Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002615 <br /> <br />serve as the reasonable and prudent 'alternative as long as they are completed <br />according to the schedule identified in the RIPRAP. For new projects, these actions <br />will serve as a reasonable and prudent alternative so long as they are completed <br />before the impact of the project occurs. The FWS has ulrimate authoriry and <br />responsibility for determining whether progress is sufficient to enable it to rely upon <br />the RIP as a reasonable and prudent alternative and identifying actions necessary to <br />avoid jeopardy. <br /> <br />7, Certain situations may result in the FWS determining that the recovery action in <br />previously rendered biological opinions are no longer serving as a reasonable and <br />prudent alternarive. These situations may include, but are not limited, to: <br /> <br />a. <br />b. <br /> <br />Critical deadlines for specified recovery actions are missed; <br />Specified recovery actions are determined to be infeasible; and <br />Significant new information about the needs or population status of the fishes <br />becomes available; <br /> <br />l <br /> <br />c. <br /> <br />8. The FWS will notify the Implementation and Management Committees when a <br />situation may result in the RIP not serving as a reasonable and prudent alternative. <br />The Management Committee will work with the FWS to evaluate the situation and <br />develop the most appropriate response to restore the RIP as a reasonable and <br />prudent alternative (such as adjusting a recovery action so it can be achieved, <br />developing a supplemental recovery action, shortening the timeframe on other <br />recovery actions, etc.). <br /> <br />9. The RIP is responsible for providing flows which the FWS determines are essential <br />to recovery of the endangered fishes. Whether or not a Section 7 review is required, <br />rhe RIP will work cooperatively with the owners/operators of historic projects on a <br />voluntary basis to implement recovery actions needed to recover the endangered <br />fishes. <br /> <br />10, The responsibility for the efficiency and effectiveness of the RIP, and for its viability <br />as a reasonable and prudent alternative, rests upon RIP participants, not with <br />individual project proponents. RIP participants fully share that responsibility. <br /> <br />11. If the RI P cannot be restored to provide the reasonable and prudent alternative per <br />Item 8, above, as a last resort the FWS will develop a reasonable and prudent <br />alternative, if available, with the lead Federal Agency and the project proponent. <br />(RIP participants recognize that such actions would be inconsistent with the <br />intended operation of rhe RIP). The option of requesting a depletion charge on <br />historic projects or other measures on new or historic projects will only be used in <br />the event that the R1PRAP does not or can not be amended to serve as a reasonable <br />and prudent alternarive. In this situation, the reasonable and prudent alternative <br />will be consistent with the intended purpose of the action, within the Federal <br />Agency's legal aUlhomy and jurisdiction to implement, and will be economically <br />and technologically feasible. <br /> <br />Appendix A - Section 7 Agreement <br /> <br />A-4 <br />