Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 61591 

comments in subsequent action based 

on this proposed rule. Please note that 

if we receive adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

we may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

We do not plan to open a second 

comment period, so anyone interested 

in commenting should do so at this 

time. If we do not receive adverse 

comments, no further activity is 

planned. For further information, please 

see the direct final action. 

Dated: August 31, 2005. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 05–21265 Filed 10–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU23 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Distinct Population 

Segment of the California Tiger 

Salamander in Sonoma County 

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 comment period on the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the distinct population segment 

(DPS) of the California tiger salamander 

in Sonoma County and the availability 

of the draft economic analysis of the 

proposed designation of critical habitat. 

The draft economic analysis identifies 

potential costs of approximately $336 

million over a 20-year period or 

approximately $17 million per year as a 

result of the proposed designation of 

critical habitat, including those costs 

coextensive with listing. 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 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 November 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 the Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 

Cottage Way, Suite W–2605, 

Sacramento, CA 95825; 

2. You may hand-deliver written 

comments and information to our 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, at 

the above address, or fax your 

comments to 916/414–6713; or 

3. You may send comments by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to: 

fw1sonoma_tiger_salamander@fws.gov. 

For directions on how to file comments 

electronically, 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. 

Copies of the draft economic analysis 

and the proposed rule for critical habitat 

designation are available on the Internet 

at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ 

sacramento or from the Sacramento Fish 

and Wildlife Office at the address and 

contact numbers above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Arnold Roessler, Sacramento Fish and 

Wildlife Office, at the address above 

(telephone 916/414–6600; facsimile 

916/414–6713). 

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 (70 FR 44301; August 2, 

2005) 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 (Act) (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.), including whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of including such area as part 

of critical habitat; 

(2) Specific information on the 

amount and distribution of California 

tiger salamander (CTS) habitat in 

Sonoma County, and what habitat is 

essential to the conservation of this 

species and why; 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject area 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

habitat; 

(4) Information on whether, and if so, 

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 the Sonoma County 

population of the CTS, and how many 

were either already in place or enacted 

for other reasons; 

(5) 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; 

(6) 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; 

(7) Whether the draft economic 

analysis correctly assesses the effect on 

regional costs associated with any land 

use controls that may derive from the 

designation of critical habitat; 

(8) The draft economic analysis 

indicates potentially disproportionate 

impacts to areas within Sonoma County. 

Based on this information, we are 

considering excluding portions of these 

areas from the final designation per our 

discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. We are specifically seeking 

comment and additional information on 

areas within Sonoma County that could 

be potentially be disproportionately 

impacted by a CTS critical habitat 

designation; 

(9) Any foreseeable economic or other 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

designation of critical habitat, and in 

particular, any impacts on small entities 

or families; does our conclusion that the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

will not result in a disproportionate 

effect to small businesses warrant 

further consideration, and other 

information that would indicate that the 

designation of critical habitat would or 

would not have any impacts on small 

entities or families; 

(10) Whether the draft economic 

analysis appropriately identifies all 

costs that could result from the 

designation; and 

(11) 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. 

An area may be excluded from critical 

habitat if it is determined that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

61592 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

benefits of including a particular area as 

critical habitat, unless the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. We may exclude an area from 

designated critical habitat based on 

economic impacts, national security, or 

any other relevant impact. 

All previous comments and 

information submitted during the initial 

comment period on the August 2, 2005, 

proposed rule (70 FR 44301) 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 designation of critical 

habitat will take into consideration all 

comments and any additional 

information we received during both 

comment periods. On the basis of public 

comment on this analysis and on the 

critical habitat proposal, 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 not 

appropriate for exclusion. 

Please submit electronic comments in 

an ASCII file format and avoid the use 

of special characters and encryption. 

Please also include ‘‘Attn: RIN 1018–

AU23’’ 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 email message, please contact the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

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 addresses from 

the rulemaking record, which we will 

honor to the extent allowable by law. In 

some circumstances, we would 

withhold from the rulemaking record a 

respondent’s identity, as allowable by 

law. If you wish for 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 inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the Sacramento Fish and 

Wildlife Office at the address listed 

under ADDRESSES. 

Copies of the proposed rule and draft 

economic analysis are available on the 

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

sacramento/. You may also obtain 

copies of the proposed rule and 

economic analysis from the Sacramento 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES), or by calling 916/414–6600. 

Background 

We published a proposed rule to 

designate critical habitat for a distinct 

population segment of the CTS in 

Sonoma County on August 2, 2005 (70 

FR 44301). The proposed critical habitat 

totaled approximately 74,223 acres (ac) 

(30,037 hectares (ha)) in Sonoma 

County. This proposed critical habitat 

does not include areas within Santa 

Barbara County or the Central Valley or 

Central Coast of California. A final 

critical habitat designation for the 

distinct population segment of the CTS 

in Santa Barbara County was published 

on November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68568), 

and a final critical habitat designation 

for the Central population of the CTS 

was published on August 23, 2005 (70 

FR 49380). Per settlement agreement, we 

will submit for publication in the 

Federal Register a final critical habitat 

designation for the CTS in Sonoma 

County on or before December 1, 2005. 

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 

on the August 2, 2005, proposed rule to 

designate critical habitat for the CTS in 

Sonoma County, we have prepared a 

draft economic analysis of the proposed 

critical habitat designation. 

The current draft economic analysis 

estimates the foreseeable economic 

impacts of the proposed critical habitat 

designation on government agencies and 

private businesses and individuals. The 

economic analysis identifies potential 

costs of approximately $336 million 

over a 20-year period or approximately 

$17 million per year as a result of the 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

including those costs coextensive with 

listing. The analysis measures lost 

economic efficiency associated with 

residential and commercial 

development, and public projects and 

activities, such as economic impacts on 

transportation projects, the energy 

industry, and Federal lands. However, 

no Federal lands are within the 

proposed critical habitat boundary. 

The draft economic analysis considers 

the potential economic effects of actions 

relating to the conservation of the CTS 

in Sonoma County, 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 CTS in 

essential habitat areas. The draft 

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 decisionmakers to assess whether the effects of 

the designation might unduly burden a 

particular group or economic sector. 

Finally, this draft analysis looks 

retrospectively at costs that have been 

incurred since the date the species was 

listed as a threatened species and 

considers those costs that may occur in 

the 20 years following a designation of 

critical habitat. 

As stated earlier, we solicit data and 

comments from the public on this draft 

economic analysis, as well as on all 

aspects of the proposal. We may revise 

the proposal, or its supporting 

documents, to incorporate or address 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 61593 

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 species. 

Costs related to conservation activities 

for the proposed CTS critical habitat 

pursuant to sections 4, 7, and 10 of the 

Act are estimated to be approximately 

$336 million from 2005 to 2025. 

Overall, the residential and commercial 

industry is calculated to experience the 

highest estimated costs. The draft 

analysis was conducted at the census 

tract level. Of the 57 census tracts that 

are part of this current proposal, six are 

identified as census tracts responsible 

for over 80% of the most impacted 

areas. Annualized impacts of costs 

attributable to the proposed critical 

habitat designation are projected to be 

approximately $17 million. 

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. However, it 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) did not 

formally review 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, then 

the agency will need to consider 

alternative regulatory approaches. Since 

the determination of critical habitat is a 

statutory requirement pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

we must then evaluate alternative 

regulatory approaches, where feasible, 

when promulgating a designation of 

critical habitat. 

In developing our designations of 

critical habitat, we consider economic 

impacts, impacts to national security, 

and other relevant impacts pursuant to 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the 

discretion allowable under this 

provision, we may exclude any 

particular area from the designation of 

critical habitat providing that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweighs the 

benefits of specifying the area as critical 

habitat and that such exclusion would 

not result in the extinction of the 

species. As such, we believe that the 

evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion 

of particular areas, or combination 

thereof, in a designation constitutes our 

regulatory alternative analysis. 

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 the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

CTS 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. 

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 draft economic analysis of the 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

we evaluated the potential economic 

effects on small business entities 

resulting from conservation actions 

related to the listing of the CTS and 

proposed designation of its critical 

habitat. We determined from our 

analysis that the small business entities 

that may be affected are firms in the 

new home construction sector. We 

estimated the number of affected small 

businesses and calculated the number of 

houses built per small firm. It appears 

that the annual number of affected small 

firms is far less than one in Sonoma 

County. Note that if one firm closed in 

the first year, then this same firm would 

be affected in subsequent years. The 

number of small firms will not decrease 

every year. These firms may be affected 

by activities associated with the 

conservation of the CTS, inclusive of 

activities associated with listing, 

recovery, and critical habitat. Critical 

habitat is not expected to result in 

significant small business impacts. In 

the development of our final 

designation, we will explore potential 

alternatives to minimize impacts to any 

affected small business entities. These 

alternatives may include the exclusion 

of all or portions of the critical habitat 

units in these counties. As such, we 

expect that any final designation of 

critical habitat for the distinct 

population segment of the CTS in 

Sonoma County. 

We do not believe that the designation 

of critical habitat for the CTS in Sonoma 

County will result in a disproportionate 

effect to small business entities. 

61594 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

However, we are seeking comment on 

potentially excluding areas from the 

final critical habitat designation if it is 

determined that there will be a 

substantial and significant impact to 

small real estate development 

businesses in the county. 

Critical habitat designation for the 

CTS is expected to have the largest 

impacts on the market for developable 

land. The proposed critical habitat 

designation for CTS occurs in a number 

of rapidly growing areas. Regulatory 

requirements to avoid onsite impacts 

and mitigate offsite affect the welfare of 

both producers and consumers. In the 

scenario presented here, mitigation 

requirements increase the cost of 

development, and avoidance 

requirements are assumed to reduce the 

construction of new housing. In this 

scenario, the proposed critical habitat 

designation is expected to impose losses 

of over $336 million over the 20-year 

study period. 

The economic impacts of the 

proposed critical habitat designation 

vary widely even with the county. That 

is, the impacts of designation are 

frequently localized. This finding is 

sensible from an economic point of view 

and is consistent with the teachings of 

urban economics. Housing prices vary 

over urban areas, typically declining as 

the location of the house becomes more 

remote. Critical habitat is not evenly 

distributed across the landscape, and 

large impacts may result if a particular 

area has a large fraction of developable 

land in critical habitat. Some areas have 

few alternate sites for development, or 

have highly rationed housing resulting 

in high prices. Any of these factors may 

cause the cost of critical habitat 

designation to increase. 

The precise spatial scale of the 

analysis permits identification of 

specific locations, or parts of individual 

critical habitat units, that result in the 

largest economic impacts. The maps 

contained at the end of the draft 

economic analysis are instructive in this 

regard. The maps identify the census 

tracts within the counties where the 

impacts are predicted to occur. 

Please refer to our draft economic 

analysis of the proposed critical habitat 

designation for a more detailed 

discussion of potential economic 

impacts. 

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 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) As discussed in the draft economic 

analysis of the proposed designation of 

critical habitat for the CTS in Sonoma 

County, the impacts on nonprofits and 

small governments are expected to be 

negligible. There is no record of 

consultations between the Service and 

any of these governments since the 

distinct population segment of the CTS 

in Sonoma County was emergency listed 

in 2002. 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 the distinct 

population segment of the CTS in 

Sonoma County within their 

jurisdictional areas. Any costs 

associated with this activity are likely to 

represent a small portion of a local 

government’s budget. Consequently, we 

do not believe that the designation of 

critical habitat for the distinct 

population segment of the CTS in 

Sonoma County will significantly or 

uniquely affect these small 

governmental entities. As such, a 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 the Sonoma County 

population of CTS. 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 the Sonoma 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 61595 

County population of CTS does not pose 

significant takings implications. 

Author 

The primary author of this notice is 

the staff of the Sacramento Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: October 14, 2005. 

Craig Manson, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 05–21205 Filed 10–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[I.D. 101905C] 

Fisheries off the West Coast States 

and in the Western Pacific; Pacific 

Coast Groundfish Fishery; Notice of 

Intent to Prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement or Environmental 

Assessment for Fishing Conducted 

Under the Pacific Coast Groundfish 

Fishery Management Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) or 

environmental assessment (EA); 

announcement of public scoping period; 

request for written comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS, in cooperation with 

the Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council), announces its intention to 

prepare an EIS or an EA in accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) to assess the impacts of the 

2007–2008 Pacific Coast groundfish 

fishery specifications and management 

measures on the human, biological, and 

physical environment. 

DATES: Public scoping opportunities for 

the 2007–2008 Pacific Coast groundfish 

fishery specifications and management 

measures EIS (or EA) will occur during 

meetings of the Council and its advisory 

bodies starting with the October 31–

November 4, 2005, Council meeting and 

continuing through the June 11–16, 

2006, when the Council is scheduled to 

determine their final preferred 

alternative (see SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). However, only written 

comments provided to the Council 

office through November 25, 2005, will 

be considered in a scoping document 

summarizing the public’s issues and 

alternatives raised by the public, which 

may be evaluated in the EIS (or EA). 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on suggested alternatives and potential 

impacts identified by I.D. 101905 by any 

of the following methods: 

• E-mail: (pfmc.comments@noaa.gov 

and write ‘‘2007–2008 groundfish 

specifications EIS’’ in subject line). 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: 503–820–2299. 

• Mail: Dr. Donald McIsaac, 

Executive Director, Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 7700 NE 

Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, 

OR 97220–1384. 

The scoping document will be 

available on the Council’s website 

(www.pcouncil.org)or by written request 

from the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, 

Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220–1384. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

John DeVore, Groundfish Fishery 

Management Coordinator; phone: 503–

820–2280 and e-mail: 

John.DeVore@noaa.gov or Kathe Hawe, 

NMFS Northwest Region NEPA 

Coordinator; phone: 206–526–6161 and 

email: Kathe.Hawe@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Need for Agency 

Action 

There are more than 80 species 

managed under the Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan 

(groundfish FMP), eight of which have 

been declared overfished. The 

groundfish stocks support an array of 

commercial, recreational, and Indian 

tribal fishing interests in state and 

Federal waters off the coasts of 

Washington, Oregon, and California. In 

addition, groundfish are also harvested 

incidentally in non-groundfish fisheries, 

most notably, the trawl fisheries for 

pink shrimp, ridgeback prawns, 

California halibut, and sea cucumber. 

The proposed action is needed to 

establish commercial and recreational 

harvests levels in 2007–2008 that will 

ensure groundfish stocks are maintained 

at, or restored to, sizes and structures 

that will produce the highest net benefit 

to the nation, while balancing 

environmental and social values. 

The Proposed Action 

The proposed action is to implement 

management measures consistent with 

the requirements of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act) that constrain total fishing 

mortality during 2007–2008 within 

limits that maintain fish stocks at, or 

rebuild them to, a level capable of 

producing maximum sustained yield, or 

to a stock size less than this if such 

stock size results in long-term net 

benefit to the nation. 

These fishing mortality limits are 

harvest specifications that include 

acceptable biological catches (ABCs) 

and optimum yields (OYs) for 

groundfish species or species groups in 

need of particular protection; OYs may 

be represented by harvest guidelines or 

quotas for species that need individual 

management. Separate sets of ABCs and 

OYs will be specified for 2007 and 2008 

as part of the multi-year management 

cycle for groundfish. The allocation of 

commercial OYs between the open 

access and limited entry segments of the 

fishery is also part of the proposed 

action. 

The FMP, as amended by Amendment 

17, requires that the groundfish 

specifications be evaluated and revised 

as necessary every two years, with 

separate ABCs and OYs established for 

each of the two years in the biennial 

period. Management measures designed 

to achieve the OYs will be established 

for each year and, as in the past, may 

vary from period to period within any 

one year. These specifications and 

management measures will be 

published in the Federal Register of the 

first fishing year in the biennium (2007). 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act and the 

groundfish FMP also require that NMFS 

implement actions to prevent 

overfishing and to rebuild overfished 

stocks. These specifications include fish 

caught in state ocean waters (zero to 

three nautical miles (nm) offshore) as 

well as fish caught in the U.S. exclusive 

economic zone (3 to 200 nm offshore). 

Alternatives 

NEPA requires that agencies evaluate 

reasonable alternatives to the proposed 

action in an EIS. The purpose and need 

for agency action determines the range 

of reasonable alternatives. A 

preliminary set of alternatives will be 

developed during the October 31–

November 4, 2005, Council meeting. 

Alternatives will be structured around a 

range of ABCs/OYs for assessed 

groundfish species. This range of ABCs/ 

OYs is based on stock assessments, 

including new assessments for 23 of the 

groundfish species managed under the 

FMP. 

For some species, ABC/OY ranges that 

would be used to develop alternatives 

may be based on consultations by the 

Council with state and federal agencies, 

Indian tribes, and the affected public on