Laserfiche WebLink
<br />000899 <br /> <br />Page 3--7/30/93 <br />John Lawson, Chairman <br />Management Alternatives <br />NAS Comments on Draft <br /> <br />Work Group-PRMJS <br />"Platte River habitat Conservation Prog." <br /> <br />Section 7 consultations with a generic set of "reasonable and <br />prudent" alternatives. The Program in the draft also appears to <br />"'^nfa.........r.l"lto. th<:lt 1")11 "Y"o.'1l"AM'lhlt:o 'linn nrl1nont" 'llltporn'.ltivl3C' UTili hp <br />....vJ..l,,"'J.J.J.p...u.\."'" "....au." U.L.I ...............v....u.v....... u..u...... y.................u.... ..................u...........;'"'v .. ......... .......... <br /> <br />satisfied through compensatory mitigation. It is difficult to <br />understand how one set of alternatives will fit all future proposed <br />water development projects in the Platte River Basin. More <br />importantly, this approach ignores the requirement under the <br />Endangered Species Act in determining "reasonable and prudent" <br />alternatives to examine ways of designing and operating a project, or <br />not building the proposed project at all, in order to avoid <br />environmental injury in the first place. <br /> <br />3. Section 7 Consultations (Section 2,5.1) <br />General Approach to Section 7 Consultation on Water <br />Proj ects <br /> <br />The draft Program (page 23) proposes "In addition, new projects will <br />pay a one time depletion charge of $_ per acre-foot as part of the <br />reasonable and prudent alternative." As defined in the draft, the <br />"depletion charge" appears to be an improper offer to developers to <br />allow them to jeopardize threatened and endangered species in <br />exchange for financial compensation to the government. The notion <br />that financial compensation can constitute part of a package of <br />"reasonable and prudent" alternatives is problematic. Even assuming <br />the money is used to support the program, it is far from obvious that <br />the wildlife benefits of the Program purchased with these funds will <br />offset the clear and direct injury that would result from additional <br />water withdrawals. <br /> <br />4. Section 7 Consultations (Section 2.5.2) <br />Bureau of reclamation Review of Existing Project <br />Opera tions <br /> <br />It would seem proper to include the Bureau projects in any basin- <br />wide effort to restore and maintain habitat for endangered species. <br />Likewise, funding for correction of problems caused by Federal <br />projects might reasonably be expected to be provided from Federal <br />sources. However, the draft document states that the Program "will <br />assume responsibility for implementing any portion of a reasonable <br />and prudent alternative requiring land management." Although the <br />meaning of "will assume responsibility" is not totally clear, our <br />