Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Memo. Endangered Species Issues <br />December 5, 1996 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />policy workshop in the fall oC 1994, the Board reconfirmed its policy to aggressively pursue the <br />recovery of endangered fish. At the October 1995 Board Meeting, the Board unanimously passed <br />the following motion: <br /> <br />"Bv Directon Hoskin llnd C.nnon: <br /> <br />Determining that the Colorado River Water Conservation <br />District mpports the eITons of the Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board ill maintaining sufficient progress under the Recovery <br />Program For Endangered Colorado River FIShes by appropriating <br />instream flows under state law prior to December 3 I, 1995, <br />provided that the water rights to be obtained by such appropriations <br />do not serve to deny Colorado water users the full development of <br />Colorado's Compact entitlement to beneficial consumptive use of <br />water oCthe Colorado River and also provided that such rights arc <br />subject to terms and conditions consistent with pertinent District <br />, policies." <br /> <br />President Brooks signed . letter to the CWCB restating the above motion. The CWCB <br />received similar letters from many other water users, My perception is that the eWeR proceeded <br />with the filings with qua1ilied or lukewarm support. with most water users not in fun support of <br />the filings. but recognized the importance oC continuing to make progress under the Recovery <br />Program. I further believe that . majority of the CWCB members did not and still do not want to <br />fight with Colorado water users over these applications. <br /> <br />In his letter, Scott requests that the River District "pressure the Service to confirm that <br />decrees entered win avoid Section 7 consultations." I don't believe the Service or anyone else has <br />ever suggested that the instrcam flow rights, iC decreed, would "avoid Section 7 consultations." <br />The goal oCthe Recovery Program has been to use the Program as "the reasonable and prudent <br />alternative" in Section 7 consultations to offset jeopardy and adverse modifications to critical <br />habitat resulting from depletions. The filings are only one element of the Recovery Program. <br />Other elements include non-native species control, augmentation (fish hatcheries), and habitat <br />improvements (i.e., fish passage structures). There is a clear understanding that the filings alone <br />will not recover the fish. <br /> <br />At the urging of the State oCColorado and the water users, the Service has agreed to <br />conduct a Section 7 consultation on the adequacy of the Recovery Program, as now planned, to <br />actually serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for depletions associated with existing and <br />future projects upstream oCthe IS-mile reach, and/or suggest necessary modifications. This is a <br />