56434 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

activities and natural events that may be 

affecting the habitat and reestablishment 

of the species. Other threats, like 

undocumented immigrant traffic, are 

larger than one agency’s jurisdiction. 

However, we believe that existing 

regulatory mechanisms are sufficient to 

protect the species. The overall existing 

management of the U.S. Forest Service 

is protecting much of the habitat in 

Sycamore Canyon. We also 

acknowledge that, due to small 

population size, demographic or genetic 

factors may apply to each of the 

locations in Arizona and Sonora, 

Mexico, but we have no genetic 

information to determine whether this is 

indeed the case. 

We conclude that the Gentry indigo 

bush does not warrant listing at this 

time. In order to make a warranted 

finding, the species must, at a 

minimum, meet the definition of a 

threatened species. In accordance with 

section 3(19) of the Act, a threatened 

species is one which is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. Based on all the 

information we have gathered and 

reviewed, we do not conclude this to be 

the case for the following reasons. 

Populations have persisted in all but 

one of the known locations over time. A 

new population was located in Mexico 

and offers hope that there may be more 

populations located with additional 

surveys. Areas that were previously 

overlooked as suitable habitat outside of 

the floodplain appear to support Gentry 

indigo bush. Thus, populations may not 

be as vulnerable to extirpation from 

flood events as previously thought since 

the species does have the ability to 

recolonize after flood events, and plants 

located out of the floodplain and on the 

sides of the canyon could provide a 

source for the recolonization of plants in 

stream habitat. The largest known 

population occurs in Sycamore Canyon 

within the Goodding RNA, where 

mining, roads, and grazing are 

prohibited and where the U.S. Forest 

Service has completed a number of 

conservation actions that have improved 

the habitat for Gentry indigo bush. 

Additionally, as noted above, the 

actions of the U.S. Forest Service and 

the protection that the canyon receives 

by virtue of its wilderness and RNA 

designations will continue to provide 

for the long-term conservation of Gentry 

indigo bush in Sycamore Canyon. The 

metapopulation in Sycamore Canyon 

has persisted through some dramatic 

environmental events, and its numbers 

have increased; thus, we believe it will 

continue to persist into the future. Other 

factors (e.g., watershed degradation, 

invasive species, undocumented 

immigrant and U.S. Border Patrol 

activities, recreation, fire, climate 

change, and genetic factors associated 

with small population size) discussed 

above have not been documented as 

more than low magnitude or potential 

threats, and therefore it is not 

reasonably foreseeable that these factors 

pose threats over a significant portion of 

the species’ range. We anticipate that we 

will have the opportunity to work 

cooperatively with the Tohono O’odham 

Nation, as we have in the past, to census 

their populations and address potential 

concerns, if necessary. We also plan to 

emphasize the need for and 

participation in future monitoring 

efforts, surveys, and genetic studies. 

The Service does not believe the 

Gentry indigo bush is likely to become 

a threatened species throughout either 

all or a significant portion of its range 

in the foreseeable future. The only 

population for which we have a 

thorough threats assessment is the one 

on U.S. Forest Service land in Sycamore 

Canyon. While the Sycamore Canyon 

population is not entirely devoid of 

potential threats, we believe that U.S. 

Forest Service management (e.g., RNA 

and Wilderness designations, exclusion 

of both domestic and Mexican cattle 

from the habitat) sufficiently 

ameliorates human-influenced threats, 

while its persistence over time through 

droughts and floods, and its discovery 

outside the floodplain, render it 

unlikely to be extirpated from the 

canyon as a result of natural factors. 

Threats facing the other populations 

are less well known. Three populations 

are known from Mexico. One 

population in Mexico has been present 

since its original discovery in 1995, 

another one was relocated in 2005 after 

it was initially detected in 2004, and the 

remaining population was only detected 

in 2005. Based on this information, two 

of the populations are known to have 

persisted. In addition, according to 

information received during the public 

comment period, the Mexico 

populations are in areas not accessible 

to cattle. We can verify that plants still 

exist on the Tohono O’odham Nation. 

The fact that the Mexican and Tohono 

O’odham Nation populations have 

persisted under current management 

and through various climatic conditions 

provides evidence that whatever threats 

may exist, if any, are not significant. In 

summary, we have no evidence to 

indicate that any portion, let alone a 

significant portion, of the species’ range 

is threatened to the extent that listing 

under the Act is warranted. 

We will continue to monitor the 

status of this species and will accept 

additional information and comments at 

any time from all concerned 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, and any other 

interested party concerning this finding. 

This information will help us monitor 

and encourage beneficial measures for 

this species. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available upon request from 

the Field Supervisor at the Arizona 

Ecological Services Office (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Author 

The primary author of this document 

is the Arizona Ecological Services Office 

(see ADDRESSES section). 

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: September 14, 2005. 

Marshall Jones, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–18881 Filed 9–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AT74 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Designation of 

Critical Habitat for Astragalus 

lentiginosus var. coachellae (Coachella 

Valley milk-vetch) 

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 Astragalus lentiginosus var. 

coachellae (Coachella Valley milkvetch), 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules 56435 

public record and will be fully 

considered in our final determination. 

DATES: We will accept public comments 

and information until October 27, 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 

fw1cfwocvmv@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 intend that any 

final action resulting from our critical 

habitat proposal be as accurate and 

effective as possible. Therefore, we 

solicit comments or suggestions from 

the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested party concerning the 

proposed rule and the associated draft 

economic analysis. 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 Endangered Species Act (Act) 

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

seq.), including whether the benefits of 

designation would outweigh any threats 

to the species resulting from 

designation; 

(2) Specific information on the 

distribution of Astragalus lentiginosus 

var. coachellae, the amount and 

distribution of the species’ habitat, and 

which habitat is essential to the 

conservation of the species, and why; 

(3) Land-use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject area 

and their possible impacts on the 

species or proposed critical habitat; 

(4) 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 concerns and 

comments; 

(5) Any foreseeable economic, 

environmental, or other impacts 

resulting from the proposed designation 

of critical habitat or coextensively from 

the listing, and in particular, any 

impacts on small entities or families; 

(6) Whether the economic analysis 

identifies all State and local costs. If not, 

what other costs should be included; 

(7) Whether the economic analysis 

makes appropriate assumptions 

regarding current practices and likely 

regulatory changes imposed as a result 

of the listing of the species or the 

designation of critical habitat; 

(8) Whether the economic analysis 

correctly assesses the effect on regional 

costs associated with land- and wateruse controls that derive from the 

designation; 

(9) Whether the designation will 

result in disproportionate economic 

impacts to specific areas that should be 

evaluated for possible exclusion from 

any final designation; 

(10) Whether the economic analysis 

appropriately identifies all costs that 

could result from the designation or 

coextensively from the listing; and 

(11) 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. 

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 concerning 

designation of critical habitat for 

Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae 

will take into consideration all 

comments and any additional 

information received during both 

comment periods. On the basis of public 

comment on the critical habitat 

proposal, the draft economic analysis, 

and 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: 

Coachella Valley milk-vetch’’ and your 

name and return address in your e-mail 

message regarding the Astragalus 

lentiginosus var. coachellae 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 above 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 Astragalus 

lentiginosus var. coachellae and the 

draft economic analysis are also 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.fws.gov/pacific/carlsbad/ 

CVMV.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 December 14, 2004, we published 

a proposed rule in the Federal Register 

(69 FR 74468) to designate critical 

habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. 

coachellae pursuant to the Act. We 

identified approximately 20,559 acres 

(ac) (8,320 hectares (ha)) of essential 

habitat for this species. Of the essential 

habitat, we proposed to designate 

approximately 3,583 ac (1,450 ha) of 

critical habitat in three units in 

Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, 

California. Approximately 16,976 ac 

(6,870 ha) of essential habitat covered 

under the pending Coachella Valley 

Multiple Species Habitat Conservation 

56436 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Plan in Riverside County was excluded 

from proposed critical habitat under 

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

comment period for the A. l. var. 

coachellae proposed critical habitat rule 

closed on February 14, 2005. For more 

information on this species, refer to the 

final rule listing this species as 

endangered, published in the Federal 

Register on October 6, 1998 (63 FR 

53596). 

The proposed critical habitat for 

Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, 

published on December 14, 2004 (69 FR 

74475), was intended to include only 

Federal and State lands. Although the 

descriptions of the proposed critical 

habitat units describe those units as 

Federal or State lands, due to using a 

100 meter Universal Transverse 

Mercator grid in our mapping process, 

some acres associated with private lands 

were inadvertently included in the total 

acreage figures. Because the draft 

economic analysis looks at the costs 

associated with all of the acreage 

included in the proposed rule, the 

development costs on private lands 

were included. If this proposed critical 

habitat designation is made final, the 

Service intends to explicitly remove the 

private lands in the final determination. 

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 14, 2004 (69 FR 74468), 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for Astragalus lentiginosus var. 

coachellae. 

The draft economic analysis considers 

the potential economic effects of actions 

relating to the conservation of 

Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, 

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 A. l. var. coachellae 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). 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 

Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellaerelated conservation activities 

associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of 

the Act that have accrued since the time 

that A. l. var. coachellae was listed as 

endangered (October 6, 1998), but prior 

to the final designation of critical 

habitat. The pre-designation costs in the 

proposed critical habitat are estimated 

at $2.5 million. 

Post-designation effects include likely 

future costs associated with Astragalus 

lentiginosus var. coachellae 

conservation efforts following the final 

designation of critical habitat in 

December 2005 (effectively 2006 

through 2025). The total costs associated 

with the designation of critical habitat 

are expected to be $7.8 million in 

constant dollars, or $5.8 million and 

$4.2 million when using a three percent 

or seven percent discount rate, 

respectively, over the next 20 years (an 

annualized cost of $0.4 million at either 

rate). As mentioned above, private lands 

were not meant to be included in the 

proposed designation. The costs 

associated with development on private 

lands are $1.5 million in constant 

dollars, or $1.1 million and $0.8 million 

when using a three percent or seven 

percent discount rate, respectively, over 

the next 20 years (an annualized cost of 

$0.07 million at either rate). Therefore, 

the net costs associated with the 

designation of critical habitat are 

expected to be $6.2 million in constant 

dollars, or $4.7 million or $3.4 million 

when using a three percent or seven 

percent discount rate, respectively over 

the next 20 years (an annualized cost of 

$0.03 million at either rate). 

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 

$0.4 million per year, we do not 

anticipate that this final rule will 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 

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, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules 56437 

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 

Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae 

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 

Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae 

would be incurred for activities 

involving residential, commercial, and 

industrial development (land 

subdivision companies); transportation 

(California Department of 

Transportation (Cal Trans), Coachella 

Valley Association of Governments 

(CVAG), or Riverside County 

Transportation Commission (RCTC)); 

Federal land (Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service)); other public 

(California Department of Fish and 

Game (CDFG) and California 

Department of Parks and Recreation 

(CDPR)) or conservation (The Nature 

Conservancy (TNC) and Center for 

Natural Lands Management (CNLM)) 

land management, water supply 

(Mission Springs Water District (MSWD) 

and Coachella Valley Water District 

(CVWD)), and flood control (CVWD and 

Riverside County Flood Control and 

Water Conservation District (RCFC) 

agencies); implementation of the draft 

Coachella Valley Multiple Species 

Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP); 

and wind energy projects (private 

businesses and individuals). 

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 through a Local 

Development Mitigation Fee. This fee 

will be imposed by local jurisdictions 

on residential, commercial, and 

industrial development occurring on 

private land containing habitat for 

covered species (species included in the 

MSHCP permit) within the Coachella 

Valley MSHCP Plan Area. The affected 

land is located within Riverside County 

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, as previously 

mentioned, due to using a 100 meter 

Universal Transverse Mercator grid in 

our mapping process, private lands were 

inadvertently included in the proposed 

critical habitat designation. If the 

proposed rule is made final, the Service 

intends to explicitly remove private 

lands, and therefore the additional costs 

to real estate development projects 

mentioned above will likely not 

materialize. 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 but may also include 

industrial and commercial properties. 

It is likely that development 

companies in Riverside County, the 

entities directly impacted by the 

regulation, would not bear the 

additional costs of Astragalus 

lentiginosus var. coachellae 

conservation within the essential 

habitat, but pass these costs to the 

landowners through a lower land 

purchase price. Of the 8,598 acres of 

developable land in Units 1 and 2, 8,559 

acres are under private ownership and 

‘‘vacant’’; the remaining 39 acres are 

under private ownership and in 

agriculture. 

To comply with the SBA 

recommendation that Federal agencies 

consider impacts to entities that may be 

indirectly affected by the proposed 

regulation, this screening level analysis 

presents information on land 

subdivision and farming businesses for 

Riverside County as these are the 

businesses that would likely be 

impacted directly or indirectly by the 

regulation (see Table A–1 in the draft 

economic analysis). As highlighted in 

Table A–1, the majority of the land 

subdivision and farming businesses 

within Riverside County are considered 

small businesses. 

It is important to note that the identity 

and number of land subdivision and 

farming businesses impacted by the 

critical habitat designation is not 

known. In addition, the identity and 

number of affected businesses classified 

as ‘‘small’’ is also not known. 

Nevertheless, the county-level 

information provided in Table A–1 

reflects the smallest region for which 

data relevant to this analysis exist. This 

county-level information clearly overrepresents the potential number of small 

businesses impacted by developmentrelated Astragalus lentiginosus var. 

coachellae conservation efforts as the 

privately owned developable land 

within the essential habitat 

(approximately 8,598 acres) comprises 

less than two-tenths of one percent of 

the total land area in the County 

(4,612,480 acres), and only 265.2 acres 

of this private land is forecasted to be 

developed between 2006 and 2025. 

Furthermore, the 39 acres of agriculture 

land represent less than one-half of one 

percent of the developable land 

(approximately 8,598 acres) within the 

essential habitat. 

While the identity and number of 

land subdivision and farming 

businesses impacted by the critical 

habitat designation is not known, 

considering that low density residential 

56438 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

development is expected to comprise 79 

percent of the forecasted acres of land 

development between 2006 and 2025, 

this analysis relates the economic 

impacts to the median home price in the 

County. The mitigation cost per acre of 

development is $1,975 for this species, 

and the build-out density for residential 

low development is fewer than eight 

dwelling units per acre. Thus, 

Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellaerelated conservation efforts are expected 

to cost between $247 and $1,975 per 

residential dwelling unit (one to eight 

dwelling units per acre) developed. 

Considering the median sales price for 

single family residences in the County 

was $315,000 in 2004, the economic 

impacts are equal to 0.08 percent to 0.63 

percent of the median home price in 

Riverside County. These costs may be 

borne by the developer or passed on to 

the landowner through a lower land 

purchase price. 

Based on this 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 Riverside County since no private 

lands are actually being proposed for 

critical habitat as stated earlier in the 

Background section. 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 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. On the basis of our draft 

economic analysis, the proposed critical 

habitat designation 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 the 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 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, nine small 

local governments are located adjacent 

to or bisect the areas subject to this 

analysis: Palm Springs (population 

42,807); Cathedral City (population 

42,647); Banning (population 23,562); 

Yucca Valley (population 16,865); 

Desert Hot Springs (population 16,582); 

Cherry Valley (population 5,891); 

Thousand Palms (population 5,120); 

Cabazon (population 2,229); and 

Morongo Valley (population 1,929). All 

nine of the local governments have 

populations that fall within the criteria 

(fewer than 50,000 residents) for ‘‘small 

entity.’’ However, there is no record of 

consultations between the Service and 

these cities since Astragalus 

lentiginosus var. coachellae was listed 

in 1998. Indeed, it is not likely 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. 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 Astragalus lentiginosus var. 

coachellae. 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules 56439 

forward. In conclusion, the designation 

of critical habitat for Astragalus 

lentiginosus var. coachellae 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: September 16, 2005. 

Craig Manson, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 05–19098 Filed 9–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P