Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2. Incidental Take and Adverse Modification Issues <br /> <br />Quantifying incidental take has worked well for HCPs in terrestrial environments, but accurately <br />quantifying take and adverse modification of critical habitat for endangered fish in the Lower <br />Colorado River would be difficult at best. This should not be a problem, howevcr. Section <br />lO(a) of the ESA does not stipulate that take must be quantified for the Secretary to permit <br />actions that would otherwise be prohibited by Section 9, In order to qualify for a Section IO(a) <br />permit, the Lower Colorado River HCP steering committee would have to work with the Service <br />to formulate adequate conservation plan measures to mitigate the impacts resulting from assumed <br />incidental take, <br /> <br />3. Reclamation's Biological Assessment of Existing Operations <br /> <br />The alternatives identified and described in this feasibility assessment must be evaluated within <br />the context of Reclamation's decision to conduct a BAS of existing reservoir and river operations <br />in the Lower Colorado River Basin. The BA will result in one of three possible determinations <br />of the impact of these operations on the listed species and critical habitat. A finding of "no <br />adverse effect" would require no further action and operations could proceed, However, <br />findings of either "likely to affect" or "may affect" would require Reclamation to request a <br />formal Section 7 consultation with the Service, If a consultation is required, the Service will <br />render a biological opinion on whether the operations are likely to "jeopardize the continued <br />existence" of the listed species and/or "adversely modify critical habitat." The opinion could <br />go either way, but if the Service does render a jeopardy opinion and/or finding of adverse <br />modification of critical habitat, the affected Lower Colorado River projects would be required <br />to comply with an RPA developed by the Service. Elements of the RPA could include f1ow- <br />related solutions that would negatively affect both hydroelectric and water projects in the Lower <br />Colorado River corridor. Given the possibility of this outcome, the Participants should examine <br />the management alternatives for their relative potential to realign the process in ways that would <br />give them greater opportunity for input and influence. <br /> <br />ESA 9 7(c) <br /> <br />9 50 CFR 402, <br /> <br />FINAL REPORT <br /> <br />December 20, J 994 <br />Page .l~' <br />