WSP11852

• File Number: 8200.400
• Description: Colorado River Basin Briefing Documents-History-Correspondence
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 10/1/1999
• Author: DOI-BOR
• Title: Programmatic Environmental Assessment-Rulemaking-Offstream Storage Colorado River Water - Development-Release Intentionally Created Unused Apportionment - Lower Division States - Appendix H-Section I
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

O()033i~

Response: The Department does not agree with this view expressed by several
environmental groups. 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 conunent for more details about those consultations. Reclamation has incorporated by
reference into its BA for the proposed rule the 1996 Biological Assessment for Description and
Assessment of Operations, Maintenance, and Sensitive Species of the Lower Colorado River
(LCRBA). The LCRBA analyzed the potential effects to listed species and designated critical
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 These documents provide the baseline for current and
projected routine LCR operations. More information on the BA prepared for this final rule is
contained in the next few responses.

The BCO 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 off stream areas that would be involved in the
scope of proposed actions under the rule.

Comment: The offstream storage and retrieval of water under the proposed rule is likely
to have adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on wildlife and critical habitat, particularly
for threatened and endangered species.

Response: The Department does 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 habitat. Reclamation has met with FWS and engaged in informal 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 listed species and designated 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 ofFWS, several worst case scenarios were formulated by
Reclamation for purposes of comparison with Colorado River operations that are most likely to
occur under the proposed rule, These worst case scenarios were given detailed analysis and
discussed with FWS but were later e1iminated because they are not realistic and will not be
allowed under proposed Storage and Interstate Release Agreements.

The BA analyzed several scenarios, one of which was a proposed action in which 1.2 maf
would be stored in Arizona under a Storage and Interstate Release Agreement to allow an
authorized entity in Nevada to meet its future water needs. Maximum conveyance capacity
expected to be made available on the CAP to store water for interstate water transactions is 200
kaf7year. An authorized entity in Nevada will make future diversions of water from Lake Mead,
in addition to Nevada's normal basic and surplus apportionments, to use ICUA released by the
Secretary. This additional diversion ofICUA will be limited, under Arizona law, to a maximum
of 100 kafin any year. The BA analyzed the effects of this and other scenarios for storage of

30