WSP11204 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(F\.IEI June 24. 1991 sc lAse , IF / L E In Reply Refer To United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE l'iR FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT UTAH-COLORADO FIELD OFFICE 2060 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1745 WEST 1700 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841M-SIlO c.J o r7.:> ,'.1) ~ OJ CWCB JUN 2619fn San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program Interested Parties RE: Review of Revised Sections of Recovery Implementation Program Comments on the February 15. 1991 Draft of the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (RIP) have been incorporated into a second draft of the Purpose. Background, and Organization sections for your review. Tom Pitts, Mike Donahoo and I have decided to move forward on the revisions despite uncertainties regarding completion of the San Juan Basin Memorandum of Understanding, We are transmitting only 3 of the 5 sections for your review at this time. We will proceed with the other two sections shortly. As expected. some of the review comments were at odds with regard to program organization, goals, and species to be included. We would like to explain our rationale for our proposed approach but are still willing to entertain any additional ideas of critical concern, Therefore, we would like your second review to be "fatal flaw" to help us reach consensus and move forward. OrQanization Most commentors believed the Service's role in the RIP was too controlling. We have. therefore. modified language to allow interested parties to appoint their own representatives without Service approval and to include more consultation during the planning and implementation phases of the program. In the proposed revision the Service retains the staff lead responsibility to ensure that project proposals and plans are prepared. implemented, and completed. We believe this is within Service authority and responsibility yet not an attempt to be dictatorial. Bureau of Reclamation comments would shift this responsibility to the Biology Committee. Colorado Water Conservation Board comments would shift responsibility to a number of technical and management committees for resolution (biology, hydrology, instream flow, reservoir operations. etc.). We believe the former would remove water development interests from any meaningful representation while the latter would overshadow the biological effort and encumber the process with inordinate meetings, delays in accomplishment and high overhead costs. Concern was expressed that giving "approval" of budgets and research plans to the Oversight Committee appeared to abrogate Service responsibilities. At this point we view this "approval" process to be similar to that of the Upper