My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Board Meeting 03/08/1995
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Board Meeting 03/08/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2020 9:52:15 AM
Creation date
11/28/2014 2:35:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
3/8/1985
Description
Minutes, Agenda, Memorandums March 8, 1985
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
180
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
4 . Should Colorado concern itself with Phase II at <br /> all? Does Colorado have an obligation to protect migratory <br /> birds in Nebraska? <br /> rev <br /> 5. Lake Conaughy is up for Federal Energy Regulatory t� <br /> Commission (FERC) licensing, and this may be seen as an opportu- <br /> nity for environmental groups to incorporate reservoir operations <br /> into whooping crane habitat management. <br /> Following discussion, Board members, by consensus , <br /> concurred with the concerns raised by Mr. McDonald and recommended <br /> that he consult with the Attorney General's office for interpre- <br /> tation of sections 2(c) (1) and 7 (a) (1) of the Endangered Species <br /> Act. <br /> Mr. Robbins mentioned that the U. S. Fish and Wildlife <br /> Service had recently announced that a number of plants and animals <br /> had been added to the list of endangered and threatened species . <br /> • Two species, namely the Interior Least Tern and the Piping Polver, <br /> are of concern to Colorado. Because of this concern, Mr. Robbins <br /> moved, seconded by Mr. Lochhead, that the Board endorse the posi- <br /> tion expressed by the Colorado Water Congress that no additional <br /> threatened or endangered species be listed until the Platte River <br /> Joint Management Study is completed. Motion adopted unanimously. <br /> b. Colorado River Fishes <br /> Mr. McDonald brought the Board up to date on this issue. <br /> The matter stands before the Biology and Hydrology Subcommittees, <br /> where technical reports are being prepared on (1) various <br /> unresolved matters concerning the status of the species , and (2) <br /> the ability to predict hydrologic impacts on the species . In <br /> addition, these reports should include some alternatives on <br /> resolving the issues stated above. Also, they should answer some <br /> of the implementation and administration questions associated with <br /> recovery plans. <br /> Two significant points are worth noting. First, no <br /> significant depletions in the critical reaches of the Colorado <br /> River are foreseen in the next 15 to 25 years. Second, the <br /> endangered species seem to be on a downward trend; this suggests <br /> that the existing hydrologic regime is not conducive to these <br /> species. What Colorado should push for is some nonflow alterna- <br /> tive for recovery, such as, habitat maintenance, fish ladders , or <br /> hatcheries, rather than a complete reexamination of the water-right <br /> systems. <br /> Mr. McDonald reiterated his difficulty with the section 7 <br /> permit process. There is an artificial situation being created by <br /> project proposals seeking biological opinions and resolving their <br /> section 7 issues, then the party sits on their proposal . , <br /> thusG eating a second priority system in <br /> Colorado revolving around these permits. <br /> -5- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.