My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Meetings October 13 1994 Designation of Critical Habitat for Endangered Colorado River Fish
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Public Meetings October 13 1994 Designation of Critical Habitat for Endangered Colorado River Fish
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/30/2013 1:40:31 PM
Creation date
8/8/2012 2:30:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Public Meetings October 13 1994 Designation of Critical Habitat for Endangered Colorado River Fish
State
CO
Date
10/13/1994
Author
Terrell, Terry
Title
Public Meetings October 13 1994 Designation of Critical Habitat for Endangered Colorado River Fish
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Meeting
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
2 <br />Ruedi Round II - -The Bureau will likely request reinitiation of section 7 <br />consultation very soon. The Service and the Bureau have begun <br />preliminary discussions on how best to proceed with this. The <br />consultation will likely be ongoing over the next 3 to 6 months. <br />Colorado -Big Thompson- -The Bureau must study the potential changes in <br />operation of Colorado -Big Thompson projects to determine potential <br />benefits to endangered fishes in the Colorado River. Formal consultation <br />is not expected until these studies are completed in about 2 years. <br />Other Federal Agencies - -In addition, to help Federal Agencies identify <br />projects that may require reinitiation of section 7 consultation, the <br />Service sent a list of all projects that have received biological <br />opinions since 1977 to Federal Agencies involved in the consultation. To <br />date, the Service has had no response, so no schedule has been developed. <br />2. Has the Fish and Wildlife Service responded to the letter about critical <br />habitat sent by four western governors in January? <br />Yes, on June 22, Richard Smith, Deputy Director of the Fish and Wildlife <br />Service, responded in writing to Colorado Governor Roy Romer, with copies <br />to the governors of Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico. A copy of this letter <br />is enclosed. <br />3. Will the Recovery Program compensate the Bureau for lost revenue due to <br />releases for instream flows? <br />Each situation will be evaluated case -by -case to determine what is <br />equitable. One example of this type of situation involves the Collbran <br />Project. This project includes the Vega Dam and 15 other storage dams, <br />the south -side canal, and the upper and lower Molina power plants in <br />Colorado's Grand Valley. In changing operation of this project to <br />provide flows for endangered fish, the Recovery Program is considering <br />several options, such as buying a portion of the power releases or <br />altering power operations to be compatible with flow needs for endangered <br />fish. The Bureau is investigating these options and will develop and <br />implement a plan of action for consideration by the Recovery Program. <br />4. What has been done with executive order 12630 regarding "takings "? <br />There was a complete "taking implication analysis" done during the <br />critical habitat development process. The analysis was approved by the <br />Department of the Interior and the Office of Management and Budget before <br />critical habitat designation was finalized. That document is part of the <br />administrative record and is available upon request. <br />Prior court rulings have stated that a regulation that denies property <br />owners the economically viable use of their property can constitute a <br />"taking" of private property. But when the rule merely regulates the <br />conditions under which such use may occur, the courts have ruled that <br />such regulation does not constitute a taking. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.