Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51739 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AJ11 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Designation of 

Critical Habitat for Atriplex coronata 

var. notatior (San Jacinto Valley 

crownscale) 

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 Atriplex coronata var. 

notatior under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.) (Act), 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 of 

critical habitat for this taxon. 

DATES: We will accept public comments 

and information until September 14, 

2005. 

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; 

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_SJVC@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. 

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). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

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 October 6, 2004 (69 FR 

59844), 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 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 Atriplex 

coronata var. notatior and its habitat, 

and habitat features and geographic 

areas 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 

Atriplex coronata var. notatior, 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 the proposed 

listing; 

(6) 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; 

(7) 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; 

(8) 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; 

(9) Whether the economic analysis 

appropriately identifies all costs that 

could result from the designation, in 

particular, any impacts on small entities 

or families; 

(10) 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; 

(11) Whether it is appropriate that the 

analysis does not include the cost of 

project modifications that are the result 

of informal consultation only; 

(12) 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; 

and 

(13) 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. 

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 

Atriplex coronata var. notatior 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: 

Atriplex coronata var. notatior’’ and 

your name and return address in your 

e-mail message regarding the Atriplex 

coronata var. notatior proposed rule or 

the draft economic analysis. If you do 

not receive a confirmation from the 

system that we have received your email 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 

51740 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

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 Atriplex 

coronata var. notatior and the draft 

economic analysis are also available on 

the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ 

pacific/carlsbad/SJVC.htm. In the event 

that our internet connection is not 

functional, please obtain copies of 

documents directly from the Carlsbad 

Fish and Wildlife Office. 

Background 

On October 6, 2004, we published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register 

(69 FR 59844) to designate critical 

habitat for Atriplex coronata var. 

notatior pursuant to the Act. We 

proposed to designate no lands as 

critical habitat. The entire range for this 

species is in Western Riverside County, 

CA, and as such will be conserved by 

the approved Western Riverside 

Multiple Species Habitat Conservation 

Plan. Therefore, we proposed to exclude 

all 15,232 acres (ac) (6,164.4 hectares 

(ha)) of habitat with features essential to 

the conservation of this species under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The initial 

public comment period for the Atriplex 

coronata var. notatior proposed critical 

habitat rule closed on December 6, 2004. 

For more information on this species, 

refer to the final rule listing this species 

as endangered, 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 October 6, 2004 (69 FR 59844), 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for Atriplex coronata var. notatior. 

The draft economic analysis considers 

the potential economic effects of actions 

relating to the conservation of Atriplex 

coronata var. notatior, 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 Atriplex 

coronata var. notatior 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. 

Pre-designation costs include those 

Atriplex coronata var. notatior-related 

conservation activities associated with 

sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act that have 

accrued since the time that Atriplex 

coronata var. notatior was listed as 

endangered (63 FR 54975; October 13, 

1998), but prior to the final designation 

of critical habitat. These pre-designation 

costs are estimated at $3.9 million. 

Post-designation effects would 

include likely future costs associated 

with Atriplex coronata var. notatior 

conservation efforts in the 20-year 

period following the final designation of 

critical habitat in October 2005 

(effectively 2006 through 2025). In the 

event that no land is designated as 

critical habitat, there will be no 

additional costs associated with the 

designation. 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 $16.8 and 

$58.8 million over the next 20 years (an 

annualized cost of $1.6 to $5.5 million). 

Required Determinations—Amended 

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 that 

the potential economic impact 

associated with designation as critical 

habitat of all habitat with features 

essential to the conservation of this 

species would total no more than $5.5 

million per year, we do not anticipate 

that this designation 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. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51741 

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 

Atriplex coronata var. notatior 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). 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. 

Typically, when proposed critical 

habitat designations are made final, 

Federal agencies must consult with us if 

their activities may affect that 

designated critical habitat. 

Consultations to avoid the destruction 

or adverse modification of critical 

habitat would be incorporated into the 

existing consultation process. However, 

since no critical habitat is being 

proposed for designation, no 

consultations would be necessary. 

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. 

Designation of critical habitat on all 

lands with features essential to the 

conservation of the taxon would be 

expected to result in some additional 

costs to real estate development projects 

due to conservation that may be 

required. The affected land is located 

within Riverside County, CA, and under 

private ownership by individuals who 

will either undertake a development 

project on their own or sell the land to 

developers for development. However, 

the potential number of small 

businesses impacted by developmentrelated Atriplex coronata var. notatior 

conservation efforts is considered to be 

minimal, since only 342 ac (138.4 ha) of 

privately-owned developable land 

within the essential habitat 

(approximately 8,100 ac (3,278 ha)) are 

forecast to be developed between 2006 

and 2025. This comprises less than onehundredth of one percent of the land 

area in Riverside County (1,780,220 ac 

(720,455 ha)). We have determined from 

our analysis that this rule would not 

result in a ‘‘significant effect’’ for the 

small business entities in Riverside 

County. 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 proposed 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. 

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 

51742 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 31, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

duty to avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat rests 

squarely on the Federal agency. 

Furthermore, to the extent that nonFederal 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) We do not believe that this rule 

will significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. As discussed in the 

draft economic analysis, five small local 

governments, the City of Perris 

(population 36,189), Lake Elsinore 

(population 28,928), Lakeview 

(population 1,619), Nuevo (population 

4,135), and Winchester (population 

2,155), are located adjacent to habitat 

that has features essential to the 

conservation of this taxon. There is no 

record of consultations between the 

Service and these cities since Atriplex 

coronata var. notatior was listed in 

1998. It is unlikely that these cities 

would be involved in a land 

development project involving a section 

7 consultation, although a city may be 

involved in land use planning or 

permitting, and may play a role as an 

interested party in infrastructure 

projects (such as the City of Perris with 

the San Jacinto River Flood Control 

Project). Any cost associated with this 

activity/involvement is anticipated to be 

a very small portion of the city’s budget. 

Consequently, we do not believe that 

critical habitat designation would 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

government entities. As such, Small 

Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

Takings 

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 Atriplex coronata var. 

notatior. 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 Atriplex coronata 

var. notatior does not pose significant 

takings implications. 

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: August 23, 2005. 

Paul Hoffman, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 05–17451 Filed 8–29–05; 3:05 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AT86 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Designation of 

Critical Habitat for Navarretia fossalis 

(spreading navarretia) 

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 Navarretia fossalis, 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 September 14, 

2005. 

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; 

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_nafo@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. 

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). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

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 October 7, 2004 (69 FR 

60110), 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 Navarretia 

fossalis and its habitat, and which 

habitat features and geographic areas 

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 

Navarretia fossalis, 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 the proposed 

listing; 

(6) 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; 

(7) Whether the draft economic 

analysis makes appropriate assumptions 

regarding current practices and likely