My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00356
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00356
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:49:19 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:36:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
5/22/2000
Description
CWCB Director's Report
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.
/
59
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 />.- <br /> <br />"" <br /> <br />Wildlife, Forest Guardians, and the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity filed a number of <br />lawsuits in federal district court. These cases have all been consolidated into one case_ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The State of New Mexico, MRGCD, and all other non-environmentalist plaintiffs seek <br />federal court review of the USFWS's decision to designate habitat for the silvery minnow <br />without producing an EIS. In designating the habitat, the Service relied on an environmental <br />assessment and argued that a full EIS was not necessary because designation of the habitat <br />brought no greater impacts than what occurred when Service designated the species as <br />endangered. <br /> <br />The environmentalist plaintiffs filed suit against the USFWS to designate more of the Rio <br />Grande as critical habitat for the silvery minnOW and the willow flycatcher. They challenge three <br />aspects of the critical habitat designation: (1) the habitat does not include the floodplain, which <br />plaintiffs claim is critical to recovery; (2) the six miles of river between San Marcial and <br />Elephant Butte Reservoir should be included !IS well, since a recent USFWS study indicated that <br />95-99% of the minnow population is found in that reach (the current designation stops at San <br />Marcial); (3) the designated habitat is insufficient to reach the goals of the ESA under the <br />Recovery Plan. <br /> <br />This case is still in the initial stages. The federal defendants have answered all <br />complaints, and have filed an administrative record. The plaintiffs will supplement this record, <br />and motions concerning the court's jurisdiction are being prepared. <br /> <br />City of Albuquerque v. United State~ ex rei. Babbitt.s Albuquerque seeks a <br />declaratory judgment that the U.S. has no authority or discretion under the ESA to release the .' <br />City's contractual San Juan-Chama water for instream flows. The City cites the San Juan- <br />Chama Act, the Colorado River Compacts, and its water contract as limiting the Bureau's <br />discretion. The City was unsure of the United States' position on the issue, because ofa draft <br />biological assessment that did not clearly state the Bureau of Reclamation's and U.S. Army <br />Corps of Engineers' position on its discretion to make such releases. The United States filed a <br />strong motion to dismiss, arguing that no contrOversy exists as it supports Albuquerque's <br />position. All written arguments have been made and the judge can rule on this at any time. <br /> <br />Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Martinez.~ Six environmental groups filed this case <br />last November, after the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued <br />their biological assessment of the effect of their Rio Grande administration on the silvery <br />minnow. The biological assessment asserts that the federal agencies have little discretion to make <br />releases from federal reservoirs for the silvery minnow and willow flycatcher because of <br />constraints by compacts, federal law and existing contracts. This lawsuit is the opposite of the <br />Albuquerque one in that the plaintiffs assert that the U.S. has virtually unlimited authority with <br />respect to federally operated reservoirs, including Platoro. <br /> <br />This case is moving very quickly. Numerous motions have been filed and are being <br />briefed. On April II, 2000, because of the grim runoff forecast, the plaintiffs filed for a <br /> <br />'No. 99-CY-985 (D.N.M. filed Sept. I, 1999). <br />6 No. 99 CY-1320 (D.N.M. filed Nov. 15, 1999). <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.