Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Project, the role of the Fryingpan~Arkansas Commission, Senate . <br />Document 80 governing Green Mountain Operations and the newly <br />agreed to operating principles, repayment issues, where these <br />flows fit in the state water rights system and the role of this <br />Board in obtaining such flows. The result to date has ,been the <br />Fish and Wildlife Service providing a draft of the proposed <br />process for revie~ based on these issues. However. it is still <br />quite unclear how this process will affect future transmountain <br />diversions. <br /> <br />The third key point made by Mr. McDonald was that a draft <br />recovery plan will be prepared based on the discussion papers <br />provided by the Department of Natural Resources, the Colorado, <br />Water Congress and a third paper forthcoming, fro~ the <br />environmental groups. These three papers should go a long way <br />toward resolving the Section 7 and recovery plan issues. <br /> <br />Mr. Tom Pitts; Colorado Water Congress, then presented a <br />two-page summary of the CWC paper to the Board' outlining 12 key <br />p6ints that the Colorado Water Congress feels should be <br />considered in r~covery of ~hese endangered fishes. He <br />reiterates ,that the ,ewc feels that when minimum flows are. <br />required they shou,ld be purchased by .the Federal Government <br />under Section 5 and in accord with the compacts. state water <br />laws and other documents'comprising the "Law of the River". <br />The CWC feels very st'rongly that such can be accomplished. The <br />means necessary, to to keep this water available under the state . <br />water rights system'should also be recognized. He stated <br />further, that Section 7 consultations and recovery plans should <br />reflect future depletions in accord with the compact and other <br />water l'aws. There' is no evidence at :present indicating that <br />general depletions'will have direct adverse impacts on the <br />endangered fish. He ,suggested limiting Section 7 consultations <br />to direct impacts which can be mitigated by supporting recovery <br />in other 'areas not affected by the project. <br /> <br />Carse Pustmueller, National Audubon Society. working with <br />the Environmental Defense Fund, Colorado Wildlife Federation, <br />Sierra Club and Colorado Trout Unlimited then presented a brief <br />overview of these draft conservation and recovery 'plans <br />recently agreed upon by their implementation task. group. .It <br />focused on the following areas: <br /> <br />, 1. ' Habitat protection based on the biology subcommittees <br />"Sensitive Areas" report,dated September 11, 1984. <br />Sensitive areas such as the Lower Yampa, Grays Canyon <br />and the West Water and Ruby Canyons should be <br />designated.critical habitat. It is important 'to note <br />that no critical habitat designations exist at present. <br /> <br />2. Migration routes must be legally protected. A <br />recommendation to do so by using the wild and .Scenic <br />Rivers Act is made. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />-10- <br />