Memorandum: May 3 1994 Recovery Program and Critical Habitat

Home Browse Search

MINUTES COORDINATION MEETING ON ENDANGERED FISH CRITICAL HABITAT ISSUES IN COLORADO RIVER BASIN April 20 -22, 1994 Grand Junction, Colorado Region 2 and Region 6 staff met to (1) develop a coordinated and consistent approach among Service field offices for treatment of Federal actions that may affect designated critical habitat for the four Colorado River endangered fish, and (2) identify additional RIPRAP items that are required for the Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program to continue to serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for impacts of new and historic water projects that might result in adverse modification of critical-habitat. An agenda and attendance list is attached. April 20 Critical Habitat Final Rule o Bill Noonan led a general discussion of the critical habitat reaches and constituent elements as designated in the final rule. o It was pointed out that some reaches were identified for "survival" and some for "recovery" (based on the recovery plans) in the economic analysis. There was consensus that these terms are one and the same for section 7 purposes and that this designation was not intended for use in section 7 analyses. o The term "appreciably diminish" the value of critical habitat was discussed in an attempt to define how it would be applied. This will be difficult as there is no clear definitions or guidance and will need to be determined on a case -by -case basis. o It was pointed out that some areas, like the lower 12 miles of the �, ? Duchesne River that are not designated as critical habitat, may be important areas from a section 7 (jeopardy) standpoint. o There was discussion of the constituent elements of critical habitat. Case Examples Five case examples involving projects on various subbasins were discussed to determine if they may affect critical habitat and if they would constitute adverse modification of critical habitat. The case examples were projects other that water depletions and included actions such as riprap, jetties, gravel operations, contaminant impacts, water quality impacts, boat ramps, and flow related actions that could cause ice breakup during the winter. It was agreed that although these kind of projects would generally be viewed as adversely affecting critical habitat, each project must be analyzed on a case - by -case basis to determine if the action would appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat and result in adverse modification. A blanket statement