Laserfiche WebLink
!' <br /> I Consultation and Coordination -.' <br /> Reclamation and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(Service)have consulted,both formally and <br /> informally,regarding potential impacts to special status species which may occur as a result of the , <br /> development and operation of the proposed ALP Project. A Biological Assessment was prepared by <br /> Reclamation and was submitted to the Service in December 1999 and the Service has completed a final <br /> Biological Opinion(both documents are included in Appendix G in Volume 2). The Biological Opinion <br /> supercedes previous opinions on the ALP Project. It is the Service's opinion that the ALP Project,as <br /> described in this FSEIS and the Biological Opinion, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of <br /> the Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker,nor is the proposed project likely to destroy or adversely <br /> modify their designated critical habitat. The Service has also concluded that the proposed ALP Project is <br /> not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the bald eagle. These conclusions are based on the <br /> description of the proposed action contained in the opinion and FSEIS,with full implementation of the <br /> conservation measures. The Service also concluded that the project may affect,but is not likely to • <br /> adversely affect,the southwestern willow flycatcher. Other special status species would not be affected. <br /> A Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report(FWCAR)has also been completed by the Service(see <br /> Technical Appendix 7). <br /> ii <br /> 1 Reclamation has also coordinated with EPA regarding potential ALP Project effects on wetlands and <br /> water quality,and with EPA and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers on consideration of the Section <br /> ` ';: <br /> 4 404(b)(1)guidelines. The required 404(b)(1)Evaluation is contained in Attachment B-1 to the FSEIS, <br /> 11 Volume 2. A letter of concurrence from EPA confirming Reclamation's compliance with 404(r) <br /> ', requirements is attached as B-3,Volume 2. The 404(b)(1)evaluation used EPA guidelines to evaluate <br /> Refined Alternatives 4 and 6. As a result of the evaluation,Reclamation found that Refined Alternative 4 <br /> 1. <br /> 1. <br /> would comply with the requirements of the EPA guidelines. Revised Alternative 4 would have fewer <br /> I1/ overall impacts to wetlands and endangered species(southwestern willow flycatcher habitat)than <br /> Refined Alternative 6. <br /> Pursuant to the Native American Graves Repatriation and Protection Act(NAGPRA),Reclamation has <br /> consulted with interested and concerned Indian tribes. Tribal representatives included elected officials, <br /> 'I recognized traditional and religious leaders, Tribal representatives and historians,and cultural <br /> 1 #,1 committees. A NAGPRA Plan has been prepared for the ALP Project. The Plan has been prepared with <br /> regard to potential ALP Project effects on Native American human remains,associated grave goods,and <br /> I objects of cultural patrimony. A Programmatic Agreement has also been prepared pursuant to the <br /> National Historic Preservation Act. Both the Programmatic Agreement and NAGPRA Plan are included <br /> ��1 in Attachment H of the FSEIS,Volume 2. In addition,a draft Historic Preservation Management Plan <br /> has been prepared(see Technical Appendix 8). <br /> ' I <br /> i> <br /> 41 <br /> ES-12 <br /> It <br />