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

1
CHAPTER II
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
(1) Moderate Federal Action. Federal authorities are assumed to
be exercised up to, but not exceeding the point, that State
authorities conflict with Federal authorities. There is
assumed to be the same level of Federal funding as in
Proposed Action, except for the $10 million water rights
fund.
Under this scenario, Section 7 consultation would preserve
fish and habitat to avoid jeopardy from Federal actions, but
no more than that. Instream flow rights would not be
obtained and future water development projects would run a
greater risk of being modified or turned down due to
uncompensated depletion impacts to endangered fishes.
Section 5 of the Endangered Species Act allows acquisition of
water rights, but this authority would not be exercised under
this scenario and States are assumed not to cooperate in
acquiring instream flow rights. Without the States'
cooperation, there would be no permanent protection of
instream flows. Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act
would allow the Federal government to enforce against take by
anglers, but this would be an inefficient, labor-intensive
technique compared to preventative measures such as State
sportfishing regulations (restrict use of live bait,
stipulate temporary or permanent closures at trouble spots,
etc.). Threats from nonnative fishes would continue, since
Federal actions would be limited by the need for State
cooperation or by the constraint of not conflicting with
State authorities in order to reduce stocking of problem
nonnative fish or to eliminate problem nonnative fish from
specific reaches.
In summary, Federal efforts would be insufficient to recover
the fishes and future water development may be stymied by the
inability to use flow alternatives because there is no
assurance of permanent legal protection of instream flows.
Threats from angling and nonnative fishes would not be
reduced sufficiently. Therefore, this scenario was rejected.
(2) Strong Federal Action. Federal authorities are assumed to be '
exerted to the maximum extent to protect and recover the
fishes, even if this results in State authorities conflicting
with the assertion of Federal supremacy powers. The Federal
funding level is assumed to be the same as that in the
Proposed Action, including the $10 million water rights fund.
Under this scenario, Section 7 consultation would continue to
avert jeopardy to the fish. Although future water
development projects would be able to use flow alternatives
when there are jeopardy opinions to offset depletion impacts,
some projects may be delayed. Delay would result because a
project could not make an irreversible or irretrievable
commitment of resources before the Federal government '
II-24