WSP04426 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

--.J -----1, Federal Reg.-..r I Vol. 58, No, 18 I Friday, ]iulUary "0,'1993 I Proposed Rules 6581 listed es endangered on April 23, 1980 (45 FR 27713), Critical hahitat for these species was not designated at tha tima of their listing, On May 18, 1975, the Service publisbed a notice of its intent to determina critical habitat for the Colorado squawfish and the humpback chub, as well ~ numerous other species that are not found in the Colorsdo River (40 FR 21499), On September 14, 1978. the Service proposed critical hsbitat for the Colors do squawfish (43 FR 41060), The proposall\'as for 1,002 kilometers (623 miles] of the Colorado, Green, Gunnison.,and Yampa Rivers, This proposal was l.ter withdrawn (44 FR 12382: March 6, 1979) to comply with the 1978 amendments to the Act (16 U,S,C, 1531 et seq,). The razorback sucker was first proposed for listing a. . threatened species on April 24, 1978 (43 FR 17375), The proposal was withdrawn on May 27,1980 (45 FR 35410), in accordance with provisions of the 1978 amendments to the Act, These provisions required the Service to include consideration of designating critical habit.t in the listing of species, to complete the listing process within 2 years from the elate of the proposed rule, or withdraw the proposal from further considerstion, The Service did not complete the listing process within the 2.year deadline. ' On March 15. 1989, the Service received a March 14 petition to list the razorb.ck suckar as andangered from the SialTS Club. National Audubon Society, The Wilderness Society, Colorado Environmantal Coalition, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and Northwest Rivers Alliance, The Service made a positive finding in June 1989, and subsequently published a noties in the Federal Regiater on August 15. 1989 (54 FR 33588), This notice also stated that the Service was completing a statUI review and Was seeking additional information until December 15. 1989, A proposed rule to list the rszorback sucker as endangered was published in the Federalllegister on May 22, 1990 (55 FR 21154), The final rule designating the razorback sucker e. an endangered species was published on October 23, 1991 (56 FR S4957). Critical habitat WllS not designated. In the final rule. the Service concludlld that critical habitat was not daterminable at the time of listing and quostioned whether It 'WaS prudent to designate critical habitat. On October 30, 1991, the Service received a 6o-day noties of intent to sue from tha SielTS Club Legal Defense Fund. The .ubject of tha notice was the Service's failure to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing of the razorback su~r pursuant to section 4(b)(6)(c), This wllSfollowed by a second notice of intent to sue dated January 30, 1992, On December 6, 1991, the Service concluded that designetion of critical habitat was prudent and determinable, and therefore critical habitat for tha razorback sucker should be dasignated. Because the intent of the Act is". ... ... to provide 8 means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend mey be conserved . . .,~, tha Service also decided 10 propose critical habitat for the Colorado squaw fish, bumpback chub, and bonytail chub, The four endangered Colorado River fish species coexiSI in the Basin end much of their habitat overlaps, ' On May 7,1992. the SielTS Club Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit in the U,S, District Court (Court), Colorado, on behalf of tha Coloredo Wildlife Federation, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Four Comers Action Coalition, Colorado Environmental Coalition, Taxpayers for the Animas River, and SielTS Club, On August 18, 1992. a motion for summary judgment was filed which requasted the Court to order a final rule designating criticel habitat within 90 days. In the lengthy declarations filed with the response in opposition to tha motion; the Service explained that the complex analyses. which w8l'lllagally required for designating criticel habital, could not be completed until September 1993. This' was due to tha diffiCulty In determining the biological needs of the fish, conducting an economic analysis for portions of seven Western Stales (the large geographic area involved), and compiling biological and hydrological data, On Octobar 27, 1992, the Court ruled that the Service had violated the Act in failing 10 designate critical habitat when the razorback sucker was listed. The Court ordsred the semce to publlsh a proposed rule within 90 days designating critical habitat for the razorback using presently available infonnation and to publish a final rule at the earliest time permitted hy the Act end its l1lllUiations, ' The biological information nellded to dafine the physicel and biological noeds of thasa .pecies and to propose areas for designation a. critical habitat has been assimilated by the Service. Additionally. information about the activities which may affect critical habitat or be affected by the designation has been collected. This information is presently being compiled and articulated for inclusion in the biological support documenl. Much of the dats required to assemble the economic model has been obtained, However, thl< data which are used to compute economic costs and benefits remain 10 ba assembled. The Service will complete the biologicel support document and economic enalysis before, publishing the final rule, The Service has dacidad thai because this information is Dot presently available for review and public comment, these documents will ba mada available to the public for review before the Service finalizes the dasignation and issues a final rule, This will allow for meaningful public comment OD the role. Recovery plans have been written for three of the four species. The Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan was appl'OVild on March 16, 1978, and revised on August 6. 1991 (U,s, Fish and Wildlife Sarvice 1991), The Humpback Chub Recovery Pian was approved on August 22. 1979, with a first revision on May 15, 1984. end a second revision September 19. 1990 (U,S. Fish end Wildlife Service 19908). The Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan was approved on May 16, 1984, with a revised plan approved September 4, 1990 (U,S, Fish end Wildlife Service 1990b). Recovery goals contained in these recovary plens h~ebeenusedinlden~gand evaluating critical habitat for these three species. A recovery plan for the, razorback suckar I. currently in preparation by the Coloredo River Fishes Recovery Team (Recovery TaamJ and Service .taff, but It was not availabla for use in preparing this rule. Considerations and Impacts of Critical Habilat , A list and diSCUssion of activitias which affect or may be affectad by this proposed criticel hahitat designation has nol been completed. Once completad. thia information will be presented in the economic analysis and the biological support documenhnd-will be incorporatad into the final rule. "critical habitat," lIS defined In' section 3(5)(A) of the Act. means: (i) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time il is listad, on which are found those physical and biological fealures (I] essential to the conservation of the species and (m which may require special management considerations or protection: and (Ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it i.listed upon a determinetion by the Secretary that such areas are lissential for the consarvation of the speci.., The term "conservation." lIS defined in section 3(3) of the Act. means: Tha use of all methods and procedures