My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:36:43 PM
Creation date
6/1/2009 9:40:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8461.100
Description
Adaptive Managment Workgroup (PRRIP)
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
1/1/3000
Author
Unknown
Title
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
EIS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
Program Purposes <br />(5) Equitable I?istribution ofEffort: A collaborative eftort among all major water users in the <br />Basin allows for a more equitable distribution of effort than might occur under individual project <br />consultation. Individual consultations tend not to focus on issues of equity and fair share, but <br />rather focus only on offsetting the effects of the project cunently in consultation. <br />Whether or not a Basinwide, cooperative Program is implemented, Federal agencies and the projects they <br />operate, fund, or authorize (which include many State and private water projects) must comply with the <br />ESA. The alternative to a Basinwide approach to ESA compliance would be for each water project to <br />undergo separate ESA review and develop separate measures to offset loss of habitat for the target species <br />without relying upon the Program. This process is very costly for all parties and usually takes many years <br />to accomplish. <br />Volume 2, "The ESA Section 7 Consultation Process With and Without a Cooperative Program," <br />explains why a separate, project-by-project approach to ESA compliance is likely to be significantly more <br />costly for water users and less effective for offsetting impacts to the species habitat.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.