7893 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

cJ.:> , ,.. Dolores Project. Past Bureau practices show that conditions enabling escapement do arise, and escape from McPhee has occurred. See 13 May 93 article from Duranqo Herald, enclosed. Moreover, a biologist with the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service (Service) is on record as stating that escape from McPhee cannot be prevented with assurance. Service biologist Patty Schrader says in the Herald article, "There's no guarantee 100 percent. Anytime you have fish in a reservoir, it's about impossible to keep them in." Because the Service is the expert agency with respect to preservation of the endangered Colorado River fish, the Division should defer to the Service's more protective position on this issue. Thus, it must be assumed that bass and crappie will escape from the reservoir. What, then, of the Division's speculation that bass and/or crappie are unlikely to swim downstream to and survive in endangered fish habitat? There is no consensus within the biological community to support this claim. In fact, the 1982 Colorado River Fisherv proiect Final Report, produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation, indicates that largemouth bass already occur at the confluence of the Colorado and Dolores Rivers. CRFP Final Report. Part 2 at 114. The Division admits the same for the San Juan River. Thus, contrary to the Division's assertion, escapees from McPhee which reach endangered fish habitat do have a likelihood of surviving and preying on endangered fish. The Division asserts that the combined limits on escapement, downstream migration, and habitat suitability make interaction between endangered fish and species stocked in McPhee unlikely. But the past spill event shows that escapement does occur, and according to the Herald article biologists are concerned about the potential for sportfish interactions with endangered fish. Even if the likelihood of harm is small, the Endangered Species Act does not permit weighing benefits of other factors against impacts to endangered species. Indeed, in Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected just such balancing, finding instead that endangered species must be afforded "the highest of priorities." 437 U.S. 153 (1978). The Division, ironically, seems oblivious to this mandate. Ignoring the law, however, does not make it go away, nor does it exempt the Division from legal requirements. We remind the Division once again that by stocking piscivorous warmwater species such as crappie and bass in the Colorado River Basin, the Division risks liability under ~ 9 of the Endangered Species Act. Section 9 forbids any person from "taking" an endangered species. "Take..!! is defined broadly, and includes such actions as "harm," "harass," or "kill." When fish stocked.by the Division compete with or prey upon endangered species, the Division is liable for a take under the Act.