Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001968 <br /> <br />sedge and Arctic rush in seepage areas. The outlet Canal wetlands were dominated by sandbar <br />willow or broad-leaved cattail. <br /> <br />Riparian vegetation occurs near the inlet, rock quarry pond, and at the high water mark at various <br />locations around the reservoir. <br /> <br />Weedy species were the most common in the disturbed areas around the road, dam, boat ramp, <br />parking lots and campsites, and included bindweed, knapweed, Canada thistle. (V on Loh, 1992) <br /> <br />Reclamation believes that there will be no effect to vegetation and wildlifeQ.;lbitat by these <br />proposed water contracts because there will be no new water depletions, no change in Mancos <br />Project and private farming operations, and no new irrigation resulting from these actions. <br /> <br />3.6.2 Threatened and Endangered Species <br /> <br />.~\ <br /> <br />Endangered and threatened species are plants and animals that ,are legally protected under the <br />Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). ESA compliagce is required to avoid jeopardizing the <br />existence of endangered and threatened species or theirhabitats.Hi'storically, tW0 Section 7 <br />ESA actions were requested of the Service by Reclamation pertaining to Mancos Project <br />operations. <br /> <br />The first being the construction of the hydroelectric facility in 1993. At that time, Reclamation <br />submitted a letter to the US Fish & Wildlife Service (SerVice) recopunending that the proposed <br />- ,~. - .. <br />action is not likely to cause any new or increased adverse impacts to any federally listed or <br />candidate species; and not1ik(~lyJo adversely effect critical habitat because the action would not <br />introduce new pollutants()r cause new depletions'in the San Juan River system. The Service <br />concurred with Rec}ama.tions findiggs in a letter dated, October 26, 1993. (Service, 1993) <br /> <br />The second acti()npertainedtotheconversionof200 af (in 1995 conversion of 80 af, and in <br />1998 an additionalc()l1versionof'l~O af, resulting in an average annual depletion of 200 at) of <br />irrigatio1:J.water to municipal andin.91Jstrial (M&I) water to be utilized by the Mancos Rural <br />Waty,r€OIp.pany (Initial ES1\consultatior{requested of Service by Reclamation in 1997). In <br />1998. The~;~rvice issued aFiU,a1 Bi~logical Opinion for the Mancos Water Conservancy District <br />(1998), and':Wjthin that docuIllent determined that the affect of the water depletion is likely to <br />jeopardize th6'cOlltinued existence of the Colorado Pikeminnow and razorback sucker and <br />adversely mo.difycfitical ha1:)itat in the San Juan River. A reasonable and prudent alternative <br />which offsets jeopardy to the endangered fish and adverse modification of critical habitat was <br />identified and requiredrofReclamation the following: will reoperate the Navajo Dam to mimic <br />the natural hydrograpli of the San Juan River, as agreed to as a result of consultation on the <br />Animas-La Plata Project; and reinitiate Sec 7 ESA consultation if any increases in depletion <br />occur, incidental take of listed fish occur, changes in operation occur which could effect the <br />endangered fish, or failure to reoperate the Navajo Dam takes place. (Service, 1998) <br /> <br />This Environmental Assessment will also serve as the ESA Sec 7 compliance document for this <br />proposed project and serve as a biological assessment. Reclamation initiated informal <br />consultation under the Endangered Species Act in a memo requesting an endangered species list <br /> <br />17 <br />