My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP11852
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
11000-11999
>
WSP11852
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:19:06 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 5:13:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
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
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
125
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<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 />tJ00363 <br /> <br />Colorado River water and future release ofICUA on listed species and their designated habitat. <br />Effects to each species were determined for the most likely and low probability case scenarios. <br />Habitat requirements for breeding, nesting, and foraging of some species are not dependent on the <br />LCR. Fluctuations in water surface elevations associated with most likely and low probability <br />storage and retrieval scenarios on reservoirs and riverine reaches on the LCR are very small and <br />are not likely to adversely affect bonytail chub, razorback sucker, Yuma clapper rail, or <br />southwestern willow flycatcher. Based upon the available information regarding the critical <br />habitats for the razorback sucker and bonytail chub, storage and release ofICUA under this final <br />rule will not adversely modifY critical habitat for these fish species. Other listed and sensitive <br />species will not be affected by implementation of the rule. Reclamation did not consult with FWS <br />on species in Mexico because the United States has no authority or discretion regarding Mexico's <br />use of its treaty water or flood control releases. <br /> <br />Reclamation has notified the National Marine Fisheries Service that a section 7 <br />consultation for Mexican species under its administration is not required. <br /> <br />Water Available for Instream Flows and Habitat Enhancement <br /> <br />Comment: Concern was expressed that Colorado River stream flows downstream from <br />Lake Mead would first increase when water is put into storage in Arizona and then decrease in the <br />future as more water is diverted from Lake Mead when Nevada recovers stored water. <br /> <br />Response: No significant changes are expected in stream flows downstream from Lake <br />Mead as a result of implementation of a Storage and Interstate Release Agreement between <br />Arizona and Nevada under the rule. The Biological Assessment for this final rule evaluated the <br />effects of storage of 100 and 200 kaf7year of Colorado River water in Arizona and subsequent <br />diversion in a later year of up to 100 kafby Nevada from Lake Mead. Very small changes in <br />water surface elevations would occur in the riverine and reservoir areas below Lake Mead. The <br />largest increase or decrease in average monthly water surface elevation when storing or using <br />water was 0.12 feet. These changes fall within the range of increases and decreases in water <br />surface elevations below Lake Mead and Hoover Dam under current river operations. <br /> <br />Concerns over Deliveries to Mexico <br /> <br />Comment: The DPEA states that a minor reduction will occur in the quantity of surplus <br />water available for delivery to Mexico over the long term without explaining what a minor <br />reduction is or what studies have been done to quantifY this. <br /> <br />Response: Please refer to the previous discussion of adequacy of the environmental <br />assessment under the Environmental Concerns section of the Public Comments on Proposed <br />Rule and Responses on General Issues. <br /> <br />31 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.