Laserfiche WebLink
<br />on those species. In addition, the Hoard should consider huw the requested <br />mudiCialtiuns will uCCCl.1the Fish and Wildlife Service"s findings on suCCicient fUrlher <br />progress and whether a mlldificaliun likely would, or would not, make it matcrially <br />morc di[[i<:uh fur the Service to continue finding that the Recuvery Implementation <br />Pwgram providcs a reWiunahk and pnudent allernative ill allY l:ase where the-Service <br />othelWise likely would have round thai a pmposed action likely wlluld jCllpardize the <br />continued exislence u[ a listed species. '111e l30ard should alsn take inle aecounl any <br />pulil:Y statement from the US Department uf the Interior on \he potential for <br />downIisting or deli sting one of the fL~h species Ihat is currently listed, and how the <br />requested mlldificalion would aCfect such a uecision. Finally, in uny case where OIU; or <br />m<lre of tbe lisled fish species ha.~ been duwnlisted or dclisted althe time the Uoard <br />considers the request for mudilkatilln, the Doard shuuld consider lhe l)eparlnlcnt or <br />lhe rnterillr's views on how such II modification may u[kctthat downlisting llr <br />uclisting. <br /> <br />II:; nOloo hy the Hsh and Wildlife Service in its commenL~, the 1993 Enforcement <br />^grccment clearly contemplates that the Doard will considcr bulh the water re:;uun:es lUld <br />bill logic consequences of II request fur mlldificatiou. The [aelllrs sel OUI nhuve are <br />inlended to be illustrative. In wme cases, some of these facklrs may not h\; relevant. In <br /><Ilher cases, a wide range of other, or additillnal factors, will he relevantlu the l3llard's <br />decision. In any event, these lists arc nllt intended tu he inclusive. It is impossible to <br />anticipate all of the issues and factors that tbe Doard will need tll evaluate when a request <br />Cor mudification emerges. <br /> <br />We join with the Fish aud Wildlife SClvice ill urging that modilicalilln criteria should <br />speciCy lhatthe "Deard will be primarily responsihle fur developing inlilrmation lln <br />compat:t issues and the Service will be primarily responsible fllr develuping sciellliL"ic <br />infurmation," as provided by paragrapb. 4 of the Enforcement Agreement. <br /> <br />PROCEDUAAL CRITERIA <br /> <br />Givcn the sensilivity of theSe instream flow rights for both waler resource users. the Uoard <br />and lhe :Service, and conservationists the proccdure Ihe Buard uses in elllcrtaining and <br />considering a requeslto modify a pardgrapb 4 waler right may he almost as inlporlam a.~ <br />the substantive l,'rileria the Dllard employs in making its decision. I\ccordingly, the Bllard <br />sb.(luld \;nsure lhat Lhe modification criteria specify, in appropriate detail, the pro\;edures it <br />shall use in considering a requeM tll modify a paragraph 4 waler right. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />first. the Doard should ensure thatlb.c Service and all inlaeSled parties receive notice <br />at the earliesl praclicable time that a requesllin modification is anlicipah:<.I, ur has <br />b~en filed with the Board. Ideally, the Doard, in collaboration wilh the Slale Engineer. <br />WIll be able to foresee Ihat a requc.~t for mudifieillion will be filed within Ibe near <br />future (1-2 yeilrs). <br /> <br />}.{t/fllorotulum In Gellt...Jenc:solc <br />['age 2 <br /> <br />r__.._ .__ ..............., . In I..~(' <br />