Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />General Comments: A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is/is not appropriate for this <br />action. A full EIS should be/should not be completed or work on the Agreement stopped <br />indefinitely. <br />Response: Based on this final EA and on comments received on the draft EA, Reclamation will <br />determine whether a FONSI is appropriate. Reclamation's intent is to complete the Agreement. <br />Reclamation views the Agreement as a way to document understandings on the subordination <br />commitment so that future administrators will not have to piece together how the Aspinall Unit is <br />operated from a piece-meal historical record to facilitate future administration of the limited <br />subordination. <br /> <br />General Comment: A binding commitment is needed concerning consultation under the <br />Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the Aspinall Unit, and a discussion about handling future <br />depletions under the ESA is needed. <br />Response: Additional wording has been added to the EA on compliance with the ESA. <br />Reclamation intends that the upcoming consultation on the Aspinall Unit will address this <br />depletion along with operation changes of the Aspinall Unit. Future depletions beyond the <br />60,000 acre-feet, if they occur, would not fall under the Aspinall Unit consultation nor would they <br />be the responsibility of Reclamation unless there was a Reclamation water contract or some other <br />Reclamation connection involved. <br /> <br />General Comment: The cumulative depletion of 60,000 acre-feet does have an environmental <br />impact that needs to be acknowledged in the EA, especially the impact of future depletions. The <br />Fish and Wildlife Service should be consulted on the proposal under the Fish and Wildlife <br />Coordination Act of 1934 and the importance of the administration and protection of instream <br />flow rights in the basin and the filing of new rights should be communicated to the Colorado <br />Water Conservation Board. <br />Response: The draft and final EA recognize that existing and future depletions that could fall <br />under the Agreement could have substantial impacts on aquatic and other resources. However, <br />these impacts would occur under the existing state water appropriation system independently of <br />execution of the Agreement. If there is a Federal connection (for example Clean Water permit, <br />Forest Service permit, or others), specific NEPA compliance on the water use would be required. <br />Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service are committed to consultation under the ESA for <br />the Aspinall Unit; the 60,000 acre-feet of depletion will be included in this consultation. Until <br />that consultation is completed with a Biological Opinion, all new Federal actions that deplete <br />water will be conmlted on. The Fish and Wildlife Service has also reviewed the Agreement and <br />the draft EA. <br /> <br />Reclamation agrees that the administration and protection of existing instream flow rights in the <br />basin is very important to the protection of natural resources and filing of additional new rights <br />may be appropriate on some stream segments. Reclamation has discussed this with the Colorado <br />Water Conservation Board during preparation of the final EA. It is the Board's policy to review <br />water right requests and resumes and to object to those that interfere with instream flow rights. <br />The Board is also working on methods of improving monitoring ofinstream flow rights. While <br /> <br />10 <br />