WSP09205 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ Ofl183' . 59004 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No, 210 / Monday, November I. 1999/ Rules and Regulations '. COrnmenlS on Question 3 Comment: One Slate agency and one water district stated (hat sufficient statutory and contractual authorities already exist under applicable laws and COntracts to allow the authorized entity to take water for banking purposes. Therefore there would be no need for a new or amended contract. Another State agency and one water authority believe that an additional contract is necessary with the Secretary to ensure the Secretary's commitment 10 release waler based 00 the deve\oprnent of 1CUA by a sloring entity. That contract could be executed concurrently with an Interstate Storage Agreement. However. as noted under comments on Question 2. those parties do not see a need for new and additional Section 5 contracts beyond those that now exist. One State agency responded that if there are two separate agreements. they should be processed, reviewed. and approved simultaneously. The two water districts commented that any necessary Section 5 contract, whether or not combined with an Interstate Storage Agreement, should be processed and approved 'Simultaneously with the Interstate Storage Agreement. Response: Question 3 asked whether Storage and Interstate Release Agreements and Section 5 comracts, if not combined, should be processed simultaneously. We have modified the rule in!3 414.3{a) to provide that the Secretary will be a party to a Storage and Interstate Release Agreement. The Department also recognizes in 9414.3{e) that. in cerrain circumstances, existing contracts or subcontracts satisfy the requirements of Section 5 for the delivery of water under a Storage and lnterslate Release Agreement. The rule does not anticipate the need for the execution of any further Section 5 contracts in order (0 implcmenl a Storage and Interstate Release Agreement. Question 3 is moot in light of these modifications to the rule. Comments by the parties in response (0 Queslion 3 primarily ,lddress issues raised by Questions 1 and 2 and are responded to above. V. Procedural Matter~ "J ,. Environmental Compliance ,. Paperwork Reduction Act ,. Regulatory Flexibility Act . Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) . Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 . Executive Order 12612, Federalism Assessment . Executive Order 12630, Takings Implications Analysis . Executive Order t 2866. Regulatory Planning and Review . Executive Order 12988. Civil Justice Reform 'Environmental Compliance We prepared a DPEA and placed it on file in (he Reclamation Administrative Record. We received comments on the DPEA (discussed above in III. Responses to Comments]. and carefully conSidered those comments in preparing the final programmatic environmental assessment (FPEA). We have accepted many of these comments and incorporated them into the FPEA, which is on file in the Reclamation Administrative Record. Based on the FPEA, we have determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is warranted. We have also. under the ESA. consulted with FWS on potential impacts of this rule on listed species and desigflated habitat. Based on the analysis contained in the SA that we prepared for the rule, we have de\ermined that operations under this rule are not likely to adversely affect listed species or designated hab'itat in the action area. FWS has concurred with this finding. We have also determined that we ha....e no Section 7 obligations for species within Mexico due [0 our inability to control the use of water once it reach'e5 Mexico. Compliance w\\h NEP A, tne ESA, and other relevant statutes, laws. and executive orders will be completed for future Federal actions taken under this rule to ensure that any action authorized or carried out by the Secretary does not jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species, does not adversely modify or destroy critical habitat. and Is analyzed by an appropriate environnlenta! document. Consultation and coordination between Reclamation. FWS, other agencies, and interested parties will be completed on a case-by-case basis. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule is geographically IJmited to the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada. The collection of information contained in the rule covers storing entities that would store Colorado River 'Nater off the malnstream of the Colorado River. The information we would collect would be compiled by these storing entities in [he course of their normal business, and the annual reports to the Secretary will not impose any significant time or COSt burden. We will submit the information collection requirements in this rule to the Office of Management and Budget for approval as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44 U.S,C, 35GI e' seq, We will not require collection of this information untillhe Office of Management and Budget has given its approval. Regularory Flexibi/iry Act The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number ofsmaU entities under the Regulatory FlexibllUY Act (5 U.S.c. 601 el seq.). This rule will not impose any direct Lost on small entities. Fjnancial costs associated with the developn1ent and release or intentionally created unused apportionment will be borne by the parties who voluntarily enter into off~~r't':am 'Storage and release agreements. A benefit-cost analy....is was completed and concludes that this rule does not impose significant or unique impact upon small governments (including Indian communities). ....mall entities sllch as water purveyors, water districts, or associations, or individual entitlement holders. From a financial perspective, since the ru\e may provloe an opportunity for authorized entities in the LowerDivision States to secure additional supplies of Colorado River water. Colorado River water users may exper-ience a cost savings. The rule will not affect anv Colorado River entitlement holder's right to use its full waler entitlement. Further, in times of shortage on the Colorado River, numerous small water users with senior water rights, which are determined by an earlier priority date. will ret<lin their seniority and will be served before less senior user.... regardless of size. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) This rute is not a major rule under 5 use, 804(2), the SBREFA. This rule: (1) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 mill Jon Or more. The Department prepared a benefit-cost analysis. which estimated that this rule would cause net economic benefits on a Stale and regional level using different water supply models and discount rates. Under a conservative water supply scenario characterized by 19 years of normal conditions on the Colorado River and one surplus year, discounted net economic benefits at thoc reg\ona\ level ranged from $12.8 to $61.2 million at 5.75 per cent and $9.5 [0 $47.7 million at 8.27 per cem. Under a water supply scenario characterized by 10 years of surplus conditions on the Colorado River. (he net economic benefits range from $550,255 to $4.8 million at 5.75 per cent and $350,789 to S3.1 mi11ion at 8.27 per cent. Under the scenario characterized by 10 surplus