My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9398
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9398
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:35 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 4:33:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
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
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />the management alternatives for their relative potential to realign the process in ways that would <br />give them greater opportunity for input and influence. <br /> <br />B. Discussion of Management Alternatives <br /> <br />With the exception of No Action, Litigation, and Programmatic Section 7, all of the alternatives <br />offer three common elements, albeit to differing degrees. They (1) offer more opportunities <br />for proactive, effective involvement by Participants; (2) are more cooperative in nature; and <br />(3) provide a comprehensive conservation strategy. <br /> <br />1. Alternative A: No Action <br /> <br />Relative to the other alternatives, a series of Section 7 consultations provides the least <br />predictability of future conditions. Participants would have little advance knowledge of ESA <br />compliance requirements for projects yet to undergo consultation. Participants would have little <br />opportunity to achieve prelisting agreements with the Service, leaving them susceptible to ESA <br />compliance problems posed by additional listings of species as endangered or threatened. <br />Individual Section 7 consultations could result in project-specific incidental take statements; <br />however, inclusion of such statements is not guaranteed. All these factors would combine to <br />limit the ability of Participants to plan future projects or existing project operations and <br />modifications with certainty. <br /> <br />The No Action alternative leaves all parties in a reactive position relative to actions by the <br />Service in the Lower Colorado River corridor. As described above, Reclamation's decision to <br />conduct a BA of existing Lower Basin project operation could launch a Section 7 process that <br />could lead to a federally directed RPA. Failure to take a proactive approach to ESA compliance <br />could have serious, adverse consequences for the Participants. Such a scenario unfolded in <br />1993-1994 at Glen Canyon Dam, where a draft RPA was issued that may significantly reduce <br />peaking power options at the dam. <br /> <br />2. Alternative B: Litigation <br /> <br />For the Lower Colorado River, litigation appears to have limited viability. Legal challenges of <br />the listings of the four big river fishes would almost certainly not succeed, and challenging <br /> <br />FINAL REPORT <br /> <br />December 20, 1994 <br />Page 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.