WSPC00151 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. n--~7" U J,;' ,j The Council on Environmental Quality Regulation8 lists agency rulemaking as a Federal action requiring compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A). The first step in completing NEP A compliance was to determine if the proposed action was covered by a Department of Interior (Department) or Reclamation Categorical Exclusion that would exclude the action from further NEPA documentation. A Departmental exclusion category was found that related to the development ofproceduraI rulemaking, A Reclamation exclusion category was also identified which referred to changes in regulations or policy directives where the impacts are limited to economic and/or social effects. The exclusion categories and actions related to the proposed rule were evaluated through a Categorical Exclusion Checklist (CEC) to identifY potential impacts. Neither category was usable because the proposed rule is innovative. Consequently Reclamation determined that further analysis was warranted and has prepared this EA to determine the level of impact associated with the implementation of the proposed rule. I i I [i I B. PUlJlose of this Programmatic Document ,. A programmatic approach to address NEP A has been adopted because many of the details of specific interstate agreements under the proposed rule (e.g. conveyance, storage, and forbearance) cannot be ascertained at this time. This programmatic EA analyzes potential impacts and their significance from the implementation of the proposed rule in the Lower Division States. Even though Reclamation cannot currently determine the specific details of any particular transaction, there are certain general aspects related to the implementation of the proposed rule that are known. First, as of this time, only Arizona has enacted legislation creating a state agency with authority to store water for interstate use pursuant to the proposed rule. This agency is called the Arizona Water Banking Authority (AWBA), Second, Reclamation believes entities in the State of Nevada have the greatest near-term likelihood of entering into an interstate storage agreement with the A WBA Third, although there is potential for interstate agreements for off stream storage in California, because California at the present time is using in excess of its basic apportionment of Colorado River water, we believe that if any California entity were to participate in an interstate transaction pursuant to the proposed rule, it would also be as a consuming entity and not as a storing entity. No expressions of intent to participate have been provided thus far by a California entity. For these reasons, the initial consequences of the proposed rule are assumed to be associated with storage of Colorado River water in Arizona and redemption of the resulting storage credits with Colorado River water for use in Nevada. It is anticipated that off stream storage for interstate banking purposes in Arizona will be accomplished primarily through use of Central Arizona Project (CAP) facilities. Thus, these general premises will be evaluated to the extent possible in this document. Reclamation will conduct the appropriate level ofNEP A analysis to identifY potential impacts associated with all specific interstate agreements when they are presented to the Secretary for approval. I ~ The proposed rule and this EA do not address off stream intrastate storage and distribution of Colorado River water in the Lower Division States. However, changes in type or place of use (distribution) of Colorado River water must first be approved by the Secretary and the entity redeeming storage credits must have a valid contract. LC Region DEAl J 2 12/97