My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC12530 (2)
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
WSPC12530 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:18:40 PM
Creation date
10/21/2007 11:13:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.101.10
Description
Colorado River Water Projects - Glen Canyon Dam-Lake Powell - Adaptive Management
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/15/1998
Author
Unknown
Title
NEPA-NHPA and ESA Compliance Under the Adaptive Management Program - 01-15-98
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.
/
6
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 />002478 <br /> <br />be due to consultations entered under ESA or NHPA. <br /> <br />ARE THERE LIKELY TO BE ANY SPECIAL ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER ESA <br />OTHER THAN WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN STATED IN THE BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS <br />FOR THE EIS, THE SPRING 1996 BEACH-HABITAT BUILDING FLOW, AND THE FALL <br />1997 TEST FLOW? <br />That depends on what actions we propose to take in the future. There will probably be modifications in <br />terms of what the Service has asked for on behalf of endangered species depending on the results of <br />implementation of the existing RP As, Terms & Conditions, and Conservation Measures. It's probably <br />reasonable to say that if Reclamation is able to show progress in implementing the requirements of the <br />existing biological opinions, there won't be much in way of any additional requirements. However, if we <br />start entertaining proposals that go beyond the parameters of the MLFF, there could very well be <br />additional requirements imposed. <br /> <br />WHAT ARE SOME OPTIONS FOR FACILITATING ESA, NHPA AND NEPA COMPLIANCE <br />FOR FUTURE PROPOSED ACTIONS? <br />(I) Develop a programmatic approach, defining the proposed action, (i.e., to develop and conduct the <br />following types of research (or other activities), during the following times, with associated monitoring), <br />and present that to the AMWG for review and comment. Complete ESA and NHPA review and <br />consultation on the proposal. Should we decide to do a NEPA process, and find there are no significant <br />issues, we would complete a CE for the proposal. If there are potentially significant issues, we would <br />assess them in an EA. If the issues can't be resolved (i.e., mitigated) to a level below significance, then <br />we'd have to consider abandoning the proposal or doing a supplemental EIS. (2) Continue to address <br />individual research (or other activities) proposals through the appropriate consultation proceses for ESA <br />and NHPA compliance. NEPA would be voluntary if at all. Given the extensive ESA, NHPA, and <br />NEPA compliance done to date, we'd rely a lot on tiering from that previous work, and given enough <br />advance notice (say, 2-4 weeks, but the longer the better) we should be able to complete all required <br />compliance rather quickly. Close coordination among Reclamation, the Center, the Service and the <br />AMWG (TWG) will be necessary to facilitate an effective compliance process. A first step may be to <br />identify and confirm critical periods for certain resources (see next question). <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.