[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9256-9261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-4570]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Review of Existing Coordinated Long-Range Operating Criteria for
Colorado River Reservoirs (Operating Criteria)
AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of final decision regarding the operating criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The purpose of this action is to provide public notice that
the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) has decided not to change the
existing Operating Criteria as a result of the recently completed
review process. The review has been conducted as an open public
process, including formal consultation with the seven Colorado River
Basin States (Basin States). The results of the review indicate that
modification of the Operating Criteria is not justified at the present
time.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 18, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bruce Moore, Bureau of
Reclamation, 125 South State Street, Room 6107, Salt Lake City, Utah
84138-1102, telephone (801) 524-3702, or Ms. Jayne Harkins, Bureau of
Reclamation, P.O. Box 61470, Boulder City, Nevada 89005, telephone
(702) 293-8190.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The public review process began with a
Federal Register notice published on August 20, 1996 (61 FR 43073),
announcing the review of the Operating Criteria and inviting comments
during the 60 days following the notice. On October 31, 1996, another
Federal Register notice (61 FR 56246) was published announcing two
public consultation meetings and extending the comment period an
additional 30 days. On November 4, 1996, a Fact Sheet containing
information about the Operating Criteria review and an invitation to
the public consultation meetings was sent to known and anticipated
interested parties and agencies, and governor-designated
[[Page 9257]]
representatives of the Basin States, inviting their participation.
Comments from the two Federal Register notices were received from
18 respondents. The comments were reviewed by the Bureau of Reclamation
for identification and analysis of the issues. Public consultation
meetings were held on November 18, 1996, and December 2, 1996, to
discuss the identified issues and answer questions from all interested
parties. A set of all comment letters received was provided to any
interested party requesting a copy. After the public consultation
meetings, the analyses of the issues raised during the public review
process were sent to all interested parties and participants in a March
1997 newsletter entitled the River Review.
In response to requests, another public consultation meeting and an
additional 45-day comment period were announced in the Federal Register
on March 28, 1997 (62 FR 14942). On April 4, 1997, a letter from the
Reclamation Team Leader containing the preliminary results of
Reclamation's analysis on each major issue area and an invitation to
attend a public consultation meeting on the preliminary results and
analysis was sent to all 18 respondents, governor-designated
representatives of the Basin States, and any others who had attended
meetings or expressed an interest in the review of the Operating
Criteria. On April 22, 1997, a final public consultation meeting was
conducted to discuss the preliminary analyses.
As required by Pub. L. 90-537, formal consultation with the
representatives of the seven Basin States, and other parties and
agencies as the Secretary may deem appropriate, was conducted in the
context of public consultation meetings on three separate occasions:
November 18, 1996; December 2, 1996; and April 22, 1997.
Following analysis of comments received as a result of this notice,
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was applied to the
Secretary's final decision.
Background
The Operating Criteria, promulgated pursuant to Section 602 of Pub.
L. 90-537 (43 U.S.C. 1552), were published in the Federal Register on
June 10, 1970. The Operating Criteria provide for the coordinated long-
range operation of the reservoirs constructed and operated under the
authority of the Colorado River Storage Project Act, the Boulder Canyon
Project Act, and the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act for the
purposes of complying with and carrying out the provisions of the
Colorado River Compact, the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, and the
Mexican Water Treaty.
Previous reviews of the Operating Criteria were initiated in 1975,
1980, 1985, and 1990. They resulted in no changes to the Operating
Criteria. Prior to 1990, reviews were conducted primarily through
meetings with and correspondence among representatives of the seven
Basin States and Reclamation. Because the long-range operation of the
Colorado River reservoirs is important to many agencies and
individuals, in 1990, through an active public involvement process,
Reclamation expanded the review of the Operating Criteria to include
all interested stakeholders. A team consisting of Reclamation staff
from Denver, Colorado; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Boulder City, Nevada,
was organized to conduct the 1990 review. Review of the Operating
Criteria in 1990 resulted in no changes. For the 1995 review,
Reclamation staff from Salt Lake City, Utah, and Boulder City, Nevada,
followed the same public process.
The scope of the review has been consistent with the statutory
purposes of the Operating Criteria which are ``to comply with and carry
out the provisions of the Colorado River Compact, the Upper Colorado
River Basin Compact, and the Mexican Water Treaty.'' Long-range
operations generally refer to the planning of reservoir operations over
several decades, as opposed to the Annual Operating Plan (AOP) which
details specific reservoir operations for the next operating year.
Synopsis of Review Results
Many of the issues raised during the review are more properly dealt
with during the development of the AOP. These include annual surplus
determinations in the Lower Basin; the probability of spills from Lake
Powell, including the release of beach/habitat building flows from Glen
Canyon Dam; storage equalization between Lakes Powell and Mead; and
factors for determining 602(a) storage.
The Operating Criteria were purposely designed to be flexible so
that during the development of the AOP, variations in hydrologic
conditions and changing demands for water use, including environmental
demands and possible mitigation measures, could be accommodated. The
process for developing the AOP is open to the public and all interested
parties.
Reclamation regularly applies the NEPA process to activities
constituting a major federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment. The decision not to change the Operating
Criteria is subject to NEPA and a Categorical Exclusion has been
executed.
With respect to other environmental issues, Reclamation is in
various stages of consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act on most Colorado River mainstem
facilities. When a Section 7 consultation results in the Service
providing Reclamation with specific flow recommendations to remove or
prevent jeopardy to listed species or their critical habitat, they are
incorporated into Reclamation's operations, and if appropriate,
included in the AOP.
Reclamation has programmed and expended funds for fish and wildlife
mitigation and enhancement for impacts associated with previous
activities where appropriate. Reclamation will continue to use this
approach. Any changes associated with the long-range Operating Criteria
will also be evaluated to determine if there are any mitigation
requirements or enhancement opportunities.
Regarding the issue of water marketing and banking, Reclamation has
initiated a rule making process focused on water banking in groundwater
aquifers or off-mainstem storage reservoirs in the Lower Basin. This
administrative rule is considered a responsibility of the Secretary of
the Interior and focuses only on the three Lower Basin states.
Reclamation believes that water marketing and banking do not require a
change to the current Operating Criteria, as this issue lends itself to
the AOP process.
Throughout the course of the review of the Operating Criteria,
Reclamation has encouraged public participation and developed a
thorough administrative record. Based on the results of the review and
the analysis of public comments, it has been decided not to modify the
Operating Criteria at this time.
Analysis of Issues
Issue #1
Application of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Background
The APA was signed into law in 1946 by President Truman. The
purposes of the Act are: (1) To require agencies to keep the public
informed on organization, procedures and rules, (2) to provide for
public participation in the rule making process, (3) to prescribe
uniform standards of conduct for rule making and adjudicatory
proceedings,
[[Page 9258]]
and (4) to restate the law of judicial review. The law primarily deals
with rule making. The definition in the law (5 U.S.C. 551(4)) of a rule
in part is as follows: ``. . . the whole or part of an agency statement
of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to
implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the
organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency . . . ''
Rule making has two parts, formal and informal.
Analysis and Response
The Coordinated Long-Range Operating Criteria is a document
generated from a requirement in the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project
Act. It describes how the Secretary of the Interior will meet some of
the commitments under the Act. The review of the Coordinated Long-Range
Operating Criteria is not a rule making exercise and is therefore not
subject to the formal rule making provisions of the APA.
Nevertheless, the Bureau of Reclamation has encouraged full public
participation in this process and has developed a thorough
administrative record of this review.
Issue #2
Surplus declarations are referenced in the 1964 Supreme Court
decree (Arizona v. California) and are a part of the 1970 Criteria for
Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs. The
decree apportions surpluses (50 percent to California, 46 percent to
Arizona, and 4 percent to Nevada), while the Operating Criteria define
surpluses as existing when there is sufficient storage in Lake Mead to
supply greater than 7.5 million acre-feet (MAF) for Lower Basin
consumptive uses. Guidelines for determining when surplus conditions
exist have never been formally adopted.
Background
In the past, Reclamation has performed computer modeling studies of
alternative surplus guidelines to determine the effects of various
levels of surplus use. Because the shortage risks of surplus use
(Arizona) fall on other than the benefactor (California), impacts and
differences in risks of future shortages and reservoir drawdown have
been keenly debated. All modeling strategies have as their foundation
the principle of reducing system spills by allowing greater use in the
Lower Basin, thus drawing down the reservoirs and thereby avoiding
flood control releases. This greater drawdown then allows the high
flows of flood years to be captured by the reservoir system. While the
amount of system spills is thus reduced, the degree of drawdown affects
the risk of shortages to users during possible future drought
conditions. Resolving the balance between risk of shortages and spills
is the heart of the surplus issue.
Until 1996, Lower Basin consumptive uses were less than their
allocation of 7.5 MAF, and California uses were met through unused
apportionments of Arizona and Nevada rather than surplus declarations.
However, with the implementation of the Arizona groundwater banking
program, total Lower Basin use now exceeds 7.5 MAF and water above this
amount can only be delivered through surplus declarations.
The 1996 Annual Operating Plan (AOP) committed to meet all
reasonable beneficial consumptive uses, and later in the year when the
annual Lower Division States' net diversions were projected to be
greater than 7.5 MAF, a surplus was declared. The 1997 AOP contains an
explicit determination of surplus, based on the current hydrologic
situation and a lack of impacts from this single decision. Taking into
account (1) the existing water storage conditions in the basin, (2) the
most probable near-term water supply conditions in the basin, and (3)
that the beneficial consumptive use requirements of Colorado River
mainstream users in the Lower Division states are expected to be more
than 7.5 MAF, the surplus condition is the criterion proposed to govern
the operation of Lake Mead for calendar year 1998. This determination
is based on flood control and spill avoidance considerations.
While these determinations have relied on an annual examination of
existing water storage conditions in the basin, the most probable near-
term water supply conditions in the basin, and the expected beneficial
consumptive use requirements of Colorado River mainstream users in the
Lower Division states, parties interested in the operation of the
Colorado River system reservoirs have not collectively agreed to
support any specific long-term strategy for declaring surplus and
shortage conditions. Specific, long term strategies have been
evaluated, each of which could provide potential benefits and affect
water supply reliability when compared to the existing mode of
operating the reservoir system. Drought periods in the basin can extend
for many years and with the large volume of reservoir storage, many
years could be required before negative impacts of surplus
determinations are observed. Much of the current debate is focused on
the risk of certain things happening in the future.
Analysis and Response
The comments received addressed three key topics relating to
surplus determinations: (1) The establishment of guidelines, (2) the
forum for establishing these guidelines, and (3) how surpluses will
affect the probability of spills from Lake Powell.
Establishment of Guidelines. The commentors all agreed that surplus
and shortage guidelines should be established, but varied in how firm
or detailed these guidelines should be. The most flexible approach
would be the annual determination of surplus/normal/shortage conditions
through the AOP process, deciding on the condition of the reservoir
system on a year-by-year basis. The most rigid approach would be the
revision of the Operating Criteria to include specific guidelines which
then would be applied each year to produce a determination.
Flexible guidelines have the advantage of being easily modified as
consumptive use demands and hydrologic conditions change throughout the
basin. For some parties, near-term surpluses could be more liberal than
when Upper Basin uses increase and the likelihood of surplus deliveries
are reduced. Flexible guidelines could be adopted without the more
formal process of incorporating guidelines into the Operating Criteria.
Modifying the Operating Criteria to include surplus guidelines
offers the advantage of clearly specifying under what conditions
surpluses would be declared. All interests would then understand
exactly what impacts could be expected under ranges of hydrologic
conditions. Contingency plans could be implemented to mitigate adverse
impacts and agreements could be formed to help meet consumptive use
demands during non-surplus periods.
Forum for Establishing Guidelines. Most commentors felt that the
AOP would be the most appropriate mechanism for preparing surplus/
shortage guidelines. The less formal nature of the AOP meetings was
viewed as positive for attempting to resolve this difficult issue.
However, the issue has been addressed for the last five years in the
AOP meetings, and no definite guidelines have been produced.
Probability of Spills from Lake Powell. The release of beach/
habitat building flows from Glen Canyon Dam was a contentious topic
during the completion of the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact
Statement. The 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act directed the
Secretary of the Interior to avoid anticipated spills while the 1992
Grand Canyon Protection Act directed the
[[Page 9259]]
Secretary to operate the dam to improve the environmental conditions in
the Grand Canyon. In 1995, an agreement was reached between interested
parties which attempts to meet the intent of both the 1968 and 1992
Acts by providing these high flows during high reservoir storage
conditions when required for dam safety purposes.
Surplus determinations which explicitly drop the level of Lake Mead
and through equalization drop the level of Lake Powell would likely
reduce the probability of these powerplant bypasses. Commentors
responded with concern for this possibility recommending that if
surpluses were declared, measures should be taken to keep the
probability of bypasses the same as at the present. The impacts of high
spring flows are currently believed to be very important and this
potential effect should be addressed as surplus guidelines are
developed.
The Bureau of Reclamation believes that surplus/shortage criteria
should (1) be specific guidelines that can be used to predict
measurable effects in the future, (2) be developed through the AOP
process, and (3) include a discussion of the potential effects on Lake
Powell spills along with possible mitigation measures.
Issue #3
Section 602(a)(3) of the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act
discusses the quantification of a reservoir storage volume in the Upper
Basin. This storage is intended to supplement the unregulated flow of
the Colorado River at Lees Ferry during drought periods as part of the
1922 Colorado River Compact deliveries to the Lower Basin. The intent
of this provision is to avoid impairment of Upper Basin consumptive
uses.
Background
The 1968 Act contains a provision providing that water not required
to be stored shall be released from Lake Powell: (i) To the extent it
can be reasonably applied in the States of the Lower Division to the
uses specified in article III(e) of the Colorado River Compact, but no
such releases shall be made when the active storage in Lake Powell is
less than the active storage in Lake Mead, (ii) to maintain, as nearly
as practicable, active storage in Lake Mead equal to the active storage
in Lake Powell, and (iii) to avoid anticipated spills from Lake Powell.
Through a combination of avoiding spills, equalizing storage between
Lakes Powell and Mead, and the 602(a) storage volume, Upper Basin water
was to be transferred to Lake Mead for use in the Lower Basin. When
Upper Basin storage falls below this 602(a) storage level, storage
equalization provisions of the 1968 Act are disregarded.
By statute, the 602(a) storage volume was to be quantified taking
into account historic stream flows, the most critical period of record,
and probabilities of water supply. Since the purpose of this storage is
to help provide Lower Basin deliveries, it is quantified as the
difference between depleted flow at Lees Ferry and the Lower Basin
delivery requirements over some period of drought. Upper Basin
depletion levels significantly affect the storage calculation. Using
the most critical period of natural flow, the 602(a) volume is
currently estimated to be about 10 million acre-feet, which includes
preservation of the 5.2 million acre-feet minimum power pool in Lake
Powell. In the future, when Upper Basin consumptive uses increase, it
has been assumed that Lake Powell could be completely drained to
provide Lower Basin deliveries.
Controversy exists regarding the probability attached to the
depleted flow assumptions with respect to both the rarity of the
critical flow period and the projected depletion increases in the Upper
Basin. These are the principle reasons that 602(a) storage has never
been formally determined and agreed to by the Basin States. However, in
the computer modeling of long-range operations of the reservoir system,
some estimate or procedure must be used to model this portion of the
applicable statutes. Currently, the Bureau of Reclamation uses the
observed critical 12-year period (1953-1964) as the basis for the
storage calculation. Reflecting the lack of a formal determination,
each year's Annual Operating Plan has contained language stating that
current reservoir storage in Upper Basin reservoirs exceeds the storage
required under Section 602 under any reasonable range of assumptions
which may be applied. The current Upper Basin depletion level is the
prime reason that this statement is true.
Analysis and Response
The relationship between the 602(a) volume and surplus/shortage
criteria has been raised in previous Annual Operating Plan discussions.
Some parties have argued that both less or more severe drought periods
should be used in the modeling, thus changing the Upper Basin risk of
shortages.
Formally specifying or changing the risks associated with the
602(a) storage level will likely require a legal opinion on the issue
of avoiding impairment of Upper Basin consumptive uses. Since these
uses presently do not significantly restrict Lower Basin surpluses and
require much less than full Lake Powell storage to meet Lower Basin
deliveries, this issue perhaps is not ripe for resolution. Reclamation
recommends delaying implementing guidelines or changing the current
602(a) modeling assumptions until current assumptions or practices
create unacceptable impacts.
Issue #4a
The Bureau of Reclamation should conduct an environmental analysis
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of any changes to
the Operating Criteria.
Background
Letters of comment to the Operating Criteria review expressed
concern over the long-term effects of the Operating Criteria on
downstream resources as it relates to cumulative effects and spill
frequency. Several letters indicated that the current Operating
Criteria do not give equal consideration to environmental and
recreational resources, and instead focus only on traditional water and
power uses. To incorporate consideration of all resources and impacts
of the Operating Criteria, the commentors recommended that the
Operating Criteria be evaluated through application of NEPA.
Analysis and Response
Reclamation regularly applies the NEPA process to activities
constituting a federal action, and agrees that compliance with NEPA
would be required for any proposed changes to the long-range Operating
Criteria that are discretionary Federal Actions (Chapter 2.1 of the
Reclamation NEPA Handbook). The appropriate level of NEPA compliance
after review of the Operating Criteria was determined to be a
Categorical Exclusion which has been executed.
NEPA regulations require that each agency promulgate agency-
specific guidelines to supplement the Council on Environmental
Quality's general regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508). These
classifications list those actions that: (1) Have a significant impact
on the environment (requiring preparation of an environmental impact
statement); (2) those which are categorically excluded from the EIS
process (for which a categorical exclusion (CE) is prepared); and (3)
those which fall in between (1) and (2) and will usually require the
preparation of an environmental assessment (EA). As a result of the
analysis contained in an EA, either an EIS or a Finding of No
Significant
[[Page 9260]]
Impact (FONSI) is prepared by the agency.
The key issue in whether NEPA documentation is needed regarding
this 5-year review is whether there is a federal action or federal
discretion associated with this review. If no federal action is being
proposed or taken by Reclamation, no NEPA documentation would be
required. No changes are being proposed as the result of this review.
However, because the decision to make no changes is a federal action,
Reclamation concludes that preparation of a NEPA compliance document is
appropriate. Reclamation executed a Categorical Exclusion pursuant to
Departmental Instructions 516 DM 2, appendix 1.7, which provides that a
CE may be prepared for routine and continuing government business,
including such things as supervision, administration, operations,
maintenance and replacement activities having limited context and
intensity; e.g. limited size and magnitude or short-term effects.
Issue #4b
The Operating Criteria should recognize the need to preserve and
recover endangered species dependent upon the quantity, quality, and
pattern of release.
Background
Construction and operation of water storage and delivery facilities
on the Colorado River and its tributaries are recognized as factors
contributing to the decline of certain fish and wildlife species which
have been listed as threatened or endangered by the Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service). Storing water during the spring runoff decreases the
natural spring flow, and releasing water later in the year for
consumptive use raises the base flow. These types of changes in the
hydrograph have removed spawning cues and affected water temperature,
clarity, the food base, and fluvial geomorphology. Physical alteration
from riverine to extensive reservoir environments has occurred causing
further change to habitat for these species and contributed to the
establishment of exotic species of fish, wildlife, and plants that
compete with listed species and their habitat. The control of natural
flood cycles and development of the floodplain for agriculture and
other purposes has significantly changed or eliminated original
habitats in and along extensive parts of the lower Colorado River. The
success of efforts to recover endangered species are often thought to
be dependant on restoring the natural hydrograph to the degree
possible. Commentors are concerned that if provisions for releases
designed to recover endangered species are not incorporated into the
Operating Criteria, changes to operations will not be implemented.
Analysis and Response
Reclamation is in various stages of consultation with the Service
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act on most mainstem
facilities. Conservation plans and recovery programs are also a large
part of Reclamation activities in operation of the Colorado River.
Operation of these facilities for endangered species would remain
consistent with the original intended purpose of the project in
accordance with the implementing regulations of the Endangered Species
Act. When a Section 7 consultation results in the Service providing
Reclamation with specific flow recommendations or other alternatives to
remove or prevent jeopardy to listed species or their critical habitat,
they are incorporated into Reclamation's operations, and if
appropriate, are included in the Annual Operating Plan of the
particular facility which was the subject of the consultation.
Operations remain consistent with the ``Law of the River,'' water
service contracts, and other legal obligations. Examples of facilities
where consultation has been completed resulting in a flow
recommendation are Flaming Gorge Dam on the Green River in Utah, Glen
Canyon Dam on the Colorado River in Arizona, and several features of
the Colorado River Front Work and Levee System Program on the last 270
miles of the Colorado River in the United States.
Reclamation and the Service recently completed formal Section 7
consultation on lower Colorado River operations and maintenance (Lake
Mead to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico), and are
engaged in ongoing consultation for Navajo Reservoir operations on the
San Juan River in Colorado, and Aspinall Unit operations on the
Gunnison River in Colorado. The Department of the Interior signed a
Memorandum of Agreement in August 1995 that was further described in a
Memorandum of Clarification and most recently a joint Participation
Agreement to develop a long-term (50 year) Lower Colorado River Multi-
Species Conservation Program (MSCP) from Lees Ferry to the Southerly
International Boundary with Mexico. The overall objective of the MSCP
is to develop a plan which would conserve and protect more than 100
listed and sensitive species within the Colorado River and its one
hundred-year flood plain, and to the extent consistent with law,
accommodate current and future water and power operations.
Reclamation continues to undertake and pursue efforts for
conservation and recovery of fish and wildlife and associated critical
habitat under specific project authorities such as Section 8 of the
Colorado River Storage Project Act and the Grand Canyon Protection Act.
In addition, Reclamation has significant ongoing conservation and
recovery efforts under the authority of Section 7(a)(1) of the
Endangered Species Act. For example, the Lake Mohave Native Fish
Rearing Program in the Lower Colorado River Basin continues to collect
and rear wild larval razorback and bonytail chubs for release back into
Lake Mohave to maintain the primary adult population and genetic pool
for these species. Voluntary refinements to river operations have also
been implemented when possible to benefit endangered species (i.e.,
management of reservoir levels in Lake Mohave for endangered fish). The
Upper Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program, with an annual
budget exceeding $7 million, and the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program are other examples.
Reclamation will continue to plan and implement initiatives for
protection of endangered species and associated critical habitat on a
project-specific basis as described, with the goal of integrating these
actions to the greatest degree possible to address ecosystem level
needs. Initiatives such as the Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program
and the MSCP will be considered and incorporated into future Annual
Operating Plans and Section 7 consultations, as appropriate.
Issue #4c
Funding for mitigation of negative impacts to fish and wildlife
resources should be provided.
Background
Modification of river flows due to the operation of projects
authorized by the Colorado River Storage Project Act has impacted fish,
wildlife, and their habitats through reduction or elimination of
overbank flooding, channelization, water depletions, and changes in
water quality. These projects produce revenue primarily through power
production. Commentors are concerned that sufficient funds be made
available for mitigation activities.
Analysis and Response
Reclamation, like all federal agencies, must have both
authorization and appropriations to undertake actions and
[[Page 9261]]
incur debt. In the Upper Colorado River Basin, Section 8 of the
Colorado River Storage Project Act authorizes and directs the Secretary
of the Interior to investigate, plan, construct, operate, and maintain
facilities to improve conditions for and mitigate losses of fish and
wildlife. Funds authorized by this section of the Act are
nonreimbursable and nonreturnable, and therefore must be appropriated
by Congress. Section 5(a) specifies that the Basin Fund will not be
applied to Section 8 (fish and wildlife mitigation). The Grand Canyon
Protection Act states that power revenues may be used for activities
designed to conserve the environment downstream from Glen Canyon Dam,
but does not exclude the use of other funding mechanisms.
Mitigation and enhancement activities are typically identified and
proposed on a project-by-project basis through project planning and
environmental compliance. Reclamation has programmed and expended funds
for fish and wildlife mitigation and enhancement for impacts associated
with previous activities where appropriate. Most often these activities
are identified in Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Reports and
National Environmental Policy Act documents. Reclamation will continue
to use this approach. Since no changes are being proposed, there is no
specific mitigation or enhancement necessary for this action.
Reclamation will continue to comply with NEPA and other appropriate
environmental laws in identifying, planning, and carrying out
mitigation and enhancement activities.
Issue #5
Is there a need to change the Operating Criteria.
Background
The Operating Criteria are to accomplish the objectives of Section
602(a) of the Colorado River Basin Project Act. Modification of the
Operating Criteria can be done by the Secretary of the Interior ``* * *
as a result of actual operating experiences or unforeseen circumstances
* * * to better achieve the purposes specified in (Section 602(a) of
the Colorado River Basin Project Act).''
Some commentors stated that they believe ``* * * there are no
conditions resulting from actual operating experiences or unforeseen
circumstances, since the last review, that justify the need to modify
the existing Criteria,'' and that the reservoirs have been operating
satisfactorily under the present Operating Criteria. These comments
support not changing the criteria at this time.
Others stated that we are entering a new era and that the Operating
Criteria should be changed to reflect different circumstances and
concerns. The Lower Basin States have reached their annual
apportionment of 7.5 million acre-feet for consumptive use.
Environmental and recreational issues have increased in value in the
eyes of the public. There were also those who stated that the Operating
Criteria need to be changed to include specific guidelines that allow
the Secretary of the Interior to make surplus, shortage, and normal
determinations. These comments all support a need for change.
Analysis and Response
The Operating Criteria provide guidelines for the operation of
Upper Basin Reservoirs and Lake Mead. Specific operational needs are
not detailed in the Operating Criteria. The specific needs have, in the
past, been addressed in the Annual Operating Plan development process.
The Operating Criteria may be modified from time to time as a
result of actual operating experiences or unforeseen circumstances. A
significant amount of operating experience has been gained over the 27-
year period since the Operating Criteria were issued. Furthermore,
Reclamation has developed and used analytical tools which allow
operations of the Colorado River system reservoirs to be projected into
the future with the inclusion of alternative operating strategies.
With the above in mind, the evaluation of operational experiences
over the next several years will determine whether or not to change the
Operating Criteria. But in the interim, the recommendation is not to
change the Operating Criteria.
Issue #6
Water marketing and banking.
Background
Several years ago the Bureau of Reclamation advanced draft
regulations for administering Colorado River water entitlements in the
Lower Basin States of Arizona, California, and Nevada. The draft
regulations contained provisions for water banking and water marketing
in the Lower Basin. Because there was not consensus with the states
regarding the draft regulations, they have been held in abeyance while
the three states attempt to reach some agreement on numerous issues,
including water marketing and banking. This negotiation process among
the states is continuing. Many people believe that some form of water
banking and marketing will be essential to meeting future water needs
in the Lower Colorado River Basin.
Analysis and Response
Reclamation initiated a rule making process focused on water
banking in groundwater aquifers or off-mainstem storage reservoirs in
the Lower Basin. Reclamation published the draft administrative rule on
Offstream Storage of Colorado River Water in the Federal Register on
December 31, 1997. In addition, the Environmental Assessment was
released in the same timeframe. Both documents are out for review and
comment until March 2, 1998. This administrative rule is considered a
responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior under the Boulder
Canyon Project Act, and focuses only on the three Lower Basin States.
Reclamation believes that the limited water marketing and banking
currently under consideration would not require a change to the current
Operating Criteria.
Final Decision
The Department considered issues arising from the review of the
Operating Criteria. After a careful review of the issues, solicitation
of involved parties' responses to Reclamation's analysis, and
consultation with the Governors' representatives of the seven Basin
States, the Department has decided not to modify the Operating Criteria
at this time.
Dated: February 18, 1998.
Bruce Babbitt,
Secretary, Department of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 98-4570 Filed 2-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-94-P
