Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume I, Main Text and Appendices A-J

Home Browse Search

major theme of those comments was the need for full evaluation of a wider range of alternatives than was addressed in the DEIS. On the basis of those comments and the findings of its Supplemental Report, the Commission staff prepared a Revised DEIS (RDEIS) that, among other things, expanded the range of alternatives evaluated. To define the alternatives to be addressed in the Revised DEIS, the staff conducted a supplemental scoping process that included distribution of the Scoping Document 1 for Revised DEIS, a public meeting, and a series of four public workshops. This supplemental scoping process confirmed the potentially significant environmental issues and principal resource considerations, and it defined a broader range of alternatives than was addressed in the earlier DEIS (Section 2.0). The RDEIS was published in April 1994. The staff conducted two public meetings and a technical workshop in June 1994 to present the RDEIS findings and to receive comments. Subsequent to RDEIS publication, Interior filed revised fish and wildlife recommendations, Interior presented operational alternatives, and NPPD provided substantive comments and new information relating to operational modeling of the projects. In light of these developments, the Commission staff published a Supplement to the RDEIS in November 1994. 1.3 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT CONSULTATION The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to assure that their proposed actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered species or cause the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. Eight animal and plant species listed pursuant to the ESA are known to inhabit the project vicinity, and the projects potentially affect the water - dependent habitat of seven of those species. The Commission staff, in a letter dated February 14, 1996, requested initiation of formal ESA consultation. The staff's Biological Assessment accompanied that request. In a letter to the Commission dated March 8, 1996, Interior stated that the Biological Assessment was inadequate for purposes of initiating formal consultation, and Interior requested additional information and analyses, while raising questions about the Commission staffs economic analysis. The Commission staff responded to Interior's requests through a technical conference and a series of transmittals between April 3, 1996 and May 13, 1996. On December 4, 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) released its draft Biological Opinion on the effects of the proposed relicensings on federally listed species and designated critical habitat. FWS concluded in the draft opinion that the effects of the Commission staff s proposed action were likely: (1) to jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered whooping crane, least tern, and pallid sturgeon, and of the threatened piping plover; and (2) to result in the destruction or adverse modification of federally designated whooping crane critical habitat. The FWS's draft opinion included two "reasonable and prudent alternatives" (RPAs) for the proposed relicensing actions. The first was based on an anticipated cooperative agreement among Interior and the States of Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado. The second contained measures to be required in the absence of an agreement. 1 -3