[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 139 (Thursday, July 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37419-37423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17856]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AD24


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule 
Exempting Certain Small Landowners and Low-Impact Activities From 
Endangered Species Act Requirements for Threatened Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to amend 
the general regulations for threatened species (50 CFR 17.31) under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973 by establishing a new exemption for 
certain small landowners and low impact activities that are presumed to 
individually or cumulatively have little or no lasting effect on the 
likelihood of survival and recovery of threatened species of fish and 
wildlife, and, therefore, have only minor or negligible adverse 
effects. This exemption would be applied to all threatened species of 
fish and wildlife listed in the future unless the Service concluded for 
a given species that the exemption was inappropriate because its 
individual or cumulative biological effects would not be insignificant 
for the species as a whole. In such a case, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service would issue a ``special rule'' for the species that would 
contain either no small landowner or low-impact activities exemptions 
or some reduced variation of those exemptions. This proposed rule also 
seeks to establish an additional general exemption for activities that 
are conducted in accordance with a State-authorized or -developed 
habitat conservation strategy for a threatened species which the 
Service has found to comprehensively address the threats to the species 
and promote the species' survival and recovery.

DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received by September 18, 
1995, in order to be considered in the final decision on this proposal.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be 
sent to the Chief, Division of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240. Comments and 
materials received will be available for public inspection, by 
appointment, during normal business hours in Room 452, 4401 North 
Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: E. LaVerne Smith, Chief, Division of 
Endangered Species, at the above address (703/358-2171; facsimile 703/
358-1735).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 26, 1975, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 
adopted general regulations in 50 CFR Part 17 governing the way 
endangered and threatened species would be regulated under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Section 9 of the Act 
prohibits by statute the ``take'' of federally listed endangered 
species. However, Congress deferred to Secretarial discretion the issue 
of how ``threatened'' species would be treated with respect to the 
section 9 take prohibition. In the 1975 regulations (50 CFR 17.31), the 
Service generally adopted for threatened species of fish and wildlife a 
blanket set of prohibitions identical to the prohibitions the Act 
itself applied to 

[[Page 37420]]
endangered species. Under section 17.31, if the Service concluded for a 
given threatened species that the general prohibitions were 
inappropriate or inadequate, the Service committed to issuing a 
``special rule'' under section 4(d) of the Act containing different 
prohibitions and exceptions tailor made for the threatened species in 
question. However, the Act does not make this option available to 
species listed as endangered.
    Underlying this approach taken in 1975 was the general assumption 
that the majority of threatened species of fish and wildlife would 
require the same level of protection against takings afforded to 
endangered species, and that only a small number of threatened species 
would require specialized regulatory attention. For the anticipated 
small handful of threatened listings where the ``one size fits all'' 
approach to takings prohibitions would not work, additional time and 
effort would be spent developing a tailor made special rule. This 
approach with regard to the taking of threatened fish and wildlife was 
not extended to the protection of threatened plants because as a 
general matter the taking of plants is not a prohibited activity on 
private lands.
    Currently, a total of 111 fish and wildlife species endemic to the 
U.S. are listed as threatened. An additional six fish and wildlife 
species are proposed for listing as threatened. Thus, during the past 
twenty years of implementing the Act, the Service has gained 
significant experience and insight into the management and conservation 
of threatened species. The Service has found in some cases that 
existing prohibitions have been unnecessarily restrictive or too 
inflexible to encourage creative conservation opportunities for 
threatened species. Further, the Service has found that these 
prohibitions may ``over-regulate'' certain activities which, on the 
whole, are otherwise insignificant for some species, and in some cases 
may actually generate disincentives for private landowner support for 
threatened species conservation. Both of these situations have led to 
considerable anxiety on the part of private landowners, particularly 
smaller landowners who believe that they have little to contribute to 
threatened species conservation.
    With regard to small landowners and small-scale or low-impact 
activities, the Service now believes that it is no longer necessary, 
appropriate, or advisable to maintain a regulatory presumption that 
isolated takings associated with such activities must be strictly 
regulated or prohibited for the conservation of all threatened species. 
For some threatened species, the opposite is true.
    For example, in the case of occupied household dwellings used 
solely for residential purposes, the Service has found that there are 
few routine yard maintenance or construction activities which are 
likely to adversely affect threatened species in any meaningful way. 
Moreover, the relative habitat value of residential property is very 
limited in most cases. Small-scale land use disturbance activities are 
another category of events which are likely to generate little or no 
lasting effect on the likelihood of the survival and recovery of a 
number of threatened species, especially species which are wide 
ranging. The Service believes that for many threatened species, a 
variety of small-scale activities might technically result in an 
isolated incidental ``taking'' of a species without individually or 
cumulatively having a significant adverse effect upon its long-term 
conservation.
    In light of the above considerations, the Service now proposes to 
amend 50 CFR 17.31 by creating a new set of presumptions which would 
exempt certain small landowners and categories of small-scale or 
negligible-impact activities from possible incidental take liability 
for threatened species. Upon final adoption of this amendment, the 
Service would automatically exempt the delineated categories of 
activities from the incidental taking restrictions of future threatened 
species listings, unless for a given proposed listing, the Service 
concluded that the individual or cumulative adverse effects were likely 
to be significant. In such a case, the Service would issue a special 
rule which would modify the proposed exemptions as necessary and 
otherwise assure that any individual or cumulative effects would be 
insignificant.
    The Service anticipates three different scenarios for implementing 
the new small landowner and low-impact exemption regulation, depending 
on where a species is in the listing process. The three situations 
would involve species that are listed as threatened at some time in the 
future after the possible adoption of these new exemptions; species 
that are proposed for listing as threatened and are presently in the 
listing process; and species that are already listed as threatened. In 
the first situation, the new exemptions in 50 CFR 17.31, if ultimately 
adopted, would automatically apply to any species listed as threatened 
in the future except where the adverse effects of the exemption would 
be significant.
    The second situation involves the Service's interim application of 
the proposed exemptions, pending final adoption of an amendment to 50 
CFR 17.31. During this interim period, the Service will consider the 
application of the exemptions on a case-by-case basis for currently 
proposed threatened species listings, and will issue a proposed special 
rule to adopt those exemptions for any species where it is found to be 
warranted. This could result in two opposite uses of special rules for 
threatened species with regard to small landowner and low-impact 
exemptions: once the new exemptions are finalized and formally inserted 
into 50 CFR 17.31, a special rule would be used to ``opt out of'' 
(i.e., not to adopt) the new exemptions where necessary. Pending the 
final amendment of 50 CFR 17.31, however, a special rule would be 
needed to ``opt in to'' (i.e., to adopt) the proposed exemptions for a 
new threatened species listing. In either situation, the special rule 
would fully explain the circumstances and the rationale for its 
treatment of small landowner and small impact activities as they relate 
to incidental take prohibitions for the affected threatened species.
    The third situation involves the 111 fish and wildlife species 
currently on the threatened species list. These species were placed 
previously on the list without specific consideration of a small 
landowner or low-impact exemption. The Service intends to complete 
within 90 days a preliminary assessment of all currently listed 
threatened species of fish and wildlife to assess the extent to which 
the new proposed exemptions could be applied. In those instances where 
such application is warranted, the Service would propose subsequent 
special rules to address currently-listed threatened species.

Section By Section Analysis

    Subsection (a) General.--The current language of subsection (a) 
states that with three expressly noted exceptions, all of the 
prohibitions applicable to endangered species are made applicable to 
threatened species of fish and wildlife. The proposed rule would make a 
technical addition to the list of exceptions by adding a reference to 
``subsection (d)'' which would contain the new proposed exemptions for 
small landowners and small-scale and negligible impacts. The net effect 
of this change would be to establish a new presumption for future 
threatened species listings that the regulatory prohibition against 
takings would not apply to activities conducted in 

[[Page 37421]]
accordance with the new exemptions in subsection (d). The proposed rule 
also adds the title, ``General,'' to this subsection.
    Subsection (b) Cooperative agreements. This subsection does not 
propose any changes from the existing text in 50 CFR 17.31(b) except 
for the addition of the title, ``Cooperative Agreements.''
    Subsection (c) Special rules. This subsection proposes to make only 
technical changes to the current text of 50 CFR 17.31(c) to clarify 
that a special rule may apply to only portions of a species range. If a 
special rule applies to only part of the species range, the 
prohibitions in subsections (a), (b), and (d) would apply in portions 
of the range not covered by the special rule. The subsection would also 
retain the provisions of the current text of 17.31(c) which indicates 
that where a special rule applies, the terms of the special rule would 
displace any of the general provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 (a), (b), and 
(d). Thus, if the Service concluded that it was biologically 
inappropriate to apply to a given threatened species any of the new 
exemptions established in subsection (d) for small landowners or low 
impacts, the Service would issue a special rule for that species that 
would eliminate or amend the language in subsection (d) as necessary to 
protect that particular species. All or part of the proposed exemptions 
could be amended in such cases. The proposed rule also adds the title, 
``Special rules,'' to this subsection.
    Subsection (d) Landowner exemptions.--A new subsection (d) states 
that any person may take a threatened species in the course of an 
otherwise lawful activity conducted by the landowner or with the 
landowner's permission in three situations involving the use of private 
property. The three exceptions apply to single household dwellings on 5 
acres of land or less, low-impact activities that result in the 
cumulative disturbance of less than 5 acres of land, and activities 
that otherwise are found by the Service to be negligible in their 
effects upon a threatened species.
    These exemptions or exceptions would only be applicable to 
``otherwise lawful activities''. This phrase would limit their 
application to land use activities which were conducted in accordance 
with all Federal, state and local land use or environmental laws (e.g. 
water quality standards, pesticide use, zoning).
    Paragraph (d)(1) proposes an exemption for activities which take 
place around a private residence on a parcel of land of 5 acres or 
less. In particular, the exemption would apply to those activities 
conducted on a contiguous parcel of land of 5 acres or less which was 
occupied by a single household structure or dwelling. An additional 
requirement would be that the parcel of land surrounding the dwelling 
be used principally for residential, noncommercial purposes. The 
limitation on noncommercial activities is intended to be applied to the 
use of the land surrounding the dwelling, as opposed to limited 
commercial activities within the residential dwelling itself. Thus, the 
proposed exemption would still apply in the situation where a small 
business was run out of a home or one or more rooms were rented out to 
someone outside of the immediate family of the landowner. It is the 
intention of the Service that this exemption would run with the land 
and the residential property, and transfer from owner to owner.
    As previously noted, the Service believes that this exemption is 
justified because residential property generally has limited habitat 
value for listed species. Moreover, the types of activities associated 
with non-commercial dwellings such as maintenance, enhancement, or the 
general use and enjoyment of such tracts and their associated 
facilities often will often have no lasting effect upon the likelihood 
of the survival and recovery of threatened species.
    Paragraph (d)(2) would propose an exemption for activities that 
cumulatively disturb over time no more than 5 total contiguous acres 
within a given parcel of land. Like the above exemption for residential 
households, this exemption would run with the land from owner to owner 
until the area of disturbance cumulatively totaled 5 contiguous acres. 
This exemption would apply regardless of whether the disturbance 
activities were commercial or noncommercial in nature.
    This provision should provide considerable relief to small 
landowners and small businesses, since it would allow for the clearing 
and development of a parcel of land, so long as the cumulative 
disturbance over time was limited to 5 total contiguous acres or less. 
This would allow a property owner, for example, to construct a small to 
mid-sized business establishment or to utilize part of a residential 
property for income-producing purposes. While a cumulative cap of 5 
acres is proposed for the maximum area of disturbance over time, it is 
not intended to limit the exemption only to people who own less than 5 
acres of land in total; a person could own a larger piece of property 
so long as the total area of disturbance under the exemption was no 
larger than 5 acres.
    It should be noted that these first two exemptions for residential 
property and 5-acre disturbance are intended to be mutually exclusive 
and not cumulative in their application. That is, a given landowner can 
take advantage of either the 5-acre residential property exemption or 
the 5-acre disturbance exemption, but cannot take both for a combined 
exemption total of 10 acres. Each property owner would also be limited 
to applying the exemptions to one contiguous parcel of land as opposed 
to separate 5-acre exemptions for each parcel of land that they may 
own.
    It should also be noted that while the Service has chosen 5 acres 
as the maximum acreage for disturbance under the general exemption 
proposed for 50 CFR 17.31, the Service will consider proposing land use 
exemptions greater than 5 acres on a species-by-species basis where 
such acreage is biologically defensible. Thus, for example, the Service 
proposed an 80-acre small landowner exemption for the northern spotted 
owl on February 17, 1995. The Service believed that 80 acres was 
warranted in that particular case because of the adoption of a 
comprehensive Federal Forest Plan to conserve the owl.
    Paragraph (d)(3) sets out a third exemption for all other 
activities identified by the Service as having negligible adverse 
effects upon a particular threatened species. In order to provide 
maximum guidance and assurance to the public, the Service will attempt 
to identify activities in future listings which, while technically 
qualifying as a possible take of a threatened species, are deemed to 
have no lasting effect on the long-term survival and recovery of the 
species. Land use activities identified under this paragraph will fall 
into categories which for one reason or another did not fit into the 
previous two exemptions but were negligible in their impacts 
nonetheless. Negligible effects activities would be identified on a 
case-by-case basis either in the final rulemaking listing a threatened 
species or in a subsequent general notice published in the Federal 
Register. The Service would also be willing to work with individual 
landowners on a voluntary basis to assess whether or not a particular 
proposed activity would have only negligible effects, thereby 
qualifying for this exemption as well. Whether effects are deemed to be 
negligible would be determined by their impact on the 

[[Page 37422]]
species as a whole as opposed to any one individual specimen.
    Paragraph (d)(4) sets out a fourth exemption which is designed to 
provide an incentive to encourage the development of State-authorized 
or -developed comprehensive habitat conservation plans for threatened 
species. Premised upon the State of California's Natural Community 
Conservation Planning Program and the Service's special rule for the 
California gnatcatcher, this exemption would be triggered by a finding 
published by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Federal Register that 
a given State has developed an adequate habitat conservation plan for a 
threatened species that comprehensively addresses the threats to the 
species within that State and promotes its survival and recovery. Any 
subsequent land use activity within that State which was in accordance 
with the approved State habitat plan, would be exempted from any 
further Federal taking prohibitions for threatened species under the 
Endangered Species Act. Thus, by taking the initiative and developing a 
State-authorized or -developed conservation plan, a State could 
eliminate a separate Federal set of regulatory guidelines which 
landowners would otherwise have to comply with. Further, this provision 
could apply to conservation plans developed at the regional or county 
level so long as such plans comprehensively address the threats to a 
species throughout its range or the primary portions of its range and 
are authorized by a State conservation program.
    Paragraph (d)(5) contains various provisos limiting the application 
of the personal residence and 5-acre exemptions set out in paragraphs 
(d)(1) and (2) of this subsection. The first proviso is designed to 
clarify, as previously noted, that landowners could take advantage of 
either the 5-acre residential property exemption or the 5-acre 
disturbance exemption but not both together for a 10-acre cumulative 
total. The second proviso is intended to clarify that property owners 
with multiple ownerships are limited to one exemption for all of their 
properties and not one exemption per property. The third proviso is 
designed to avoid the potential abuse of these exemptions through the 
subsequent subdivision of property into smaller parcels, each 
qualifying for its own personal residence or 5-acre exemption. In the 
case of future listings, the Service proposes to bar the application of 
these exemptions to individual parcels of land where the parcels were 
subdivided from a larger block of land after the date of proposed 
listing for the affected threatened species. For any subdivision 
created after the relevant cut-off date, the 5-acre exemption would 
apply in aggregate total to disturbances within the subdivision as a 
whole and not be tallied separately for the individual tracts of land. 
However, if certain parcels of land had been broken off or subdivided 
from a larger parcel prior to the proposal to list the species, the 
personal residence and 5-acre exemptions could still potentially be 
applied to each individual parcel.
    For those species which are already on the threatened species list, 
the Service would propose to use a different exemption cut-off date to 
deal with the problem of land subdivision. Rather than use the date of 
a species' proposed listing, which may have occurred a long time ago, 
the Service proposes to use March 6, 1995, as the subdivision cut-off 
point. March 6, 1995 was chosen as the reference cut-off date since it 
was on that date that Secretary Babbitt announced the decision to 
authorize personal residence and 5-acre exemptions for threatened 
species, where appropriate. Thus, for presently listed species, parcels 
of land divided prior to March 6, 1995, could still qualify 
individually for an exemption.
    The last proviso in paragraph (d)(5) also clarifies that the new 
exemptions set out in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) would not 
immediately and automatically apply to species which were already on 
the threatened species list as of the date of the finalization of these 
amendments to 50 CFR 17.31. As previously noted, the Service is 
beginning an immediate review of the potential effects of these 
amendments to species which are already listed as threatened and the 
agency intends to complete a preliminary assessment of this matter 
within 90 days. The Service will then begin the process of formally 
amending the existing regulations for those threatened species for whom 
the exemptions have been found to be appropriate. The Service could 
publish these proposed exemptions either for individual species or for 
clusters or groups of species.
    Finally, the Service notes that there is nothing in the new 
proposed exemptions which would preclude a State, or a political 
subdivision of a State, that is the recipient of a Habitat Conservation 
Plan (HCP) permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, from requiring 
any landowner within the permit area to pay a fee to contribute to 
mitigation of impacts resulting from issuance of the permit.

Public Comments Solicited

    The Service intends any final action resulting from this proposal 
to be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments or 
suggestions from the public, other governmental agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party 
concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. In particular, the 
Service seeks comments on the extent to which, or under what 
circumstances, the small landowner and low-impact activity exemptions 
should be applied to currently-listed threatened species and threatened 
species listed in the future. Final promulgation of the proposed rule 
will take into consideration all comments and any information received 
by the Service. Any information the Service receives during the comment 
period may lead to a final rule that differs from this proposed rule.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

    The Service believes this action may be categorically excluded 
under the Department's NEPA procedures. (See 516 DM 2 Appendix I 
Categorical Exclusion 1.10).

Required Determinations

    This rule was reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The Fish and 
Wildlife Service also certifies that the proposed revisions to 50 CFR 
17.31 will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial 
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.). Significant adverse economic impacts are not expected as 
a result of the proposed rule because: (1) The rule is intended to 
reduce or eliminate altogether regulatory requirements on small 
entities under the Act with respect to threatened species; and (2) the 
rule restates internal administrative guidance and revises the 
regulatory presumption under 50 CFR 17.31 with respect to take of 
threatened species by small landowner activities, the effects of which 
will be triggered by future listing decisions under the Act. Also, no 
direct costs, enforcement costs, information collection, or 
recordkeeping requirements are imposed on small entities by this 
proposed rule, nor does the proposed rule contain any recordkeeping 
requirements as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1990. 
Further, this rule does not require a Federalism assessment under 
Executive Order 12612 because it would have no significant Federalism 
effects as described in the order. Finally, the Service has determined 
that the 

[[Page 37423]]
proposed action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the 
requirements of Executive Order 12630, ``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' and 
preparation of a Takings Implication Assessment is not required. 
Regulations that reduce Federal restrictions on use of private property 
are designated as categorical exclusions under this order.
Author

    The author of this proposal is Don Barry, Counselor to the 
Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Department of the 
Interior, Washington, DC 20240 (202/208-5347).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17, subpart 
D of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set 
forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 17.31 is revised to read as follows:

SUBPART D--THREATENED WILDLIFE


Sec. 17.31  Prohibitions.

    (a) General. Except as provided for in subpart A of this part, 
paragraph (d) of this section, or in a permit issued under this 
subpart, all of the prohibitions and provisions in Sec. 17.21 shall 
apply to threatened wildlife, except Sec. 17.21(c)(5).
    (b) Cooperative agreements. In addition to any other provisions of 
this part 17, any employee or agent of the Service, of the National 
Marine Fisheries Service, or of a State conservation agency which is 
operating a conservation program pursuant to the terms of a Cooperative 
Agreement with the Service in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, 
and who is designated by his or her agency for such purposes, may, when 
acting in the course of their official duties, take those threatened 
species of wildlife which are covered by an approved cooperative 
agreement to carry out conservation programs.
    (c) Special rules. (1) Whenever a special rule in Sec. 17.40 
through Sec. 17.48 applies to a threatened species of wildlife, none of 
the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b), or (d) of this section shall 
apply in those portions of the species' range covered by the special 
rule. The special rule will contain all of the applicable prohibitions 
and exceptions for the species: Provided, that where a special rule 
covers only a portion of a species' range, paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) 
of this section will apply to those portions of the species' range not 
covered by the special rule.
    (2) Whenever the Fish and Wildlife Service determines that the 
individual or cumulative adverse effects of applying one or more 
exemptions under paragraph (d) of this section are likely to be 
significant for a given threatened species, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service shall issue a special rule for that species which shall contain 
only such exemptions or prohibitions as are deemed necessary and 
advisable for the species.
    (d) Landowner exemptions. Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this 
section, any person may take threatened wildlife incidentally in the 
course of otherwise lawful activities:
    (1) Conducted on a contiguous parcel of land of 5 acres or less 
that is occupied by a single household dwelling and is used principally 
for residential, noncommercial purposes;
    (2) Conducted on a parcel of land that results in the cumulative 
disturbance of no more than 5 total contiguous acres for the entire 
parcel;
    (3) Identified by the Fish and Wildlife Service at the time of the 
final listing of the affected threatened species, in a subsequent 
general notice published in the Federal Register, or in a written 
response to voluntary inquiries from landowners, as likely to have 
negligible adverse effects upon the species; or
    (4) Conducted in accordance with a State-authorized or -developed 
comprehensive habitat conservation planning program for the affected 
threatened species of wildlife that has been found by the Fish and 
Wildlife Service in a notice published in the Federal Register to 
address the threats to the species within that State and to promote its 
survival and recovery.
    (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (d) (1) and (2) of 
this section, such exemptions shall not apply:
    (i) In combination with each other for any one person or ownership 
and shall be mutually exclusive;
    (ii) In any instance to more than one parcel of land per person or 
ownership;
    (iii) In the case of any threatened species of wildlife listed 
after the date of final rulemaking establishing such exemptions, to 
individual smaller parcels of land which were subdivided from a larger 
contiguous parcel of land after the date of proposed listing of the 
affected threatened species; and
    (iv) In the case of threatened species of wildlife listed prior to 
the date of final rulemaking establishing such exemptions, unless the 
Fish and Wildlife Service has completed an assessment of the affects of 
such exemptions upon such species and has published in the Federal 
Register either a specific finding of applicability of such exemptions 
to such species or a special rule in Sec. 17.40 through Sec. 17.48 of 
this part, as appropriate, barring the application of those portions of 
the exemptions which might result in significant adverse effects to 
such species. For species covered by the provisions of this paragraph 
(d)(5)(iv), no exemption established under the provisions of paragraphs 
(d) (1) and (2) of this section shall be extended to individual smaller 
parcels of land which were subdivided from a larger contiguous parcel 
of land after March 6, 1995.

    Dated: June 14, 1995.
George T. Frampton, Jr,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 95-17856 Filed 7-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P