Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Scoping Summary Report <br /> <br />12, Commellt: The Interim Surplus Criteria (ISC) should not be included as part of the EIS <br />baseline or no action alternative. <br /> <br />Reclalllaholl's Respollse: Reclamation carefully considered how best to define the baseline <br />in order to isolate and describe the effects of the proposed action. In the ISC EIS, the IA <br />water transfers were assumed to occur in order to isolate the effect of implementing the <br />Interim Surplus Guidelines (ISG). In this ElS, it was determined that in order to isolate <br />the effects of the IA water transfers, the baseline should assume the ISG are <br />implemented. Recognizing that neither of these documents provIde a complete <br />snaps not regarding effects on the Colorado River from both the ISG and the IA water <br />transfers, the EIS will also include a cumulative baseline that assumes the Colorado <br />River continues to be operated under pre-ISC conditions (70R strategy). This cumulative <br />baseline is then used to compare river operations assuming the ISG, the IA water <br />transfers, and other reasonably foreseeable actions affecting river flow between Parker <br />and Imperial Dams occur. <br /> <br />13. Comlllellt: The EIS should address the potential of the proposed action to limit both the <br />Secretary's discretion under the Law of the River, and the application of national <br />envirOlunentallaws into the future. Either of these potential indirect impacts could have <br />negative implications for future environmental protection, restoration or mitigation, and <br />therefore there must be full disclosure and a clear basis for choice among options by the <br />Secretary and the public. <br /> <br />Reclamation's Response: The proposed action does not limit the Secretary's discretion, but <br />rather is an exercise of that discretion. Similarly, the requirement to comply with <br />national environmental laws continues into the future and is not limited by the <br />proposed action. <br /> <br />Compliance witi, Other Statutes <br /> <br />1. COllllllellt: Reclamation will need to comply with ESA. <br /> <br />Reclalllahon's Response: In August 2000, Reclamation prepared its Biological Assessment <br />dated August 30, 2001, that addressed the effects of the IA (including the transfer and <br />change in the point of delivery of up to 400 KAFY) and adoption of ISC on threatened <br />and endangered species. FWS issued its Biological Opinion on these actions on January <br />12,2001, <br /> <br />The lOP had not yet been formulated at the time of that consultation and was not <br />included in that consultation, Compliance with ESA must still be completed for <br />potential impacts on federally protected species from implementation of the lOP. <br /> <br />2.4.2.2 <br /> <br />Inadvertetlt Overruu and Payback PoIiCl) <br /> <br />Gellerallssues <br /> <br />1. COn/lIlmt: Reclamation should pursue use of a regulation rather than adoption of a <br />policy regarding inadvertent overruns, since policies are more difficult to enforce. <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />lA, lOP .Ild Related Federal Actions ElS <br />