Laserfiche WebLink
1 13382 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 54. / Monday. March 21, 1994 / Rules and Regulations t <br />Congress believed that the "worth" or <br />value of a species is incalculable and <br />invaluable. This is supported by the <br />Supreme Court interpretation of the Act <br />in NA v.1611.437 U.S. 153,178 (1978). <br />This concept is applicable to the Basin <br />as it represents one of the most <br />distinctive collections of flora and fauna <br />in North America. <br />The economic analysis and data used <br />during the exclusion process addressed <br />impacts to: river basin or sub-basin by <br />State. each State as a whole, the region, <br />and the Nation- Direct and indirect <br />impacts on employment, wages, and <br />State and Federal revenues from <br />business and personal income taxes also <br />were considered during the exclusion <br />process. <br />Threshold of Significant Economic <br />Impact <br />To establish the threshold for <br />significant economic impact, impacts <br />were evaluated in the context of the <br />normal fluctuations of the economy <br />(Brookshire et al. 1994). Over the period <br />1959-1991. the growth rate of the <br />national economy (measured-as <br />percentagechange in Gross Domestic <br />Product) varied ftom - 22 percent to <br />6.2 perceriL.The-mean growth rate was <br />2.85 percent{wfth a standard deviation <br />(SD) of 226 percent). Over the same <br />period. the average unemployment rate <br />was 5.95 p?1.52 percent). <br />Impacts th this range are <br />within the normal fluctuations of the <br />economy. and are able to be absorbed by <br />the economy. A conservative threshold <br />for significant impacts would be a i <br />percent SD from the projected baseline. <br />If changes in employment or output due <br />to critical habitat at a State level exceed <br />this threshold. then that area of critical <br />habitat should be considered for <br />economic exclusion. <br />Various flow and nonflow impacts <br />were evaluated in the economic analysis <br />(Brookshire et aL 1993, 1994). Impacts <br />associated with providing flows for <br />fishes, including reoperation of <br />mainstream dams, constituted the <br />greatest monetary impacts. Flows in one <br />reach may be -dependent on the flows <br />from reaches upstream. Therefore, even <br />though a reach may be excluded for <br />economic reasons, those economic <br />impacts may not disappear due to <br />downstream flow requirements of the <br />fish. Thus, the smallest unit examined <br />for economic impact was an individual <br />river except for the mainstem Colorado <br />River, which was by river reach. <br />Many of the critical habitat reaches <br />were designated for more than one of <br />the endangered.fishes. Therefore, some <br />reaches were needed for the eventual <br />recovery of one species, and also needed <br />to prevent extinction of another. The <br />dual nature of many of the designated <br />reaches and other issues made the <br />exclusion process. complex. <br />Conservation and Extinction as Factors <br />in Designating Critical Habitat <br />The Act defines "conservation" to <br />include the use of all means necessary <br />to bring about the recovery of an <br />endangered or threatened species. <br />Section 7(a)(2) prohibitions against the <br />destruction or adverse modification of <br />critical habitat apply to actions that <br />would impair survival and recovery of <br />a listed species. As a result of the link <br />between critical habitat and recovery, <br />these prohibitions should protect the <br />value of critical.habitat until recovery. <br />Survival and recovery, mentioned in the <br />definitions of adverse modification and <br />jeopardy, are conceptually related. The <br />survival of a species may be viewed, in <br />part, as a progression between <br />extinction and recovery of the species. <br />The closer a species is to recovery, the <br />greater the certainty of its continued <br />survival. The terms'"survival" and <br />"recovery" differ by the degree of <br />confidence about the ability of a species <br />to persist in nature over a given period. <br />Critical habitat consists of areas that <br />contain elements that are essential to <br />the conservation of a listed species. <br />Critical habitat identifies areas that <br />should be considered in the <br />conservation effort and provides <br />additional protection to those areas <br />through section 7 consultation. Critical <br />habitat is designated to contribute to e <br />species' conservation: however, not all <br />areas proposed as critical habitat may be <br />necessary to prevent extinction. <br />Consequently. some areas or portions of <br />areas may be excluded due to economic <br />considerations, provided that such <br />exclusions would not result in the <br />extinction of the species. <br />In its designation of critical habitat for <br />the four Colorado River fishes. the <br />Service has identified habitat required <br />for recovery of each species and <br />delineated reaches that contain habitat <br />features needed for spawning. rearing. <br />feeding. and migration. Species <br />conservation is related to a number of <br />factors, such as the number of <br />individuals, the amount of habitat, the <br />condition of the species and its habitat, <br />the species' reproductive biology, and <br />the genetic composition of the <br />remaining populations. Through its <br />previous efforts (e g., section 7 <br />consultation. research). the Service also <br />has identified biologically important <br />areas that still support these endangered <br />fish. Additionally, important reaches <br />have been identified in recovery plans <br />for the Colorado squawfish, humpback <br />chub, and bonytail chub. The Recovery <br />Implementation Programs in the Upper <br />Colorado River and San Juan River <br />Basins have also identified essential <br />reaches for these species. Although all <br />areas proposed are important to <br />conservation, those areas currently <br />supporting the largest remaining <br />populations may be key to the long-term <br />survival of these species. Additionally, <br />the physical and ecological <br />relationships between these areas are an <br />important consideration. <br />Extinction of the four Colorado River <br />fishes would most likely occur as a <br />result of the presence and continued <br />introductions of nonnative fishes, <br />significant changes in the hydrologic <br />cycle, increased fragmentation and <br />channelization of their habitat, and <br />decreased water quality. Although a <br />single action could result in extinction, <br />the cumulative reduction in suitable <br />habitat resulting from many actions also <br />could lead to species extinction. <br />Because these species are long-lived, the <br />specific effects of some impacts are <br />difficult to establish. Therefore. the <br />exclusion analysis focuses not only on <br />specific rivers and/or reaches, but also <br />on their relationship to other reaches in <br />evaluating whether or not extinction <br />would be probable-If a teach were- <br />excluded. excluded. Such factors as: (1) Current <br />population status. (2) habitat quality <br />(e.g.. presence of spawning sites, <br />nursery areas, and condition of the <br />habitat), (3) geographical distribution of <br />the populations. (4) genetic variability <br />within the population, and (5) the <br />relationship between critical habitat <br />units were considered...-- <br />In order to determine'river reaches <br />required to prevent extinction (ensure <br />survival) of these fishes, the Service <br />relied upon available biological <br />information and approved recovery <br />plans. Information relating to the <br />species' biological and ecological needs, <br />such as habitat. reproduction, rearing, <br />and genetics, was used in determining <br />if an area was needed to prevent <br />extinction of the species. Where enough <br />information was available, specific <br />recovery plans presented downlisftg <br />and delisting criteria. Downlisting <br />criteria were generally equated to the <br />survival level; delisting criteria were <br />related to the recovery level. Because no <br />recovery plan has been prepared for the <br />razorback sucker, reaches required for <br />its survival (downlisting) and recovery <br />(delisting) may change as a recovery <br />plan is developed by the Service and the <br />Colorado River Fishes Recovery Team. <br />1 <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br />t <br />1 <br />t <br />i <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />f' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Exclusion <br />After considering the economic and ' <br />other factors that may be pertinent to <br /> <br />