[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 24, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43222-43227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17939]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0085; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AX39
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Tidewater Goby
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening
of the public comment period on the October 19, 2011, proposed revised
designation of critical habitat for the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius
newberryi) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of
the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for tidewater goby
and an amended required determinations section of the proposal. We are
reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an
opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed revised
designation, the associated DEA, and the amended required
determinations section. Comments previously submitted need not be
resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the
final rule.
DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published October 19,
2011 (76 FR 64996) is reopened. We will consider comments received on
or before August 23, 2012. Comments submitted electronically using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be
received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: You may obtain copies of the proposed
rule and the draft economic analysis on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2011-0085, or by mail
from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Comment submission: You may submit written comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R8-ES-2010-0085,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, on the left side
of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed
Rules link to locate this document and submit a comment.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2011-0085; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. 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: Diane K. Noda, Field Supervisor,
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura,
CA 93003; by telephone 805-644-1766; or by facsimile 805-644-3958.
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call
the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 43223]]
Public Comments
We will accept written comments and information during this
reopened comment period on our proposed revised designation of critical
habitat for the tidewater goby that was published in the Federal
Register on October 19, 2011 (76 FR 64996), our DEA of the proposed
revised designation, and the amended required determinations provided
in this document. We will consider information and recommendations from
all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments
concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including whether there are threats to the species from human
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not
prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The distribution of the tidewater goby;
(b) The amount and distribution of tidewater goby habitat;
(c) What areas within the geographical area occupied by the species
at the time of listing that contain physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species we should include in the
designation and why; and
(d) What areas outside the geographical area occupied at the time
of listing are essential for the conservation of the species and why.
(3) Land-use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible effects on proposed revised critical
habitat for tidewater goby.
(4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included
in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts
on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas
from the proposed designation that are subject to these impacts.
(5) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat 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.
(6) Information on the extent to which the description of economic
impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate.
(7) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation
of critical habitat, as discussed in the DEA, and how the consequences
of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation
and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
If you submitted comments or information on the proposed revised
rule (76 FR 64996) during the initial comment period from October 19,
2011, to December 19, 2011, please do not resubmit them. We will
incorporate them into the public record as part of this comment period,
and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final
determination. Our final determination concerning revised critical
habitat 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 proposed do not meet the definition of
critical habitat, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed
rule or DEA by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We
request that you send comments only by the methods described in the
ADDRESSES section.
If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted
on the Web site. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment 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.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule and DEA, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0085, or by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain copies of
the proposed revised rule and the DEA on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2011-0085, or by mail
from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the designation of critical habitat for tidewater goby in this
document. For more information on previous Federal actions concerning
the tidewater goby, refer to the proposed revised designation of
critical habitat published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2011
(76 FR 64996). For more information on the tidewater goby or its
habitat, refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal
Register on February 4, 1994 (59 FR 5494); the first and second rules
proposing critical habitat published in the Federal Register on August
3, 1999 (64 FR 42250) and November 28, 2006 (71 FR 68914),
respectively; and the subsequent final critical habitat designations
published in the Federal Register on November 20, 2000 (65 FR 69693)
and January 31, 2008 (73 FR 5920), which are available at http://www.fws.gov/ventura or from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Additionally, more species
information can be found in the Recovery Plan for the Tidewater Goby
(Recovery Plan) (Service 2005), and in the Tidewater Goby 5-year review
(Service 2007), which are available at http://www.fws.gov/endangered.
Previous Federal Actions
On April 15, 2009, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California challenging a portion of the January 31, 2008, final rule
that designated 44 critical habitat units in Del Norte, Humboldt,
Mendocino, Sonoma, Marin, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis
Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles Counties, California
(73 FR 5920, January 31, 2008). In a consent decree dated December 11,
2009, the U.S. District Court: (1) Stated that the 44 critical habitat
units should remain in effect, (2) stated that the final rule
designating critical habitat was remanded in its entirety for
reconsideration, and (3) directed the Service to promulgate a revised
critical habitat rule that considers the entire geographic range of the
tidewater goby and any currently unoccupied tidewater goby habitat. The
consent decree requires that the Service submit a final revised rule to
the Federal Register no later than November 27, 2012.
Critical Habitat
Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas
within the
[[Page 43224]]
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 (collectively referred to as ``adverse modification'') of
the designated critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or
carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions
that may affect critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of
their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
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, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat. 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.
When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the
protection from adverse modification as a result of actions with a
Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized
by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of mapping areas
containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the listed
species, and any benefits that may result from designation due to State
or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat. In the case of
tidewater goby, the benefits of critical habitat include public
awareness of the presence of tidewater goby and the importance of
habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased
habitat protection for tidewater goby due to protection from adverse
modification of critical habitat. In practice, situations with a
Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal lands or for projects
undertaken by Federal agencies.
When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan.
We are not currently considering any areas for exclusion from
critical habitat. However, the final decision on whether to exclude any
areas will be based on the best scientific data available at the time
of the final designation, including information obtained during the
comment period and information about the economic impact of
designation. Accordingly, we have prepared a draft economic analysis
concerning the proposed critical habitat designation (DEA), which is
available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES).
Draft Economic Analysis
The purpose of the DEA is to identify and analyze the potential
economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat
designation for the tidewater goby. The DEA separates conservation
measures into two distinct categories according to ``without critical
habitat'' and ``with critical habitat'' scenarios. The ``without
critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the analysis,
considering protections otherwise afforded to the tidewater goby (e.g.,
under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local
regulations). The ``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the
incremental impacts specifically due to designation of critical habitat
for the species. In other words, these incremental conservation
measures and associated economic impacts would not occur but for the
designation. Conservation measures implemented under the baseline
(without critical habitat) scenario are described qualitatively within
the DEA, but economic impacts associated with these measures are not
quantified. Economic impacts are only quantified for conservation
measures implemented specifically due to the designation of critical
habitat (i.e., incremental impacts). For a further description of the
methodology of the analysis, see Chapter 2, ``Framework for the
Analysis,'' of the DEA (Industrial Economics Incorporated (IEc) 2012).
The DEA provides estimated costs of the foreseeable potential
economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation for the
tidewater goby over the next 20 years, which was determined to be the
appropriate period for analysis because limited planning information is
available for most activities to forecast activity levels for projects
beyond a 20-year timeframe. It identifies potential incremental costs
as a result of the proposed revised critical habitat designation; these
are those costs attributed to critical habitat over and above those
baseline costs attributed to listing. The DEA quantifies economic
impacts of tidewater goby conservation efforts associated with the
following categories of activity: (1) Water management; (2) cattle
grazing; (3) transportation (roads, highways, bridges); (4) utilities
(oil and gas pipelines); (5) residential, commercial, and industrial
development; and (6) natural resource management.
Baseline protections for the tidewater goby address a broad range
of habitat threats within a significant portion of the proposed
critical habitat area. A key consideration in the incremental analysis
is that, where tidewater goby critical habitat overlaps with steelhead
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) critical habitat, steelhead conservation measures
would be sufficiently protective for tidewater goby critical habitat as
well. As a result, few incremental project modification costs are
anticipated in these areas. Across the designation, incremental costs
primarily include costs of administrative efforts associated with new
and reinitiated consultations to consider adverse modification of
critical habitat for tidewater goby. In addition, some minor
incremental project modification costs are forecast to result from
critical habitat. This result is attributed to the following key
findings: (1) Baseline protections exist for tidewater goby; (2)
steelhead critical habitat overlaps with a large portion of the
unoccupied units; and (3) minimal economic activity occurs on private
lands in the study area.
In total, the incremental impacts to all economic activities are
estimated to be $558,000 over the 20-year timeframe, or $49,300 on an
annualized basis (assuming a 7 percent discount rate). Approximately 98
percent of these incremental costs result from administrative costs of
considering adverse modification in section 7 consultations.
Incremental conservation efforts are estimated to be $11,500 over
the 20-year timeframe or $1,090 on an annualized basis (both assuming a
7 percent discount rate). These include the costs of adding the
tidewater goby to the environmental impact reports (EIR) required for
projects that are being proposed in critical habitat unit MAR-5 Bolinas
Lagoon and SLO-12 Oso Flaco Lake, as well as additional surveying for
tidewater goby in Oso Flaco Lake.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the
public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our
amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule to
incorporate or
[[Page 43225]]
address information we receive during the public 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, provided the exclusion will not result in the
extinction of this species.
Changes to Proposed Revised Critical Habitat
In this document, we are making a revision to the proposed revised
critical habitat as identified and described in the proposed rule that
we published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2011 (76 FR 64996).
In the proposed rule we stated that, ``We also are proposing to
designate specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing that were historically occupied, but are
presently unoccupied, because such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species'' (76 FR 65004). However, we did not intend
to limit the proposal to only specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time of listing that were
historically occupied. Our intent was to consider all areas that are
essential for the conservation of the species and not only those that
were known to be historically occupied, and we were in error when we
included ``that were historically occupied, but are presently
unoccupied'' in the proposed revised rule. In the proposed revised
rule, we proposed to designate 6 units that are outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing where
tidewater gobies have not been detected. These units are: SM-2 Pomponio
Creek, MAR-5 Bolinas Lagoon, SLO-1 Arroyo de la Cruz, SLO-12 Oso Flaco
Lake, LA-1 Arroyo Sequit, and LA-2 Zuma Canyon. These units are
essential for the conservation of the tidewater goby because
translocation to new locations within developing metapopulations is
anticipated to enhance or accelerate the rangewide recovery effort as
described in the recovery plan (Service 2005). Moreover, the recovery
strategy in the recovery plan states that as subpopulations of
tidewater gobies become isolated, recolonization rates decrease, local
extirpations become permanent, and entire metapopulations can move
incrementally toward extinction. Thus, these units are essential for
the conservation of the species because they could be used to minimize
the chance of local extirpations resulting in extinction of the broader
metapopulations and resultant loss of their unique genetic traits
either by introducing tidewater goby in these units or by the natural
colonization of these units.
Required Determinations--Amended
In our October 19, 2011, proposed revised rule (76 FR 64996), 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 data to make these determinations. In this
document, we affirm the information in our proposed revised rule
concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988
(Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and
Use), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 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 determination concerning the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
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 of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 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.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Based on our DEA 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 we receive, we may revise this
determination as part of our final rulemaking.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for
the tidewater goby would affect a substantial number of small entities,
we considered the number of small entities affected within particular
types of economic activities, such as: (1) Water management; (2) cattle
grazing; (3) transportation (roads, highways, bridges); (4) utilities
(oil and gas pipelines); (5) residential, commercial, and industrial
development; and (6) natural resource management. In order to determine
whether it is appropriate for us to certify that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities, we considered each industry or category individually.
In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we
also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not
have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat only
affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by
Federal agencies. In areas where the tidewater goby is present, Federal
agencies already are required to consult with us under section 7 of the
Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the
species. If we finalize the proposed critical habitat designation,
consultations to avoid the adverse
[[Page 43226]]
modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the
existing consultation process.
In the DEA, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small
entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions related
to the proposed designation of critical habitat for the tidewater goby.
The analysis is based on estimated impacts associated with the proposed
rulemaking as described in Chapters 4 and 5, and Appendix A, of the
DEA, and evaluates the potential for economic impacts related to
activity categories including development, natural resource management,
transportation, utilities, water management, and recreation.
As described in Chapters 4 and 5 of the DEA, estimated incremental
impacts consist primarily of administrative costs and time delays
associated with section 7 consultation. The Service and the action
agency are the only entities with direct compliance costs associated
with this proposed critical habitat designation, although small
entities may participate in section 7 consultation as a third party. It
is therefore possible that the small entities may spend additional time
considering critical habitat during section 7 consultation for the
tidewater goby. The DEA indicates that the incremental impacts
potentially incurred by small entities are limited to development,
natural resource management, transportation, utilities, and water
management activities.
Chapter 5 of the DEA discusses the potential for proposed revised
critical habitat to affect development through additional costs of
section 7 consultation. These costs are borne by developers and
existing landowners, depending on whether developers are able to pass
all or a portion of their costs back to landowners in the form of lower
prices paid for undeveloped land. Of the total number of entities
engaged in land subdivision and residential, commercial, industrial and
institutional construction, nearly 99 percent are small entities.
Whether individual developers are affected depends on the specific
characteristics of a particular land parcel as well as the availability
of land within the affected region. If land is not scarce, the price of
a specific parcel will likely incorporate any regulatory restrictions
on that parcel. Therefore, any costs associated with conservation
efforts for tidewater goby will likely be reflected in the price paid
for the parcel. In this case, the costs of conservation efforts are
ultimately borne by the current landowner in the form of reduced land
values. Many of these landowners may be individuals or families that
are not legally considered to be businesses.
If, however, land in the affected region is scarce, or the
characteristics of the specific parcel are unique, the price of a
parcel may not incorporate regulatory restrictions associated with that
parcel. In this case, the project developer may be required to incur
the additional costs associated with the section 7 consultation
process. To understand the potential impacts on small entities, we
conservatively assume that all of the private owners of developable
lands affected by proposed revised critical habitat designation are
developers.
In Chapter 5 of the DEA, we estimate that a total of 20 formal,
informal, and technical assistance consultations, plus one re-
initiation, may require additional effort to consider adverse
modification of revised critical habitat. Assuming that each
consultation is undertaken by a separate entity, we estimate that 21
developers may be affected by the designation. For purposes of this
analysis, and because nearly 99 percent of developers in the study area
are small, we assume that all 21 are small entities. These developers
represent less than 0.1 percent of small developers in the study area.
Excluding costs borne by Federal agencies, costs per consultation
range from $260 for technical assistance to $1,800 for re-initiation of
a formal consultation. Because we are unable to identify the specific
entities affected, the impact relative to those entities' annual
revenues or profits is unknown. However, assuming the average small
entity has annual revenues of approximately $5.1 million, this maximum
annualized impact of $1,800 represents less than 0.1 percent of annual
revenues.
The consultation history for natural resource management projects
suggests that these projects are generally undertaken by Federal and
State agencies, or County departments. The DEA estimates incremental
administrative costs for section 7 consultation on natural resource
management in every County except Orange County. Only one of these
entities, Del Norte County, meets the threshold for small governmental
jurisdiction. Del Norte County is anticipated to incur administrative
costs associated with addressing adverse modification in approximately
three consultations, including one re-initiation. Even if all
consultations occur in the same year, total impacts to Del Norte County
will be less than 1 percent of the County's annual revenue.
The consultation history for tidewater goby includes several
consultations regarding utilities and oil and gas development. In
Chapter 5 of the DEA, we estimate that 24 consultations involving
utility activities will occur during the 20-year period. Based on the
overall percentage of all small entities in the study area (56
percent), we estimate that 14 of the 24 total entities that will be
affected over the 20-year period are small entities. Excluding costs to
Federal agencies, the cost per entity of addressing adverse
modification in a section 7 consultation ranges from $260 for technical
assistance to $880 for a formal consultation (no re-initiations are
predicted for utility activities). Because we are unable to identify
the specific entities affected, the impact relative to those entities'
annual revenues or profits is unknown. However, assuming the average
small entity in this industry has annual revenues of approximately $9.3
million, this maximum annualized impact of $880 represents less than
0.01 percent of annual revenues.
Chapter 5 of the DEA also discusses the potential for water
management activities to be affected by the designation. Over the 20-
year period, we estimate that 125 consultations involving water
management activities, including re-initiations, will occur. Based on
the overall percentage of all small entities in the study area (83
percent), we estimate that 104 of the 125 total entities that will be
affected over the 20-year period are small entities. Excluding costs to
Federal agencies, the cost per entity of addressing adverse
modification in a section 7 consultation ranges from $260 for technical
assistance to $1,800 for re-initiation of a formal consultation.
Because we are unable to identify the specific entities affected, the
impact relative to those entities' annual revenues or profits is
unknown. However, assuming the average small entity in this industry
has annual revenues of approximately $5.0 million, this maximum
annualized impact of $1,800 represents less than 0.1 percent of annual
revenues.
The DEA also concludes that none of the government entities with
which we might consult on tidewater goby for transportation or
recreation meet the definitions of small as defined by the Small
Business Act (SBE) (IEC 2012, p. A-6); therefore, impacts to small
government entities due to transportation and recreation are not
anticipated. A review of the consultation history for tidewater goby
suggests future section 7 consultations on livestock grazing (for
example, ranching operations) are unlikely, and as a result are not
anticipated to be
[[Page 43227]]
affected by the proposed rule (IEC 2012, p. 5-13). Please refer to the
DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation for a more detailed
discussion of potential economic impacts.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Information for this analysis was gathered from the
Small Business Administration, stakeholders, and our files. We have
identified 161 small entities that may be impacted by the proposed
critical habitat designation. For the above reasons and based on
currently available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the
proposed critical habitat designation would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities.
Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Pacific Southwest Region, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 12, 2012.
Michael Bean,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-17939 Filed 7-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P