![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Colorado River Interim Surplus Guidelines
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: January 25, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 17)]
[Notices]
[Page 7772-7782]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25ja01-40]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Colorado River Interim Surplus Guidelines
AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Availability of Record of Decision for the adoption
of Colorado River Interim Surplus Guidelines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), published a Federal
Register notice on December 15, 2000 (65 FR 78511) which informed the
public of the availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS)
[[Page 7773]]
on the proposed adoption of specific criteria under which surplus water
conditions will be determined in the Lower Colorado River Basin during
the next 15 years. We are now notifying the public that the Secretary
of the Interior signed the Record of Decision (ROD) on January 16,
2001. The text of the ROD may be found below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact
Ms. Jayne Harkins by telephone at (702) 293-8785. The ROD is also
available for viewing on the Internet at http://www.lc.usbr.gov.
Dated: January 18, 2001.
Bruce Babbitt,
Secretary, Department of the Interior.
Record of Decision
Colorado River Interim Surplus Guidelines; Final Environmental Impact
Statement
I. Introduction
This document constitutes the Record of Decision (ROD) of the
Department of the Interior, regarding the preferred alternative for
Colorado River Interim Surplus Guidelines (Guidelines). The Secretary
of the Interior (Secretary) is vested with the responsibility of
managing the mainstream waters of the lower Colorado River pursuant to
federal law. This responsibility is carried out consistent with
applicable federal law. Reclamation, as the agency that is designated
to act on the Secretary's behalf with respect to these matters, is the
lead Federal agency for the purposes of National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) compliance for the development and implementation of the
proposed interim surplus guidelines. The FEIS was prepared pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, the
Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]
Parts 1500 through 1508), Department of Interior Policies, and
Reclamation's NEPA Handbook. Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria is
the subject of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), filed
with the Environmental Protection Agency (FES-00-52) on December 8,
2000 and noticed by the Environmental Protection Agency and Reclamation
in the Federal Register on December 15, 2000.
The FEIS was prepared by Reclamation to address the formulation and
evaluation of specific interim surplus guidelines and to identify the
potential environmental effects of implementing such guidelines. The
FEIS addresses the environmental issues associated with, and analyzes
the environmental consequences of various alternatives for specific
interim surplus guidelines. The alternatives addressed in the FEIS are
those Reclamation determined would meet the purpose of and need for the
federal action and represented a broad range of the most reasonable
alternatives.
The National Park Service (NPS) and the International Boundary and
Water Commission United States and Mexico (IBWC) are cooperating
agencies for purposes of assisting with the environmental analysis in
the FEIS. The NPS administers three areas of national significance
within the area potentially affected by the proposed action: Glen
Canyon National Recreation Area (GCNRA), Grand Canyon National Park and
Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LMNRA). The NPS administers
recreation, cultural and natural resources in these areas and also
grants and administers recreation concessions for the operation of
marinas and related facilities at Lake Powell and Lake Mead, while the
elevation of each of these reservoirs is controlled by and subject to
Reclamation operations. The IBWC is a bi-national organization
responsible for administration of the provisions of the U.S.-Mexico
Water Treaty of 1944 (Treaty), including the Colorado River waters
allocated to Mexico, protection of lands along the Colorado River from
floods by levee and floodway projects, resolution of international
boundary water sanitation and other water quality problems, and
preservation of the river as the international boundary. The IBWC
consists of the United States Section and the Mexico Section which have
their headquarters in the adjoining cities of El Paso, Texas and Ciudad
Juarez, Chihuahua, respectively. These and other federal, state and
local agencies are expected to use the FEIS and ROD in their planning
and decision-making processes.
II. Recommended Decision
The recommendation is the approval of the following Federal action
the adoption of specific interim surplus guidelines identified in the
Preferred Alternative (Basin States Alternative) as analyzed in the
FEIS. These specific interim surplus guidelines would be used annually
to determine the conditions under which the Secretary would declare the
availability of surplus water for use within the states of Arizona,
California and Nevada. These guidelines would be consistent with both
the Decree entered by the United States Supreme Court in 1964 in the
case of Arizona v. California (Decree) and Article III(3)(b) of the
Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of the Colorado River
Reservoirs Pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Project Act of
September 30, 1968 (LROC). The guidelines would remain in effect for
determinations made through calendar year 2015 regarding the
availability of surplus water through calendar year 2016, may be
subject to five-year reviews conducted concurrently with LROC reviews,
and would be applied each year as part of the Annual Operation Plan
(AOP) process.
III. Background
The Secretary of the Interior manages the lower Colorado River
system in accordance with federal law, including the 1964 Decree of the
U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona v. California (Decree), the Colorado
River Basin Project Act of 1968 (CRBPA), and the Criteria for
Coordinated Long-Range Operation of the Colorado River Reservoirs
Pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Project Act of September 30, 1968
(LROC). Within this legal framework, the Secretary makes annual
determinations regarding the availability of surplus water from Lake
Mead by considering various factors, including the amount of water in
system storage and predictions for natural runoff. The 1964 Decree
provides that if there exists sufficient water available in a single
year for release (primarily from Lake Mead) to satisfy annual
consumptive use in the states of Arizona, California, and Nevada in
excess of 7.5 million acre-feet (maf), such excess consumptive use in
Arizona, California and Nevada is ``surplus.'' The Secretary is
authorized to determine the conditions upon which such water may be
made available. The CRBPA directed the Secretary to adopt criteria for
coordinated long-range operation of reservoirs on the Colorado River in
order to comply with and carry out the provisions of the Colorado River
Compact of 1922 (Compact), the Colorado River Storage Project Act of
1956 (CRSPA), the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 (BCPA) and the
United States-Mexico Water Treaty of 1944 (Treaty). The Secretary
sponsors a formal review of the LROC every five years.
The LROC provide that the Secretary will determine the extent to
which the reasonable consumptive use requirements of mainstream users
in Arizona, California and Nevada (the Lower Division states) can be
met. The LROC define a normal year as a year in which annual pumping
and release from Lake Mead will be sufficient to satisfy 7.5 maf of
consumptive use in accordance with the Decree. A surplus
[[Page 7774]]
year is defined as a year in which water in quantities greater than
normal (i.e., greater than 7.5 maf) is available for pumping or release
from Lake Mead pursuant to Article II(B)(2) of the Decree after
consideration of relevant factors, including the factors listed in the
LROC. Surplus water is available to agencies which have contracted with
the Secretary for delivery of surplus water, for use when their water
demand exceeds their basic entitlement, and when the excess demand
cannot be met within the basic apportionment of their state. Water
apportioned to, but unused by one or more Lower Division states can be
used to satisfy beneficial consumptive use requests of mainstream users
in other Lower Division states as provided in Article II(B)(6) of the
Decree.
Pursuant to the CRBPA, the LROC are utilized by the Secretary, on
an annual basis, to make determinations with respect to the projected
plan of operations of the storage reservoirs in the Colorado River
Basin. The AOP is prepared by Reclamation, acting on behalf of the
Secretary, in consultation with representatives of the Colorado River
Basin states (Basin States) and other parties, as required by federal
law. The interim surplus guidelines would serve to implement the
provisions of Article III(3)(b) of the LROC on an annual basis in the
determinations made by the Secretary as part of the AOP process for a
period of fifteen years.
To date, the Secretary has applied factors, including but not
limited to those found in Article III(3)(b)(i-iv) of the LROC, in
annual determinations of the availability of surplus quantities of
water for pumping or release from Lake Mead. As a result of actual
operating experience and through preparation of AOPs, particularly
during recent years when there has been increasing demand for surplus
water, the Secretary has determined that there is a need for more
specific surplus guidelines, consistent with the Decree and applicable
federal law, to assist in the Secretary's annual decision making during
an interim period.
For many years, California has been diverting more than its normal
4.4 maf apportionment. Prior to 1996, California utilized unused
apportionments of other Lower Division states that were made available
by the Secretary. Since 1996, California has also utilized surplus
water made available by Secretarial determination. California is in the
process of developing the means to reduce its annual use of Colorado
River water to 4.4 maf. Both Arizona and Nevada are approaching full
use of their Colorado River apportionments.
Additionally, through adoption of specific interim surplus
guidelines, the Secretary will be able to afford mainstream users of
Colorado River water, particularly those in California who currently
utilize surplus flows, a greater degree of predictability with respect
to the likely existence, or lack thereof, of surplus conditions on the
river in a given year. Adoption of the interim surplus guidelines is
intended to recognize California's plan to reduce reliance on surplus
deliveries, to assist California in moving toward its allocated share
of Colorado River water, and to avoid hindering such efforts.
Implementation of interim surplus guidelines would take into account
progress, or lack thereof, in California's efforts to achieve these
objectives. The surplus guidelines would be used to identify the
specific amount of surplus water which may be made available in a given
year, based upon factors such as the elevation of Lake Mead, during a
period within which demand for surplus Colorado River water will be
reduced. The increased level of predictability with respect to the
prospective existence and quantity of surplus water would assist in
planning and operations by all entities that receive surplus Colorado
River water pursuant to contracts with the Secretary.
IV. Alternatives Considered
The FEIS analyzed five action alternatives for interim surplus
guidelines as well as a No Action Alternative/Baseline Condition that
was developed for comparison of potential effects of the action
alternatives. A common element of all alternatives is that in years in
which the Field Working Agreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and
the Army Corps of Engineers for Flood Control Operation of Hoover Dam
and Lake Mead (Field Working Agreement) requires releases greater than
the downstream beneficial consumptive use demands, the Secretary shall
determine that a ``flood control surplus'' will be declared in that
year. In such years, releases will be made to satisfy all beneficial
uses within the United States and up to an additional 200,000 acre feet
(af) will be made available to Mexico under the Treaty. The No Action
Alternative/Baseline Condition and the five action alternatives are
described below.
1. No Action Alternative/Baseline Condition: Under the No Action
Alternative, determinations of surplus would continue to be made on an
annual basis, in the AOP process, pursuant to the LROC and the Decree.
The No Action Alternative represents the future AOP process without
specific interim surplus guidelines. Surplus determinations consider
such factors as end-of-year system storage, potential runoff
conditions, projected water demands of the Basin States and the
Secretary's discretion in addressing year-to-year issues. The No Action
Alternative is identified as the ``environmentally preferable
alternative'' as it affords the Secretary the greatest degree of annual
flexibility in managing the mainstream waters and resources of the
lower Colorado River pursuant to applicable federal law. However, the
year-to-year variation in the conditions considered by the Secretary in
making surplus water determinations makes projections of surplus water
availability highly uncertain, and may hinder efforts by California to
reduce its over-reliance on Colorado River water supplies.
The approach used in the FEIS for analyzing the hydrologic aspects
of the interim surplus guidelines alternatives was to use a computer
model that simulates specific operating parameters and constraints. In
order to follow CEQ guidelines calling for a No Action alternative for
use as a ``baseline'' against which to compare project alternatives,
Reclamation selected a specific operating strategy for use as a
baseline condition, which could be described mathematically in the
model.
The baseline is based on a 70R spill avoidance strategy (70R
strategy). The 70R baseline strategy involves assuming a 70-percentile
inflow into the system subtracting out the consumptive uses and system
losses and checking the results to see if all of the water could be
stored or if flood control releases from Lake Mead would be required.
If flood control releases from Lake Mead would be required, additional
water is made available to the Lower Basin states beyond 7.5 maf. The
notation 70R refers to the specific inflow where 70 percent of the
historical natural runoff is less than this value (17.4 maf) for the
Colorado River basin at Lee Ferry. In practice, the 70R surplus
determination trigger elevation would be made during the fall of the
preceding year using projected available system space. The 70R strategy
trigger line gradually rises from approximately 1199 feet above mean
sea level (msl) in 2002 to 1205 feet msl in 2050 as a result of
increasing water use in the Upper Basin. Under baseline conditions,
when a surplus condition is determined to occur, surplus water would be
made available to fill all water orders by holders of surplus water
contracts in the Lower Division states.
Reclamation has utilized a 70R strategy for both planning purposes
and
[[Page 7775]]
studies of surplus determinations in past years. When Reclamation
reviewed previous surplus determinations as part of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) effort, the data indicated that
the 1997 surplus determination did not precisely fit the 70R strategy.
As a result, Reclamation selected the 75R strategy as representative of
recent operational decisions for use as the baseline condition in the
DEIS. However, based on further review and analysis, public comment,
and discussion with representatives of the Basin States during the DEIS
review period, Reclamation selected the 70R strategy for the baseline
condition in the FEIS. While the 70R strategy is used to represent
baseline conditions, it does not represent a decision by Reclamation to
utilize the 70R strategy for determination of future surplus conditions
in the absence of interim surplus guidelines. It should be noted that
the 70R strategy and 75R strategy produced very similar modeling
results for the purpose of determining impacts associated with the
action alternatives analyzed in this FEIS. The primary effect of
simulating operation with the 70R strategy would be that surplus
conditions would only be determined when Lake Mead is nearly full.
2. Basin States Alternative (Preferred Alternative): The Basin
States Alternatives is similar to, and based upon, information
submitted to the Secretary by representatives of the Governors of the
states of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and
California. After receipt of this information (during the public
comment period), Reclamation shared the submission with the public
(through the Federal Register and Reclamation's surplus guidelines web
sites) for consideration and comment. Reclamation then analyzed the
states' submission and crafted this additional alternative for
inclusion in the FEIS. Some of the information submitted for the
Department's review was outside of the scope of the proposed action for
adoption of interim surplus guidelines and was therefore not included
as part of the Basin States Alternative (e.g., adoption of shortage
criteria and adoption of surplus criteria beyond the 15-year period) as
presented in the FEIS.
The Basin States Alternative specifies ranges of Lake Mead water
surface elevations to be used through 2015 for determining the
availability of surplus water through 2016. The elevation ranges are
coupled with specific uses of surplus water in such a way that, if Lake
Mead's surface elevation were to decline, the amount of surplus water
would be reduced. The surplus determination elevations under the
preferred alternative consist of three tiered Lake Mead water surface
elevations, each of which is associated with certain designations on
the purposes for which surplus water could be used. When a flood
control surplus is determined, surplus water would be made available
for all established uses by contractors for surplus water in the Lower
Division States. When Lake Mead water levels are below the lowest
surplus trigger elevation, surplus water would not be made available.
3. Flood Control Alternative: Under the Flood Control Alternative,
a surplus condition is determined to exist when flood control releases
from Lake Mead are occurring or projected to occur in the subsequent
year. The method of determining need for flood control releases is
based on flood control regulations published by the Los Angeles
District of the Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Field Working
Agreement between the Corps and Reclamation. Under the flood control
strategy, a surplus is determined when the Corps flood control
regulations require releases from Lake Mead in excess of downstream
demand. If flood control releases or space building releases are
required, surplus conditions are determined to be in effect. The
average Lake Mead water surface elevation that would trigger flood
control releases is approximately 1211 feet msl. In practice, flood
control releases are not based on the average trigger elevation, but
would be determined each month by following the Corps regulations. When
a flood control surplus is determined, surplus water would be made
available for all established uses by contractors for surplus water in
the Lower Division States.
4. Six States Alternative: The Six States Alternative specifies
ranges of Lake Mead water surface elevations to be used through 2015
for determining the availability of surplus water through 2016. The
elevation ranges are coupled with specific uses of surplus water in
such a way that, if Lake Mead's surface elevation were to decline, the
amount of surplus water would be reduced. The surplus determination
elevations under the Six States Alternative consist of three tiered
Lake Mead water surface elevations, each of which is associated with
certain designations on the purposes for which surplus water could be
used. When flood control releases are made, any and all beneficial uses
would be met, including unlimited off-stream storage. When Lake Mead
water levels are below the lowest surplus trigger elevation, surplus
water would not be made available.
5. California Alternative: The California Alternative specifies
Lake Mead water surface elevations to be used for the interim period
through 2015 for determining the availability of surplus water through
2016. The elevation ranges are coupled with specific uses of surplus
water in such a way that, if Lake Mead's surface elevation declines,
the amount of surplus water would be reduced. The Lake Mead elevations
at which surplus conditions would be determined under the California
Alternative are expressed as three tiered, upward sloping trigger lines
that rise gradually year by year to 2016, in recognition of the
gradually increasing water demand of the Upper Division states from the
present to 2016. Each tier would be coupled with limitations on the
amount of surplus water available at that tier. Each tier under the
California Alternative would be subject to adjustment during the
interim period based on changes in Upper Basin demand projections. When
flood control releases are made, any and all beneficial uses would be
met, including unlimited off-stream storage. When Lake Mead water
levels are below the lowest surplus trigger elevation, surplus water
would not be made available
6. Shortage Protection Alternative: The Shortage Protection
Alternative is based on maintaining an amount of water in Lake Mead
necessary to provide a normal annual supply of 7.5 maf for the Lower
Division, 1.5 maf for Mexico and storage necessary to provide an 80
percent probability of avoiding future shortages. The surplus triggers
under this alternative range from an approximate Lake Mead initial
elevation of 1126 feet msl to an elevation of 1155 feet msl at the end
of the interim period. At Lake Mead elevations above the surplus
trigger, surplus conditions would be determined to be in effect and
surplus water would be available for use in the Lower Division states.
Below the surplus trigger elevation, surplus water would not be made
available.
V. Basis for Decision
Reclamation selected the Basin States Alternative as its preferred
alternative based on Reclamation's determination that it best meets all
aspects of the purpose and need for the action, including the need: to
remain in place for the entire period of the interim guidelines; to
garner support among the Basin States that will enhance the Secretary's
ability to manage the Colorado River reservoirs in a manner that
balances all existing needs for these
[[Page 7776]]
precious water supplies; and, to assist in the Secretary's efforts to
insure that California water users reduce their over reliance on
surplus Colorado River water. Reclamation notes the important role of
the Basin States in the statutory framework for administration of
Colorado River Basin entitlements and the significance that a seven-
state consensus represents on this issue. With respect to the
information within the scope of the proposed action, Reclamation found
the Basin States Alternative to be a reasonable alternative and fully
analyzed the environmental effects of this alternative in the FEIS. The
identified environmental effects of the Basin States Alternative are
well within the range of anticipated effects of the alternatives
presented in the DEIS and do not affect the environment in a manner not
already considered in the DEIS. Thus, based on all available
information, this alternative is the most reasonable and feasible
alternative.
VI. Public Response to Final Environmental Statement
Following the Federal Register Notice of Availability for the FEIS
on December 15, 2000, and as of Friday at 7:00 PM (EST), on January 12,
2001, Reclamation had received one letter supporting the preferred
alternative in the FEIS, one letter from the Ten Tribes Partnership,
one letter from a Non-governmental Organization and four letters and
approximately 7,517 email comments entitled ``Stop Damage to the
Colorado River Delta'' commenting on the FEIS. The email form letter
appears to be based upon information made available by Environmental
Defense as posted on its Environmental Defense Action Network Internet
web site. The live action alert allows citizens to automatically email
a form/sample letter to a designated addressee (in this case the Bureau
of Reclamation's project leader). Of the total of approximately 7,517
email form letters, approximately 400 have been edited in some manner
from the template letter provided and the remainder (approx. 7,100) are
identical to the form letter. Of the edited email form letters none
make substantive comments on the FEIS beyond that contained in the
email form letter template.
With respect to the comments received on the FEIS, and pursuant to
Reclamations's NEPA guidance, ``Only in special circumstances should
any specific comments be responded to in the ROD. If the comments raise
significant issues that have not been addressed, the need to supplement
the FEIS should be determined.'' Reclamation does not believe that the
comments received on the FEIS raise any significant issues that would
require supplementing the FEIS. Reclamation provides the following
additional information.
A summary of issues raised by the comment letters are as follows:
Comment/Issue 1: Objection to the preferred alternative in the FEIS
because these criteria will deprive the Colorado River delta of life-
sustaining water, destroy important native riparian habitats, and push
numerous endangered species perilously close to extinction.
Response: The rational for identification of the preferred
alternative is addressed in Chapter 2.3.2 and analyzed in the Chapter
3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. Transboundary
Impacts are addressed in Chapter 3.16 of the FEIS. In addition, the
status of consultation on special status species for the preferred
alternative in the FEIS is addressed in Section VIII of the ROD.
Comment/Issue 2. Urges Reclamation to insure that impacts to the
Colorado River delta are mitigated by dedicating sufficient water to
meet the needs of its riparian ecosystems, specifically the needs of
cottonwoods and willows throughout their lifecycle.
Response: Dedicating Colorado River Water for the Colorado River
delta is addressed in Chapter 1.1.4 and Chapter 2.2.3 of the FEIS.
Transboundary Impacts are addressed in Chapter 3.16 of the FEIS. See
also Section X. Part 7, Transboundary Impacts, and Section VIII of the
ROD that discusses the status of consultation on special status species
for the preferred alternative.
Comment/Issue 3: Urges Reclamation to issue a supplemental EIS
including the Pacific Institute proposal as a reasonable alternative
and its analysis.
Response: Consideration of the Pacific Institute's proposal in the
FEIS is addressed in Chapter 2.2.3 and further responded to in Volume
III, Comment and Responses, Part B, page B-22, Response 11-2 and page
B-24, Response 11-6, page B-38, comment 12-6 and 12-7. These responses
address the reasons that the Pacific Institute proposal was not
analyzed as an independent alternative in the FEIS. Accordingly,
Reclamation has determined that is not necessary to supplement the
FEIS.
Comment/Issue 4: Disagreement on the acceptance of the Basin States
proposal as an alternative and its identification as the preferred
alternative.
Response: The Basin States Alternative and its identification as
the preferred alternative is addressed in Chapter 2.3.2 of the FEIS.
The working draft of the Basin States Proposal was published in the
Federal Register during the DEIS public comment process. The Federal
Register notice on the draft Basin States Proposal is included in the
FEIS in Chapter 5.9.
Comment/Issue 5: The Ten Tribes Partnership, by letter dated
January 8, 2001, expressed concerns regarding the impact of the Interim
Surplus Guidelines on the Tribes' reserved water rights. The Tribes
noted their disagreement with Reclamation's analysis and the position
taken by the Department of the Interior with regard to its trust
responsibility on Tribal water rights in the FEIS. Additionally, the
Ten Tribes Partnership requested Reclamation to assist them in on-
reservation development of their water resources.
Response: As an initial matter, Reclamation fully identified and
analyzed Tribal water rights in the FEIS in Chapter 3.14, their
Depletion Schedule in Attachment Q, and fully responded to Tribal
comments on the DEIS in Volume III, pages B-164 through 219 of the
FEIS.
Additionally, as part of its analysis of the proposed federal
action in the EIS, Reclamation identified a significant quantity of
confirmed but unused water rights belonging to several Indian tribes in
the Colorado River basin. These undeveloped rights are a factor in the
available water supply which is being managed as surplus.
The Department, as trustee, believes that these surplus guidelines
will benefit the tribes by helping to ensure that California does not
develop a permanent reliance on unused water rights. By the same token,
the Department believes it important for the tribes to develop and
utilize their water rights. Accordingly, the Department directs the
Bureau of Reclamation to provide appropriate assistance (including
technical and financial assistance) to each of the relevant tribes to
establish a water use plan for on-reservation development.
VII. Alteration of Project Plan In Response To Public Comment
Public comments on the FEIS did not result in changes to the
proposed action nor selection of the Preferred Alternative.
VIII. Status of Consultation on Special Status Species Under
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act
On January 11, 2001, Reclamation received a memorandum from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
[[Page 7777]]
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended,
responding to Reclamation's November 29, 2000 memorandum regarding the
adoption of proposed Interim Surplus Criteria for the lower Colorado
River and its possible effects to endangered species and their critical
habitat in the river corridor below Glen Canyon Dam to Separation Rapid
from Glen Canyon Dam operations. Reclamation's November 29, 2000
memorandum concluded that the proposed project may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect, listed species in the Colorado River
corridor or their critical habitat from Glen Canyon Dam to the
headwaters of Lake Mead. The species of consideration include the
endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha) with critical habitat, endangered
razorback sucker (Xyrachen texanus) with critical habitat, endangered
southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax extimus trailli) without
critical habitat, and threatened (proposed delisted) bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) without critical habitat. The Service
concurred with Reclamation's determination that a 2 percent change in
the frequency of occurrence of experimental flows as a result of
Interim Surplus Criteria ``may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect the above mentioned listed species or their critical habitat.''
The Service also concurred with Reclamation's determination that a
change in the frequency of Beach Habitat Building Flows (BHBF) through
the Grand Canyon from 1 in 5 years, to the current estimate of 1 in
every 6 years with the adoption of Interim Surplus Criteria ``may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect listed species or
adversely modify their critical habitat'' given that BHBF's are not
required to remove jeopardy to native fish, nor required to minimize
incidental take, and have not proven critical to the survival or
recovery of native fishes. No further section 7 consultation is
required for the adoption of Interim Surplus Criteria in the Grand
Canyon at this time.
On January 12, 2001 Reclamation received a Biological Opinion (BO)
from the Service for Interim Surplus Criteria, Secretarial
Implementation Agreements, and Conservation Measures on the Lower
Colorado River, Lake Mead to the Southerly International Boundary,
Arizona, California, and Nevada. This BO is based on information
provided in the August 31, 2000 biological assessment, the DEIS for
Interim Surplus Criteria, and final conservation measures provided by
Reclamation on January 9, 2001. The species under consideration include
the razorback sucker, bonytail chub (Gila elegans), desert pupfish
(Cyprinodon macularius), Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris
yumanensis), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), southwestern
willow flycatcher, the threatened desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii)
and bald eagle; and designated critical habitat for the razorback
sucker and bonytail chub. The service previously concurred with
Reclamation's determination of ``is not likely to adversely affect''
for the bald eagle. Reclamation has also made findings of ``no effect''
for the desert pupfish, brown pelican, and desert tortoise and critical
habitat for the bonytail chub. After reviewing the current status of
the bonytail chub, razorback sucker, Yuma clapper rail and southwestern
willow flycatcher, the environmental baseline for the action area, the
effects of Interim Surplus Criteria, including conservation measures,
and cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the
proposed action of Interim Surplus Criteria is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of the bonytail chub, razorback sucker, Yuma
clapper rail, and southwestern willow flycatcher or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for the
razorback sucker in the Lower Colorado River. Reclamation has provided
conservation measures that would be part of the proposed action once
selected. These measures are designed to reduce the significance of the
effects of the action on listed species and critical habitat. These
conservation measures are identified in this ROD in Section X.--
Environmental Impacts and Implementation of Environmental Commitments,
Part 4--Special Status Species.
Reclamation consulted with the Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) through a supplemental biological assessment
(SBA) on Transboundary effects in Mexico from the proposed action for
Interim Surplus Criteria by memoranda dated January 9, 2001. These
consultations do not reflect any conclusion on Reclamation's part that
consultation is required, as a matter of law or regulation, on any
possible impact the adoption of interim surplus criteria may have on
U.S. listed species in Mexico. Rather, consultation on these effects
have proceeded with the expressed understanding that it may exceed what
is required under applicable Federal law and regulations and does not
establish a legal or policy precedent.
The Service responded to Reclamation's memorandum on Transboundary
effects on January 11, 2001. The Service noted that Reclamation
requested Service concurrence with a finding of ``may affect, not
likely to adversely affect'' for the endangered southwestern willow
flycatcher and totoaba (Totoaba macdonaldi). Reclamation also made
findings of ``no effect'' to the endangered desert pupfish, Yuma
clapper rail, and the vaquita (Phocaena sinus). The Service stated that
it does not have jurisdiction in section 7 consultations for marine
species such as the vaquita and totoaba, therefore they are not
discussed in their memorandum. The Yuma clapper rail is not listed
under the Endangered Species of 1973 (as amended) outside of the United
States. Therefore, Yuma clapper rails in Mexico are not protected or
considered in the section 7 consultation and are not discussed further
in their memorandum. The Service concurred with Reclamation's finding
of ``no effect'' for the desert pupfish. The Service finds that the
effects of the Interim Surplus Criteria as described in the SBA are
insignificant and concurs with Reclamation's finding of ``may affect,
not likely to adversely affect'' for the southwestern willow
flycatcher.
The NMFS responded to Reclamation's memorandum on Transboundary
effects on January 12, 2001. Reclamation concluded that the proposed
action for the Interim Surplus Criteria will ``not affect'' the Yuma
clapper rail, desert pupfish, and the vaquita. Reclamation also
concluded that the proposed interim surplus criteria ``may affect, but
is not likely to adversely affect'' the southwestern willow flycatcher
and totoaba and requested concurrence with this finding for the
endangered totoaba. In their response the NMFS concurred with
Reclamation's determination that the implementation of the preferred
alternative will not likely adversely affect the totoaba. This finding
concludes informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act and its implementing regulations.
IX. Status of Consultation on Cultural Resources Under Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act
Reclamation is the agency designated to act on behalf of the
Secretary with respect to the adoption of specific interim surplus
guidelines identified in the Preferred Alternative (Basin States
Alternative) analyzed in the FEIS. Reclamation is the lead Federal
agency for the purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as
[[Page 7778]]
amended. Reclamation determined in the FEIS, that while development and
implementation of Interim Surplus Guidelines should be considered an
undertaking for the purposes of Section 106, it is not of a type that
was likely to affect historic properties. Following publication and
distribution of the DEIS, Reclamation received a memorandum from the
Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer (NSHPO) through the public
review and comment process. The memorandum stated that the NSHPO
disagreed with Reclamation's finding that development and
implementation of Interim Surplus Guidelines constituted an undertaking
with no potential to effect historic properties, and requested the
matter be forwarded to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(Council) for review. In accordance with the NSHPO's request, and
pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5(c)3, Reclamation has prepared a memorandum on
this matter and has forwarded it to the Council for review. Reclamation
is proposing that further consultation occur within the framework
provided by Section 110 of the NHPA. Reclamation believes questions and
concerns regarding what sorts of impacts might be occurring to, or may
occur at some future date to historic properties as a result of on-
going operation of the Colorado River system, are better viewed as long
term management issues, which should be addressed through consultation
under Section 110 or the NHPA, rather than through Section 106
compliance for a specific activity that represents only a small part of
a much larger, on-going program.
X. Environmental Impacts and Implementation of Environmental
Commitments
Potential Impacts are associated with changes in the difference
between probabilities of occurrence for specific resource issues under
study when comparing the No Action Alternative/Baseline Condition to
that of the Preferred Alternative. Potential impacts on 13 resource
issues from the Preferred Alternative were analyzed by Reclamation in
the FEIS. These included; Water Supply, Water Quality, River Flow
Issues, Aquatic Resources, Special Status Species, Recreation, Energy
Resources, Air Quality, Visual Resources, Cultural Resources, Indian
Trust Assets, Environmental Justice, and Transboundary Impacts.
Reclamation determined these resource issues will not be adversely
affected by the adoption of the Preferred Alternative and thus will not
require specific mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate non-
significant effects because the small changes in the probabilities of
occurrence of flows which would effect these resource issues are within
Reclamation's current operational regime and authorities under
applicable federal law. In recognition of potential effects that could
occur with implementation of the Preferred Alternative, Reclamation has
developed a number of environmental commitments that will be
undertaken. Some environmental commitments are the result of compliance
with specific consultation requirements.
Environmental commitments that will be implemented by Reclamation
are identified below.
1. Water Quality
Reclamation will continue to monitor salinity and Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS) in the Colorado River as part of the ongoing Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program to ensure compliance with the
numeric criteria on the river as set forth in the Forum's 1999 Annual
Review.
Reclamation will continue to participate in the Lake Mead Water
Quality Forum and the Las Vegas Wash Coordination Committee as a
principal and funding partner in studies of water quality in the Las
Vegas Wash and Lake Mead. Reclamation is an active partner in the
restoration of the Las Vegas Wash wetlands.
Reclamation is and will continue to acquire riparian and wetland
habitat around Lake Mead and on the Lower Colorado River related to
ongoing and projected routine operations.
Reclamation will continue to participate with the Nevada Division
of Environmental Protection and Kerr-McGee Chemical Company in the
perchlorate remediation program of groundwater discharge points along
Las Vegas Wash which will reduce the amount of this contaminant
entering the Colorado River.
Reclamation will continue to monitor river operations, reservoir
levels and water supply and make this information available to the
Colorado River Management Work Group (CRMWG), agencies and the public.
This information is also available on Reclamation's website (http://
www.lc.usbr.gov and http://www.uc.usbr.gov).
2. Riverflow Issues
Reclamation and the other stakeholders in the Glen Canyon Dam
Adaptive Management Program (AMP) are currently developing for
recommendation to the Secretary an experimental flow program for the
operations of Glen Canyon Dam which includes Beach/Habitat-Building-
Flows (BHBFs). BHBFs are implemented over the long-term by hydrologic
triggering criteria approved by the Secretary, and are one measure
implemented subject to and consistent with existing law designed to
protect and mitigate adverse impacts to and improve the values for
which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation
Area were established. This experimental flow program will consider
both the potential for reduced frequency of BHBFs resulting from the
Interim Surplus Guidelines and for experimental flows to be conducted
independent of the hydrologic triggering criteria. The design of the
experimental flow program will include the number of flows, the
duration and the magnitude of experimental flows. The AMP shall forward
their recommendation on this matter for the Secretary's consideration.
3. Aquatic Resources
Reclamation will initiate a temperature monitoring program below
Hoover Dam with state and other Federal agencies to document
temperature changes related to baseline conditions and implementation
of interim surplus guidelines and assess their potential effects on
listed species and the sport fishery. The existing hydrolab below
Hoover Dam will be modified as necessary to provide this temperature
data.
4. Special Status Species
Reclamation will implement the following conservation measures for
Razorback sucker in Lake Mead and native fish in Lake Mohave:
1. Reclamation will continue to provide funding and support for the
ongoing Lake Mead Razorback Sucker study. The focus will be on locating
populations of razorbacks in Lake Mead from the lower Grand Canyon
(Separation Canyon) area downstream to Hoover Dam, documenting use and
availability of spawning areas at various water elevations, clarifying
substrate requirements, monitoring potential nursery areas, continuing
ageing studies and confirming recruitment events that may be tied to
physical conditions in the lake. The expanded program will be developed
within 9 months of signing the BO and implemented by January 2002.
Initial studies will extend for 5 years, followed by a review and
determination of the scope of studies for the remaining 10 years of the
Interim Surplus Guidelines (ISG). Reclamation will use the bathymetric
surveys, to be conducted in fiscal year 2001, to gather
[[Page 7779]]
data in the areas of the identified spawning habitat, if not already
available;
2. Reclamation will to the maximum extent practicable provide
rising spring (February through April) water surface elevations of 5-10
feet on Lake Mead, to the extent hydrologic conditions allow.
Hydrologic studies indicate that such conditions could occur once in 6
years, although no guarantee of frequency can be made. This operation
plan will be pursued through BHBFs and/or equalization and achieved
through the Adaptive Management Program and Annual Operating Plan
processes, as needed for spawning razorback suckers;
3. Reclamation will continue existing operations in Lake Mohave
that benefit native fish during the 15-year effective period of these
Guidelines and will explore additional ways to provide benefits to
native fish; and,
4. Reclamation will monitor water levels of Lake Mead from February
through April of each year during the 15 years these Guidelines are in
place. Should water levels reach 1160 feet because of the
implementation of these Guidelines, Reclamation will implement a
program to collect and rear larval razorbacks in Lake Mead the spawning
season following this determination. If larvae cannot be captured from
Lake Mead, wild larvae will be collected from Lake Mohave.
The implementation of these Guidelines is not likely to produce a
condition resulting in a minimum February through April Lake Mead
elevation at or below 1130 feet for more than 2 consecutive years
during which surplus is being declared. Therefore, this condition has
not been evaluated as an effect of the proposed action.
5. Recreation
Reclamation is initiating a bathymetric survey of Lake Mead in
fiscal year 2001 and will coordinate with the Lake Mead National
Recreation Area to identify critical recreation facility elevations and
navigational hazards that would be present under various reservoir
surface elevations.
Reclamation will continue to monitor river operations, reservoir
levels and water supply and make this information available to the
CRMWG, agencies and the public. This operational information will
provide the Lake Mead National Recreation Area and the Glen Canyon
National Recreation Area with probabilities for future reservoir
elevations to aid in management of navigational aids, recreation
facilities, other resources and fiscal planning.
Reclamation will continue its consultation and coordination with
the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and the Navajo Nation on the
development of Antelope Point as a resort destination.
6. Cultural Resources
Reclamation shall continue to consult and coordinate with the State
Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (Council), Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Lake Mead
National Recreation Area, Tribes and interested parties with regard to
the potential effects of implementation of the Preferred Alternative as
required by sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation
Act following the Council's recommended approach for consultation for
the Protection of Historic Properties found at 36 CFR 800.
7. Transboundary Impacts
A November 14, 2000, meeting of the International Boundary and
Water Commission and Technical Advisors from the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation and Mexico's National Water Commission was held. At this
meeting, Mexico expressed concern that a reduction of historic flows
arriving in Mexico could impact: Mexico's use of those waters for
recharge of ground waters; Mexico's use of those waters for leaching of
soils to combat salinity; Mexico's use of those waters to dilute saline
flows in the land boundary delivery point; endangered species that
depend on use of those waters in Mexico; riparian habitat that depends
on those waters in Mexico; and, fisheries in the upper Gulf of
California. Though it is the position of the United States through the
United States International Boundary and Water Commission that the
United States does not mitigate for impacts in a foreign country, the
United States is committed to participate with Mexico through the IBWC
Technical Work Groups to develop cooperative projects beneficial to
both countries concerning the issues expressed by Mexico.
Significantly, IBWC Minute No. 306 (which was adopted by the IBWC's
United States and Mexico sections on December 12, 2000), outlines a
process that may lead to specific delta restoration measures.
XI. Implementing The Decision
1. Allocation of Colorado River Water--Basic Apportionment
Article II(B)(6) of the Decree authorizes the Secretary to release
a lower division state's apportioned but unused water for consumptive
use in another lower division state, but provides that no rights to the
recurrent use of such apportioned water shall accrue to any state by
reason of its previous use. The Decree leaves it to the Secretary to
determine how any such unused apportionment shall be allocated, and to
make such determinations either annually, or for a more extended
period, though in neither situation can the Secretary's policy create a
right in any state to the future use of such unused apportionment. In
the course of establishing Interim Surplus Guidelines for the lower
division states, the Secretary has determined that in order to make an
accurate assessment of the amount of water available and reasonably
needed to meet annual consumptive use in the lower division states, it
is desirable to know in advance to which users, and for which uses, any
unused apportionment will be made available. The Secretary is therefore
including within the Interim Surplus Guidelines a statement of his
intended method of distributing unused apportionment that may be
available during the Interim period.
2. Forbearance and Reparation Arrangements
It is expected that Lower Division States and individual
contractors for Colorado River water will adopt arrangements that will
affect utilization of Colorado River water during the effective period
of these guidelines. It is expected that water orders from Colorado
River contractors will be submitted to reflect these forbearance and
reparation arrangements by Lower Division states and individual
contractors. The forbearance arrangements are expected to address
California's Colorado River water demands while the anticipated
reductions in California's Colorado River water use are implemented.
The reparation arrangements are expected to address the circumstance
where California contractors would limit their use of Colorado River
water to mitigate the impacts of any declared shortage conditions on
other Lower Division states. The reparation arrangements are also
expected to address the circumstance where the anticipated reductions
do not in fact occur and would require California contractors to limit
their use of Colorado River water in order to repay the Colorado River
system for previously stored water.
It is anticipated that MWD will enter into forbearance and
reparation agreements with the State of Arizona and with the Southern
Nevada Water Authority, which are necessary to provide for forbearance
of water under Article II(B)(6) of the Decree. The Secretary may also,
as appropriate, be a
[[Page 7780]]
party to those portions of the agreements concerning the allocation of
forbearance of water under Article II(B)(6) of the Decree. It is
anticipated that these agreements will be completed no later than
December 31, 2001. In the event that the forbearance and reparation
agreements are not completed by December 31, 2002, apportionment for
use of surplus water shall be made according to the percentages
provided in Article II(B)(2) of the Decree (without prejudice to the
Secretary's authority under Article II(B)(6) of the Decree) until such
time as the agreements are completed, or until December 31, 2015,
whichever is earlier.
The Secretary will deliver Colorado River water to contractors in a
manner consistent with these arrangements, provided, however, that any
such arrangements are consistent with the BCPA, the Decree and do not
infringe on the rights of third parties. Surplus water will only be
delivered to entities with contracts for surplus water.
3. Definitions
For purposes of these guidelines, the following definitions apply:
a. Domestic use shall have the meaning defined in the Compact.
b. Off-stream Banking shall mean the diversion of Colorado River
water to underground storage facilities for use in subsequent years
from the facility used by a contractor diverting such water.
c. Direct Delivery Domestic Use shall mean direct delivery of water
to domestic end users or other municipal and industrial water providers
within the contractor's area of normal service, including incidental
regulation of Colorado River water supplies within the year of
operation but not including Off-stream Banking.
d. Direct Delivery Domestic Use for The Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California (MWD) shall include delivery of water to end
users within its area of normal service, incidental regulation of
Colorado River water supplies within the year of operation, and Off-
stream Banking only with water delivered through the Colorado River
Aqueduct.
4. Relationship With Existing Law
These Guidelines are not intended to, and do not:
a. Guarantee or assure any water user a firm supply for any
specified period.
b. Change or expand existing authorities under applicable federal
law, except as specifically provided herein with respect to
determinations of surplus conditions under the Long Range Operating
Criteria and administration of surplus water supplies during the
effective period of these Guidelines.
c. Address intrastate storage or intrastate distribution of water,
except as may be specifically provided by Lower Division States and
individual contractors for Colorado River water who may adopt
arrangements that will affect utilization of Colorado River water
during the effective period of these Guidelines.
d. Change the apportionments made for use within individual States,
or in any way impair or impede the right of the Upper Basin to
consumptively use water available to that Basin under the Colorado
River Compact.
e. Affect any obligation of any Upper Division State under the
Colorado River Compact.
f. Affect any right of any State or of the United States under Sec.
14 of the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 105);
Sec. 601(c) of the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (82 Stat.
885); the California Limitation Act (Act of March 4, 1929; Ch. 16, 48th
Sess.); or any other provision of applicable federal law.
g. Affect the rights of any holder of present perfected rights or
reserved rights, which rights shall be satisfied within the
apportionment of the State within which the use is made in accordance
with the Decree.
5. Interim Surplus Guidelines
These Guidelines, which shall implement and be used for
determinations made pursuant to Article III(3)(b) of the Criteria for
Coordinated Long-Range Operation of the Colorado River Reservoirs
Pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Project Act of September 30, 1968
(LROC) during the period identified in Section 4(A) are hereby adopted:
Section 1. Allocation of Unused Basic Apportionment Water Under
Article II(B)(6)
A. Introduction
Article II(B)(6) of the Decree allows the Secretary to allocate
water that is apportioned to one Lower Division State, but is for any
reason unused in that State, to another Lower Division State. This
determination is made for one year only and no rights to recurrent use
of the water accrue to the state that receives the allocated water.
Historically, this provision of the Decree has been used to allocate
Arizona's and Nevada's apportioned but unused water to California.
Water use projections made for the analysis of these interim
Guidelines indicate that neither California nor Nevada is likely to
have significant volumes of apportioned but unused water during the
effective period of these Guidelines. Depending upon the requirements
of the Arizona Water Banking Authority (AWBA) for intrastate and
interstate Off-Stream Banking, Arizona may have significant amounts of
apportioned but unused water.
B. Application to Unused Basic Apportionment
Before making a determination of a surplus condition under these
Guidelines, the Secretary will determine the quantity of apportioned
but unused water from the basic apportionments under Article II(B)(6),
and will allocate such water in the following order of priority:
1. Meet the Direct Delivery Domestic Use requirements of MWD and
Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA), allocated as agreed by said
agencies;
2. Meet the needs for Off-stream Banking activities in California
by MWD and in Nevada by SNWA, allocated as agreed by said agencies; and
3. Meet the other needs for water in California in accordance with
the California Seven-Party Agreement as supplemented by the
Quantification Settlement Agreement.
Section 2. Determination of Lake Mead Operation During the Interim
Period
A. Normal and Shortage Conditions
1. Lake Mead at or below elevation 1125 ft.
In years when available Lake Mead storage is projected to be at or
below elevation 1125 ft. on January 1, the Secretary shall determine a
Normal or Shortage year.
B. Surplus Conditions
1. Partial Domestic Surplus (Lake Mead between elevation 1125 ft.
and 1145 ft.)
In years when Lake Mead storage is projected to be between
elevation 1125 ft. and elevation 1145 ft. on January 1, the Secretary
shall determine a Partial Domestic Surplus. The amount of such Surplus
shall equal:
a. For Direct Delivery Domestic Use by MWD, 1.212 maf reduced by:
(1) the amount of basic apportionment available to MWD and (2) the
amount of its domestic demand which MWD offsets in such year by
offstream groundwater withdrawals or other options. The amount offset
under (2) shall not be less than 400,000 af in 2002 and will be reduced
by 20,000 af/yr over the Interim Period so as to equal 100,000 af in
2016.
[[Page 7781]]
b. For use by SNWA, one half of the Direct Delivery Domestic Use
within the SNWA service area in excess of the State of Nevada's basic
apportionment.
c. For Arizona, one half of the Direct Delivery Domestic Use in
excess of the State of Arizona's basic apportionment.
2. Full Domestic Surplus (Lake Mead above Elevation 1145 ft. and
below 70R Strategy)
In years when Lake Mead content is projected to be above elevation
1145 ft., but less than the amount which would initiate a Surplus under
B.3. 70R Strategy or B.4. Flood Control Surplus hereof on January 1,
the Secretary shall determine a Full Domestic Surplus. The amount of
such Surplus shall equal:
a. For Direct Delivery Domestic Use by MWD, 1.250 maf reduced by
the amount of basic apportionment available to MWD.
b. For use by SNWA, the Direct Delivery Domestic Use within the
SNWA service area in excess of the State of Nevada's basic
apportionment.
c. For use in Arizona, the Direct Delivery Domestic Use in excess
of Arizona's basic apportionment.
3. Quantified Surplus (70R Strategy)
In years when the Secretary determines that water should be
released for beneficial consumptive use to reduce the risk of potential
reservoir spills based on the 70R Strategy the Secretary shall
determine and allocate a Quantified Surplus sequentially as follows:
a. Establish the volume of the Quantified Surplus.
b. Allocate and distribute the Quantified Surplus 50% to
California, 46% to Arizona and 4% to Nevada, subject to c. through e.
that follow.
c. Distribute California's share first to meet basic apportionment
demands and MWD's Direct Delivery Domestic Use and Off-stream Banking
demands, and then to California Priorities 6 and 7 and other surplus
contracts. Distribute Nevada's share first to meet basic apportionment
demands and then to the remaining Direct Delivery Domestic Use and Off-
stream Banking demands. Distribute Arizona's share to surplus demands
in Arizona including Off-stream Banking and interstate banking demands.
Arizona, California and Nevada agree that Nevada would get first
priority for interstate banking in Arizona.
d. Distribute any unused share of the Quantified Surplus in
accordance with Section 1, Allocation of Unused Basic Apportionment
Water Under Article II(B)(6).
e. Determine whether MWD, SNWA and Arizona have received the amount
of water they would have received under Section 2.B.2., Full Domestic
Surplus if a Quantified Surplus had not been declared. If they have
not, then determine and meet all demands provided for in Section 2.B.2.
Full Domestic Surplus (a), (b) and (c).
4. Flood Control Surplus
In years in which the Secretary makes space-building or flood
control releases pursuant to the Field Working Agreement, the Secretary
shall determine a Flood Control Surplus for the remainder of that year
or the subsequent year as specified in Section 7. In such years,
releases will be made to satisfy all beneficial uses within the United
States, including unlimited off-stream banking. Under current practice,
surplus declarations under the Treaty for Mexico are declared when
flood control releases are made. Modeling assumptions used in the FEIS
are based on this practice. The proposed action is not intended to
identify, or change in any manner, conditions when Mexico may schedule
up to an additional 0.2 maf. Any issues relating to the implementation
of the Treaty, including any potential changes in approach relating to
surplus declarations under the Treaty, must be addressed in a bilateral
fashion with the Republic of Mexico.
C. Allocation of Colorado River Water and Forbearance and Reparation
Arrangements
Colorado River water will continue to be allocated for use among
the Lower Division States in a manner consistent with the provisions of
the Decree. It is expected that Lower Division States and individual
contractors for Colorado River water will adopt arrangements that will
affect utilization of Colorado River water during the effective period
of these guidelines. It is expected that water orders from Colorado
River contractors will be submitted to reflect forbearance and
reparation arrangements by Lower Division states and individual
contractors. The Secretary will deliver Colorado River water to
contractors in a manner consistent with these arrangements, provided
that any such arrangements are consistent with the BCPA, the Decree and
do not infringe on the rights of third parties. Surplus water will only
be delivered to entities with contracts for surplus water.
D. Shortage
Two different shortage assumptions, including shortage guidelines
submitted in the information presented by the Basin States, were
modeled and compared in the FEIS. The Department and Reclamation intend
to develop shortage guidelines, through the 5-year review of the LROC,
when appropriate. These Guidelines are not intended to, and do not,
change in any manner from current conditions the assumptions for
conditions that may create a determination of shortage or the magnitude
of shortage that could be imposed on Lower Basin diversions.
Section 3. Implementation of Guidelines
During the effective period of these Guidelines the Secretary shall
utilize the currently established process for development of the Annual
Operating Plan for the Colorado River System Reservoirs (AOP) and use
these Guidelines to make determinations regarding Normal and Surplus
conditions for the operation of Lake Mead and to allocate apportioned
but unused water.
The operation of the other Colorado River System reservoirs and
determinations associated with development of the AOP shall be in
accordance with the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, the
Guidelines, and other applicable federal law.
In order to allow for better overall water management during the
Interim Period, the Secretary shall undertake a ``mid-year review''
pursuant to Section I(2) of the LROC, allowing for the revision of the
current AOP, as appropriate, based on actual runoff conditions which
are greater than projected, or demands which are lower than projected.
The Secretary shall revise the determination for the current year only
to allow for additional deliveries. Any revision in the AOP may occur
only after a re-initiation of the AOP consultation process as required
by law.
As part of the AOP process during the effective period of these
Guidelines, California shall report to the Secretary on its progress in
implementing its California Colorado River Water Use Plan.
These Guidelines implement Article III(3) of the LROC and may be
reviewed concurrently with the LROC 5-year review. The Secretary will
base annual determinations of surplus conditions on these Guidelines,
unless extraordinary circumstances arise. Such circumstances could
include operations necessary for safety of dams or other emergency
situations, or other unanticipated or unforseen activities arising from
actual operating experience.
[[Page 7782]]
Section 4. Effective Period & Termination
A. Effective Period
These guidelines will be in effect 30 days from the publication of
the Secretary's Record of Decision (ROD) in the Federal Register. These
Guidelines will, unless subsequently modified, remain in effect through
December 31, 2015 (through preparation of the 2016 AOP).
B. Termination of Guidelines
These Guidelines shall terminate on December 31, 2015 (through
preparation of the 2016 AOP). At the conclusion of the effective period
of these Guidelines, the modeled operating criteria are assumed to
revert to the operating criteria used to model baseline conditions
(i.e., modeling assumptions used in the EIS are based upon a 70R
strategy for the period commencing January 1, 2016 (for preparation of
the 2017 AOP)).
At the conclusion of the effective period of these Guidelines,
California shall have implemented sufficient measures to be able to
limit total uses of Colorado River water within California to 4.4 maf,
unless a surplus is determined under the 70R strategy.
Section 5. California's Colorado River Water Use Plan
Implementation Progress
A. Introduction
The purpose of the California Colorado River Water Use Plan is to
ensure that California limits its use of Colorado River water to no
more than 4.4 maf in normal years at the end of the fifteen year period
for these Guidelines, unless a surplus is determined under the 70R
strategy. The Secretary will annually review the status of
implementation of the California Colorado River Water Use Plan during
the development of the AOP.
B. California's Quantification Settlement Agreement
It is expected that the California Colorado River contractors will
execute the Quantification Settlement Agreement (and its related
documents) among the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), Coachella
Valley Water District (CVWD), MWD, and the San Diego County Water
Authority by December 31, 2001. In the event that the California
contractors and the Secretary have not executed such agreements by
December 31, 2002, the interim surplus determinations under sections
2(B)(1) and 2(B)(2) of these Guidelines will be suspended and will
instead be based upon the 70R Strategy, for either the remainder of the
period identified in Section 4(A) or until such time as California
completes all required actions and complies with reductions in water
use reflected in section 5(C) of these Guidelines, whichever occurs
first.
C. California's Colorado River Water Use Reductions
California will need to reduce its need for surplus Colorado River
water through the period identified in Section 4(A). The California
Agricultural (Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID), Yuma Project
Reservation Division (YPRD), IID, and CVWD) usage plus 14,500 af of
Present Perfected Right (PPR) use would need to be at or below the
following amounts at the end of the calendar year indicated in years of
quantified surplus (for Decree accounting purposes all reductions must
be within 25,000 af of the amounts stated):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark
quantity
(California
Benchmark date (calendar year) agricultural
usage & 14,500
AF of PPR Use
in maf)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.................................................. 3.74
2006.................................................. 3.64
2009.................................................. 3.53
2012.................................................. 3.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the event that California has not reduced its use in amounts
equal to the above Benchmark Quantities, the interim surplus
determinations under sections 2(B)(1) and 2(B)(2) of these Guidelines
will be suspended and will instead be based upon the 70R Strategy, for
up to the remainder of the period identified in section 4(A). If
however, California meets the missed Benchmark Quantity before the next
Benchmark Date, the interim surplus determinations under sections
2(B)(1) and 2(B)(2) shall be reinstated as the basis for the surplus
determinations under the AOP for the next following year(s). Upon such
reinstatement, California's reductions shall return to the schedule
identified above.
Section 6. Authority
These Guidelines are issued pursuant to the authority vested in the
Secretary by federal law, including the Boulder Canyon Project Act of
1928 (28 Stat. 1057) (the ``BCPA''), and the Decree issued by the U.S.
Supreme Court in Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340 (1964) (the
``Decree'') and shall be used to implement Article III of the Criteria
for the Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs
Pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Project Act of September 30, 1968
(Pub. L. No. 90-537) (the ``LROC'').
Section 7. Modeling and Data
The August 24-Month Study projections for the January 1 system
storage and reservoir water surface elevations, for the following year,
will be used to determine the applicability of these Guidelines.
In preparation of the AOP, Reclamation will utilize the 24-Month
Study and/or other modeling methodologies appropriate for the
determinations and findings necessary in the AOP. Reclamation will
utilize the best available data and information, including the National
Weather Service forecasting to make these determinations.
[FR Doc. 01-2118 Filed 1-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P