BOARD01709 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

; 4It Statement Water project development in Colorado inevitably entails federal agency action of some sorts. Even when projects are privately financed, the large amount of federal land ownership in Colorado (about one-third of the state's land area) or the requirement for section 404 permits under the Clean Water Act bring the federal government into the project development process. Consequently, the consultation procedure called for in section 7(a)(2) and (b) of the Act is triggered for every water development project proposed in the Colorado River and Platte River Basins within Colorado. The involved federal agency must insure that its actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such species. If jeopardy or adverse modification is found, reasonable and prudent alternatives must be implemented. . Because of section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the application of the Endangered Species Act to water development projects is not limited to isolated circumstances in Colorado or the other western states. The Act applies with equal force to water project development throughout the country. Furthermore, listed endangered fish species, and listed plants and birds which utilize riverine habitats, are found in at least 10 states outside the west. In short, the problems created by the Act for water development will be nationwide in scope, although problems in the western states seem to be receiving the most attention at this time. Over the past four or five years, in both the Colorado River and the Platte River basins, the U.S. FiSh and Wildlife Service (Service) has consistently taken the position when issuing biological opinions pursuant to section 7(b) that nearly any additional depletion of water, no matter how small and even though within the entitlement of a state pursuant to interstate compact, would necessarily jeopardize the continued existence of three endangered Colorado River fishes or of the whooping crane, or adversely affect the critical habitat for the same. The scientific bases for these judgments have been. at best, uncertain due to a lack of information about habitat require- ments, life stages, etc. Nonetheless, the Service has taken the position that the entire burden of such uncertainty about the condition or requirements of a species falls on a project proponent when the Service renders a biological opinion. It is not clear that this is either appropriate or authorized by the Act. ~ In certain instances. the Service has suggested in its biological opinions that the onlY reasonable and prudent -2-