9582 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i s r r Volume III - Comments and Response's FEIS - Navaio Reservoir Operations General Comment 6: Because no other alternative than the Preferred Alternative is "legally permissible," no benefits can be realized from the other alternatives, and, accordingly, it is misleading to analyze their potential effects. Response: As noted in the response to General Comment No. 5, the selected or Preferred Alternative must be compatible with the authorized purposes of the Navajo Unit, honoring senior water rights, and with the ESA. Within these parameters, the range of alternatives is limited. Any alternative that satisfied both would be legally permissible. The No Action and 500/5000 Alternatives carried through in the EIS do not meet the Flow Recommendations and, thus, would probably receive a "jeopardy" ruling from the Service under the ESA. However, analysis of the No Action Alternative is required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the 500/5000 Alternative is presented because much of the public input received centered on maintaining minimum releases at 500 cfs. General Comment 7: The No Action and 500/5000 Alternatives are not treated at the same level of detail as the Preferred Alternative. Response: Although the No Action and 500/5000 Alternatives did not fully meet the Flow Recommendations, they are described at a level of detail comparable to that of the Preferred Alternative. The No Action Alternative failed in 14 occurrences to meet the Flow Recommendations criteria, as shown in table II-3 of the FEIS, and the 500/5000 Alternative failed in 16 occurrences. However, these two alternatives were carried to a sufficient level of analysis in the NEPA process to project their impact on the resources of concern. General Comment 8: Suggestions were made that impacts could be reduced if water from Navajo Reservoir's inactive pool were used or if future NIIP water was delivered down the San Juan River and pumped out of the river near Farmington rather than being delivered from the reservoir directly to NHP facilities. Response: (a) Taking water from the inactive pool of Navajo Reservoir would increase adverse impacts to affected resources as follows: ? Operating the reservoir below 5990 feet will expose the unprotected areas of the dam to erosion by wave action. ? Pulling water from the inactive pool may jeopardize filling the reservoir in future years, which could lead to water shortages and hamper future reservoir operations.