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