Board Meeting 05/03/1985

• Board Meeting Date: 5/3/1985
• Description: Minutes, Agenda, Memorandums May 3, 1985
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

• River Endangered Fish. That is, to seek ways of recognizing
both the purposes of the Endangered Species Act and yet protect
the existing water rights and compacts.
The second phase will deal with the whole range of
basinwide issues derived under various authorities which are of
concern to the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. No distinctions on
those issues were made at this meeting however . Thus, the
Board ' s concerns raised last March will not be discussed at
length until the next meeting of the Platte River Committees
later this May. Mr . McDonald suggested that the Board plan on
devoting considerable time to the Endangered Species issues at
the June Board meeting, at which time some draft papers on the
Colorado River efforts and further details on the whooping
crane issues will be available. Based on the options available
at that time, the Board can then begin developing its position
on the various issues in more depth.
Mr . McDonald closed by noting that the discussions
involving the legal opinions requested by the Board from the
Attorney General ' s Office concerning section 7a of the
Endangered Species Act had not yet taken place due to the
staffing shortages . The same was true for the policy direction
discussions involving section 2 of the Act. Mr . McDonald
indicated he still intends to pursue these discussions and
• opinions as previously directed by the Board.
b. Colorado River Fishes (Appendix C)
Mr . McDonald, as indicated in his written memorandum of
April 29, 1985, supplied to the Board, began by reporting on
the May 1, 1985, Steering Committee meeting. He noted that
Colorado is working on closing the effort. He feels that the
policy issues are now fairly well framed and that technical
subcommittees have accomplished as much as possible for a
one-time intensive effort . The major question remaining is:
Can the purposes of the Endangered Species Act be attained
without adversely impacting the state ' s water right system?
Mr . McDonald noted that considerable concern and confusion
still exist between the section 7 project consultations and the
actual recovery plan requirements of section 4 (a) , which are
clearly the responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior .
Efforts of the Coordinating Committee were clearly focused on
section 7 consultations initially, but have necessarily and
logically revolved into recovery plan efforts as well . The
focus must not be returned to section 7 consultations .
Secondly, there is growing concern about pending section 7
consultations and their potential impacts . Specifically, this
involves several Reclamation projects which have been
• developed, and most immediately Ruedi Reservoir . According to
the environmental interests , a "windy-gap" approach is illegal
-5-