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

13396

Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 54 I Monday, March 21, 1994 ! Rules and Regulations

.

critical habitat designation must be
addressed: . .
Service Response: The economic
analysis addresses both monetary cost
and the benefits of designating critical
habitat. Monetary values associated
with the. benefits of the existence of.the
species are not within the framework of
the economic evaluation of critical
habitat designation nor is such an
evaluation required by the Act. These
types of economic data would require
extensive reSearch and debate prior to
being .used in the evaluation of critical
habitat.' . . .
Issue 62: Afewrespondents indicated
that changing flows to bene!it the
endangered fish.wouldbe detrimental to
people along.the rivers.
Service-Response: Designation .of
. critical habitat is not a management
plan for the recovery of these
endangered fish. Speci!ic management
actions suCh as changing flows to
benefit these .fish will result from the
RIP's, other-recovery programs, and
actions.or piojecl-specific requirements
of biological opinions. Effects offlow
changes due to Federal actions that
benefit the,ilndangered fish will be .
addressed tbroughthe NEPA process.
. Issue' 63:.Several respondents . '.
questioned why only 10 percent ofth.
cost of recOvering these fish was . '.
attribiited.tx>mitieal habitat. Others. .
were confused' On how the Service .
arrived ilt:!he 90/10 percent split. .
between sPecies listing and Critical
habitat deSigliation. ..'
. Service Response: The Act requires
that' the econOmic and other relevant
impacts of. designation of critical habitat
be determined. This provision req~es
that the Service separate those costs
specific to designation of critical habitat
from th.e costs associated with the
listing of these species. The Service
used the.extensive history of section 7
consuliations that used the "jeopardy"
standard to estimate the level of
additional protection that might be
provided by "adverse modification."
Although the.increased protection
provided by critical habitat varies by
impact type (flood plain 'activities,
depletions, etc.)', overall the Service
determined thaHncreased protection
provided by critical habitat would
account for approximately 10 percent of
the total cost.identified.
Issue 64: A few respondents
questioned the selection of 1967-1985
for the hydrologic period to be used in
p.reparation of the economic analysis.
Some also indicated that using average
flow years did not give an accurate
portrayal of impects. .
Service Response: The Service
selected the 1967-1985 periodbecatlse

it reflected the hydrology of the system
with major water developments in plilce
and operating without any operational
changes due to endangered fish needs.
Thus, this period Was the most accurate
one available for determining the full
economic impact of reoperation of the
river system for recovery of the
endangered !ish. Average, above
average, and below average flow years
were modeled.

Social Comments

Issue 65: Some respondents believed
that humans are the real endangered
species. Fish should not be considered
more important than people. There is no'
benefit to .peo.ple from these species.
Service Response: The Act strives to
protect species that are in danger of
becoming extinct in the immediate or
foreseeable future. Humans are not in
such danger. On the contrary, the
number of humans has increased in the
last 100 years at a rapid rate. Humans
have, ilt.times, believed that some other
species may be of little or no value,
when in fact the same species later has
been determined to be of great value. In
the past, the Colorado River fishes were
of value to marl for subsistence food,
and they were widely taken for
recreational imd commercial reasOns.
The four endangered fishes are
considered of value to different
segments of the human population for
widely different reasons. As a case in
point, one species, the Colorado
squaw!ish has been valued by" humans
for several different reasons, includb;lg:
. (1) Histone valu&-it has been suggested
that the food provided by this fish was
of importance in the early settlement of
portions of the West, and it was
certainly used as food by American
Indians; (2) food for humens-the
literature is full of accounts of humans
catching and eating Colorado squawfish,
and its culinary qualities have been
widely attested; (3) scientific-the .
potomadromous migrations and unique
life cycle of this largest North American
minnow is of great scientific interest
and importance; and (4) ecological-as
the top native predator of the Colorado
. River, it has a valid place in the natural
Colorado River ecosystem.
Issue 66: Many respondents believed
that the designation would adversely
affect the quality of life in communities
adjacent to critical habitat because loss
of water rights, elimination of flood
plain developments, prevention of new
flood control projects and similar issues
may result in destruction of
communities. .
Service Response: The designation
will not take existing water rights nor
will it require the removal of existing

flood plain developments. Any new
flood control project or other water
development project would likely be
subject to section 7 consultation, and if
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat were found, reasonable
and prudent alternatives would be
developed to address the project
purposes. Actions without Federal
involvement are not affected by the
designation of critical habitat.
Issue 67: Several letters indicated that
designation would adversely affect
historic use of resources and lands.
Service Response: Existing
development and use'ofwater rights
and non-Federal lands will not be
. .affected by the designatioD, .!lLcritical
habitat except in cases where a Federal
project or funding is required. Actions
without Federal involvement are not
affected by the designation of critical
habitat.
Issue 68:"Some respondents wondered
how the designation would affect useof
these rivers and reservoirs for
recreation. .
Service RespciriseiThe direct effects of
critical habitat designillion upon'
reservoir and river-based recreation are
expected to be minClr;Pew Federal.'.
actions related to recreation are likely to
"destroy or adversely modify" critical
habitat. Power boating, rafting, .
swim.-"1ling,lishing, and.similar uses do
not significantJy impact or destroy the
physical habitat of these species. -
However, these types of activities (now
changes, sport fish management, etc.)
may be affected by specific efforts to .
recover these species. The Economic
Analysis provided data on the potential
economic impacts to recreational
activities due to designation of critical
habitat for these species. This
information can be used to evaluate the
signi!icance of the effect of critical
habitat will have upon the various
recreation activities in and along the
Colorado River system.
Issue 69: A few respondents stated
that decisions affecting the quality and.
way of life in a community should be
made locally and for the bene!it of the
local community.
Service Response: Congress has
determined that endangered species
consideration is of national importance
and sbould be evaluated in a wider
context. Effects to the local community
are recognized in the process of
designating critical habitat. However,
the econom.ic analysis and the exclusion
process, according to the Act, only
consider national and regional impacts.
An area can be removed from the
critical habitat designation if the
economic costs of the designation are
greater than the bene!its to the species'