WSP05364 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t . . .. \- 2 increased availability of water (made possible by this sale) may impact bald eagle roosting areas along the river corridor, or new water intakes may affect listed fishes in ways not currently known nor analyzed in this biological opinion. Therefore FWS, in order to make a definitive determination under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, will need to consult with BR, on a case-by-case basis, on the impact of each project or action that successfully gains the right to receive any portion of the contracted water. Consultation is already complete for some projects that are sponsored by appropriators currently expressing interest in Ruedi II water. To differentiate between those projects which have undergone the Section 7 process and those that have not, BR should consult with FWS on each successful bidders' proposed water use. FWS will determine if the use of the water made possible by the sale could result in impacts to listed species in any way not previously evaluated through the Section 7 process. If the effects of a proposed sale of water to listed species have already been evaluated for a particular project or use through the Section 7 process, FWS will not need to issue another biological opinion and will so notify your agency, thus terminating consultation for that project. Additionally, we wish to make it clear that no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources is being made by offering to sell water to projects which may require additional Federal action and ESA consultation related to the planned use of the contracted water, since consultation will be completed before the sare-is finalized. As you are aware, a primary purpose of the ESA is". . . to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species depend may be conserved . . .." and the ESA dec1 ares it to be the pol icy of Congress that all Federal agencies use their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Section 7 of the ESA mandates this charge by not only directing the Secretary of the Interior to utilize programs administered by him for furtherance of the purposes of the ESA, but also by specifically precluding Federal agencies from taking actions which are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. "Those sections _ . . direct that the Secretary acti ve1y pursue a species conservation pol icy." Carson- Truckee Water Conservancy District v. Clark, 741 F. 2d 257 (9th Cir. 1984). Thus, FWS believes that the end result of this Interior agency consultation should not only ensure that the Ruedi Round II water sale is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the fishes, but should also provide positive conservation actions for the species. We believe that this approach to the consultation fulfills the Congressional directives for both BR and FWS to conserve the species and preserve the ecosystem upon which they depend. In part, this Federal action (water sale from Ruedi Reservoir), could be related to previous actions for which FWS has rendered biological opinions. An analysis performed using the Ruedi Round II water contract requests received by BR to date (Contract Request Fact Sheet dated January 27, 1984) and telephone interviews with industry officials conducted in May 1985 indicates that about 42 percent of the total requests for contracts (24,000 acre-feet per year) come from various oil companies. Impacts to federally listed species as a result of projects proposed by these companies related to future development of oil shale resources have been evaluated in completed --'"