[PCA] Public Comment/Economic analysis: Critical Habitat for ASTRAGALUS LENTIGINOSUS var. coachellae (Coachella Valley milk-vetch)
Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov
Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov
Tue Sep 27 13:11:36 CDT 2005
----- Forwarded by Patricia De Angelis/ARL/R9/FWS/DOI on 09/27/2005 02:06
PM -----
From:
http://epa.gov/EPA-SPECIES/2005/September/Day-27/
=======================================================================
[Federal Register: September 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 186)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56434-56439]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27se05-37]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AT74
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Designation of Critical Habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae (Coachella Valley milk-vetch)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period and notice of
availability of draft economic analysis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period on the proposed designation of
critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (Coachella
Valley milk-vetch), and the availability of a draft economic analysis
of the proposed designation of critical habitat. We are reopening the
comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to
comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft
economic analysis. Comments previously submitted on this proposed rule
need not be resubmitted as they have already been incorporated into the
[[Page 56435]]
public record and will be fully considered in our final determination.
DATES: We will accept public comments and information until October 27,
2005.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and materials may be submitted to us by any
one of the following methods:
1. You may submit written comments and information to Jim Bartel,
Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley
Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011;
2. You may hand-deliver written comments and information to our
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at the above address, or fax your
comments to 760/431-9624; or
3. You may send your comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to <A HREF="
mailto:fw1cfwocvmv at fws.gov">
fw1cfwocvmv at fws.gov</A>. For directions on how to submit electronic
comments, see the ``Public Comments Solicited'' section. In the event
that our Internet connection is not functional, please submit your
comments by the alternate methods mentioned above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address (telephone 760/431-9440;
facsimile 760/431-9624).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments Solicited
We will accept written comments and information during this
reopened comment period. We intend that any final action resulting from
our critical habitat proposal be as accurate and effective as possible.
Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other
concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community,
industry, or any other interested party concerning the proposed rule
and the associated draft economic analysis. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined
to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
including whether the benefits of designation would outweigh any
threats to the species resulting from designation;
(2) Specific information on the distribution of Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae, the amount and distribution of the
species' habitat, and which habitat is essential to the conservation of
the species, and why;
(3) Land-use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject area and their possible impacts on the species or proposed
critical habitat;
(4) 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 concerns and comments;
(5) Any foreseeable economic, environmental, or other impacts
resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat or
coextensively from the listing, and in particular, any impacts on small
entities or families;
(6) Whether the economic analysis identifies all State and local
costs. If not, what other costs should be included;
(7) Whether the economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions
regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a
result of the listing of the species or the designation of critical
habitat;
(8) Whether the economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on
regional costs associated with land- and water-use controls that derive
from the designation;
(9) Whether the designation will result in disproportionate
economic impacts to specific areas that should be evaluated for
possible exclusion from any final designation;
(10) Whether the economic analysis appropriately identifies all
costs that could result from the designation or coextensively from the
listing; and
(11) Whether there is information about areas that could be used as
substitutes for the economic activities planned in critical habitat
areas that would offset the costs and allow for the conservation of
critical habitat areas.
All previous comments and information submitted during the initial
comment period on the proposed rule 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 section). Our final determination concerning
designation of critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae will take into consideration all comments and any additional
information received during both comment periods. On the basis of
public comment on the critical habitat proposal, the draft economic
analysis, 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.
Please submit electronic comments in an ASCII file and avoid the
use of any special characters or any form of encryption. Also, please
include ``Attn: Coachella Valley milk-vetch'' and your name and return
address in your e-mail message regarding the Astragalus lentiginosus
var. coachellae proposed rule or the draft economic analysis. If you do
not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your
e-mail message, please submit your comments in writing using one of the
alternate methods described above in the ADDRESSES section.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold
their home address, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law.
There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a
respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold
your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the
beginning of your comments. However, we will not consider anonymous
comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or
businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical
habitat, will be available for public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Copies of the proposed critical
habitat rule for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae and the draft
economic analysis are also available on the Internet at <A HREF="
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/carlsbad/CVMV.htm
">
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/carlsbad/CVMV.htm</A>. In the event that
our Internet connection is not functional, please obtain copies of
documents directly from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.
Background
On December 14, 2004, we published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register (69 FR 74468) to designate critical habitat for Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae pursuant to the Act. We identified
approximately 20,559 acres (ac) (8,320 hectares (ha)) of essential
habitat for this species. Of the essential habitat, we proposed to
designate approximately 3,583 ac (1,450 ha) of critical habitat in
three units in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California.
Approximately 16,976 ac (6,870 ha) of essential habitat covered under
the pending Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
[[Page 56436]]
Plan in Riverside County was excluded from proposed critical habitat
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The first comment period for the A.
l. var. coachellae proposed critical habitat rule closed on February
14, 2005. For more information on this species, refer to the final rule
listing this species as endangered, published in the Federal Register
on October 6, 1998 (63 FR 53596).
The proposed critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae, published on December 14, 2004 (69 FR 74475), was intended
to include only Federal and State lands. Although the descriptions of
the proposed critical habitat units describe those units as Federal or
State lands, due to using a 100 meter Universal Transverse Mercator
grid in our mapping process, some acres associated with private lands
were inadvertently included in the total acreage figures. Because the
draft economic analysis looks at the costs associated with all of the
acreage included in the proposed rule, the development costs on private
lands were included. If this proposed critical habitat designation is
made final, the Service intends to explicitly remove the private lands
in the final determination.
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the specific
areas within the geographic 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 geographic area occupied by a species at the
time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential
for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made
final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or
carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions
affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on
the effects of their proposed actions, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of
the Act.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise
critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial
data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact,
impact to national security, and any other relevant impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We have prepared a
draft economic analysis of the December 14, 2004 (69 FR 74468),
proposed designation of critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus
var. coachellae.
The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic
effects of actions relating to the conservation of Astragalus
lentiginosus var. coachellae, including costs associated with sections
4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and including those attributable to
designating 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. l. var. coachellae in
essential habitat areas. The 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 (e.g., 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 analysis
looks retrospectively at costs that have been incurred since the date
the species was listed as an endangered species and considers those
costs that may occur in the 20 years following the designation of
critical habitat.
Pre-designation costs include those Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae-related conservation activities associated with sections 4,
7, and 10 of the Act that have accrued since the time that A. l. var.
coachellae was listed as endangered (October 6, 1998), but prior to the
final designation of critical habitat. The pre-designation costs in the
proposed critical habitat are estimated at $2.5 million.
Post-designation effects include likely future costs associated
with Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae conservation efforts
following the final designation of critical habitat in December 2005
(effectively 2006 through 2025). The total costs associated with the
designation of critical habitat are expected to be $7.8 million in
constant dollars, or $5.8 million and $4.2 million when using a three
percent or seven percent discount rate, respectively, over the next 20
years (an annualized cost of $0.4 million at either rate). As mentioned
above, private lands were not meant to be included in the proposed
designation. The costs associated with development on private lands are
$1.5 million in constant dollars, or $1.1 million and $0.8 million when
using a three percent or seven percent discount rate, respectively,
over the next 20 years (an annualized cost of $0.07 million at either
rate). Therefore, the net costs associated with the designation of
critical habitat are expected to be $6.2 million in constant dollars,
or $4.7 million or $3.4 million when using a three percent or seven
percent discount rate, respectively over the next 20 years (an
annualized cost of $0.03 million at either rate).
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues.
However, because the draft economic analysis indicates the potential
economic impact associated with a designation of all habitat with
features essential to the conservation of this species would total no
more than $0.4 million per year, we do not anticipate that this final
rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more
or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the time line for
publication in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) did not formally review the proposed rule.
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 effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In our proposed rule,
we withheld our determination of whether this designation would result
in a significant effect as defined under SBREFA until we completed our
draft economic analysis of the proposed designation so that we would
have the factual basis for our determination.
According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations,
[[Page 56437]]
and small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city
and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents, as well as
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 this proposed designation of critical habitat for
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae would affect a substantial
number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities
affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g.,
residential, industrial, and commercial development). We considered
each industry or category individually to determine if certification is
appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially
affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal
involvement; some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal
involvement and so will not be affected by the designation of critical
habitat. Designation of critical habitat only affects activities
conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-
Federal activities are not affected by the designation.
If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final,
Federal agencies must consult with us 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. Our analysis determined that costs
involving conservation measures for Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae would be incurred for activities involving residential,
commercial, and industrial development (land subdivision companies);
transportation (California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans),
Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), or Riverside County
Transportation Commission (RCTC)); Federal land (Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service)); other public (California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG) and California Department of Parks and Recreation
(CDPR)) or conservation (The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Center for
Natural Lands Management (CNLM)) land management, water supply (Mission
Springs Water District (MSWD) and Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD)), and flood control (CVWD and Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District (RCFC) agencies); implementation of the
draft Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP); and wind energy projects (private businesses and individuals).
In our economic analysis of this proposed designation, we evaluated
the potential economic effects on small business entities resulting
from conservation actions related to the listing of this species and
proposed designation of its critical habitat. Critical habitat
designation is expected to result in additional costs to real estate
development projects through a Local Development Mitigation Fee. This
fee will be imposed by local jurisdictions on residential, commercial,
and industrial development occurring on private land containing habitat
for covered species (species included in the MSHCP permit) within the
Coachella Valley MSHCP Plan Area. The affected land is located within
Riverside County and under private ownership by individuals who will
either undertake a development project on their own or sell the land to
developers for development. However, as previously mentioned, due to
using a 100 meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid in our mapping
process, private lands were inadvertently included in the proposed
critical habitat designation. If the proposed rule is made final, the
Service intends to explicitly remove private lands, and therefore the
additional costs to real estate development projects mentioned above
will likely not materialize. For businesses involved with land
development, the relevant threshold for ``small'' is annual revenues of
$6 million or less. The North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) code 237210 is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in
servicing land (e.g., excavation, installing roads and utilities) and
subdividing real property into lots for subsequent sale to builders.
Land subdivision precedes actual construction, and typically includes
residential but may also include industrial and commercial properties.
It is likely that development companies in Riverside County, the
entities directly impacted by the regulation, would not bear the
additional costs of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae
conservation within the essential habitat, but pass these costs to the
landowners through a lower land purchase price. Of the 8,598 acres of
developable land in Units 1 and 2, 8,559 acres are under private
ownership and ``vacant''; the remaining 39 acres are under private
ownership and in agriculture.
To comply with the SBA recommendation that Federal agencies
consider impacts to entities that may be indirectly affected by the
proposed regulation, this screening level analysis presents information
on land subdivision and farming businesses for Riverside County as
these are the businesses that would likely be impacted directly or
indirectly by the regulation (see Table A-1 in the draft economic
analysis). As highlighted in Table A-1, the majority of the land
subdivision and farming businesses within Riverside County are
considered small businesses.
It is important to note that the identity and number of land
subdivision and farming businesses impacted by the critical habitat
designation is not known. In addition, the identity and number of
affected businesses classified as ``small'' is also not known.
Nevertheless, the county-level information provided in Table A-1
reflects the smallest region for which data relevant to this analysis
exist. This county-level information clearly over-represents the
potential number of small businesses impacted by development-related
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae conservation efforts as the
privately owned developable land within the essential habitat
(approximately 8,598 acres) comprises less than two-tenths of one
percent of the total land area in the County (4,612,480 acres), and
only 265.2 acres of this private land is forecasted to be developed
between 2006 and 2025. Furthermore, the 39 acres of agriculture land
represent less than one-half of one percent of the developable land
(approximately 8,598 acres) within the essential habitat.
While the identity and number of land subdivision and farming
businesses impacted by the critical habitat designation is not known,
considering that low density residential
[[Page 56438]]
development is expected to comprise 79 percent of the forecasted acres
of land development between 2006 and 2025, this analysis relates the
economic impacts to the median home price in the County. The mitigation
cost per acre of development is $1,975 for this species, and the build-
out density for residential low development is fewer than eight
dwelling units per acre. Thus, Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae-
related conservation efforts are expected to cost between $247 and
$1,975 per residential dwelling unit (one to eight dwelling units per
acre) developed. Considering the median sales price for single family
residences in the County was $315,000 in 2004, the economic impacts are
equal to 0.08 percent to 0.63 percent of the median home price in
Riverside County. These costs may be borne by the developer or passed
on to the landowner through a lower land purchase price.
Based on this data, we have determined that this proposed
designation would not result in a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, in particular to land developers
or farmers in Riverside County since no private lands are actually
being proposed for critical habitat as stated earlier in the Background
section. We may also exclude areas from the final designation if it is
determined that these localized areas have an impact to a substantial
number of businesses and a significant proportion of their annual
revenues. As such, we are certifying that this proposed designation of
critical habitat would not result in a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Please refer to Appendix A of our
draft economic analysis of this proposed designation for a more
detailed discussion of potential economic impacts to small business
entities.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211
on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution,
and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule is
considered a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 because it
raises novel legal and policy issues. On the basis of our draft
economic analysis, the proposed critical habitat designation is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant action, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required. Please refer to Appendix A of our draft
economic analysis of the proposed designation for a more detailed
discussion of potential effects on energy supply.
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, 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; AFDC work
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants;
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services;
and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above on to State governments.
(b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. As discussed in the draft economic analysis,
nine small local governments are located adjacent to or bisect the
areas subject to this analysis: Palm Springs (population 42,807);
Cathedral City (population 42,647); Banning (population 23,562); Yucca
Valley (population 16,865); Desert Hot Springs (population 16,582);
Cherry Valley (population 5,891); Thousand Palms (population 5,120);
Cabazon (population 2,229); and Morongo Valley (population 1,929). All
nine of the local governments have populations that fall within the
criteria (fewer than 50,000 residents) for ``small entity.'' However,
there is no record of consultations between the Service and these
cities since Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae was listed in
1998. Indeed, it is not likely that these cities would be involved in a
land development project involving a section 7 consultation, although a
city may be involved in land use planning or permitting, and may play a
role as an interested party in infrastructure projects. Any cost
associated with this activity/involvement is anticipated to be a very
small portion of the city's budget. Consequently, we do not believe
that critical habitat designation would significantly or uniquely
affect small government entities. As such, Small Government Agency Plan
is not required.
Takings
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
proposing critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae.
Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner actions that do
not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude
development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental
take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or
permits to go
[[Page 56439]]
forward. In conclusion, the designation of critical habitat for
Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae does not pose significant
takings implications.
Author
The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: September 16, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-19098 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
------------------------------------------
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-SPECIES/index.html
Comments: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/comments.htm
Search: http://epa.gov/fedreg/search.htm
EPA's Federal Register: http://epa.gov/fedreg/
More information about the native-plants
mailing list