7281 ‎(2)‎

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7281
• Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Title: Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin, Environmental Assessment, November 1987.
• USFW Year: 1987.
• USFW - Doc Type: Denver, Colorado.
• Copyright Material: NO

CHAPTER I PURPOSE AND NEED I
C. Need for the Action
The Colorado squawfish, bonytail chub, humpback chub, and razorback sucker
were once more abundant in the Upper Basin. However, man's activities have
altered the Colorado River system to the detriment of these species. The
first three species are now federally listed as endangered species, while the
razorback sucker is a candidate for listing. For the purpose of simplifying
references, all four species are collectively referred to as rare in this
document.
The Service attributes the decline of these native fishes to changes in the
Colorado River ecosystem. The dams and reservoirs that regulate the river '
system have altered historic flows, obstructed migration routes, and created
lentic (stillwater) and coldwater habitat. These changes have reduced the
carrying capacity of the river for the rare fishes. In addition, many
fisheries biologists believe that introduced nonnative species compete with
and prey on the rare fishes, further reducing their numbers. A detailed
discussion of the imperiled status of these species may be found in this
assessment (Section III.B and Appendix A), "Recovery Implementation Program
for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin" (Section 1.2,
Appendix b.l), "Endangered and Threatened Fishes of the Upper Colorado River
Basin" (R.J. Behnke and D.E. Benson, 1983), and in the most current recovery ,
plans for the three endangered fishes.
Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act has been used as the
primary means to protect the endangered fishes from extinction.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to
consult with the Secretary of the Interior to insure that any action they
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction
or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such species. Authority to
conduct consultations has been delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to
the Service. If it is determined by the Service that a Federal action is
likely to jeopardize a listed species, the Service develops reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the action that will avoid jeopardy, where possible.

However, the Service has found it increasingly difficult to develop reasonable
and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy to the fishes from water depletions
in the Upper Basin. If the situation is left unchanged, development in the
Upper Basin could enter a period in which reasonable and prudent alternatives
that avoid jeopardy to the endangered fish which will allow water development
to proceed can no longer be identified. The Upper Basin would then face a
wrenching choice: end further water development or petition the Endangered
Species Committee to exempt projects that jeopardize the endangered fish from
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
1982
i
l
d
ear
n a
e c
Congress expects a constructive solution. This was ma
amendment adding Section 2(c)(2) to the Endangered Species Act: "It is
further declared to be the policy of Congress that Federal agencies shall

cooperate with State and local agencies to resolve water resource issues in '
concert with conservation of endangered species." Since Section 7
consultation is running out of constructive solutions to resolve water-use

I-2