Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"- <br />", <br /> <br />The BO will determine whether and under what conditions the proposed Platte River <br />Recovery Plan can operate as a reasonable and prudent alternative to the jeopardy caused by <br />existing and future water related activities during the first increment of the Program. The FWS <br />has stated that the draft BO will find that the Recovery Plan can operate as a reasonable and <br />prudent alternative if the parties can resolve four issues: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1. North Platte "Choke Point"/Environmental Account Conveyance Priority; <br />2, Management of System processes. (Sediment transport, vegetation control, normative <br />flows and peaJ<: flow management); <br />3, Pallid Sturgeon benefits; <br />4. Effects of hydro cycling on Central Platte River Habitats. <br /> <br />FWS and the three states have outlined potential solutions that involve modification oflanguage <br />in the program documents, but should not require a greater commitment of water or greater <br />future development restrictions. Intensive negotiations have been scheduled for the next month <br />with the hope of reaching final agreement on the four issues by June 15. Assuming the <br />successful conclusion of the negotiations, the NEP A process should be completed this fall and a <br />record of decision will be issued in 2005 looking for a July 1, 2005 program start date. <br /> <br />Prior to the start of the program, the South Platte water users and the state will need to reach <br />agreement on their relative administrative and financial roles. Colorado has committed to have <br />5 000 acre-feet ofre-re lation ca abilit on line b the end of the second ear of the roO ect and <br />have another 5000 acre feet on line by the end of the fourth year of the program. The Platte . <br />River Project, the current entity that represents Colorado water users, is exploring the appropriate <br />form of entity to operate, finance and implement Colorado's obligations and expects to decide <br />that this summer. <br /> <br />12. Three Forks Ranch v. City of Chevenne, Wvominl! State Enl!ineer. and Wvominl! <br />Water Development Commission, Civil Action No. 02-D-0398 (MJW) (D.c. Colo.) <br />[NEWI. <br /> <br />On April 22, the lOth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the U.S, District Court's order <br />dismissing this case. In an unpublished, six-page opinion, J. Porfilio held that the Upper <br />Colorado River Basin Compact established no private right of action. This is the position that <br />Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and the Upper Colorado River Commission (all amici curiae) <br />argued. <br /> <br />13. Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout /Costilla Creek [NEWl. <br /> <br />The Rio Grande cutthroat trout is species that the USF&WS has twice declined to list as <br />endangered or threatened. Various environmental groups have sued the USF&WS over this <br />refusal to list. Meanwhile, USF&WS together with New Mexico Fish & Game have announced <br />a plan to introduce the RGC trout into Costilla Creek within New Mexico, The agencies claim <br />that entering into a "Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances" will protect water <br />users from any additional regulation if, in the future, the RGC trout is listed. However, both the <br />New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission and Colorado oppose the introduction and have <br />expressed doubts concerning whether or not the USF & WS has the authority to enter into these . <br />agreements and how effective they may be. <br /> <br />4 <br />