9398

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9398
• Author: SWCA, I.
• Title: Feasibility Assessment for a Multi-Species Management Program, Lower Colorado River.
• USFW Year: 1994.
• USFW - Doc Type: Salt Lake City.
• Copyright Material: NO

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

potentially could be reversed and additional recommendations for future operational changes
prevented by the more cost-effective, off-channel conservation strategy.

2. Incidental Take and Adverse Modification Issues

Quantifying incidental take has worked well for HCPs in terrestrial environments, but accurately
quantifying take and adverse modification of critical habitat for endangered fish in the Lower
Colorado River would be difficult at best. This should not be a problem, however. Section
lO(a) of the ESA does not stipulate that take must be quantified for the Secretary to permit
actions that would otherwise be prohibited by Section 9. In order to qualify for a Section 1O(a)
permit, the Lower Colorado River HCP steering committee would have to work with the Service
to formulate adequate conservation plan measures to mitigate the impacts resulting from assumed
incidental take.

3. Reclamation's Biological Assessment of Existing Operations

The alternatives identified and described in this feasibility assessment must be evaluated within
the context of Reclamation's decision to conduct a BA 8 of existing reservoir and river operations
in the Lower Colorado River Basin. The BA will result in one of three possible determinations
of the impact of these operations on the listed species and critical habitat. 9 A finding of "no
adverse effect" would require no further action and operations could proceed. However,
findings of either "likely to affect" or "may affect" would require Reclamation to request a
formal Section 7 consultation with the Service. If a consultation is required, the Service will
render a biological opinion on whether the operations are likely to "jeopardize the continued
existence" of the listed species and/or "adversely modify critical habitat." The opinion could
go either way, but if the Service does render a jeopardy opinion and/or finding of adverse
modification of critical habitat, the affected Lower Colorado River projects would be required
to comply with an RPA developed by the Service. Elements of the RPA could include flow-
related solutions that would negatively affect both hydroelectric and water projects in the Lower
Colorado River corridor. Given the possibility of this outcome, the Participants should examine

ESA ~ 7(c)

50 CFR 402.

FINAL REPORT

December 20, 1994
Page 11