Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Appendix IV <br />Development of a Reasonable and Prudent <br />Alternative <br /> <br />In 1979, the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation published <br />a plan for the Animas-La Plata project. At that time, Interior's Fish and <br />Wildlife Service consulted with the Bureau concerning the potential <br />effects of the project on the endangered Colorado squawfish. On <br />December 28, 1979, on the basis of the capture of a single juvenile <br />squawfish in the San Juan River, the Service issued a biological opinion <br />that the project was unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence of the <br />Colorado squawfish. <br /> <br />Surveys of fisheries conducted by federal and state researchers from 1987 <br />though 1989 documented a reproducing population of adult squawfish in <br />the San Juan River. lis a result of this new infonnation, in February 1990 <br />the Bureau resumed consulting with the Service on the Animas-La Plata <br />project. In May 1990, the Service issued a draft "jeopardy" biological <br />opinion, asserting that the project would likely jeopardize the continued <br />existence of the endangered Colorado squawfish and concluding that no <br />"reasonable and prudent alternative" to the project (referred to hereinafter <br />as the "alternative") existed. <br /> <br />In its 1990 draft biological opinion, the Service concluded that because <br />major water projects on the San Juan River and its tributaries had already <br />reduced stream flows to a critical level for the fish, depleting any water <br />from the Animas River would pose an unacceptable risk to the squawfish's <br />survival in the San Juan River. The Service's draft biological opinion <br />contained the following statement: <br /> <br />"Since the Service believes that in most years the river is already at or below the threshold <br />for minimum flows whereby the fish could survive in the river, any further depletions to the <br />river system could render the San Juan River unuseable by the Colorado squawflsh." <br /> <br />For this reason, the Service, in developing its draft opinion, had <br />considered but rejected each of three proposed alternatives to the project <br />as not biologically defensible. These alternatives were (1) changing the <br />design of the Animas-La Plata project to allow stored water to be released <br />for the benefit of the Colorado squawfish; (2) initially limiting and then <br />increasing the amount of water depleted from the Animas River for the <br />project over time to coincide with the construction schedule, and <br />perfonning scientific studies concurrently with the project's construction; <br />or (3) offsetting the anticipated depletions of water from the Animas River <br /> <br />Page 18 <br /> <br />GAOIRCED-96-1 _La Plata Project <br />