8197

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8197
• Author: Martinez, P. J.
• Title: Development and Application of Procedures for Stocking Nonnative Fish Speacies in the Upper Colorado River Basin.
• USFW Year: 1997.
• USFW - Doc Type: Grand Junction, CO.
• Copyright Material: NO

13394 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 54 /
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 normative 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
spec s.from entire river systems. These
orojecis probably had little net effect on
listed species.
Issue 42: Two respondents indicated
*.bat the Ur*_+er 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 (deflstnig) 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 toiwa 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-vere too broad.
. Service Response: The additional
criteria used in aid the Service in
selecting areas forproposal as critical
habitat for thesaaorback sucker were
broad to account for the various habitat
conditions, geographic areas, and life
history regmmments 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 ofhabitats 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 same critical habitat
March 21, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
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 at 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 Shat 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
nervation 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
toxic.
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 aby 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 sulfidently
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 1MPLAN 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