My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8063
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8063
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:32 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 6:03:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8063
Author
Colorado River Fish and Wildlife Council.
Title
Minutes, Colorado River Fish and Wildlife Council - April 22-23, 1998.
USFW Year
1998.
USFW - Doc Type
Las Vegas, Nevada.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
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 /> <br />A lawsuit regarding the flycatcher has been brought <br />against the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of , <br />Reclamation by a group which is a party to the multi-species <br />planning, the Southwestern Center for Biodiversity. <br />Essentially, they want the water levels of Lake Mead lowered <br />and better managed, beyond that provided in the plan, to <br />better expose deltas at the mouth of the reservoir so that <br />the flycatcher can have improved nesting and rearing <br />habitats. Last year the court ruled to allow the defendants <br />to operate according to the plan. The ruling was appealed <br />and was heard by the 9th US Circuit Court in February 1998, <br />but a ruling has not yet been received. It is very <br />difficult to know what will occur. It is likely that other <br />lawsuits on behalf of other species will be brought forward <br />before the conservation plan will be finalized and put into , <br />action. <br />A question was raised relative to the response of some <br />parties of the agreement to issues several environmental <br />groups have with the agreement. Sjoberg and Meisler believed <br />that all entities have been in support with the overall <br />agreement. Most of the arguments seem to be occurring with <br />how and where activities can take place, particularly with <br />regard to Mexico. Virtually all the environmental <br />organizations support taking actions beyond the bounds <br />defined in the plan, while other parties, especially the <br />power companies, are not interested in looking outside the <br />boundary, especially South of the border. However, no one <br />appears to be going to walk away from the table because of <br />these issues. <br />CREWr Participation in the Zebra Mussel Control Program <br />Linda Drees, Fish and Wildlife Service, provided this <br />information with Messers Janish and Sjoberg who helped <br />report on staff participation in response to Council <br />assignment. <br />Since introduction in about 1988, the Zebra Mussel has <br />spread from the Great Lakes throughout most of the Eastern <br />United States. The species occurs in great numbers and <br />clogs pipes, and coats shorelines and water delivery <br />devices. Effects on native wildlife are little known <br />although what is known is not good. Evidence from state <br />border checking stations proves they are now moving through <br />the Western States to the West Coast. The primary vector is <br />considered to be via boats carried by land traffic. <br />2 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.