BOARD00310 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Agenda Item 26 January 27-28,2004 Board Meeting Page 8 of9 modifications. One alternative will be to implement the flow recommendations. The EIS will t address issues such as flooding, water quality, and the full range of impacts of the feasible alternatives. The flow recommendations include "adaptive management" in the future for Aspinall operations. This concept will be incorporated into any preferred alternative that evolves from the EIS process, It was suggested that the water users would want to develop a preferred alternative and propose it to Reclamation, as well as define "the environmental baseline" and what should be included in the baseline. This will be the responsibility of the water users and will be a suggestion that Will be made during the scoping process. Future uses: Given that M&I Water Supply is one of the uses of Aspinall, foreseeable contracts will be considered in the EIS process. It will be assumed that full use development of Ridgeway water will occur, Existing uses on the North Fork will be included, as well as all other existing uses, Neither the baseline nor the alternatives can include speculative projects, Public involvemeut: There will be ongoing public involvement throughout the EIS process at specific milestones, It was suggested that USBR establish a web site for publication of any interim reports, and to keep everybody fully informed. Public involvement on Aspinall operations: Reclamation holds an annual operations meeting to receive input from the cross section of the public, including environmentalists, water users, . River District, State of Colorado, etc. Reclamation intends to continue this process during the EIS and will likely do so afterwards. This will not be an "advisory committee" in order to avoid confusion with requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which is cwnbersome, requires notices in the Federal Register for every meeting, formal appointment of representatives, and is expensive. Generally, the water users at this meeting were satisfied with the public meeting process and believe that Reclamation is responding to their concerns. 3. Eudaueered Species Act Comoliance Tom Pitts reviewed the three options regarding Endangered Species Act compliance that were discussed in the January 15,2003 discussion paper entitled "Options for Endangered Species Act Compliance for Water Projects in the Gunnison Basin." This paper was discussed at the February meeting of the Gunnison water users. The options included: 1) project by project ESA compliance, 2) a progranunatic biological opinion on existing depletions, and 3) a progranunatic biological opinion on existing depletions and future depletions. Steve Arveschoug, Dolores Water Conservancy District, expressed a strong desire to have the Dolores Project included in the progranunatic biological opinion, given that the existing 1981 biological opinion on the Dolores Project references releases from Aspinall as a reasonable and prudent alternative, if needed,