Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ju1 OS 2003 1,14PM <br /> <br />HP LASERJET 3330 <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />10f approximately 60,000 afy. The aggregate qUaD.. tity of water supplied to Nevada under <br />this proposal would be eqtial to the aggregate quantity of water Nevada would have <br />received under the ISG. . . <br /> <br />The hydrology necessary to accommodate this 60,000 afy is projected to exist, <br />even taking existing drought conditions into account, without significant adverse impacts <br />fon the other basin states water supplies. In short, this proposal would not increase either <br />tbe probability of shortages in the lower basin or releages to the lower basin from Lake <br />Powell. . , <br /> <br />Water Demand and Supply Scenario <br /> <br />The attached figure shows the actual deciJands from 1990 through 2002 and <br />projected demands from 2003 through 2016 for .the SNW A and other Nevada Colorado <br />River water users. The figure shows the portion of the proj ected demands that would be <br />met by the 60,000 afy surplus and that portion that must be met by altemative water <br />supplies and strategies. Those include more aggressive conservation, recovery of <br />groundwater resources stored in Arizona and Nevada, other states' unused <br />apportionments, importation of gr01l11dwater, d~ve10pment of water from the Virgin and <br />Muddy Rivers, desalination, and other possible rorbearance arrangements. <br /> <br />Relationship to Existing NEPAiESA ComplilJnce <br /> <br />The Secretw:y can implement Nevada's proposal by relying on the December <br />J2000 PElS, the USFWS' January 12, 2001 Biolpgical Opinion for the ISG, and the <br />USFWS' January 11, 2001 letter concurring in USBR's determination that the ISG are <br />"not likely to adversel~ affect" listed species or habitat in the reach between Glen Canyon <br />Dam and Lake Mead,l . <br /> <br />NEPA. Because the hydrologic effccts"and hence the environmental effects, of <br />Nevada's proposalllIe not significantly differer\t than those of the ISO themselves, no <br />llupplement-tG the -FEIStS-~-if~1;U'-SUUlt-tc:!--tbe-applicabl-e-eE~eguhttion:CJ-- - - - - <br /> <br />BSA. The Biological Opinion conclude~ that adoption of the ISG was ''not likely <br />to jeopardize the continued existence or result * destruction or adverse modification of <br />critical habitat" of any of the listed species considered. Moreover, the Biological <br />Opinion requires re-initiation of formal consultation only if "the agency action is <br />subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the species or critical habitat." <br />The insignificant effects of Nevada's proposal on Lake Mead levels would allow USBR <br /> <br />IZ There may be a need for a determination by USBR an4 concurrence by the USPWS that implementation <br />of the proposal is "not likely to affect" the relevant listed species or critical habitat. <br /> <br />13 40 C.P.R. ~ 1502.9(c)( l). The effects of Nevada' s proposal are clearly within the parameters of the mare <br />liberal California Alternative examined in the FEIS. <br /> <br />. , <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />.p.s <br /> <br />\ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />