My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7054
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7054
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 11:32:55 AM
Creation date
8/10/2009 12:32:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7054
Author
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Title
Brief (on Colorado River Endangered Fishes, Water Development, Section 7 Consultation).
USFW Year
1983.
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.
/
22
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
6 <br />Present Approach to Consultation in the Upper Basin <br />Windy Gap Approach: <br />This approach, as developed in 1981, is based upon the premise that the <br />cumulative effect of further water resources development in the Upper Basin <br />will lead to extinction of the three listed fish unless intensive measures <br />are taken to protect and manage the fish and habitat. <br />Both the direct and indirect impacts of proposed projects are considered. <br />Direct or project-specific impacts include those localized factors that can <br />directly affect certain populations or habitat areas. Indirect impacts are <br />those that cumulatively produce major changes in species habitat. <br />As a result of the project-impact analysis and through agreements reached <br />with the project sponsor, a project would receive a no jeopardy opinion, <br />enabling the project to proceed. Participation would be assessed in two ways: <br />1. Direct impacts would be offset be applying specific measures, such as <br />habitat modification, fish ladders, etc., in the project area, funded <br />or carried out by the project sponsor; and <br />2. Indirect cumulative impacts downstream, resulting from water depletions, <br />would be offset through conservation measures carried out by the FWS <br />and funded by the project sponsors. The amount of the assessment would <br />be based upon the amount of water depleted by a particular project. <br />MOU's are developed with project sponsors for all projects matching funds to <br />Specific conservation tasks. <br />This approach is undergoing review a~t,this time. <br />Consultation Status (see Attachments IV., V. and VI.): <br />consultations on 16 different projects have been completed using this <br />approach (total depletion: 300,000 AF). <br />There are over 40 projects presently undergoing the consultation process <br />(total depletion: 1.OM AF).~ <br />BR estimates that there is 1.675M AF of water available for appropriation <br />in the Upper Basin under the Colorado River Compact. Subtracting the totals <br />from these projects (1.675 - 1.3M) leaves 375,000 AF for future appropriation. <br />This approach may eventually interfere with a State's right to allocate its <br />water by prohibiting depletions at critical periods or affecting the junior/ <br />senior rights system. However, if the water is depleted, the affect of its loss <br />must be offset by appropriate conservation measures, i.e., increased water <br />costs. <br />Establishing minimum flow requirements for the fish in the Upper Basin without <br />habitat management will not provide the parameters necessary for survives of the <br />fish and habitat, as the fish have been declining since initial development in <br />the 1960's (see Attachment IV.). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.