WSP02775 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

26 In summary, without actions taken to offset their impacts, further flow reductions in the San Juan River are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Colorado squawfish. In addition to existing and potential impacts to the San Juan River described herein, there are existing reports by recognized species experts suggesting that wild populations of Colorado squawfish in the Colorado River subbasin are continuing to decline (Kaeding and Osmundson 1988, Osmundson and Kaeding 1990). The Service believes that the last remaining stronghold for the species is in the Green River subbasin; however, even there they do not appear to be increasing in number. Any catastrophic event there could result in severe impacts to the Green River subbasin population to the point of extirpation. The San Juan River is an essential component of the Colorado River Basin and is needed to ensure maintenance of a population of Colorado squawfish in the event populations are lost in the Green River subbasin and/or Colorado River subbasin. Considerations in DeveloDina a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative The Endangered Species Act requires the Service to work with the Federal Agency to develop a reasonable and prudent alternative to the project under consultation in the event of a determination that the project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species. As defined by 50 CFR, Part 402, Final Rule, Federal Reaister, June 3, 1986, an alternative is deemed reasonable and prudent only if: 1. It can be implemented by the lead Federal Agency in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the project. 2. The Service believes it would avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of listed species. 3. It can be formulated in such a way that it can be implemented by the lead Federal Agency consistent with the scope of its legal authority and jurisdiction. 4. It is economically and technically feasible. The process to identify a reasonable and prudent alternative occurred in three phases: (1) the period prior to the May 7, 1990, draft biological opinion; (2) the activities led by Reclamation during the summer of 1990 which ended with its September 2B, 1990, memorandum reviewing the draft biological opinion; and (3) the process established in the September 28. 1990, memorandum that resulted in Reclamation's proposed reasonable and prudent alternative as described in a March 4, 1991 letter. Finally, after independent evaluation, the Service utilized the results of this process in writing this biological opinion and the Service's reasonable and prudent alternative. Each step in the process is described below,