8012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the plans, but the amount of artificial propagation or preceding habitat restoration is not specified. A major step in the recovery of the humpback chub is to resolve its taxonomic status, which now overlaps to some degree with the bonytail and more common roundtail chub. This taxonomic confusion may be symptomatic of habitat stress and hybridization. The process for formulating and implementing recovery plans was broadened in policy statements published by the FWS in July 1994. Returning to one of the basic purposes of the ESA, the FWS emphasized that recovery plans should seek to restore the "ecosystem" on which listed species depend and to conserve the biodiversity of that ecosystem by protecting non-listed species and unique biotic communities that depend on the same ecosystem. Multi-species recovery plans are to be developed when possible. At the same, the social and economic impacts of implementing recovery plans are to be minimized, and parties outside the FWS that could be socially and economically affected by plan implementation may be invited to partici- pate in the plan's formulation. SECT/ON 7 Affirmative conservation duty Under Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA, all federal agencies have an affirmative duty to utilize their authorities to conserve a listed species, even when the agencies are not being asked to approve any kind of a permit. This affirmative duty can be the legal basis for changing the operation of federal dams and reservoirs in the Colorado River Basin for the benefit of the listed fishes. If the water supply or flow regulation from such pro- jects is not already committed to another authorized purpose, Section 7(a)(1) implies that the flows should be committed to the listed fishes. 48 Biological consultation Compliance with Section 7(a)(2) has been a central concern of each of the programs discussed in this paper. Under this section of the ESA, all federal agen- cies must consult with the FWS about whether any funding, permitting or other action by an agency is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify its designated critical habi- tat. The federal action must also not appreciably reduce the likelihood of species recovery. Section 7(a)(2) can apply to the operation of federal water and power projects that were constructed prior the enact- ment of the ESA in 1973 because the continuing feder- al action in operating such projects may affect a listed species or its critical habitat. There is a set time frame for biological consultations under Section 7(a)(2) and no provision for public involvement, although federal agencies and their permittees will frequently agree to extensions until a mutually acceptable set of alterna- tives can be developed and will sometimes agree to make draft biological opinions available for outside comment. State and private actions will be scrutinized in consultations to the extent that they have a nexus with any federal action. If, after this consultation, the FWS issues a biological opinion that the proposed federal action is likely to jeopardize the listed species or adversely modify critical habitat, then the FWS must also suggest what reason- able and prudent alternatives can be taken to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy or adversely modifying critical habitat, and without appreciably reducing the likeli- hood of species recovery. No irreversible or irretriev- able commitment of resources can be made during the consultation that would foreclose any such alternatives. The suggested alternatives must also stay within the scope of the proposed federal action and within the legal authority of the consulting agency, and be eco-