WSP05948 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

O~H'~ 3 EIS was based on MVIC diverting and using their full water supply, It is also unlikely that this Carriage Contract would set a precedent for future sales ofMVIC water to the DWCD because Dolores Project facilities would have little or no excess capacity following the carriage of the 8,000 acre-feet now being considered. Comment: Cumulative actions and direct and indirect impacts need to be considered, Response: The Dolores Project final EIS evaluated McPhee Reservoir and downstream impacts as ifMVIC water was being fully diverted. Any past, present, or future sale ofMVIC water shares, that could represent cumulative water uses, would represent water assumed diverted and used in that EIS, There are very few direct impacts of the Carriage Contract because it simply allows a water district to cany their water in a Federal canal. Indirect impacts related to water use, cultural resources, fish and wildlife resources were addressed in the final EA. Comment: The Fish and Wildlife Service's biological opinion on the carriage contract raises serious issues including the ability of the Service to make decisions upon the potential adverse effects of a Federal Action on listed species in a situation where the Service concedes great uncertainty about the effects of such actions on listed species, Response: The Fish and Wildlife Service concluded in their biological opinion that potential water quality changes "may affect, but is not likely to affect" listed species, while the continued depletion of the 8,000 acre-feet of water from the Dolores-Colorado River system may affect and is likely to adversely affect listed fish species and that the Recovery Program can serve.. .. . as the reasonable and prudent alternative to avoid jeopardy to the endangered fish and their critical habitat. The Service also included a "Reinitiation Notice" in their biological opinion that requires reconsultation if new information reveals effects of the carriage contract that may affect listed species in a manner or to an extent not considered in their opinion. Comment: Meaningful alternatives, particularly expansion of the No Action alternative, are needed. The No Action alternative should more accurately be characterized by water excess to MVIC's needs to continue to accrue to the Dolores River. An accurate analysis of the No Action alternative would reveal environmental benefits not disclosed in the EA. Response: A contract is needed to allow the D WCD to cany non-project water through Reclamation-owned canals. The only reasonable altemative to this is No Action-not executing a contract, It is beyond the purpose and need of the Carriage Contract EA to develop alternatives to provide additional water to the Dolores River. The final EA explains likely scenarios that would occur under the No Action a1ternative--the water would not become part of the downstream fishery pool or part of a reservoir spill simply because No Action was selected, The water would remain the property of the MVIC to be sold or used, 8 -';{ !J 4 .1 11 , ."',,,