My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP11961
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
11000-11999
>
WSP11961
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:19:26 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 5:19:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8021
Description
Section D General Correspondence - Western States Water Council
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
1/20/1984
Author
WSWC
Title
Western States Water - Weekly Newsletter of the Western States Water Council - Issue Number 505
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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 />U027n <br /> <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />""V'\TESTERN ST <br />'VV'..ATER <br /> <br />A weekly report prepared by the staff of the Western States Water Council <br /> <br />Craig Bell. Executive Director <br /> <br />--- <br /> <br />ENVIRONMENT Issue #505, Jarroary 20, 1984 <br /> <br />Fn:Iangered Species Act - E:.xperine1tal PDpJlations <br />The U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service has published a proposed rule implementing <br />Section 10( j) of the 1982 amendments to the Endangered Species Act in the Federal <br />Register of Jan. 9, 1984 (49 FR 1166). Section 10(j) provides for the translocation <br />of "experimental populations" of listed species into new areas of their historic <br />range in order to aid recovery efforts. Special rules would be required on a case- <br />by-case basis for each experimental population, ard the Secretary of Interior would <br />make such a designation after considering possible adverse effects on extant popu- <br />lations; the likelihood of survival in the foreseeable future; ard the relative <br />effects on recovery of the species. The arrenclrnents also provide new administrative <br />flexibility for selectively applying stringent prohibitions on the taking of en- <br />dangered species under Section 9, and under Section 7, on federal agencies autho- <br />rizing, funding or carrying out any activity that would likely jeopardize the <br />continued existence of the species or adversely rrodify their critical habitat. Such <br />rigid protection ITl2asures for listed species have resulted in significant local <br />opposi tion to translocation efforts. The proposed rules create "essential" ard "non- <br />essential" experimental populations. The former are defined as, "an experimental <br />population whose loss would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of that <br />species in the wild.' I Essential populations would be treated as threatened species, <br />protected under Sections 7 ard 9. No~ssential populations would be .treated as a <br />species proposed to be listed as threatened, without such stringent protections. <br />Special regulations designating experimental populations lIllSt include: (1) a means <br />of identifying the population, including its actual or proposed location, migration <br />patterns, ard the number of irdi viduals to be released; (2 ) factually based firdings <br />that the population is (or is not) essential to the continued existence of the <br />species; and .(3) specific management restrictions and protective measures. The regu- <br />lations also call for the Fish & Wildlife Service to consult throughout the process <br />of developing ard implementing experimental population rules with affected local <br />lardowners, federal agencies, local governmental entities ard appropriate state fish <br />and garre agencies. Consultation with other state agencies has been omitted. Coornents <br />on the proposed rule should be sent to: Associate Director - Federal Assistance, U.S. <br />Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 20240, ATIN: Experimental Populations. <br />Conrnents should refer to individual sections of the proposed rules and must be re- <br />cei ved by Feb. 8. For further infornation contact Mr. Jotm L. Spinks, Jr., Chief, <br />Office of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 20240, <br />(703) 235-2771 or to the principle author of the proposed rule, Peter G. Poulos, <br />(703) 235-2760. <br /> <br />WATER CUALIlY <br /> <br />Ground Water <br />Last Wednesday, Marian Mlay, EPA I S Ground Water Task Force Chairperson, ap- <br />proved what may be the final draft of EPA I s ground water strategy. If so, it should <br />be released for fornal review in about two weeks. Speaking to the WSWC recently (see <br />WSW #504), Ms, Mlay highlighted the new strategy's deference to the states as pri- <br />marily responsible for ground water management and protection. EPA's role will be to <br />strengthen state programs and institutional capability. The proposed strategy now <br />includes a classification system with three categories covering special aquifers, <br /> <br />The Western States Water Council is an organization of the Western States Governors representing the states of Arizona, <br />California, Colorado. Idaho, Montana, Nevada, N,ew MeXICO. Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.