[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 20, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42054-42059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17708]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0073]
[92210-1117-0000-B4]
RIN 1018-AW54


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical 
Habitat for Brodiaea filifolia (Thread-leaved Brodiaea)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 
reopening of the public comment period on our December 8, 2009, 
proposed revised designation of critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia 
(thread-leaved brodiaea) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended. We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis 
(DEA) and an amended required determinations section of the proposal. 
We are reopening the comment period for an additional 30 days to allow 
all interested parties an opportunity to comment on all of the above. 
If you submitted comments previously, you do not need to resubmit them 
because we have already incorporated them into the public record and 
will fully consider them in our final determination.

DATES: We will consider public comments received on or before August 
19, 2010. Any comments that we receive after the closing date may not 
be considered in the final decision on this action.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

[[Page 42055]]

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0073.
    U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-
R8-ES-2009-0073; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, 
VA 22203.
    We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 
Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone (760) 431-
9440; facsimile (760) 431-5901. Persons who use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay 
Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from the proposed rule is 
based on the best scientific data available and will be accurate and as 
effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information 
from other concerned government agencies, the scientific community, 
industry, or any other interested parties during this reopened comment 
period on our proposed rule to revise critical habitat for Brodiaea 
filifolia, which we published in the Federal Register on December 8, 
2009 (74 FR 64930), the DEA of the proposed designation, and the 
amended required determinations provided in this document. We are 
particularly interested in comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not revise the critical 
habitat under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether there are 
threats to Brodiaea filifolia from human activity, the type of human 
activity causing these threats, the degree of which can be expected to 
increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threats 
outweighs the benefit of designation, such that the designation of 
critical habitat is not prudent.
    (2) Specific information on:
     Areas that provide habitat for Brodiaea filifolia that we 
did not discuss in our proposed revised critical habitat rule (December 
8, 2009; 74 FR 64930).
     Areas containing the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of B. filifolia that we should include in 
the final critical habitat designation and why. Include information on 
the distribution of these essential features and what special 
management considerations or protections may be required to maintain or 
enhance them.
     Areas we proposed as revised critical habitat that do not 
contain the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species and that should therefore not be designated 
as critical habitat.
     Areas not occupied at the time of listing that are 
essential for the conservation of the species and why.
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
areas occupied by the species, and their possible impacts on proposed 
revised critical habitat.
    (4) How the proposed revised critical habitat boundaries could be 
refined to more closely circumscribe landscapes identified as 
containing the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    (5) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts that may result from designating particular areas as critical 
habitat, and, in particular, any impacts to small entities (e.g., small 
businesses or small governments), and the benefits of including or 
excluding areas from the proposed revised designation that exhibit 
these impacts.
    (6) Whether any specific subunits being proposed as revised 
critical habitat should be excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 
and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any particular area 
outweigh the benefits of including that area in critical habitat.
    (7) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation 
of critical habitat, and how the consequences of such reactions, if 
they occur, would relate to the conservation of the species and 
regulatory benefits of the proposed revised critical habitat 
designation.
    (8) Information on the extent to which the description of potential 
economic impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate, and specifically:
     Whether there are incremental costs of critical habitat 
designation (e.g., costs attributable solely to the designation of 
critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia) that have not been 
appropriately identified or considered in our economic analysis, 
including costs associated with future administrative costs or project 
modifications that may be required by Federal agencies related to 
section 7 consultation under the Act; and
     Whether there are incremental economic benefits of 
critical habitat designation that are not appropriately identified or 
considered in our economic analysis.
    (9) The potential effects of climate change on this species and its 
habitat and whether the critical habitat may adequately account for 
these potential effects.
    (10) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate concerns and comments.
    If you submitted comments or information on the proposed revised 
rule (74 FR 64930) during the initial comment period from December 8, 
2009, to February 8, 2010, please do not resubmit them. These comments 
are included in the public record for this rulemaking, and we will 
fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our 
final determination concerning the revised critical habitat for 
Brodiaea filifolia will take into consideration all written comments 
and any additional information we receive during both comment periods. 
On the basis of public comments, we may, during the development of our 
final determination, find that areas within the proposed revised 
critical habitat designation do not meet the definition of critical 
habitat, that some modifications to the described boundaries are 
appropriate, or that areas may or may not be appropriate for exclusion 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning our proposed 
rule, the associated DEA, and our amended required determinations 
section by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire 
submission--including any personal identifying information--will be 
posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hard copy that 
includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top 
of your document that we withhold this information from public review. 
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will 
post all hard copy comments on http://www.regulations.gov. Please 
include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to verify 
any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation used to prepare this notice, will be available for public 
inspection at http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during 
normal business

[[Page 42056]]

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain 
copies of the proposed revision of critical habitat (74 FR 64930) and 
the DEA on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 
FWS-R8-ES-2009-0073, or by mail from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for Brodiaea 
filifolia in this notice. For more information on previous Federal 
actions concerning B. filifolia, see the 2005 designation of critical 
habitat published in the Federal Register on December 13, 2005 (70 FR 
73820), see the proposed revised designation of critical habitat 
published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2009 (74 FR 64930), or 
contact the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).
    The Center for Biological Diversity filed a complaint in the U.S. 
District Court for the Southern District of California on December 19, 
2007, challenging our designation of critical habitat for Brodiaea 
filifolia and Navarretia fossalis (Center for Biological Diversity v. 
United States Fish and Wildlife Service et al., Case No. 07-CV-2379-W-
NLS). This lawsuit challenged the validity of the information and 
reasoning we used to exclude areas from the 2005 critical habitat 
designation for B. filifolia. We reached a settlement agreement on July 
25, 2008, in which we agreed to reconsider critical habitat designation 
for B. filifolia. The settlement stipulated that we submit a proposed 
revised critical habitat designation for B. filifolia to the Federal 
Register for publication by December 1, 2009, and submit a final 
critical habitat designation to the Federal Register for publication by 
December 1, 2010. We published the proposed revised critical habitat 
designation in the Federal Register on December 8, 2009 (74 FR 64930).
    Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas 
within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is 
listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and 
which may require special management considerations or protection, and 
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at 
the time it is listed, upon a determination 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 critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their 
proposed actions under 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 data available after 
taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national 
security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular 
area as critical habitat.
    We prepared a DEA (Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc) 2010) 
that identifies and analyzes the potential impacts associated with the 
proposed revised designation of critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia 
that we published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2009 (74 FR 
64930). The DEA looks retrospectively at costs incurred since the 
October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54975), listing of B. filifolia as threatened. 
The DEA quantifies the economic impacts of all potential conservation 
efforts for B. filifolia; some of these costs will likely be incurred 
regardless of whether or not we finalize the revised critical habitat 
rule. The economic impact of the proposed revised critical habitat 
designation is analyzed by comparing a ``without critical habitat'' 
scenario with a ``with critical habitat'' scenario. The ``without 
critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, 
considering protections already in place for the species (for example, 
under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local 
regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs incurred 
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The ``with 
critical habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts 
associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for 
the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated 
impacts are those not expected to occur absent the critical habitat 
designation for B. filifolia. In other words, the incremental costs are 
those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat above 
and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we may consider in 
the final designation of critical habitat relative to areas that may be 
excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The analysis looks 
retrospectively at baseline impacts incurred since the species was 
listed, and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely to 
occur if we finalize the proposed revised critical habitat.
    The 2010 DEA (made available with the publication of this notice 
and referred to as the DEA throughout this document unless otherwise 
noted) estimates the foreseeable economic impacts of the proposed 
revised critical habitat designation for Brodiaea filifolia. The 
economic analysis identifies potential incremental costs as a result of 
the proposed revised critical habitat designation, which are those 
costs attributed to critical habitat over and above those baseline 
costs coextensive with listing. It also discusses the benefits of 
critical habitat designation. These benefits are primarily presented in 
a qualitative manner. The DEA describes economic impacts of B. 
filifolia conservation efforts associated with the following categories 
of activity: (1) Residential and commercial development; (2) 
transportation, utility, and flood control projects; and (3) public and 
conservancy lands management.
    Baseline economic costs are those that result from listing and 
other conservation efforts for Brodiaea filifolia. The baseline costs 
are assuming a 7 percent discount rate and are identified in Appendix E 
of the DEA (IEc 2010, Appendix E-1). Impacts associated with baseline 
protection for B. filifolia within the proposed revised critical 
habitat designation are estimated to be $5.31 million to $8.16 million 
(approximately $486,000 to $720,000 annualized) over the next 20 years 
(2011-2030). Baseline impacts to development are estimated to be $4.60 
million to $7.46 million. This represents approximately 83 to 89 
percent of the total baseline impacts. Baseline impacts to 
transportation, utility, and flood control activities are estimated to 
be $657,000. This represents approximately 8 to 12 percent of the total 
baseline impacts. Baseline impacts to public and conservancy lands 
management are estimated to be $49,500. This represents approximately 
0.6 to 0.9 percent of the total baseline impacts.
    Incremental impacts associated with the proposed revised critical 
habitat designation are estimated to be $425,000 to $529,000 
(approximately $37,500 to $46,700 annualized), assuming a 7 percent 
discount rate, over the next 20 years (2011-2030). These impacts are 
due to a reduction in land value following the designation of critical 
habitat for Brodiaea filifolia and the cost of section 7 consultation 
for pipeline maintenance activities (IEc 2010, p. ES-9). Incremental 
impacts to development

[[Page 42057]]

are estimated to be $207,000 to $311,000. This represents approximately 
49 to 59 percent of the total incremental impacts. No incremental costs 
related to public and conservancy lands management are expected from 
the designation (IEc 2010, p. ES-10).
    The DEA considers both economic efficiency and distributional 
effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects 
generally reflect the ``opportunity costs'' associated with the 
commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures 
(such as lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on 
land use). The DEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are 
likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or 
regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of 
conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and 
individuals. The DEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with 
residential and commercial development and public projects and 
activities, such as economic impacts on transportation, utility, flood 
control projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy 
industry. Decisionmakers can use this information to assess whether the 
effects of the revised designation might unduly burden a particular 
group or economic sector.

Required Determinations---Amended

    In our proposed rule published in the Federal Register on December 
8, 2009 (74 FR 64930), we indicated that we would defer our 
determination of compliance with several statutes and Executive Orders 
until the information concerning potential economic impacts of the 
designation and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders became 
available in the DEA. We have now made use of the DEA to make these 
determinations.
    In this document, we affirm the information in our December 8, 
2009, proposed rule (74 FR 64930) concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 
12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 
12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Paperwork Reduction Act, the National 
Environmental Policy Act, and the President's memorandum of April 29, 
1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951). However, based on the DEA data, we are 
amending our required determinations concerning the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use), E.O. 12630 (Takings), and the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

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), 
as described below. 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 on our DEA of the proposed revised designation, we provide the 
analysis for our determination whether or not the proposed rule would 
result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Based on comments we receive, we may revise this 
determination as part of a final rulemaking.
    According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small 
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the 
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this 
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. 
In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a 
typical small business firm's business operations.
    To determine if the proposed revised designation of critical 
habitat for Brodiaea filifolia would affect a substantial number of 
small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected 
within particular types of economic activities, such as residential and 
commercial development. In order to determine whether it is appropriate 
for our agency to certify that the rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we 
considered each industry or category individually.
    If we finalize the proposed revised critical habitat designation, 
Federal agencies must consult with us under section 7 of the Act if 
their activities may affect designated critical habitat. Incremental 
impacts to small entities may occur as a direct result of a required 
consultation under section 7 of the Act. Additionally, even in the 
absence of a Federal nexus, indirect incremental impacts may still 
result because, for example, a city may request project modifications 
due to the designation of critical habitat via its review under the 
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Consultations to avoid the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be 
incorporated into the existing consultation process because Brodiaea 
filifolia is federally listed as a threatened species under the Act.
    In the DEA, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small 
business entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions 
related to the proposed revision to critical habitat for Brodiaea 
filifolia (IEc 2010, Appendix A, pp. 1-7). The analysis was based on 
the estimated incremental impacts associated with the proposed 
rulemaking as described in sections 3 through 5 of the DEA. The SBREFA 
analysis evaluated the potential for economic impacts related to 
several categories, including: (1) Residential and commercial 
development; (2) transportation, utility, and flood control projects; 
and (3) management of public and conservation lands (IEc 2010, Appendix 
A, p. 4).
    The DEA found there are no incremental impacts related to the 
management of public and conservation lands. Impacts to small entities 
are only anticipated due to residential and commercial development. No 
impacts are anticipated due to transportation, utility, and flood 
control because the incremental costs are associated with activities 
conducted by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 
which is not a small business or government as defined by the Small 
Business Administration (IEc 2010, Appendix A, p. 4).
    The DEA estimated that there will be approximately 23 landowners 
impacted over the next 20 years with an incremental impact estimated to 
be

[[Page 42058]]

$311,000 assuming a 7 percent discount rate. This impact is related to 
the decrease in land value for areas designated as critical habitat and 
may be borne by the current landowner in the form of percent of average 
value lost. In a regional context, we looked at the number of 
homeowners in each county as a representation of the total number of 
property owners in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and 
San Diego Counties. There are approximately 443,000 to over 1.6 million 
homeowners in these counties (IEc 2010, Appendix A, p. 5). The 23 
landowners that may be impacted represent approximately less than 1 
percent of the total number of landowners in Los Angeles, San 
Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and San Diego Counties. We do not 
believe that this represents a substantial number of landowners. 
Additionally, we evaluated the decrease in property value by looking at 
the average parcel value by county and the percent of the value lost. 
We found that the land value lost ranged from 0.02 to 17.3 percent of 
the total value (IEc 2010, Appendix A, pp. 5-6). To some individual 
property owners this may represent a significant impact, but on a 
regional scale we do not believe an incremental impact of $311,000 in 
reduced land value represents a significant economic impact. As a 
result of this analysis, we find that the designation of critical 
habitat for Brodiaea filifolia will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    In summary, we considered whether the proposed revised designation 
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently 
available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed 
revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia will not 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. 
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy 
Effects when undertaking certain actions. The Office of Management and 
Budget's guidance for implementing this Executive Order outlines nine 
outcomes that may constitute ``a significant adverse effect'' when 
compared to no regulatory action. As discussed in Appendix A, the DEA 
finds that none of these outcomes are possible in the context of this 
analysis (IEc 2010, Appendix A, pp. 7-8). The DEA concludes that no 
incremental impacts on the production, distribution, or use of energy 
are forecast associated specifically with this rulemaking (IEc 2010, 
Appendix A, p. 7). Therefore, designation of critical habitat is not 
expected to lead to any adverse outcomes (such as a reduction in 
electricity production or an increase in the cost of energy production 
or distribution), 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, 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. First, it excludes ``a condition of federal 
assistance.'' Second, it also excludes ``a duty arising from 
participation in a voluntary Federal program,'' unless the regulation 
``relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 
or more is provided annually to State, local, and Tribal governments 
under entitlement authority,'' if the provision would ``increase the 
stringency of conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or 
otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide 
funding'' and the State, local, or Tribal governments ``lack 
authority'' to adjust accordingly. ``Federal private sector mandate'' 
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the 
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a 
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
    Critical habitat designation does not impose a legally binding duty 
on non-Federal government entities or private parties. The only 
regulatory effect is that under section 7 of the Act, which requires 
that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat may 
indirectly impact non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, 
assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or 
authorization from a Federal agency for an action that may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habirat. 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 onto State governments.
    (b) As discussed in the DEA of the proposed revised designation of 
critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia, we do not believe that this 
rule will significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it 
will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any 
year; that is, it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The DEA concludes that incremental 
impacts may occur due to conservation costs associated with residential 
and commercial development, and with transportation, utility, and flood 
control projects; however, these are not expected to affect small 
governments (IEc 2010, Appendix A, p. 4). Incremental impacts 
associated with these activities are expected to be borne by the 
Transportation Corridor Agencies and San Diego Gas and Electric, which 
are not considered small governments. Consequently, we do not believe 
that the proposed revised 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 analyzed the potential takings implications of proposing 
revised critical habitat for Brodiaea filifolia in a takings 
implications assessment. 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. The proposed revised critical habitat for 
B. filifolia does not pose significant takings implications for the 
above reasons.

[[Page 42059]]

References Cited

    A complete list of all references we cited in the proposed rule and 
in this document is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or by contacting the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the 
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Authority

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

    Dated: July 7, 2010
Eileen Sobeck,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2010-17708 Filed 7-19- 10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE S