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: 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