WSP04897 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the Durango eraI A-LP backers, , '...,1 opponetifS"'plan . . new strategtes ..", Lujan reacts; project chrono1ogy, ~ Z By""'r Smith HCRId City Editor Spoosors of the Animu-I....J Plata Project believe the 198'1 discovery of aquawrub in the San Juan River was no discovery at aU. Opponcnb. on the other lwId. believe orrJci:W have been IooJting around \rilh cbed eyes when it comes to the project's threat to the environmcnL The draft biological opinion issued by the u.s. FlSb and WildIifll; Service on Tuesday _ recom- mending lhc Aniow-La Plata be put on hold for at least seven years - won't become fInal for another 30 to 60 da)'S. . '". . : In the meantime, said Fash ;lnd Wildlife uglonal director wlen Buterbaugh. ~Ma)'be the public wiD COme up with something." They're trying. Both sides were gearing up even before the Fish and Wddlifc study became public. Now, Animas-La Plata supporten an: nying to mi- nimize the damage done by the re- pon. while project opponents are preuing their advantage. The argument by the Soulhwcst~ ern Water Conservation Disuict. original sponson of the water pr0- ject, is that finding squaw fish downstream from Aniaw-La Plata was no hig deal. '7he fmding of young..of-the- year cannot be considered new in- formation. beause the SeMce was awarc in 1979 that spawning occurred in the San Juan River," SOlid Sam Maynes, attorney for the water district. He cites the 1980 environmental impact statement in: which it is re- ported that a survey crew had lo- cated a "juvenile squawflJb" in the San Juan River in 1978. It appa_ rently had spawned in the river in 1975 or 1976. The FISh and Wildlife Senicc's condusion then was that "becauae of the apparent small size: of the: Sanjuan River squawfish popula- tion and ill already tenuous hold on survival, iu posaibk Iou should have little impact on the: success_ fully reproducing Green and Col- orado river squawfuh populations and therefore thespecie3 itself." The Service reversed that opin- ion in Tuesday's report, which was based on the 1987 find of 17 young squawflJb downstream from Ship- rod. It now say. the San Juan is an "essential component of the CoIoDo ado River Basin to ensure mainte- nance of a population of Colorado squawfash in the event populations are lost in the Green River sub- ' Indians suggest , court action By""'r Smith Herald City IdiIor The u.s. F1Ib and WiJdIife Service report on endangered squawflsh .threatens Indian . water claims beyond the Animas-La P1ala Project. trio bod leaden say. The report, issued Tues.- day, said any depletion of Rows in the San Juan River wouldjeopardizethe rare fISh. "Not only does the Fub and WLldlife Service action endan- ger the water righu of lhe Southern Utes., it endangers the righlSofthe Ute Mountain UtesandtheNa~joandJicar_ .ilb. Apache tribes who depend On-San Juan water." said Southern Ute chairman Le0- nard Burch. ", _ "I disagree that tribal righlS', should fall second to the righu of a rub which was demoyed in the Sanjuan River in 1962 asatraah fuhwith,thehdpof. the Fllhand WLldlifeService," Burcbsaid. Ute Mountain Ute tribal leaden said they would figbt the FIJb and Wild1ife Service's opinion in court. "When the people of south- west Colorado and northern New Mexico read this opinion, they will hit the roof," said Judy Knight-Frank, chairw0- man of the Ute Mountain tribe. -rhe opinion not only hurts the Indians, it abo deals the entire s.m Juan Basin a 'serious,long--term blow." The tribes estimate that 200,000 acre-feet of water al. lowed to flow downstream to Arizona and California would be worth more than $300 'million. "If the Fish and Wildlife Service opinion becomes final, our tnlslCC:, the United States government, will have broken all those commitments," said Burch, He was referring to a lreaty dating back to the establish. ment of the reservation 120 )'Can ago, the federal govern- ment's 1968 promise to build the Animas.La Piilta Project, and an agreement signed in 1986 to compensate water rights with storage in the Animas-La. Platil. basin and/or Colorado River sub- basin," Conservationists think Ihc ruh (PIaee lee OPINION. Pap 14) --' OPINION - (Coatiaucd rz- P.l) and Wildlife Service got it right this time - but didn't go far enough. 1'he Bureau of Reclamation has not done an environmemal impact study or solicited public input on A-LPsincc J980," said Lori Potter, a lawyer with the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. "11te environmen_ tal picture has changed dramati- cally since then," Rafting, wetIatub. Water quality, elk and deer habitat are some of the issues that the Sierra Club and Na- tional Wildlife Federation think should be reopened for environ_ mental review, David Conrad of the National Wildlife FcdCl1lltion caJIcd the Fuh and Wildlife Service's decision "courageous" and said it should leadto"alonghardlookatwhether l . Animas.La Plata, or some alterna- tive project, makes any sense ataIl." Water developers would agree with the conservationists on one thing - that times have changed. Animas-La Plata supportensent out copies of the 1962 report from state wildlife managen who, with the help of the Fish and Wildlife Service,tried towipcout 11 species offlJb-induding squawfub-in the San J uan River. . "The rOlenone (poison) treat. lDCDt was very suecessful," the re. port says. "Good results. nearly total Ir.i1I '.. This made a total of approximately 75 miles of the San Juan River that was treated."