Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br />., , <br /> <br />Section 7 Consultation Procedures <br /> <br />Section 7 of the ESA requires ,that federal ag~ncies must determine whether <br />their proposed actions may affect a threatened or endangered- species. If so, <br />formal consultation with the USFWS is then required. One of the principal <br />concerns raised in the Section 7 consultation process was the cumulative <br />effect of water depletion from the Colorado River system on the habitat of <br />the endangered fishes. The USFWS maintained that water depletions impacted <br />the fishes in the following ways: <br />1. reduced the quantity and quality of backwater habitats that are <br />formed by high run-off during the spring -- habitats that are used <br />extensively by the Colorado squawfish during migration and spawning;- <br />2. reduced the availability of nursery areas or rearing habitat <br />essential for the survival of young Colorado squawfish; <br />3. reduced the sediment transport capacity of the river that, in turn, <br />affected basic productivity and the availability of important <br />habitats used by the endangered fishes; <br />4. created riverine habitat conditions favoring non-native fishes that <br />compete or prey upon the endangered fishes; and <br />5. reduced the future fleXibility to manage streamflows to benefit the <br />endangered fishes (i.e., water that is consumptively used cannot be <br />managed, appropriated or acquired to benefit the endangered fishes). <br />Beginning in 1977 and continuing through 1981, the USFWS wrote "jeopardy" <br />biological opinions for all major water depletion projects in the upper <br />basin. However, none of these projects were cancelled because each' <br />biological opinion contained "reasonable and prudent alternatives" that, if <br />implemented, would offset adverse impacts to the endangered fishes. The most <br /> <br />j <br />