Memorandum: July 8 1994 Critical Habitat Designation

Home Browse Search

:t Existing Projects." The strongest assurance we have, at this point, that the reinitiation of Section 7 consultations for existing water projects will not become unreasonably burdensome is the assurance from FWS Regional Director Ralph Morgenweck that they fully intend that the Recovery Program will continue to serve as the "reasonable and prudent alternative" in Section 7 consultations, not only with respect to the "jeopardy" requirement, but for the "critical habitat" requirement as well. Critical Habitat Revisions to the RIPRAP. On April 20 -22, 1994, FWS biologists associated with the Recovery Program convened a meeting with FWS biologists involved in Section 7 consultations to consider whether any revisions to the Recovery Action Plan would be necessary to assure that the Recovery Program could serve as a "reasonable and prudent alternative" with respect to the critical habitat requirements of the Section 7 consultation regulations, as well as the "jeopardy" requirements. Following that meeting, the FWS reported to the Recovery Program Management Committee on May 4 -5, 1994 that six categories of revision to the Recovery Action Plan were identified and recommended by their biologists. These categories of activities are summarized in the three page document entitled "RECOVERY ACTION PLAN ACTIVITIES TO OFFSET IMPACTS TO CRITICAL HABITAT," which was prepared by Tom Pitts (copy attached). This attachment will give you a general idea of the overall scope and character of the proposed revisions although it is now somewhat out of date. If you want to review the specific changes proposed by the FWS following consultation with the Recovery Program Management Committee, I would be happy to provide you with a copy or you can request one from John Hamill at the FWS (303- 236 -2985, X 223). The FWS representatives have been fairly flexible in revising the proposed changes to clarify or accommodate specific concerns. In fact, the single aspect of these suggested revisions which remains of great concern to the Management Committee involves the FWS suggestion that all the "uncommitted water remaining in Ruedi Reservoir following the Round H Sales should be committed to flow enhancement for the endangered fish ". Following discussions with Eric Kuhn and Tommy Thompson, I have vigorously opposed this recommendation with the support of Tom Pitts, representing water development interests in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. I objected to this provision on the grounds that it appears to be inconsistent with the authorized purposes of the project and imposes an unreasonable burden on a specific subset of Colorado River water users. In an effort to be constructive, I offered a substitute provision, which would have lead to an agreement between the FWS, Reclamation, and the State of Colorado for the interim use of a substantial portion of the uncommitted water in Ruedi Reservoir following the Round II sales. Tom Pitts supported my suggested alternative. However, Reclamation subsequently submitted its views in a letter dated May 26, 1994 and signed by acting Regional Director Charles Calhoun which conflicted with the Colorado /Water User position. Mr. Calhoun's letter (copy attached) specifically recommends a provision reading "after Ruedi Round II water sales are complete, or commitments to contract are agreed to, enter into agreement for the remaining uncommitted water from Ruedi Reservoir. " He also recommended that this item be conditioned as a "an interim measure to the extent that alternative water supplies could offset the need for a