[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