My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00259
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00259
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:47:53 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:34:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
1/12/1998
Description
WSP Section - Colorado River Issues - San Juan Recovery Program and Section 7 Consultation for the City of Durango
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
<br />~~~,:Y'41 <br /> <br />'~", <~..:..... .. <br />"'-~,~ <br />'>,' , <br /> <br />Terry Terrell, Fish & Wildlife Service <br />January 9,1998 - page 2 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2. On page 17, next to last sentence on the page, what is the effect of removing the Durango <br />depletion from the baseline? Is removing the Durango depletion consistent with the <br />Biological Opinion for the Red Mesa Reservoir? <br />3. On Page 19, the table indicates depletions of 56,000 acre-feet/year for the AnimaslLa Plata <br />Project and 1,000 acre-feet/year for the Red Mesa Reservoir. If the City of Durango pays <br />$50,000 for recovery of endangered species and if the AnimaslLa Plata Project has <br />participated in the recovery program based upon 57,100 acre-feet/year, should the depletions <br />included in Table 1 show 5,700 acre-feet/year and 1.051 acre-feet/year for the City of <br />Durango? Should Minor Depletion category be included to describe the 3,000 acre-feet/year <br />depletion which the Fish & Wildlife Service has set aside for small depletion? <br />4. On page 24, paragraph one, the last sentence is of concern to the City of Durango. While the <br />City of Durango is willing to submit to reasonable restrictions should conditions change, we <br />are reluctant to indefinitely obligate the City to costs we cannot control. Weare willing to be <br />as responsible as any other user of San Juan River for the recovery of Endangered Species, <br />but the inclusion of retained jurisdiction indefinably is a significant problem for the City. Is it <br />reasonable to retain jurisdiction for a defined period oftime, as opposed to a blanket <br />statement of retained jurisdiction. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Thank you again for the opportunity to review the draft. We would like to meet with you to <br />discuss the questions we have raised. Because the project is critical to Durango's water <br />needs and because we need additional water soon, we are anxious to conclude the <br />consultation process. Accordingly, I will be glad to meet with you or your staff any date in <br />January which is convenient for you. <br /> <br /> <br />c: Robert F. Ledger, Jr., City Manager <br />David Smith, City Attorney <br />Lt. Colonel Dorothy F. Klasse <br />Janice Sheftel <br />Randy Seaholm . <br />. City Water Commission <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />GATEWA24.00c: " <br /> <br />-,.,". <br /> <br />.:.\ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.