83 FR 14287 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Safe Harbor Agreement for Spikedace, Loach Minnow, and Gila Chub; Eagle Creek and Lower San Francisco River in Greenlee and Graham Counties, Arizona

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 64 (April 3, 2018)

Page Range		14287-14289
FR Document		2018-06713

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, advise the public that we intend to prepare a draft environmental assessment (EA), pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, to evaluate the impacts of, and alternatives to, the proposed issuance of an enhancement of survival permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, to Freeport-McMoRan, Inc., Freeport-McMoRan Morenci, Inc., and the Morenci Water and Electric Company (FMMI/MWE) (collectively referred to as the applicant) for conservation of federally-listed fish species. The applicant proposes to draft a safe harbor agreement. Via this notice, we also open a public scoping period.

Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 64 (Tuesday, April 3, 2018)

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14287-14289]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06713]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[FWS-R2-ES-2017-N179; FXES11130200000-189-FF02ENEH00]


Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Assessment for 
a Proposed Safe Harbor Agreement for Spikedace, Loach Minnow, and Gila 
Chub; Eagle Creek and Lower San Francisco River in Greenlee and Graham 
Counties, Arizona

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, advise the public that 
we intend to prepare a draft environmental assessment (EA), pursuant to 
the National Environmental Policy Act, to evaluate the impacts of, and 
alternatives to, the proposed issuance of an enhancement of survival 
permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, to 
Freeport-McMoRan, Inc., Freeport-McMoRan Morenci, Inc., and the Morenci 
Water and Electric Company (FMMI/MWE) (collectively referred to as the 
applicant) for conservation of federally-listed fish species. The 
applicant proposes to draft a safe harbor agreement. Via this notice, 
we also open a public scoping period.

DATES: Written suggestions or comments on alternatives and issues to be 
addressed in the Service's draft environmental analysis must be 
received by close of business on or before May 3, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To request further information or submit written comments, 
use one of the following methods, and note that your information 
request or comment is in reference to the FMMI/MWE NEPA scoping:
     Email: [email protected];
     U.S. Mail: Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services 
Office, 9828 N 31st Avenue, Suite C3, Phoenix, Arizona 85051;
     Fax: 602-242-2513; or
     Phone: 602-242-0210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(Service), advise the public that we intend to prepare a draft EA, 
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.; NEPA), to evaluate the impacts of, and alternatives to, the 
proposed issuance of an enhancement of survival permit (EOS Permit) 
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.; ESA), to Freeport-McMoRan, Inc., Freeport-McMoRan Morenci, Inc., 
and the Morenci Water and Electric Company (FMMI/MWE) (collectively 
referred to as the applicant) for conservation of three federally-
listed species: The endangered spikedace (Meda fulgida), endangered 
loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), and endangered Gila chub (Gila 
intermedia) (collectively referred to as covered species). In support 
of the EOS Permit, the applicant proposes to draft a safe harbor 
agreement (SHA) for land and water uses at Eagle Creek and the lower 
San Francisco River, as well as for long-term management and monitoring 
activities, including construction of a nonnative fish barrier; an 
exotic species study; annual surveys for covered species and other fish 
species; and the continued implementation of the Spikedace and Loach 
Minnow Management Plan (October 2011) at Eagle Creek and the lower San 
Francisco River in Greenlee and Graham Counties, Arizona.

Background

    Section 9 of the ESA and its implementing regulations prohibit 
``take'' of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the ESA. The ESA defines ``take'' as ``to harass, 
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect 
listed animal species, or attempt to engage in such conduct'' (16 
U.S.C. 1533). The term ``harm'' is defined in the regulations as 
significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death 
or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential 
behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 
17.3). However, we may, under specified circumstances, issue permits 
that allow the take of federally listed species, provided that the take 
is incidental to, but not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activity. 
EOS Permits issued to applicants in association with approved SHAs 
authorize incidental take of the covered species from implementation of 
the conservation activities and ongoing covered activities above the 
baseline condition. Baseline condition for a species could be described 
as the existing number of individuals, acres of habitat, or length of 
occupied stream present in the permit area prior to implementation of 
the SHA.
    Application requirements and issuance criteria for EOS permits for 
SHAs are found in the Code of Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 
17.22(c)(2)(ii) and 17.32(c)(2)(ii), respectively. See also the joint 
policy on SHAs, which the Service and the Department of Commerce's 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 
Fisheries Service published in the Federal Register on June 17, 1999 
(64 FR 32717).
    The purpose of issuing the proposed EOS Permit is to authorize take 
associated with the applicant's proposed activities while conserving 
covered species and their habitats. We expect that the applicant will 
request EOS Permit coverage for a period of 50 years.

The Applicant's Proposed Project

    The proposed activities would include ongoing land and water 
management activities associated with water-related improvements, 
including a diversion dam and appurtenant pumping facilities and 
pipelines, groundwater pumping stations and water transmission 
pipelines, access roads, power lines, and related infrastructure. 
During the term of the SHA, the permittee anticipates improving, 
replacing, repairing, reconstructing, and maintaining these facilities 
and related infrastructure on land adjacent to Eagle Creek and the 
lower San Francisco River. We have worked with the applicant to design 
conservation activities expected to have a net conservation benefit to 
the spikedace, loach minnow, and Gila

[[Page 14288]]

chub within the area to be covered under this proposed SHA. These 
conservation activities would include the following:
    (1) Allocation of $4,000,000 over the next 10 years to complete the 
design and construction of a fish barrier on Eagle Creek to protect and 
enhance aquatic habitat for the covered species. Design of the barrier 
is almost complete, and the location for the barrier has been selected 
by the applicant. The fish barrier would prevent nonnative aquatic 
species from moving upstream into the upper portion of the creek, 
protecting the covered species and their habitat. Loach minnow and Gila 
chub are primarily found above the proposed barrier location, and the 
best remaining habitat for the three species is also above the proposed 
barrier location.
    (2) Development and implementation of a 3-year monitoring program 
to detect the presence of other types of nonnative invasive species 
(e.g., bullfrogs and crayfish) within the upper reach of Eagle Creek, 
and investigation of the practicability and cost of actions to suppress 
the populations of these species in the upper segment of Eagle Creek, 
above the fish barrier.
    (3) Annual monitoring along Eagle Creek and the lower reach of the 
San Francisco River to gather data for use in informing future 
conservation and management activities and assisting in the recovery of 
the Covered Species.
    These conservation activities are expected to:
    (1) Protect existing upper Eagle Creek populations of spikedace, 
loach minnow, and Gila chub, as well as other native fish species, 
against future upstream incursion of nonnative aquatic organisms from 
the Gila River and lower Eagle Creek. Spikedace, loach minnow, and Gila 
chub all occur in approximately 10 to 15 percent of their historical 
ranges, having been extirpated from other areas due to habitat 
alteration, competition with or predation by nonnative species, and 
other factors. The Gila River and lower Eagle Creek are currently 
occupied by a variety of nonnative fish species known to be detrimental 
to native fishes, including flathead catfish, channel catfish, 
smallmouth bass, red shiner, and green sunfish.
    (2) Provide data that can be used to inform future management 
actions to remove nonnative species (e.g., crayfish and bullfrogs) 
within Eagle Creek.
    (3) Provide a cooperative approach that allows for continuation of 
mining operations and native fish conservation.
    Ongoing land and water management activities, as well as 
conservation activities under the SHA, would occur along portions of 
Eagle Creek and the lower San Francisco River in Graham and Greenlee 
Counties, Arizona, on lands currently owned by the applicant.

Potentially Affected Species

    The applicant may apply for an EOS Permit to cover the spikedace, 
loach minnow, and Gila chub. The permit area may include an additional 
three species federally listed as threatened: The western distinct 
population segment of the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), 
Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis), and narrow-headed 
gartersnake (Thamnophis rufipunctatus). The ultimate list of species 
covered by the proposed EOS Permit and associated SHA may change based 
on the outcome of more detailed reviews of the best available science, 
changes to the list of protected species, or further assessments of the 
likelihood of take from the proposed activities.

Possible Alternatives in the Environmental Assessment

    The proposed action presented in the draft EA would be compared to 
the No-Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternative represents the 
estimated future conditions without the proposed Federal action.

No-Action Alternative

    In the No-Action Alternative, the applicant would not request, and 
we would not issue, an EOS Permit for the ongoing use and management of 
land and water along Eagle Creek and the lower San Francisco River. 
Therefore, ongoing use and management of land and water on the 
applicant's property, should incidental take occur, would require the 
applicant to seek coverage for incidental take in some other manner. 
Additionally, the non-native fish barrier would not be built, and 
monitoring would not occur.

Proposed Alternative

    The proposed action would be the issuance of an EOS Permit for the 
covered species for the conservation and covered activities within the 
plan area, when and if the applicant determines to move forward with an 
SHA and development of a nonnative fish barrier. The draft SHA, which 
must be consistent with the final SHA policy (64 FR 32717), would be 
developed in coordination with the Service and implemented by the 
applicant.
    The proposed alternative would need to provide a net conservation 
benefit for the listed species covered by the SHA, and would need to 
provide long-term protection of native fish habitat in portions of 
upper Eagle Creek and the lower San Francisco River. Actions covered 
under the requested EOS Permit may include possible take of the species 
associated with proposed land and water management activities above the 
baseline condition for the species, as well as construction of the 
nonnative fish barrier.

Other Alternatives

    Possible alternatives include mechanical or chemical stream 
renovation with barrier construction, or alternative sites for barrier 
construction. We are requesting information regarding other reasonable 
alternatives during this scoping period.

National Historic Preservation Act

    We will use and coordinate the NEPA process to fulfill our 
obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act [(Pub. L. 89-
665, as amended by Pub. L. 96-515, and as provided in 36 CFR 
800.2(d)(3) and 800.8c)]. A cultural resource inventory has already 
been completed for the project; we will address the findings of that 
report and continue coordinating with tribes and the State Historic 
Preservation Office during project development.

Environmental Review

    The Service will draft an EA to analyze the proposed action, as 
well as other alternatives, and the associated impacts of each 
alternative on the human environment and each species covered for the 
range of alternatives to be addressed. The draft EA is expected to 
provide biological descriptions of the affected species and habitats, 
as well as the effects of the alternatives on other resources, such as 
vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, geology, and soils, air quality, water 
resources, water quality, cultural resources, land use, recreation, 
water use, local economy, and environmental justice, as appropriate for 
the proposed action.

Public Availability of Comments

    Written comments received will become part of the public record 
associated with this action. Before including your address, phone 
number, email address, or other personal identifying information in 
your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including 
your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available. 
While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal 
identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we 
will be able to do so.

[[Page 14289]]

Authority

    We publish this notice in compliance with NEPA and its implementing 
regulations (40 CFR 1501.7, 1506.6, and 1508.22), and section 10(c) of 
the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1539(c)).

Amy Lueders,
Regional Director, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 2018-06713 Filed 4-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

14288 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2018 / Notices

chub within the area to be covered along portions of Eagle Creek and the lower San Francisco River. Actions
under this proposed SHA. These lower San Francisco River in Graham covered under the requested EOS Permit
conservation activities would include and Greenlee Counties, Arizona, on may include possible take of the species
the following: lands currently owned by the applicant. associated with proposed land and
(1) Allocation of $4,000,000 over the water management activities above the
next 10 years to complete the design Potentially Affected Species
baseline condition for the species, as
and construction of a fish barrier on The applicant may apply for an EOS well as construction of the nonnative
Eagle Creek to protect and enhance Permit to cover the spikedace, loach fish barrier.
aquatic habitat for the covered species. minnow, and Gila chub. The permit area
Design of the barrier is almost complete, may include an additional three species Other Alternatives
and the location for the barrier has been federally listed as threatened: The
selected by the applicant. The fish western distinct population segment of Possible alternatives include
barrier would prevent nonnative aquatic the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus mechanical or chemical stream
species from moving upstream into the americanus), Chiricahua leopard frog renovation with barrier construction, or
upper portion of the creek, protecting (Lithobates chiricahuensis), and narrow- alternative sites for barrier construction.
the covered species and their habitat. headed gartersnake (Thamnophis We are requesting information regarding
Loach minnow and Gila chub are rufipunctatus). The ultimate list of other reasonable alternatives during this
primarily found above the proposed species covered by the proposed EOS scoping period.
barrier location, and the best remaining Permit and associated SHA may change National Historic Preservation Act
habitat for the three species is also based on the outcome of more detailed
above the proposed barrier location. reviews of the best available science, We will use and coordinate the NEPA
(2) Development and implementation changes to the list of protected species, process to fulfill our obligations under
of a 3-year monitoring program to detect or further assessments of the likelihood the National Historic Preservation Act
the presence of other types of nonnative of take from the proposed activities. [(Pub. L. 89–665, as amended by Pub. L.
invasive species (e.g., bullfrogs and 96–515, and as provided in 36 CFR
crayfish) within the upper reach of Possible Alternatives in the
Environmental Assessment 800.2(d)(3) and 800.8c)]. A cultural
Eagle Creek, and investigation of the resource inventory has already been
practicability and cost of actions to The proposed action presented in the completed for the project; we will
suppress the populations of these draft EA would be compared to the No- address the findings of that report and
species in the upper segment of Eagle Action Alternative. The No-Action continue coordinating with tribes and
Creek, above the fish barrier. Alternative represents the estimated the State Historic Preservation Office
(3) Annual monitoring along Eagle future conditions without the proposed during project development.
Creek and the lower reach of the San Federal action.
Francisco River to gather data for use in Environmental Review
No-Action Alternative
informing future conservation and
management activities and assisting in In the No-Action Alternative, the The Service will draft an EA to
the recovery of the Covered Species. applicant would not request, and we analyze the proposed action, as well as
These conservation activities are would not issue, an EOS Permit for the other alternatives, and the associated
expected to: ongoing use and management of land impacts of each alternative on the
(1) Protect existing upper Eagle Creek and water along Eagle Creek and the human environment and each species
populations of spikedace, loach lower San Francisco River. Therefore, covered for the range of alternatives to
minnow, and Gila chub, as well as other ongoing use and management of land be addressed. The draft EA is expected
native fish species, against future and water on the applicant’s property, to provide biological descriptions of the
upstream incursion of nonnative aquatic should incidental take occur, would affected species and habitats, as well as
organisms from the Gila River and lower require the applicant to seek coverage the effects of the alternatives on other
Eagle Creek. Spikedace, loach minnow, for incidental take in some other resources, such as vegetation, wetlands,
and Gila chub all occur in manner. Additionally, the non-native wildlife, geology, and soils, air quality,
approximately 10 to 15 percent of their fish barrier would not be built, and water resources, water quality, cultural
historical ranges, having been extirpated monitoring would not occur. resources, land use, recreation, water
from other areas due to habitat use, local economy, and environmental
Proposed Alternative
alteration, competition with or justice, as appropriate for the proposed
predation by nonnative species, and The proposed action would be the action.
other factors. The Gila River and lower issuance of an EOS Permit for the
Eagle Creek are currently occupied by a covered species for the conservation and Public Availability of Comments
variety of nonnative fish species known covered activities within the plan area,
when and if the applicant determines to Written comments received will
to be detrimental to native fishes,
including flathead catfish, channel move forward with an SHA and become part of the public record
catfish, smallmouth bass, red shiner, development of a nonnative fish barrier. associated with this action. Before
and green sunfish. The draft SHA, which must be including your address, phone number,
(2) Provide data that can be used to consistent with the final SHA policy (64 email address, or other personal
inform future management actions to FR 32717), would be developed in identifying information in your
remove nonnative species (e.g., crayfish coordination with the Service and comment, you should be aware that
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES

and bullfrogs) within Eagle Creek. implemented by the applicant. your entire comment, including your
(3) Provide a cooperative approach The proposed alternative would need personal identifying information, may
that allows for continuation of mining to provide a net conservation benefit for be made publicly available. While you
operations and native fish conservation. the listed species covered by the SHA, can ask us in your comment to withhold
Ongoing land and water management and would need to provide long-term your personal identifying information
activities, as well as conservation protection of native fish habitat in from public review, we cannot
activities under the SHA, would occur portions of upper Eagle Creek and the guarantee that we will be able to do so.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Apr 02, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM 03APN1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2018 / Notices 14289

Authority at the above address, or fax them to second order tributaries to larger, fourth
We publish this notice in compliance 502–695–1024; or order streams such as Jellico Creek,
with NEPA and its implementing 3. You may send comments by email Whitley County, Kentucky. Little is
regulations (40 CFR 1501.7, 1506.6, and to mike_floyd@fws.gov. Please include known of the species’ life history or
1508.22), and section 10(c) of the ESA ‘‘Cumberland Darter Draft Recovery microhabitat suitability, but it is often
Plan Comments’’ on the subject line. encountered in pools or shallow runs of
(16 U.S.C. 1539(c)).
For additional information about low-to-moderate-gradient sections of
Amy Lueders, submitting comments, see the Request streams with sand, silt, or sand-covered
Regional Director, Southwest Region, for Public Comments section. bedrock substrates. Most of these
Albuquerque, New Mexico. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: habitats contain isolated boulders and
[FR Doc. 2018–06713 Filed 4–2–18; 8:45 am] Michael Floyd (see ADDRESSES). large cobble that the species likely uses
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P as cover.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the
We designated critical habitat for the
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), Cumberland darter on October 16, 2012
announce the availability of the (77 FR 63604). A total of 54 river miles
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
technical/agency draft recovery plan for (86 rkm) were designated, including 13
Fish and Wildlife Service the endangered Cumberland darter, a streams in McCreary and Whitley
fish. The draft recovery plan includes Counties, Kentucky, and Campbell and
[FWS–R4–ES–2017–N089; specific recovery objectives and criteria Scott Counties, Tennessee.
FXES11130400000C2–178–FF04E00000] that would be used to delist this fish
under the Endangered Species Act of Threats
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et The majority of streams within the
and Plants; Technical/Agency Draft seq.; Act). We request review and upper Cumberland River basin have
Recovery Plan for the Cumberland comment on this draft recovery plan been modified from their historical
Darter from local, State, and Federal agencies, condition due to a number of
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, and the public. anthropogenic activities such as
Interior. Background agriculture, logging, residential
ACTION: Notice of availability and development, road construction, and
The Act requires the development of surface coal mining. As a result of these
request for public comment. recovery plans for listed species, unless activities and associated stressors (e.g.,
SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife such a plan would not promote the siltation), the Cumberland darter has
Service (Service), announce the conservation of a particular species. been extirpated from at least six streams
availability of the technical/agency draft Recovery plans describe actions and is now restricted to nine isolated
recovery plan for the endangered considered necessary for conservation of watersheds. Limiting factors include the
Cumberland darter, a fish. The draft species, establish criteria for delisting, following: (1) Anthropogenic activities
recovery plan includes specific recovery and estimate time and cost for that cause siltation, disturbance of
objectives and criteria that will guide implementing recovery measures. riparian corridors, and changes in
the process of recovery under the Section 4(f) of the Act requires us to channel morphology; (2) water quality
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as provide public notice and an degradation caused by a variety of
amended (Act). We request review and opportunity for public review and nonpoint-source pollutants; and (3)
comment on this draft recovery plan comment during recovery plan naturally small population size and
from local, State, and Federal agencies, development. We will consider all reduced geographic range.
and the public. information presented during a public
comment period prior to approval of Recovery Plan Components
DATES: In order to be considered,
each new or revised recovery plan. We The primary goal of this recovery plan
comments on the draft recovery plan
and other Federal agencies will take is to recover Cumberland darter
must be received on or before June 4,
these comments into consideration in populations to the point that listing
2018.
the course of implementing approved under the Act is no longer necessary. To
ADDRESSES: recovery plans. achieve these goals, it is necessary to
Reviewing documents: If you wish to produce self-sustaining, viable
review this technical/agency draft About the Species
populations that possess healthy, long-
recovery plan, you may obtain a copy by We listed the Cumberland darter term demographic and genetic trends
contacting Michael Floyd, U.S. Fish and (Etheostoma susanae) as endangered (e.g., evidence of multiple age classes
Wildlife Service, Kentucky Ecological under the Act on September 8, 2011 (76 and continued recruitment, high genetic
Services Field Office, 330 West FR 48722). The Cumberland darter is a diversity), and that are no longer
Broadway, Suite 265, Frankfort, KY small fish endemic to the upper threatened by any of the factors
40601; tel. 502–695–0468; or by visiting Cumberland River basin, above discussed above.
the Service’s Kentucky Field Office Cumberland Falls, in Kentucky and
website at http://www.fws.gov/ Tennessee. Cumberland darters occur in Management Units
frankfort/. 9 widely separated populations (total of For this Recovery Plan, we identify
Submitting comments: If you wish to 16 streams) in southeastern Kentucky nine management units for the
comment, you may submit your and north-central Tennessee. No Cumberland Darter (refer to the
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES

comments by one of the following population estimates or status trends are associated Recovery Implementation
methods: available; however, survey results by Strategy, Figure 1). Based on the
1. You may submit written comments Thomas (2007) suggest that the species species’ current distribution (refer to the
and materials to us at the Kentucky is uncommon or occurs in low densities associated Species Biological Report,
Field Office address; across its range. Figures 1 and 2) and our knowledge of
2. You may hand-deliver written Cumberland darters are known from the species’ movement patterns, we
comments to our Kentucky Field Office, streams ranging in size from small, consider each management unit to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 02, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM 03APN1

Document Created: 2018-04-03 00:50:18
Document Modified: 2018-04-03 00:50:18

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		Notice of intent; request for comments.
Dates		Written suggestions or comments on alternatives and issues to be
FR Citation		83 FR 14287

83 FR 14287 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Safe Harbor Agreement for Spikedace, Loach Minnow, and Gila Chub; Eagle Creek and Lower San Francisco River in Greenlee and Graham Counties, Arizona

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORFish and Wildlife Service

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 64 (April 3, 2018)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service