        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 101805D]
        Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce

          ACTION:
          Notice of public meetings and hearings.

          SUMMARY:
          The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold its 129th meeting to consider and take actions on fishery management issues in the Western Pacific Region.

          DATES:

          The 129th Council meeting and public hearings will be held on November 8-11, 2005. For specific times, and the agenda, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

          ADDRESSES:
          The 129th Council meeting and public hearings will be held at the Hilton Guam, 202 Hilton Road, Tumon Bay, Guam; telephone: 671-646-1835.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone: (808)522-8220.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In addition to the agenda items listed here, the Council will hear recommendations from other Council advisory groups. Public comment periods will be provided throughout the agenda. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The Council will meet as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
        Schedule and Agenda for Council Standing Committee Meetings
        Tuesday, November 8, 2005
        Standing Committee
        7-8 a.m. Ecosystem and Habitat Standing Committee
        8-9 a.m. Pelagics and International Standing Committee
        9-11 a.m. Executive and Budget Standing Committee
        11 a.m.-12 noon Precious Corals Standing Committee
        Schedule and Agenda for Public Hearings
        Wednesday, November 9, 2005
        1:30 p.m. Hawaii Black Coral Management
        Thursday, November 10, 2005
        11:30 a.m. Management of Hawaii Longline Swordfish Fishery
        11:45 a.m. Management to address overfishing of Western and Central Pacific Ocean Yellowfin
        Friday, November 11, 2005
        11:30 a.m. Western Pacific Fishery Ecosystem Plans
        11:45 a.m. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) Fishery Ecosystem Plan Pilot Project
        For more information on public hearing items, see Background Information.
        The agenda during the full Council meeting will include the items listed here.
        Schedule and Agenda for Council Meeting
        8 a.m.-2:15 p.m. Wednesday, November 9, 2005
        1. Opening Ceremony
        2. Greetings from the Governor of Guam
        3. Presentations to Ecosystem Poster Contest Winners
        4. Introductions
        5. Approval of agenda
        6. Approval of 127th and 128th meeting minutes
        7. Island reports
        A. American Samoa
        B. Guam
        C. Hawaii
        D. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)
        8. Reports from fishery agencies and organizations
        A. NMFS
        1. Pacific Islands Regional Office
        a. Report on Observer Placement Protocol
        2. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center
        B. The Department of the Interior - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
        C. NOAA General Counsel Southwest Region/Pacific Islands Region
        D. State Department
        9. Enforcement/vessel monitoring systems
        A. Report on United States Coast Guard activities
        B. NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) Activities
        C. Status of Violations
        D. Report from Guam Enforcement Agency
        10. Fishery Rights of Indigenous Peoples
        A. Guam voluntary data collection program
        B. Community Demonstration Projects Program
        1. Guam Longline Project
        2. CNMI Remote Fishing Stations
        C. Communities Program
        D. Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) Recommendations
        11. Bottomfish Fisheries
        A. Report on Guam Bottomfish Fishery
        B. Main Hawaiian Islands Bottomfish Overfishing Options
        C. Plan Team Comments
        D. SSC Recommendations
        12. Precious Coral Fisheries
        A. Black Coral Management and Research
        1. Hawaii Black Coral Management
        a. State of Hawaii Black Coral Research
        b. Black Coral Management Options (Final Action)
        B. Plan Team Recommendations
        C. SSC Recommendations
        D. Standing Committee Recommendations
        E. Public Hearing on Hawaii Black Coral Management
        13. Crustacean Fisheries
        A. Report on Guam's Crustacean Fishery
        B. Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Spiny Lobster Model Report
        C. Plan Team Recommendations
        D. SSC Recommendations
        8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. Thursday, November 10, 2005
        14. Pelagic/International Fisheries
        A. Report on Guam's Pelagic Fisheries
        B. Pelagic Fishery Management Plan Actions
        1. Management of Hawaii Longline Swordfish Fishery (Initial Action)
        2. Overfishing of Western and Central Pacific Ocean Yellowfin (Initial Action)
        3. Management of Fish Aggregation Devices (FAD)
        4. Definition of short-longlines
        5. Main Hawaiian Islands Longline buffer zones
        6. American Samoa FAD closures
        C. International Fisheries Management
        1. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Convention
        2. Western and Central Pacific Fishery Commission
        3. Pacific Islands Regional Office International Division Activities
        4. Other International issues: Eastern Pacific Ocean Yellowfin and North Pacific Albacore Stock Condition
        D. American Samoa and Hawaii Longline Fisheries Quarterly Reports
        E. Plan Team Recommendations
        F. SSC Recommendations
        F. Standing Committee Recommendations
        G. Public Hearings
        Management of Hawaii Longline Swordfish Fishery (Initial Action)
        Overfishing of Western and Central Pacific Ocean Yellowfin (Initial Action)
        15. Protected Species
        A. International Fishers Forum III

        B. Malaysia Longline Bycatch Workshop
        C. Haggan (Turtle) Watch Program
        D. CNMI Turtle Watch Program
        E. Longline Mitigation Research
        F. SSC Recommendations
        16. Ecosystems and Habitat
        A. Western Pacific Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEP)(FINAL ACTION)
        1. FEP Objectives
        2. FEP Boundaries
        3. FEP Management Unit Species
        4. FEP Regional Coordination
        B. CNMI FEP Pilot Project (Initial Action)
        1. Project Overview
        2. Ecosystem Indicators
        3. Commonwealth and Guam Inshore Community-based Initiatives
        4. Guam Offshore Banks Management Options
        C. Public Comment
        6:30-9 p.m. Thursday November 10, 2005
        Fishers Forum at the Guam Fishermen's Cooperative
        8:30 a.m.-3 p.m. Friday, November 11, 2005
        Ecosystems and Habitat Continued
        D. Report on Guam's Coral Reef Fisheries
        E. Guam Reef Ecosystem Annual Report
        F. Reconstruction of Coral Reef and Bottomfish Catches
        G. CNMI Sanctuary Program
        H. National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP)
        1. NMSP Report
        2. NOAA Review of Council Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Draft Fishing Regulations
        I. Report from Plan Teams
        J. SSC recommendations
        K. Standing Committee Recommendations
        L. Public Hearing on Western Pacific Ecosystem Plans and CNMI Pilot Project.
        17. Program Planning
        A. Update on Legislation
        B. Magnuson-Steven Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act) Reauthorization
        C. Education and Outreach Report
        18. Administrative Matters and Budget
        A. Financial Reports
        B. Administrative Report
        C. Meetings and Workshops
        D. Advisory Group Changes
        E. Standing Committee Recommendations
        19. Other Business
        A. National Plan of Action on Fishing Capacity
        B. Next Meeting
        Background Information
        1. Change in the Black Coral Harvest Minimum Size (Final action)

        The Council will take final action to implement a regulatory amendment to the Precious Corals FMP to revise the minimum harvest size for black corals (Antipathes sp.) due to the effects of Carijoa riisei and harvest pressure on black corals in the Main Hawaiian Islands. Based on comments received during Precious Coral Plan Team meetings, as well as subsequent SSC, Council, and public working group meetings, the Council developed an options document that includes: (1) Removing the exemption allowing harvest of black corals with a minimum base diameter of 3/4 inch (1.905-cm) or minimum height of 36 inches (0.9144 m) by persons who reported harvest to the State of Hawaii within five years prior to April 17, 2002; (2) Establishing a 48-inch (1.2192-m) minimum height only requirement for harvest of black coral colonies; (3) Eliminating any minimum base diameter requirement; (4) Eliminating any minimum height requirement; (5) Removing the exemption and minimum base diameter requirement; (6) Removing the exemption and minimum height requirement; and (7) Instituting a moratorium on black coral harvest. At its 127th meeting, the Council took initial action to identify and support a range of alternatives, including the selection of a preliminary preferred alternative. The Council's preliminary preferred alternative was to remove the exemption allowing harvest of black corals with a minimum base diameter of 3/4 inch (1.905-cm) or minimum height of 36 inches(0.9144 m) by persons who reported harvest to the State of Hawaii within five years prior to April 17, 2002. Under this alternative, all black coral would be harvested at a minimum base size of 1-inch or minimum height of 48 inches (1.2192-cm). At the 129th Council Meeting, the Council will select a preferred alternative to be analyzed in a regulatory amendment to be transmitted to NMFS.
        2. Management of Hawaii Longline Swordfish Fishery (Initial action)
        The swordfish segment of the Hawaii longline fishery was reopened in April 2004, following an amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Pelagics FMP) to introduce new technology for turtle conservation. The Pelagics FMP amendment required all longliners fishing for swordfish, employing shallow (< 30 m) sets, to use 18/0 circle hooks with a 10° offset, and mackerel type bait. This hook and bait combination has been shown to markedly reduce catches of endangered loggerhead and leatherback turtles. As an added precaution, a 'hard' cap on the allowable number of interactions with loggerhead and leatherback turtles was also included in the amendment. If the swordfish targeting fleet caught more than 16 leatherback and 17 loggerhead turtles in any calendar year, then the swordfish fishery would close for the remainder of the year. In addition, a cap was placed on the annual volume of fishing effort, of 2,120 sets, for the swordfish-targeting segment of the Hawaii-based longline fishery. The number of sets was divided equally among all fishermen expressing an interest in targeting swordfish, with each set being accorded a unique numbered certificate, which had to be reported when used.
        Finally, all vessels targeting swordfish were obliged to carry an observer to record any turtle interactions. Few swordfish sets were made in 2004, but in 2005 the fishery began operating in earnest. As of August 15, 2005, the swordfish fleet had a total of 7 interactions with leatherback turtles and 9 loggerhead interactions, with about 80 percent of the number of longline sets used up. Given the success of these management measures in greatly reducing turtle interactions, particularly the hard cap on turtle interactions, there may be no need to maintain a cap on swordfish directed fishing effort. Moreover, the administration of the 2,120 longline sets (50 percent of the historical level of swordfish effort) is a substantial burden on NMFS for little to no conservation gains for turtles, given the incentive to fishermen to minimize interactions afforded by the caps on loggerhead and leatherback turtles, and the success of the hook/bait combination in reducing turtle captures. Consequently, the Council is proposing to amend the Pelagics FMP to remove the cap on shallow set fishing effort while maintaining the turtle caps and other measures to conserve turtles. At the 129th Council meeting, the Council may decide to take initial action to modify the cap on swordfish-targeting longline sets.
        3. Overfishing of Western and Central Pacific Ocean Yellowfin (Initial action)

        Results of the most recent stock assessments for yellowfin tuna reviewed by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), and the Western and Central Pacific Fishery Commission (WCPFC) indicate that this species is fished at unsustainably high levels in the Pacific Ocean. Although the stock is not yet overfished, is it is being subjected to overfishing, as defined under the Council's control rule, as established by National Standard 1 in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As required by the Magnuson Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1854 (e)(3)) and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.310(e)(3), the Councils must take action to address overfishing within one year of an identification by the Secretary of Commerce that overfishing is occurring. Although, no official communication has yet been received by the Council from the Secretary of Commerce concerning overfishing of Pacific yellowfin the Council may decide, nevertheless, to take initial action at this meeting to address this issue in a timely manner.
        At its 126th meeting, the Council took final action on an amendment to the Pelagics FMP to address similar overfishing of Pacific bigeye tuna. It was recognized in this amendment that unilateral action by the Council would be insufficient to end overfishing of bigeye tuna and the same is also true for yellowfin tuna. Accordingly, the Council amended the Pelagics FMP to include a protocol by which the Council would take action on international management of highly migratory species such as tunas managed by regional fishery management organizations (RFMOs) such as IATTC and WCPFC. This includes ensuring Council inclusion in US delegations to international fishery management meetings and the drafting of position papers on measures to reduce overfishing and rebuild stocks. This would include consideration of the reduction of purse seine effort around fish aggregating devices which are thought to be one of the key elements leading to overfishing of yellowfin tuna. The Council will review Pelagic Plan team and Scientific and Statistical Committee comments and recommendations and may take initial action on how to deal with the overfishing of yellowfin tuna in the Western and Central Pacific.
        4. Western Pacific Fishery Ecosystem Plans
        The Council will consider final action to implement the framework necessary to transform their existing species-based Fishery Management Plans (Pelagics, Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish, Crustaceans, Precious Corals, and Coral Reef Ecosystems) into place-based Fishery Ecosystem Plans. Specifically the measures being considered by the Council at this time would establish Fishery Ecosystem Plans with appropriate boundaries, management unit species and advisory structures. The measures being considered would re-order the current fishery regulations by geographic area, but would not add any new regulations. This action will allow the Council to begin the integration and implementation of ecosystem approaches to management for each ecosystem under its jurisdiction and provide mechanisms for broader input to the Council decision making process. The Council will review the comments and recommendations of the Joint Plan Teams (Pelagics, Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish, Crustaceans, Precious Corals, and Coral Reef Ecosystems) and the Scientific and Statistical Committee and may take final action on adopting this framework for implementation.
        5. CNMI Fishery Ecosystem Plan Pilot Project
        The Council will consider initial action to begin implementation of ecosystem-based strategies for the Mariana Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP). The strategies being considered at this time were developed through a 10 month pilot project initiated by the Council and will address: (1) monitoring and forecasting of ecological change; (2) community-based participation to foster collaboration among management partners; and 3) options for a specific management experiment at offshore banks in Guam's Exclusive Economic Zone that is intended to generate learning and feedback for adaptive management. The Council will review the comments and recommendations of the Joint Plan Teams (Pelagics, Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish, Crustaceans, Precious Corals, and Coral Reef Ecosystems) and the Scientific and Statistical Committee and may take initial action on adopting these strategies for implementation.
        This pilot project is linked to the Council's initiative to transform the existing species-based Fishery Management Plans (Pelagics, Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish, Crustaceans, Precious Corals, and Coral Reef Ecosystems) into place-based Fishery Ecosystem Plans.
        Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
        Special Accommodations
        These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808)522-8220 (voice) or (808)522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: October 19, 2005.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-21300 Filed 10-24-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [FWS-R1-ES-2011-0096; 4500030114]
        RIN 1018-AX38
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Southern Selkirk Mountains Population of Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou)

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; availability of supplementary documents and announcement of public hearing.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the comment period on our November 30, 2011, proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis of the proposed designation and an amended required determinations section of the proposal. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule, the associated draft economic analysis, and the amended required determinations section. We will also hold a public informational session and hearing (see DATES and ADDRESSES).

          DATES:

            Written Comments: We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before July 2, 2012. Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

            Public informational session and public hearing: We will hold a public informational session from 9:30 a.m. to 11 a.m., followed by a public hearing from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m., on June 16, 2012, in Coolin, Idaho. Speaker registration will begin at 1 p.m. (see ADDRESSES).

          ADDRESSES:

            Document availability: You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and the draft economic analysis on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2011-0096 or by mail from the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

            Written Comments: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the docket number for this proposed rule, which is FWS-R1-ES-2011-0096. Please ensure that you have found the correct rulemaking before submitting your comment.
          (2) U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2011-0096; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.

          We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. 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).

            Public informational session and public hearing: The public informational session and hearing will be held at The Inn at Priest Lake, 5310 Dickensheet Highway, Coolin, Idaho 83821. People needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in the public hearing should contact Brian Kelly, State Supervisor, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, as soon as possible (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Brian Kelly, State Supervisor, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, ID 83709; telephone 208-378-5243; facsimile 208-378-5262. 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 for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou that was published in the Federal Register on November 30, 2011 (76 FR 74018), our draft economic analysis 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 information on any threats to the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, such that the designation of critical habitat may not be prudent.
        (2) Specific information on:
        (a) The amount and distribution of habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou in the United States.
        (b) What areas which were occupied at the time of listing and contain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species should be included in the designation and why.
        (c) What areas outside the geographical area occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the species and why.
        (d) Special management considerations or protections that may be required for the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou that have been identified in this proposal, including management for the potential effects of climate change.
        (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on the proposed critical habitat.
        (4) Any reasonably foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small entities or families, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.
        (5) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and why.
        (6) 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.
        (7) Information on the extent to which the description of economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is complete and accurate.
        (8) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation of critical habitat, as discussed in the draft economic analysis, and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
        Public Informational Session and Public Hearing

        Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act requires that we hold one public hearing on a proposed regulation, if any person files a request for such a hearing within 45 days after the date of publication of a general notice. At the request of the Governor of Idaho and the Commissioners of Boundary County, Idaho, we held an informational session (a brief presentation about the proposed rule with a question-and-answer period), and a public hearing on April 28, 2012, in Bonners Ferry, Idaho (77 FR 16512; March 21, 2012). With this notice, we are announcing an additional informational session and public hearing (see DATES and ADDRESSES). Anyone wishing to make an oral statement at the public hearing for the record is encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement to us at the hearing. In the event there is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may be limited. Speakers can sign up at the informational meeting and hearing if they desire to make an oral statement. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration at the hearing. There are no limits on the length of written comments submitted to us. If you have any questions concerning the public hearing, please contact Brian Kelly, State Supervisor, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        The Service has conducted several outreach efforts to be responsive to public requests for additional information. On January 9, 2012, we presented information on the proposed critical habitat designation in Bonners Ferry, Boundary County, Idaho, at the request of the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI), and on January 24, 2012, we held an informational meeting in Priest Lake, at the request of the Bonner County Idaho Commission. On February 13, 2012, we participated in a meeting in Boundary County, Idaho, sponsored by the KVRI. On February 28, 2012, and March 26, 2012, we participated in meetings with the Bonner County Idaho Commission, and on April 19, 2012, we participated in a meeting with the Boundary County Idaho Commission. All meetings were open to the public.
        Our final determination concerning critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou will take into consideration all written comments we receive during the comment periods, comments from peer reviewers, comments and public testimony received during the public hearings, and all information we receive in response to the draft economic analysis. All public comments will be included in the public record for this rulemaking. On the basis of public comments, we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas within the proposed designation do not meet the definition of critical habitat, that some modifications to the described boundaries are appropriate, or that areas may or may not be appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
        If you previously submitted comments or information on this proposed rule, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination.

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning our proposed rule or draft economic analysis by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES.

        We will post your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—on http://www.regulations.gov. If you provide personal identifying information, such as your street address, phone number, or email address, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule and draft economic analysis, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and the draft economic analysis on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R1-ES-2011-0096, or by mail from the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Background
        It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designate of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. For a description of the previous Federal actions concerning the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, please refer to the proposed critical habitat rule, as described below.
        Previous Federal Actions
        On November 30, 2011 (76 FR 74108), we published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. We proposed to designate as critical habitat approximately 375,562 acres (ac) (151,985 hectares (ha)) in a single unit (with two subunits) in Boundary and Bonner counties in Idaho, and Pend Oreille County in Washington. That proposal had a 60-day comment period, ending on January 30, 2012. On March 21, 2012 (77 FR 16512), we reopened the comment period for an additional 60 days, and we conducted a public informational session and public hearing on April 28, 2012, in Bonners Ferry, Idaho, at the request of the Governor of Idaho and the Bonner County, Idaho, Commissioners.
        Critical Habitat
        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 provisions of section 4 of the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which 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 by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7(a)(2) 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 that may affect critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions pursuant to the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
        Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, that failure to designate such area will result in the extinction of the species concerned.
        When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of mapping areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the listed species, and any benefits that may result from designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat.

        When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. In the case of the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the presence of the species and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for the species due to protection from adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat. In practice, situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal lands or for projects undertaken by, or with the authorization or permission of, Federal agencies.

        We have not proposed to exclude any areas from critical habitat. However, the final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best available scientific and commercial data available, information obtained during the comment period concerning economic impacts, impacts to national security, or any other relevant impacts of the proposed designation. With regard to economic impacts, we have prepared a draft economic analysis concerning the proposed critical habitat designation, which is available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES).
        Draft Economic Analysis
        The purpose of the draft economic analysis is to identify and analyze the reasonably foreseeable potential economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat designation for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. The draft economic analysis describes the economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the species; some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether we designate critical habitat. The economic impact of the proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.” The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections already in place for the species (e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal or State regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The “with critical habitat” scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, these incremental impacts would not occur but for the designation. These incremental impacts produce the costs that we consider in the final designation of critical habitat when evaluating the benefits of excluding particular areas under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The analysis looks retrospectively at baseline impacts incurred since the species was listed, and forecasts incremental impacts likely to occur if we finalize the proposed critical habitat designation.
        As described above, the draft economic analysis separates conservation measures into two distinct categories according to “without critical habitat” and “with critical habitat” scenarios. Conservation measures implemented under the baseline (without critical habitat) scenario are described qualitatively within the draft economic analysis, but economic impacts associated with these measures are not quantified. Economic impacts are only quantified for conservation measures implemented specifically due to the designation of critical habitat (i.e., incremental impacts). For a further description of the methodology of the analysis, see Chapter 2, “Framework for the Analysis,” of the draft economic analysis.
        The draft economic analysis provides estimated costs of the foreseeable potential economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou over the next 20 years, from 2012 through 2031. We determined that this 20-year timeframe was the appropriate period for analysis because the availability of land-use planning information becomes very limited for most activities beyond that timeframe. The draft economic analysis identifies potential incremental costs as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation; these are those costs attributed to critical habitat over and above those baseline costs attributed to listing and other regulatory protections. The draft economic analysis quantifies economic impacts of the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou conservation efforts associated with the following categories of activity: (1) Timber harvest; (2) fire, fire suppression, and forest management practices; (3) transportation and electricity projects; (4) mining; and (5) recreational activities.

        The primary long-term threat to the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou is the ongoing loss and fragmentation of contiguous old growth forests and forest habitats due to a combination of timber harvest, wildfires, and human activities that involve road development. The effects to woodland caribou associated with habitat loss and fragmentation are: (1) Reduction of the amount of space available for caribou, limiting the ecological carrying capacity; (2) reduction of the arboreal lichen supply, which is the caribou's key winter food source; (3) potential impacts to caribou movement patterns; (4) potential effects to the caribou's use of remaining fragmented habitat because suitable habitat parcels will be smaller and discontinuous; and (5) increased susceptibility of caribou to predation as available habitat is compressed and fragmented (Stevenson et al. 2001, p. 10; MCTAC 2002, pp. 20-22; Cichowski et al. 2004, pp. 10, 19-20; Apps and McLellan 2006, pp. 92-93; Wittmer et al. 2007, pp. 576-577).
        Approximately 79 percent of the proposed critical habitat area is on Federal land, most of which is managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 231 ac (93 ha) of the proposed critical habitat as a wilderness study area and for grizzly bear conservation, and approximately 294,716 ac, (119,065 ha) are managed by the USFS. National Forest lands involved in the proposed designation include the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (IPNF) in Idaho and Washington, and Colville National Forest (CNF) in Washington. Land and resource management plans (LRMPs) for the IPNF and CNF have been revised to incorporate management objectives and standards to address the above identified threats to the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, as a result of section 7 consultation between the Service and USFS (USFWS 2001a, b). Standards for management of habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou were incorporated into the IPNF's 1987 and CNF's 1988 LRMP, to avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of the species, to contribute to caribou conservation, and to ensure consideration of the biological needs of the species during forest management planning and implementation actions (USFS 1987, pp. II-6, II-27, Appendix N; USFS 1988, pp. 4-10—4-17, 4-38, 4-42, 4-73—4-76, Appendix I). A review of our section 7 consultation records with the USFS indicates that no project modifications have been required to date, because the activities were either not within habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, or conservation measures were already incorporated into project designs to avoid impacts to the species or its habitat.

        Of the remaining 21 percent of the proposed critical habitat designation, 17 percent (65,218 ac, 26,393 ha) is State land, and 4 percent (15,379 ac, 6,225 ha) covers privately owned lands. The draft economic analysis concludes that critical habitat designation may affect timber harvest on private lands if Federal permits to use USFS roads are required, but estimates few additional costs associated with the implementation of other activities within the proposed critical habitat area. We believe activities on State or private lands are unlikely to have a Federal nexus or be subject to section 7 consultation, based on a review of our consultation records to date. However, the draft economic analysis includes a highly conservative estimate of potential administrative costs related to section 7 consultation on non-Federal lands, by assuming that almost all activities on non-Federal land would have a Federal nexus, and those lands would be subject to timber harvest over the next 20 years. The draft economic analysis, therefore, presents a worst-case scenario with regard to economic impacts to non-Federal lands. However, there is no information available to the Service that would indicate either of the above presumptions is reasonably foreseeable, and those estimates are included solely to provide additional perspective to reviewers regarding the potential economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation.

        Due to the extensive existing baseline protections for caribou and other listed species (grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)), the incremental impacts of critical habitat designation would be limited to Federal agency (primarily USFS) administrative costs of considering adverse modification during section 7 consultation with the Service (about 19 percent of total forecast costs) as well as incremental costs for timber harvesting on private lands, including time delays in harvesting (about 81 percent of total forecast costs). For small entities (private land owners, which comprise approximately 10 percent of the private land in the area proposed for designation), the draft economic analysis estimates incremental impacts to be $30,300 annually, or $343,000 over a 20-year period based on the present value discounted at seven percent. This estimated cost would be associated with potential reductions in timber harvest due to time delays affecting privately owned forest land controlled by small entities, if they were to occur. However, we have no available information which would indicate delays are probable or reasonably foreseeable. Forest Capital Partners, LLC, which owns 90 percent of the private land within the area proposed for designation, is not considered a small entity. The total incremental costs (including Federal, State, and private lands) are estimated to be $132,000 annually, or $1.5 million over a 20-year period, based on the present value discounted at seven percent.
        The proposed critical habitat designation is unlikely to generate economic impacts beyond administrative costs of section 7 consultation associated with the adverse modification analysis. Further, project proponents and land managers are aware of the species' presence throughout its range, and the need to consult with the Service for projects that have a Federal nexus that may affect the species. In conclusion, we have no information that would indicate the proposed designation of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou would change the outcome of future section 7 consultations. Any conservation measures implemented to minimize impacts to the species would very likely be sufficient to also minimize impacts to critical habitat. Therefore, we do not believe any additional conservation measures would be needed solely to minimize impacts to critical habitat.
        We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the draft economic analysis, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the public 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, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
        Required Determinations—Amended

        In our November 30, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 74018), 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 became available in the draft economic analysis. We have now made use of the draft economic analysis data to make these determinations. In this document, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and Use), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 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 draft economic analysis data, we are amending our required determination concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
        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. 801 et seq.), 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. The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification statement describing the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have 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, 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). For example, 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 southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities, such as timber companies. 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. 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 only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou is present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the species. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process.
        In the draft economic analysis, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions related to the proposed designation of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. As estimated in Chapter 4 of the draft economic analysis, incremental impacts of the proposed designation are limited to additional administrative costs of considering adverse modification during section 7 consultation with the Service, as well as incremental costs associated with timber harvesting and permitting delays on private land. Approximately 17 percent of the total estimated incremental costs are projected to be borne by Federal agencies, and approximately 83 percent are projected to be incurred by private entities. Small entities may participate in section 7 consultation as a third party (the primary consulting parties being the Service and the Federal action agency); therefore, it is possible that small entities may spend additional time considering critical habitat during section 7 consultation for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. Some of the forecast consultations for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou may involve third parties, such as timber companies and private land owners who may want to harvest timber on their land. The maximum annualized incremental impact to third parties is anticipated to total $107,000, based on a 7 percent discount rate; such costs are expected to be distributed between multiple third parties. The number of landowners is not known, therefore, we are unable to determine the incremental costs per entity. However, even if all incremental costs were borne by one small timber tract operations entity, which is unlikely, the entity would experience a 0.86 percent annual loss in revenue. This estimate is based on an average revenue for small timber tract operations companies of $3.53 million. Small entities are consequently anticipated to bear a relatively low cost impact as a result of the designation of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou. We do not believe this designation will have a significant impact on these small entities or affect a substantial number of them. Please refer to Appendix A of the draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts.
        In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Information for this analysis was gathered from the Small Business Administration, stakeholders, and the Service. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed designation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

        A complete list of references cited in this rule is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
        Authors
        The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Authority

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

          Dated: May 14, 2012.
          Rachel Jacobson,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2012-12867 Filed 5-30-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P