Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />002275 <br /> <br />Summary <br /> <br />OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED <br /> <br />In addition to the Proposed Plan, described above, Reclamation evaluated a No Action <br />Alternative and a 1980 FES Plan Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the <br />Project would not be constructed. As a result, terms of the Settlement Act would not be <br />met, and the Ute Tribes would initiate either litigation or negotiation with other water <br />users and the United States to resolve their water claims. Tribal economic development <br />would be delayed, and existing non-Indian irrigation-related uses could be severely <br />curtailed; any independent water development would be subject to Indian water rights <br />settlement. <br /> <br />'K,Non-Indian agricultural water development and M&I water use would be subject to the <br />'>jndividual efforts of the municipalities and industries to acquire and develop water for <br />~'~their use. There could be independent development of small water storage and <br /><iconveyance facilities in or adjacen, to the Project area. However, all future non-Indian <br />,rt'y.'ater development and use could be subject to resolution of Colorado Ute Indian water <br />rights claims. <br />. . <br />.,' <br />, -The 19BO FES Plan, the selected alternative in the 1980 FES, embodies the present <br />. Proposed Plan without refinements that have occurred since that time, It includes many <br />ot}hesame major features as those of the Proposed Plan,but it does not provide for <br />~ ~ased construction. Additional alternatives considered but determiI)ed infeasible are <br />liescribed in Chapter II of the FSFES and in the 404(b)(1) Evaluation (1\ttachment I). <br />j-:;1:.,' . <br />j~ . <br />." <br /> <br />ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT CONSULTATION <br />#j-- ' <br />,.I]," " <br />....~.. . <br />J3.~clamation participated in studies of endangered fish in the San Juan River from 1987 to <br />1989. In February 1990, Reclamation reinitiated formal consultation with the U.s. Fish <br />~ <br />-",.~:and Wildlife Service (Service) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) based <br />'t'L' upon new information about Colorado squawfish. The Service then issued a draft <br />~il' Biological Opinion that stated the Project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of <br />. ,n.',;", Colorado squawhsh and that no reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPA5) were <br />'i':\~ ,:. identified to offset jeopardy to the endangered fish. From June 1990 through March 1991, <br />~"fJ: Reclamation consulted with Federal, State, Tribal, and private experts and agencies to <br />..,,,;~ develop a RPA that would offset jeopardy to the endangered fish and allow construction <br />.. of the Project to begin. <br /> <br />In summary, the Biological Opinion issued by the Service on October 25,1991, contained <br />a RPA which would allow construction of several Project features (including Durango <br />Pumping Plant, Ridges Basin Inlet Conduit, Ridges Basin Dam and Reservoir, and other <br />features) and initial annual water depletions for the Project of 57,100 acre-feet. At the <br />same time, an approximately 7-year research study of endangered fish in the San Juan <br />River (7-year research study) would be conducted, and Navajo Dam would be operated <br />to mimic the natural hydrograph of the San Juan River and provide flows needed for the <br />research period. Subsequently, consultation was reinitiated to address such new <br />information as designation of critical habitat for endangered fish and listing. of the <br />southwestern willow flycatcher. That consultation concluded with a final Biological <br /> <br />5,3 <br />