[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 5, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6684-6689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1805]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R8-ES-2008-0014; 92210-1117-0000-B4]
RIN 1018-AV05


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis 
californiana) and Proposed Taxonomic Revision

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

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

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

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 the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis 
californiana) and proposed taxonomic revision under

[[Page 6685]]

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also announce 
the availability of the draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed 
critical habitat designation, and an amended required determinations 
section of the proposal. The DEA provides information about the pre-
designation costs and forecasts post-designation costs associated with 
conservation efforts for Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. The DEA estimates 
potential future costs due to conservation efforts (baseline costs) to 
be approximately $26.7 million and costs associated solely with the 
designation of critical habitat (incremental costs) to be approximately 
$135,000 in undiscounted dollars over a 20-year period in areas 
proposed as critical habitat. The amended required determinations 
section provides our determination concerning compliance with 
applicable statutes and Executive Orders that we have deferred until 
the information from the DEA of the proposal was available. We are 
reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an 
opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule, the 
associated DEA, and the amended required determinations section. 
Comments submitted during the initial comment period from July 25 to 
September 24, 2007, on the proposed rule (72 FR 40956), or from October 
9 to November 23, 2007, during the reopened comment period on the 
proposed rule (72 FR 57276) have been incorporated into the supporting 
for this rulemaking and need not be resubmitted. We will incorporate 
all comments into the supporting record as part of this comment period, 
and we will fully consider them when preparing our final determination.

DATES: We will accept public comments until March 6, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2008-0014, Division of Policy and Directives 
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on 
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section 
below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert D. Williams, Field Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340 
Financial Blvd., Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502-7147; telephone 775-861-
6300; or facsimile 775-861-6301. Persons who use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay 
Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

    We will accept written comments and information during this 
reopened comment period on our proposed critical habitat designation 
for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep and proposed taxonomic revision 
published in the Federal Register on July 25, 2007 (72 FR 40956), our 
draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed designation, and the 
amended required determinations provided in this document. We will 
consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. 
We are particularly interested in comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
critical habitat under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 
including whether the benefits of designation would outweigh threats to 
the species caused by the designation, such that the designation of 
critical habitat is prudent.
    (2) Specific information on:
    <bullet> The amount and distribution of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep 
habitat,
    <bullet> What areas occupied at the time of listing that contain 
features essential to the conservation of the species we should include 
in the designation and why, and
    <bullet> What areas not occupied at the time of listing are 
essential for the conservation of the species and why.
    (3) Land-use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (4) Information on the extent to which any State and local 
environmental protection measures we reference in the DEA may have been 
adopted largely as a result of the listing of the Sierra Nevada bighorn 
sheep.
    (5) Information on whether the DEA identifies all State and local 
costs and benefits attributable to the proposed critical habitat 
designation, and information on any costs or benefits that we have 
overlooked.
    (6) Information on whether the DEA makes appropriate assumptions 
regarding current practices and any regulatory changes likely if we 
designate critical habitat.
    (7) Information on whether the DEA identifies all costs that could 
result from the designation and whether you agree with the analysis.
    (8) Information on whether the DEA correctly assesses the effect on 
regional costs associated with any land use controls that may result 
from the critical habitat designation.
    (9) Information on areas that the critical habitat designation 
could potentially impact to a disproportionate degree.
    (10) Economic data on the incremental costs of designating any 
particular area as critical habitat.
    (11) Information on any quantifiable economic benefits of the 
designation of critical habitat.
    (12) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other 
potential impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in 
particular, any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of 
including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.
    (13) Whether the benefit of excluding any particular area outweigh 
the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    (14) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    Comments submitted during the initial comment period from July 25 
to September 24, 2007, on the proposed rule (72 FR 40956), or from 
October 9 to November 23, 2007, during the reopened comment period on 
the proposed rule (72 FR 57276) have been incorporated into the 
supporting for this rulemaking and need not be resubmitted. We will 
incorporate them into the supporting record as part of this comment 
period, and we will fully consider them in preparation of our final 
determination. If you wish to comment, you may send your comments and 
materials concerning our proposed rule, DEA, or amended required 
determinations by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. 
Our final determination concerning critical habitat will take into 
consideration all written comments and any additional information we 
receive during the comment periods. On the basis of public comments, 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.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will no 
longer

[[Page 6686]]

accept comments you send by e-mail or fax. Please note that we will 
consider comments we receive after the date specified in the DATES 
section in our final determination.
    Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or 
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be 
aware that we will post your entire comment--including your personal 
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. While you can 
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying 
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be 
able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparation of the proposal to designate 
critical habitat, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment during normal business hours, at 
the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 
234, Reno, NV 89502-7147; telephone 775-861-6300. You may obtain copies 
of the proposed critical habitat rule and the DEA by mail from the 
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office or by visiting our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/nevada.

Background

    On December 8, 2005, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a 
complaint based on the Service's failure to designate critical habitat 
for this subspecies within the time mandated under the Act (Center for 
Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, et al. Case No. 
2:05-CB-02492-DFL-KJM). On June 6, 2006, the Service entered into a 
settlement agreement with the Center for Biological Diversity to submit 
a proposed critical habitat designation for this subspecies for 
publication in the Federal Register by July 17, 2007, and to submit a 
final determination on the proposed critical habitat designation for 
publication by July 17, 2008. On July 25, 2007, we published a proposed 
rule to designate critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep 
(72 FR 40956), identifying a total of approximately 417,577 acres 
(168,992 hectares) of land in Tuolumne, Mono, Fresno, Inyo, and Tulare 
counties, California. In that proposal, we also proposed a taxonomic 
revision of the listed entity from a distinct population segment to a 
subspecies (Ovis Canadensis sierrae) based on recent published 
information.
    Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas 
within the geographical 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 geographical 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, in accordance with section 
7(a)(2) of the Act.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from 
critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of such exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of including that particular area as critical 
habitat, unless failure to designate that specific 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.

Draft Economic Analysis

    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 impact, impact 
on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. Based on the July 25, 2007, 
proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada 
bighorn sheep (72 FR 40956), we have prepared a DEA of the proposed 
critical habitat designation.
    The intent of the DEA is to quantify the economic impacts of all 
potential conservation efforts for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep; 
some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether we 
designate critical habitat. The DEA provides estimated costs of the 
foreseeable potential economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat 
designation (incremental impacts) and other conservation-related 
actions (baseline impacts) for this species over the next 20 years. It 
also considers past costs associated with conservation of the species 
from the time it was listed in 2000 (65 FR 20, January 3, 2000), until 
the year the proposed critical habitat rule was published (72 FR 40956, 
July 25, 2007).
    Activities associated with the conservation of the Sierra Nevada 
bighorn sheep are likely to primarily impact future domestic sheep 
grazing, recreation management, and habitat management. Pre-designation 
(2000 to 2007) impacts associated with species conservation activities 
in areas proposed for designation are estimated at $11.1 million in 
2007 dollars. The DEA forecasts baseline economic impacts in the areas 
proposed for designation to be approximately $26.7 million 
(undiscounted dollars) over the next 20 years. The present value of 
these impacts, applying a 3 percent discount rate, is $20.4 million 
($1,370,000 annualized), or $15.1 million ($1,430,000 annualized) using 
a 7 percent discount rate. The DEA forecasts incremental economic 
impacts to be approximately $135,000 (undiscounted) over the next 20 
years. The present value of these impacts, applying a 3 percent 
discount rate, is $106,000 ($7,090 annualized), or $80,300 ($7,580 
annualized) using a 7 percent discount rate. The cost estimates are 
based on the proposed designation of critical habitat published in the 
Federal Register on July 25, 2007 (72 FR 40956).
    The DEA considers the potential economic effects of actions 
relating to the conservation of the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep, 
including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, as 
well as costs attributable to the designation of 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 Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep in areas containing 
features essential to the conservation of the species. The DEA 
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 (such as lost economic 
opportunities associated with restrictions on land use).
    The DEA 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 government agencies, private business, and 
individuals. The DEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with 
residential and commercial development and public projects and 
activities, such as economic impacts on water management and 
transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy 
industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether 
the effects of the

[[Page 6687]]

designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. 
Finally, the DEA looks retrospectively at costs that have been incurred 
since the date Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep was listed as endangered (65 
FR 20, January 3, 2000) and considers those costs that may occur in the 
20 years following the designation of critical habitat. Forecasts of 
economic conditions and other factors beyond this point would be 
speculative.
    As stated earlier, we solicit data and comments from the public on 
the DEA, as well as on all aspects of the proposed rule and our amended 
required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or its 
supporting documents to incorporate or address new information we 
receive during this 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 the exclusion will not result in the 
extinction of the species.

Required Determinations--Amended

    In our July 25, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 40956), we indicated 
that we would defer our determination of compliance with several 
statutes and Executive Orders until the information concerning 
potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on 
landowners and stakeholders was available in the DEA. We have now made 
use of the DEA to make these determinations. In this document we affirm 
the information in our proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 
13132; E.O. 12988; the Paperwork Reduction Act; the National 
Environmental Policy Act; and the President's memorandum of April 29, 
1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments (59 FR 22951). However, based on the DEA data, we revise 
our required determinations concerning E.O. 12866; the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, including the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act; E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and Use); E.O. 
12630 (Takings); and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866), we evaluate 
four parameters in determining whether a rule is significant. The four 
parameters that would result in a designation of significant under E.O. 
12866 are:
    (a) The rule would have an annual economic effect of $100 million 
or more or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 
environment, or other units of the government.
    (b) The rule would create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.
    (c) The rule would materially affect entitlements, grants, user 
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
    (d) The rule would raise novel legal or policy issues.

If OMB requests to informally review a rule designating critical 
habitat for a species, we consider that rule to raise novel legal and 
policy issues. Because no other Federal agencies designate critical 
habitat, the designation of critical habitat will not create 
inconsistencies with other agencies' actions. We use the economic 
analysis of the critical habitat designation to evaluate the potential 
effects related to the other parameters of E.O. 12866 and to make a 
determination as to whether the regulation may be significant under 
parameter (a) or (c) listed above.
    Based on the economic analysis of the critical habitat designation, 
we have determined that the designation of critical habitat for the 
Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep will not result in an annual effect on the 
economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a material 
way. Based on previous critical habitat designations and the economic 
analysis, we believe this rule will not materially affect entitlements, 
grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
their recipients. OMB has requested to informally review this rule, and 
thus this action may raise novel legal or policy issues. In accordance 
with the provisions of E.O. 12866, this rule is considered significant.
    Further, E.O. 12866 directs Federal agencies issuing regulations to 
evaluate regulatory alternatives (OMB Circular A-4, September 17, 
2003). Under Circular A-4, once an agency determines that a regulatory 
action is appropriate, the agency needs to consider alternative 
regulatory approaches. Since the designation of critical habitat is a 
statutory requirement under the Act, we must then evaluate alternative 
regulatory approaches, where feasible, when promulgating a designation 
of critical habitat.
    In developing our critical habitat designations, we consider 
economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant 
impacts under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion 
section 4(b)(2) allows, we may exclude any particular area from the 
critical habitat designation as long as the benefits of such exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical habitat, and 
as long as the exclusion will not result in the species' extinction. As 
such, we believe that the evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion of 
particular areas, or a combination, in a critical habitat designation 
constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis.

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) (5 U.S.C. 802(2)), 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 
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on our DEA of 
the proposed designation, we provide our analysis for determining 
whether the proposed rule would result in a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. Based on comments we 
receive, we may revise this determination as part of our final 
rulemaking.
    According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small 
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and 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

[[Page 6688]]

small business firm's business operations.
    To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for 
the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep would affect a substantial number of 
small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected 
within particular types of economic activities, such as residential and 
commercial development. In order to determine whether it is appropriate 
for our agency to certify that this rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we 
considered each industry or category individually. In estimating the 
numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered 
whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat 
designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal 
involvement; designation of critical habitat affects activities 
conducted, funded, or authorized by Federal agencies.
    If we finalize the proposed critical habitat designation, Federal 
agencies must consult with us under section 7 of the Act 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 DEA 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 
Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep and the proposed designation of critical 
habitat. The analysis is based on the estimated impacts associated with 
the proposed rulemaking as described in Chapters 2 through 4 and 
Appendix A of the DEA and evaluates the potential for economic impacts 
related to three categories: Grazing, recreation management, and 
habitat management.
    The DEA identified one domestic sheep grazing permittee operating 
in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, and two resorts and 
unidentified outdoor pack companies operating in the Humboldt-Toiyabe 
and the Inyo National Forests that qualify as small businesses that 
could be impacted due to their activities within areas proposed as 
critical habitat.
    For the one grazing permittee, the DEA estimates a cost of $13,000 
associated with conservation activities for the Sierra Nevada bighorn 
sheep over the next 20 years at a 3 percent discounted rate ($875 
annualized). For the two resorts and unidentified outdoor pack 
companies, the DEA estimates a cost of $2,730 associated with 
conservation activities for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep over the 
next 20 years at a 3 percent discounted rate ($183 annualized). 
Incremental impacts are expected only to occur in proposed critical 
habitat Units 1 and 2. This number of small business entities is not 
considered a substantial number.
    The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is expected to incur incremental 
costs as a result of this designation, but it is not considered a small 
entity by the SBA.
    In summary, we have considered whether the proposed rule would 
result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently available 
information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis is not required.

Executive Order 13211--Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued 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. OMB's guidance for implementing this 
Executive Order outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a 
significant adverse effect'' when compared to no regulatory action. The 
DEA finds none of these criteria relevant to this analysis. Thus, based 
on the information in the DEA, we do not expect Sierra Nevada bighorn 
sheep conservation activities within proposed critical habitat to lead 
to energy-related impacts. As such, we do not expect the proposed 
designation of critical habitat to significantly affect energy 
supplies, distribution, or use, and a Statement of Energy Effects is 
not required.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), we make 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. 
``Federal private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would 
impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except as (i) a 
condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from 
participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
    Critical habitat designation 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. Designation of critical habitat may indirectly impact non-
Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, 
or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal 
agency for an action. However, the legally binding duty to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely 
on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal 
entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal 
assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical 
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above 
on to State governments.
    (b) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. As discussed in the DEA, 
approximately 99 percent of the lands proposed as critical habitat are 
comprised of lands managed by the Federal government (e.g., USFS, 
National Park Service (NPS), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM)), 
which does not qualify as a small government. The Federal government is 
not considered a small governmental jurisdiction or entity by the Small 
Business Administration because it services a population exceeding the 
criteria for a ``small entity.'' Consequently, we do not believe that 
critical habitat designation would significantly or uniquely affect 
small

[[Page 6689]]

government entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not 
required.

Executive Order 12630--Takings

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of 
proposing critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep in a 
takings implications assessment. Our takings implications assessment 
concludes that this proposed designation of critical habitat for the 
Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep does not pose significant takings 
implications.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in the proposed rule is 
available on http://www.regulations.gov.

Author

    The primary author of this notice is the staff of the Nevada Fish 
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authority

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

    Dated: January 24, 2008.
David M. Verhey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E8-1805 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P