Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />Scoping Summary Report <br /> <br />7. Comment: The EIS should identify proposed location(s) of the lOP payback water. <br /> <br />Reclamation's Response: Reclamation expects that in general the extra-ordinary <br />conservation will take place from within the district that incurred the overrun. However <br />there will be examples where the over-rulUung entity will make arrangements for <br />another entitlement holder to implement the conservation measures. Reclamation <br />expects arrangements to be developed and executed following finalization of the lOP. <br /> <br />8. Comment: The ElS should include a thorough evaluation of all potential tradeoffs and <br />environmental consequences, including the need to coordinate with the Califonua <br />parties and the seven Basin States to consider and integrate all available tools for <br />enhancing water management flexibility, supply reliability, and water quality. <br /> <br />Reclamation's Response: Reclamation coordinates with the seven Basins States and <br />interested parties yearly during the development of the AOP. Colorado River <br />operations and diversions, including enhancing water management flexibility and <br />supply reliability must be consistent with the Law of the River. Maintaining water <br />quality is of concern to Reclamation, the Seven Basin States and many of the interested <br />parties; Reclamation currently coordinates with the seven Basin States and interested <br />parties on water quality issues through development of the AOP, and implementation of <br />the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. <br /> <br />9, Comment: The EIS should provide a detailed mitigation plan. <br /> <br />Reclamation's Response: The EIS will address mitigation as deemed appropriate for <br />impacts identified through the analyses and described in the EIS. <br /> <br />10. Comment: The wide range of connected actions are not included in the scope of the ElS; <br />it is anticipated the EIS will incorporate, by reference, analyses identified in other NEPA <br />and CEQA documents that are related to the proposed actions. Such incorporation by <br />reference will significantly impede the agency and public review of the proposed action <br />and as such, is not allowed (40 CFR 1502.21), <br /> <br />Reclamation's Response: Without incorporating by reference the analyses contained in <br />other NEP A and CEQA documents, the size of the document itself, and amount of <br />detailed material provided would significantly impede agency and public review of the <br />EIS. Reclamation intends to include sufficient information from the referenced <br />documents (e.g., summary of critical issues, assumptions and decisions) so the reader <br />will not have to continually refer to the referenced document. <br /> <br />11. Commel1t: The ElS baseline or no action alternative should include a recognition and <br />description of past and ongoing environmental degradation, as well as the role of river <br />and water management for the benefit of California in contributing to that degradation. <br /> <br />Reclamation's Response: The No Action Alternative in the EIS will be formulated <br />consistent with CEQ regulations, and Departmental and Reclamation NEP A guidance. <br /> <br />tA, tOP and Related Federal Actions ElS <br /> <br />9 <br />