Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3 <br /> <br />determining the degree of agency discretion in the operations of Federal water projects in other <br />subbasins that are subject to review for compliance with the Act or for the combination of <br />recovery actions needed to achieve such compliance, <br /> <br />The Service received three requests for initiation of section 7 consultation on the subject action <br />from the following offices: I) Bureau of Reclamation, Eastern Colorado Area Office (September <br />24, 1999), 2) Bureau of Reclamation, Western Colorado Area Office (September 27, 1999), and <br />3) Western Area Power Administration (October 15, 1999). The Service concludes that the <br />implementation of the recovery actions identified herein and all existing and some new depletions <br />of water from the Upper Colorado River Basin above the confluence of the Gunnison River "may <br />affect" the endangered Colorado squawfish1 (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), <br />bonytail (Gila elegans), and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) and their critical habitat. The <br />Service concludes that the subject action is not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle <br />(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) or the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), <br />In recent years, the number of wintering and nesting bald eagles have increased in the Colorado <br />River within the action area, with historic water depletions in place, It is not likely that any of the <br />proposed actions will adversely affect bald eagles. The Service does not believe that historic <br />water depletions on the Colorado River have adversely affected the southwestern willow <br />flycatcher because in many areas there is more habitat (riparian vegetation - willow, tamarisk, <br />cottonwood) now than there was historically, Graf (1978) used photographic evidence, map <br />analysis, and field surveys to show the spread of tamarisk throughout the Colorado River system <br />and described its effects of enlarging and stabilizing islands, bars, and restricting channel width, <br />Many islands and shoreline habitats were not historically vegetated when spring flows were higher <br />and prior to the establishment of tamarisk along the Colorado River, <br /> <br />Consultation History <br /> <br />Implementation of the Endangered Species Act in the Colorado River Basin started with section 7 <br />consultation on Reclamation projects in the late 1970's, At this time, the Service determined that <br />a jeopardy situation existed for the subject endangered fishes, Subsequently, the Act was <br />amended to direct Federal Agencies to work with State and local agencies to resolve water <br />resource issues in concert with conservation of endangered species, <br /> <br />In 1984, the Department of the Interior, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, water users, and <br />environmental groups formed a coordinating committee to discuss a process to recover the <br />endangered fishes while new and existing water development proceeds in the Upper Colorado <br />River Basin in compliance with Federal and State law and interstate compacts. After 4 years of <br />negotiations, the Recovery Implementation Program for the Endangered Fish Species in the <br />Upper Colorado River Basin was developed. <br /> <br />IThe American Fisheries Society has changed the common name of this species to Colorado <br />pikeminnow (Nelson et al. 1998), therefore, it will be referred to as the Colorado pikeminnow in <br />this document. <br />