Board Meeting 05/03/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. David Getches Page Three • projects in the basin, encompassing over one million acre-feet in depletions . ) We were disturbed to find, however, that the subcommittee's assessment of the effects of future depletions on the river system's flow regime did not account for the depletions that would take place upon completion of the projects for which sec- tion 7 consultations are pending or recently have been completed. Instead, the subcommittee apparently made a political judgment of which projects are likely to be operating within fifteen to twenty years, and considered only those projects. Thus, the subcommittee's conclusion that "changes in the flow regime be- tween now and the year 2000 will be small and insignificant" is irrelevant to examination, in the context of a section 7 consul- tation, of a specific water project's impacts on the fish species. The Fish and Wildlife Service can not, in carrying out its responsibilities under the Act, weigh the likelihood of a pro- ject's actual use of water. Instead, the agency must examine the potential effects of water development projects on the species' habitat requirements and must, on that basis, determine whether a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. If the answer*is in the affirmative, the Service must issue a jeopardy opinion. While a judgment about the future may be a valid element of • an effort to fashion a long-term . - • • - has no place in an ongoi • - - • - Lion 7 consultations. Indeed, permitting the Service to engage in such speculation would be tantamount to gambling with the extinction of the endan- gered fishes of the Colorado River. * If jeopardy is found, the Service is to suggest those reason- able and prudent alternatives that could be taken by the appli- cant to avoid the jeopardy finding. The Service also has the flexibility to issue nonjeopardy opinions that permit reinitia- tion of consultation if new information suggests that endangered species might be threatened. Such an alternative could be part- icularly useful for multistage projects and in cases where actual development will not occur for a number of years after consulta- tion is initiated. Long lag times between consultation and development has been an especially prevalent problem on the Colorado River. It is highly likely that biological and hydrolo- gical conditions will change over a period of decades. Issuance of biological opinions conditioned upon reinitiation of consulta- tion once a project becomes a reality may represent a reasonable response to the uncertainty that surrounds projects of this kind. Nevertheless, the threshold inquiry is, and must continue to be, whether a proposed project will jeopardize the continued exist- ence of the endangered fish species.