Case No. 81CW245 Little Snake River Water Management Project

Home Browse Search

Hodel, the CBPU was informed that "certain populations of the endangered fishes" could be protected through a "conceptual management plan." The plan's central thesis was that, "unless efforts are made toward habitat improvement and population enhancement, the impacts of further reduction and modifications to stream flows by some projects in the upper Colorado system will result in the eventual extinction of their species." 20. On June 1, 1981, the USFWS through Don W. Minnich, Regional Director in Denver, issued a second biological opinion in response to the Forest Service's March 18, 1980 request. This opinion expressly incorporated and referred to the April 17, 1981 letter from Undersecretary Donald Paul Hodel to the CBPU. The June 1, 1981 opinion discussed only survival of endangered species. (An opinion would issue by July 1, 1982, as to the proposed project's effects on recovery.) The June 1, 1981 opinion concluded that "Construction of Stage II is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Colorado squawfisz, humpback chub, or bonytail chub." 21. On June 23, 1982, John L. Buterbaugh, Regional Director of the USF;WS in Denver, issued a third biological opinion as to whether the Cheyenne Project would likely jeopardize the recovery of the endangered fishes. Mr. Buterbaugh's opinion letter does not express the required "no j.eopardy" finding regarding the recovery of the endangered fishes instead, the letter states that Cheyenne will be required to fund certain conservation measures. 22. On in-for-mation and belief, the CBPU has no contractor for the Little Snake Diversion facilities becaise the former contractor is no longer available for this job because its contract_ bi3 agreement for that construction explre3 by its own terms for failure to commence construction by J i _, 22, 1932.