7055 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I controversial issue affecting proposed Colorado River ~ater projects, especially those projects that involve the energy resources of the basin and the gro~th of major east-slope municipalities. Most ~ater-development projects during the 1970's ~ere impoundments and/or trans-basin diversions constructed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BR). These projects were issued jeopardy opinions by the U.S. Fish and wnldlife Service (FWS), under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, because the proj~cts might adversely affect endangered fishes. However, these opinions included compensating measures for consideration by project sponsors. If such measures were follo~ed, RWS believed that the negative effects of the proposed projects on endangered fishes would be greatly reduced. Specifically, BR ~as asked to provide flows--through management of their extensive reservoir system--to help maintain populations of the endangered fishes. Although there were no definitive data that showed a clear relationship between discharge and the well-being of the populations of endangered fishes, it was self-evident that discharge of some magnitude was necessary to help maintain and recover these populations. The magnitude of such flows was unkno~n and needed to be determined by further studies. Solutions to these and other problems of endangered Colorado River fishes have been difficult to achieve, however. Until recent years, little information on the habitat requirements of these fishes was available. Because such information was needed, RWS and BR cooperated in 1979 to develop the Colorado River Fishery Project (CRFP), a group whose purpose was to collect and interpret information on endangered Colorado River fishes. Beginning in the late 1970's, planning for several private water- development projects was initiated by shale-oil companies and east-slope municipalities. Each of these projects was required to comply with the Endangered Species Act. Although most of these projects were not in areas occupied by endangered-fishes, they presented a difficult Section 7- consultation problem for FWS because their effect was to reduce flows in downstream reaches that included habitat for endangered fishes. Furthermore, unlike BR projects, these private projects did not have the capability of providing future discharges that might be required for endangered species. Many fishery scientists speculated that alteration of natural flow regimes by water-development projects was an important factor in the decline of the endangered fishes. Because of the possible additive effects of the small changes in flow resulting from the proposed projects, an assessment of their impacts on the endangered fishes could not be deferred. The FWS was thus obligated to issue Biological Opinions on projects ~ith long-term potential effects on endangered fishes and to recommend reasonable and prudent alternatives to lessen these effects, even though important biological information on the endangered fishes was lacking. After much consideration, FWS developed an interim procedure that would not preempt these projects and would provide for the collection of important biological information. This procedure was based upon three premises: 1. Additive effects of further water-resources development in the upper basin will lead to extinction of the three listed fishes unless intensive measures are taken to protect and manage the fishes and their habitats. 3