WSP04316 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

327 The proposed plan provides for significantly more depletions than the No Action alternative. 328 The proposed plan also does not preclude depletions beyond.those shown in the depletion table; 329 however, additional evaluation, NEP A compliance, and ESA consultation would be necessary for 330 any depletions beyond these. The SJRBRIP has developed principlesJ that explain and outline 331 the process under which additional water projects and depletions will be evaluated: 332 The SJRBRIP will produce a list of actions defined in a Long Range Plan that can be 333 implemented to assist in the recovery of the fish. When ESA consultation is initiated on a 334 new water depletion, the Service will determine if progress toward recovery has been 335 sufficient for the Program to serve as a reasonable and prudent alternative or measure. 336 The Service will also consider whether the probable success of the SJRBRIP is 337 compromised as a result of a specific depletion or the cumulative effects of depletions. 338 The Service will assess the sut1iciency of Program actions in proportion to the potential 339 impacts-that is, the smaller the impact of the action, the lower the level of actions by the 340 SJRBRIP or others needed to avoid jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse modification 341 of critical habitat The Service will determine whether progress by the SJRBRIP is 342 sufficient to provide a reasonable and prudent alterative or measure based on the 343 following factors: 1) Actions that will result in a measurable positive population 344 response, a measurable improvement in habitat for the fishes, legal protection of flows 345 needed for recovery, or a reduction in the threat of immediate extinction. 2) Status offish 346 populations. 3) Adequacy of flows. 4) Magnitude of the impacts of the activities. 347 If the Service finds that SJRBRIP and other efforts are sut1icient, the biological opinions 348 will identifY that these are a reasonable and prudent alternative. If the Service finds that 349 they are not sut1icient, the biological opinion will be written to identifY actions that must 350 be taken to provide a reasonable and prudent alternative. 351 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 352 This section of the biological assessment addresses changes to hydrology that would occur with 353 implementation of the proposed plan for reservoir operations. In general, the changes will 354 involve a long-term change in operations to provide for a spring peak and maintenance of a base 355 flow. Maintenance of the base flow (500-1,000 cfs) will generally cause releases to be lower 356 than presently occur, although at certain times during the summer, releases will be increased over 357 existing conditions to meet base flows. 358 Flow recommendations were developed using U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) flow data records 359 from 1929 to the present Prior to Navajo Dam, approximately 73 percent, of the total annual JPrinciples for Conducting ESA Section 7 Consultations on Water Development and Water Management Activities Affecting Endangered Fish Species in the San Juan River Basin 12 00658