9377 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. existence" of a listed species or adversely modify its designated critical habitat. Subsequent to passage of ESA, Congress amended the Act to reduce conflict between development and T & E species by directing involved federal agencies to develop "reasonable and prudent alternatives" which if implemented would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy. Further, a process which would exempt a proposed project from ESA protection was also developed. To date, in virtually all cases in the Upper Basin, reasonable accommodations have been made for continuing water development orovided that the protected fishes were not harmed and that measures such as acquisition of water, exotic fish control, and artificial propagation were studied and implemented to recov~r their populations. The process started in a major way ;n 1977 with Recla~ation's plans to construct the Dolores project near Cortez, Colorado. The Service did not see how a major project such as MCPhee Dam could be built without significantly altering downstream flows both in volume and in timfng. Unfortunately, there was not much data in the basin as to the habitat requirements of the protected native fishes or their distribution and numbers. Ultimately, the Service issued a jeopardy opinion which basically required two things be done to offset impacts 1) BR would fund research to find out about the fishes' populations, distribution, and needs 2) .that when the information became available.BR would commit to provide 131.000 AF from existing storage (in this case Aspinall or other BR projects) to provide flow needs when determined. Similar opinions were written for Dallas Creek (17.000 AF). Jensen (15.000 AF) and the Bonneville Collection System (108.000 AF).