Laserfiche WebLink
CHAPTER 3 <br />AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES <br />Native Fishery <br />Animas River <br />It is anticipated that if the project is not constructed, the water rights currently held by project sponsors <br />would eventually be exercised. It is not currently possible to identify how these water rights might be <br />used. It is possible, however, that eventual depletion offlow in the Animas River, without instream flow <br />protection for fish and wildlife resources, could impact aquatic resources, including native fish. (Page <br />III-41) <br />La Plata River <br />The La Plata River downstream from Hesperus, Colorado has been subjected to extreme water <br />depletions for decades due to seasonal irrigation demands. This has resulted in large portions of the <br />river being dewatered throughout much of the irrigation season. The relatively short section of river <br />that contains perennial flow, approximately 10 miles from its confluence with Cherry Creek to about 2 <br />miles south of the State line provides limited aquatic habitat to a few native fish species. However, if <br />water rights to the river were to change or point of diversion were relocated, this fishery could be <br />eliminated. Most significantly, a small, isolated, but seemingly healthy population of roundtail chubs <br />exists within unique, limited habitats near the Colorado-New Mexico State line. Reclamation believes <br />that unless formal (legal protection under State water law) protection of instream flow is obtained along <br />with the protection of natural stream physical habitats, it is likely the native fishery in the La Plata River <br />would ultimately be lost. <br />No mitigation measures were identified for the No Action Alternative in the 1996 FSFES. <br />3.7 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES <br />3.7.1 Introduction <br />This section addresses potential impacts to special status species that could result from actions associated <br />with Refined Alternatives 4 and 6 and the No Action Alternative. Section 3.7.2 defines the Evaluation <br />Methodology and significance criteria used for determining impacts, Section 3.7.3 describes the affected <br />environment, Section 3.7.4 identifies potential impacts and mitigation measures that would serve to <br />reduce or eliminate anticipated impacts. <br />Threatened and endangered species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the ESA. ESA <br />compliance is required to avoid jeopardizing the existence of threatened and endangered species or their <br />habitats. Pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, a Biological Assessment (Miller 1999) was prepared for the <br />proposed project. The Biological Assessment was used by the Service in its preparation of a Final <br />Biological Opinion (Service 2000a). These documents are included in Volume 2, Attachment G. The <br />2000 Biological Opinion supercedes all previous opinions prepared for the ALP Project. <br />3.7.2 Evaluation Methodology <br />This section discusses the methodology used to determine potential impacts that could result from <br />Refined Alternatives 4 and 6, and the No Action Alternative. Also discussed are specific criteria that <br />were used to determine the significance of the impacts identified. <br />r?" 7 <br />0.60 P-1 (T- KIP" (4 - 82- <br />3-109 3.7 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES <br />