Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />John Turner <br />July 27, 1990 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />reflected in the draft opinion which is woefully inadequate. <br />Although the opinion's analysis of the impact of the <br />project's operation on the squawfish is subject to criticism, <br />the Service's lack of objectivity is most apparent in the <br />opinion's failure to identify reasonable and prudent <br />alternatives that would permit construction of the project <br />and still protect the legitimate needs of the squawfish. <br /> <br />The opinion's underlying biological analysis is suspect. For <br />example, the conclusion that reproduction by Colorado <br />squawfish was highest in 1987 because of the higher catch of <br />young of the year cannot be supported. The numbers of young <br />of the year Colorado squawfish captured in this investigation <br />(19) is too small to make such a determination. The <br />difference in numbers of young of the year between the three <br />years may simply reflect sample conditions, sample locations, <br />or a variety of other factors. <br /> <br />Likewise, the statement (p. 8) that Colorado sub-basin <br />populations of Colorado squawfish show particular signs of <br />further decline cannot be substantiated. It cannot be shown <br />statistically that the numbers of Colorado squawfish in the <br />Colorado River in the upper basin are declining. <br /> <br />In addition, the statement (p. 8) that a once healthy (pre- <br />Navajo Reservoir) historic population of Colorado squawfish <br />has been reduced to a few fish cannot be substantiated. <br />Historical records do not allow us to make such inferences <br />regarding the historical population levels. <br /> <br />While it is true that replacing depletions caused by the <br />Project with water from the Navajo Reservoir would still <br />result in net depletions (p. 22), the effect on the fish may <br />be more harmful if the San Juan River is maintained at its <br />current flow scenarios. There is a need to determine the <br />environmental needs of the Colorado squawfish in this system <br />and to provide the flows that fulfill these needs. <br /> <br />Most importantly, the opinion overlooks alternatives which <br />would allow construction of the Animas-La Plata Project. <br />Section 1536 (b) (3) (A) of the Endangered Species Act, <br />16 U.S.C. ~ 1531 et sea., and the Department's trust <br />responsibility to the Southern ute Indian Tribe, require the <br />