[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 176-179]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-34818]


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

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