7805

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7805
• Author: Colorado River Wildlife Council.
• Title: Minutes, Colorado River Fish & Wildlife Council.
• USFW Year: 1988.
• USFW - Doc Type: July 9, 1988.
• Copyright Material: NO

a
from the standpoint that it has a lot more money involved. The problem in
the Upper Basin is continuity and reliability of the funding process from
Congress. The problem lies in budget approvals. Another major difference in
the Upper Basin is the working relationship between the individuals. It
appears all state and other agency biologists' relationships are very open.
They'll present the information, they're open, fair, and they discuss fully
what the impacts are going to be and will work toward development of the
measures and the activities that could mediate these impacts. In the Lower
Basin, this is apparently not true. Many biologists in the Lower Basin
indicate that there are some serious working relationships and a lack of
trust between the state agencies and some federal agency counterparts. A
summary of the two concepts between the parts of the Basin then, are the
budgetary problems and continuity of accomplishment in the Upper Basin and
the need for some player and personnel changes in the Lower Basin. There are
many instances of the lead government agencies not following up with mitiga-
tion conditions on permits. They have no staff to follow up on evaluating
conditions, implementation and sponsor compliance. The (state) wildlife
agencies cannot do it and therefore, it's not being done. Many critical
areas, bank stabilizations, etc., that have been committed to by lead
government agencies have not been finalized. There are many things that are
committed to in projects and permits that have not been accomplished and much
is due to breakdown in communications, lack of trust and perception that the
lead agencies are at all interested or fair in mitigation.
Mr. Powell also explained the section in his report which details different
agencies' mitigation policies. Some states have them, some states don't.
For example, California has a wetlands policy that provides some support for
S mitigation impacting wetlands. The policy can be referred to that California
cannot approve any project which results in any net loss, acreage or value,
of a wetlands habitat.
In this section is also a small history background and authorization for the
. Bureau of Reclamation's mitigation activities. It identifies some of their
statutes, what their duties are and how they operate. Tjie Bureau of
Reclamation has a new mitigation policy direction and that is set out in
their implementation plan. They have environmental restoration and
enhancement as one of their program priorities through 1998.
. Bureau of Reclamation Upper Basin Report
William Geer introduced the regional director of the Bureau of Reclamation
for the Upper Colorado River Region, Mr. Cliff Barrett. Mr. Barrett provided
remarks on the change in emphasis of the Bureau and its attempts at future
prioritization of objectives. Mr. Barrett provided the group with a paper on
. the status of Upper Colorado region Section 8 mitigation activities.
(Appendix G)
Director Barrett then related to the group the change in direction and roles
of the Bureau of Reclamation. The new Bureau of Reclamation started with the
beginning of the current administration. This activity has been detailed in
the Bureau of Reclamation Assessment Report and Implementation Plan. The
document deals with improving efficiencies of what the Bureau has already
constructed. There is a lot of emphasis on water conservation--as non-
structural measures to accomplish water savings. The Bureau is convinced the
0
11