ALP 23

CHAPTER 4
OTHER IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS
U Reclamation will work with the Navajo Nation and the Jicarilla Apache Tribe to combine
resources in evaluating options for proceeding with the Navajo - Gallup Project, the Navajo River
Water Development Plan, and restoration of the Hogback Project to try and minimize the
likelihood that any single tribe bears a disproportionate burden for the conservation of listed
species under the ESA.
❑ Reclamation will initiate an independent review of the hydrologic model to ensure its accuracy
and value as a tool in future water planning activities.
U Reclamation will consult with the Navajo Nation on the implementation of the above mitigation
measures and will commence consultation early in the implementation process.
The following mitigation measures may affect the ability of the Navajo - Gallup Project to go forward, but
are beyond the control of Reclamation as a part of the ALP project:
❑ An alternate project design that would take water from Cie San Juan River below its confluence
with the Animas River may increase the potential yield for the project while protecting flows for
endangered fish. In this case, releases from Navajo Dam would be supplemental to river flows,
leveraging the limited storage volume available and making use of times when there are flows in
excess offish needs in the river.
❑ 1'he Navajo- Gallup Project could be modified to reduce demands.
L7 The Navajo Nation could elect to utilize a portion of the NiIP allocation to meet these needs.
Relined Alternative 4 Impact 4 - Significant: Relined Alternative 4 reduces the water supply
available for restoration of the hogback Project In the San Juan River.
Relative to no action, Refined Alternative 4 reduces the present supply available to the Navajo Nation to
allow utilization of its water rights consistent with the BSA. Section 7(aX2)of the ESA states that each
federal agency shall, in consultation with the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or
carried out by that agency shall not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. For federal actions in the San Juan Basin, such as
ALP Project, the Service has issued reasonable and prudent alternatives which have allowed the action to
go forward. in the recent past, these RPA's have required Reclamation to participate in research to
determine the flows needed to recover endangered fish species and then to operate Navajo Dam to mimic
a natural hydrograph. Thus, Rill implementation ofthe flaw recommendations, NIIP, and the ALP
Project could potentially limit further tribal water development in the San Juan basin. Additionally, there
is a potential for an increased risk of an ESA Section 9 violation (Section 9 prohibits the "take" of any
listed species) by any non - federal developer of San Juan River Basin water. Because Section 9 of the
ESA prohibits a range of activities that include habitat modification, any non - federally related tribal
water development activities will incur the potential for an increased risk of "take" of a listed species.
Mitigation for Refined Alternative 4 Impact 4: The following measures would provide some
mitigation for the projected impacts.
Again it is reiterated that the Administration Proposal, as represented by Refined Alternative 4, was
developed, in part, to eliminate the impact of the original ALP Project on the Navajo Nation. The
original project envisioned the depletion of 149,000 afy from the San Juan River Basin. Although the
4.6 MIR0NMENTAL JUSTICE AND
4 -27 INDIAN TRUST ASSETS
9b
tb
96
�6
96
56
96
96
9i
9G
96
�6
4b
96
96
9L
5�
9b
96
9b
96