9326 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r 31 ~,.,- s .. ~, `~` et ~.y;, `v ~; 'e w,~ 5.~. -~,. ~-°3 L ~. ~, Background On January ZI-22, 1988, the Secretary of the Interior; the Governors of Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah; and the Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration were cosigners of a Cooperative Agreement to implement the "Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin" (Recovery Program) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1987). An objective of the Recovery Program was to recover the listed species while providing for new water development in the Upper Basin. In order to further define and clarify processes outlined in sections 4.1.5, 4.1.6, and 5.3.4 of the Recovery Program, a Section 7 Agreement and a Recovery Implementation Program Recovery Action Plan was developed (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). The Agreement establishes a framework for conducting all future section 7 consultations on depletion impacts related to new ~ projects and to with historic rojects in the Upper Basin. ~~_ Procedures outlined in the Agreement wil a used to determine if sufficient / progress is being accomplished in the recovery of the endangered fishes to ~ wch~ enable the Recovery Program to serve as a reasonable and prudent alternative ,~~ `p~,~ to avoid jeopardy. The Plan was finalized on October 15, 1993, and has been u'~""z reviewed and updated annually. In accordance with the Agreement, the Service assesses the impacts of projects that require section 7 consultation and determine if progress toward recovery has been sufficient for the Recovery Program to serve as a reasonable and prudent alternative. If sufficient progress is being achieved, biological opinions are written to identify activities and accomplishments of the Recovery Program that support it as a reasonable and prudent alternative. If sufficient progress in the recovery of the endangered fishes has not been achieved by the Recovery Program, actions from the Plan are identified which must be completed to avoid jeopardy to the endangered fishes. For historic aro~ects, these actions serve as the reasonable and prudent alternatives a~ g as the le e i en i red in or new projects, these actions serve as the re nab a an pru en alternative so lon~as ey are comp eted before the im ~~ In determining if sufficient progress has been achieved, the Service considers (a) actions which result in a measurable population response, a measurable improvement in habitat for the fishes, legal protection of flows needed for recovery, or a reduction in the threat of immediate extinction; (b) status of fish populations; (c) adequacy of flows; and (d) magnitude of the project impact. In addition, the Service considers support activities (funding, research, information and education, etc.) of the Recovery Program if they help achieve a measurable population response, a measurable improvement in habitat for the fishes, legal protection of flows needed for recovery, or a reduction in the threat of immediate extinction. The Service evaluates progress separately for the Colorado River and Green River subbasins; however, it gives due consideration to progress throughout the Upper Basin in evaluating progress toward recovery.