Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />.....:! <br />o <br /><.0 <br /> <br />The Council has, for a number of years, expressed its concern with issues relating to <br />wetlands and procedures for evaluating and monitoring the progress of the voluntary replacement <br />of fish and wildlife values foregone under the USDA program. While the Council recognizes <br />some progress has been made, there continue to be delay and controversy stemming from a lack <br />of agreement on various wetland issues. The Council urges continued efforts on the part of the <br />Environmental Protection Agency (BPA), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Agricultural <br />Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS), and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) to <br />resolve the issues concerning the voluntary replacement of fish and wildlife values foregone with <br />the full recognition that only voluntary replacement is authorized (pL 98-569), and that <br />maintenance of the federally mandated water quality standards is the primary purpose of the <br />program. Continued controversy between SCS, FWS, and EP A over the amount of replacement <br />which is included in the onfarm program remains a major concern of the Council. It is <br />recommended that the agencies annually review the program with regard to the actual values <br />foregone and the progress being made in replacing the lost values. The Council requests that <br />the agencies keep the Council and the Forum advised as to progress in resolving this <br />controversy. The Council takes note that some wetlands have less value than others and urges <br />that this difference be taken into consideration in determining replacement of fish and wildlife <br />values foregone. <br /> <br />Suecific Comments <br /> <br />Bureau of Reclamation <br /> <br />Grand Valley Unit. The Council is pleased with the progress in this unit, particularly <br />continuing construction on the Price and Stubb Ditches, the Government Highline Canal laterals <br />and finalization of designs for improvement of additional segments of that canal. Funding levels <br />should remain commensurate with the implementation schedule set forth in the 1992 Joint <br />Evaluation Report and the 1990 Review so that the potential salt load reductions in this unit are <br />achieved as necessary to meet the numeric criteria. The Council urges that Reclamation proceed <br />with underwriting portions of the Soil Conservation Service habitat replacement program as per <br />the agreement in the Final EIS. However, the Council wishes to be perfectly clear that in <br />making this recommendation, no precedent is to be set for other salinity control units. The <br />agreement to underwrite replacement was made in December 1977, which preceded the 1984 <br />amendments to the Salinity Control Act authorizing the USDA onfarm salinity control program <br />and specified the voluntary program of habitat values replacement. Therefore, the Forum and <br />the Council, in recognition of the environmental concerns associated with the salinity program, <br />support Reclamation underwriting the necessary portion of replacement costs, but only in this <br />special case for the Grand Valley Unit. <br /> <br />Lower Gunnison Basin Unit. The Winter Water Program, one of six components of this <br />unit, is among the most cost-effective salinity control projects remaining to be completed. The <br />Council is pleased that this portion of the unit is currently under budget and ahead of schedule, <br />and encourages Reclamation to use innovative strategies similar to those used in the Winter <br />Water Program, including cooperative agreements, to develop cost-effective programs in the <br /> <br />3 <br />