WSP07668 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

13388 Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 54 I Monday, March 21, 1994 I Rules and Regulations also impact adjacent and downstream .reaches. The Service may recommend reduction in the scope of the project, seasonal timing constraints on depletions and operation, and reservoir releases to provide required instream flows. Expected Impacts of Designation The Service anticipates that the factors described in this rule and the Draft Biological Support Document will be useq. as a basis for determining the environmental impacts of various activities on critical habitat. The Service also will use Recovery Action Plans developed within the Recovery Implementation Programs of the Upper ,Basin and the San Juan River Basin and recovery plans lor the razorhack sucker (when developed), Colorado squawfish, humpback chub, and bonytail chub . during consultation to evaluate actions within.a critical habitat reach. The Service we will use new information as it becomes available, Federal actions proposed in critical habitat reaches mayor may not adversely modify critical habitat, depending on the current condition of the area and the degree of impact anticipated fromimplemantation pI the project, The potential level of ailowable impacts or habitat reduction in critical habitat reaches will be determined on a case'by,plSe basis during section 7 consult8.tion, " Summary of Public Comment The SeM;'" published the proposed rule to designate critical habitat on January 29,1993 (56 FR 6576). At that time, the Service requested comments on all aspects of the proposal including the scope pfimpacts and benefits of the designation, -A public comment period was opened from January 29,1993, to March 30, 1993, On March 5, 1993, the public comment period was extended to April 15, 1993 (56 FR 12573). During this initial 75.day comment period, 666 written or oral comments were received by the Service, During the comment period, the Service held public hearings on the proposed rule at San Bernardino, California, on March 29, 1993; Phoenix, Arizona, on March 30,1993; and Denver, Colorado, on March 31, 1993, In addition to the announcement of the public hearings in the Federal Register (56.FR 12l!73), notices were published in the following newspapers: Wyoming-Casper Star-- Tribune; Coloradc>-Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News, Northwest Colorado Press, Grand junction Daily Sentinel, Durango' Herald; Utab-Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News, Ogden Standard.Examiner, Sun Advocate, Moab Times.Independent, Vernal Express, Southern Utah News; Arizona-The Arizona Republic, Today's Daily News, Eastern Arizona Courier, Arizona Daiiy Sun, Lake Powell Chronicle, Yuma Daily Sun; New Mexicc>-Farmington Times, Santa Fe New Mexican, Aibuquerque journal; Nevada-Las Vegas Review journal; California-San Diego Union Tribune and San Bernardino Sun. On September 15. 1993, the Service released the Draft Biological Support Document to the public for comment (58 FR 46351), The comment period on the proposed designation was reopened. On November 12, 1993, the Service published a notice announcing the availability of the Economic Analysis, the Overview Document, the closing date for pUblic comment, a request for Information to he used during the exclusion process and development of economic exclusion criteria. and the. dates and locations of additional public hearings (56 FR 5997'9). The public comment period on the proppsed rule,' the Draft Biological Support Docuinent, and the Economic Analysis ended on January 11, 1994, Public hearings were held on: November 29,1993, in Salt Lake City, Utah, aild Las Vegas, Nevada; November 30, 1993, in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Globe, Arizona; December 1, 1993, in Grand Junction, Colorado, and Flagstaff, Arizona; December 2, 1993, in Farmington, New Mexico;.and December 3, 1993, in San Bernardino, .California, In addition to the announcement in the Federal Register and notices in newspapers, a letter was sent to ail interested parties 'announciIig the dates of the' public hearings and january 11, 1994, as the closing date for public comment. During this comment period 399 written or oral comments were received. Issues presented by the public during the comment periods are discussed below. Economic and biological information received during the comment periods was reviewed and considered. In cases where the information or data provided was detennined to be valid, changes were made in the economic analysis or to the boundaries of the critical habitat designation, Significant economic data received from the public were incorporated into the economic models prior to the exclusion process. Many economic comments received were used to improve the accuracy and readability of the Economic Analysis. Of the 1,085 written and oral statements received during the public comment periods. 599 were form letters that provided little additional information on the proposed . designation. Fifty respondents stated their support for the critical habitat designation, 947.expressed their opposition, and the remainder were neutral. A summary .of the issues brought forth from these comments and the Service's response is provided below. Administrative Issues Issue 1: Numerous respondents stated that the comment period for the Draft Bioiogical Support Document, Overview Document. -and Ec9nomic-Analysis was not of sufficient length toaUow adequate review; respondents suggested 120 days or more for.adequate review, Respondents suggested that public hearings should be held in more locations including aIi areas potentially impacted by the proposed designation. Service Response: On any proposal to designate critical habitat, the Service is required to provide a minimum -- comment period of 60 days. When a comment period is reopened.-it is . generally for up to 30 days. The Seryice opened a. 6o,day comment period on the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the four. endangered Colorado River fishes. The comment period was.. extended for an additionaI15 day&-. Because the Draft Biological Support 'Document and Economic Analysis were not complete .at the time of the propased rule, the Service reop<med the comment period for an additional 60 days rather than. the more usual.30 days, Therefore, in total the comment period was 192 days. A longer comment period was not possible because of the court order to publish a final rule by March 15, 1994. Three public hearings were held after publication of the proposed rule, and an additional eight public hearings were held to receive comment on the proposal including the economic analysis; one in each of the seven Basin States and an additional hearing in Arizona. Any additional hearings would not have met fiscal and time constraints of the critical habitat designation. Issue 2: A few respondents suggested that the Service' publish a revised proposed rule to aIIow for additional public comment before making a final decision or that the Service should prepare a draft final role and make that available to the public before finalIzing the critical habitat designation. Service Response: The standard. rulemaking process requires preparation of a proposed r-~le followed by a final rule. Publishing a revised proposedrule or a draft final rule is not required unless revisions are necessary that will result in an increased regulatory burden in the revised rule: Furthermore, on November 19, 1993, the Court directed the Service not to publish an interim