WSP07668 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

13392 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 54 I Monday, March 21, 1994 I Rules end Regulations Biological Comments . Federal agencies with insuring !bat their Issue 25: Some'respondents indicated actions do not jeopardize the continued that little or no historic information existence of the species. To fulfill that exists that these fish species were ever responsibility, Pederal actions that ed ~ affect these fish must provide for the found in some-areas'propos or habitat and biological needs of the designation. Some believed' that species. All,.,..;no a s".".;es to go extinct ni.zotback snckerswere not native to----o :--- Arizona's interior rivers but were because it has not adapted to rapid introduced there. habitat changes caused by human Service ,A-: The Service development is not pennissible under . ~.JA-'- the Act. selected river reaches for this Issue 28: Many respondents designation .that are part of the historical commented that the Service needs more range oflhlmr species. Historical or biological data to determine critical recent records regarding the existence habitat and therefore no areas should be andlor PreseDCllof' ",-~fthese fipshthexistforfew designated. . . almost all ........areas. or ose Service Response: The Act specifies that do not have a historical or recent that "The Secretary shall designate record, infm:mation from species experts critical habitat' . . on the basis of the was used. iu',addition to eYAmtnAtion of best scientific data availahle" * ..... nearest knowlllocations and of the The Service has determined !bat the predeveiopmeniriver system to quantity and quality of existing determine !fthe. species ",""likely to biological data for these speciesis have been pmsent. Historical records adequate for designation ofcritical indicate !bat Arizona's interior rivers habitat. These fishes have been the were inhabited by.the zazorbecl:; sucker. subject of intense stndy for over 10 but razorbaclt.suckeRI were extirpated years and a s;g,.Hi~nt amount of . by th'e 1il6O.... Ili'fnri. to reintroduCe infonnation has been co1lected. The mzorback.ouckms in. these areas .. . Service is confident !bat the best continue. ecmvinciDg evidence was. available commercial and scientific deta presented durHIs the comment peIiod has been WIIld as required by the Act that ~me8ll!l8l p<oposed for. . . and that data is more than adequate to designatioD-,Weoeoutside. ofhistoric8l determine critical habitat. . range of theJlUbject species. This . Issue 29: Numerous respondents . resuhedm",~e in boundaries as stated that the designation of critical discussed elsewhent in this final rWe. habitat would not benefit these species. Issue 26:~'RISpODdenls were:: . Seivice Response,Designation.of concerned thatthe ruorback sucker is critical habitat provides an avenue to found in some.river reaches only recognize and inventozy areas important because of stOCking (reintroduction) for the survival and recovery of a programs and-that these programs may species.lt also provides additioual not have been sucx:essful. protection under section.7 . Service.1ii:sponse: Natural . consultations. especially for those areas populations of.the razorback sucker not continuously OCCIlpiad:by were ext!lpatad from historical habitats individuals of the species, or from .the in the GiIil.. Salt, and Verde Rivers by effects of Federal actions upstream of the 1960'''; During the late 1970's and the critical habitat. into the 1980's. efforts were made to Issue 30: Several respondents slated reesUiblish these populations using that all habitet in the Basin has been hatchmy reared fish. These efforts have degraded and therefore should not be not been as successful as hoped. but the designated as critical habitat. Service believes that some of the Degradation may include seasonal introduced.fish have sui-vived in these . drying of the river or portions thereof, systems wbele. the razorback historically changes to temperature and siltl was a native 1ISb. sediment load. changes to the historical Issue 27:A feW individuals believed hydrogmph, construction of dams and . that these species should be allowed to reservoirs, and introduction of go extinct -bec:ause they cannot adapt to nonnative fishes. changes in the river systems. Service Response: The Seivice agrees Service Response: The Act provides that there are no remA;n;"g pristine the means to conserve the ecosystems river systems in the Basin to designate upon which. endangered species and as critical habitat. However. while threatened species depend. In section physical changes to the habitat have 2(a). the Act.fincls that wildlife and occurred, the areas proposed for plant species havs intrinsic values . designation maintain or have the (aesthetic. ecological. educational, potential to continue to support historical, recreational. and scientific populations of these species. The four valoes) that_ .worth preserving for the Colorado River endangered fishes benefit of all citizens, The Act charges species _ adaptable to many physical conditions, and their survivalin modified habitats such_ TeserVOirs is an example. Furthennore, management actions to restore areas of physical habitat also 8.T9 possible, so degradetion may not be permanent. issue 31: Numerous respondents stated that nonnative fish species have adversely affected the endangered species. that the Servi.....was primarily responsible for their introduction, and that this effect is more important to the survival of these species than changes to physical habitat. These mspondents maintained that the presence of nonnative fish species in an area should preclude that area from ilesignation as critical hahitat. Seivice Response:The Service recognizes and is cow:emecl about the problems with and implications of the presence of nonnative fish species in the Basin. There are no river systems in the . Basin that do not have ....AhW.J..o.l populations of nonnative fish species. In areas with more natural habitat conditions, the native fish are better able to competil with nolmatives. Over time, as habitat is :restored, m_~~ actions to provide for JeCrUitmeut of native fish to local pllpulat1ans c:aahe . taken to plnnina:te or,zeduc:e the-effects of nonnative fish. The- Service _ BKl must consider the impacts of stocking nonnative fish prior to doing SOU' funding such actit>ns.1n the Upper Colorado River Basin, the Service is worXing with Stata agencies and othms to protect these endangered fishes by developing a stocking policy for nonnative fishes.. . Issue 32: Respondents indicated that additional areas should. be included in' the designation. Additions were suggested for proposed reaches and to rivers cummtly not included in designation. . Service Response: The Administrative Procedure Act requires Federal agencies to provide sppropriate notification of proposed actions prior to making final determinations. Therefore, the Service cannot adopt a final rule thatis significantly more restrictive than the proposed rule without first offering the public an opportunity to comment on the differences. Notice and public comment may only be waived in special cases. such as emergencies or in instances where s proposed amendment makes only minor technical changes in a rule. Some of these additional areas mey warrant designation. and the Service will consider designating them at a later date through the rulemaking process with proper notice and comment. These areas include the Little Colorado River up to Blue Springs for humpback chub, additional areas for