Laserfiche WebLink
alternative as long as they are completed according to the schedule <br />identified in the RIPRAP. For new projects, these actions will <br />serve as a reasonable and prudent alternative so long as they are <br />completed before the impact of the project occurs. The FWS has <br />ultimate authority and responsibility for determining whether <br />progress is sufficient to enable it to rely upon the RIP as. a <br />reasonable and prudent alternative and identifying actions necessary <br />to avoid jeopardy. <br />7. Certain situations may result in the FWS determining that the <br />recovery action in previously rendered biological opinions are no <br />longer serving as a reasonable and prudent.alternative. These <br />situations may include, but are not limited, to: <br />a. Critical deadlines for specified recovery actions are <br />missed; <br />b. Specified recovery actions are determined to be <br />infeasible; and <br />C. Significant new information about the needs or population <br />status of the fishes becomes available; <br />8. The FWS will notify the Implementation and Management Committees <br />when a situation may result in the RIP not serving as a reasonable <br />and prudent alternative. The Management Committee will work with <br />the FWS to evaluate the situation and develop the most appropriate <br />response to restore the RIP as a reasonable and prudent alternative <br />(such as adjusting a recovery action so it can be achieved, <br />developing a supplemental recovery action, shortening the timeframe <br />on other recovery actions, etc.). <br />9. The RIP is responsible for providing flows which the FWS determines <br />are essential to recovery of the endangered fishes. Whether or not <br />a Section 7 review is required, the RIP will work cooperatively with <br />the owners /operators of historic projects on a voluntary basis to <br />. implement recovery actions needed to recover the endangered fishes. <br />10. The responsibility for the efficiency and effectiveness of the RIP, <br />and for its viability as a reasonable and prudent alternative, rests <br />upon RIP participants, not with individual project proponents. RIP <br />participants fully share that responsibility. <br />11. If the RIP cannot be restored to provide the reasonable and prudent <br />alternative per item 8, above, as a last resort the FWS will develop <br />a reasonable and prudent alternative, if available, with the lead <br />Federal Agency and the project proponent. (RIP participants <br />recognize that such actions would be inconsistent with the intended <br />operation of the RIP). The option of requesting a depletion charge <br />on historic projects or other measures on new or historic projects <br />will only be used in the event that the RIPRAP does not or can not <br />be amended to serve as a reasonable and prudent alternative. In <br />this situation, the reasonable and,prudent alternative will be <br />consistent with the intended purpose of the action, within the <br />4 <br />