7802 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r 2.8 Swilllming Against the Current struction permits, In response to this issue, the USFWS developed an approach known as the Windy Gap process, which allowed projects to proceed with a "no jeopardy" finding as- suming that the sponsor contributed monetar- ily to a comprehensive recovery effort for en- dangered fishes, The Windy Gap process was based on an estimate that it would cost $25 million to im- plement a comprehensive fishery conservation effort for the upper basin. Under this process, sponsors of a private development project were required to provide monetary compensa- tion for actions that wouid result in jeopardy to threatened or endangered species, based on a formula that considered quantity of water to be depleted and the volume of water re- maining after interstate compact flows to the lower basin were delivered. Consultation under the Windy Gap process resulted in nearly $ I. 3 million being provided to the USFWS between 1981 and 1987. These funds were used for studies of ecological require- ments, propagation and stocking, habitat im- provements, and other recovery efforts. The Windy Gap process did not apply to USBR projects, That agency instead agreed to set aside water in its reservoirs for later release to habitats occupied by endangered fishes. The Windy Gap process proved controver- sial. [n testimony before Congress, several en- vironmental groups alleged that it entailed "excessive and unnecessary risks of extinction for these species" (Environmental Defense Fund et. al. 1985). The USFWS discontinued the process on large water projects after 1985 and formed the Interagency Coordinating Committee that developed a section 7 consul- tation process acceptable to both environmen- tal and water-development interests. lronically, the new process that is described in the Recovery Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin (USFWS 1987a) is patterned after the Windy Gap process, Under the recovery program di- rect project impacts, sLlch as obstruction of migration routes or physical alteration of oc- cupied habitat, will be evaluated on a case-by- case basis by the USFWS during the section 7 process. Whenever possible, the USFWS will suggest reasonable and prudent alternatives to offset direct project impacts, However, the recovery program identifies r 59 km of the Colorado, Grcen, Yampa, and White rivers as extremely important to the protection and re- covery of the endangered fishes. Direct im- pacts to these areas would likely result in a "jeopardy" opinion without any reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid je-6pardy. Indirect impacts caused by water depletions will be offset by a onetime contribution of ten dollars per acre-foot of a project's average an- nual depletion and used to fund recovery ac- tivities under the recovery program. This amount is adjusted for inflation; for 1991 it was set at $10.91 per acre-foot. However, such contributions are subject to a determina- tion by the USFWS that progress under the re- covery program has been sufficient to offset the impacts of a proposed project, especially in the protection of in-stream flows. To date, the USFWS has maintained rhat there is signifi- cant uncertainty that legal protection of in- stream flows will be achieved under the recov- ery program in a timely manner. As a result, the USFWS has required proponents of large depletion projects to agree to additional con- servation measures such as dedicating a quan- tity of water for in-stream flows required by the endangered fishes in order to receive a "no jeopardy" opinion. Early Studies Early detailed investigations of the biota of the upper Colorado River basin were directed toward pre- and postimpoundment studies to answer questions about water quality (\XZ F. Sigler et al. 1966; Tsivoglov et al. (959) or the probable effects of future alterations in water