8197 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

13392 Federal Register 1 Vol. 59, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 1994 / Rules and Regulations Biological Canis Issue 25: Some respondents indicated that little or no historic information exists that these fish species were ever found in someareas-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 them areas. For those few that do not have a historical or recent record, information from species experts was used. iniaddition to examination of nearest known locations and of the predevelopment river system to determine if the species was likely to have been presenL Historical records indicate that Arizona's interior rivers were inhabited by the razorback sucker. but razorbadksudoers were extirpated by the 19 W&Effmts to rainiroduce razorback.wickers in. these areas .. continue. Convincing evidence was presented during the comment period that some.awas 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 thatthe 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, Sal. and Verde Rivers by the 1960's. During the late 1970's and into the 19W's, efforts were made to reestablish these populations using hatchery reared fish. These efforts have not been as sinful 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 Actfinds 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 becauue it has not adapted to rapid habitat changes caused by human development is not permissible under the Issue 28: Many respondents commented that the Service needs more biological data to determine critical habitat and therefore no areas should be desigmated. Service esponse: The Act specifies that -The Secretary shall designate critical habitat • a • on the basis of the best scientific data available • ' " The Service has wed 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 io 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 ks moue 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 oacupiedby individuals of the specim or from the effects of Federal actions upstream of the c i-babitat 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 remains 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 Servica 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 normative fish species in an area should preclude that area from designation as critical habitat. Service Response: The Service recognizes and is coned 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, maars?ameat actions to provide for recruitment of native fish to local p%x latiaas can be taken to eliminate ocreduce the efinr I of nonnative fish. The Service has and must consider the impacts of stocking nonnative fish prior to doing saw 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 normative fishes. Issue 32: Respondents indicated that additional areas should.be included in the designation. Additions were suggested for proposed reachesand to rivers currendy 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 rulemalang process with proper notice and comment. These areas include the little Colorado River up to Blue Springs for humpback chub, additional areas for C 1