[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 17 (Thursday, January 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7772-7782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2118]


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

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