Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />To comply with environmental justice policy, NEPA documents should identify and evaluate any <br />anticipated effects, direct or indirect, from the proposed project, action, or decision. If any <br />significant impacts to minority and low-income populations and communities are identified, the <br />environmental document should clearly evaluate and state the environmental consequences of <br />the proposed project action or decision on minority and low-income populations and <br />communities in the environmental document. If a project or an action is expected to have either <br />an insignificant impact or no impact on minorityllow-income populations, the document should <br />specifically state that the proposed project or action was considered and is expected to have <br />either insignificant impact or no impact, direct or indirect, with reasons given under an <br />appropriate section. <br /> <br />Preferred Alternative <br /> <br />The Colorado River and existing delivery systems would be operated within their current and <br />projected routine operations consistent with the provisions of the BCP A and the Decree, <br />Because changes are not expected in river operations and in the occurrence of water surpluses <br />made available to entitlement holders who are not part of specific interstate transactions under <br />the Preferred Alternative no significant impacts to minority and low-income populations and <br />communities would occur as a result of the proposed rule. However, Reclamation will complete <br />appropriate consultation and coordination with Federal, State, and other interested parties on <br />future interstate storage agreements on a case-by-case basis, <br /> <br />No Action Alternative <br /> <br />Adoption of the No Action A1temative would not change current conditions of water delivery to <br />customers in the Lower Division States, However, it is possible that off stream storage credits <br />could be developed between California and Nevada for interstate redemption purposes without <br />the proposed rule, Reclamation would address this issue in an appropriate NEP A document for <br />such actions on a case-by-case basis. <br /> <br />E, Cumulative and Indirect Effects <br /> <br />Preferred Alternative <br /> <br />Under the Preferred Alternative, adoption of the proposed rule would allow authorized entities in <br />the States of Arizona, California, or Nevada to store unused Colorado River water off the <br />mainstream of the Colorado River in one of the other two States and recover that water for their <br />future use. Reclamation is not able at this time to determine what cumulative impacts may result <br />from or what indirect impacts would be caused by the approval of specific interstate agreements <br />made pursuant to the proposed rule, The immediate or future uses may be for the maintenance of <br />existing agricultural and domestic water supplies, the accommodation of growth, or may be <br />growth inducing. A1temative and/or supplemental water sources may be available and must be <br />identified as part of the impact analysis. What cumulative impacts may result from and what <br />indirect effects would be caused by individual interstate agreements and their potential <br /> <br />LC Region DEAl I <br /> <br />24 <br /> <br />12/97 <br />