Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Agenda Item 15 <br />September 22-23, 2003 Board Meeting <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />existing depletions, and 3) a programmatic biological opinion on existing depletions and <br />future depletions. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Steve Arveschoug, Dolores Water Conservancy District, expressed a strong desire to <br />have the Dolores Project included in the programmatic biological opinion, given that the <br />existing 1981 biological opinion on the Dolores Project references releases from Aspinall <br />as a reasonable and prudent alternative, if needed. <br /> <br />Reclamation expressed a strong desire to do a biological assessment and biological <br />opinion for Aspinall, and then do a programmatic biological opinion for all federal <br />projects and non-federal projects in the Gunnison basin, and the Dolores Project. <br /> <br />It was noted that the biological opinions on Dolores,Ridgeway, and other federal projects <br />are out of date, given the listing of the razorback sucker and designation of critical habitat <br />in the early to mid- 90s. The programmatic piological opinion will update EIS <br />compliance for these projects. <br /> <br />After some discussion, the group came to agreement on the following proposal: <br /> <br />1. Reclamation will complete a biological assessment as part of the BIS process, and <br />request the biological opinion on the Aspinall unit towards the end of the EIS process. <br />Issuance of the record of decision on the ElS will include the results of the biological <br />opinion. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2. Following issuance of the biological opinion on Aspinall, a programmatic biological <br />opinion will be requested from the Service that will include all federal projects in the <br />Gunnison basin, non-federal projects, the Dolores Project, and possibly the non~federal <br />projects in the Dolores basin. <br /> <br />3. The programmatic biological opinion will inc~ude existing depletions, and no future <br />depletions, except those authorized and presently! covered by the Dallas Creek opinion. <br />ESA compliance for future depletions will be pro;vided by the Recovery Program under <br />the Section 7 agreement. USFWS has determj.ned that the Program provides ESA <br />compliance for projects depleting up to 4,500 AF/year, based on USFWS "sufficient <br />progress" determinations. The Program also covers projects depleting more than 4,500 <br />AF/year, but those require separate evaluations to determine that the Recovery Program <br />is, in fact, providing the reasonable and prudent alternatives for these larger projects. <br /> <br />Addendum to Summary by Pitts, July 29! 2003: <br /> <br />Eric Kuhn, Colorado River Water Conservatio'nDistrict, proposed that an MOU 'b~ <br />signed by USFWS, USBR, W AP A and possibly 'pther non-federal parties outlining the <br />basic intent of the PBO with respect to such :itemsas the federal and non-federal <br />actions to be covered, role of the recovery program in providing ESA compliance, and <br />scope of depletions to be addressed, without prejudging the outcome of the <br /> <br />. <br />