Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" . <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Colorado River Biological Opinion Discussion Group <br />May I, 1998 <br />Page S <br /> <br />7, Term of RIP: FWS proposed to extend to 2010; water users need to respond, <br /> <br />,.~ <br /> <br />8, USFWS expects water development projects to make deals with the Service regarding <br />project impacts. i,e" USFWS would review the design and operation of proposed new water <br />projects and have them minimize impacts to the endangered fish and provide water to the fish, <br />Water users propose that this contravenes the purpose ofthe Recovery Program to provide <br />the reasonable and prudent alternatives and that such a procedure should not be allowed to <br />impact project yield or purpose. USFWS wants to be able to put pressure on new projects to <br />negotiate with USFWS seriously, USFWS believes that this would be a benefit to existing <br />water users. New projects would be providing recovery actions that would not have to be <br />done by the Recovery Program, <br /> <br />9, Consideration needs to be given to assuring in the opinion that projects in Category 1 or <br />2 that have not been involved in consultations or signed recovery agreements will be included <br />under the tenns of the programmatic biological opinion when a biological opinion is required <br />on a particular project. <br /> <br />10. Need to resolve Category 2 depletions, How long it will be before FWS conducts check <br />period. See proposal above. <br /> <br />. 11. Jim Lochhead requested the Service to define how the results of this ongoing discussion <br />would be factored into the biological opinion. and report to the worle group on this matter. <br /> <br />cc: Executive Committee, <br />Colorado Water Congress Colorado River Project. <br /> <br />(1ICOolo.ISb) <br /> <br />'. <br />