WSP07668 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

13390 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 54 I Monday, March 21, 1994 / Rules and Regulations with no mention of the other three endangered Colorado River fish. However, because the intent of the Act is". * ... to provide a means whereby the ecosysteins upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved "" "" *." the Service also decided to propose critical habitat for the Colorado squawfish, humpback chub, 8.!1d bonytail chub. These fishes coexist in the Basin and much of their habitats overlap. However, for species that do not have a requirement to designate critical habitat, the Service may designate critical habitat at any time. The designation of critical habitat for four species in a single rule is more cost. and time-effective than designating critical habitat separately for each species,. . Issue 10': The public believed that they should be more involved in. the decision process and suggested that workgroups be established to designate critical habitat that involved affected groups. ..- Service Response: Through comments provided on the proposed rule, Draft Biological Support Document, and . Economic Analysis, the public provided . information considered by the Service in the decisiQn process. The Service, acting through its economic contractors, obtained additional information from .affectedgroups needed to complete the Economic Analysis. The process of asking forcmriments and holding. hearings is the Service's standard procedure for involving the public in decision malqng regarding lisling of species and designation of critical . habitat. Issue 11: Various groups irivolved in recovery efforts for the four fishes asked . how critical habitat will relate to exisling RIP's. Service Response: Critical habitat is an inventory of habitat needed for survival and recovery and not a plan providing goals or guidance toward achieving recovery, The Recovery Implementation Programs for the . Colorado and San Juan Rivers (RIP's) have, as their goal, recovery of these four fish species. Therefore, the designalion of critical habitat is not in conflict with the stated goal oftha RIP's. It is the intent of the Service that recovery actions under the auspices of the RIP's will serve as reasonable and . prudent alternatives to adverse modification. Issue 12: Afew respondents believed that the dasignation included so much area that it would not be manageable. Service Response: The Service's designation includes many miles of the Basin's major rivers covering the areas needed for the survival and recovery of the species involved. EXtensive areas are required to meet all the life history requirements of these four fishes. Issue 13: A few respondents stated that critical habitat designation is not "prudent and/or determinable." Service Response: On October 27, 1992, the Court ruled that the Service had violated the Act in failing to designate critical habitat when the razorback sucker was listed. The Court ordered the Service to have a proposed rule designating critical habitat for the razorback sucker published by January 25, 1993, using presently available information and to have a'more complete final rule published at the earliest time permitted by the Act and itsregulations. The language in the Act and Service regulations at.50 CFR 424.12 for determining prudency indicate that unless the designation will not be of net benefit to the species, it is prudent to designate critical habitat. If the Service finds that critical habitat is not determinable at the time, then it must collect the information needed to determine it and complete designation within 2 years of the proposed lisling. The Service has determined that designation in this situation is both prudent and determinable. . Issue 14: Many respondents questioned the effect of critical habitat on existing water laws, compacts (including compact entitlementsl, treaties, etc., and indicated that the Service had ignored the "Law of the River." Service Response: Critical habitat designation for the four fishes does not modify or n~fy any existing State water law, compact agreement; or treaty, It is the Service's opinion that the Act, as well as other Federal statutes, are part of what is commonly referred to as the "Law of the River". Impacts to water development opportunities within any State are adequately addressed in the Economic Analysis. . It is the intent of the Service to fully consider State water law. interstate compact agreements, and treaties in protecting and recovering the four endangered fishes. As an example, the Service has worked to establish and to support the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River Recovery Implementation Programs, whose participants have committed to recover the four endanger(ld fish consistent with State water laws and other agreements. Issue 15:A few respondents believe that the economic Impacts of listing the Colorado River fishes as endangered should be accounted for in the economic analysis as impacts of designating critical habitat. Service Response: The listing of a threatened or endangered species is considered a different action than determination of critical habitat. At the time of lisling, the Service considered biological factors in determining to list the four species as endangered. Regarding critical habitat, section 4(b)(2) of the Act places requirements on the Secretary to consider the economic impact and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Economic Impacts that result from other requirements of the Act that are distinct from critical habitat designation are npt required to be considered during.!he economic analysis for critical. habitat. Issue 16: Some respondents were concerned the Service did not seek adequate consultation with affected groups. . Service Response: The Service provided all interested groups as much time to comment on the propOsed designation as Court orders allowed. The timeframes required that existing information be used to develop .the economic impact inodeL Economic. information has been obtained from .' existing sources and also was req?ested at the time of publication ofth..."".... proposed rule, Draft Biological $iippprt Document, and the Economic Analysis. Issue 17: Some individuals belieYed that private properly should nofbe included in the designation. .:'.. . . Service Response: The Endimgeie.d. Species Act applies to all areas within the Uuited States and contains no biological or legal justification for the categorical exclusion of private lands from critical habitat designation. The Service designated critical habitat based on biological information regarding whether OF not an area contains the primary constituent elements for critical habitat for the four fishes, after taking into account the economic costs associated with the critical habitat designation. Critical habitat designation- only impacts private property if there is an action by a Federal. agency (permit, funding or other action) that is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical . habitat. The requirement to cansider adverse modification of critical habitat is an incremental section 7 consideration above and beyond section 7 review to evaluate jeopardy and incidental take of the species. Issue 18: A few agencies were concerned that critical habitat designation will increase administration/Implementation costs of doing section 7 consnltation. Service Response: Section 7 consultation is already being done on all Federal projects and other activities in