WSP07668

• File Number: 8240.200.10.C.5
• Description: UCRBRIP
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 3/21/1994
• Author: USFWS
• Title: Federal Register - Determination of Critical Habitat for Four Colorado River Endangered Fishes - Final Rule
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

13394

Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 54 I Monda,x., March 21, 1994 I Rules and Regulations

role of the Colorado River native fish areas, these flows must be evaluated and
eradication programs on listed fish in perhaps adjusted in the futme.
the San Juan and Green Rivers. Including specific flows as constituent
. Service Respcmse:1'he Draft elements would ~the rolemaking
BiolQ8ical Support Document contains a process be followed to make changes in
section that describes State and Federal recommended flows as research became
fish removal projects on the San Juan available. This would create
and Green Rivers 'These projects were administrative delays to respond to
an allemptto temporarily remove native fishery research recommendations. The
and nonnative. fishes from new reservoir flows used in Brookshire et aI. (1993)
storage pools prior to sportfish stocking, were developed solely for use in the
These projects were not expected to economic analysis. In reviewing the
pennanently eradicate those species nor impacts of futUl'll Federal actiuns on
were they intended to remove those critical habitat, the Service will use the
species from entire river systems. These best scientific and commercial
projects probably had little net effect on information available at that time, as
listed species. . re'luired by the Act.
--ISSUe-42:-Two.respondents,indicated__ ssue-45:.Se.vera1-respondents-were----
that the Ur-oer Basin Recoverv concemed that the Service intended to
Implementation ProgrlllIl was' not a poison all the ri~ to remove
substitute for designation of critical nonnative fish and .that the poison
habitat, would harm people, animals, plants,
Service Response: The RIP is not a and the soil. They also indicated their
substitute forth.. designation of critical displeasure con~eming th.loss of
habitat: however, the Ultimate goal of sportfish to recover.the endal!8erad fish.
both the RIP..amtthe designation is the Service RegpoIlSe: As stated
recovery (dellstingl of these endangered previously, the designation of critical
fish. It is the :intent-of the Service to habitat .does n~ require any particular
analyze and 1IIII8I1d the section 7 management action or actions to occur.
Agreement and Recovery Critical habitat serves to identify and
ImplementationP>~dUl Recovery inventory those areas where ..'
Action Plan of the RIP, as needed, in conserVation activities should occur. In
order for it toi>e:'a reasonable and '. the development of any specific plan to
prudent alternative for the destruction implement conservation actions in a
or adverse modification of critical. particular critical habitat reach. the
habitat for aU activities addressed by the sgency involved is required to follow all
RIP;., :... "";' ,".'" Federal and State laws and regulations
Issue 43: SoaN lllspOndents indicated prior to iml?lementing the action.
that the additioiml..1ection criteria for The SerVice has identified the
razorback sw:ksrWere too brOad, introduction of nonnative fish species
. Service Respol188' Tne additional into the Basin as a significant cause of
criteria used .toaid the Service in the decline of native fish species. It is
selecting areas forproposa1 as critical likely that the implementation of
habitat for theDZOrback sucker were conservation sctions may result in
broad to account for the various habitat proposals to reduce the numbers of
conditions, geographic areas, and life nonnative fish in a particular area.
history reqnn.lItllmts throughout the Techniques to reduce nonnativa fish
species' range. The species has been numbers include netting, trapping,
shown to use a variaty of habitats electrofishing, liberalization of creel
depending on geographic location and limits'and equiprilent restrictions,
other factors SIlCh as nonnative fish physical habitat alterations or
interactions thet affect their habitat. restoration, as well as the use of
Given the wide variety of habitats used toxicants.
by various lim stages ofrszorback The Service, or any other agency, is
sucker, the Service does not believe the . requlred to follow Federal and State
additional selection criteria were too laws and regulations in order to use fish
broad" toxicants. These laws and regulations
Issue 44: One respondent indicated are in place to protect nontarget
that the final rule should include organisms (including people, animals,
specified flows as constituent elements. plants, and soils) from adverse effects of
Service Response: Tha Service does the toxicant. Fish toxicants in use toclay
not believe it would be appropriate to have been used safely in rivers, ponds,
have specific flows included as and reservoirs for many years.
constituent elements because: (1) Flow Issue 46: A few respondents stated
recommendations based upon site- or that unoccupied areas should not be
river-specific research are unavailable designated as critical habitat, but
for most criticalllabitat areas, and (2) designated experimental nonessential.
even.thoughflow recommendations Service Response: The Service did not
could be made for some critical habitat include erly unoccupied habitat in this

designation of CIitical habitat. All areas
designated have recently'docwnanted
occurrences of these fish and/or are
traated as occupied habitat in section 7
consultations. There are two
experimental nonessential populations
for the Colorado squawfish in tha Salt
and Verde Rivers in 'Arizona. Ins hoped
that the species can be reestablished in
Arizona through work under this
designation, Protection of the fishes and
their habitat is greater under section 7
of the Act compared with those
provideil by the experimeIital
nonessential population classification,
which is intended to provide
management flexlbility.
Issue 47: Several respondents
questioned why the San Juan River
critical habitat for the razorback sucker
ended at the Hoghack Diversion and
extended to Fannington, New Mexico,
for the Colorado squawfish.
Service Response: Biological
information on the razorback sucker
indicates that this species has an affinity
for low velocity habitats such as.
backwaters and secondary channels.
The geomorphology of the San Juan
River below the Hogback Diversion
provides these types ofhabffirts.. . .
Upstream of the Hogback Diversion, the
river channel is more restricted With
faster.flowing, deeper water habitaiS,
and few bacKwaters or seco:ildary
channels are found. Thus, for the
razorback sucker, the area upstiearn
from the diversion dId not suIliciently .
possess the primary constituent
elements to justify its inclwiion as being
necessary for this species' conservation.
Biological information on the .-
Colorado squawfish indicates that the
adult fish use low velocity areas, but not
as much as younger liIe stages. Adult
Colorado squawfish often use more
high-velocity or deep water river
sections, si1nilax to those available in
the reach of the San Juan River above
the Hogback Diversion upstream to
Farmington, New Mexico. This reach
has been identified in. the Colorado
Squawfish Recovary Plan as being
needed for downlisting of this species,

Economic Issues

Issue 48: Many respondents raised
questions regarding the level of
geograpbic disaggregation in the
economic analysis.
Service Response: The direct impacts
of critical hsbitat designation were
determined at the river reach level.
Economic dsta were available at the
county level in the IMPLAN data sets
and formed the basis of the analysis.
However, it is inappropIiat~ to conduct
the economic analysis at the county
level or tribal lands level because the