My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4101
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
4101
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 11:32:54 AM
Creation date
8/10/2009 12:12:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
4101
Author
Mobil.
Title
Summary of Technical and Procedural Concerns.
USFW Year
1984.
USFW - Doc Type
\
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
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 /> <br />TABLE OF CONTENTS <br /> <br />I. "t-lindy Gap " Formula ....................................... 1 <br /> <br />1. When Is The "Windy Gap" Approach Used? ............... 1 <br />2. What Are The Elements Of The FWS "Windy Gap" <br /> <br />Sol uti on ? ............................................ 3 <br /> <br />3. What Legal Issues Are Raised \lith The "Windy <br /> <br />Gap" Approach? ....................................... 5 <br /> <br />II. Application Of "Windy Gap" Formula To Upper Colorado <br /> <br />River Basin Projects ...................................... 9 <br /> <br />1. Present Efforts And The Technical Subco~ittee <br />Work Plans Indicate The Primary Protection - <br />Recovery Efforts Remain Focus.ed On Haintenance <br />Of In-Stream Target Flows. Has The Committee <br />Been Given The Objective To Seriously Consider <br />Al terna ti ve Solutions? ............................... 9 <br /> <br />2. Is The Reach Of The River Tentatively Identified <br />By FWS For Mitigation Measures Deemed "Critical <br /> <br />Habitat~'1 ............................................ 13 <br /> <br />3. Do The Draft FHS Biological Opinions For The <br />Projects Currently Undergoing Section 7 Consul- <br />tation Call For Minimum Stream Flows? ................ 15 <br /> <br />4. What Problems Arise With The October 1 <br /> <br />Deadline? ............................................ 16 <br /> <br />5. If FllS Proceeds With Its October 1 Deadline And <br />Retains Its Intent To Impose Minimum Stream <br />Flows On Project Sponsors, Will The Service <br />"Re-Open" Those Negotiations About To Be <br /> <br />Finalized Now'l ....................................... 17 <br /> <br />6. If Water Requirements Are Unchanged, Will Future <br />Federal Actions Subject Project Sponsors To <br />Additional Mitigation Burdens? ....................... ]8 <br /> <br />7. Will FWS Attempt To Impose Minimum Stream Flow <br />Obligations Preferentially, i.e., On Federal <br /> <br />Project-s First? ...................................... 19 <br /> <br />8. Is The ~-ws Considering Anything Besides The <br />"Windy Gap" Formula For Section 7 Consulta- <br /> <br />t ion s? ............................................... 21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.