[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 14, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45407-45411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-15765]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AU80


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Arenaria ursina (Bear Valley Sandwort), Castilleja 
cinerea (Ash-gray Indian Paintbrush), and Eriogonum kennedyi var. 
austromontanum (Southern Mountain Wild-buckwheat)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

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

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 
reopening of the comment period on the proposed designation of critical 
habitat for Arenaria ursina, Castilleja cinerea, and Eriogonumkennedyi 
var. austromontanum under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act). We also announce the availability of the draft economic 
analysis for the proposed critical habitat designation and an amended 
Required Determinations section of the proposal. The draft economic 
analysis forecasts future costs associated with conservation efforts 
for the three listed plants in the areas proposed for designation to be 
$1.95 million (undiscounted) over the next 20 years. The present value 
of these impacts, applying a 3 percent discount rate, is $1.45 million 
($0.10 million annualized); or $1.03 million, using a discount rate of 
7 percent ($0.10 million annualized). The amended Required 
Determinations section provides our determination concerning compliance 
with applicable statutes and Executive Orders that we deferred until 
the information from the draft economic analysis of this proposal was 
available. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested 
parties to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule, the associated 
draft economic analysis, and the amended Required Determinations 
section.

DATES: We will accept public comments until September 13, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and materials may be submitted to us by any 
one of the following methods:
    (1) E-mail: Please submit electronic comments to 
[email protected]. Include ``pebble plains plants'' in the 
subject line. Please see the Public Comments Solicited section under 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    (2) Facsimile: You may send your comments to 760-431-5901.
    (3) U.S. mail or hand-delivery: You may submit written comments and 
information to Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 
Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011.
    (4) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad 
Fish and Wildlife Office, at the address listed in ADDRESSES 
(telephone: 760-431-9440). 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 Solicited

    We will accept written comments and information during this 
reopened comment period. We solicit comments on the proposed critical 
habitat designation for Arenariaursina (Bear Valley sandwort), 
Castillejacinerea (Ash-gray Indian paintbrush), and Eriogonumkennedyi 
var. austromontanum (southern mountain wild-buckwheat) (also 
collectively referred to herein as three pebble plains plants), 
published in the Federal Register on November 22, 2006 (71 FR 67712), 
and on our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation. We will 
consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. 
We are particularly interested in comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons why habitat should or should not be designated as 
critical habitat under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 
including whether the benefit of designation will outweigh threats to 
these species caused by designation, such that designation of critical 
habitat is prudent;
    (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of 
Arenariaursina, Castillejacinerea, and Eriogonumkennedyi var. 
austromontanum habitat, and what areas that were occupied at the time 
of listing that contain features essential for the conservation of the 
species should be included in the designation 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) Information on the extent to which any State and local 
environmental protection measures referred to in the draft economic 
analysis may have been adopted largely as a result of the listing of 
Arenariaursina, Castillejacinerea, and Eriogonumkennedyi var. 
austromontanum;
    (5) Information on whether the draft economic analysis identifies 
all State and local costs attributable to the proposed critical habitat 
designation, and information on any costs that have been inadvertently 
overlooked;
    (6) Information on whether the draft economic analysis makes 
appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and likely 
regulatory changes imposed as a result of the designation of critical 
habitat;
    (7) Information on whether the draft economic analysis correctly 
assesses the effect on regional costs associated with any land use 
controls that may derive from the designation of critical habitat;

[[Page 45408]]

    (8) Information on areas that could potentially be 
disproportionately impacted by designation of critical habitat for 
Arenariaursina, Castillejacinerea, or Eriogonumkennedyi var. 
austromontanum;
    (9) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential 
impacts resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat, 
and in particular, any impacts on small entities; and the benefits of 
including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts;
    (10) Information on whether the draft economic analysis 
appropriately identifies all costs that could result from the 
designation;
    (11) 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;
    (12) Economic data on the incremental effects that would result 
from designating any particular area as critical habitat; and
    (13) Information on whether there are any quantifiable economic 
benefits that could result from the designation.
    Pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 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. We may exclude an 
area from designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, 
national security, or any other relevant impact.
    All previous comments and information submitted during the initial 
comment period from November 22, 2006, to January 22, 2007, for the 
proposed rule (71 FR 67712) need not be resubmitted. If you wish to 
comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning the 
draft economic analysis and the proposed rule by any one of several 
methods (see ADDRESSES). Our final designation of critical habitat will 
take into consideration all comments and any additional information we 
have received during both comment periods. On the basis of public 
comment on this analysis, the critical habitat proposal, and the final 
economic analysis, we may, during the development of our final 
determination, find that areas proposed are not essential, are 
appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not 
appropriate for exclusion.
    If submitting comments electronically, please also include ``Attn: 
pebble plains plants'' 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.
    Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or 
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be 
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying 
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be 
able to do so.
    You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and draft economic 
analysis by mail from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see 
ADDRESSES) or by visiting our website at http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SBMP.htm.

Background

    On September 13, 2004, the Center for Biological Diversity and the 
California Native Plant Society filed a joint lawsuit challenging the 
Service's failure to designate critical habitat for six California 
plant species, including Arenariaursina, Castillejacinerea, and 
Eriogonumkennedyi var. austromontanum (Center for Biological Diversity, 
et al. v. Norton, No. ED CV-04-1150 RT (SGLx)). In an April 14, 2005, 
settlement agreement, the Service agreed to submit to the Federal 
Register a proposed rule to designate critical habitat, if prudent, on 
or before November 9, 2006, and a final rule by November 9, 2007.
    On November 4, 2006, a proposed rule to designate critical habitat 
for A. ursina, C. cinerea, and E. k. var. austromontanum was signed; it 
was published on November 22, 2006 (71 FR 67712). The proposal includes 
approximately 1,511 acres (ac) (611 hectares (ha)) of land in San 
Bernardino County, California.
    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.

Draft Economic Analysis

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise 
critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data 
available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact 
on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. We have prepared a draft economic 
analysis based on the November 22, 2006, proposed rule to designate 
critical habitat for Arenariaursina, Castillejacinerea, and 
Eriogonumkennedyi var. austromontanum (71 FR 67712).
    The draft economic analysis is intended to quantify the economic 
impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the three pebble 
plains plants; some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless 
of whether critical habitat is designated. According to the draft 
economic analysis, activities associated with the conservation of the 
three listed pebble plains plants are likely to primarily impact 
unauthorized off-highway vehicle use, control of invasive, nonnative 
plants, and dispersed recreation. The draft economic analysis forecasts 
future costs associated with conservation efforts for the three pebble 
plains plants in the areas proposed for designation to be $1.95 million 
(undiscounted) over the next 20 years. The present value of these 
impacts, applying a 3 percent discount rate, is $1.45 million ($0.10 
million annualized); or $1.03 million, using a discount rate of 7 
percent ($0.10 million annualized). The analysis quantifies economic 
impacts associated with the conservation efforts on each affected 
entity--typically landowners or managers--associated with the 
following: (1) vehicle use off designated routes; (2) the presence of 
nonnative plant species; and (3) dispersed recreation activities.
    The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic 
effects of actions relating to the conservation of Arenariaursina, 
Castillejacinerea, and Eriogonumkennedyi var. austromontanum, including 
costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and including 
those attributable

[[Page 45409]]

to the designation of critical habitat. It further considers the 
economic effects of protective measures taken as a result of other 
Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat conservation for A. 
ursina, C. cinerea, and E. k. var. austromontanum in areas containing 
features essential to the conservation of the species. The draft 
analysis considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. 
In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally 
reflect the ``opportunity costs'' associated with the commitment of 
resources to comply with habitat protection measures (such as lost 
economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use).
    This analysis also addresses how potential economic impacts are 
likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or 
regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of 
conservation activities on small entities and the energy industry. This 
information can be used by decision-makers to assess whether the 
effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or 
economic sector. Finally, this draft analysis looks retrospectively at 
costs that have been incurred since the date Arenariaursina, 
Castillejacinerea, and Eriogonumkennedyi var. austromontanum were 
listed as threatened (63 FR 49006; September 14, 1998), and considers 
those costs that may occur in the 20 years following the designation of 
critical habitat.
    As stated earlier, we solicit data and comments from the public on 
this draft economic analysis, as well as on all aspects of the 
proposal. We may revise the proposal or its supporting documents to 
incorporate or address 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

    In our November 22, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 67712), we indicated 
that we would defer our determination of compliance with several 
statutes and Executive Orders until the information concerning 
potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on 
landowners and stakeholders was available in the draft economic 
analysis. Those data are now available for our use in making these 
determinations. In this notice we are affirming the information 
contained in the proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 13132; 
E.O. 12988, the Paperwork Reduction Act; and the President's memorandum 
of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native 
American Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951). Based on the information 
made available to us in the draft economic analysis, we are amending 
our Required Determinations, as provided below, concerning E.O. 12866 
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, E.O. 13211, E.O. 12630, and the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with E.O. 12866, this document is a significant rule 
because it may raise novel legal and policy issues. Based on our draft 
economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for 
Arenariaursina, Castillejacinerea, or Eriogonumkennedyi var. 
austromontanum, costs related to conservation activities for these 
species pursuant to sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act are estimated to 
be approximately $1.95 million (undiscounted) over the next 20 years. 
The present value of these impacts, applying a 3 percent discount rate, 
is $1.45 million ($0.10 million annualized); or $1.03 million, using a 
discount rate of 7 percent ($0.10 million annualized). Therefore, based 
on our draft economic analysis, we do not anticipate that the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for A. ursina, C. cinerea, and E. k. 
var. austromontanum would result in an annual effect on the economy of 
$100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to 
the necessary timeline for publication in the Federal Register, the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not formally reviewed the 
proposed rule or accompanying economic analysis.
    Further, E.O. 12866 directs Federal agencies promulgating 
regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (OMB Circular A-4, 
September 17, 2003). Pursuant to Circular A-4, once it has 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 Act, 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 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 
U.S.C. 802(2)) (SBREFA), 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 (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. Based upon our draft 
economic analysis of the proposed designation, we provide our analysis 
for determining whether the proposed rule would result in a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on 
comments received, this determination is subject to revision as part of 
the final rulemaking.
    According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small 
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the 
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this 
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. 
In general, the term significant economic

[[Page 45410]]

impact is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business 
operations.
    To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for 
Arenaria ursina, Castilleja cinerea, and Eriogonum kennedyi var. 
austromontanum would affect a substantial number of small entities, we 
considered the number of small entities affected within particular 
types of economic activities (such as residential development and 
dispersed recreation activities). 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 
thus 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 analysis of the proposed critical habitat 
designation, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small 
business entities resulting from conservation actions related to the 
listing of Arenaria ursina, Castilleja cinerea, or Eriogonum kennedyi 
var. austromontanum and proposed designation of its critical habitat. 
The analysis is based on the estimated impacts associated with the 
proposed rulemaking as described in Chapters 2 through 4 of the 
analysis and evaluates the potential for economic impacts related to 
three categories: unauthorized vehicle activities; invasive, nonnative 
plant species management; and dispersed recreation activities.
    The U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the California Department of Fish 
and Game, and the Boy Scouts of America are not considered small 
entities by the Small Business Administration. They do not meet the 
criteria because the first two entities are governments serving more 
than 50,000 people, and the Boy Scouts of America is a civic or social 
organization having annual receipts greater than $6.5 million. The 
private landowners are unlikely to be business entities. Accordingly, 
the small business analysis contained in Appendix A of the economic 
analysis focuses on economic impacts of controlling unauthorized off-
highway vehicles and nonnative plant species on land owned by The 
Wildlands Conservancy.
    The Wildlands Conservancy (TWC) is a nonprofit, public benefit 
organization. It was unaware of the presence of the three listed 
species and their habitat on its land and, to date, has not undertaken 
actions specific to the conservation of the plants. Potential impacts 
to TWC of managing unauthorized off-road vehicle use and controlling 
invasive, nonnative plant species are based on cost-per-acre estimates 
from the USFS. Annualized impacts to TWC at a 3 percent discount rate 
are expected to be $4,504. However, since only one entity meeting the 
definition of a small business owns land within the area proposed as 
critical habitat, we do not anticipate that this regulation, if 
finalized as proposed, will result in a significant impact to a 
substantial number of small business entities. Please refer to our 
draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation 
for a more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts.
    In summary, we have considered whether this proposed rule would 
result in a significant economic effect on a substantial number of 
small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently available 
information, we certify that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Executive Order 13211 - Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations 
that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 
13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when 
undertaking certain actions. This proposed designation of critical 
habitat for Arenaria ursina, Castilleja cinerea, and Eriogonumkennedyi 
var. austromontanum is considered a significant regulatory action under 
E.O. 12866 due to its potentially raising novel legal and policy 
issues. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this Executive Order 
that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a significant adverse 
effect'' when compared without the regulatory action under 
consideration. The draft economic analysis finds that none of these 
criteria are relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on the information 
in the draft economic analysis, energy-related impacts associated with 
A. ursina, C. cinerea, and E. k. var. austromontanum conservation 
activities within proposed critical habitat are not expected. As such, 
the proposed designation of critical habitat is not expected to 
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use and a 
Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (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

[[Page 45411]]

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) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments. As discussed in the draft economic analysis, 
the majority (92 percent) of the lands proposed as critical habitat are 
federally owned by the USFS, which does not qualify as a small 
government. Of the remaining eight percent, seven percent is privately 
owned land and one percent is State land. Consequently, we do not 
believe that critical habitat designation would significantly or 
uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a Small Government 
Agency Plan is not required.

Executive Order 12630 - Takings

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of 
proposing critical habitat for Arenaria ursina, Castilleja cinerea, and 
Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum in a takings implications 
assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes that this 
proposed designation of critical habitat for the three listed pebble 
plains plants does not pose significant takings implications.

Author

    The primary author of this notice is the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 
Office.

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


    Dated: August 3, 2007.

Todd Willens,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E7-15765 Filed 8-13-07; 8:45 am]
Billing Code: 4310-55-S