Case No. 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Grand Canyon Trust v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation December 7 2007

Home Browse Search

1 leaving the River too cold for spawning and rearing. Id. at 19, 23 & 27. As a result, the 2 chub is dependent on the Little Colorado River for all its life stages below Glen Canyon 3 though this Colorado River tributary is "extremely vulnerable to chronic or Dam, even t g 4 catastrophic threats." Exh. 11 (2005 SCORE) at 42 (below Glen Canyon Dam, chub relies 5 on the Little Colorado River as the primary spawning and juvenile- rearing habitat "); Exh. 3 r6 (1994 BO) at 32. Notably, FWS expressly recognized that while other factors may be 7 involved, Reclamation's Dam operations are responsible for impacts that have resulted in 8 jeopardy and adverse modification. Exh. 3 (1994 BO) at 33. In short, FWS determined 9 MLFF operations violate the ESA in its Biological Opinion 10 2. The Reasonable And Prudent Alternative 11 Under the ESA, FWS must provide a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) 12 when finding an agency's action results in jeopardy and/or adverse modification. 16 U.S.C. i13 § 1536(b)(3)(A). The RPA included in FWS's 1994 Biological Opinion is designed to 14 ensure Reclamation avoids violating the ESA section 7(a)(2) and does not jeopardize the 15 chub or adversely modify chub critical habitat. FWS made this clear in the 1994 Biological 16 Opinion, 17 [S]uccessful completion of the reasonable and prudent alternative is necessary to remove jeopardy to the humpback chub [] from the proposed action. The reasonable be when all elements of the selected ' 18 and prudent alternative will accomplished alternative have been effected and studies confirm compatibility between th[is] 19 species requirements and the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. 20 Exh. 3 (1994 BO) at 34. FWS required Reclamation to comply with the RPA because 21 "[a]ttainment of riverine conditions that support all life stages of endangered and native 22 fish is essential to the Colorado River ecosystem." Id. at 35. 23 FWS's Reasonable and Prudent Alternative addressed the adverse river flows and 24 cold water temperatures. Id. at 34 -38. RPA 1B, which concerns river temperatures, does 25 not impose specific requirements or deadlines on Reclamation, but simply requests that 26 Reclamation determine whether a "selective withdrawal program" can alleviate coldwater 27 releases from Glen Canyon Dam. Id. at 36 -37. 28 In contrast, in Reasonable and Prudent Alternative IA, FWS imposed detailed ' Memorandum in Support of Pls.' 11 Motion for Summary Judgment