Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002SH <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Colorado River Environmental Activities <br /> <br />Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program <br /> <br />As I reported to you last month, the LCR MSCP Technical Contractors released the preliminary <br />draft Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and preliminary draft Biological Assessment for internal review <br />and comment on May 22,2003. Comments from the LCR MSCP participatory agencies were to be <br />submitted by June 20, 2003. A substantial number of comments and suggestions regarding the two <br />documents were received. Most of the comments were extremely helpful and involved technical or <br />editorial suggestions directed at making the documents more complete. There were no major comments <br />which were directly in conflict with other comments or the general philosophical direction of the LCR <br />MSCP. <br /> <br />The comments were compiled and collated by the Technical Contractors and distributed to <br />members of the LCR MSCP Program Subcommittee. The Subcommittee met in Las Vegas, Nevada, <br />and Phoenix, Arizona, reviewed the comments and developed appropriate guidance and direction to the <br />contractors. The contractors will work on integrating the comments and suggestions into the next <br />iteration of the draft documents slated for release in August 2003. <br /> <br />The LCR MSCP Implementation Issues Subcommittee met in Las Vegas, Nevada, on July 2, <br />2003, and discussed the latest version of the MSCP Joint-Participation Agreement (JPA). This <br />document will guide how the LCR MSCP participants interact with one another, and how the program <br />is to be implemented, managed, and funded over the long-term. Additionally, the JPA identifies the <br />basic dispute resolution process, should any of the participants have a fundamental issue with the <br />direction the program is going. <br /> <br />The Implementation Issues Subcommittee is also continuing to discuss the need for federal <br />legislation for long-term implementation ofthe LCR MSCP. This is a significant issue, and relates to <br />the total cost of the long-term program; federal-nonfederal cost-sharing formula; the potential use of <br />mainstream Colorado River water for habitat restoration purposes; administration of the program by <br />Reclamation; and the certainty and assurances sought by the nonfederal participants. These are <br />important issues which must be generally framed out late this summer for inclusion in the next round <br />of draft envirorunental compliance documents, particularly the NEP A and CEQA documents. <br /> <br />Rio Grande Silvery Minnow, et al. vs. Us. Bureau of Reclamation, et al. <br /> <br />As you may have heard, on June 12, 2003, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, fOT the <br />Tenth Circuit, released its decision in the case of Rio Grande Silvery Minnow, et al., vs. Bureau of <br />Reclamation, et al. In this decision, the three-judge panel affirmed the prior decisions of the U.S. <br />District Court. This case turned on the issues related to Reclamation's discretion to release additional <br />Rio Grande water supplies in order to ensure the maintenance of flow in the channel to sustain the small <br />endangered Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus). The government, the State of New <br />Mexico, City of Albuquerque, and the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, Rio Chama Acequia <br />Association, and many amici curiae all had argued that Reclamation's discretion in making endangered <br /> <br />7 <br />