WSP00769 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

!\n~"l)n ,; J _ J ..' :J ,. Gunnison River Contract SconiM - SORTED Comments :@!j:~! species analysis. From this discussion, it is impossible to determine what path you intend to follow in terms of compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act on these activities or what specific options for such compliance you are considering. CREDA; p4,12. When will you decide whether to combine the two biological opinions? When will you decide tbe range of species to be covered in each biological opinion? If these decisions are in the bands of the Fish and Wildlife Service, what specific plans have they for resolving the biological opinion portion of this pr.ocess maze? 6. CREDA; p4,13. You tben discuss two prior biological opinions on Dolores and Dallas Creek. How will these biological opinions affect the array of alternatives and what provisions of them are relevant specifically to the Aspinall Unit? What "other Reclamation facilities" that you refer to could possibly be impacted? 6. CRWCD;.p2,13. 4. This scoping process has been noticed to the public and to stale/local agencies as necessary prior to initiating negotiations on the contract referenced above. The contract must be limited to serving the legitimate needs of BCNM. While it is appropriate to consider the requests of the U.S. Fisb & Wildlife Service (FWS) for flows to augment endangered fish habitat on the lower Gunnison Rive during the process, it must be recognized that the amounts of water requested by NPS and FWS require separate and distinct justifications. 6. CRWCD; p2,14: 5. FWS is not a party to the contract, and does not have an agreement with USBR for downstream delivery of Aspinall Unit water (including Dallas/Dolores Project commitments) to serve the perceived needs of endangered fish. Yet USBR has made dedicated releases for endangered-fish habitat enhancement as tbough such an agreement exists prior to any public scoping or open decision-making process. Any "test releases" for the purpose of identifying amounts of water needed in improving downstream habitat shoul~ he made in the context of an appropriate NEPA analysis dealing with alternatives to Aspin .-operation for the benefit of endangered fishes. The NEP A process dealing with such relea.. _.lv .Id be started immediately. ....;.f~~....>..:.. ....., :,~:':' .: .::- :: ',,~ .... 6. CWCB; pl,17. 6) Completion of the Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Aspinall Unit. 6. CWCB; pl,1S. 7) Consistency between the proposed water service contract for the Monument, resolution of the Monument rese.rved water right claims filed by lbe NPS in water court, and releases of water from the Aspinall Unit for endangered fish. 6. FWS; pl,12. Coincident to the contract negotiations, lbe Service has embarked on a five-year plan of study on the Gunnison River to obtain data necessary for completing Section 7 consultation on lbe operation of the Aspinall Unit. Field studies, autborized and funded through the Recovery Implementation Program, began in April of 1992 and will continue through 1996. The Service anticipates completion of formal consultation and the rendering ofa biological opinion in 1997. Previous biological opinions for the Dolores and Dallas Creek projects include provisions for making up depletions from these projects by releasing water from the Aspinall Unit. 6. FWS; pl,13. Clearly, the development of a water service contract to deliver water from the Aspinall Unit representing a long.term change in operations and tbe need for compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and NEPA are inseparable. The legal and institutional interrelationships would suggest that the development of one without the other to be impractical, if Dot impossible. .".. ." ! ,..", ~'~"~:",,' ,,-.' ..... 16