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 />DRAFT -- August 11, 1999 <br /> <br />such an action. However, there are more specific actions which may trigger Section 7 <br /> <br />consultation, such as signing contracts for rep:lyment of project costs, for water delivery, or <br /> <br />for operation and maintenance of a project, granting or obtaining a right-of-way, or providing <br /> <br />funding for another action related to an existing water project. The requirements for <br /> <br />consulting under Section 7 apply to the Bureau of Indian Affairs as other agencies. Although <br /> <br />there is still considerable debate over the circumstances under which Section 7 consultation is <br /> <br />required, many water users and agency officials believe that federal water resource develop- <br /> <br />ment actions are subject to far more consultations than other kinds of federal actions which fit <br /> <br /> <br />the regulatory definition equally as well. <br /> <br />There are other kinds of federal actions relative to water resources, not involving federally <br /> <br /> <br />constructed or maintained water projects, which trigger Section 7 consultation, such as <br /> <br />permitting by the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency, Indian lease <br /> <br />and tribal contract approvals by the BIA, and public land resource management actions which <br /> <br /> <br />have an impact on riparian ecosystems. The Commissioner of Reclamation has suggested that <br /> <br />it is these kinds of actions, especially insofar as they are tied to urban development, which <br /> <br /> <br />will play the greatest role in the future of Western water resource development because the <br /> <br />Golden Age of the Western Water Project is over. Thus, the role of the Section 7 consulta- <br /> <br /> <br />tion process has become much more pervasive in Western water systems in recent years, <br /> <br />though the level of compliance still varies greatly from agency to agency and from region to <br /> <br /> <br />regIOn. <br /> <br />An action agency may avoid Section 7 consultation with the Services by making a finding-- <br />usually in connection with its compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act <br />(NEP A)-- that a proposed action does not affect any listed species or critical habitat. If, <br />however, an agency fmds that its action "may affect" a listed species, the process known as <br />informal consultation with the Service begins. Typically, the action agency requests a list of <br />potentially affected species from FWS, and then prepares (I) a Biological Assessment (for <br /> <br />20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.