Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Appendix VI <br />Comments From the Bureau of Reclamation <br /> <br />GAO's Comments <br /> <br />The following are GAO'S comments on the Bureau of Reclamation's <br />comments enclosed in a letter dated September 21, 1995. <br /> <br />1. We have not revised the report because we believe this suggested <br />change adds nonessential detail. <br /> <br />2. We have clarified the sentence. <br /> <br />3. To minimize the use of acronyms in the report, we have used the term <br />"alternative" mther than "RP A" to refer to the "reasonable and prudent <br />alternative." We have clarified our usage of this term throughout the <br />report. <br /> <br />4. We disagree with this suggested addition. Only the Colorado squawfish <br />was specifically identified in the draft and final biological opinions issued <br />by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the Animas-La Plata project. The <br />Service subsequently addressed the potential impact of the project on the <br />razorback sucker in a conference opinion. In 1992, the Service stated that <br />the conference opinion should be incorporated into the previous opinions <br />concerning the Animas-La Plata project and noted that implementation of <br />all elements of the alternative for the Animas-La Plata project would likely <br />avoid jeopardizing the razorback sucker. Because the Service's biological <br />opinions on the Animas-La Plata project did not address the razorback <br />sucker and because the alternative to the Animas-La Plata project was not <br />subsequently modified to address the razorback sucker, our report refers <br />only to the Colorado squawfish. <br /> <br />5. We have changed the date. <br /> <br />6. We have substituted the term "deplete" for "withdraw" to reflect the <br />Bureau's use of the term. We have also clarified that the figures for <br />acre-feet of depleted water used in the report were taken from the <br />Service's draft and final biological opinions. In both the Animas-La Plata <br />project and the alternative, water is physically taken only from the Animas <br />and La Plata rivers-although these depletions ultimately affect the <br />amount of water flowing downstream in the San Juan River-and we have <br />retained this usage in our report. <br /> <br />7. We disagree with the suggested change because the cost-sharing <br />agreement was negotiated separately from the settlement of the Ute tribes' <br />water claims. <br /> <br />Page 30 <br /> <br />GAOIRCED-96-1 Anlmas-La Plata Projeet <br />