Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MJ'~ , ~7 <br />'of - _ ':1:...J <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />years the water has either been spilled from McPhee Reservoir or directed down McElmo Creek. <br />The water is private water and not available for the McPhee Reservoir downstream fishery pool. <br />Under the No Action alternative, the water is expected to continue to be diverted and used in <br />canal systems not requiring a Carriage Contract. <br /> <br />Conversion of dryland cropland to irrigated cropland may have slight benefits to wildlife in the <br />Dove Creek area due to increases in edge vegetation and wetlands. Irrigation systems in that <br />area, however, are very efficient and wetlands and other habitat created by irrigation tail water <br />and seepage would be limited. <br /> <br />The Gunnison Sage Grouse was listed as a candidate species under the Endangered Species Act <br />in December 2000 and occurs in the general area. The species currently occurs in eight isolated <br />populations in western Colorado and southeastern Utah with an estimated spring breeding <br />population of less than 4,000 most of which occur in Gunnison and Saguache eounties. This <br />species has been in decline, presumably due to habitat loss and habitat fragmentation. Habitat <br />includes large expanses of sagebrush with a diversity of grasses and forbs and healthy riparian <br />areas. In the Montezuma-Dolores County area, habitat fragmentation and reduction in the quality <br />of remaining habitat are likely problems for this species. According to the Fish and Wildlife <br />Service, sage grouse in the project area occur north of the potential new irrigation lands (Ireland, <br />2000). Irrigation of existing dryland fannland is not likely to affect this species negatively. <br /> <br />Threatened and Endangered Soecies <br /> <br />Threatened and endangered species are plants and animals legally protected under the <br />Endangered Species Act (ESA). A biological assessment on the effects of the Carriage eontract <br />has been prepared and the Service issued a Biological Opinion (Fish and Wildlife Service, 200 I) <br />on March 8, 2001. A copy of the Biological Opinion can be obtained by contacting <br />Reclamation's Western Colorado Area Office in Grand Junction. <br /> <br />Several consultations related to the Dolores Project have been completed between Reclamation <br />and the Service under the ESA. A 1980 Biological Opinion from the Service (Fish and Wildlife <br />Service, 1980) concluded that the Dolores Project would jeopardize the eolorado pikeminnow, <br />the bonytail, and the humpback chub (the razorback sucker was not listed as endangered at that <br />time) due to the depletion of water from the Colorado River system. To compensate for this loss <br />of water, the Service stated that it may be necessary that an equal volume be released to the <br />eolorado River upstream of the Dolores River confluence from one or more other Reclamation <br />projects. <br /> <br />In 1982 the Service was consulted concerning salinity control measures in the Montezuma Valley <br />area and determined that the salinity control measures would not adversely affect endangered fish <br />in the San Juan River based on a predicted increase in McElmo Creek flows and ultimately the <br />San Juan River and as long as the salinity control measures did not result in increased depletions <br />(Fish and Wildlife Service, 1982). <br /> <br />12 <br />