My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP02092
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP02092
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:34:24 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:54:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.200.10.A
Description
UCRBRIP Program Guidelines
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
12/20/1988
Author
USDOI/FWS
Title
Historic Background Statements
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />ENDANGERED FISHES RECOVERY PROGRAM - UPPER COLO. RNER BASIN <br />December I. 1994Draft Outline <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />IV. WHATS WORKING WELL ?? <br /> <br />A. "RECOVERY" IS BIGGER & BETTER THANESA REGULATORY <br />PROTECTION. <br />. Our view is that the FWS lacks both the legal authority and the financial capacity <br />under ESA to go much beyond regulatory preservation of the status quo. Over the <br />last 6 years we have become increasingly aware that recovery of these listed <br />species requires recovery of the ecosystems in which we intend them to sustain <br />themselves. <br />. The Recovery Program commitments of the non-federal participants has brought <br />additional authorities and greater political momentum into play. <br />. Provided opportunity to break away from traditional FWS "reasonable and <br />prudent alternative," which was developed through "in-kind" mitigation <br />requirements designed to "offset" project impacts; today, the Recovery <br />Program efforts are targeted on the basis of their BIOLOGICAL PRIORITY <br />for the endangered species - whether or not they offset particular project impacts <br />(e.g., no project impacts would ever be directly offset by development of refugia <br />to protect remaining genetic stocks, yet this should be one of the first actions <br />undertaken in almost any recovery situation). <br /> <br />B. FORUM FOR IDENTIFYING AND RESOLVING CONFLICT BETWEEN <br />SOClET AL PRIORITIES (environmental preservation vs. state primacy and property <br />rights system). <br />. The state role in management of the listed species, not to mention other related <br />species in the same ecosystems, can be greatly enhanced (among the best <br />opportunities we have to work out comprehensive framework to address the needs <br />of species whose distribution crosses state lines). <br />. The opportunity to acquaint ourselves with the needs and expectations of our <br />traditional opponents, and to let them see we can be trusted and that we care about <br />many of the same concerns, has avoided lots of confrontation and litigation (not <br />all of it). <br /> <br />C. SUCCESSFUL AS "RPA." <br />. As of Sept. I '94, 155 water projects (existing and proposed) made their way <br />through the ESA regulatory process without litigation and without a single project <br />being stopped; total potential depletion of these 155 projects is almost 185 KAF <br />(35 of the 155 projects were existing projects with depletions of almost 16 KAF). <br />. So successful that Bruce Babbitt (former Governor of Arizona) had to ask top <br />FWS officials 2 years ago (while his appointment as DOl Secretary was pending) <br />why he wasn't hearing of endangered species issues related to the Colorado River! <br />. Maybe too successful for our own good - fighting with Interior officials now to <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.