DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 150/Monday, August 9, 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

43470 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules How can I get copies of the proposed digital television service, including Federal Communications Commission. action and other related information? propagation characteristics that allow Thomas Horan, EPA has established a docket for this undesired signals and noise to be Chief of Staff, Media Bureau. receivable at relatively far distances and action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– Proposed Rule OAR–2021–0208. EPA has also nearby electrical devices to cause developed a website for this proposal, interference. According to the For the reasons discussed in the which is available at https:// Petitioner, it has received numerous preamble, the Federal Communications www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions- complaints of poor or no reception from Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR vehicles-and-engines/proposed-rule- viewers, and explains the importance of part 73 as follows: revise-existing-national-ghg-emissions. a strong over-the-air signal in the Portland area during emergencies, PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST Please refer to the notice of proposed SERVICES rulemaking for detailed information on when, it states, cable and satellite accessing information related to the service may go out of operation. Finally, ■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 proposal. the Petitioner demonstrated that the continues to read as follows: channel 21 noise limited contour would Dated: July 29, 2021. fully encompass the existing channel 12 Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, William Charmley, contour, and an analysis using the 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339. Director, Assessment and Standards Division, Commission’s TVStudy software ■ 2. In § 73.622 in paragraph (i), amend Office of Transportation and Air Quality, indicates that Petitioner’s proposal the Post-Transition Table of DTV Office of Air and Radiation. would result in an increase in Allotments under Oregon by revising [FR Doc. 2021–16598 Filed 8–6–21; 8:45 am] population served. the entry for Portland to read as follows: BILLING CODE 6560–50–P This is a synopsis of the § 73.622 Digital television table of Commission’s Notice of Proposed allotments. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 21–130; * * * * * COMMISSION RM–11897; DA 21–843, adopted July 15, (i) * * * 2021, and released July 16, 2021. The 47 CFR Part 73 full text of this document is available for Community Channel No. download at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. [MB Docket No. 21–130; RM–11897; DA 21– To request materials in accessible 843; FR ID 40086] formats (braille, large print, computer ***** diskettes, or audio recordings), please Television Broadcasting Services OREGON Portland, Oregon send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Government Affairs AGENCY: Federal Communications Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (VOICE), (202) ***** Commission. 418–0432 (TTY). Portland ..................... 8, *10, 21, 40, 43, 45 ACTION: Proposed rule. This document does not contain ***** SUMMARY: The Commission has before it information collection requirements a petition for rulemaking filed by subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act [FR Doc. 2021–16449 Filed 8–6–21; 8:45 am] KPTV–KPDX Broadcasting Corporation of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, BILLING CODE 6712–01–P (Petitioner), the licensee of KPTV (FOX), therefore, it does not contain any channel 12, Portland, Oregon. The proposed information collection burden Petitioner requests the substitution of ‘‘for small business concerns with fewer DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR channel 21 for channel 12 at in the DTV than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Table of Allotments. Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of Fish and Wildlife Service DATES: Comments must be filed on or 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. before September 8, 2021 and reply 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory 50 CFR Part 17 comments on or before September 23, Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601– 612, do not apply to this proceeding. [Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2020–0146; 2021. FF09E22000 FXES11180900000 212] Members of the public should note ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45 that all ex parte contacts are prohibited Endangered and Threatened Wildlife L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In from the time a Notice of Proposed and Plants; Review of Foreign Species addition to filing comments with the Rulemaking is issued to the time the That Are Candidates for Listing as FCC, interested parties should serve matter is no longer subject to Endangered or Threatened; Annual counsel for the Petitioner as follows: Commission consideration or court Description of Progress on Listing Christina Burrow, Esq., Cooley LLP, review, see 47 CFR 1.1208. There are, Actions however, exceptions to this prohibition, 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 700, Washington, DC 20004. which can be found in Section 1.1204(a) of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR Interior. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 1.1204(a). ACTION: Notification of review. Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 418–1647 or [email protected]. See Sections 1.415 and 1.420 of the SUMMARY: In this candidate notice of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In support Commission’s rules for information review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and of its channel substitution request, the regarding the proper filing procedures Wildlife Service (Service), present an Petitioner states that the Commission for comments, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. updated list of foreign plant and animal has recognized that VHF channels have List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 species that we regard as candidates for certain characteristics that pose or have proposed for addition to the challenges for their use in providing Television. Lists of Endangered and Threatened VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 06, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 43471 Wildlife and Plants (Lists) under the seq.), requires that we identify species Previous CNORs Endangered Species Act of 1973, as of wildlife and plants that are We have been publishing CNORs amended. This document also includes endangered or threatened based solely since 1975. The most recent CNOR that our findings on resubmitted petitions on the best scientific and commercial included foreign species was published and describes our progress in revising data available. As defined in section 3 on October 10, 2019 (84 FR 54732), and the Lists during the period October 1, of the Act, an endangered species is any covered the period October 1, 2016, 2018, through September 30, 2020. species that is in danger of extinction through September 30, 2018. CNORs Combined with other decisions for throughout all or a significant portion of published since 1994 are available on individual species that were published its range, and a threatened species is our website at http://www.fws.gov/ separately from this CNOR in the past any species that is likely to become an endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html. For 2 years, the current number of foreign endangered species within the copies of CNORs published prior to species that are candidates for listing is foreseeable future throughout all or a 1994, please contact the person listed 19. Identification of candidate species significant portion of its range. Through under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION can assist environmental planning the Federal rulemaking process, we add CONTACT, above. efforts by providing advance notice of species that meet these definitions to On September 21, 1983, we published potential listings, and by allowing the List of Endangered and Threatened guidance for assigning a listing priority landowners, resource managers, range Wildlife in title 50 of the Code of number (LPN) for each candidate countries, and other stakeholders to take Federal Regulations (CFR) at § 17.11 (50 species (48 FR 43098). Using this actions to alleviate threats and thereby CFR 17.11) or the List of Endangered guidance, we assign each candidate an possibly remove the need to list species and Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12. LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the as endangered or threatened. Even if we As part of this program, we maintain a magnitude of threats, immediacy of subsequently list a candidate species, list of species that we regard as threats, and taxonomic status; the lower the early notification provided here candidates for listing. A candidate the LPN, the higher the listing priority could result in more options for species species is one for which we have on file (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 management and recovery by prompting sufficient information on biological would have the highest listing priority). earlier candidate conservation measures vulnerability and threats to support a Section 4(h)(3) of the Act (16 U.S.C. to alleviate threats to the species. proposal for listing as endangered or 1533(h)(3)) requires the Secretary to DATES: We will accept information on threatened, but for which preparation establish guidelines for such a priority- any of the species in this document at and publication of a proposal is ranking system. As explained below, in any time. precluded by higher priority listing using this system, we first categorize ADDRESSES: This document is available actions. We may identify a species as a based on the magnitude of the threat(s), on the internet at http:// candidate for listing after we have then by the immediacy of the threat(s), www.regulations.gov and http:// conducted an evaluation of its status— and finally by taxonomic status. www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/ either on our own initiative, or in Under this priority-ranking system, cnor.html. response to a petition we have received.
Recommended publications
  • Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2019–0009; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 167]

    Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2019–0009; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 167]

    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 10/10/2019 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-21478, and on govinfo.gov DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2019–0009; FF09E21000 FXES11190900000 167] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Domestic and Foreign Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of review. SUMMARY: In this candidate notice of review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), present an updated list of plant and animal species that we regard as candidates for or have proposed for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Identification of candidate species can assist environmental planning efforts by providing advance notice of potential listings, and by allowing landowners and resource managers to alleviate threats and thereby possibly remove the need to list species as endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list a candidate species, the early notice provided here could result in more options for species management and recovery by prompting earlier candidate conservation measures to alleviate threats to the species. This document also includes our findings on resubmitted petitions and describes our 1 progress in revising the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) during the period October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2018.
  • Indiana Species April 2007

    Indiana Species April 2007

    Fishes of Indiana April 2007 The Wildlife Diversity Section (WDS) is responsible for the conservation and management of over 750 species of nongame and endangered wildlife. The list of Indiana's species was compiled by WDS biologists based on accepted taxonomic standards. The list will be periodically reviewed and updated. References used for scientific names are included at the bottom of this list. ORDER FAMILY GENUS SPECIES COMMON NAME STATUS* CLASS CEPHALASPIDOMORPHI Petromyzontiformes Petromyzontidae Ichthyomyzon bdellium Ohio lamprey lampreys Ichthyomyzon castaneus chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon fossor northern brook lamprey SE Ichthyomyzon unicuspis silver lamprey Lampetra aepyptera least brook lamprey Lampetra appendix American brook lamprey Petromyzon marinus sea lamprey X CLASS ACTINOPTERYGII Acipenseriformes Acipenseridae Acipenser fulvescens lake sturgeon SE sturgeons Scaphirhynchus platorynchus shovelnose sturgeon Polyodontidae Polyodon spathula paddlefish paddlefishes Lepisosteiformes Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus oculatus spotted gar gars Lepisosteus osseus longnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus shortnose gar Amiiformes Amiidae Amia calva bowfin bowfins Hiodonotiformes Hiodontidae Hiodon alosoides goldeye mooneyes Hiodon tergisus mooneye Anguilliformes Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel freshwater eels Clupeiformes Clupeidae Alosa chrysochloris skipjack herring herrings Alosa pseudoharengus alewife X Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad Dorosoma petenense threadfin shad Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Campostoma anomalum central stoneroller
  • Iowa's Curious Record for Lake Chub

    Iowa's Curious Record for Lake Chub

    5 American Currents Vol. 41, No. 4 IOWA’S CURIOUS RECORD FOR LAKE CHUB (COUESIUS PLUMBEUS) John Olson Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Des Moines The Lake Chub Couesius( plumbeus) is a relatively large, slender-bodied minnow (Family: Cyprinidae) commonly reaching lengths of 4–5 inches and reaching a reported maximum of nearly 9 inches (Figure 1). There is usually a slender barbel near the tip of the maxillary. The Lake Chub is dark olive dorsally and is dusky white ventrally with a dark lateral band extending from the base of the caudal fin to the snout. Although superficially resembling the Creek Chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), the Lake Chub lacks the Figure 1. Lake Chub (Couesius plumbeus). (Photo by Konrad Creek Chub’s dark spot at the base of the caudal fin and the Schmidt) dark spot at the anterior base of the dorsal fin. The North- ern Pearl Dace (Margariscus nachtriebi) also bears a re- record is based on a collection made in 1954 just west of semblance to the Lake Chub but has a shorter, more blunt Dubuque in northeastern Iowa. snout, has a somewhat less laterally compressed body, and According to published accounts, the Lake Chub is a lacks the red streak along the lower side of the body of habitat generalist, at least within its northern-trending and the large male Pearl Dace (Page and Burr 2011). The Lake Chub has the most northerly and widespread distribution of any North American cyprinid and it ranges from Alas- ka east to Nova Scotia and south to the Great Lakes of the northern United States with scattered relict populations known from the upper Missouri River basin drainage of Wyoming, Colorado, South Dakota, and Nebraska (Figure 2).
  • Dugong Debacle: Lessons in the Extraterritorial Application of Section 402 of the National Historic Preservation Act As Illustrated in Dugong V

    Dugong Debacle: Lessons in the Extraterritorial Application of Section 402 of the National Historic Preservation Act As Illustrated in Dugong V

    DUGONG DEBACLE: LESSONS IN THE EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF SECTION 402 OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT AS ILLUSTRATED IN DUGONG V. GATES A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Nicole Elizabeth Moore August 2009 © 2009 Nicole Elizabeth Moore ABSTRACT In September of 2003, a multi-national group comprised of Okinawan residents, international environmental groups, and Japanese environmental lawyers sued the U.S. Department of Defense declaring that it had violated Section 402 of the National Historic Preservation Act as it failed to take into account the potential adverse effects a new military base would have on the Okinawa dugong. This work simultaneously explores the legal proceedings and argumentation presented in lawsuit, Dugong v. Gates, and highlights the impacts of the long-time social and political relationship between Okinawans, the Government of Japan and the United States military as they relate to this unprecedented case. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Nicole Moore was born and raised in Englewood, Colorado and a graduate of Englewood High School, 1999. She continued her studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder graduating in three years with a B.A. in History in 2002. Nicole worked in operations and marketing for several years before moving to Ithaca, New York to pursue a graduate degree in Historic Preservation Planning from Cornell University’s City and Regional Planning Department. Nicole currently lives in Los Angeles, California. iii This work is dedicated to Keith, Joyce, Audrey, Lydia and Sundi. Without your loving support, my path would not have led so far.
  • Omineca Burbot Creel, Habitat and Population Assessment Project

    Omineca Burbot Creel, Habitat and Population Assessment Project

    Omineca Burbot Creel, Habitat and Population Assessment Project; Results of Surveys of Sport-Ice Fisheries and Assessments of Burbot (Lota lota) Populations in Saxton, Nukko, Eaglet, Cluculz and Norman lakes Grant Agreement #TROP7047 BC Ministry of Environment, Mountain Pine Beetle Response Prepared by the: Lheidli T'enneh First Nation 1041 Whenun Road Prince George, B.C. V2K 5X8 Submitted to: Brady Nelless, Mountain Pine Beetle Biologist BC Ministry of Environment 4051 18th Avenue Prince George, BC V2N 1B3 December 2007 Omineca Burbot Creel, Habitat and Population Assessment Project; 2007 BC Ministry of Environment, Mountain Pine Beetle Response Table of Contents List of Figures .....................................................................................................ii List of Tables.......................................................................................................ii List of Appendices.............................................................................................iii Acknowledgements ...........................................................................................iv Executive Summary............................................................................................1 Introduction.........................................................................................................2 Study Area & Lakes...........................................................................................2 Purpose.............................................................................................................3
  • Nansei Islands Biological Diversity Evaluation Project Report 1 Chapter 1

    Nansei Islands Biological Diversity Evaluation Project Report 1 Chapter 1

    Introduction WWF Japan’s involvement with the Nansei Islands can be traced back to a request in 1982 by Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh. The “World Conservation Strategy”, which was drafted at the time through a collaborative effort by the WWF’s network, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), posed the notion that the problems affecting environments were problems that had global implications. Furthermore, the findings presented offered information on precious environments extant throughout the globe and where they were distributed, thereby providing an impetus for people to think about issues relevant to humankind’s harmonious existence with the rest of nature. One of the precious natural environments for Japan given in the “World Conservation Strategy” was the Nansei Islands. The Duke of Edinburgh, who was the President of the WWF at the time (now President Emeritus), naturally sought to promote acts of conservation by those who could see them through most effectively, i.e. pertinent conservation parties in the area, a mandate which naturally fell on the shoulders of WWF Japan with regard to nature conservation activities concerning the Nansei Islands. This marked the beginning of the Nansei Islands initiative of WWF Japan, and ever since, WWF Japan has not only consistently performed globally-relevant environmental studies of particular areas within the Nansei Islands during the 1980’s and 1990’s, but has put pressure on the national and local governments to use the findings of those studies in public policy. Unfortunately, like many other places throughout the world, the deterioration of the natural environments in the Nansei Islands has yet to stop.
  • Tanya Sanerib (DC Bar No

    Tanya Sanerib (DC Bar No

    Case 4:21-cv-00251-RCC Document 1 Filed 06/23/21 Page 1 of 20 1 Sarah Uhlemann (DC Bar No. 501328)* Tanya Sanerib (DC Bar No. 473506)* 2 Center for Biological Diversity 3 2400 NW 80th Street, #146 Seattle, WA 98117 4 Phone: (206) 327-2344 5 (206) 379-7363 Email: [email protected] 6 [email protected] *Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending 7 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 11 TUCSON DIVISION 12 13 Center for Biological Diversity, 14 Plaintiff, Case No. 15 v. 16 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 17 Debra Haaland, in her official capacity 18 as Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, 19 Defendants. 20 21 INTRODUCTION 22 1. Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity challenges the failure of the U.S. 23 Fish and Wildlife Service and the Secretary of the Interior Debra Haaland (collectively 24 “the Service” or “Defendants”) to make required, 12-month findings as to whether seven 25 foreign wildlife species “warrant” listing under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). 26 These species have been on the Service’s “candidate” list awaiting ESA protections for 27 28 1 Case 4:21-cv-00251-RCC Document 1 Filed 06/23/21 Page 2 of 20 1 decades, even though the Service has acknowledged that each qualifies for full ESA 2 listing. 3 2. The Okinawa woodpecker, Kaiser-i-hind swallowtail, Jamaican kite 4 swallowtail, black-backed tanager, Harris’ mimic swallowtail, fluminense swallowtail, 5 and the southern helmeted curassow are each in danger of or threatened with extinction.
  • Biden Urged to Protect 19 Foreign Species

    Biden Urged to Protect 19 Foreign Species

    Via electronic and certified mail February 3, 2021 Scott de la Vega Director Acting Secretary U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, NW 1849 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20240 Washington, DC 20240 [email protected] Don Morgan Chief, Branch of Delisting and Foreign Martha Williams Species, Ecological Services Principal Deputy Director 5275 Leesburg Pike U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Falls Church, VA 22041-3808 1849 C Street, NW [email protected] Washington, DC 20240 [email protected] Re: Sixty-Day Notice of Intent to Sue for Failing to Make Timely 12-Month Findings on Foreign Candidate Species in Violation of the Endangered Species Act Dear Acting Secretary de la Vega, Director of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Principal Deputy Director Williams, and Chief Morgan, On behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (Center), we write to notify you that the U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (together, the Service) are currently in violation of Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for failing to make required 12-month findings on 19 foreign candidate species (Table 1). Section 4(b)(3) of the ESA requires the Service to determine if ESA protections are warranted for a species within 12 months of previously finding that listing was precluded by other pending proposals.1 Here, the Service found listing of 19 foreign species was warranted but precluded on October 10, 2019, and thus new listing determinations were due by October 10, 2020—nearly four months ago.
  • Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 154/Wednesday, August 12, 2009

    Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 154/Wednesday, August 12, 2009

    40540 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR questions concerning this notice to the precluded finding on a petition to list above address. means that listing is warranted, but that Fish and Wildlife Service FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the immediate proposal and timely Chief, Branch of Listing, Endangered promulgation of a final regulation is 50 CFR Part 17 Species Program, (see ADDRESSES); by precluded by higher priority listing [Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2009-0057] telephone at 703-358-2171; or by actions. In making a warranted-but [90100 16641FLA-B6] facsimile at 703-358-1735). Persons who precluded finding under the Act, the use a telecommunications device for the Service must demonstrate that Endangered and Threatened Wildlife deaf (TDD) may call the Federal expeditious progress is being made to and Plants; Annual Notice of Findings Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800- add and remove species from the lists of on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign 877-8339. endangered and threatened wildlife and Species; Annual Description of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: plants. Progress on Listing Actions Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Background Act, when, in response to a petition, we AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, The Endangered Species Act of 1973, find that listing a species is warranted Interior. but precluded, we must make a new 12– ACTION: Notice of review. as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), provides two mechanisms for month finding annually until we SUMMARY: In this notice of review, we considering species for listing.
  • Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 200/Monday, October 17, 2016

    Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 200/Monday, October 17, 2016

    Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 200 / Monday, October 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules 71457 for the relevant maintenance period in attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS Technology Transfer and Advancement with mobile source emissions at the through 2030. Finally, EPA finds Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because levels of the MVEBs. adequate and is proposing to approve application of those requirements would the newly-established 2020 and 2030 be inconsistent with the CAA; and C. What is a safety margin? MVEBs for the Cleveland area. • Does not provide EPA with the A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference discretionary authority to address, as VII. Statutory and Executive Order between the attainment level of appropriate, disproportionate human Reviews emissions (from all sources) and the health or environmental effects, using projected level of emissions (from all Under the CAA, redesignation of an practicable and legally permissible sources) in the maintenance plan. As area to attainment and the methods, under Executive Order 12898 noted in Table 11, the emissions in the accompanying approval of a (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Cleveland area are projected to have maintenance plan under section In addition, the SIP is not approved safety margins of 117.22 TPSD for NOX 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the to apply on any Indian reservation land and 28.48 TPSD for VOC in 2030 (the status of a geographical area and do not or in any other area where EPA or an total net change between the attainment impose any additional regulatory Indian tribe has demonstrated that a year, 2014, emissions and the projected requirements on sources beyond those tribe has jurisdiction.
  • Biological Conference Opinions Glen Canyon

    Biological Conference Opinions Glen Canyon

    United States DeDanment... of Lh.e Interior Fish and Wildlife Se:vice Arizona EcJlogic:l1 Se..-.rices Field Office 2:321 w. Roy.I P::.1.r:l Road. Suite 103 Ph.oeni:::. ArizoC!.2. 85021-:'9S1 • [n Reply R.efC" To: (602) 640-2:7"-0 M..::; (602) 640-ZT.!Q ABSO/SE 2-21-93-F-167 February 16, 1996 MEM:ORAND illvf TO: Regional Director, Bureau of Reciamation. Salt La.1ce Cicy, Utah FRO~!: Field Supervisor SUBJECT: Biological and Conference Opinions on OpeT:arion of Glen Canyon Dam ­ Conrrolled Rele3.Se for Habitat and Beach Building (Your Refere:lce UC-320, aN-l.OO) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the Bureau of Reclamation's proposed. test of beachlhabir:at-building flow (rest flow) from Glen Canyon Dam. in spring 1996 in the CoLorado Rivet: located in Coconino County, Arizona. Your November 20, 1995, request for formal consultation was received on November 21, 1995. This doc..uneru: represents the Service's biological and conference opinions on the effects of that action on the following endangered •• species: humpback: chub (Gila cypha); Kanab ambermail (Oxy{oma. haydeni kCJwbensis); and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidon.ax traillii e:xtimus); and on critic:tl habitat for the humpback: chub and proposed. critical habitat for southwes-..ern willow flyC3.!Cher, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as ame::lde:i, (16 U.S.C. 1531 ec seq.). Tnese biologiCJ..1 and confere~ opinions are based. on information provided in the November 1995 biological assessment.
  • Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah

    Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah

    Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah Quinney Professorship for Wildlife Conflict Management Jack H. Berryman Institute U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources Utah State University Extension Service Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah 1998 Acknowledgments This publication was produced by Utah State University Extension Service Department of Fisheries and Wildlife The Jack H. Berryman Institute Utah Division of Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Extension and Publications Contributing Authors Purpose and Introduction Terry Messmer Marilet Zablan Mammals Boyde Blackwell Athena Menses Birds Frank Howe Fishes Leo Lentsch Terry Messmer Richard Drake Reptiles and Invertebrates Terry Messmer Richard Drake Utah Sensitive Species List Frank Howe Editors Terry Messmer Richard Drake Audrey McElrone Publication Publication Assistance by Remani Rajagopal Layout and design by Gail Christensen USU Publication Design and Production Quinney Professorship for Wildlife Conflict Management This bulletin was developed under the auspices of the Quinney Professorship for Wildlife Conflict Management through the sponsorship of the S. J. and Jessie E. Quinney Foundation in partnership with the College of Natural Resources, Jack H. Berryman Institute for Wild- life Damage Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. i Contents Purpose of this Guide . iii Introduction . v What are endangered and threatened species? . vi Why some species become endangered or threatened? . vi Why protect endangered species? . vi The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) . viii Mammals Black-footed Ferret . 1 Grizzly Bear . 5 Gray Wolf . 9 Utah Prairie Dog . 13 Birds Bald Eagle .