WSP05948

• File Number: 8210.382
• Description: Colorado River Basin Organizations-Entities - Delores Water Conservation District
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 1/1/3000
• Author: BOR
• Title: Finding of No Significant Impact - Carriage of Water through Delores Project Facilities
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

. M'iH ~i
y'-- iJ 'J.... ",...

I
i
1'-
, .

would be signed under the authority of the Warren Act, February 21, 1911 936 Stat. 925 and 43
CFR 426.18(b)as well as the Dolores Project authorizing legislation.

The primary alternative to the proposed action is the No Action Alternative. Under the No
Action Alternative, two likely outcomes are projected: 1) The DWCD would still acquire shares
ofMVIC stock.ilnd use the water for new irrigation without using Federally-oWned canals .and 2)
The MVIC water shares would remain with MVIC for future sale, intermittent irrigation use, or
other uses,

The Carriage Contract requires the DWCD to pay the United States for use of Reclamation
canals and would include environmental and other commitments as listed at the end of this
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and in the final environmental assessment (EA),

A draft and a final EA were completed on the proposed action, A draft FONSI was distributed
with the final EA. In general, the majority of comments received on the draft EA opposed
completion of the Carriage Contract because it was perceived as either taking water away from
the Dolores River fishery and recreation resource or because it was perceived as foreclosing
options of adding water to the Dolores River, Several commentors recommended preparation of
an environmental impact statement based on salinity impacts or other factors. Supporters of the
Carriage Contract cited the benefits of strengthening the agricultural economy and maintaining
open space,

Four comments were received on the draft FONSI and final EA. Environmental Defense
recommended preparation of an environmental impact statement based on "".serious and
unresolved questions about the proposed action's potential adverse effect on listed species"; a
lack of meaningfulaltematives; use of the wrong baseline; use of outdated salinity/selenium
information; and inconsistencies with sound public policy, The San Juan Citizens Alliance also
recommended that an environmental impact statement be prepared because the execution of a
Carriage Contract would be a major Federal action resulting in significant impacts. One private
citizen expressed the view that Reclamation should not execute a FONSI and should work to .
keep the MVIC water in the river, Trout Unlimited stated that a FONSI could not be supported
because of several issues including salinity and selenium analyses; impacts on McPhee Reservoir
operations; consistency of the proposal with Colorado state water law; and issues with the No
Actiol;l alternative. Specific comments and responses to these letters are presented as an
attachment to this FONS!.

Environmental Impacts

Hvdrolo~, Streamflows. and Water Oualiry--The up to 8,000 acre-feet of non-Project water has
historically been diverted, when available and needed, from the Dolores River to irrigate lands in
the San Juan River Basin. In the last 10 years, the water has been diverted intermittently as
needed. Under the proposed action, the water would be diverted from the Dolores River wheI).
needed and when available, with return flows (approximately 1,200 acre-feet) entering the San

2

j.~

~, L,~~',,',(( '~<-'.

~,. . ,,"'__~-A_-

:[

j
3

,
1
'{,

,j

:~
'{

':1

, J
' :.1
"j
'......... ...~
,1;-: "'l
~J~i