Laserfiche WebLink
<br />releases, is there any opportunity for the community to get involved in release priorities? <br />Shouldn't releases be controlled by an entity with a broader perspective than the NPS, both <br />environmentally and otherwise? <br /> <br />CREDA noted that the BOR does commit to NEPA compliance concerning any permanent <br />changes in operations to the Aspinall Unit resulting from the Biological Opinion following the <br />5-year study. However, they expressed concern that when talk shifts to a separate Biological <br />Opinion for the contract, there is no mention of NEPA compliance for that Biological Opinion. <br />They also felt discussions were needed about combining the two Biological Opinions and to <br />consider other species in any endangered species analysis. When will the decision be made <br />whether to combine the two opinions and what will the range of species to be covered in each? <br />i. More dialogue is necessary about compliance with the Endangered Species Act and NEP A or <br />what specific options for such compliance are being considered. If those decisions are in the <br />hands of the FWS, what are their plans for resolving the Biological Opinion issues for this <br />process? <br /> <br />The CRWCD noted that the FWS is not a party to the contract, and does not have an agreement <br />with the BOR for downstream delivery of Aspinall Unit water to serve the perceived needs of <br />endangered fish. Yet the BOR has made dedicated releases for endangered fish habitat <br />enhancement, as though such an agreement exists, prior to any public scoping or open decision- <br />making process. Any "test releases" for the purpose of identifying amounts of water needed in <br />improving downstream habitat should be made in the context of an appropriate NEPA analysis <br />dealing with alternatives to Aspinall Unit re-operation for the benefit of endangered fishes. The <br />NEPA process dealing with such releases should be started immediately. <br /> <br />The NPCA also stated that although the endangered fish studies and subsequent Biological <br />Opinion are not expected to be completed for 5 or more years, they support the effort to begin <br />NEP A compliance and negotiation of an interim contract in order to frame.all the relevant issues <br />and speed up the fmal negotiations when the Biological Opinion is completed. They did caution <br />that care should be taken to maintain the viability of all courses of action needed to assure the <br />recovery of the endangered fish. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark felt that a newsletter would be helpful as a means for keeping interested individuals <br />and organizations appraised of the progress of the project. <br /> <br />39 <br />