Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> `/- that the Board may want to -issf e a statement supporting reauthori- <br /> zation and proposing some amendments to the Act. The statement <br /> should include the following points: <br /> � <br /> 1. The problems that Colorado has encountered in the <br /> 0 implementation and administration of the ESA on the Colora.-- and <br /> P(C Platte Rivers should be defined. There should be some m. e <br /> J" concrete language separating the section 4 (f) recovery elan and <br /> the obligations put upon the Secretary and the need o develop <br /> reasonable and prudent alternatives (as required any applicant) . <br /> 2. The Act should include a more ex. icit explanation of <br /> the notion that the Fish and Wildlife Serv' - e (FWS) should pursue <br /> nonflow alternatives to the maximum exte possible. <br /> 3. Upon uncertainty of the atus of a species , the FWS <br /> maintains the position that the bu :en of this uncertainty lies <br /> on the project applicant. When e FWS cannot state what can be <br /> done to preserve or enhance a •ecies , the FWS should be respon- <br /> sible -for the resolution of e conflict. <br /> 4 . The Act shou 4 include some directive language to the <br /> FWS to reach an admini rative solution to the above problems . <br /> 5. Colora•• should state its views with respect to the <br /> potential unreas. able impact of the Act on the exercise of vested <br /> property right (water rights) in Colorado. Recognizing the above <br /> comments and 'ncorporating them into the Act would help to avoid <br /> a conflict -ver this issue. <br /> 6 . Mr. McDonald reiterated his position on the artificial <br /> ' sue .eing created by the section 7 permit. process . A second <br /> ;) <br /> pr -city system in Colorado revolving around section 7 permits 1 ' <br /> c•uld eventually become an issue. <br /> Mr Dani= 'son suggested that a due di igence procedure be <br /> attached to -ction 7 permits to avoid this type of speculative <br /> water p = ect •evelopment. <br /> q6 Mr. Vandemoer moved, seconded by Mr. Smith, that the staff <br /> prepare a statement for the record setting forth the Board' s views <br /> along thA lines indicated above and, further, that the Board <br /> ij" support %'a limitation of tteeryear .efureauthorization of the Act. <br /> Motion adopted unanimously. 011e. IOW <br /> Mr. Robbins suggested that the May Board meeting include <br /> a discussion of the Colorado Threatened and Endangered Species Act <br /> and how the Board may use this as a planning tool to avoid <br /> threatened and endangered species conflicts in the future. <br /> Agenda Item 12 - CRSP Power Revenue Proposal <br /> Mr. McDonald reported on recent discussions with the Colorado <br /> -8- <br />