7961

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7961
• Author: Zallen, M.
• Title: Evolution of ESA Consultations on Western Water Projects.
• USFW Year: 1996
• USFW - Doc Type: \
• Copyright Material: YES

08/07/98 13:47

"

.

TlJis /f'fl 10
tll."fY!/rJlU'f"S .
"({tJr1l(~1'6 t"I"lmbrg
OHf' f bq Fir:\" '1'11$
t'sUlh/J.~J)/J't: "
Ilriiwl~I' .~l'_ttt"1"
sC1Jrtr'd/e /runt tbe
~sl"hli$Jx'C1 $llIll!
I/'lllt'" /"igbls prlQrily
lS)'str:m.

42

'8"2318383

ROCKY ITN. SOL

~ 002/004

the ptOjeclJ nttdcd to pr~Jude Ic:opardy. peared to have an adVU1tqC, panicuJarly tho&:
8f the fall ot 1980, couultltiOft on the wktJ juntOI' water rights_
Windy Gap projec:t 'MIS alllO III RaDdBtUl. 1be 1ft tcaaiQO to a banagc of comulwicm n--
project would deplete mnwdly up to 90,000 questS, lbe PWS aubl~d * policy to deter-
aett.fQ;t of water ODC huadTed fifty mlks from mCne I de~10per'5 pia<< in line. This kd to
eGCbngcrcd ftsb', habitat an the CoJorado Bivu. developed' attonv;}'5 c1almlag that me FW5 was
~ FWS, BR. lIQd project hydrologisal ~ed establ~ng . priority l)"Mem 5epantc: 6'om tb~
thallbe eiff:ct of the depl~ would be diln. esublllJhcd DIe 'M.kr rilhtl prioriry lyateRl.
c::ult to detect. Tbc FWS, howtvet, bt:lincd that The result ~ viewed by watu UJerf Iil.iI a st:p.
any additional ~plt'tion WIll UlIcl,. to jeopu-. aa&c', conf1k:til\~ pilorlt)' system. The FWS rem.
di~ the lOUrY;"I" 0( tbe fish. Flnalty, tbe aseo. edied. tlUs by developing lL flow baseline based
des ~ ~t ~pardy would be offseE if R OIl projcas o~tlltinx within their w:ucr rlghu
'Windy Gap ProJca would provide f'undiOI Cor prJoritles under mle Jaw. ~h new projeCt QP-
some of the b2billlt nr-.nipulldan :and ICKa1'Cb eratiOIl plan. used 10 determine projeCt iIb.
n~d5 identified in the Fws's de'lltlopina con- pactS, must now acCOUnt fQl' t.he effecu of any
~O':I.tion p~an. It was $OOD recognized tbu the ' senior mtce righl5.
Windy Gap approACh C()Uld be U!ed lor similar
projcai. From 1981 to 1985. the FWS iss~
Iblny-~ WIndy GAp-type Opinions for pr0j-
ectS ,lw.could deplete up 10 ~15,91' ~.fCC't
)'nrly.
lbc threc:-year fIabery RUdy asreed to by
the FWS Ii'ld DR. in 15)78 provklc:d DCW InCO('.
IDalion; ~here WlIII not enoup data, however. to
dctcnalM d1e ~fhabitat re(arionshfp. There-
fore: I when the PWS In June 198' teJea6ed for
com~nt a draft of a preliminary coose1'Va.ticm
plaa wltb flow criteria nudnIy baed upon .hIs-
torical .flows nthc:r than the biological ~ of
t~ &h, it was lI/:'Vlerely crltlcized. The recom.
mended averqe yearly fisllcty fJ<JwI,. 3.6 mi.-
lion acre-fut, wa-r about~.ba1f of the:zverage
annual ftows needed u rclnses dOWMtrtam to
fulfill rcquircmma of the: Colorado lUver Com-
pact. Dc:velopcn who ~n!' c:'Dpp in .formal
or Informal CODSulmtioJl round that, If the noWl
were to be mrt, thq''W'Ould not be able to diven
111 cenain JoeamOll at certain Eim~s of die yar.

Priorities Altw6d by ConswtQtZ(Jn

Requirnnents

Adding to rhe conrro..eRY was a 1981 Sol.
icitor', Opiaion 00 Cumulative Eff<<ta, 88 1.0.
903. which Rated It_ in MterroiQ&ng prc-proj-
ect h:ablQ( conditiDlLll. thr F\VS was to account
COJ' abllng projeCI. impacriq UpoD tbc habi.
tar, pro~ whfch had puled m~1" u"<kr
se<:tion 7. but Wtre not yrt on.Un~i and reatOn.
ably I;';rtain pr:lvatt projeaa nO( lubject to sec-
tion 7 collllUlration. TIx: dcvclopns Interpreted
l~ opinion. 35 a flrst.in.time, tim-in.ript ap-
proach and ruahc::d [0 COn$uh with the FW$.
Sio<< (he fWS would recalculate the hAbitat t'eo
malning llttt!:t etch coosuJult1on unckr t~ fimr-
in-lime. fim.ln.riShl SCftlArro of d1C 1981 opln.
ion. (hose who fini5hed corwulcarlons first op.

Changef in Uu to
Sustain H abittlt

ADother majot Issue arlse& W~ft HwreU1l
flows iK nccd.!:d 'or habitat IDlIlntenance and a
developei' 58 rcqucS&ed to forego eomc COD'
sumpriwo use in IQ('(ler to malnraln the IRSlteat'b
fl0W5. OevetopeI1l daten IhAt a pl"operty ri[dt:
llcquil"l:d under state law 15 me.reby ~cd.
ThbIlllliuc: arose shortly after lhe Gl'2yrocks cue.
'I'M FWS issued a jeopardy opinion bKallSt' the
propolACd Wildcat Dam WlJuld deplete 11,00(1
a.cre-{eec from the; South PJattf; RjYer. In the:
opinion. the FW'$ recommended CO the Corps
thlll jeopardy would be preCll1~d if the proje<::
'WOUld n;lcaK water to maintain whooping cram
llabia.t in Ncbt"aska
A lawsuit 'wa$ filed and many vnrcr disrrictJi
and weStern surCl! intervtned. Then lhe FWS
~d . xcond biological opinion. Althougt.
the new opinion still concluded dlat the dc-ple-
lion would a.dversely affect the aanc5' cdtica.
babiw, it aClted that jcOp2.rdy could be off$e[
iltbe' projea committed to keep 102 acres aJonJ!
the Plane River habitac clear of VC"8e~tiw: en.
croachment; no releases were recommended.
In pressing thc:lr lawsuit, the ploUn'iffi
claimed that: (I) the CQl'P5 aDd FWS positioN
VloJared section 101 (g) of the Oeao. WQtt'r At:.t.
which scaCOI that c;ongrcssional policy is DOl te
abrogau:. Illlte'S IUthoriry lO allocate; wata 01
water righls tSlllblWw:d under :R:I.tC 1:aw; and
(2) ~hc Corpi', furisdlctlon WlISllmited co water
quality and, th(:rd'ore, the Corpli could nex ap.
ply the ESa\ to Jmp2ctS mult.1ns fn;ml ch~ga
In w:HCt' quantity.
Mter 105lng on t~ ISSUes in tbe district
OOUrt, tlK plalntiJ'& appealed. ~ T~nd~ Cir.
cuit Court of Appe-.ts ruled mal Ihe Cor.DS was
Continued on page 70