My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7852
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Copyright
>
7852
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:01:46 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 12:27:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7852
Author
Bolin, J. H.
Title
Of Razorbacks and Reservoirs
USFW Year
1993
USFW - Doc Type
The Endangered Species Act's Protection of Endangered Colorado River Basin Fish
Copyright Material
YES
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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 />64 <br /> <br />PACE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW <br /> <br />[Vol. 11 <br /> <br />for the projects can in fact be implemented.140 As was noted <br />above, one of the two substantive elements of the Flaming <br />Gorge biological opinion is the legal protection of the flows of <br />the Green River south to Lake Powell. FWS noted in the fi- <br />nal draft version of the Flaming Gorge opinion that this is a <br />"critical ingredient" of the RPA since without it the BR can- <br />not insure that releases from Flaming Gorge Dam are avail- <br />able for endangered species, or that they will offset depletions <br />by the four CUP projects.141 <br />The final biological opinion allows two years for the rele- <br />vant parties - which include BR, the states of Utah, Colo- <br />rado and Wyoming, private water-user groups and the <br />Northern Ute Indian Tribe - to develop an agreement to pro- <br />tect instream flows. for the river fish.142 During those two <br />years BR is apparently not required to protect instream flows <br />in any fashion. At the close of that period FWS may, but is <br />not required to, reinitiate section 7 consultation.143 <br />The Flaming Gorge biological opinion's proposal is strik- <br />ingly similar to the circumstances of Sierra Club v. Marsh, 144 <br />in which the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Corps of Engineers <br />was in violation of section 7.145 In Marsh, the plaintiff envi- <br />ronmental groups sought to enjoin the Corps of Engineers <br />ongoing construction of a flood control arid highway pro- <br />ject.146 FWS issued a jeopardy opinion for the project because <br />of the presence of two: endangered bird species in the area, <br />but permitted it to go forward under an RPA that required, <br />among other measures, that the Corps acquire and preserve <br />188 acres of nearby wetlands.147 Because of delays in appro- <br />priating funds for the acquisition, the County of San Diego <br />agreed to acquire the property and transfer it to a federal <br />agency to be designated by the Corps, and a contract was <br /> <br />140. . 16 D.S.C. S 1536(b)(3)(A),(B) (1988). <br />141. Flaming Gorge Final Draft Opinion, supra note 136, at 34; see also <br />Flaming Gorge Opinion, supra note 6, at 32-33. <br />142. Flaming Gorge Opinion, supra note 6, at 33. <br />143. Id. <br />144. 816 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1987). <br />145. Id. at 1389. <br />146. Id. at 1378. <br />147. Id. at 1379. <br /> <br />J, <br />'~,:- <br /> <br />1993] <br /> <br />. ] <br />slgneo <br />fer th( <br />wetlar <br />which <br />endan <br />to acq <br />new d <br />the ( <br />quent <br />refUSE <br />mate] <br />thus' <br />Mars; <br />ing to <br />til reI <br />1 <br />tiffs ' <br />that <br />land~ <br />elimi <br />lowiI <br />plem <br />will <br />sure, <br />that: <br /> <br />14f <br />14~ <br />15( <br />15 <br />15: <br />15: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.