[Federal Register: July 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 140)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41410-41414]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21jy06-14]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AU51
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and notice of
availability of draft economic analyses.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening
of the comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat
for Astragalus brauntonii (Braunton's milk-vetch) and Pentachaeta
lyonii (Lyon's pentachaeta) and the availability of the draft economic
analyses of the proposed designation of critical habitat. The draft
economic analysis for Astragalus brauntonii identifies a total surplus
(sum of producer and consumer surplus) of approximately $91.87 million
over a 20-year period (approximately $8.11 million annually at a 7
percent discount rate, or approximately $5.99 million annually at a 3
percent discount rate) from housing development forecasted to be built
within the area of Astragalus brauntonii proposed critical habitat. The
draft economic analysis for Pentachaeta lyonii identifies a total
surplus (sum of producer and consumer surplus) of approximately $121.21
million over a 20-year period (approximately $10.69 million annually at
a 7 percent discount rate, or $7.91 million annually at a 3 percent
discount rate) from housing development forecasted to be built within
the area of Pentachaeta lyonii proposed critical habitat. We are
reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an
opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the
associated draft economic analyses. 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 August 21, 2006.
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, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B,
Ventura, CA 93003.
2. You may hand-deliver written comments and information to our
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address.
3. You may fax your comments to 805/644-3958.
http://www.regulations.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 one of the alternate methods mentioned above.
Copies of the draft economic analyses and the proposed rule for
critical habitat designation are available on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ventura
or from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office at the
address and contact numbers above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Noda, Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office, at the address listed in
[[Page 41411]]
ADDRESSES (telephone 805/644-1766; facsimile 805/644-3958).
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 68982; November 10, 2005) and on
our draft economic analyses 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 it is prudent to designate critical habitat;
(2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of
Astralagus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii habitat, and what areas
that were occupied at the time of listing and that contain the features
that are essential to the conservation of the species, should be
included in the designations and why and what areas that were not
occupied at the time of listing are essential to 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) Additional information on areas which could be excluded from
the final designation, specifically in Orange County;
(5) Information on whether the following should be included as a
primary constituent element (PCE) for Astragalus brauntonii: Plant
communities in areas that are [gteqt]600 meters (m) in diameter, which
is the minimum size needed to support associated insect pollinators
(e.g., bees and wasps), and seed dispersers (e.g., insects and small
mammals);
(6) Information on whether the following should be included as a
PCE for Pentachaeta lyonii: Plant communities in areas that are
[gteqt]600 m in diameter, which is the minimum size needed to support
associated insect pollinators, specifically bees, wasps, and flies;
(7) 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
Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii, and how many were either
already in place or enacted for other reasons;
(8) Information on whether the draft economic analyses identify all
State and local costs attributable to the proposed critical habitat
designation, and information on any costs that have been inadvertently
overlooked;
(9) Information on whether the draft economic analyses make
appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and likely
regulatory changes imposed as a result of the designation of critical
habitat;
(10) Information on whether the draft economic analyses correctly
assess the effect on regional costs associated with any land use
controls that may derive from the designation of critical habitat;
(11) Information on areas that could potentially be
disproportionately impacted by the Astragalus brauntonii and
Pentachaeta lyonii critical habitat designation. The draft economic
analyses indicate the potential economic value of areas within Ventura,
Los Angeles, and Orange counties. Based on this information, we may
consider excluding portions of these areas from the final designation
per our discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act;
(12) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the
proposed designation of critical habitat, and in particular, any
impacts on small entities or families; the reasons why our conclusion
that the proposed designation of critical habitat will not result in a
disproportionate effect on small businesses should or should not
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;
(13) Information on whether the draft economic analyses
appropriately identify all costs that could result from the
designation;
(14) Information on 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; and
(15) Whether the benefit of excluding any particular area from the
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act outweighs
the benefit of including those particular areas in the designation.
The Secretary shall designate critical habitat on the basis of 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.
An area may be excluded from critical habitat if it is determined that
the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 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.
All previous comments and information submitted during the initial
comment period on the November 10, 2005, proposed rule (70 FR 68982)
need not be resubmitted. If you wish to comment, you may submit your
comments and materials concerning the draft economic analyses 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 receive during both
comment periods. On the basis of public comment on the draft economic
analyses, the critical habitat proposal, and the final economic
analyses, 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-AU51'' 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 e-mail 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. We will not consider anonymous comments, and we will
make all comments available for public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation
used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical habitat, will
be available for public inspection, by appointment during normal
business hours at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office at the address
listed under ADDRESSES.
Copies of the proposed rule and draft economic analyses are
available on the Internet at: http://www.fws.gov/ ventura/. You may
also obtain copies of the proposed rule and draft economic analyses
from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES), or by
calling 805/644-1766.
[[Page 41412]]
Background
We published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for
Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii on November 10, 2005 (70
FR 68982). The proposed critical habitat totaled approximately 3,638
acres (ac) (1,471 hectares (ha)) for Astragalus brauntonii in Ventura,
Los Angeles, and Orange counties, California; and 4,212 ac (1,703 ha)
for Pentachaeta lyonii in Ventura and Los Angeles counties, California.
Pursuant to the terms of a July 28, 2003, settlement agreement, we will
submit for publication in the Federal Register a final critical habitat
designation for Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii on or
before November 1, 2006.
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act 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,
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 impact, impact
on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. Based on the November 10, 2005,
proposed rule to designate critical habitat for Astragalus brauntonii
and Pentachaeta lyonii (70 FR 68982), we have prepared an individual
draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation
for Astragalus brauntonii and another for Pentachaeta lyonii.
The current draft economic analyses estimate the foreseeable
economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation on
government agencies and private businesses and individuals. The draft
economic analysis provides a measure of the total surplus (sum of
producer and consumer surplus) that will accrue from housing
development forecasted to be built within the area of proposed critical
habitat. The amount of surplus generated per housing unit is calculated
as the market price of the new housing minus the variable costs of
development and construction: Total expected surplus within the
critical habitat unit is calculated by multiplying this expression by
the expected number of housing units. For a further description of the
methodology of these analyses, see section 3 (methodology) of draft
economic analyses.
The draft economic analysis for Astragalus brauntonii identifies a
total surplus (sum of producer and consumer surplus) of approximately
$91.87 million over a 20-year period (approximately $8.11 million
annually at a 7 percent discount rate, or approximately $5.99 million
annually at a 3 percent discount rate) from housing development
forecasted to be built within the area of Astragalus brauntonii
proposed critical habitat. The draft economic analysis for Pentachaeta
lyonii identifies a total surplus (sum of producer and consumer
surplus) of approximately $121.21 million over a 20-year period
(approximately $10.69 million annually at a 7 percent discount rate, or
$7.91 million annually at a 3 percent discount rate) from housing
development forecasted to be built within the area of Pentachaeta
lyonii proposed critical habitat. The draft economic analyses measure
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. The residential development industry is anticipated to
experience the highest estimated costs as described in the draft
economic analyses.
The draft economic analyses consider the potential economic effects
of actions relating to the conservation of Astragalus brauntonii and
Pentachaeta lyonii, including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and
10 of the Act, and including those attributable to designating critical
habitat. They further consider the economic effects of protective
measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that
aid habitat conservation for Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta
lyonii in essential habitat areas. The draft analyses consider 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).
These draft analyses also address how potential economic impacts
are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or
regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of
conservation activities on small entities and the energy industry. This
information can be used by decision-makers to assess whether the
effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or
economic sector. Finally, these draft analyses look retrospectively at
costs that have been incurred since the date these two species were
listed as endangered (January 29, 1997; 62 FR 4172) 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
these draft economic analyses, as well as on all aspects of the
proposal. We may revise the proposal, or its supporting documents, to
incorporate or address 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.
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. The
draft economic analysis for Astragalus brauntonii identifies a total
surplus (sum of producer and consumer surplus) of approximately $8.11
million annually at a 7 percent discount rate, or approximately $5.99
million annually at a 3 percent discount rate from housing development
forecasted to be built within the area of Astragalus brauntonii
proposed critical habitat. The draft economic analysis for Pentachaeta
lyonii identifies a total surplus (sum of producer and consumer
surplus) of approximately $10.69 million annually at a 7 percent
discount rate, or $7.91 million annually at a 3 percent discount rate
from housing development forecasted to be built within the area of
Pentachaeta lyonii proposed critical habitat. The residential
development industry is anticipated to experience the highest estimated
costs as described in the draft economic analyses. Due to the
[[Page 41413]]
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, the agency will then 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 outweigh 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 analyses 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; 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 small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for
Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii 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 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 draft economic analyses of the proposed critical habitat
designation, we evaluate the potential economic effects on small
business entities resulting from conservation actions related to the
listing of Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii and proposed
designation of critical habitat. We determined from our draft analyses
that the small business entities that may be affected are firms in the
new home construction sector. Small business effects have been
calculated on the total surplus generated from new housing construction
within critical habitat. This assumption is conservative because it is
the worst-case scenario of how critical habitat will affect small
businesses. In the event that conservation is achieved without
requiring developers to completely avoid critical habitat, impacts on
small businesses will be lower.
To estimate the number of firms potentially affected, these
analyses use the following steps. First, they calculate the number of
homes built by small businesses annually. Average revenues for a small
construction firm are $694,000 annually. The mean new home price for
the study area of these analyses is approximately $970,000 for
Astragalus brauntonii and $920,000 for Pentachaeta lyonii. Small
construction firms are assumed to build one new home per year. Second,
they calculate the proportion of new home construction that would be
undertaken by small businesses. Prior analyses of permitting data in
Sacramento County found that 22 percent of building permits for single
family dwellings were issued to builders classified as small
businesses. A total of 156 new homes are projected to be built within
Astragalus brauntonii proposed critical habitat over the next 20 years.
Accordingly, 34 are projected to be built by small businesses. Since
each firm builds one home per year, 34 small firms are potentially
affected within Astragalus brauntonii proposed critical habitat over
the 20-year time frame of this analysis. A total of 222 new homes are
projected to be built within Pentachaeta lyonii proposed critical
habitat over the next 20 years. Accordingly, 49 are projected to be
built by small businesses. Since each firm builds one home per year, 49
small firms are potentially affected within Pentachaeta lyonii proposed
critical habitat over the 20-year time frame of this analysis. These
firms may be affected by activities associated with the conservation of
Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii, 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
[[Page 41414]]
affected small business entities. These alternatives may include the
exclusion of all or portions of the critical habitat units in Ventura,
Los Angeles, and Orange counties, California.
We do not believe that the designation of critical habitat for
Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii will result in a
disproportionate effect to small business entities. 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 affected areas.
The economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation
vary widely even within a county. That is, the impacts of designation
are frequently localized, which is sensible from an economic point of
view and is consistent with the principles of urban economics. Housing
prices vary over urban areas, typically declining as the location of
the house becomes more remote. Large impacts may result from critical
habitat 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. Please refer to our draft economic analyses 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 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) As discussed in the draft economic analyses of the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Astragalus brauntonii and
Pentachaeta lyonii, the impacts on nonprofits and small governments are
expected to be small. There is no record of consultations between the
Service and any of these governments since the Astragalus brauntonii
and Pentachaeta lyonii were listed as endangered on January 29, 1997
(62 FR 4172). 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
Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii 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 Astragalus brauntonii and Pentachaeta lyonii 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 Astragalus brauntonii and
Pentachaeta lyonii. 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 proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Astragalus brauntonii and
Pentachaeta lyonii does not pose significant takings implications.
Author
The primary author of this notice is the staff of the Ventura Fish
and Wildlife Office.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 7, 2006.
Matt Hogan,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E6-11599 Filed 7-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P