Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to the 1996 Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement for the Animas-La Plata Project and Announcement of Public Scoping Meetings

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement to the 1996 Final Supplement to the Final

Environmental Statement for the Animas-La Plata Project and

Announcement of Public Scoping Meetings

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a Draft Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement to the 1996 Final Supplement to the Final

Environmental Statement and Announcement of Public Scoping Meetings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation

(Reclamation), announces its intent to prepare a Draft Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) to the 1996 Final Supplement to

the Final Environmental Statement for the Animas-La Plata Project (ALP)

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as

amended.

This DSEIS will evaluate the environmental impacts of the

Administration Proposal, which was announced on August 11, 1998, for

Final Implementation of the Colorado Ute Settlement Act. At the heart

of the proposal is a modified ALP which is limited to a smaller dam and

reservoir

[[Page 177]]

designed to supply municipal and industrial water to the Colorado Ute

Tribes, Navajo Nation, and non-Indian entities in the local area. This

modified project deviates from those previously evaluated for ALP, thus

necessitating the need for supplemental environmental review. The

proposal also contains a non-structural element as part of the

settlement implementation which has not been the subject of any

previous analysis under NEPA.

Reclamation invites other federal agencies, states, Indian tribes,

local governments, and the general public to submit written comments or

suggestions concerning the scope of the issues to be assessed in the

DSEIS. The public is invited to participate in a series of scoping

meetings that will be held in February in Colorado and New Mexico. A

schedule of the meetings is provided. Those not desiring to submit

comments or suggestions at this time, but who would like to receive a

copy of the DSEIS, should write to the address below. When the DSEIS is

complete, its availability will be announced in the Federal Register,

in the local news media, and through direct contact with interested

parties. Comments will be solicited on the document.

DATES: See Supplementary Information section for meeting dates.

ADDRESSES: See Supplementary Information section for meeting locations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Pat Schumacher, Manager, Southern

Division of the Western Colorado Area Office, P.O. Box 640, Durango,

Colorado 81302. Telephone: (970) 385-6500. FAX: (970) 385-6539. E-mail:

[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Animas-La Plata Project (ALP) was authorized by the Colorado

River Basin Project Act of September 30, 1968 (Pub. L. 84-485), and

would be located in La Plata and Montezuma Counties in southwestern

Colorado and in San Juan County in northwestern New Mexico. Since its

authorization, several studies have been conducted regarding ALP. The

results of these studies are summarized in the following documents and

their supporting appendices: the 1979 Bureau of Reclamation Definite

Plan Report, a 1980 Final Environmental Statement, the 1992 Draft

Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement, and the 1996 Final

Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement (FSFES). Much of the

information compiled in these documents focuses on addressing NEPA,

Endangered Species Act, and Clean Water Act compliance, identifying

project impacts, and developing an extensive environmental commitment

plan for the implementation of mitigation measures. Some of the issues

that have received consideration over this period include impacts to

aquatic resources (including wetlands identification/mitigation), water

quality, recreation, wildlife habitat, endangered and threatened

species, alternative analysis, Indian trust assets and cultural

resources, and economic/social impacts.

In the early 1980s, discussions were initiated to achieve a

negotiated settlement of water right claims of the Southern Ute Indian

and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes in southwest Colorado. The Colorado Ute

Tribes and other parties subsequently signed the Final Settlement

Agreement on December 10, 1986. The Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights

Settlement Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-585) (Settlement Act) provided

language to implement the Final Settlement Agreement and supplemented

the authorization of the ALP. A significant component of the Final

Settlement Agreement was incorporation of the provisions of the

``Agreement in Principle Concerning the Colorado Ute Indian Water

Rights Settlement and Binding Agreement for Animas-La Plata Project

Cost Sharing'' (Cost Sharing Agreement). The Cost Sharing Agreement was

executed by representatives of the states of New Mexico and Colorado,

the two Colorado Ute Tribes, the Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy

District, the San Juan Water Commission, Montezuma County in Colorado,

and the Department of the Interior.

Recognizing the potential of ALP to affect endangered species (the

Colorado squawfish), Reclamation consulted with the Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) pursuant to the requirements of the Endangered

Species Act. A Biological Opinion was issued by the Service on October

25, 1991, containing a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative that would

allow construction of several ALP features (including Durango Pumping

Plant, Ridges Basin Inlet Conduit, Ridges Basin Dam and Reservoir, and

other features) and an average annual initial water depletion for ALP

of 57,100 acre-feet from the San Juan River.

After Reclamation was authorized to initiate construction, several

challenges were made regarding the completeness of the 1980 Final

Environmental Statement and Reclamation subsequently rescinded the

authorization for construction pending completion of a FSFES.

Reclamation filed a Draft Supplement with the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) and released the Draft Supplement for public

review and comment in October 1992. Based on comments received on the

Draft Supplement, the FSFES was completed and filed with EPA in April

1996. No record of decision was issued.

In May 1995, reconsultation with the Service addressed new

information and changes to the project. A Biological Opinion was issued

by the Service in February 1996. This Biological Opinion contained a

Reasonable and Prudent Alternative that would limit construction to

only those project features which would initially result in an average

annual water depletion of 57,100 acre feet.

Following the completion of the FSFES in 1996, Colorado Governor

Roy Romer and Lt. Governor Gail Schoettler convened the Project

supporters and opponents in a process intended to seek resolution of

controversy involved in the original ALP, and to attempt to gain

consensus on an alternative to the original project. The Romer-

Schoettler process concluded with the suggestion of two alternatives, a

structural and nonstructural proposal. The Animas-La Plata

Reconciliation Plan (Structural Proposal) proposed to construct the

initial stage of the project as described in the FSFES, with some

modifications. The Animas River Citizens' Coalition Conceptual

Alternative (Nonstructural Proposal) proposed to purchase irrigated

lands and other associated water rights near the existing Ute

reservations in southern Colorado and would use or purchase water from

existing projects or from expanded projects/delivery systems for the

purpose of providing Indian-only water.

On August 11, 1998, the Secretary of the Interior presented an

Administration Proposal to build a down-sized version of ALP to

implement the Colorado Ute water rights settlement which would also

include a nonstructural element as part of the settlement

implementation.

Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose and need of the proposed federal action is to implement

the Settlement Act by providing the Ute Tribes an assured long-term

water supply and water acquisition fund in order to satisfy the Tribes'

senior water rights claims as quantified in the Settlement Act, and to

provide for identified municipal and industrial water needs in the

Project area.

Congress enacted the Settlement Act to settle outstanding water

rights claims

[[Page 178]]

of the two Colorado Ute Tribes. The Colorado Ute Indian reservations

were created in 1868, and as such, the Tribes have a priority date for

their water rights that precedes the priority dates for most, if not

all, non-Indian water rights. Implementation of the Act will allow the

development of Tribal senior water rights without adversely impacting

non-Indian water rights and users, including cities and municipalities

throughout southwestern Colorado and northwestern New Mexico.

The Proposed Federal Action

The Administration proposal for final implementation of the

Colorado Ute Water Rights Settlement was developed after a review of

the Settlement Act requirements, the issues surrounding the 1996

formulation of ALP, and a consideration of the alternatives generated

during the Romer-Schoettler Process. As a result, the Administration

Proposal includes both structural and nonstructural elements designed

to achieve the fundamental purpose of securing the Ute Tribes an

assured water supply in satisfaction of their water rights as

determined by the 1986 Settlement Agreement and the 1988 Settlement Act

and by providing for identified municipal and industrial water needs in

the Project area. The Administration proposal also brings final

resolution to the ALP issue by restricting the project to construction

of a defined number of facilities centered around a down-sized storage

facility limited to municipal and industrial (M&I) water uses. Other

previously contemplated project features would be deauthorized.

The Administration proposal includes two components:

Structural Component

This includes an off-stream storage reservoir (approximately 90,000

acre-feet capacity) with only a limited amount of ``dead'' storage, a

pumping plant (up to approximately 240 cubic feet per second of

capacity), and a reservoir inlet conduit, all designed to deplete no

more than an average of 57,100 af per year (afy) from the Animas River.

This depletion limit of 57,100 afy is consistent with the Biological

Opinion issued by the Service, which limits further water depletion in

the entire San Juan River Basin in order to avoid jeopardy to the

endangered fish. The proposed reservoir would be located at the Ridges

Basin site.

Consumptive use of water from the project will be restricted to M&I

uses only and will be allocated in the following manner: 1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The balance of the available depletions is lost to

evaporation making total depletions of 57,100 afy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Afy

depletion

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Southern Ute Tribe (M&I)..................................... 19,980

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (M&I)................................. 19,980

Navajo Nation (M&I).......................................... 2,340

ALP Water Conservancy District (M&I)......................... 2,600

San Juan Water Commission (M&I).............................. 10,400

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consistent with the purpose and need statement, a substantial

portion of the costs of the reservoir and associated works are

anticipated to be non-reimbursable to the federal treasury. Costs of

any project benefits accruing to non-Indian parties are expected to be

fully absorbed by those parties in accordance with Reclamation law and

Administration policy.

Nonstructural Component

Under the allocation shown above, the Tribes are still

approximately 13,000 af short of the total quantity of depletion

recognized in the settlement agreement. The proposed action therefore

includes a nonstructural element which would establish and utilize a

water acquisition fund which the Tribes could use one time to acquire

water rights on a willing buyer/willing seller basis. The fund would be

sufficient to acquire rights to the use of sufficient quantities of

water allowing the Tribes about 13,000 afy of depletion in addition to

the depletions stated above. Preliminary cost estimates indicate that a

fund of approximately $40,000,000 would be required to purchase the

additional rights. However, to provide flexibility in the use of the

fund, authorization would allow some or all of the funds to be

redirected for on-farm development, water delivery infrastructure, and

other economic development activities.2

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ At the request of the Ute Tribes, this provision represents

a change from the Administration proposal released on August 11,

which limited redirection of funds to only 50% of the total amount

provided.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several features of the proposed action, particularly the reservoir

location, pumping plant, and inlet works have been the subject of

previous analysis by Reclamation as described in the Background

section. Details concerning these items and changes from the previous

ALP configuration can be obtained by contacting Reclamation's Western

Colorado Area Office, Southern Division, in Durango, Colorado at the

address and telephone number shown above.

Proposed Scope of Analysis

The Administration Proposal is related to but represents a

refinement in the configuration of ALP. Accordingly, Reclamation

intends to fulfill the requirements of NEPA through development of a

DSEIS which is supplemental to the 1996 FSFES for ALP. This approach

will allow for full assessment of the new or changed features which are

part of the Administration proposal but make use, to the extent

appropriate, of the prior environmental analysis for ALP. Given this

approach, the following discussion represents Reclamation's current

view of the range of alternatives and the type of analysis which is

appropriate for the Administration Proposal.

1. Range of Alternatives--In addition to the above-described

proposed action (i.e. the Administration Proposal), Reclamation intends

to evaluate the following alternatives as part of its NEPA analysis.

a. Administration Proposal with Recreation Element Added--At the

request of the state of Colorado, Reclamation will evaluate adding

recreation as a feature of the reservoir. This feature would

necessitate consideration of a conservation pool of approximately

30,000 af thereby increasing the overall reservoir size to

approximately 120,000 af.

b. Animas-La Plata Reconciliation Plan--This alternative represents

the structural alternative developed during the Romer-Schoettler

process. It was also the basis for legislation which was introduced

during the 105th Congress (S. 1771 and H.R. 3478). The proposal

provides water for both M&I and irrigation uses. It also contains

project features similar to the Administration Proposal although the

reservoir would be sized to a 260,000 af capacity to allow for future

M&I and irrigation storage needs. No deauthorization of project

features is included in this proposal.

c. Animas River Citizens' Coalition Conceptual Alternative--This

alternative represents the nonstructural proposal developed during the

Romer-Schoettler process. It proposes the purchase of irrigated lands

and other associated water rights near the Ute reservations, and would

use or purchase water from existing projects or expanded projects/

delivery systems for the purpose of providing water in satisfaction of

the Ute Tribes' water rights claims.

d. 1996 Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement

(FSFES)

[[Page 179]]

Recommended Action--This alternative recommended constructing ALP in

two phases, providing a total water depletion of 149,220 af and is

described in the 1996 FSFES. Initial project water depletions were

limited to 57,100 af (Phase I, Stage A) due to the Service's Biological

Opinion on endangered fish species. The total water depletion of

149,220 af would have required additional consultation with the

Service.

e. Administration Proposal with an Alternative Water Supply for

Non-Ute Entities--This alternative will consider supplying non-Ute M&I

water (i.e. Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy District, San Juan Water

Commission, and Navajo Nation) from sources other than the proposed

Ridges Basin Reservoir.

f. Citizens Progressive Alliance Proposal--This proposal would

allow the Ute Tribes to lease water instream based on the water amounts

in the Settlement Agreement. The economic value of such instream

leasing would be calculated on the value of leaving Animas River water

instream and based on hydropower production, lower levels of salinity,

and other benefits included in the authorized plan.

g. No Action Alternative--Under this alternative, the project would

not be constructed. As a result, the Settlement Act would not be

fulfilled. The Southern Ute Indian Tribe and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

could initiate either litigation or negotiation with non-Indian water

users and the United States to resolve their water rights claims on

rivers flowing through their respective reservations, including the

Animas and La Plata Rivers. Tribal development of natural resources or

other economic development tied to water use would likely be delayed

until the Tribes' water claims were settled. Conflicts could exist

between the Indian and non-Indian communities in the area.

Existing water uses would likely continue during litigation or

negotiation. However, development of new water storage or delivery

facilities by private, state, or Tribal entities would likely be

deferred until those water rights claims were resolved.

2. Type of Analysis--Pending public input, Reclamation intends that

the Administration Proposal and each of the alternatives described

above undergo an analysis beginning with a threshold assessment of the

alternative's capability to accomplish the project's purpose. The

following items will then be analyzed as appropriate. Any new or

updated information from that contained in the 1980 FES and the 1996

FSFES will be evaluated and included in this supplement.

a. Direct and Indirect Impacts--Reclamation intends to evaluate the

direct and indirect impacts the Administration Proposal and

alternatives may have on the affected environment including wetlands,

water quality, recreational activities, wildlife habitat and aquatic

resources, geology, cultural resources, and endangered species. This

assessment would also examine the indirect impacts of potential end

uses of project water. An assessment of options to avoid or minimize

environmental impacts will also be a focus of the analysis.

b. Connected Actions--These actions include those closely related

to the Administration Proposal or other alternatives being reviewed.

They are typically either automatically triggered by, dependent upon,

or interdependent with the subject action. Examples of current

connected actions which Reclamation intends to analyze include (i)

reoperation of Navajo Dam and Reservoir and (ii) relocation of gas

pipelines.

c. Cumulative Impacts--These impacts arise from the incremental

impact a proposed action or alternative has on the environment when

added to other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Cumulative impacts which Reclamation intends to consider depending upon

the action or alternative being reviewed include (i) the cumulative

effects of ALP and other actions on endangered species; and (ii) water

development opportunities for other communities in the San Juan River

basin (e.g. completion of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project).

d. Compliance with Other Laws--Reclamation will comply with all

environmental laws and regulations, including but not limited to the

Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, in the preparation of

the DSEIS.

e. Cost Estimate--Although not intended to be a focus of in-depth

analysis, the supplemental analysis will discuss the estimated overall

costs attributable to each alternative.

Public Scoping

Scoping meetings will be held in Durango, Colorado; Farmington, New

Mexico; and Denver, Colorado in early February of 1999 for the purpose

of obtaining public input on the significant issues related to the

proposed action. The schedule and locations for the meetings are shown

below. The public is especially asked to provide input on the

following:

1. Whether the overall range of alternatives is appropriate. The

Administration Proposal was developed in response to the alternatives

developed during the Romer-Schoettler process, both of which are

included in the range of alternatives to be considered.

2. Identification of significant issues related to the proposed

action.

Schedule of Scoping Meetings

A series of meetings will be conducted in Colorado and New Mexico.

Each will begin with a one hour open house where the public can

informally discuss issues and ask questions of staff and managers.

The open house will be followed by a more formal scoping hearing in

which each participant will be given time to make official comments.

Speakers will be given five minutes for their comments. These comments

will be formally recorded. Speakers are encouraged to provide written

versions of their oral comments, and any other additional written

materials, for the record.

Comments may also be sent directly to the Bureau of Reclamation's

Southern Division of the Western Colorado Area Office in Durango,

Colorado. Written comments should be received by February 19, 1999, to

be most effectively considered.

Dates of Scoping Meetings

February 2, 1999, 6-9 p.m., DoubleTree Hotel, Main

Ballroom, 501 Camino Del Rio, Durango, Colorado

February 3, 1999, 6-9 p.m., San Juan College, Henderson

Fine Arts Center, Room 10, 4601 College Boulevard, Farmington, New

Mexico

February 4, 1999, 6-9 p.m., Colorado Convention Center,

Room A201, 700 14th Street, Denver, Colorado

Dated: December 29, 1998.

Eluid L. Martinez,

Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 98-34818 Filed 12-31-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-94-p