Laserfiche WebLink
stating that the Board :does not concur in the depletion projec- <br /> tions as they are, since the totals would not change as other • <br /> events such as reduced oil shale activity will tend to compensate. <br /> Following Board discussion, at Mr. McDonald' s suggestion, <br /> Mr. Robbins moved, seconded by Mr. Jackson, that the Board direct <br /> Mr. McDonald to send a letter to the BR with respect to the deter- <br /> mination and contracts, raising the points discussed, subject to <br /> Mr. McDonald obtaining approval of the letter by Mr. Danielson <br /> and Mr. Felix Sparks. The motion was adopted by unanimous voice <br /> vote. <br /> Agenda Item 12 Endangered Species Issues <br /> a:. Colorado River fish species <br /> Mr. McDonald referred' to his February 10-, 1984-, : memo.:.to <br /> the Board and the attached exchange of, correspondence between David <br /> Getches and Galen Buterbaugh, Regional Director, U. S. Fish and <br /> Wildlife Service (Appendix I attached) . <br /> The referenced correspondence and Mr. McDonald' s discussion <br /> summarized the critical concerns that Colorado has concerning the <br /> Colorado River endangered fish species. Essentially, these <br /> concerns are: <br /> (1) The Draft Recovery and Conservation Plans prepared <br /> by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommend that significant <br /> flows be maintained in the Colorado River system streams in <br /> Colorado. This would impede the development of Colorado' s compact <br /> entitlements. <br /> (2) Existing Colorado projects now under construction, <br /> namely Dallas Creek and Dolores Projects, may be subject to the <br /> Section 7 consultation process of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) , <br /> thereby delaying completion of these projects. <br /> Mr. Tom Pitts and Mr. Gregg Hobbs reported on their <br /> activities with regard to the Colorado Water Congress projects. <br /> They explained that their activities were concerned with the <br /> technical and legal bases of the draft conservation plan. <br /> On the technical basis, they were reviewing and analyzing <br /> the Fish and Wildlife Service' s studies and recommendations. The <br /> initial conclusion was that there is no sound technical basis for <br /> the minimum flows recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Service. <br /> On the legal basis, the concern was that required minimum <br /> flows would abrogate Colorado' s water rights without compensation <br /> and that the Fish and Wildlife Service did not follow required con- <br /> sultation procedures with the water users when preparing the draft <br /> plan. It was suggested that Section 5 of the ESA should be looked <br /> at for acquiring water rights should this become necessary. <br /> -10- <br />