Laserfiche WebLink
<br />10 <br /> <br />10. WHY ISN'T FHS PURSUING PROJECT SPONSORS OF EXISTING <br />PROJECTS VIE~~D AS ACTUALLY CAUSING THE CURRENT <br />PROBLEH? <br /> <br />FWS concern on the Upper Colorado River Basin is <br />primarily focused on three endangered fish species <br />endemi.c to the Colorado River: bony tail chub (Gila <br />elegans), humpback chub (Gila cypha) and Colorado <br />squawfish (Ptychocheilus licius). <br /> <br />This endangered status i~ the result of a <br />reduction in the historic range and a <br />drastic decline in population of these <br /> <br />fish over the past 20 years (USFWS 1983). <br /> <br />Recent draft Biological Opinions by the FWS highlight <br />the alleged impacts caused by existing dam~ and <br /> <br />reservoirs. For example, in assessing the'impact of <br />the Price Stub Dam, TIIS concludes that "it is likely <br /> <br />that this structure acts as an upstream barrier to <br />fish migration during most flow stages." <br /> <br />r <br /> <br />If this type of migration blockage is viewed as a <br />problem, why is FWS seeking redress from future <br />projects instead of from the actual perpetrators? 1 <br />----~ <br />FWS has ongoing jurisdiction over those projects <br />which went through Section 7 consultation. More <br /> <br />-26- <br />