Laserfiche WebLink
<br />research on their life histories, the control of non-native fishes that may be <br />limiting the survival or recruitment of the listed fishes, and the artificial <br />propagation of listed fishes for research and possible augmentation of wild <br />populations. Re-introduction and population augmentation is to be preceded by <br />habitat protection or restoration in all of the plans, but the amount of <br />artificial propagation or preceding habitat restoration is not specified. A <br />major step in the recovery of the humpback chub is to resolve its taxonomic <br />status, which now overlaps to some degree with the bonytail and more common <br />roundtail chub. This taxonomic confusion may be symptomatic of habitat stress <br />and hybridization. <br />The process for formulating and implementing recovery plans was broadened in <br />policy statements published by the FWS in July 1994. Returning to one of the. <br />basic purposes of the ESA, the FWS emphasized that recovery plans should seek <br />to restore the "ecosystem" on which listed species depend and to conserve the <br />biodiversity of that ecosystem by protecting non-listed species and unique <br />biotic communities that depend on the same ecosystem. Multi-species recovery <br />plans are to be developed when possible. At the same, the social and economic <br />impacts of implementing recovery plans are to be minimized, and parties <br />outside the FWS that could be socially and economically affected by plan <br />implementation may be invited to participate in the plan's formulation. <br />Section 7 <br />Affirmative conservation duty. Under Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA, all federal <br />agencies have an affirmative duty to utilize their authorities'to conserve a <br />listed species, even when the agencies are not being asked to approve any kind <br />of a permit. This affirmative duty can be the legal basis-for changing the <br />operation of federal dams and reservoirs in the Colorado River Basin for the <br />benefit of the listed fishes. If the water supply or flow regulation from <br />such projects is not already committed to another authorized purpose, Section <br />7(a)(1) implies that the flows should be committed to the listed fishes. <br />Biological consultation Compliance with Section 7(a)(2) has been a central <br />concern of each of the programs discussed in this paper. Under this section <br />of the ESA, all federal agencies must consult with the FWS about whether any <br />funding, permitting or other action by an agency is likely to jeopardize the <br />continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify its designated <br />critical habitat. The federal action must also not appreciably reduce the <br />likelihood of species recovery. Section 7(a)(2) can apply to the operation of <br />federal water and power projects that were constructed prior the enactment of <br />the ESA in 1973 because the continuing federal action in operating this system <br />may affect a listed species or its critical habitat. There is a set time <br />frame for biological consultations under Section 7(a)(2) and no provision for <br />public involvement, although federal agencies and their permittees will <br />frequently agree to extensions until a mutually acceptable set of alternatives <br />can be developed and will sometimes agree to make draft biological opinions <br />available for outside comment. State and<.private actions will be scrutinized <br />in consultations to the extent to which they have a nexus with any federal <br />action. <br />If, after this consultation, the FWS issues a biological opinion that the <br />proposed federal action is likely to jeopardize the listed species or <br />adversely modify critical habitat, then the FWS must also suggest what <br />reasonable and prudent alternatives can be taken to avoid the likelihood of <br />jeopardy or adversely modifying critical habitat, and without appreciably <br />reducing the likelihood of species recovery. No irreversible or irretrievable <br />commitment of resources can be made during the consultation that would <br />foreclose any such alternatives. The suggested alternatives must also stay <br />within the scope of the proposed federal action and within the legal authority <br />of the consulting agency, and be economically and technologically feasible. <br />It is conceivable, however, that there is no reasonable and prudent <br />5