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 />APPENDIX A <br /> <br />EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE FOR THE CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT, <br />SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER SYSTEM, AND OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND <br />SENSITIVE SPECIES OF THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER <br /> <br />. Central Arizona Project <br /> <br />The Central Arizona Project (CAP) delivers Colorado River water through an approximately <br />330-mile long series of open canals, inverted siphons, pumping plants, and tunnels, Water is <br />diverted from Lake Havasu, transported east through Phoenix and then south to the southem <br />boundary of the San Xavier Indian Reservation southwest of Tucson. Under normal water <br />supply conditions, CAP diversions from the Colorado River are expected to be about 1.5 mafper <br />year of Arizona's basic annual apportionment of2,8 maf. The following NEPA documents were <br />completed for the CAP components noted <br /> <br />Final Environmental Impact Statement - 1972. Central Arizona Project, FES 72-35; <br /> <br />Final Environmental Impact Statement - 1973, Havasu Intake Channel, Havasu Pumping <br />Plant and Buckskin Mountains Tunnel. FES 73-2; <br /> <br />Final Environmental Impact Statement - 1974, Granite Reef Aqueduct, FES 74-5; <br /> <br />Final Environmental Impact Statement - 1975, Granite Reef Aqueduct Transmission <br />System, FES 75-66; <br /> <br />Final Environmental Impact Statement - 1982, Water Allocations and Water Service <br />Contracting, Central Arizona Project. FES 82-7; and <br /> <br />The Master CAP Repayment Contract with CAWCD, Amendatory Contract, 1988. <br />CE LC-88-12, <br /> <br />Reclamation has consulted formally and informally with the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) <br />on over 50 CAP-associated projects. In April of 1994, after three years of intensive formal <br />consultation with Reclamation, the Service issued a final Biological Opinion (BO) on the <br />Transportation and Delivery of Central Arizona Water to the Gila River Basin in Arizona and <br />New Mexico, The BO found that deliveries of CAP water would jeopardize the continued <br />existence of the spikedace (Meda fulgida), loach minnow (tiaroga cobitis), Gila topminnow <br />(poeciliopsis occidentalis), and razorback sucker and would adversely modifY the critical habitat <br />of the spikedace, loach minnow, and razorback sucker, Reclamation is now in the process of <br />implementing the reasonable and prudent alternative (RPAs) and Terms and Conditions <br />presented in the BO, Reclamation's Phoenix Area Office is also preparing a biological <br />assessment (BA) on the delivery of water into the Santa Cruz River Basin, <br /> <br />LC Region DEAl 1 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />12197 <br />