My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP11851
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
11000-11999
>
WSP11851
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:19:06 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 5:13:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8065
Description
Section D General Statewide Issues - Endangered Species Act - Fisheries
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
11/1/1983
Author
Various
Title
Endangered Species Act - Various Reports - 1980s - 11-01-83 through 09-13-89
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br />I <br />~ <br /> <br /> <br />002515 <br /> <br />River <br />under <br />2. $ <br /> <br />Basin funds, such funds may be used on projects <br />the Colorado River Storage Project Act. <br />is authorized. <br /> <br />authorized <br /> <br />Questions for further consideration: <br /> <br />1) Should this be called a Conservation Program? Is this ~ike a <br />Conservation Plan for incidental takings pursuant to 510 of the <br />ESA? Is this more like a Recovery Plan pursuant to 54F of the ESA? <br />Can a Basin-Wide Conservation Plan pursuant to 510 of ESA be <br />created and adopted by the USFWS be adopted without this special <br />legislation? <br /> <br />2) Does the prevention of requiring minimum stream flow where <br />cumulative impact considerations may require it, remove the. federal <br />storage projects from their present position of having non-jeopardy <br />opinions issued with significant flow provisions? Or does the <br />requirement that federal storage projects have operations necessary <br />to protect the habitat keep the pressure on the federal projects? <br /> <br />3) Is this truly a basin-wide problem or only an Upper Colorado <br />River Basin problem? Should the Advisory Council be for only the <br />Upper Basin States? Why would the Lower Basin States support this? <br />Does not the ESA create the opportunity for more water to the Lower <br />Basin States? <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />9/7/84f <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.