8012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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 des- ignation. 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 discre- tion 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 con- stituent elements can only be generally described, which has been the practice for most designations of aquatic habitat. Of the 41 designations of aquatic, crit- ical 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 support- ing 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 modifica- tion of critical habitat or what habitat should be pro- tected 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 46 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 informa- tion. 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 as possible, but cannot charac- terize it as "critical" habitat until it has been officially designated as such by the FWS in a separate regulation. Similarly, these plans may recommend the establish- ment of experimental populations of listed species, but not whether such experimental populations are essen- tial or non-essential to species survival. The FWS must again issue a separate regulation making that determi- nation. Recovery plans are fundamental guidance doc- uments under the ESA, but they do not commit funds or manpower. Recovery implementation is a matter for annual budgeting and action by the FWS and coop- erating agencies. The current recovery plans for the humpback and bonytail chubs were last revised in 1990; the plan for