Review of Existing Coordinated Long-Range Operating Criteria for Colorado River Reservoirs (Operating Criteria)

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: Reissue of Notice of Proposed Decision Regarding the Operating

Criteria

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this action is to provide public notice that

the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) proposes no change to the

existing Operating Criteria as a result of the current review process.

The current 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.

The original Federal Register notice was published on August 27,

1997 (62 FR 45440). Due to requests from interested parties and

agencies, the comment period has been extended by the Bureau of

Reclamation.

DATES: All written comments relevant to this proposed decision must be

received by close of business, October 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should send comments or questions to

Bruce Moore, Bureau of Reclamation, 125 South State Street, Room 6107,

Salt Lake City, Utah 84138-1102, telephone (801) 524-3702, or 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

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 were revised to reflect any

information resulting from the two meetings. That information was then

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 the next public consultation meeting 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,

any proposed federal action will be evaluated by Reclamation to

determine the appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

compliance. After that process has been completed, the final

Secretarial decision will be published in the Federal Register.

Background

The Operating Criteria, promulgated pursuant to Section 602 of

Public Law 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. 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 appropriate level of

[[Page 52355]]

NEPA compliance for the review of the Operating Criteria will be

determined by Reclamation. At this time, Reclamation recommends

preparation of a NEPA categorical exclusion document for this review.

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 recommendations such as 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 would 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 is proposed that the Operating

Criteria not be modified 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, and (4) to restate the law of judicial review. The law

primarily deals with rule making. The definition in the law 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 rulemaking exercise and is therefore not

subject to the rulemaking provisions of the APA.

Nevertheless, the Bureau of Reclamation is encouraging 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 Basin use was 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. As a result of 1997 system flood control

operations and hydrologic conditions, the 1998 AOP will almost

certainly contain an explicit surplus determination.

However, these determinations have relied solely on an annual

examination of reservoir conditions in the Colorado River Basin rather

than specific, long-term strategies which examine the potential for

problems in the future. 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 comments 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

[[Page 52356]]

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 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 intents 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 several provisions which can be viewed as

accomplishing the intent of the Article III (e) provision of the

Colorado River Compact, that of the Upper Basin not withholding water

that the Lower Basin requires for consumptive use demands. 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

[[Page 52357]]

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 3.1 of the

NEPA Handbook). The appropriate level of NEPA compliance will be

determined by Reclamation for this review of the Operating Criteria.

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 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. While no changes are being proposed as the result of this

review, Reclamation is making a decision in proposing no change.

Because of this, Reclamation concludes that preparation of a NEPA

compliance document is appropriate. Reclamation recommends that a

Categorical Exclusion be prepared 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, effected 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 resulted in the

establishment of exotic species of fish, wildlife, and plants that

directly 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 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 greatest 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 Mohave for endangered fish). The

Upper Colorado River Recovery Implementation

[[Page 52358]]

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. Where appropriate, 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 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].''

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.

With the issues of surplus and flood control in our current operations

and possibly emerging over the next several years, the operational

experiences needed to determine if changes to the Operating Criteria

are necessary will be acquired. Under the present Operating Criteria,

surpluses have been declared for use in the United States as well as in

Mexico.

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 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 under the Boulder

Canyon Project Act, and focuses only on the three Lower Basin States.

Reclamation continues to work with the states and to encourage them to

cooperatively develop a proposal for water marketing and banking in the

Lower Basin.

Reclamation believes that the limited water marketing and banking

currently under consideration would not require a change to the current

Operating Criteria.

Proposed Decision

The Department has considered issues arising from the review of the

Operating

[[Page 52359]]

Criteria. After a careful review of the issues, solicitation of

involved party's responses to Reclamation's analysis, and consultation

with the Governor's representatives of the seven Basin States, the

Department proposes no modifications to the Operating Criteria at this

time.

Dated: October 1, 1997.

Stephen V. Magnussen,

Acting Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation.

[FR Doc. 97-26500 Filed 10-6-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-94-P