expected to bear the greatest impacts 
(1.5 to 18.2 percent of the value of farm assets) followed by the 28 
operators in Polk County (1.0 to 17.1 percent of the value of farm 
assets), the 41 operators in Benton County (2.0 to 13.4 percent of the 
value of farm assets), the 87 operators in Lane County (1.2 to 6.8 
percent of the value of farm assets), and then the 3 operators in 
Marion County (0.4 to 5.8 percent of the value of farm assets). Impacts 
to the remaining 20 small agriculture operators in Douglas, Linn, and 
Lewis counties are estimated at less than approximately 2 percent of 
the value of an operator's farm assets.
    The economic effects to forestry operations of this proposed 
critical habitat designation are expected to be small. Although there 
are about 494 forestry and logging businesses that operate in the eight 
counties that encompass the proposed critical habitat designation, only 
one company has lands that fall within a proposed critical habitat 
unit. The estimated economic impact of species conservation activities 
to Starker Forests, Inc., a family-owned business that owns, grows, and 
manages about 60,000 acres of forest land in Benton, Lincoln, Lane, and 
Polk counties, Oregon, is about $1,000 to $3,000 annually.
    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 agricultural and 

[[Page 34570]]

interests. 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 
considered a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 because it 
raises novel legal and policy issues, but it 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.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
    (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,'' with 
two exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of federal assistance.'' It 
also excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary 
Federal program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing 
Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually 
to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' 
if the provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of 
assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 
Government's responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, 
or tribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. (At the 
time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to 
Families with Dependent Children 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 boundaries of five city governments encompass the proposed 
critical habitat designation: Eugene (estimated population in 2005 of 
146,160), Corvallis (estimated population in 2005 of 53,165), Dallas 
(estimated population in 2005 of 14,040), Philomath (estimated 
population in 2005 of 4,400), and Sheridan (estimated population in 
2005 of 5,740). Eugene and Corvallis exceed the criteria (service 
population of 50,000 or less) for small entity. Of the three small 
governments, Dallas is the only small government entity potentially 
impacted by Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, 
and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens conservation activities. In 
fiscal year 2005-06, the City's annual budget is approximately $36 
million. The analysis estimates that potential future Fender's blue 
butterfly and Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii conservation activities 
(related to a planned collector street and the one-time application 
costs and annual deferred maintenance and personnel training costs 
associated with a Section 10(a)(1)(A) Recovery Permit) may cost the 
City between $28,000 (low range assuming a seven percent discount rate) 
and $197,000 (high range assuming a three percent discount rate) on an 
annualized basis. These costs represent approximately 0.08 percent to 
0.5 percent of the City's annual expenditures.
    Further, there is no record of consultation between the Service and 
any of these governments since the three species were listed in 2000. 
It is likely that small governments involved with developments and 
infrastructure projects will be interested parties or involved with 
projects involving section 7 consultations for Fender's blue butterfly, 
Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and Erigeron decumbens var. 
decumbens within their jurisdictional areas. Any costs associated with 
this activity are likely to represent a small portion of a city's 
budget. Consequently, we do not believe that the designation of 
critical habitat for Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 
kincaidii, and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens will significantly or 
uniquely affect these small governmental entities. 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 Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus 
sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens. 
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 Fender's blue butterfly, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, 
and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens does not pose significant takings 


    The primary author of this package is Mikki Collins, Oregon Fish 
and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.


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

    Dated: June 6, 2006.
David P. Smith,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E6-9323 Filed 6-14-06; 8:45 am]