|
<br />521'16239797.
<br />
<br />SWC 4 BIODIVSTY
<br />
<br />PAGE 1'13
<br />
<br />~4/1'13/1998 15:59
<br />
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />
<br />00065:J
<br />
<br />Chief, Regulatory Branch
<br />September 18, 1997
<br />
<br />Page 3
<br />
<br />environment (NEPA, section 102 (2)c and 40 CPR 1502.3), Specifically, Reclamation is
<br />required to consider whether significant impacts to riparian habitats, watershed health, tlI1Slable
<br />soils, special management are3S, perennial waters, public health. unique characteristics, cultural
<br />or historic resources, and special status species wiIl occur. Reclamation must also consider the
<br />degree of controversy, the degree of W1ique or unlmown risk, precedent setting effects,
<br />cumulative effectS, and possible violations offederal, state, and or local environmental law.
<br />The controversial nature of an issue is a determinant of significance (40 CFR 1508.27b (4)).
<br />Based on the heated debate Reclamation's management of the lower Colorado River, it is clear
<br />that the implementation of the proposed rule will be controversial. The proposed action is also
<br />significant because it establishes a precedent for absolute maximum use of Colorado River
<br />water; water which even today is essential for the conservation of biological [~the degree to
<br />which the action may establis.h a precedent for future actions with significant effectS" (40 tFR
<br />1508.27b (6)), and because the action is cumulative ["whether the action is related to other
<br />actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impactS.'1- Reclamation has
<br />clearly indicated that the proposed action goes hand in hand with State efforts such as the
<br />Arizona Water Banking Authority and the Central Arizona Project, both actions which will result
<br />in significant direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to numerous threatened and endangered
<br />species. Significance exists, for example, if it reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant
<br />impact on the environment Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or
<br />breaking it down into small component parts" (40 CFR 1508,27b (7)) as attempted by
<br />Reclamation statements to the effect that the proposed rule, in and of itself, will have "no effecf'
<br />on listed species.
<br />
<br />Further, under existing case law, a showing that significant impacts will occur is not necess&Iy to
<br />require an EIS. Rather, it need only be shown that significant impacts may occur, [See Davis v.
<br />Coleman, 521 F.2d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 1975). See also Foundation for North American Wild
<br />Sheep v. U. S. Department of Agriculture, 681 F.2d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir, 1982) and Columbia
<br />Land Basin Protective Association v, Scblesinger,643 F.2d 585,597 (9th Cir. 1981)},
<br />
<br />This proposed project will result in significant direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the
<br />environment, and endangered species and imperiled vegetative communities in particular.
<br />Implementation of the proposed rule, and agreementS between the States of Arizona and Nevada
<br />in particular, will result in loss of riparian vegetation utilized by the southwestern willow
<br />flycatcher for foraging and breeding. It will alw result in significant adverse effects to the
<br />totoaba, vaquita, and other listed species and critical habitat in both the United States and the
<br />Republic of Mexico.
<br />
<br />OTHER NEPA COMMENTS
<br />. Reclamation's analysis of only one action alternative in its environmen1al assessment
<br />does not meet the requirements ofNEP A. Several reasonable action alternatives are
<br />required to allow for informed decision-making. Alternatives which eliminate "indirect"
<br />storage as a method of offstream Colorado River storage for example, or which
<br />
|