Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices 34441

Reclamation’s general exceptions

from the categorical exclusion include

title transfer action that incorporates

problems or activities which will

require the preparation of an

environmental assessment. Singlepurpose facilities within projects which

would be ineligible for the categorical

exclusion are those involving the

following:

1. Unresolved issues involving the

future operation and maintenance of the

transferred facilities and lands. Potential

transferees must be able to demonstrate

the technical capability to maintain and

operate the facilities and lands on a

permanent basis and an ability to meet

financial obligations associated with the

transferred assets. Operations and

maintenance of the facilities must not

change in the foreseeable future.

2. Unresolved issues involving future

use of lands or water associated with the

transferred facilities and lands. Potential

transferees must agree not to change the

use of the lands or water associated with

the transferred facilities for the

foreseeable future.

3. Unresolved issues involving

protection of interstate compacts and

agreements. All transfers must be

willing to assume responsibilities for

commitments made under existing

interstate compacts and agreements.

4. Unresolved issues involving

meeting the Secretary’s Native

American trust responsibilities. All

transfers must ensure the United States’

Native American trust responsibilities

are satisfied. In addition, outstanding

Native American claims that are directly

pending before the Department and that

would be directly affected by the

proposed transfer will be resolved prior

to transfer.

5. Unresolved issues involving

fulfilling treaty and international

agreement obligations.

6. Unresolved issues involving

protection of the public aspects of the

project or facilities. Potentially affected

State, local, and Tribal Governments,

appropriate Federal agencies, and the

public will be notified of the initiation

of discussions to transfer title and will

have (1) the opportunity to voice their

views and suggest options for

remedying any problems, and (2) full

access to relevant information,

including proposals, analyses, and

reports related to the proposed transfer.

The title transfer process will be carried

out in an open and public manner. Once

Reclamation has negotiated an

agreement with a transferee,

Reclamation will seek legislation

specifically authorizing the negotiated

terms of the transfer of each facility.

To be considered, any comments on

this proposed addition to the list of

categorical exclusions in the

Departmental Manual must be received

by August 1, 1996, at the location listed

under ADDRESSES above. Comments

received after that date will be

considered only to the extent

practicable.

Outline: Chapter 6 (516 DM 6)

Managing the NEPA Process, Appendix

9—Bureau of Reclamation, 9.4

Categorical Exclusions.

Dated: June 25, 1996.

Kenneth D. Naser,

Acting Director, Office of Environmental

Policy and Compliance.

516 DM 6, Appendix 9—Bureau of

Reclamation, 9.4 Categorical Exclusions

* * * * *

A. * * *

4. Transfer of title to single-purpose

facilities within Reclamation projects to

entities who are currently operating and

maintaining the facilities or managing

the lands, and who would agree to make

no significant changes in operation and

maintenance, and/or land and water use

within the foreseeable future.

[FR Doc. 96–16654 Filed 7–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–94–M

Fish and Wildlife Service

Notice of Availability of a Draft

Recovery Plan for the Kootenai River

Population of White Sturgeon in Idaho

and Montana for Review and Comment

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of document availability.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) announces the

availability for public review of a draft

recovery plan for the Kootenai River

population of white sturgeon. The

Kootenai River white sturgeon

represents a land-locked population

found in the Kootenai River from

Kootenai Falls, Montana, downstream

through Kootenay Lake to Corra Linn

Dam on the lower West Arm of

Kootenay Lake, British Columbia. The

Service solicits review and comment

from the public on this draft plan.

DATES: Comments on the draft recovery

plan must be received on or before

September 30, 1996, to receive

consideration by the Service.

ADDRESSES: The draft recovery plan is

available for public inspection by

appointment during normal business

hours at either the Service’s Upper

Columbia River Basin Office, 11103 East

Montgomery Drive, Suite #2, Spokane,

Washington, 99206 or the Snake River

Basin Office, 4696 Overland Road,

Room 576, Boise, Idaho, 83705. Persons

wishing to review the draft recovery

plan may obtain a copy by contacting

the Supervisor, Snake River Basin

Office, at the above address or by calling

(208) 334–1931. Written comments and

materials regarding the plan should be

sent to the Service’s, Snake River Basin

Office, attention Recovery Team Leader,

at the above Boise address. Comments

and materials received are available on

request for public inspection by

appointment at the Snake River Basin

Office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Ruesink or Steve Duke, at the

Service’s, Snake River Basin Office,

4696 Overland Road, Room 576, Boise,

Idaho 83705. (208) 334–1931.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Restoring an endangered or

threatened animal or plant to the point

where it is again a secure, selfsustaining member of its ecosystem is a

primary goal of the Service’s

endangered species program. Recovery

plans describe actions considered

necessary for conservation of the

species, establish criteria for the

recovery levels for downlisting and

delisting species, and estimate time and

cost for implementing the recovery

measures needed.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973

(Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et

seq.) requires the development of

recovery plans for listed species unless

such a plan would not promote the

conservation of a particular species.

Section 4(f) of the Act, as amended in

1988, requires that public notice and an

opportunity for public review and

comment be provided during recovery

plan development. The Service will

consider all information presented

during a public comment period prior to

approval of each new or revised

recovery plan. The Service and other

Federal agencies will also take these

comments into account in the course of

implementing approved recovery plans.

The Kootenai River white sturgeon

became isolated from other white

sturgeon in the Columbia River basin

during the last glacial age

(approximately 10,000 years ago). Since

then, the population has adapted to the

pre-development habitat conditions in

the Kootenai River drainage.

Historically, spring runoff peaked

during the first half of June in the

Kootenai River upstream of the existing

Libby Dam in Montana. Runoff from
34442 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices

lower elevations between Libby Dam

and Bonners Ferry, Idaho, was

somewhat earlier, peaking in late May.

Combined flows were often in excess of

1700 cubic meters per second (m3/s)

[60,000 cubic feet per second (cfs)].

During the remainder of the year, river

flows declined to basal conditions of

113 to 226 m3/s (4,000 to 8,000 cfs).

Annual flushing events re-sorted river

sediments providing a clean cobble

substrate conducive to insect

production and sturgeon egg incubation.

Side channels and low-lying deltaic

marsh lands were unimpounded at this

time, providing productive, low velocity

backwater areas. Nutrient delivery in

the system was unimpeded by dams and

occurred primarily during spring runoff.

Floodplain ecosystems like the Kootenai

River are characterized by seasonal

floods that promote the exchange of

nutrients and organisms among a

mosaic of habitats and thus enhance

biological productivity.

Modification of the Kootenai River

white sturgeon’s habitat by human

activities has changed the natural

hydrograph of the Kootenai River,

altering white sturgeon spawning, egg

incubation, nursery, and rearing

habitats, and reducing overall biological

productivity. These factors have

contributed to a general lack of

recruitment in the white sturgeon

population over the past 22 years.

Recovery of the Kootenai River white

sturgeon is contingent upon reestablishing natural recruitment,

minimizing additional loss of genetic

variability to the population, and

successfully mitigating biological and

physical habitat changes caused by the

construction and operation of Libby

Dam. This draft recovery plan proposes

conservation actions to benefit white

sturgeon within the entire Kootenai

River watershed in Canada and the

United States. However, recovery tasks

proposed for the Canadian portion of

the white sturgeon’s range are only

recommendations since the Act does not

impose any restrictions or commitments

on Canada. The draft recovery plan also

proposes a strategy for improving

coordination and cooperation between

the United States and Canada on the

operation of Libby Dam with the

operation of other hydroelectric

facilities within the Kootenai River

basin and elsewhere in Canada.

The draft plan was developed by a

recovery team composed of

representatives of the Kootenai Tribe of

Idaho, Idaho Department of Fish and

Game, Montana Fish, Wildlife and

Parks, Bonneville Power

Administration, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Canadian Department of

Fisheries and Oceans, British Columbia

Ministry of Environment, Lands and

Parks, and the Service. Short-term

recovery objectives proposed are: a)

prevent extinction and b) begin to reestablish successful natural recruitment

to the Kootenai River population of

white sturgeon. Proposed recovery

actions include providing additional

Kootenai River flows necessary for

natural recruitment and using

aquaculture, i.e. hatchery propagation,

to prevent extinction. The long-term

objectives are to provide suitable habitat

conditions to ensure a self-sustaining

Kootenai River population of white

sturgeon. Specific delisting criteria are

not determinable or proposed at this

time.

Public Comments Solicited

The Service solicits written comments

on the recovery plan described. All

comments received by the date specified

above will be considered prior to

approval of the plan.

Authority: The authority for this action is

Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act,

16 U.S.C. 1533(f).

Dated: June 25, 1996.

Thomas Dwyer,

Acting Regional Director, Region 1, Portland,

OR.

[FR Doc. 96–16806 Filed 7–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

Bureau of Land Management

[CO–017–1610–00]

Availability of White River Resource

Area’s Proposed Management Plan

and Final Environmental Impact

Statement

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c)

of the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) of 1969 (40 CFR 1505.2), the

Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management (BLM), has prepared

a Proposed Resource Management Plan

and Final Environmental Impact

Statement (PRMP/FEIS) for the White

River Resource Area. The PRMP/FEIS

describes and analyzes the proposed

management for 1,455,900 acres of

public land and 365,000 acres of federal

mineral estate in portions of Rio Blanco,

Moffat and Garfield Counties in western

Colorado.

Decisions generated as a result of this

planning process will supersede and/or

incorporate decisions of earlier land use

plans, including the 1975 White River

Management Framework Plan, the 1981

White River Resource Area Coal

Amendment to the White River

Management Framework Plan, the 1981

White River Resource Area Grazing

Management Environmental Impact

Statement, and the 1987 White River

Resource Area Piceance Basin Resource

Management Plan and Environmental

Impact Statement.

DATES: Protests of the proposed plan

must be received by August 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written protests on the

PRMP/FEIS should be addressed to:

Director (480), Bureau of Land

Management, Resource Planning Team,

1849 ‘‘C’’ Street, NW., Washington, DC

20240.

Copies of the PRMP/FEIS will be

available for review at the following

locations: (1) Bureau of Land

Management, White River Resource

Area Office, 73544 Highway 64, Meeker,

Colorado 81641; (2) Bureau of Land

Management, Craig District Office, 455

Emerson Street, Craig, Colorado 81625;

and (3) Bureau of Land Management,

Colorado State Office, 2850 Youngfield

Street, Denver, Colorado 80215.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bill Hill, RMP Team Leader, White

River Resource Area Office, Meeker,

Colorado 81641, (970) 878–4160.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

PRMP/FEIS addresses issues identified

through public scoping and internal

Bureau of Land Management review,

including: (1) Salinity in the Colorado

River; (2) mineral development

throughout the resource area; (3) the

spread of noxious and problem weeds;

(4) reintroduction of the black-footed

ferret; (5) unrestricted motorized travel

throughout the resource area; and (6)

habitat competition among wild horses,

livestock and big game. Four

alternatives were analyzed in the Draft

RMP/EIS that was published in October

1994. The Proposed Resource

Management Plan and Final

Environmental Impact Statement

combines ecosystem concepts, public

comments, and components from the

four alternatives described in the Draft.

Some of the major decisions

developed in the proposed management

plan deal with: (1) Making mineral

resources available for exploration,

leasing and development, in compliance

with environmental laws, regulations

and policies; (2) protecting sensitive

resources by designating certain areas as

closed or limited to off highway vehicle

use until a subsequent travel

management plan can be developed; (3)

releasing the river and stream segments

inventoried for Wild and Scenic River

(WSR) Management from further WSR

consideration; (4) managing wild horse