Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Garin7 <br /> <br />". <br /> <br />program. However, the document does not discuss complying with <br />the Act's requirements. Furthermore, the Clinton administration <br />has proposed eliminating many advisory committees for budgetary <br />reasons. The Colorado River Implementation Committee was <br />carefully structured so that the exemption from rnp. Advisory <br />Committee Act in Section 4 of the ESA was utilized: Please <br />discuss with us what needs to be done to avoid potential <br />violations of the Advisory Committee Act. <br /> <br />Page 16, first sentence. - The above comments on page 16 are <br />applicable to the relationship between the Program Director and <br />the Conservation Committee. <br /> <br />Page 19, first paragraph. - The comments on page 7 also are <br />applicable to this section. The first sentence refers to <br />"federal actions" while the third sentence restricts the <br />application of the program to only water projects. Because <br />Federal actions could affect more than water projects, the <br />sentence should be revised. The word "not" is missing from the <br />last sentence and should be inserted between "will" and <br />"provide". Please clarify what independent consultation by the <br />Service means in relation to nonwater projects. All Section 7 <br />consultations by the Service must be conducted utilizing the <br />independent judgment of the Service. <br /> <br />Page 19, second paragraph. - The last sentence is confusing, <br />please revise. <br /> <br />Page 19, last paragraph. - There is no rational basis given for <br />treating the Kingsley Project differently from other private <br />projects. Such differential treatment could be found to be <br />arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the Administrative <br />Procedures Act. Please revise accordingly. <br /> <br />Page 20, first paragraph. - Please correct the second sentence by <br />deleting "of one or more endangered species" and replace with <br />"federally listed species" and add "or threatened" after the <br />second "endangered." <br /> <br />Page 20, last paragraph. - The statements about the program <br />preventing the need for jeopardy opinions in this paragraph and <br />in later sections are incorrect and should be revised. The <br />Service will still issue "likely to jeopardize" or "likely to <br />destroy or adversely modify" opinions when, in its biological <br />judgment, the proposed Federal action will have such effect. The <br />Program will not avoid the need for such opinions just as it has <br />not avoided the need for such opinions under the Colorado River <br />program. However, the Program will provide an already developed <br />reasonable and prudent alternative to be used to offset the <br />impacts of Federal actions which will violate Section 7(a) (2). <br />Also, the last sentence is confusing. Do you mean that the <br /> <br />3 <br />