BOARD00259 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Colorado Water Conservation Board Department of Natural Resources 721 Centennial Building 131 3 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 866.3441 FAJC (3031 866.4474 STATE OF COLORADO - Roy Romer Cov!:'rnor January 12, 1998 /,1mes s. Lochheild ExecutIve Director, DNR O.lries Clile, PE. Director, eWeB Ms. Terry Terrell Deputy Regional Director U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 25486 Denver, Colorado 80225-0486 Dear Ms. Terrell, We have had the opportunity to review the draft Biological Opinion (BO) for the City of Durango's new intake structure on the Animas River. We are concerned that the BO appears to charge the City of Durango $50.000 and reduce the yield of the Animas- La Plata Project (ALP) by 1,100 AF. If this is the case, we are confused. If the BO is relying on a reduction in the yield to ALP, then historic depletions are covered by the San Juan Recovery Program and new depletions are covered by BO for ALP. There should be no additional charge to the City under this scenario as all depletions are covered either by the San Juan Recovery Program or the existing ALP BO. If, on the other hand, the City of Durango wishes to seek a separate BO for the project then it appears appropriate to treat the City's request as a new project that would deplete an additional 1 ,051 AF from the basin and develop a reasonable and prudent alternative for the project. Under this scenario, it appears appropriate to charge the City $50,000. This charge is comparable to what the Service ultimately did in granting the BO for Red Mesa. However, it does not appear appropriate to then reduce the yield of ALP. This is taking two bites of the apple if you will and does not seem either fair or appropriate. In our opinion, the Service could proceed by treating the project as either part of ALP ill as a new project, but the present draft BO is not appropriate if our current understanding is correct. Given the above, we offer the followir:g comment,; on the draft BO. I. Page 2, Consultation History -- This section should be revised entirely treating the Durango Project as either a new project, or as part of ALP. 2. Page 2, Biological Opinion -- It is important in this section to acknowledge that the 388 AF of historic depletions are covered as part of the "environmental baseline" under the San Juan Recovery Program. 3. Page 2, Project Description -- What happens to the existing pump station at 29th Street? / l