Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />the No Action alternative-not signing the Agreement-this practice would continue; however the <br />practice would nOI: be formalized or monitored. Reclamation has the discretion of signing or not <br />signing the Agreement; but it does not have the discretion to disallow the depletion, based on the <br />1998 Court decision. <br /> <br />In terms 0 f environmental consequences, there would be no change in water use or diversion in <br />the Gunnison Rivc:r Basin as a result of the Agreement. Existing uses would continue and junior <br />rights (up to 60,000 acre-feet) would not be subject to Aspinall Unit calls. Other senior rights, <br />such as the large Gunnison Tunnel and Redlands Diversion rights, could continue to place calls on <br />the entire Gunnison River including both the Aspinall Unit and the Gunnison River Basin juniors <br />protected from Aspinall Unit calls. <br /> <br />Thus the administrative action of executing the Agreement would have no effect on water uses <br />and related environmental resources. Based on this premise, Reclamation also concludes that <br />there is no effect on listed threatened or endangered species that are found in the basin area or <br />downstream. Resources such as Indian Trust Assets, wetlands, cultural resources, fish and <br />wildlife resources, and others would not be affected. This is not to say that future water use and <br />related developrnmt would not have environmental effects; it simply means that these would <br />occur under the existing state water appropriation system independently of execution of the <br />Agreement. <br /> <br />If there is a Federal connection for new water uses (for example Clean Water permit, Forest <br />Service permit, or others), specific NEPA compliance on the water use would be required. <br />In-stream flow rights held by the Colorado Water Conservation Board for environmental purposes <br />would continue to protect segments of streams within the basin and instream flow rights could be <br />expanded to other streams in the basin. <br /> <br />CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION <br /> <br />The Agreement itself has been developed in cooperation with the Colorado State Engineer, <br />CRWCD, and the District. The signing of the Agreement has been discussed with the Fish and <br />Wildlife Service (Service) in regard to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Reclamation has <br />informed the Service of the no effect determination on threatened and endangered species and has <br />agreed with the Service that 1) the 60,000 acre-foot depletion be included in upcoming ESA <br />consultation on the Aspinall Unit, and 2) in the interim, all new Federal actions that deplete water <br />will be consulted on. The ESA consultation, scheduled to occur in 2000 and 2001, will address <br />both the operating: patterns of the Aspinall Unit as well as associated depletions. <br /> <br />The Agreement culminates over 40 years of practices, commitments, and legal decisions. This <br />consultation and coordination has led to the decision that the depletion discussed in the EA will <br />continue with or vvithout an Agreement; however, an Agreement is needed to formalize the <br />practices and facilitate record keeping. <br /> <br />6 <br />