|
<br />Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. I /Monday, January 4, 1999/Notices
<br />
<br />179
<br />
<br />Recommended Action- This alternative
<br />recommended constructing ALP in two
<br />phases, providing a total water
<br />depletion of 149,220 af and is described
<br />in the 1996 FSFES. Initial project water
<br />depletions were limited to 57,100 af
<br />(Phase I. Stage A) due to the Service's
<br />Biological Opinion on endangered fish
<br />species. The total water depletion of
<br />149,220 afwould have required
<br />additional consultation with the
<br />Service.
<br />e. Administration Proposal with an
<br />Alternative Water Supply for Non-Ute
<br />Entities-This alternative will consider
<br />supplying non-Ute M&l water (i.e.
<br />Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy
<br />District, San Juan Water Commission,
<br />and Navajo Nation) from sources other
<br />than the proposed Ridges Basin
<br />Reservoir.
<br />f. Citizens Progressive A11iance
<br />Proposal-This proposal would allow
<br />the Ute Tribes to lease water instream
<br />based on the water amounts in the
<br />Settlement Agreement. The economic
<br />value of such instream leasing would be
<br />calculated on the value of leaving
<br />Animas River water instream and based
<br />on hydropower production, lower levels
<br />of salinity. and other benefits included
<br />in the authorized plan.
<br />g. No Action Alternative-Under this
<br />alternative, the project would not be
<br />constructed. As a result, the Settlement
<br />Act would not be fulfilled. The
<br />Southern Ute Indian Tribe and Ute
<br />Mountain Ute Tribe could initiate either
<br />litigation or negotiation with non-Indian
<br />water users and the United States to
<br />resolve their water rights claims on
<br />rivers fiowing through their respective
<br />reservations, including the Animas and
<br />La Plata Rivers. Tribal development of
<br />natural resources or other economic
<br />development tied to water use would
<br />likely be delayed until the Tribes' water
<br />claims were settled. Conflicts could
<br />exist between the Indian and non-Indian
<br />communities in the area.
<br />Existing water uses would likely
<br />continue during litigation or
<br />negotiation. However, development of
<br />new water storage or delivery facilities
<br />by private. state, or Tribal entities
<br />would likely be deferred until those
<br />water rights claims were resolved.
<br />2. Type of Analysi~Pending public
<br />input, Reclamation intends that the
<br />Administration Proposal and each of the
<br />alternatives described above undergo an
<br />analysis beginning with a threshold
<br />assessment of the alternative's
<br />capability to accomplish the project's
<br />purpose. The following items will then
<br />be analyzed as appropriate. Any new or
<br />updated information from that
<br />contained in the 1980 FES and the 1996
<br />
<br />FSFES will be evaluated and included
<br />in this supplement.
<br />a. Direct and Indirect Impacts-
<br />Reclamation intends to evaluate the
<br />direct and indirect impacts the
<br />Administration Proposal and
<br />alternatives may have on the affected
<br />environment including wetlands, water
<br />quality, recreational activities, wildlife
<br />habitat and aquatic resources, geology,
<br />cultural resources, and endangered
<br />species. This assessment would also
<br />examine the indirect impacts of
<br />potential end uses of project water. An
<br />assessment of options to avoid or
<br />minimize environmental impacts will
<br />also be a focus of the analysis.
<br />b. Connected Actions-These actions
<br />include those closely related to the
<br />Administration Proposal or other
<br />alternatives being reviewed. They are
<br />typically either automatically triggered
<br />by, dependent upon, or interdependent
<br />with the subject action. Examples of
<br />current connected actions which
<br />Reclamation intends to analyze include
<br />(i) reoperation of Navajo Dam and
<br />Reservoir and (il) relocation of gas
<br />pipelines.
<br />c. Cumulative Impacts-These
<br />impacts arise from the incremental
<br />impact a proposed action or alternative
<br />has on the environment when added to
<br />other past, present or reasonably
<br />foreseeable future actions. Cumulative
<br />impacts which Reclamation intends to
<br />consider depending upon the action or
<br />alternative being reviewed include (i)
<br />the cumulative effects of ALP and other
<br />actions on endangered species; and (il)
<br />water development opportunities for
<br />other communities in the San Juan River
<br />basin (e.g. completion of the Navajo
<br />Indian Irrigation Project).
<br />d. Compliance with Other Laws-
<br />Reclamation will comply with all
<br />environmental laws and regulations,
<br />including but not limited to the Clean
<br />Water Act and the Endangered Species
<br />Act. in the preparation of the DSEIS.
<br />e. Cost Estimate-Although not
<br />intended to be a focus of in-depth
<br />analysis, the supplemental analysis will
<br />discuss the estimated overall costs
<br />attributable to each alternative.
<br />
<br />Public ScopIng
<br />
<br />Scoping meetings will be held in
<br />Durango, Colorado; Farmington, New
<br />Mexico; and Denver, Colorado in early
<br />February of 1999 for the purpose of
<br />obtaining public input on the significant
<br />issues related to the proposed action.
<br />The schedule and locations for the
<br />meetings are shown below. The public
<br />is especially asked to provide input on
<br />the following;
<br />1. Whether the overall range of
<br />alternatives is appropriate. The
<br />
<br />Administration Proposal was developed
<br />in response to the alternatives
<br />developed during the Romer-Schoettler
<br />process, both of which are included in
<br />the range of alternatives to be
<br />considered.
<br />2. Identification of significant issues
<br />related to the proposed action.
<br />
<br />Schedule of Seoping Meetings
<br />
<br />A series of meetings will be
<br />conducted in Colorado and New
<br />Mexico. Each will begin with a one hour
<br />open house where the public can
<br />informally discuss issues and ask
<br />questions of staff and managers.
<br />The open house will be followed by
<br />a more formal scoping hearing in which
<br />each participant will be given time to
<br />make official comments. Speakers wl11
<br />be given five minutes for their
<br />comments. These comments will be
<br />formally recorded. Speakers are
<br />encouraged to provide written versions
<br />of their oral comments, and any other
<br />additional written materials, for the
<br />record.
<br />Comments may also be sent directly
<br />to the Bureau of Reclamation's Southern
<br />Division of the Western Colorado Area
<br />Office in Durango, Colorado. Written
<br />comments should be received by
<br />February 19, 1999, to be most effectively
<br />considered.
<br />
<br />Dates of Scoping Meetings
<br />
<br />. February 2, 1999,6-9 p.m..
<br />DoubleTree Hotel, Main Ballroom, 501
<br />Camino Del Rio, Durango, Colorado
<br />. February 3, 1999,6-9 p.m., San
<br />Juan College, Henderson Fine Arts
<br />Center. Room 10, 4601 College
<br />Boulevard, Farmington, New Mexico
<br />. February 4, 1999,6-9 p.m..
<br />Colorado Convention Center, Room
<br />A201. 700 14th Street, Denver, Colorado
<br />
<br />Dated: December 29, 1998.
<br />Eluld L. Martinez,
<br />Commissioner.
<br />[FR Doc. 98-34818 Filed 12-31-98; 8:45 am]
<br />BILUNG CODE 431D-94-p
<br />
|