8197 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, 1994 / Rules and , 13388 Federal Register /Vol. 59, No. 54 /Monday, March 21, Regulations also impact adjacent and downstream Moab Times-Independent, Vernal their support for the critical habitat reaches. The Service may recommend Express, Southern Utah News: designation, 947 expressed their reduction in the scope of the project, Arizona-The Arizona Republic, opposition, and the remainder were seasonal timing constraints on depletions and operation, and reservoir Today's Daily News, Eastern Arizona Courier, Arizona Daily Sun, Lake Powell neutral. A summary of the issues brought forth from these comments and releases to provide required instream Chronicle, Yuma Daily Sun: New the Service's response is provided flows. Mexico-Farmington Times, Santa Fe below. Expected Impacts of Designation New Mexican, Albuquerque Journal: Nevada--Las Vegas Review journal; Ad„ ?inistrative Issues The Service anticipates that the California-San Diego Union Tribune Issue 1: Numerous respondents stated factors described in this rule and the and San Bernardino Sun. that the comment period for the Draft Draft Biological Support Document will On September 15, 1993, the Service Biological Support Document, Overview be used as a basis for determining the released the Draft Biological Support Document, and Economic Analysis was environmental impacts of various Document to the public for comment (58 not of sufficient length to allow activities on critical habitat. The Service FR 48351). The comment period on the adequate review; respondents suggested also will use Recovery Action Plans proposed designation was reopened. On 120 days or more for adequate review. developed within the Recovery November 12,1993, the Service Respondents suggested that public Implementation Programs of the Upper published a notice announcing the hearings should be held in more Baswmadlhe San Juan-River Basin-and- - -availability of the Economic Analysis, locations including all areas potentially recovery plans for the razorback sucker the Overview Document, the closing impacted by the proposed designation. (when developed), Colorado squawfish, humpback chub, and bonytail chub . date for public comment, a request for information to be used during the Service Response: On any proposal to designate critical habitat, the Service is during consultation to evaluate actions exclusion process and development of d h required to provide a minimum comment period of 60 days. When a within a critical habitat reach. The Service also will use new information as e t economic exclusion criteria, an dates and locations of additional public comment period is reopened, it is it becomes available. Federal actions proposed in critical hearings (58 FR 59979). The public comment period on the proposed rule, generally for up to 30 days. The Service opened a 60-day comment period on the habitat reaches may or may not adversely modify critical habitat, the Draft Biological Support Document, and the Economic Analysis ended on proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the four. endangered Colorado depending on the current condition of January 11. 1994. Public hearings were River fishes. The comment period was, the area and the degree of impact anticipated from implementation of the held on: November 29,1993, in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Las Vegas, Nevada; extended for an additional 15 days. - Because the Draft Biological Support project. The potential level of allowable November 30,1993, in Cheyenne. Document and Economic Analysis were impacts or habitat reduction in critical habitat reaches will be determined on a Wyoming, and Globe, Arizona; December 1, 1993, in Grand junction, not complete at the time of the proposed rule. the Service reopened the comment case-by-Ow basis during section 7 Colorado, and Flagstaff, Arizona; 3 period for an additional 60 days rather the more usua130 days. Therefore than consultation. - , in Farmington. New December 2,199 1993, in San Mexico; and December 3 , . in total the comment period was 192 Summary of Public Comment , Bernardino, California. In addition to days. A longer comment period was not The Service published the proposed the announcement in the Federal possible because of the court order to rule to designate critical habitat on January 29, 1993 (58 FR 6578). At that Register and notices in newspapers, a letter was sent to all interested parties publish a final rule by March 15,1994. Three public hearings were held after time, the Service requested comments announoang the dates of the public publication of the proposed rule, and an on all aspects of the proposal including hearings and January 11, 1994, as the additional eight public hearings were the scope of impacts and benefits of the closing date for public comment. During held to receive comment on the designation. A public comment period this-comment period 399 written or oral proposal including the economic was opened from January 29, 1993, to comments were received. Issues analysis; one in each of the seven Basin March 30.1993. On March 5, 1993, the presented by the public during the States and an additional hearing in public comment period was extended to comment periods are discussed below. Arizona. Any additional hearings would April 15.19,33 (58 FR 12573). During Economic and biological information not have met fiscal and time constraints this initial 75-day comment period, 686 received during the comment periods of the critical habitat designation. written or oral comments were received was reviewed and considered. In cases Issue 2: A few respondents suggested by the Service. During the comment where the information or data provided that the Service-publish a revised period, the Service held public hearings was determined to be valid, changes proposed rule to allow for additional on the proposed rule at San Bernardino, were made in the economic analysis or public comment before making a final California, on March 29,1993: Phoenix, to the boundaries of the critical habitat decision or that the Service should Arizona, on March 30,1993; and designation. Significant economic data prepare a draft final rule and make that Denver, Colorado, on March 31, 1993. In received from the public were available to the public before finalizing addition to the announcement of the incorporated into the economic models M the critical habitat designation. onse: The standard Service Res public hearings in the Federal Register (58 FR 12573), notices were published any prior to the exclusion process. economic comments received were used _ p rulemaking process requires preparation in the following newspapers: to improve the accuracy and readability of a proposed rile followed by a final Publishing a revised proposed rule rule Wyoming-{Casper Star-Tribune; Colorado-Denver Post, Rocky of the Economic Analysis. Of the 1,085 written and oral . or a draft final rule is not required Mountain News, Northwest Colorado Press, Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, statements received during the public comment periods, 599 were form letters unless revisions are necessary that will result in an increased regulatory burden Durango, Herald; Utah-Salt Lake Tribune. Deseret News, Ogden that provided little additional information on the proposed in the revised rule. Furthermore, on November 19, 1993, the Court directed Standard-Examiner, Sun Advocate, designation. Fifty respondents stated the Service not to publish an interim 1 1 1 1 k