7857 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A" 1` fishes should be invigorated, reconciled and consolidated. Such recovery planning then should guide the implementation and compliance programs in the subbasins, which can still be customized. LEGAL FRAMEWORK: THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Section 4 Listing and Critical Habitat Designation The complex process and criteria for listing species as threatened or endangered, which triggers the protections of the ESA, are governed by its Section 4. The Colorado squawfish and humpback chub were listed by the passage of the ESA in 1973, and the bonytail was listed in 1980. Since 1978, the critical habitat for an endangered species is to be designated under Section 4 concurrently (within 2 year ) with its listing, but the FWS had been unable or unwilling to designate critical habitat for the squawfish and the two chubs, and had held back on listing the razorback sucker. The final listing of the razorback sucker was published in October 1991 in response to a petition and subsequent lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (SCLDF) on behalf of a number of conservation groups. Once the razorback sucker was listed, the SCLDF filed another lawsuit and compelled the FWS to designate its critical habitat. The FWS then decided to combine the designation for the razorback with designations for the other three listed fish species. The final designation of critical habitat for all four fishes was published in March 1994. Critical habitat is defined as a "geographic area" with the physical and biological features that are "essential" to the conservation of a listed species, whether currently occupied by that species or not. Under the ESA, conserving a listed species means bringing it back to the point at which it no longer needs to be protected by the ESA -- to the point of recovery and de- listing. The geographic area designated as critical habitat may therefore be greater than what is needed for survival. The FWS may exclude areas from the designation if the economic impacts of the designation outweigh the benefits of designation, but only where such an exclusion will not undermine species survival. Where the economic impacts do not outweigh the benefits to the listed species, the designation must not only include areas to avoid extinction, but also those needed for recovery. In designating critical habitat for the listed fishes of the Colorado River, the FWS identified the following physical and biological attributes or "constituent elements" as essential to recovery: ? Water in sufficient quantity and quality delivered to a specific location and in a hydrologic regime as needed for any life stage of the listed fishes. ? Physical habitat needed for spawning, nursery, feeding, and rearing, including the river corridors between such areas and bottomlands, side channels, secondary channels, oxbows, backwaters, and other such habitat within the 100 year floodplain. ? Biological environment including food and nutrient supply and freedom from competition with and predation by non-native fishes. The FWS did not quantify these elements or specify their location but designated critical habitat as wherever such constituent elements occurred for each of the four listed fishes within 1,980 river and reservoir miles throughout the Colorado River Basin and the 100 year floodplain for those reaches. The designation was bounded by some river reaches that may not be presently occupied by the listed fishes, but fell well short of their historic range. For example, no critical habitat for the Colorado squawfish was designated in the Lower Basin. Several reaches were dropped from the designation in the Lower Basin for.biological reasons: the Colorado River from