WSP00769 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OG~5gQ '. Gunnison River Contract Scooin" - SORTED Comments ....:... <;;i.~:;j~.:~~~ ,:.-.:" 6. GREENO+; p5,'4. Issue D. Endan2ered Fish Recovery - The proposed contract should fully integrate any studies and decisions in support of endangered fish recovery. The Endangered Fish Recovery Program is a fundamental factor in the management of the Colorado River and its tributaries. The proposed contract cannot be finalized until the water requirements for endangered fish recovery are known. 6. GREENO-+-; p5,'5. (Issue D. Endangered Fish Recovery, cont). A1thoughthe endangered fish studies and subsequent Biological Opinion are not expected to be completed for five or more years, we support the effort to begin NEPA compliance and negotiation of an interim contract. This work will help to frame all of the relevant issues and speed up the final negotiations wben the Biological Opinion is completed. Care should be taken, however; to maiotain the viability of all courses of action needed to assure the recovery of the endangered fish. '0. JORGENSON; pU4. fishery. 3. We need to regulate tbe river for tbe recovery of the endangered native 6. MCCCOREY; p2,'3-5. Endangered species: The Colorado squawfisb, razOrback sucker, bumpback cbub and bony tail chub are the endangered species to be studied by tbe proposed delivery. changes. All of these fish are warm water or semi~warm water species which nature separates basically by water temperature. Under natural conditions, they spawn at different temperature levels and therefor are not present with cold water species, Le'9 trout, salmon. Because of the lower temperatures of the river, the endangered species at risk are not found in the Black Canyon, or even distantly downstream. . In my opinion, high releases in .the spring and early summer will not enhailce the study of the endangered species. It must be noted that the high releases of water lack the higb amount of sediment. thus it is imposs~ble to duplicate the wild river conditions in the canyon or downstream. .,..... .,;.;;: '.:"~_:~: . ~ '~~;.:.).{':'~':' ..~'.::..-... 6. MILLER; p2, '4. Invalid Scooin2 Process It appears your EIS scoping process is not valid under NEPA roles, because your specific. Blue Mesa Reservoir release scbedules for endangered fisb are not available for public evaluation. To assure a valid EIS, I strongly recommend deferral of tbe formal scoping until the desired Gunnison Flow regime is sufficiently defined for detailed analysis, On the surface, if Doe or more of the above altematiyes are not used, a return.to Gunnison native flows would destroy Colorado's compact rights and .the Upper Colorado Basin's ability to meet Lower Basin calls in droughts. 6. .NONFED75; p2,'7. 4) Our understanding.is that the biological opinions issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service covering the Dallas Creek and Dolores Projects set aside up. to 150,000 acre feet of Aspinall Unit water to offset the impacts of these two projects. It is not .c1ear from the draft contract where this water fits into the proposed Aspinall operations. We recommend water set aside, pursuant to the Dolores and Dallas Creek Projects biological opinions, be specifically identified and addressed in the contract. 6. SIERRA; p2, '3. (ISSUES, cont) 3) The Aspinall Unit has been proposed as a source of water for meeting the in stream flow requirements of endangered fish througb Dominguez Canyon and downstream in the Colorado River in Black Rocks and Westwater Canyon. The contract analysis should address reoperation of the reservoirs to meet the needs of the endangered fish. ... .....;..~ '-." .....-.....:.... 17