Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />The draft PBO does not represent an actual Section 7 consultation for the non- <br />Reclamation projects, However, FWS has assured water users that the PBO effectively <br />answers the ESA requirements for those non-federal projects to the extent that the <br />following conditions are met: <br />· A "recovery agreement" must be signed by the project owner/operator prior to <br />issuance of a final biological opinion for the individual project; <br />· The fee to fund recovery actions must be paid for "new depletions" as <br />provided under the 1988 Cooperative Agreement (currently $14,13 per acre- <br />foot); <br />· FWS will write individual "incidental take" statements for each of the <br />consultations under the PBO; <br />· Stipulations allowing the FWS to reopen the future non-federal consultations <br />as described in the PBO will be included in each of the future opinions; and <br />· Project owner/operators must agree to the retention of federal "discretionary <br />control," so that FWS and the pennitting agency can reopen the consultation <br />as provided in the PBO, <br /> <br />Clearly, the "certainty" afforded under these consultations and the PBO will be a <br />relative thing, It is, nonetheless, a significant step in the right direction, The RIPRAP <br />items that must be implemented are ones we have accepted previousll, and it will <br />continue to be the Recovery Program that bears responsibility for implementing them, not <br />individual water users, Increased importance is given, however, to the passage offederal <br />legislation to authorize Reclamation's participation and to establish a funding <br />authorization that should help assure adequate federal and non-federal money will be <br />available to implement the RIPRAP elements, To the extent there is better protection for <br />our existing and future supplies under this PBO, it will depend upon the recovery <br />Program's continuing as a partnership in getting the necessary actions completed, <br /> <br />At our last meeting with the water users on November 1,1999, it appeared there <br />are still about 5 points of significant sensitivity, However, through subsequent discussion <br />with FWS representatives, it now seems these are likely to be resolved quickly with one <br />potential exception, These issues include the description of some federal projects and <br />their operation, the time available for signing "recovery agreements," characterization of <br />the goal for the Coordinated Facilities Operation Study and the characterization of <br />options available for meeting the long-term commitment of water from Ruedi Reservoir, <br />We are preparing to submit comments to the FWS on these points and expect many <br />others to do so as well, We have not heard from the environmental participants in the <br />Recovery Program concerning the draft PBO and there may be some significant issues <br />from their perspective, <br /> <br />, At our July 1999 meeting (Agenda Item 13(1)), we reviewed the list of flow protection, <br />habitat protection, non-native fish control and native fish stocking measures, ete" that <br />FWS has identified in the draft PBO, Henry Maddox will be available during our <br />meeting if you have new questions or concerns, <br />