WSP00537 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r I ' .' " 8 Alternatives The Endangered Species Act requi.res the FWS to recommend reasonable and prudent alternatives for any proposed project likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. The purpose is to avoid jeopardizing listed species while allOwing implementation of the proposed project or allowing an alternative that would accomplish the desired objective. We have discussed this requirement with WPRS. The most serious problem posed by the Dallas Creek Project and related water developments is the loss of water from' the Gunnison River and the , \ Colorado River. We know of only one alternative which would allow the proposed project to be constructed and operated without jeopardizing the Colorado squawfish and the hUlllpback chub. That alternative is the release of water from tbe Dallas Creek Project or from other projects that regulate flows in the Gunnison River and the Colorado River in order to replace the depletionS caused by the Dallas Creek Project. This released water could provide for .essential life stages of the endangered fishes~ The Curecanti Project may be the best source of water for such releases. The Dallas Creek Project would deplete 17,200 acre-feet of water in an average year. 'To compensate for this loss of water from the river system, it may be necessary that an equal volume be released to the Gunnison River from one or more projects. This alternative would prevent the Dallas Creek Project itself from jeopardizing the existence of the fishes of concern. We are intensively studying the endangered Colorado River fishes, but at present we cannot recommend specific flows that should be released. However, our studies :may reveal that flow releases totaling less than 17,200 acre-feet annually are adequate for tbe fishes to survive in tbe areas and in the numbers that we believe necessary for recovery. When our Colorado River Fisheries Investigation is complete in 1981, we will recommend flows for' specific essential babitat areas of tbe Colorado River. In the'inter:iJD, we ask the WPRS to make whatever preparations are necessary so that flow adjustments can be :made after our study results are analyzed. BASIS FOR 'OPINION-NONJEOPARDIZED SPECIES American Peregrine Falcon' Formerly, the peregrine was locally common in the western United States. Historically,' 180 kno~ pairs of peregrines nested in the Rocky Mountain- Southwest Region' where fe..er than 30 pairs now occur. Peregrine populations in Colorado have also declined in recent years due primarily to habitat loss and widespread use of chlorinated hydrocarbons, primarily DDT, in