[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 205 (Monday, October 25, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62238-62240]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23968]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AT57


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening of the 
Public Comment Period for the Draft Economic Analysis and Proposed 
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the public comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 
reopening of the public comment period for the draft economic analysis 
on the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Santa Ana 
sucker (Catostomus santaanae) and on the proposed designation itself. 
The comment period will provide the public, Federal, State, and local 
agencies, and tribes with an additional opportunity to submit written 
comments on this proposal and its respective draft economic analysis. 
Comments previously submitted for this proposed rule and draft economic 
analysis need not be resubmitted as they have already been incorporated 
into the public record and will be fully considered in any final 
decision.

DATES: The public comment period on the proposed designation and draft 
economic analysis is now reopened until November 24, 2004. We will 
accept comments and information until 5 p.m. p.s.t. on that date.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and materials may be submitted to us by one 
of the following methods:
    1. You may submit written comments and information to the Field 
Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, 
Carlsbad, California, 92009.
    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) 431-9618.
    3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d2b4a5e3a1b3a1a792a0e3fcb4a5a1fcb5bda4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ef8e9afedffedebdeecafb0f8e9edb0f9f1e8">[email protected]</span></a>. Please see the Public Comments Solicited section 
below for file format and other information about electronic filing.
    Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in preparation of the proposed critical habitat rule 
for the Santa Ana sucker and the draft economic analysis on the

[[Page 62239]]

proposed designation, will be available for public inspection, by 
appointment, during normal business hours at the above address. Any 
comments received after the closing date may not be considered in the 
final decisions on this action. You may obtain copies of the proposed 
critical habitat designation by contacting the Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, 
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address (telephone 
(760) 431-9440; facsimile (760) 431-9618).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments Solicited

    We solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned 
governmental agencies, tribes, the scientific community, industry, or 
any other interested parties concerning our proposed designation of 
critical habitat for the Santa Ana sucker and our draft economic 
analysis for the proposed critical habitat designation. We particularly 
seek comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined 
to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including 
whether the benefit of designation will outweigh any threats to the 
species due to designation;
    (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of Santa 
Ana sucker habitat, and what habitat is 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 impacts on proposed critical habitat;
    (4) Any foreseeable economic, national security or other potential 
impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any 
impacts on small entities or families;
    (5) Whether the economic analysis adequately addresses the likely 
effects and resulting costs arising from the California Environmental 
Quality Act and other State laws as a result of the proposed critical 
habitat designation;
    (6) Whether the economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions, 
and is consistent with the Service's listing regulations regarding 
current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a result of 
the designation of critical habitat for the Santa Ana sucker;
    (7) The benefits of including or excluding lands covered by a 
Natural Community Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan or any 
other lands covered by an adequate management plan;
    (8) Whether the analysis adequately addresses the indirect effects, 
e.g., property tax losses due to reduced home construction, losses to 
local business due to reduced construction activity;
    (9) Whether the economic analysis appropriately identifies land and 
water use regulatory controls that could result from the proposed 
critical habitat designation for this species;
    (10) Whether the analysis accurately defines and captures 
opportunity costs;
    (11) 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 this 
species;
    (12) Whether the designation of critical habitat for the sucker 
will result in disproportionate economic or other impacts to specific 
areas that should be evaluated for possible exclusion from the final 
designation;
    (13) 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 the Santa Ana sucker 
and this designation was intended to take place at the time this 
species was listed; and
    (14) The draft economic analysis includes an appendix which 
provides an assessment of the potential benefits that may accrue to 
homeowners resulting from the amenity associated from living in the 
vicinity of a protected riparian corridor.
    a. Please comment on the appropriateness of including the analysis 
of amenities as identified in the appendix as a potential benefit 
associated with critical habitat designation without doing a complete 
analysis of that class of economic effect (such as stigma effects) in 
general and the Santa Ana sucker designation in particular.
    b. Please comment on the method employed to estimate this effect 
which relies on the combined results of two studies that measure the 
premium to homes located near protected or restored urban streams 
(Colby and Wishart 2002, Streiner and Loomis 1995).
    c. Please comment on the appropriateness of the application itself, 
which applied the benefits to all areas of the designation.
    (15) Whether our approach to critical habitat designation could be 
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public 
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating 
public concern and comments.
    If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials 
concerning this rule by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES 
section). Please submit Internet comments to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7c1a0b4d0f1d0f093c0e4d521a0b0f521b130a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fd9b8acc8e9c8e88bd8fccd39b8a8ed39a928b">[email protected]</span></a> in 
ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form 
of encryption. Please also include ``Attn: Santa Ana Sucker Critical 
Habitat'' in your e-mail subject header and your name and return 
address in the body of your message. If you do not receive a 
confirmation from the system that we have received your Internet 
message, contact us directly by calling our Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 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. To the extent consistent with applicable law, 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.

Background

    On February 26, 2004, we concurrently published in the Federal 
Register a final rule (69 FR 8839) and a proposed rule (69 FR 8911) to 
designate critical habitat for the Santa Ana sucker. In order to comply 
with the designation deadline established by the district court in 
California Trout v. DOI, No. 97-3779 (N.D. Cal.), we were unable to 
open a public comment period, hold a public hearing, or complete an 
economic analysis of the final rule. We refer the reader to the final 
rule (69 FR 8839) for a complete explanation of our reasons for 
dispensing with the notice and comment procedures generally required 
under the Administrative Procedure Act. To give the public an 
opportunity to comment on the critical habitat designation, including 
the opportunity to request and hold a public hearing, and to enable us 
to complete and circulate for public review an economic analysis of 
critical habitat designation, we published and solicited comment on a 
proposed rule (69 FR 8911) to designate critical habitat for the Santa 
Ana sucker on approximately 21,129 acres (ac) (8,550 hectares (ha)) of

[[Page 62240]]

land in Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, California. We 
indicated that, after taking public comment, we would issue a new final 
designation that would replace the designation put into place on 
February 26, 2004. The original comment period on the proposed rule 
closed on April 26, 2004.
    On August 19, 2004, we published a notice in the Federal Register 
that announced the reopening of the comment period on the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the Santa Ana sucker and the 
scheduling of a public hearing on September 9, 2004, in Pasadena, 
California (69 FR 58876). The comment period was open until 5 p.m. 
p.s.t on September 20, 2004.
    In order to eliminate any confusion as to the current status of the 
February 26, 2004 final rule designating critical habitat, we reiterate 
our determination and supporting reasons presented in that rule; that 
rule will remain in effect during the short period of time necessary to 
allow this reopened comment period on the February 26, 2004 proposed 
critical habitat rule, and associated draft economic analysis, and to 
make a final determination on that rule.

Economic Analysis

    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 economic and any other 
relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. 
Based upon the February 26, 2004, proposed rule to designate critical 
habitat for the Santa Ana sucker, we prepared a draft economic analysis 
on the proposed critical habitat designation. Retrospective costs total 
$4.2 million, with transportation comprising $3.4 million of those 
costs. The remainder of retrospective costs was split among OHV 
recreation, flood control agencies, and Federal agencies. Total 
prospective costs are $30.5 million assuming a three percent discount 
rate and $21.8 million with a seven percent discount rate. Annual 
prospective costs are estimated to be $2.0 million. Costs associated 
with transportation contribute 49 percent of the annual costs and 
overall prospective costs. Other leading activities include water 
supply, flood control agencies, and residential and commercial 
development. The draft economic analysis also includes an appendix 
which provides an assessment of the potential benefits that may accrue 
to homeowners resulting from the amenity associated from living in the 
vicinity of a protected riparian corridor. The method employed to 
estimate this effect relies on the combined results of two studies that 
measure the premium to homes located near protected or restored urban 
streams (Colby and Wishart 2002, Streiner and Loomis 1995).
    On October 1, 2004, we published a notice in the Federal Register 
announcing the reopening of the comment period on the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the Santa Ana sucker and on the 
draft economic analysis for the proposal (69 FR 51416). The comment 
period was open until 5 p.m. p.s.t on October 12, 2004.
    In order to give the public, Federal, State, and local agencies, 
and Tribes additional time to review and comment on the draft economic 
analysis, we are reopening the public comment period for another 30 
days. We are now soliciting public comment on the draft economic 
analysis and appendix until the date specified above in DATES. We will 
also continue to accept comments concerning our proposed designation of 
critical habitat for the Santa Ana sucker during this period.

References Cited

    Colby, Bonnie and Steve Wishart. 2002. Quantifying the Influence 
of Desert Riparian Areas on Residential Property Values, The 
Appraisal Journal, July.
    Streiner, Carol and John B. Loomis. 1995. Estimating the 
Benefits of Urban Stream Restoration Using the Hedonic Price Method, 
Rivers 5(4).

Author

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

Authority

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

    Dated: October 20, 2004.
Paul Hoffman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 04-23968 Filed 10-22-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>