7802 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

126 Swimming Against the Current vironmental impacts be described, alternative actions be considered, and public input be sought for all federal development projects. The most significant federal legislation pro- viding protection for endangered fauna and flora, however, was the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. Section 7 of this act is par- ticularly significant because it states that all federal agencies must "insure that actions au- thorized, funded, or carried out by them do not jeopardize the continued existence of such endangered species and threatened species or result in the destruction or modification of habitat of such species." Section 4 provides for the listing and recovery of threatened or endangered species and directs the secretary of the interior to develop and implement re- covery plans. Section 6 encourages the federal government to cooperate with the states in conservation of threatened or endangered spe- cies and provides funds to states to conduct studies on such species. Section 9 prohibits the taking (including activities from harass- ment to capture) of listed species without proper federal and state permits. The 1973 act, and later amendments of 1978, 1982, and 1988, provided the foundation for the recov- ery efforts now under way for endangered Colorado River fishes. This act, in concert with the NEPA and the Fish and Wildlife Coor- dination Act, provides the major legal man- date for recovery efforts in the upper basin. Section 7 Consultation Procedures Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to determine whether their proposed action may affect a threatened or endangered species. If so, formal consultation with the USFWS is required, One of the USFWS's principal con- cerns raised by the section 7 consultation pro- cess was the cumulative effect of water deple- tions on habitats of endangered Colorado River fishes. The USFWS maintained that water depletions: 1. reduced the quantity and quality of back- water habitats formed by high runoff dur- ing spring-habitats that are used exten- sively during migration and spawning; 2.. reduced the availability of nursery areas or rearing habitat essential for survival of young; 3. reduced sediment transport capacity of the river, which in turn affected basic produc- tivity and availability of important habi- tats used by the endangered fishes; 4. created river habitats favoring non-native fishes that compete or prey upon endan- gered fishes; and ~ 5. reduced the future flexibility to manage stream flows to benefit endangered fishes (i.e., the water that is consumptively used cannot be managed, appropriated, or ac- quired to benefit endangered fishes), Beginning in 1977 and continuing through 198 I, the USFWS wrote "jeopardy" biological opinions for all major water-depletion projects in the upper basin. However, none of these projects was cancelled, because each opinion contained "reasonable and prudent alterna- tives" that, if implemented, would offset ad- verse impacts to endangered fishes. The most common alternative was the commitment by the project sponsor (usually the USBR) to pro- vide releases from existing storage reservoirs (e.g" Flaming Gorge and Blue Mesa) to offset water depletions, Major consultations com- pleted using this approach included the Do- lores, Dallas Creek, and Central Utah projects. ,In 1981 the USFWS reviewed the Windy Gap and Moon Lake projects, which would de- plete water from the Colorado, Green, and White rivers, These projects were not capable of guaranteeing releases to offset depletions, They were privately funded, and the sponsors wished to avoid jeopardy opinions because, they argued, such opinions would affect their ability to obtain financing and necessary con-