Laserfiche WebLink
for recovery plans, which obligation requires the Secretary to <br /> make a species "better off. " <br /> Despite this clear statutory distinction, there has been a <br /> tendency in the Service to treat reasonable and prudent <br /> alternatives under section 7 as if they are the means by which a <br /> recovery plan is implemented. This is not a burden which the Act <br /> imposes on a project proponent. <br /> Matters came to a head in 1983 as a result of two actions by <br /> the Service. The first was a formal biological opinion for the <br /> federally authorized Narrows project in northeastern Colorado. <br /> In that biological opinion, the Service concluded that the <br /> project would jeopardize the continued existence of the whooping <br /> crane, the critical habitat for which is located some 265 miles <br /> downstream in Nebraska. The "reasonable and prudent alternative" <br /> which the Service suggested was to forego about one-third of the <br /> yield of the project for releases to instream flows which <br /> allegedly would arrive 265 miles downstream after crossing-a <br /> stateline (the flows at which are subject to an interstate <br /> compact) and after passing untold numbers of headgates which <br /> could not be prevented from diverting the waters so released. <br /> Furthermore, there was little, if any, evidence demonstrating <br /> that such releases would accomplish the channel scouring which <br /> was sought. In short, the proposed alternative was not <br /> reasonably calculated to actually minimize any adverse effects on <br /> the whooping crane. <br /> The other action was the release of a document styled a <br /> draft "conservation plan" for the three endangered fish species <br /> in the Upper Colorado River Basin. This document, as had earlier <br /> biological opinions, proceeded on the assumption that there could <br /> be no further depletions whatsoever to the Upper Colorado River <br /> system without jeopardizing the continued existence of these fish <br /> species . It suggested that pre-1960 minimum flows be maintained, <br /> including very large flushing flows which could have effectively <br /> prevented the State of Colorado from achieving any further water <br /> project development even though it is entitled to about 1 million <br /> acre-feet of additional annual depletions under the relevant <br /> interstate compacts. <br /> In light of the problems being encountered, the Colorado <br /> Department of Natural Resources, the Colorado Water Conservation <br /> Board, and Colorado water users suggested that there be joint <br /> efforts in both the Upper Colorado and Platte River basins to <br /> seek solutions satisfactory to all concerned. The result has <br /> been the execution of a memorandum of understanding between the <br /> Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the states of Colorado, <br /> Wyoming, and Utah in the case of the three endangered Colorado <br /> River fishes, and the implementation of a joint effort by the <br /> Service, the Bureau, and the states of Colorado, Nebraska, and <br /> Wyoming to deal with the whooping crane issues in the Platte <br /> • River basin. <br /> -4- <br />