Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. ---- . <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />3. Sierra Club assertion re: relationship of the Biological Opinion to Atlas mine tailings site near <br />Moab, Utah. The Sierra Club recently submitted conunents on the preliminary draft opinion <br />suggesting that this biological opinion cannot be issued unless it addresses the impact of water II <br />depletions on increased concentration of pollutants discharged from the Atlas mine tailings site. Our U ~ <br />understanding is that with the addition of language related to water quality in the 6/28/99 draft <br />opinion that the Service has addressed this matter. However, we would like assurance that the <br />concerns raised by Sierra Club are not an impediment to the issuance of this biological opinion. We c_ . Q <br />request that this matter be addressed on July 19 by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ~>. ~ ';' ~ <br />f-"'d, ~~ R..YI+ <br />4. Additional water development of the subbasins. Given that the biological opinion pro~~s ESA <br />compliance for approximately one million acre-feet of existing depletions, and 120,000 acre-feet of <br />new depletions in the Colorado River above the Gunnison, water users in other west slope subbasins <br />tributary to the Colorado River downstream of the 15-mile reach are concerned that the Service will <br />attempt to place limitations on existing or future depletions in those subbasins (Gunnison, White, <br />Yampa). Existing and future projects will be subject to future consultation, and no programmatic <br />biological opinion has been issued to cover those future depletions. In order to alleviate those <br />concems we proposed in our previous draft the following language: <br /> <br />"Issuance of this programmatic biological opinion does not create an administrative <br />priority concerning Upper Colorado River basin depletions. The opinion neither <br />prejudices nor determines the amount of depletions allowable in other subbasins of the <br />Upper Colorado River basin." <br /> <br />This language is important in terms of getting support for the programmatic biological opinion from <br />water organizations in subbasins other than the Colorado River. Therefore, we request once again <br />that the Service incorporate this language into the programmatic biological opinion, preferably in the <br />up-front introductory or scope sections of the opinion. <br /> <br />5. Qualification statement regarding Appendix A. Water users are still concerned that Appendix <br />A will be used some years hence as an indication of maximum allowable depletions by individual <br />projects listed in Appendix A, or interpreted that ifa project is not listed, then it is not covered by the <br />programmatic biological opinion. While we appreciate the qualifying language added to the <br />introductory page in Appendix A, we request that the following language also be added: <br /> <br />"Appendix A is not intended to be a list of all existing facilitieslprojects covered by <br />this opinion, or to be used to determine the amount of average or maximum annual <br />diversions or depletions by any existing facility or project." <br /> <br />6. Minimize the impacts of new water projects. In the previous conunents water users expressed <br />concern about the Service's statement that it will "continue to work with proponents of new water <br />projects to minimize project impacts and look for opportunities to provide hydrologic conditions that <br />benefit the endangered fishes." This language is unchanged in the 6/28/99 draft (p.17, second <br />paragraph). Water users continue to be very concerned that in individual Section 7 consultations, <br />project sponsors will be leveraged to reduce diversions and/or depletion, when, in fact, the Recovery <br />Program is designed to offset depletion impacts. This remains a concern. Water users have proposed <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />OLL <br /> <br />Aft A <br />ck&M <br /> <br />J~ .0 <br />~ <br />