Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />o <br />(-, <br />en <br />c.o <br />~ <br /> <br />have little or no effect on future requirements for NEP A documentation because operation, maintenance <br />and repair of the facilities currently are categorically excluded from the NEP A process as routine federal <br />aC1ions with only minor effects on the environment. Also, the District has agreed to work with <br />Reclamation to address historic resource issues associated with the transfer, <br /> <br />Under Section 7 of ESA, Reclamation is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 10 <br />address the potential affects of its actions on federally listed species. Following title transfer of the <br />facilities to the District, activities subject to federal authorizations would slill potentially require a Section 7 <br />consultation. Some operation, maintenance and other activities may no Jonger be subject to such <br />consultation. But those activities would still be subject to Section 9 of ESA, which prohibits the take of <br />federally listed species. <br /> <br />The NHP A requires that Reclamation consider the effects its undertakings may have on cultural resources. <br />This consideration takes the form of a consultation process involving the State Historic Preservation <br />Officer (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council), Indian Tribes, and any <br />interested parties. The proposed title transfer constitutes an undertaking requiring consultation as <br />stipula1ed in the NHP A. The Area of Poten1ial Effects for the undertaking includes all the lands that would <br />be transferred. <br /> <br />The District and Reclamation have considered three options for mitigation of the adverse effect of <br />transferring the facilities to the District. One option is an agreement between the District and SHPO <br />regarding future management of the facilities to be transferred. This agreement would stipula1e a <br />consultation process similar to that required by 1he NHP A which the District would follow prior to making <br />alterations to the transferred facilities. A second option is recording 1he facilities to the standards of the <br />Historic American Engineering Record. This would include high quality photographs, maps or drawin,gs <br />and a written history of the project. A third option is production, for presen1ation to the public, of some <br />record of the history of the project and its importance in local history. This could take the form of <br />interpretive signs erected near the facilities, a popular report for distribution to local libraries and schools, <br />brochures, a video, or some olher product. Mitigation likely will be the second option or a combination of <br />the second and third. <br /> <br />Accordingly, the CWCB believes that the substantial benefi1s of Reclamation's proposed action outweigh <br />the potentially adverse environmental impacts, which will be reasonably mitigated. <br /> <br />~i~aJ <br /> <br />Director <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Financing. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />