WSP09205 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" O'~'8-?":' Ul _, 59000 Federal RegIster/Vol. 64, No. 210lMonday, November I. 1999/Rules and Regulations that this rule can be implemented withou[ compromising the MSCP process. . A.dequacy of the Environmental Assessment Comment: The level of environmental compliance proposed by Reclamation is inadequate and Reclamation should complete a programmatic E1S on the proposed rule arId [he entire operation of the- Co1orado River. Response: Ple<.lse refer to [he previous discussion of adequacy of the environmental aSsessment under the Environmental Concerns section of the Public Comments on Proposed Rule and Responses on Generallssues. PotemiaJ Effects on Plants and Wildlife Comment: Compliance with the ESA for the proposed rule was not accomplished through the biological opinions for Central Arizona Project (CAP) or Lower Colorado River Operations and Maintenance Activity and Reclamation cannot defer them until a hueI' date. Response: We do not agree with this view expressed by several environmental gfOupS. Reclamation has prepared a biological assessment (BA) for the proposed rule and entered into informal consultation with FWS. Please refer to the response to the following comment for mOfe details about those consultations. Reclamation has incGrpma\ed by reference into its BA for \he proposed rule the 1996 Biological Assessment for Description and Assessment of Operations. Maintenance. and Sensitive Species of the Lower Coiorado River (l,CRBA). The l,CRBA anC'lyzed the potential effects to listed species and designaled crHical habitat from current and projected routine LCR operations and maintenance where Reclamation has discretionary involvement or control. Reclamation also incorporated by reference FWS's 1997 BCO based on the LCRBA. Tllese documel1ts provide the baseline for current C'nd projected routine LCR operations. More information on the SA prepared for this rule is contained in the l1ext few responses. The BCa and prior consultations with FWS for physical facilities and water delivery contracts with the Central Arizona Water Conservation District and Southern Nevada Water Authority cover the effects of both mainstream and offstream areas that would be involved in the scope of proposed actions under the rule. Comment: The offstream storage and retrieval of wa\er under the proposed rule is likely to have adverse direct. indirect, and cumulative effects on wildlife and critical habitat. particularly for threatened and endangered specles. Response: We do not agree with the view by several environmental groups that proposed actions under the proposed rule will adversely affect threatened and endangered species and critical habltat. Reclamatiol1 has met with FWS and engaged in infomlal consultations under the ESA. In the course of those consultations, Reclamation prepared a BA that analyzed the potential effects of operations under the proposed rule on lis\ed species and des\gna\ed habitat in the LCR action area. This analysis was based upon the most likely storage and retrieval scenarios of water from Lakes Mead or Havasu and associated river reaches to obtain ICUA under the proposed rule. At the request of FWS, several worst case scenarios were formulated by Reclamation for purposes of comparison with ColoradO River operations that are most like.ly to occur under the proposed rule. These worst case scenarios wen" given detailed analysis and discussed with FWS,but were later eliminatcd because rhey are not realistic and will not bp. allowed under proposed Storage and Interstate Release Agreements. The SA analyzed several scenarios. one of which was a proposed actir:JTJ in which 1.2 maf would be stored in ArJzona under a Storage and Interstate Release Agreement to allow an authorized entity in Nevada to meet its future water needs. Maximum conveyance capacity expected lo be made available on the CAP to store water for interstate waleI' transClctJons is 200 kaf/year An authorized entity in Nevada will make future diversions of waleI' from Lake Mead, in addition to Nevada's normal basic and surplus apportionments, to use ICUA rr.le;:1sed by the Secretary. This additional diversion of ICUA will be limited. under Arizona It'lw. to a maximum of 100 kaf in any year. The SA analyzed the effects of this and other scenarios for storage of Colorado River water and future release of lCUA on listed species and their designated habitat. Effects to each species were detennincd for the most likely and low prob<'lbility case scenarios. Habila[ requirements for breeding. nesting. and foraging of some species are not dependent on the LCR. Fluctuations in water surface elevations associated with most likely and low probability ,Storage and refrieval scenarios on reseNoirs and riverine reaches on the LCR are very small and are not Ukely to adversely affect bonywil chub. razorback sucker. Yuma clapper rail. or southwestern willow f1ycalcher. Based upon the a,,'ailable informati~n regarding the critical habitats for the rawrback sucKer and bony tail chub, storage and release of ICUA under this rule will not adversely modify critical habitat for these fish species. Other listed and sensitive species will not be affected by implementation of the rule. Reclamation did not consult with FWS on species in Mexjco because the United States has no authorHy or discretion regnrding Mexico's use of its treaty water or flood control releases. Reclamation has notified the NC\tionl'1 Marine Fisheries SerVice that a section 7 consultation for Mexican species under its administration is not required. Watcr A vailabJe for Instfearn Flows an.d Habitat Enhancement Coinment: Concern was expressed that Colorado River stream flows downstream from Lake Mead would first increase when water is put into storage in Arizona and then decrease in the future as more water is diverted from Lake Mead when Nevada recovers stored water. Response: No significant chcmges are expected in s.tream flows downStreall1 from Lake Mead as a result of implementation of a Storage and Interstate Release Agreement between Arizona and Nevada under the rule. The Biological Assessment for this rule evaluated the effects of storage of 100 and 200 kaf/year of Colorado River watef in Arizona and subsequent diversion in a later year of up to 100 kaf by Nevada from Lake Mead. Very small changes in water surface elevations would occur in the riverine and reservoir areas below Lake Mei.ld. The largest increase or decrease in sverage monthly water smfa:c.e elevation when storing or using water was 0.12 feet. These changes fall within the range of increases and decreases in water surface elevalions below Lake Mead aTld Hoover Dam under current river opera~ions. Concerns over Deliveries to Mexico Comment: The DPEA states that a minor reduction will occur in the quantity of surplus water available for delivery to Mexico over the long term without explaining what a minor reduction is or what studies have been done to quantify this. Response: Please refer to the previous discussion of adequacy of the environment<ll assessment under the Environmental Concerns section of the Public Commen\s on Proposed Rule and Responses on General Issues. Comment: Offstream storage of surplus water will decrease the likelihood that water from nood comrol releases wi!! reach the Gulf of