Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. '0\)01'1.1 <br /> <br />major Federal upstream dams out of the process. And it is difficult <br />to see the justification for doing so because both the Habitat <br />Conservation Program and the Bureau's Section 7 consultations are <br />far from complete. <br /> <br />The draft states (page 28) that the Program "will assume <br />responsibility for implementing any portion of a reasonable and <br />prudent alternative requiring land management" developed as a <br />result of the Bureau's Section 7 consultations. It is unclear what the <br />underscored phrase means. If it means the Fish and Wildlife Service <br />would be required to pay to implement these measures, Audubon <br />would have to oppose this provision. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br />The Management Alternatives Work Group should clearly state that <br />in addition to its support of the general operations of the Program, <br />the Bureau of Reclamation would finance all costs for implementing <br />any portion of a reasonable and prudent alternative requiring land <br />management as a result of the Section 7 consultations. <br /> <br />2.5.3 <br /> <br />Nebraska Public Power District/Central Public <br />Power and Irrigation District Consultation <br /> <br />The draft states at page 29 that "The Program will assume <br />responsibility for implementing any land management <br />responsibilities required by FERC to comply with the Endangered <br />Species Act, including acquisition, clearing, monitoring, and <br />maintenance." Again, it is unclear exactly what the underscored <br />phrase means. If it means the Program, through the U. S. Fish and <br />Wildlife Service, and/or the Bureau of Reclamation would be <br />required to pay to implement some of the Districts' mitigation <br />responsibilities, Audubon would be opposed to this provision. <br /> <br />While it may be justified for the taxpayers to foot the bill to <br />correct past and ongoing mistakes of developments caused by <br />Federally financed water development, there is no justification, other <br />than political appeal, for the taxpayers to pay for conditions required <br />in the new licenses for the Kingsley relicensing. Including Kingsley <br />in this Program would undoubtedly lead to further complexity and <br />delay in carrying out the FERC conditions imposed upon the licenses <br />for the Kingsley projects. Additionally, this provision could, and <br /> <br />I'age 11 July 30, 1993 <br />National Audubon Society- CODllUents on: <br />PRlVIJS-IVIAWG's IJrurt "Platte River Habitat Conservation Program." <br />