WSPC12530 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002475 The black box justification would seem to offer support for not doing NEPA at GCD for all proposed activities that are strictly directed at research. However, it is always an option to Reclamation to voluntarily do NEPA to facilitate decision-making and should that happen, keep in mind that NEPA compliance at OCD is greatly facilitated by the fact that we have the OCMRC, the AMWO, and the TWO in place, working together under the umbrella of the AMP, and proposed actions, draft reviews, public comments, and agency recommendations are all established processes. ARE EXPERIMENTS UNDER THE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SUBJECT TO NEPA, ESA, AND NHPA COMPLIANCE? Compliance is required for ESA and NHPA for experimental flows temporarily deviate from operations as defined for the preferred alternative (MLFF). NEPA compliance for experimental flows would be voluntary, if it would be helpful in making a decision about the proposed action. In some cases, certain experiments were anticipated, or called for, in the EIS/ROD and therefore, some of the NEPA and ESA compliance groundwork has been established, but the impacts were not specifically addressed, either because the specifics of the experiment were unknown or existing environmental baseline information was not available. For example, for the experimental beach-habitat building flows, the specific timing, duration, and magnitude of the flows were necessarily left to experiment, as were flows for endangered fish. If we had known exactly what was needed to build beaches and recover endangered fish, that would have been part of the analysis of the alternatives in the EIS and part of the decision on what the preferred alternative would be. NEPA, ESA and NHPA compliance would have been complete, for those particular actions, subject only to verification of results through monitoring. It's important to note that it may not be possible to accurately project the impacts of certain flows except through experimentation and monitoring WHERE ARE WE IN TERMS OF NHPA COMPLIANCE? As required by the 1994 Programmatic Agreement (Chapter 5 of the EIS), a Monitoring and Remedial Action Plan (MRAP) was finalized in 1994 and is being implemented. The MRAP is part of the overall Historic Preservation Plan for Cultural Resources, which is in a final draft stage and expected to become final within 4-6 months. Signa Larralde advises that for flows below 60,000 cfs, cultural resources are not threatened, but anything proposed above 60,000 cfs would require development and implementation of mitigation measures (most likely excavation). WHERE ARE WE IN TERMS OF ESA COMPLIANCE? We have received biological opinions for actions associated with the 1994 Operations Environmental Impact Statement, the 1996 Beach-Habitat Building Test Flow Environmental Assessment, and the 1997 Fall Test Flow Categorical Exclusion. We have progressed on some items, while others are proving more challenging. Overall, the progress on achieving compliance with the requirements and recommendations of the opinions is positive. WHAT ABOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE ESA FOR FUTURE EXPERIMENTAL FLOWS? The Service must first approve of the plans for the experimental low steady flows called for in the 1994 Biological Opinion to facilitate discussions about consequences and any requirements that might be imposed or recommended by the Service in the future. As a term and condition in the Fall 1997 test flow opinion, the Service required that before another beach/habitat building flow 45,000 cfs or greater takes place, Reclamation must enter into informal consultation with the Service to evaluate the test flow studies, the establishment or discovery of a second population of Kanab ambersnail in Arizona, and reinitiate formal consultation with the Service if incidental take exceeds the 10 percent level established 2