[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-6508]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 21, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Fish and Wildlife Service



_______________________________________________________________________



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of 
Critical Habitat for Four Colorado River Endangered Fishes; Final Rule
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AB91

 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Critical Habitat for the Colorado River Endangered Fishes: Razorback 
Sucker, Colorado Squawfish, Humpback Chub, and Bonytail Chub

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service designates critical habitat for 
four species of endemic Colorado River Basin fishes: Razorback sucker 
(Xyrauchen texanus), Colorado squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius), 
humpback chub (Gila cypha), and bonytail chub (Gila elegans). These 
species are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended. The critical habitat designated is located primarily 
on Federal land and, to a lesser extent, on tribal, State, and private 
lands. The designation provides additional protection required under 
section 7 of the Act with regard to activities that require Federal 
agency action. The Service designates 3,168 km (1,980 mi) of critical 
habitat for the four Colorado River endangered fishes in portions of 
Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California. The areas 
designated for each species also overlap some areas designated for the 
other species.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 20, 1994.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the office 
of the Field Supervisor, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 2060 Administration Building, 1745 West 1700 South, Salt Lake 
City, Utah 84104.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reed E. Harris, Field Supervisor, at 
the above address, telephone 801/975-3630.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The four endangered fishes are endemic to the Colorado River Basin 
(Basin), which consists of portions of seven Western States. The Basin 
drains approximately 627,000 km\2\ (242,000 mi\2\) within the United 
States and has been politically divided into an Upper and Lower Basin. 
The Upper Basin consists of portions of the States of Colorado, New 
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. The Lower Basin consists of portions of the 
States of Arizona, California, and Nevada. An additional 5,000 km\2\ 
(2,000 mi\2\) of the Basin lies within Mexico.
    Historically, the native fish fauna of the Basin was dominated by 
the minnow (cyprinids) and sucker (catostomids) families (Minckley et 
al. 1986). The four species of concern, the razorback sucker (Xyrauchen 
texanus), Colorado squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub 
(Gila cypha), and bonytail chub (Gila elegans) are listed as endangered 
under the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.). These fishes are threatened with extinction due to the 
cumulative effects of environmental impacts that have resulted in 
habitat loss (including alterations to natural flows and changes to 
temperature and sediment regimes), proliferation of nonnative 
introduced fish, and other man-induced disturbances (Miller 1961; 
Minckley 1973; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1987; Carlson and 
Muth 1989).
    Natural Colorado squawfish populations survive only in the Upper 
Basin, where their numbers are relatively high only in the Green River 
Basin of Utah and Colorado (compared with other rivers in the Upper 
Basin) (Tyus 1991). Razorback sucker and bonytail chub populations 
throughout the Basin consist predominately of old adult fish. 
Populations persist primarily because of the longevity of these species 
(USFWS 1990a; Minckley et al. 1991), although some experimental and 
augmentation programs have stocked fish in the Basin. Humpback chub 
populations in the Little Colorado River, Black Rocks, and Westwater 
Canyon in the Colorado River appear relatively stable in number of 
fish, but declines have occurred in other locations (USFWS 1990b).
    The historical ranges of the four endangered fishes have been 
fragmented by construction of dams and water diversions throughout the 
Basin (Carlson and Muth 1989). The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 
believes that it is important to the survival and recovery of these 
species to maintain and reestablish populations in geographically 
distinct areas within their historic range that provide varying 
thermal, chemical, geological, and physical parameters required for 
maintenance of genomes.
    Conservation of these four species will require the identification 
and management of water resources and habitat components that are 
considered important to any fish species, such as spawning areas, 
nursery grounds, and interactions with predators and competitors. 
However, because the four endangered fishes are present in such low 
numbers, basic life history and habitat use information has been 
difficult to obtain. Changes to the historical Colorado River Basin 
ecosystem that have resulted in a lack of reproduction and/or 
recruitment have been hypothesized as factors in their endangerment 
(USFWS 1990a, 1990b, 1991; Minckley et al. 1991). In this case, not 
only would a lack of successful recruitment lead to small numbers of 
fish, but over time, remnant stocks may lose genetic diversity. 
Ultimately, extinction could result because the loss of genetic 
diversity may make populations less able to adjust to environmental 
change.

Habitats and Status of Endangered Fish

Affected Environment

    The four Colorado River endangered fishes evolved in the Colorado 
River Basin (Basin) and were adapted to the natural environment that 
existed prior to the beginning of large-scale water development and 
introduction of nonnative species. This natural environment was 
characterized by highly fluctuating seasonal and annual flows, 
distinctly different habitat types (i.e., whitewater, lower gradient 
and meandering main channels, off-channel backwaters, and others) and 
varying water quality (i.e., sediment load, temperature, salinity, 
etc.). Recent population declines and disappearances of endemic Basin 
fish species from much of their former range have been associated with 
the onset of rapid and widespread anthropogenic changes to the natural 
environment. The cumulative environmental impact of these changes has 
resulted in alteration of the physical and biological characteristics 
of many rivers in the Basin. These impacts presumably occurred so 
rapidly that the fish could not adapt to them (Carlson and Muth 1989). 
Dams and diversions have fragmented former fish habitat and restricted 
fish movement. As a result, genetic interchange (emigration and 
immigration of individuals) between some fish populations is no longer 
possible. High flood flows were once normal in the Basin and provided 
food and nutrient exchange between river channels and shallow-water 
flood plain habitats. These high flows are now controlled by numerous 
dams. As a result of these dams, major changes also have occurred in 
water quality, quantity, temperature, sediment load and nutrient 
transport, and other characteristics of the aquatic environment 
(Carlson and Muth 1989). The altered river conditions that have 
resulted now provide suitable habitats for introduced, nonnative fish. 
Some of these nonnative fish species have flourished in the Basin 
(Minckley et al. 1982; Tyus et al. 1982; Carlson and Muth 1989). These 
physical and biological changes have impacted the river environment to 
the extent that no completely unaltered habitat remains in the Basin 
for the four Colorado River endangered fish species.

Razorback Sucker

    This species once was abundant and widely distributed in rivers of 
the Basin (Jordan and Evermann 1896; Minckley 1973). In the Lower 
Basin, the razorback sucker remains in the Colorado River from the 
Grand Canyon to near the border with Mexico. With the exception of the 
relatively large stock of razorback suckers remaining in Lake Mohave 
(an estimated 25,000 individuals), these populations are small and 
recruitment is virtually nonexistent (Minckley et al. 1991). The 
formerly large Lower Basin populations have been virtually extirpated 
from other riverine environments (Minckley et al. 1991). In the Upper 
Basin, this species remains in the lower Yampa and Green Rivers, 
mainstream Colorado River, and lower San Juan River (Tyus et al. 1982; 
Minckley et al. 1991; Platania et al. 1991); however, there is little 
indication of recruitment in these remnant stocks. The largest extant 
riverine population occurs in the upper Green River Basin. It consisted 
of only about 1,000 fish in 1989 (Lanigan and Tyus 1989); recent 
information suggests that this population may have declined to less 
than 500 fish (USFWS unpublished data). In the absence of conservation 
efforts, it is presumed that all wild populations in the Basin would 
soon be lost as old fish die without sufficient natural recruitment.
    Reproduction and habitat use of razorback suckers has been studied 
in Lower Basin reservoirs, especially in Lake Mohave. Fish reproduction 
has been visually observed along reservoir shorelines for many years. 
The fish spawn over mixed substrates that range from silt to cobble and 
at water temperatures ranging from 10.5 to 21 deg. C (51 to 70 deg. F) 
(reviewed by Minckley et al. 1991).
    Habitat use and spawning behavior of adult razorback suckers in 
riverine habitats has been studied by radiotelemetry in the Green River 
Basin (Tyus and Karp 1990) and in the upper Colorado River (Osmundson 
and Kaeding 1989). Fish in the Green River Basin spawn in the spring 
with rising water levels and increasing temperatures. Razorback suckers 
move into flooded areas in early spring and begin spawning migrations 
to specific locations as they become reproductively active, and 
spawning occurs over rocky runs and gravel bars (Tyus and Karp 1990).
    In nonreproductive periods, adult razorback suckers occupy a 
variety of habitat types, including impounded and riverine areas, 
eddies, backwaters, gravel pits, flooded bottoms, flooded mouths of 
tributary streams, slow runs, sandy riffles, and others (reviewed by 
Minckley et al. 1991). Summer habitats used include deeper eddies, 
backwaters, holes, and midchannel sandbars (Osmundson and Kaeding 1989; 
Tyus and Karp 1990; Minckley et al. 1991). During winter, adult 
razorback suckers use main channel habitats that are similar to those 
used during other times of the year, including eddies, slow runs, 
riffles, and slackwaters (Osmundson and Kaeding 1989; Valdez and 
Masslich 1989; Tyus and Karp 1990).
    Habitats used by young razorback suckers have not been fully 
described because of the low number of young fish present in the Basin. 
However, most studies indicate that the larvae prefer shallow, littoral 
zones for a few weeks after hatching, then disperse to deeper water 
areas (reviewed by Minckley et al. 1991). Laboratory studies indicated 
that in a riverine environment, the larvae enter stream drift and are 
transported downstream (Paulin et al. 1989).
    Based on available data, Tyus and Karp (1989) and Osmundson and 
Kaeding (1989) considered that cumulative environmental impacts from 
interactions with nonnative fish, high winter flows, reduced high 
spring flows, seasonal changes in river temperatures, and lack of 
inundated shorelines and bottom lands are factors that potentially 
limit the survival, successful reproduction, and recruitment of this 
species.

Colorado Squawfish

    This species is the only living representative of the genus 
Ptychocheilus endemic to the Basin. Fossils from the Mid-Pliocene epoch 
(about 6 million years ago) indicate that early Ptychocheilus had 
physical characteristics that were similar to modern forms. Native 
populations of the Colorado squawfish are now restricted to the Upper 
Basin in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico. Colorado squawfish 
populations have been extirpated from the Lower Basin.
    Colorado squawfish spawning has been documented in canyons in the 
Yampa and Green Rivers (Tyus 1991). This reproduction is associated 
with declining flows in June, July, or August and average water 
temperatures ranging from 22 to 25  deg.C (72 to 77  deg.F) depending 
on annual hydrology. River mile 130 on the Colorado River, near the 
Colorado-Utah State line, also has been identified as a spawning site, 
and radio-tagged adults have moved to a specific 0.2 km (0.1 mi) area 
in four different years (Osmundson and Kaeding 1989; USFWS unpublished 
data 1992-1993). In the mainstream Colorado River, McAda and Kaeding 
(1991) stated that spawning occurs at many locations. They also 
suggested that Colorado squawfish spawning in the Colorado River may 
have been adversely impacted by construction of mainstream dams and a 
48 percent reduction in peak discharge. On the San Juan River, a 
spawning reach has been identified between river mile 133.4 and 129.8, 
near the confluence of the Mancos River (Ryden and Pfeifer 1993).
    After spawning, adult Colorado squawfish utilize a variety of 
riverine habitats, including eddies, backwaters, shorelines, and others 
(Tyus 1990). During winter, adult Colorado squawfish use backwaters, 
runs, pools, and eddies, but are most common in shallow, ice-covered 
shoreline areas (Osmundson and Kaeding 1989; Wick and Hawkins 1989). In 
spring and early summer, adult squawfish use shorelines and lowlands 
inundated during typical spring flooding. This natural lowland 
inundation is viewed as important for their general health and 
reproductive conditioning (Osmundson and Kaeding 1989; Tyus 1990). Use 
of these habitats presumably mitigates some of the effects of winter 
stress, and aids in providing energy reserves required for migration 
and spawning. Migration is an important component in the reproductive 
cycle of Colorado squawfish. Tyus (1990) hypothesized that migration 
cues, such as high spring flows, increasing river temperatures, and 
chemical inputs from flooded lands and springs, may be important to 
successful reproduction.
    In the Green River Basin, larval Colorado squawfish emerge from 
spawning substrates and enter the stream drift as young fry (Haynes et 
al. 1989). The larval fish are actively or passively transported 
downstream for about 6 days, traveling an average distance of 160 km 
(100 mi) to reach nursery areas in lower gradient reaches (Tyus and 
Haines 1991). These areas are nutrient-rich habitats that consist of 
ephemeral along-shore embayments that develop as spring flows decline.

Humpback Chub

    Remains of humpback chub have been found in archaeological sites 
dated to about 4000 B.C. (USFWS 1990b). This Colorado River native fish 
was not described as a species until 1946 (Miller 1946). This has been 
attributed to its presently restricted distribution in remote, white 
water canyons (USFWS 1990b). The historical abundance and distribution 
of the species is not well known. In the Lower Basin, the humpback chub 
occurs in the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers in the Grand Canyon. 
This population is the largest remaining in the Basin. In the Upper 
Basin, humpback chub are found in the Black Rocks/Westwater Canyon and 
Cataract Canyon of the Colorado River, Desolation and Gray Canyons of 
the Green River, and Yampa and Whirlpool Canyons in Dinosaur National 
Monument, Green and Yampa Rivers (USFWS 1990b).
    Humpback chub in reproductive condition are usually captured in 
May, June, or July, depending on location. Spawning occurs soon after 
the highest spring flows when water temperatures approach 20 deg. C 
(68 deg. F) (Karp and Tyus 1990; USFWS 1990b). The importance of spring 
flows and proper temperatures for humpback chub is stressed by Kaeding 
and Zimmerman (1983), who implicated flow reductions and low water 
temperatures in the Grand Canyon as factors curtailing successful 
spawning of the fish and increasing competition from other species.
    Populations of humpback chub are found in river canyons, where they 
utilize a variety of habitats, including pools, riffles, and eddies. 
Most of the existing information on habitat preferences has been 
obtained from adult fish in the Little Colorado River, the Grand 
Canyon, and the Black Rocks of the Colorado River (Holden and Stalnaker 
1975; Kaeding and Zimmerman 1983; Kaeding et al. 1990). In these 
locations, the fish are found associated with boulder-strewn canyons, 
travertine dams, pools, and eddies. Some habitat-use data also are 
available from the Yampa River Canyon where the fish occupy similar 
habitats and also use rocky runs, riffles, rapids, and shoreline eddies 
(Karp and Tyus 1990). This diversity in habitat use suggests that the 
adult fish are adapted to a variety of habitats, and studies of tagged 
fish indicated that they move between habitats, presumably in response 
to seasonal habitat changes and life history needs (Kaeding and 
Zimmerman 1983; Karp and Tyus 1990). Reduced spring peak flows, 
availability of shoreline eddy and deep canyon habitats, and 
competition and predation by nonnative fish were reported as potential 
limiting factors for humpback chub in the Yampa River (Tyus and Karp 
1989). The impact of hybridization with other species is currently 
being evaluated.

Bonytail Chub

    The bonytail chub (also known as the bonytail) is the rarest native 
fish in the Basin. Historically reported as widespread and abundant in 
rivers throughout the Basin (Jordan and Evermann 1896), its populations 
have been greatly reduced. The fish is presently represented in the 
wild by a low number of old fish (i.e., ages of 40 years or more), and 
recruitment is virtually nonexistent. In the Lower Basin, a small 
population persists in the Colorado River in Lake Mohave, and there are 
recent records from Lake Havasu (USFWS 1990a). In the Upper Basin, 
recent captures have been from Dinosaur National Monument on the Yampa 
River, Desolation and Gray Canyons on the Green River, and Black Rocks 
and Cataract Canyon on the Colorado River (Kaeding et al. 1986; Tyus et 
al. 1987; Valdez 1990; USFWS 1990a).
    The bonytail chub is adapted to mainstream rivers, where it has 
been observed in pools and eddies (Minckley 1973; Vanicek 1967). In 
reservoirs, the fish occupies a variety of habitat types (Minckley 
1973). In Lake Mohave, Wagner (1955) observed the fish in eddy 
habitats. Spawning requirements have never been documented in a river, 
but Vanicek and Kramer (1969) reported that spawning occurred in June 
and July at water temperatures of about 18 deg. C (64 deg. F). The 
available data suggest that habitats required for conservation of the 
bonytail chub include, river channels, and flooded, ponded, or 
inundated riverine habitats that would be suitable for adults and 
young, especially if competition from nonnative fishes is reduced 
(USFWS 1990a).

Previous Federal Actions

Listing Chronology

    The Colorado squawfish and humpback chub were listed as endangered 
species on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001) and the bonytail chub was listed 
as endangered on April 23, 1980 (45 FR 27713). Critical habitat for 
these species was not designated at the time of their listing. On May 
16, 1975, the Service published a notice of its intent to determine 
critical habitat for the Colorado squawfish and the humpback chub, and 
other species (40 FR 21499). On September 14, 1978, the Service 
proposed 1,002 km (623 mi) of the Colorado, Green, Gunnison, and Yampa 
Rivers as critical habitat for the Colorado squawfish (43 FR 41060). 
The proposal was for 1,002 km (623 mi) of the Colorado, Green, 
Gunnison, and Yampa Rivers. This proposal was later withdrawn (44 FR 
12382; March 6, 1979) to comply with the 1978 amendments to the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
    The razorback sucker was first proposed for listing as a threatened 
species on April 24, 1978 (43 FR 17375). The proposal was withdrawn on 
May 27, 1980 (45 FR 35410), to comply with provisions of the 1978 
amendments to the Act. These provisions required the Service to include 
consideration of designating critical habitat in the listing of 
species, to complete the listing process within 2 years from the date 
of the proposed rule, or withdraw the proposal from further 
consideration. The Service did not complete the listing process within 
the 2-year deadline.
    On March 15, 1989, the Service received a petition from the Sierra 
Club, National Audubon Society, The Wilderness Society, Colorado 
Environmental Coalition, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and 
Northwest Rivers Alliance to list the razorback sucker as endangered. 
The Service made a positive finding in June 1989 and subsequently 
published a notice in the Federal Register on August 15, 1989 (54 FR 
33586). This notice also stated that the Service was completing a 
status review and was seeking additional information until December 15, 
1989. A proposed rule to list the razorback sucker as endangered was 
published in the Federal Register on May 22, 1990 (55 FR 21154).
    The final rule listing the razorback sucker as an endangered 
species was published on October 23, 1991 (56 FR 54957), but critical 
habitat was not proposed. In the final rule, the Service concluded that 
critical habitat was not determinable at the time of listing and 
questioned whether it was prudent to designate critical habitat.
    On October 30, 1991, the Service received a 60-day notice of intent 
to sue from the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. The subject of the 
notice was the Service's failure to designate critical habitat 
concurrent with listing of the razorback sucker pursuant to section 
4(b)(6)(c) of the Act. The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund followed this 
with a second notice of intent to sue dated January 30, 1992. At a 
meeting on December 6, 1991, the Service concluded that designation of 
critical habitat was prudent and determinable and therefore in 
compliance with the Act. The Service had no alternative but to 
designate critical habitat for the razorback sucker. Because the intent 
of the Act is ``* * * to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon 
which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved 
* * *,'' the Service also decided to propose critical habitat for the 
Colorado squawfish, humpback chub, and bonytail chub. The four 
endangered Colorado River fish species coexist in the Basin and much of 
their habitat overlaps.
    On May 7, 1992, the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund on behalf of the 
Colorado Wildlife Federation, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Four 
Corners Action Coalition, Colorado Environmental Coalition, Taxpayers 
for the Animas River, and Sierra Club filed a lawsuit in the U.S. 
District Court (Court), Colorado, against the Service for failure to 
designate critical habitat for the razorback sucker. On August 18, 
1992, a motion for summary judgment was filed requesting the Court to 
order publication of a final rule to designate critical habitat within 
90 days. On October 27, 1992, the Court ruled that the Service had 
violated the Act by failing to designate critical habitat when the 
razorback sucker was listed. The Court ordered the Service to publish a 
proposed rule within 90 days designating critical habitat for the 
razorback sucker using presently available information, and to publish 
a final rule at the earliest time permitted by the Act and its 
regulations. To take no action towards designation of critical habitat 
would continue to place the Service in violation of the Act and was not 
a feasible alternative.
    The Service published the proposed rule to designate critical 
habitat on January 29, 1993 (58 FR 6578). At that time, the Service had 
not completed an economic analysis or a biological support document. 
The Service published the Draft Biological Support Document for public 
review on September 15, 1993, and reopened the public comment period 
(58 FR 48351). On September 21, 1993, the Court held a hearing on the 
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund ``Motion For A Timetable For Publication 
Of Final Rule'' on the designation of critical habitat. On November 19, 
1993, the Court directed the Service (1) not to submit an interim final 
rule, (2) to provide a 60-day comment period for the economic analysis, 
(3) to provide notice of the exclusion process and request comments, 
and (4) to publish the final rule by March 15, 1994.
    Notice of availability of the Economic Analysis, an Overview of the 
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation, and a request for public 
comments were made in the Federal Register on November 12, 1993 (58 FR 
5997), and in a November 9, 1993, letter sent to interested parties. 
The public comment period closed on January 11, 1994. On January 18, 
1994, the Service conducted the exclusion process, assessing all the 
information pertinent to a decision to exclude areas from designation 
as critical habitat for economic or other relevant reasons.

Recovery Planning

    Recovery plans have been written for three of the four listed 
Colorado River fishes. The Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan was 
approved on March 16, 1978, and revised on August 6, 1991 (USFWS 1991). 
The Humpback Chub Recovery Plan was approved on August 22, 1979, with a 
first revision on May 15, 1984, and a second revision on September 19, 
1990 (USFWS 1990b). The Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan was approved on May 
16, 1984, with a revised plan approved September 4, 1990 (USFWS 1990a). 
Recovery goals contained in these recovery plans have been used in 
identifying and evaluating critical habitat for these three species. A 
recovery plan for the razorback sucker has not been completed.

Determination of Critical Habitat

Definition of Critical Habitat

    ``Critical habitat,'' as defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act, 
means: ``(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied 
by the species at the time it is listed * * *, on which are found those 
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of 
the species and (II) which may require special management 
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed * * *, 
upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for 
the conservation of the species.''
    The term ``conservation,'' as defined in section 3(3) of the Act, 
means: ``* * * the use of all methods and procedures which are 
necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the 
point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer 
necessary.'' In the case of critical habitat, conservation represents 
the areas required to recover a species to the point of delisting 
(i.e., the species is recovered and is removed from the list of 
endangered and threatened species). In this context, critical habitat 
preserves options for a species' eventual recovery. Section 3(5)(C) 
further states that: ``Except in those circumstances determined by the 
Secretary, critical habitat shall not include the entire geographical 
area which can be occupied by the threatened or endangered species.''

Role of Critical Habitat in Species Conservation

    The designation of critical habitat will not, by itself, lead to 
recovery but is one of several measures available to contribute to 
conservation of a species. Critical habitat helps focus conservation 
activities by identifying areas that contain essential habitat features 
(primary constituent elements) regardless of whether or not the areas 
are currently occupied by the listed species. Such designations alert 
Federal agencies, States, the public, and other entities about the 
importance of an area for the conservation of a listed species. 
Critical habitat also identifies areas that may require special 
management or protection. Areas designated as critical habitat receive 
protection under section 7 of the Act with regard to actions carried 
out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency that are likely to 
adversely modify or destroy critical habitat. Section 7 requires that 
Federal agencies consult on their actions that may affect critical 
habitat and insure that their actions are not likely to destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat.
    Designation of an area as critical habitat only affects Federal 
actions that may occur in the area. Designation does not create a 
management plan for a listed species. Designation does not 
automatically prohibit certain actions, establish numerical population 
goals, prescribe specific management actions (inside or outside of 
critical habitat), nor does it have a direct effect on habitat not 
designated as critical habitat. However, critical habitat may provide 
added protection for areas designated and thus assist in achieving 
recovery.

Areas Outside of Critical Habitat

    Areas outside of critical habitat that contain one or more of the 
primary constituent elements may still be important for conservation of 
a species. Also, some areas do not contain all of the constituent 
elements and may have those missing elements restored in the future. 
Such areas also may be important for the long-term recovery of the 
species even if they were not designated as critical habitat. Areas not 
designated as critical habitat also may be of value in maintaining 
ecosystem integrity and supporting other species, indirectly 
contributing to recovery of a species.
    Areas outside of critical habitat are still subject to section 7 
consultation on whether or not an action is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of a species, and section 9 ``take'' prohibitions 
for an action that may affect Colorado River endangered fishes or their 
habitat. The Service anticipates that the importance of areas outside 
of critical habitat to the conservation of the Colorado River 
endangered fishes will be addressed through section 7, section 9, and 
section 10 permit processes, the recovery planning process, and other 
appropriate State and Federal laws.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In determining which areas to designate as critical habitat for a 
species, the Service considers those physical and biological attributes 
that are essential to species conservation (i.e., constituent 
elements). Such physical and biological features are stated in 50 CFR 
424.12 and include, but are not limited to, the following items: (1) 
Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, 
germination, or seed dispersal; and generally;
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical geographical and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    In addition, the Act stipulates that the areas containing these 
elements may require special management considerations or protection.
    Detailed descriptions and the biological basis for the constituent 
elements were presented in the Draft Biological Support Document 
(Maddux et al. 1993). In considering the biological basis for 
determining critical habitat, the Service focused on the primary 
physical and biological elements essential to the conservation of the 
species. The primary constituent elements are interrelated in the life 
history of these species. This relationship was a prime consideration 
in the designation of critical habitat. The Service is required to list 
the known primary constituent elements together with a description of 
any critical habitat that is designated.
    The primary constituent elements determined necessary for survival 
and recovery of the four Colorado River endangered fishes include, but 
are not limited to:

Water

    This includes a quantity of water of sufficient quality (i.e., 
temperature, dissolved oxygen, lack of contaminants, nutrients, 
turbidity, etc.) that is delivered to a specific location in accordance 
with a hydrologic regime that is required for the particular life stage 
for each species.

Physical Habitat

    This includes areas of the Colorado River system that are inhabited 
or potentially habitable by fish for use in spawning, nursery, feeding, 
and rearing, or corridors between these areas. In addition to river 
channels, these areas also include bottom lands, side channels, 
secondary channels, oxbows, backwaters, and other areas in the 100-year 
flood plain, which when inundated provide spawning, nursery, feeding 
and rearing habitats, or access to these habitats.

Biological Environment

    Food supply, predation, and competition are important elements of 
the biological environment and are considered components of this 
constituent element. Food supply is a function of nutrient supply, 
productivity, and availability to each life stage of the species. 
Predation and competition, although considered normal components of 
this environment, are out of balance due to introduced nonnative fish 
species in many areas.

Additional Selection Criteria for the Razorback Sucker

    Because a recovery plan for the razorback sucker has not been 
completed, additional selection criteria were developed to assist the 
Service in making a determination of areas to propose as critical 
habitat. Previous Service findings, published and unpublished 
literature sources, and discussions with individual members of the 
Colorado River Fishes Recovery Team were utilized to develop the 
constituent elements and additional selection criteria.
    Adult razorback suckers have displayed a degree of versatility in 
their ability to survive and spawn in different habitats. However, 
razorback sucker populations continue to decline and are considered 
below the survival level. Thus, as versatile as the adult life stage of 
razorback sucker appears to be in selecting spawning habitat, there has 
been little or no recruitment of young to the adult population. 
Therefore, special consideration was given to habitats required for 
reproduction and recruitment.
    The following selection considerations were used by the Service to 
help determine areas necessary for survival and recovery of the 
razorback sucker.
    1. Presence of known or suspected wild spawning populations, 
although recruitment may be limited or nonexistent.
    2. Areas where juvenile razorback suckers have been collected or 
which could provide suitable nursery habitat (backwaters, flooded 
bottom lands, or coves).
    3. Areas presently occupied or that were historically occupied that 
are considered necessary for recovery and that have the potential for 
reestablishment of razorback suckers.
    4. Areas and water required to maintain rangewide fish distribution 
and diversity under a variety of physical, chemical, and biological 
conditions.
    5. Areas that need special management or protection to insure 
razorback survival and recovery. These areas once met the habitat needs 
of the razorback sucker and may be recoverable with additional 
protection and management.
    The primary constituent elements were identified throughout the 
historical range of the Colorado River endangered fishes. In addition, 
the five selection considerations described above also were used to 
evaluate potential razorback sucker critical habitat areas. The 
critical habitat designations were based on the primary constituent 
elements, published and unpublished sources of information, Service 
reports and other findings, recovery plans (for Colorado squawfish, 
humpback chub, and bonytail chub), the additional selection 
considerations, and the Service's preliminary recovery goals for the 
razorback sucker.

Adjustments to Boundaries

    The 100-year flood plain is generally included as part of the 
critical habitat designation; however, only those portions of the flood 
plain that contain the constituent elements are considered part of 
critical habitat. Specific areas in the flood plain must be evaluated 
on a case-by-case basis to determine if the areas constitute critical 
habitat. The Service stresses that, although critical habitat may only 
be seasonally occupied by the fish, such habitat remains important for 
their conservation. Protection of such seasonally occupied habitats 
contributes to the conservation of the species.
    As a result of obtaining additional biological information and 
review of comments received during the public comment period, the 
Service has determined that some areas are not required for the 
survival and recovery of the fishes because they do not contain the 
constituent elements, meet the additional selection criteria, or are 
not in historical habitat. In addition, other areas may contain 
constituent elements but may contribute little to the prospect of 
recovery for one or more of the four fishes. Some of these areas are 
within sections of designated critical habitat and will be evaluated on 
a case-by-case basis. Five stream sections are separable and have been 
removed from consideration as part of critical habitat because of a 
lack of biological importance. These five areas are:
     Davis Dam to the upstream end of Topock Marsh on the 
mainstem Colorado River (AZ, CA, NV) (bonytail chub)
     Bonita and Eagle Creeks, tributaries to the Gila River 
(AZ) (razorback sucker)
     Cherry and Canyon Creeks, tributaries to the Salt River 
(AZ) (razorback sucker)
     Sycamore, Oak, and West Clear Creeks, tributaries to the 
Verde River (AZ) (razorback sucker)
     The Verde River from Sullivan Lake to Perkinsville (AZ) 
(razorback sucker)
    The Service reiterates that any or all of these sections could 
contribute to the recovery of one or more of the fishes; however, they 
do not provide a primary recovery area and are considered only 
marginally important. The Service also notes that some of these areas 
may not have been historical habitat for the razorback sucker, a 
further indication that these areas may have only limited value in the 
recovery of these fishes.

Economic Impacts

Introduction

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act directs the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary) to consider economic and other relevant impacts in 
determining whether to exclude proposed areas from the final 
designation of critical habitat. The Service, as delegated by the 
Secretary, may exclude areas from critical habitat designation when the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, provided that 
exclusion will not result in extinction of a species. An economic 
analysis (Brookshire et al. 1994) was conducted on the consequences of 
this action (critical habitat designation).
    The study region for the economic analysis includes the seven 
States of the Basin: Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, 
Utah, and Wyoming. The timeframe chosen for the study, 1995 through 
2020, encompasses the time period projected for the recovery of the 
endangered fishes.
    Linkages between the biological requirements for recovering the 
endangered fishes and economic activities in the region formed the 
basis for the economic analysis. As an index of these biological 
requirements, adjustments made in the operations of Federal reservoirs 
in the Basin and/or mitigation of nonflow related activities along the 
river's 100-year flood plain were included. The effects of recovery 
efforts on future water depletions in the Basin also were taken into 
consideration. The direct and indirect impacts of these possible 
changes on current and prospective economic activities were then 
estimated for each State, the region, and the national economy.
    It is impossible to predict the outcome of future section 7 
consultations involving endangered fishes in the Basin. If the Upper 
Basin and San Juan Recovery Implementation Programs (RIP) do not show 
sufficient and timely progress in recovering the endangered fishes, 
some planned water developments may be modified, scaled back, delayed, 
or foregone. This assumption provides an upper bound on the potential 
magnitude of economic impacts associated with the critical habitat 
designation. If the RIP's are successful in achieving their objectives, 
many of the negative economic impacts can be avoided.

Economic Modeling

    Two types of economic effects are of interest when considering the 
economic impacts of critical habitat designations: regional economic 
impacts and national economic efficiency impacts. Regional economic 
impacts refer to the direct and indirect impacts of the critical 
habitat designations on specific geographic regions, such as States or 
other subregions of the country.
    Regional economic impacts were analyzed using input-output (I-O) 
models that organize the basic accounting relationships that describe 
the production sector of the economy (Brookshire et al. 1993). The I-O 
method is based on the assumption that all sectors of the economy are 
related, and the production of a good or service can be described by a 
recipe whose ingredients are the outputs from other sectors of the 
economy. The primary inputs are labor, capital, and other raw 
resources. Through its multiplier analysis, the I-O model is capable of 
generating estimates of the changes in output for economic sectors, 
changes in employment, and changes in income due to the critical 
habitat designation. The models report total impacts resulting from 
interactions among the sectors of the economy.
    National economic efficiency impacts refer to the overall net 
impacts on the national economy after the effects of interregional 
transfers have been accounted for. The goal of a national efficiency 
analysis is to determine whether an action would have an overall 
positive or negative impact on the national economy.
    National economic efficiency impacts were analyzed in this study 
using a Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model. The CGE model 
captures the economic interactions of consumers, the production 
sectors, and the government sectors. The CGE model also analyzes 
resource reallocations (e.g., changes in river flows as represented by 
increased or decreased hydroelectric generation) in a manner such that 
the net effects, not just the total effects, are calculated. Given this 
capability, the CGE model is able to estimate net national efficiency 
impacts.

Modeling Approach

    A separate I-O model was developed for each State, and focused on 
the direct and indirect impacts generated by the critical habitat 
designation (Brookshire et al. 1993). In most cases, impacts in a given 
State generated impacts in neighboring States. Thus, it was necessary 
to investigate potential offsetting impacts. As a result, an I-O model 
was constructed that investigated the impacts of the entire region (all 
seven States). In addition to the State and regional I-O models, a CGE 
model was developed for the economies of the seven-State area and the 
rest of the United States. This model provided a comprehensive 
aggregate assessment of the national economic efficiency impacts.
    Economic activity for the models was estimated using Impact 
Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) 1982 data sets that were updated and 
projected through the year 2020, using data from the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The IMPLAN data set 
contains 528 economic sectors that were aggregated to 20 sectors 
(Brookshire et al. 1994).

Without Fish and With Fish Scenarios

    Two scenarios were used to evaluate economic activities associated 
with the critical habitat designation (Brookshire et al. 1994). The 
``without fish'' economic scenario consisted of projections of the 
level of economic activities that would be observed over the study 
period if no action was taken to recover the endangered fishes. The 
``with fish'' scenario was constructed by analyzing potential changes 
in economic activity that may occur due to the critical habitat 
designations and/or other protection and recovery efforts for 
endangered fish.

Economic Setting

Economic Output

    Economic output measures the value of all goods and services 
produced and/or consumed in a regional economy. The seven State Basin 
region generates about $1.3 trillion annually in economic output. This 
output is dominated by the combined manufacturing and the finance, 
insurance, and real estate sectors, which produce 18.4 percent and 14.9 
percent of total output, respectively. The recreation services sector 
produces 7.7 percent of the total output and the combined agricultural 
sectors are responsible for 3.0 percent of the total output (Brookshire 
et al. 1993).

Employment

    Approximately 22.0 million people are employed in the Basin 
economy. The largest employment sectors within the Basin States are the 
public sector (16.9 percent of total employment), and the combined 
manufacturing sector (15.4 percent of total employment). The recreation 
services sector is also a very significant part of total employment at 
10.5 percent. Combined agricultural employment is approximately 4.3 
percent of total employment (Brookshire et al. 1993).

State and Regional Economic Impacts

    Three conclusions were obtained from the economic analysis (Table 
1): First, regional economic impacts associated with critical habitat 
designation are positive for the Basin. Second, the State-level impacts 
are not distributed evenly over States in the Basin. Finally, the 
percent deviation in the economy from the ``without fish'' scenario is 
small.

  Table 1.--Annualized Impacts ($1991 Millions) of Critical Habitat Designation in Each State and the Colorado  
   River Basin. Parentheses () = Percent Change in the State and Regional Economies Due to Designation. (After  
                                            Brookshire et al. 1994)                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Indirect                 
                                                        Output (%      Earning (%      business       Personal  
                       State                             change)        change)        taxes (%     income taxes
                                                                                       change)       (% change) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona.............................................       -1.049                                               
                                                            (.0008)       -0.201                                
                                                                           (.0004)       -0.048                 
                                                                                          (.0006)       -0.050  
                                                                                                         (.0004)
California..........................................      +16.751                                               
                                                            (.0013)       +2.880                                
                                                                           (.0007)       +0.521                 
                                                                                          (.0008)       +0.720  
                                                                                                         (.0007)
Colorado............................................       -0.848                                               
                                                            (.0006)       +0.850                                
                                                                           (.0020)       -0.111                 
                                                                                          (.0020)       +0.213  
                                                                                                         (.0020)
Nevada..............................................       +7.014                                               
                                                            (.0148)       +3.369                                
                                                                           (.0164)       +0.582                 
                                                                                          (.0182)       +0.842  
                                                                                                         (.0164)
New Mexico..........................................      -12.273                                               
                                                            (.0279)       -1.511                                
                                                                           (.0110)       -0.586                 
                                                                                          (.0204)       -0.378  
                                                                                                         (.0110)
Utah................................................       -3.628                                               
                                                            (.0060)       -0.718                                
                                                                           (.0039)       -0.281                 
                                                                                          (.0090)       -0.180  
                                                                                                         (.0040)
Wyoming.............................................       -0.359                                               
                                                            (.0020)       -0.048                                
                                                                           (.0008)       -0.023                 
                                                                                          (.0020)       -0.012  
                                                                                                         (.0008)
Basin...............................................       +6.470                                               
                                                            (.0003)       +3.704                                
                                                                           (.0006)       +0.136                 
                                                                                          (.0002)       +1.049  
                                                                                                         (.0006) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The projected impacts on the economies of various States ranged 
from about -$12.273 million in New Mexico to about +$16.751 million in 
California measured as annualized values (Table 1). However, projected 
negative impacts that could occur in the various State economies were 
so small when compared to the base economies that they are probably 
nonexistent, ranging from 0.0008 percent in Arizona to 0.0279 percent 
in New Mexico. Some States could experience small but positive impacts 
(e.g., California and Nevada).
    Impacts on earnings, indirect business taxes, and personal income 
taxes are organized in the same way as those for output (Table 1). The 
conclusions expressed for output hold also for the earnings, indirect 
business taxes, and personal income taxes impacts (Brookshire et al. 
1994).

Employment

    Table 2 presents State and regional incremental impacts on 
employment over the 25-year period of the study. The values in the 
table represent the deviation in employment, measured as jobs, between 
the without fish and with fish scenarios. As with other aspects of the 
economy, employment impacts are both positive and negative both across 
States and over time. For New Mexico, the employment impact is 
approximately 2 jobs foregone in 1995 and this figure rises to 613 jobs 
foregone by the year 2020. On the other hand, for California there is a 
gain of approximately 20 jobs in 1995 and this positive impact 
increases to a projected 1,162 jobs by 2020. For the Basin as a whole, 
the employment impacts are positive through the study period. In 1995, 
the projected gain is approximately 60 jobs. By 2020, the gains in 
employment are projected to be approximately 393 jobs.

Table 2.-- Impacts of the Critical Habitat Designation on Employment in Each State and the Colorado River Basin.
 Employment Impacts Represent Jobs Foregone or Gained in the Future Through the Year 2020. (After Brookshire et 
                                                   al. 1994)                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      State                         1995      2000       2005       2010       2015       2020  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona.........................................     -1.85     -4.68      -7.77     -12.08     -18.86     -25.83
California......................................    +19.99    +92.57    +258.48    +475.86    +781.18   +1161.93
Colorado........................................     +8.91     +5.16      -6.93     -19.69     -36.86     -55.60
Nevada..........................................    +34.86    +71.52    +108.03    +143.22    +177.25    +208.69
New Mexico......................................     -2.17    -27.98    -110.71    -239.60    -415.21    -612.64
Utah............................................    -10.91    -22.30     -34.56     -47.71     -61.06     -74.13
Wyoming.........................................     -0.40     -1.40      -2.41      -3.45      -4.35      -5.22
Colorado River Basin............................    +59.94   +116.15    +178.70    +230.02    +294.76   +392.67 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


National Economic Impacts

    The results below are from the Computable General Equilibrium model 
and represent economic output for the Basin (Table 3). Although the 
projected national economic impacts were positive for all variables, 
there is almost no change in the regional economy.

    Table 3.--Results of Computable General Equilibrium Model for the   
          Colorado River Basin. (After Brookshire et al. 1994)          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
                                                                 change 
                Variable                    Economic impact        in   
                                                                 economy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Product........................  +$7.92 million......    0.0013
Employment..............................  +710 jobs...........    0.0047
Earnings................................  +$6.62 million......    0.0017
Govt Revenue............................  +$3.20 million......    0.0016
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Exclusion Process

Background

    Pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, critical habitat is 
designated by using the best scientific data available, and in full 
consideration of economic and other impacts of designation. The 
determination on whether to exclude a reach or portion of a reach 
considers: (1) The benefits of including that reach, (2) the benefits 
of excluding a reach, and (3) the effect of that reach, or the 
cumulative effect of excluding more than one reach, on the probability 
of species extinction. If the exclusion of a river reach or portion of 
a reach would result in the eventual extinction of a species, the 
exclusion is prohibited under the Act.
    Exclusion of an area as critical habitat would eliminate the 
protection provided under the destruction or adverse modification 
provision of section 7 for critical habitat. However, it would not 
remove the need to comply with other requirements of the Act for that 
area, such as the ``likely to jeopardize'' prohibition of section 7 
consultation (for Federal actions) and section 9 (take). Section 7 
consultation requirements apply to Federal actions regardless of 
whether or not critical habitat is designated for a particular area.
    The Service determined whether the benefits of inclusion of 
critical habitat areas would outweigh the benefits of their exclusion, 
by using five sequential steps:
    Step 1--Identify areas that meet the definition of critical habitat 
in section 3(5) of the Act and that are considered essential to the 
conservation of the species. This was accomplished, and the areas 
needed for conservation were published in the proposed rule to 
designate critical habitat on January 29, 1993 (58 FR 6578). 
Justifications for these areas were presented in the Draft Biological 
Support Document, which was made available to the public on September 
15, 1993 (58 FR 48351).
    Step 2--Conduct an economic analysis to determine the anticipated 
economic consequences of designating areas as critical habitat. A draft 
report on the economic analysis was completed and made available to the 
public for comment on November 12, 1993 (58 FR 59979).
    Step 3--Develop economic criteria or thresholds to help identify 
those areas that would be significantly affected by the critical 
habitat designation. Comments were requested from the public to aid in 
developing the criteria (November 12, 1993; 58 FR 59979).
    Step 4--Compile the biological information that should be 
considered to determine whether excluding an area would result in 
extinction. Primary consideration was given to information contained in 
published recovery plans. The Service determined whether exclusion of 
an area will result in the extinction of a species.
    Step 5--Conduct the exclusion process. The Service has evaluated 
which areas, if any, should be excluded due to economic or other 
relevant impacts. Prior to this evaluation, economic criteria in the 
form of thresholds (Step 3) were developed to provide a method by which 
the severity of economic impacts could be assessed. Those areas that 
exhibited economic impacts above the thresholds were then examined to 
determine if the biological threshold of extinction would be exceeded 
(Step 4) if the specific area in question was dropped from 
consideration as critical habitat.

Benefits and Costs of Designation

    A public sector analysis examined the allocation of scarce 
resources regarding economic efficiency and distribution or equity 
(Brookshire et al. 1993, 1994). The efficiency criterion addressed 
whether designating areas as critical habitat produces greater net 
benefits than costs. The equity criterion looks at the resulting 
distribution of gains and losses. The Act requires the Service to 
protect threatened and endangered species for all citizens, now and in 
the future. This mandate falls under the national economic efficiency 
concern, where policy adjustments seek to minimize economic efficiency 
losses for society while preserving endangered species.
    The Service does not have a mandated requirement to conduct an 
efficiency-based benefit-cost analysis when carrying out its resource 
protection activities. This is particularly true for species listing 
activities under the Act, where economic considerations are explicitly 
prohibited. During critical habitat designation, however, consideration 
of benefits and costs can occur when ``economic and other relevant 
impacts'' are specifically included as part of the process of final 
determination.
    The economic analysis (Brookshire et al. 1994) only addressed 
market-related benefits and costs. No attempt was made to estimate 
nonmarket values associated with the preservation of the endangered 
fishes. However, the Service recognizes that the benefits of 
preservation are positive. The extant literature addressing the value 
of wildlife resources documents positive benefits for consumptive and 
nonconsumptive uses of wildlife species. The legislative history of the 
Act indicates that Congress believed that the ``worth'' or value of a 
species is incalculable and invaluable. This is supported by the 
Supreme Court interpretation of the Act in TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 
178 (1978). This concept is applicable to the Basin as it represents 
one of the most distinctive collections of flora and fauna in North 
America.
    The economic analysis and data used during the exclusion process 
addressed impacts to: river basin or sub-basin by State, each State as 
a whole, the region, and the Nation. Direct and indirect impacts on 
employment, wages, and State and Federal revenues from business and 
personal income taxes also were considered during the exclusion 
process.

Threshold of Significant Economic Impact

    To establish the threshold for significant economic impact, impacts 
were evaluated in the context of the normal fluctuations of the economy 
(Brookshire et al. 1994). Over the period 1959-1991, the growth rate of 
the national economy (measured as percentage change in Gross Domestic 
Product) varied from -2.2 percent to 6.2 percent. The mean growth rate 
was 2.85 percent (with a standard deviation (SD) of 2.26 percent). Over 
the same period, the average unemployment rate was 5.95 percent 
(SD=1.52 percent). Impacts that lie within this range are within the 
normal fluctuations of the economy and are able to be absorbed by the 
economy. A conservative threshold for significant impacts would be a 1 
percent SD from the projected baseline. If changes in employment or 
output due to critical habitat at a State level exceed this threshold, 
then that area of critical habitat should be considered for economic 
exclusion.
    Various flow and nonflow impacts were evaluated in the economic 
analysis (Brookshire et al. 1993, 1994). Impacts associated with 
providing flows for fishes, including reoperation of mainstream dams, 
constituted the greatest monetary impacts. Flows in one reach may be 
dependent on the flows from reaches upstream. Therefore, even though a 
reach may be excluded for economic reasons, those economic impacts may 
not disappear due to downstream flow requirements of the fish. Thus, 
the smallest unit examined for economic impact was an individual river 
except for the mainstem Colorado River, which was by river reach.
    Many of the critical habitat reaches were designated for more than 
one of the endangered fishes. Therefore, some reaches were needed for 
the eventual recovery of one species, and also needed to prevent 
extinction of another. The dual nature of many of the designated 
reaches and other issues made the exclusion process complex.

Conservation and Extinction as Factors in Designating Critical Habitat

    The Act defines ``conservation'' to include the use of all means 
necessary to bring about the recovery of an endangered or threatened 
species. Section 7(a)(2) prohibitions against the destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat apply to actions that would 
impair survival and recovery of a listed species. As a result of the 
link between critical habitat and recovery, these prohibitions should 
protect the value of critical habitat until recovery. Survival and 
recovery, mentioned in the definitions of adverse modification and 
jeopardy, are conceptually related. The survival of a species may be 
viewed, in part, as a progression between extinction and recovery of 
the species. The closer a species is to recovery, the greater the 
certainty of its continued survival. The terms ``survival'' and 
``recovery'' differ by the degree of confidence about the ability of a 
species to persist in nature over a given period.
    Critical habitat consists of areas that contain elements that are 
essential to the conservation of a listed species. Critical habitat 
identifies areas that should be considered in the conservation effort 
and provides additional protection to those areas through section 7 
consultation. Critical habitat is designated to contribute to a 
species' conservation; however, not all areas proposed as critical 
habitat may be necessary to prevent extinction. Consequently, some 
areas or portions of areas may be excluded due to economic 
considerations, provided that such exclusions would not result in the 
extinction of the species.
    In its designation of critical habitat for the four Colorado River 
fishes, the Service has identified habitat required for recovery of 
each species and delineated reaches that contain habitat features 
needed for spawning, rearing, feeding, and migration. Species 
conservation is related to a number of factors, such as the number of 
individuals, the amount of habitat, the condition of the species and 
its habitat, the species' reproductive biology, and the genetic 
composition of the remaining populations. Through its previous efforts 
(e.g., section 7 consultation, research), the Service also has 
identified biologically important areas that still support these 
endangered fish. Additionally, important reaches have been identified 
in recovery plans for the Colorado squawfish, humpback chub, and 
bonytail chub. The Recovery Implementation Programs in the Upper 
Colorado River and San Juan River Basins have also identified essential 
reaches for these species. Although all areas proposed are important to 
conservation, those areas currently supporting the largest remaining 
populations may be key to the long-term survival of these species. 
Additionally, the physical and ecological relationships between these 
areas are an important consideration.
    Extinction of the four Colorado River fishes would most likely 
occur as a result of the presence and continued introductions of 
nonnative fishes, significant changes in the hydrologic cycle, 
increased fragmentation and channelization of their habitat, and 
decreased water quality. Although a single action could result in 
extinction, the cumulative reduction in suitable habitat resulting from 
many actions also could lead to species extinction. Because these 
species are long-lived, the specific effects of some impacts are 
difficult to establish. Therefore, the exclusion analysis focuses not 
only on specific rivers and/or reaches, but also on their relationship 
to other reaches in evaluating whether or not extinction would be 
probable if a reach were excluded. Such factors as: (1) Current 
population status, (2) habitat quality (e.g., presence of spawning 
sites, nursery areas, and condition of the habitat), (3) geographical 
distribution of the populations, (4) genetic variability within the 
population, and (5) the relationship between critical habitat units 
were considered.
    In order to determine river reaches required to prevent extinction 
(ensure survival) of these fishes, the Service relied upon available 
biological information and approved recovery plans. Information 
relating to the species' biological and ecological needs, such as 
habitat, reproduction, rearing, and genetics, was used in determining 
if an area was needed to prevent extinction of the species. Where 
enough information was available, specific recovery plans presented 
downlisting and delisting criteria. Downlisting criteria were generally 
equated to the survival level; delisting criteria were related to the 
recovery level. Because no recovery plan has been prepared for the 
razorback sucker, reaches required for its survival (downlisting) and 
recovery (delisting) may change as a recovery plan is developed by the 
Service and the Colorado River Fishes Recovery Team.

Exclusion

    After considering the economic and other factors that may be 
pertinent to any decision to exclude areas from designation as critical 
habitat, including information provided during the public comment 
period, the Service determined that no exclusions were justified due to 
economic and other relevant impacts.

Critical Habitat Designation

    Critical habitat for each species is shown by State in Figure 1 and 
summarized in Table 4. The 100-year flood plain delineates the lateral 
boundary of the critical habitat for the razorback sucker and Colorado 
squawfish. This boundary encompasses the productive areas adjacent to 
the rivers, including the confluence of smaller tributaries and other 
habitats that provide essential fish habitat when inundated.

Figure 1. Map of combined critical habitat for the four Colorado River 
endangered fishes.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR21MR94.000


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

        Table 4.--River Kilometers (Miles) of Critical Habitat for Four Endangered Colorado River Fishes        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Razorback     Colorado     Humpback     Bonytail              
                     State                          sucker     squawfish       chub         chub       Total\1\ 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado.......................................         349          583           95           95          583 
                                                       (217)        (362)         (59)         (59)        (362)
Utah...........................................        1107         1168          224          224         1172 
                                                       (688)        (726)        (139)        (139)        (728)
New Mexico.....................................          63           97   ...........  ...........          97 
                                                        (39)         (60)  ...........  ...........         (60)
Arizona........................................         832   ...........         291   ...........         832 
                                                       (517)  ...........        (181)  ...........        (517)
AZ/Nevada......................................         209   ...........  ...........         103          209 
                                                       (130)  ...........  ...........         (64)        (130)
AZ/California..................................         214   ...........  ...........          80          294 
                                                       (133)  ...........  ...........         (50)        (183)
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Basin Total\2\...........................        2776         1848          610          502         3188 
                                                      (1724)       (1148)        (379)        (312)    \3\(1980)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total--Distances include all overlapping critical habitat reaches by State for all four Colorado River       
  endangered fish.                                                                                              
\2\Basin Total--Distances include total extent of critical habitat by species for the entire Basin.             
\3\Total Basin Total--Note that the sum of critical habitat by species is greater than actual river distance due
  to extensive overlap.                                                                                         

Razorback Sucker

    The Service is designating 15 reaches of the Colorado River system 
as critical habitat for the razorback sucker. These reaches total 2,776 
km (1,724 mi) as measured along the center line of the river within the 
subject reaches (Table 4). This represents approximately 49 percent of 
the historical habitat for the species. In the Upper Basin, critical 
habitat is designated for portions of the Green, Yampa, Duchesne, 
Colorado, White, Gunnison, and San Juan Rivers. Portions of the 
Colorado, Gila, Salt, and Verde Rivers are designated in the Lower 
Basin. These reaches flow through a variety of landownerships, both 
public and private. The amount of critical habitat for the razorback 
sucker by landownership in kilometers of shoreline is presented in 
Table 5. 

   Table 5.--Ownership of Shoreline in Kilometers (Miles) for Critical  
          Habitat for the Endangered Colorado River Fishes\1\           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Razorback     Colorado     Humpback     Bonytail 
    Ownership\2\         sucker     squawfish       chub         chub   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPS.................       1,955          900          545          676 
                          (1,215)        (559)        (338)        (420)
BLM.................       1,140        1,119          203          114 
                            (708)        (695)        (126)         (71)
USFS................         380            0            0            0 
                            (236)  ...........  ...........  ...........
USFWS...............         159           35            0           40 
                             (99)         (22)  ...........         (25)
Tribal..............         894          451          444           97 
                            (555)        (280)        (276)         (60)
State Lands.........          63           79            1           40 
                             (39)         (49)         (<1)         (25)
Private.............         960        1,112           27           37 
                            (596)        (691)         (17)         (23)
                     ---------------------------------------------------
      Total.........       5,551        3,696        1,220        1,005 
                          (3,448)      (2,296)        (758)        (624)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The river distances shown in this table were compiled using total    
  shoreline kilometers (assuming 1 kilometer of river centerline has 2  
  kilometers of shoreline) for each critical habitat reach. There is    
  considerable overlap of critical habitat reaches between species;     
  thus, total miles of designated critical habitat for all four Colorado
  River endangered fish cannot be obtained from this table.             
\2\NPS--National Park Service; BLM--Bureau of Land Management; USFS--   
  U.S. Forest Service; USFWS--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.           

Colorado Squawfish

    The Service designates six reaches of the Colorado River System as 
critical habitat for the Colorado squawfish. These reaches total 1,848 
km (1,148 mi) as measured along the center line of each reach (Table 
4). This represents about 29 percent of the historical habitat of this 
species. Critical habitat is designated in portions of the Colorado, 
Green, Yampa, White, and San Juan Rivers in the Upper Basin. There is 
no critical habitat designated for this species in the Lower Basin. The 
approximate number of shoreline miles of critical habitat by 
landownership for the Colorado squawfish is presented in Table 5.

Humpback Chub

    The Service designates seven reaches of the Colorado River system 
as critical habitat for the humpback chub. These reaches total 610 km 
(379 mi) as measured along the center line of the subject reaches 
(Table 4). This represents approximately 28 percent of the historical 
habitat of the species. Critical habitat for the humpback chub is 
designated for portions of the Colorado, Green, and Yampa Rivers in the 
Upper Basin and the Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers in the Lower 
Basin. The approximate extent of critical habitat by landownership of 
shoreline for the humpback chub is presented in Table 5.

Bonytail Chub

    The Service is designating seven reaches of the Colorado River 
system as critical habitat for the bonytail chub. These reaches total 
499 km (312 mi) as measured along the center line of the subject 
reaches (Table 4). This represents approximately 14 percent of the 
historical habitat of the species. Critical habitat for the bonytail 
chub is designated for portions of the Colorado, Green, and Yampa 
Rivers in the Upper Basin and the Colorado River in the Lower Basin. 
The approximate extent of critical habitat for the bonytail chub is 
presented by landownership of shoreline in Table 5.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in 
conservation actions by Federal, State, local and private groups, and 
individuals. The Act provides for possible land and water acquisitions 
in cooperation with States and requires that recovery actions be 
carried out for all listed species. The requirements for Federal 
agencies with respect to protection of designated critical habitat of a 
federally listed species and prohibitions against taking are discussed 
below.
    The Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in 
the Upper Colorado River Basin (RIP) is a cooperative effort to recover 
the endangered fish in the Upper Basin (Green and Colorado Rivers only) 
while providing for water development to proceed in a manner compatible 
with applicable State and Federal laws. The RIP was implemented in 
January 1988 by a Cooperative Agreement signed by the Governors of 
Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming; the Secretary of the Interior; and the 
Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration. The process for 
conducting section 7 consultations on water projects was outlined in 
the RIP and further clarified by an October 15, 1993, final agreement 
on section 7 consultation.
    The RIP provides the reasonable and prudent alternative to avoid 
the likelihood of jeopardy to the continued existence of the endangered 
fishes due to depletion impacts of new projects, and all existing or 
past impacts related to historical projects (with the exception of the 
discharge of pollutants by historical projects). Program participants 
also intend that the RIP will provide the reasonable and prudent 
alternative that will avoid the likely destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat currently being designated for the 
endangered fishes. A Recovery Action Plan (RIPRAP) that identifies 
specific actions and time frames needed to recover the endangered 
fishes was developed by the RIP. The RIPRAP will be used by the Service 
in determining if the RIP is achieving sufficient progress as a 
reasonable and prudent alternative to jeopardy. The RIP intends to 
analyze and amend the RIPRAP as appropriate, so that it can serve as 
the reasonable and prudent alternative to avoid the likely destruction 
or adverse modification of critical habitat. The Service considers that 
the RIP has made sufficient progress to serve as a reasonable and 
prudent alternative to jeopardy for projects that deplete less than 3.7 
cubic hectometers (hm\3\)(3,000 acre-feet). For projects depleting more 
than 3.7 hm\3\ (3,000 acre-feet), the Service identifies actions in the 
RIPRAP that must be completed to avoid jeopardy.
    As a result of reasonable and prudent alternatives to the Animas-
LaPlata Project provided in the Biological Opinion issued on October 
25, 1991 by the Service, the Bureau of Reclamation agreed to fund 7 
years of research and to develop a Recovery Implementation Program for 
the San Juan River. On October 24, 1991, a Memorandum of Understanding 
was signed by the Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs, States of Colorado and New Mexico, the Ute Mountain 
Indian Tribe, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, and the Jicarilla Apache 
Indian Tribe to set forth certain agreements and to establish a San 
Juan Recovery Implementation Program (SJRIP). The SJRIP provides the 
basis for the recovery of the endangered fishes of the San Juan River.
    The 7-year research effort focuses on observing the biological 
response of endangered fish populations to habitat conditions after the 
reoperation of Navajo Dam to meet the needs of the Colorado squawfish 
and razorback sucker. The recovery elements define the major categories 
of activities that will be conducted to recover endangered fish species 
and maintain the native fish community in the San Juan River Basin. 
Intensive studies are being conducted by the SJRIP to determine the 
relative abundance and distribution of endangered fishes and other 
native and nonnative fishes. Modification and loss of habitat, fish 
poisoning, and nonnative fishes have contributed to the decline of the 
Colorado squawfish and razorback sucker in the San Juan River Basin. 
Regulating structures, such as Navajo Dam, can be operated to control 
river flow and temperatures to affect the quantity and quality of 
habitats in certain river reaches during periods when they are most 
critical to endangered fish species. After determining appropriate flow 
needs, the Biology Committee of the SJRIP, with input from the Bureau 
of Reclamation, will recommend specific flow regimes to the Service. It 
is anticipated that the water for habitat improvement will be provided 
by the reoperation of Navajo Dam.
    The Bureau of Reclamation has agreed that it will operate Navajo 
Dam to provide a more natural hydrograph, if the research shows this 
type of hydrograph is beneficial to recovery of endangered species and 
the native fish community. If habitat and flow needs are identified 
that cannot be met by reoperation of Navajo Dam, additional sources of 
water to meet those needs will be identified on a case-specific basis. 
The success of the SJRIP is contingent upon the legal protection of 
water released for habitat flows pursuant to Federal, State, and tribal 
laws.
    To date, 15 years of research and $18 million have been spent in 
fish stocking and research on these fish species in the Lower Basin. A 
combined research and management effort continues in the Lower Basin. 
This effort involves researchers from Arizona State University, Arizona 
Game and Fish Department, Nevada Department of Wildlife, California 
Fish and Game Department, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land 
Management, and the Service. These groups are currently developing 
protected grow-out areas in lakes Mohave and Havasu for razorback 
sucker and bonytail. To date, this effort has shown great potential. 
Additionally, there was a 10-year effort to restore razorback suckers 
and Colorado squawfish into the Gila River drainage.
    An extensive research program has been initiated as part of the 
Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES) to determine life history and 
ecology of the humpback chub in the Grand Canyon. The humpback chub was 
one of the initial species listed under the Act. In 1978, the Service 
issued a jeopardy Biological Opinion on the existing operation of Glen 
Canyon Dam, but needed further research to determine what actions are 
needed to benefit the listed fish. At that time, limited information 
existed on the distribution, abundance, life history, and habitat use 
for the Grand Canyon populations in the Colorado River mainstem and its 
associated tributaries. The inception of these studies is an outcome of 
the initial GCES/Phase I effort and Service conservation measures 
developed as part of long-term recovery effort for the species. The 
research program involves a coordinated effort among four principal 
entities (Arizona State University, Arizona Game and Fish Department, 
Bureau of Reclamation, and the Service), each addressing specific study 
objectives. This program is part of the short-term experimental 
research for the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement. A 
commitment to a long-term research and monitoring program exists and 
will function as a conduit for the culmination of additional 
information generated through the endangered species research.

Relationship of Critical Habitat to Other Provisions of the Act

Introduction

    The purpose of the Act, as stated in section 2(b), is to provide a 
means to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened 
species depend, and to provide a program for the conservation of listed 
species. Section 2(c)(1) of the Act states that ``* * * all Federal 
departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and 
threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance 
of the purposes of this Act.'' Conservation requirements of species 
listed as endangered or threatened under the Act include recovery 
actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against 
certain practices.
    The Act provides for the conservation of listed species through 
several mechanisms, such as section 5 (land acquisition); section 6 
(Federal grants to States, and research); section 7 (requiring Federal 
agencies to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out 
conservation programs, and insuring that Federal actions will not 
likely jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat); 
section 9 (prohibition of taking of listed species); and section 10 
(permits for scientific purposes or to enhance propagation and survival 
of listed species and habitat conservation planning on non-Federal 
lands).
    Critical habitat designation is primarily intended to identify the 
habitat needed for survival and recovery. Such designation is not a 
management or conservation plan, and designation of critical habitat 
does not offer specific direction for managing habitat. That type of 
direction, as well as any change in management priorities, will come 
through the administration of other parts of the Act (e.g., section 7, 
section 10 permit process, and recovery planning) and through 
development of management plans for specific species or areas. However, 
the designation of critical habitat in an area can result in additional 
protection for that area through administration of section 7 of the 
Act.

Recovery Planning

    Recovery plans developed under section 4(f) of the Act guide much 
of the Service's recovery activities and promote conservation and 
eventual delisting of species. Recovery plans address the steps needed 
to recover a species throughout its range and provide a mechanism for 
implementation. Recovery plans provide guidance, which may include 
population goals, and usually include identification of areas in need 
of protection or special management. Recovery plans can include 
management recommendations for areas proposed or designated as critical 
habitat. Recovery plans for the Colorado River endangered fishes may be 
modified to include specific recommendations for managing critical 
habitat. A recovery plan is not a regulatory document, but a plan may 
identify recommendations for implementing actions and managing critical 
habitat on Federal lands, and considerations for management of critical 
habitat on other land.
    In compliance with section 7(a)(1) of the Act, Federal agencies 
should incorporate recommendations and goals provided within recovery 
plans for these species into land and water management plans. 
Biologically sound plans offer opportunities for resolving conflicts 
between development interests and endangered species conservation and 
provide a basis for present and future management decisions. Valid and 
acceptable management prescriptions contained in land and water 
development plans can help guide the Service and other agencies in 
managing critical habitat for the Colorado River endangered fishes and 
other listed and nonlisted species.

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act applies only to Federal agencies and 
requires them to insure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry 
out are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 
This Federal responsibility accompanies, and is in addition to the 
requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act that Federal agencies insure 
that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of any listed species. Jeopardy is defined in the section 7 regulations 
(50 CFR 402.02) as any action that would be expected to appreciably 
reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of a species in the wild 
by reducing its numbers, reproduction, or distribution. Destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat is defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as 
a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value 
of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed 
species. The regulations also state that such alterations include, but 
are not limited to, alterations destroying or adversely modifying any 
of those physical or biological features that were the basis for 
determining the habitat to be critical. The requirement to consider 
potential adverse modification of critical habitat is necessary and in 
addition to the review necessary to evaluate the likelihood of jeopardy 
in a section 7 consultation.
    As required by 50 CFR 402.14, a Federal agency must consult with 
the Service if one of its actions may affect either a listed species or 
its critical habitat. Federal action agencies are responsible for 
determining whether or not to consult with the Service. The Service 
will review agencies' determinations on a case-by-case basis and may or 
may not concur with the agencies' determination of ``no effect'' or 
``may affect'' for critical habitat, as appropriate. Section 7 
consultation is initiated by a Federal agency when its actions may 
affect critical habitat by impacting any of the primary constituent 
elements or reduce the potential of critical habitat to develop these 
elements. The consultation also would take into consideration Federal 
actions outside of critical habitat that also may impact a critical 
habitat reach (e.g., water management, water quality, water depletions, 
and nonnative fish stocking or introductions). Though a Federal action 
may not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, it still may 
affect one or more of the Colorado River endangered fishes and their 
habitat and could be subject to consultation under section 7 of the Act 
to determine the likelihood of jeopardy to the species.
    A number of Federal entities fund, authorize, or carry out actions 
that may affect areas the Service has designated as critical habitat. 
Among these are the Western Area Power Administration, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land 
Management, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of 
Mines, Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service, Corps of Engineers, Army, 
Air Force, Environmental Protection Agency, Housing and Urban 
Development, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Federal Highway 
Administration.

Basis for Section 7 Analysis

    Designation of critical habitat focuses on the primary constituent 
elements within the defined areas and the contribution of these 
elements to the species' recovery, based on consideration of the 
species' biological needs and factors that contribute to survival and 
recovery. The evaluation of actions that may affect critical habitat 
for the Colorado River endangered fishes should consider the effects of 
the action on any of the factors that were the basis for determining 
the habitat to be critical. These include the primary constituent 
elements of water, physical habitat, and biological environment, as 
well as the contribution of the reach and the local sites to recovery. 
The desired outcome of section 7 compliance should be to avoid further 
reductions in the capability of the habitat to support Colorado River 
endangered fishes (e.g., the type of activities that led to listing, 
such as depletions, predation, competition, fragmentation, and habitat 
degradation).
    For wide-ranging species, such as the Colorado River endangered 
fishes, where multiple critical habitat reaches are designated, each 
reach has a local and a rangewide role in contributing to the 
conservation of the species. The loss of a single piece of habitat may 
not jeopardize the continued existence of the species, but it may 
reduce the ability of critical habitat to contribute to recovery. In 
some cases, the loss of a site containing a primary constituent element 
could result in local population instability. This could have a 
detrimental effect on the reach or that portion of the reach where the 
loss occurred and could preclude recovery or reduce the likelihood of 
survival of the species. Each critical habitat reach is dependent upon 
conditions in adjacent reaches, whether or not those reaches were 
designated critical habitat. Consideration must therefore be given to 
Federal actions that would take place both within and outside of a 
critical habitat reach. Degradation of a critical habitat reach, 
regardless of the source of that degradation, may impact the survival 
and recovery of the species.
    The level of disturbance a particular critical habitat reach could 
withstand and still fulfill its intended purpose is variable for each 
species and each area of the Basin. Any proposed activity will need to 
be reviewed in the context of affected species, habitat condition, and 
project location. Because of the habitat overlap among these species, 
it may be difficult to completely separate out the effects of a 
particular action on any one species.
    The designation of seasonally unoccupied habitat to provide for the 
conservation (recovery) of a listed species adds another dimension to 
the analysis. Because listed species are not always present in these 
habitats, it may not be possible to reach a ``jeopardy'' finding for 
actions affecting that habitat. However, it may be possible to conclude 
``destruction or adverse modification'' for a species if designated 
critical habitat is affected and its value for conservation of the 
species is diminished.

Examples of Proposed Actions

    For any final regulation that designates critical habitat, section 
4(b)(8) of the Act requires a brief description and evaluation of those 
activities (public or private) that may adversely modify such habitat 
or may be affected by such designation. Destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat is defined as a direct or indirect 
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat 
for both survival and recovery of a listed species. Some activities may 
disturb or remove the primary constituent elements within designated 
critical habitat for the Colorado River endangered fishes. These 
activities may include, among others, actions that would reduce the 
volume and timing of water, destroy or block off spawning and nursery 
habitat, prevent recruitment, adversely impact food sources, 
contaminate the river, or increase predation by and competition with 
nonnative fish. In contrast, other activities may have no effect on the 
critical habitat's primary constituent elements. Activities such as 
recreation (boating, hiking, hunting, etc.), some types of farming, and 
properly managed livestock grazing may not adversely modify critical 
habitat.
    Areas designated as critical habitat for the Colorado River 
endangered fishes support a number of existing and proposed commercial 
and noncommercial activities. Some of the commercial and governmental 
activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat 
include construction and operation of hydroelectric facilities, 
irrigation, flood control, bank stabilization, oil and gas drilling, 
mining, grazing, stocking or introduction of nonnative fishes, 
municipal water supplies, and resort facilities. Commercial activities 
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat include 
nonconsumptive activities such as river float trips, guided sport 
fishing, and excursion boat tours. Noncommercial activities are largely 
associated with private recreation and are not considered likely to 
adversely affect critical habitat. Such activities include boating, 
fishing, and various activities associated with nature appreciation. 
However, it must be emphasized that section 7 of the Act only applies 
to Federal actions (projects, permits, loans, etc.) and that each 
Federal action must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
    Some activities could be considered a benefit to Colorado River 
endangered fishes habitat, such as the Colorado River and San Juan 
River Recovery Implementation Programs and, therefore, would not be 
expected to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Examples of 
activities that could benefit critical habitat in some cases include 
protective measures such as instream flow protection, development of 
backwater or cove habitat that benefits native species, or eradication 
of nonnative fish. However, these activities should be evaluated on a 
case-by-case basis.
    Federal actions related to fisheries management in general require 
close evaluation by the Service. The introduction or stocking of 
nonnative fish may require evaluation under section 7 for both the 
jeopardy and adverse modification standards and to determine whether it 
would constitute taking under section 9. Although the significance of 
predation on eggs, larvae, and juvenile endangered fish species by 
nonnative fish has not been quantified throughout the Basin, this 
impact has been documented for many species of endangered fishes in the 
Basin and is considered a key factor in their decline. Nonnative fishes 
may have other effects on individual fish and critical habitat through 
competition, changes in habitat, and incidental mortality.
    Endangered fish research and management activities are likely to 
affect individual fish or improve the quality and usefulness of habitat 
for the endangered fishes. These types of activities are addressed 
through the section 10 permit process, which includes a section 7 
evaluation to determine the effects of the action.

Reasonable and Prudent Measures

    In cases where destruction or adverse modification is indicated 
(with or without the likelihood of jeopardy), a portion of the economic 
impacts may result from complying with terms and conditions in the 
incidental take statement of a Biological Opinion. An incidental take 
statement is provided in a biological opinion if the Service 
anticipates incidental loss of individuals of the species as a result 
of habitat alteration resulting from a Federal action. The incidental 
take statement outlines the number of individuals and/or amount of 
habitat the Service anticipates will be lost due to the Federal action. 
The Service then identifies reasonable and prudent measures necessary 
to minimize such take and sets forth terms and conditions that the 
Federal agency and/or applicant must comply with to implement the 
reasonable and prudent measures. In some cases, the requirements to 
minimize incidental take (terms and conditions) may be similar to 
reasonable and prudent alternatives developed under an adverse 
modification or jeopardy finding.

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives

    If the Service concludes in a biological opinion that an action 
would likely result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat, the Service is required to provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives, if any, to the proposed action in its biological 
opinion. By definition, reasonable and prudent alternatives allow the 
intended purpose of the proposed action to go forward while avoiding 
the conditions that would adversely modify critical habitat. To 
increase the potential for identifying such alternatives, the Service 
recommends that the agencies initiate discussions early in the planning 
process before plans have advanced to the point where alternatives may 
not be as feasible. If discussions are initiated early, more 
opportunities to reduce impacts may be available. If an adverse 
modification was anticipated, examples of possible reasonable and 
prudent alternatives provided in a biological opinion include those 
noted in Table 6.

   Table 6.--Examples of Possible Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Example Alternatives                          
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relocate the proposed activity to another location within or outside of 
 critical habitat to avoid destruction or adverse modification of       
 habitat.                                                               
                                                                        
Modify the project (physically/operationally) to avoid adverse          
 modification of critical habitat.                                      
                                                                        
Provide offsetting measures to either Colorado River endangered fishes  
 or the critical habitat area by actions such as:                       
  A. acquiring water or securing water rights for Colorado River        
   endangered fishes from other sources to offset a proposed depletion; 
  B. implementing water conservation measures so that no net loss of    
   water occurs;                                                        
  C. enhancing constituent element areas so that a net benefit to       
   Colorado River endangered fishes occurs, i.e., acquiring bottom lands
   and removal or large-scale reductions of nonnative fish within a     
   critical habitat reach; or                                           
  D. undertaking other recovery actions identified in recovery plans,   
   Recovery Implementation Programs, or other approved management plans 
   or activities.                                                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some reasonable and prudent alternatives may only require minor 
modifications to construction and/or operational plans. As an example, 
a proposed boat ramp may need to be relocated a short distance to avoid 
impacting a spawning or nursery area. Projects resulting in more 
significant impacts may require major changes to the original proposal. 
A large irrigation diversion project, as an example, may be likely to 
affect most of the constituent elements of a critical habitat reach and 
also impact adjacent and downstream reaches. The Service may recommend 
reduction in the scope of the project, seasonal timing constraints on 
depletions and operation, and reservoir releases to provide required 
instream flows.

Expected Impacts of Designation

    The Service anticipates that the factors described in this rule and 
the Draft Biological Support Document will be used as a basis for 
determining the environmental impacts of various activities on critical 
habitat. The Service also will use Recovery Action Plans developed 
within the Recovery Implementation Programs of the Upper Basin and the 
San Juan River Basin and recovery plans for the razorback sucker (when 
developed), Colorado squawfish, humpback chub, and bonytail chub during 
consultation to evaluate actions within a critical habitat reach. The 
Service also will use new information as it becomes available.
    Federal actions proposed in critical habitat reaches may or may not 
adversely modify critical habitat, depending on the current condition 
of the area and the degree of impact anticipated from implementation of 
the project. The potential level of allowable impacts or habitat 
reduction in critical habitat reaches will be determined on a case-by-
case basis during section 7 consultation.

Summary of Public Comment

    The Service published the proposed rule to designate critical 
habitat on January 29, 1993 (58 FR 6578). At that time, the Service 
requested comments on all aspects of the proposal including the scope 
of impacts and benefits of the designation. A public comment period was 
opened from January 29, 1993, to March 30, 1993. On March 5, 1993, the 
public comment period was extended to April 15, 1993 (58 FR 12573). 
During this initial 75-day comment period, 686 written or oral comments 
were received by the Service. During the comment period, the Service 
held public hearings on the proposed rule at San Bernardino, 
California, on March 29, 1993; Phoenix, Arizona, on March 30, 1993; and 
Denver, Colorado, on March 31, 1993. In addition to the announcement of 
the public hearings in the Federal Register (58 FR 12573), notices were 
published in the following newspapers: Wyoming--Casper Star-Tribune; 
Colorado--Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News, Northwest Colorado Press, 
Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, Durango Herald; Utah--Salt Lake Tribune, 
Deseret News, Ogden Standard-Examiner, Sun Advocate, Moab Times-
Independent, Vernal Express, Southern Utah News; Arizona--The Arizona 
Republic, Today's Daily News, Eastern Arizona Courier, Arizona Daily 
Sun, Lake Powell Chronicle, Yuma Daily Sun; New Mexico--Farmington 
Times, Santa Fe New Mexican, Albuquerque Journal; Nevada--Las Vegas 
Review Journal; California--San Diego Union Tribune and San Bernardino 
Sun.
    On September 15, 1993, the Service released the Draft Biological 
Support Document to the public for comment (58 FR 48351). The comment 
period on the proposed designation was reopened. On November 12, 1993, 
the Service published a notice announcing the availability of the 
Economic Analysis, the Overview Document, the closing date for public 
comment, a request for information to be used during the exclusion 
process and development of economic exclusion criteria, and the dates 
and locations of additional public hearings (58 FR 59979). The public 
comment period on the proposed rule, the Draft Biological Support 
Document, and the Economic Analysis ended on January 11, 1994. Public 
hearings were held on: November 29, 1993, in Salt Lake City, Utah, and 
Las Vegas, Nevada; November 30, 1993, in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Globe, 
Arizona; December 1, 1993, in Grand Junction, Colorado, and Flagstaff, 
Arizona; December 2, 1993, in Farmington, New Mexico; and December 3, 
1993, in San Bernardino, California. In addition to the announcement in 
the Federal Register and notices in newspapers, a letter was sent to 
all interested parties announcing the dates of the public hearings and 
January 11, 1994, as the closing date for public comment. During this 
comment period 399 written or oral comments were received. Issues 
presented by the public during the comment periods are discussed below.
    Economic and biological information received during the comment 
periods was reviewed and considered. In cases where the information or 
data provided was determined to be valid, changes were made in the 
economic analysis or to the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation. Significant economic data received from the public were 
incorporated into the economic models prior to the exclusion process. 
Many economic comments received were used to improve the accuracy and 
readability of the Economic Analysis.
    Of the 1,085 written and oral statements received during the public 
comment periods, 599 were form letters that provided little additional 
information on the proposed designation. Fifty respondents stated their 
support for the critical habitat designation, 947 expressed their 
opposition, and the remainder were neutral. A summary of the issues 
brought forth from these comments and the Service's response is 
provided below.

Administrative Issues

    Issue 1: Numerous respondents stated that the comment period for 
the Draft Biological Support Document, Overview Document, and Economic 
Analysis was not of sufficient length to allow adequate review; 
respondents suggested 120 days or more for adequate review. Respondents 
suggested that public hearings should be held in more locations 
including all areas potentially impacted by the proposed designation.
    Service Response: On any proposal to designate critical habitat, 
the Service is required to provide a minimum comment period of 60 days. 
When a comment period is reopened, it is generally for up to 30 days. 
The Service opened a 60-day comment period on the proposed rule to 
designate critical habitat for the four endangered Colorado River 
fishes. The comment period was extended for an additional 15 days.
    Because the Draft Biological Support Document and Economic Analysis 
were not complete at the time of the proposed rule, the Service 
reopened the comment period for an additional 60 days rather than the 
more usual 30 days. Therefore, in total the comment period was 192 
days. A longer comment period was not possible because of the court 
order to publish a final rule by March 15, 1994.
    Three public hearings were held after publication of the proposed 
rule, and an additional eight public hearings were held to receive 
comment on the proposal including the economic analysis; one in each of 
the seven Basin States and an additional hearing in Arizona. Any 
additional hearings would not have met fiscal and time constraints of 
the critical habitat designation.
    Issue 2: A few respondents suggested that the Service publish a 
revised proposed rule to allow for additional public comment before 
making a final decision or that the Service should prepare a draft 
final rule and make that available to the public before finalizing the 
critical habitat designation.
    Service Response: The standard rulemaking process requires 
preparation of a proposed rule followed by a final rule. Publishing a 
revised proposed rule or a draft final rule is not required unless 
revisions are necessary that will result in an increased regulatory 
burden in the revised rule. Furthermore, on November 19, 1993, the 
Court directed the Service not to publish an interim final rule. 
Publishing the Draft Biological Support Document and Economic Analysis 
for public comment provided additional opportunities for public 
involvement. All comments received on the Draft Biological Support 
Document and the Economic Analysis were analyzed, considered, and where 
appropriate those comments were considered during the exclusion process 
and included in the final rule.
    Issue 3: Some respondents questioned whether critical habitat 
should have been proposed without first completing the biological and 
economic analyses and stated that it was difficult to comment on the 
proposed rule until these documents were made available to the public.
    Service Response: Designation of critical habitat normally would 
have allowed preparation of the Draft Biological Support Document and 
Economic Analysis prior to publishing the proposed rule. The Service 
argued in court that the biological support information and economic 
analysis should be completed for release with the proposed rule. 
However, a court order compelled the Service to focus exclusively on 
development of the proposed rule. The Service recognized that the 
sequence would make substantive comments on the proposed rule difficult 
to prepare. For this reason the Service provided an Overview, a Draft 
Biological Support Document, and an Economic Analysis for public review 
and comment prior to preparation of a final rule. The Service 
considered all public comments on these documents and the proposed rule 
during the exclusion process and final rule preparation.
    Issue 4: Many respondents stated that the Service should prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and comply with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because the designation would have 
significant impact on the human environment.
    Service Response: The United States District Court for the District 
of Oregon in Douglas County v. Manuel Lujan (Civil No. 91-6423-HO) 
ruled that critical habitat designations should be analyzed under NEPA. 
However, such decision is stayed pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
    The 1981 Sixth Circuit Court decision in Pacific Legal Foundation 
v. Andrus (657 F.2d 829) held that an EIS is not required for listings 
under the Act. The decision noted that preparing an EIS on a listing 
action would not further the goals of NEPA or the Act. The Service 
believes that the reasoning behind this decision is sound and that 
preparing an EIS on the proposed critical habitat designation would not 
further the goals of NEPA or the Act. The NEPA documentation should be 
done on management plans and activities that involve critical habitat; 
section 7 consultation is conducted on those actions. Additionally, the 
Service believes that the Draft Biological Support Document and 
Economic Analysis provide the public and decision makers the same 
information that is generally supplied in a NEPA document 
(environmental impact statement or environmental assessment).
    Issue 5: Many respondents were concerned that critical habitat 
designation would result in ``takings'' of water rights and other 
private property.
    Service Response: The Service prepared a ``Takings Implications 
Assessment'' under provisions of Executive Order 12630 to address this 
issue. The Service has concluded that the promulgation of the rule 
designating critical habitat will not take water rights or other 
private property. Although there may be cases where land or water use 
may be conditioned, it is unlikely that use would be prohibited. 
Moreover, the Service does not anticipate any takings implications 
associated with other Federal agency actions resulting from the 
designation and if there were to be any, it is unlikely that they would 
be significant.
    Issue 6: Tribal representatives stated that tribal lands are 
sovereign and therefore should not be designated.
    Service Response: The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 
applies to any entity or individual subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States. No area or entity within the boundaries of the United 
States is exempt from the Act. The Act requires that the Service base 
designation of critical habitat on the best scientific information, 
taking into consideration economic and other relevant impacts, and that 
areas be excluded only if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion. The Act does not provide for categorical 
exemption of tribal lands from critical habitat designation, or other 
provisions, when scientific studies indicate the lands contain 
important habitat. Section 9 prohibits take of listed fish or wildlife 
on private and tribal lands, including destruction of habitat that 
results in the take of such wildlife. Section 7 applies to any Federal 
agency that authorizes, funds or carries out actions that are likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a species or destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat. This includes Federal actions involving tribal 
lands that may affect critical habitat.
    Issue 7: Representatives of tribal governments stated that 
designating critical habitat on tribal lands violates the Federal 
Government's trust responsibility.
    Service Response: As stated above, the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended, applies to all areas of the United States, including 
tribal lands. The Service does not agree that inclusion of tribal lands 
violates the Federal Government's trust responsibility. Mere 
designation of critical habitat does not affect tribal lands unless a 
Federal action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat. The requirement to consider adverse modification of critical 
habitat is an incremental section 7 consideration above and beyond 
review to evaluate jeopardy and incidental take of the species. The 
Service will work with tribes to develop reasonable and prudent 
alternatives for any adverse modification finding and to live up to the 
Federal Government's trust responsibility and to maintain compliance 
with the Act.
    Issue 8: Several respondents stated that critical habitat should 
not be designated until a recovery plan is completed for the razorback 
sucker.
    Service Response: The Act requires that critical habitat be 
designated concurrently with a species' listing or within 2 years of 
the proposal to list the species. Only if the Service determines that 
identification of critical habitat is ``not prudent'' (i.e., will not 
be of net benefit to the species) is designation not required by the 
Act. The Service has determined that critical habitat for these species 
is determinable and that designation is prudent. The Service proposed 
listing of the razorback sucker on May 22, 1990 (55 FR 21154); 
therefore, the designation of critical habitat for this species should 
have been completed by May 22, 1992. The Act also requires the Service 
to prepare a recovery plan for any listed species likely to benefit 
from one; although no timeframe is mandated, Service policy provides 
that such plans shall be completed within 30 months following listing. 
Therefore, the timeframes imposed by the Act usually necessitate the 
designation of critical habitat before a recovery plan can be approved. 
Finally, the Court has ordered designation by March 15, 1994.
    Issue 9: A few respondents suggested that critical habitat should 
only have been designated for the razorback sucker and not for all four 
species at the same time.
    Service Response: The Service was ordered by the Court to designate 
critical habitat for the razorback sucker with no mention of the other 
three endangered Colorado River fish. However, because the intent of 
the Act is ``* * * to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which 
endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved * * 
*,'' the Service also decided to propose critical habitat for the 
Colorado squawfish, humpback chub, and bonytail chub. These fishes 
coexist in the Basin and much of their habitats overlap. However, for 
species that do not have a requirement to designate critical habitat, 
the Service may designate critical habitat at any time. The designation 
of critical habitat for four species in a single rule is more cost- and 
time-effective than designating critical habitat separately for each 
species.
    Issue 10: The public believed that they should be more involved in 
the decision process and suggested that workgroups be established to 
designate critical habitat that involved affected groups.
    Service Response: Through comments provided on the proposed rule, 
Draft Biological Support Document, and Economic Analysis, the public 
provided information considered by the Service in the decision process. 
The Service, acting through its economic contractors, obtained 
additional information from affected groups needed to complete the 
Economic Analysis. The process of asking for comments and holding 
hearings is the Service's standard procedure for involving the public 
in decision making regarding listing of species and designation of 
critical habitat.
    Issue 11: Various groups involved in recovery efforts for the four 
fishes asked how critical habitat will relate to existing RIP's.
    Service Response: Critical habitat is an inventory of habitat 
needed for survival and recovery and not a plan providing goals or 
guidance toward achieving recovery. The Recovery Implementation 
Programs for the Colorado and San Juan Rivers (RIP's) have, as their 
goal, recovery of these four fish species. Therefore, the designation 
of critical habitat is not in conflict with the stated goal of the 
RIP's. It is the intent of the Service that recovery actions under the 
auspices of the RIP's will serve as reasonable and prudent alternatives 
to adverse modification.
    Issue 12: A few respondents believed that the designation included 
so much area that it would not be manageable.
    Service Response: The Service's designation includes many miles of 
the Basin's major rivers covering the areas needed for the survival and 
recovery of the species involved. Extensive areas are required to meet 
all the life history requirements of these four fishes.
    Issue 13: A few respondents stated that critical habitat 
designation is not ``prudent and/or determinable.''
    Service Response: On October 27, 1992, the Court ruled that the 
Service had violated the Act in failing to designate critical habitat 
when the razorback sucker was listed. The Court ordered the Service to 
have a proposed rule designating critical habitat for the razorback 
sucker published by January 25, 1993, using presently available 
information and to have a more complete final rule published at the 
earliest time permitted by the Act and its regulations.
    The language in the Act and Service regulations at 50 CFR 424.12 
for determining prudency indicate that unless the designation will not 
be of net benefit to the species, it is prudent to designate critical 
habitat. If the Service finds that critical habitat is not determinable 
at the time, then it must collect the information needed to determine 
it and complete designation within 2 years of the proposed listing. The 
Service has determined that designation in this situation is both 
prudent and determinable.
    Issue 14: Many respondents questioned the effect of critical 
habitat on existing water laws, compacts (including compact 
entitlements), treaties, etc., and indicated that the Service had 
ignored the ``Law of the River.''
    Service Response: Critical habitat designation for the four fishes 
does not modify or nullify any existing State water law, compact 
agreement, or treaty. It is the Service's opinion that the Act, as well 
as other Federal statutes, are part of what is commonly referred to as 
the ``Law of the River''. Impacts to water development opportunities 
within any State are adequately addressed in the Economic Analysis.
    It is the intent of the Service to fully consider State water law, 
interstate compact agreements, and treaties in protecting and 
recovering the four endangered fishes. As an example, the Service has 
worked to establish and to support the Upper Colorado River and San 
Juan River Recovery Implementation Programs, whose participants have 
committed to recover the four endangered fish consistent with State 
water laws and other agreements.
    Issue 15: A few respondents believe that the economic impacts of 
listing the Colorado River fishes as endangered should be accounted for 
in the economic analysis as impacts of designating critical habitat.
    Service Response: The listing of a threatened or endangered species 
is considered a different action than determination of critical 
habitat. At the time of listing, the Service considered biological 
factors in determining to list the four species as endangered. 
Regarding critical habitat, section 4(b)(2) of the Act places 
requirements on the Secretary to consider the economic impact and any 
other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical 
habitat. Economic impacts that result from other requirements of the 
Act that are distinct from critical habitat designation are not 
required to be considered during the economic analysis for critical 
habitat.
    Issue 16: Some respondents were concerned the Service did not seek 
adequate consultation with affected groups.
    Service Response: The Service provided all interested groups as 
much time to comment on the proposed designation as Court orders 
allowed. The timeframes required that existing information be used to 
develop the economic impact model. Economic information has been 
obtained from existing sources and also was requested at the time of 
publication of the proposed rule, Draft Biological Support Document, 
and the Economic Analysis.
    Issue 17: Some individuals believed that private property should 
not be included in the designation.
    Service Response: The Endangered Species Act applies to all areas 
within the United States and contains no biological or legal 
justification for the categorical exclusion of private lands from 
critical habitat designation. The Service designated critical habitat 
based on biological information regarding whether or not an area 
contains the primary constituent elements for critical habitat for the 
four fishes, after taking into account the economic costs associated 
with the critical habitat designation. Critical habitat designation 
only impacts private property if there is an action by a Federal agency 
(permit, funding or other action) that is likely to destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat. The requirement to consider adverse 
modification of critical habitat is an incremental section 7 
consideration above and beyond section 7 review to evaluate jeopardy 
and incidental take of the species.
    Issue 18: A few agencies were concerned that critical habitat 
designation will increase administration/implementation costs of doing 
section 7 consultation.
    Service Response: Section 7 consultation is already being done on 
all Federal projects and other activities in river reaches proposed for 
designation as critical habitat, because all reaches are occupied by 
the endangered fishes. Many of the effects of designation on the 
physical and biological features of the habitat are already considered 
in the analysis of effects of the action to determine if the project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. For most 
projects, the additional analysis required to determine destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat would be small and would not 
significantly increase existing workloads.
    Issue 19: Several respondents stated that the Service was in 
violation of the Endangered Species Act (Act) for designating critical 
habitat more than two years after species, and the Federal Land Policy 
Management Act (FLMA) for failure to comply with required procedures in 
implementing a major management action.
    Service Response: On October 27, 1992, the Court ruled that the 
Service was in violation of the Act because critical habitat had not 
been designated concurrently with the listing of the razorback sucker. 
This designation of critical habitat for the Colorado River endangered 
fishes brings the Service into full compliance with the requirements of 
the Act. In addition, the Service has followed procedural requirements 
for the designation. The Act does not stipulate that critical habitat 
cannot be designated after the initial two year period has passed.
    Designation of critical habitat is not a management action under 
the FLPMA, but an action required by section 4 the Act. Actions 
authorized, funded or carried out by Federal agencies must undergo 
section 7 consultation if they may affect a listed species or critical 
habitat. The Service will determine if such actions are likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of these four endangered fishes or 
destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat. Plans developed 
under FLPMA would be subject to section 7 consultation if it is 
determined that the action may affect the endangered fishes or their 
habitat. Because the designation of critical habitat does not by itself 
create a management plan or automatically exclude certain activities, 
FLPMA does not apply to designation.
    Issue 20: One respondent believed that providing a comment period 
after the Draft Biological Support Document/Economic Analysis was made 
available did not allow for meaningful public comment on the rule.
    Service Response: While the Service would have preferred that the 
Draft Biological Support Document and Economic Analysis be available to 
the public at the time the proposed rule was published, that was not 
possible because of the Court's order. Although not released 
concurrently with the proposed rule, the two documents were written to 
support it, and comments were requested on these documents and 
considered in the exclusion process and in preparation of the final 
rule.
    Issue 21: Several letters requested that the Service provide for 
public comment on the balancing/exclusion process, including holding 
additional public hearings.
    Service Response: The exclusion process is conducted immediately 
prior to preparing a final rule and does not provide for any additional 
public input. All available information is used in the exclusion 
process. This includes information obtained during the public comment 
period. Additional information supplied during the public comment 
period could change the economic costs to certain areas or provide 
additional biological information as to the significance of an area to 
the species. Information relating to the Exclusion Process was provided 
in the ``Overview of the Critical Habitat Designation for the Colorado 
River Endangered Fish: Draft'' published November 1993 (Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City) and made available to the public (58 
FR 59979). That document stated that ``* * * information and comments 
are welcome on the overall exclusion process, recommendations on 
economic criteria for use in the exclusion determination, any other 
benefits associated with exclusion, benefits of including proposed 
areas as critical habitat, and information on which areas, if excluded, 
would result in the extinction of any of the four endangered fishes.''
    Issue 22: A few respondents stated that there are no economic 
impacts from listing; therefore, all impacts associated with having 
endangered fish in the Basin should be attributed to critical habitat.
    Service Response: Once a species is listed as endangered or 
threatened, protections under sections 7 and 9 of the Act come into 
force. Section 7 protections are based on the provisions in the Act 
that require all Federal agencies to insure that their actions do not 
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. During formal 
consultation under the Act, reasonable and prudent alternatives 
contained in biological opinions require agencies to insure they do not 
violate the jeopardy standard. Also, implementation of reasonable and 
prudent alternatives in biological opinions may require additional 
costs. The reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions 
covering incidental take included in the biological opinion also may 
require the agency incur costs. The Act also provides direction for all 
Federal agencies to use their authorities to seek to recover threatened 
and endangered species in section 7(a)(1). Providing for recovery 
actions also incurs costs. These costs are all associated with listing 
of a species and are not critical habitat costs.
    Issue 23: One letter stated a concern that the delay in designating 
critical habitat has harmed the endangered fishes.
    Service Response: The Service does not believe that delay in 
designating critical habitat has contributed to the decline of any of 
these four fish species. All four fishes enjoy the protection of the 
Act by virtue of their listing and, in accordance with section 7(a)(4), 
publishing of the proposed critical habitat rule required Federal 
agencies and the Service to confer on potential impacts of any Federal 
action upon proposed critical habitat. Additionally, prior to the 
designation of critical habitat, Federal actions that may affect the 
endangered fish required review for possible jeopardy to the species 
under section 7 of the Act, which reflect to large degree, if not 
completely, the same issues presented by adverse modification of 
critical habitat.
    Issue 24: Several respondents indicated that the Service should set 
recovery goals based on numbers of fish so that it is evident when 
recovery is achieved.
    Service Response: Critical habitat designation is not a management 
or recovery plan. Critical habitat serves to identify those areas where 
conservation efforts should be concentrated but does not dictate what 
those efforts should be, or set goals to measure the success of such 
efforts.
    Recovery goals are appropriately contained in recovery plans. 
Recovery plans generally identify specific actions needed for the 
conservation of the species. Criteria for downlisting or delisting 
contained in recovery plans function as goals to be met to achieve 
species conservation. In the development of recovery plans, species 
experts determine the level of specificity of these goals, based on the 
status of the species and its biology. Goals based on specific numbers 
of individuals are only set if the biology of the species warrant it 
and in cases where reliable population estimates can be made.

Biological Comments

    Issue 25: Some respondents indicated that little or no historic 
information exists that these fish species were ever found in some 
areas proposed for designation. Some believed that razorback suckers 
were not native to Arizona's interior rivers but were introduced there.
    Service Response: The Service selected river reaches for this 
designation that are part of the historical range of these species. 
Historical or recent records regarding the existence and/or presence of 
these fish exist for almost all of these areas. For those few that do 
not have a historical or recent record, information from species 
experts was used, in addition to examination of nearest known locations 
and of the predevelopment river system to determine if the species was 
likely to have been present. Historical records indicate that Arizona's 
interior rivers were inhabited by the razorback sucker, but razorback 
suckers were extirpated by the 1960's. Efforts to reintroduce razorback 
suckers in these areas continue. Convincing evidence was presented 
during the comment period that some areas proposed for designation were 
outside of historical range of the subject species. This resulted in a 
change in boundaries as discussed elsewhere in this final rule.
    Issue 26: Many respondents were concerned that the razorback sucker 
is found in some river reaches only because of stocking 
(reintroduction) programs and that these programs may not have been 
successful.
    Service Response: Natural populations of the razorback sucker were 
extirpated from historical habitats in the Gila, Salt, and Verde Rivers 
by the 1960's. During the late 1970's and into the 1980's, efforts were 
made to reestablish these populations using hatchery reared fish. These 
efforts have not been as successful as hoped, but the Service believes 
that some of the introduced fish have survived in these systems where 
the razorback historically was a native fish.
    Issue 27: A few individuals believed that these species should be 
allowed to go extinct because they cannot adapt to changes in the river 
systems.
    Service Response: The Act provides the means to conserve the 
ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend. 
In section 2(a), the Act finds that wildlife and plant species have 
intrinsic values (aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, 
recreational, and scientific values) that are worth preserving for the 
benefit of all citizens. The Act charges Federal agencies with insuring 
that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species. To fulfill that responsibility, Federal actions that affect 
these fish must provide for the habitat and biological needs of the 
species. Allowing a species to go extinct because it has not adapted to 
rapid habitat changes caused by human development is not permissible 
under the Act.
    Issue 28: Many respondents commented that the Service needs more 
biological data to determine critical habitat and therefore no areas 
should be designated.
    Service Response: The Act specifies that ``The Secretary shall 
designate critical habitat * * * on the basis of the best scientific 
data available * * * .'' The Service has determined that the quantity 
and quality of existing biological data for these species is adequate 
for designation of critical habitat. These fishes have been the subject 
of intense study for over 10 years and a significant amount of 
information has been collected. The Service is confident that the best 
available commercial and scientific data has been used as required by 
the Act and that data is more than adequate to determine critical 
habitat.
    Issue 29: Numerous respondents stated that the designation of 
critical habitat would not benefit these species.
    Service Response: Designation of critical habitat provides an 
avenue to recognize and inventory areas important for the survival and 
recovery of a species. It also provides additional protection under 
section 7 consultations, especially for those areas not continuously 
occupied by individuals of the species, or from the effects of Federal 
actions upstream of the critical habitat.
    Issue 30: Several respondents stated that all habitat in the Basin 
has been degraded and therefore should not be designated as critical 
habitat. Degradation may include seasonal drying of the river or 
portions thereof, changes to temperature and silt/sediment load, 
changes to the historical hydrograph, construction of dams and 
reservoirs, and introduction of nonnative fishes.
    Service Response: The Service agrees that there are no remaining 
pristine river systems in the Basin to designate as critical habitat. 
However, while physical changes to the habitat have occurred, the areas 
proposed for designation maintain or have the potential to continue to 
support populations of these species. The four Colorado River 
endangered fishes species are adaptable to many physical conditions, 
and their survival in modified habitats such as reservoirs is an 
example. Furthermore, management actions to restore areas of physical 
habitat also are possible, so degradation may not be permanent.
    Issue 31: Numerous respondents stated that nonnative fish species 
have adversely affected the endangered species, that the Service was 
primarily responsible for their introduction, and that this effect is 
more important to the survival of these species than changes to 
physical habitat. These respondents maintained that the presence of 
nonnative fish species in an area should preclude that area from 
designation as critical habitat.
    Service Response: The Service recognizes and is concerned about the 
problems with and implications of the presence of nonnative fish 
species in the Basin. There are no river systems in the Basin that do 
not have established populations of nonnative fish species. In areas 
with more natural habitat conditions, the native fish are better able 
to compete with nonnatives. Over time, as habitat is restored, 
management actions to provide for recruitment of native fish to local 
populations can be taken to eliminate or reduce the effects of 
nonnative fish. The Service has and must consider the impacts of 
stocking nonnative fish prior to doing so or funding such actions. In 
the Upper Colorado River Basin, the Service is working with State 
agencies and others to protect these endangered fishes by developing a 
stocking policy for nonnative fishes.
    Issue 32: Respondents indicated that additional areas should be 
included in the designation. Additions were suggested for proposed 
reaches and to rivers currently not included in designation.
    Service Response: The Administrative Procedure Act requires Federal 
agencies to provide appropriate notification of proposed actions prior 
to making final determinations. Therefore, the Service cannot adopt a 
final rule that is significantly more restrictive than the proposed 
rule without first offering the public an opportunity to comment on the 
differences. Notice and public comment may only be waived in special 
cases, such as emergencies or in instances where a proposed amendment 
makes only minor technical changes in a rule. Some of these additional 
areas may warrant designation, and the Service will consider 
designating them at a later date through the rulemaking process with 
proper notice and comment. These areas include the Little Colorado 
River up to Blue Springs for humpback chub, additional areas for 
humpback chub in the Grand Canyon, the Lower Colorado River for 
Colorado squawfish, and the Duchesne River up to the confluence with 
the Uintah River for razorback sucker and Colorado squawfish.
    Issue 33: Many respondents questioned the need to designate flood 
plain areas. Reasons provided include: the river is too regulated to 
allow floods; agricultural, mining, oil and gas, residential, 
transportation facilities, and municipal development has occurred; and 
there will be considerable economic impact. They stated that inclusion 
of flood plain is not biologically supportable. Others recommended 
alternate flood plain elevations.
    Service Response: Large river systems are composed of the 
mainstream channels and adjacent habitats that are inundated during the 
higher water levels that are usually associated with spring flows. 
These seasonally flooded habitats are major contributors to the natural 
productivity of the river system by providing nutrient inputs and 
making terrestrial food sources available to aquatic organisms. The 
extent of flooded wetlands in the Colorado River has been reduced by 
the construction and operation of water resource development projects. 
The remaining flood plain areas have great importance for recovery of 
endangered fish.
    Recent studies in the Colorado River system have shown that the 
life histories and welfare of native riverine fishes are linked with 
the maintenance of a natural or historical flow regimen (i.e., a 
hydrological pattern of high spring and low autumn-winter flows that 
vary in magnitude and duration, depending on annual precipitation 
patterns and runoff from snowmelt). Ichthyologists have predicted that 
stream regulation that results in loss of flooding will result in 
extirpation of native fish species in the Colorado River system.
    Inundated flood plains (bottom land habitats) are important for 
razorback sucker, Colorado squawfish, and perhaps the bonytail and 
humpback chubs. Wooded bottom lands, side and secondary channels, oxbow 
lakes, and flood plain wetlands provide nutrients, food, cover, and 
other features necessary for various life stages of these fish. In 
order to delineate such areas in designating critical habitat, the 
Service used the 100-year flood elevation (100-year flood plain). In no 
way is this determination meant to include all land within the 100-year 
flood plain as critical habitat nor does it imply a specific frequency 
of flooding will be required as part of the rule. Only those areas that 
provide one or more of the constituent elements can be considered for 
inclusion as critical habitat. Areas within the 100-year flood plain 
that have been previously developed are not likely to provide 
constituent elements when flooded.
    Issue 34: Several respondents believed that the four fish species 
do not have enough in common biologically (habitat use, life history, 
etc.) to be included in this single designation. It will be too 
difficult to manage all four fish together.
    Service Response: The historical ranges of the four species 
overlap. While the specific habitat components required by each species 
may not be identical, historical conditions created a variety of 
acceptable habitats within a reach of the river. This variety of 
habitats enabled more than one of the four species to use the area. 
Because the fish naturally coexisted together over much of their 
ranges, management efforts to restore habitats will likely provide the 
diversity of habitat components needed to support these species without 
having to provide discrete and separate management programs.
    Issue 35: Many respondents stated that the area proposed for 
designation was too large.
    Service Response: The size of the critical habitat areas is 
required to ensure that the life history requirements for species can 
be met. Larval drift, migratory behavior, and the need to maintain 
genetic diversity within species necessitates large reaches of river be 
designated. The Draft Biological Support Document provided life history 
information that discusses in detail those aspects that influence the 
amount of habitat required for survival and recovery. The designation 
meets the intent of the Act in not designating the entire historic 
ranges of these species.
    Issue 36: Several respondents maintained that management of these 
areas should be the responsibility of the land owning agency, tribal 
governments, or private property owners, and that other laws provide 
for the management of wildlife and fish, making designation of critical 
habitat unnecessary.
    Service Response: Federal agencies are responsible under the Act to 
insure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of 
or adversely modify or destroy the critical habitat of a listed 
species. They are required to consider the presence of these species in 
their management. No other Federal or State law provides this level of 
protection for these resources. Non-Federal entities (States, tribes, 
or individuals) are not bound to consider critical habitat unless they 
are receiving Federal funding or permits to undertake a management 
action on their lands. In that case, the Federal agency's 
responsibility is invoked.
    Issue 37: Some letters indicated that the selection of boundaries 
appeared related to landmarks rather than strictly for biological 
reasons.
    Service Response: Exact reach endpoints and/or boundaries were 
indeed chosen for landmarks recognizable to an on-the-ground observer. 
The Service believes that it is important that the boundaries of 
critical habitat be as evident as possible. While each reach may have 
been adjusted in a minor way to landmarks at the upper and lower 
termini, the biological basis for reach selection was not compromised.
    Issue 38: A few respondents indicated that the designation of 
critical habitat will improve water quality.
    Service Response: Maintaining the flows, habitat, and chemical 
parameters required by these fish species may have an influence on the 
changes in water quality that can be allowed within the critical 
habitat area. It is not certain how much, if any, change to existing 
water quality would result.
    Issue 39: Some respondents asked questions regarding the 
designation of reservoirs and regarding full pool elevation.
    Service Response: Data indicates that adult razorback suckers and 
bonytail chubs can survive in reservoirs. Large populations of these 
fish can be maintained in reservoirs, allowing for maintenance of 
genetic variability and providing stock for reintroduction and 
research. The full pool level in a reservoir is defined as the water 
surface elevation at full capacity. This does not mean that reservoirs 
should be maintained at full pool elevations, but that habitat is 
protected regardless of reservoir pool elevation.
    Issue 40: Some respondents believed that the flow requirements for 
fish used in the economic analysis had an inadequate biological base.
    Service Response: The best available commercial and scientific data 
were used in developing the flow scenarios used in the economic 
analysis. Flows for several river reaches have been developed by the 
Service as part of project reviews or RIP activities. These flow 
recommendations have been published by the Service in reports or 
biological opinions. For those river reaches with no published flow 
recommendation, the Service developed flow scenarios using the best 
available hydrological and biological information.
    Issue 41: Several respondents believed the Service did not address 
the role of the Colorado River native fish eradication programs on 
listed fish in the San Juan and Green Rivers.
    Service Response: The Draft Biological Support Document contains a 
section that describes State and Federal fish removal projects on the 
San Juan and Green Rivers. These projects were an attempt to 
temporarily remove native and nonnative fishes from new reservoir 
storage pools prior to sportfish stocking. These projects were not 
expected to permanently eradicate those species nor were they intended 
to remove those species from entire river systems. These projects 
probably had little net effect on listed species.
    Issue 42: Two respondents indicated that the Upper Basin Recovery 
Implementation Program was not a substitute for designation of critical 
habitat.
    Service Response: The RIP is not a substitute for the designation 
of critical habitat; however, the ultimate goal of both the RIP and the 
designation is the recovery (delisting) of these endangered fish. It is 
the intent of the Service to analyze and amend the section 7 Agreement 
and Recovery Implementation Program Recovery Action Plan of the RIP, as 
needed, in order for it to be a reasonable and prudent alternative for 
the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for all 
activities addressed by the RIP.
    Issue 43: Some respondents indicated that the additional selection 
criteria for razorback sucker were too broad.
    Service Response: The additional criteria used to aid the Service 
in selecting areas for proposal as critical habitat for the razorback 
sucker were broad to account for the various habitat conditions, 
geographic areas, and life history requirements throughout the species' 
range. The species has been shown to use a variety of habitats 
depending on geographic location and other factors such as nonnative 
fish interactions that affect their habitat. Given the wide variety of 
habitats used by various life stages of razorback sucker, the Service 
does not believe the additional selection criteria were too broad.
    Issue 44: One respondent indicated that the final rule should 
include specified flows as constituent elements.
    Service Response: The Service does not believe it would be 
appropriate to have specific flows included as constituent elements 
because: (1) Flow recommendations based upon site- or river-specific 
research are unavailable for most critical habitat areas, and (2) even 
though flow recommendations could be made for some critical habitat 
areas, these flows must be evaluated and perhaps adjusted in the 
future. Including specific flows as constituent elements would require 
the rulemaking process be followed to make changes in recommended flows 
as research became available. This would create administrative delays 
to respond to fishery research recommendations. The flows used in 
Brookshire et al. (1993) were developed solely for use in the economic 
analysis. In reviewing the impacts of future Federal actions on 
critical habitat, the Service will use the best scientific and 
commercial information available at that time, as required by the Act.
    Issue 45: Several respondents were concerned that the Service 
intended to poison all the rivers to remove nonnative fish and that the 
poison would harm people, animals, plants, and the soil. They also 
indicated their displeasure concerning the loss of sportfish to recover 
the endangered fish.
    Service Response: As stated previously, the designation of critical 
habitat does not require any particular management action or actions to 
occur. Critical habitat serves to identify and inventory those areas 
where conservation activities should occur. In the development of any 
specific plan to implement conservation actions in a particular 
critical habitat reach, the agency involved is required to follow all 
Federal and State laws and regulations prior to implementing the 
action.
    The Service has identified the introduction of nonnative fish 
species into the Basin as a significant cause of the decline of native 
fish species. It is likely that the implementation of conservation 
actions may result in proposals to reduce the numbers of nonnative fish 
in a particular area. Techniques to reduce nonnative fish numbers 
include netting, trapping, electrofishing, liberalization of creel 
limits and equipment restrictions, physical habitat alterations or 
restoration, as well as the use of toxicants.
    The Service, or any other agency, is required to follow Federal and 
State laws and regulations in order to use fish toxicants. These laws 
and regulations are in place to protect nontarget organisms (including 
people, animals, plants, and soils) from adverse effects of the 
toxicant. Fish toxicants in use today have been used safely in rivers, 
ponds, and reservoirs for many years.
    Issue 46: A few respondents stated that unoccupied areas should not 
be designated as critical habitat, but designated experimental 
nonessential.
    Service Response: The Service did not include any unoccupied 
habitat in this designation of critical habitat. All areas designated 
have recently documented occurrences of these fish and/or are treated 
as occupied habitat in section 7 consultations. There are two 
experimental nonessential populations for the Colorado squawfish in the 
Salt and Verde Rivers in Arizona. It is hoped that the species can be 
reestablished in Arizona through work under this designation. 
Protection of the fishes and their habitat is greater under section 7 
of the Act compared with those provided by the experimental 
nonessential population classification, which is intended to provide 
management flexibility.
    Issue 47: Several respondents questioned why the San Juan River 
critical habitat for the razorback sucker ended at the Hogback 
Diversion and extended to Farmington, New Mexico, for the Colorado 
squawfish.
    Service Response: Biological information on the razorback sucker 
indicates that this species has an affinity for low velocity habitats 
such as backwaters and secondary channels. The geomorphology of the San 
Juan River below the Hogback Diversion provides these types of 
habitats. Upstream of the Hogback Diversion, the river channel is more 
restricted with faster-flowing, deeper water habitats, and few 
backwaters or secondary channels are found. Thus, for the razorback 
sucker, the area upstream from the diversion did not sufficiently 
possess the primary constituent elements to justify its inclusion as 
being necessary for this species' conservation.
    Biological information on the Colorado squawfish indicates that the 
adult fish use low velocity areas, but not as much as younger life 
stages. Adult Colorado squawfish often use more high-velocity or deep 
water river sections, similar to those available in the reach of the 
San Juan River above the Hogback Diversion upstream to Farmington, New 
Mexico. This reach has been identified in the Colorado Squawfish 
Recovery Plan as being needed for downlisting of this species.

Economic Issues

    Issue 48: Many respondents raised questions regarding the level of 
geographic disaggregation in the economic analysis.
    Service Response: The direct impacts of critical habitat 
designation were determined at the river reach level. Economic data 
were available at the county level in the IMPLAN data sets and formed 
the basis of the analysis. However, it is inappropriate to conduct the 
economic analysis at the county level or tribal lands level because the 
direct impacts in almost all cases extended beyond those immediate 
boundaries. Further, the indirect effects were State-wide and region-
wide.
    Issue 49: Concern was expressed that tribal economics are 
distinctly different than surrounding economics in that factor mobility 
(such as employment) is limited.
    Service Response: While it is true that there are fewer 
opportunities for displaced workers on tribal lands, very few of the 
direct impacts, other than the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, are 
tied to tribal economics. In the case of the Navajo Tribe, the impacts 
are reported in the New Mexico results.
    Issue 50: Small distributors and users of hydroelectric power 
expressed concerns regarding the computation of and the use of the 
electric power impacts in the economic analysis, as well as issues 
regarding sunk cost, thermal replacement (fuel substitution), and the 
amount of thermal replacement required.
    Service Response: The electric impacts were computed by Stone and 
Webster Management Consultants, Inc., utilizing a model developed for 
the Glen Canyon Dam. The model development effort was funded by the 
Bureau of Reclamation. The Service chose to use this model after 
determining this was the most up-to-date and comprehensive model 
available. Shut-in hydroelectric capacity is treated as a sunk cost in 
the analysis following accepted economic theory. Gas and coal 
activities are projected to expand to provide thermal power 
replacement. Existing excess capacity in these sectors means that this 
expansion is a benefit to the regional economy. The analysis of Stone 
and Webster yielded a result that 121 megawatts of additional thermal 
generation capacity would be required to offset the reduction of 
hydrogeneration capacity.
    The small systems impacts were not available for inclusion in the 
Economic Analysis released November 12, 1993. The economic analysis was 
updated to include impacts associated with small systems as well as 
large system impacts. The updated results were used in the exclusion 
process and are included in the final rule.
    Issue 51: Public comments expressed concern that all economic 
sectors and impacts of designating critical habitat were not addressed 
in the economic analysis.
    Service Response: All models used in the economic analysis are 
general equilibrium in nature. That is, all impacts are represented 
through linkages among economic sectors. For example, both the direct 
impacts to hydropower production and the indirect effects on all other 
sectors such as agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and finance are 
represented. Thus, changes to one sector of the economy and the 
resulting impacts within all other sectors are fully captured in the 
economic results as indirect impacts.
    Issue 52: Questions were raised concerning the reallocation of 
water and the sectors that were projected to utilize the reallocated 
water.
    Service Response: In all cases, the reallocated water represented a 
benefit and thus was placed in a relatively low value use. For 
instance, in California, which incurs positive impacts, the choice for 
the sector to receive the reallocated water was the agricultural 
sector. If municipal and industrial had been chosen, then the positive 
impacts would have been much larger.
    Issue 53: Concern was expressed regarding the lack of economic 
impacts resulting from flood plain designation.
    Service Response: Information received during the public comment 
periods and previously available data did not indicate any major 
economic impacts related to flood plain designation. The Service 
recognizes that individual projects located in the flood plain may 
experience economic impacts.
    Issue 54: Concern was raised by the Navajo Nation and its 
representatives regarding the expansion of the Navajo Indian Irrigation 
Project (NIIP).
    Service Response: Based upon information provided during the public 
comment period, the New Mexico analysis was revised to include an 
additional 52,000 acre-feet of future water depletions foregone. 
Additionally, cropping patterns and yields for NIIP were adjusted based 
on information supplied by the Navajo Nation and the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs during the comment period. Likewise, when data provided during 
the comment periods seemed reasonable, those economic data were 
incorporated into the models.
    Issue 55: Concerns were raised by several commenters about the lack 
of economic impacts identified in the Lower Basin. In some cases, 
hypothetical changes to existing Lower Colorado, Salt, Verde, and/or 
Gila River operations were provided to estimate economic impacts to 
agriculture and mining activities.
    Service Response: At present, the Service does not foresee changes 
in current hydrological operations of these rivers occurring as a 
result of recovery efforts for these fishes. The impacts predicted by 
the commenters and the scenarios used to generate those impacts are not 
envisioned by Service biologists in the Lower Basin as necessary for 
recovery and survival of these fish.
    Issue 56: One commenter indicated that the transfer of Colorado 
Eastern Slope agricultural water rights to municipal use would be 
impracticable or impossible due to endangered species constraints on 
the Platte River system.
    Service Response: Construction of conveyance facilities to transfer 
Eastern Slope agricultural water to municipalities may require section 
7 consultation with regard to Platte River endangered species. However, 
several such transfers have already occurred without any Federal 
action, demonstrating the feasibility of such transfers.
    Issue 57: Concern was expressed regarding the comparability of the 
Input-Output (I-O) and Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) results.
    Service Response: The underlying model assumptions differ. CGE 
models allow for greater factor mobility and substitution. I-O models 
do not permit impacts to communicate and adjust with geographic areas 
outside the State or region; thus negative impacts are overestimated. 
Therefore, due to these differences, results from these models are not 
directly comparable.
    Issue 58: Concerns were raised regarding changes in governmental 
revenue flows from hydropower impacts.
    Service Response: Such revenues represent transfers of economic 
resources, not real resource costs. The models capture changes in 
government revenues.
    Issue 59: Concern was raised regarding a variety of projects 
planned for the region that were not specifically addressed in the 
analysis.
    Service Response: Projects not specifically identified in the 
economic analysis were presumed to be undertaken and appear in the 
baseline projections. Further, some future projects have already 
undergone section 7 consultation and as such do not represent an 
impact. Future projects for which little or no information is currently 
available will be subject to section 7 consultation and as such it is 
premature to judge whether they will be affected.
    Issue 60: Concerns were raised regarding the omission of the cost 
of capital facilities to use water such as planned municipal 
diversions.
    Service Response: These costs would be incurred regardless of 
whether critical habitat is designated and as such are not an 
appropriate cost for inclusion in the analysis.
    Issue 61: Respondents recommended that the economic benefits of 
listing and critical habitat designation must be addressed.
    Service Response: The economic analysis addresses both monetary 
cost and the benefits of designating critical habitat. Monetary values 
associated with the benefits of the existence of the species are not 
within the framework of the economic evaluation of critical habitat 
designation nor is such an evaluation required by the Act. These types 
of economic data would require extensive research and debate prior to 
being used in the evaluation of critical habitat.
    Issue 62: A few respondents indicated that changing flows to 
benefit the endangered fish would be detrimental to people along the 
rivers.
    Service Response: Designation of critical habitat is not a 
management plan for the recovery of these endangered fish. Specific 
management actions such as changing flows to benefit these fish will 
result from the RIP's, other recovery programs, and actions or project-
specific requirements of biological opinions. Effects of flow changes 
due to Federal actions that benefit the endangered fish will be 
addressed through the NEPA process.
    Issue 63: Several respondents questioned why only 10 percent of the 
cost of recovering these fish was attributed to critical habitat. 
Others were confused on how the Service arrived at the 90/10 percent 
split between species listing and critical habitat designation.
    Service Response: The Act requires that the economic and other 
relevant impacts of designation of critical habitat be determined. This 
provision requires that the Service separate those costs specific to 
designation of critical habitat from the costs associated with the 
listing of these species. The Service used the extensive history of 
section 7 consultations that used the ``jeopardy'' standard to estimate 
the level of additional protection that might be provided by ``adverse 
modification.'' Although the increased protection provided by critical 
habitat varies by impact type (flood plain activities, depletions, 
etc.), overall the Service determined that increased protection 
provided by critical habitat would account for approximately 10 percent 
of the total cost identified.
    Issue 64: A few respondents questioned the selection of 1967-1985 
for the hydrologic period to be used in preparation of the economic 
analysis. Some also indicated that using average flow years did not 
give an accurate portrayal of impacts.
    Service Response: The Service selected the 1967-1985 period because 
it reflected the hydrology of the system with major water developments 
in place and operating without any operational changes due to 
endangered fish needs. Thus, this period was the most accurate one 
available for determining the full economic impact of reoperation of 
the river system for recovery of the endangered fish. Average, above 
average, and below average flow years were modeled.

Social Comments

    Issue 65: Some respondents believed that humans are the real 
endangered species. Fish should not be considered more important than 
people. There is no benefit to people from these species.
    Service Response: The Act strives to protect species that are in 
danger of becoming extinct in the immediate or foreseeable future. 
Humans are not in such danger. On the contrary, the number of humans 
has increased in the last 100 years at a rapid rate. Humans have, at 
times, believed that some other species may be of little or no value, 
when in fact the same species later has been determined to be of great 
value. In the past, the Colorado River fishes were of value to man for 
subsistence food, and they were widely taken for recreational and 
commercial reasons.
    The four endangered fishes are considered of value to different 
segments of the human population for widely different reasons. As a 
case in point, one species, the Colorado squawfish has been valued by 
humans for several different reasons, including: (1) Historic value--it 
has been suggested that the food provided by this fish was of 
importance in the early settlement of portions of the West, and it was 
certainly used as food by American Indians; (2) food for humans--the 
literature is full of accounts of humans catching and eating Colorado 
squawfish, and its culinary qualities have been widely attested; (3) 
scientific--the potomadromous migrations and unique life cycle of this 
largest North American minnow is of great scientific interest and 
importance; and (4) ecological--as the top native predator of the 
Colorado River, it has a valid place in the natural Colorado River 
ecosystem.
    Issue 66: Many respondents believed that the designation would 
adversely affect the quality of life in communities adjacent to 
critical habitat because loss of water rights, elimination of flood 
plain developments, prevention of new flood control projects and 
similar issues may result in destruction of communities.
    Service Response: The designation will not take existing water 
rights nor will it require the removal of existing flood plain 
developments. Any new flood control project or other water development 
project would likely be subject to section 7 consultation, and if 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat were found, 
reasonable and prudent alternatives would be developed to address the 
project purposes. Actions without Federal involvement are not affected 
by the designation of critical habitat.
    Issue 67: Several letters indicated that designation would 
adversely affect historic use of resources and lands.
    Service Response: Existing development and use of water rights and 
non-Federal lands will not be affected by the designation of critical 
habitat except in cases where a Federal project or funding is required. 
Actions without Federal involvement are not affected by the designation 
of critical habitat.
    Issue 68: Some respondents wondered how the designation would 
affect use of these rivers and reservoirs for recreation.
    Service Response: The direct effects of critical habitat 
designation upon reservoir and river-based recreation are expected to 
be minor. Few Federal actions related to recreation are likely to 
``destroy or adversely modify'' critical habitat. Power boating, 
rafting, swimming, fishing, and similar uses do not significantly 
impact or destroy the physical habitat of these species. However, these 
types of activities (flow changes, sport fish management, etc.) may be 
affected by specific efforts to recover these species. The Economic 
Analysis provided data on the potential economic impacts to 
recreational activities due to designation of critical habitat for 
these species. This information can be used to evaluate the 
significance of the effect of critical habitat will have upon the 
various recreation activities in and along the Colorado River system.
    Issue 69: A few respondents stated that decisions affecting the 
quality and way of life in a community should be made locally and for 
the benefit of the local community.
    Service Response: Congress has determined that endangered species 
consideration is of national importance and should be evaluated in a 
wider context. Effects to the local community are recognized in the 
process of designating critical habitat. However, the economic analysis 
and the exclusion process, according to the Act, only consider national 
and regional impacts. An area can be removed from the critical habitat 
designation if the economic costs of the designation are greater than 
the benefits to the species and if exclusion is not likely to result in 
the extinction of the species.
    Issue 70: Many respondents stated the need for balance between 
economic and environmental issues.
    Service Response: The Economic Analysis and public comments were 
used by the Service during the exclusion process to achieve a balance 
between the needs of these species and economic and other concerns. The 
exclusion process allows for areas to be excluded from critical habitat 
designation if economic and other impacts exceed benefits for the 
listed species of concern, provided that exclusion will not result in 
the extinction of the species. The exclusion process allows economic 
and other issues to be weighed against the requirements of critical 
habitat under the Act.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Service has determined that an Environmental Assessment, as 
defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969, need not be prepared in conjunction with regulations adopted 
pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining the Service's 
reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under 
Executive Order 12866. Based on the information discussed in this rule 
concerning public projects and private activities within critical 
habitat areas, there are no significant economic impacts resulting from 
the critical habitat designation. There are a limited number of actions 
on private land that have Federal involvement through funds or permits 
that may be affected by critical habitat designation. Also, no direct 
costs, enforcement costs, information collection, or recordkeeping 
requirements are imposed on small entities by this designation. 
Further, the rule contains no recordkeeping requirements as defined by 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1990.

Taking Implications Assessment

    The Service has analyzed the potential taking implications of 
designating critical habitat for the razorback sucker, Colorado 
squawfish, humpback chub, and bonytail chub in a Takings Implications 
Assessment prepared pursuant to requirements of Executive Order 12630, 
``Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.'' The Takings Implications Assessment concludes that 
the designation does not pose significant takings implications.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request from the Service's Utah Field Office (see ADDRESSES above).

Authors

    The primary authors of this rule are Henry R. Maddux, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office (see ADDRESSES section); William R. 
Noonan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office; Lesley 
A. Fitzpatrick, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Field Office; 
and Harold M. Tyus, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Denver, 
Colorado.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.

Regulations Promulgation

    Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is hereby amended as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.


Sec. 17.11  [Amended]

    2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by revising the Critical Habitat 
column for the entries ``Chub, bonytail,'' ``Chub, humpback,'' 
``Squawfish, Colorado,'' and ``Sucker, razorback,'' under FISHES, to 
read ``17.95(e)''.
    3. Section 17.95(e) is amended by adding critical habitat of the 
bonytail chub (Gila elegans), humpback chub (Gila cypha), Colorado 
squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius), and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen 
texanus), in the same alphabetical order as each species occurs in 
Sec. 17.11(h).


Sec. 17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
* * * * *
Bonytail Chub (Gila elegans)
    Description of areas taken from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
1:100,000 scale maps (available from BLM State Offices): Rangely, CO 
1989; Canyon of Lodore, CO 1990; Seep Ridge, UT/CO 1982; La Sal, UT/CO 
1985; Hite Crossing, UT 1982; Parker, AZ/CA 1980; Davis Dam, AZ/NV/CA 
1982; Boulder City, NV/AZ 1978; Needles, CA 1986.
    Colorado: Moffat County. The Yampa River from the boundary of 
Dinosaur National Monument in T.6N., R.99W., sec. 27 (6th Principal 
Meridian) to the confluence with the Green River in T.7N., R.103W., 
sec. 28 (6th Principal Meridian).
    Utah: Uintah County; and Colorado: Moffat County. The Green River 
from the confluence with the Yampa River in T.7N., R.103W., sec. 28 
(6th Principal Meridian) to the boundary of Dinosaur National Monument 
in T.6N., R.24E., sec. 30 (Salt Lake Meridian).
    Utah: Uintah and Grand Counties. The Green River (Desolation and 
Gray Canyons) from Sumner's Amphitheater in T.12S., R.18E., sec. 5 
(Salt Lake Meridian) to Swasey's Rapid in T.20S., R.16E., sec. 3 (Salt 
Lake Meridian).
    Utah: Grand County; and Colorado: Mesa County. The Colorado River 
from Black Rocks in T.10S., R.104W., sec. 25 (6th Principal Meridian) 
to Fish Ford in T.21S., R.24E., sec. 35 (Salt Lake Meridian).
    Utah: Garfield and San Juan Counties. The Colorado River from Brown 
Betty Rapid in T.30S., R.18E., sec. 34 (Salt Lake Meridian) to Imperial 
Canyon in T.31S., R.17E., sec. 28 (Salt Lake Meridian).
    Arizona: Mohave County; Nevada: Clark County; and California: San 
Bernardino County. The Colorado River from Hoover Dam in T.30N., 
R.23W., sec. 3 (Gila and Salt River Meridian) to Davis Dam in T.21N., 
R.21W., sec. 18 (Gila and Salt River Meridian) including Lake Mohave up 
to its full pool elevation.
    Arizona: Mohave County; and California: San Bernardino County. The 
Colorado River from the northern boundary of Havasu National Wildlife 
Refuge in R.22W., T.16N., sec. 1 (Gila and Salt River Meridian) to 
Parker Dam in T.11N., R.18W., sec. 16 (Gila and Salt River Meridian) 
including Lake Havasu up to its full pool elevation.
    Known constituent elements include water, physical habitat, and 
biological environment as required for each particular life stage for 
each species.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

TR21MR94.001


BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
* * * * *
Humpback Chub (Gila cypha)
    Description of areas taken from BLM 1:100,000 scale maps (available 
from BLM State Offices): Rangely, CO 1989; Canyon of Lodore, CO 1990; 
Seep Ridge, UT/CO 1982; Vernal, UT/CO 1982; Grand Junction, CO 1990; 
Moab, UT/CO 1985; La Sal, UT/CO 1985; Tuba City, AZ 1983; Peach 
Springs, AZ 1980; Grand Canyon, AZ 1980; Mt. Trumbull, AZ 1979.
    Colorado: Moffat County. The Yampa River from the boundary of 
Dinosaur National Monument in T.6N., R.99W., sec. 27 (6th Principal 
Meridian) to the confluence with the Green River in T.7N., R.103W., 
sec. 28 (6th Principal Meridian).
    Utah: Uintah County; and Colorado: Moffat County. The Green River 
from the confluence with the Yampa River in T.7N., R.103W., sec. 28 
(6th Principal Meridian) to the southern boundary of Dinosaur National 
Monument in T.6N., R.24E., sec. 30 (Salt Lake Meridian).
    Utah: Uintah and Grand Counties. The Green River (Desolation and 
Gray Canyons) from Sumner's Amphitheater in T.12S., R.18E., sec. 5 
(Salt Lake Meridian) to Swasey's Rapid in T.20S., R.16E., sec. 3 (Salt 
Lake Meridian).
    Utah: Grand County; and Colorado: Mesa County. The Colorado River 
from Black Rocks in T.10S., R.104W., sec. 25 (6th Principal Meridian) 
to Fish Ford River in T.21S., R.24E., sec. 35 (Salt Lake Meridian).
    Utah: Garfield and San Juan Counties. The Colorado River from Brown 
Betty Rapid River in T.30S., R.18E., sec. 34 (Salt Lake Meridian) to 
Imperial Canyon in T.31S., R.17E., sec. 28 (Salt Lake Meridian).
    Arizona: Coconino County. The Little Colorado River from river mile 
8 in T.32N., R.6E., sec. 12 (Salt and Gila River Meridian) to the 
confluence with the Colorado River in T.32N., R.5E., sec. 1 (Salt and 
Gila River Meridian).
    Arizona: Coconino County. The Colorado River from Nautiloid Canyon 
in T.36N., R.5E., sec. 35 (Salt and Gila River Meridian) to Granite 
Park in T.30N., R.10W., sec. 25 (Salt and Gila River Meridian).
    Known constituent elements include water, physical habitat, and 
biological environment as required for each particular life stage for 
each species.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR21MR94.002


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
* * * * *
    Colorado Squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius)
    Description of areas taken from BLM 1:100,000 maps (available from 
BLM State Offices): Canyon of Lodore, CO 1990; La Sal, UT/CO 1985; 
Rangely, CO 1989; Delta, CO 1989; Grand Junction, CO 1990; Hite 
Crossing, UT 1982; Vernal, UT/CO 1990; Craig, CO 1990; Bluff, UT/CO 
1985; Moab, UT/CO 1985; Hanksville, UT 1982; San Rafael Desert, UT 
1985; Huntington, UT 1982; Price, UT 1989; Farmington, NM 1991; Navajo 
Mountain, UT/AZ 1982. The 100-year flood plain for many areas is 
detailed in Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) published by and available 
through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In areas where 
a FIRM is not available, the presence of alluvium soils or known high 
water marks can be used to determine the extent of the flood plain. 
Only areas of flood plain containing constituent elements are 
considered critical habitat.
    Colorado: Moffat County. The Yampa River and its 100-year flood 
plain from the State Highway 394 bridge in T.6N., R.91W., sec. 1 (6th 
Principal Meridian) to the confluence with the Green River in T.7N., 
R.103W., sec. 28 (6th Principal Meridian).
    Utah: Uintah, Carbon, Grand, Emery, Wayne, and San Juan Counties; 
and Colorado: Moffat County. The Green River and its 100-year flood 
plain from the confluence with the Yampa River in T.7N., R.103W., sec. 
28 (6th Principal Meridian) to the confluence with the Colorado River 
in T.30S., R.19E., sec. 7 (Salt Lake Meridian).
    Colorado: Rio Blanco County; and Utah: Uintah County. The White 
River and its 100-year flood plain from Rio Blanco Lake Dam in T.1N., 
R.96W., sec. 6 (6th Principal Meridian) to the confluence with the 
Green River in T.9S., R.20E., sec. 4 (Salt Lake Meridian).
    Colorado: Delta and Mesa Counties. The Gunnison River and its 100-
year flood plain from the confluence with the Uncompahgre River in 
T.15S., R.96W., sec. 11 (6th Principal Meridian) to the confluence with 
the Colorado River in T.1S., R.1W., sec. 22 (Ute Meridian).
    Colorado: Mesa and Garfield Counties; and Utah: Grand, San Juan, 
Wayne, and Garfield Counties. The Colorado River and its 100-year flood 
plain from the Colorado River Bridge at exit 90 north off Interstate 70 
in T.6S., R.93W., sec. 16 (6th Principal Meridian) to North Wash 
including the Dirty Devil arm of Lake Powell up to the full pool 
elevation in T.33S., R.14E., sec. 29 (Salt Lake Meridian).
    New Mexico: San Juan County; and Utah: San Juan County. The San 
Juan River and its 100-year flood plain from the State Route 371 Bridge 
in T.29N., R.13W., sec. 17 (New Mexico Meridian) to Neskahai Canyon in 
the San Juan arm of Lake Powell in T.41S., R.11E., sec. 26 (Salt Lake 
Meridian) up to the full pool elevation.
    Known constituent elements include water, physical habitat, and 
biological environment as required for each particular life stage for 
each species.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR21MR94.003


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
* * * * *
Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus)
    Description of areas taken from BLM 1:100,000 scale maps (available 
from BLM State Offices): Rangely, CO 1989; Canyon of Lodore, CO 1990; 
Seep Ridge, UT/CO 1982; La Sal, UT/CO 1985; Westwater, UT/CO 1981; Hite 
Crossing, UT 1982; Glenwood Springs, CO 1988; Grand Junction, CO 1990; 
Delta, CO 1989; Navajo Mountain, UT/AZ 1982; Vernal, UT/CO 1990; Craig, 
CO 1990; Bluff, UT/CO 1985; Moab, UT/CO 1985; Hanksville, UT 1982; San 
Rafael Desert, UT 1985; Huntington, UT 1982; Price, UT 1989; Tuba City, 
AZ 1983; Lake Mead, NV/AZ 1981; Davis Dam, AZ/NV/CA 1982; Parker, AZ/CA 
1980; Yuma, AZ/CA 1988; Safford, AZ 1991; Globe, AZ 1980; Clifton, AZ/
NM 1975; Prescott, AZ 1982; Theodore Roosevelt Lake, AZ 1982; Grand 
Canyon, AZ 1980; Mt. Trumbull, AZ 1979; Boulder City, NV/AZ 1978; 
Blythe, CA/AZ 1976; Trigo Mountains, AZ/CA 1988; Sedona, AZ 1982; 
Payson, AZ 1988; and U.S. Forest Service map: Tonto National Forest, 
Phoenix, AZ. The 100-year flood plain for many areas is detailed in 
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) published by and available through the 
FEMA. In areas where a FIRM is not available, the presence of alluvium 
soils or known high water marks can be used to determine the extent of 
the flood plain. Only areas of flood plain containing constituent 
elements are considered critical habitat.
    Colorado: Moffat County. The Yampa River and its 100-year flood 
plain from the mouth of Cross Mountain Canyon in T.6N., R.98W., sec. 23 
(6th Principal Meridian) to the confluence with the Green River in 
T.7N., R.103W., sec. 28 (6th Principal Meridian).
    Utah: Uintah County; and Colorado: Moffat County. The Green River 
and its 100-year flood plain from the confluence with the Yampa River 
in T.7N., R.103W., sec. 28 (6th Principal Meridian) to Sand Wash in 
T.11S., R.18E., sec. 20 (6th Principal Meridian).
    Utah: Uintah, Carbon, Grand, Emery, Wayne, and San Juan Counties. 
The Green River and its 100-year flood plain from Sand Wash at T.11S., 
R.18E., sec. 20 (6th Principal Meridian) to the confluence with the 
Colorado River in T.30S., R.19E., sec. 7 (6th Principal Meridian).
    Utah: Uintah County. The White River and its 100-year flood plain 
from the boundary of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation at river 
mile 18 in T.9S., R.22E., sec. 21 (Salt Lake Meridian) to the 
confluence with the Green River in T.9S., R.20E., sec. 4 (Salt Lake 
Meridian).
    Utah: Uintah County. The Duchesne River and its 100-year flood 
plain from river mile 2.5 in T.4S., R.3E., sec. 30 (Salt Lake Meridian) 
to the confluence with the Green River in T.5S., R.3E., sec. 5 (Uintah 
Meridian).
    Colorado: Delta and Mesa Counties. The Gunnison River and its 100-
year flood plain from the confluence with the Uncompahgre River in 
T.15S., R.96W., sec. 11 (6th Principal Meridian) to Redlands Diversion 
Dam in T.1S., R.1W., sec. 27 (Ute Meridian).
    Colorado: Mesa and Garfield Counties. The Colorado River and its 
100-year flood plain from Colorado River Bridge at exit 90 north off 
Interstate 70 in T.6S., R.93W., sec. 16 (6th Principal Meridian) to 
Westwater Canyon in T.20S., R.25E., sec. 12 (Salt Lake Meridian) 
including the Gunnison River and its 100-year flood plain from the 
Redlands Diversion Dam in T.1S., R.1W., sec. 27 (Ute Meridian) to the 
confluence with the Colorado River in T.1S., R.1W., sec. 22 (Ute 
Meridian).
    Utah: Grand, San Juan, Wayne, and Garfield Counties. The Colorado 
River and its 100-year flood plain from Westwater Canyon in T.20S., 
R.25E., sec. 12 (Salt Lake Meridian) to full pool elevation, upstream 
of North Wash and including the Dirty Devil arm of Lake Powell in 
T.33S., R.14E., sec. 29 (Salt Lake Meridian).
    New Mexico: San Juan County; and Utah: San Juan County. The San 
Juan River and its 100-year flood plain from the Hogback Diversion in 
T.29N., R.16W., sec. 9 (New Mexico Meridian) to the full pool elevation 
at the mouth of Neskahai Canyon on the San Juan arm of Lake Powell in 
T.41S., R.11E., sec. 26 (Salt Lake Meridian).
    Arizona: Coconino and Mohave Counties; and Nevada: Clark County. 
The Colorado River and its 100-year flood plain from the confluence 
with the Paria River in T.40N., R.7E., sec. 24 (Gila and Salt River 
Meridian) to Hoover Dam in T.30N., R.23W., sec. 3 (Gila and Salt River 
Meridian) including Lake Mead to the full pool elevation.
    Arizona: Mohave County; and Nevada: Clark County. The Colorado 
River and its 100-year flood plain from Hoover Dam in T.30N., R.23W., 
sec. 1 (Gila and Salt River Meridian) to Davis Dam in T.21N., R.21W., 
sec. 18 (Gila and Salt River Meridian) including Lake Mohave to the 
full pool elevation.
    Arizona: La Paz and Yuma Counties; and California: San Bernardino, 
Riverside, and Imperial Counties. The Colorado River and its 100-year 
flood plain from Parker Dam in T.11N., R.18W., sec. 16 (Gila and Salt 
River Meridian) to Imperial Dam in T.6S., R.22W., sec. 25 (Gila and 
Salt River Meridian) including Imperial Reservoir to the full pool 
elevation or 100-year flood plain, whichever is greater.
    Arizona: Graham, Greenlee, Gila, and Pinal Counties. The Gila River 
and its 100-year flood plain from the Arizona-New Mexico border in 
T.8S., R.32E., sec. 34 (Gila and Salt River Meridian) to Coolidge Dam 
in T.3S., R.18E., sec. 17 (Gila and Salt River Meridian), including San 
Carlos Reservoir to the full pool elevation.
    Arizona: Gila County. The Salt River and its 100-year flood plain 
from the old U.S. Highway 60/State Route 77 bridge (unsurveyed) to 
Roosevelt Diversion Dam in T.3N., R.14E., sec. 4 (Gila and Salt River 
Meridian).
    Arizona: Yavapai County. The Verde River and its 100-year flood 
plain from the U.S. Forest Service boundary (Prescott National Forest) 
in T.18N., R.2E., sec. 31 to Horseshoe Dam in T.7N., R.6E., sec. 2 
(Gila and Salt River Meridian), including Horseshoe Lake to the full 
pool elevation.
    Known constituent elements include water, physical habitat, and 
biological environment as required for each particular life stage for 
each species.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR21MR94.004


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

* * * * *
    Dated: March 10, 1994.
George T. Frampton,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the 
Interior.
[FR Doc. 94-6508 Filed 3-16-94; 11:26 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P