My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01872
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD01872
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:08:15 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:04:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
9/27/1999
Description
Colorado River Basin Issues - Interior Department's Indian Water Rights 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.
/
88
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 />DRAFT -- August 11, 1999 <br /> <br />between FWS and the Bureaus of Reclamation and Indian Affairs on the effect projects in the <br />San Juan River Basin in the Southwest might have on the Colorado squawfish and the bald <br />eagle. Questions have also been raised whether water projects which existed before enactment <br />of the ESA in 1973 are subject to the requirements of Section 7. Consultation on the effect <br />of Reclamation dam operations on the Lower Colorado River on various listed species did not <br />begin until 1995. <br /> <br />Normally, FWS does not review actions under Section 7 until action agencies approach them. <br /> <br /> <br />FWS did not go out immediately upon passage of ESA and identify all existing and potential <br /> <br />activities that were leading to or might lead to potential impacts on plant and animal species. <br /> <br />In recent years the ever-increasing workload of Section 7 consultations has not been matched <br /> <br /> <br />by additional appropriations and resources. Thus, FWS officials do not often seek to urge <br /> <br /> <br />consultations on more agency actions. <br /> <br />The formal consultation process ends when the Service has issued a Biological Opinion which <br />addresses the effects of the agency action on the listed species and any affected critical <br />habitat, and how any incidental taking of those species will be minimized. But there are a <br />number of important preliminary steps which affect not only the final outcome of the <br />consultation but also essential decisions on the future of water resource development in the <br />river basin. This is one reason why this process is getting so much attention from Indian <br />tribes whose water rights are often senior but undeveloped. <br /> <br />What constitutes an agency action is a critical threshold determination in the Section 7 <br />process. ESA regulations define' Action' broadly as meaning "all activities or programs of <br />any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the <br />United States. ..." 50 CFR 402.02. Now it is generally understood among water resource <br />development agencies, like the Bureau of Reclamation, that the operation of a water project is <br /> <br />19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.