WSP04426 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

--1 5588 Federal Register I Vol. 58. No, 18 I Friday. January 29, 1993' I Proposed Rules --1 Regulations implementing this ' interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR pert 402, In the case of any of the Colorado River endangered fish, the Service will confer on projects affecting proposed critical hebitat when so requested by an action egency, The evaluation of Federel actions involving designated critical babitat will be made on e case.by.case basis during section 7 consultation,.rhe Service will consider the effects of a proposed Federel action on the primary constituent elements associated with critical habitat, along with the reasons why that area was determined to be critical habitat, When the Service issues a jeopardy biological opinion, it must also provide ~easonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any ara identifiable, This is also true when the Service makes a finding of adverse modification to designated critical habitat, Reasonable and prudent alternatives are defined at~ 50 CFR 402,02 as: Alternative actions identified during formal consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction. tbat is economically and technologii:ally feasible. and that the Director believes would avoid. . . resulting in the destruction or adversu modification of critical habitat Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. . The Service may reinitiate consultation and confer on some projects for which biological opinions on the effact of Federal Agency actions on the Colorado RIver endangered fish already hava baen issued when discretionary Federal involvement remains, and the Servica and lead Federal Agency determine their action may affect this proposed critical habitat. As necessary, the Service will prepare conference reports addressing effects of these actions on proposed critical habitat. Until a final rule is published, the Service will issue combined consultation/conference documents for any new consultation request received subsequent to publication of this proposed rule and before a final designation is effective. Public Comments Solicited The Service intends that any action resulting from this proposal will be appropriate and effective, Therefore, comments from the public, other concerned government agencies, Indian ::J.ations. the scientific and environmental communities. industry. or any other interested organization concerning the information presented within this proposed rule are hereby sought. As stated previously, commen.ts. received during the 60.day comment period on this proposed rule will he considered during preparation of the final rule, Additionally, comments received after the economic analysis and biological support document ara made available will be used to prepara a final rule, The final decision on the designation of critical habitat will take into consideration the comments and any additional information received by the Service and will include any exemption determinations. National Environmental Policy Act The Service has determined that an Environmental Assessment, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in conjunction with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(al of the Act. .'1. notice outlining the Service's reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244), Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12Z91 Based on the information discussed in this rule concerning public projects and private activities within critical habitat areas. it is not clear whether significant economic impacts will result from the critical habitat designation, There ara a limited number of actions on private land that have Federal involvement through funds or permits that may be affected by critical habitat designation, A final determination of the impacts of this proposal is not possible until the required economic analysis is completed, The final rule will contain a determination of the proposed actions in compliance with the Regulatory Flexibilitv Act and Executive Order 12291, Aiso, no direct costs, enforcement costs, information collection. or recordkeeping requirements are imposed on small entities by this designation, Further, the rule contains no recordkeeping requirements as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1990, References Cited A comaletelist of ali references cited herein is.available upon request from the Service's Salt Lake City Field Office (see ADDRESSES above), Author The primary authors of this proposed rule ere Henry Maddux, V,S, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services (see ADORESSES section): Lesley Fitzpatrick, U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Field Office: William Noonan. V,S, Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado State Office: and HarOld Tyus, U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, List of Subjects in 5D CFR Part 17 Endangered and threatened species, Exports,koports,Reportingand recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation. Proposed Regulations Promulgation Accordingly. it is hereby proposed to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter l. title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set fnrth helow: PART 17--{AMENDEDI 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U,S,c, 1361-1407: 15 U,S,C, 1531-1544; 16 U,S,c, 4201....245: Pub. L, 9!>- 625.100 Stat. 3500. unless otherwise noted. 517,11 [Amended] 2,lt is proposed to amend S 17,l1(h) by revising the "critical habitat" entry for "Chub, bonytail:' "Chub, humpback:' "Squawfish, Colorado," and'''Sucker, razorback," under Fishes, to read 17,95(e), 3,lt is proposed to amend S 17,95(e) by adding critical habitat of the bonytaiI chob (Gila elegansl. humpback chub (Gilo cypho), Colorado squawfish (Ptychocheilus luciusl, and razorback sucker (Xyrouchen lexanus), in the same alpbabetical order as these species occur in 17,l1[h), ! 17,95 Critical habltat-llsh and wlldllla. . . . . . (e) . . . . . . '-1lc?n.~~j ~ub ~Gila elegans) ~DesaiDtion o~ Bl'8a5 taken from BLM UOO,oOO scale maps (available from BLM Sta'e Office.): Rangely, CO 1989; Canyon of Lodore, CO 1990: Seeo Ridge.UT/CO 1982; La Sel, UTICO 1985: Hite Crossing, UT 1982; PaJ'ker. AZlCA 1980: Dav!. Dam, AZlNVICA 1982; Boulder City, NVIAZ 1978; Needle., CA 1986. .:.Colorado, Moffat County. The Yampa River from I.b.e boundary of Dinosaur NatioDaI Monument in T.6N.. R99W.. section 27 f6lh Principal Meridian) to the confluence wi't.b. the Gret'!Il River in T.7N.. R.l03W., section 28 {6,h Principal Meridian}. ;Utah. Uintah County. and Colorado. Moffat Countv. The Green River from the coniluence with the Yampa River in T.7N.. R.l03W.. section 28 (6th Principal Meridian) to the boundarY of Dinosaur National Monument in T.6N.. R24E. section 30 (Salt Lake Meridian). l1tah','Uinrah and Grand Counties. The Green River (Desolation and Gray Can~ns) from Sumner's Amphitheater {river mile 85J