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

critical habitat designation would prove to be extremely difficult given the wide latitude
delegated to the Service in designating critical habitat.

3. Alternative C: Programmatic Section 7 Consultation Agreements

The Programmatic Section 7 alternative lends itself best to situations with few variables and
where individual consultations tend to be repetitive. The diversity of projects and possible
actions and the number of species in the Lower Colorado River corridor present a complicated
situation. Different programmatic agreements would have to be developed for each class of
actions (e.g., dam operations, water diversion, water storage, etc.). Programmatic Section 7
agreements can streamline the Section 7 process, and provide additional assurance as to
outcomes, but they still provide a lead role for the Service, little opportunity for effective
involvement by the Participants, and they would constitute only a minimal comprehensive
conservation strategy.

4. Alternatives D-l and D-2: Recovery Implementation Programs

The RIP alternatives would allow more involvement by the Participants than would No Action;
however, based on previous RIPs the Service takes the lead in directing a RIP. This is because
a RIP is a federal program implementing a federal recovery plan. While a RIP has numerous
advantages in that it can mitigate findings of adverse modification and/or jeopardy opinions and
includes a comprehensive conservation strategy, it does not provide a mechanism for incidental
take. Participants could still find themselves in violation of Section 9 of the ESA. A RIP has
the potential to serve as the RPA for a further Section 7 consultations. The D-2 RIP alternative
(for all listed species), would better meet the Participants' compliance needs than the D-l
alternative, but would also be more costly and time-consuming to develop and implement.

5. Alternatives E-l and E-2: Habitat Conservation Plans

Advantages of the RCP process include the fact that it would be initiated by the Participants,
and would be developed and directed by an RCP steering committee, with circumscribed
involvement by the Service (they provide advice during development and approve or disapprove
the final document). The HCP alternatives (including the Modified RCP) are the most proactive
of the management alternatives. All RCP alternatives would result in comprehensive,

FINAL REPORT

December 20, 1994
Page 13