[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
