9582

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9582
• Author: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
• Title: Final Environmental Impact Statement - Navajo Reservoir Operations Volume III Comments and Responses.
• USFW Year: 2006.
• USFW - Doc Type: Grand Junction - Durango, CO.
• Copyright Material: NO

Volume III - Comments and Responses
FEIS - Navajo Reservoir Operations
- selected in advance to enable development of these projects. Does the EIS have a
predetermined outcome-the 250/5000 Alternative? Wider public involvement in
alternatives formulation should occur.

- Response: The goal of the Preferred Alternative is to develop operating criteria for the
Navajo Unit that are in compliance with the ESA and that continue to meet the authorized
purposes of the Navajo Unit. Authorized purposes include assisting the States of Colorado
and New Mexico to develop their water supplies. The process has been driven by the need
- to meet Navajo Unit authorized purposes and the need to comply with the ESA. Thus, the
Preferred Alternative has been developed to allow for both water development and to help
conserve, in concert with other recovery actions, two endangered fish species.

S Suggested operating criteria for the Preferred Alternative were largely developed by the
SJRBRIP, a program which includes representatives from the Service, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, the States of New Mexico and Colorado, Reclamation, and other agencies, along
with those from Indian Tribes and Nations and water user organizations. Several of these
- parties have employed private consultants to represent their interests in the process. The
operating criteria were developed to meet Flow Recommendations for endangered fish;
water in excess of this need was identified for development.

- Input on alternatives has been received at various public meetings from diverse interest
groups. For example, it is recognized that a major concern expressed frequently was that
the minimum release from Navajo Dam should not be reduced below 500 cfs. This was
® expressed by people interested in maintaining existing irrigation, the trout fishery, water
. quality, and rafting recreation.
General Comment 11: Comments included the thought that flexibility, as described in
- the DEIS, is at best an inadequate and/or incomplete measure and at worst is a poorly
- conceptualized attempt to obscure planning flaws and shortcomings.
One commentor stated that such flexibility does not exist unless the Flow Recommendations
- are changed because the annual and daily releases are controlled by the criteria in the Flow
- Recommendations and there are no provisions for flexibility. Other commentors stressed
that the flexibility could and should be used to reduce impacts to the trout fishery,
irrigation, and water quality, at least in the short term. Some suggested that plans to use
- flexibility should be made clearer in the FEIS.
Commentors also asked what happens after water use increases and flexibility is gone.
What are the effects on resources at that time, and can the 500 cfs minimum downstream
- from Farmington be met?
Response: The DEIS recognized significant impacts of a 250 cfs release from Navajo Dam,
particularly during the irrigation season, on resources such as the trout fishery, water