WSP00270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

EIS Update - Draft Biological Opinion and Reasonable and Prudent Alternative By: Steven W. Carothers, EIS Team Member Hopi Tribe The U .S, Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) recently released draft biological opinion is having a significant influence on the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), FWS will modify the preferred alternative to provide a number of years of experimental seasonally steady flows. FWS believes that attainment of a more natural riverine condition is essential to the survival of endangered and other native fish species in the Grand Canyon. They believe that seasonally steady discharges will more closely resemble the pattern of the predam natural hydrography. At the January 27-'2B, 1993, cooperating agencies meeting, FWS was the lone dissenting agency when 11 of 12 agencies supported selection of the Modified Low Fluctuating Flow (MLFF) alternative. The almost unanimous support for MLFF, which is very similar in discharge pattern to interim flows, was based on the significant amount of beach and riparian "healing" that has taken place in the Grand Canyon since November 1991 when interim flows were initiated. Compared with discharge patterns in effect since closure of the dam (No Action alternative), interim flows have greatly reduced maximum flow, increased minimum flow, and restricted daily fluctuations affecting beach erosion. In the draft biological opinion, FWS supports the concept that seasonal steady flows (high spring and low summer and fall flows) will benefit native fish. When most of the cooperating agencies selected the MLFF alternative over the Seasonally Adjusted Steady Flow (SASF) alternative, they did so knowing the positive, but limited, benefits of interim flows to every resource, including native fish. FWS agreed that MLFF was clearly better for native fish than the No Action alternative; however, they believe that sufficient evidence exists indicating that SASF will further enhance conditions for native fish. FWS administers, interprets, and enforces the Endangered Species Act; and they are required to prepare a "biological opinion" when an action which may affect one or more endangered species is proposed. The draft biological opinion presented to the cooperating agencies on October 13-14, 1993, states very clearly that FWS believes implementa- tion of MLFF will jeopardize the continued exist- ence of endangered fish in the river below the dam. Not everyone agrees with FWS on this issue; but when endangered species are at stake and empirical data are limited, FWS formulates decisions designed to err on the side of the species. Scientific Debate The scientific community has not reached consensus with some of the FWS assumptions in the biological opinion. A concern exists that with steady flows there is also potential for enhanced conditions for non-native warmwater fish. Under conditions of steady flows, non-native fish species, known to be competitors with native species, may also benefit. FWS questions the likelihood of non-native species benefitting to the detriment of native fish. There is also the possibility that steady flows will result in no change to the existing fishery. This dispute cannot be scientifically resolved on the basis of available information, nor can the data be gathered quickly; hence, the cooperating agencies' original selection of the MLFF and their reliance on the adaptive management process to resolve the debate. Reasonable and Prudent Alternative The Endangered Species Act provides FWS with authority to prepare a reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) for any Federal action which may "jeopardize" an endangered species. The primary goal of the FWS' RP A is to reduce known limiting factors (e.g" cold water and daily flow fluctuations), recover endangered fishes, and conduct research to identify additional factors which operate to limit distribution and density of the endangered species. The alternative proposed by FWS essentially calls for a pattern of steady flows similar to the SASF alterative from April through October. Discharges during the balance of the year would follow that of the MLFF. The RPA also calls for detailed scientif- ic studies designed to determine whether native and (Continued on Page 7) 3