Federal Register, Volume 74, Number 80, April 28, 2009, Pages 19125-19370 Page: 19,185
This periodical is part of the collection entitled: Federal Register and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 80/Tuesday, April 28, 2009/Proposed Rules
* Locations not within the
geographical area occupied at the time
of listing that are essential to the
conservation of the subspecies and why.
(3) Land use designations and current
or planned activities in the subject areas
and their possible impacts on proposed
revised critical habitat.
(4) Probable economic, national
security, or other impacts of designating
particular areas as critical habitat. We
are particularly interested in any
impacts on small entities, and the
benefits of including or excluding areas
that exhibit these impacts.
(5) The potential exclusion of non-
Federal lands covered by the East
Contra Costa County Habitat
Conservation Plan (ECCHCP) from final
revised critical habitat, and whether
such exclusion is appropriate and why.
(6) The potential exclusion of non-
Federal lands owned and managed by
the East Bay Regional Park District
within the boundaries of the ECCHCP
from final revised critical habitat, and
whether such exclusion is appropriate
and why.
(7) The potential exclusion of non-
Federal lands covered by the Western
Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
from final revised critical habitat, and
whether such exclusion is appropriate
and why.
(8) The potential exclusion of non-
Federal lands covered by the Bonny
Doon Settlement Ponds Habitat
Conservation Plan from final revised
critical habitat, and whether such
exclusion is appropriate and why.
(9) Whether the lands proposed as
critical habitat on Department of
Defense land at Vandenberg Air Force
Base in Santa Barbara County and Camp
San Luis Obispo in San Luis Obispo
County should be exempted under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act or excluded
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and
why.
(10) Whether the U.S. Forest Service
lands managed under the Sierra Nevada
Forest Plan Amendment within the
units being proposed as critical habitat
should be excluded and why under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(11) Whether Unit CAL-1 (Young's
Creek) in Calaveras County should be
excluded and why under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act.
(12) Whether changes made to the
proposed critical habitat Unit MEN-1 in
Mendocino County appropriately reflect
the current knowledge of the subspecies
distribution and occurrence within the
area and whether that area should be
designated as critical habitat.
(13) Whether there are areas wepreviously designated, but did not
include in our proposed revision to
critical habitat, that should be
designated as critical habitat.
(14) Information on the extent to
which any Federal, State, and local
environmental protection measures we
reference in the DEA were adopted
largely as a result of the subspecies'
listing.
(15) Information on whether the DEA
identifies all Federal, State, and local
costs and benefits attributable to the
proposed revision of critical habitat, and
information on any costs or benefits that
we may have overlooked.
(16) Information on whether the DEA
makes appropriate assumptions
regarding current practices and any
regulatory changes that likely may occur
if we designate revised critical habitat.
(17) Information on whether the DEA
correctly assesses the effect on regional
costs associated with any land use
controls that may result from the revised
designation of critical habitat.
(18) Information on areas that the
revised critical habitat designation
could potentially impact to a
disproportionate degree.
(19) Information on whether the DEA
identifies all costs that could result from
the proposed revised designation.
(20) Information on any quantifiable
economic benefits of the revised
designation.
(21) Whether the benefits of excluding
any particular area outweigh the
benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(22) Economic data on the
incremental costs of designating a
particular area as revised critical
habitat.
(23) Whether we could improve or
modify our approach to designating
critical habitat to provide for greater
public participation and understanding,
or assist us in accommodating public
concerns and comments.
(24) Any foreseeable impacts on
energy supplies, distribution, and use
resulting from the proposed designation
and, in particular, any impacts on
electricity production, and the benefits
of including or excluding areas that
exhibit these impacts.
If you submitted comments or
information on the proposed revised
rule (73 FR 53492) during the initial
comment period from September 16,
2008, to November 17, 2008, 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 revised critical habitat will
take into consideration all writtencomments 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 those proposed do
not meet the definition of critical
habitat, that some modifications to the
described boundaries are appropriate, or
that areas are appropriate for exclusion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning the proposed
revised rule or DEA by one of the
methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. We will not consider comments
sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not
listed 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. 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.
We will post all hardcopy comments on
http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed revised
rule, will be available for public
inspection on http://
www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
You may obtain copies of the original
proposed revision of critical habitat and
the DEA on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov, on the Sacramento
Fish and Wildlife Office web page at
http://www.fws.gov/sacramento, or by
contacting the Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
For more information on previous
Federal actions concerning the
California red-legged frog, refer to the
proposed revised designation of critical
habitat published in the Federal
Register on September 16, 2008 (73 FR
53492). On December 12, 2007, the
Center for Biological Diversity filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California
challenging our designation of critical
habitat for the California red-legged frog
(Center for Biological Diversity v.
Kempthorne, et al., Case No. C-07-
6404-WHA). On April 2, 2008, the court
entered a consent decree requiring aproposed revised critical habitat rule to
19185
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
United States. Office of the Federal Register. Federal Register, Volume 74, Number 80, April 28, 2009, Pages 19125-19370, periodical, April 28, 2009; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc132942/m1/68/: accessed March 28, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.