WSP04888 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

B-260541 concludes that the project would likely not jeopardize the Colorado squawfish, further depletions could be allowed and construction could proceed. On the other hand, if the Service cannot reach this conclusion, the Bureau would not be able to undertake further construction under the alternative. . According to the Service's final biological opinion, the alternative must include guaranteed delivery of water released from the Navajo Dam and Reservoir to provide the improvement in habitat necessary to maintain and increase the squawfish population in the San Juan River. Such guarantees were given by Colorado and New Mexico but not by Utah or the Navajo Nation. This situation may require the agencies to reopen consultation. . The Bureau's use of water from the Navajo Dam and Reservoir under the alternative is disputed by the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation believes that this use threatens the tribe's claim to water in the reservoir under the 1962 congressional authorization of NllP and the tribe's other rights to water in the San Juan River. Depending on how this dispute is resolved, NllP, the Animas-La Plata project, or other water use and development in the San Juan River basin could be adversely affected. AgencyComments We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of the Interior or his designee. On September 20, 1995, we met with officials from the Bureau. We also obtained written comments from the Bureau and the Service. Both agencies provided several technical clarifications to the draft, and the Bureau provided updated information on its plans for issuing the supplemental enviromnental impact statement (in December 1995) and completing construction of the project's first facilities (no earlier than 2(02). We have incorporated these changes into the report as appropriate. The Bureau's and Service's complete comments and our responses are included in appendixes VI and vn, respectively. Scope and Methodology To obtain information on the project, we reviewed the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (which authorized the Animas-La Plata project); the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, as well as its implementing regulations; and the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988. We also reviewed documents concerning the project and the interagency consultation process. We interviewed more than 150 representatives from federal agencies, Indian tribes, state and local agencies, and proponents and opponents of the project. We also visited the project's site near Durango, Colorado. Because of the 1992 Page 3 GAOIRCED-96-1 ADlmas-La Plata Projeet '> t,,1 .~.-> " ~ , < ii '.'cl '. r.: it.. :~,~i "F' .- , x. ;if:" . '. ","'/' .,.:;,: . , :, y ~. ". ,.... " t'