WSP11381 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.- .. .. _,. --, -- - ~ CONSERVATION GROUPS COMMENT LETTER - - - .. .. .. - @II --- - C":1 m C') RESPONSE Il'!PACTS OIl A~UATIC HABItAt Wa do not have tho .~perti.. to comment in de:al\ on t~. po on:1a1 l~p.ct. on the trout aplct.. !rc~ the v.rlo~1 alte;natlvl', but it La obvioUI that thl preferred Ill.cnatlv. ~111 Crl&CI r.ora .rLou, . Invlroruuntat .nd econolllic con,llOl.:oInCI' th.n dOl. an .ltern t1"/1t such a. 6. ~. .lira pri~i3:11y conc.rn.~ with the It~ltld tr eement and contradictory It.t.~.ntl 1n thl dralt [IS TII_rdlnl lhlrChr.. endlnllrld flah .plel.. 1n the ~.ln.tlm of the Colorado Rlv r. For ,x.~pll. on ~.~. 2.19 it 11 Itated that the effectl on .a11nlty Ln thl IL~er were t.lt t~ be Inllinlflcant becluI3 the 10-3 flo'" ChAnl.' at Camao ",ere 10 11:1.11, and that thl '11'1I. rel'pn1n, prov1d.d the rlt10nll. tor the d.t.rm1nlt1on th.t the proJl' .tt.ct (Ruldl ..1..) on t~. .ur\'lval of che T t. E fiah wo\l1 "not bl .lanlflclnt." FLr.c of Ill, III 3 .p~cLe. (3.241) are fO\lnd above CamlO, .~ C.meo may noc b. the Ipproprlate polnt on hlch to I bal. tne.. conclu.1onl. S.condly, .aUnLty 11 qu1t. a dLtt.rent 10-4 lS'Ull than .ndana.red .~ecllli the tr3nlf.rence of .rltlon3 e ia not IPi=rOprlHe. Add~tlon.l1y, on p. 2.17 and p. 1o.1S the 8urul.: .t3CI' I tlol011c.l ......m.~t vlll be Freplrec to .eer... the lmpact. of the preferred altlrnatlve on the T & E rl.h. ~I l~ thl 10-5 3..:r.au contlnuu III nllotlal10n, with potentla. plo:rchaler Ir.d e.oncludu them in the nlar futuu, what icoe ..,lll a blolo" e.al a"el.m.r.t be If tel' the water 11 comm1tted? ~e ..,ume the 8urlau 1. awar. of lhe controv.rlY ave, the reccmmendec mlnl~lo:~ a r..m flow 1n lhl Color.do alver m.1nl:e~ oJ thl rLah ane ~lldli . S.rvLce. Glvln thi. controv.ray, Ind the Bureau'l cLte~ n ee for an a~.quate a,llllment, ~e telLeve It 1. very ~re~lture fo the f!ureau to procled wlth neo~tLlt10n."and cor.tractl. lh. 8'u ..u 1. ,..:nnlnl the rl.k at putt1na It..lf, and 10m. w3tlr tl.:rlrl, lnto a very a~k~ard position 1f it .~lll Wltlr under thl po..ibly ~31se ,slumption of lnlLlnLt1cant 1mplCtl to T & C IpICll'. \lilln lh. blololical a."ument 1. fl"l.hed Ind f~jS pOlitlon t. firm Lt might well be .hown thlt th~ burer. of Ruedl water cannot tl11z1 th~ir wat.r without dtsr1aa:d11 t~e LnQ.n&er~d Specl.s ~ct w. .tronlly .u&galt that Iny Ictu.l contract .i;n1n&s be dela ed until .it.r th. b101011c.l al'IIIl'IIlnt is co~pl~tld Ind ful r~s c~:lSultatlon ha. ocur:'lc. ~'e"n'..hlh, WI plan to r.1ill thl t'lue with 'O~I of th. national e~~lrcnmental organlz3tlon. that are concer~ld w~th thl l~?le~lntatio~ cf tho EndangQfld SpecL~ ~Ct. HIP ACT HI'tIC.\TIOtl We wel'l qultl ~llapp01nt~3 that tno dr3ft (IS Goe. not dl3 ~lth any proposed Impact mltil3tlo~ lor the en\ Lfcn~ent31 Ind 0 oncmLC pro~le~1 potant1~11y cre.1tc~ 07 3ny of the al~~rn~tl~cs. I pact m~tla.tion has contlnued to b. ,~ l"UI ref the fr1i~,p.1n~ Arkans,n i'roJectr, ar.d it i. a~ illu.1 ...r.1ch r:!u.t t:1 iaced. Slr:\p~}. pa~'lna the t:uck to th~ t:U~~fl Qi Ku~di W3:er to ce~l wlt~ Il~~. l,peClflC l~p3Ct. t, not sut"fic1ent. tile 5ureau 1. ac.\m1nLsterina 3 f~Jeral ~~t~r proJ~ct whi:~ 1a ~ r~~Lon~1 ~e'.1urct. a"d thO (IS 10-6 attempt. to d~tlne tllO reiLo~~1 L~pact., yet th~rl.~ nothL~& to be iouno 1n tefl'll' oi mlt1a3t1or. m"asures. ',4a lu,a.'t tile iin .. ei.S 10-3: 10-4: 10-5: C) If the basis for significance to the survival of the three endangered fishes is based on the concept that "any depletion to the system" results in a "may affect" finding, then we agree that the future water sal es may affect the listed species. A Biological Opinion was issued by the FWS on June 15, 1987, which provides for protecting and enhancin9 Upper Colorado River endangered fishes. Reclamation is committed to the stipulations therein (Chapter VI). Salinity was addressed as a separate issue in the EIS. The primary consideration in the impact analysis for threatened and endangered (T&E) fish species was the effects of water level fluctuations on fish habitat. Potential changes in flow in the Colorado River were compared to mi nimum flow and temperature requirements of T&E species at essential areas. ...... ...... N ..... A Biological Assessment was prepa~ed for all five species (bald eagle, peregrIne falcon, Colorado squawfish, humpback chub, and bony tail chub) and submitted to the Fi sh and Wildl i fe Service on July 3, 1984. The Service concurred with the Reclamation's assessment that "no effect" would take place on the bald eagle and peregrine falcon, As stated above, Reclamation is committed to the conservation measures as described in the Biological Opinion of June 15, 1987. Negotia- tion of Round II water sales contracts will not be initiated until the Record of Decision has been issued.