[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12138-12142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04465]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0008; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ34
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Sharpnose Shiner and Smalleye Shiner
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period on the August 6, 2013, proposed
designation of critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner (Notropis
oxyrhynchus) and smalleye shiner (N. buccula) under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also announce the
availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed
designation of critical habitat for sharpnose shiner and smalleye
shiner and an amended required determinations section of the proposal.
We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an
opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed critical habitat
rule, the associated DEA, and the amended required determinations
section. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they
will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.
DATES: We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before
April 3, 2014. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: You may obtain a copy of the proposed
critical habitat rule and the associated draft economic analysis at
Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0008, or by mail from the Arlington, Texas,
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Written Comments: You may submit written comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments on the critical habitat proposal
and associated DEA by searching for FWS-R2-ES-2013-0008, which is the
docket number for the critical habitat proposed rulemaking.
(2) By hard copy: Submit comments on the critical habitat proposal
and associated DEA by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2013-0008; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debra Bills, Field Supervisor,
Arlington, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office, 2005 NE Green Oaks
Blvd., Suite 140, Arlington, Texas 76006, by telephone (817-277-1100),
or by facsimile (817-277-1129). Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We will accept written comments and information during this
reopened comment period on our proposed designation of critical habitat
for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner that was published in the
Federal Register on August 6, 2013 (78 FR 47612), our DEA of the
proposed designation, and the amended required determinations provided
in this document. We will consider information and recommendations from
all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments
concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including whether there are threats to the species from human
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not
prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
[[Page 12139]]
(a) The distribution of the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner;
(b) The amount and distribution of sharpnose shiner and smalleye
shiner habitat; and
(c) What areas occupied by the species at the time of listing that
contain features essential for the conservation of the species we
should include in the critical habitat designation and why; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential to
the conservation of the species and why.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their probable impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner and proposed
critical habitat.
(5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation; in particular, the benefits of including or excluding
areas that exhibit these impacts.
(6) Information on the extent to which the description of economic
impacts in the DEA is a reasonable estimate of the likely economic
impacts.
(7) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation
of critical habitat, as discussed in the DEA, and how the consequences
of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation
and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
(8) Whether any areas we are proposing for critical habitat
designation should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific
area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act.
(9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule
during the initial comment period from August 6, 2013, to October 7,
2013, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the
public record and will fully consider them in the preparation of our
final determination. Our final determination will take into
consideration all written comments 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 proposed as critical habitat are not essential, are appropriate
for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate
for exclusion.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed
rule or DEA by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that
you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
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. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. 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.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule and DEA, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0008 or by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Texas,
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
On August 6, 2013, we published in the Federal Register proposed
rules to list the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner as endangered
species (78 FR 47582) and designate critical habitat for both species
(78 FR 47612). For more information on the species and the species'
habitat, refer to the June 2013 Draft Species Status Assessment Report
for the Sharpnose Shiner and Smalleye Shiner (SSA Report; Service
2013), available online at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No.
FWS-R2-ES-2013-0083 in association with the proposed listing rule. We
proposed to designate as critical habitat approximately 1,002 river
kilometers (623 river miles) in Baylor, Crosby, Fisher, Garza, Haskell,
Kent, King, Knox, Stonewall, Throckmorton, and Young Counties in the
upper Brazos River basin of Texas. Those proposals had 60-day comment
periods, ending October 7, 2013. We will submit for publication in the
Federal Register a final listing determination and critical habitat
designation for sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner on or before
August 6, 2014.
Critical Habitat
Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas
within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is
listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and
that may require special management considerations or protection, and
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at
the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is
made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or
carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions
affecting critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their
proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise
critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after
taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national
security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat
if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the
benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such
exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of
actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted,
or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of mapping
areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the
listed species, and any benefits that may result from designation due
to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat.
When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. In the case of
sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner, the benefits of critical habitat
include public awareness of the
[[Page 12140]]
presence of sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner and the importance of
habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased
habitat protection for sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner due to
protection from adverse modification or destruction of critical
habitat. In practice, situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily
on Federal lands or for projects undertaken by Federal agencies.
We have not considered any areas for exclusion in our proposed
critical habitat designation.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a
proposed designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or
activities and projects that may occur in the area of the critical
habitat. We then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical
habitat designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land
uses or activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat
within the areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts
may be the result of the species being listed under the Act versus
those attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this
particular species.
The probable economic impact of a proposed critical habitat
designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with critical
habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.'' The ``without critical
habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, which
includes the existing regulatory and socio-economic burden imposed on
landowners, managers, or other resource users potentially affected by
the designation of critical habitat (e.g., under the Federal listing as
well as other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline,
therefore, represents the costs of all efforts attributable to the
listing of the species under the Act (i.e., conservation of the species
and its habitat incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is
designated). The ``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the
incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of
critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts
and associated impacts would not be expected without the designation of
critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs
are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat,
above and beyond the baseline costs. These are the costs we use when
evaluating the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas
from the final designation of critical habitat should we choose to
conduct an optional section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
For this particular designation, we developed an Incremental
Effects Memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop
a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of
critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner (IEc
2014, entire). We began by conducting a screening analysis of the
proposed designation of critical habitat in order to focus our analysis
on the key factors that are likely to result in incremental economic
impacts. The purpose of the screening analysis is to filter out the
geographic areas in which the critical habitat designation is unlikely
to result in probable incremental economic impacts.
In particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs
(i.e., absent critical habitat designation) and includes probable
economic impacts where land and water use may be subject to
conservation plans, land management plans, best management practices,
or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal
listing status of the species. The screening analysis filters out
particular areas of critical habitat that are already subject to such
protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic
impacts. The screening analysis also assesses whether units are
unoccupied by the species and may require additional management or
conservation efforts as a result of the critical habitat designation
for the species which may incur incremental economic impacts. This
screening analysis combined with the information contained in our IEM
are what we consider our draft economic analysis of the proposed
critical habitat designation for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye
shiner and is summarized in the narrative below.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and
indirectly impacted entities, where practicable and reasonable. We
assess, to the extent practicable, the probable impacts, if sufficient
data are available, to both directly and indirectly impacted entities.
As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic
activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by
the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable
incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye
shiner, first we identified, in the IEM dated September 12, 2013,
probable incremental economic impacts associated with the following
categories of activities: (1) Water management, including flood control
and drought protection operations; (2) in-stream projects; (3)
transportation activities, including bridge construction; (4) oil and
natural gas exploration and development; and (5) utilities projects,
including water and sewer lines.
We considered each industry or category individually. Additionally,
we considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not
have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat only
affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by
Federal agencies. In areas where the sharpnose shiner and smalleye
shiner are present, Federal agencies will be required to consult with
the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit,
or implement that may affect the species. If we finalize this proposed
critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the
consultation process. Therefore, disproportionate impacts to any
geographic area or sector are not likely as a result of this critical
habitat designation.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the
effects that will result from the species being listed and those
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., the difference
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the
sharpnose and smalleye shiners' critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat for sharpnose shiners and smalleye shiners was
proposed concurrently with the listing. In our experience with such
simultaneous rulemaking actions, discerning which conservation efforts
are attributable to the species being listed and which will result
solely from the designation of critical habitat is difficult. However,
the following specific circumstances in this case help to inform our
evaluation: (1) The essential physical and biological
[[Page 12141]]
features identified for critical habitat are the same features
essential for the life requisites of the species, and (2) any actions
that would result in sufficient harm or harassment to constitute
jeopardy to the sharpnose shiner or smalleye shiner would also likely
adversely affect the essential physical and biological features of
critical habitat. The IEM outlines our rationale concerning this
limited distinction between baseline conservation efforts and
incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat for this
species. This evaluation of the incremental effects has been used as
the basis to evaluate the probable incremental economic impacts of this
proposed designation of critical habitat.
We proposed to designate as critical habitat approximately 1,002
river kilometers (623 river miles) in the upper Brazos River basin of
Texas and a 30 meter lateral buffer beyond the bankfull width of the
river on both side of the river in the following Texas counties:
Baylor, Crosby, Fisher, Garza, Haskell, Kent, King, Knox, Stonewall,
Throckmorton, and Young. Only areas currently occupied by the species
were proposed for designation as critical habitat. No unoccupied river
segments were proposed as critical habitat. The proposed critical
habitat encompasses the last areas where potentially viable populations
of smalleye and sharpnose shiners remain. All stream segments included
in the proposed critical habitat (the stream beds, including the small,
seasonally dry, portions of the stream beds between the bankfull width,
where vegetation occurs, and the wetted channel) are managed by the
State, while to the best of our knowledge all adjacent riparian areas
are privately owned.
The economic cost of implementing the rule through section 7 of the
Act will most likely be limited to additional administrative effort to
consider adverse modification. Areas proposed for critical habitat
designation are remote and experience low levels of economic activity.
The human population of all eleven counties containing proposed
critical habitat totals only 52,613. Because these areas are so remote,
we anticipate low levels of consultation due to the designation of
critical habitat. All proposed units are considered occupied.
Therefore, any activities with a Federal nexus will be subject to
section 7 consultation requirements regardless of critical habitat
designation. Further, most proposed actions that would adversely affect
the physical or biological features would also likely constitute take
of the species. For example, activities that fragment occupied riverine
habitat or substantially alter its flow regime to the extent that
critical habitat would be adversely affected would also result in the
decline of sharpnose and smalleye shiner populations.. The Service
anticipates that project modifications recommended to avoid adverse
modification will likely be the same as those recommended to avoid
jeopardy because the species is so closely dependent on its habitat for
the life requisites of the species. Thus, based on the substantial
baseline protections afforded the smalleye and sharpnose shiners and
the close relationship between adverse modification and jeopardy in
occupied habitat, we do not forecast any incremental costs associated
with project modifications. When section 7 consultations occur, costs
are likely to be limited to the additional administrative effort to
consider adverse modification during the consultation process.
The additional administrative cost of addressing adverse
modification during the section 7 consultation process ranges from
approximately $410 to $5,000 per consultation, depending upon the type
of consultation. Based on a review of the consultation history for the
shiners, no more than 2 formal consultations, 28 informal
consultations, and 16 technical assistances are expected annually.
Thus, the incremental administrative burden resulting from the
designation is likely to be less than $84,000 in a given year. The
incremental administrative burden resulting from the designation is
unlikely to reach $100 million in a given year based on the small
number of anticipated consultations and pre-consultation costs.
Due to data availability limitations, we are unable to assign costs
to specific units. Rather, we provide estimates of potential costs
across the entire proposed critical habitat designation. We note that,
of the 11 counties where critical habitat is located, Young County
contains more than one-third of the overall human population. Thus, the
amount of economic activity generated in this area may be larger than
in the more remote counties. We did identify specific projects in
Subunits 1 and 6 that would likely require section 7 consultation, but
in both cases the only additional incurred incremental costs would
likely be limited to administrative costs.
In some cases, proposed critical habitat may provide new
information to project proponents who otherwise would not have
consulted with the Service, thus resulting in incremental economic
impacts. We cannot predict where or when these situations may occur,
but anticipate that consultations of this nature will be infrequent.
The designation of critical habitat is not expected to trigger
additional requirements under State or local regulations, nor is the
designation expected to have perceptional effects on markets.
Additional section 7 efforts to conserve the species are not predicted
to result from the designation of critical habitat. Thus, the
designation is unlikely to exceed $100 million in a given year.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the
public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our
amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or
supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive
during the public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area
from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding
the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the
exclusion will not result in the extinction of this species.
Required Determinations--Amended
In our August 6, 2013, proposed rule to designate critical habitat
(78 FR 47612), we indicated that we would defer our determination of
compliance with several statutes and executive orders until we had
evaluated the probable effects on landowners and stakeholders and the
resulting probable economic impacts of the designation. Following our
evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts resulting from
the designation of critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner and
smalleye shiner, we have amended or affirmed our determinations below.
Specifically, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O.
13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211
(Energy, Supply, Distribution, and Use), the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951). However, based on our evaluation of the
probable incremental economic impacts of the proposed designation of
critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner, we are
amending our required determination concerning the
[[Page 12142]]
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and E.O. 12630.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
Following recent court decisions, the Service's current
understanding of the requirements under the RFA, as amended, is that
Federal agencies are required to evaluate the potential incremental
impacts of rulemaking only on those entities directly regulated by the
rulemaking itself and, therefore, are not required to evaluate the
potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory
mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is
section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation
with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or
carried out by the Agency is not likely to adversely modify critical
habitat. Under these circumstances, only Federal action agencies are
directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding
destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical habitat
designation. Therefore, it is our position that only Federal action
agencies will be directly regulated by this designation. Federal
agencies are not small entities, and there is no requirement under the
RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly
regulated. Therefore, because no small entities are directly regulated
by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if promulgated, the
proposed critical habitat designation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently
available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed
critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore,
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
E.O. 12630 (Takings)
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner in a takings
implications assessment. As discussed above, the designation of
critical habitat affects only Federal actions. Although private parties
that receive Federal funding or assistance or require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
rests squarely on the Federal agency.
The economic analysis found that no significant economic impacts
are likely to result from the designation of critical habitat for
sharpnose shiners and smalleye shiners. The Act's critical habitat
protection requirements apply only to Federal agency actions, few
conflicts between critical habitat and private property rights should
result from this designation. Based on information contained in the DEA
and described within this document, economic impacts to a property
owner are unlikely to be of a sufficient magnitude to support a takings
action. Therefore, the takings implications assessment concludes that
this designation of critical habitat for sharpnose shiners and smalleye
shiners does not pose significant takings implications for lands within
or affected by the proposed designation.
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
Arlington, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office, Southwest Region,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: February 19, 2014.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2014-04465 Filed 3-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P