WSPP286 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

000960 November 7, 2003-Eric Knln, General Manager, Colorado River Water Conservation I>istrict ' Comment I.-we believe the proposed action should be expanded to include the long-term operation, maintenance, and funding of the fish screen (and ladder). Response 1.- The Recovery Program has already conducted National Environmental Policy Act compliance on the Redlands fish ladder. The proposed action has heen reworded to include long-term operations, maintenance, ownership, and funding of the fish screen and fish ladder. Comment 2.-Page 3 paragraphs 2 and 3: Add reference to biological assessment; where located, when written, by whom. In HABITAT AVAILABILITY UPSTREAM-add reference and/or evidence cited that "one factor that has led to the decline...." Response 2.-Citations were added to the [mal EA. Comment 3.-PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES (Chapter 2, Page 6): make sure proposed action is consistent with comment number 1 (i.e., expanded to include the long-teim operation, maintenance, and funding of the fish screen (and ladder)). In addition, further . discussion should be added to define the long term funding mechanism that the Recovery Program would use to pay R WPC to ensure long-term operation and maintenance of the screen and ladder. Response 3.- The Recovery Program would provide funding for operation and maintenance of the fish screen and ladder to R WCP through the execution 'of an operation and maintenance (O&M) agreement between Reclamation, the Service and R WCP. Additional discussion was added to the final EA. Comment 4.-Proposed Action (page (11): Fish screening will not significantly affect Redlands' ability to use their existing water rights provided that a.) the existing interim agreement with the CWCB to provide 300 cfs below Redlands diversion dam becomes permanent (as part of a basin-wide PBO.or otherwise) and that agreement is expanded to cover the entire irrigation season and/or whenever the fish ladder and screen is being operated The document should include specific discussion of the issues involved in the existing interim water delivery contract and explain that these water deliveries currently occur pursuant only to a temporary contractual mechanism and that therE< is no requirement to continue these deliveries in ' the absence of such a contract. For example, if conditions change such that these deliveries are not made in the future, it is unclear how the fish ladder and screen will acquire its requisite water supply. In addition, there appears to be no consideration for those months that are outside of the current contract period July through October. For instance, we are very concerned about months , when flows maybe 750 cfs or less; this can, and has, occurred iIi the early season including the March through June timeframe. Redland's ability to use their full decreed water rights should be 25