1101

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 1101
• Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. C. R. B. S.
• Title: Critical Assessment of PHABSIM Model, and the Modeling Effort.
• USFW Year: 1985.
• USFW - Doc Type: \
• Copyright Material: NO

The following is an outline discussion of short- and long-term ESA Section 7
implementation, conservation funding, future roles for the Biological Sub-
committee, and a general recommenation.
SHORT-TERM IMPLEMENTATION OF ESA SECTION 7
ALTERNATIVE A
The current approach involves the presumption of ieopardv to the fishes due to
anv depletion of river flaws and the imposition of conservation requirements
through "Windy Gap" payments. "Windy Gap" payments can be applied to specific
conservation measures, such as monitoring research and Structural modification
or to study to better define impacts ar possible additional mitigation
measures.
Alternative A Pro's
o All projects are treated in a similar manner.
o Funds are made available for conservation measures.
Alternative A Con's
o The presumption of jeopardy due to any river depletion is arguable.
There is no conclusive data that establishes jeopardy.
o "Windy Gap" rtronies do not necessarily have a relationship to the
impacts caused by a proponent, nor do they necessarily mitigate the
impacts of a proponent's project,
o There is no overall conservation or recovery plan to provide a
framework for mitigation measures required under various Section 7
reviews.
Alternative B
Any project which simply affects flow tno physical blockage or direct impact to
the species) would be evaluated on whether established flow windows were
violated. Flow windows would be established using PHABSIM.
Alternative B-1
An excess or deficiency of flow during any particular month abased on a flow
window) would require the issuance of a ieopardv.opinion or the adoption of
reasonable and prudent alternatives to alleviate impact.
56