7857 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Davis Dam downstream to Toprock Marsh for the bonytail, and several tributaries to the upper Salt, Verde, and Gila Rivers and the mainstem of the Verde River from Sullivan Lake to Perkinsville for the razorback. But no reaches were eliminated based on the economic or other impacts of the designation. The FWS concluded that most of the economic impacts were generated by the listing of the fishes and the consequent protections under the ESA other than critical habitat designation. The finally designated river reaches are shown in Figures 2-5. The FWS was clear that the designation was not meant to include all land within the 100 year floodplain -- it only covered those areas in which the identified constituent elements were present, which could exclude most developed areas of the floodplain, and much of the shoreline for the designated reaches was publicly owned. Nor does the designation imply that any reservoirs along the specified river reaches have to be continuously maintained at their full pool elevations -- the reservoirs and their pool elevations in the Lower Basin were also designated only to the extent that the constituent elements were present. The designation of critical habitat must be based on the best scientific evidence available at the time of designation. If more is subsequently learned about the listed species or their habitat needs, the designation can be revised. The FWS is therefore left with some discretion about how specifically the constituent elements of critical habitat are described. Where the best scientific evidence does not support a specific prescription of instream flows or other habitat attributes, such constituent elements can only be generally described, which has been the practice for most designations of aquatic habitat. Of the 41 designations of aquatic, critical habitat on record as of 1994 for the U.S, only one included a specific instream flow prescription. The designation for the Colorado River's listed fishes is typical in that it does not prescribe any specific flow regimes or where any of the constituent elements occur within the designated river reaches and floodplain or how these elements should be managed. The supporting documents do discuss some specific flow or habitat prescriptions, but these prescriptions are not consistent or complete and are not incorporated into the actual habitat designation: This generalized approach makes the question of what constitutes an adverse modification of critical habitat or what habitat should be protected or restored to recover the listed fishes judgmental and difficult to answer quantitatively. Recovery Planning. The FWS is directed under Section 4 of the ESA to develop plans for the recovery of listed species. Once approved by the FWS, these plans are the most official definition of what constitutes recovery under the ESA throughout the geographic range of the species that they cover.. To the maximum extent practical, these plans are to include site-specific management actions, objective and measurable criteria for de-listing, and estimates of the time frame and cost of carrying out those actions. The FWS may appoint a team of experts on the listed species from state and federal agencies and private institutions to help develop these plans. Before approving a recovery plan, the FWS must offer it for public comment and consider those comments. Recovery plans are to be adaptive and their goals are continually subject to revision based on new information. The plans are supposed to be reviewed annually, and revisions approved by the FWS in the same fashion as the original plan. Where a listed species occurs in two or more regions of the FWS, these regions are to agree officially on which should be the lead region for recovery planning (often it is the region that was responsible for listing a species). The lead region must then coordinate the recovery planning with the other regions. Recovery plans should identify the habitat needed for recovery as specifically 3