WSP08898 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . 2 The Opinion then states that "the likelihood of recovery in the mainstem Colorado River is still appreciably reduced." It appears as though the Opinion is making the argument that a proposed action cannot reduce appreciably the likelihood of survival or recovery without falling below the jeopardy threshold. However, the opposite conclusion is supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) analysis of the regulations as printed in the following sections of the Federal Register: Page 19931 of the Federal Register, Vol. 51, No. 106, June 3. 1986 states: "The obligation of Federal agencies under section 7(a)(2) is to insure that the actions they authorize, fund or carry out are not likely to jeopardize listed species or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat. A showing of "adverse effect " does not necessarily violate section 7(a)(2), because the jeopardy standard is the ultimate barrier through which Federal agencies may not pass in conducting these actions. "Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives" represent avenues of fulfilling the action without violating the jeopardy standard." ' Page 19958 states: "The Definition of "Jeopardize the continued existence of" means to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species." (emphasis added) Page 19934 of this same rule states that: "The conjunction "and" was added to the 1978 rule's definitions of these phrases, but the word "both" was added by the proposed rule to emphasize that, except in exceptional circumstances, injury to recovery alone would not warrant the issuance of a "jeopardy" biological opinion." The difficulty of separating jeopardy and recovery is further illustrated by numerous references within the Opinion to pre-dam conditions and to a report by Dr. Stanford evaluating instream flows to assist in recoverv (page 31). Similarly, references within the Opinion to 'a unique opportunity to conserve and protect endangered and other native fish.. ' (page 33), and, reference to the Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA) as opposed to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), raise concern as to whether the reasonable and prudent alternative has as its goal removal of jeopardy or recovery. It should be recognized that the GCPA is Title XVIII of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, Title VI of which contains the provision that nothing in these titles shall be interpreted as modifying or amending the provisions of the ESA of 1973. Also, section 1806 of the GCPA states that nothing in this title is intended to affect in any way ...any Federal environmental law, including the ESA. Again, we appreciate the difficulty in separating impacts