<br />178
<br />
<br />Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. I /Monday, January 4, 1999/Notices
<br />
<br />of the two Colorado Ute Tribes. The
<br />Colorado Ute Indian reservations were
<br />created in 1868, and as such, the Tribes
<br />have a priority date for their water rights
<br />that precedes the priority dates for most,
<br />if not all. non-Indian water rights,
<br />Implementation of the Act wl11 allow
<br />the development of Tribal senior water
<br />rights without adversely impacting n?n-
<br />Indian water rights and users, includmg
<br />cities and municipalities throughout
<br />southwestern Colorado and
<br />northwestern New Mexico.
<br />
<br />The Proposed Federal Action
<br />
<br />The Administration proposal for final
<br />implementation of the Colorado Ute
<br />Water Rights Settlement was developed
<br />after a review of the Settlement Act
<br />requirements, the issues surrounding
<br />the 1996 formulation of ALP, and a
<br />consideration of the alternatives
<br />generated during the Romer-Schoettler
<br />Process, As a result, the Administration
<br />Proposal includes both structural and
<br />nonstructural elements designed to
<br />achieve the fundamental purpose of
<br />securing the Ute Tribes an assured water
<br />supply in satisfaction of their water
<br />rights as determined by the 1986
<br />Settlement Agreement and the 1988
<br />Settlement Act and by providing for
<br />identified municipal and industrial
<br />water needs in the Project area. The
<br />Administration proposal also brings
<br />final resolution to the ALP issue by
<br />restricting the project to construction of
<br />a defined number of facilities centered
<br />around a down-sized storage facility
<br />limited to municipal and industrial
<br />(M&I) water uses. Other previously
<br />contemplated project features would be
<br />deauthorized.
<br />The Administration proposal includes
<br />two components:
<br />
<br />Structural Component
<br />
<br />This includes an off-stream storage
<br />reservoir (approximately 90,000 acre-
<br />feet capacity) with only a limited
<br />amount of "dead" storage, a pumping
<br />plant (up to approximately 240 cubic
<br />feet per second of capacity), and a
<br />reservoir inlet conduit. all designed to
<br />deplete no more than an average of
<br />57,100 afper year (afy) from the Animas
<br />River. This depletion limit of 57,100 afy
<br />is consistent with the Biological
<br />Opinion issued by the Service, which
<br />limits further water depletion in the
<br />entire San Juan River Basin in order to
<br />avoid jeopardy to the endangered fish.
<br />The proposed reservoir would be
<br />located at the Ridges Basin site.
<br />
<br />Consumptive use of water from the
<br />project wl11 be restricted to M&I uses
<br />
<br />only and will be allocated in the
<br />following manner: I
<br />
<br />Afy de-
<br />pletion
<br />
<br />Southern Ute Tribe (M&I) "".........
<br />Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (M&I) ......
<br />Navajo Nation (M&I) ..........".........
<br />ALP Water Conservancy District
<br />
<br />(M&I)..........................................
<br />San Juan Water Commission
<br />(M&I)..........................................
<br />
<br />19,980
<br />19,980
<br />2,340
<br />
<br />2,600
<br />
<br />10,400
<br />
<br />Consistent with the purpose and need
<br />statement, a substantial portion of the
<br />costs of the reservoir and associated
<br />works are anticipated to be non-
<br />reimbursable to the federal treasury.
<br />Costs of any project benefits accruing to
<br />non-Indian parties are expected to be
<br />fully absorbed by those parties in
<br />accordance with Reclamation law and
<br />Administration policy.
<br />
<br />Nonstructural Component
<br />
<br />Under the allocation shown above,
<br />the Tribes are still approximately 13,000
<br />af short of the total quantity of depletion
<br />recognized in the settlement agreement.
<br />The proposed action therefore includes
<br />a nonstructural element which would
<br />establish and utilize a water acquisition
<br />fund which the Tribes could use one
<br />time to acquire water rights on a willing
<br />buyer/wl11ing seller basis. The fund
<br />would be sufficient to acquire rights to
<br />the use of sufficient quantities of water
<br />allowing the Tribes about 13,000 afy of
<br />depletion in addition to the depletions
<br />stated above. Preliminary cost estimates
<br />indicate that a fund of approximately
<br />$40,000,000 would be required to
<br />purchase the additional rights.
<br />However, to provide flexibility in the
<br />use of the fund, authorization would
<br />allow some or all of the funds to be
<br />redirected for on-farm development,
<br />water delivery infrastructure, and other
<br />economic development activities.2
<br />
<br />Several features of the proposed
<br />action, particularly the reservoir
<br />location, pumping plant, and inlet
<br />works have been the subject of previous
<br />analysis by Reclamation as described in
<br />the Background section. Details
<br />concerning these items and changes
<br />from the previous ALP configuration
<br />can be obtained by contacting
<br />Reclamation's Western Colorado Area
<br />Office, Southern Division, in Durango,
<br />
<br />I The balance of the available depletions is lost
<br />to evaporation making total depletions of 57,100
<br />afy.
<br />:2 At the request of the Ute Tribes, this provision
<br />represents a change from the Administration
<br />proposal released on August 11, which limited
<br />redirection of funds to only 50% of the total amount
<br />provided.
<br />
<br />Colorado at the address and telephone
<br />number shown above.
<br />
<br />Proposed Scope of Analysis
<br />
<br />The Administration Proposal is
<br />related to but represents a refinement in
<br />the configuration of ALP. Accordingly,
<br />Reclamation intends to fulfill the
<br />requirements of NEP A through
<br />development of a DSEIS which is
<br />supplementalto the 1996 FSFES for
<br />ALP. This approach will allow for full
<br />assessment of the new or changed
<br />features which are part of the
<br />Administration proposal but make use,
<br />to the extent appropriate, of the prior
<br />environmental analysis for ALP. Given
<br />this approach, the following discussion
<br />represents Reclamation' s current view
<br />of the range of alternatives and the type
<br />of analysis which is appropriate for the
<br />Administration Proposal.
<br />I. Range of Alternatives-In addition
<br />to the above-described proposed action
<br />(1.e, the Administration Proposal),
<br />Reclamation intends to evaluate the
<br />following alternatives as part of its
<br />NEP A analysis.
<br />a. Administration Proposal with
<br />Recreation Element Added-At the
<br />request of the state of Colorado,
<br />Reclamation will evaluate adding
<br />recreation as a feature of the reservoir.
<br />This feature would necessitate
<br />consideration of a conservation pool of
<br />approximately 30,000 af thereby
<br />increasing the overall reservoir size to
<br />approximately 120,000 af.
<br />b. Animas-La Plata Reconciliation
<br />Plan- This alternative represents the
<br />structural alternative developed during
<br />the Romer-Schoettler process. It was
<br />also the basis for legislation which was
<br />introduced during the 105th Congress
<br />(S. 1771 and H.R. 3478). The proposal
<br />provides water for both M&I and
<br />irrigation uses. It also contains project
<br />features similar to the Administration
<br />Proposal although the reservoir would
<br />be sized to a 260,000 af capacity to
<br />allow for future M&I and irrigation
<br />storage needs. No deauthorization of
<br />project features is included in this
<br />proposal.
<br />c. Animas River Citizens' Coalition
<br />Conceptual Alternative-This
<br />alternative represents the nonstructural
<br />proposal developed during the Romer-
<br />Schoettler process. It proposes the
<br />purchase of irrigated lands and other
<br />associated water rights near the Ute
<br />reservations. and would use or purchase
<br />water from existing projects or
<br />expanded projects/delivery systems for
<br />the purpose of providing water in
<br />satisfaction of the Ute Tribes' water
<br />rights claims.
<br />d. 1996 Final Supplement to the Final
<br />Environmental Statement (FSFES)
<br />
|