Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />DRAFT -- August 11, 1999 <br /> <br />OBJECTIVE #5: <br /> <br />There should be express consideration of the impact of <br />proposed designations of critical habitat on the exercise of <br />Indian water rights, and ~reas should be excluded from such <br />designations if there is an adverse impact on those rights, <br />as required by ~ 3(B) (4) of the Appendix to Secretarial <br />Order 3206. <br /> <br />Recommendation S.A.: Fish and Wildlife Service should con- <br />sider each Indian reservation ~ffected by a proposed designation <br />of critical habitat as one economic unit, and explicitly address <br />in its economic analysis the economic impacts on Indian tribes <br />affected by the proposed designation. <br /> <br />EXPLANATION: Economic analyses of proposed critical habitat <br />generally view larger geographic areas as economic units. <br />Although economic data may not be available for individual Indian <br />reservations, the Service should consider possible scenarios for <br />future development of Indian water rights to determine potential <br />adverse impacts of critical habitat designation on Indian <br />communities. <br /> <br />Recommendation S.B.: Critical habitat should not be desig- <br />nated in an area if such designation will have a significant <br />adverse impact on the future e~ercise of Indian water rights, <br />unless the Secretary determines, based on the best scientific and <br />commercial information available, that the failure to designate <br />such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of <br />the species concerned. <br /> <br />EXPLANATION: This Recommendation is intended to be consistent <br />with Subsection 3(B) (4) of the Appendix to S.O. 3206, which <br />states "Critical habitat shall not be designated in such areas <br />[that may impact tribal trust resources] unless it is determined <br />essential to conserve a listed species." The Working Group notes <br />that the government's trust responsibility for Indian natural <br />resources is another "relevant impact" within the meaning of <br />Section 4(b) (2) of the ESA, and thus should be considered when <br />the Secretary weighs the benefits of designating an area as <br />critical habitat against the adverse economic and other impacts <br />on Indian lands. <br /> <br />48 <br /> <br />,,--"- <br />