Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Steering Conunittee, the Feasibility Conunittee selected the following nine management <br />alternatives for analysis: <br /> <br />A. Alternative A: No Action <br /> <br />The No Action alternative would be a continuation of present policies toward ESA compliance <br />on the Lower Colorado River. This would entail individual Section 7 consultations (as deemed <br />necessary) between the sponsoring federal agencies and the Service for new and existing <br />projects. Section 7 consultations with the Service are mandatory for federal agencies when their <br />actions may affect listed species or critical habitat. The objective of the consultation is to <br />determine the effects of the project, and to develop ways to minimize and mitigate such effects, <br />Under. the No Action alternative, the Service would likely take primary responsibility for <br />developing conservation efforts in the Lower Colorado River corridor. However, given that <br />each federal action is unique in character and probably affects listed species in different ways, <br />and given the narrow focus of recent jeopardy opinions and associated reasonable and prudent <br />alternatives (RPAsl, it is unlikely that a comprehensive, coordinated conservation strategy <br />would be developed through individual Section 7 consultations, The No Action alternative <br />would include the federal action(s) that result from the BA currently being undertaken by <br />Reclamation in the Lower Colorado River Basin, <br /> <br />B. Alternative B: Litigation <br /> <br />The litigation alternative is always available to Participants in order to challenge ESA <br />implementation actions that they believe to be legally or factually invalid. Litigation is not <br />mutually exclusive of any of the alternatives, <br /> <br />C. Alternative C: Programmatic Section 7 Consultation Agreements <br /> <br />A Progranunatic Section 7 agreement generally addresses procedural matters within the context <br />of a federal management plan, providing an agreed-upon framework for future Section 7 <br />consul.ations, The agreement could encompass as little as pro;ocols for data collection and <br />timetables for the consultation process, or it could define what constitutes take, adverse <br /> <br />. Note the jeopardy biological opinions for Glen Canyon Dam operations (Oclober 13, 1993) and the <br />Cenlral Arizona Project (April 15, 1994) (see Appendix B). <br /> <br />FINAL REPORT <br /> <br />Decemoer 20. 1994 <br />Page vii <br />