Navajo Nation v. Department of the Interior, et al

Filing

FILED OPINION (RONALD M. GOULD, MARSHA S. BERZON and MARVIN J. GARBIS) AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. Judge: MSB Authoring FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [10675851]

Download PDF
Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 De v. mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 2 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS S.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.........................................................................1 S.1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 S.1.2 PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION ........................................................................ 4 S.1.3 S.1.3.1 S.1.3.2 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 4 Long-Range Operating Criteria ................................................................ 5 Annual Operating Plan .............................................................................6 S.1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION................................................................ 7 S.1.5 RELATIONSHIP TO UNITED STATES–MEXICO WATER TREATY ........... 8 S.1.6 RELATED AND ONGOING ACTIONS.............................................................. 8 S.1.6.1 California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan ........................................... 8 S.1.6.1.1 Imperial Irrigation District/San Diego County Water Authority Water Transfer.......................................................................................... 9 S.1.6.1.2 All-American and Coachella Canal Lining Projects .............................. 10 S.1.6.2 Glen Canyon Dam Operations................................................................10 ior Inter 17 S.1.6.2.1 Adaptive Management Program............................................................. 11 the t. of r 29, 20 pand Beach/Habitat-Maintenance S.1.6.2.2 Beach/Habitat-Building Flows . De be Flows ...................................................................................................... 11 ion v Novem at on ajo N S.1.6.2.3 Temperature Control at Glen Canyon Dam............................................ 12 NavRelated hivedBiological and Conference Opinion on in arc to the S.1.6.3 cited Actions64, 8Colorado River Operations and Maintenance ............................. 12 Lower -16 o. 14 N S.1.6.4 Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program ............... 13 S.1.6.5 Secretarial Implementation Agreement Related to California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan ............................................................. 13 S.1.6.6 Offstream Storage of Colorado River Water and Development and Release of Intentionally Created Unused Apportionment in the Lower Division States ............................................................................ 14 S.2 ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................................. 14 S.2.1 S.2.1.1 S.2.1.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................... 14 Origins of California, Six States and Basin States Alternatives............. 14 Utilization of Proposals from Basin States............................................. 15 S.2.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES............................................................... 16 S.2.2.1 No Action Alternative and Baseline Conditions ....................................16 S.2.2.1.1 Approach to Surplus Water Determination ............................................ 16 S.2.2.1.2 70R Baseline Surplus Triggers ............................................................... 16 S.2.2.2 Basin States Alternative (Preferred Alternative) ....................................17 S.2.2.2.1 Approach to Surplus Water Determination ............................................ 17 S.2.2.2.2 Basin States Alternative Surplus Triggers..............................................18 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 3 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS S.2.2.3 S.2.2.3.1 S.2.2.3.2 S.2.2.4 S.2.2.4.1 S.2.2.4.2 S.2.2.5 S.2.2.5.1 S.2.2.5.2 S.2.2.6 S.2.2.6.1 S.2.2.6.2 Flood Control Alternative....................................................................... 18 Approach to Surplus Water Determination ............................................ 18 Flood Control Alternative Surplus Triggers........................................... 18 Six States Alternative ............................................................................. 18 Approach to Surplus Water Determination ............................................ 18 Six States Alternative Surplus Triggers.................................................. 19 California Alternative .............................................................................19 Approach to Surplus Water Determination ............................................ 19 California Alternative Surplus Triggers ................................................. 19 Shortage Protection Alternative.............................................................. 20 Approach to Surplus Water Determination ............................................ 20 Shortage Protection Alternative Surplus Triggers.................................. 20 S.3 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .............................................20 S.3.1 USE OF MODELING TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL FUTURE COLORADO RIVER System Conditions.................................................................................. 20 S.3.2 BASELINE CONDITIONS................................................................................. 20 S.3.3 IMPACT DETERMINATION APPROACH ......................................................21 erior S.3.4 S.3.5 S.3.6 e Int Dep mber 2 POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AREA ................................................................. 21 n v. e Natio d on Nov ajoSURPLUS ALTERNATIVES TO BASELINE COMPARISONvOF Na hive d in .....................................................................................................22 , arc CONDITIONS 64 cite 168 Effects on Reservoir Surface Elevations and River Flows.....................22 14No. Summary of Environmental Impacts...................................................... 24 17 th PERIOD OF ANALYSIS ....................................................................................21 t. of 9, 20 S.3.6.1 S.3.6.2 S.3.6.3 S.3.6.3.1 S.3.6.3.2 S.3.6.3.3 S.3.6.3.4 S.3.6.3.5 S.3.6.3.6 S.3.6.3.7 Environmental Commitments.................................................................24 Water Quality ......................................................................................... 25 Riverflow Issues .....................................................................................25 Aquatic Resources ..................................................................................25 Special-Status Species ............................................................................26 Recreation............................................................................................... 26 Cultural Resources..................................................................................26 Transboundary Impacts ..........................................................................26 S.4 OTHER NEPA CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................ 27 S.4.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS................................................................................. 27 S.4.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND Long-Term Productivity......................................................................... 28 S.4.3 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ...................................................................................................... 28 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS ii Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 4 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS S.5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION....................................................................29 S.5.1 S.5.1.1 S.5.1.2 GENERAL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES....................................... 29 Project Scoping....................................................................................... 29 Public Review of DEIS .......................................................................... 30 S.5.2 S.5.2.1 S.5.2.2 FEDERAL AGENCY COORDINATION .......................................................... 31 National Park Service ............................................................................. 31 U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission............................................................................................ 31 U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs................................................................. 31 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Including Endangered Species Act Compliance............................................................................................. 31 National Marine Fisheries Service ......................................................... 33 National Historic Preservation Act Compliance ....................................33 S.5.2.3 S.5.2.4 S.5.2.5 S.5.2.6 S.5.3 TRIBAL CONSULTATION ...............................................................................34 S.5.4 STATE AND LOCAL WATER AND POWER AGENCIES COORDINATION ............................................................................................... 34 S.5.5 NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS COORDINATION .................35 S.5.6 S.5.7 S.5.8 erior t. of r 29, 20 SUMMARY OF COORDINATION ep CONTACTS .............................................36 v. D mbe ation on Nove FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES .......................................................................36 jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. nt MEXICO CONSULTATION .............................................................................. 36 17 the I COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS iii Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 5 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT S.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND S.1.1 INTRODUCTION The Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior (Secretary), acting through the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), is considering the adoption of specific interim criteria under which surplus water conditions may be declared in the lower Colorado River Basin (see Map S-1) during a 15-year period that would extend through 2016. The Secretary is vested with the responsibility of managing the mainstream waters of the lower Colorado River pursuant to applicable federal law. This responsibility is carried out consistent with a collection of documents known as the Law of the River, ior which includes a combination of federal and state statutes, interstate compacts, court Inter 17 decisions and decrees, an international treaty, contracts of the Secretary, operating with the 20 ept. ber 29, criteria, regulations and administrative decisions. v. D m n e Natio d on Nov ajo management objectives are to: The long-term Colorado River systemhive Nav d in 64, arc cite 8 • Minimize 14-16 . flood damages from river flows; No • Release water only in accordance with the 1964 Decree in Arizona v. California (Decree); • Protect and enhance the environmental resources of the basin; • Provide reliable delivery of water for beneficial consumptive use; • Increase flexibility of water deliveries under a complex allocation system; • Encourage efficient use of renewable water supplies; • Minimize curtailment to users who depend on such supplies; and • Consider power generation needs. As the agency that is designated to act on the Secretary’s behalf with respect to these matters, Reclamation is the Lead Federal Agency for the purposes of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) compliance for the development and implementation of the proposed interim surplus criteria. The National Park Service (NPS) and the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 6 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Commission (USIBWC) are cooperating agencies for purposes of assisting with the environmental analysis. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 7 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Map S-1 Colorado River Drainage Basin ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 8 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), of which this document is a summary, has been prepared pursuant to NEPA, as amended, and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500 through 1508). The FEIS has been prepared to address the formulation and evaluation of specific interim surplus criteria and to identify the potential environmental effects of implementing such criteria. The FEIS addresses the environmental issues associated with, and analyzes the environmental consequences of, various alternatives for specific interim surplus criteria. The alternatives addressed in the FEIS are those Reclamation has determined would meet the purpose and need for the federal action and represent a broad range of the most reasonable alternatives. In addition to this Summary, the FEIS contains three separate volumes. Volume I describes the proposed action, the alternatives considered, the analysis of potential effects of interim surplus criteria on Colorado River operation and associated resources, and environmental commitments associated with the action alternatives. Volume II contains attachments that are comprised of documents and other supporting material that provide detailed historical background and/or technical information concerning this proposed action. Volume III contains reproductions of comment letters from the public resulting from the public review of the Draft Environmental Impacterior t Statement (DEIS) he In 2017 and Reclamation’s responses to the comments received.of t , 9 pt. . De ember 2 nv S.1.2 PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION atio Nov ajo N ived on Nav The proposed federal action is 4, arch d in 6 the adoption of specific interim surplus criteria pursuant cite the 68 to Article III(3)(b) of 4-1Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of the 1 Colorado River Reservoirs Pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Project Act of No. September 30, 1968 (Long-Range Operating Criteria [LROC]). The interim surplus criteria would be used annually to determine the conditions under which the Secretary may declare the availability of surplus water for use within the states of Arizona, California and Nevada. The criteria must be consistent with both the Decree entered by the United States Supreme Court in 1964 in the case of Arizona v. California and the LROC. The interim surplus criteria would remain in effect for determinations made through calendar year 2015 regarding the availability of surplus water through calendar year 2016, subject to five-year reviews conducted concurrently with LROC reviews, and would be applied each year as part of the Annual Operating Plan (AOP). S.1.3 BACKGROUND Pursuant to Article II(B)2 of the Decree, if there exists sufficient water available in a single year for pumping or release from Lake Mead to satisfy annual consumptive use in the states of California, Nevada and Arizona in excess of 7.5 million acre-feet (maf), such water may be determined by the Secretary to be available as surplus water. The Secretary is authorized to determine the conditions upon which such water may be made available. The Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (CRBPA) directs the COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 9 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Secretary to adopt criteria for coordinated long-range operation of reservoirs on the Colorado River in order to comply with and carry out the provisions of the Colorado River Compact of 1922 (Compact), the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (CRSPA), the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 (BCPA) and the United States-Mexico Water Treaty of 1944 (Treaty). These criteria are the LROC, discussed further below. The Secretary sponsors a formal review of the LROC every five years. The LROC provide that the Secretary will determine the extent to which the reasonable consumptive use requirements of mainstream users in Arizona, California and Nevada (the Lower Division states) can be met. The LROC define a normal year as a year in which annual pumping and release from Lake Mead will be sufficient to satisfy 7.5 maf of consumptive use in accordance with the Decree. A surplus year is defined as a year in which water in quantities greater than normal (i.e., greater than 7.5 maf) is available for pumping or release from Lake Mead pursuant to Article II(B)2 of the Decree after consideration of relevant factors, including the factors listed in the LROC. Surplus water is available to agencies which have contracted with the Secretary for delivery of surplus water, for use when their water demand exceeds their basic entitlement, and when the excess demand cannot be met within the basic apportionment of their state. Water apportioned to, but unused by one or more Lower Division states can be used to satisfy beneficial consumptive use requests of mainstream users in other Lower r Division states as provided in Article II(B)(6) of the Decree. Interio e 2017 of th pt.Secretary,29,an annual basis, to Pursuant to the CRBPA, the LROC are utilized De . by the ber on ion v Novem make determinations with respect to the projected plan of operations of the storage Nat va o h The on reservoirs in the Colorado RiverjBasin. ivedAOP is prepared by Reclamation, acting on in Na rc behalf of the Secretary, in consultation with representatives of the Colorado River Basin ited 6864, a c states (Basin States)14-1 and other parties, as required by federal law. The interim surplus No. to implement the provisions of Article III(3)(b) of the LROC on an criteria would serve annual basis in the determinations made by the Secretary as part of the AOP process. S.1.3.1 LONG-RANGE OPERATING CRITERIA The CRBPA required the Secretary to adopt operating criteria for the Colorado River by January 1, 1970. The LROC, adopted in 1970, control the operation of the Colorado River reservoirs in compliance with requirements set forth in the Compact, the CRSPA, the BCPA, the Treaty and other applicable federal laws. Under the LROC, the Secretary makes annual determinations in the AOP (discussed in the following section) regarding the availability of Colorado River water for deliveries to the Lower Division states (Arizona, California and Nevada). A requirement to equalize the active storage between Lake Powell and Lake Mead when there is sufficient storage in the Upper Basin is also included in Section 602(a) of the LROC, as required by the CRBPA. Section 602 of the CRBPA, as amended, provides that the LROC can only be modified after correspondence with the governors of the seven Basin States and appropriate consultation with such state representatives as each governor may designate. The LROC call for formal reviews at least every five years. The reviews are conducted as a COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 10 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY public involvement process and are attended by representatives of federal agencies, the seven Basin States, Indian Tribes, the general public including representatives of the academic and scientific communities, environmental organizations, the recreation industry and contractors for the purchase of federal power produced at Glen Canyon Dam. Past reviews have not resulted in any changes to the criteria. S.1.3.2 ANNUAL OPERATING PLAN The CRBPA requires preparation of an AOP for the Colorado River reservoirs that guides the operation of the system for the water year. The AOP describes how Reclamation will manage the reservoirs over a 12-month period, consistent with the LROC and the Decree. The AOP is prepared annually by Reclamation in cooperation with the Basin States, other federal agencies, Indian Tribes, state and local agencies and the general public, including governmental interests as required by federal law. As part of the AOP process, the Secretary makes annual determinations regarding the availability of Colorado River water for deliveries to the Lower Division states as described below. The Secretary is required to determine when normal, surplus or shortage conditions occur in the lower Colorado River, based on various factors including storage and hydrologic conditions in the Colorado River Basin. ior Inter mainstream water Normal conditions exist when the Secretary determines thathe sufficient 017 of t p use e 29, 2 is available to satisfy 7.5 maf of annual consumptive t. in therLower Division states. . De b If a state will not use all of its apportionedn v for ovem the Secretary may allow io water N the year, at jo N ed on other states of the Lower Division to usevthe unused apportionment, provided that the Navawithrchiconsuming entity. use is covered under ain contract a the cited 16864, 14Surplus conditions exist when the Secretary determines that sufficient mainstream water No. is available for release to satisfy consumptive use in the Lower Division states in excess of 7.5 maf annually. This excess consumptive use is surplus and is distributed for use in California, Arizona and Nevada in allocations of 50, 46 and 4 percent, respectively. As stated above, if a state will not use all of its apportioned water for the year, the Secretary may allow other states of the Lower Division to use the unused apportionment, provided that the use is covered under a contract with the consuming entity. Surplus water under the Decree, for use in the Lower Division states, was made available by the Secretary in calendar years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000. Deliveries of surplus water to Mexico in accordance with the Treaty were made in calendar years 1983-1988, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000. Shortage conditions exist when the Secretary determines that insufficient mainstream water is available to satisfy 7.5 maf of annual consumptive use in the Lower Division states. When making a shortage determination, the Secretary must consult with various parties, as set forth in the Decree and consider all relevant factors as specified in the LROC (described above), including Treaty obligations, the priorities set forth in the Decree and the reasonable consumptive use requirements of mainstream water users in COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 6 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 11 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY the Lower Division. The Secretary is required to first provide for the satisfaction of the presented perfected rights (PPRs) in the order of their priority, then to users who held contracts on September 30, 1968 (up to 4.4 maf in California) and finally to users who had contracted on September 30, 1968, when the CAP was authorized. To date, a shortage has never been determined. S.1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION To date, the Secretary has applied factors, including but not limited to those found in Article III(3)(b)(i-iv) of the LROC, in annual determinations of the availability of surplus quantities of water for pumping or release from Lake Mead. As a result of actual operating experience and through preparation of AOPs, particularly during recent years when there has been increasing demand for surplus water, the Secretary has determined that there is a need for more specific surplus criteria, consistent with the Decree and applicable federal law, to assist in the Secretary’s annual decision making during an interim period. For many years, California has been diverting more than its normal 4.4 maf apportionment. Prior to 1996, California utilized unused apportionments of other Lower Division states that were made available by the Secretary. Since 1996, California has also utilized surplus water made available by Secretarial determination. ior Inter 17 of California is in the process of developing the means to reducee annual use f th its 20 pt. o full use 9, its apportionment Colorado River water to 4.4 maf. Arizona is approaching ber 2 of v. De v 2000. and Nevada was expected to reach itsation apportionment inem No jo N d on Navaofarchiveinterim surplus criteria, the Secretary will be n Additionally, through iadoption , specific cited 16864of Colorado River water, particularly those in able to afford mainstream users 14California who currently utilize surplus flows, a greater degree of predictability with No. respect to the likely existence, or lack thereof, of surplus conditions on the river in a given year. Adoption of the interim surplus criteria is intended to recognize California’s plan to reduce reliance on surplus deliveries, to assist California in moving toward its allocated share of Colorado River water and to avoid hindering such efforts. Implementation of interim surplus criteria would take into account progress, or lack thereof, in California’s efforts to achieve these objectives. The surplus criteria would be used to identify the specific amount of surplus water which may be made available in a given year, based upon factors such as the elevation of Lake Mead, during a period within which demand for surplus Colorado River water will be reduced. The increased level of predictability with respect to the prospective existence and quantity of surplus water would assist in planning and operations by all entities that receive surplus Colorado River water pursuant to contracts with the Secretary. S.1.5 RELATIONSHIP TO UNITED STATES–MEXICO WATER TREATY Under Article 10(a) of the Treaty, the United Mexican States (Mexico) is entitled to an annual amount of 1.5 maf of Colorado River water. Under Article 10(b) of the Treaty, Mexico may schedule up to an additional 0.2 maf when “there exists a surplus of waters COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 7 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 12 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of the Colorado River in excess of the amount necessary to satisfy uses in the United States.” This is in addition to surplus determinations for the Lower Division states made pursuant to Article II(2)(b) of the Decree and Article III(3)(B) of the LROC. The proposed action is not intended to identify, or change in any manner, conditions when Mexico may schedule this additional 0.2 maf. Under current practice, surplus declarations under the Treaty for Mexico are declared when flood control releases are made. Reclamation is currently engaged in discussions with Mexico through the IBWC on the effects of the proposed action. S.1.6 RELATED AND ON-GOING ACTIONS A number of ongoing and new actions proposed by Reclamation and other entities are related to the development of interim surplus criteria and the analysis contained in the FEIS. This section describes these actions and their relationship to the development of interim surplus criteria. The following actions have been described in environmental documents, consultation packages under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or as project planning documents. Where appropriate, the FEIS incorporates by reference information contained in these documents. The documents described below are available for public inspection upon request at Reclamation offices in Boulder City, Nevada; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Phoenix and Yuma, Arizona. ior Inter 17 S.1.6.1 CALIFORNIA’S COLORADO RIVER WATER USEthLAN 0 f Pe pt. o er 29, 2 e .D mb California’s Colorado River Water Usetion v a Plan (CA Plan),ewhich was formerly known as Nov the California 4.4 Plan or thevajo N callsd on 4.4 Plan, e for conservation measures to be put in place i in Nadependencyvon surplus Colorado River water. Surplus that will reduce California’s 4, arch ited 686 c water is required to meet California’s current needs until implementation of the -1 o. 14 can take place. During the period ending in 2016, the State of conservation measures N California has indicated that it intends to reduce its reliance on Colorado River water to meet its water needs above and beyond its 4.4-maf apportionment. It is important for the long-term administration of the system to bring the Lower Basin uses into accordance with the Lower Basin normal apportionment. In order to achieve its goals, California has expressed a need to rely in some measure on the existence of surplus Colorado River water through 2016. These interim surplus criteria could aid California and its primary Colorado River water users as California reduces its consumptive use to 4.4 maf while ensuring that the other Basin States will not be placed at undue risk of future shortages. The CA Plan contains numerous water conservation projects, intrastate water exchanges and groundwater storage programs. The CA Plan is related to the implementation of the interim surplus criteria in the ways discussed below. First, implementation of the CA Plan is necessary to ensure the Colorado River system can meet the normal year deliveries in the Lower Basin over the long term. Failure of California to comply with the CA Plan places at risk the objective of providing reliable delivery of water for beneficial consumptive use to Lower Basin users. Therefore, the COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 8 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 13 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Secretary may condition the continuation of interim surplus criteria for the entire period through 2016 on a showing of satisfactory progress in implementing the CA Plan. Regardless of which alternative is ultimately selected, failure of California to carry out the CA Plan may result in termination or suspended application of the proposed interim surplus criteria. In that event, the Secretary would fashion appropriate surplus criteria for the remaining period through 2016. Second, from the perspective of the State of California, because of the linkage between various elements of the CA Plan and the quantities of water involved, a reliable supply of interim surplus water from the Colorado River is an indispensable pre-condition to successful implementation of the CA Plan. From the standpoint of environmental documentation and compliance, the CA Plan and its various elements have been, or will be, addressed under separate federal and/or state environmental reporting procedures. S.1.6.1.1 Imperial Irrigation District/San Diego County Water Authority Water Transfer The Imperial Irrigation District (IID)/San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) water transfer is one of the intrastate exchanges that is a part of the erior CA Plan. SDCWA Int water 7 the IID. has negotiated an agreement for the long-term transfer of fconserved 01 from the pt. o water 2 Under the proposed contract, IID customers would undertakeer 29,conservation efforts . De emb to reduce their use of Colorado River ation v water. Water conserved through these efforts Nov would be transferred to SDCWA. The agreement sets the primary transfer quantity at a ajo N ived on Nav maximum of 200tkaf/year. After arleast 10 years of primary transfers, an additional d in 64, at ch ci e 168 discretionary component not to exceed 100 kaf/year may be transferred to SDCWA, the 14Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) or Coachella Valley Water No. District (CVWD) in connection with the settlement of water rights disputes between IID and these agencies. The initial transfer target date is 2002, or whenever the conditions necessary for the agreement to be finalized are satisfied or waived, whichever is later. This transfer is being addressed in an ongoing Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and involves the change in point of delivery of up to 300 kaf/year from Imperial Dam to Parker Dam. S.1.6.1.2 All-American and Coachella Canal Lining Projects Two other components of the CA Plan having effects on the river are the All-American and Coachella Canal Lining Projects (the Coachella Canal is a branch of the AllAmerican Canal). These two similar actions involve the concrete lining of unlined portions of the canals to conserve water presently being lost as seepage from the earthen reaches. Together the projects involve a change in point of delivery of 93.7 kaf/year from Imperial Dam for Parker Dam, 67.7 kaf/year for the All-American Canal and 26 kaf/year for the Coachella Canal. The effects of this change in point of delivery are being addressed in the Secretarial Implementation Agreement Environmental Assessment (EA) and Biological Assessment (BA). The Record of Decision (ROD) for COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 9 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 14 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY the All-American Canal Lining Project was approved on July 29, 1994. Construction is expected to begin in 2001. A draft EIS/EIR for the Coachella Canal Lining Project was released on September 22, 2000 for public review. S.1.6.2 GLEN CANYON DAM OPERATIONS Glen Canyon Dam is operated consistent with the CRSPA and the LROC, which were promulgated in compliance with Section 602 of the CRBPA. Glen Canyon Dam is also operated consistent with the 1996 ROD on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam FEIS developed as directed under the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992. The minimum release from Lake Powell, as specified in the LROC, is 8.23 maf per year. The LROC require that, when Upper Basin storage is greater than the storage required under Section 602(a) of the CRBPA, releases from Lake Powell will periodically be governed by the objective to maintain, as nearly as practicable, active storage in Lake Mead equal to the active storage in Lake Powell. Because of this equalization provision in the LROC, changes in operations at Lake Mead will, in some years, result in changes in annual release volumes from Lake Powell. It is through this mechanism that delivery of surplus water from Lake Mead can influence the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. Equalization is not required when there exists insufficient r storage in the Upper Basin, per Section 602(a) of the CRBPA. terio 7 he In . of t as29, 201 to In acknowledgement that the operation of Glen Dept Dam, r authorized, Canyon . mbe maximize power production was havingion v at a negative impact on downstream resources, Nove the Secretary determined inavajo N that an on should be prepared. The Operation July 1989 ed EIS in N 4, archivanalyzed alternative operation scenarios that of Glen Canyon Dam EIS developed and cited 1686 met statutory responsibilities for protecting downstream resources and achieving other 14authorized purposes, while protecting Native American interests. A final EIS was No. completed in March 1995 and the Secretary signed a ROD on October 8, 1996. Reclamation also consulted with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under the ESA and incorporated the Service’s recommendations into the ROD. The ROD describes criteria and plans for dam operations and includes other measures to ensure Glen Canyon Dam is operated in a manner consistent with the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992. Among these are an Adaptive Management Program, periodic releases for beach/habitat-building flows (BHBFs), beach/habitat-maintenance flows and further study of temperature control. The ROD is based on the EIS, which contains descriptions and analyses of aquatic and riparian habitats below Glen Canyon Dam, effects of Glen Canyon Dam release patterns on the local ecology, cultural resources, sedimentation processes associated with the maintenance of backwaters and sediment deposits along the river, Native American interests, and relationships between release patterns and the value of hydroelectric energy produced. Analyses of effects on other resources within the affected area are also included. Additional information concerning the operation of Glen Canyon Dam is contained in Section 3.3. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 10 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 15 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S.1.6.2.1 Adaptive Management Program The Adaptive Management Program provides a process for assessing the effects of current operations of Glen Canyon Dam on downstream resources and using the results to develop recommendations for modifying operating criteria and other resource management actions. This is accomplished through the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG), a federal Advisory Committee. The AMWG consists of stakeholders that are federal and state resource management agencies, representatives of the seven Basin States, Indian Tribes, hydroelectric power marketers, environmental and conservation organizations and recreational and other interest groups. The duties of the AMWG are in an advisory capacity only. Coupled with this advisory role are long-term monitoring and research activities that provide a continual record of resource conditions and new information to evaluate the effectiveness of the operational modifications. S.1.6.2.2 Beach/Habitat-Building Flows and Beach/Habitat-Maintenance Flows BHBF releases are scheduled high releases of short duration that are in excess of power plant capacity required for dam safety purposes and are made according to certain specific criteria. These BHBFs are designed to rebuild high elevation sandbars, deposit nutrients, restore backwater channels and provide some of the dynamicsrof a natural terio system. The first test of a BHBF was conducted in spring of 1996. 2017 he In of t 9, pt. . De ateor near power plant capacity, ber 2 Beach/habitat-maintenance flow releaseson v are releases m Nati beachn Nov conditions for recreation which are intended to maintainajo v favorable ed o and habitat iv in NaprotectrTribal interests. Beach/habitat-maintenance flow and fish and wildlife, and to 4, a ch ited 686 releases can bec made 4-1 in years when no BHBF releases are made. o. 1 N Both beach/habitat-building and beach/habitat-maintenance flows, along with the testing and evaluation of other types of releases under the AMP, were recommended by the Service to verify a program of flows that would improve habitat conditions for endangered fish. The proposed interim surplus criteria could affect the range of storage conditions in Lake Powell and alter the flexibility to schedule and conduct such releases or to test other flow patterns. The magnitude of this reduction in flexibility has been evaluated in the FEIS for each interim surplus alternative. S.1.6.2.3 Temperature Control at Glen Canyon Dam In 1994, the Service issued a Biological Opinion on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam (BO). One of the elements of the reasonable and prudent alternative in the BO, also a common element in the Glen Canyon Dam EIS, was the evaluation of methods to control release temperatures and, if viable, implement controls. Reclamation agreed with this recommendation and included it in the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement and subsequent ROD. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 11 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 16 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Reclamation has issued a draft planning report and EA entitled Glen Canyon Dam Modifications to Controls and Downstream Temperatures (Reclamation, 1999). Based on comments to this draft EA, Reclamation is currently in the process of preparing a new draft EA on temperature control at Glen Canyon Dam. Interim surplus criteria could result in new information related to temperature control at Glen Canyon Dam. Data and information made available from analysis related to interim surplus criteria will be utilized in the revised EA on temperature control at Glen Canyon Dam. Such information would also be considered in the development of an appropriate design for a temperature control device. S.1.6.3 ACTIONS RELATED TO THE BIOLOGICAL AND CONFERENCE OPINION ON LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Reclamation prepared a BA in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, addressing effects of ongoing and projected routine lower Colorado River operations and maintenance (Reclamation, 1996). After formal consultation, a Biological and Conference Opinion (BCO) was prepared by the Service (Service, 1997). Pursuant to the reasonable and prudent alternative and 17 specific provisions provided in the BCO, Reclamation is taking various actions that benefit the riparian region of the lower Colorado River and associated species. In particular, these actions include: 1) acquisition,ior ter restoration and protection of potential and occupied Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat; he In 2017 of t ept. ber 29, 2) extensive life history studies for Southwestern willow flycatcher along 400 miles of v. D m the lower Colorado River and other areas; n 3) protection and enhancement of atio andon Nove N o endangered fish species throughjrisk assessments, assisted rearing and development of ed N va inthea 4, archiv River. This five-year BCO provides ESA protected habitats ed along lower Colorado cit 686 compliance for Reclamation actions on the lower Colorado River until 2002. 14-1 No. The BA and BCO contain life histories/status of lower Colorado River species, descriptions of ongoing and projected routine operation and maintenance activities, the Secretary’s discretionary management activities, operation and maintenance procedures, endangered species conservation program, environmental baseline, effects of ongoing operations, reasonable and prudent alternatives and supporting documentation useful in this FEIS. The 1996 BA and the 1997 BCO did not anticipate or address the effects of specific interim surplus criteria on the species considered. A separate Section 7 ESA consultation is in progress for the proposed action. S.1.6.4 LOWER COLORADO RIVER MULTI-SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM Following the designation of critical habitat for three endangered fish species on nearly all of the lower Colorado River in April of 1994, the three Lower Basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada, Reclamation and the Service initiated the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (LCRMSCP), which was one of the reasonable and prudent provisions of the five-year BCO received in 1997. The purpose of the LCRMSCP is to obtain long-term (50-year) ESA compliance for both federal and non-federal water and power interests. The LCRMSCP is a partnership of COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 12 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 17 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY federal, state, Tribal, and other public and private stakeholders with an interest in managing the water and related resources of the lower Colorado River Basin. In August 1995, Interior and Arizona, California and Nevada entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and later a Memorandum of Clarification (MOC) for development of the LCRMSCP. The purpose of the MOA/MOC was to initiate development of an LCRMSCP that would accomplish the following objectives: • Conserve habitat and work toward the recovery of threatened and endangered species and reduce the likelihood of additional species listing under the ESA; and • Accommodate current water diversions and power production and optimize opportunities for future water and power development. The LCRMSCP is currently under development and it is anticipated that the final EISenvironmental impact report will be finalized in 2001. Once the LCRMSCP is accepted by the Service, Reclamation and other federal agencies, as well as the participating nonfederal partners, will have achieved ESA compliance for ongoing and future actions. Since the interim surplus criteria determination is scheduled to be completed prior to the completion of the LCRMSCP, a separate Section 7 consultation is in progress with the ior Service on the anticipated effects of implementing the interim surplus criteria. Inter 7 e 01 f th pt. o er 29, 2 e S.1.6.5 SECRETARIAL IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENTb ELATED TO R v. D i IVER W Novem atRon onATER USE PLAN CALIFORNIA’S COLORADO jo N Nava archived in Within California,ed allocation, of Colorado River water is stipulated by various cit the 16864 existing agreements14among the seven parties with diversion rights. Recently, these No. parties have negotiated a Quantification Settlement Agreement that further defines the priorities for use of Colorado River water in California. This agreement provides a basis for various water conservation and transfer measures described in the CA Plan. The water transfers would require changes in the points at which the Secretary would deliver transferred water to various California entities, as compared with provisions in existing water delivery contracts. The operational changes caused by the water transfers are being addressed in separate NEPA and ESA documentation. S.1.6.6 OFFSTREAM STORAGE OF COLORADO RIVER WATER AND DEVELOPMENT AND RELEASE OF INTENTIONALLY CREATED UNUSED APPORTIONMENT IN THE LOWER DIVISION STATES The above titled rule establishes a procedural framework for the Secretary to follow in considering, participating in, and administering Storage and Interstate Release Agreements among the states of Arizona, California and Nevada (Lower Division states). The Storage and Interstate Release Agreements would permit state-authorized entities to store Colorado River water offstream, develop intentionally created unused apportionment (ICUA) and make ICUA available to the Secretary for release for use in COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 13 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 18 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY another Lower Division state. This rule provides a framework only and does not authorize any specific activities. The rule does not affect any Colorado River water entitlement holder’s right to use its full water entitlement, and does not deal with intrastate storage and distribution of water. The rule only facilitates voluntary interstate water transactions that can help satisfy regional water demands by increasing the efficiency, flexibility and certainty in Colorado River management. A Finding of No Significant Impact was approved on October 1, 1999. S.2 ALTERNATIVES S.2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES The FEIS considers five interim surplus criteria alternatives as well as a No Action Alternative/baseline that was developed for comparison of potential effects. The five action alternatives considered include the Basin States Alternative (preferred alternative), the Flood Control Alternative, the Six States Alternative, the California Alternative and the Shortage Protection Alternative. The following section discusses the strategies and origins of the action alternatives. Other alternatives, including a proposal by the Pacific Institute, were considered but eliminated from further analysis. Those alternatives, and the reasons for their elimination from further analysis, are discussed in ior Chapter 2 of Volume I. Inter e of th 29, 2017 pt. BASIN STATES ALTERNATIVES S.2.1.1 ORIGINS OF CALIFORNIA, SIX STATESe . D AND ber ion v Novem Nat Basin States its draft 4.4 Plan, a plan to In 1997, California presentedvajthe other ed on to o n Na rc iv achieve a reduction d iits dependence h surplus water from the Colorado River, ite in 6864, a on c through various conservation measures, water exchanges and conjunctive use programs. -1 o. 14 the draft 4.4 Plan was the expectation that the Secretary would N One of the elements of continue to determine surplus conditions on the Colorado River until 2015. California proposed criteria on which the Secretary would base his determinations of surplus conditions during the interim period. In 1998, in response to California’s proposal of interim surplus criteria, the other six states within the Colorado River Basin (Six States) submitted a proposal with surplus criteria that were similar in structure to those in California’s proposal. Under the proposal from the Six States, use of surplus water supplies would be limited depending on the occurrence of various specified Lake Mead surface elevations. The interim surplus criteria proposed by the Six States were used to formulate the “Six States Alternative.” California subsequently proposed specific interim surplus criteria that were attached to the October 15, 1999 Key Terms for Quantification Settlement Among the State of California, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Water District, and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. California also updated, renamed and re-released its 4.4 Plan in May 2000. The revised plan is now known as California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan (CA Plan). The interim surplus criteria COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 14 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 19 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY proposal stemming from the CA Plan and Quantification Settlement Agreement was used to formulate the "California Alternative." In July 2000, during the public comment period on the DEIS, Reclamation received a draft proposal for interim surplus criteria from the seven Colorado River Basin States (Seven States). After a preliminary review of that proposal, Reclamation published it in the August 8, 2000 Federal Register for review and consideration by the public during the public review period for the DEIS. Reclamation published minor corrections to the proposal in a Federal Register notice of September 22, 2000. Reclamation derived the Basin States Alternative in the FEIS from the draft Seven States Proposal. S.2.1.2 UTILIZATION OF PROPOSALS FROM BASIN STATES Various proposals submitted by individual Colorado River Basin states or groups of states were used by Reclamation to formulate interim surplus criteria alternatives. In recognition of the need to limit the delivery of surplus water at lower Lake Mead water levels, these proposals specified allowable uses of surplus water at various triggering levels. The Secretary will continue to apportion surplus water consistent with the applicable provisions of the Decree, under which surplus water is divided 50 percent to California, rior Inteintends to e 46 percent to Arizona, and 4 percent to Nevada. The Secretary also 017 2 of th to MWD under surplus appropriately report the accumulated volume of Dept.delivered 29, water . any forbearance arrangements made by ber em conditions. The Secretary also intends tiohonor to n v Na watern Nov various parties for the deliveryajosurplus ed o or reparations for future shortage v of in Na 4, archiv conditions. ted ci 1686 . 14- OF ALTERNATIVES S.2.2 DESCRIPTION No S.2.2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AND BASELINE CONDITIONS As required by NEPA, a No Action alternative must be considered during the environmental review process. Under the No Action Alternative, determinations of surplus would continue to be made on an annual basis, in the AOP, pursuant to the LROC and the Decree as discussed above. The No Action Alternative represents the future AOP process without interim surplus criteria. Surplus determinations consider such factors as end-of-year system storage, potential runoff conditions, projected water demands of the Basin States and the Secretary’s discretion in addressing year-to-year issues. However, the year-to-year variation in the conditions considered by the Secretary in making surplus water determinations makes projections of surplus water availability highly uncertain. The approach used in the FEIS for analyzing the hydrologic aspects of the interim surplus criteria alternatives was to use a computer model that simulates specific operating parameters and constraints. In order to follow CEQ guidelines calling for a No Action alternative for use as a “baseline” against which to compare project COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 15 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 20 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY alternatives, Reclamation selected a specific operating strategy for use as a baseline condition, which could be described mathematically in the model. The baseline is based on a 70R spill avoidance strategy (as described in Section S.2.2.1.2). Reclamation has utilized a 70R strategy for both planning purposes and studies of surplus determinations in past years. While the 70R strategy is used to represent baseline conditions, it does not represent a decision by Reclamation to utilize the 70R strategy for determination of future surplus conditions in the absence of interim surplus criteria. S.2.2.1.1 Approach to Surplus Water Determination As discussed above, the 70R operating strategy is being used as a baseline to show possible future operating conditions in the absence of interim surplus criteria. The primary effect of simulating operation with the 70R operating strategy would be that surplus conditions would only be determined when Lake Mead is nearly full. S.2.2.1.2 70R Baseline Surplus Triggers The 70R baseline strategy involves assuming a 70-percentile inflow into the system, subtracting out the consumptive uses and system losses and checkingrior results to see e the if all of the water could be stored or if flood control releaseshe Int be required. If flood would 017 ft control releases would be required, additional waterpt.made available to the Lower is o 29, 2 er . De Basin states beyond 7.5 maf. The notation 70R refersvembspecific inflow where 70 ion v No to the Nat percent of the historical natural runoff is less than this value (17.4 maf) for the Colorado vajo hived on a River basin at Leeed in N Ferry. , arc cit 864 4-16 approximately 1199 feet msl in 2002 to 1205 feet msl in The 70R trigger o. 1rises from N line 2050. The gradual rise of the 70R trigger line is the result of increasing water use in the Upper Basin. Under baseline conditions, when a surplus condition is determined to occur, surplus water would be made available to fill all water orders by holders of surplus water contracts in the Lower Division states. S.2.2.2 BASIN STATES ALTERNATIVE (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) Reclamation has identified the Basin States Alternative as the preferred alternative in the FEIS. The Basin States Alternative is similar to, and based upon, information submitted to the Secretary by representatives of the governors of the states of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California. After receipt of this information (during the public comment period), Reclamation shared the submission with the public (through the Federal Register and Reclamation’s surplus criteria web sites) for consideration and comment. Reclamation then analyzed the states’ submission and crafted this additional alternative for inclusion in the FEIS. Some of the information submitted for the Department’s review was outside of the scope of the proposed action for adoption of interim surplus criteria and was therefore not included as part of the Basin States Alternative (e.g., adoption of shortage criteria and adoption COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 16 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 21 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of surplus criteria beyond the 15-year period) as presented in this FEIS. With respect to the information within the scope of the proposed action, Reclamation found the Basin States Alternative to be a reasonable alternative and has fully analyzed all environmental effects of this alternative in this FEIS. The identified environmental effects of the Basin States Alternative are well within the range of anticipated effects of the alternatives presented in the DEIS and do not affect the environment in a manner not already considered in the DEIS. Reclamation selected the Basin States Alternative as its preferred alternative based on Reclamation’s determination that it best meets all aspects of the purpose and need for the action, including the needs to remain in place for the entire period of the interim criteria, to garner support among the Basin States that will enhance the Secretary’s ability to manage the Colorado River reservoirs in a manner that balances all existing needs for these precious water supplies, and to assist in the Secretary’s efforts to insure that California water users reduce their over reliance on surplus Colorado River water. Reclamation notes the important role of the Basin States in the statutory framework for administration of Colorado River Basin entitlements and the significance that a sevenstate consensus represents on this issue. Thus, based on all available information, this alternative appears to be the most reasonable and feasible alternative analyzed. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o water9, 2 elevations to The Basin States Alternative specifies ranges ofDe Mead er 2 surface Lake v. mb be used through 2015 for determiningatioavailability vesurplus water through 2016. the n No of o j N specific n The elevation ranges are coupledo Nava withhived uses of surplus water in such a way that, in rc to decline, the amount of surplus water would be a if Lake Mead’s surface elevation were cited 16864, reduced. The interim41 criteria would be reviewed at five-year intervals with the LROC No. (and additionally as needed), and revised as needed based upon actual operational S.2.2.2.1 Approach to Surplus Water Determination experience. S.2.2.2.2 Basin States Alternative Surplus Triggers The surplus determination elevations under the Basin States Alternative consist of the tiered Lake Mead water surface elevations listed below, each of which is associated with certain stipulations on the purposes for which surplus water could be used. Proceeding from higher to lower water levels, the elevation tiers (also referred to as levels) are as follows: Tier 1 - 70R Line (approximately 1199 to 1201 feet msl) Tier 2 - 1145 feet msl Tier 3 - 1125 feet msl COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 17 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 22 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S.2.2.3 FLOOD CONTROL ALTERNATIVE S.2.2.3.1 Approach to Surplus Water Determination Under the Flood Control Alternative, a surplus condition is determined to exist when flood control releases from Lake Mead are occurring or projected to occur in the subsequent year. The method of determining need for flood control releases is based on flood control regulations published by the Los Angeles District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Field Working Agreement between the Corps and Reclamation. S.2.2.3.2 Flood Control Alternative Surplus Triggers Under the flood control strategy, a surplus is determined when the Corps flood control regulations require releases from Lake Mead in excess of downstream demand. If flood control releases are required, surplus conditions are determined to be in effect. The average flood control triggering elevation is approximately 1211 feet msl. In practice, flood control releases are not based on the average trigger elevation, but would be determined each month by following the Corps regulations. When a flood control surplus is determined, surplus water would be made available for all established uses by contractors for surplus water in the Lower Division states. erior Int f the 9, 2017 S.2.2.4 SIX STATES ALTERNATIVE pt. o . De ember 2 v tion n Nov N Water Determination S.2.2.4.1 Approach to Surplusa vajo ed o in Na 4, archiv d The Six States cite Alternative specifies ranges of Lake Mead water surface elevations to be 1686 used through 2015 for determining the availability of surplus water through 2016. The . 14No elevation ranges are coupled with specific uses of surplus water in such a way that, if Lake Mead’s surface elevation were to decline, the amount of surplus water would be reduced. The interim criteria would be reviewed at five-year intervals with the LROC and as needed based upon actual operational experience. S.2.2.4.2 Six States Alternative Surplus Triggers The surplus determination elevations under the Six States Alternative consist of the tiered Lake Mead water surface elevations listed below, each of which is associated with certain stipulations on the purposes for which surplus water could be used. The tiered elevations are as follows, proceeding from higher to lower water levels: Tier 1 - 70R Line (approximately 1199 to 1201 feet msl) Tier 2 - 1145 feet msl Tier 3 - 1125 feet msl COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 18 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 23 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S.2.2.5 CALIFORNIA ALTERNATIVE S.2.2.5.1 Approach to Surplus Water Determination The California Alternative specifies Lake Mead water surface elevations to be used for the interim period through 2015 for determining the availability of surplus water through 2016. The elevation ranges are coupled with specific uses of surplus water in such a way that, if Lake Mead’s surface elevation declines, the amount of surplus water would be reduced. S.2.2.5.2 California Alternative Surplus Triggers The Lake Mead elevations at which surplus conditions would be determined under the California Alternative are indicated by a series of tiered, sloping lines from the present to 2016. Each tiered line would be coupled with limitations on the amount of surplus water available at that tier. Each tier is defined as a trigger line that rises gradually year by year to 2016, in recognition of the gradually increasing water demand of the Upper Division states. The elevations associated with the three tiers are as follows: Tier 1 - 1160 feet msl to 1166 feet msl Tier 2 - 1116 feet msl to 1125 feet msl Tier 3 - 1098 feet msl to 1102 feet msl ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D S.2.2.6 SHORTAGE PROTECTION ALTERNATIVE vemb ation on No ajo N d S.2.2.6.1 ApproachNav archive Determination to Surplus Water d in 64, cite 168 14The Shortage Protection Alternative is based on maintaining an amount of water in No. to provide a normal annual supply of 7.5 maf for the Lower Lake Mead necessary Division, 1.5 maf for Mexico and storage necessary to provide an 80 percent probability of avoiding future shortages. S.2.2.6.2 Shortage Protection Alternative Surplus Triggers The surplus triggers under this alternative range from an approximate Lake Mead initial elevation of 1126 feet msl to an elevation of 1155 feet msl at the end of the interim period. At Lake Mead elevations above the surplus trigger, surplus conditions would be determined to be in effect and surplus water would be available for use by the Lower Division states. Below the trigger-elevation, surplus water would not be made available. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 19 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 24 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S.3 S.3.1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES USE OF MODELING TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL FUTURE COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM CONDITIONS To determine the potential effects of the interim surplus criteria alternatives, modeling of the Colorado River system was conducted. Modeling provides projections of potential future Colorado River system conditions (i.e., reservoir surface elevations, river flows, salinity, etc.). The modeling results allow a comparison of potential future conditions under the various interim surplus criteria alternatives and baseline conditions. As such, much of the analyses contained within the FEIS are based upon potential effects of changed flows and water levels within the Colorado River and mainstream reservoirs. S.3.2 BASELINE CONDITIONS As discussed above, the No Action Alternative does not provide consistent specific criteria for determining surplus conditions. As such, it is not possible to model the No Action Alternative. However, in order to provide a reasonable analytical projection of potential future system conditions without interim surplus criteria, a reasonable baseline surplus strategy (70R) was utilized. This baseline represents a definablersurplus criteria terio he In 2017 secretarial based on recent operational decisions. The 70R strategy is tbased upon recent . of of 29, operating decisions and was modeled to develop aept projectioner baseline conditions for v. D vemb comparison with the alternatives in NatFEIS. the ion No on jo Nava archived S.3.3 IMPACTted in DETERMINATION APPROACH 4, ci 1686 14The analysis of potential effects for each issue considered is based primarily upon the No. results of modeling. Following the identification of conditions important to each issue, the potential effects of various system conditions over the general range of their possible occurrence (as identified by the range of modeling output for various parameters) are identified for each issue. The potential effects of the various interim surplus criteria alternatives are presented in terms of the incremental differences in probabilities (or projected circumstances associated with a given probability) between baseline conditions and the alternatives. S.3.4 PERIOD OF ANALYSIS The FEIS addresses interim surplus criteria that would be used during the years 2001 through 2015 for determining whether surplus water would be available during the years 2002 through 2016. Due to the potential for effects beyond the 15-year interim period, the modeling and impact analyses extend through the year 2050. It is important to note that modeling output and associated impact analyses become more uncertain over time as a result of increased uncertainty of future system conditions (including hydrologic conditions), as well as uncertainty with regard to future operational decisions that will affect circumstances within the Colorado River system. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 20 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 25 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S.3.5 POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AREA Interim surplus criteria could affect the operation of the Colorado River system (i.e., reservoir levels and river flow volumes) as a result of surplus determinations and associated water deliveries that may not have occurred in the absence of such criteria. Interim surplus criteria are based on system conditions and hydrology. Water supply to the Lower Division states of Arizona, California and Nevada is achieved primarily through releases and pumping from Lake Mead. As a result of Lake Powell and Lake Mead equalization requirements, interim surplus criteria effects on Lake Mead surface elevations could also influence Lake Powell surface elevations and Glen Canyon Dam releases. However, operation of the other Upper Basin reservoirs is independent of Lake Powell. Therefore, the upstream limit of the potentially affected area under consideration in this FEIS is the full pool elevation of Lake Powell. The downstream limit within the United States is the Southerly International Boundary (SIB) between the United States and Mexico (see Map S-1). Also addressed in the FEIS are potential transboundary impacts in Mexico pursuant to Executive Order 12114 - Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, January 4, 1997, and the July 1, 1997 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Guidelines on NEPA Analyses for Transboundary Impacts. ior Inter it is recognized In addition to influencing conditions within the Colorado fRiver system, 17 the 0 pt. ofrom r 29, 2surplus criteria that continued delivery of surplus water that coulde result beinterim v. D would recognize ongoing and proposedtistate actionsovemLower Basin. These actions a on on N in the N could result in environmentalvajo outside of the river corridor. However, these Na effectschived in actions have independent utility , ar are not caused by or dependent on interim surplus cited 16864 and criteria for their implementation. Environmental compliance would be required on a 14No. case-by-case basis prior to their implementation. Therefore, Reclamation determined that the appropriate scope of this analysis is to consider only those potential effects that could occur within the Colorado River corridor as defined by the 100-year flood plain and reservoir maximum water surface elevations. S.3.6 COMPARISON OF SURPLUS ALTERNATIVES TO BASELINE CONDITIONS S.3.6.1 EFFECTS ON RESERVOIR SURFACE ELEVATIONS AND RIVER FLOWS Figures S-1 and S- 2 present the 90th, 50th and 10th percentile Lake Powell and Lake Mead surface elevations indicated through system modeling for baseline conditions and the interim surplus criteria alternatives. These figures can be used for comparing the relative differences in the general lake level trends that result from the simulation of future conditions under the baseline and the interim surplus criteria alternatives. A complete explanation of the modeling process and results can be found in Section 3.3 of the FEIS. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 21 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 26 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure S-1 Lake Powell End-of-July Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions th th th 90 , 50 and 10 Percentile Values 3720 90th Percentile 3700 3680 Water Surface Elevation (feet) 3660 50th Percentile 3640 3620 3600 10th Percentile 3580 Baseline Conditions 3560 Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative 3540 Six States Alternative 3520 California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative 3500 2000 r 2040 io Inter 12045 0 7 f the pt. o er 29, 2 Figure S-2 e b v. D v Elevations Lake Mead End-of-December Water em ation on and Baseline Conditions No Comparison of ajo N Alternatives Surplus v th th and 10thd e in Na904,,50 rchiv Percentile Values a d cite 1686 14No. 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2050 Year 1220 1200 90th Percentile 1180 1160 Wa ter Su 1140 rfa ce Ele 1120 vat ion (fe et) 1100 50th Percentile 1080 1060 1040 Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative 1020 Six States Alternative California Alternative 10th Percentile Shortage Protection Alternative 1000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 22 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 27 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As illustrated in Figure S-1, the Flood Control Alternative could potentially result in the highest Lake Powell water levels. The Shortage Protection Alternative and the California Alternative could potentially result in the lowest water levels. The baseline conditions yield similar levels to those observed under the Flood Control Alternative. The water levels observed under the California Alternative are similar to those observed under the Shortage Protection Alternative. The results obtained under the Six States and Basin States alternatives are similar, and fall between baseline conditions and the Shortage Protection Alternative. As illustrated in Figure S-2, the Flood Control Alternative could potentially result in the highest Lake Mead water levels. The California Alternative could potentially result in the lowest water levels. The water levels observed under the Shortage Protection Alternative are similar to those of the California Alternative, with some years slightly lower. The baseline conditions yield slightly lower levels than the Flood Control Alternative, but the differences are very small. The results obtained under the Six States and Basin States alternatives are similar, and fall between the Flood Control and Shortage Protection alternatives. River flows would be affected to a limited degree by the interim surplus criteria ior alternatives. Flows from Glen Canyon Dam, which would be influenced by the Inter 17 adoption of interim surplus criteria, will remain within the range of , 20 analyzed in f the 9flows pt. o potential changes in the detail in the Glen Canyon Dam EIS. Therefore,De effects of ber 2 m n v. frequencies of these flows on downstream resourcesove no further analysis outside of Natio d on N need o the ROD for Glen Canyon Dam joperations and the Adaptive Management Program. Nava hive in arc cited 16864, River flows in the reaches between Hoover Dam and the SIB would also be affected to . 14N by a limited degree o the interim surplus criteria alternatives. Flows to meet downstream demands would typically increase, but remain well within the current operational ranges for those reaches. The frequency of large flows in those reaches due to flood control releases at Hoover Dam would typically decrease. Detailed discussions of the potential effects on river flows are included in Sections 3.3 and 3.6 of the FEIS. S.3.6.2 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Table S-1 summarizes the potential effects of interim surplus criteria on the various resource issues analyzed in the FEIS. S.3.6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS Impacts are associated with changes in the difference between probabilities of occurrence for specific resource issues under study when comparing the action alternatives to baseline conditions. Reclamation has determined that most of the potential impacts identified are not of a magnitude that would require specific mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate their occurrence because the small changes in probabilities of occurrence are within Reclamation’s current operational regime and COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 23 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 28 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY authorities under applicable federal law. In recognition of potential effects that could occur under baseline conditions or with implementation of the interim surplus criteria alternatives under consideration, Reclamation has developed a number of environmental commitments, described below, that will be undertaken if interim surplus criteria are implemented. Some commitments are the result of compliance with specific consultation requirements. S.3.6.3.1 Water Quality Reclamation will continue to monitor salinity and total dissolved solids on the Colorado River as part of the ongoing Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program to ensure compliance with the numeric criteria on the river as set forth in the Forum’s 1999 Annual Review. Reclamation will continue to participate in the Lake Mead Water Quality Forum and the Las Vegas Wash Coordination Committee as a principal and funding partner in studies of water quality in the Las Vegas Wash and Lake Mead. Reclamation is an active partner in the restoration of the Las Vegas Wash wetlands. Reclamation is acquiring and will continue to acquire riparian and wetland habitat around Lake Mead and on the Lower Colorado River related to ongoing rand projected terio routine operations. he In 017 ft o 9, 2 ept. . DNevadamber 2 of Environmental Reclamation will continue to participateion vthe ove Division t with n N NaCompany in the perchlorate remediation program o Protection and Kerr-McGee Chemical ed o avaj rc iv of groundwater dischargeN in points,alonghLas Vegas Wash that will reduce the amount of 4 a c ted 1 the Colorado River. this contaminantientering 686 14No. Reclamation will continue to monitor river operations, reservoir levels and water supply and make this information available to the Colorado River Management Work Group, agencies and the public. See also Reclamation’s website (http://www.lc.usbr.gov and http://www.uc.usbr.gov). S.3.6.3.2 Riverflow Issues Reclamation will continue to work with the stakeholders in the Adaptive Management Program to develop an experimental flow program for the operations of Glen Canyon Dam which includes BHBFs and is designed to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to and improve the values for which GCNP and GCNRA were established. S.3.6.3.3 Aquatic Resources Reclamation will initiate a temperature monitoring program below Hoover Dam with state and other federal agencies to document temperature changes related to baseline and implementation of interim surplus criteria and assess their potential effects on listed COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 24 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 29 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY species and the sport fishery. The existing hydrolab below Hoover Dam will be modified as necessary to provide this temperature data. S.3.6.3.4 Special-Status Species Section 7 consultation is in progress and commitments will be identified in the Record of Decision. S.3.6.3.5 Recreation Reclamation is initiating a bathymetric survey of Lake Mead in fiscal year 2001 and will coordinate with the Lake Mead National Recreation Area to identify critical recreation facility elevations and navigational hazards that would be present under various reservoir surface elevations. Reclamation will continue to monitor river operations, reservoir levels and water supply and make this information available to the Colorado River Management Work Group, agencies and the public. This operational information will provide the Lake Mead National Recreation Area and the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area with probabilities for future reservoir elevations to assist in management of navigational aids, recreation facilities, other resources and fiscal planning. rior Inte 1 f the the Glen 7 o Reclamation will continue its consultation and coordination with29, 20 Canyon ept. . Don theember National Recreation Area and the Navajo Nation development of Antelope Point nv Natio d on Nov as a resort destination. vajo e in Na 4, archiv d Resources cite S.3.6.3.6 Cultural1686 14No.continue to consult and coordinate with the State Historic Reclamation shall Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council), Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Tribes and interested parties with regard to the potential effects of the proposed action as required by Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act following the Council’s recommended approach for consultation for the Protection of Historic Properties found at 36 CFR 800. S.3.6.3.7 Transboundary Impacts It is the position of the United States State Department, through the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC), that the United States does not mitigate for impacts in a foreign county. The United States will continue to participate with Mexico through the USIBWC Technical Work Groups to develop cooperative projects beneficial to both countries. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 25 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 30 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S.4 OTHER NEPA CONSIDERATIONS S.4.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS A cumulative impact is an impact that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). Effects that could occur within the United States as a result of interim surplus criteria are each associated with potential changes in the probabilities for Lake Mead and Lake Powell surface elevation reductions and changes in Colorado River flows from Glen Canyon Dam to the SIB. Generally, other actions that could result in cumulative impacts when considered in tandem with the effects of interim surplus criteria have been incorporated into modeling of future system conditions. Such actions include future increases in consumptive use of Colorado River water in the Upper Division states, intrastate water transfers in the Lower Division states and various requirements and constraints applied to the operation of the Colorado River system. or The environmental effects of the various components of the CA Plan, iincluding the Inter 17 various intrastate storage facilities (such as Cadiz, Hayfield/Chuckwalla and 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 undergoing Desert/Coachella projects) and the other relatedDe ongoing actions, are and b v. separate compliance. Where there is ation nexus toem a federal Nov actions in California, a on jo N combined California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and NEPA compliance Nava archived document is beinged in cit prepared. 64, 8 4-16 . 1effects to the resources affected by surplus criteria were analyzed No Potential cumulative within the 100-year floodplain of the lower Colorado River from the full-pool elevation of Lake Powell to the Gulf of California in Mexico through year 2050. Only the issue area of “transboundary impacts” was identified as possibly experiencing cumulative effects. No past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions in the United States are expected to result in cumulative impacts to the issue area of transboundary impacts. In addition to the direct and indirect effects on the physical and natural environment in Mexico from actions identified by Mexico, it is recognized that some future actions taken by Mexico may have a cumulative effect. Exactly what these action are is not known at this time. Any impacts of these projects are the responsibility of Mexico. In addition, Reclamation is consulting with the Service on potential adverse effects to species found in both Mexico and the United States. For potentially affected species found only in Mexico, Reclamation is consulting with the National Marine Fisheries Service. Concurrent with these consultations, Reclamation is also continuing dialog with Mexico, through the IBWC’s Fourth Technical Work Group, to reach mutually agreeable solutions to address cumulative impacts. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 26 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 31 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S.4.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Because the implementation of interim surplus criteria is a management action that would require no direct physical change to the environment, for the purposes of this discussion, short-term uses of resources are limited to potential changes in the probability for certain environmental effects to occur as a result of changed system conditions. Also for the purposes of this discussion, long-term productivity refers to the benefits that would be realized during and following the period in which interim surplus criteria would be in place. The benefit sought by means of the interim surplus criteria alternatives consists of increasing the efficiency of the Secretary's annual decision-making process regarding the availability of Colorado River water. This would afford the mainstream users of this water a greater degree of predictability which would assist them in their water resources planning and operation. The resources that may be affected in the short-term would be primarily those affected by lower reservoir levels. The effects of the interim surplus criteria on those resources would depend on the alternative selected for implementation. The Flood Control Alternative would result in insignificant changes in reservoir levelserior baseline nt from conditions. The other four alternatives would tend to causethe I average 7 lower 201 water levels of , than baseline conditions by 2016 and for a limitedept. ofber 29 period time thereafter. However, .D nv em these alternatives would have a greater tprobabilityNosurplus water than the Flood Na io d on of v o Control Alternative or baseline conditionse avaj r hiv through the year 2016. Long-term benefits in Nto interimcsurplus criteria would include increased that would be realized due 64, a cited 168 opportunities for making more efficient use of Colorado River water supplies. 14- No. S.4.3 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Irreversible commitments are decisions affecting renewable resources such as soils, wetlands and waterfowl habitat. Such decisions are considered irreversible because their implementation would affect a resource that has deteriorated to the point that renewal can occur only over a long period of time or at great expense or because they would cause the resource to be destroyed or removed. The application of the interim surplus criteria would include reviews at five-year intervals to consider the workability of the criteria in light of the multiple purposes served by the operation of the Colorado River system, including environmental maintenance. Based on those reviews, interim surplus criteria could be revised or eliminated as needed. If California fails to meet its water conservation and management goals throughout the stipulated term of implementation of the criteria (through 2016), the Secretary may choose to terminate the interim criteria and revert to the 70R strategy. Finally, after 2016, determinations of the availability of surplus will revert to the AOP process. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 27 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 32 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY None of the resources assessed in the FEIS would experience a deterioration in condition such that the resource would be destroyed or removed as a result of implementation of interim surplus criteria or under the No Action Alternative. The Colorado River System may also reset at any time in the future, due to high inflows resulting in full reservoirs. There would be no construction of facilities needed to facilitate the Secretary's determination of surplus water under the criteria. Irretrievable commitment of natural resources means loss of production or use of resources as a result of a decision. It represents opportunities foregone for the period of time that a resource cannot be used. All of the resources assessed in the FEIS would continue to be available for production or use under any of the alternatives; however, application of the interim surplus criteria may result in a determination for any given year that surplus water is available from the Colorado River. That water could also have been determined to be surplus in the absence of interim surplus criteria through the AOP process. Although water is a renewable resource, the delivery of surplus water under all of the alternatives, including no action, would irretrievably commit (to beneficial consumptive uses) the water declared to be surplus, but authorized by the Law of the River. S.5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Interior 17 the . of m Nove , 20 9 S.5.1 GENERAL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ept . D ACTIVITIES ber 2 nv Natiotod on consisted essentially of two j leading e the FEIS The public involvement programo Nava a hearings in and public rchiv and public review of the DEIS. phases: project scoping, cited 16864, 14S.5.1.1 PROJECT SCOPING No. In 1999, Reclamation conducted a public scoping process that featured public scoping meetings to inform interested parties of the purpose and need for the development of interim surplus criteria, and to obtain public comment to assist in identifying the scope of the proposed action and environmental issues to be addressed in the DEIS. The scoping meetings were held in June 1999 at Las Vegas, Nevada; Phoenix, Arizona; Ontario, California; and Salt Lake City, Utah. The meetings were announced in Federal Register notices on May 18, 1999 and May 28, 1999, on Reclamation’s Lower Colorado Region internet website, and by a press release on May 28, 1999. The press release was mailed not only to the media but also to hundreds of federal, state and local agencies, non-governmental organizations and private citizens known to have an interest in Colorado River operations. The public was asked to identify any concerns about development and implementation of the interim surplus criteria. Public comments in the form of letters to Reclamation (35 letters) and oral responses at the scoping meetings (eight presenters) expressed numerous concerns regarding the effect of the proposed interim surplus criteria on the future quantity of water available from the Colorado River, and other resource issues. Based on the scoping comments, COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 28 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 33 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Reclamation issued a Notice of Intent to prepare the DEIS in the Federal Register on December 7, 1999. Reclamation also discussed the development of the proposed interim surplus criteria with various agencies and groups at their own regular meetings or at meetings set up by Reclamation. Included were Indian Tribes and Indian Communities having allocations of Colorado River water, Basin States water resource departments, various water agencies within the States, contractors for federal hydropower, environmental groups water agencies of the United Mexican States (Mexico). The coordination activities with each agency or group are summarized below. Table S-2 lists the agencies and organizations that were invited to such meetings by letter, and/or met with Reclamation regarding interim surplus criteria on other occasions. S.5.1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW OF DEIS The DEIS was distributed to interested Federal, Tribal, State and Local entities and members of the general public for a 60-day review when it was filed with EPA on July 7, 2000, and announced in the Federal Register. The DEIS was sent to 407 interested parties on Reclamation’s mailing list, and a copy of the DEIS was made available for public viewing on Reclamation’s Lower Colorado Region web site. Reclamation conducted a public technical meeting at Las Vegas, Nevada on Augustor 2000, to nteri 15, provide information and answer questions regarding theof the I process 7 analysis modeling 201 for 9, pt. in the DEIS. Between August 21 and August 24, 2000, Reclamation conducted public . De ember 2 nv hearings on the DEIS in Ontario, California; Las Vegas, Nevada; Salt Lake City, Utah; Natio d on Nov o and Phoenix, Arizona. avaj ive in N rch ited 6864, a c review1 When the public - period closed on September 8, 2000, Reclamation received 68 o. 14 public which, along with Reclamation's responses, are comment letters from the N included in Volume III of the FEIS. Individual comments from the public resulted in technical and editorial changes to the document. These included a change in the baseline operating strategy, better definition of Tribal water rights and diversions, inclusion of the Basin States Alternative and refinements in descriptions of alternatives and operational modeling results. After the DEIS was completed and ready for public review and comment, Reclamation received the document “Interim Surplus Guidelines, Working Draft” from the Seven Basin States (Seven States Proposal). Reclamation made a preliminary review of the specific surplus criteria in the information presented by the basin states, and made a preliminary determination that the criteria were within the range of alternatives and impacts analyzed in the DEIS. After its review of the Seven States Proposal, Reclamation published it in the Federal Register of August 8, 2000, for review and consideration by the public during the public review period for the DEIS. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 29 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 34 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S.5.2 FEDERAL AGENCY COORDINATION S.5.2.1 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NPS is a cooperating agency with Reclamation for the purpose of NEPA compliance for the interim surplus criteria, in recognition of its administration of national park and recreation areas along the Colorado River corridor. NPS staff participated in numerous meetings with Reclamation’s project evaluation team and participated in internal document reviews as sections of the DEIS were being prepared. This facilitated close coordination with the NPS regarding resources and facilities potentially effected and the nature of the effects. The NPS offices involved in these activities are those at the GCNRA, Grand Canyon National Park and the LMNRA, under the coordination of the office at the GCNRA. S.5.2.2 U.S. SECTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION The United States Section of the IBWC (USIBWC) is a cooperating agency with Reclamation for the purposes of NEPA compliance for the interim surplus criteria, in recognition of its administration of Treaty obligations with Mexico. As such, USIBWC staff participated in numerous meetings with Reclamation’s projecterior t evaluation team and Inwere being prepared. participated in internal document reviews as sections of thethe 017 f DEIS p . o er 29 2 This facilitated close coordination with the USIBWCtin developing ,information needed . De b for this FEIS and in Reclamation’s participation in the consultation with Mexico. The ion v Novem at USIBWC head office at El avajo N was directly involved. Paso, Texas ved on S.5.2.3 in N 4, archi ited OF INDIAN AFFAIRS c U.S. BUREAU 686 -1 o. 14 N The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) administers programs to promote Tribal economic opportunity, and to protect and improve Indian Trust Assets. The BIA assisted Reclamation with the Tribal consultation, and generally served in an advisory capacity to the Tribes. Through letters of comment on the DEIS, the BIA further amplified Tribal concerns regarding Colorado River operations and the interim surplus criteria. S.5.2.4 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE INCLUDING ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT COMPLIANCE Under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. δ 1536 (a)(2), each Federal agency must, in consultation with the Secretary (either the Secretary of Commerce through the National Marine Fisheries Service or the Secretary of the Interior through the Fish and Wildlife Service), insure that any discretionary action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To assist agencies in complying with the requirements of Section 7(a)(2), ESA’s implementing regulations set out a detailed consultation process COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 30 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 35 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY for determining the biological impacts of a proposed discretionary activity. The consultation process is described in regulations promulgated at 50 C.F.R. δ 402. Adoption of specific interim surplus criteria by the Secretary is a discretionary federal action and is therefore subject to compliance with the ESA. On May 22, 2000, Reclamation provided the Service a memorandum identifying listed or proposed species and designated critical habitat that may be present in the action area. The Service provided a response to Reclamation on June 5, 2000, which concurred with Reclamation’s list and added two species: Bald Eagle and Desert Pupfish. This information was used to assess potential effects of the proposed interim surplus criteria. Reclamation prepared a biological assessment (BA) which addresses the effects of both interim surplus criteria and the California water transfers, to reduce the consultation time frame on these two independent operational actions on the lower Colorado River. The BA and memorandum requesting formal consultation were mailed to the Service on August 31, 2000. The action area for the BA identified above is the 100-year floodplain of the Colorado River to the SIB and the full pool elevations of Lakes Mead, Mohave and Havasu. Implementation of the interim surplus criteria is not expected to effect any listed species upriver of Lake Mead (full pool elevation) nor impact implementationior any provisions ter of he In the2United States, of the existing BO on the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. t 017 f Within pt. o to r 29, any listed species implementation of interim surplus criteria is notDe v. anticipatedbe effect o the N Colorado in areas beyond the 100-year floodplain iofn lowerovem River and the full pool Nat d on elevations of lakes Mead,Navajo and Havasu. Consultation with the Service is in Mohave hive d in 6consultation will be identified in the ROD. progress and the iresults of the 4, arc c te 168 . 14- of the effects of adopting interim surplus criteria on listed No Preliminary evaluations species which may be present in the river corridor below Glen Canyon Dam led to the conclusion that there would be no affect. More recent output, resulting from refinement of the model used to predict future dam operations and riverflows, indicated that there would be a minor change in the frequency with which flows recommended by the 1995 biological opinion would be triggered, but that such changes would not adversely affect any listed species between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead. Reclamation is consulting with the Service on these changes. Reclamation is also consulting with the Service regarding special status species in Mexico. To facilitate consultation, Reclamation prepared a supplemental biological assessment (BA) addressing the potential effects of interim surplus criteria along the Colorado River corridor in Mexico from the SIB to the Sea of Cortez. Consultation is in progress and the results of the consultation will be identified in the ROD. S.5.2.5 NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) administers programs that support the domestic and international conservation and management of living marine resources. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 31 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 36 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, NMFS is the responsible Federal agency for consultation on special-status marine species. Reclamation consulted with NMFS regarding the special-status fish at the upper end of the Sea of Cortez. The consultation was facilitated by a BA supplementing the BA described in Section S.5.2.4 on the Colorado River corridor in Mexico. Consultation is in progress and the results of the consultation will be identified in the ROD. S.5.2.6 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT COMPLIANCE Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, requires all Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on historic properties, and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) a reasonable opportunity to comment when an action will have an effect on historic properties. The Council’s recommended approach for consultation for the Protection of Historic Properties is found at 36 CFR 800 (FR Vol. 64, No. 95, May 18, 1999, pages 27071-27084). The first step of the Section 106 process, as set forth at 36 CFR 800.3(a), is for the Agency Official to determine whether the proposed Federal action is an undertaking as defined in §800.16(y) and, if so, whether it is a type of activity that has the potential to cause effects to historic properties. Reclamation has determined erior Intthe definition of development and implementation of interim surplus criteria he f t meets9 2017 pt. o to effect, historic an undertaking, but an undertaking that is withoute . D potentialber 2 n vthe rationale for its decision are em properties. Reclamation’s determinationo Nati and on Nov documented in Section 3.13 ofajo FEIS.ved 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), if the undertaking Nav the hi Per does not have theted in to64, areffects on historic properties, the Agency potential cause c ci 168 Official has no further obligations under Section 106 or this part, Reclamation has . 14- to take into account the effects of the development and No fulfilled its responsibilities implementation of interim surplus criteria on historic properties. The Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) submitted written comments on the cultural resources section of the DEIS. The SHPO has indicated they do not agree with Reclamation’s position in the DEIS that development and implementation of interim surplus criteria is an undertaking without potential to affect historic properties, and so complying with the consultation requirements of the NHPA is not necessary. The Nevada SHPO has stated that their opportunity to comment on effects to historic properties has been precluded by Reclamation and the Department’s finding, and have asked that the matter be referred to the Council. Under the implementing regulations for Section 106, when there is a disagreement between an agency and a SHPO concerning the effect of an undertaking, the matter must be referred to the Council for comment and resolution. Reclamation believes the Council will agree with the Nevada SHPO that Section 106 compliance is necessary for this proposed action. Reclamation’s position is that this is not an action requiring Section 106 compliance, but more appropriately falls under Section 110 of COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 32 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 37 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY the NHPA. Reclamation has prepared a memorandum discussing this issue and has forwarded it to the Council for review and further consultation. S.5.3 TRIBAL CONSULTATION Reclamation has been coordinating river operations with the Indian Tribes and communities who have entitlements to or contracts for Colorado River water, and those that may be affected by the proposed action. Representatives of various Tribes attended the scoping meetings in May 1999, and some provided Reclamation with written comments on the proposal for interim surplus criteria. Beginning in May 1999, Reclamation has had numerous meetings with the various Tribes who have an interest in the implementation of the interim surplus criteria. The Tribes and communities fall generally into four groups: 1) the Colorado River Basin Indian Tribes (Ten Tribes Partnership) who have diversion rights from the Colorado River main stream and various tributaries; 2) the Tribes and Communities of central Arizona; 3) the Tribes in the Coachella Valley Consortium of Mission Indians; and 4) other Tribes or Indian Communities who do not have a Colorado River water entitlement but nevertheless have an interest in the availability and distribution of Colorado River water. The individual Tribes and Indian Communities in each of these groups are listed on Table S-2 at the end of this chapter. ior Inter rights be A primary concern of the Ten Tribes Partnership was thatf Tribal water 017 the t. each Tribe 2 pforo er 29,be included in clearly acknowledged and that the diversion point(s) . De b ion v No tribal the operational model so as to more accurately reflect vem diversions in the at on jo N modeling. Other concerns included overreliance on unused Tribal water allocations Nava archived in by non-Tribal diverters, and Lake Powell water level fluctuations with respect to cited 16864, resort development 14opportunity. Reclamation provided financial assistance to the No. Ten Tribes Partnership to assist the Tribes in cataloging their Colorado River depletion rights and conducting an active coordination process with Reclamation in connection with the interim surplus criteria. Using information provided by the Tribes, Reclamation added the diversion points to the model for the FEIS. S.5.4 STATE AND LOCAL WATER AND POWER AGENCIES COORDINATION Since the May 18, 1999 Federal Register notice announcing the development of interim surplus criteria, Reclamation has had various discussions with state and local water and power agencies regarding the proposed interim surplus criteria. However, the development of surplus criteria has been the subject of discussions for many years prior to 1999. Reclamation meets regularly with representatives of the Basin States, Indian Tribes and communities, environmental organizations, and other stakeholders as part of the Colorado River Management Work Group. Reclamation coordinates the development of the Annual Operating Plan (AOP) for the Colorado River system through this group as required by federal law. It was through such coordination actions that Reclamation originally presented the alternative surplus strategies. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 33 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 38 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Basin States provided Reclamation with projections of the future depletions of the Colorado River water anticipated by water agencies in each state. The Upper Colorado River Commission compiled Upper Basin depletions, and the Lower Division states compiled their respective depletions. The projections were used as input to Reclamation’s operational modeling analysis. Reclamation also conducted coordination with water agencies in southern California regarding the environmental documentation being prepared for various components of California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan. In the early summer of 2000, the seven Basin States acting as a group, independently from Reclamation, formulated the Seven States Proposal for interim surplus criteria which they provided to Reclamation after the DEIS was prepared. Letters of comment on the DEIS from some of the Basin States contained additional commentary on the draft proposal. S.5.5 NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS COORDINATION Several environmental organizations have expressed interest in the project and have attended one or more public and independent meetings with Reclamation. The Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security (PacificrInstitute), terio representing a consortium of environmental organizations, the In an interim surplus submitted 017 2 of criteria proposal to Reclamation in February 2000. pt. proposal included an additional e The ber 29, .D em allocation of water to Mexico for environmental purposes. The Pacific Institute’s ion v Natrole d on Novother environmental groups interest in the project and coordinating ve among the vajo in Na 4, archi contributed to theted i coordination with Reclamation by various other non-governmental 6 6 organizations. c addition, 8 In 14-1 through the Colorado River Management Work Group, and . Reclamation worked with various non-governmental organizations other mechanisms, No during the NEPA process. Specifically, Reclamation met with members of the organizations noted in Table S-2 at their request to discuss environmental and technical issues. S.5.6 MEXICO CONSULTATION Pursuant to an international agreement for mandatory reciprocal consultations, the United States section of the IBWC (USIBWC) is consulting with Mexico regarding the proposed interim surplus criteria. Reclamation has assisted USIBWC in conducting this consultation by providing information on the proposed interim surplus criteria and by participating in briefings with the Mexico Section of the IBWC and the Mexico National Water Commission. Meetings with representatives of Mexico were conducted in April and May 2000, at which representatives of Mexico provided their concerns regarding the potential effects of the interim surplus criteria. Coordination with Mexico during the DEIS review phase has consisted of several letters from the government of Mexico and public agencies in Mexico, which are reproduced in Volume III of the DEIS. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 34 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 39 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Discussion with Mexico took place on November 14, 2000 concerning comments from Mexico. There was understanding that the consultation with Mexico through IBWC in the form of technical working groups will continue a forum for technical discussion to carry out, in the context of international comity, joint cooperation projects in support of the Colorado River riparian ecology to the Gulf of California that could have a benefit to the United States and Mexico. Executive Order 12114 instructs Federal agencies to investigate the effects of Federal actions in other countries. Reclamation has analyzed and documented the effects of the proposed interim surplus criteria on natural resources in Mexico. This analysis will provide an analytical tool for identifying those potential impacts that extend across the international border and affect Mexico’s natural and physical environment. This approach is fully consistent with CEQ guidance on NEPA analyses for transboundary impacts, dated July 1, 1997. S.5.7 SUMMARY OF COORDINATION CONTACTS Table S-2 lists the agencies and organizations with which Reclamation coordinated through meetings and other personal contacts during the scoping and preparation period of this FEIS. ior Inter 17 S.5.8 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D Table S-3 lists the Federal Register Notices issued to inform the public about the emb tion n aalternativesNovthe preparation and availability formulation of interim surplus ajo N v criteria ed o and of the DEIS. In addition N the notices issued, notices will be provided following the in to a 4, archiv cited to 86 publication of this FEIS16announce its availability and the Secretary’s ROD based on 14this FEIS. No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 35 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 40 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. The probability of Lake Powell being full in 2016 is 27%. 3 Reservoir water levels exhibit a gradual declining trend during the interim surplus criteria period as a result of increasing Upper Division states consumptive use. The median water surface elevation in 2016 is 3665 feet msl. Baseline Conditions/No Action 2 Basin States Flood Control Six States California Shortage Protection 3664 feet msl 3664 feet msl 3664 feet msl 3660 feet msl 3659 feet msl Median Elevations in 2016 for each of the alternatives are as follows: Effects of Alternatives 37 Flows downstream of Hoover Dam are governed by downstream demand or Hoover Dam flood control releases. Flows downstream of Glen Canyon Dam would be managed in accordance with the 1995 Glen Canyon Dam EIS and the 1996 ROD. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Glen Canyon and Hoover Dam releases and flows downstream of Lake Mead. River Flows continue to decline, although at a lower rate, due to less frequent Lower Basin surplus deliveries. After 2016, median levels stabilize, then rise and fall slightly, due to 602(a) storage requirements and less frequent equalization releases. Other alternatives: Flows below Glen Canyon Dam would be similar to baseline conditions. Flows from Hoover Dam to Parker Dam would be moderately higher until 2016 because of surplus deliveries. After 2016, flows would be similar to baseline conditions. After 2016, median surface elevations continue to decline. By about 2035, all alternatives converge to elevations similar to baseline conditions. Flood Control Alternative: Similar to baseline conditions. After 2016, Lake Powell water levels under all five alternatives tend to stabilize similar to baseline conditions. Water levels under the Basin States, Flood Control, Six States, California and Shortage Protection alternatives tend to converge with the baseline conditions by about year 2030. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on NovMedian Elevations in 2016 for each of the alternatives are as Lake Mead Water Surface Reservoir water levels exhibit a gradual N Elevations declining trend during the interim d vajo Lower Basin surplus criteria follows: e consumptive Na in exceeding long-termhiv The median Potential changes in Lake Mead waterd period as a result of rc 1143 feet msl a Basin States surface elevations. 1162 feet msl cite use16864, ininflow. is 1162 feet Flood Control water 1146 feet msl 4- surface elevation 2016 Six States 1 msl. 1131 feet msl California No. After 2016, median water surface elevations 1130 feet msl Shortage Protection Potential changes in Lake Powell water surface elevations. Lake Powell Water Surface Elevations Reservoirs Elevations and River Flows Resource/Issue Table S-1 1 Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Interim Surplus Criteria EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 41 of 1200 2002 through 2016 2017 through 2050 2002 through 2016 2017 through 2050 2002 through 2016 2017 through 2050 2002 through 2016 2017 through 2050 Normal: Surplus: Shortage: Normal: 0% 0% 47% 21% 100% 100% Baseline Conditions/No Action 2 Other Alternatives: Greater probability of surplus through 2016. The probability is similar to baseline conditions from 2017 through 2050. Deliveries less than the normal apportionment (4.4 mafy) do not occur under the alternatives at any time through 2050. Flood Control Alternative: Similar to baseline conditions. Effects of Alternatives 100% 100% 2002 through 2016 2017 through 2050 2002 through 2016 2016 through 2050 2002 through 2016 2017 through 2050 Normal: Surplus: Shortage: 38 < 4% 50% Shortage: 2002 through 2016 2017 through 2050 0% 0% 26% 19% 47% 21% 50% >96% 50% 2002 through 2016 2017 through 2050 Surplus: 2017 through 2050 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Probabilities of meeting Treaty delivery obligations. Mexico Treaty Delivery Probabilities of normal, surplus and 4 shortage conditions. 4 Arizona Water Supply The Flood Control Alternative would provide slightly higher (1%) probabilities of surplus than under baseline conditions through 2016. The rest of the alternatives provide slightly lower (3% to 7%) probabilities of surplus through 2016 and about the same level as baseline through 2050. Deliveries less than the treaty apportionment (1.5 mafy) do not occur under the alternatives at any time through 2050. Other Alternatives: Greater probability of surplus through 2015; same as baseline from 2017 to 2050. The probability of shortage condition deliveries is slightly higher (7% to 14%) for the alternatives through 2016. From 2017 to 2050, the probability of shortage condition deliveries is higher (3% to 5%) under the alternatives. Flood Control Alternative: Similar to baseline conditions. ior Inter 17 of surplus through 2016 Probabilities of normal, surplus and Other Alternatives: Greater probability he shortage conditions. under the California and Shortage Protection alternatives and of tlower (26%) under0 Basin States and Six States Surplus: 2002 through 2016 29% t. 2 ,2 2017 through 2050 21% e D p slightly berThe 9 theof surplus under the alternatives is alternatives. probability v. em to tion < n Novabout the same as baseline from 2017the 2050. The probability Shortage: 2002 through 2016 4% of shortage condition deliveries under alternatives is slightly jo Na2050ed o50% 2017 through higher (7% to 14%) through 2016. From 2017 to 2050, the Nava archiv probability of shortages under the alternatives is similar to in baseline conditions. cited 16864, 14 No. Normal: 2002 through 2016 96% Nevada Water Supply Flood Control Alternative: Similar to baseline conditions. Probabilities of normal, surplus and 4 shortage conditions. California Water Supply Water Supply Resource/Issue Table S-1 1 Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Interim Surplus Criteria EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 42 of 1200 Increased potential for lower Lake Mead levels and increased inflow channel lengths under baseline projections could increase potential of elevated contaminant concentrations. Baseline projections assume compliance with numeric criteria along the river. The Basin States are committed to meeting the numeric criteria. Baseline Conditions/No Action 2 The alternatives, except the Flood Control Alternative, result in slightly increased potential for increased contaminant concentrations in Boulder Basin, due to greater potential for lower Lake Mead levels than under baseline conditions. Modeling indicates potential for slight reductions in salinity under each alternative as compared to baseline. Effects of Alternatives 39 Species are adapted to fluctuating reservoir levels. Therefore, increased potential for lower Lake Mead and Lake Powell surface levels is not expected to adversely affect aquatic species. Average annual probability from 2002 through 2016: Davis Dam 9% Parker Dam 10% Average annual probability from 2017 through 2050: Davis Dam 5% Parker Dam 6% COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Potential effects on Lake Mead and Lake Powell fisheries and associated aquatic habitat. Lake Habitat and Sport Fisheries Aquatic Resources Probability of damaging flows below Davis and Parker Dams. Flooding Downstream of Hoover Dam Glen Canyon Dam. Compared with baseline conditions, slightly increased potential for higher reservoir levels under the Flood Control Alternative and increased potential for lower reservoir levels under the other alternatives would not be expected to result in substantial changes to lake habitat. The probability under other alternatives is slightly less than under baseline conditions. The probability under the Flood Control Alternative is slightly greater than under baseline conditions. ior Inter 17 Flow-Related Issues the 2 ofprobability 29, the 0 t. Beach/Habitat-Building Flow The average annual probability of BHBF r under during the is typically less than Dep Thembaseline conditionsalternativesinterim period, and Releases releases is 16% through 2016 and 14% from under be v. e tion n Novconverges with baseline conditions thereafter. Probability of BHBF release conditions 2017 through 2050. Na d o from Glen Canyon Dam. jo Nava archive in Low Steady Summer Flows annual t requisite864 probability flows is 38% under baseline under the during the is seven less and cifored The averagelow,steady summerof conditions The probability conditionsalternativesfirsttypicallyyearsthan for 6 2016 and 62% from 2017 through Probability of requisite conditions 4-1 similar to or slightly greater than under baseline conditions low steady summer flow releaseso. 1 through from 2050. thereafter. N Contaminant concentrations in Boulder Basin of Lake Mead, in proximity to the SNWS intakes at Saddle Island. Lake Mead Water Quality and Las Vegas Water Supply Potential change in salinity below Hoover Dam. Colorado River Salinity Water Quality Resource/Issue Table S-1 1 Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Interim Surplus Criteria EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 43 of 1200 Under baseline conditions, increased potential over time for lower reservoir levels could increase potential for development of temporary riparian habitat at the deltas, which would benefit special-status wildlife species that utilize such habitat. Under baseline conditions, special-status plant species would continue to be affected by fluctuating water levels, which would periodically expose and inundate areas where the plants occur. Baseline Conditions/No Action 2 The Flood Control Alternative would have slightly lower potential, while the other alternatives would have increased potential, for lower reservoir elevations and associated potential increases in delta habitat. Although reservoir elevations would differ, the effects of all alternatives would be similar to baseline conditions. Effects of Alternatives 40 Baseline condition projections indicate an increased potential for the occurrence of lower Lake Mead and Lake Powell reservoir levels, which may result in potential increases in navigation hazards and decreased safe boating capacity (due to decreased reservoir surface area). operating range that some existing facilities may be able to accommodate. Such occurrence would likely result in modification of facilities to accommodate lower surface elevations. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Potential effects on reservoir boating that may result from changes in Lake Mead and Lake Powell surface elevations. Reservoir Boating/Navigation recreation facilities from changes in Lake Mead and Lake Powell surface elevations. The Flood Control Alternative has slightly lower potential, and each of the other alternatives have higher potential, for each of navigation hazards and reduced carrying capacity. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. er . De Changes in potential for lower reservoir levels under the various Special-Status Fish Under baseline conditions, increased potential n v have ovalternatives would not change potential for effects. emb tio for lower elevations is not expected to N Potential effects of Lake Mead and jo Na ved different effects on special-status species fish on aoccur at present. Lake Powell reservoir level changes v than Na that on special-status fish species. in those 4, archi Recreation cited 1686 Reservoir Marinas/Boat Launching 14Baseline condition projections indicate The Flood Control Alternative has a slightly decreased potential No. increased potential for reservoir levels lower for lower reservoir levels; each of the other alternatives have Potential effects on shoreline than those considered within the normal increased potential for lower levels and necessary relocations. Potential effects on special-status wildlife species associated primarily with potential effects on riparian habitat at the Lake Mead and Virgin River deltas, and the lower Grand Canyon. Special-Status Wildlife Potential effects on special-status plants for areas influenced by Lake Powell and Lake Mead water levels. Special-Status Plants Special-Status Species Resource/Issue Table S-1 1 Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Interim Surplus Criteria EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 44 of 1200 Baseline condition projections indicate increased relocation costs associated with future increased potential for lower reservoir levels. Potential effects on sport fisheries are minimal under baseline conditions. Boaters may have reduced take-out opportunities due to increased potential for lower reservoir surface elevations. Baseline Conditions/No Action 2 The Flood Control Alternative is similar to baseline conditions. Other alternatives have greater potential for increased relocation costs, based on an average cost per foot associated with relocating facilities. Changes in reservoir elevations under each of the alternatives would not be expected to adversely affect sport fisheries or fishing in either reservoir. The Flood Control Alternative has lower potential, and each of the other alternatives have increased potential, for reduced take-out opportunities resulting from lower reservoir elevations. Effects of Alternatives 41 Future lower average Lake Mead water levels would require more energy and increased pumping costs for the SNWS intake. 4685 GWh through 2016; 3903 GWh from 2017 through 2050. production: COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Potential change in the cost of power to pump Lake Mead water through the SNWS. Pumping Power Needs for SNWS Increased costs associated with relocating shoreline facilities to remain in operation at lower reservoir elevations. Basin States Flood Control Six States California Shortage Protection $229,395 $ 32,685 $214,779 $544,843 $532,635 The increase over baseline conditions of annual pumping costs for each alternative follows: production is from 51 to 127 GWh less. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v Energy Resources ation on Nov N average annual Hydroelectric Power Production Glen Canyonajo The Flood Control Alternative is similar to baseline conditions. v Powerplanthived energy production: Na c Potential for changes in energy Average annual power production under the other alternatives in ar production at Glen Canyon and ited 4532 GWh64, 2016; 4086 GWh from 2017 is greater than under baseline conditions for the first six to eight through c 6 2050. Hoover powerplants. through 8 years, then is less for the remaining years. Averaged from 14-1 Powerplant average annual energy 2002 to 2050, Glen Canyon annual power production is from 12 o. Hoover N to 30 GWh less than baseline conditions, while Hoover power Recreation Facilities Relocation Costs Potential effects on sport fishing in Lake Mead and Lake Powell. Reservoir Sport Fishing Potential effects on river boating at Lake Powell and Lake Mead inflow areas. River and Whitewater Boating Resource/Issue Table S-1 1 Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Interim Surplus Criteria EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 45 of 1200 Future lower average Lake Powell water levels would require more energy and increased pumping costs for the Navajo Generating Station and the City of Page. Intake Energy Requirements at Lake Powell 2 The increase over baseline conditions of annual pumping costs for each alternative follows: Navajo Generating Station $2,216 Basin States $ 0 Flood Control $2,129 Six States $4,651 California $4,660 Shortage Protection Effects of Alternatives 42 Not significant due to past water level fluctuations. Impacts have already occurred. Increased probability of temporary degradation in visual attractiveness of shoreline vistas resulting from increasing potential for lower water levels in Lake Mead and Lake Powell. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Effects on Historic Properties in Operational Zone of Reservoir and River Reaches. Cultural Resources Potential effects of lower reservoir elevations on scenic quality. Visual Attractiveness of Reservoir Scenery, Lake Mead and Lake Powell Visual Resources Not significant due to past water level fluctuations. Impacts have already occurred. Other alternatives: Higher probability of degradation of visual attractiveness through 2016 due to accelerated decline of minimum reservoir levels. Flood Control Alternative: Same as baseline conditions. City of Page Basin States Flood Control Six States California Shortage Protection ior $ 529 Inter 17 $ 0 e of th 29, 20 $ 508 $1,110 pt. $1,112 . De ember v Air Quality tion n Nov a Fugitive Dust Emissions from Increased potential for lower reservoir levels Slightly decreased shoreline exposure under Flood Control ajo N ived o Nav arc for Exposed Reservoir Shoreline would increase potential h shoreline exposure Alternative would lower fugitive dust emission potential. Other in baseline , 4would be minimal due to low increased fugitive have slightly increased changes in Potential for fugitive dust emissionse it d underemissions conditions. Increases in fugitive alternatives woulddust emissions. Minimalpotential for areac 86 from shoreline exposure at Lake Mead dust 6 4-1 potential of shoreline. emission wide fugitive dust emissions would be expected. 1 and Lake Powell. No. Potential change in the cost of power to pump Lake Powell water to the Navajo Generating Station and the City of Page. Baseline Conditions/No Action Resource/Issue Table S-1 1 Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Interim Surplus Criteria EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 46 of 1200 No effects are anticipated. There is a probability of shortages of CAP priority water for tribes in central Arizona. The water available to members of Ten Tribes Partnership would not be affected by future changes under baseline conditions. Baseline Conditions/No Action 2 No effects anticipated. Greater probability of shortages of CAP priority water for tribes in central Arizona under all alternatives with the exception of the Flood Control Alternative. No effect on water available to members of Ten Tribes Partnership. Effects of Alternatives Under the Basin States Alternative there would be no effect on desert pupfish, Vaquita, Yuma clapper rail, California black rail, Clarks grebe; and there is not likely to be any adverse affect on totoaba, Southwestern willow flycatcher, Yellow-billed cuckoo, Elf owl or Bell's vireo. Other alternatives: Small reduction in probability of excess flows. 43 Effects identified are based on probabilities developed through modeling of possible future conditions through 2050, discussed in detail in Chapter 3. In general, the differences between the alternatives and baseline conditions would be greatest at or near 2016, the year in which the interim surplus criteria would terminate. Lake Powell is considered to be essentially full when the lake elevation reaches 3695 feet msl (5 feet below the top of the spillway gates). Probabilities of shortage are based on the modeling assumption of protecting a Lake Mead elevation of 1083 feet msl. There are no established shortage criteria for the operation of Lake Mead. Probability of excess flows below Morelos Dam would gradually decline. would gradually decline under baseline conditions. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3. 4. 1. 2. Potential Effects on Species and Habitat in Mexico Amount of excess flow that may reach the Colorado River delta. ior Inter 17 Transboundary Effects the ofFlood Control9, 20 would provide slightly higher (1%) . Normal: 2002 through 2016 100% ept The Treaty Water Delivery Obligations er 2 Alternative .D 2017 through 2050 100% probabilities of surplus than under baseline conditions 2016. v mbof the alternatives provide slightly lower (3% to 7%) Probabilities of meeting Treaty delivery e tion 26% obligations Na2016 d on NovThe rest of surpluses through 2016 and about the same Surplus: 2002 through probabilities ajo 2050 level as baseline through 2050. Deliveries less than the treaty Nav2016 throughhive 19% in apportionment (1.5 mafy) do not occur under the alternatives at d Shortage: 62002 through 2016 , arc 4 0% any time through 2050. cite 168 2017 through 2050 0% 4. 1 Probability of excess flows below Morelos Dam Flood Control Alternative: Similar to baseline. Flow Below Morelos Dam No Exposure of Minority or Low Income Communities to Health or Environmental Hazards Environmental Justice Effects on water supply for Indian Tribes and Communities Indian Trust Assets Resource/Issue Table S-1 1 Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Interim Surplus Criteria EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 47 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 48 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table S-2 Participants with Reclamation Regarding the Interim Surplus Criteria Environmental Impact Statement Process Agency or Organization Invited to or Requesting Meetings Meetings Federal Agencies National Park Service – Cooperating Agency Various plan formulation and evaluation meetings U. S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission – Cooperating Agency Various plan formulation and evaluation meetings; Briefings for Mexico Bureau of Indian Affairs 5/26/99, 12/15/99, 1/21/00, 2/24/00, 8/30/00 Environmental Protection Agency 6/15/99, 8/30/00 Fish And Wildlife Service Geological Survey Various Consultation Meetings on ESA Compliance Consultation on Special Status Species in the Sea of Cortez, 10/12/00 6/15/99, 8/15/00 Western Area Power Administration 6/15/99, 8/15/00 National Marine Fisheries Service ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 Chemehuevi Tribe (10 Tribes member) 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 11/16/1999, 12/15/99, e v. D & 25/00,b 2/24 m 8/4/00 ation on Nove N Cocopah Indian Tribe (10 Tribes member) vajo ed 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 111/16/1999, 2/15/99, in Na 4, archiv 2/24 & 25/00, 8/3/00 d cite 1686 Colorado River Indian Tribes - Tribes member) 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 11/16/1999, 12/15/99, 14 (10 No. 2/24 & 25/00, 8/4/00 Tribal Coordination – Ten Tribes Partnership Fort Mojave Indian Tribe (10 Tribes member) 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 11/16/1999, 12/15/99, 2/24 & 25/00, 8/2/00 Jicarilla Apache Tribe (10 Tribes member) 5/26/99, 11/16/1999, 12/15/99, 2/24 & 25/00 Navajo Nation (10 Tribes member) 5/26/99, 11/16/1999, 12/15/99, 2/24 & 25/00, 9/27/00, 8/3/00 Northern Ute Tribe (10 Tribes member) 5/26/99, 11/16/1999, 12/15/99, 2/24 & 25/00, 8/17/00 Quechan Indian Tribe (10 Tribes member) 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 11/16/1999, 12/15/99, 2/24 & 25/00, 8/2/00 Southern Ute Indian Tribe (10 Tribes member) 5/26/99, 11/16/1999, 12/15/99, 2/24 & 2500 Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (10 Tribes member) 5/26/99, 11/16/1999, 12/15/99, 2/24 & 25/00, 8/3/00 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 44 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 49 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table S-2 Participants with Reclamation Regarding the Interim Surplus Criteria Environmental Impact Statement Process Agency or Organization Invited to or Requesting Meetings Meetings Tribal Coordination –Tribes And Communities In Central Arizona Ak-Chin Indian Community 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 1/21/00, 8/3/00 Mojave-Apache Tribe 5/26/99, 1/21/00, 8/3/00 Gila River Indian Community 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 1/21/00, 8/3/00 Pasqua-Yaqui Tribe 5/26/99, 1/21/00 Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 1/21/00 San Carlos Indian Tribe 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 1/21/00, 8/3/00 Tohono O’Odham Tribe 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 1/21/00, 8/15/00, 8/3/00 Tonto Apache Tribe 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 1/21/00, 8/4/00 Yavapai-Apache Indian Community 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 1/21/00, 8/3/00 Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 1/21/00 Morongo Band of Mission Indians 8/30/00 Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Tribe 1/21/00, 8/30/00 Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians [Contact attempted; DEIS sent] ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e Indians Tribal Coordination – Coachella Valley Consortium Of.Mission v D v mb ation on8/30/00,e9/6/00 No Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians jo N va ed in Na rchiv Augustine Band of Mission Indians 64, a [Contact attempted; DEIS sent] ited 68 c 4-1 Cabazon Band of Mission1 (Contact attempted; DEIS sent] No. Indians Tribal Coordination – Other Tribes Havasupai Indian Tribe 6/15/99, 5/26/99, 1/21/00 Hopi Tribe 6/15/99, 5/26/99, 1/21/00, 8/4/00 Hualapai Nation 6/15/99, 5/26/99, 1/21/00, 8/3/00 Kaibab Paiute Tribe 8/3/00 San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe 8/3/00 San Luis Rey Indian Water Authority 8/16/00 Zuni Indian Tribe 8/3/00 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 45 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 50 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table S-2 Participants with Reclamation Regarding the Interim Surplus Criteria Environmental Impact Statement Process Agency or Organization Invited to or Requesting Meetings Meetings State and Local Water and Power Agencies Arizona Department of Water Resources 6/15/99, 12/16/1999, Central Arizona Water Conservancy District 6/15/99, 8/15/00 Coachella Valley Water District 6/15/99, 6/6/00, 8/15/00 Colorado River Board of California 6/15/99, 12/16/1999, 6/6/00, 8/15/00,11/14/00 Colorado River Commission of Nevada 6/15/99, 12/16/1999, Colorado River Water Conservation District 8/15/00 Colorado Water Conservation Board 12/16/99, 8/15/00 Utah Division of Water Resources 12/16/99, Imperial Irrigation District 6/15/99, 6/6/00, 8/15/00, 11/14/00 Las Vegas Valley Water District 6/22/99 Upper Colorado River Commission 6/15/99, 8/15/00 San Diego County Water Authority 8/15/00 Southern Nevada Water Authority 12/16/99, 8/15/00 ior Inter 17 f the 9, 0 Metropolitan Water District, California 6/15/99,o pt. 6/6/00, 8/15/00 2 De er 2 n v. 12/16/99,mb New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission atio Nove 8/15/00 ajo N ived on Nav Office of the State Engineer, iWyoming 12/16/99, 8/15/00 d n 64, arch te ciResources68 Parker Valley Natural 12/16/99, -1 Conservation D. o. 14 N Non-Governmental Agencies Center for Biodiversity 12/15/99, 6/8/00 Defenders of Wildlife 12/15/99, 8/15/00 Environmental Defense 12/15/99, 8/15/00 Glen Canyon Action Network 8/22/00 Pacific Institute 12/15/99, 8/15/00 Southwest Rivers 12/15/99, 8/15/00 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 46 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 51 of 1200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table S-2 Participants with Reclamation Regarding the Interim Surplus Criteria Environmental Impact Statement Process Agency or Organization Invited to or Requesting Meetings Meetings International Agencies International Boundary and Water Commission, Mexico Section 4/12/00, 5/11 & 12/2000, 9/30/00, 11/9/00, 11/14/00 National Water Commission, Mexico 4/12/00, 5/11 & 12/2000, 9/30/00, 11/9/00, 11/14/00 National Institute of Ecology, Mexico 4/12/00, 9/30/00, 11/9/00, 11/14/00 Secretariat of Environment, Natural Resources and Fish, Mexico 9/30/00, 11/14/00 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 47 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 52 of 1200 Table S-3 Federal Register Notices Regarding Interim Surplus Criteria Notice Title Volume 64, No. 95, Page 27008, May 18, 1999 Intent to Solicit Comments on the Development of Surplus Criteria for Management of the Colorado River and to Initiate NEPA Process. Volume 64, No. 103, Page 29068, May 28, 1999 Public Meetings on the Development of Surplus Criteria for Management of the Colorado River and to Initiate NEPA Process Volume 64, No. 234, Page 68373, December 7, 1999 Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement Volume 65, No. 131, Page 68373, July 7, 2000 Notice of availability of a draft environmental impact statement and public hearings for the propose adoption of Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria Volume 65, No. 149, Page 47516, August 2, 2000 Notice of revised dates for public hearings on the proposed adoption of Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria Volume 65, No. 153, Page 48531, August 8, 2000 Notice of public availability of information submitted on a draft environmental impact statement for the proposed adoption of Colorado river Interim Surplus Criteria (Colorado River Basin States: Interim Surplus Guidelines – Working Draft) ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e Volume 65, No. 185, Notice of correction to n v. D Federal Register notice of availability published mb Page 57371, (Colorado River Basin States: Interim Surplus Guidelines – Working Draft) atio on Nove jo N September 22, 2000 Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 48 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 53 of 1200 ior Inter 17 the t. of r 29, 20 Dep mbe n v. tio ove jo Na ved on N va in Na 4, archi cited 1686 o. 14 N Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 54 of 1200 erior e Int 017 2 of th ept. ber 29, .D v tion ovem o Na ed on N vaj in Na 4, archiv cited 1686 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 55 of 1200 ior Inter 17 e 20 of th ept. ber 29, .D v tion ovem o Na ed on N j iv Nava d in 64, arch ite c -168 o. 14 N Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 56 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 57 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 58 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND......................................................................1-1 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.1.4 1.1.5 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1-1 Proposed Federal Action ..............................................................1-2 Background...................................................................................1-2 Purpose of and Need for Action ...................................................1-3 Relationship to the United States-Mexico Water Treaty..............1-4 Lead and Cooperating Agencies...................................................1-4 1.2 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS OF THIS FEIS...................................................1-5 1.3 WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT AND ALLOCATION ............................1-6 1.3.1 Colorado River System Water Supply..........................................1-6 1.3.2 Apportionment of Water Supply ..................................................1-8 1.3.2.1 The Law of the River ....................................................................1-8 1.3.2.2 Apportionment Provisions..........................................................1-10 1.3.2.2.1 Upper Division State Apportionments .......................................1-12 ior 1.3.2.2.2 Lower Division State Apportionments .......................................1-13 Inter 17 0 f the 1.3.2.2.3 Mexico Apportionment ..............................................................1-15 pt. o er 29, 2 eCriteria ..................................................1-15 1.3.3 Long-Range Operating v. D mb ation PlanNove 1.3.4 Annual Operating on ...............................................................1-16 oN avaj chive and 1.3.4.1 NNormal,rSurplusd Shortage Determinations ..........................1-16 in a 1.3.5 cited 16System Reservoirs and Diversion Facilities ...............................1-17 864, 14- Flood Control Operation.............................................................1-20 1.3.6 No. 1.3.7 Hydropower Generation .............................................................1-21 1.4 RELATED AND ONGOING ACTIONS.........................................................1-22 1.4.1 California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan .............................1-22 1.4.1.1 Imperial Irrigation District/San Diego County Water Authority Water Transfer ...........................................................1-23 1.4.1.2 All-American and Coachella Canal Lining Projects ..................1-23 1.4.2 Glen Canyon Dam Operations....................................................1-24 1.4.2.1 Adaptive Management Program.................................................1-25 1.4.2.2 Beach/Habitat-Building Flows and Beach/HabitatMaintenance Flows.....................................................................1-25 1.4.2.3 Temperature Control at Glen Canyon Dam................................1-26 1.4.3 Actions Related to the Biological and Conference Opinion on Lower Colorado River Operations and Maintenance ............1-26 1.4.4 Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program ......................................................................................1-27 1.4.5 Secretarial Implementation Agreement Related To California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan .............................1-28 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - i Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 59 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.4.6 1.5 2 Offstream Storage of Colorado River Water and Development and Release of Intentionally Created Unused Apportionment In The Lower Division States ...........................1-28 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE ...................................1-28 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES............................................................................2-1 2.1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................2-1 2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES ..........................................................2-1 2.2.1 Operating Strategies for Surplus Determination ..........................2-1 2.2.1.1 The R Strategy..............................................................................2-1 2.2.1.2 The A Strategy..............................................................................2-1 2.2.1.3 The P Strategy ..............................................................................2-2 2.2.1.4 Flood Control Strategy .................................................................2-2 2.2.2 Origins of the California, Six States, and Basin States Alternatives ........................................................................2-2 2.2.3 Pacific Institute Proposal ..............................................................2-3 2.2.4 Formulation of Alternatives .........................................................2-4 2.2.5 Utilization of Proposals from the Basin States.............................2-5 2.2.6 No Action Alternative and Baseline Condition............................2-6 erior e Int 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES..............................................................2-6 of th 29, 2017 pt.BaselinerCondition............................2-7 D e 2.3.1 No Action Alternative e n v. and emb 2.3.1.1 Approach atiSurplusn NovDetermination ..................................2-7 to o o Water oN avaj rchi ed 2.3.1.2 N70R BaselinevSurplus Triggers .....................................................2-8 in a 2.3.2 cited 16Basin States Alternative (Preferred alternative) .........................2-10 864, 2.3.2.1 o. 14- Approach to Surplus Water Determination ................................2-11 2.3.2.2 N Basin States Alternative Surplus Triggers..................................2-11 2.3.2.1.1 Basin States Alternative Tier 1 (70R).........................................2-14 2.3.2.1.2 Basin States Alternative Tier 2 (1145 feet msl) .........................2-14 2.3.2.1.3 Basin States Alternative Tier 3 (1125 feet msl) .........................2-14 2.3.2.2 Draft Guidelines .........................................................................2-14 2.3.3 Flood Control Alternative...........................................................2-14 2.3.3.1 Approach to Surplus Water Determination ................................2-14 2.3.3.2 Flood Control Alternative Surplus Triggers...............................2-15 2.3.4 Six States Alternative .................................................................2-15 2.3.4.1 Approach to Surplus Water Determination ................................2-15 2.3.4.2 Six States Alternative Surplus Triggers......................................2-18 2.3.4.2.1 Six States Alternative Tier 1 (70R) ............................................2-18 2.3.4.2.2 Six States Alternative Tier 2 (1145 feet msl) .............................2-19 2.3.4.2.3 Six States Alternative Tier 3.......................................................2-19 2.3.5 California Alternative .................................................................2-19 2.3.5.1 Approach to Surplus Water Determination ................................2-19 2.3.5.2 California Alternative Surplus Triggers .....................................2-19 2.3.5.2.1 California Alternative Tier 1 ......................................................2-20 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - ii Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 60 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.3.5.2.2 2.3.5.2.3 2.3.6 2.3.6.1 2.3.6.2 2.4 3 California Alternative Tier 2 ......................................................2-20 California Alternative Tier 3 ......................................................2-20 Shortage Protection Alternative..................................................2-22 Approach to Surplus Water Determination ................................2-22 Surplus Triggers .........................................................................2-22 SUMMARY TABLE OF IMPACTS................................................................2-22 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES........3.1-1 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.1.6 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................3.1-1 Structure of Resource Sections..................................................3.1-1 Use of Modeling to Identify Potential Future Colorado River System Conditions ...........................................................3.1-1 Baseline Conditions...................................................................3.1-2 Impact Determination................................................................3.1-2 Period of Analysis .....................................................................3.1-2 Environmental Commitments....................................................3.1-2 3.2 POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AREA .............................................................3.2-1 3.2.1 Colorado River Segments and Issues Addressed ......................3.2-1 3.2.1.1 Lake Powell ...............................................................................3.2-3 ior Inter Lake Mead ...........3.2-3 3.2.1.2 Colorado River from Glen Canyon Dam to 017 f the pt. o er 29, 2 3.2.1.3 Lake Mead .................................................................................3.2-3 . De b 3.2.1.4 Colorado Rivern v Hoover m to the Southerly io from NoveDam at oN on International Boundary..............................................................3.2-4 avaj r NAdaptive chived in 3.2.2 a Management Program Influence on Glen cited 16Canyon Dam Releases ...............................................................3.2-5 864, 4- o. 1 N 3.3 RIVER SYSTEM OPERATIONS ...................................................................3.3-1 3.3.1 Operation of the Colorado River System ..................................3.3-1 3.3.1.1 Operation of Glen Canyon Dam................................................3.3-2 3.3.1.2 Operation of Hoover Dam .........................................................3.3-3 3.3.2 Natural Runoff and Storage of Water........................................3.3-6 3.3.3 Modeling and Future Hydrology ...............................................3.3-9 3.3.3.1 Model Configuration .................................................................3.3-9 3.3.3.2 Interim Surplus Criteria Modeled..............................................3.3-9 3.3.3.3 General Modeling Assumptions ..............................................3.3-10 3.3.3.4 Lake Mead Water Level Protection Assumptions...................3.3-12 3.3.3.5 Computational Procedures.......................................................3.3-13 3.3.3.6 Post-Processing and Data Interpretation Procedures...............3.3-14 3.3.4 Modeling Results.....................................................................3.3-15 3.3.4.1 General Observations Concerning Modeling Results .............3.3-15 3.3.4.2 Lake Powell Water Levels.......................................................3.3-18 3.3.4.2.1 Dam and Reservoir Configuration...........................................3.3-18 3.3.4.2.2 Historic Water Levels..............................................................3.3-19 3.3.4.2.3 Baseline Conditions.................................................................3.3-19 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - iii Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 61 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.3.4.2.4 3.3.4.3 3.3.4.4 3.3.4.4.1 3.3.4.4.2 3.3.4.4.3 3.3.4.4.4 3.3.4.5 3.3.4.5.1 3.3.4.5.2 3.3.4.5.3 3.3.4.5.4 Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions.................................................................3.3-25 River Flows Between Lake Powell and Lake Mead................3.3-27 Lake Mead Water Levels.........................................................3.3-29 Dam and Reservoir Configuration...........................................3.3-29 Historic Lake Mead Water Levels...........................................3.3-31 Baseline Conditions.................................................................3.3-31 Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions.................................................................3.3-37 Comparison of River Flows Below Hoover Dam ...................3.3-42 River Flows Between Hoover Dam and Parker Dam..............3.3-45 River Flows Between Parker Dam and Palo Verde Diversion .................................................................................3.3-54 River Flows Between Palo Verde Diversion Dam and Imperial Dam...........................................................................3.3-63 River Flows Between Imperial Dam and Morelos Dam .........3.3-71 3.4 WATER SUPPLY............................................................................................3.4-1 3.4.1 Introduction ...............................................................................3.4-1 3.4.2 Methodology..............................................................................3.4-1 ior 3.4.3 Affected Environment ...............................................................3.4-1 Inter 17 0 f the 3.4.3.1 Water Use Projection Process....................................................3.4-3 pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D 3.4.3.2 State of Arizona.........................................................................3.4-3 mb ation on Nove 3.4.3.3 Statejo N of California......................................................................3.4-7 ava Nevada........................................................................3.4-12 NState of rchived 3.4.3.4 d in 64, a 3.4.3.5 cite 8 16Upper Basin States ..................................................................3.4-14 . 14- Mexico.....................................................................................3.4-14 3.4.3.6 No 3.4.4 Environmental Consequences..................................................3.4-16 3.4.4.1 State of Arizona.......................................................................3.4-17 3.4.4.1.1 Baseline Conditions.................................................................3.4-17 3.4.4.1.2 Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions.................................................................3.4-23 3.4.4.2 State of California....................................................................3.4-26 3.4.4.2.1 Baseline Conditions.................................................................3.4-26 3.4.4.2.2 Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions.................................................................3.4-31 3.4.4.3 State of Nevada........................................................................3.4-34 3.4.4.3.1 Baseline Conditions.................................................................3.4-34 3.4.4.3.2 Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions.................................................................3.4-38 3.4.4.4 Upper Basin States ..................................................................3.4-41 3.4.4.5 Mexico.....................................................................................3.4-42 3.4.4.5.1 Baseline Conditions.................................................................3.4-42 3.4.4.5.2 Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions.................................................................3.4-47 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - iv Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 62 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.5 WATER QUALITY.........................................................................................3.5-1 3.5.1 Introduction ...............................................................................3.5-1 3.5.2 Colorado River Salinity.............................................................3.5-1 3.5.2.1 Methodology..............................................................................3.5-1 3.5.2.2 Affected Environment ...............................................................3.5-2 3.5.2.2.1 Historical Data...........................................................................3.5-2 3.5.2.2.2 Regulatory Requirements and Salinity Control Programs ........3.5-3 3.5.2.2.3 General Municipal, Industrial, and Agricultural Effects of Increased Salinity Concentrations .............................................3.5-6 3.5.2.3 Environmental Consequences....................................................3.5-9 3.5.3 Lake Mead Water Quality and Las Vegas Water Supply..........3.5-9 3.5.3.1 Methodology..............................................................................3.5-9 3.5.3.2 Affected Environment .............................................................3.5-11 3.5.3.2.1 General Description.................................................................3.5-11 3.5.3.2.2 Lake Mead Water Quality and Limnology..............................3.5-16 3.5.3.2.3 Hydrodynamics of Lake Mead and Boulder Basin .................3.5-19 3.5.3.3 Environmental Consequences..................................................3.5-20 3.5.3.3.1 General Effects of Reduced Lake Levels ................................3.5-20 3.5.3.3.1.1 Volume Reduction...................................................................3.5-22 ior 3.5.3.3.1.2 Tributary Water Quality ..........................................................3.5-22 Inter 17 3.5.3.3.2 Comparison of Baseline Conditions and , 20 Alternatives.............3.5-22 f the pt. o er 29 e 3.5.3.3.2.1 Baseline Conditions.................................................................3.5-23 v. D mb 3.5.3.3.2.2 Basin StatestiAlternative ..........................................................3.5-23 a on on Nove oN 3.5.3.3.2.3 avaj chived NBaselinerConditions.................................................................3.5-25 a 3.5.3.3.2.4 in Basin States Alternative ..........................................................3.5-25 cited 16864, 3.5.3.3.2.5 4- Flood Control Alternative........................................................3.5-25 1 No. 3.5.3.3.2.6 Six States Alternative ..............................................................3.5-25 3.5.3.3.2.7 California Alternative ..............................................................3.5-25 3.5.3.3.2.8 Shortage Protection Alternative...............................................3.5-26 3.5.3.3.2.9 Summary of Changes in Lake Mead Volume and Elevation..................................................................................3.5-26 3.5.4 Water Quality Between Hoover Dam and Southerly International Boundary............................................................3.5-26 3.6 RIVERFLOW ISSUES ....................................................................................3.6-1 3.6.1 Introduction ...............................................................................3.6-1 3.6.2 Beach/Habitat-Building Flows ..................................................3.6-1 3.6.2.1 Methodology..............................................................................3.6-2 3.6.2.2 Affected Environment ...............................................................3.6-2 3.6.2.3 Environmental Consequences....................................................3.6-3 3.6.2.3.1 Baseline Conditions...................................................................3.6-5 3.6.2.3.2 Basin States Alternative ............................................................3.6-5 3.6.2.3.3 Flood Control Alternative..........................................................3.6-5 3.6.2.3.4 Six States Alternative ................................................................3.6-5 3.6.2.3.5 California Alternative ................................................................3.6-5 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - v Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 63 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.6.2.3.6 3.6.3 3.6.3.1 3.6.3.2 3.6.4 3.6.4.1 3.6.4.1.1 3.6.4.1.2 3.6.4.1.3 3.6.4.1.4 3.6.4.1.5 3.6.4.1.6 3.6.4.2 Shortage Protection Alternative.................................................3.6-6 Low Steady Summer Flow ........................................................3.6-6 Affected Environment ...............................................................3.6-6 Environmental Consequences....................................................3.6-6 Flooding Downstream of Hoover Dam .....................................3.6-8 Affected Environment ...............................................................3.6-9 Hoover Dam to Davis Dam .......................................................3.6-9 Davis Dam to Parker Dam.........................................................3.6-9 Hoover Dam to Davis Dam .....................................................3.6-10 Davis Dam to Parker Dam.......................................................3.6-10 Parker Dam to Laguna Dam ....................................................3.6-10 Laguna Dam to SIB .................................................................3.6-10 Environmental Consequences..................................................3.6-11 3.7 AQUATIC RESOURCES................................................................................3.7-1 3.7.1 Introduction ...............................................................................3.7-1 3.7.2 Lake Habitat ..............................................................................3.7-1 3.7.2.1 Methodology..............................................................................3.7-1 3.7.2.2 Affected Environment ...............................................................3.7-2 3.7.2.2.1 Lake Powell ...............................................................................3.7-2 ior 3.7.2.2.2 Lake Mead .................................................................................3.7-4 Inter 17 the ....................................3.7-4 0 3.7.2.2.3 General Effects of Reservoirof pt. Operation9, 2 e r2 3.7.2.3. Environmental n v. D Consequences....................................................3.7-5 mbe atio ...........................................................................3.7-5 Nove 3.7.3 Sportjo N Fisheries n ava rchived o NMethodology..............................................................................3.7-6 3.7.3.1 d in 64, a 3.7.3.2 cite 8 16Affected Environment ...............................................................3.7-6 . 14- Reservoir Sport Fisheries ..........................................................3.7-7 3.7.3.2.1 No 3.7.3.3 Environmental Consequences....................................................3.7-7 3.7.3.3.1 Reservoir Sport Fisheries ..........................................................3.7-7 3.7.3.3.2 Colorado River Sport Fisheries .................................................3.7-8 3.8 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES ........................................................................3.8-1 3.8.1 Introduction ...............................................................................3.8-1 3.8.2 Methodology..............................................................................3.8-2 3.8.3 Affected Environment ...............................................................3.8-2 3.8.3.1 Lake and Riparian Habitat.........................................................3.8-2 3.8.3.1.1 Lakeside Habitat ........................................................................3.8-2 3.8.3.1.2 Riverside Habitat .......................................................................3.8-5 3.8.3.2 Special-Status Plant Species......................................................3.8-6 3.8.3.2.1 Plant Species Removed from Further Consideration ................3.8-8 3.8.3.2.2 Plant Species Considered Further..............................................3.8-8 3.8.3.3 Special-Status Wildlife Species...............................................3.8-10 3.8.3.3.1 Wildlife Species Removed from Further Consideration .........3.8-12 3.8.3.3.2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Considered Further...............3.8-14 3.8.3.4 Special-Status Fish Species .....................................................3.8-18 3.8.4 Environmental Consequences..................................................3.8-22 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - vi Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 64 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.8.4.1 3.8.4.1.1 3.8.4.1.2 3.8.4.2 3.8.4.2.1 3.8.4.2.2 3.8.4.3 3.8.4.3.1 3.8.4.3.2 Effects on Special-Status Plant Species ..................................3.8-22 Baseline Conditions.................................................................3.8-22 Effects of the Alternatives .......................................................3.8-23 Effects on Special-Status Wildlife Species .............................3.8-24 Baseline Conditions.................................................................3.8-24 Effects of the Alternatives .......................................................3.8-25 Effects on Special-Status Fish Species....................................3.8-25 Baseline Conditions.................................................................3.8-26 Effects of the Alternatives .......................................................3.8-27 3.9 3.9.1 3.9.2 RECREATION ................................................................................................3.9-1 Introduction ...............................................................................3.9-1 Reservoir Marinas, Boat Launching and Shoreline Access .......................................................................3.9-1 3.9.2.1 Methodology..............................................................................3.9-1 3.9.2.2 Affected Environment ...............................................................3.9-2 3.9.2.2.1 Lake Powell Recreation Resources ...........................................3.9-2 3.9.2.2.2 Shoreline Public Use Facilities..................................................3.9-5 3.9.2.2.2.1 Threshold Elevations .................................................................3.9-8 3.9.2.2.3 Lake Mead Recreation Resources .............................................3.9-9 ior 3.9.2.2.4 Shoreline Public Use Facilities at Lake tMead...........................3.9-9 In er 17 0 f the 3.9.2.2.4.1 Threshold Elevations ...............................................................3.9-13 pt. o er 29, 2 e 3.9.2.3 Environmental n v. D mb o Consequences..................................................3.9-13 ati.............................................................................3.9-14 Nove 3.9.2.3.1 Lakejo N Powell n ava chived o NBaselinerConditions.................................................................3.9-20 3.9.2.3.1.1 in a cited 3.9.2.3.1.2 16Basin States Alternative ..........................................................3.9-20 864, 1 - Flood Control Alternative........................................................3.9-21 3.9.2.3.1.3 4 No. 3.9.2.3.1.4 Six States Alternative ..............................................................3.9-21 3.9.2.3.1.5 California Alternative ..............................................................3.9-21 3.9.2.3.1.6 Shortage Protection Alternative...............................................3.9-22 3.9.2.3.2 Lake Mead ...............................................................................3.9-22 3.9.2.3.2.1 Baseline Conditions.................................................................3.9-25 3.9.2.3.2.2 Basin States Alternative ..........................................................3.9-25 3.9.2.3.2.3 Flood Control Alternative........................................................3.9-25 3.9.2.3.2.4 Six States Alternative ..............................................................3.9-25 3.9.2.3.2.5 California Alternative ..............................................................3.9-25 3.9.2.3.2.6 Shortage Protection Alternative...............................................3.9-26 3.9.3 Reservoir Boating/Navigation .................................................3.9-26 3.9.3.1 Methodology............................................................................3.9-26 3.9.3.2 Affected Environment .............................................................3.9-27 3.9.3.2.1 Lake Powell Boating Navigation and Safety...........................3.9-27 3.9.3.2.1.1 Lake Powell Safe Boating Capacity ........................................3.9-28 3.9.3.2.2 Lake Mead Boating Navigation and Safety.............................3.9-29 3.9.3.2.3 Lake Mead Safe Boating Capacity ..........................................3.9-30 3.9.3.3 Environmental Consequences..................................................3.9-31 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - vii Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 65 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.9.3.3.1 3.9.3.3.1.1 3.9.3.3.1.2 3.9.3.3.1.3 3.9.3.3.1.4 3.9.3.3.1.5 3.9.3.3.1.6 3.9.3.3.2 3.9.3.3.2.1 3.9.3.3.2.2 3.9.3.3.2.3 3.9.3.3.2.4 3.9.3.3.2.5 3.9.3.3.2.6 3.9.4 3.9.5 3.9.5.1 3.9.5.2 3.9.5.2.1 3.9.5.2.2 3.9.5.2.3 3.9.5.3 3.9.5.3.1 Lake Powell .............................................................................3.9-32 Baseline Conditions.................................................................3.9-34 Basin States Alternative ..........................................................3.9-34 Flood Control Alternative........................................................3.9-34 Six States Alternative ..............................................................3.9-35 California Alternative ..............................................................3.9-35 Shortage Protection Alternative...............................................3.9-35 Lake Mead ...............................................................................3.9-35 Baseline Conditions.................................................................3.9-37 Basin States Alternative ..........................................................3.9-37 Flood Control Alternative........................................................3.9-38 Six States Alternative ..............................................................3.9-38 California Alternative ..............................................................3.9-38 Shortage Protection Alternative...............................................3.9-38 River and Whitewater Boating ................................................3.9-39 Sport Fishing ...........................................................................3.9-39 Methodology............................................................................3.9-40 Affected Environment .............................................................3.9-40 Sport Fishing in Lake Powell ..................................................3.9-40 ior Sport Fishing in Lake Mead ....................................................3.9-41 Inter 17 the Sport Fishing in Lake Mohavef................................................3.9-43 0 pt. o er 29, 2 e Environmental Consequences..................................................3.9-44 v. D mb Sport Fishingon Lake Powell, Lake Mead and ati in on Nove oN avaj rchived NLake Mohave ...........................................................................3.9-44 in a 3.9.6 cited 16Recreational Facilities Operational Costs ...............................3.9-45 864, 3.9.6.1 14- Methodology............................................................................3.9-45 No. 3.9.6.2 Affected Environment .............................................................3.9-45 3.9.6.2.1 Lake Powell .............................................................................3.9-45 3.9.6.2.2 Lake Mead ...............................................................................3.9-47 3.9.6.3 Environmental Consequences..................................................3.9-48 3.9.6.3.1 Lake Powell .............................................................................3.9-48 3.9.6.3.2 Lake Mead ...............................................................................3.9-48 3.10 ENERGY RESOURCES ...............................................................................3.10-1 3.10.1 Introduction .............................................................................3.10-1 3.10.2 Hydropower .............................................................................3.10-1 3.10.2.1 Methodology............................................................................3.10-1 3.10.2.2 Affected Environment .............................................................3.10-2 3.10.2.2.1 Factors of Power Production ...................................................3.10-2 3.10.2.2.2 Power Marketing and Customers ............................................3.10-3 3.10.2.3 Environmental Consequences..................................................3.10-4 3.10.2.3.1 Baseline Conditions.................................................................3.10-5 3.10.2.3.1.1 Glen Canyon Dam ...................................................................3.10-5 3.10.2.3.1.2 Hoover Dam ............................................................................3.10-5 3.10.2.3.1.3 Combined Capacity and Energy Reduction Under COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - viii Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 66 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Baseline Conditions.................................................................3.10-8 Basin States Alternative ..........................................................3.10-8 Glen Canyon Dam ...................................................................3.10-8 Hoover Dam ............................................................................3.10-8 Flood Control Alternative........................................................3.10-8 Glen Canyon Dam ...................................................................3.10-8 Hoover Dam ............................................................................3.10-9 Six States Alternative ..............................................................3.10-9 Glen Canyon Dam ...................................................................3.10-9 Hoover Dam ............................................................................3.10-9 California Alternative ............................................................3.10-10 Glen Canyon Dam .................................................................3.10-10 Hoover Dam ..........................................................................3.10-10 Shortage Protection Alternative.............................................3.10-10 Glen Canyon Dam .................................................................3.10-10 Hoover Dam ..........................................................................3.10-11 Comparison of Alternatives...................................................3.10-11 Southern Nevada Water System Lake Mead Intake Energy Requirements ............................................................3.10-13 ior 3.10.3.1 Methodology..........................................................................3.10-13 Inter 17 3.10.3.2 Affected Environment ...........................................................3.10-13 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e 3.10.3.3 Environmental Consequences................................................3.10-13 v. D mb 3.10.3.3.1 Baseline Conditions and ove ation on N Alternatives....................................3.10-14 oN 3.10.4 avaj Energy Requirements at Lake Powell ........................3.10-14 NIntake archived 3.10.4.1 cited in Methodology..........................................................................3.10-14 864, 16Affected Environment ...........................................................3.10-15 3.10.4.2 . 14o 3.10.4.3N Environmental Consequences................................................3.10-15 3.10.2.3.2 3.10.2.3.2.1 3.10.2.3.2.2 3.10.2.3.3 3.10.2.3.3.1 3.10.2.3.3.2 3.10.2.3.4 3.10.2.3.4.1 3.10.2.3.4.2 3.10.2.3.5 3.10.2.3.5.1 3.10.2.3.5.2 3.10.2.3.6 3.10.2.3.6.1 3.10.2.3.6.2 3.10.2.4 3.10.3 3.11 AIR QUALITY ..............................................................................................3.11-1 3.11.1 Introduction .............................................................................3.11-1 3.11.2 Fugitive Dust from Exposed Shoreline ...................................3.11-1 3.11.2.1 Methodology............................................................................3.11-1 3.11.2.2 Affected Environment .............................................................3.11-2 3.11.2.3 Environmental Consequences..................................................3.11-3 3.12 VISUAL RESOURCES.................................................................................3.12-1 3.12.1 Introduction .............................................................................3.12-1 3.12.2 Methodology............................................................................3.12-1 3.12.3 Affected Environment .............................................................3.12-1 3.12.3.1 Lake Powell .............................................................................3.12-2 3.12.3.1.1 Landscape Character................................................................3.12-2 3.12.3.1.2 Sensitive Viewing Locations ...................................................3.12-2 3.12.3.2 Lake Mead ...............................................................................3.12-3 3.12.3.2.1 Landscape Character................................................................3.12-3 3.12.3.2.2 Sensitive Viewing Locations ...................................................3.12-3 3.12.4 Environmental Consequences..................................................3.12-4 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - ix Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 67 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.12.4.1 3.12.4.1.1 3.12.4.1.2 3.12.4.2 3.12.4.2.1 3.12.4.2.2 3.12.4.3 3.12.4.3.1 3.12.4.3.2 3.12.4.4 3.12.4.4.1 3.12.4.4.2 3.12.4.5 3.12.4.5.1 3.12.4.5.2 3.12.4.6 3.12.4.6.1 3.12.4.6.2 3.13 3.13.1 3.13.2 3.13.3 3.13.4 Baseline Conditions.................................................................3.12-4 Lake Powell .............................................................................3.12-4 Lake Mead ...............................................................................3.12-5 Basin States Alternative ..........................................................3.12-6 Lake Powell .............................................................................3.12-6 Lake Mead ...............................................................................3.12-6 Flood Control Alternative........................................................3.12-6 Lake Powell .............................................................................3.12-6 Lake Mead ...............................................................................3.12-6 Six States Alternative ..............................................................3.12-7 Lake Powell .............................................................................3.12-7 Lake Mead ...............................................................................3.12-7 California Alternative ..............................................................3.12-7 Lake Powell .............................................................................3.12-7 Lake Mead ...............................................................................3.12-8 Shortage Protection Alternative...............................................3.12-8 Lake Powell .............................................................................3.12-8 Lake Mead ...............................................................................3.12-8 CULTURAL RESOURCES ..........................................................................3.13-1 ior Introduction .............................................................................3.13-1 Inter 17 0 f the Approach to Analysis ..............................................................3.13-1 pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D Affected Environment .............................................................3.13-2 mb ation on Nove Environmental Consequences..................................................3.13-3 ajo N d Nav hive n 3.14 INDIAN iTRUST4, arc ............................................................................3.14-1 ASSETS cited 16Introduction .............................................................................3.14-1 86 3.14.1 14No. 3.14.2 Ten Tribes Partnership ............................................................3.14-1 3.14.2.1 Northern Ute Indian Tribe – Uintah and Ouray Reservation ..............................................................................3.14-2 3.14.2.2 Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation ........................................3.14-3 3.14.2.3 Navajo Indian Reservation ......................................................3.14-4 3.14.2.4 Southern Ute Reservation........................................................3.14-5 3.14.2.5 Ute Mountain Ute Indian Reservation.....................................3.14-5 3.14.2.6 Fort Mojave Indian Reservation ..............................................3.14-6 3.14.2.7 Chemehuevi Indian Reservation..............................................3.14-7 3.14.2.8 Colorado River Indian Reservation .........................................3.14-7 3.14.2.9 Quechan Indian Reservation (Fort Yuma)...............................3.14-8 3.14.2.10 Cocopah Indian Tribe ..............................................................3.14-9 3.14.2.11 Environmental Consequences................................................3.14-10 3.14.2.11.1 Upper Basin Mainstem Tribes...............................................3.14-10 3.14.2.11.2 Lower Basin Mainstem Tribes ..............................................3.14-11 3.14.3 Tribes served by Central Arizona Project..............................3.14-11 3.14.3.1 Water Rights Setting..............................................................3.14-11 3.14.3.1.1 CAP Priority Scheme ............................................................3.14-11 3.14.3.1.2 Examples of Reductions of CAP Water Deliveries...............3.14-14 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - x Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 68 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.14.3.2 3.14.3.2.1 3.14.3.2.2 3.15 Environmental Consequences................................................3.14-18 Impacts Resulting from Baseline Conditions and Alternatives.....................................................................3.14-18 Summary of Impacts..............................................................3.14-20 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ....................................................................3.15-1 3.16 TRANSBOUNDARY IMPACTS..................................................................3.16-1 3.16.1 Introduction .............................................................................3.16-1 3.16.2 Methodology............................................................................3.16-1 3.16.3 Consultation With Mexico ......................................................3.16-2 3.16.4 Affected Environment .............................................................3.16-4 3.16.4.1 Historical Colorado River Between the Southerly International Boundary and the Gulf of California .................3.16-4 3.16.4.2 Present Status of the Colorado River Between the NIB and the Gulf of California........................................................3.16-5 3.16.5 Excess Flows to Mexico........................................................3.16-10 3.16.5.1 Baseline Conditions...............................................................3.16-10 3.16.5.2 Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions...............................................................3.16-15 3.16.5.3 Potential Transboundary Effects of Reduced r terio Flood Flow Frequency .....................................................................3.16-22 he In 2017 of t 9, 3.16.5.3.1 General Effects of . Dept. Flood Flows.............................................3.16-22 ber 2 v 3.16.5.3.2 Effects of ation Excessvem N Reducedon No Flows..........................................3.16-23 o 3.16.5.4 Summary Ofved avaj i Potential Effects To Special-Status Status in Nand4, archIn Mexico ...........................................................3.16-23 Habitat d cite 16Potential Effects to Habitat in Mexico ..................................3.16-23 86 3.16.5.5 . 14- Potential Effects to Special Status-Species in Mexico .........3.16-24 No 3.16.5.5.1 3.16.5.5.2 Desert pupfish........................................................................3.16-24 3.16.5.5.3 Vaquita ..................................................................................3.16-26 3.16.5.5.4 Totoaba ..................................................................................3.16-28 3.16.5.5.5 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher...........................................3.16-30 3.16.5.5.6 Yuma Clapper Rail ................................................................3.16-33 3.16.5.5.7 Yellow-billed Cuckoo ...........................................................3.16-36 3.16.5.5.8 California Black Rail .............................................................3.16-37 3.16.5.5.9 Elf Owl ..................................................................................3.16-38 3.16.5.5.10 Bell’s Vireo ...........................................................................3.16-39 3.16.5.5.11 Clark’s Grebe.........................................................................3.16-40 3.17 3.17.1 3.17.2 3.17.3 3.17.4 3.17.5 3.17.6 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS ..........................3.17-1 Water Quality ..........................................................................3.17-1 Riverflow Issues ......................................................................3.17-2 Aquatic Resources ...................................................................3.17-2 Special-Status Species .............................................................3.17-2 Recreation................................................................................3.17-2 Cultural Resources...................................................................3.17-2 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xi Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 69 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.17.7 4 Transboundary Impacts ...........................................................3.17-3 OTHER NEPA CONSIDERATIONS...............................................................................4-1 4.1 4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS................................................................................4-1 4.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY...............................4-2 4.4 5 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................4-1 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES .....................................................................................................4-3 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION...................................................................5-1 5.1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................5-1 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 GENERAL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES......................................5-1 Project Scoping.............................................................................5-1 Public Review Of DEIS................................................................5-2 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 FEDERAL AGENCY COORDINATION .........................................................5-2 National Park Service ...................................................................5-2 United States Section of the International rior te Boundary and he In 2017 Water Commission .......................................................................5-3 . of t r 2 ........................................5-3 e Indian Affairs 9, United States Bureau of pt be v. D United Stateson and NovemService Including ati Fish on Wildlife oN avaj rch ved NEndangered iSpecies Act Compliance...........................................5-3 in a cited 16National Marine Fisheries Service ...............................................5-4 864, Historic Preservation Act Compliance ..........................5-5 14- National 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.3.5 5.3.6 No. 5.4 TRIBAL CONSULTATION ..............................................................................5-6 5.5 STATE AND LOCAL WATER AND POWER AGENCIES COORDINATION ..............................................................................................5-6 5.6 NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS COORDINATION ................5-7 5.7 MEXICO CONSULTATION .............................................................................5-7 5.8 SUMMARY OF COORDINATION CONTACTS ............................................5-8 5.9 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES...................................................................5-12 Glossary GL-1 Index IND-1 References Cited REF-1 List of Preparers LOP-1 Document Distribution DIST-1 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xii Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 70 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables Table 1-1 Documents Included in the Law of the River............................................1-11 Table 1-2 Colorado River Storage Facilities and Major Diversion Dams from Lake Powell to Morelos Dam....................................................................1-19 Table 2-1 Baseline Potential Surplus Water Supply..................................................2-10 Table 2-2 Basin States Alternative Potential Surplus Water Supply.........................2-13 Table 2-3 Flood Control Potential Alternative Surplus Water Supply ......................2-15 Table 2-4 Six States Alternative Potential Surplus Water Supply.............................2-18 Table 2-5 California Alternative Potential Surplus Water Supply ............................2-20 Table 2-6 Shortage Protection Alternative Potential Surplus Water Supply.............2-22 Table 2-7 Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Interim Surplus Criteria.......................................................................................................2-24 Table 3.3-1 Glen Canyon Dam Release Restrictions...................................................3.3-3 Table 3.3-2 Minimum Required Colorado River System Storage or Space ....................3.3-4 Table 3.3-3 Table 3.3-4 Table 3.3-5 teri ,2 er 29 In Minimum Flood Control Releases at Hoover Dam ..................................3.3-5 017 f the pt. o Lake Powell End-of-July Water e emb Comparison of Surplus v. D Elevations; ation Condition; 90th, 50th and 10th Alternatives and Baseline on Nov ajo N Percentileav ....................................................................................3.3-25 N Valuesrchived in a ed citLake Powell 4, 1686 End-of-July Water Elevations; Comparison of Surplus . 14NoAlternatives and Baseline Conditions; Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 3695 Feet ........................................3.3-27 Table 3.3-6 Lake Powell End-of-July Water Elevations; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives and Baseline Conditions; Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 3612 Feet ........................................3.3-27 Table 3.3-7 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives and Baseline Conditions; 90th, 50th and 10th Percentile Values .............................................................................3.3-37 Table 3.3-8 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives and Baseline Conditions; Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 1200 Feet ............................3.3-41 Table 3.3-9 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives and Baseline Conditions Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 1083 Feet ............................3.3-41 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xiii Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 71 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table 3.3-10 Table 3.3-11 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations;Comparison of Surplus Alternatives and Baseline Conditions; Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 1050 Feet ............................3.3-41 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives and Baseline Conditions; Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 1000 Feet ............................3.3-42 Table 3.3-12 Colorado River Flow Locations Identified for Evaluation ....................3.3-42 Table 3.3-13 Comparison of Mean Monthly Flow (cfs) – Baseline Conditions and Surplus Alternatives; Colorado River Downstream of Havasu NWR (River Mile = 242.3); 70th Percentile Values for Year 2016........3.3-48 Table 3.3-14 Comparison of Mean Monthly Flow (cfs) – Baseline Conditions and Surplus Alternatives; Colorado River Upstream of CRIR Diversion (River Mile = 180.8); 70th Percentile Values for Year 2016 ..................3.3-58 Table 3.3-15 Comparison of Mean Monthly Flow (cfs) – Baseline Conditions and Surplus Alternatives; Colorado River Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam (River Mile = 133.8); 70th Percentile Values for ior Year 2016 ...............................................................................................3.3-64 Inter Table 3.3-16 Table 3.4-1 f the 017 9, 2 Comparison of Mean Monthly Flow.Data – Baseline Conditions pt o . De Riverber 2 and Surplus Alternatives; Colorado vem Downstream of Morelos nv o Natio d onPercentile Values (cfs) Dam (River Mile = 23.1); 90th N vajo hive Na for Year 2016..........................................................................................3.3-75 d in , arc cite 16864 Summary of Arizona Modeled Annual Depletions; Comparison . 14Noof Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions......................................3.4-24 Table 3.4-2 Summary of California Modeled Annual Depletions; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions......................................3.4-33 Table 3.4-3 Summary of Nevada Modeled Annual Depletions; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions......................................3.4-41 Table 3.4-4 Summary of Mexico Modeled Annual Depletions; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions......................................3.4-47 Table 3.5-1 Estimated Colorado River Salinity in 2016............................................3.5-10 Table 3.5-2 Estimated Colorado River Salinity in 2050............................................3.5-10 Table 3.5-3 Morphometric Characteristics of Lake Mead.........................................3.5-12 Table 3.5-4 Chemical Characteristics of Colorado River ..........................................3.5-16 Table 3.5-5 Hydraulic Inputs for Lake Mead ............................................................3.5-18 Table 3.5-6 Modeled Characteristics of Lake Mead Under Baseline and Alternative Conditions............................................................................3.5-24 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xiv Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 72 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table 3.5-7 Modeled Comparisons of Alternatives to Baseline Conditions .............3.5-24 Table 3.6-1 Probabilities of BHBF Releases from Glen Canyon Dam .......................3.6-3 Table 3.6-2 Probability of Minimum Glen Canyon Dam Releases (Annual Releases of 8.23 maf) .................................................................3.6-8 Table 3.6-3 Development in Flood Plains Between Hoover Dam and SIB, 1979 Data .......................................................................................3.6-10 Table 3.6-4 Discharge Probabilities from Hoover, Davis and Parker Dams .............3.6-12 Table 3.6-5 Estimated Flood Damages Between Hoover Dam and the SIB (1979 level of development and 2000 price level1)................................3.6-12 Table 3.7-1 Fish Species Present in the Project Area ..................................................3.7-3 Table 3.8-1 Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring Within the Area of Analysis .......................................................................................3.8-7 Table 3.8-2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring Within the Area of Analysis .....................................................................................3.8-11 Table 3.8-3 Special-Status Fish Species Potentially Occurring Within the r Area of Analysis .....................................................................................3.8-18 terio Table 3.9-1 Table 3.9-2 he In r mbe 7 01 Glen Canyon National Recreationpt. ofVisitation,..................................3.9-3 Area t 29 2 . De n ed o Lake Powell Shorelineon v Useove ati Public N Facilities............................................3.9-6 jo N ited 6864, a Table 3.9-4 c Probabilities of Lake Powell Elevation Exceeding 3677 feet -1 . July oin14 .....................................................................................................3.9-17 N Table 3.9-3 Laken Nava rcPublic Use Facilities ...............................................3.9-10 i Mead Marina hiv Table 3.9-5 Probabilities of Lake Powell Elevation Exceeding 3612 feet in July .....................................................................................................3.9-18 Table 3.9-6 Comparison of Lake Mead Elevation Exceedance Probabilities for Elevation 1183 Feet ..........................................................................3.9-22 Table 3.9-7 Lake Powell Safe Boating Capacity at Water Surface Elevations .........3.9-29 Table 3.9-8 Lake Mead Safe Boating Capacity at Water Surface Elevations ...........3.9-31 Table 3.9-9 Probabilities of Lake Powell Elevation Exceeding 3626 feet in July .....................................................................................................3.9-34 Table 3.9-10 Probabilities of Lake Mead End-of-December Elevation Exceeding 1170 feet .................................................................................................3.9-37 Table 3.9-11 Nevada Division of Wildlife Annual Angler Questionnaire Results for Lake Mead............................................................................3.9-42 Table 3.9-12 Lake Mohave Developed Recreation Facilities......................................3.9-43 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xv Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 73 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table 3.9-13 Costs Associated with Adjustments to Lake Powell Recreation Facilities .................................................................................................3.9-46 Table 3.9-14 Costs Incurred to Recreational Facilities from Lake Mead Pool Fluctuations (Year 2000 Price Level).....................................................3.9-47 Costs Associated with Potential Relocation of Lake Powell Recreational Facilities Under Alternatives; Compared to Baseline Conditions (Year 2000 Price Level).......................................................3.9-48 Table 3.9-15 Table 3.9-16 Costs Associated with Potential Relocation of Lake Mead Recreational Facilities Under Alternatives Compared to Baseline Conditions................................................................................3.9-49 Table 3.10-1 Hydropower Capacity and Energy – Comparison of Alternatives to Baseline Conditions; (Difference between baseline conditions and each alternative2) ..........................................................................3.10-12 Table 3.10-2 Southern Nevada Water System Lake Mead Intake Energy Requirements Average Annual Power Cost – Comparison of Alternatives to Baseline Conditions; (Differences between baseline conditions and each alternative) ...........................................................3.10-14 Table 3.10-3 r io Intake Energy Requirements at Lake Powell Average Annual Inter 17 heBaseline0Conditions Power Cost – Comparison of Alternatives to of t 9 2 ept. and reach ,alternative) ...........3.10-16 (Difference between baseline D . conditions be 2 v m n e Natio d on Nov Table 3.11-1 Median Lake Mead Surface Elevation ajo av ive SurfaceN d in Area4and rch , a Exposed Shoreline Area Under Baseline e citConditions6 Alternative Projections..................................................3.11-5 168 and . 14o Table 3.11-2 N Median Lake Powell Surface Elevation, Surface Area and Exposed Shoreline Area Under Baseline Conditions and Alternative Projections ..............................................................................................3.11-6 Table 3.14-1 Central Arizona Project Indian Water Allocations...............................3.14-13 Table 3.14-2 Traditional Reclamation Priorities for Central Arizona Project Water ........................................................................................3.14-15 Table 3.14-3 Reductions in Indian CAP Water Supplies During Times of Shortage on Colorado River Likely Future Without GRIC Settlement ..................................................................................3.14-16 Table 3.14-4 Reductions in Indian CAP Water Supplies During Times of Shortage on Colorado River (Likely Future with GRIC Settlement)............................................................................................3.14-17 Table 3.16-1 Frequency Occurrence of Excess Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions.............................................................................................3.16-15 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xvi Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 74 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table 3.16-2 Excess Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions; 75th Percentile Values for Selected Years (kaf)....................................3.16-20 Table 3.16-3 Excess Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions; 90th Percentile Values for Selected Years (kaf)....................................3.16-21 Yellow-billed Cuckoos Survey Results................................................3.16-37 Table 3.16-4 Table 5-1 Participants with Reclamation Regarding the Interim Surplus Criteria Environmental Impact Statement Process......................................5-9 Table 5-2 Federal Register Notices Regarding Interim Surplus Criteria ..................5-12 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xvii Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 75 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures Figure 1-1 Locations of Lee Ferry and Lees Ferry .......................................................1-6 Figure 1-2 Schematic of Colorado River Releases and Diversions ............................1-14 Figure 2-1 Baseline Surplus Trigger Elevations ...........................................................2-9 Figure 2-2 Basin States Alternative Surplus Trigger Elevations ................................2-12 Figure 2-3 Flood Control Alternative Surplus Trigger Elevations..............................2-16 Figure 2-4 Six States Alternative Surplus Trigger Elevations ....................................2-17 Figure 2-5 California Alternative Surplus Trigger Elevations....................................2-21 Figure 2-6 Shortage Protection Alternative Trigger Elevations..................................2-23 Figure 3.3-1 Natural Flow at Lees Ferry Stream Gage .................................................3.3-7 Figure 3.3-2 Historic Annual Flow at Lees Ferry Stream Gage ...................................3.3-8 Figure 3.3-3 Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam Important Operating Elevations ...............................................................................................3.3-19 Figure 3.3-4 Figure 3.3-5 Figure 3.3-6 rior 0 29, 2 nte Historic Lake Powell Water Levels........................................................3.3-20 17 the I t. of Lake Powell End-of-July Water ep . D Elevations er b Under Baseline th th ion v th vemValues and Representative Conditions; 90 , 50atand 10 n No Percentile N vajo hived o Traces .....................................................................................................3.3-21 Na arc ed in 86 End-of-July Water Elevations; Comparison of citLake Powell 4, 16 . 14oSurplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions; 90th, 50th and 10th N Percentile Values ....................................................................................3.3-23 Figure 3.3-7 Lake Powell End-of-July Water Elevations; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions; Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 3695 Feet ........................................3.3-24 Figure 3.3-8 Lake Powell End-of-July Water Elevations; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions; Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 3612 Feet ........................................3.3-26 Figure 3.3-9 Histogram of Modeled Lake Powell Annual Releases (Water Years) 2002 to 2016 (85 Traces) .......................................................................3.3-28 Figure 3.3-10 Lake Mead and Hoover Dam Important Operating Elevations..............3.3-30 Figure 3.3-11 Historic Lake Mead Water Levels (Annual Highs and Lows) ...............3.3-32 Figure 3.3-12 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations Under Baseline Conditions; 90th, 50th and 10th Percentile Values and Representative Traces .....................................................................................................3.3-33 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xviii Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 76 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 3.3-13 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives and Baseline Conditions; 90th, 50th and 10th Percentile Values ...................................................................................3.3-35 Figure 3.3-14 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives and Baseline Conditions; Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 1200 Feet ........................................3.3-36 Figure 3.3-15 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions; Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 1083 Feet .......................................3.3-38 Figure 3.3-16 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions; Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 1050 Feet ........................................3.3-39 Figure 3.3-17 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions; Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 1000 Feet ........................................3.3-40 Figure 3.3-18 Colorado River Downstream of Havasu NWR Annual Flow Volume (af); Comparison of Surplus Alternatives toior Baseline Inter 17 Conditions; (0th, 50th, and 10th Percentile Values ...................................3.3-46 he Figure 3.3-19 t. of t , 20 Colorado River Annual Flow Volume Downstream of Havasu NWR; Dep mber 29 n v. Comparison of Surplus Alternativesve Baseline Conditions for atio on No to ajo N ................................................................................3.3-49 Modeled Year 2016 hived Nav ed in , arc Figure 3.3-20a citColorado 864 Seasonal Flows Downstream of Havasu NWR; 16 River . 14NoComparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 ................................................................................3.3-50 Figure 3.3-20b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Havasu NWR; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 ................................................................................3.3-51 Figure 3.3-20c Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Havasu NWR; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 ................................................................................3.3-52 Figure 3.3-20d Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Havasu NWR; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 ................................................................................3.3-53 Figure 3.3-21 Colorado River Upstream of CRIR Diversion Annual Flow Volume (af); Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions; 90th, 50th, and 10th Percentile Values ..................................3.3-55 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xix Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 77 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 3.3-22 Colorado River Annual Flow Volumes Upstream of Colorado River Indian Reservation; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2006 ........................................................3.3-57 Figure 3.3-23a Colorado River Seasonal Flows Upstream of Colorado River Indian Reservation; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 ........................................................3.3-59 Figure 3.3-23b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Upstream of Colorado River Indian Reservation; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016........................................................3.3-60 Figure 3.3-23c Colorado River Seasonal Flows Upstream of Colorado River Indian Reservation; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016........................................................3.3-61 Figure 3.3-23d Colorado River Seasonal Flows Upstream of Colorado River Indian Reservation;Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016........................................................3.3-62 Figure 3.3-24 Colorado River Downstream Palo Verde DiversionrDam Annual Flow ior Inte Baseline Volume (af); Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to 017 f the 9, 2 th th th pt. o Values ....................................3.3-65 Conditions; 90 50 and 10 Percentile er 2 De mb n v. atioFlow n Nove Downstream of Palo Verde Figure 3.3-25 Colorado River Annual Volumes ajo N ived o Irrigation av N Diversion;hComparison of Surplus Alternatives to ed in 864, arc citBaseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2006 .........................................3.3-66 16 . 14Figure 3.3-26aNoColorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Division; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016........................................................3.3-67 Figure 3.3-26b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Division; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016........................................................3.3-68 Figure 3.3-26c Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Division; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016........................................................3.3-69 Figure 3.3-26d Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Division; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016........................................................3.3-70 Figure 3.3-27 Colorado River Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Annual Flow Volume (af); Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions 90th, 50th and 10th Percentile Values ....................................3.3-73 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xx Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 78 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 3.3-28 Colorado River Annual Flow Volumes Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2006 ........................................................3.3-74 Figure 3.3-29a Colorado River Seasonal Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 ........................................................3.3-76 Figure 3.3-29b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 ........................................................3.3-77 Figure 3.3-29c Colorado River Seasonal Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 ........................................................3.3-78 Figure 3.3-29d Colorado River Seasonal Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 ........................................................3.3-79 Figure 3.4-1 Arizona Projected Colorado River Water Demand Schedules ior Inter 17 (Full Surplus, Normal and Shortage Water Supply Conditions) ..............3.4-5 the Figure 3.4-2 Figure 3.4-3 Figure 3.4-4 t. of 9, 20 California Projected ColoradoDep Water er 2 . River b Demand Schedules on Shortage Water iand v Novem Supply Conditions) ..........3.4-11 (Full Surplus, Normal Nat n vajo ed o NevadaNa ProjectedrColorado River Water Demand Schedules chiv ed in 864Normal and Shortage Water Supply Conditions) ............3.4-13 it(Full Surplus, , a c -16 . 14 NoUpper Basin Depletion Projections (Based on 1998 Depletion Schedule) ................................................................................................3.4-15 Figure 3.4-5 Arizona Modeled Annual Depletions Under Baseline Conditions; 90th, 50th and 10th Percentile Values ....................................................3.4-19 Figure 3.4-6 Arizona Modeled Depletions Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions Years 2002 to 2016 ...............................................3.4-21 Figure 3.4-7 Arizona Modeled Depletions Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions Years 2017 to 2050 ...............................................3.4-22 Figure 3.4-8 Arizona Modeled Annual Depletions; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions; 90th, 50th and 10th Percentile Values ....................................................................................3.4-25 Figure 3.4-9 California Modeled Annual Depletions Under Baseline Conditions; 90th, 50th and 10th Percentile Values .......................................................3.4-27 Figure 3.4-10 California Modeled Depletions; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions; Years 2002 to 2016 ..............................................3.4-29 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xxi Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 79 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 3.4-11 California Modeled Depletions; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions; Years 2017 to 2050 ..........................................3.4-30 Figure 3.4-12 California Modeled Annual Depletions; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions; 90th, 50th and 10th Percentile Values ....................................................................................3.4-32 Figure 3.4-13 Nevada Modeled Annual Depletions Under Baseline Conditions; 90th, 50th and 10th Percentile Values ....................................................3.4-35 Figure 3.4-14 Nevada Modeled Depletions; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions; Years 2002 to 2016 ..............................................3.4-37 Figure 3.4-15 Nevada Modeled Depletions; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions; Years 2017 to 2050 ..............................................3.4-39 Figure 3.4-16 Nevada Modeled Annual Depletions; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions; 90th, 50th and 10th Percentile Values ....................................................................................3.4-40 Figure 3.4-17 Mexico Modeled Annual Depletions Under Baseline Conditions; 90th, 50th and 10th Percentile Values .......................................................3.4-43 Figure 3.4-18 Figure 3.4-19 Figure 3.4-20 ior Mexico Modeled Depletions; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Inter 17 he Baseline Conditions; Years 2002 to 2016t..............................................3.4-45 , 20 . of ept r 29 . Mexico Modeled Depletions; D mbe ion v Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to atYears 2017 to ve ..............................................3.4-46 No 2050 Baseline Conditions; ajo N d on Nav hive a ed in Modeled rc citMexico6864, Annual Depletions; Comparison of Surplus 1 Alternatives to Baseline Conditions; 90th, 50th and 10th . 14NoPercentile Values ....................................................................................3.4-48 Figure 3.5-1 Historical Monthly Salinity Concentrations Below Glen Canyon Dam (1940-1995) .....................................................................................3.5-3 Figure 3.5-2 Historical Glen Canyon Dam and Imperial Dam Releases ......................3.5-4 Figure 3.5-3 Historical Salinity Concentrations of Releases from Glen Canyon, Hoover, and Imperial Dams .....................................................................3.5-5 Figure 3.5-4 Estimated Cost of Damages Associated with Increased Salinity Concentrations..........................................................................................3.5-8 Figure 3.5-5 Lake Mead End-of-Year Water Elevations; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions; 50th Percentile Values..................3.5-21 Figure 3.6-1 Lake Powell Releases Probability of Occurrence of BHBF Flows ..........3.6-4 Figure 3.6-2 Lake Powell Releases Probability of Approximately 8.23 maf Annual Release .........................................................................................3.6-7 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xxii Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 80 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 3.9-1 Lake Powell End of July Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions 90th, 50th and 10th Percentile Values ......................................................3.9-15 Figure 3.9-2 Lake Powell End of July Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to 3677 Feet msl ....................3.9-16 Figure 3.9-3 Lake Powell End of July Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to 3612 Feet msl ....................3.9-19 Figure 3.9-4 Lake Mead End of December Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternative to Baseline Conditions 90th, 50th and 10th Percentile Values........................................................3.9-23 Figure 3.9-5 Lake Mead End of December Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to 1183 Feet msl ....................3.9-24 Figure 3.9-6 Lake Powell End of July Water Elevations ior Inter 17 Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions 0 f the 3626 Feet......................3.9-33 Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to 29, 2 pt. o e r Figure 3.9-7 v. D mbe n e Lake Mead End of Decembern NovElevations Natio d o Water ajo Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions Nav archive d in 64Values Greater than or Equal to 1170 Feet......................3.9-36 e citPercentage of , 8 -16 . 14 Figure 3.10-1 NoGlen Canyon Powerplant/Annual Average Energy Production .............3.10-6 Figure 3.10-2 Hoover Powerplant Annual Average Energy Production.......................3.10-7 Figure 3.16-1 Probability of Occurrence of Excess Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions..............................................................................3.16-11 Figure 3.16-2 Potential Magnitude of Excess Flows Greater Than 250,000 af Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions ...............3.16-13 Figure 3.16-3 Potential Magnitude of Excess Flows Greater Than 1,000,000 af Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions ...............3.16-14 Figure 3.16-4 Potential Magnitude of Excess Flows Below Mexico Diversions at Morelos Dam; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 ......................................................3.16-16 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xxiii Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 81 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 3.16- 5 Potential Magnitude of Excess Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam; Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2050 ......................................................3.16-17 Figure 3.16- 6 Potential Magnitude of Excess Flows To Mexico 90th and 75th Percentile Values ............................................................3.16-19 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xxiv Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 82 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Maps Map 1-1 Colorado River Drainage Basin...................................................................1-7 Map 1-2 Upper and Lower Basins of the Colorado River .......................................1-10 Map 1-3 Upper and Lower Division States of the Colorado River..........................1-12 Map 1-4 Lower Colorado River Dams.....................................................................1-18 Map 3.2-1 Area of Potential Effect ............................................................................3.2-2 Map 3.3-1 Colorado River Locations Selected for Modeling..................................3.3-44 Map 3.4-1 Colorado River Water Service Areas in the Lower Basin........................3.4-2 Map 3.5-1 Las Vegas Wash and SNWA Lake Mead Intake Facilities at Saddle Island ..........................................................................................3.5-14 Map 3.9-1 Lake Powell and Associated Shoreline Recreation Facilities ..................3.9-4 Map 3.9-2 Lake Mead and Associated Shoreline Recreation Facilities ..................3.9-11 Map 3.16-1 Colorado River Location Within Mexico...............................................3.16-6 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xxv Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 83 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME II Attachment A - Long Range Operating Criteria Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs Pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Project Act of September 30, 1968 (p.l. 90-537) Attachment B - Environmental Guidelines for Transboundary Impacts Executive Order 12114 Guidance on NEPA Analyses for Transboundary Impacts, Council on Environmental Quality, 1997 Attachment C - Dams and Reservoirs Along the Lower Colorado River Attachment D - Glen Canyon Dam Operation Record of Decision Record of Decision based on Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement, March 1995 ior Inter 17 Attachment E - Surplus Criteria Proposal by Six Statesthe , t. of Criteria 20 Proposal for Interim Lake Mead Reservoirep Operation er 29 Related to Surplus, .D b nv em Normal and Shortage Year Declarations, December 4, 1998 Natio d on Nov o avaj rchive Attachment F - SurplusN in Criteria Proposal by California a cited 16864, 14 Surplus Criteria-for Management of the Colorado River, Exhibit A to a draft document No. Terms for Quantification of Settlement Among the State of California, entitled Key IID, CVWD, and MWD Attachment G - Surplus Criteria Proposal by Pacific Institute Letter report dated February 15, 2000 Excerpts from September 8, 2000, letter of comment on the Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria DEIS Attachment H - Lower Division Depletion Schedules Arizona’s Depletion Schedule Nevada’s Depletion Schedule California’s Depletion Schedule with Transfers California’s Depletion Schedule without Transfers COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xxvi Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 84 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Attachment I - Draft Interim Surplus Guidelines Basin States Alternative Interim Surplus Guidelines Attachment J - Detailed Modeling Documentation Attachment K - Upper Division Depletion Schedule Depletion Schedule for Upper Division States, December 1999 Attachment L - Sensitivity Analysis Comparing Baseline with Transfers to Baseline Without Transfers Lake Powell Water Surface Elevations Lake Mead Water Surface Elevations Hoover Dam Flood Control Releases Water Supply Attachment M - Sensitivity Analysis of Modeled Lake Mead Water Level Protection Assumptions ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 Lake Powell Water Surface Elevations. De v mb ation RiverNove Attachment N - Comparison ajo N of Colorado on Flows Nav archived in Comparisond Flows64, cite of 168 Downstream of the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge Diversion 14Comparison of Flows Upstream of the Colorado River Indian Reservation Diversion No. Lake Mead Water Surface Elevations Comparison of Flows Downstream of the Palo Verde Irrigation District Diversion Comparison of Flows Below Morelos Dam Attachment O - Water Supply for Lower Division States Arizona Water Supply California Water Supply Nevada Water Supply COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xxvii Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 85 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Attachment P - Energy Analysis Worksheets Average Lake Mead Elevation and Comparison of SNWA Power Cost Average Lake Powell Elevation Glen Canyon Dam Discharge Multiplier and Powerplant Capacity vs. Elevation Hoover Powerplant Capacity vs. Elevation Glen Canyon Powerplant Summary of Average Annual Capacity and Energy Glen Canyon Powerplant Comparison to Baseline Conditions Hoover Powerplant Summary of Average Annual Capacity and Energy Hoover Powerplant Comparison to Baseline Conditions Attachment Q - Ten Tribes Depletion Schedule Tables of Water Demand Nodes, Water Rights and Depletions for Ten Tribes Partnership Members used in operational model Attachment R - Public Scoping Process ior Inter 17 e 20 of th Analysis of Public Scoping Meetings & Dept. Letters 9, Response er 2 . emb on v atiU.S. FishNovWildlife Service and National Attachment S - Correspondence with on and jo N Nava archived Marine Fisheries Services in cited 16864, Memorandum4- May 22, 2000 from Boulder Canyon Operations to Arizona 1 of No.Services Ecological Public Scoping Process Memorandum of June 5, 2000 from Interior Bureau of Reclamation Memorandum of August 14, 2000 from Interior to the Bureau of Reclamation Memorandum of August 31, 2000 from Reclamation to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Memorandum of November 29, 2000 from Bureau of Reclamation to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Attachment T - Consultation with Mexico Draft Authority and Assumptions Letter from Commissioner of Mexico Section of IBWC to United States Section of IBWC dated May 22, 2000 [in Spanish]. Letter from Commissioner of Mexico Section of IBWC to the United States Section of IBWC dated May 22, 2000, English translation. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xxviii Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 86 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Letter from Commissioner of Mexico Section of IBWC to United States Section of IBWC dated October 10, 2000 [in Spanish]. Letter from Commissioner of Mexico Section of IBWC to the United States Section of IBWC dated October 10, 2000, English translation. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xxix Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 87 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME III INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME III .................................................................................. 1 PART A – PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORAL COMMENTS ......................................A-1 PART B – COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES................................................ B-1 Individuals Garcia.......................................................................................................................... B-3 Belles........................................................................................................................... B-4 Forbes Willson ............................................................................................................ B-5 Inskip........................................................................................................................... B-6 Miller........................................................................................................................... B-7 Zarbin.......................................................................................................................... B-9 ior Inter 17 0 f the American Water Resources, Inc. .............................................................................. B-11 pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb American Water Resources, Inc. .............................................................................. B-12 ation on Nove jo N American Water Resources, Inc. .............................................................................. B-14 Nava archive.d..................................................................... B-16 n Center for Biological Diversity, et,al1 ted i 6 ............................................................................................... B-22 ciof Wildlife864, Defenders -1 o. 14 Pacific Institute ......................................................................................................... B-34 N Organizations Southwest Rivers ...................................................................................................... B-51 Water User Agencies and Organizations Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) ........................................ B-59 Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) ............................................................... B-63 Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA) .................................... B-67 Colorado River Water Conservation District (CRWCD) ......................................... B-69 Cottonwood Creek Consolidated Irrigation Company (CCCIC).............................. B-71 Emery Water Conservancy District (EWCD)........................................................... B-72 Grand Water and Sewer (GW&S) ............................................................................ B-73 Imperial Irrigation District (IID)............................................................................... B-74 Irrigation and Electrical Districts Association of Arizona (I&EDAA) .................... B-77 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) ................................... B-89 Mohave County Water Authority (MCWA)............................................................. B-95 Ouray Park Irrigation Company (OPIC)................................................................... B-98 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xxx Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 88 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Water User Agencies and Organizations (Continued) Salt River Project (SRP) ........................................................................................... B-99 San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA)...................................................... B-100 Southern California Edison Company (SCEC)....................................................... B-102 Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) .......................................................... B-104 Uintah Water Conservancy District (UWCD) ........................................................ B-106 Union Park Water Authority (UPWA) ................................................................... B-109 Upper Colorado River Commission (UCRC) ......................................................... B-116 Local Agencies City of Phoenix, Office of the City Manager.......................................................... B-119 Grand County Council (Utah)................................................................................. B-122 State Agencies Arizona Power Authority (APA) ............................................................................ B-123 Arizona Power Authority (APA) ............................................................................ B-128 ior Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) ............................................... B-130 Inter 17 Arizona Game and Fish Department (AG&FD)..................................................... B-136 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 Colorado River Board of California (CRBC)e ......................................................... B-141 v. D v mb California Regional Water Quality on ati Control Boarde N n No (CRWQCB) ............................ B-142 Colorado Departmentavajo hived o (CDNR) ............................................ B-144 of Natural Resources c in N New Mexico Interstate 64, ar Commission (NMISC) .......................................... B-146 ited 68 Stream c Colorado River 4-1 1 Commission of Nevada (CRCN) .................................................. B-148 No. Commission (Nevada State Historic Preservation Colorado River Office-NSHPO).................................................................................................... B-151 New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED)................................................ B-154 Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources (UDNR, DWR) .................................................................................................... B-155 Office of Federal Land Policy (State of Wyoming) (WOFLP) .............................. B-157 Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians ................................................................ B-165 Hualapai Nation ...................................................................................................... B-167 Navajo Nation Department of Justice (excludes attachments) ............................... B-187 Navajo Tribal Utility Authority .............................................................................. B-191 Ute Mountain Ute Tribe ......................................................................................... B-193 Ten Tribes Partnership............................................................................................ B-194 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xxxi Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 89 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)............................................................................... B-221 Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo Region ............................................................... B-223 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)............................................................... B-225 U.S. Fish and Wildlife ............................................................................................ B-238 International Boundary and Water Commission, United States Section (IBWC, U.S. Section) .......................................................................................... B-278 National Park Service (NPS) .................................................................................. B-281 Western Area Power Administration (WAPA)....................................................... B-286 Western Area Power Administration (WAPA)....................................................... B-287 Western Area Power Administration (WAPA)....................................................... B-289 Mexican Agencies/Organizations Autonomous University of Baja California (AUBC) ............................................. B-291 International Boundary and Water Commission, Mexican Section (IBWC, Mexican) ................................................................................................ B-294 Mexicali Business Coordinating Council (MBCC) ................................................ B-296 ior Mexicali Economic Development Council (MEDC).............................................. B-298 Inter 17 e National Water Commission (NWC)...................................................................... B-300 of th , 20 9 pt. . De ember 2 nv Additional Tribe atio Nov ajo N ived on Nav d in 64, arch Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians ............................................................................... B-303 cite 168 14No. Oral Comments Noble....................................................................................................................... B-305 1 This letter was submitted by the following organizations: Defenders of Wildlife Environmental Defense El Centro de Derecho Ambiental e Integracion Economica del Sur, A.C. Friends of Arizona Rivers Glen Canyon Action Network Glen Canyon Institute Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security Sierra Club Fred Cagle Jaqueline Garcia-Hernandez COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xxxii Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 90 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.........................................................................1 S.1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 S.1.2 PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION ........................................................................ 4 S.1.3 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 4 S.1.3.1 Long-Range Operating Criteria ....................................................... 5 S.1.3.2 Annual Operating Plan ....................................................................6 S.1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION................................................................ 7 S.1.5 RELATIONSHIP TO UNITED STATES–MEXICO WATER TREATY ........... 8 S.1.6 RELATED AND ON-GOING ACTIONS ............................................................ 8 S.1.6.1 California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan .................................. 8 S.1.6.1.1 Imperial Irrigation District/San Diego County Water Authority Water Transfer ................................................................ 9 or S.1.6.1.2 All-American and Coachella Canal Lining iProjects ..................... 10 Inter 17 0 f the S.1.6.2 Glen Canyon Dam Operations.......................................................10 pt. o er 29, 2 e S.1.6.2.1 Adaptive Management Program.................................................... 11 v. D mb ation on Nove S.1.6.2.2 Beach/Habitat-Building Flows and Beach/HabitatoN avaj rch Flows........................................................................ 11 NMaintenanceived in Temperature Control at Glen Canyon Dam................................... 12 a S.1.6.2.3cited 864, 16Actions Related to the Biological and Conference Opinion S.1.6.3 14No. on Lower Colorado River Operations and Maintenance ............... 12 S.1.6.4 Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program ...... 13 S.1.6.5 Secretarial Implementation Agreement Related to California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan ................................13 S.1.6.6 Offstream Storage of Colorado River Water and Development and Release of Intentionally Created Unused Apportionment in the Lower Division States ................................ 14 S.2 ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................................. 14 S.2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................... 14 S.2.1.1 Origins of California, Six States and Basin States Alternatives....................................................................................14 S.2.1.2 Utilization of Proposals from Basin States.................................... 15 S.2.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES............................................................... 16 S.2.2.1 No Action Alternative and Baseline Conditions ........................... 16 S.2.2.1.1 Approach to Surplus Water Determination ................................... 16 S.2.2.1.2 70R Baseline Surplus Triggers ...................................................... 16 S.2.2.2 Basin States Alternative (Preferred Alternative) ...........................17 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xxxiii Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 91 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS S.2.2.2.1 S.2.2.2.2 S.2.2.3 S.2.2.3.1 S.2.2.3.2 S.2.2.4 S.2.2.4.1 S.2.2.4.2 S.2.2.5 S.2.2.5.1 S.2.2.5.2 S.2.2.6 S.2.2.6.1 S.2.2.6.2 Approach to Surplus Water Determination ................................... 17 Basin States Alternative Surplus Triggers.....................................18 Flood Control Alternative.............................................................. 18 Approach to Surplus Water Determination ................................... 18 Flood Control Alternative Surplus Triggers..................................18 Six States Alternative .................................................................... 18 Approach to Surplus Water Determination ................................... 18 Six States Alternative Surplus Triggers......................................... 19 California Alternative ....................................................................19 Approach to Surplus Water Determination ................................... 19 California Alternative Surplus Triggers ........................................ 19 Shortage Protection Alternative..................................................... 20 Approach to Surplus Water Determination ................................... 20 Shortage Protection Alternative Surplus Triggers......................... 20 S.3 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .............................................20 S.3.1 USE OF MODELING TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL FUTURE COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM CONDITIONS ................................................ 20 S.3.2 BASELINE CONDITIONS................................................................................. 20 r S.3.3 S.3.4 terio ,2 er 29 In IMPACT DETERMINATION APPROACH ......................................................21 017 f the pt. o ve n No PERIOD OF ANALYSIS ....................................................................................21 v. De mb n Natio d o ................................................................. 21 S.3.5 POTENTIALLY ajo v AFFECTED AREA e in Na OF archiv ALTERNATIVES TO BASELINE d , SURPLUS S.3.6 COMPARISON 4 cite 1686 CONDITIONS .....................................................................................................22 14No. S.3.6.1 Effects on Reservoir Surface Elevations and River Flows............ 22 S.3.6.2 S.3.6.3 S.3.6.3.1 S.3.6.3.2 S.3.6.3.3 S.3.6.3.4 S.3.6.3.5 S.3.6.3.6 S.3.6.3.7 Summary of Environmental Impacts............................................. 24 Environmental Commitments........................................................24 Water Quality ................................................................................ 25 Riverflow Issues ............................................................................25 Aquatic Resources .........................................................................25 Special-Status Species ...................................................................26 Recreation...................................................................................... 26 Cultural Resources.........................................................................26 Transboundary Impacts .................................................................26 S.4 OTHER NEPA CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................ 27 S.4.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS................................................................................. 27 S.4.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY................................ 28 S.4.3 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ...................................................................................................... 28 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xxxiv Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 92 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS S.5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION....................................................................29 S.5.1 GENERAL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES....................................... 29 S.5.1.1 Project Scoping.............................................................................. 29 S.5.1.2 Public Review of DEIS ................................................................. 30 S.5.2 FEDERAL AGENCY COORDINATION .......................................................... 31 S.5.2.1 National Park Service .................................................................... 31 S.5.2.2 U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission ........................................................................ 31 S.5.2.3 U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs........................................................ 31 S.5.2.4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Including Endangered Species Act Compliance ................................................................ 31 S.5.2.5 National Marine Fisheries Service ................................................ 33 S.5.2.6 National Historic Preservation Act Compliance ...........................33 S.5.3 TRIBAL CONSULTATION ...............................................................................34 S.5.4 STATE AND LOCAL WATER AND POWER AGENCIES COORDINATION ............................................................................................... 34 S.5.5 NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS COORDINATION ................. 35 S.5.6 S.5.7 S.5.8 erior t. of r 29, 20 SUMMARY OF COORDINATION ep CONTACTS .............................................36 v. D mbe ation on Nove FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES .......................................................................36 jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. nt MEXICO CONSULTATION .............................................................................. 36 17 the I COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS TOC - xxxv Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 93 of 1200 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 4.4 Plan California 4.4 Plan °C degrees Celsius AAC All-American Canal CAP Central Arizona Project AAQS ambient air quality standards CA PLAN ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan CAWCD Arizona Department of Water Resources Central Arizona Water Conservation District CBRFC Colorado Basin River Forecast Center CDFG Colorado Department of Fish and Game Council on Environmental Quality ADWR af acre-feet afy acre-feet per year AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department CEQ ALP Animas-La Plata Project CFR AMP Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program cfs AMWG AOP APE erior t t. of r 29, 20 Cleanep Water Federal Water Pollution D be Adaptive Management Work ion v. Control Act Act Novem at Group on jo N Nava archivedthe Compact Colorado River Compact of Annuald in Plan 1992 cite Operating64, 168Effect 4Area . 1 United States Army Corps of Corps No of Potential AWBA Arizona Water Banking Authority BA cubic Int per second he feet 17 Engineers Biological Assessment Basin States Code of Federal Regulations Council Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Colorado River Basin States Court United States Supreme Court BCO Biological and Conference Opinion CRBPA Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 BCPA Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 CRFWLS Colorado River Front Work and Levee System BHBF Beach/Habitat-Building Flow CRIR Colorado River Indian Reservation BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs CRIT Colorado River Indian Tribes BLM Bureau of Land Management CRMWG BMI Basic Management, Inc. Colorado River Management Work Group BO Biological Opinion CRSP Colorado River Storage Project COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS ACR-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 94 of 1200 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS CRSPA Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 CRSS Colorado River Simulation System CRSSez A simplified version of CRSS CUP Central Utah Project CVWD Coachella Valley Water District Decree The 1964 U. S. Supreme Court Decree, Arizona v. California DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DO DOE Gulf Gulf of California GWh gigawatt-hour HAVFISH Lake Havasu Fishery Improvement Project HCP Habitat Conservation Plan IBWC International Boundary and Water Commission United States and Mexico IID Imperial Irrigation District Indian American Indian Interior U.S. Department of the Interior dissolved oxygen ISM Indexed Sequential Method United States Department of Energy ITA Indian Trust Asset kaf thousand acre-feet EA Environmental Assessment kV kilovolt(s) EIR Environmental Impact Report LCRAS EIS EPA ESA o F rior nt Colorado River Lowere 17 the I , 20System Accounting 9 of ept. ber 2 v. D m Lower Colorado River MultiLCRMSCP ation on Nove N Species Conservation Program Environmentalvajo Protection ed in a 4, archiv Agency N Lake Mead National LMNRA cited 1686 Recreation Area 4Endangered Species Act of o. 1 as amended N 1973, Long-Range Operating Criteria LROC Environmental Impact Statement degrees Fahrenheit LVWCAMP FEMA maf million acre-feet mafy million acre-feet per year Mexico United Mexican States μg/g micrograms per gram μg/l microgram per liter milligram per liter mg/m3 Finding of No Significant Impact municipal and industrial milligrams per cubic meter Federal Emergency Management Agency FONSI Las Vegas Wash Comprehensive Adaptive Management Plan M&I Final Environmental Impact Statement Las Vegas Wash Coordination Committee mg/l FEIS LVWCC Forum Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 GCNRA Glen Canyon National Recreation Area GRIC Gila River Indian Community COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS ACR-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 95 of 1200 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS MOA Memorandum of Agreement P.L. Public Law MOC Memorandum of Clarification PM particulate matter MODE Main Outlet Drain Extension ppb parts per billion MOU Memorandum of Understanding ppm parts per million PPR present perfected rights mph miles per hour PVID Palo Verde Irrigation District MSCP Multi-Species Conservation Program Reclamation United States Bureau of Reclamation msl mean sea level RM river mile MW megawatts RMP Resource Management Plan MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ROD Record of Decision MWh megawatt-hours San Carlos San Carlos Apache Tribe NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards SCP Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection SDCWA NDOW NEPA NFWG NHPA San Diego County Water ior Int r 7 Authority e e 01 f th pt. o SaferDrinking Water Act of 29, 2 e SDWA Nevada Division of Wildlife v. D mbe ation on Nove 1974 National Environmental Policy oN avaj United States Secretary of the Namended rchivedSecretary Act of 1969, as in Interior ited 6864, a c Native Fish 1 4- Work Group 1 Section 7 of the Federal Section 7 No. National Historic Preservation Endangered Species Act Act of 1966 Section 10 Section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act Northerly International Boundary Service United States Fish and Wildlife Service NIIP Navajo Indian Irrigation Project SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service SIB Southerly International Boundary NPS National Park Service SLD Shoreline Development Value NWR National Wildlife Refuge SNWA O&M operation and maintenance Southern Nevada Water Authority Pacific Institute Pacific Institute for Studies in Development Environment and Security SNWS Southern Nevada Water System NHWZ New High Water Zone NIB COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS ACR-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 96 of 1200 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS SRPMIC Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community USGS United States Geological Survey SWP California State Water Project USIBWC TDS total dissolved solids United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission Treaty U.S.-Mexico Water Treaty of 1944 Western Western Area Power Administration UIIP Uintah Indian Irrigation Project WSCC Western States Coordinating Council 2 Umho/cm micromhos per centimeter squared ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS ACR-4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 97 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 98 of 1200 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior (Secretary), acting through the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), is considering the adoption of specific interim criteria under which surplus water conditions may be declared in the lower Colorado River Basin during a 15-year period that would extend through 2016. The Secretary is vested with the responsibility of managing the mainstream waters of the lower Colorado River pursuant to applicable federal law. This responsibility is carried out consistent with a collection of documents known as the Law of the River, which includes a combination of federal and state statutes, interstate compacts, court decisions and decrees, an international treaty, contracts with the Secretary, operating criteria, regulations and administrative decisions (see Section 1.3.2.1 for a further discussion of the Law of the River). The long-term Colorado River system management objectives are terior n to: 7 he I . of t r 29, 201 pt • Minimize flood damages from river flows, . De be ion v Novem at withnthe 1964 Decree in Arizona v. • Release water only inajo N accordance o Nav archived California (Decree), in cited 16864, • Protect and enhance the environmental resources of the basin, 14No. • Provide reliable delivery of water for beneficial consumptive use, • Increase flexibility of water deliveries under a complex allocation system, • Encourage efficient use of renewable water supplies, • Minimize curtailment to users who depend on such supplies, and • Consider power generation needs. As the agency that is designated to act on the Secretary’s behalf with respect to these matters, Reclamation is the Lead Federal Agency for the purposes of NEPA compliance for the development and implementation of the proposed interim surplus criteria. The National Park Service (NPS) and the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) are cooperating agencies for purposes of assisting with the environmental analysis. This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, and the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 99 of 12001 CHAPTER INTRODUCTION Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500 through 1508). This FEIS has been prepared to address the formulation and evaluation of specific interim surplus criteria and to identify the potential environmental effects of implementing such criteria. This FEIS addresses the environmental issues associated with, and analyzes the environmental consequences of various alternatives for specific interim surplus criteria. The alternatives addressed in this FEIS are those Reclamation has determined would meet the purpose and need for the federal action and represent a broad range of the most reasonable alternatives. 1.1.1 PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION The proposed federal action is the adoption of specific interim surplus criteria pursuant to Article III(3)(b) of the Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of the Colorado River Reservoirs Pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Project Act of September 30, 1968 (Long-Range Operating Criteria [LROC]). The interim surplus criteria would be used annually to determine the conditions under which the Secretary may declare the availability of surplus water for use within the states of Arizona, California and Nevada. The criteria must be consistent with both therDecree entered by ior n California Iv. te 17 and the e the United States Supreme Court in 1964 in the case of Arizona of th 29, 20 LROC. The interim surplus criteria would remainept. in effect forrdeterminations made . D of mbe through calendar year 2015 regardingatioavailability vesurplus water through calendar the n v No year 2016, subject to five-yearajo N conducted concurrently with LROC reviews, v reviews ived on n Na as part and would be applied each year , archof the Annual Operating Plan (AOP). ted i 4 ci 1686 . 141.1.2 BACKGROUND No Pursuant to Article II(B)2 of the Decree, if there exists sufficient water available in a single year for pumping or release from Lake Mead to satisfy annual consumptive use in the States of California, Nevada, and Arizona in excess of 7.5 million acre-feet (maf), such water may be determined by the Secretary to be available as “surplus” water. The Secretary is authorized to determine the conditions upon which such water may be made available. The Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (CRBPA) directs the Secretary to adopt criteria for coordinated long-range operation of reservoirs on the Colorado River in order to comply with and carry out the provisions of the Colorado River Compact of 1922 (Compact), the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (CRSPA), the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 (BCPA) and the United States-Mexico Water Treaty of 1944 (Treaty). These criteria are the LROC, described in detail later in this chapter and reproduced in Attachment A. The Secretary sponsors a formal review of the LROC every five years. The LROC provide that the Secretary will determine the extent to which the reasonable consumptive use requirements of mainstream users in Arizona, California and Nevada (the Lower Division states) can be met. The LROC define a normal year as a year in COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 100 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION which annual pumping and release from Lake Mead will be sufficient to satisfy 7.5 maf of consumptive use in accordance with the Decree. A surplus year is defined as a year in which water in quantities greater than normal (i.e., greater than 7.5 maf) is available for pumping or release from Lake Mead pursuant to Article II(B)2 of the Decree after consideration of relevant factors, including the factors listed in the LROC. Surplus water is available to agencies which have contracted with the Secretary for delivery of surplus water, for use when their water demand exceeds their basic entitlement, and when the excess demand cannot be met within the basic apportionment of their state. Water apportioned to, but unused by one or more Lower Division states can be used to satisfy beneficial consumptive use requests of mainstream users in other Lower Division states as provided in Article II(B)(6) of the Decree. Pursuant to the CRBPA, the LROC are utilized by the Secretary, on an annual basis, to make determinations with respect to the projected plan of operations of the storage reservoirs in the Colorado River Basin. The AOP is prepared by Reclamation, acting on behalf of the Secretary, in consultation with representatives of the Colorado River Basin states (Basin States) and other parties, as required by federal law. The interim surplus criteria would serve to implement the provisions of Article III(3)(b) of the LROC on an annual basis in the determinations made by the Secretary as part of the AOP process. ior Inter 17 1.1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e D b To date, the Secretary has applied factors, n v. to those found tio including but m aannual on Novenot limited availability of in N Article III(3)(b)(i-iv) of the LROC, in vajo ed determinations of the surplus quantities of water for pumpingior release from Lake Mead. As a result of in Na 4, arch v ted 6 and c experience86 through preparation of AOPs, particularly during recent actual operating i -1 o. 14 years when there has been increasing demand for surplus water, the Secretary has N determined that there is a need for more specific surplus criteria, consistent with the Decree and applicable federal law, to assist in the Secretary’s annual decision making during an interim period. For many years, California has been diverting more than its normal 4.4 maf apportionment. Prior to 1996, California utilized unused apportionments of other Lower Division states that were made available by the Secretary. Since 1996, California has also utilized surplus water made available by Secretarial determination. California is in the process of developing the means to reduce its annual use of Colorado River water to 4.4 maf. Arizona is approaching full use of its apportionment and Nevada was expected to reach its apportionment in 2000. Additionally, through adoption of specific interim surplus criteria, the Secretary will be able to afford mainstream users of Colorado River water, particularly those in California who currently utilize surplus flows, a greater degree of predictability with respect to the likely existence, or lack thereof, of surplus conditions on the river in a given year. Adoption of the interim surplus criteria is intended to recognize California’s plan to reduce reliance on surplus deliveries, to assist California in moving COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 101 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION toward its allocated share of Colorado River water, and to avoid hindering such efforts. Implementation of interim surplus criteria would take into account progress, or lack thereof, in California’s efforts to achieve these objectives. The surplus criteria would be used to identify the specific amount of surplus water which may be made available in a given year, based upon factors such as the elevation of Lake Mead, during a period within which demand for surplus Colorado River water will be reduced. The increased level of predictability with respect to the prospective existence and quantity of surplus water would assist in planning and operations by all entities that receive surplus Colorado River water pursuant to contracts with the Secretary. 1.1.4 RELATIONSHIP TO THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO WATER TREATY Under Article 10(a) of the Treaty, the United Mexican States (Mexico) is entitled to an annual amount of 1.5 maf of Colorado River water. Under Article 10(b) of the Treaty, Mexico may schedule up to an additional 0.2 maf when “there exists a surplus of waters of the Colorado River in excess of the amount necessary to satisfy uses in the United States.” This is in addition to surplus determinations for the Lower Division states made pursuant to Article II(2)(b) of the Decree and Article III(3)(B) of the LROC. The proposed action is not intended to identify, or change in any manner,rconditions when ior Inte surplus Mexico may schedule this additional 0.2 maf. Under current e f th practice, 017 2 pt o er 2 control releases are declarations under the Treaty for Mexico are declared .when flood 9, D .aree emb this practice. made. Modeling assumptions used ination v this EIS based Nov upon Reclamation is currently engaged in discussions with Mexico through the IBWC on the ajo N ived on av effects of the proposedn N 4, arch d i action. te ci 86 4-16 . 1COOPERATING AGENCIES 1.1.5 LEADNo AND The Secretary is vested with the responsibility of managing the mainstream waters of the lower Colorado River pursuant to federal law. This responsibility is carried out consistent with the Law of the River. Reclamation, as the agency that is designated to act on the Secretary’s behalf with respect to these matters, is the Lead Federal Agency for the purposes of NEPA compliance for the development and implementation of the proposed interim surplus criteria. The NPS and the USIBWC are cooperating agencies for purposes of assisting with the environmental analysis. The NPS administers three areas of national significance along the Colorado River: Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (GCNRA), Grand Canyon National Park and Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LMNRA). The NPS administers recreation, cultural and natural resources in these areas from offices at Page and Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona and Boulder City, Nevada, respectively. The NPS also grants and administers concessions for the operation of marinas and other recreation facilities at Lake Powell and Lake Mead. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 102 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The International Boundary and Water Commission United States and Mexico (IBWC) is a bi-national organization responsible for administration of the provisions of the Treaty, including the Colorado River waters allocated to Mexico, protection of lands along the Colorado River from floods by levee and floodway projects, resolution of international boundary water sanitation and other water quality problems, and preservation of the river as the international boundary. The IBWC consists of the United States Section and the Mexico Section, which have their headquarters in the adjoining cities of El Paso, Texas and Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, respectively. 1.2 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS OF THIS FEIS Following is a brief description of the topics presented in the three volumes that comprise this FEIS, including a summary of the chapters in Volume I. Volume I of this FEIS (this volume) describes the proposed action, the alternatives considered, the analysis of potential effects of interim surplus criteria on Colorado River operation and associated resources, and environmental commitments associated with the action alternatives. The contents of the chapters in this volume are as follows: Chapter 1, Introduction, includes the following: identification of the rior e purpose of and Intinformation need for the interim surplus criteria being considered; background 017 f the concerning the apportionment of Colorado River water and therphysical facilities pt. o e 29, 2 . De b associated with the Colorado River system; and discussion of the institutional ion v Novem at is managed. Chapter 1 also discusses framework within which the vajosystem ed on river N Na thatarchiavrelationship to the proposed interim surplus n previous and ongoing iactions , have cited 16864 criteria. 4- No. 1 Chapter 2, Description of Alternatives, describes the process of formulating alternatives and presents the reservoir operation strategies of each alternative under consideration. A summary table of potential environmental consequences of action alternatives is provided at the end of Chapter 2. Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences, presents the analysis of baseline conditions along with potential impacts that could result from implementation of the interim surplus criteria alternatives under consideration. The discussion addresses both the affected environment (existing conditions within the area of potential effect) and environmental consequences (potential effects of the interim surplus criteria alternatives that could occur as compared to baseline projections). Also discussed, in Section 3.17, are environmental commitments that Reclamation would undertake if interim surplus criteria are implemented. Chapter 4, Other NEPA Considerations, discusses cumulative impacts, the relationship between short-term use and long-term productivity, and irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources affected by the interim surplus criteria under consideration. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 103 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination, describes the public involvement process, including public notices, scoping meetings, and hearings. This chapter also describes the coordination with federal and state agencies, Indian Tribes, and Mexico during the preparation of this document and any permitting or approvals that may be necessary for implementation of proposed interim surplus criteria. In addition to the above, Volume I includes a list of acronyms used throughout this document, a glossary of commonly used terms, a list of references cited in the FEIS, a list of persons contributing to the preparation of the FEIS, a distribution list of agencies, organizations and persons receiving copies of the document, and an index. Volume II contains attachments which are comprised of documents and other supporting material that provide detailed historical background and/or technical information concerning this proposed action. Volume III contains reproductions of letters from the public resulting from the public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Reclamation’s responses to the comments received. r 1.3 WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT AND ALLOCATION terio e In o th 29 2017 .thef Colorado,River Basin from This section summarizes the water supply availablept De in mber n of natural runoff, its distribution under the iLaw v. the River, and the reservoirs and at o Nove diversion facilities through which the waterd on is administered from Lake Powell to ajo N ive supply Nav Mexico. d in 64, arch cite 168 141.3.1 COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM WATER SUPPLY No. The Colorado River serves as a source of water for irrigation, domestic and other uses in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming and in Mexico. The Colorado River also serves as a source of water for a variety of recreational and environmental benefits. The Colorado River Basin is located in the southwestern United States, as shown on Map 1-1, and occupies a total area of approximately 250,000 square miles. The Colorado River is approximately 1400 miles in length and originates along the Continental Divide in Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado. Elevations in the Colorado River Basin range from sea level to over 14,000 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the mountainous headwaters. Figure 1-1 Loc ations of Lee F err y and Lees Ferr y Climate varies significantly throughout the Colorado River Basin. Most of the Basin is comprised of desert COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-6 Figure 1-1 Locations of Lee Ferry and Lees Ferry Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 104 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Map 1-1 Colorado River Drainage Basin ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-7 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 105 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION or semi-arid rangelands, which generally receive less than 10 inches of precipitation per year. In contrast, many of the mountainous areas that rim the northern portion of the Basin receive, on average, over 40 inches of precipitation per year. Most of the total annual flow in the Colorado River Basin is a result of natural runoff from mountain snowmelt. Because of this, natural flow is very high in the late spring and early summer, diminishing rapidly by mid-summer. While flows in late summer through autumn sometimes increase following rain events, natural flow in the late summer through winter is generally low. Major tributaries to the Colorado River include the Green, San Juan, Yampa, Gunnison and Gila Rivers. The annual flow of the Colorado River varies considerably from year to year. The natural flow at the Lees Ferry gaging station (see Figure 1-1), located 17 river miles (RMs) below Glen Canyon Dam, has varied annually, from 5 maf to 23 maf. Natural flow represents an estimate of flows that would exist without reservoir regulation, depletion, or transbasin diversion by man. Most of the lower Colorado River’s water, or about 88 percent of the annual natural supply, flows into the Lower Basin from the Upper Basin and is accounted for at Lee Ferry, Arizona. The remaining 12 percent of the lower Colorado River’srwater is erio attributed to sidewash inflows due to rainstorms and tributarye Int in the 7 h rivers 201 Lower Basin. of t The Lower Colorado River Basin’s mean annual tributary inflow is , ept. ber 29 about 1.38 maf, .D m excluding the intermittent Gila River inflow.vActual tributary inflows are highly ation on Nove N variable from year to year. vajo ed in Na rchiv ited 6864, a c 1.3.2 APPORTIONMENT OF WATER SUPPLY -1 o. 14 N This section summarizes the Colorado River apportionments of the Basin States and Mexico stemming from the Law of the River, past and current river diversions and consumptive use and projected future depletions. The apportionments of the Basin States are stipulated in terms of consumptive use, which consists of diversions minus return flows to the river system. 1.3.2.1 THE LAW OF THE RIVER As stated previously, the Secretary is vested with the responsibility to manage the mainstream waters of the lower Colorado River pursuant to applicable federal law. The responsibility is carried out consistent with a body of documents referred to as the Law of the River. The Law of the River encompasses numerous operating criteria, regulations and administrative decisions included in federal and state statutes, interstate compacts, court decisions and decrees, an international treaty, and contracts with the Secretary. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-8 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 106 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Particularly notable among these documents are: 1) The Colorado River Compact of 1922, which apportioned beneficial consumptive use of water among the Upper and Lower Basins; The Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 (BCPA), which authorized construction of Hoover Dam and the All-American Canal (AAC), also authorized the Lower Division states to enter into an agreement apportioning the water, required that water users in the Lower Basin have a contract with the Secretary, and established the responsibilities of the Secretary to direct, manage and coordinate the operation of Colorado River dams and related works in the Lower Basin; 2) The California Seven Party Water Agreement of 1931, which established the relative priorities of rights among major users of Colorado River water in California who claimed rights at that time; 3) The United States-Mexico Water Treaty of 1944 and subsequent specific applications through minutes of the IBWC related to the quantity and quality of Colorado River water delivered to Mexico; rior Inte 4) The Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948), which apportioned the f the 9, 2017 o Upper Basin water supply; 2 ept. .D ber ion vAct Novem 5) The Colorado River Storageat jo N Project on of 1956 (CRSPA), which authorized a Nava archived comprehensive water development plan for the Upper Basin that included the in cited 1686Canyon Dam; construction of Glen 4, 14No. United States Supreme Court Decree, Arizona v. California 6) The 1964 (Decree), which confirmed the apportionment of the Lower Basin tributaries was reserved for the exclusive use of the states in which the tributaries are located; confirmed the Lower Basin mainstem apportionments of 4.4 maf for use in California, 2.8 maf for use in Arizona and 0.3 maf for use in Nevada; addressed the reservation of water for American Indian (Indian) reservations and other federal reservations in California, Arizona and Nevada; and confirmed the significant role of the Secretary in managing the mainstream of the Colorado River within the Lower Basin; 7) The Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968,which authorized construction of a number of water development projects including the Central Arizona Project (CAP) and required the Secretary to develop the LROC; 8) The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974, which authorized a number of salinity control projects and provided a framework to improve and meet salinity standards for the Colorado River in the United States and Mexico; and COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-9 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 107 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 9) The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992, which addressed the protection of resources in Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Documents which are generally considered as part of the Law of the River include, but are not limited to, documents listed in Table 1-1. Among other provisions of applicable federal law, NEPA and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) provide a statutory overlay on certain actions taken by the Secretary. For example, as noted in Section 1.1, preparation of this FEIS has been undertaken pursuant to NEPA. 1.3.2.2 APPORTIONMENT PROVISIONS The initial apportionment of water from the Map 1-2 Upper and Lower Basins Colorado River was determined as part of the of the Colorado River 1922 Colorado River Compact. The Compact divided the Colorado River into two sub-basins, the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin (see Map 1-2). The Upper Basin includes those parts of the States of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona and New Mexico ior Inter 17 within and from which waters drain naturally 0 f the into the Colorado River above Lee Ferry pt. o er 29, 2 e D mb (Arizona). The Lower Basin includes those v. ation on Nove oN parts of the States of Arizona, California, ed avaj rchiv NUtah within and Nevada, New Mexico iand a d n citenaturally 64, into the from which waters 168drain 14Colorado River system below Lee Ferry No. (Arizona). The Compact also divided the seven Basin States into the Upper Division and the Lower Division (see Map 1-3). The Upper Division consists of the states of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico. The Lower Division consists of the states of Arizona, California and Nevada. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-10 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 108 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Table 1-1 Documents Included in the Law of the River The River and Harbor Act, March 3, 1899 The Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902 Reclamation of Indian Lands in Yuma, Colorado River and Pyramid Lake Indian Reservations Act of April 21, 1904 Yuma Project authorized by the Secretary of the Interior on May 10, 1904, pursuant to Section 4 of the Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902 Warren Act of February 21, 1910 Protection of Property Along the Colorado River Act of June 25, 1910 Patents and Water-Right Certificates Acts of August 9, 1912 and August 26, 1912 Yuma Auxiliary Project Act of January 25, 1917 Availability of Money for Yuma Auxiliary Project Act of February 11, 1918 Sale of Water for Miscellaneous Purposes Act of February 25, 1920 Federal Power Act of June 10, 1920 The Colorado River Compact of November 24, 1922 The Colorado River Front Work and Levee System Acts of March 3, 1925 and January 21,1927-June 28, 1946 The Boulder Canyon Project Act of December 21, 1928 The California Limitation Act of March 4, 1929 The California Seven Party Agreement of August 18, 1931 The Parker and Grand Coulee Dams Authorization of August 30, 1935 The Parker Dam Power Project Appropriation Act of May 2, 1939 The Reclamation Project Act of August 4, 1939 The Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act of July 19, 1940 The Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 United States-Mexico Water Treaty of February 3, 1944 Gila Project Act of July 30, 1947 The Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of October 11, 1948 Consolidated Parker Dam Power Project and Davis Dam Project Act of May 28, 1954 Palo Verde Diversion Dam Act of August 31, 1954 Change Boundaries, Yuma Auxiliary Project Act of February 15, 1956 The Colorado River Storage Project Act of April 11, 1956 Water Supply Act of July 3, 1958 Boulder City Act of September 2, 1958 Report of the Special Master, Simon H. Rifkind, Arizona v. California, et al., December 5, 1960 United States Supreme Court Decree, Arizona v. California, March 9, 1964 International Flood Control Measures, Lower Colorado River Act of August 10, 1964 Southern Nevada (Robert B. Griffith) Water Project Act of October 22, 1965 The Colorado River Basin Project Act of September 30, 1968 Criteria for the Coordinated Long Range Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs, June 8, 1970 Supplemental Irrigation Facilities, Yuma Division Act of September 25, 1970 Minutes 218, March 22, 1965; 241, July 14, 1972, (replaced 218); and 242, August 30, 1973, (replaced 241) of the International Boundary and Water Commission, pursuant to the United States-Mexico Water Treaty of 1944 The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of June 24, 1974 United States Supreme Court Supplemental Decrees, Arizona v. California, January 9, 1979 and April 16, 1984 Hoover Power Plant Act of August 17, 1984 The Numerous Colorado River Water Delivery and Project Repayment Contracts with the States of Arizona and Nevada, cities, water districts and individuals Hoover and Parker-Davis Power Marketing Contracts Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 Grand Canyon Protection Act of October 30, 1992 43 CFR 414 Offstream Storage of Colorado River Water in the Lower Division States 43 CFR 417 Lower Basin Water Conservation Measures ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-11 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 109 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Compact apportioned to each Basin, in perpetuity, the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7.5 maf of water per year. In addition to this apportionment, Article III(b) gives the Lower Basin the right to increase its beneficial consumptive use by 1.0 maf per annum. The Compact also stipulates in Article III(d) that the states of the Upper Division will not cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75 maf for any period of 10 consecutive years. Map 1-3 Upper and Lower Division States of the Colorado River The Compact, in Article VII, states that nothing in the Compact shall be construed as affecting the obligations of the United States to Indian Tribes. While the rights of most tribes to Colorado River water were subsequently adjudicated, some Tribal rights remain unadjudicated. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 1.3.2.2.1 Upper Division State Apportionments pt. . De ber ion v Novem Nat The Compact apportioned 7.5 maf of water d on vajo hive in perpetuity to the Upper Basin. The a Upper Basin Compactin N apportioned among the four Upper Division states the following arc ited quantity,of consumptive use apportioned to and available for c total 16864 percentages of the 4use each year byo. 1Upper Basin under the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact and N the remaining after deduction of the use, not to exceed 50,000 acre-feet (af) per annum, made in the State of Arizona: • Wyoming 14.00 percent • Utah 23.00 percent • Colorado 51.75 percent • New Mexico 11.25 percent Map 1- 3 U pper and Lower Di vi sion States of the C olor ado Ri ver In 1988, a determination of Upper Basin water supply was made in Hydrologic Determination: Water Availability from Navajo Reservoir and the Upper Colorado River Basin for Use in New Mexico (Interior, 1989). In consideration of Article 3(d) of the Compact and accounting for the decrease in the average natural flow of the Colorado River since the signing of the Compact in 1922, the Determination concluded that Upper Basin annual water depletion can reasonably be expected to reach six maf. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-12 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 110 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.3.2.2.2 Lower Division State Apportionments If sufficient mainstream water is available for release, as determined by the Secretary, to satisfy 7.5 maf of consumptive use in the Lower Division states, then the amount of Colorado River water apportioned for consumptive use in each Lower Division state is expressed in terms of a fixed amount in each state, subject to varying provisions at times of surpluses or shortages. These apportionments are: California, 4.4 maf; Arizona, 2.8 maf; and Nevada, 0.3 maf, totaling 7.5 maf. Figure 1-2 presents a schematic of the operation of the Colorado River, primarily in the Lower Basin. The apportionments to the Lower Division states were established by the BCPA and confirmed by the Decree. If water apportioned for use in a Lower Division state is not consumed by that state in any year, the Secretary may release the unused water for use in another Lower Division state. Consumptive use by a Lower Division state includes delivered water that is stored offstream for future use by that state or another state. All mainstream Colorado River waters apportioned to the Lower Basin, except for a few thousand af apportioned for use in the State of Arizona, have been fully allocated to specific entities and, except for certain federal establishments, placed under permanent water delivery contracts with the Secretary for irrigation or domestic use. These entities include irrigation districts, water districts, municipalities, Indian Tribes, r io public Inter 17 with e institutions, private water companies and individuals. Federal establishments 0 of th 2 Decree p II(D) of the 9, 2 are not federal reserved rights established pursuant to Articlet. e r be v. D required to have a contract with the Secretary, but the vem allocated to a federal ation on No water establishment is included withinjo N ved va the apportionment of the Lower Division state in which in Na 4, archi the federal establishment is located. ted ci 1686 . 14The highest priority Colorado River water rights are present perfected rights (PPRs), No which the Decree defines as those perfected rights existing on June 25, 1929, the effective date of the BCPA. The Decree also recognizes Federal Indian reserved rights for the quantity of water necessary to irrigate all the practicably irrigable acreage on five Indian reservations along the lower Colorado River. The Decree defines the rights of Indian and other federal reservations to be federal establishment PPRs. PPRs are important because in any year in which less than 7.5 maf of Colorado River water is available for consumptive use in the Lower Division states, PPRs will be satisfied first, in the order of their priority without regard to state lines. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-13 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 111 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Figure 1-2 Schematic of Colorado River Releases and Diversions Trans-basin Diversions Evaporation Upper Basin Uses above Glen Canyon Dam Evaporation Tributary Gains above Hoover Dam Lower Basin Users above Hoover Dam ior Inter 17 f the 9, 20 pt. o er Evaporation Southern Nevada 2 De mb Users n v. atio Nove ajo N ived on Tributary Gains below Nav d in 64, arch Hoovercite Dam 168 . 14No Laughlin Area NV Users Bullhead City Area AZ Users CAP MWD California Irrigation Districts, Other Users Other AZ Users Delivery to Mexico COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-14 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 112 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Waters available to a Lower Division state within its apportionment, but having a priority date later than June 25, 1929, have been allocated by the Secretary to water users within that state after consultation with the state as required by the BCPA. 1.3.2.2.3 Mexico Apportionment Mexico has an annual apportionment of 1.5 maf of Colorado River water, based on the provisions of the Treaty. Mexico may also receive additional water under two conditions. First, when surplus water exists in excess of the amount that can be beneficially used by the Basin States, Mexico is apportioned up to an additional 200,000 af of water which Mexico is allowed to schedule throughout the year in accordance with Article 15 of the Treaty. Second, when high runoff and flooding occur on the Colorado or Gila Rivers that is substantially more than can be put to beneficial use by the Lower Division states, such runoff flows into Mexico. Deliveries to Mexico are subject to reduction under extraordinary drought conditions or serious accident to the irrigation system in the United States. In such cases, deliveries to Mexico, as provided for under the Treaty, could be reduced in proportion to the reduction faced by users in the United States. rior Inte 1 As part of this NEPA documentation, international impacts are addressed in Section f the Abroad of7 20 Major 3.16 pursuant to Executive Order 12114-Environmentalo ept. Effects 29, r D be Federal Actions, January 4, 1997, and the n v.1, 1997 CEQ Guidelines on NEPA tioJuly n Nov m a(See AttachmenteB for copies of these Analyses for Transboundary Impacts. o jo N Nava archived documents.) in d cite 16864, 141.3.3 LONG-RANGE OPERATING CRITERIA No. The CRBPA required the Secretary to adopt operating criteria for the Colorado River by January 1, 1970. The LROC, adopted in 1970 (see Attachment A), control the operation of the Colorado River reservoirs in compliance with requirements set forth in the Compact, the CRSPA, the BCPA, the Treaty and other applicable federal laws. Under the LROC, the Secretary makes annual determinations in the AOP (discussed in the following section) regarding the availability of Colorado River water for deliveries to the Lower Division states (Arizona, California and Nevada). A requirement to equalize the active storage between Lake Powell and Lake Mead when there is sufficient storage in the Upper Basin is also included in the LROC, as required by the CRBPA. A more complete discussion of this concept is presented in Section 1.4.2 of this document. Section 602 of the CRBPA, as amended, provides that the LROC can only be modified after correspondence with the governors of the seven Basin States and appropriate consultation with such state representatives as each governor may designate. The LROC call for formal reviews at least every five years. The reviews are conducted as a public involvement process and are attended by representatives of federal agencies, the COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-15 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 113 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION seven Basin States, Indian Tribes, the general public including representatives of the academic and scientific communities, environmental organizations, the recreation industry and contractors for the purchase of federal power produced at Glen Canyon Dam. Past reviews have not resulted in any changes to the criteria. 1.3.4 ANNUAL OPERATING PLAN The CRBPA requires preparation of an AOP for the Colorado River reservoirs that guides the operation of the system for the water year. The AOP describes how Reclamation will manage the reservoirs over a 12-month period, consistent with the LROC and the Decree. The AOP is prepared annually by Reclamation in cooperation with the Basin States, other federal agencies, Indian tribes, state and local agencies and the general public, including governmental interests as required by federal law. As part of the AOP process, the Secretary makes annual determinations regarding the availability of Colorado River water for deliveries to the Lower Division states as described below. 1.3.4.1 NORMAL, SURPLUS AND SHORTAGE DETERMINATIONS The Secretary is required to determine when normal, surplus or shortagerconditions rio occur in the lower Colorado River, based on various factors he Inte storage and including t 017 hydrologic conditions in the Colorado River Basin. pt. of 29, 2 e v. D v ber ion determinesem sufficient mainstream water at Normal conditions exist when the Secretary on No that a o N ved vof jannual iconsumptive use in the Lower Division states. is available to satisfy 7.5 Na maf h ed in its 4, arc ituse all of 86apportioned water for the year, the Secretary may allow c If a state will not -16 other states of No. 14 Division to use the unused apportionment, provided that the the Lower use is covered under a contract with the consuming entity. Surplus conditions exist when the Secretary determines that sufficient mainstream water is available for release to satisfy consumptive use in the Lower Division states in excess of 7.5 maf annually. This excess consumptive use is surplus and is distributed for use in California, Arizona and Nevada in allocations of 50, 46 and four percent, respectively. As stated above, if a state will not use all of its apportioned water for the year, the Secretary may allow other states of the Lower Division to use the unused apportionment, provided that the use is covered under a contract with the consuming entity. Surplus water under the Decree, for use in the Lower Division states, was made available by the Secretary in calendar years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000. Deliveries of surplus water to Mexico in accordance with the Treaty were made in calendar years 1983-1988, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000. Shortage conditions exist when the Secretary determines that insufficient mainstream water is available to satisfy 7.5 maf of annual consumptive use in the Lower Division states. When making a shortage determination, the Secretary must consult with various COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-16 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 114 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION parties as set forth in the Decree and consider all relevant factors as specified in the LROC (described above), including Treaty obligations, the priorities set forth in the Decree, and the reasonable consumptive use requirements of mainstream water users in the Lower Division. The Secretary is required to first provide for the satisfaction of the PPRs in the order of their priority, then to users who held contracts on September 30, 1968 (up to 4.4 maf in California), and finally to users who had contracted on September 30, 1968, when the CAP was authorized. To date, a shortage has never been determined. 1.3.5 SYSTEM RESERVOIRS AND DIVERSION FACILITIES The Colorado River system contains numerous reservoirs that provide an aggregate of approximately 60 maf of active storage. Lake Powell and Lake Mead provide approximately 85 percent of this storage. Upper Basin reservoirs provide approximately 31.2 maf of active storage, of which Lake Powell provides 24.3 maf. The other major storage reservoirs in the Upper Basin include Flaming Gorge Reservoir on the Green River, Navajo Reservoir on the San Juan River, and Blue Mesa Reservoir on the Gunnison River. rior The Lower Basin dams and reservoirs include Hoover, Davis e InParker dams, shown and te f th to 9, 2017of active on Map 1-4. Hoover Dam created Lake Mead and can store up 2 26.2 maf pt. o er . De to re-regulate Hoover Dam’s storage. Davis Dam was constructed byion v Reclamation emb at of 1.5 n NovMexico. Davis Dam creates releases and to aid in the annual jdelivery d o maf to oN Navamafrofhive storage. Parker Dam forms Lake Havasu Lake Mohave and provides 1.8 a c active in cit isd 168 by , from which water e pumped 64 both Metropolitan Water District of Southern 14California (MWD) and the CAP. Parker Dam re-regulates releases from Davis Dam No. and from the United States Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) Alamo Dam on the Bill Williams River, and in turn releases water for downstream use in the United States and Mexico. Other Lower Basin mainstream reservoirs, listed in Table 1-2, are operated primarily for the purpose of river flow regulation to facilitate diversion of water to Arizona, California and Mexico. Diversion facilities of the Lower Division states typically serve multiple entities. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-17 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 115 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Map 1-4 Lower Colorado River Dams ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-18 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 116 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Table 1-2 summarizes the Colorado River storage facilities (i.e., dams and reservoirs) and major diversion dams from Lake Powell downstream to Morelos Dam. Attachment C, Dams and Reservoirs Along the Lower Colorado River, describes the reservoirs and the role that each plays in the operation of the Colorado River system. Table 1-2 Colorado River Storage Facilities and Major Diversion Dams from Lake Powell to Morelos Dam Facility Reservoir Glen Canyon Dam Lake Powell Hoover Dam Lake Mead Davis Dam Lake Mohave Parker Dam Lake Havasu Headgate Rock Dam Lake Moovalya Morelos Dam impoundment Unnamed impoundment 1 Location Upstream of Lee Ferry, Utah, Arizona Nevada and Arizona near Las Vegas, 270 miles downstream of Glen Canyon Dam 70 miles downstream of Hoover Dam 150 miles downstream of Hoover Dam 164 miles downstream of Hoover Dam 209 miles downstream of Hoover Dam 290 miles downstream of Hoover Dam near Imperial Dam 290 miles downstream of Hoover Dam 300 miles downstream of Hoover Dam 320 miles downstream of Hoover Dam Storage Capacity (af) 24,322,000 Live 27,400,000 Live 1,818,000 648,000 N.A. 3 N.A. 3 r terio InN.A.3 17 Palo Verde Diversion Unnamed 0 f the Dam impoundment pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D Senator Wash Senator Wash 13,800 mb 2 ation on Nove regulating facility Reservoir N vajo ed in Na 4, archiv d Unnamed Imperial Dam 1000 cite impoundment 86 4-16 1 Unnamed Laguna Dam No. 700 1 2 3 Lake Havasu provides a relatively constant water level for pumped diversions by MWD and CAP. Senator Wash Reservoir is an offstream reservoir with a pumping/generating plant. Run-of-river diversion structure. In Nevada, the State’s consumptive use apportionment of Colorado River water is used almost exclusively for municipal and industrial (M&I) purposes. About 90 percent of this water is diverted from Lake Mead at a point approximately five miles northwest of Hoover Dam at Saddle Island by the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) facilities. The remainder of Nevada’s diversion occurs below Davis Dam in the Laughlin area. There are several points of diversion in Arizona. Up to 50,000 af of water is diverted above Lee Ferry. The intake for the CAP is the pumping plant on Lake Havasu below the confluence of the Bill Williams River. Irrigation water for the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation, near Needles, California, is pumped from wells. Irrigation water for the Colorado River Indian Reservation near Parker, Arizona, is diverted at Headgate Rock COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-19 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 117 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Dam, which was constructed for that purpose. A river pumping plant in the Cibola area provides water to irrigate lands adjacent to the river. The last major diversion for Arizona occurs at Imperial Dam, where water is diverted into the Gila Gravity Main Canal for irrigation for the Gila and Wellton-Mohawk projects and into the AAC for subsequent release into the Yuma Main Canal for the Yuma Project and the City of Yuma. California receives most of its Colorado River water at three diversion points: MWD’s pumping plant on Lake Havasu; the Palo Verde Irrigation and Drainage District’s diversion at the Palo Verde Diversion Dam near Blythe, California; and the AAC diversion at Imperial Dam. 1.3.6 FLOOD CONTROL OPERATION Under the BCPA, flood control was specified as the project purpose having first priority for the operation of Hoover Dam. Subsequently, Section 7 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 established that the Secretary of War (now the Corps) will prescribe regulations for flood control for projects authorized wholly or partially for such purposes. The Los Angeles District of the Corps published the current flood control regulations in rior the Water Control Manual for Flood Control, Hoover Dam he ILake Mead Colorado and nte 17 ft River, Nevada and Arizona (Water Control Manual) dated December 20 pt. o er 29, 1982. The Field e b Working Agreement between Corps and on v. D for the i Reclamationvem flood control operation of at by theNo Control Manual, was signed Hoover Dam and Lake Mead, asjo N prescribed on Water Nava controlived is the result of a coordinated effort on February 8, 1984. in flood arch plan The cited 16864, between the Corps and -Reclamation; however, the Corps is responsible for providing the flood controlo. 14 N regulations and has authority for final approval. The Secretary is responsible for operating Hoover Dam in accordance with these regulations. Any deviation from the flood control operating criteria must be authorized by the Corps. Flood control operation of Lake Mead was established to deal with two distinct types of flooding—snowmelt and rain. Snowmelt constitutes about 70 percent of the annual runoff in the Upper Basin. Lake Mead’s uppermost 1.5 maf of storage capacity, between elevations 1219.61 feet above msl and 1229.0 feet msl, are allocated exclusively to control floods from rain events. The flood control regulations set forth two primary criteria to deal with snowmelt: • Preparatory reservoir space requirements, applicable from August 1 through December 31; and • Application of runoff forecasts to determine releases, applicable from January 1 through July 31. In preparation for each year’s seasonal snow accumulation and associated runoff, the first criterion provides for progressive expansion of the total Colorado River system COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-20 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 118 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION reservoir space during the latter months of each year. Required system space increases from 1.5 maf on August 1 to 5.35 maf on January 1. Required flood storage space up to 3.85 maf can be located within Lake Powell and in specified Upper Basin reservoirs. Space-building releases from Lake Mead are made when needed to meet the required August 1 to January 1 flood control space. Space-building releases beyond the minimum requirements of the Corps’ Water Control Manual (often described as anticipatory flood control releases) may be considered by the Secretary. The Secretary takes into consideration the following: 1) the channel capacity of the river below Davis Dam; 2) the channel capacity and channel maintenance of the river below the Southerly International Boundary (SIB) (through the IBWC); and 3) power plant maintenance requirements at Hoover, Davis and Parker dams. Between January 1 and July 31, flood control releases, based on the maximum forecasted inflow into Lake Mead, may be required to prevent filling of Lake Mead beyond its 1.5 maf minimum flood control space. Each month, runoff forecasts are developed by the National Weather Service’s Colorado Basin River Forecast Center. The required monthly releases from Hoover Dam are determined based on available space in Lake Mead and upstream reservoirs and the maximum forecasts of inflow into Lake Mead. Average monthly releases are determined each month erioapply only to and r Int River Floodway the current month. Release rates, developed pursuant to thehe Colorado 017 of t ,2 Protection Act of 1986, are discussed in SectionDept. 3.6.4.1. er 29 v. mb ation on Nove 1.3.7 HYDROPOWER GENERATION jo N Nava archived d in , Reclamation is cite -16by64 authorized 8 legislation to produce electric power at each of the major 14 Colorado River system dams, except Navajo Dam. Power generation at the Glen No. Canyon Dam Powerplant requires the water surface elevation of Lake Powell to be above 3490 feet msl. Water is released from Glen Canyon Dam Powerplant into the Colorado River through a combination of the eight main generating units. The minimum water surface elevation of Lake Mead necessary for power generation at Hoover Powerplant is approximately 1083 feet msl. Water is released from Hoover Powerplant to Lake Mohave through a combination of the 17 main generating units. Water is then released at Davis Dam Powerplant into the river through a combination of the five generators. Parker Dam is the last major regulating and reservoir facility on the Lower Colorado River. All releases scheduled from Parker Dam are in response to downstream water orders and reservoir regulation requirements and pass through a combination of its four generators. Although Reclamation is the federal agency authorized to produce power at the major Colorado River system dams, Western Area Power Administration (Western) is the federal agency authorized to market this power. Western enters into electric service contracts on behalf of the United States with public and private utility systems for distribution of hydroelectric power produced at Reclamation facilities. The released COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-21 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 119 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION water generates power, but water is not to be released from any Colorado River facility for the sole purpose of generating power. Under operating agreements with Western, Reclamation is subject to downstream water requirements to meet the power generation schedules of Hoover, Parker and Davis dams. Western produces these schedules in accordance with existing electric service contracts, recognizing Reclamation’s release requirements on the lower Colorado River (i.e., based on downstream delivery requirements) from the respective reservoirs. 1.4 RELATED AND ONGOING ACTIONS A number of ongoing and new actions proposed by Reclamation and other entities are related to the development of interim surplus criteria and the analysis contained in this document. This section describes these actions and their relationship to the development of interim surplus criteria. The following actions have been described in environmental documents, consultation packages under Section 7 of the ESA, or as project planning documents. Where appropriate, this FEIS incorporates by reference information contained in these documents. The documents described below are available for public inspection upon request at Reclamation offices in Boulder City, Nevada; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Phoenix and Yuma, Arizona. erior Int 0 f the PLAN17 1.4.1 CALIFORNIA’S COLORADO RIVERept. o USE 9, 2 WATER r 2 v. D v mbe o ation (CA Plan),ewhich was formerly known as California’s Colorado River Water N Plan on N vajo Use ived the California 4.4 Planin Na 4.4 Plan, calls for conservation measures to be put in place or the arch cited 16864, that will reduce California’s dependency on surplus Colorado River water. Surplus 4water is requiredo. 1 N to meet California’s current needs until implementation of the conservation measures can take place. During the period ending in 2016, the State of California has indicated that it intends to reduce its reliance on Colorado River water to meet its water needs above and beyond its 4.4-maf apportionment. It is important for the long-term administration of the system to bring the Lower Basin uses into accordance with the Lower Basin normal apportionment. In order to achieve its goals, California has expressed a need to continue to rely in some measure on the existence of surplus Colorado River water through 2016. These interim surplus criteria could aid California and its primary Colorado River water users as California reduces its consumptive use to 4.4 maf while ensuring that the other Basin States will not be placed at undue risk of future shortages. The CA Plan contains numerous water conservation projects, intrastate water exchanges, and groundwater storage facilities. The CA Plan is related to the implementation of the interim surplus criteria in the ways discussed below. First, implementation of the CA Plan is necessary to ensure the Colorado River system can meet the normal year deliveries in the Lower Basin over the long term. Failure of California to comply with the CA Plan places at risk the objective of providing reliable COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-22 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 120 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION delivery of water for beneficial consumptive use to Lower Basin users. Therefore, the Secretary may condition the continuation of interim surplus criteria for the entire period through 2016 on a showing of satisfactory progress in implementing the CA Plan. Regardless of which alternative is ultimately selected, failure of California to carry out the CA Plan may result in termination or suspended application of the proposed interim surplus criteria. In that event, the Secretary would fashion appropriate surplus criteria for the remaining period through 2016. For example, the Basin States Alternative presented in Chapter 2 anticipates that the 70R strategy would be used in the event of such a reversion. Second, from the perspective of the State of California, because of the linkage between various elements of the CA Plan and the quantities of water involved, a reliable supply of interim surplus water from the Colorado River is an indispensable pre-condition to successful implementation of the CA Plan. From the standpoint of environmental documentation and compliance, the CA Plan and its various elements have been, or will be, addressed under separate federal and/or state environmental reporting procedures. 1.4.1.1 IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT/SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY ior Inter 17 ATER TRANSFER W the 20 of ept. ber 29, v. County Water Authority (SDCWA) The Imperial Irrigation District (IID)/San DiegoD em ation on Nova part of the CA Plan. SDCWA N water transfer is one of the intrastate exchanges that is vajo ed has negotiated an agreement for therlong-term transfer of conserved water from the IID. in Na 4, a chiv d cite 168 IID Under the proposed contract,6 customers would undertake water conservation efforts to reduce theirNo. of 4 use 1 Colorado River water. Water conserved through these efforts would be transferred to SDCWA. The agreement sets the transfer quantity at a maximum of 200 kaf/year. After at least 10 years of primary transfers, an additional discretionary component not to exceed 100 kaf/year may be transferred to SDCWA, MWD of Southern California, or Coachella Valley Water District in connection with the settlement of water rights disputes between IID and these agencies. The initial transfer target date is 2002, or whenever the conditions necessary for the agreement to be finalized are satisfied or waived, whichever is later. This transfer is being addressed in an ongoing EIS/EIR and involves the change in point of delivery of up to 300 kaf/year from Imperial Dam to Parker Dam. 1.4.1.2 ALL-AMERICAN AND COACHELLA CANAL LINING PROJECTS Two other components of the CA Plan having effects on the river are the All-American and Coachella Canal Lining Projects (the Coachella Canal is a branch of the AAC). These two similar actions involve the concrete lining of unlined portions of the canals to conserve water presently being lost as seepage from the earthen reaches. Together the projects involve a change in point of delivery from Imperial Dam to Parker Dam that totals 93.7 kaf/year, 67.7 kaf/year for the AAC and 26 kaf/year for the COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-23 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 121 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Coachella Canal. The effects of this change in point of delivery are being addressed in the Secretarial Implementation Agreement EA and BA (described in Section 1.4.5). The Record of Decision (ROD) for the All-American Canal Lining Project was approved on July 29, 1994. Construction is expected to begin in 2001. A draft EIS/EIR for the Coachella Canal Lining Project was released on September 22, 2000 for public review. 1.4.2 GLEN CANYON DAM OPERATIONS Glen Canyon Dam is operated consistent with the CRSPA and the LROC, which were promulgated in compliance with Section 602 of the CRBPA. Glen Canyon Dam is also operated consistent with the 1996 ROD on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam (Attachment C) developed as directed under the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992. The minimum release from Lake Powell, as specified in the LROC, is 8.23 maf per year. In years with very low inflow, or in years when Lake Powell is significantly drawn down, annual releases of 8.23 maf from Lake Powell are made. The LROC also require that, when Upper Basin storage is greater than the storage required under Section 602(a) of the CRBPA, releases from Lake Powell will periodically be governed by the objective to maintain, as nearly as practicable, active storage inior Mead equal er Lake In provision in the to the active storage in Lake Powell. Because of this equalization t f the result 017 LROC, changes in operations at Lake Mead will, inpt. o years, 29, 2in changes in some . De ber annual release volumes from Lake Powell.n It is through this mechanism that delivery of io v Novem at on surplus water from Lake Meadajo N v can influence the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. ved iexists insufficient storage in the Upper Basin, Na Equalization is not required when arch d in 64, there citeof the CRBPA. per Section 602(a) -168 No. 14 In acknowledgement that the operation of Glen Canyon Dam, as authorized, to maximize power production was having a negative impact on downstream resources, the Secretary determined in July 1989 that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared. The Operation of Glen Canyon Dam EIS developed and analyzed alternative operation scenarios that met statutory responsibilities for protecting downstream resources and achieving other authorized purposes, while protecting Native American interests. A final EIS was completed in March 1995, and the Secretary signed a ROD on October 8, 1996. Reclamation also consulted with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under the ESA and incorporated the Service’s recommendations into the ROD. The ROD describes criteria and plans for dam operations and includes other measures to ensure Glen Canyon Dam is operated in a manner consistent with the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992. Among these are an Adaptive Management Program, beach/habitat-building flows (BHBFs), beach/habitat-maintenance flows, and further study of temperature control. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-24 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 122 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The ROD is based on the EIS, which contains descriptions and analyses of aquatic and riparian habitats below Glen Canyon Dam, effects of Glen Canyon Dam release patterns on the local ecology, cultural resources, sedimentation processes associated with the maintenance of backwaters and sediment deposits along the river, Native American interests, and relationships between release patterns and the value of hydroelectric energy produced. Analyses of effects on other resources within the affected area are also included. Additional information concerning the operation of Glen Canyon Dam is contained in Section 3.3. 1.4.2.1 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The Adaptive Management Program (AMP) provides a process for assessing the effects of current operations of Glen Canyon Dam on downstream resources and using the results to develop recommendations for modifying operating criteria and other resource management actions. This is accomplished through the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG), a federal advisory committee. The AMWG consists of stakeholders that are federal and state resource management agencies, representatives of the seven Basin States, Indian Tribes, hydroelectric power marketers, environmental and conservation organizations and recreational and other interest groups. The duties of the r AMWG are in an advisory capacity only. Coupled with this advisory irole are long-term ter o Inof resource conditions e monitoring and research activities that provide a continual record of th 29 2017 and new information to evaluate the effectiveness epthe operational, modifications. of t. D er v. mb t on aFiLOWSon Nove /HABITAT-MAINTENANCE 1.4.2.2 BEACH/HABITAT-Bvajo N a UILDINGhived AND BEACH FLOWS ed in N arc cit 864, -16 BHBF releases are scheduled high releases of short duration that are in excess of power o. 14 N plant capacity required for dam safety purposes and are made according to certain specific criteria as described in Section 3.6.2. These BHBFs are designed to rebuild high elevation sandbars, deposit nutrients, restore backwater channels, and provide some of the dynamics of a natural system. The first test of a BHBF was conducted in Spring of 1996. Beach/habitat-maintenance flow releases are releases at or near power plant capacity, which are intended to maintain favorable beach and habitat conditions for recreation and fish and wildlife, and to protect Tribal interests. Beach/habitat-maintenance flow releases can be made in years when no BHBF releases are made. Both beach/habitat-building and beach/habitat-maintenance flows, along with the testing and evaluation of other types of releases under the AMP, were recommended by the Service to verify a program of flows that would improve habitat conditions for endangered fish. The proposed interim surplus criteria could affect the range of storage conditions in Lake Powell and alter the flexibility to schedule and conduct such releases or to test other flow patterns. The magnitude of this reduction in flexibility has been COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-25 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 123 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION evaluated for each interim surplus alternative. The results are presented in Section 3.6, Riverflow Issues. 1.4.2.3 TEMPERATURE CONTROL AT GLEN CANYON DAM In 1994, the Service issued a Biological Opinion on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam. One of the elements of the reasonable and prudent alternative in the Biological Opinion, also a common element in the Glen Canyon Dam EIS, was the evaluation of methods to control release temperatures and, if viable, implement controls. Reclamation agreed with this recommendation and included it in the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement and subsequent ROD. Reclamation has issued a draft planning report and environmental assessment (EA) entitled Glen Canyon Dam Modifications to Controls and Downstream Temperatures (Reclamation, 1999). Based on comments to this draft EA, Reclamation is currently in the process of preparing a new draft EA on temperature control at Glen Canyon Dam. Interim surplus criteria could result in new information related to temperature control at Glen Canyon Dam. Data and information made available from analysis related to interim surplus criteria will be utilized in the revised EA on temperaturercontrol at Glen rio Canyon Dam. Such information would also be considered in e Inte h the development of an t 017 appropriate design for a temperature control device.pt. of 29, 2 e .D ber ion v NovemAND CONFERENCE 1.4.3 ACTIONS RELATED jo Nat BIOLOGICAL a TO THE d on OPINION ONn Nav COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS AND LOWER rchive i a cited 16 MAINTENANCE 864, 14No. a Biological Assessment (BA) in accordance with Section 7 of Reclamation prepared the ESA, addressing effects of ongoing and projected routine lower Colorado River operations and maintenance (Reclamation, 1996). After formal consultation, a Biological and Conference Opinion (BCO) was prepared by the Service (Service, 1997). Both documents are described in Section 1.4.5, Documents Incorporated by Reference. Pursuant to the reasonable and prudent alternative and 17 specific provisions provided in the BCO, Reclamation is taking various actions that benefit the riparian region of the lower Colorado River and associated species. In particular, these actions include: 1) acquisition, restoration, and protection of potential and occupied Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat; 2) extensive life history studies for Southwestern willow flycatcher along 400 miles of the lower Colorado River and other areas; and 3) protection and enhancement of endangered fish species through risk assessments, assisted rearing, and development of protected habitats along the lower Colorado River. This five-year BCO provides ESA compliance for Reclamation actions on the lower Colorado River until 2002. The BA and BCO contain life histories/status of lower Colorado River species, descriptions of ongoing and projected routine operation and maintenance activities, the COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-26 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 124 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Secretary’s discretionary management activities, operation and maintenance (O&M) procedures, endangered species conservation program, environmental baseline, effects of ongoing operations, reasonable and prudent alternatives, and supporting documentation useful in this FEIS. The 1996 BA and the 1997 BCO did not anticipate or address the effects of specific interim surplus criteria on the species considered. A separate Section 7 ESA consultation is in progress for the proposed action addressed by this FEIS. 1.4.4 LOWER COLORADO RIVER MULTI-SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM Following the designation of critical habitat for three endangered fish species on nearly all of the lower Colorado River in April of 1994, the three Lower Basin States of Arizona, California and Nevada, Reclamation and the Service initiated the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (LCRMSCP), which was one of the reasonable and prudent provisions of the five-year BCO received in 1997. The purpose of the LCRMSCP is to obtain long-term (50-year) ESA compliance for both federal and non-federal water and power interests. The LCRMSCP is a partnership of Federal, State, Tribal, and other public and private stakeholders with an interest in managing the water and related resources of the lower Colorado Riverior Basin. In August Inter 1entered into a e 1995, the Department of the Interior and Arizona, California and Nevada 7 of th 29, 20 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and later aDept. Memorandumrof Clarification (MOC) . mbe for development of the LCRMSCP. Theon v ati purpose ofoveMOA/MOC was to initiate N the development of an LCRMSCPajo N ved on av that would accomplish the following objectives: N rchi d in 6 itehabitat and4, a toward the recovery of threatened and endangered c • Conserve 4-168 work 1 specieso. reduce the likelihood of additional species listing under the ESA; N and and • Accommodate current water diversions and power production and optimize opportunities for future water and power development. The LCRMSCP is currently under development, and it is anticipated that the final EISenvironmental impact report (EIR) will be finalized in 2001. Once the LCRMSCP is accepted by the Service, Reclamation and other federal agencies, as well as the participating non-federal partners, will have achieved ESA compliance for ongoing and future actions. Since the interim surplus criteria determination is scheduled to be completed prior to the completion of the LCRMSCP, a separate Section 7 consultation has been conducted with the Service on the anticipated effects of implementing the interim surplus criteria. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-27 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 125 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.4.5 SECRETARIAL IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT RELATED TO CALIFORNIA’S COLORADO RIVER WATER USE PLAN Within California, the allocation of Colorado River water is stipulated by various existing agreements among the seven parties with diversion rights. Recently, these parties have negotiated a Quantification Settlement Agreement which further defines the priorities for use of Colorado River water in California. This agreement provides a basis for various water conservation and transfer measures described in the CA Plan (California, 2000). The water transfers would require changes in the points at which the Secretary would deliver transferred water to various California entities, as compared with provisions in existing water delivery contracts. The operational changes caused by the water transfers are being addressed in separate NEPA and ESA documentation. 1.4.6 OFFSTREAM STORAGE OF COLORADO RIVER WATER AND DEVELOPMENT AND RELEASE OF INTENTIONALLY CREATED UNUSED APPORTIONMENT IN THE LOWER DIVISION STATES The above titled rule establishes a procedural framework for the Secretary to follow in rior considering, participating in, and administering Storage andhe Inte Release Interstate 17 t Agreements among the States of Arizona, California,tandfNevada 9, 20 Division p . o er 2 (Lower . De states). The Storage and Interstate Release Agreementsemb permit State-authorized ion v Nov would t N offstream, develop intentionally created unused entities to store Colorado River watera on vajoICUAvavailable to the Secretary for release for use in Namakearchi ed apportionment (ICUA), and d in , another Lower cite -16864 Division state. This rule provides a framework only and does not 14 authorize any specific activities. The rule does not affect any Colorado River water No. entitlement holder’s right to use its full water entitlement, and does not deal with intrastate storage and distribution of water. The rule only facilitates voluntary interstate water transactions that can help satisfy regional water demands by increasing the efficiency, flexibility, and certainty in Colorado River management. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was approved on October 1, 1999. 1.5 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE During recent decades, a considerable amount of environmental information has been obtained and environmental analyses conducted concerning the operation of the Colorado River water supply system. Much of this information is contained in various documents prepared under NEPA and the ESA. These documents have been previously distributed to interested agencies and private parties. In the interest of avoiding duplication and undue paperwork, this FEIS incorporates by reference parts or all of several documents. The documents described below are available for public inspection upon request at Reclamation offices in Boulder City, Nevada; Salt Lake City, Utah; Phoenix and Yuma, Arizona. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-28 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 126 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION • Biological Assessment for Proposed Interim Surplus Criteria, Secretarial Implementation Agreements for California Water Plan Components and Conservation Measures, August 30, 2000. This BA was prepared by Reclamation in Boulder City, Nevada, to address the potential effects on threatened or endangered species and designated critical habitat along the lower Colorado River attributable to the water transfers proposed by California as part of its CA Plan and to the implementation of the proposed interim surplus criteria. The BA was prepared to facilitate formal Section 7 consultation with the Service, which resulted in the BO cited below addressing these proposed actions. The pertinent parts of this BA are the ecology of aquatic and riparian habitat systems from Lake Mead to the SIB and the potential effects of these proposed actions on listed species and critical habitat. With regard to any potential effects of the proposed adoption of interim surplus criteria on ESA listed species in the Republic of Mexico or the Gulf of California, Reclamation has prepared additional information to supplement this assessment. • Biological Opinion on Proposed Interim Surplus Criteria, Secretarial Implementation Agreements for California Water Plan Components and r Conservation Measures, December, 2000. terio In f he 9 2017 . oin tPhoenix,, Arizona, through This Biological Opinion (BO), issued by theDept Service ber 2 mNevada, addresses the n v. formal consultation with Reclamation in Boulder City, atio Nove potential effects on threatened or endangered species and designated critical habitat ajo N ived on av along the lower d in N River rattributable to the water transfer agreements Colorado 4, a ch cite 16 as proposed by California 86part of its CA Plan and to the implementation of interim 14surplus criteria. The BO identifies reasonable and prudent measures for the No. avoidance of adverse effects of these proposed actions. The pertinent parts of the BO are the life histories of various species, their habitat descriptions, and relationships with river operations. • Biological Assessment on Transboundary Effects for Proposed Interim Surplus Criteria, December, 2000. This BA was prepared by Reclamation in Boulder City, Nevada, to address the potential effects on threatened or endangered species in the Colorado River Delta of Mexico attributable to the implementation of proposed interim surplus criteria. The BA was prepared to facilitate informal consultation with the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is in progress. The pertinent parts of the BA are the ecology of aquatic and riparian habitat systems from the SIB to the estuary at the mouth of the Colorado River in the Sea of Cortez and the potential effects of the proposed action on United States-listed species and critical habitat. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-29 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 127 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION • Description and Assessment of Operations, Maintenance, and Sensitive Species of the Lower Colorado River (Biological Assessment), August 1996. This BA was prepared by Reclamation in Boulder City, Nevada, to develop an inventory of aquatic and marsh habitat along the lower Colorado River and to analyze the relationships between river operation and maintenance of threatened and endangered species and critical habitat. The BA was prepared to facilitate the formal Section 7 consultation with the Service, which resulted in the April 1997 BCO cited below. The pertinent parts of the BA are the ecology of aquatic and riparian habitat systems from Lake Mead to the SIB and the potential effects of ongoing operation and maintenance on listed species and critical habitat. • Biological and Conference Opinion on Lower Colorado River Operations and Maintenance, April 1997. This BCO, prepared by the Service in Phoenix, Arizona, through formal consultation with Reclamation in Boulder City, Nevada, addresses the critical habitat for endangered species along the lower Colorado River that is related to the operation of the river for delivery of water to the Lower Division states and Mexico. The report identifies a reasonable and prudent alternative for the avoidance of or nteri 7 Iconference and opinion adverse effects of river operation. The pertinent partsfofhe the 201 o t are the life histories of various species, theirDept. descriptions, and relationships habitat r 29, be v. with river operations. ovem ation N N vajo hived on n Na , r • Operation of GleniCanyon Dam c 4 October 8, 1996. ited of Decision,a Final Environmental Impact Statement, March c 1995, and Record4-1686 1 No. The FEIS was prepared by Reclamation in Salt Lake City, Utah, to evaluate alternative plans for the water releases at Glen Canyon Dam and Powerplant and the ecological effects on the Colorado River corridor downstream to Separation Rapid. The FEIS was based on an extraordinary depth of analysis, involving numerous work groups with specialists in various disciplines from other agencies and private practice. The pertinent parts of the FEIS are the aquatic and riparian habitats below Glen Canyon Dam, the relationships between Glen Canyon Dam and Powerplant release patterns, effects on downstream ecology, and the sedimentation processes associated with the maintenance of backwaters and beaches along the river. The relationships between release patterns and the value of hydroelectric energy produced were also pertinent. The ROD adds commitments in the following areas: establishment of an AMP, monitoring and protecting cultural resources, flood frequency reduction measures, BHBF releases, efforts to establish a new population of the humpback chub, further study of selective withdrawals from Lake Powell, and emergency exception criteria to respond to various emergency situations. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-30 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 128 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION • Glen Canyon Dam Modification to Control Downstream Temperatures Plan and Environmental Assessment, January 1999 Draft. This draft planning report and EA was prepared by Reclamation in Salt Lake City, Utah, to consider alternatives for modifying the intakes to the penstocks to permit the selective withdrawal of water from Lake Powell at various temperatures. The pertinent parts of the report are the sensitivity of downstream fish species, particularly endangered species, to temperatures of Colorado River water downstream from the dam and the degree of temperature control that could be achieved by the modifications. Based on comments on the draft EA, Reclamation is in the process of preparing a new draft EA on temperature control at Glen Canyon Dam. • Final Biological Opinion, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam as the Modified Low Fluctuating Flow Alternative, December 1994. This Biological Opinion was prepared by the Service in Phoenix, Arizona, through consultation with Reclamation in Salt Lake City, Utah. The document addresses Glen Canyon Dam operations and the critical habitat for endangered species in the Colorado River from Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead and identifies a reasonable ior Inter 1also provides e and prudent alternative for the avoidance of jeopardy.f The document 7 20 o th area related to the environmental baseline and status of speciesDethe. actioner 29, in pt b v. preferred alternative. ovem ation N N vajo hived on in Na rc • Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Work Group Charter, December 8, 1998. ited 6864, a c -1 This charter outlines the membership and duties of the AMWG. The duties are to o. 14 N establish AMWG operating procedures, advise the Secretary in meeting environmental and cultural commitments of the Glen Canyon Dam FEIS and ROD, recommend a framework for AMP policy, goals and direction; develop recommendations for modifying dam operations and operating criteria; define and recommend resource management objectives for a long-term monitoring plan; review and provide input to the Secretary on required reports; facilitate input and coordination of information from stakeholders to the Secretary; and monitor and report on compliance of all program activities with applicable laws, permitting requirements, and the Grand Canyon Protection Act. • Quality of Water, Colorado River Basin, Progress Report No. 19, January 1999. This report is the latest of a series of biennial reports to Congress, prepared by Reclamation in Salt Lake City, Utah, that summarize progress of the Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program in controlling Colorado River salinity. The pertinent parts of the report are those which discuss the mechanisms that contribute dissolved salts to the river system, the relationships between dissolved salt COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-31 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 129 of 1200 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION concentrations and abundance of basin water supply, and the effects of dissolved minerals on uses of Colorado River water. • Southern Nevada Water Authority Treatment and Transmission Facility Final Environmental Impact Statement, September 1996, and Record of Decision, November 1996. This EIS and ROD contain pertinent information concerning the influence of Las Vegas Valley drainage on the water quality in Lake Mead’s Boulder Basin and the resulting quality of water pumped from the reservoir by the SNWA’s intake facilities. Critical intake elevations are identified in the documents. • Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Rulemaking for Offstream Storage of Colorado River Water and Development and Release of Intentionally Created Unused Apportionment in the Lower Division States, October 1999. This document, which includes a BA, analyzes the environmental effects of potential changes in reservoir and river operations that could occur if a Lower Division state diverts and stores water for the benefit of another Lower Division state for future use (interstate offstream storage). The BA containsor aquatic and eri marsh habitat descriptions and the relationships betweenhe Int in diversions from changes 17 0 f t marsh habitat Lake Mead and Lake Havasu and downstreamept. o and r 29, 2 aquatic D mbe maintenance. The relationships between v. n release patterns from atiouseful for oveanalysis. Hoover Dam and the N this value of hydroelectric energyo Nalso ed on vaj are in Na rchiv ited 6864, a c -1 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1-32 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 130 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 131 of 1200 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses the process used to define the No Action Alternative and develop a range of reasonable interim surplus criteria alternatives, and summarizes various alternatives that were considered but eliminated from further analysis. It then describes the alternatives analyzed in this FEIS. Modeling procedures and assumptions used to analyze the alternatives are discussed in Section 3.3. The end of this chapter presents a table of effects of all alternatives. 2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES This FEIS considers five interim surplus criteria alternatives as well as a No Action Alternative/baseline that was developed for comparison of potential effects. The five action alternatives considered include the Basin States Alternative (preferred alternative), the Flood Control Alternative, the Six States Alternative, the California Alternative, and the Shortage Protection Alternative (as described in Section 2.3). ior Section 2.2.1 discusses the strategies and origins of the action alternatives and describes Inter 17 f the 9, 2 alternatives that were considered but eliminated fromtfurther analysis. 0 p.o . De e er 2 n vSURPLUSmb a FOR 2.2.1 OPERATING STRATEGIEStio Nov DETERMINATION ajo N ived on Nav d in 64, arch 2.2.1.1 THE R STRATEGY cite 168 14No. In 1986, Reclamation developed an operating strategy for distributing surplus water and avoiding spills (Reclamation, 1986). That analysis established the Spill Avoidance or “R” strategy. The development of this strategy was an outcome of sustained flood control releases at Lake Mead from 1983 through 1986. The R strategy assumes a particular percentile historical runoff, along with normal 7.5 maf delivery to Lower Division states, for the next year. Applying these values to current reservoir storage, the projected reservoir storage at the end of the next year is calculated. If the calculated space available at the end of the next year is less than the space required by flood control criteria, then a surplus condition is determined to exist. Two alternatives considered in this FEIS use variations of the R strategy. The 70R strategy uses an annual runoff of 17.4 maf whereas the 75R strategy uses 18.1 maf. The 70R strategy was used to represent the baseline as described in Section 2.3.1. 2.2.1.2 THE A STRATEGY In the early and mid-1990s, Reclamation continued discussing surplus criteria strategies with the Colorado River Management Work Group (CRMWG), which formed a technical committee was formed to investigate additional surplus criteria strategies. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 132 of 1200 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER 2 One of the strategies developed through the CRMWG analysis was the Flood Control avoidance or “A” strategy. This strategy determines when there is insufficient storage space in Lake Mead and upstream reservoirs, in order to avoid flood control releases from Lake Mead with a particular percent assurance. The most common usage became the 70 percent assurance level (70A strategy). This alternative was eliminated because the modeling results were so similar to the Flood Control Alternative and the No Action/baseline (70R strategy) that it was not necessary to analyze it. 2.2.1.3 THE P STRATEGY Another strategy is the Shortage Protection or “P” strategy. This strategy is based on making surplus water available while maintaining storage sufficient to meet a 7.5 maf Lake Mead release requirement, while avoiding the likelihood of a future shortage determination at a specified assurance level. Through a separate modeling study, Reclamation determined the Lake Mead storage needed in each future year to meet Lower Basin and Mexico demands, with a specified percent assurance that Lake Mead would not drop below a specified elevation. Water stored in Lake Mead in excess of that storage requirement is deemed surplus to be made available to theior Lower Basin Inter 17 states. The Shortage Protection Alternative used in this FEIS, commonly referred to as 0 f the the 80P strategy, is described in more detail in Section. 2.3.6. r 29, 2 pt o e v. D mbe ation on Nove 2.2.1.4 FLOOD CONTROL STRATEGY jo N Nava archived in cited 1686 surplus conditions are determined only when flood Under a flood control strategy,4, 1 control releases from 4 No. Lake Mead are occurring or projected to occur in the subsequent year. In the 1998, 1999 and 2000 Annual Operating Plans (AOPs), Reclamation used the projection of flood control releases as the basis for making surplus water available to the Lower Division States. The Flood Control Alternative in this FEIS uses this strategy and is described in Section 2.3.3. 2.2.2 ORIGINS OF THE CALIFORNIA, SIX STATES, AND BASIN STATES ALTERNATIVES On December 17, 1997, California presented to the other Basin States its draft 4.4 Plan (CRBC, 1997), a plan to achieve a reduction in its dependence on surplus water from the Colorado River, through various conservation measures, water exchanges and conjunctive use programs. One of the elements of the draft 4.4 Plan was the expectation that the Secretary would continue to determine surplus conditions on the Colorado River until 2015. California proposed criteria on which the Secretary would base his determinations of surplus conditions during the interim period. In 1998, in response to California’s 1997 proposal of interim surplus criteria, the other six states within the Colorado River Basin (Six States) submitted a proposal with COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 133 of 1200 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER 2 surplus criteria that were similar in structure to those in California’s proposal. Under the proposal from the Six States, use of surplus water supplies would be limited depending on the occurrence of various specified Lake Mead surface elevations. The interim surplus criteria proposed by the Six States, presented in Attachment E, were used to formulate the “Six States Alternative” presented in Section 2.3.4. California subsequently proposed specific interim surplus criteria which were attached to the October 15, 1999 Key Terms for Quantification Settlement Among the State of California, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Water District, and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (See Attachment F). California also updated, renamed and re-released its 4.4 Plan in May 2000. The revised plan is now known as the California Colorado River Water Use Plan (CA Plan). The interim surplus criteria proposal stemming from the CA Plan and Quantification Settlement was used to formulate the “California Alternative” detailed in Section 2.3.5. In July 2000, during the public comment period on the DEIS, Reclamation received a draft proposal for interim surplus criteria from the seven Colorado River Basin States (Seven States). After a preliminary review of that proposal, Reclamation published it in the August 8, 2000 Federal Register for review and consideration by the public during the public review period for the DEIS. Reclamation published minorrior corrections to the Inte of 17 Federal proposal in a Federal Register notice of September 22, 2000. e Copies the of th 29, 20 Register notices are in Chapter 5. Reclamation Dept. the Basin States Alternative in derived . ber this FEIS from the draft Seven States ation v Proposal. vem o N N vajo hived on a 2.2.3 PACIFIC ed in N INSTITUTE,PROPOSAL arc it c 864 -16 On February 15,o. 14 a consortium of environmental organizations led by the Pacific 2000, N Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security (Pacific Institute) presented an interim surplus criteria proposal for consideration by the Secretary. Their proposal (as clarified by the Pacific Institute’s September 8, 2000 letter of comment on the DEIS), contains interim surplus criteria that are similar to the criteria in the Six States Alternative with respect to Lower Basin surplus determinations. The proposal and excerpts from the September 8 letter are included as Attachment G to this FEIS. The Pacific Institute Proposal also suggested that, during years when Lake Mead’s surface elevation exceeds 1120.4 feet mean sea level (msl), at least 32,000 af of additional water (i.e. water in excess of Mexico's treaty deliveries) be delivered to Mexico for the purpose of restoring and/or maintaining habitat in the upper reaches of the Colorado River delta. The proposal also included 260,000 af of additional water to be delivered to the Colorado River delta for ecological restoration purposes when reservoir elevations are high. This proposal is beyond the purpose and need for the proposed action because it would expand the proposed action by prescribing releases of Colorado River water stored in Lake Mead to Mexico. The proposed adoption of surplus criteria for use in Arizona, California and Nevada does not, by definition, apply to determinations of surplus to the COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 134 of 1200 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER 2 United Mexican States (Mexico). Water delivery to Mexico is governed by the United States-Mexico Water Treaty of 1944. Releases of water to Mexico are not addressed by Section III(3) of the LROC or Article II(B)(2) of the Decree and are therefore not part of the proposed action analyzed in this EIS. From its initiation of this proposed action on May 18, 1999, Reclamation has clearly stated that its undertaking was intended to “identify those circumstances under which the Secretary of the Interior (“Secretary”) may make Colorado River water available for delivery to the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada .…” (64 Federal Register 27008, May 18, 1999). The proposed action only involves determinations of domestic surplus conditions pursuant to Article III(3) of the LROC (64 Federal Register 27009). Section 1.1.4 of the DEIS (page 1-4) states that “This proposed action is not intended to identify conditions when Mexico may schedule [its] 0.2 maf [surplus under Article 10(b) of the Treaty].” The United States, in its consultation with Mexico conducted through the Department of State, has consistently informed Mexico that the proposed action does not address determinations of surplus conditions to Mexico under the 1944 Treaty, and is limited to declarations of surplus conditions for the Lower Division states. In addition to changing and expanding the proposed action in a manner inconsistent with the purpose and need for the action, the Pacific Institute’s proposed alternative would also require that Reclamation make releases of water from Lakeor nteri Mead to Mexico in a manner that is inconsistent with the mandatory injunctione I the h issued to017Secretary by ft pt. o erCalifornia Decree 29, 2 the United States Supreme Court in Article II ofDe Arizona v. . the b i for v Nov water (1964). Pacific Institute’s proposal callson releases ofem from Lake Mead in at N on excess of the amount of water ajo would edreleased to Mexico “in satisfaction of [the Navthatarchivbe United States] obligations to 64,United States of Mexico under the treaty dated ed in 8 the cit.…” Reclamation does not believe that the range of reasonable February 3, 1944 14-16 No. alternatives includes alternatives that would violate the United States Supreme Court’s Decree and injunction. For the foregoing reasons, Reclamation concluded that the proposed alternative was not a reasonable alternative and it accordingly was not analyzed in this EIS. Because the Lower Basin surplus determinations of the Pacific Institute’s proposed interim surplus criteria are similar to, and within the range of, those contained in the alternatives already being analyzed, and because the proposed delivery of additional water to Mexico is beyond the purpose and need for interim surplus criteria, the Pacific Institute’s proposal is not analyzed in this FEIS. 2.2.4 FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES In response to the CA Plan and the Six States proposal, and the dialogue among Reclamation and the seven Basin States, Reclamation initiated a NEPA process to provide structure to evaluating potential interim surplus criteria alternatives and to determine and disclose the potential effects of these interim surplus criteria. At the initiation of the NEPA process, Reclamation began a public scoping process. Under that process, Reclamation conducted a series of public meetings in 1999 to inform COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2-4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 135 of 1200 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER 2 interested parties of the consideration being given to the development of interim surplus criteria, to show options and proposals developed up to that time, and to solicit public and agency comments and suggestions regarding the formulation and evaluation of alternatives for the criteria. The alternatives below were presented at the public meetings: Flood Control Alternative Spill Avoidance Alternative (70R) Flood Control Avoidance Alternative (70A) Multi-tier Alternative (based on the Six States Plan) Shortage Protection Alternative (80P) The scoping process and issues identified, including those associated with alternatives development, are discussed in Chapter 5 of this FEIS. Following the scoping meetings, and in consideration of comments received, Reclamation included the interim surplus criteria proposals of the Six States and California for evaluation in the DEIS. It should be noted that while the California and Six States alternatives analyzed in the DEIS and in this FEIS were based on criteria proposed by California and the Six States, the respective alternatives presented in this FEIS do not contain all the specific elements of ior Inter 17 those plans. the 20 of ept. ber 29, D The draft Seven States proposal was discussed. informally with the public during the m ion v atwas the n Nove comment in various letters public review period for the DEIS, N and subject of vajo h ved o received by Reclamation Na in in responsecto ithe DEIS and the Federal Register notice of the , ar c ond 1 discussions and comments, Reclamation formulated an proposal. Basedite these 6864 alternative basedo. 14 Seven States proposal and identified it as the preferred N on the alternative (the Basin States Alternative herein). It should be noted that the Basin States Alternative presented in this FEIS does not contain all the specific elements of the draft Seven States proposal. 2.2.5 UTILIZATION OF PROPOSALS FROM THE BASIN STATES As discussed in Section 2.2.2, various proposals submitted by individual Colorado River Basin states or groups of states were used by Reclamation to formulate interim surplus criteria alternatives. In recognition of the need to limit the delivery of surplus water at lower Lake Mead water levels, these proposals specified allowable uses of surplus water at various triggering levels. The Secretary will continue to apportion surplus water consistent with the applicable provisions of the Decree, under which surplus water is divided 50 percent to California, 46 percent to Arizona, and 4 percent to Nevada. The Secretary also intends to appropriately report the accumulated volume of water delivered to MWD under surplus conditions. The Secretary also intends to honor any forbearance arrangements made by COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2-5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 136 of 1200 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER 2 various parties for the delivery of surplus water or reparations for future shortage conditions. 2.2.6 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AND BASELINE CONDITION As required by NEPA, a No Action alternative must be considered during the environmental review process. Under the No Action Alternative, determinations of surplus would continue to be made on an annual basis, in the AOP, pursuant to the LROC and the Decree as discussed in Chapter 1. The No Action Alternative represents the future AOP process without interim surplus criteria. Surplus determinations consider such factors as end-of-year system storage, potential runoff conditions, projected water demands of the Basin States and the Secretary’s discretion in addressing year-to-year issues. However, the year-to-year variation in the conditions considered by the Secretary in making surplus water determinations makes projections of surplus water availability highly uncertain. The approach used in this FEIS for analyzing the hydrologic aspects of the interim surplus criteria alternatives was to use a computer model that simulates specific operating parameters and constraints. In order to follow CEQ guidelines calling for a No Action alternative for use as a “baseline” against which to compareor i project In er a baseline alternatives, Reclamation selected a specific operating strategy fortuse as17 0 f the condition, which could be described mathematically in the model. 9, 2 pt. o e r2 v. D v mbe o ation ostrategy.e Reclamation has utilized a 70R The baseline is based on a 70Rajo N avoidance N v spill andived n surplus determinations in past years. strategy for both planning purposesrch studies of in Na ited 6864, a surplus determinations as part of the DEIS effort, c When Reclamation reviewed previous -1 the data indicated . 14the 1997 surplus determination did not precisely fit the 70R o that N strategy. As a result, Reclamation selected the 75R strategy as representative of recent operational decisions, for use as the baseline condition in the DEIS. However, based on further review and analysis, public comment, and discussion with representatives of the states during the DEIS review period, Reclamation is using the 70R strategy for the baseline condition in this FEIS. While the 70R strategy is used to represent baseline conditions, it does not represent a decision by Reclamation to utilize the 70R strategy for determination of future surplus conditions in the absence of interim surplus criteria. It should be noted that the 70R strategy and 75R strategy yield very similar results for the purpose of determining impacts associated with the action alternatives analyzed in this FEIS. Figure 2-1 illustrates the close relationship between the 70R and 75R trigger lines (see Section 2.3.1.2). 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES This section describes the five interim surplus criteria alternatives analyzed in this FEIS, and No Action, which is represented by the baseline condition for comparison purposes. The Secretary would base his annual determination of surplus conditions on the criteria selected, if any, as part of the AOP process unless extraordinary COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2-6 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 137 of 1200 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER 2 circumstances arise. Such circumstances could include operations necessary for safety of dams or other emergency situations, the failure of California to meet its commitment to reduce dependence on Colorado River water, or other activities arising from actual operating experiences. The interim surplus criteria would remain in effect for surplus determinations made through calendar year 2015, subject to five-year reviews concurrent with the LROC reviews. As noted in Section 1.4.1, implementation of interim surplus criteria would take into account the progress, or lack thereof, in the implementation of the CA Plan. As noted above, the 70R operating strategy is not presented as an alternative for adoption. If an interim surplus criteria alternative is not implemented, the Secretary would determine surplus conditions using the same dynamic considerations currently used in the AOP. Subsequent to the surplus determination for 2016, the interim surplus criteria would terminate and, in the absence of subsequently-specified surplus criteria, surplus determinations would be made by future Secretaries based on factors such as those that are considered in the AOP, as discussed in Chapter 1. Because the selected baseline and the interim surplus criteria alternatives deal with ior Inter 17 operations, rather than construction or other physical Colorado River system changes, 0 f the the alternatives are described below in terms of their operatingrrules. 2 Department pt. o e 29, The e D mb and Reclamation intend to deliver waterion v. Article II(B)2 of the at in accordance withto be available each year Nove N n projected o o Decree. The estimated volumesjof surplus water ava ved under baseline conditionsN each rchi in and 4, a alternative are tabulated to demonstrate the cited 1686 operation under the respective conditions. The projected volumes of surplus water vary 4over the interim o. 1 in response to various factors including the implementation of N period various components of the CA Plan. A common element of all alternatives is that in years in which the Field Working Agreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers for Flood Control Operation of Hoover Dam and Lake Mead requires releases greater than the downstream beneficial consumptive use demands, the Secretary shall determine a “flood control surplus” will be declared in that year. In such years, releases will be made to satisfy all beneficial uses within the United States (see the estimated amounts under Flood Control for each alternative), and up to an additional 200,000 af will be made available to Mexico under the Treaty. 2.3.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AND BASELINE CONDITION 2.3.1.1 APPROACH TO SURPLUS WATER DETERMINATION As discussed above in Section 2.2.6, the 70R operating strategy is being used as a baseline to show possible future operating conditions in the absence of interim surplus criteria. The primary effect of simulating operation with the 70R operating strategy COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2-7 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 138 of 1200 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER 2 would be that surplus conditions would only be determined when Lake Mead is nearly full. 2.3.1.2 70R BASELINE SURPLUS TRIGGERS The 70R baseline strategy involves assuming a 70-percentile inflow into the system subtracting out the consumptive uses and system losses and checking the results to see if all of the water could be stored or if flood control releases would be required. If flood control releases would be required, additional water is made available to the Lower Basin states beyond 7.5 maf. The notation 70R refers to the specific inflow where 70 percent of the historical natural runoff is less than this value (17.4 maf) for the Colorado River basin at Lee Ferry. The 70R strategy is illustrated on Figure 2-1, which shows the average trigger elevation of Lake Mead’s water surface above which a surplus would be determined. In practice, the 70R surplus determination would not be based on the trigger line shown, but would be made during the fall of the preceding year using projected available system space. The 70R trigger line rises from approximately 1199 feet msl in 2002 to 1205 feet msl in 2050. The gradual rise of the 70R trigger line shown in Figure 2-1 is the result of ior Inter 1 a increasing water use in the Upper Basin. Under baseline conditions, when7 surplus the 0 condition is determined to occur, surplus water would .be f pt o maderavailable to fill all water 29, 2 e v D orders by holders of surplus water contracts in.the Lowermbe Division states in estimated ation on Nove N amounts on Table 2-1. ajo d ive Nav d in 64, arch cite 168 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2-8 1,000 2000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 2005 2010 2015 2020 2-9 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 M INIM UM NEVADA PUM PING ELEVATIO N=1000 FT 75R TRIGGER FOR COMPARISON SPILLW AY ELEVATION=1221 FT ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in M64UMarc cite 168 INIM , ELEVATION FO R POW ER GENERATION=1083 FT o. 14 N 70R AVERAGE TRIGGER AVERAGE FLOOD RELEASE TRIGGER Figure 2-1 Baseline Surplus Trigger Elevations COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Lake Mead Elevation (feet) DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2045 2050 CHAPTER 2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 139 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 140 of 1200 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER 2 Table 2-1 Baseline Potential Surplus Water Supply Unit : thousand acre-feet (kaf) Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2.3.2 Flood Control 1350 1350 1350 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1600 1650 1650 1650 1700 1700 70R Trigger 1350 1350 1350 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1600 1650 1650 1650 1700 1700 BASIN STATES ALTERNATIVE (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) Reclamation has identified the Basin States Alternative as the preferred alternative in rior this FEIS. The Basin States Alternatives is similar to, and based nte information I upon, 17 the the 20 submitted to the Secretary by representatives of the pt. of governors of29, states of Colorado, e r Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona,ion v. D California. After receipt of this Nevada and vembe t No information (during the public ajo Na period), Reclamation shared the submission v commentved on Reclamation’s surplus criteria web with the public (through the Federalchi in Na r Register and ited and 864, a Reclamation then analyzed the states’ c sites) for consideration 16 comment. 14submission and crafted this additional alternative for inclusion in the FEIS. Some of the No. information submitted for the Department’s review was outside of the scope of the proposed action for adoption of interim surplus criteria and was therefore not included as part of the Basin States Alternative (i.e., adoption of shortage criteria and adoption of surplus criteria beyond the 15-year period) as presented in this FEIS. With respect to the information within the scope of the proposed action, Reclamation found the Basin States Alternative to be a reasonable alternative and fully analyzed all environmental effects of this alternative in this FEIS. The identified environmental effects of the Basin States Alternative are well within the range of anticipated effects of the alternatives presented in the DEIS and do not affect the environment in a manner not already considered in the DEIS. Reclamation selected the Basin States Alternative as its preferred alternative based on Reclamation's determination that it best meets all aspects of the purpose and need for the action, including the needs to remain in place for the entire period of the interim criteria, to garner support among the Basin States that will enhance the Secretary’s ability to manage the Colorado River reservoirs in a manner that balances all existing needs for these precious water supplies, and to assist in the Secretary’s efforts to insure that California water users reduce their over reliance on surplus Colorado River water. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2-10 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 141 of 1200 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER 2 Reclamation notes the important role of the Basin States in the statutory framework for administration of Colorado River Basin entitlements and the significance that a sevenstate consensus represents on this issue. Thus, based on all available information, this alternative appears to be the most reasonable and feasible alternative. 2.3.2.1 APPROACH TO SURPLUS WATER DETERMINATION The Basin States Alternative specifies ranges of Lake Mead water surface elevations to be used through 2015 for determining the availability of surplus water through 2016. The elevation ranges are coupled with specific uses of surplus water in such a way that, if Lake Mead’s surface elevation were to decline, the amount of surplus water would be reduced. The interim criteria would be reviewed at five-year intervals with the LROC (and additionally as needed) and revised as needed based upon actual operational experience. 2.3.2.2 BASIN STATES ALTERNATIVE SURPLUS TRIGGERS The surplus determination elevations under the preferred alternative consist of the tiered Lake Mead water surface elevations listed below, each of which is associated with certain stipulations on the purposes for which surplus water could be used. The rior elevation tiers (also referred to as levels) are shown on Figuree Inte 2-2. They are as follows, 017 f th proceeding from higher to lower water levels: pt. o 29, 2 e .D ber v feet ion v to 1201 em msl) Nat Tier 1 - 70R Line (approximately 1199 n No vajo hived o Tier 2 - 1145 feet Na in msl rc itedfeet 6864, a Tier 3 -c 1125 msl -1 o. 14 N Table 2-2 lists the estimated maximum annual amounts of surplus water that would be available to contractors for surplus water in the Lower Division states under the Basin States Alternative, when Lake Mead is at or above each trigger. The table also lists the estimated amounts of surplus water that would be available to the Lower Division states when flood control releases are required. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2-11 2000 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 70R AVERAGE TRIGGER SPILLW AY ELEVATION=1221 FT 2005 2010 2015 2020 2-12 Year 2025 2030 2035 M INIM UM NEVADA PUM PING ELEVATIO N=1000 FT 2040 ior Inter 17 TIER 2=1145 e of th 29, 20 pt. TIER 3=1125 . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64,Marc ELEVATION FO R POW ER GENERATION=1083 FT INIM UM cite 168 14 No. TIER 1=(70R) AVERAGE FLOOD RELEASE TRIGGER Figure 2-2 Basin States Alternative Surplus Trigger Elevations COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Lake Mead Elevation (feet) DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2045 2050 CHAPTER 2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 142 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 143 of 1200 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER 2 Table 2-2 Basin States Alternative Potential Surplus Water Supply Unit: thousand acre-feet (kaf) Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Flood Control 1350 1350 1350 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1600 1650 1650 1650 1700 1700 Tier 1 (70R) 1150 1150 1050 1050 1050 1050 1100 1100 1150 1150 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 Tier 2 (1145 feet) 650 600 550 550 500 500 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 Tier 3 (1125 feet) 200 200 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 200 200 250 250 300 300 The surplus amounts quantified for each tier in Table 2-2 are estimated annual ior quantities of water and are the Secretary’s best estimate of the amounts of surplus water Inter 17 th interim surplus guidelines. that could be made available during the 15-year period offthe e 0 pt. o er 29, 2 projected e These estimates are based on the most current .available data regarding v D mb Colorado River water use demands Naexisting contractors. The methodology that was by tion n Nove o that d o used to prepare the demandavaj scheduleshiveunderlie the surplus tables in this section is c in Nof “domestic,” “Direct Delivery Domestic Use” and “Offbased upon thecited definitions 864, ar 6 Stream Banking,” .as used in the information submitted to the Secretary by the Colorado 14-1 o (65 Federal Register 48531, 48535 [Aug. 8, 2000]). The quantities N River Basin states in each Tier are developed by using these definitions as set forth in the Basin States submission (see Table 2-2). Under these definitions, the quantity of estimated surplus quantities is based, in part, on supplying particular types of uses within the Lower Division states, with a higher priority for supplying domestic uses than that for irrigation uses or groundwater banking activities to supply future uses. While the Secretary, as an initial matter, would make surplus water available in amounts consistent with the percentages identified in Article II(B)(2) of the Decree, it is expected that water orders from Colorado River contractors will be submitted to reflect forbearance arrangements made by Lower Division states and individual contractors. The Secretary will deliver water to contractors in a manner consistent with these arrangements, to the extent that the water orders from contractors reflect these arrangements. The Secretary expects to make the specified quantities of water available during the 15-year period. However, the precise annual surplus quantities will continue to be reviewed on an annual basis during the preparation of the AOP, as required by applicable federal law, based on actual operating experience and updated information on the demand for Colorado River water by Lower Division contractors. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2-13 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 144 of 1200 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2.3.2.1.1 CHAPTER 2 Basin States Alternative Tier 1 (70R) The Basin States Alternative Tier 1 Lake Mead surplus trigger elevations are based on the 70R strategy and range from approximately 1199 feet msl to 1201 feet msl. In years when the Secretary determines that water should be released for beneficial consumptive use to reduce the risk of potential flood control releases based on the 70R operating strategy, the Secretary would determine the quantity of surplus water available and allocate it as follows: 50 percent to California, 46 percent to Arizona and 4 percent to Nevada. Regardless of the quantity of surplus water determined under Tier 1, surplus deliveries under Tier 2 (discussed below) would be met. 2.3.2.1.2 Basin States Alternative Tier 2 (1145 feet msl) The Basin States Alternative Tier 2 Lake Mead surplus trigger elevation is 1145 feet msl. At or above this Tier 2 elevation (and below the Tier 1 elevation), surplus water would be available for use by the Lower Division states in the estimated amounts in Table 2-2. ior Inter 17 f the 9, 20 pt. o erelevation is 1125 feet 2 The Basin States Alternative Tier 3 Lake Mead De trigger n v. surplus emb msl. At or above this Tier 3 elevation (and below Nov 2 elevation), surplus water the Tier Natio ajoLowerved on states in the estimated amounts on vthe would be available forin Nby use a rchi Division ite Mead6864,below the Tier 3 trigger surplus water would not be Table 2-2. At Laked levels a c made available. o. 14-1 N 2.3.2.1.3 Basin States Alternative Tier 3 (1125 feet msl) 2.3.2.2 DRAFT GUIDELINES Draft guidelines for implementation of the Basin States Alternative are presented in Attachment I. These guidelines describe in more detail the relationships between the implementation of interim surplus criteria under this alternative and the AOP process through which the Secretary would determine whether surplus water is available and how much is available. 2.3.3 FLOOD CONTROL ALTERNATIVE 2.3.3.1 APPROACH TO SURPLUS WATER DETERMINATION Under the Flood Control Alternative, a surplus condition is determined to exist when flood control releases from Lake Mead are occurring or projected to occur in the subsequent year. The method of determining need for flood control releases is based on flood control regulations published by the Los Angeles District of the Corps and the Field Working Agreement between the Corps and Reclamation, which are discussed in Section 1.3.6, Flood Control Operation. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2-14 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 145 of 1200 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER 2 2.3.3.2 FLOOD CONTROL ALTERNATIVE SURPLUS TRIGGERS Under the flood control strategy, a surplus is determined when the Corps flood control regulations require releases from Lake Mead in excess of downstream demand. The specific operating provisions are described in Section 1.3.6, Flood Control Operation. If flood control releases are required, surplus conditions are determined to be in effect. This strategy is illustrated on Figure 2-3, which shows the average Lake Mead water surface elevation that would trigger flood control releases. The average triggering elevation is a level line at approximately 1211 feet msl. In practice, flood control releases are not based on the average trigger line shown, but would be determined each month by following the Corps regulations. The graph is a visual representation to illustrate the differences between the alternatives. When a flood control surplus is determined, surplus water would be made available for all established uses by contractors for surplus water in the Lower Division states. Table 2-3 lists the annual amounts of surplus water estimated to be available under the Flood Control Alternative. Table 2-3 Flood Control Alternative Potential Surplus Water Supply Unit: thousand acre-feet (kaf) ior Inter 17 Year 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e 2002 .D mb 2003 tion v a Nove N on jo2004 2005 Nava archived in cited 16864, 2006 2007 2008 o. 14 N 2009 Flood Control 1350 1350 1350 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1600 1650 1650 1650 1700 1700 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2.3.4 SIX STATES ALTERNATIVE 2.3.4.1 APPROACH TO SURPLUS WATER DETERMINATION The Six States Alternative specifies ranges of Lake Mead water surface elevations to be used through 2015 for determining the availability of surplus water through 2016. The elevation ranges are coupled with specific uses of surplus water in such a way that, if Lake Mead’s surface elevation were to decline, the amount of surplus water would be reduced. The interim criteria would be reviewed at five-year intervals with the LROC and as needed based upon actual operational experience. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2-15 1,000 2000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 2005 2010 2015 2020 2-16 Year 2025 2030 2035 M INIM UM NEVADA PUM PING ELEVATIO N=1000 FT 2040 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 M INIM UM ELEVATION FO R POW ER GENERATION=1083 FT o. 14 N AVERAGE FLOOD RELEASE TRIGGER SPILLW AY ELEVATION=1221 FT Figure 2-3 Flood Control Alternative Surplus Trigger Elevations COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Lake Mead Elevation (feet) DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2045 2050 CHAPTER 2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 146 of 1200 7 0 R A V E R A G E T R IG G E R SPILLW AY ELEVATION=1221 FT 2005 T IE R 2 = 1 1 4 5 2010 2015 2020 2-17 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. T IE R 3 = 1 1 2 5 . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64,Marc ELEVATION FO R POW ER GENERATION=1083 FT INIM UM cite 168 41 No. T IE R 1 = ( 7 0 R ) COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2000 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 AVERAGE FLOOD RELEASE TRIGGER Figure 2-4 Six States Alternative Surplus Trigger Elevations M 1,250 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2045 2050 CHAPTER 2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 147 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 148 of 1200 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER 2 2.3.4.2 SIX STATES ALTERNATIVE SURPLUS TRIGGERS The surplus determination elevations under the Six States Alternative consist of the tiered Lake Mead water surface elevations listed below, each of which is associated with certain stipulations on the purposes for which surplus water could be used. The tiered elevations are shown on Figure 2-4. They are as follows, proceeding from higher to lower water levels: Tier 1 - 70R Line (approximately 1199 to 1201 feet msl) Tier 2 - 1145 feet msl Tier 3 - 1125 feet msl The following sections describe the various tiers and the estimated amounts of surplus water available at those tiers under the Six States Alternative. When flood control releases are made, any and all beneficial uses would be met, including unlimited off-stream storage. 2.3.4.2.1 Six States Alternative Tier 1 (70R) Six States Alternative Tier 1 Lake Mead surplus trigger elevations areior er based on the 70R strategy and range from approximately 1199 feet msl to 1201 e Inmsl during the feet t 017 f th interim period. When Lake Mead surface elevations t. oat or above, the 70R line (and pare 29 2 . De ber below the average flood release trigger tline shown in Figure 2.4), surplus water would ion v Novem Na be available. Table 2-4 lists the jestimateded on amounts of surplus water that would va o hiv annual a be available to the LowerN in Division states under the Basin States Alternative, when Lake rc ited Tier 1 4, a The table also lists the estimated amounts of c the 1686 trigger. Mead is at or above 14 surplus water that .would be available to the Lower Division states when flood control No releases are required. Table 2-4 Six States Alternative Potential Surplus Water Supply Unit: thousand acre-feet (kaf) Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Flood Control 1350 1350 1350 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1600 1650 1650 1650 1700 1700 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 1350 1350 1350 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1600 1650 1650 1650 1700 1700 600 550 500 500 450 450 450 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 350 300 250 250 200 200 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2-18 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 149 of 1200 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2.3.4.2.2 CHAPTER 2 Six States Alternative Tier 2 (1145 feet msl) The Six States Alternative Tier 2 Lake Mead surplus trigger elevation is 1145 feet msl. At or above this Tier 2 elevation (and below the Tier 1 elevation), surplus water would be available for use by the Lower Division states in the estimated amounts on Table 2-4. 2.3.4.2.3 Six States Alternative Tier 3 The Six States Alternative Tier 3 Lake Mead surplus trigger elevation is 1125 feet msl. At or above this Tier 3 elevation (and below the Tier 2 elevation). Surplus water would be available for use by the Lower Division states in the estimated amounts on Table 2-4. When Lake Mead water levels are below the Tier 3 trigger elevation, surplus water would not be available. 2.3.5 CALIFORNIA ALTERNATIVE 2.3.5.1 APPROACH TO SURPLUS WATER DETERMINATION The California Alternative specifies Lake Mead water surface elevations to be used for or the interim period through 2015 for determining the availability Ioftsurplus water n eri 7 through 2016. The elevation ranges are coupled with specifice surplus f th uses of201 water in pt. o theramount of surplus water 29, e such a way that, if Lake Mead’s surface elevation declines, be v. D m would be reduced. ation n Nove N vajo hived o in Na 4, arcURPLUS TRIGGERS 2.3.5.2 CALIFORNIA ALTERNATIVE S cited 1686 . 14Nelevations at which surplus conditions would be determined under the The Lake Mead o California Alternative are indicated by a series of tiered, sloping lines from the present to 2016. Each tiered line would be coupled with limitations on the amount of surplus water available at that tier. Figure 2-5 shows the structure of these tiered lines. Each tier is defined as a trigger line that rises gradually year by year to 2016, in recognition of the gradually increasing water demand of the Upper Division states. The elevations associated with the three tiers are as follows: Tier 1 - 1160 feet msl to 1166 feet msl Tier 2 - 1116 feet msl to 1125 feet msl Tier 3 - 1098 feet msl to 1102 feet msl Each tier under the California Alternative would be subject to adjustment during the interim period based on changes in Upper Basin demand projections or other factors during the five-year reviews or as a result of actual operating experience. The following sections describe the California Alternative tiers. When flood control releases are made, any and all beneficial uses would be met, including unlimited offstream storage. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2-19 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 150 of 1200 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2.3.5.2.1 CHAPTER 2 California Alternative Tier 1 California Alternative Tier 1 Lake Mead surplus trigger elevation increases from an initial elevation of 1160 feet msl to 1166 feet msl at the end of the interim period (based on Upper Basin demand projections). Lake Mead water surface elevations at or above the Tier 1 trigger line would permit surplus water deliveries to the Lower Division states in the estimated amounts on Table 2-5. The table also lists the estimated amounts of surplus water that would be available to the Lower Division states when flood control releases are required. Table 2-5 California Alternative Potential Surplus Water Supply Unit: thousand acre-feet (kaf) Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Flood Control 1350 1350 1350 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1600 1650 1650 1650 1700 1700 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 1350 1350 1350 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1600 1650 1650 1650 1700 1700 650 600 550 550 500 450 450 450 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 550 500 400 400 400 350 350 350 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. 2.3.5.2.2 California Alternative Tier 2 California Alternative Tier 2 Lake Mead surplus trigger elevation increases from 1116 feet msl to 1125 feet msl (based on Upper Basin demand projections). Lake Mead water surface elevations at or above the Tier 2 line (and below the Tier 1 line) would permit surplus water diversions for use by the Lower Division states in the estimated amounts on Table 2-5. 2.3.5.2.3 California Alternative Tier 3 California Alternative Tier 3 trigger elevation increases from 1098 feet msl to 1102 feet msl (based on Upper Basin demand projections). Lake Mead water surface elevations at or above the Tier 3 line (and below the Tier 2 line) would permit surplus water diversions for use by the Lower Division states in the estimated amounts on Table 2-5. When Lake Mead water levels are below the Tier 3 trigger elevation, surplus water would not be made available. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2-20 1,000 2000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 2005 2010 2015 2020 2-21 2025 Year 2030 2035 M INIM UM NEVADA PUM PING ELEVATIO N=1000 FT 2040 CALIFO RNIA'S TIER 3 RECOM M ENDATION (FOR COM PARISO N) 70R AVERAGE TRIGGER SPILLW AY ELEVATION=1221 FT ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v TIER 2=1116 TO 1125 ation on Nov N vajo hived Na TIER 3=1098 TO 1102 d in 64, arc cite 168 M INIM UM ELEVATION FO R POW ER GENERATION=1083 FT o. 14 N TIER 1=1160 TO 1166 AVERAGE FLOOD RELEASE TRIGGER Figure 2-5 California Alternative Surplus Trigger Elevations COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Lake Mead Elevation (f DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2045 2050 CHAPTER 2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 151 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 152 of 1200 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2.3.6 CHAPTER 2 SHORTAGE PROTECTION ALTERNATIVE 2.3.6.1 APPROACH TO SURPLUS WATER DETERMINATION The Shortage Protection Alternative is based on maintaining an amount of water in Lake Mead necessary to provide a normal annual supply of 7.5 maf for the Lower Division, 1.5 maf for Mexico and storage necessary to provide an 80 percent probability of avoiding future shortages. The modeling assumptions for shortage protection are discussed in Section 3.3.3.4, Lake Mead Water Level Protection Assumptions. 2.3.6.2 SURPLUS TRIGGERS The surplus triggers under this alternative range from an approximate Lake Mead initial elevation of 1126 feet msl to an elevation of 1155 feet msl at the end of the interim period, as shown on Figure 2-6. At Lake Mead elevations above the surplus trigger, surplus conditions would be determined to be in effect and surplus water would be available for use in the Lower Division states in the estimated amounts on Table 2-6. Below the trigger elevation, surplus water would not be made available. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ationControlNoveSurplus Year jo N Flood on Amount Nava archived 1350 1350 d in 20024, cite 1686 2003 1350 1350 1350 1350 . 14- 2004 No 2005 1350 1350 Table 2-6 Shortage Protection Alternative Potential Surplus Water Supply Unit: thousand acre-feet (kaf) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2.4 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1600 1650 1650 1650 1700 1700 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1600 1650 1650 1650 1700 1700 SUMMARY TABLE OF IMPACTS Table 2-7 presents a summary of the potential effects of the baseline operation and the interim surplus alternatives. Chapter 3 contains detailed descriptions of these effects. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2-22 1,000 2000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 2005 2010 2015 2020 2-23 2025 Year 2030 2035 M INIM UM NEVADA PUM PING ELEVATIO N=1000 FT 70R AVERAGE TRIGGER SPILLW AY ELEVATION=1221 FT 2040 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 M IN IM U M ELEV A TIO N FO R PO W ER G EN ERA TIO N =1083 FT o. 14 N SHORTAGE PROTECTION ALTERNATIVE AVERAGE FLOOD RELEASE TRIGGER Figure 2-6 Shortage Protection Alternative Trigger Elevations COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Lake Mead Elevation (feet) DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2045 2050 CHAPTER 2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 153 of 1200 After 2016, median levels stabilize, then rise and fall slightly, due to 602(a) storage requirements and less frequent equalization releases. The probability of Lake Powell being full in 2016 is 27%. 3 Reservoir water levels exhibit a gradual declining trend during the interim surplus criteria period as a result of increasing Upper Division states consumptive use. The median water surface elevation in 2016 is 3665 feet msl. Baseline Conditions/No Action 2 3664 feet msl 3665 feet msl 3664 feet msl 3660 feet msl 3659 feet msl After 2016, Lake Powell water levels under all five alternatives tend to stabilize similar to baseline conditions. Water levels under the Basin States, Flood Control, Six States, California and Shortage Protection alternatives tend to converge with the baseline conditions by about year 2030. Basin States Flood Control Six States California Shortage Protection Median Elevations in 2016 for each of the alternatives are as follows: Effects of Alternatives Table 2-7 1 Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Interim Surplus Criteria CHAPTER 2 2-24 Flows downstream of Hoover Dam are governed by downstream demand or Hoover Dam flood control releases. Flows downstream of Glen Canyon Dam would be managed in accordance with the 1995 Glen Canyon Dam EIS and the 1996 ROD. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Glen Canyon and Hoover Dam releases and flows downstream of Lake Mead. River Flows Other alternatives: Flows below Glen Canyon Dam would be similar to baseline conditions. Flows from Hoover Dam to Parker Dam would be moderately higher until 2016 because of surplus deliveries. After 2016, flows would be similar to baseline conditions. baseline conditions. Flood Control Alternative: Similar to baseline conditions. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 Median Elevations in 2016 for each of the alternatives are as Lake Mead Water Surface Reservoir water levels exhibit a gradual pt. Elevations declining trend during the interim surplus criteria follows: er . De emb v period as a result of Lower Basin consumptive Potential changes in Lake Mead water 1143 feet msl ation on N v Basin States use exceeding long-term inflow. The median o surface elevations. Flood Control 1162 feet msl water surface elevation in 2016 isd ajo N ive 1162 feet v Six States 1146 feet msl msl. Na ch in California 1131 feet msl d After 2016,64, ar surface elevations cite continue8 median water at a lower rate, Shortage Protection 1130 feet msl decline, 4-16 to frequent although surplus 1 Lower Basin After 2016, median surface elevations continue to decline. By No. due to less deliveries. about 2035, all alternatives converge to elevations similar to Potential changes in Lake Powell water surface elevations. Lake Powell Water Surface Elevations Reservoirs Elevations and River Flows Resource/Issue DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 154 of 1200 2002 through 2016 2017 through 2050 2002 through 2016 2017 through 2050 2002 through 2016 2017 through 2050 Surplus: Shortage: Normal: Surplus: 2002 through 2016 2017 through 2050 Normal: >96% 50% 0% 0% 47% 21% 100% 100% Baseline Conditions/No Action 2 Other Alternatives: Greater probability of surplus through 2016 under the California and Shortage Protection alternatives and slightly lower (26%) under the Basin States and Six States alternatives. The probability of surplus under the alternatives is about the same as baseline from 2017 to 2050. The probability of shortage condition deliveries under the alternatives is slightly higher (7% to 14%) through 2016. From 2017 to 2050, the probability of shortages under the alternatives is similar to baseline conditions. Flood Control Alternative: Similar to baseline conditions. Other Alternatives: Greater probability of surplus through 2016. The probability is similar to baseline conditions from 2017 through 2050. Deliveries less than the normal apportionment (4.4 mafy) do not occur under the alternatives at any time through 2050. Flood Control Alternative: Similar to baseline conditions. Effects of Alternatives Table 2-7 1 Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Interim Surplus Criteria CHAPTER 2 100% 100% 2002 through 2016 2017 through 2050 2002 through 2016 2016 through 2050 2002 through 2016 2017 through 2050 Normal: Surplus: Shortage: 2-25 0% 0% 26% 19% < 4% 50% 29% 21% Shortage: 2002 through 2016 2017 through 2050 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Probabilities of meeting Treaty delivery obligations. Mexico Treaty Delivery 4 2002 through 2016 2017 through 2050 The Flood Control Alternative would provide slightly higher (1%) probabilities of surplus than under baseline conditions through 2016. The rest of the alternatives provide slightly lower (3% to 7%) probabilities of surplus through 2016 and about the same level as baseline through 2050. Deliveries less than the treaty apportionment (1.5 mafy) do not occur under the alternatives at any time through 2050. the alternatives through 2016. From 2017 to 2050, the probability of shortage condition deliveries is higher (3% to 5%) under the alternatives. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 Shortage: 2002 through 2016 < 4% t. 2017 through 2050 D p .50%e ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived n Na 2002 arc d iNormal: 64, through 2016 96% Nevada Water Supply Flood Control Alternative: Similar to baseline conditions. cite 168 2017 through 2050 50% Probabilities of normal, surplus and Other Alternatives: Greater probability of surplus through 2015; shortage conditions. same as baseline from 2017 to 2050. The probability of o. 14 Surplus: 2002 through 2016 47% N shortage condition deliveries is slightly higher (7% to 14%) for 2017 through 2050 21% Probabilities of normal, surplus and 4 shortage conditions. Arizona Water Supply Probabilities of normal, surplus and 4 shortage conditions. California Water Supply Water Supply Resource/Issue DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 155 of 1200 2 Modeling indicates potential for slight reductions in salinity under each alternative as compared to baseline. Effects of Alternatives Increased potential for lower Lake Mead levels and increased inflow channel lengths under baseline projections could increase potential of elevated contaminant concentrations. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Potential effects on Lake Mead and Lake Powell fisheries and associated aquatic habitat. Lake Habitat and Sport Fisheries 2-26 Species are adapted to fluctuating reservoir levels. Therefore, increased potential for lower Lake Mead and Lake Powell surface levels is not expected to adversely affect aquatic species. Compared with baseline conditions, slightly increased potential for higher reservoir levels under the Flood Control Alternative and increased potential for lower reservoir levels under the other alternatives would not be expected to result in substantial changes to lake habitat. Davis and Parker Dams. Aquatic Resources under baseline conditions. Parker Dam 10% Average annual probability from 2017 through 2050: Davis Dam 5% Parker Dam 6% Beach/Habitat-Building Flow Releases ior Inter 17 e Probability of BHBF release conditions of th 29, 20 from Glen Canyon Dam. pt. . De ember ion v N v Low Steady Summer Flows The average annual Nat probability of conditions o The probability under the alternatives is typically less than on requisite for lowjsteady summer flows is 38% under baseline conditions during the first seven years and Probability of requisite conditions for v o e through through a and 62% from v similar to or slightly greater than under baseline conditions N2016a archi 2017d low steady summer flow releases from in thereafter. d 2050. 64, Glen Canyon Dam. cite 168 Flooding Downstream of Hoover Average annual probability from 2002 through The probability under the Flood Control Alternative is slightly Dam 2016: greater than under baseline conditions. o. 14 N Davis Dam 9% Probability of damaging flows below The probability under other alternatives is slightly less than The probability under the alternatives is typically less than under baseline conditions during the interim period, and converges with baseline conditions thereafter. The alternatives, except the Flood Control Alternative, result in slightly increased potential for increased contaminant concentrations in Boulder Basin, due to greater potential for lower Lake Mead levels than under baseline conditions. Baseline projections assume compliance with numeric criteria along the river. The Basin States are committed to meeting the numeric criteria. Baseline Conditions/No Action Table 2-7 1 Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Interim Surplus Criteria CHAPTER 2 The average annual probability of BHBF releases is 16% through 2016 and 14% from 2017 through 2050. Flow-Related Issues Contaminant concentrations in Boulder Basin of Lake Mead, in proximity to the SNWS intakes at Saddle Island. Lake Mead Water Quality and Las Vegas Water Supply Potential change in salinity below Hoover Dam. Colorado River Salinity Water Quality Resource/Issue DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 156 of 1200 2 Although reservoir elevations would differ, the effects of all alternatives would be similar to baseline conditions. Effects of Alternatives The Flood Control Alternative would have slightly lower potential, while the other alternatives would have increased potential, for lower reservoir elevations and associated potential increases in delta habitat. Under baseline conditions, special-status plant species would continue to be affected by fluctuating water levels, which would periodically expose and inundate areas where the plants occur. Baseline Conditions/No Action Table 2-7 1 Summary of Potential Effects of Implementing Interim Surplus Criteria CHAPTER 2 Under baseline conditions, increased potential over time for lower reservoir levels could increase potential for development of temporary riparian habitat at the deltas, which would benefit special-status wildlife species that utilize such habitat. The Flood Control Alternative has slightly lower potential, and each of the other alternatives have higher potential, for each of navigation hazards and reduced carrying capacity. Boaters may have reduced take-out opportunities due to increased potential for lower reservoir surface elevations. 2-27 The Flood Control Alternative has lower potential, and each of the other alternatives have increased potential, for reduced take-out opportunities resulting from lower reservoir elevations. Baseline condition projections indicate an increased potential for the occurrence of lower Lake Mead and Lake Powell reservoir levels, which may result in potential increases in navigation hazards and decreased safe boating capacity (due to decreased reservoir surface area). COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Potential effects on river boating at Lake Powell and Lake Mead inflow areas. River and Whitewater Boating Potential effects on reservoir boating that may result from changes in Lake Mead and Lake Powell surface elevations. Reservoir Boating/Navigation facilities to accommodate lower surface elevations. rior Intefor lower reservoir levels under the various Special-Status Fish Under baseline conditions, increased potential Changes in potential e for lower elevations is not expected to have alternatives would not change potential for effects. of th 29, 2017 Potential effects of Lake Mead and . effects on special-status species fish different pt Lake Powell reservoir level changes . De ember than those that occur at present. v on special-status fish species. n Natio d on Nov Recreation vajo Reservoir Marinas/Boat Launching Baseline condition projections indicate Flood Control a decreased Napotentialarchivelevels lower Thelower reservoir Alternative hastheslightly alternativespotential in for levels; each of other have d increased 64, for reservoir normal Potential effects on shoreline t ciine than those considered within the increased potential for lower levels and necessary relocations. recreation facilities from changes -168 operating range that some existing facilities Lake Mead and Lake Powell surface 14 to accommodate. elevations. No. may be ablewould likely result inSuch occurrence modification of Potential effects on special-status wildlife species associated primarily with potential effects on riparian habitat at the Lake Mead and Virgin River deltas, and the lower Grand Canyon. Special-Status Wildlife Potential effects on special-status plants for areas influenced by Lake Powell and Lake Mead water levels. Special-Status Plants Special-Status Species Resource/Issue DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 157 of 1200 The Flood Control Alternative is similar to baseline conditions. The Flood Control Alternative is similar to baseline conditions. Other alternatives have greater potential for increased relocation costs, based on an average cost per foot associated with relocating facilities. Baseline condition projections indicate increased relocation costs associated with future increased potential for lower reservoir levels. Glen Canyon Powerplant average annual energy production: Changes in reservoir elevations under each of the alternatives would not be expected to adversely affect sport fisheries or fishing in either reservoir. Potential effects on sport fisheries are minimal under baseline conditions. CHAPTER 2 2-28 4532 GWh through 2016; 4086 GWh from 2017 through 2050. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Potential for changes in energy production at Glen Canyon and Hoover powerplants. California Shortage Protection $544,843 $532,635 Average annual power production under the other alternatives is greater than under baseline conditions for the first six to eight years, then is less for the remaining years. Averaged from 2002 to 2050, Glen Canyon annual power production is from 12 to 30 GWh less than baseline conditions, while Hoover power production is from 51 to 127 GWh less. ior Inter 17 e Hoover Powerplant average annual energy of th 29, 20 production: ept. . D2017 ember vfrom 4685 GWh through 2016; 3903 n atio GWh on Nov through 2050. jo N ve water vaverage Lake iMeadd levels The increase over baseline conditions of annual pumping costs Pumping Power Needs for SNWS Future lower a for each alternative follows: in Na 4, arch Potential change in the cost of power d would require more energy and increased costs cite pumping86 for the SNWS intake. to pump Lake Mead water through the 6 Basin States $229,395 SNWS. 14-1 Flood Control $ 32,685 o. N Six States $214,779 Hydroelectric Power Production Energy Resources Increased costs associated with relocating shoreline facilities to remain in operation at lower reservoir elevations. Recreation Facilities Relocation Costs Potential effects on sport fishing in Lake Mead and Lake Powell. Reservoir Sport Fishing DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 158 of 1200 Increased potential for lower reservoir levels would increase potential for shoreline exposure under baseline conditions. Increases in fugitive dust emissions would be minimal due to low emission potential of shoreline. Future lower average Lake Powell water levels would require more energy and increased pumping costs for the Navajo Generating Station and the City of Page. $ 529 $ 0 $ 508 $1,110 $1,112 Slightly decreased shoreline exposure under Flood Control Alternative would lower fugitive dust emission potential. Other alternatives would have slightly increased potential for increased fugitive dust emissions. Minimal changes in areawide fugitive dust emissions would be expected. City of Page Basin States Flood Control Six States California Shortage Protection The increase over baseline conditions of annual pumping costs for each alternative follows: Navajo Generating Station Basin States $2,216 Flood Control $ 0 Six States $2,129 California $4,651 Shortage Protection $4,660 CHAPTER 2 2-29 There is a probability of shortages of CAP priority water for tribes in central Arizona. The water available to members of Ten Tribes Partnership would not be affected by future changes under baseline conditions. Not significant due to past water level fluctuations. Impacts have already occurred. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Effects on water supply for Indian Tribes and Communities Indian Trust Assets Effects on Historic Properties in Operational Zone of Reservoir and River Reaches. Cultural Resources Fugitive Dust Emissions from Exposed Reservoir Shoreline Greater probability of shortages of CAP priority water for tribes in central Arizona under all alternatives with the exception of the Flood Control Alternative. No effect on water available to members of Ten Tribes Partnership. Not significant due to past water level fluctuations. Impacts have already occurred. ior Inter 17 e Potential for fugitive dust emissions of th 29, 20 pt. from shoreline exposure at Lake Mead . De ember v and Lake Powell. ation on Nov Visual Resources N vajo hived Visual Attractiveness of Reservoir Increased probability of temporary degradation Flood Control Alternative: Same as baseline conditions. Scenery, Lake Mead and Lake in visual attractivenessc shoreline vistas in Na 4, ar of Powell from lower cited resulting86inincreasing potential forPowell. Other alternatives: Higher probability of degradation of visual attractiveness through 2016 due to accelerated decline of water6 -1 levels Lake Mead and Lake Potential effects of lower reservoir minimum reservoir levels. 4 1 elevations on scenic quality. No. Air Quality Potential change in the cost of power to pump Lake Powell water to the Navajo Generating Station and the City of Page. Intake Energy Requirements at Lake Powell DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 159 of 1200 2002 through 2016 2017 through 2050 2002 through 2016 2017 through 2050 Surplus: Shortage: 0% 0% 26% 19% 100% 100% Probability of excess flows below Morelos Dam would gradually decline under baseline conditions. 2002 through 2016 2016 through 2050 Normal: No effects are anticipated. Flood Control Alternative: Similar to baseline. The Flood Control Alternative would provide slightly higher (1%) probabilities of surplus than under baseline conditions 2016. The rest of the alternatives provide slightly lower (3% to 7%) probabilities of surpluses through 2016 and about the same level as baseline through 2050. Deliveries less than the treaty apportionment (1.5 mafy) do not occur under the alternatives at any time through 2050. No effects anticipated. CHAPTER 2 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Amount of excess flow that may reach the Colorado River delta. 2-30 Other alternatives: Small reduction in probability of excess flows. r terio InStates Alternative there would be no effect on Potential Effects on Species and Probability of excess flows below Morelos Dam Under the 1 clapper of the BasinVaquita, Yuma7 rail, California Habitat in Mexico would gradually decline. desert t.Clarks pupfish,and9, 2is0 likely to be any adverseblack rail, p ber 2 v. De vtotoaba, Southwestern willow flycatcher, Yellow-billedaffect on mgrebe; there not cuckoo, n e Natio d on No Elf owl or Bell's vireo. jomodeling ofve 1. Effects identified are based on probabilities developedva through discussed in detail in Chapter Na throughaconditionspossiblebefuture conditionsnear 2016,2050,year in which the interim surplus3.criteria would greatest at or the 2. In general, the differences between the alternatives and baseline chi would n terminate. ted i 686lake r c essentially full when the 4, elevation reaches 3695 feet msl (5 feet below the top of the spillway gates). 3. Lake Powell is considered to be i -1 4. Probabilities of shortage are based on the modeling assumption of protecting a Lake Mead elevation of 1083 feet msl. There are no established shortage criteria for the operation of Lake Mead. o. 14 N Flow Below Morelos Dam Probabilities of meeting Treaty delivery obligations Treaty Water Delivery Obligations Transboundary Effects Exposure of Minority or Low Income Communities to Health or Environmental Hazards Environmental Justice DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 160 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 161 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 162 of 1200 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 3 presents the analysis conducted and identifies potential effects that could occur as a result of implementation of the interim surplus criteria alternatives under consideration. Section 3.1 describes the: 1) structure of the resource sections in this chapter; 2) role of modeling in the analysis; 3) baseline used for measuring potential effects of the alternatives; 4) general approach used for determining potential effects; 5) period of analysis; and 6) environmental commitments associated with interim surplus criteria. Section 3.2 presents a general discussion of the geographic area within which potential effects of the interim surplus criteria were analyzed, and Section 3.3 describes the modeling methods and general results of Colorado River system modeling. The remaining sections of Chapter 3 present resource-specific analyses of potential effects using information obtained from the modeling. rior Inte f the 9, 2017 3.1.1 STRUCTURE OF RESOURCE SECTIONS o pt. . De ember 2 v ion v chapter Beginning with Section 3.4, the jo Nat in this n No each present a general resource sections arecreationed o v iv category, such as water supply, in Na arch and aquatic resources. Within each resource d analyses 4, one or more specific issues identified for ite category is contained c 1686 of consideration through scoping, public review and comment, and internal review. A . 14No discussion of the methodology, affected environment and environmental consequences is provided for each issue. Environmental commitments are proposed for impacts to various resource issues as appropriate. Methodology discussions identify the specific methods used for determining the affected environment and potential environmental consequences of the alternatives. The affected environment discussions then identify the specific context within which the issue being analyzed exists. This includes a discussion of general environmental characteristics associated with each issue, as well as important Colorado River system conditions that may be associated with each issue. Finally, the potential effects of interim surplus criteria compared to baseline conditions (as discussed in more detail below) are presented in the environmental consequences discussions. 3.1.2 USE OF MODELING TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL FUTURE COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM CONDITIONS To determine the potential effects of the interim surplus criteria alternatives, modeling of the Colorado River system was conducted (a complete description of the modeling COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.1-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 163 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 procedure is included in Section 3.3). Modeling provides projections of potential future Colorado River system conditions (i.e., reservoir surface elevations, river flows, salinity, etc.). The modeling results allow a comparison of potential future conditions under the various interim surplus criteria alternatives and baseline conditions. As such, much of the analyses contained within this FEIS are based upon potential effects of changed flows and water levels within the Colorado River and mainstream reservoirs. 3.1.3 BASELINE CONDITIONS As discussed in Chapter 2, the No Action Alternative does not provide consistent specific criteria for determining surplus conditions. As such, it is not possible to precisely model the No Action Alternative. However, in order to provide a reasonable analytical projection of potential future system conditions without interim surplus criteria, a baseline surplus strategy (70R) was utilized. This baseline represents definable surplus criteria based on recent operational decisions. The 70R strategy is based upon recent secretarial operating decisions and was modeled to develop a projection of baseline conditions for comparison with the alternatives in this FEIS. 3.1.4 IMPACT DETERMINATION rior The analysis of potential effects for each issue considered ishe Intprimarily upon the based e 7 f t important1to each issue, results of modeling. Following the identification ofpt. o conditions 29, 20 . De ber the potential effects of various system conditions overvthe general range of their ion v No em Nat possible occurrence (as identified by the range of modeling output for various vajo issue.ved on parameters) are identifiedNa each rchi The potential effects of the various interim d in for , a surplus criteria cite -16864 alternatives are then presented in terms of the incremental differences in probabilities (or o. 14 circumstances associated with a given probability) between N projected baseline conditions and the alternatives. 3.1.5 PERIOD OF ANALYSIS This FEIS addresses interim surplus criteria that would be used during the years 2001 through 2015 for determining whether surplus water would be available during the years 2002 through 2016. Due to the potential for effects beyond the 15-year interim period, the modeling and impact analyses extend through the year 2050. It is important to note that modeling output and associated impact analyses become more uncertain over time as a result of increased uncertainty of future system conditions (including hydrologic conditions), as well as uncertainty with regard to future operational decisions that will affect circumstances within the Colorado River system. 3.1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS As discussed, impacts identified in Chapter 3 are associated with changes in the difference between probabilities of occurrence for specific resource issues under study when comparing the action alternatives to baseline conditions. Reclamation has COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.1-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 164 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 determined that most of the potential impacts identified are not of a magnitude that would require specific mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate their occurrence because the small changes in probabilities of occurrence are within Reclamation’s current operational regime and authorities under applicable federal law. However, in recognition of potential effects that could occur under baseline conditions or with implementation of the interim surplus criteria alternatives under consideration, Reclamation has developed a number of environmental commitments that would be undertaken if interim surplus criteria are implemented. These commitments are described in relevant resource sections of this Chapter and in Section 3.17. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.1-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 165 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.2 CHAPTER 3 POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AREA Interim surplus criteria could affect the operation of the Colorado River system (i.e., reservoir levels and river flow volumes) as a result of surplus determinations and associated water deliveries that may not have occurred in the absence of such criteria. This section describes the general geographic scope in which specific issues and potential effects associated with the interim surplus criteria alternatives were considered in this FEIS. Also discussed are the AMP, and how the program influences flows between Lake Powell and Lake Mead. In addition to influencing conditions within the Colorado River system, it is recognized that continued delivery of surplus water that could result from interim surplus criteria would complement ongoing and proposed state actions in the Lower Basin. These actions could result in environmental effects outside of the river corridor. However, these actions have independent utility and are not caused by or dependent on interim surplus criteria for their implementation. Environmental compliance would be required on a case-by-case basis prior to their implementation. Therefore, Reclamation determined that the appropriate scope of this analysis is to consider only those potential effects that could occur within the Colorado River corridor as defined by the 100-year r flood plain and reservoir maximum water surface elevations. terio e In 7 of h 29, 2 Water . andthydrology. 01 supply to pt Interim surplus criteria are based on system conditions . De ber the Lower Division states of Arizona,ation v and Nevada is achieved primarily California Novem N Mead. through releases and pumping ajo Lake ed on As a result of Lake Powell and Lake from iv Nav (discussed further in Section 3.3), interim surplus in Mead equalization requirements, arch ited 6864 c criteria effects on Lake-Mead surface elevations could also influence Lake Powell 14 1 o.and Glen Canyon Dam releases. However, operation of the other N surface elevations Upper Basin reservoirs is independent of Lake Powell. Therefore, the upstream limit of the potentially affected area under consideration in this FEIS is the full pool elevation of Lake Powell. The downstream limit of the potentially affected area within the United States is the SIB between the United States and Mexico. Section 3.16 of this FEIS addresses potential transboundary impacts in Mexico extending to the mouth of the Colorado River as required pursuant to Executive Order 12114 - Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, January 4, 1997, and the July 1, 1997 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Guidelines on NEPA Analyses for Transboundary Impacts. 3.2.1 COLORADO RIVER SEGMENTS AND ISSUES ADDRESSED As shown on Map 3.2-1, the Colorado River corridor from Lake Powell to Mexico consists of flowing river reaches, two large reservoirs (Lake Powell and Lake Mead) and two smaller reservoirs downstream of Lake Mead (Lake Mohave and Lake Havasu). The river corridor and adjacent areas comprise a heterogeneous composite of various geographic and hydrologic regimes, which differ in their resource composition and resource management administration. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.2-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 166 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Map 3.2-1 Area of Potential Effect ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.2-2 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 167 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 For the purposes of presentation, and to focus analysis of the potential effects of the interim surplus criteria, the river corridor has been divided into four areas: Lake Powell, the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead, Lake Mead, and the Colorado River between Hoover Dam and the SIB. The following sections discuss the areas segmented for this analysis and introduce the issues considered within each area. 3.2.1.1 LAKE POWELL Lake Powell is a large reservoir on the Colorado River formed by Glen Canyon Dam. The reservoir is narrow and long (over 100 miles). Lake Powell provides water storage for use in meeting delivery requirements to the Lower Basin. The normal operating range of Lake Powell is between elevations 3490 and 3700 feet msl. Elevation 3490 feet msl corresponds to minimum power pool. (Releases from Glen Canyon Dam can be made below 3490 feet msl down to elevation 3370 feet msl via the river bypass tubes.) Elevation 3700 feet msl corresponds to the top of the spillway radial gates. During floods, the elevation of Lake Powell can go above 3700 feet msl by raising the radial spillway gates, resulting in spillway releases. In 1983, Lake Powell reached a high elevation of 3708.34 feet msl. rior Inte f the 9, 2017 Lake Powell is located within the GCNRA, whichepadministered by the NPS. is t. o r . D operation of 2 Canyon Dam and Reclamation retains authority and discretion v the vembe Glen ion for No Nat d on Lake Powell. Issues considered jin this FEIS associated with Lake Powell include: va o surface elevations); salinity; aquatic resources; ive hydrology (i.e., projectedNa d in reservoir rch , afacilities, boating and sport fishing; power cite 16864 special-status species; recreational generation from o. 14 N Glen Canyon Dam; changes in pumping costs for Navajo Generating Station and the City of Page; visual and air quality effects associated with exposed reservoir shoreline; environmental justice; cultural resources; and Indian Trust Assets (ITAs). 3.2.1.2 COLORADO RIVER FROM GLEN CANYON DAM TO LAKE MEAD The segment of the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead is comprised of a narrow river corridor through the Grand Canyon that is administered primarily by the Grand Canyon National Park. Flows within this reach of the river consist primarily of releases from Glen Canyon Dam as discussed in Section 3.3.1. Issues considered in this FEIS within this segment of the river address those associated with a program of low steady summer flows and Beach/Habitat-Building Flow (BHBF) releases, as discussed in Section 3.2.2. 3.2.1.3 LAKE MEAD Lake Mead is a large reservoir on the Colorado River formed by Hoover Dam. The reservoir provides water storage for use in regulating the water supply and meeting COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.2-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 168 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 delivery requirements in the Lower Basin. The normal operating range of the reservoir is between elevations 1219.61 and 1083 msl. Elevation 1083 msl corresponds to the minimum power pool. (Releases can be made from Hoover Dam below 1083 msl down to 895 feel msl via the intake towers.) During floods, the elevation of Lake Mead can go above 1219.61 msl. The top of the raised spillway gates is at 1221.0 msl. Since its initial filling in the late 1930s, the reservoir water level has fluctuated from a high of 1225.85 feet msl (as occurred in July, 1983) to a low of 1083.21 feet msl (as occurred in April, 1956). The reservoir is located within the LMNRA, which is administered by the NPS. However, Reclamation retains authority and discretion for the operation of Hoover Dam and Lake Mead. Issues considered in this FEIS associated with Lake Mead include: hydrology; water supply for Nevada; salinity; water quality associated with Las Vegas Wash and SNWA intakes; aquatic resources; special-status species; recreational facilities, boating and sport fishing; power generation from Hoover Dam; visual and air quality effects associated with exposed reservoir shoreline; environmental justice; cultural resources; and ITAs. 3.2.1.4 COLORADO RIVER FROM HOOVER DAM TO THE SOUTHERLY INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY erior Int 7 f thewithin201shallow The Colorado River from Hoover Dam to the SIBepcontained r 29, the is t. o v. D mbe Colorado River Valley in which Lake Mohave, Lake Havasu and other smaller ation segment,ve No especially along river reaches diversion reservoirs are located. jo N this on ava Within ved below Parker Dam, d in N the Colorado River iis fringed with riparian vegetation and marshy arch te cicontains 6864, of diversion dams and a system of levees. The backwaters, and 4-1 a number northern reachNothis segment, including Lake Mohave, lies within the LMNRA. The of . 1 lower reach is bordered by a combination of federal, Tribal and private land. The last 22 miles (approximately) is along the international border with Mexico. Reclamation retains authority and discretion for river operations in the reaches of this segment. Under the BCPA and the Decree, discussed previously in Chapter 1, releases from Hoover Dam are governed by orders for downstream water deliveries to Arizona, California, Nevada and Mexico. However, releases may exceed orders when flood releases are required under the Corps’ flood control criteria, as discussed in Chapter 1 or for other purposes consistent with the BCPA and the Decree. Issues considered in this FEIS associated with this river segment include hydrology; water supply for Arizona, California, Nevada and Mexico; costs of flood damages downstream of Hoover Dam; water quality; potential effects of changes in flows on special-status species; potential effects of changes in the temperature of water released from Hoover Dam on sport fisheries and fishing; environmental justice; cultural resources; and ITAs. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.2-4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 169 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.2.2 CHAPTER 3 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM INFLUENCE ON GLEN CANYON DAM RELEASES In March 1995, Reclamation completed an EIS on the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. The EIS developed and analyzed alternative operation scenarios designed to meet statutory responsibilities for conserving downstream resources, while meeting other authorized project purposes, and protecting Native American interests. Major issues of concern included native and endangered species, beach erosion, recreation (including white-water boating, sport fishing, and camping), vegetation, wildlife habitat and food base, water supply, hydroelectric power generation, cultural resources, and Native American interests. The Secretary signed a ROD on October 8, 1996, which specified certain types of releases from Glen Canyon Dam. Prior to the ROD, Glen Canyon Dam was operated as a peaking power facility, maximizing the value of power produced. The patterns of releases resulting from this type of operation were recognized to be detrimental to downstream resources and were therefore modified by the ROD. Reclamation also consulted with the Service under the ESA. The Service issued a biological opinion containing a recommendation for a reasonable and prudent alternative, which was incorporated into the ROD (see Section 1.4.2.1). To determine if the operation of Glen Canyon Dam under the RODerimeeting the is or Int as 17 objectives of downstream resource protection, an AMP washe instituted 0 described in of t 9 2 Section 1.4.2.1. Through this process, the effects epdam operations, and the status of of t. . Dare used to er 2 b formulate potential em resources are monitored and studied. ation v The results N refinements Nov operations to ensure that the n to dam recommendations to the Secretary on ved o vajo in Na 4, archi Act are met. As long as the AMP continues purposes of the Grand Canyon Protection ited 6 to successfully c function,168natural and cultural resources within the Colorado River the . 14corridor between Glen Canyon Dam and Separation Canyon (just upstream of Lake No Mead) will be protected and conserved. Two types of releases from Glen Canyon Dam, BHBFs and low steady summer flows, are part of a program of experimental flows being developed and refined through the AMP, as called for in the Biological Opinion (USFWS, 1994). The change in the frequency with which BHBFs and low steady summer flows would be triggered under each of the alternatives has been analyzed (see Section 3.6). Flows from Glen Canyon Dam, which could be affected by the adoption of interim surplus criteria, will remain within the range of flows analyzed in detail in the Glen Canyon Dam EIS. Therefore, effects of potential changes in the frequencies of these flows on downstream resources require no further analysis outside of the Glen Canyon Dam ROD and the AMP. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.2-5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 170 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.3 RIVER SYSTEM OPERATIONS This section addresses the operation of the Colorado River system, the modeling process used to simulate river operation and potential changes that may occur from implementation of the interim surplus criteria. The term system management refers to how the water is managed once it enters the Colorado River system and includes operation of the system reservoirs, dams and other Colorado River system facilities. The environmental and socioeconomic effects of the interim surplus criteria alternatives stem from changes in the operation of the Colorado River system under the surplus alternatives relative to the baseline conditions. 3.3.1 OPERATION OF THE COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM Operation of the Colorado River system and delivery of Colorado River water to the seven Basin States and Mexico are conducted in accordance with the Law of the River as discussed in Section 1.3.2.1. Water cannot be released from storage unless there is a reasonable beneficial use for the water. The exceptions to this are releases required for flood control, river regulation or dam safety. In the Lower Basin, water is released from the system to satisfy water delivery orders and to satisfy other purposes set forth in the Decree. The principal facilities that were built to manage the watererior Colorado t in the River System include Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam.the In 017 f 9, 2 pt. o . De ember 2 LROC and the The Colorado River system is operatedtbyn v Reclamation pursuant to Nov Na io d The AOP is formulated for the upcoming AOP. The AOP is required byajo CRBPA. on the av ive year under a varietyd in N of potential ,scenarios or conditions. The plan is developed based arch cite existing4 on projected demands, -1686 storage conditions and probable inflows. The AOP is 14 prepared by Reclamation, acting on behalf of the Secretary, in consultation with the No. Basin States, the Upper Colorado River Commission, Indian tribes, appropriate federal agencies, representatives of the academic and scientific communities, environmental organizations, the recreation industry, water delivery contractors, contractors for the purpose of federal power, others interested in Colorado River operations, and the general public. Prior to the beginning of the calendar year, Lower Basin diversion schedules are requested from water users entitled to Colorado River water as discussed in Section 3.4. These schedules are estimated monthly diversions and return flows that allow Reclamation to determine a tentative schedule of monthly releases through the Hoover Powerplant. Actual monthly releases are determined by the demand for water downstream of Hoover Dam. Daily changes in water orders are made to accommodate emergencies, temperature and weather. A minimum of 1.5 maf is delivered annually to Mexico in accordance with the Treaty. The Treaty contains provisions for delivery of up to 200,000 af above the 1.5 maf when there exists water in excess of that necessary to satisfy the uses in the United States and the guaranteed quantity of 1.5 maf to Mexico. Additionally, excess flows above the COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 171 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 200,000 af may become available to Mexico coincident with Lake Mead flood control releases and Gila River flood flows provided that the reasonable beneficial uses of the Lower Division states have been satisfied. 3.3.1.1 OPERATION OF GLEN CANYON DAM Flows below Glen Canyon Dam are influenced by storage and release decisions that are scheduled and implemented on an annual, monthly and hourly basis from Glen Canyon Dam. The annual volume of water released from Glen Canyon Dam is made according to the provisions of the LROC that includes a minimum objective release of 8.23 maf, storage equalization between Lake Powell and Lake Mead under prescribed conditions and the avoidance of spills. Annual releases from Lake Powell greater than the minimum occur if Upper Basin storage is greater than the storage required by Section 602(a) of the CRBPA, and if the storage in Lake Powell is greater than the storage in Lake Mead. Annual release volumes greater than the minimum objective of 8.23 maf are also made to avoid anticipated spills. Monthly operational decisions are generally intermediate targets neededrto terio systematically achieve the annual operating requirements. The actual volume of water he In 2017 of t released from Lake Powell each month depends on pt. forecasted 9, e the ber 2 inflow, storage D targets and annual release requirements idescribed above.m Demand for energy is also n v. at othe annualove and storage requirements considered and accommodatedajolong as d on N release as N v ive are not affected. d in Na arch cite 16864, 14The National Weather Service Colorado Basin River Forecast Center (CBRFC) No. provides the monthly forecasts of expected inflow into Lake Powell. The CBRFC uses a satellite-telemetered network of hundreds of data collection points within the Upper Colorado River Basin that gather data on snow water content, precipitation, temperature and streamflow. Regression and real-time conceptual computer models are used to forecast inflows that are then used by Reclamation to plan future release volumes. Due to the variability in climatic conditions, modeling and data errors, these forecasts are based, in part, on large uncertainties. The greatest period of uncertainty occurs in early winter and decreases as the snow accumulation period progresses into the snowmelt season, often forcing modifications to the monthly schedule of releases. An objective in the operation of Glen Canyon Dam is to attempt to safely fill Lake Powell each summer. When carryover storage from the previous year in combination with forecasted inflow allows, Lake Powell is targeted to reach a storage of about 23.8 maf in July (0.5 maf from full pool). In years when Lake Powell fills or nearly fills in the summer, releases in the late summer and early winter are generally made to draw the reservoir level down, so that there is at least 2.4 maf of vacant space in Lake Powell on January 1. Storage targets are always reached in a manner consistent with the LROC. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 172 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Scheduling of BHBF releases from Glen Canyon Dam are discussed in Section 3.6.2.2. Daily and hourly releases are made according to the parameters of the ROD for the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement and published in the Glen Canyon Dam Operating Criteria (62 CFR 9447, Mar. 3, 1997), as shown in Table 3.3-1. Table 3.3-1 Glen Canyon Dam Release Restrictions Parameter 1 Maximum Flow Minimum Flow Ramp Rates Ascending Descending 2 Daily Fluctuations 1 Cubic Feet per Second 25,000 5,000 8,000 4,000 1,500 5,000 to 8,000 Conditions Nighttime 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Per hour Per hour To be evaluated and potentially increased as necessary and in years when delivery to the Lower Basin exceeds 8.23 maf. Daily fluctuation limit is 5,000 cfs for months with release volumes less than 0.6 maf; 6,000 cfs for monthly release volumes of 0.6 maf to 0.8 maf; and 8,000 cfs for monthly volumes over 0.8 maf. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N 3.3.1.2 OPERATION OF HOOVER Dchived Nava ar AM in cited 16864, Hoover Dam is managed to provide at least 7.5 maf annually for consumptive use by 14No. the Lower Division states plus the United States’ obligation to Mexico. Hoover Dam 2 releases are managed on an hourly basis to maximize the value of generated power by providing peaking during high-demand periods. This results in fluctuating flows below Hoover Dam that can range from 1,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 49,000 cfs. The upper value is the maximum flow-through capacity through the powerplant at Hoover Dam (49,000 cfs). However, because these flows enter Lake Mohave downstream, the affected zone of fluctuation is only a few miles. Releases of water from Hoover Dam may also be affected by the Secretary’s determinations relating to normal, surplus or shortage water supply conditions, as discussed in Section 1.3.4.1. Another type of release includes flood control releases. For Hoover Dam, flood control releases are defined in this FEIS as releases in excess of the downstream demands. Flood control was specified as a primary project purpose by the BCPA, the act authorizing Hoover Dam. The Corps is responsible for developing the flood control operation plan for Hoover Dam and Lake Mead as indicated in 33 CFR 208.11. The plan is the result of a coordinated effort by the Corps and Reclamation. However, the Corps is responsible for providing the flood control regulations and has authority for COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 173 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 final approval of the plan. Any deviations from the flood control operating instructions provided by the plan must be authorized by the Corps. The Secretary is responsible for operating Hoover Dam in accordance with these regulations. Lake Mead’s uppermost 1.5 maf of storage capacity, between elevations 1219.61 and 1229.0, is defined as exclusive flood control space. Within this capacity allocation, 1.218 maf of flood storage is above elevation 1221.0, which is the top of the raised spillway gates. Flood control regulations specify that once Lake Mead flood releases exceed 40,000 cfs, the releases shall be maintained at the highest rate until the reservoir drops to elevation 1221.0 feet msl. Releases may then be gradually reduced to 40,000 cfs until the prescribed seasonal storage space is available. The regulations set forth two primary criteria for flood control operations related to snowmelt: 1) preparatory reservoir space requirements, and 2) application of runoff forecasts to determine releases. In preparation for each annual season of snow accumulation and associated runoff, progressive expansion of total Colorado River system reservoir space iis r r o required during the latter half of each year. Minimum available flood control e Inte space increases from 1.5 017 f th maf on August 1 to 5.35 maf on January 1. Requiredtflood storage space can be p . o er 29, 2 . e emb accumulated within Lake Mead and in specifiedD ion v upstream reservoirs: Powell, Navajo, at Nov Blue Mesa, Flaming Gorge and Fontenelle. d onminimum required to be reserved ajo N ive The Nav exclusively for flood control storage chLake Mead is 1.5 maf. Table 3.3-2 presents the d in 64, ar in cite 1 storage space within the Colorado River system by date: amount of required flood 68 - No. 14 Table 3.3-2 Minimum Required Colorado River System Storage Space Storage Volume (maf) Date August 1 September 1 October 1 November 1 December 1 January 1 1.50 2.27 3.04 3.81 4.58 5.35 Normal space-building releases from Lake Mead to meet the required August 1 to January 1 flood control space are limited to a maximum of 28,000 cfs. Releases in any month based on water entitlement holders’ demand are much less than 28,000 cfs (on the order of 20,000 cfs or less). COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 174 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Between January 1 and July 31, flood control releases, based on forecasted inflow, may be required to prevent filling of Lake Mead beyond its 1.5 maf minimum space requirement. Beginning on January 1 and continuing through July, the CBRFC issues monthly runoff forecasts. These forecasts are used by Reclamation in estimating releases from Hoover Dam. The release schedule contained in the Corps’ regulations is based on increasing releases in six steps as shown on Table 3.3-3. Table 3.3-3 Minimum Flood Control Releases at Hoover Dam Step Amount of Cubic Feet/Second Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 0 19,000 28,000 35,000 40,000 73,000 The lowest step, zero cfs, corresponds to times when the regulations do not require flood control releases. Hoover Dam releases are then made to meeterior and power t water objectives. The second step, 19,000 cfs, is based on the powerplant capacity of Parker he In 2017 of t Dam. The third step, 28,000 cfs, corresponds toDept. the Davis Dam 29, . ber Powerplant capacity. The fourth step in the Corps release schedulevis 35,000 em This flow corresponds to v cfs. ion Nat Hoover No the powerplant flow-through vajo capacity ofved onDam in 1987. However, the present i in Na powerplant flow-through capacityarch ited 6864, at Hoover Dam is 49,000 cfs. At the time Hoover c Dam was completed, 4-1 cfs was the approximate maximum flow from the dam 40,000 o. 1 N considered to be nondamaging to the downstream streambed. The 40,000 cfs flow now forms the fifth step. Releases of 40,000 cfs and greater would result from lowprobability hydrologic events. The sixth and final step in the series (73,000 cfs) is the maximum controlled release from Hoover Dam that can occur without spillway flow. Flood control releases are required when forecasted inflow exceeds downstream demands, available storage space at lakes Mead and Powell and allowable space in other Upper Basin reservoirs. This includes accounting for projected bank storage and evaporation losses at both lakes, plus net withdrawal from Lake Mead by the SNWA. The Corps regulations set the procedures for releasing the volume that cannot be impounded, as discussed above. Average monthly releases are determined early in each month and apply only to the current month. The releases are progressively revised in response to updated runoff forecasts and changing reservoir storage levels during each subsequent month throughout the January 1–July 31 runoff period. If the reservoirs are full, drawdown is accomplished to vacate flood control space as required. Unless flood control is necessary, Hoover Dam is operated to meet downstream demands. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 175 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 During non-flood operations, the end-of-month Lake Mead elevations are driven by consumptive use needs, Glen Canyon Dam releases and Treaty deliveries to Mexico. Lake Mead end-of-month target elevations are not fixed as are the end-of-month target elevations for Lake Mohave and Lake Havasu. Normally, Lake Mead elevations decline with increasing irrigation deliveries through June or later and then begin to rise again. Lake Mead’s storage capacity provides for the majority of Colorado River regulation from Glen Canyon Dam to the border with Mexico. 3.3.2 NATURAL RUNOFF AND STORAGE OF WATER Most of the natural flow in the Colorado River system originates in the Upper Basin and is highly variable from year to year. The natural flow represents an estimate of runoff flows that would exist without storage or depletion by man and was used in the modeling of the baseline conditions and interim surplus criteria alternatives. About 86 percent of the Colorado River System annual runoff originates in only 15 percent of the watershed—in the mountains of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico. While the average annual natural flow at Lees Ferry is calculated at 15.1 maf, annual flows in excess of 23 maf and as little as 5 maf have occurred. The flow in the Colorado River above Lake Powell reaches its annual maximum during the April through July period. During the summer and fall, thunderstorms occasionally produce additional peaks in the ior Inter 17 peaks and river. However, these flows are usually smaller in volume the the snowmelt than 20 of pGlen Canyon9Dam consist almost of much shorter duration. Flows immediately below t. e r2 , .D mbe entirely of water released from Lake Powell.vDownstream of Glen Canyon Dam, the ation on Nove o annual river gains from tributaries, N ved discharge and occasional flash floods avaj groundwater in N900,000raf. iImmediately downstream of Hoover Dam, the from side canyonsed average a ch cit almost6864, of water released from Lake Mead. Downstream of river flows consist 4-1 entirely 1 Hoover Dam, the river gains additional water from tributaries such as the Bill Williams No. River and the Gila River, groundwater discharge, and return flows. Total storage capacity in the Colorado River system is nearly four times the river’s average natural flow. The various reservoirs that provide storage in the Colorado River system and their respective capacities were discussed in Section 1.3.2. Figure 3.3-1 presents an overview of the historical natural flow calculated at Lees Ferry for calendar years 1906 through 1999. The natural flow represents an estimate of the flows that would originate or exist above Lees Ferry without storage or depletion by man. This is different than the recorded or historical stream flows that represent actual measured flows. Figure 3.3-2 presents an overview of the historical flows recorded at Lees Ferry for the period 1922 through 1999 (calendar year). COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-6 1905 1910 1915 Running Average 10 Year Average Flow (maf) 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1955 3.3-7 Year 1950 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 0 5 10 An nu 15 al Flo w (m af) 20 25 Figure 3.3-1 Natural Flow at Lees Ferry Stream Gage AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 1990 1995 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 176 of 1200 0 1905 5 10 15 20 25 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1955 3.3-8 Year 1950 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Running Average 10 Year Average Flow (maf) Figure 3.3-2 Historic Annual Flow at Lees Ferry Stream Gage COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Annual Flow (ma AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 1990 1995 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 177 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 178 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.3.3 CHAPTER 3 MODELING AND FUTURE HYDROLOGY 3.3.3.1 MODEL CONFIGURATION Future Colorado River system conditions under baseline conditions and the surplus alternatives were simulated using a computerized model. The model framework used for this process is a commercial river modeling software called RiverWare. RiverWare was developed by the University of Colorado through a cooperative process with Reclamation and the Tennessee Valley Authority. RiverWare was configured to simulate the Colorado River System and its operation and integrates the Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS) model that was developed by Reclamation in the early 1970s. River operation parameters modeled and analyzed include the water entering the river system, storage in system reservoirs, releases from storage, river flows, and the water demands of and deliveries to the Basin States and Mexico. The water supply used by the model consists of the historic record of natural flow in the river system over the 85-year period from 1906 through 1990, from 29 individual inflow points on the system. Future Colorado River water demands were based on demand and depletion projections riorthe In from 17 river less prepared by the Basin States. Depletions are defined as diversionste f the return flow credits, where applicable. Return flow credits are applied20 a portion of pt. o er 29, when e b the diverted water is returned to the riveron v. D In cases where there are no return i system. Novem at the depletion is equal to the diversion. The flow credits associated with the jo N vadiversions, d on NaCanyon chiveHoover Dam and other elements of the simulated operationd in of Glen , ar Dam, ite Colorado Rivercsystem-was864 consistent with the LROC, applicable requirements for 16 storage and flood control management, water supply deliveries to the Basin States, o. 14 N Indian tribes, and Mexico, and flow regulation downstream of the system dams. 3.3.3.2 INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA MODELED As discussed in Chapter 2, seven operational scenarios are considered in this FEIS. The seven scenarios considered and modeled consist of two different baseline conditions and the five surplus alternatives. The two baseline conditions are similar except that one includes the modeling of California’s intrastate water transfers while the other does not. The five surplus alternatives consist of the Basin States, Flood Control, Six States, California and the Shortage Protection alternatives. Surplus deliveries to the Lower Division states and Mexico are provided under baseline conditions and all surplus alternatives. Common to baseline conditions and all alternatives, a surplus is determined when flood control releases are made from Lake Mead. As a general modeling assumption, Mexico receives surplus deliveries only under this condition. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-9 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 179 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 As noted above, two different baseline conditions were modeled and evaluated (baseline conditions with transfers and baseline conditions without transfers). The normal schedules of the three California entities involved in the transfers (Metropolitan Water District, Imperial Irrigation District, and Coachella Water Valley District) are tabulated in Attachment H. The comparative analysis of the two baseline conditions is presented in Attachment L. The baseline conditions with transfers were selected for use in the comparative analysis of the surplus alternatives. The reason for this is a desire to maintain consistency. All of the surplus alternatives include intrastate water transfers and therefore, it was prudent to compare the baseline conditions with transfers to focus and isolate the potential impacts of the interim surplus criteria from that of transfers. 3.3.3.3 GENERAL MODELING ASSUMPTIONS Definitions and descriptions of the baseline conditions and the surplus alternatives and their operational criteria were provided in Chapter 2. The modeling of river system operations for the analysis presented in this FEIS also required certain assumptions about various aspects of water delivery and system operation. Some important modeling assumptions are listed below. Other modeling details and assumptions are presented in Attachment J. ior Inter 17 Assumptions Common to Baseline and All Alternatives:the 20 of ept. ber 29, v. D v m • The current Upper Basin reservoir operating rules are equivalent under all ation conditions.e No surplus alternatives andjo N va the baseline on ed chiv in Na • The Lake Mead flood4, ar procedures are always in effect. ited 686 control c -1 • Reservoir starting conditions (all system reservoirs) are based on projected water o. 14 N level elevations for January 1, 2002. Reclamation’s 24 month study model (also a model implemented in RiverWare) was used to project these elevations, using actual elevations as of August 2000 and projected operations for the 2001 water year. • The Upper Basin States' depletion projections are as provided by the Upper Colorado River Commission (December 1999) and subsequently modified to include new Indian tribe schedules provided during the preparation of the DEIS. (See Attachments K and Q.) • Water deliveries to Mexico are pursuant to the requirements of the Treaty. This provides minimum annual deliveries of 1.5 maf to Mexico and up to 1.7 maf under Lake Mead flood control release conditions. • Mexico’s principal diversion is at Morelos Dam where most of its Colorado River apportionment of 1.5 maf is diverted. In practice, up to 140 thousand acrefeet (kaf) is delivered to Mexico near the Southerly International Boundary (SIB). The model, however, extends to just south of the Northerly International Boundary (NIB) to include the diversion at Morelos Dam and accounts for the COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-10 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 180 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 entire Treaty delivery at that point. Under normal conditions, the model sets the diversion and depletion schedule for the Mexican Treaty delivery at Morelos Dam to 1.515 mafy. The additional 15,000 af accounts for typical scheduling errors and over-deliveries. • The modeled Colorado River water deliveries under the baseline conditions and surplus alternatives assumed that all Arizona shortages would be absorbed by the Central Arizona Project. Reclamation acknowledges that under the current priority framework, there would be some sharing of Arizona shortage between the Central Arizona Project and other Priority 4 users. However, the bases or formula for the sharing of Arizona shortages is the subject of current negotiations and as such, could not be adequately modeled for the FEIS. The water supply conditions modeled for the FEIS were used to evaluate the relative differences in water deliveries to each state under baseline conditions and the surplus alternatives. The normal, surplus and shortage condition water depletion schedules modeled in the FEIS are consistent with the depletion schedules prepared by the Basin states for this purpose. • For the modeling presented in the FEIS, the Yuma Desalting Plant depletion schedule for bypass to Mexico was set to 120,000 acre-feet per year (afy) from or 2002-2021, representing the water provided by the U.S. to teriCienega. For In the Treaty delivery. modeling purposes, this depletion is not counted astpart of the2017 f he pt. o 2022, 9, 2 The desalting plant is assumed to operate e v. D beginning er reducing the bypass to n purposes,vemb 52,000 afy. Similarly, for modeling atio on No this depletion is not counted as ajo N should be noted that the United States recognizes v part of the Treaty delivery. Ithived n Na arc d iobligation,to replace, as appropriate, the bypass flows and the that itcitean has 864 for modeling purposes, do not necessarily represent assumptions4-16 herein, 1 made No. the policy that Reclamation will adopt for replacement of bypass flows. The assumptions made with respect to modeling the bypass flows are intended only to provide a thorough and comprehensive accounting of Lower Basin water supply. The United States is exploring options for replacement of the bypass flows, including options that would not require operation of the Yuma Desalting Plant. • Lake Mead is operated to meet depletion schedules provided by the Lower Division states, Indian tribes, and Mexico. (See Attachments H and Q.) • Lake Mohave and Lake Havasu are operated in accordance with their existing rule curves. • The water supply conditions modeled under the surplus alternatives and baseline conditions considered the intrastate water transfers being planned by California. • There are no established shortage criteria that define when Lower Basin water users would receive shortage condition deliveries. However, the model is configured to provide approximately an 80 percent protection for Lake Mead water elevation of 1083 feet msl (minimum power generation elevation). COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-11 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 181 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Assumptions Specific to Surplus Alternatives: • The respective surplus criteria for the surplus alternatives are assumed to be effective for a specified period of 15 years. The effective period that was modeled is defined as the 15-year period beginning on January 1, 2002 and ending December 31, 2016. At the conclusion of the 15-year period, the modeled operating criteria for each of the surplus alternatives is assumed to revert to the operating criteria used to model baseline conditions (baseline conditions with transfers). • The surplus depletion schedules for Arizona, California and Nevada vary under each surplus alternative and the baseline conditions and are presented in Attachment H. 3.3.3.4 LAKE MEAD WATER LEVEL PROTECTION ASSUMPTIONS There are no established shortage criteria for the operation of Lake Mead. However, it was necessary to include some shortage criteria in the model simulation to address concerns related to low Lake Mead water levels. Three important Lake Mead water elevations were selected for analysis. The significance of these selected elevations r relates to known economic and/or socioeconomic impacts that wouldroccur if Lake te io InElevation 1083 feet e Mead water levels were lowered below the selected waterf levels. o th 29, 2017 msl is the minimum water level for effective power pt. generationrat the Hoover . De Elevation 1050 feet msl is the be Powerplant based on its existing turbineion v configuration. em at Nov upper water intake. Water o operation onSNWA's minimum water level necessary jforN of Nava throughivedintake is delivered to Las Vegas Valley, in Mead , arch this withdrawn from thed Lake 4 cite 168 of Boulder City and other-parts 6 Clark County. Even though SNWA has constructed a 4 1 second intake No.lower elevation, the original intake at elevation 1050 feet msl is at a needed to meet full SNWA summer diversions. Elevation 1000 feet msl is the minimum water level necessary for operation of SNWA’s lower water intake. In the absence of specific shortage criteria, the Lake Mead level protection assumptions listed below were applied by the model to facilitate the evaluation of the baseline conditions and surplus alternatives. First Level Shortage: • The Lake Mead water level of 1083 feet msl was designated as a level that should be protected. Operation simulations were performed to develop a “protection line” to prevent the water level from declining below elevation 1083 feet msl with approximately an 80 percent probability (see Section 3.3.4.1). The use of an alternative 1050-foot protection line is discussed in Attachment M. • A shortage would be determined to exist when the Lake Mead water level dropped below the protection line for elevation 1083 feet msl. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-12 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 182 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES • CHAPTER 3 During first level shortage conditions, the annual water delivery to CAP was set to 1.0 maf, and the SNWA was assigned four percent of the total shortage. Second Level Shortage: • A second level shortage would be determined to exist when the Lake Mead water surface elevation declined to 1000 feet msl. • During second level shortage conditions, the CAP and SNWA consumptive use would be reduced as needed to maintain the Lake Mead water level at 1000 feet msl. Once the delivery to the CAP is reduced to zero, deliveries to MWD and to Mexico would be reduced to maintain the Lake Mead water level at 1000 feet msl. Such reductions to MWD and Mexico did not occur in the simulations conducted as part of this FEIS. 3.3.3.5 COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDURES The model was used to simulate the future state of the Colorado River system on a monthly basis, in terms of reservoir levels, releases from the dams, hydroelectric energy generation, flows at various points along the system and diversions to and return flows from various water users. The input data for the model included the monthly tributary ior Inter rates for each inflows, various physical process parameters (such as the evaporation 17 0 f the reservoir) and the diversion and depletion schedules foro pt. entities in9, 2 e r 2 the Basin States and be v. D Mexico. The common and specific operating criteria vemalso input for each ation on Nowere N alternative being studied. vajo ed in Na rchiv ited in6864, a criteria for the baseline conditions and each c Despite the differences-1 the operating 14 surplus alternative, the future state of the Colorado River system (i.e., water levels at No. Lake Mead and Lake Powell) is most sensitive to the future inflows. As discussed in Section 3.3.2, observations over the period of historical record (1906–present) show that inflow into the system has been highly variable from year to year. Predictions of the future inflows, particularly for long-range studies, are highly uncertain. Although the model does not predict future inflows, it can be used to analyze a range of possible future inflows and to quantify the probability of particular events (i.e., lake levels being below or above certain levels). Several methods are available for ascertaining the range of possible future inflows. On the Colorado River, a particular technique (called the Indexed Sequential Method) has been used since the early 1980s and involves a series of simulations, each applying a different future inflow scenario (USBR, 1985; Ouarda, et al., 1997). Each future inflow scenario is generated from the historical natural flow record by “cycling” through that record. For example, the first simulation assumes that the inflows for 2002 through 2050 will be the 1906 through 1954 record, the second simulation assumes the inflows for 2002 through 2050 will be the 1907 through 1955 record, and so on. As the method progresses, the historical record is assumed to “wrap-around” (i.e., after 1990, the record reverts back to 1906), yielding a possible 85 different inflow scenarios. The COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-13 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 183 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 result of the Indexed Sequential Method is a set of 85 separate simulations (referred to as “traces”) for each operating criterion that is analyzed. This enables an evaluation of the respective criteria over a broad range of possible future hydrologic conditions using standard statistical techniques, discussed in Section 3.3.3.6. 3.3.3.6 POST-PROCESSING AND DATA INTERPRETATION PROCEDURES The various environmental and socioeconomic analyses in this FEIS required the sorting and arranging of various types of model output data into tabulations or plots of specific operational conditions, or parameters, at various points on the system. This was done through the use of statistical methods and other numerical analyses. The model generates data on a monthly time step for some 300 points (or nodes) on the river system. Furthermore, through the use of the Indexed Sequential Method, the model generates 85 possible outcomes for each node for each month over the time period 2002 through 2050. These very large data sets are generated for each surplus alternative and baseline conditions and can be visualized as three-dimensional data “cubes” with the axes of time, space (or node) and trace (or outcome for each future hydrology). The data are typically aggregated to reduce the volume of data and to facilitate comparing the alternatives to baseline conditions and to each or eri other. The type of aggregation varies depending upon the needs of the particularInt resource analysis. The 017 f the categories: those that post-processing techniques used for this FEIS fall ept.two basic29, 2 into o .D ber aggregate in time, space or both, and those that aggregate the 85 possible outcomes. vem ion v t o N Na vajo simpleed on For aggregation in time anda in N space, rchiv techniques are employed. For example, ited River 64, ato all California diversion nodes in the model are c deliveries of Colorado -168 water summed to produce14 total delivery to the state for each calendar year. Similarly, lake No. the elevations may be chosen on an annual basis (i.e., end of December) to show long-term lake level trends as opposed to short-term fluctuations. Since the interim criteria period is 2002 through 2016, some analyses may suggest aggregating over that period of time and comparing the aggregation over the remaining years (2017 through 2050). The particular aggregation used will be noted in the methodology section for each resource. Once the appropriate temporal and spatial aggregation is chosen, standard statistical techniques are used to analyze the 85 possible outcomes for a fixed time. Statistics that may be generated include the mean and standard deviation. However, the most common technique simply ranks the outcomes at each time (from highest to lowest) and uses the ranked outcomes to compute other statistics of interest. For example, if end-ofcalendar year Lake Mead elevations are ranked for each year, the median outcome for a given year is the elevation for which half of the values are below and half are above (the median value or the 50th percentile value). Similarly, the elevation for which 10 percent of the values are less than or equal to, is the 10th percentile outcome. Several presentations of the ranked data are then possible. A graph (or table) may be produced that compares the 90th percentile, 50th percentile, and 10th percentile outcomes COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-14 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 184 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 from 2002 through 2050 for the baseline and all alternatives. It should be noted that a statistic such as the 10th percentile is not the result of any one hydrologic trace (i.e., no historical sequence produced the 10th percentile). 3.3.4 MODELING RESULTS This section presents general and specific discussions of the Colorado River System operation modeling results. The following sequence of topics is used to address the potentially affected river system components: • Lake Powell water levels, • River flows between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead, • Lake Mead water levels, and • River flows below Hoover Dam. As noted previously, the potentially affected portion of the Colorado River system extends from Lake Powell to the SIB. Although lakes Mohave and Havasu are within the potentially affected area, it has been determined that the interim surplus criteria ior would have no effect on the operation of these facilities. The operation of lakes Inter 17 Mohave and Havasu is pursuant to monthly operating . of the that t target elevations 0 are used to 29, 2 manage the storage and release of water and v. Dep power productionrat these facilities. Under mbe the respective target elevations, the Natiolevel n Nove is approximately 14 feet for water n fluctuation vajo feet d Lake Havasu. Under all future operating Lake Mohave and approximately fourhiveforo c in Na 4FEIS, lakes Mohave and Havasu would continue to be scenarios considered under 86 , ar cited 16 this operated under the current respective monthly target elevations. . 14- No 3.3.4.1 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING MODELING RESULTS Some changes to the modeling assumptions were anticipated in the DEIS and were made for the FEIS as noted in Section 3.3.3.3. These changes included the following: • updating the initial conditions to reflect the current state of the system; • updating the depletion schedules for all of the Basin States, including the Indian tribes; • changing the baseline operation from 75R to 70R (as described in Section 2.2.5); and • updating the shortage protection triggers to incorporate the new Upper Basin depletion schedules. The general effects of these changes are described below: • For the DEIS, the simulation model was run from 2000 through 2050, using the historical reservoir contents as of January 1, 2000, for the initial COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-15 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 185 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 conditions. For the FEIS, the model was run from 2002 through 2050, using forecasted reservoir contents for January 1, 2002. The forecast was obtained from Reclamation’s operations model (the “24-month Study Model”), run in September, 2000. Due to the relatively low inflow observed for the 2000 water year (approximately 75 percent of normal or about 11.4 maf of natural inflow to Lake Powell), the total initial system storage decreased approximately 4.129 maf. This amounted to decreases in initial elevations of 3.5 feet and 26.0 feet at lakes Powell and Mead, respectively. The change in initial conditions affects the results of the first few years of the simulations, and then is negligible (after about 2005). • Upper Division depletion schedules were updated to those submitted by the Upper Colorado River Commission (December, 1999), and subsequently modified to include updated Indian tribes schedules as provided by the Ten Tribes Partnership. The updated depletion schedules for the Indian Tribes and the Upper Division totals are detailed in Attachments “Q” and “K”. The total increase in Upper Division scheduled depletions ranged from two to eight percent in any given year, with an average over all years of about five percent. The largest increases are in the early years (eight percent increases in years 2005 through 2010; 6.6 percent in 2016). In general, lakes Powell and Mead rior baseline Int under 7 show a more rapid decline (observed in the 50th percentilee 1 the conditions) due to the increased demand eptheof in t. early years., 20 r 29 Recovery of Lake Powell after the interim periodion v. more rapid ase increased depletions is also D mb ov 602(a)the at Nthe e N tend to turn off equalization earlier due to storage provision. The on vajo Nathesearchived is that lakes Mead and Powell stabilize at long-term d in of effect , depletions e 2050 cit 12.56865.5 feet, respectively, below the levels shown in the about -1 and 4 4 DEIS. o. 1 N • Lower Division normal depletion schedules were updated to incorporate the new Indian tribe demands and remain at each states’ apportionment. Surplus depletion schedules were also updated for each alternative as provided by the entities involved and is detailed in Attachment H. The California alternative tends to be more liberal in the FEIS compared to the DEIS with regard to surplus deliveries and is now closer to the results of the Shortage Protection Alternative. • As discussed in Section 2.2.5, the baseline surplus strategy was changed from 75R to 70R, which changes the inflow assumption used when computing the system space available. As discussed in the DEIS, the change has a negligible effect upon the baseline results. • The shortage protection triggers were re-computed to account for the new Upper Basin depletion schedules and to investigate the issues of protecting a specified lake level with a specified degree of assurance. To ensure statistical independence, stochastically generated natural inflows above Powell were used in the study. The study used the CRSSez model and the procedure is COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-16 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 186 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 documented in the CRSSez User’s Manual (USBR, May 1988). The new triggers resulted in approximately 73 percent assurance of protecting Lake Mead elevation 1083 through the year 2040, although after 2040, the assurance level tails off rapidly (to less than 60 percent in 2050). The validity of the comparisons between surplus alternatives, however, is not compromised since all of the modeled conditions use the same shortage protection assumptions. The following general observations apply to the overall modeling and analyses results: • Future water levels of Lakes Powell and Mead will probably be lower than historical levels due to increasing Upper Basin depletions under the baseline conditions and the surplus alternatives. Of the five surplus alternatives, the Flood Control Alternative and baseline conditions were shown to have the least tendency to reduce reservoir water levels. The Shortage Protection and California alternatives were shown to have the highest tendency to reduce reservoir water levels. The results of the Six States and Basin States alternatives are similar and fall between those of the baseline conditions and the Shortage Protection and California alternatives. • Median Lake Mead elevations decline throughout the periodiofr analysis for the ter o baseline conditions and the surplus alternatives because Lower 17 he In 20 Division of t 9, depletions exceed long-term inflow. .Median. Lake Powell elevations decline ept D ber 2 v vem for a number of years and thenion Nat stabilize forothe baseline conditions as well as n N in Lake Powell elevations for the all surplus alternatives.jo va The declining trend ed o in Na and allrchiv alternatives is due to increasing Upper a surplus baselineted ci conditions 64, the Six State, Basin States, California, and Shortage 168 For Division depletions. 14No. Protection alternatives, the decline is more pronounced due to Lower Basin surplus deliveries and associated equalization releases from Lake Powell. Lake Powell elevations eventually stabilize under the baseline conditions and all alternatives. This behavior is caused by less frequent equalization releases from Lake Powell (due to the 602(a) storage requirement) as the Upper Division states continue to increase their use of Colorado River water. • A comparative analysis of the baseline conditions with and without California intrastate transfers was conducted to assess the differences between these two modeled conditions. The modeling of the two baseline conditions yielded similar results with two exceptions. The first difference was in the water deliveries to the individual California agencies participating in the water transfers. The second difference is reduced river flow (about 200,000 to 300,000 afy) below Parker Dam associated with change in delivery points resulting from the water transfers. A summary of this comparative analysis is presented in Attachment L. • To test the sensitivity of the results to the use of a 1083-foot shortage protection level, model runs were also conducted with a protection level of COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-17 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 187 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 1050 feet msl. With the 1050-foot protection level, the water levels on Lake Mead in 2016 were essentially the same under the baseline condition and Flood Control Alternative; between 10 and 20 feet lower for the Shortage Protection and California alternatives; and intermediate for the Six State Alternative. Water level plots for reservoir levels using the 1050-foot Lake Mead protection level are in Attachment M. • Interim surplus criteria had no effect on Upper Basin deliveries as expected, including the Indian demands above Lake Powell. As noted in Section 3.4.4.4, the normal delivery schedules of all Upper Basin diversions would be met under most water supply conditions. Only under periods of low hydrologic inflow conditions and inadequate regulating reservoir storage capacity upstream of the diversion point, would an Upper Basin diversion be shorted. Although the model is not presently configured to track the relative priorities under those conditions, such effects are identical under baseline and all alternatives. • Under normal conditions, deliveries to the Lower Basin users are always equal to the normal depletion schedules, including those for the Indian tribes. Under shortage conditions, only CAP and SNWA share in the shortage until CAP ior Inter runs done for goes to zero (which was not observed in any of thehe f t modeling 017 , pt. oPartnership 2 the Lower Basin this FEIS). Therefore, all tribes in the DeTribe ber 29 in . 10 em nv receive their scheduled depletion, with the ov Natio d on N exception of the Cocopah Tribe which has some Arizona Priority 4 water (see Section 3.14.2). As discussed vajo e in Na 4, archiv all Arizona shortages were assigned to CAP above, itea modeling assumption, as d 6 c for this FEIS.-168 14 No. 3.3.4.2 LAKE POWELL WATER LEVELS 3.3.4.2.1 Dam and Reservoir Configuration Glen Canyon Dam is a concrete arch dam rising approximately 700 feet above the level of the Colorado River streambed. A profile of the dam is depicted on Figure 3.3-3. Except during flood conditions, the "full reservoir" water level is 3700 feet msl, corresponding to the top of the spillway gates. Under normal operating conditions, releases from Glen Canyon Dam are made through the Glen Canyon Powerplant by means of gates on the upstream face of the dam. The minimum water level at which hydropower can be generated is elevation 3490 feet msl. Releases in excess of the powerplant capacity may be made when flood conditions are caused by high runoff in the Colorado River Basin, or when needed to provide Beach/Habitat Building Flows (BHBF) downstream of the dam, as is discussed in Section 3.6. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-18 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 188 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.3-3 Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam Important Operating Elevations Elevation (feet msl) 3800 3600 3400 3200 3000 ior Inter 17 e of th 29 0 pt.operate from , 2 Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell were designed to . De ber a normal maximum iona v Novem water surface elevation of 3700 feet msl to minimum elevation of 3490 feet msl, the Nat d on vajo minimum for hydropower production.hDuring flood conditions, the water surface ive Na d in can64, arc3700 feet msl by raising the spillway radial gates. elevation of Lakete ci Powell 8 exceed Since first reaching 14-16 equalization storage with Lake Mead in 1974, the reservoir water No. level has fluctuated from a high of 3708 feet msl to a low of approximately 3612 feet 3.3.4.2.2 Historic Water Levels msl, as shown on Figure 3.3-4. 3.3.4.2.3 Baseline Conditions Under the baseline conditions, the water surface elevation of Lake Powell is projected to fluctuate between full level and decreasingly lower levels during the period of analysis (2002 to 2050). Figure 3.3-5 illustrates the range of water levels by three lines, labeled 90th Percentile, 50th Percentile and 10th Percentile. The 50th percentile line shows the median water level for each future year. The median water level under baseline conditions is shown to decline to approximately 3663 feet msl by 2019 and remaining at this or slightly higher levels through 2050. The 10th percentile line shows there is a 10 percent probability that the water level would drop to 3615 feet msl by 2016 and to 3553 feet msl by 2050. Generally, there is about a 20-foot difference between the annual high and low water levels at Lake Powell. It should also be noted that the Lake Powell elevations depicted in Figures 3.3-5 to 3.3-8 are for modeled lake water levels at the end-of-July. The Lake Powell water level generally reaches its seasonal high in July whereas the seasonal lows occur at the end of the year. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-19 3380 1960 3420 3460 3500 3540 3580 3620 3660 3700 3740 1965 Figure 3.3-4 Historic Lake Powell Water Levels 1970 1975 3.3-20 Year 1980 1985 1990 Annual Low W ater Level Annual High W ater Level 1995 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in Minimum4, arc Pool (3490') cite 1686 Rated Power o. 14 N Top of Spillway (3700') COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Water Surface Elevation (feet) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2000 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 189 of 1200 3500 2000 3520 3540 3560 3580 3600 3620 3640 3660 3680 3700 3720 2005 90th Percentile 2010 2015 2020 3.3-21 Year 2025 2030 2035 Trace 20 2040 2045 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov Trace 77 ajo N ived v in Na 4, arch cited 1686 10th Percentile Trace 47 . 14 o N 50th Percentile Figure 3.3-5 Lake Powell End-of-July Water Elevations Under Baseline Conditions th th th 90 , 50 and 10 Percentile Values and Representative Traces COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Water Surface Elevation (feet) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 190 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 191 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Three distinct traces were added to Figure 3.3-5 to illustrate what was actually simulated under the various traces and respective hydrologic sequences and to highlight that the 90th, 50th and 10th percentile lines do not represent actual traces, but rather the ranking of the data from the 85 traces for the conditions modeled. The traces also illustrate the variability among the different traces and that the reservoir levels could temporarily decline below the 10th percentile line. The trace identified as Trace 20 represents the hydrologic sequence that begins in year 1926. The trace identified as Trace 47 represents the hydrologic sequence that begins in year 1953. The trace identified as Trace 77 represents the hydrologic sequence that begins in year 1983. In Figure 3.3-5, the 90th and 10th percentile lines bracket the range where 80 percent of the water levels simulated for the baseline conditions occur. The highs and lows shown on the three traces would likely be temporary conditions. The reservoir level would tend to fluctuate in the range through multi-year periods of above average and below average inflows. Neither the timing of water level variations between the highs and the lows, nor the length of time the water level would remain high or low can be predicted. These events would depend on the future variation in basin runoff conditions. Figure 3.3-6 presents a comparison of the 90th, 50th and 10th percentile lines obtained for the baseline conditions to those obtained for the surplus alternatives. erior t This figure is best Intrends that result from used for comparing the relative differences in the general lakehe f t level 2017 pt. o er the simulation of the baseline conditions and surplus alternatives. 29, De b v. tion n Novem aControl Alternative is the alternative that could As illustrated in Figure 3.3-6, vajo N a the Flood ved o potentially result in thein N LakerPowell water levels. The Shortage Protection highest , a chi ted 68 Alternative are the alternatives that could potentially result 4 Alternative andci California6 the 4-1 1 in the lowest water. levels. The baseline conditions yield similar levels to those observed No under the Flood Control Alternative. The water levels observed under the California alternative are similar to those observed under the Shortage Protective Alternative. The results obtained under the Six States and Basin States alternatives are similar and fall between the Baseline and Shortage Protection alternatives. Figure 3.3-7 shows the frequency that future Lake Powell end-of-July water elevations would exceed elevation 3695 feet msl under the baseline conditions and surplus alternatives. When the Lake Powell water level is at or exceeds 3695 feet msl, the reservoir is considered to be essentially full. In year 2016, under baseline conditions, the percentage of values greater than or equal to elevation 3695 feet msl is 27 percent. In 2050, the percentage of values greater than or equal to elevation 3695 feet msl is 26 percent. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-22 3500 2000 3520 3540 3560 3580 3600 3620 3640 3660 3680 3700 3720 90th Percentile 2005 2010 2015 Shortage Protection Alternative California Alternative Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative 2020 3.3-23 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 50th ior Percentile Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc 10th Percentile cite 168 14 No. Baseline Conditions Figure 3.3-6 Lake Powell End-of-July Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions th th th 90 , 50 and 10 Percentile Values COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Water Surface Elevation (feet) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 192 of 1200 0% 2000 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2005 2010 2015 2020 3.3-24 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Shortage Protection Alternative ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N California Alternative Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative Baseline Conditions Figure 3.3-7 Lake Powell End-of-July Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 3695 Feet COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 193 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 194 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Figure 3.3-8 provides a comparison of the frequency that future Lake Powell end-of-July water elevations under baseline conditions and the surplus alternatives would be at or exceed a lake water elevation of 3612 feet msl. Lake Powell water surface elevation 3612 feet msl is used in this analysis as the low threshold elevation for marina and boat ramps at Lake Powell. This threshold elevation of 3612 feet msl is used to evaluate the baseline conditions and the effects of interim surplus criteria alternatives on shoreline facilities at Lake Powell in the Environmental Consequences section (Section 3.9.2.3.1). The lines represent the percentage of values greater than or equal to the lake water elevation of 3612 feet msl under the baseline conditions and surplus alternatives. In year 2016, under the baseline conditions, the percentage of values greater than or equal to elevation 3612 feet msl is 91 percent. In 2050, the percentage of values greater than or equal to elevation 3612 feet msl decreases to 72 percent for the baseline conditions. 3.3.4.2.4 Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions Figure 3.3-6 compared the 90th, 50th and 10th percentile water levels of the surplus alternatives to those of the baseline conditions. As discussed above, under baseline conditions, future Lake Powell water levels at the upper and lower 10th percentiles would likely be temporary and the water level would fluctuate between them in response to multi-year variations in basin runoff conditions. The sameor i would apply to th th Inter and 10th all the surplus alternatives. The 90 percentile, median (50thpercentile) 17 0 f e pt. o er 2 of 2 percentile values of the surplus alternatives are compared to those 9, the baseline e .D b conditions in Table 3.3-4. The valuesation v in this em include those for years presented Nov table o N ed on 2016 and 2050 only. avaj v in N rchi ited 6864, a Table 3.3-4 c -1 Elevations o. 14 Lake Powell End-of-July Water Baseline Conditions N Comparison of Surplus Alternatives and th th th 90 , 50 and 10 Percentile Values Year 2016 Alternative Baseline Conditions Basin States Flood Control Six States California Shortage Protection Year 2050 90th Percentile 50th Percentile 10th Percentile 90th Percentile 50th Percentile 10th Percentile 3699 3699 3699 3699 3699 3699 3665 3664 3665 3664 3660 3659 3615 3603 3615 3603 3595 3594 3699 3699 3699 3699 3699 3699 3663 3663 3665 3663 3663 3663 3553 3551 3553 3551 3551 3551 Figure 3.3-7 compared the percentage of Lake Powell elevations that exceeded 3695 feet msl for the surplus alternatives and baseline conditions. Table 3.3-5 provides a summary of that comparison for years 2016 and 2050. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-25 70% 2000 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 2005 2010 2015 2020 3.3-26 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 Six States Alternative 2045 ior Inter 17 California Alternative the ofShortage Protection20 9, Alternative pt. . De ember 2 v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative Baseline Conditions Figure 3.3-8 Lake Powell End-of-July Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 3612 Feet COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 195 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 196 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Table 3.3-5 Lake Powell End-of-July Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives and Baseline Conditions Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 3695 Feet Alternative Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative Year 2016 27% 21% 27% 22% 18% 18% Year 2050 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% Figure 3.3-8 compared the percentage of Lake Powell elevations that exceeded 3612 feet msl for the surplus alternatives and baseline conditions. Table 3.3-6 provides a summary of that comparison for years 2016 and 2050. Table 3.3-6 Lake Powell End-of-July Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives and Baseline Conditions Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 3612 Feet ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. 3.3.4.3 RIVER FLOWS BETWEEN LAKE POWELL AND LAKE MEAD Alternative Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative Year 2016 91% 88% 91% 88% 87% 86% Year 2050 72% 72% 72% 72% 72% 72% The river flows between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead result from controlled releases from Glen Canyon Dam (Lake Powell) and include gains from tributaries in this reach of the river. Releases from Glen Canyon Dam are managed as previously discussed in Sections 3.2.1.2 and 3.3.1.1. The most significant gains from perennial streams include inflow from the Little Colorado River and Paria River. However, inflow from these streams is concentrated over very short periods of time, and on average, make up approximately two percent of the total annual flow in this reach of the river. Figure 3.3-9 provides a comparison of the relative frequency of occurrence of annual releases from Lake Powell under the baseline conditions and surplus alternatives, during the interim surplus criteria period (through 2016). Releases between 8.23 and 11.5 maf generally correspond to years where equalization releases are being made from Lake Powell. The surplus water deliveries from Lake Mead associated with the interim surplus criteria tend to increase the relative frequency of equalization during that period compared to baseline conditions. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-27 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 8.23 maf 8.23 to 10 maf 10 to 11.5 maf 3.3-28 Amount Released 11.5 to 13 maf 13-14.5 maf 14.5-16 maf >16 maf Shortageor i Protection Alternative Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N California Alternative Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative Baseline Conditions Figure 3.3-9 Histogram of Modeled Lake Powell Annual Releases (Water Years) 2002 to 2016 (85 Traces) COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Frequency of Occurrences AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 197 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 198 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.3.4.4 LAKE MEAD WATER LEVELS This section provides a general description of Hoover Dam and Lake Mead, discusses historic Lake Mead water levels and summarizes the results of the future Lake Mead water level simulations under baseline conditions and the surplus alternatives. 3.3.4.4.1 Dam and Reservoir Configuration Hoover Dam and Lake Mead are operated with the following three main priorities: 1) river regulation, improvement of navigation, and flood control, 2) irrigation and domestic uses, including the satisfaction of present perfected water rights, and 3) power. The Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 specified flood control as the project purpose having first priority for operation of Hoover Dam and Lake Mead. Hoover Dam is the northernmost Reclamation facility on the lower Colorado River and is located 326 miles downstream of Lee Ferry. Hoover Dam provides flood control protection and Lake Mead provides the majority of the storage capacity for the Lower Basin as well as significant recreation opportunities. Lake Mead storage capacity is 27.38 maf at a maximum water surface elevation of 1229.0 feet msl. At this elevation, Lake Mead’s water surface area would equal 163,000 acres. The dam’s r rio four intake towers draw water from the reservoir at elevations above 895 e Into drive 7 generators feet te 17 h . of t r 29, 201 within the dam’s powerplant. The minimum water surface elevation for effective power t Dep mbe generation is 1083 feet msl. n v. ve io Nat d n No vajo Meadvwereoestablished to manage potential flood Flood control regulationsNa Lake rchi e in for 4, a ited and snowmelt. Lake Mead’s uppermost 1.5 maf of storage c events arising from rain 686 -1 capacity, between .elevations 1219.61 and 1229.0 feet, is defined as exclusive flood o 14 N control. Within this capacity allocation, 1.218 maf of flood storage is above elevation 1221.0 feet, the top of the raised spillway gates. Figure 3.3-10 illustrates some of the important Hoover Dam and Lake Mead water surface elevations that are referenced in subsequent sections. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-29 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 199 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.3-10 Lake Mead and Hoover Dam Important Operating Elevations INTAKE TOWERS 1400 TOP OF DAM EL. 1232 SPILLWAY Elevation (feet msl) 1200 POWER HOUSE 1000 800 PENSTOCK 600 400 ior Inter 17 f the 9 0 pt. o erand , 2 Lake Mead usually is at its maximum water level in November 2 December. If . De b o achieved between iis n v Novem August 1 to January 1. at required, system storage space-building on jo N Hoover Dam storage space-building chived are limited to 28,000 cfs, while the mean Nava ar releases in daily releases to imeet the water delivery orders of Colorado River water entitlement c ted 16864, holders normally range-between 8000 cfs to 18,000 cfs. 14 No. In addition to controlled releases from Lake Mead to meet water supply and power requirements, water is also diverted from Lake Mead at the SNWA Saddle Island intake facilities, Boulder City’s Hoover Dam intake, and the Basic Management, Inc.’s (BMI) intake facility for use in the Las Vegas area for domestic purposes by SNWA, BMI and other users. The diversions by SNWA at its Saddle Island intake facilities entail pumping the water from the intake to SNWA’s transmission facilities for treatment and further conveyance to the Las Vegas area. The elevation of the original SNWA intake is approximately 1000 feet msl. However, the minimum required Lake Mead water level necessary to operate the pumping units at SNWA’s original intake facility is 1050 feet msl. SNWA recently constructed a second pumping plant with an intake elevation of 950 feet msl. The minimum required Lake Mead water level necessary to operate the pumping units at SNWA’s second intake facility is 1000 feet msl. The new SNWA intake provides only a portion of the capacity required by SNWA to meet its Lake Mead water supply needs. Therefore, the intake elevation of SNWA’s original pumping plant is critical to its ability to divert its full Colorado River water entitlement. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-30 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 200 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.3.4.4.2 Historic Lake Mead Water Levels Figure 3.3-11 presents an overview of the historic annual water levels (annual maximum and minimum) of Lake Mead. As noted in Figure 3.3-11, the annual change in elevations of Lake Mead has ranged from less than ten feet to as much as 75 feet msl. The decrease in the range of the elevations within a year observed after the mid-1960s can be attributed to the regulation provided by Lake Powell. Historic Lake Mead low water levels have dropped to the minimum rated power elevation (1083 feet msl) of the Hoover Powerplant during two periods (1954 to 1957 and 1965 to 1966). The maximum Lake Mead water surface elevation of approximately 1225.6 feet msl occurred once, in 1983. Three Lake Mead water surface elevations of interest are shown in Figure 3.3-11. The first elevation is 1221 feet msl, the top of the spillway gates. The second elevation is 1083 feet msl, the minimum elevation for the effective generation of power. The third elevation is 1050 feet msl, the minimum elevation required for the operation of SNWA’s original intake facility. ior Inter 17 f the Under the baseline conditions, the water surface elevation of Lake9, 20 is projected to pt. o er 2 Mead e b fluctuate between full level and decreasinglyv. D levels during the period of analysis lower ion rangeNovem levels (end of December) at the on of water (2002 to 2050). Figure 3.3-12 illustrates jo N d Nava arc 50th Percentile and 10th Percentile. The 50th by three lines, labeled i90th Percentile, hive n d the median, water level for each future year. The median water cite 16864 percentile line shows level under baseline14 is No. conditionsth shown to decline to 1162 feet msl by 2016 and to 3.3.4.4.3 Baseline Conditions 1111 feet msl by 2050. The 10 percentile line shows there is a 10 percent probability that the water level would decline to 1093 feet msl by 2016 and to 1010 feet msl by 2050. It should also be noted that the Lake Mead elevations depicted in Figure 3.3-12 represent water levels at the end of December which is when lake levels are at a seasonal high. Conversely, the Lake Mead water level generally reaches its annual low in July. Three distinct traces are added to Figure 3.3-12 to illustrate what was actually simulated under the various traces and respective hydrologic sequences and to highlight that the 90th, 50th and 10th percentile lines do not represent actual traces, but rather the ranking of the data from the 85 traces for the conditions modeled. The three traces illustrate the variability among the different traces and that the reservoir levels could temporarily decline below the 10th percentile line. The trace identified as Trace 20 represents the hydrologic sequence that begins in year 1926. The trace identified as Trace 47 represents the hydrologic sequence that begins in year 1953. The trace identified as Trace 77 represents the hydrologic sequence that begins in year 1983. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-31 660 700 740 780 820 860 900 940 980 1020 1060 1100 1140 1180 1220 1260 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1970 Year 3.3-32 1965 1975 1980 1985 1990 Minimum SNWA Intake Elevation (1050') Minimum Rated Power Pool (1083') Top of Spillway (1221') Figure 3.3-11 Historic Lake Mead Water Levels (Annual Highs and Lows) ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc Annual High Water Level cite 168 Annual Low Water Level o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Water Surface Elevation (feet) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 1995 2000 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 201 of 1200 1000 2000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200 1220 1240 90th Percentile 2005 2010 2015 2020 3.3-33 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 ior Inter 17 Trace 77 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc 10th Percentile cite 168 Trace 47Trace 20 o. 14 N 50th Percentile Figure 3.3-12 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations Under Baseline Conditions th th th 90 , 50 and 10 Percentile Values and Representative Traces COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Water Surface Elevation (feet) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 202 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 203 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 In Figure 3.3-12, the 90th and 10th percentile lines bracket the range where 80 percent of future Lake Mead water levels simulated for the baseline conditions occur. The highs and lows shown on the three traces would likely be temporary conditions. The reservoir level would tend to fluctuate through multi-year periods of above average and below average inflows. Neither the timing of water level variations between the highs and the lows, nor the length of time the water level would remain high or low can be predicted. These events would depend on the future variation in basin runoff conditions. Figure 3.3-13 presents a comparison of the 90th, 50th and 10th percentile lines obtained for the baseline conditions to those obtained for the surplus alternatives. This figure is best used for comparing the relative differences in the general lake level trends that result from the simulation of the baseline conditions and surplus alternatives. As illustrated in Figure 3.3-13, the Flood Control Alternative is the alternative that could potentially result in the highest Lake Mead water levels. The California Alternative is the alternative that could potentially result in the lowest water levels. The water levels observed under the Shortage Protection Alternative are similar to those of the California Alternative with some years slightly lower. The baseline conditions yield slightly lower levels than the Flood Control Alternative, but the differences are very small. The results obtained under the Six States and Basin States alternatives are similarerior between the and fall Int Flood Control and Shortage Protection alternatives. 017 f the pt. o 29, 2 . De that mberLake Mead end of Figure 3.3-14 provides a comparison of the n v frequency e future N Natioconditions ov the surplus alternatives would be December water elevations under o vaj baseline ed on and v at or exceed a lake water elevation archi feet msl. The lines represent the percentage of of 1200 in Na ited equal 864, lake water elevation of 1200 feet msl under the baseline c values greater than or -16 to the 4 conditions andNo. 1 alternatives. In year 2016, under the baseline conditions, the surplus percentage of values greater than or equal to elevation 1200 feet msl is 22 percent. In 2050, the percentage of values greater than or equal to elevation 1200 feet msl decreases to 14 percent for the baseline conditions. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-34 1000 2000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200 1220 2005 2010 2015 Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative 2020 3.3-35 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 10th Percentile ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember 50th Percentile v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N 2045 90th Percentile Figure 3.3-13 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations th th th Comparison of Surplus Alternatives and Baseline Conditions 90 , 50 and 10 Percentile Values COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Water Surface Elevation (feet) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 204 of 1200 0% 2000 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 2005 2010 2015 2020 3.3-36 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 California Alternative r terio InShortage Protection Alternative e of th 29, 2017 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative Baseline Conditions 3.3-14 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives and Baseline Conditions Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 1200 Feet COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 205 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 206 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.3-15 provides a comparison of the frequency that future Lake Mead end of December water elevations would be at or exceed a lake water elevation of 1083 feet msl under baseline conditions and the surplus alternatives. In year 2016, under the baseline conditions, the percentage of values greater than or equal to elevation 1083 feet msl is 93 percent. In 2050, the percentage of values greater than or equal to elevation 1083 feet msl decreases to 58 percent for the baseline conditions. Figure 3.3-16 provides a comparison of the frequency that future Lake Mead end of December water elevations under baseline conditions and the surplus alternatives would be at or exceed a lake water elevation of 1050 feet msl. In year 2016, under the baseline conditions, the percentage of values greater than or equal to elevation 1050 feet msl is 100 percent. In 2050, the percentage of values greater than or equal to elevation 1050 feet msl decreases to 75 percent for the baseline conditions. Figure 3.3-17 provides a comparison of the frequency that future Lake Mead end of December water elevations under baseline conditions and the surplus alternatives would be at or exceed a lake water elevation of 1000 feet msl. In year 2016, under the baseline conditions, the percentage of values greater than or equal to elevation 1000 feet msl is 100 percent. In 2050, the percentage of values greater than or equal to elevation 1000 feet msl decreases to 99 percent for the baseline conditions. erior Int f the 9, 2017 3.3.4.4.4 Comparison of Surplus Alternatives topt. o Baseline Conditions 2 v De vember n th . tio o th Figure 3.3-13 compared the 90ajo Na 10 on N , 50th and d percentile water levels of the surplus v e alternatives to thosed in Nbaseline rchiv of the a , a conditions. As discussed above, under baseline ite Mead water levels at the upper and lower 10th percentiles would c conditions, future Lake-16864 likely be temporary14 the water levels are expected to fluctuate between them in No. and response to multi-year variations in basin runoff conditions. The same would apply to all the surplus alternatives. The 90th percentile, median (50th percentile) and 10th percentile values of the surplus alternatives are compared to those of the baseline conditions in Table 3.3-7. The values presented in this table include those for years 2016 and 2050 only. Table 3.3-7 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives and Baseline Conditions th 90 , 50th and 10th Percentile Values Year 2016 Alternative Baseline Conditions Basin States Flood Control Six States California Shortage Protection Year 2050 90th Percentile 50th Percentile 10th Percentile 90th Percentile 50th Percentile 10th Percentile 1215 1215 1215 1215 1208 1208 1162 1143 1162 1146 1131 1130 1093 1082 1095 1084 1071 1077 1209 1209 1210 1210 1209 1209 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1010 1007 1010 1008 1003 1005 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-37 50% 2000 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 2005 2010 2015 2020 3.3-38 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 California Alternative r terio InShortage Protection Alternative e of th 29, 2017 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative Baseline Conditions Figure 3.3-15 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 1083 Feet COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 207 of 1200 70% 2000 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative Baseline Conditions 2005 2010 2015 2020 3.3-39 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 CHAPTER 3 California Alternative r terio Protection Alternative In Shortage 7 e of th 29, 201 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Figure 3.3-16 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 1050 Feet COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 208 of 1200 90% 2000 91% 92% 93% 94% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100% 2005 2010 2015 2020 3.3-40 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative 2045 ior Inter 17 e 0 of th California,Alternative 29 2 ept. beShortage Protection Alternative r D n v. em tio ov jo Na ved on N Nava archi in cited 16864, o. 14 N Basin States Alternative Baseline Conditions Figure 3.3-17 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 1000 Feet COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 209 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 210 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.3-14 compared the percentage of Lake Mead elevations that exceeded 1200 feet msl for the surplus alternatives and baseline conditions. Table 3.3-8 provides a summary of that comparison for years 2016 and 2050. Table 3.3-8 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives and Baseline Conditions Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 1200 Feet Alternative Baseline Conditions Basin States Flood Control Six States California Shortage Protection Year 2016 22% 19% 22% 19% 14% 16% Year 2050 14% 14% 16% 15% 14% 14% Figure 3.3-15 compared the percentage of Lake Mead elevations that exceeded 1083 feet msl for the surplus alternatives and baseline conditions. Table 3.3-9 provides a summary of that comparison for years 2015 and 2050. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation Year 2016 ve No Alternative Year 2050 jo N ved on Baseline Conditions ava 93% 58% i N h Basin States in 89% 58% d , arc 4 cite Flood Control -1686 94% 59% Six States. 14 89% 58% No California 87% 59% Table 3.3-9 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives and Baseline Conditions Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 1083 Feet Shortage Protection 87% 58% Figure 3.3-16 compared the percentage of Lake Mead elevations that exceeded 1050 feet msl for the surplus alternatives and baseline conditions. Table 3.3-10 provides a summary of that comparison for years 2016 and 2050. Table 3.3-10 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives and Baseline Conditions Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 1050 Feet Alternative Baseline Conditions Basin States Flood Control Six States California Shortage Protection Year 2016 100% 99% 100% 99% 95% 98% COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-41 Year 2050 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 211 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.3-17 compared the percentage of Lake Mead elevations that exceeded 1000 feet msl for the surplus alternatives and baseline conditions. Table 3.3-11 provides a summary of that comparison for years 2016 and 2050. Table 3.3-11 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives and Baseline Conditions Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to Elevation 1000 Feet Alternative Baseline Conditions Basin States Flood Control Six States California Shortage Protection Year 2016 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Year 2050 99% 99% 99% 99% 92% 99% 3.3.4.5 COMPARISON OF RIVER FLOWS BELOW HOOVER DAM This section describes results of the analysis of the simulated Colorado River flows below Hoover Dam. The model of the Colorado River system was used to simulate future mean monthly flows under baseline conditions and the surplusralternatives. Four ior Inte river reaches specific river locations were selected to represent flows within selected017 f the below Hoover Dam. The river reaches and corresponding flow locations are listed in pt. o er 29, 2 . De Table 3.3-12 and are shown graphically ion Map 3.3-1. emb on v ov at N N vajo hived on Na d in 64, arc Table 3.3-12 iteColorado8River Flow Locations Identified for Evaluation c -16 o. 14 Selected River Flow Locations N Colorado River Reach Description ween Hoover Dam and Parker Dam ween Parker Dam and Palo Verde Diversion Dam ween Palo Verde Diversion and Imperial Dam ween Imperial Dam and SIB 1 vasu National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Approximate 1 River Mile 242.3 stream of Colorado River Indian Reservation 180.8 wnstream of the Palo Verde Diversion Dam ow the Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam 133.8 23.1 River miles as measured from the southerly international border with Mexico Two types of analysis of the potential of interim surplus criteria to affect river flows were conducted. In the first analysis, the potential effects on the total annual volume of flow in each reach were evaluated. In this analysis, the mean monthly flows were first summed over each calendar year. The 90th, 50th, and 10th percentiles of the annual volumes were then computed for each year. Plots of these percentiles for baseline COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-42 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 212 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 conditions and all surplus alternatives are included in this section for each of the four river points. Cumulative distributions of the annual flow volumes are also presented for specific years to aid in the understanding of the effects. These cumulative distributions consider the year 2006, the year when the largest effects at the 90th percentile are seen. The second analysis investigated the potential effects on seasonal flows. Cumulative distributions of mean monthly flows (in cfs) were produced for specific years and selected months representative of each season. The mean monthly flows for January were used to represent the winter season flows and likewise for April, July, and October to represent spring, summer, and fall, respectively. The specific years analyzed included 2006, 2016, 2025, and 2050. Only the graphs for 2016 are presented in this section. The graphs for the other years are presented in Attachment N. It should be noted that the monthly demand schedules used in the model are based on a distribution of the total annual demand (a percentage for each month). Although each diversion point may use a different distribution, those percentages do not change from year to year, and can not reflect potential future changes in the system that might affect the monthly distributions. Therefore, the seasonal differences are primarily governed by the overall changes in annual flow volumes, coupled with the effect of each diversion’s distribution upstream of the point of interest. erior Int f the 9, 2017 o Daily and hourly releases from Hoover Dam reflectpt. short-term demands of Colorado 2 . De theembermanagement in Lakes nv River water users with diversions located downstream, storage atio Nov Mohave and Havasu, and powerjo N ved on a production at Hoover, Davis and Parker Dams. The av i close proximity ofed in Mohave to rch Lake N 4, a Hoover Dam effectively dampens the short-term it c 6 6 fluctuations below Hoover 8 14-1 Dam. The scheduling and subsequent release of water . Parker Dams create short-term fluctuations in river flows, depths, through DavisNo and and water surface elevations downstream of these structures. These fluctuations of water surface elevations in the river are most noticeable in the river reaches located immediately downstream of the dams and lessen as the downstream distance increases. Interim surplus criteria, however, will have no effect on the short-term operations of Hoover, Davis and Parker Dam, and therefore, short-term fluctuations in river reaches downstream of Hoover Dam were not evaluated. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-43 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 213 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Map 3.3-1 Colorado River Locations Selected for Modeling ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-44 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 214 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.3.4.5.1 River Flows Between Hoover Dam and Parker Dam The river flows between Hoover Dam and Parker Dam are comprised mainly of flow releases from Hoover Dam and Davis Dam. Inflows from the Bill Williams River and other intermittent tributaries are infrequent and are usually concentrated into short time periods due to their dependence on localized precipitation. Tributary inflows comprise less than one percent of the total annual flow in this reach of the river. Due to the backwater effect of Lake Mohave, a point on the Colorado River downstream of Davis Dam was used to evaluate the river flows for this reach, located immediately downstream of the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). The 90th, 50th, and 10th percentile annual flow volumes for this reach are shown in Figure 3.3-18. As shown by the 50th percentile values, annual flow volumes in this reach can be expected to be greater for the surplus alternatives (except for the Flood Control Alternative) than for the baseline conditions during the 15-year interim surplus criteria period. This is a direct result of more frequent surplus deliveries. The largest increases from baseline conditions occur under the California Alternative and range from approximately 13 percent in the first two years down to three percent by 2016. Results for the Six States and Basin States alternatives are similar to rior other, ranging each Inte from approximately a six percent increase over baseline conditions down17 three to he . of t r 29, 20 percent by 2016. Beyond the 15-year interim period,tthe annual flow volumes under the Dep mbe surplus alternatives are essentially the same (within ovepercent) as those under the one n v. Natio d on N baseline conditions. vajo e in Na rchiv ited level,864, a the magnitudes of the annual flow volumes are c At the 10 percentile -16 although 1 different, the relative 4 No. changes in surplus conditions compared to the baseline conditions th are similar to those at the 50th percentile. At the 90th percentile level, all surplus alternatives (except for the Flood Control Alternative) show annual flow volumes less than or equal to the flows under the baseline conditions. This is the result of more frequent surplus deliveries, which tend to lower Lake Mead reservoir levels. With lower reservoir levels, the frequency of flood control events (which contribute most of the flows at the 90th percentile level) is decreased, which in turn decreases the annual flow volume for a given percentile. The California and Shortage Protection alternatives exhibit the largest decreases, ranging from approximately 13 percent less than baseline conditions in 2006 to one percent less by 2023. Results for the Six States and Basin States alternatives are similar to each other, ranging from approximately six percent less than baseline conditions in 2013 to one percent less by 2023. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-45 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 215 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.3-18 Colorado River Downstream of Havasu NWR Annual Flow Volume (af) Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions th th th 90 , 50 and 10 Percentile Values 90th Percentile 15,000,000 14,000,000 An nu al 13,000,000 Flo w Vol 12,000,000 um e (af) 11,000,000 Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 50th Percentile 15,000,000 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in 10,000,000 cited 16864, 149,000,000 No. 14,000,000 An nu al 13,000,000 Flo w Vol 12,000,000 um e (af) 11,000,000 Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative 8,000,000 10th Percentile 15,000,000 14,000,000 An nu al 13,000,000 Flo w Vol 12,000,000 um e (af) 11,000,000 Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-46 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 216 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 In Figure 3.3-19, the cumulative distribution of annual flow volumes is shown for year 2006. This is the year of the largest differences at the 90th percentile level as shown in Figure 3.3-18. Although the annual flow volumes decrease for all surplus alternatives (except Flood Control Alternative) at a fixed percentile (i.e. at the 90th percentile) as compared to baseline, the range of annual flow volumes are the same for baseline conditions and the surplus alternatives. The frequency that a flow of a specific magnitude will occur, however, is lower under the surplus alternatives (except for the Flood Control Alternative) as shown in Figure 3.3-19. Figures 3.3-20(a-d) present comparisons of the representative seasonal flows under baseline conditions and the surplus alternatives for 2016. For all seasons, the Flood Control Alternative is very similar to the baseline conditions. The Six States and Basin States alternatives tend to fall between the baseline conditions (and Flood Control Alternative) and the California (and Shortage Protection) alternatives. As expected, the largest flows occur in the spring and summer seasons for baseline conditions and all alternatives due to downstream irrigation demands. For flows that are due primarily to flood control releases from Lake Mead (flows in the 90th – 100th percentile range), the range of mean monthly flows is not changed by the different surplus alternatives, since these magnitudes are dictated by the flood rior control Inte 17 (except regulations. These flows occur, however, less often for thethe surplus alternatives 20 of the Flood Control Alternative). This effect is less ept. pronounced r 29, when most flood in July, v. D vembe control releases have ceased. o ation N N vajo hived on The differences in flows that are,not c to flood control releases are greatest near the in Na 4 r due ited A numericala th c 70 percentile level. -1686 comparison of the 70th percentile values is shown in 4 Table 3.3-13. No. differences in mean monthly flows for the California Alternative The 1 compared to baseline conditions are approximately 16 percent in the winter, nine percent in the spring, six percent in the summer, and eight percent in the fall. For the Basin States alternative, the differences (compared to baseline conditions) in mean monthly flows are approximately three percent in the winter, one percent in the spring, and less than one percent in the summer and fall seasons. Despite these differences, the flows for all alternatives fall well within the minimum and maximum flows for the baseline conditions, as well as within the current operational range for this reach. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-47 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 217 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Table 3.3-13 Comparison of Mean Monthly Flow (cfs) – Baseline Conditions and Surplus Alternatives Colorado River Downstream of Havasu NWR (River Mile = 242.3) th 70 Percentile Values for Year 2016 Mean Monthly Flows (cfs) for Year 2016 at the 70th Percentile Season Baseline Basin States Flood Control Six States California Shortage Protection Winter 8069 8347 7965 8317 9327 9223 Spring 15939 16166 15899 16072 17294 17144 Summer 15880 15957 15862 15953 16853 16644 Fall 11776 11805 11776 11686 12688 12531 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-48 8,000,000 9,000,000 10,000,000 11,000,000 12,000,000 13,000,000 14,000,000 15,000,000 16,000,000 17,000,000 18,000,000 19,000,000 0% 25% 3.3-49 Percent of Values Less than or Equal to 50% Shortage Protection Alternative California Alternative Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative 75% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline Conditions 90th Percentile Figure 3.3-19 Colorado River Annual Flow Volume Downstream of Havasu NWR Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Annual Flow Volume (af) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 100% CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 218 of 1200 0% 25% 3.3-50 Percent of Values Less than or Equal to 50% 75% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 0 5,000 10,000 Flo w (cf 15,000 s) 20,000 25,000 30,000 Winter Season Flows as Represented by January Flows Figure 3.3-20a Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Havasu NWR Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 100% CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 219 of 1200 0% 25% 3.3-51 Percent of Values Less than or Equal to 50% 75% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 0 5,000 10,000 Flo w (cf 15,000 s) 20,000 25,000 30,000 Spring Season Flows as Represented by April Flows Figure 3.3-20b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Havasu NWR Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 100% CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 220 of 1200 0% 25% 3.3-52 Percent of Values Less than or Equal to 50% 75% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 0 5,000 10,000 Flo w (cf 15,000 s) 20,000 25,000 30,000 Summer Season Flows as Represented by July Flows Figure 3.3-20c Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Havasu NWR Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 100% CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 221 of 1200 0% 25% 3.3-53 Percent of Values Less than or Equal to 50% 75% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 0 5,000 10,000 Flo w (cf 15,000 s) 20,000 25,000 30,000 Fall Season Flows as Represented by October Flows Figure 3.3-20d Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Havasu NWR Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 100% CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 222 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 223 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.3.4.5.2 River Flows Between Parker Dam and Palo Verde Diversion The point on the Colorado used to evaluate the river flows in the reach of the river located between Parker Dam and the Palo Verde Diversion Dam is located immediately upstream of the Colorado River Indian Reservation (CRIR) diversion. The CRIR diversion is located at Headgate Rock Dam, approximately 14 miles below Parker Dam. Flows in this reach of the river result from primarily from releases from Parker Dam (Lake Havasu). Future flows in this reach would be affected by the proposed water transfers and exchanges between the California agricultural water agencies and MWD, which change the point of diversion. For example, under a potential transfer between IID and MWD (or SDCWA), the water that would normally be diverted at Imperial Dam would now be diverted above Parker Dam. As discussed in Section 3.3.3.2, the proposed California intrastate transfers are included in the simulation of the baseline conditions and surplus alternatives. Although the transfers themselves are not a direct result of the proposed interim surplus criteria, the transfers were modeled because they are expected to be a component of the future Lower Basin water supply management programs and to maintain consistency for comparison of the alternatives to baseline conditions. The r intrastate transfers proposed by California and any potential environmental effects that terio and InNEPA17 other would occur as a result of those actions are addressed by separate 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 environmental compliance. e D v. mb ation on Nove this reach are shown in The 90 , 50 , and 10 percentileo N flow volumes for vaj annualved Figure 3.3-21. As shown N the , archi in bya 450th percentile values, annual flow volumes in this cited 16 greater for the California and Shortage Protection reach can be expected to be86 4alternatives thano. 1 baseline conditions and other alternatives during the 15-year N for the th th th interim surplus criteria period. This is the result of more frequent surplus deliveries under those two alternatives. Increases from baseline conditions under the California Alternative range from approximately seven percent in the first year down to one percent by 2013. A 1.5 percent decrease from baseline conditions is seen for the period 2017 through 2050 as a result of the modeled transfer of 100 kaf from PVID to MWD as part of the California Alternative. Increases from baseline conditions under the Shortage Protection Alternative range from approximately four percent in the first year down to two percent by 2016. The annual flow volumes for the Flood Control, Six States, and Basin States alternatives are essentially the same (less than one percent) as those under the baseline conditions for the entire period of analysis (2002 through 2050). Similar results are seen at the 10th percentile level. Increases from baseline conditions under the California Alternative range from approximately six percent in the first year down to two percent by 2006. A 1.6 percent decrease from baseline conditions is seen for the period 2017 through 2050 as a result of the modeled transfer of 100 kaf from PVID to MWD as part of the California Alternative. Increases from baseline conditions under the Shortage Protection Alternative range from approximately three percent in the COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-54 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 224 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Figure 3.3-21 Colorado River Upstream of CRIR Diversion Annual Flow Volume (af) Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions th th th 90 , 50 and 10 Percentile Values 90th Percentile 12,000,000 Annual Flow Volume (af) 11,000,000 Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 50th Percentile 12,000,000 ior Inter 17 10,000,000 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D 9,000,000 mb ation on Nove jo N 8,000,000 Nava archived in cited 16864, 7,000,000 14No. 6,000,000 Annual Flow Volume (af) 11,000,000 Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative 5,000,000 10th Percentile 12,000,000 Annual Flow Volume (af) 11,000,000 10,000,000 Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-55 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 225 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES first year down to one percent by 2016. The annual flow volumes for the Flood Control, Six States, and Basin States alternatives are essentially the same (less than one percent) as those under the baseline conditions for the entire period of analysis (2002 through 2050). At the 90th percentile level, all surplus alternatives (except for the Flood Control Alternative) show annual flow volumes less than or equal to the flows under the baseline conditions. This is the result of more frequent surplus deliveries, which tend to lower Lake Mead reservoir levels. With lower reservoir levels, the frequency of flood control events (which contribute most of the flows at the 90th percentile level) is decreased, which in turn decreases the annual flow volume for a given percentile. The California and Shortage Protection alternatives exhibit the largest decreases, ranging from two to 20 percent less than baseline conditions from 2002 through 2023, with the largest differences in 2006 and 2016. The Six States and Basin States alternatives exhibit similar behavior, ranging from two to 16 percent less than baseline conditions from 2002 through 2023, with the largest differences in 2016. In Figure 3.3-22, the cumulative distribution of annual flow volumes is shown for year 2006. This is the year of the largest differences at the 90th percentile level as shown in Figure 3.3-21. Although the annual flow volumes decrease for all surplus alternatives ior th Inter percentile) as (except Flood Control Alternative) at a fixed percentile (i.e.hethe 90 017 f t at pt. o er 29, 2 compared to baseline, the range of annual flow volumes are the same for baseline . De that b conditions and the surplus alternatives. tiThe v on frequency em a flow of a specific a Nov magnitude will occur, however, jis lowerved othe surplus alternatives (except for the a o N i under n Nav ar in Flood Control Alternative) as shownch Figure 3.3-22. d in te 4, ci 1686 . 14No COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-56 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 9,000,000 10,000,000 11,000,000 12,000,000 13,000,000 14,000,000 15,000,000 16,000,000 0% 25% 3.3-57 Percent of Values Less than or Equal to 50% Shortage Protection Alternative California Alternative Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative 75% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline Conditions 90th Percentile Figure 3.3-22 Colorado River Annual Flow Volumes Upstream of Colorado River Indian Reservation Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2006 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Annual Flow Volume (af) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 100% CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 226 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 227 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Figures 3.3-23 (a-d) present comparisons of the representative seasonal flows under baseline conditions and the surplus alternatives for 2016. As expected, the largest flows occur in the spring and summer seasons for baseline conditions and all alternatives due to downstream irrigation demands. For flows that are due primarily to flood control releases from Lake Mead (flows in the 90th – 100th percentile range), the range of mean monthly flows is not changed by the different surplus alternatives, since these magnitudes are dictated by the flood control regulations. These flows occur, however, less often for the surplus alternatives (except the Flood Control Alternative). This effect is less pronounced in July, when most flood control releases have ceased. The differences in flows that are not due to flood control releases are similar for all alternatives and baseline conditions. A numerical comparison of the 70th percentile values is shown in Table 3.3-14. The differences in mean monthly flows for the California Alternative compared to baseline conditions are approximately six percent in the winter, three percent in the spring, one percent in the summer, and less than one percent in the fall. For the Basin States alternative, the differences (compared to baseline conditions) in mean monthly flows are less than one percent for all seasons. Table 3.3-14 Comparison of Mean Monthly Flow (cfs) – Baseline Conditions and Surplus Alternatives Colorado River Upstream of CRIR Diversion (River Mile = 180.8) th 70 Percentile Values for Year 2016 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D Mean Monthly Flows (cfs) for Year 2016 at the 70 Percentile mb ation on Nove Shortage jo N Protection Baseline Six States California av States Flood Control NBasina archived in 3880 3897 4117 4012 cited3897 6864,3895 11690 11690 11690 11690 12009 11793 4-1 1 No. 13025 12990 12989 13025 13194 12984 th Season Winter Spring Summer Fall 8005 7934 8064 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-58 8005 7987 7895 0% 25% 3.3-59 Percent of Values Less than or Equal to 50% 75% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 0 5,000 10,000 Flo w (cf 15,000 s) 20,000 25,000 30,000 Winter Season Flows as Represented by January Flows Figure 3.3-23a Colorado River Seasonal Flows Upstream of Colorado River Indian Reservation Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 100% CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 228 of 1200 0% 25% 3.3-60 Percent of Values Less than or Equal to 50% 75% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 0 5,000 10,000 Flo w (cf 15,000 s) 20,000 25,000 30,000 Spring Season Flows as Represented by April Flows Figure 3.3-23b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Upstream of Colorado River Indian Reservation Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 100% CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 229 of 1200 0% 25% 3.3-61 Percent of Values Less than or Equal to 50% 75% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 0 5,000 10,000 Flo w (cf 15,000 s) 20,000 25,000 30,000 Summer Season Flows as Represented by July Flows Figure 3.3-23c Colorado River Seasonal Flows Upstream of Colorado River Indian Reservation Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 100% CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 230 of 1200 0% 25% 3.3-62 Percent of Values Less than or Equal to 50% 75% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 0 5,000 10,000 Flo w (cf 15,000 s) 20,000 25,000 30,000 Fall Season Flows as Represented by October Flows Figure 3.3-23d Colorado River Seasonal Flows Upstream of Colorado River Indian Reservation Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 100% CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 231 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 232 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.3.4.5.3 River Flows Between Palo Verde Diversion Dam and Imperial Dam The flow of the Colorado River between Palo Verde Diversion Dam and Imperial Dam is normally set at the amount needed to meet the United States diversion requirements downstream of the Palo Verde Diversion plus deliveries to Mexico. The river location that was modeled for this reach of the river is located immediately downstream of the Palo Verde Diversion Dam. As discussed in Section 3.3.4.5.2, the proposed California water interstate transfers are included in the simulation of the baseline conditions and surplus alternatives. The 90th, 50th, and 10th percentile annual flow volumes for this reach are shown in Figure 3.3-24. As shown by the 50th percentile values, annual flow volumes in this reach can be expected to be greater for the California and Shortage Protection alternatives than for the baseline conditions for the first few years of the 15-year interim surplus criteria period. This is a result of more frequent surplus deliveries. The largest increases from baseline conditions occur under the California Alternative and are approximately eight percent during the years 2002 through 2007. After 2007, the annual flow volumes are identical to the baseline conditions. Annual flow volumes under the Shortage Protection Alternative are approximately five percent during the ior In er 17 years 2002 through 2011. After 2011, the annual flow volumes aret identical to the 0 f theand Basin baseline conditions. Results for the Flood Control, pt. States, r 29, 2 States Six o e e v. D alternatives are identical to those undertthe baseline ovemb for the entire period a ion on N conditions N (2002 through 2050). vajo ed in Na rchiv ited level,864, a c At the 10 percentile -16 the California Alternative has the same relative difference (eight percent)No.the years 2002 and 2003, while the Shortage Protection Alternative for 14 th exhibits the same relative difference (five percent) for the years 2002 through 2005. All other results are identical to those observed for the 50th percentile values. At the 90th percentile level, all surplus alternatives (except for the Flood Control Alternative) show annual flow volumes less than or equal to the flows under the baseline conditions. This is the result of more frequent surplus deliveries, which tend to lower Lake Mead reservoir levels. With lower reservoir levels, the frequency of flood control events (which contribute most of the flows at the 90th percentile level) is decreased, which in turn decreases the annual flow volume for a given percentile. The California and Shortage Protection alternatives exhibit the largest decreases, ranging from approximately 17 percent less than baseline conditions in 2006 to four percent less by 2023. Results for the Six States and Basin States alternatives are similar to each other, ranging from approximately 11 percent less than baseline conditions in 2016 to four percent less by 2023. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-63 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 233 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES In Figure 3.3-25, the cumulative distribution of annual flow volumes is shown for year 2006. This is the year of the largest differences at the 90th percentile level as shown in Figure 3.3-24. Although the annual flow volumes decrease for all surplus alternatives (except Flood Control Alternative) at a fixed percentile (i.e. at the 90th percentile) as compared to baseline, the range of annual flow volumes are the same for baseline conditions and the surplus alternatives. The frequency that a flow of a specific magnitude will occur, however, is lower under the surplus alternatives (except for the Flood Control Alternative) as shown in Figure 3.3-25. Figures 3.3-26 (a-d) present comparisons of the representative seasonal flows under baseline conditions and the surplus alternatives for 2016. As expected, the largest flows occur in the spring and summer seasons for baseline conditions and all alternatives due to downstream irrigation demands. For flows that are due primarily to flood control releases from Lake Mead (flows in the 90th – 100th percentile range), the range of mean monthly flows is not changed by the different surplus alternatives, since these magnitudes are dictated by the flood control regulations. These flows occur, however, less often for the surplus alternatives (except the Flood Control Alternative). This effect is less pronounced in July, when most flood control releases have ceased. The differences in flows not due to flood control releases are similar rior alternatives for all th Inte and baseline conditions. A numerical comparison are thef70 e th percentile 17 is 20 values pt. o er 29 the shown in Table 3.3-15. The differences in mean monthly flows for , California . De b Alternative compared to baseline conditions v approximately 10 percent in the winter, ion are Novem at seven percent in the spring,avajo N in ed summer, and eight percent in the fall. For six percent the on N the meanhiv in the Basin States Alternative, 4, arc monthly flows are identical to those under cited all686 baseline conditions for -1 seasons. 4 No. 1 Table 3.3-15 Comparison of Mean Monthly Flow (cfs) – Baseline Conditions and Surplus Alternatives Colorado River Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam (River Mile = 133.8) th 70 Percentile Values for Year 2016 Mean Monthly Flows (cfs) for Year 2016 at the 70th Percentile Season Baseline Basin States Flood Control Six States California Shortage Protection Winter 3516 3516 3516 3516 3865 3760 Spring 9888 9888 9888 9888 10608 10392 Summer 10729 10729 10729 10729 11426 11217 Fall 7191 7191 7191 7191 7749 7582 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-64 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 234 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Figure 3.3-24 Colorado River Downstream Palo Verde Diversion Dam Annual Flow Volume (af) Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions th th th 90 , 50 and 10 Percentile Values 90th Percentile 12,000,000 Annual Flow Volume (af) 11,000,000 Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 50th Percentile 12,000,000 ior Inter 17 10,000,000 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e 9,000,000 v. D mb ation on Nove jo N 8,000,000 Nava archived in 7,000,000 cited 16864, 146,000,000 No. Annual Flow Volume (af) 11,000,000 Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative 5,000,000 10th Percentile 12,000,000 Annual Flow Volume (af) 11,000,000 10,000,000 Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-65 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 9,000,000 10,000,000 11,000,000 12,000,000 13,000,000 14,000,000 15,000,000 0% 25% 3.3-66 Percent of Values Less than or Equal to 50% Shortage Protection Alternative California Alternative Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative 75% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline Conditions 90th Percentile Figure 3.3-25 Colorado River Annual Flow Volumes Downstream of Palo Verde Irrigation Diversion Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2006 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Annual Flow Volume (af) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 100% CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 235 of 1200 0% 25% 3.3-67 Percent of Values Less than or Equal to 50% 75% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 0 5,000 10,000 Flo w (cf 15,000 s) 20,000 25,000 30,000 Winter Season Flows as Represented by January Flows Figure 3.3-26a Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Division Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 100% CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 236 of 1200 0% 25% 3.3-68 Percent of Values Less than or Equal to 50% 75% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 0 5,000 10,000 Flo w (cf 15,000 s) 20,000 25,000 30,000 Spring Season Flows as Represented by April Flows Figure 3.3-26b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Division Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 100% CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 237 of 1200 0% 25% 3.3-69 Percent of Values Less than or Equal to 50% 75% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 0 5,000 10,000 Flo w (cf 15,000 s) 20,000 25,000 30,000 Summer Season Flows as Represented by July Flows Figure 3.3-26c Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Division Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 100% CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 238 of 1200 0% 25% 3.3-70 Percent of Values Less than or Equal to 50% 75% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 0 5,000 10,000 Flo w (cf 15,000 s) 20,000 25,000 30,000 Fall Season Flows as Represented by October Flows Figure 3.3-26d Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Division Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 100% CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 239 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 240 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.3.4.5.4 River Flows Between Imperial Dam and Morelos Dam The flows in the Colorado River below Imperial Dam are primarily comprised of the water delivered to Mexico in accordance with the Treaty. Mexico's principal diversion is at Morelos Dam, which is located, approximately nine miles southwest of Yuma, Arizona. Mexico owns, operates, and maintains Morelos Dam. The reach of river between Morelos Dam and the SIB is commonly referred to by Reclamation as the Limitrophe Division. Reclamation's authority in this division is limited to maintaining the bankline road, the levee, various drains to the river, and the U.S. Bypass drain that carries agricultural drainage water to the Cienega de Santa Clara in Mexico. Under International Treaty the United States Section of the IBWC is obligated to maintain the river channel within this division. Reclamation provides assistance to the IBWC, when requested, for maintenance needs in this reach of the river. Minute 242 (Minutes are defined as decisions of IBWC and signed by the Mexican and United States commissioners) of IBWC and the Mexican Water Treaty of 1944 provide requirements for deliveries at the NIB and SIB near Yuma and San Luis, Arizona, respectively. Up to 140,000 af annually of agricultural drainage wateror be delivered eri can to Mexico at the SIB. The remaining 1,360,000 af of waterthe Int delivered to Mexico is to be 017 f at the NIB annually and diverted at Morelos Dam eptheo to t. Mexicali Valley. For several 29, 2 D ber years after the United States Bypass Drainn v. completed in 1978, the Colorado River io was Novem at Channel downstream of Moreloso N was d on vaj Damhive normally dry. Flows below Morelos Dam a now occur only when in N in excess of Mexico's requirement arrive at the NIB. d water , arc cite 16864 14Much of the NIB water is diverted at Imperial Dam into the All-American Canal (AAC) No. where it is returned to the bed of the Colorado River through Siphon Drop and Pilot Knob Powerplants. A portion of the NIB deliveries remains in the river, passing through Imperial and Laguna Dams to Morelos Dam. Water in excess of Mexico's water order at the NIB is normally passed through Morelos Dam, through the Limitrophe Division, and into the original Colorado River channel downstream. Water in excess of Mexico's water order occurs primarily when flood releases are made from Lake Mead. Excess water arriving at the NIB may also result from flooding on the Gila River, and from operational activities upstream (i.e., cancelled water orders in the United States, maintenance activities, etc.). In December of each year, Mexico provides to the United States an advance monthly water order for the following calendar year. Normally, this water order can only be changed by providing the United States with written notice, 30 days in advance and each monthly water order can be increased or decreased by no more than 20 percent of the original monthly water order. The Treaty further stipulates that Mexico's total water order must be no less than 900 cfs and no more than 5500 cfs during the months of January, February, October, November and December. During the remainder of the COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-71 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 241 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 year, Mexico's water order must be no less than 1500 cfs and no more than 5500 cfs. Daily water orders are usually not allowed to increase or decrease by more than 500 cfs. As discussed in Section 3.3.3.3, the model accounts for the all deliveries to Mexico diversions at the NIB (Morelos Dam). Flows that are modeled downstream of Morelos Dam represent mean monthly flows that are excess flows in the Colorado River due to Lake Mead flood control releases. These excess flows may reach the Colorado River Delta, although Mexico has the authority to divert them for other uses. Such decisions by Mexico are not modeled. The excess flows are over and above Mexico’s normal 1.5 mafy water entitlement, plus the 200,000 afy for surplus deliveries. The 90th, 50th, and 10th percentile annual flow volumes for this reach are shown in Figure 3.3-27. Since these flows are dependent solely upon infrequent flood control releases, no flows are observed at either the 10th or 50th percentiles. At the 90th percentile level, all surplus alternatives (except for the Flood Control Alternative) show annual flow volumes less than or equal to the flows under the baseline conditions. This is the result of more frequent surplus deliveries, which tend to lower Lake Mead reservoir levels. With lower reservoir levels, the frequency of flood control events is decreased, which in turn decreases the annual flow volume for a given percentile. The California and Shortage Protection alternatives exhibit the largest decreases, ranging ior Inter 12 7 from approximately 70 percent less than baseline conditionshe 2016 to01 percent less in of t 9 2 by 2023. Results for the Six States and Basin Statespt. alternatives are ,similar to each D .lesse ember 2 other, ranging from approximately 47ation v percent than Nov baseline conditions in 2013 to 12 percent less by 2023. avajo N ved on N hi ed in 864 arc itthe cumulative,distribution of annual flow volumes is shown for year c In Figure 3.3-28, -16 o. 14 2006. This is the year of the largest differences at the 90th percentile level as shown in N Figure 3.3-27. Although the annual flow volumes decrease for all surplus alternatives (except Flood Control Alternative) at a fixed percentile (i.e. at the 90th percentile) as compared to baseline, the range of annual flow volumes are the same for baseline conditions and the surplus alternatives. The frequency that a flow of a specific magnitude will occur, however, is lower under the surplus alternatives (except for the Flood Control Alternative) as shown in Figure 3.3-28. Additional analysis of annual flow volumes in this reach is presented in Section 3-16. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-72 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 242 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.3-27 Colorado River Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Annual Flow Volume (af) Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions th th th 90 , 50 and 10 Percentile Values 90th Percentile 5,000,000 Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative Annual Flow Volume (af) 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 50th Percentile 5,000,000 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Annual Flow Volume (af) 4,000,000 Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 10th Percentile 5,000,000 Annual Flow Volume (af) 4,000,000 Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-73 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 0% 10% 20% 30% 50% 60% 3.3-74 Percent of Values Less than or Equal to 40% Shortage Protection Alternative California Alternative Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative 70% 80% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline Conditions 90th Percentile Figure 3.3-28 Colorado River Annual Flow Volumes Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2006 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Annual Flow Volume (af) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 90% 100% CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 243 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 244 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Figures 3.3-29 (a-d) present comparisons of the representative seasonal flows under baseline conditions and the surplus alternatives for 2016. As expected, the only differences are seen for flows that are due to flood control releases from Lake Mead (flows in the 90th – 100th percentile range). As seen in the figures, the range of mean monthly flows is not changed by the different surplus alternatives, since these magnitudes are dictated by the flood control regulations. These flows occur, however, less often for the surplus alternatives (except the Flood Control Alternative). This effect is less pronounced in July, when most flood control releases have ceased. A numerical comparison of the 90th percentile values is shown in Table 3.3-16. The differences in mean monthly flows for the California Alternative compared to baseline conditions are approximately 51 percent in the winter, zero percent in the spring, zero percent in the summer, and 100 percent in the fall. For the Basin States alternative, the differences (compared to baseline conditions) in mean monthly flows are approximately one percent in the winter, zero percent in the spring, and zero percent in the summer and 100 percent in the fall seasons. The large fluctuating differences are due to the infrequent nature of these flows and are indicative of the decreased frequency of occurrence due to the interim surplus criteria. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e .D b ion v N 2016 atm atFlows (cfs) for Yearove the 70 Percentile Mean Monthly on jo N Shortage Nava archived in Protection States Baseline Flood Control Six States California ited 6Basin4, c 86 8052 8125 8052 3983 2706 4-1 . 18125 No 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 3.3-16 Comparison of Mean Monthly Flow Data – Baseline Conditions and Surplus Alternatives Colorado River Downstream of Morelos Dam (River Mile = 23.1) th 90 Percentile Values (cfs) for Year 2016 th Season Winter Spring Summer Fall 0 0 0 0 0 0 3007 0 3007 0 0 0 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.3-75 0% 25% 3.3-76 Percent of Values Less than or Equal to 50% 75% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 0 5,000 10,000 Flo w (cf 15,000 s) 20,000 25,000 30,000 Winter Season Flows as Represented by January Flows Figure 3.3-29a Colorado River Seasonal Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 100% CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 245 of 1200 0% 25% 3.3-77 Percent of Values Less than or Equal to 50% 75% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 0 5,000 10,000 Flo w (cf 15,000 s) 20,000 25,000 30,000 Spring Season Flows as Represented by April Flows Figure 3.3-29b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 100% CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 246 of 1200 0% 25% 3.3-78 Percent of Values Less than or Equal to 50% 75% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 0 5,000 10,000 Flo w (cf 15,000 s) 20,000 25,000 30,000 Summer Season Flows as Represented by July Flows Figure 3.3-29c Colorado River Seasonal Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 100% CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 247 of 1200 0% 25% 3.3-79 Percent of Values Less than or Equal to 50% 75% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 0 5,000 10,000 Flo w (cf 15,000 s) 20,000 25,000 30,000 Fall Season Flows as Represented by October Flows Figure 3.3-29d Colorado River Seasonal Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 100% CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 248 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 249 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.5 3.5.1 CHAPTER 3 WATER QUALITY INTRODUCTION This section addresses the salinity of the Colorado River and mainstream reservoirs, and the quality of Lake Mead water available for municipal and industrial purposes. The potential changes in the operation of the Colorado River system downstream from Lake Powell under interim surplus criteria alternatives could temporarily affect the salinity of Colorado River water, which affects municipal and industrial uses in the Lower Basin. In addition, changes in Lake Mead water levels could affect the quality of water arriving at the SNWS pump intakes in the Boulder Basin of Lake Mead, and thereby affect the quality of the water supply for the Las Vegas Valley. 3.5.2 COLORADO RIVER SALINITY This section discusses potential effects that could result from the implementation of the interim surplus criteria alternatives under consideration. Salinity has long been recognized as one of the major problems of the Colorado River. “Salinity” or “total dissolved solids” (TDS) include all of the soluble constituents dissolved in a river and the two terms are used interchangeably in this document. This sectionior er considers e Int 017 hto Imperial Dam. The potential changes in salinity concentrations from Lake.Mead 2 of t ept effectsr of 9, section also presents a general discussion of the D . adverse mbe 2 increased salinity nv e concentrations on municipal and o Natio systems. ov industrial nN vaj ed o in Na 4, archiv 3.5.2.1 METHODOLOGY 6 cited 168 . 14Reclamation’sNo model for salinity is used to create salinity reduction targets for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program (SCP). To do this, the model simulates the effects of scheduled water development projects to predict future salinity levels. This data is then used to compute the amount of new salinity control projects required to reduce the river’s salinity to meet the standards at some point in the future (2015). The model itself does not include future salinity controls because implementation schedules for future salinity control projects are not fixed and vary considerably. The salinity control standards are purposefully designed to be long-term (nondegradation) goals, rather than exceedence standards used for industry or drinking water. By definition, the SCP is designed to be flexible enough to adjust for any changes caused by the various alternatives being considered. Therefore, it could be concluded that there would be no change in compliance with the standards caused by selecting any one of the alternatives. However, for the purposes of this analysis, each alternative has been evaluated using fixed (existing) levels of salinity controls to identify the differences between alternatives and the baseline conditions. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.5-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 250 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 General effects of salinity were determined from review of records of historic river flow and salinity data available and economic impacts presented in Quality of Water Colorado River Basin – Progress Report No. 19, 1999, U.S. Department of the Interior; Water Quality Standards for Salinity Colorado River System, 1999 Review, June 1999, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum and Salinity Management Study, Technical Appendices, June 1999, Bookman-Edmonston Engineering, Inc. The salinity program as set forth in the Forum's 1999 Annual Review enables the numeric criteria to be met through the year 2015. Therefore, it was presumed that the criteria would be maintained through 2015. Although the 1999 Review considers only the period to 2015, it was presumed that future additions to the salinity control program will be sufficient to maintain the criteria through 2050. 3.5.2.2 3.5.2.2.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Historical Data The Colorado River increases in salinity from its headwaters to its mouth, carrying an average salt load of nine million tons annually past Hoover Dam. Approximately half (47 percent) of the salinity concentration is naturally caused and 53erior of the t percent he Inrunoff,17 concentration results from human activities including agricultural 20 evaporation of t ep . ber 29, and municipal and industrial sources (Forum, 1999). t v. D n em Natio d on Nov period of record 1941 through Salinity of the river has fluctuated significantly over the vajo e in Na 4, archiv concentrations have ranged from 833 1997. Below Hoover Dam, annual salinity d cite 86 milligrams per liter 14-16in 1956 to 517 mg/l in 1986. However, the maximum . (mg/l) No monthly fluctuation in any year is approximately 50 mg/l. Salinity of the river is influenced by numerous factors including reservoir storage, water resource development (and associated return flows), salinity control, climatic conditions and natural runoff. The impact of reservoir storage has all but eliminated seasonal fluctuations in salinity. Annual variations in salinity are primarily driven by natural, climatic variations in precipitation and snowmelt runoff. These hydrologic variations cause differences in both flow and salinity. As shown in Figure 3.5-1, the salinity of the river varied by as much as 1000 mg/l prior to the construction of Glen Canyon Dam in 1961. By the 1980s, that variation was reduced to about 200 mg/l due to the mixing and dampening effect of the large volume of storage in Lake Powell. Figures 3.5-2 and 3.5-3 show the comparison between mainstream flows and salinity. Figure 3.5-2 shows the outflow from Glen Canyon and Imperial Dams. Figure 3.5-3 shows the salinity at Imperial, Hoover and Glen Canyon dams. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.5-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 251 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.5-1 Historical Monthly Salinity Concentrations Below Glen Canyon Dam (1940-1995) 1600 1400 Dam closure and reservoir storage in mid1960's reduced variation in salinity Monthly Salinity (mg/L) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1940 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e .D b 1945 1950 1955 1960 on v 1970 1975 m ati1965 on Nove 1980 1985 1990 jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Regulatory Requirements and Salinity Control Programs 1995 2000 Year 3.5.2.2.2 In 1972, the EPA promulgated regulations requiring water quality standards for salinity, numeric criteria and a plan of implementation for salinity control. The Seven Colorado River Basin States, acting through the Forum, adopted numeric criteria for flowweighted average annual salinity, at three points on the river as shown below: Below Hoover Dam 723 mg/l Below Parker Dam 747 mg/l At Imperial Dam 879 mg/l COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.5-3 1970 0 5 10 15 20 25 1975 Imperial Dam 1980 3.5-4 Year 1985 1990 1995 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N Glen Canyon Dam vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Lake Powell fills in 1980 and the entire reservoir system spills in 1983 - 1986. Figure 3.5-2 Historical Glen Canyon Dam and Imperial Dam Releases COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Annual Discharge (mafy) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2000 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 252 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 253 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.5-3 Historical Salinity Concentrations of Releases from Glen Canyon, Hoover, and Imperial Dams 1000 900 Imperial Dam 800 Hoover Dam Salinity (mg/L) 700 600 500 Glen Canyon Dam 400 300 ior Inter 17 e 0 200 of th pt.1990 er 29, 2 1970 1975 1980 1985 1995 2000 e D Year mb n v. atio Nove ajo N ived on Nav d in 64, arch cite 16to These criteria applied only 8 the lower portion of the Colorado River from Hoover 4Dam to Imperialo. 1 Below Imperial Dam, salinity control is a federal responsibility N Dam. to meet the terms of Minute 242 to the U.S.-Mexico Water Treaty of 1944. Minute 242 requires that salinity concentrations upstream of Mexico’s diversion be no more than 115 mg/l + 30 mg/l TDS higher than the average salinity of water arriving at Imperial Dam. In 1974, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (P.L. 93-320) was enacted. The Act contains two Titles: 1) Title I provides the means for the United States to meet its commitment to Mexico; and 2) Title II creates a salinity control program within the Colorado River Basin in order that the numeric criteria will be maintained while the Basin States continue to develop their apportionment of Colorado River water. The federal/state salinity control program is designed to maintain the flow-weighted average annual salinity at or below the numeric criteria. The program is not intended to counteract short-term salinity variations resulting from short-term water supply. Federal regulations provide for temporary increases above the criteria due to natural variations in flows. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.5-5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 254 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 The seven Basin States acting through the Forum reviews the numeric criteria and plan of implementation every three years and makes changes in the plan of implementation to accommodate changes occurring in the Basin States. The latest review was in 1999. The review is currently undergoing adoption by the Basin States and approval by EPA. At each triennial review, the current and future water uses are analyzed for their impact on the salinity of the Colorado River. If needed, additional salinity control projects are added to the plan to assure compliance with the standards. The need for one or more additional salinity control projects is determined by monitoring the salinity of the river and making near-term projections of changes in diversions from and return flows to the river system. When an additional project is needed, it is selected from a list of potential projects that have undergone feasibility investigation. A proposal to implement the project is made through coordination with the Basin States. In selecting a project, considerable weight is given to the relative costeffectiveness of the project. Cost-effectiveness is a measure of the cost per ton of salt removed from the river system or prevented from entering the river system. Other factors are also considered, including environmental feasibility and institutional acceptability. ior Inter 17 It is estimated that 1,478,000 tons of salt will need to beof the or, prevented from removed 20 ept. ber 29 entering the Colorado River system to maintain D salinity concentration at or below n v. the o have been controlled and an em the criteria through 2015. To date, Nati720,000 tons v over o nN o vajo additional 756,000 tons will need to chived in Na 4, ar be controlled through 2015. cited 1686 3.5.1.1.3 General Municipal, Industrial, and Agricultural Effects of Increased 14No. Salinity Concentrations High salinity concentrations can cause corrosion of plumbing, reduce the life of waterusing appliances, and require greater use of cleaning products. Industrial users incur extra water treatment costs. Increased salinity in drinking water can create unpleasant taste, often resulting in the purchase of bottled water or water treatment devices. Agriculture experiences economic losses from high salinity through reduced crop productivity and the need to change from less salt-tolerant high value crops, to more salt-tolerant low value crops. Increased salinity can also require more extensive agricultural drainage systems. High salinity is a significant constraint to water recycling and groundwater replenishment programs. Compliance with regulatory requirements imposed by local water quality management programs to protect groundwater supplies can add significantly to the economic impacts. Restrictions have been placed on reuse or recharge of waters that exceed specific salinity levels. Such restrictions significantly constrain groundwater replenishment programs and wastewater reuse programs. Should salinity of the Colorado River increase, these regulatory actions could create a need for COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.5-6 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 255 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 more expensive water treatment processes, such as reverse osmosis, prior to disposal or reuse. If disposal is selected, additional water supplies would need to be developed to meet demands that could have been met by water reuse. Reclamation has determined that the economic damages from Colorado River salinity in the three Lower Division states served by Colorado River water amount to $2.5 million per mg/l. Figure 3.5-4 shows the relationship between costs of damages and salinity concentrations. Therefore it is assumed for this analysis that the baseline conditions will reflect the numeric criteria at each station of interest (below Hoover Dam, below Parker Dam, and at Imperial Dam). ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.5-7 $0.0 400 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 500 600 800 3.5-8 Salinity at Imperial Dam (mg/l) 700 900 1,000 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na At 1997 observed levels d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N At numeric criteria level Figure 3.5-4 Estimated Cost of Damages Associated with Increased Salinity Concentrations COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Salinity Damages (billions) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 1,100 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 256 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 257 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.5.1.3 CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The effects of the alternatives on the salinity of Colorado River water focus on their differences from baseline conditions. Since the current model configuration does not include any salinity control projects beyond those currently in place, modeling of baseline conditions indicates increases in salinity due to projected increased water consumption in the Upper Basin. However, in practice, these increases would be offset by salinity control projects that would continue to be implemented. Tables 3.5-1 and 3.5-2 present these differences for years 2016 and 2050, respectively. The TDS values represent the mean values for the flow-weighted annual averages for the given year. The first column under each monitoring station heading in the tables presents the model projected TDS concentrations under the five alternatives calculated by applying the difference to the baseline TDS level. The second column presents the difference between the values for each alternative compared with baseline conditions. As shown in Table 3.5-1, there is, in general, very little effect on TDS (less than one percent) due to interim surplus criteria in the year 2016. The exception is the decrease at Imperial Dam for the California Alternative of 19 mg/l (about 2.2 percent). This is r due to the assumption in the model of an additional transfer fromnterioto MWD of I PVID 17 100,000 af during normal and Tier 3 surplus conditions,of the reduces 0 salt pickup which 2 the ept. ber 29, in the return flows. v. D m n e Natio d on Nov ajo tend itoe In general, the surplus alternatives h v decrease TDS values slightly. These Nav d in 64, arc decreases are duete increased equalization releases from Lake Powell relative to ci to 168 baseline. 14No. As shown in Table 3.5-2, interim surplus criteria have no effect on TDS values by the year 2050, with the exception of the PVID to MWD transfer assumed in the California Alternative. 3.5.3 LAKE MEAD WATER QUALITY AND LAS VEGAS WATER SUPPLY This analysis addresses potential impacts of interim surplus criteria alternatives on water quality in Lake Mead, and potential changes to water quality and levels of contaminants at the SNWA intakes. This is a qualitative analysis based on system modeling and existing limnological studies. 3.5.3.1 METHODOLOGY Evaluation of the environmental consequences of each operational alternative to Lake Mead water quality and Las Vegas water supply are based on a qualitative assessment of existing limnological and hydrodynamic data, and hydrologic modeling as discussed in Section 3.3. Each interim surplus criteria alternative was modeled for comparison to baseline projections. Modeling focused on the probability of decreased Lake Mead COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.5-9 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 258 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Table 3.5-1 Estimated Colorado River Salinity in 2016 Unit: Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l) Below Hoover Dam Alternative Value Below Parker Dam At Imperial Dam Departure from Baseline Value Departure from Baseline Value Departure from Baseline Baseline 1 Conditions 723 NA 747 NA 879 NA Basin States 719 -2 737 -2 879 0 Flood Control 723 0 745 -0 879 0 Six States 719 -2 738 -2 881 0 California 712 -5 734 -5 853 -19 Shortage Protection 715 -4 736 -4 872 -3 1 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e .D mb ion v atTable 3.5-2 Nove on jo N ve River Estimated i Nava aColoradod Salinity in 2050 in rch 64, cited 168Unit: Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l) 14Below Parker Dam At Imperial Dam No. Below Hoover Dam Baseline conditions assume compliance with the numeric criteria at the locations cited. Value Departure from Baseline Value Departure from Baseline Value Departure from Baseline Baseline 1 Conditions 723 NA 747 NA 879 NA Basin States 723 0 747 0 877 0 Flood Control 723 0 747 0 879 0 Six States 723 0 747 0 878 0 California 722 -1 745 0 857 -24 Shortage Protection 722 -1 747 0 876 0 Alternative 1 Baseline conditions assume compliance with the numeric criteria at the locations cited. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.5-10 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 259 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 surface elevations, which could exacerbate effects of discharge of Las Vegas Wash water into Boulder Basin. Assessment of potential effects on water quality of Lake Mead, including consideration of Las Vegas Wash inflow on the SNWA intake, relied primarily on system modeling information associated with the probability of future Lake Mead surface elevations. Previous studies of Lake Mead were also an important source of information, particularly those focusing on Boulder Basin, Las Vegas Wash, and hydrodynamics potentially affecting intake water quality. As discussed in Section 3.3, modeling identified probabilities associated with surface water elevations under baseline conditions as well as projections associated with implementation of the interim surplus criteria alternatives over a 50-year period. As discussed previously, model output utilized for this water quality analysis assumes shortage determinations would occur, if necessary, to protect a surface elevation of 1083 feet msl, which is the Lake Mead minimum power pool elevation. The primary SNWA intake at Saddle Island is at 1050 feet msl, and the secondary intake is at 1000 feet msl. Thus, assuming a strategy to protect 1083 feet msl also provides a level of protection to SNWA’s intake water quality. ior Inter 17 As discussed below, contaminant dilution and lake water f the are, directly o quality29 20 ept. in berassessment is a proportional to lake volume. As such, a critical D v. element mthis ation on Nthee comparison of projected Lake Mead volumes under ov five action alternatives relative jo N ved to baseline conditions. n Navhydrologic modeling output, median Lake Mead volumes Using a i rchi and surface areastwere identified for each of the alternatives associated with projected i ed 6864, a c reservoir elevations14-1 the median modeled probabilities. Modeling results under No. indicating these parameters were then developed for the years 2016, 2026, 2036, and 2050. Separate comparisons were then made of the volume and surface area for each alternative as compared to baseline conditions. 3.5.3.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The focus of this section is a description of the affected environment related to Lake Mead water quality and the SNWA intake locations, with specific consideration of hydrodynamics of the Colorado River Basin, limnology and water quality (factors that may be influenced by implementation of interim surplus criteria alternatives). 3.5.3.2.1 General Description Lake Mead is a large mainstream Colorado River reservoir in the Mohave Desert, within the States of Arizona and Nevada as shown on Map 3.2-1. Lake Mead, formed in 1935 following the construction of Hoover Dam, is the largest reservoir in the United States by volume (26 maf active storage). At full pool (reservoir elevation 1221 feet msl), Lake Mead extends 108 miles from Black Canyon (Hoover Dam) to Separation Canyon COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.5-11 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 260 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 at the upstream end. Lake Mead has four large sub-basins including Boulder, Virgin, Temple and Gregg. Between these basins are four narrow canyons: Black, Boulder, Virgin and Iceberg. Over 170,000 square miles of the Colorado River Basin watershed are located above Hoover Dam. Boulder Basin, SNWA intake locations and the Las Vegas Wash are shown on Map 3.5-1. The Muddy and South Virgin mountains border the reservoir on the north, and the Virgin and Black mountains and various desert hills border the reservoir on the south. The shoreline is extremely irregular with a Shoreline Development Value (SLD) of 9.7 (Paulson and Baker, 1981). SLD is the ratio of the length of the shoreline of a lake or reservoir to the length of the circumference of a circle with an area equal to that of the lake (Wetzel, 1975). The shoreline includes several large bays, including Las Vegas and Bonelli, and numerous coves. The principal morphometric characteristics of Lake Mead are summarized below in Table 3.5-3. Table 3.5-3 Morphometric Characteristics of Lake Mead Parameter Units Value ior 1,205 Inter 17 590 0 180 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D 231 mb ation on Nove N 30 jo 108 Nava archived in 17 cited 16864, 9.7 . 14No Normal operating level (spillway crest) Maximum depth Mean depth Surface area Volume (including dead storage) Maximum length Maximum width Shoreline development Discharge depth Annual discharge (approximate) Replacement time at maximum operating level feet feet feet square miles maf miles miles Index Value feet maf years 310 10 3.9 Derived from Interior (1966), Lara and Sanders (1970), Hoffman and Jonez (1973) LaBounty and Horn (1997) conducted a study of the influence of drainage from the Las Vegas Valley on the limnology of Boulder Basin that is highly relevant to the issue addressed in this section. Unless otherwise noted, the descriptions of reservoir characteristics, hydrodynamics, and general limnology of Lake Mead are drawn from this study. The Colorado River contributes about 98 percent of the annual inflow to Lake Mead; the Virgin and Muddy rivers and Las Vegas Wash provide the remainder. Annual flows from Las Vegas Wash are approximately 155,000 af, providing the second highest inflow into Lake Mead. Discharge from Hoover Dam is hypolimnetic and occurs 285 feet below the normal operating shown above (1205 feet msl). Average annual discharge is approximately 10 maf. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.5-12 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 261 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Boulder Basin, the lowermost basin of Lake Mead, receives all nonpoint surface and groundwater discharges and treated effluent from the Las Vegas Valley and municipal wastewater treatment facilities via drainage from Las Vegas Wash into Las Vegas Bay. Boulder Basin is 9.3 miles wide from Boulder Canyon to Hoover Dam (Black Canyon), and the distance from the confluence of Las Vegas Wash to Hoover Dam is approximately 9.9 miles. The historical Colorado River channel lies along the eastern side of Boulder Basin. Due to effects of urban runoff and treatment plant effluents on the discharge through Las Vegas Wash (discussed later in this section), Boulder Basin has the highest nutrient concentrations in the Lake Mead system (Paulson and Baker, 1981; Prentki and Paulson, 1983). This is in contrast to the normal upstream-downstream decrease in the pattern of productivity more typical of reservoirs, and results in several limnological features within Boulder Basin that are normally associated with upstream reaches (Kimmel et al., 1990). Overall, Lake Mead is mildly mesotrophic based on several classification indices (Vollenweider 1970; Carlson 1977), including chlorophyll a concentration and secchi transparency measurements. Chlorophyll concentration is a measure of algal biomass ior and can, therefore, be interpreted as an index of lake productivity. tSecchi disk In er 17 e measurements are used to determine the depth to which of thpenetrates0 pt. light er 29, 2 lake water and help to establish the euphotic zone which marksDe areamb lake where primary v. that ve of a o ation on Noccurs. productivity (energy production jby N o photosynthesis) va ed in Na 4, archiv d input into Las Vegas Bay, chlorophyll concentrations have Due to abundantinutrient 686 c te 1 3 been measured greater o. 14than 100 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m ). Secchi N transparency readings of less than two feet have been measured in the inner bay (LaBounty and Horn, 1997). However, secchi transparency increases to over 16 feet, and chlorophyll a is reduced by 90 percent within the first 2.6 miles from the Las Vegas Wash inflow. These findings suggest that Boulder Basin is a relatively isolated embayment and that it is much more productive than the lake as a whole. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.5-13 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.5-14 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Map 3.5-1 Las Vegas Wash and SNWA Lake Mead Intake Facilities at Saddle Island AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 262 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 263 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) Amendments of 1972 and 1977 require the control of all sources of water pollution in meeting the goals of the Act. Section 208 of the Act requires that all activities associated with water pollution problems are planned and managed through an integrated area-wide water quality management program. It also defines the schedule and scope of area-wide wastewater treatment management plans. The 1997 Las Vegas Valley 208 Water Quality Management Plan Amendment certified by the State of Nevada and EPA, is a 20-year plan that comprehensively addresses the quality and quantity of the Valley’s point source (discharges from wastewater treatment facilities) and non-point sources (groundwater, stormwater issues, Las Vegas Wash, agricultural diffuse sources), and revisions of water quality standards. The water quality requirements currently being met by the wastewater discharges of the Las Vegas Valley have a long history. Beginning in the 1950s with requirements for secondary treatment, through the 1970s and the promulgation of the Clean Water Act, and into the 1990s with more advanced nutrient removal requirement, the quality and volume of treated wastewater discharged to Lake Mead has continued to increase and will continue to meet standards into the future through the Section 208 process (Clark County, 1997). r terio he In 2017 The Lake Mead Water Quality Forum, established bytthe f t p . o Nevada Division of 29, Environmental Protection (NDEP), has been v. De ember as an avenue for identified in the Plan n coordinated research opportunities and tsolutions to the water quality issues that face Las Na io d on Nov ajo e Vegas Valley and Laken Navin therfuture. The forum is comprised of federal, state and i Mead 4, a chiv d vested interest in Lake Mead’s water quality. The Lake Mead cite 1686 local agencies with a Water QualityNo. 14 responsible for issue identification, coordination and defining forum is the process approach in identifying issues regarding water quality and potential impacts to the water supply. The Las Vegas Wash Coordination Committee (LVWCC) is comprised of more than two dozen members of local, state, and federal agencies, business owners and members of the public. The LVWCC was tasked with the support, development and implementation of the Las Vegas Wash Comprehensive Adaptive Management Plan (LVWCAMP). The planning phase of the LVCAMP is now complete, and various actions presented in the plan are currently in progress to restore the wash, its wetlands, and its ability to improve the quality of return flows into Lake Mead. Reclamation is an active member of both of these groups and has been independently funding research on Lake Mead water quality prior to their formation and is now a funding partner with other agencies for ongoing studies on the Wash and Lake Mead. Water quality in Lake Mead and Las Vegas Wash are the subject of numerous articles and the chemical and physical analyses of raw and treated Lake Mead source water is published on SNWA’s website (http://www.snwa.com). COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.5-15 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 264 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.5.3.2.2 CHAPTER 3 Lake Mead Water Quality and Limnology Water quality of Lake Mead and the Colorado River is alkaline with a pH of 8.3 and an average concentration of TDS of approximately 700 mg/l. Chemical characteristics of the river at the inflow to Lake Mead, near the outflow at Hoover Dam, and at Lake Mohave are shown below in Table 3.5-4. Table 3.5-4 Chemical Characteristics of Colorado River Parameter pH Conductivity Total Dissolved Solids Calcium Magnesium Potassium Bicarbonate Sulfate Chloride Silica Nitrate Phosphate 1 Gage Station Location1 Units umho/cm mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l Grand Canyon 2 Hoover Dam Davis Dam 8.0 945 617 74 26 4.1 170 228 79 7.0 .50 .010 7.7 1086 705 86 28 4.9 163 283 85 8.3 .41 .013 8.0 1089 714 84 29 5.0 157 293 87 7.8 .28 -- ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N i NavaSeptemberved USGA data, average ford in 1975 – arch 1976 ite October6864, c -1 o. 14 N The principal constituents of TDS are the anions of sulfate, carbonate and chloride and the cations of sodium, calcium, magnesium and potassium. Nitrate concentrations are moderate (0.28 to 0.50 mg/l), but phosphorus is extremely low (0.01 to 0.03 mg/l). Silica is present in very high concentrations (7.0 to 8.3 mg/l). Limnological investigations of Lake Mead have found that 80 percent of the inorganic nitrogen within the lake is provided by the Colorado River, and that Las Vegas Wash contributes 70 percent of the inorganic phosphorus (Paulson, Baker, Deacon, 1980). The Upper Basin of Lake Mead was found to be phosphorus-limited, and the Lower Basin nitrogen-limited during the summer. Equal proportions of nitrogen and phosphorous were retained in the Upper Basin of Lake Mead, but nitrogen retention decreased to seven percent, and phosphorus to 33 percent in the Lower Basin. Additionally, the high nitrate loss from Hoover Dam greatly reduced nitrogen retention in the Lower Basin of Lake Mead. In 1978 the EPA estimated that Lake Mead retained 93 percent of the total phosphorus input versus 52 percent of total nitrogen (EPA, 1978). Phosphorus concentrations are COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.5-16 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 265 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 low in the Upper Basin of the lake due to the low input from the Colorado River, a result of sediment trapping that occurs upstream within Lake Powell. As recently as 1998, new contaminants to Lake Mead have been discovered as a part of the nonpoint pollutant load of Las Vegas Wash (EPA, 2000). Perchlorate has been detected in the water of the Colorado River and Lake Mead. Ammonium perchlorate is manufactured as an oxygen-adding compound in solid rocket fuel propellant, missiles and fireworks. The EPA identified two facilities that manufactured ammonium perchlorate in Henderson, Nevada, that were found to have released perchlorate to groundwater, resulting in four to 16 parts per billion (ppb) concentrations in Lake Mead and the Colorado River (EPA, 2000). The NDEP and the SNWA have initiated a collective investigation to locate and clean up perchlorate in the Colorado River system in coordination with the EPA. The primary objectives are to locate the source, the groundwater discharge sources, clean it up, and prevent it from becoming a problem in the future. The EPA has not established concentration levels of perchlorate because it is not considered a water contaminant. However, California’s Department of Health Services and NDEP have established an interim action level of 18 ppb for drinking water. Concentrations lower than 18 ppb are r not considered to pose a health concern for the public, includingInterio and pregnant children e 17 women. All SNWA drinking water has tested at 11 ppbof th 9, 20 pt. or lower2for perchlorate. Average perchlorate values for water samples . De emberintake were 9.5 ppb v collected at their tion n is not aPerchlorateNov regulated under the Federal between June 1999 and August 2000. ajo N ived o Safe Drinking Water Act Nav and thus information is limited regarding its potential health in arch cited 168 how risks but it is known to affect64, the thyroid processes iodine and is used to treat Graves Disease. o. 14 N In March 1998, perchlorate was added to the Contaminant Candidate List as part of the Safe Drinking Water Act due to the concern over potential public health impact, need for additional research in areas of health effects, treatment technologies, analytical methods, and more complete occurrence data. The SNWA identified a major surface flow of perchlorate-laden water from a groundwater discharge point along Las Vegas Wash in late 1999. Other discharge points are being investigated. Kerr-McGee Chemical Company, with the NDEP, and Reclamation as the land management agency, worked together to begin intercepting that surface flow for treatment. This program is now underway and has significantly reduced the amount of perchlorate entering the Las Vegas Wash, Lake Mead, and the Colorado River. This remediation program will continue into the future and will continue to reduce perchlorate contamination in groundwater and Colorado River water in Lake Mead and downstream. In a soon to be published article on contaminants found in Lake Mead fish by Dr. Jim Cizdziel, University Nevada Las Vegas, only one fish sampled of approximately 300 fish tissues sampled for mercury indicated results above the Federal Department of Agriculture’s 1.0 ppm level of concern. During this 1998-1999 investigation for metals COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.5-17 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 266 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 found in Lake Mead fish tissue, most fish sampled for mercury were less than 0.5 ppm (Pollard, 1999). After reviewing this work, the State of Nevada has decided not to issue any fish consumption advisories for any contaminates for Lake Mead fish (Pohlmann, 1999). The rate and volume of inflow from the Colorado River are major determinants of the limnology of Lake Mead, with minor contributions to volume coming from the Virgin and Muddy rivers and the Las Vegas Wash (see Table 3.5-5). Due to its lower conductivity within Lake Mead, Colorado River flows can be identified through the reservoir. Flows into Lake Mead average approximately 17,900 to 21,400 cfs. During a seven-day controlled flood in 1996, inflows of 44,600 cfs resulted in a three-foot rise in surface elevation. Flows of this magnitude influence reservoir limnology of Lake Mead well into Boulder Basin (LaBounty and Horn, 1997). Table 3.5-5 Hydraulic Inputs for Lake Mead Input Colorado River Virgin River Las Vegas Valley Wash Muddy River Flow (af) 8,800,000 92,000 59,000 29,000 % of Total 98 1 0.60 0.34 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e TOTAL INPUT 9,000,000 v. D mb 100 ation on Nove jo N Derived from USGS data from October 1975 – September 1976 Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. The two major outflows from Lake Mead are both in Boulder Basin: Hoover Dam and the SNWA intake. Hoover Dam is operated for flood control, river regulation and power production purposes. The operating elevation for Hoover Dam powerplant ranges from 1083 feet to a maximum elevation of 1221 feet msl. The dam’s four intake towers draw water from the reservoir at approximate elevations 1050 and/or 900 feet msl to drive the generators within the dam’s powerplant. SNWA pumps water from two adjacent intakes located at Saddle Island that operate down to elevations of 1050 feet and 1000 feet msl. Hoover Dam outflows vary on a daily basis from approximately 2000 cfs to 50,700 cfs. Capacity of the SNWA intake is 600 cfs. Despite its much smaller volume, the SNWA intake has been shown to influence deep water currents near the entrance to Las Vegas Bay (Sartoris and Hoffman, 1971). LaBounty and Horn (1997) cite the rarity of complete turnover in Lake Mead due to the great depth (590 feet), and relatively constant temperature gradient. The thermal regime over the period of 1990 through 1996 was characterized by surface temperatures of 14 degrees Celsius (°C) in December and January to over 30°C in August. Seasonal thermoclines range from 50 feet in early summer to 100 feet in late summer. Hypolimnetic temperatures remain near 12°C year-round. Though full reservoir COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.5-18 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 267 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 turnover seldom occurs, turnover occurs to a depth of approximately 200 to 230 feet in January and February, a sufficient depth for complete mixing in Las Vegas Bay. As with other reservoirs, dam operation exerts a great influence on the water quality and ecology of the system (Thornton, 1990). The hydrodynamics of this large reservoir are complex and not completely understood. Each basin within Lake Mead is ecologically unique, and therefore responds differently to the inflow-outflow regime. Furthermore, the different sources of water entering Lake Mead often retain their identity for substantial distances into the reservoir and do not necessarily mix completely with the rest of the water column (Ford, 1990). This spatial heterogeneity can lead to significant underestimates of actual water retention time, conveyance and fate of materials transported into the reservoir. 3.5.3.2.3 Hydrodynamics of Lake Mead and Boulder Basin The Colorado River, Virgin and Muddy rivers and Las Vegas Wash all form density currents in Lake Mead (Anderson and Pritchard, 1951; Deacon and Tew, 1973; Deacon 1975, 1976, 1977; Baker et al., 1977; Baker and Paulson, 1978). Anderson and Pritchard (1951) conducted a detailed investigation of density currents in 1948-1949 using temperature and TDS relationships to trace the river inflows.terior found that the In They Colorado River flowed along the bottom of the old riverof the in winter 7 channel , 201 (Januaryt. 9 March). The underflow was detectable well v. DepVirginber 2 and at times extended into the m Basin nstrong convergence at the point where river e to Boulder Basin. The underflow created a Natio d o Nov ajoUp-lakeeflown surface water occurred due to v water flowed beneath lake water. chiv of in Na dparallel 64, ar lake water (entrainment) along the boundary of the frictionally induced, flow of ite c 68 14 1 cold river inflow. .This-produced a large circulation cell in the Upper Basin of Lake No Mead, as surface water was pulled up-lake to replace that entrained by the underflow. Hydrodynamics within Las Vegas Bay have also been the subject of research and are particularly important from the standpoint of potential interactions between Las Vegas Wash water and intake water quality. LaBounty and Horn (1997) provide an excellent discussion of flow patterns in this area of Lake Mead. These authors cite unique signatures of both Colorado River water and Las Vegas Wash water that allow mapping of higher conductivity intrusions from Las Vegas Wash into Boulder Basin. Depending on conditions, the intrusion can be measured for over five miles into Lake Mead. Seasonally, the Las Vegas Wash intrusion is deepest in January and February (130 to 200 feet) and shallowest in early spring (33 to 50 feet). Water quality in Las Vegas Wash, and ultimately in Boulder Basin, is heavily influenced by urban runoff, as well as the treated effluent from three major sewage treatment facilities upstream. Historically, flows in this basin drained wetlands, which allowed for natural cooling and nutrient removal. Flows today are warmer and have doubled in volume over the last 15 years, from 110 cfs to 215 cfs (LaBounty and Horn, COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.5-19 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 268 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 1997). These factors have tended to force the intrusion higher in the water column of Las Vegas Bay. The existence of contaminants in sediments and fish tissue in Las Vegas Bay, and poor water quality has been well documented (LaBounty and Horn, 1996; Roefer et al., 1996; Bevans et al., 1996). LaBounty and Horn (1997) cite the relatively close proximity of the SNWA intake at Saddle Island to potential intrusions of the Las Vegas Wash, and conclude that changes in hydrodynamics of the basin (i.e., due to drought or management actions) are critical considerations in assessing effects of the Las Vegas Wash on drinking water quality. 3.5.3.3 3.5.3.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES General Effects of Reduced Lake Levels This section presents potential water quality changes in Lake Mead associated with reductions in lake levels, and potential effects of these changes on the concentration of Las Vegas Wash water at SNWA water supply intakes. In addition, this section addresses general limnological changes in Lake Mead that may occur under each r alternative. terio In 7 f he . ointLake29, 201 pt It is important to note that estimates of potentialDe changes ber Mead surface v. elevations are based on system modelingon Section i discussed in vem 3.3. Water quality No Nat modeling has not been conducted as a part of this investigation; however, literature vajo hived on in Na review and assumptions with64, arc Las Vegas Wash mixing in the Boulder Basin ited 68 regard to c under various Lake 14-1 elevations have been used to estimate potential future water Mead No. quality conditions. Results of model runs conducted for this analysis indicate that projections of baseline conditions and each of the interim surplus criteria alternatives indicate increased potential over time for the occurrence of declining Lake Mead surface elevations within and beyond the interim 15-year period, as indicated by the plots of median elevations on Figure 3.5-5. The potential degradation of SNWA intake water is not demonstrated quantitatively in this FEIS, rather the expectation of degradation is based on the assumption that decreasing lake levels, and therefore lake volume and surface area, could result in decreased water quality and, more specifically, increased concentration of Las Vegas Wash inflow at the intake locations. The potential effects associated with Lake Mead elevation declines are described below, and are followed by a tabular comparison of the projected Lake Mead volume and surface area changes under the alternatives and baseline conditions. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.5-20 1000 2000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200 1220 2005 2010 2015 2020 3.5-21 Year 2025 2030 2035 Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative 2040 2045 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 Baseline Conditions o. 14 N Basin States Alternative Figure 3.5-5 Lake Mead End-of-Year Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions th 50 Percentile Values COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Water Surface Elevation (feet) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 269 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 270 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.5.3.3.1.1 CHAPTER 3 Volume Reduction Reduction in the volume of Lake Mead would likely have effects on lake water quality and, potentially, on water quality withdrawn by SNWA. These effects occur as a result of changes in mixing patterns in Boulder Basin. Given the hydrodynamics of Boulder Basin associated with the relatively confined nature of the embayment, effects of reduction in volume of Lake Mead would likely be disproportionately greater in Boulder Basin than in the lake as a whole. LaBounty and Horn (1997) cite the importance of salinity and thermal gradients in determining the extent of intrusion of the Las Vegas Wash into Boulder Basin. Lower lake volumes could increase the overall salinity of the Boulder Basin, thereby lowering the differential between lake water and inflows of the Las Vegas Wash. This in turn may act to disperse the intrusion, causing a more diffuse flow from Las Vegas Wash, a greater concentration of nutrients and contaminants throughout Boulder Basin, and greater availability of nonpoint contaminants in the vicinity of the SNWA intakes. Clark County’s 208 Water Quality Plan certified by EPA and NDEP, regulates the quality and quantity of discharges from wastewater treatment facilities that flow into Lake Mead. These discharges currently meet standards and will do so into the future (Clark County, 1997). The SNWA is in the process of upgrading its raw water treatment facilities and these state of the art facilities will be able to meet ior any treatment challenges from reduced reservoir levels caused bynter I drought or declines f the 9, 2017 from interim surplus alternatives. pt. o 2 . De ber ion v Novem 3.5.3.3.1.2 Tributary Water at jo NQuality on Nava archived in Lower water surface elevations in Lake Mead could also impact the quality of tributary cited 16864, flows from the Las Vegas Wash, Virgin and Muddy rivers. These effects would be a o. 14 Nchannels, and thus, longer travel times for influent streams. Potential result of longer effects on Lake Mead could include increased temperature due to warmer tributary flows. Higher evaporative losses and greater concentration of salts and contaminants may also occur in tributaries due to longer channels, leading to higher concentrations of pollutants in the Las Vegas Wash, and potentially greater concentrations of contaminants near the SNWA intakes. However, new riparian habitat development near the mouths and in these tributaries would likely develop and would be expected to offset impacts to tributary water quality. Restoration of the Las Vegas Wash wetlands will trap surface and groundwater contaminants, cool return flows and further improve the quality of return flows before it reaches Lake Mead. 3.5.3.3.2 Comparison of Baseline Conditions and Alternatives Section 3.5.3.3.1, above, discussed the general water quality effects that may be expected given reduced Lake Mead surface elevations and volumes. The following sections compare predicted surface elevations, volume, and surface area of Lake Mead under baseline and alternative conditions. This analysis is based on system modeling COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.5-22 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 271 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 results; specifically the 50 percent (median) probability elevations, as shown on Figure 3.5-5. Characteristics of Lake Mead (elevation, volume, surface area) under baseline and alternative conditions are shown below for four selected years (i.e., years 2016, 2026, 2036 and 2050) within the modeled period, as shown in Table 3.5-6. A comparison of the percentage difference between the alternatives and baseline conditions is shown in Table 3.5-7. It should be noted that median elevations converge with the baseline condition towards the end of the period of analysis, resulting in minimal differences among the alternatives and baseline conditions in the year 2050. 3.5.3.3.2.1 Baseline Conditions Baseline projections indicate a general trend of decreasing Lake Mead surface elevations, volume and surface area over the period of analysis, as shown above on Figure 3.5-5 and in Table 3.5-4. At the end of the interim surplus criteria period, 2016, the median elevation for Lake Mead is 1162 feet msl, a reduction of 15 feet from the surface elevation in 2002. The median baseline elevation in 2050 is 1111 feet msl for a total reduction in the median elevation of 76 feet over the entire period of analysis. This increased potential for lake level reductions would be expected to result r an increased terio in he Ineffects17 the SNWA potential for declining water quality of Lake Mead and associated , 20 on of t 9 ept. under baseline conditions. intake (discussed in Section 3.5.3.3.1, above) over time mber 2 v. D n e Natio d on Nov o ajAlternative 3.5.3.3.2.2 Basin Nav States ive d in 64, arch cite 8 Modeling of the Basin -16 Alternative indicates intermediate reductions in surface . 14States No elevations, surface area and volume compared with baseline conditions in the year 2016 (when the largest differences among the alternatives are seen). The median elevation in year 2016 under the Basin States Alternative is 1143 feet msl, or 1.6 percent lower than baseline conditions in the same year, with reservoir volume approximate 12 percent lower than baseline conditions and volume becoming slightly greater than baseline by the year 2026 and slightly less than baseline in 2036. By the year 2050 no differences between this alternative and baseline conditions are present. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.5-23 1143.3 1162.1 1145.5 Basin States Flood Control Six States 1124.7 1128.0 1124.7 1125.7 2026 2050 1110.6 1110.6 1110.6 1110.6 2036 1120.7 1120.4 1118.9 1120.5 16.0 17.9 15.8 17.9 2016 13.8 14.1 13.8 13.9 2026 13.4 13.2 13.4 13.4 2036 Volume (maf) 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 2050 109.4 120.2 108.1 120.2 2016 99.3 100.7 99.3 99.8 2026 97.5 96.8 97.4 97.6 2036 Surface Area (x 1000 acres) -1.6% 0.00% -1.4% -2.7% -2.7% Flood Control Six States California Shortage Protection 1117.6 1110.6 14.5 13.0 13.1 12.5 -0.2% 0.00% 0.00% 1.4% -1.5% 0.00% 0.00% -10.1 -0.7% -0.8% 3.5-24 -0.3% 0.00% -19.6% -5.0% -0.3% 0.00% -19.0% -6.5% -2.2% 0.00% -15.4% -3.3% -2.2% 0.00% -15.1% -3.9% -0.5% 0.9% -0.5 102.1 -0.1% 0.00% 0.00% -10.6% -0.7% 0.00% 0.00% -9.0% 0.2% -0.1% 0.00% 0.00% -11.7% -0.7% 0.00% 0.00% th 1116.4 Basin States 1131.2 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 California 0.00% 96.3 -1.3% 0.00% -1.3% 0.00% -0.2% 0.00% -0.8% 0.00% -0.2 95.9 or 96.3 Shortage Protection 1130.2 1117.9 1117.6 1110.6 14.4 13.2 13.1 12.5 101.7eri96.5 Int e of th 29, 2017 Values shown are median elevations (50 percentile) for each year group. pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N Table vajo hived3.5-7 Modeled in Na Comparisons of Alternatives to Baseline Conditions rc a cited 16864, Volume Change Surface Area Change 1 Elevation Change Alternative o.20164 2026 2036 2050 2016 2026 2036 2050 2016 2026 2036 2050 N 1162.1 2016 Baseline Conditions Alternative Elevation (feet above msl) 1 Table 3.5-6 Modeled Characteristics of Lake Mead Under Baseline and Alternative Conditions AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 93.6 93.6 93.6 93.6 93.6 93.6 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 272 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 273 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.5.3.3.2.3 Baseline Conditions Baseline projections indicate a general trend of decreasing Lake Mead surface elevations, volume and surface area over the period of analysis, as shown above on Figure 3.5-5 and in Table 3.5-4. At the end of the interim surplus criteria period, 2016, the median elevation for Lake Mead is 1162 feet msl, a reduction of 15 feet from the surface elevation in 2002. The median baseline elevation in 2050 is 1111 feet msl for a total reduction in the median elevation of 76 feet over the entire period of analysis. This increased potential for lake level reductions would be expected to result in an increased potential for declining water quality of Lake Mead and associated effects on the SNWA intake (discussed in Section 3.5.3.3.1, above) over time under baseline conditions. 3.5.3.3.2.4 Basin States Alternative Modeling of the Basin States Alternative indicates intermediate reductions in surface elevations, surface area and volume compared with baseline conditions in the year 2016 (when the largest differences among the alternatives are seen). The median elevation in year 2016 under the Basin States Alternative is 1143 feet msl, or 1.6 percent lower than baseline conditions in the same year, with reservoir volume approximate 12 percent ior lower than baseline conditions and volume becoming slightly greaterrthan baseline by Inte 17 the year 2026 and slightly less than baseline in 2036. By f thyear 2050 0 differences the e no pt. o er 29, 2 e present.b between this alternative and baseline conditionsD v. are m n e Natio d on Nov ajoAlternative 3.5.3.3.2.5 Flood Nav Control ive d in 64, arch cite 8 Modeling of the Flood -16 . 14 Control Alternative produces similar surface elevations, surface No area, and volume compared with baseline conditions in the year 2016, with the elevation, surface area and volume becoming slightly greater then baseline by the year 2026 and slightly less than baseline in 2036. By the year 2050 no differences between this alternative and baseline conditions are present. 3.5.3.3.2.6 Six States Alternative Modeling of the Six States Alternative indicates a Lake Mead surface elevation 1.4 percent lower and a volume 10.6 percent lower than baseline conditions in 2016. By the year 2026 and for the remaining period of analysis, differences between baseline conditions and this alternative are within one percent. 3.5.3.3.2.7 California Alternative Modeling of the California Alternative indicates a volume of Lake Mead in the year 2016 that is 19 percent lower than baseline conditions, with the difference decreasing to 6.5 percent and 2.2 percent in the years 2026 and 2036, respectively. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.5-25 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 274 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.5.3.3.2.8 Shortage Protection Alternative Modeling of the Shortage Protection Alternative indicates similar changes in volume reduction as the California Alternative throughout the period of analysis, with volume 19.6 percent lower than baseline conditions in 2016, 6.5 percent lower in 2026 and 2.2 percent lower in 2036. 3.5.3.3.2.9 Summary of Changes in Lake Mead Volume and Elevation Tables 3.5-6 and 3.5-7 summarize modeled changes in Lake Mead surface elevation, area, and volume under each of the alternatives as compared with baseline conditions. With the exception of the Flood Control Alternative, each of the alternatives indicate an increase potential for lower surface elevations, surface area and lake volume. These difference are most pronounced in year 2016, the end of the interim surplus criteria period. The greatest differences compared with baseline conditions are associated with the California and Shortage Protection alternatives, with intermediate differences indicated by the Basin States and Six States alternatives. 3.5.4 WATER QUALITY BETWEEN HOOVER DAM AND SOUTHERLY r INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY terio n the I , 2 17 . of contaminants0in the Lower There have been concerns from the EPA and others pt De about er 29 n v.SIB. ovemb there is little site specific Colorado River between Hoover Dam and the atio N However, ajo N USGS on study of mercury and other data from this segment of thev Na river. Ahived (1995) contaminants foundd in and4, arc located in the Yuma Valley area concluded that in fish 6 wildlife cite 1 8 mercury is not a problem.6 14No. The above study also indicates that selenium is also not a problem for fish and wildlife. Selenium in Colorado River water in the Yuma Valley had a median value of less than one micrograms per liter (μg/l). This research also confirms what other previous selenium studies have concluded: selenium in the LCR and its biota remains below the DOI level of concern of five μg/l. A 1986-1987 study by the USGS indicated a finding of 3.4 μg/l or less for dissolved selenium at several sites in the Lower Colorado River (USGS, 1988). Department of Interior’s Pre-reconnaissance Investigation Guides (1992) reported similar findings of less than 3.4 μg/l in Colorado River water at Pilot Knob. In the 1995 USGS study of the Yuma area, measured selenium in 18 water samples averaged 1.72 μg/l, with a maximum of 8.0 μg/l and a minimum of less than 1.0 μg/l. Nine of the 18 measurement results were reported to be less than 1.0 μg/l. Currently there are no state fish consumption advisories for mercury, selenium or any other contaminants on the Lower Colorado River (Ketinger, 2000). Water quality studies will continue in this segment of the river during the 15-year period of proposed interim surplus criteria. None of the action alternatives are anticipated to increase concentrations of contaminants beyond the noted limits. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.5-26 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 275 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.6 RIVERFLOW ISSUES 3.6.1 INTRODUCTION This section considers the potential effects of interim surplus criteria on three types of releases from Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam. The Glen Canyon Dam releases analyzed are those needed for restoration of beaches and habitat along the Colorado River between the Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead, and for a yet to be defined program of low steady summer flows to be provided for the study and recovery of endangered Colorado River fish, in years when releases from the dam are near the minimum. The Hoover Dam releases analyzed are the frequency of flood releases from the dam and the effect of flood flows along the river downstream of Hoover Dam. 3.6.2 BEACH/HABITAT-BUILDING FLOWS The construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam has caused two major changes related to sediment resources downstream in Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon. The first is reduced sediment supply. Because the dam traps virtually all of the incoming sediment from the Upper Basin in Lake Powell, the Colorado River is now released from the dam as clear water. The second major change is the reduction in the high ior Inter 17 releases. water zone from the level of pre-dam annual floods to the level of powerplant f the 9, 20 Thus, the height of annual sediment deposition and pt. o hasr been reduced. erosion 2 De . be on v N em atipreparation ovthe Operation of Glen Canyon During the investigations leadingo N on of aj to the Nav1995b),hived Dam Final EIS (Reclamation, in arc the relationships between releases from the dam c ted 16864, and downstreamisedimentation processes were brought sharply into focus, and flow 4patterns designed . 1 Noto conserve sediment for building beaches and habitat (i.e., beach/habitat-building flow, or BHBF releases) were identified. The BHBF releases are scheduled high releases of short duration that exceed the hydraulic capacity of the powerplant. Such releases were presented as a commitment in the ROD (Reclamation, 1996e) for the Operation of the Glen Canyon Dam FEIS, at a then-assumed frequency of one in five years. In addition to the BHBF releases described above that exceed the hydraulic capacity of the Glen Canyon Powerplant, the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam FEIS identified the need for Beach/Habitat Maintenance Flow releases which do not exceed the hydraulic capacity of the powerplant. These flows were designed to prevent backwater habitat from filling with sediment and to reduce vegetation on camping beaches in years between BHBFs. BHBF releases and Beach/Habitat Maintenance Flows serve as a tool for maintaining a mass balance of sediment in Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.6-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 276 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.6.2.1 METHODOLOGY The frequencies at which BHBF releases from Glen Canyon Dam would occur under baseline conditions and under operation of the interim surplus criteria alternatives were estimated through the use of modeling as described in Section 3.3. The model was configured to simulate BHBF releases by incorporating the BHBF triggering criteria (contained in Section 3.6.2.2) into the Glen Canyon Dam operating rules. The model was also configured to make no more than one BHBF release in any given year. 3.6.2.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Sediment along the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam is an important and dynamic resource which affects fish and wildlife habitat along the river, creates camping beaches for recreation, and serves to protect cultural resources. Except for remnants of high river terraces deposited prior to the closure of Glen Canyon Dam, the now limited sediment supply that exists along the river channel is affected by dam operations. ior er Since construction of Glen Canyon Dam, the measured suspended tsediment load (sand, he In million tons per 017 silt, and clay) at Phantom Ranch (in the Grand Canyon)of t pt. averages 11, 2 29 . De the Little year. Most of this load comes from the PariavRiver andember Colorado River. ion N v Flash floods from other side canyons at contributeo the sediment supply ajo N alsoed on to iv (Reclamation, 1995b).in Nav The suspended sediment load is sporadic in occurrence, arch ited 6864, releases and tributary inputs. c depending on Glen Canyon Dam -1 14 No. Beneficial sediment mobilization and deposition below Glen Canyon Dam depends on the interaction of two occurrences for full effectiveness: the addition of sediment to the river corridor and BHBF releases. The higher energy of BHBF releases mobilizes suspended and riverbed-stored sand and deposits it as beaches in beach and shoreline areas. Once a BHBF release has been made, additional sediment supply from tributary inflows is needed before subsequent BHBF releases are fully effective in promoting further beach and sandbar deposition along the river. Subsequent to the ROD cited above, the representatives of the AMP further refined specific criteria under which BHBFs would be made. The criteria provide that under the following two triggering conditions, BHBF releases may be made from Glen Canyon Dam: 1. If the January forecast for the January-July unregulated spring runoff into Lake Powell exceeds 13 maf (about 140 percent of normal) when January 1 content is greater than 21.5 maf; or 2. Any time a Lake Powell inflow forecast would require a monthly powerplant release greater than 1.5 maf. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.6-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 277 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Research concerning the relationships among dam operations, downstream sediment inflow, river channel and sandbar characteristics, and particle-size distribution along the river is ongoing. 3.6.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The effects of the interim surplus criteria alternatives on BHBF releases from Glen Canyon Dam were analyzed in terms of the yearly frequency at which BHBF releases could be made. Specifically, the frequency was indicated by the occurrence of one or both of the triggering criteria cited above, during a calendar year. The following discussion presents probability of occurrence under baseline conditions, and then compares the probability of BHBF releases under each interim surplus criteria alternative with the baseline conditions. Figure 3.6-1 shows the probabilities that BHBF releases could be made under baseline conditions and the action alternatives. The plots show that the probabilities will decrease over the first decade to an irregular range of approximately 10 to 15 percent or lower, which is maintained until a slight rising trend appears in the last 15 years of the period of analysis. The trends result from the interaction of various factors, including projected increases in depletions by the Upper Division states and the irequirements for or Inter 17 equalization of storage in Lakes Powell and Mead. The operational parameter most f the 9 20 directly comparable to the plotted relationships is eptfuture median,water level of Lake the . o D level of er 2 Powell. As can be seen on Figure 3.3-6,on v. the medianovembthe reservoir is projected to ati nN recover somewhat in the last vajyears of the period of analysis. This correlates to the 15 o N ed o a hiv slight rise in BHBF d in N probabilities in the final 15 years. release , arc cite 16864 14Table 3.6-1 summarizes the BHBF release probabilities during the interim period and No. the subsequent period to 2050, based on the data plotted in Figure 3.6-1. The table reflects the higher average probability during the interim period than during the succeeding period ending in 2050. Table 3.6-1 Probabilities of BHBF Releases from Glen Canyon Dam Percent of Time That Conditions Needed for BHBF Releases Would Occur at Lake Powell Period Baseline Condition Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative Through 2016 15.9% 14.8% 15.9% 14.9% 13.0% 13.0% 2017-2050 13.5% 13.4% 13.5% 13.4% 13.2% 13.2% COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.6-3 0% 2000 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 2005 2010 2015 2020 3.6-4 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 ior Inter 17 e of th 29 0 Baseline Conditions , 2 pt. States Alternative . De Basinmber v Flood ation on Nove Control Alternative Six States Alternative jo N ved Nava archi California Alternative in Shortage Protection Alternative ited 6864, c -1 14 No. Figure 3.6-1 Lake Powell Releases Probability of Occurrence of BHBF Flows COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Probability of Occurrence AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2045 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 278 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 279 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.6.2.3.1 Baseline Conditions During the interim period, the average probability under baseline conditions that BHBF releases could be made in a given year is approximately 15.9 percent, which is equivalent to about one year in six. During the subsequent period ending in 2050, the average probability is approximately 13.5 percent, which is equivalent to about one year in seven. The reduction in probability after 2015 under baseline conditions results from the fact that with time, the Lake Powell water level will probably decline because of increased Upper Basin depletions, as illustrated in Section 3.3. This water level decline would gradually reduce the probability that the BHBF triggering criteria would occur. 3.6.2.3.2 Basin States Alternative During the interim period, the average probability under the Basin States Alternative that BHBF releases could be made in any single year is approximately 14.8 percent, which equates to approximately one year in seven. During the subsequent period ending in 2050, the average probability is approximately 13.4 percent, which is equivalent to about one year in seven. ior Inter 17 f the During the interim period, the average probability under the Flood9, 20 Alternative pt. o er 2 Control e that BHBF releases could be made in any singleD isemb n v. ioin six. year v approximately 15.9 percent, t No which equates to approximately jone year o Na ed onDuring the subsequent period ending va is approximately 13.5 percent, which is equivalent to Na in 2050, the average probability rchiv ed in itseven. 6864, a about one year c in -1 o. 14 N 3.6.2.3.4 Six States Alternative 3.6.2.3.3 Flood Control Alternative During the interim period, the average probability under the Six States Alternative that BHBF releases could be made in any single year is approximately 14.9 percent, which equates to approximately one year in seven. During the subsequent period ending in 2050, the average probability is approximately 13.4 percent, which is equivalent to about one year in seven. 3.6.2.3.5 California Alternative During the interim period, the average probability under the California Alternative that BHBF releases could be made in any single year is approximately 13.0 percent, which equates to approximately one year in eight. During the subsequent period ending in 2050, the average probability is approximately 13.2 percent, which is equivalent to about one year in eight. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.6-5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 280 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.6.2.3.6 Shortage Protection Alternative During the interim period, the average probability under the Shortage Protection Alternative that BHBF releases could be made in any single year is approximately 13.0 percent, which equates to approximately one year in eight. During the subsequent period ending in 2050, the average probability is approximately 13.2 percent, which is equivalent to about one year in eight. 3.6.3 LOW STEADY SUMMER FLOW 3.6.3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT During preparation of the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam FEIS, it was hypothesized that steady flows with a seasonal pattern may have a beneficial effect on the potential recovery of special status fish species down stream of Glen Canyon Dam. Accordingly, development of an experimental water release strategy was recommended by the Service to achieve steady flows when compatible with water supply conditions and the requirements of other resources. The strategy included developing and verifying a yet to be defined program of experimental flows which would include providing high steady flows in the spring and low steady flows in summer and fall during water years rior when a volume of approximately 8.23 maf is released from he Inte Glen Canyon Dam. This t 017 strategy, commonly referred to as the low steady summerfflow program, was contained pt. o er 29, 2 . De in the Final Biological Opinion on the Operation of Glenmb ion v Nove Canyon Dam (Service, N t December 1994c), and recognized in a ROD for the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam vajo theved on i FEIS (USDI, 1996).d in Na arch cite 16864, 143.6.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES No. The ability to test the low steady summer flow release strategy at Glen Canyon Dam according to the ROD could be affected by the implementation of interim surplus criteria. This matter was investigated by analyzing the model releases from Glen Canyon Dam to determine the probabilities at which minimum releases of 8.23 maf per water year would occur. Figure 3.6-2 shows the annual probabilities of minimum releases from Glen Canyon Dam during the period of analysis. Note that the first year plotted is 2003, since 2003 would be the first complete water year (October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2003) during the interim period. The plots show that the probabilities increase through 2023, from approximately 20 to 25 percent to approximately 60 percent, which is maintained until another increase to 67 percent occurs during the last 15 years of the analysis. The trends result from the interaction of various factors that affect annual releases from Glen Canyon Dam, including projected increases in depletions by the Upper Division states and the requirements for equalization of storage in Lakes Powell and Mead. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.6-6 0% 2000 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 2005 2010 2015 2020 3.6-7 Water Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 Shortage Protection Alternative California Alternative Six States Alternative 2045 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc Baseline Conditions cite 168 Basin States Alternative o. 14 Flood Control Alternative N Figure 3.6-2 Lake Powell Releases Probability of Approximately 8.23 maf Annual Release COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Probability of Occurrence AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 281 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 282 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Table 3.6-2 summarizes the probabilities that minimum releases would occur during the interim period and the subsequent period to 2050, based on data plotted in Figure 3.6-2. Probabilities are summarized by water year because releases from Glen Canyon Dam are accounted for by water year under provisions of the LROC. The results indicate that under baseline conditions, the probability of 8.23 maf annual releases from the dam is approximately 38.2 percent during the interim period and 61.6 percent during the subsequent period ending in 2050. The probabilities under all alternatives are similar to those under baseline conditions after 2006. Under the Flood Control Alternative, the probability is approximately the same as for baseline conditions, as shown on Table 3.62. The probabilities under the remaining four interim surplus criteria alternatives during the interim period are one to two percent less than under baseline conditions. During the subsequent period through 2050, the probabilities resulting from the remaining four surplus criteria would be one to two percent higher than under baseline conditions. Table 3.6-2 Probability of Minimum Glen Canyon Dam Releases (Annual Releases of 8.23 maf) Period (Water Years) Baseline Condition Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative ior Inter 17 Through 38.2% 36.3% 38.4% 36.2%he 35.8% 0 ft 2016 pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D 61.9%b m 2017-2050 61.6% 61.9% 61.6% 62.2% ation on Nove N ajo is basedd v Note: The "water year" on whichNaaccounting hive extends from October 1 to September 30. this d in 64, arc cite 168 14No. 3.6.4 Shortage Protection Alternative 36.3% 62.1% FLOODING DOWNSTREAM OF HOOVER DAM Under the BCPA, flood control was specified as the project purpose having first priority for the operation of Hoover Dam. Subsequently, Section 7 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 established that the Secretary of War (now the Corps) will prescribe regulations for flood control for projects authorized, wholly or in part, for such purposes. The Los Angeles District of the Corps published the current flood control regulations in the Water Control Manual for Flood Control, Hoover Dam and Lake Mead Colorado River, Nevada and Arizona (Water Control Manual) dated December 1982. The Field Working Agreement between Corps and Reclamation for the flood control operation of Hoover Dam and Lake Mead, as prescribed by the Water Control Manual, was signed on February 8, 1984. The flood control plan is the result of a coordinated effort between the Corps and Reclamation; however, the Corps is responsible for providing the flood control regulations and has authority for final approval. The Secretary is responsible for operating Hoover Dam in accordance with these regulations. Any deviation from the flood control operating instructions must be authorized by the Corps. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.6-8 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 283 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 This analysis addresses the flooding that occurs along the Colorado River below Hoover Dam. The evaluation focuses on the change in the probability that various “threshold” flows would be released from Hoover, Davis and Parker Dams. A threshold flow rate is one at which flood damages have been found to begin to occur along the river. The analysis is not limited to dam releases made expressly in connection with flood control operation, but also includes releases made for water supply and power generation purposes. For example, power generation requirements can cause releases from Hoover Dam to exceed 19,000 cfs, with such releases being regulated in Lake Mohave downstream. In addition, the analysis presents data on land use and anticipated flood damages that were developed by the Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers in the Review of Flood Control Regulations, Colorado River Basin, Hoover Dam, July 1982 (Corps, 1982). 3.6.4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Historical flows downstream of Hoover Dam have caused flood damages at various points along the lower Colorado River. A key threshold level was established as a result of flooding that occurred in 1983 when uncontrolled releases occurred over the Hoover Dam spillways. The high Colorado River flows caused damages primarily to encroachments in the Colorado River floodplain. In addition, several ilower thresholds or Inter subsections. that are significant along various reaches are evaluated infthe e th following017 t. o 9, 2 Dep Act) originated from .(Floodwaymber 2 v The Colorado River Floodway Protection Act e ation othe flood. Nfollowing n Nov The Floodway Act called for Congressional hearings held inajo 1983 d av hive the establishment ofd ifederally declared floodway from Davis Dam to the SIB. The anN , arc 4 cite 168 either a 1-in-100 year river flow consisting of controlled floodway is to accommodate6 41 releases and tributary inflow, or a flow of 40,000 cfs, whichever is greater. As No. discussed in Section 3.3.1, certain flood release rates from Hoover Dam are required depending on flood flow into Lake Mead and the amount of available storage space. Estimates of development in the flood plains below Hoover Dam were last made by the Corps based on 1979 data (Corps, 1982). These data are presented in Table 3.6-3. 3.6.4.1.1 Hoover Dam to Davis Dam Critical flood flows for the reach between Hoover Dam and Davis Dam are 19,000 cfs, 28,000 cfs, 35,000 cfs, 43,000 cfs, and 73,000 cfs. 3.6.4.1.2 Davis Dam to Parker Dam The river is within levees for most of the reach from Davis Dam to Parker Dam. Historical flood flows have caused damage to some of the bank protection. Minor damage begins to occur at flows of 26,000 cfs. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.6-9 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 284 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Table 3.6-3 1 Development in Flood Plains Between Hoover Dam and SIB, 1979 Data (Number of structures unless otherwise noted) Flood Flow (cfs) 100,000 Mobile Homes Residential Commercial/ Public/ Industrial Semipublic Agriculture (acres) Recreation 5 Facilities 1,609 1,457 74 70 55,089 278 71,000 2 758 786 54 66 15,861 277 48,000 3 164 198 13 10 2,671 277 38,000 4 101 138 4 6 176 232 17 44 1 0 90 201 28,000 1 Corps of Engineers, Colorado River Basin Hoover Dam, Review of Flood Control Regulations. Final Report, July 1982. Table C-1. 2 78,000 cfs at Needles. 3 50,000 cfs at Needles. 4 40,000 cfs at Needles. 5 Recreation facilities are primarily boat docks that would sustain significant damage with high flows. ior Inter 17 he Critical flood flows for the reach between Hoover Dam of t Davis9, 20are 19,000 cfs, pt. and er 2 Dam De b 28,000 cfs, 35,000 cfs, 43,000 cfs, and 73,000.cfs. ion v Novem at on ajo N 3.6.4.1.4 Davis Damin Nav Dam ived to Parker rch a cited 16864, The river is within levees for most of the reach from Davis Dam to Parker Dam. 14No. 3.6.4.1.3 Hoover Dam to Davis Dam Historical flood flows have caused damage to some of the bank protection. Minor damage begins to occur at flows of 26,000 cfs. 3.6.4.1.5 Parker Dam to Laguna Dam Below Parker Dam, significant damage to permanent homes has occurred during releases within the flood operation criteria. This area has been further developed since the flood operations in 1983. Minor damage begins at 19,000 cfs along the Parker Strip (the reach of river between Parker Dam and the town of Parker, Arizona). Backwater regions, which function as wildlife refuges and recreational areas, accumulated sediment, and in some cases, became isolated from the Colorado River. Historical flood flows have also resulted in damage to infrastructure of government agencies. 3.6.4.1.6 Laguna Dam to SIB Below Laguna Dam, the banks of the Colorado River are not protected. Historical flood flows have resulted in significant damage to the banks. Associated increases of groundwater level in the Yuma area have also resulted in some lands becoming water logged and caused drains to cease functioning. During the scoping process for this COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.6-10 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 285 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 DEIS, a letter from the Yuma County Water Users’ Association states that “[o]ur landowners are harmed by such releases, particularly should the flood control releases be required to go beyond the 19,000 cubic feet per second Hoover release level" (Pope, 1999). The letter indicates that a flood control release of 28,000 cfs or greater could result in upwards of $200 million in damages to the Yuma area. Other injured parties could include the City of Yuma, the County of Yuma, Cocopah Indian Tribe, the Gila Valley, Bard Irrigation District, and the Quechan Indian Tribe. Additional flows of concern include: • Laguna Dam south to Pilot Knob: 9,000 cfs is the threshold value. Flows of 10,000 cfs to 11,000 cfs impact leach fields of trailer parks located within levees. • Pilot Knob to SIB: 15,000 cfs is a threshold value. Above that level, high groundwater, localized crop damage and damage to the United States Bypass Drain occur. 3.6.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES rior The effects of the interim surplus criteria on flood flows weree Inte by7 h analyzed determining . of t r 2 reach 1 the probabilities that releases from Davis and Parker Dams would 9, 20or exceed ept e certain flow rates that have been found to be v. D for damages. In addition, the n thresholdsemb o atireleases of various magnitudes would be made Nov analysis addressed the probabilitiesN on jo that Nava archived flood control releases discussed in from Hoover Dam corresponding to the required in , cited 168 Hoover Dam. The release probabilities were determined Section 3.3.1.2, Operation of64 from results ofNo. 14 river system modeling described in Section 3.3. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 3.6-4. The results portrayed on Table 3.6.3 show that except for the Flood Control Alternative, the action alternatives would reduce the probability of flows at or above the damage thresholds. The Corps estimated the likely damage to development based on the 1979 land use data (Corps, 1982). These data are presented in Table 3.6-5. The data on direct, physical damages presented in Table 3.6-5 are based on simultaneous flooding along all reaches of the river from Hoover Dam to the SIB. The data show that damages increase much more rapidly than the size of the flow. For example, a 48,000-cfs flow has 15 times the impact of a 22,000-cfs flow, while the flow increases by only 2.2 times. A 48,000 cfs flow has a less than one-in-500 probability of occurring in any one year, while a 22,000 cfs flow has a greater than one-in-20 probability of occurring in any one year under all alternatives. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.6-11 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 286 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Table 3.6-4 Discharge Probabilities from Hoover, Davis and Parker Dams Percent of Years With Flows Greater Than or Equal to Discharge Release Point Discharge 1 (cfs) Baseline Basin States Conditions Alternative Flood Control Alternative California Alternative Six States Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative Years 2002 to 2016 Hoover Dam 19,000 20.8 18.8 21.2 16.3 18.6 16.9 Hoover Dam 28,000 7.5 7.2 7.7 5.5 7.1 5.8 Hoover Dam 35,000 2.1 2.0 2.1 1.6 2.0 1.7 Hoover Dam 40,000 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Hoover Dam 73,000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Davis Dam 26,000 8.6 8.1 9.1 7.0 8.0 7.1 Parker Dam 19,500 10.4 9.4 11.3 7.8 9.3 8.0 14.6 14.1 14.9 13.9 14.1 13.8 3.8 3.6 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.6 4.5 5.7 5.6 Years 2017 to 2050 Hoover Dam 19,000 ior Hoover Dam 35,000 0.9 1.7 0.9 0.8 Inter 17 he . ft 9, 0 Hoover Dam 40,000 0.2 0.1 pt0.2o er 20.1 2 e v. D vemb Hoover Dam 73,000 0.0 0.0 0.0 ation on No0.0 ajo N iv4.6d Davis Dam 26,000 4.8 5.0 4.4 e Nav d in 64, arch 5.7 Parker Dam 6.1 5.6 ite c19,500 168 5.9 4.1 Average monthly No discharge Hoover Dam 28,000 4.0 3.8 4.2 3.7 1 Table 3.6-5 Estimated Flood Damages Between Hoover Dam and the SIB 1 (1979 level of development and 2000 price level ) Flood Flow (cfs) 100,000 2 71,000 3 48,000 4 38,000 22,000 Flood Damages $201,000,000 $ 55,700,000 $ 9,210,000 $ 1,550,000 $ 610,000 1 Corps of Engineers, Colorado River Basin Hoover Dam, Review of Flood Control Regulations. Final Report, July 1982. Table C-5. Adjusted from June 1978 to March 2000 price level by Consumer Price Index-all Urban Consumers. (June 1978 is 65.2, March 2000 is 167.8, Adjustment factor: 2.57.) 2 78,000 cfs at Needles 3 50,000 cfs at Needles 4 40,000 cfs at Needles COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.6-12 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 287 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.7 AQUATIC RESOURCES 3.7.1 CHAPTER 3 INTRODUCTION The analyses presented in this section consider two specific issues associated with aquatic resources. These issues are potential effects to Lake Mead and Lake Powell aquatic species habitat and potential effects to sport fisheries at Lake Powell, Lake Mead, and the Colorado River between Lake Powell and Lake Mead. The interim surplus criteria are not expected to result in any changes to aquatic resources below Hoover Dam. 3.7.2 LAKE HABITAT The primary lake habitats identified for potential affect within the project area include Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Other reservoirs downstream of Lake Mead (Lake Mohave and Lake Havasu) are not expected to be affected by the proposed interim surplus criteria because operation of the system keeps lake levels at specified target elevations to facilitate power generation and water deliveries (Reclamation, 2000). Native Colorado River fishes have not fared well in the reservoirs. Non-native fish ior Inter well-established species, which prey on and compete with native species, havee f th become 017 in both lakes. While some native species may spawntwithin the 29, 2 p . o er reservoirs and others De b have young that drift into the lakes, predation . competition is believed to eliminate ion vand Novem at precludes their survival and recruitment. A young native fish from the reservoirs and ed on ajo N NavRiverrchiv is presented in Section 3.8, Special-Status discussion of natived in Colorado a fishes cite 16864, Species. 43.7.2.1 No. 1 METHODOLOGY Existing literature was reviewed to determine the historic and current status of fish assemblages in Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Literature reviewed included recent publications and draft documents on the operations at Lake Powell and Lake Mead, biological assessments, fish management plans, and biological opinions. Investigation into critical lake elevations, water quality, and temperature limits were made based on the fish species known to inhabit these lakes, including the use of these lakes by endangered species. Because no “threshold” lake elevations associated with significant adverse effects on lake habitat were identified for any of the fish species, the use of system modeling relied upon a comparison of general reservoir surface elevation trends under baseline conditions and the alternatives, shown in Figures 3.3-6 and 3.3-13. A qualitative analysis of potential lake habitat changes was made by comparing the differences between lake level trends under baseline conditions and the various alternatives. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.7-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 288 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.7.2.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.7.2.2.1 CHAPTER 3 Lake Powell Aquatic habitat in Lake Powell is a result of the lake’s physical and geographical characteristics. Lake Powell has a surface area of 255 square miles and contains up to 24.3 maf of active storage. At full pool, depth of the reservoir near the dam is 561 feet. The thermocline (the boundary layer between a strata of colder and warmer water) changes seasonally, but below approximately 150 feet deep, the cold hypolimnion (a low oxygen, low light, deep water layer of the lake) is consistently maintained due to thermal and chemical properties. Lake Powell exhibits a trophic gradient from the shallow productive inflows where nutrients and sediments are delivered by rivers, to the clear nutrient-poor water by the dam. As the reservoir gradually shallows moving away from the dam, the depth and extent of the thermocline and hypolimnion change. Lake elevations change from year to year depending on numerous factors, including Upper Basin runoff. The clear water reservoir offers habitat beneficial to non-native fish. Generally, the reservoir is oligotrophic (characterized by low dissolved nutrients and organic matter); deep, clear, and low in chlorophyll abundance (NPS, 1996). Non-native fish species became established by intentional and unintentional ior Inter 17 introductions. Largemouth bass and crappie populations were stocked initially and 0 f the 9 Both subsequently proliferated to provide the bulk of the pt. o fisheries. , 2 species have sport e r2 v. D v for be declined in recent years due to lack of habitat structure emyoung fish. Filling, o ation oin changing habitat that eliminated most N fluctuation, and aging of the reservoir resulted n N vajo hived of the vegetation and favored different species. The habitat change led to the in Na arc ited 6864,and striped bass, presently the two dominant predator c introduction of smallmouth bass -1 o. 14 species in the reservoir, with striped bass being the most dominant. Threadfin shad N were introduced to provide an additional forage base and quickly became the predominant prey species (NPS, 1996). Other species common in Lake Powell include walleye, bluegill, green sunfish, carp and channel catfish. Species that occur in the reservoir, but that are mainly associated with tributaries and inflow, include fathead minnow, mosquitofish, red shiner and plains killifish (NPS, 1996). Table 3.7-1 lists fish species present in the project area. Native fish species were displaced by habitat loss and alteration associated with construction and operation of mainstream dams and reservoirs, as well as competition with and predation by introduced non-native species. Bonytail is the native species believed to be in the most peril of imminent extinction because they are virtually eliminated in the Upper Basin. Bonytail were reported in Lake Powell soon after closure of Glen Canyon Dam; however, annual gill-net surveys conducted by the Utah Department of Wildlife Resources have failed to produce any bonytail in the last 20 years. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.7-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 289 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Table 3.7-1 Fish Species Present in the Project Area Species Black bullhead Black crappie Bluegill Bluehead sucker Bonytail Brown Trout Carp Channel catfish Colorado pikeminnow Fathead minnow Flannelmouth sucker Green sunfish Humpback chub Largemouth bass Mosquitofish Northern pike Rainbow trout Razorback sucker Red shiner Roundtail chub Smallmouth bass Speckled dace Spotted sculpin Striped bass Threadfin shad Walleye Scientific Name Ictalurus melas Pomoxis nigromaculatus Lepomis macrochirus Catastomus discobolus Gila elegans Salmo trutta Cyprinus carpio Ictalurus punctatus Ptychocheilus lucius Pimephales promelas Catostomus latipinnis Lepomis cyanellus Gila cypha Micropterus salmoides Gambusia affinis Esox lucius Oncorhynchus mykiss Xyrauchen texanus Notropis lutrensis Gila robusta Micropterus dolomieui Rhinichthys osculus Cottus bairdi Morone saxatilis Dorosoma petenense Stizostedion vitreum Origin Invading sport fish Introduced sport fish Invading sport fish Native to Colorado River Native to Colorado River Introduced sport fish Invading fish Invading sport fish Native to Colorado River Invading forage fish Native to Colorado River Invading fish Native to Colorado River Introduced sport fish Invading forage fish Invading sport fish Introduced sport fish Native to Colorado River Invading forage fish Native to Colorado River Introduced sport fish Native to Colorado River Native to Colorado River Introduced sport fish Introduced forage fish Invading sport fish ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Other native species that may still persist in Lake Powell include the Colorado pikeminnow and humpback chub. Although there have been no reports of Colorado pikeminnow in the lake since 1977, they are believed to still inhabit the Colorado River inflow area. Very few humpback chub have been found in Lake Powell and it is presumed that they are not present in the lake at this time; however, unidentified chub species were collected by seines and light traps in the Colorado River inflow area (NPS, 1996). Small numbers of razorback suckers have persisted in Lake Powell since the closure of Glen Canyon Dam, occurring mainly near the inflow of the San Juan River. Flannelmouth suckers are probably the only native fish to inhabit the main body of Lake Powell in detectable numbers. However, there has been a declining trend in population size and reproductive recruitment has not been documented. Additional discussion of special-status fish species is included in Section 3.8. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.7-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 290 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.7.2.2.2 CHAPTER 3 Lake Mead Lake Mead has a surface area of 245 square miles and a storage capacity of 26 maf. Over two-thirds of the volume of Lake Mead remains at 55°F (13°C) throughout the year, resulting in a constant, cool discharge at Hoover Dam (USBR, 1996d). At full pool, depth of the reservoir near the dam is approximately 550 feet. Because of its physical similarity to Lake Powell, the limnological characteristics of Lake Mead are also similar. The thermocline changes seasonally and a cold hypolimnion is consistently maintained due to thermal and chemical properties. Surface elevations change from year to year depending on numerous factors, including Upper Basin runoff. The clear water reservoir offers habitat beneficial to non-native fish. Native fish species were displaced by habitat loss and alteration associated with construction and operation of mainstream dams and reservoirs, as well as competition and predation with introduced non-native species. Razorback sucker, federally listed as an endangered species, is the only native species that maintains a remnant population in Lake Mead (USBR, 1996a,b). Non-native fish species became established by intentional and unintentional introductions. Introduced fish species found in Lake Mead include largemouth bass, ior Inter carp (USBR, striped bass, rainbow trout, channel catfish, crappie, threadfine f th shad and017 1996). Bonytail populations are supported by specific. management,activities designed pt o er 29 2 De to re-establish this species in Lake Mohave. v. emb ion Remnantvpopulations of these species exist at No Havasu and groups such as the on jo Mohave and Lake downstream of Lake Mead invLake N Na a archived n Native Fish Wok Group (NFWG) and Lake Havasu Fishery Improvement Project ted i cicurrently6864, in activities conducted under Section 7(a)(l) of the (HAVFISH) are -1 engaged o. 14 ESA to aid in the conservation and recovery of these species in the lower Colorado N River Basis (USBR, 1999). Releases from Lake Mead are the predominant influence on inflows to two other reservoirs, Lake Mohave and Lake Havasu. Operations at Lake Mead typically keep lake elevations at the downstream reservoirs at specific target elevations to facilitate power generation and water deliveries. The operation of Lake Mohave through 2002 is anticipated to limit reservoir fluctuations as a measure to assure that potential impacts to razorback sucker will be minimized during the spawning season (USBR, 1996). 3.7.2.2.3 General Effects of Reservoir Operation Lake habitat in both Lake Powell and Lake Mead consists primarily of deep, clear, open water habitats with a cold hypolimnion that is consistently maintained due to thermal and chemical properties. The habitat found in these lakes is drastically different from the riverine habitat that existed prior to the construction of the dams, and is more suitable for non-native species than native species. Non-native fish species were introduced into the lakes, and subsequently established naturally reproducing populations. Habitat changes resulting from fluctuating lake levels have favored COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.7-4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 291 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 introduced species tolerant of the conditions and temperatures found in the lakes. These species are able to reproduce in the lakes and are not expected to be affected by fluctuating lake levels. In Lake Powell for example, striped bass have experienced “unprecedented natural reproduction and survival” that allowed them to become “the most numerous sport fish and dominate the fish community of Lake Powell” (NPS, 1996). The ability of native species to adapt to the lake habitat is limited mainly by the decreased survival of eggs and the lack of recruitment of young individuals into the adult population. The primary reason for low recruitment of native fish is predation of eggs and young by the established populations of non-native species. In some cases, nutrition may also influence recruitment (Horn, June 2000). 3.7.2.3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES There are no specific “threshold” lake levels that are definitive for evaluation of potential impacts to lake habitat in Lake Powell or Lake Mead. Projections of Lake Powell and Lake Mead surface the elevations are discussed in Sections 3.3.4.2 and 3.3.4.4, respectively. These reservoirs will continue to be subjected to varying inflows and fluctuating surface elevations, primarily due to hydrologic conditions present in the ior Inter 17 watershed and increasing water use in the Upper Basin. Historically, reservoir 0 f the conditions have resulted in lake habitat that is favorableo non-native2 pt. to er 29, species and e v. D mb unfavorable to native species. Becausetionprojected declines in reservoir surface a the on Nove the normal operational range elevation in both Lake Powell ajo Lake Mead are within and N d Nav archivein substantial changes to lake habitat. of fluctuations, theyd innot likely to result are , 3.7.3 cite 16864 4SPORT 1 No. FISHERIES This section considers potential effects of the interim surplus criteria alternatives on sport fisheries in Lake Powell, Lake Mead and below Hoover Dam. Potential effects on recreation associated with sport fisheries are discussed in Section 3.9.5. The sport fishery within the Colorado River corridor from Glen Canyon Dam to Separation Canyon is not analyzed in detail in this FEIS because annual release patterns from Glen Canyon Dam are determined in accordance with the 1996 ROD and are monitored through the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. Through this process, the effects of dam operations on downstream resources, including sport fish, are monitored and studied. The results are used to formulate potential recommendations on refinements to dam operations, to ensure that the purposes of the Grand Canyon Protection Act are met. The possibility of changes in river water temperature downstream of Hoover Dam was also investigated. Reclamation conducted an analysis predicting water temperatures downstream of Hoover Dam with a Lake Mead water surface elevation of 1120 feet msl and a steady release of 62,000 cfs (30 percent higher than powerplant capacity). Under COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.7-5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 292 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 these conditions, the warmest temperature predicted was 58.5°F in late summer. The midsummer discharge temperature was predicted to be 58.5°F (Reclamation, 1991). Under actual conditions with a reservoir elevation of 1120 feet msl, however, maximum discharge would be equal to the powerplant capacity of 49,000 cfs. At this lesser flow, discharges would be cooler than the temperatures predicted in the analysis, since less discharge water would be drawn from the warm upper portion of the reservoir than at higher flows. Therefore, it is assumed that increases of release temperatures corresponding to the median decline of lake levels under baseline conditions and the action alternatives would result in temperatures less than those predicted in the 1981 analysis. Staff from the Willow Beach Federal Fish Hatchery, located about 12 miles downstream of Hoover Dam, reported that over the long term, river water temperatures have typically ranged from 56°F to 58°F, with occasional lows of 54°F. Modeled Hoover Dam discharges are not significantly different from those during periods when water temperatures were measured by hatchery personnel. It is expected that the minor changes in river water temperature described above would not be expected to adversely affect fish populations or the sport fishery in the river below Hoover Dam. The hatchery rears both trout and native fish. For native species, the hatchery warms the r river water with solar panels. The projected increase in river temperatures may be a te io Inarernot17 benefit to the hatchery’s native fish program. River temperatures 0 addressed f the pt. o er 29, 2 further in this section. . De b nv em Natio d on Nov vajo e in Na 4, archiv d reviewed to determine the historic and current status of sport fish Existing literaturee cit was 1686 assemblages in Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Literature reviewed included recent o. 14 Nthe status of sportfishing in both reservoirs, along with a review of publications on 3.7.3.1 METHODOLOGY water quality data including limnological reports and journal articles for information on contaminants found within the lakes and in fish tissue. Potential effects on sport fisheries identified herein are based on the analysis of lake habitat discussed in Section 3.7.2. Potential effects on sport fisheries are based on model output showing general trends of reservoir surface elevations, river flow rates and temperature. No specific threshold elevations or flows are used in the analysis. 3.7.3.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Currently, Lake Powell and Lake Mead provide habitat for numerous species of introduced (non-native) fish which support outstanding recreational sport fishing opportunities. The fish species present in the GCNRA are listed in Table 3.7-1. A similar species assemblage exists for Lake Mead. The two most common sportfish species found in Lake Powell and Lake Mead are striped bass and largemouth bass. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.7-6 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 293 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.7.3.2.1 CHAPTER 3 Reservoir Sport Fisheries The primary sport fisheries management challenge in the reservoirs is trying to stabilize a striped bass population that reproduces beyond the limits of available forage. As a result of unlimited striped bass reproduction, pelagic (open water) stocks of threadfin shad upon which they prey have been decimated. Decimation of the shad population then results in striped bass starvation. Reduction of striped bass numbers allows the shad population to rebound from adult stocks residing in turbid, thermal refuges where they are less vulnerable to striped bass predation. As shad reenter the pelagic zone in large numbers, they are subsequently eaten by young striped bass who grow rapidly, mature, and once again eliminate shad from the pelagic zone. This widely fluctuating predator-prey cycle occurred during the 1990s and still occurs today. Threadfin shad in Lake Powell exist in the northernmost portion of their range. Lower lethal temperatures for shad are reported as 40°F to 41°F (4.5°C to 5°C). Shad currently survive winters where water temperatures consistently range near the lethal limit by seeking deep strata where the water temperature is warmer and stable. An additional temperature reduction of even 2°F (1.0°C) may remove the thermal refuge and result in loss of shad over winter. The absence of a pelagic forage fish would not eliminate striped bass, which now subsist on plankton for the first year or two ofor but would teri life, eventually result in a permanently stunted striped bass population without 7 he In 201 quality sport of t ept. ber 29, fishing value (NPS, 1996). .D nv vem Natio d on Nomuch the same manner as in Lake jo The sport fishery at Lake Mead has been managed in Nava a the ive inin many,of rchsame management challenges. The introduction Powell and has resulted cited forage 64 of threadfin shad as a4-168 species and striped bass as the main predator has produced 1 similar interactions between the two species. No. 3.7.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.7.3.3.1 Reservoir Sport Fisheries The sport fishery in Lake Powell and Lake Mead is primarily based on the presence of striped bass. Other sport fish found in the lakes include largemouth bass, catfish and trout. Since the predator-prey relationship between striped bass and threadfin shad can result in large variations of the striped bass population, stabilizing the population of striped bass and maintaining the threadfin shad population is an ongoing challenge to sport fish management in the lakes. Although the occurrence of prey base fluctuations is more directly related to striped bass populations, a thermal refuge for adult threadfin shad is critical. Under baseline conditions and each of the alternatives, the challenge of stabilizing striped bass and threadfin shad populations in the lakes will continue and may include the need to alter the size or catch limit of striped bass or planting of fish from hatchery stock. All of the other sport fish, with the possible exception of trout, are well-adapted to habitats found COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.7-7 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 294 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 in the lakes and are largely unaffected by fluctuating lake levels and water temperatures. Trout populations in the reservoirs are sustained by planting fish from hatchery stock. 3.7.3.3.2 Colorado River Sport Fisheries The primary sport fish in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and the Lake Mead inflow is rainbow trout. Natural reproduction of rainbow trout in the Grand Canyon is dependent on cool water temperatures, access to tributaries for spawning and continued availability of suitable main stem habitat. These variables are directly related to patterns of flow releases from Lake Powell. Under baseline conditions and each of the alternatives, an increase in the temperature of water released from Glen Canyon Dam could occur if reservoir levels in Lake Powell fall below an elevation of 3590 feet msl. The probability of elevations below 3590 feet msl is limited to the 10 percentile rankings and is not projected to occur until approximately years 2018 to 2028. Water releases from Glen Canyon Dam are controlled by operating criteria contained in the 1996 ROD and are monitored for compliance with the Grand Canyon Protection Act through the Adaptive Management Program. As a result, Colorado River sport fisheries would not be affected by the interim surplus criteria alternatives. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.7-8 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 295 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.8 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES 3.8.1 CHAPTER 3 INTRODUCTION This section identifies potential effects of proposed interim surplus criteria to aquatic and terrestrial species of concern and their habitat, from Lake Powell to the SIB. Potential impacts to special-status species in Mexico are discussed in Section 3.16, Transboundary Impacts. As discussed in Section 1.4, a considerable amount of information pertinent to this analysis is available from various documents prepared by Reclamation and the Service under NEPA and/or the ESA, and is incorporated by reference. Special-status species are species that are listed, or are proposed for listing, as “threatened” or “endangered” under the federal ESA that may be present in the area affected by the proposed action, and also include species of special concern to states or other entities responsible for management of resources within the area of analysis. This section contains a discussion of the life history requirements of each species, followed by an analysis of potential impacts to the species and its habitat. Reclamation is consulting with the Service (and NMFS) to meet itserior t responsibilities under Section 7 of the ESA on the effects of the proposedf action n federally listed he I to 2017 o t species. Reclamation prepared a biological assessment (BA)er 29,evaluates the ept. b which . D them potential effects on listed species which imayv at on occur in ve area from the headwaters of No N Lake Mead to the SIB (Reclamation, 2000). Preliminary evaluation of the effects to vajo hived on Na c listed species whichd in be presentrin the Colorado River corridor from Glen Canyon ite may 6864, a c Dam to the headwater of Lake Mead led to the conclusion that the interim surplus 14-1 o.affect any species. Therefore, this area was not addressed in the BA. criteria would N not Refinements to the model used to predict future operations of Glen Canyon Dam for this EIS indicated there would be a minor change in the frequency with which flows recommended by the 1994 biological opinion concerning operation of Glen Canyon Dam would be triggered. It was determined that this change may affect listed species. The results of this analysis were provided to the Service in a November 29, 2000 memorandum as supplemental information to the BA, which is included in Attachment S. Potential impacts to special-status species occurring in Mexico are discussed separately in Section 3.16, Transboundary Impacts. Specifically, Section 3.16 considers the potential effects on the following species: desert pupfish, vaquita, totoaba, Southwestern willow flycatcher, Yuma clapper rail, yellow-billed cuckoo, California black rail, elf owl, Bell’s vireo, and Clark’s grebe. Although consultation on species occurring in Mexico may not, as a matter of law, be required by the ESA, Reclamation is also supplementing the BA to include information pertinent to federally listed species from this analysis. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 296 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.8.2 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Information on the affected environment and special-status species that may occur in the analysis area was compiled based on review of the pertinent documents listed in Section 1.4, available published and unpublished literature, and through personal communication with agency resource specialists. Species’ distribution, range and habitat requirements were reviewed. These requirements formed the basis for compiling an initial list of plant, wildlife and fish species to be considered. This analysis first discusses vegetative communities that exist throughout the analysis area, from Lake Powell to the SIB. Potentially affected plant, wildlife and fish species are then determined by considering hydrologic requirements and other habitat elements important to the species, such as nesting or breeding habitat for birds and spawning and rearing areas for fish. Species that are not known to be present in the analysis area, do not depend on terrestrial or aquatic habitat associated with the area under consideration or have a hydrologic connection are addressed briefly and removed from further consideration. The analysis of effects to the remaining potentially affected plant, animal and fish species and their habitat follows the section on the affected environment. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e D Vegetative communities within the analysis area are discussed, based on if they are mb n v. atiohabitat) Nove the Colorado River (riverside located alongside the reservoirs jo N (lakeside on or along ve Nava arare ithendidentified. The species are divided into habitat). The special-status species ch in , cited 168 wildlife and fish. Tables in this section list the species’ three main categories: plants,64 14common and scientific names and current status, and indicate if critical habitat has been No. 3.8.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT federally designated. Following each table, the occurrence and requirements of the species is provided. Species that would not be affected by the interim surplus criteria are identified and removed from further analysis. 3.8.3.1 LAKE AND RIPARIAN HABITAT A description of lakeside vegetation associated with Lake Powell and GCNRA is provided below, followed by a description of vegetation associated with Lake Mead and LMNRA (which includes Lake Mohave) and Lake Havasu. This section then describes riverside habitat along the Colorado River corridor from Separation Canyon to the Lake Mead delta and below Hoover Dam. Aquatic habitat is discussed in the previous section on Aquatic Resources (Section 3.7). 3.8.3.1.1 Lakeside Habitat Riparian and marsh vegetation around Lake Powell and Lake Mead is extremely restricted because of the desert terrain that extends directly to the water’s edge (Reclamation, 1999d), and the continuously fluctuating lake levels that precludes COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 297 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 establishment of vegetation. Tamarisk or salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima), a nonnative invasive shrub- to tree-like plant along the Lake Powell shoreline is still becoming established and has not yet formed stable ecosystems. These communities will probably attain some importance as insect and wildlife (particularly bird) habitat in the future, and already provide habitat for fish during high lake levels when the plants are inundated (NPS, 1987). Small intermittent or seasonal streams occur in many of the side canyons of Lake Powell. Fluctuations in lake levels may result in standing water in these side canyons where riparian vegetation has become established. Dominant plants found in these canyons include Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), tamarisk, and cattail (Typha sp.) (NPS, undated b). The vegetation within these side canyons has been altered by the lake itself as a result of periodic inundation in association with fluctuating lake levels. In areas where there are springs and seeps, cattail marshes may be found. The most serious adverse influence on canyon and spring riparian zones associated with intermittent or seasonal streams in the side canyons of Lake Powell is domestic and feral livestock use (NPS, 1987). The GCNRA also has many springs, seeps that are common in alcoves along the canyon walls, and waterpockets located in canyons and uplands. These areas iare recognized for or Inter the 7 their significance as wetland habitats and as unique ecosystems within 01 desert (NPS, f the pt. o er 29, 2 1987). De v. mb tion aalong thenwallsve the canyon support hanging No of The seeps that are common in ajo N valcoves ed o gardens. Hanging gardens are a ,specialized vegetation type and have a unique flora in Na 4 archiv ted 6water associated withci them. The 86 sources that support hanging gardens originate from -1 o. 14 natural springs and seeps within the Navajo sandstone formation and are independent of N Lake Powell. This plant community is found at various elevations around Lake Powell and is typically not affected by reservoir fluctuations. GCNRA hanging gardens are characterized by Eastwood monkeyflower (Mimulus eastwoodiae), alcove columbine (Aquilegia micrantha), Rydberg's thistle (Cirsium rydbergii) and alcove primrose (Primula specuicola). None of these are special-status species at this time, although all four are endemic to the Colorado Plateau. Maidenhair fern (Adiantum sp.) is the most typical species in hanging gardens throughout the Plateau (Spence, 1992). Other species typically associated with hanging gardens include maidenhair fern, golden columbine (Aquilegia chrysantha) and scarlet monkeyflower (Mimulus cardinalis). The highest concentration of habitat associated with Lake Mead in the LMNRA is found in the Lake Mead and Virgin River deltas. Linear riparian woodlands may be present along the shoreline of the Lake Mead delta following high water flows, and associated sediment deposition and exposure. The sediment deposition and the associated growth of riparian vegetation at the Lake Mead delta has occurred for decades (McKernan, 1997). When lake levels decline, vegetation in the Lake Mead and Virgin River deltas begins to establish on clay/silt deposits. The dynamic nature of fluctuating lake levels and deposition of sediment in the Lake Mead delta is expressed COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 298 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 as a change in plant species composition and relative abundance over time. In 1963, tamarisk was the dominant tree species in the Lake Mead delta (McKernan, 1997). In 1996, habitat descriptions for Southwestern willow flycatcher study sites at the Lake Mead delta reported 95 percent of the vegetation as willow or cottonwood with only five percent as tamarisk (McKernan, 1997). An increase in sediment deposition in the deltas followed by lower lake levels allows establishment of native riparian habitat if the lowering of the lake is timed to match native seed dispersal. As such, conditions for establishment of native vegetation at the Lake Mead delta have improved since 1963 allowing cottonwood and willow to become the dominant vegetation. Germination of willows at the Lake Mead delta likely occurred in the spring of 1990 at the approximate water surface elevation of 1185 feet msl (McKernan, 1997 and Reclamation, 1998c). The water surface elevations in 1996 and 1997 were 1192 feet and 1204 feet, respectively (Reclamation, 1998c). These higher lake levels inundated willow habitat in the Lake Mead delta and the Lower Grand Canyon (McKernan, 1997). Until 1998, the Lake Mead delta contained an extensive growth of riparian vegetation principally composed of Goodding willow (Salix gooddingii) (McKernan, 1997). By 1999 the Lake Mead delta willow habitat was completely inundated. To a lesser degree, these same effects may also be seen at the Virgin River delta. A higher delta gradient at or the Virgin River delta results in a shorter period of inundation at nteri(greater than 1192 I high 17 e feet msl) lake levels (Reclamation, 1998c). of th , 20 9 pt. . De ember 2 nv Section VI of the BA (Reclamation, 2000) provides ov atio N additional information on ajo N ived on fluctuations in lake levels and development of riparian habitat at Lake Mead. It notes Nav ch that determiningiexactly how64, aracres of riparian habitat that may be formed due to d in t cate 168 many the proposed interim surplus criteria is declining levels Lake Mead under 14No. problematic. It further states that the majority of the Lake Mead shoreline does not have the soil necessary to regenerate riparian habitat, and that riparian habitat created by declining lake levels would most likely occur in four areas: Lake Mead delta, Virgin River delta, Muddy River delta and the portion of the Lower Grand Canyon influenced by Lake Mead. However, future wet hydrologic cycles, would inundate the newly established riparian habitat. Although higher lake levels may be detrimental to riparian vegetation at the Lake Mead and Virgin River deltas, it may be beneficial to the development of riparian habitat in the lower Grand Canyon downstream of Separation Canyon, and the Virgin and Muddy rivers above Lake Mead (Reclamation, 1998c). Riparian habitat extends from the lake deltas upstream into the lower Grand Canyon and Virgin River Canyon. Development of riparian habitat in these canyons is directly dependent upon fluctuating lake levels and periods of inundation in the canyons. Data collected on riparian vegetation from 1998 Southwestern willow flycatcher surveys (McKernan, 1999) indicate a welldeveloped riparian corridor composed primarily of willow (Salix spp.) and tamarisk that forms extensive and continuous stands in some portions of the lower Grand Canyon. Lower water levels in Lake Mead that expose sediments in the Lake Mead, Virgin River and Muddy River deltas have the potential to benefit establishment of riparian habitat in COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 299 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 these areas. However, lower water levels in Lake Mead do not benefit establishment of riparian and marsh habitat in the lower Grand Canyon. In order for riparian and marsh habitats to become established along the Colorado River in the lower Grand Canyon, higher water levels in Lake Mead are necessary. A few literature sources briefly examine influences of fluctuating lake levels on marsh habitat at the Lake Mead and Virgin River deltas. In 1995, the Lake Mead delta supported hundreds of acres of cattail and bulrush marsh (Reclamation, 1996a). This vegetation type increased after a period of high flows from 1983 to 1986. Deposits containing clay/silt sediments are necessary for the development of emergent marsh vegetation (Stevens and Ayers 1993). Low water velocity sites, such as the Lake Mead and Virgin River deltas, permit clay/silt particles to settle from suspension. These deposits provide a higher quality substrate for seed germination and seedling establishment than underlying sand because of their greater nutrient levels and moisture-holding capacity. With the appropriate water regime (i.e., higher river flows during winter with lower flows during summer), these sites are more likely to support emergent marsh vegetation (Reclamation, 1995b). Marsh vegetation that develops during low lake periods would be lost during periods of high lake levels; however, this habitat is more likely than cottonwood/willow to reestablish as lake levels fluctuate (Reclamation, 1996a). Marsh vegetation that develops during lowtlake levels is ior In er 17 important habitat for many species, particularly breeding f the 20 o birds. , t. Dep mber 29 .2000) provides additional information on nv e The interim surplus criteria BA (Reclamation, Natio d on Novhabitat at downstream reservoirs fluctuations in lake levels and development of riparian ajo ive Nav (Lake Mohave and Lake Havasu).aThe interim surplus criteria are not expected to d in 64, rch ite affect levels of c downstream reservoirs as they would be continue to be regulated to the 4-168 1 meet downstream . No flood control, power generation and water delivery purposes. 3.8.3.1.2 Riverside Habitat The riparian vegetation along the Colorado River is among the most important wildlife habitat in the region. Though not common, springs can be found within the GCNRA in intermittent drainages where they often support wetland plant communities. Between Glen Canyon Dam and Lees Ferry, springs are created by several spontaneous, copious flows from the lower canyon walls (NPS, 1987). The Water Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for the GCNRA speculates that this spring flow originates from Lake Powell bank storage in the Navajo Sandstone (NPS, 1987), and thus, this area could be affected by changes in Lake Powell surface levels. Overall, lower lake levels are not likely to have any impacts on gardens around Lake Powell, but may have some impacts on springs directly associated with Glen Canyon Dam and extending downriver approximately two to three miles. In the lower canyon, arrowweed (Pluchea sericea) and horsetail are common. Below Havasu Creek, bermuda grass becomes the dominant ground cover at many sites (Reclamation, 1996a). COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 300 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) historically occurred on the broad alluvial floodplains of the Colorado River on secondary and higher terraces above the main channel (LCRMSCP, undated). It still is a dominant species above the scour zone through the Grand Canyon (Ohmart et al., 1988; Turner and Karpiscak, 1980); however, tamarisk is replacing mesquite in many areas along the Colorado River. Catclaw acacia occurs along watercourses and other areas where a summer water supply may be present (Barbour and Major, 1995; Brown, 1994; Holland, 1986; Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995). This species occurs in both upland and riparian vegetation associations (Reclamation, 1996a). Catclaw acacia in the Grand Canyon can occur with Apache plume (Fallugia paradoxa), a typical constituent in the acacia-mesquite habitat. It may also be found with desert broom (Baccharis spp), which is an obligate riparian species that occurs in the cottonwood-willow habitat type (Turner and Karpiscak, 1980). Two types of marsh plant associations have been identified along the Colorado River (Stevens and Ayers, 1991). Marshes were historically found along oxbow lakes and in backwater areas along the Colorado River. Cattails, bulrushes, common reed and some less common emergent plants occur in marsh areas that develop on sediment deposits containing about half clay/silt and half sand (Reclamation, 1995). erior nt 7 the I f surplus 9, 201may affect In the lower Grand Canyon above Lake Mead, theept. o interim 2 criteria D er backwater marshes due to the changes inon v. levels.vemb changes in water levels i water No These at on could affect temperature and vajo water quality considerations, as well as the other N ived of the BA (Reclamation, 2000) discusses Na establishment of marshn i vegetation. rSection V a ch citedmarsh,864, historic and existing -16 backwater and aquatic habitat on the lower Colorado River 14 below Hoover, Davis and Parker dams. No. 3.8.3.2 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES The list of special-status plants in Table 3.8-1 below is based on documented or potential occurrence within vegetation communities of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (GCNRA), Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LMNRA) and the Colorado River corridor in the lower Grand Canyon. No special-status plant species were identified for analysis below Hoover Dam. Nineteen plant species were removed from detailed consideration, as discussed in the next section. Four species could be affected by interim surplus criteria alternatives and are considered further. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-6 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 301 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Table 3.8-1 Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring Within the Area of Analysis Common Name Scientific Name Alcove bog orchid Alcove daisy Alcove deathcamas Barrel cactus Habenaria zothecina Erigeron zothecinus Zigadenus vaginatus Ferrocactus acanthodes var. lecontei Brady’s footcactus Canyonlands sedge Pediocactus bradyi Carex scirpoidea var. curatorum Astragalus geyeri var. triquetrus Camissonia specuicola ssp. Hesperia Geyer’s milkvetch 1 Grand Canyon evening1 primrose Hole–in-the-Rock prairie clover Jones cycladenia Dalea flavescens Status Federal Species of Concern Federal Species of Concern Federal Species of Concern Northern Nevada Native Plant Society (NNNPS) Watch List species and Listed as Sensitive by the Service (Intermountain Region) Federally Listed Endangered Federal Species of Concern Federal Species of Concern; Nevada Critically Endangered Federal Species of Concern Federal Species of Concern Ute ladies’ tresses Virgin River thistle Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii Erigeron kachinensis Arctomecon californica Carex specuicola Rubus neomexicana Perityle specuicula Penstemon bicolor ssp. Roseus Imperata brevifolia Cladium californicum Eriogonum viscidulum Psorothamnus thompsoniae var. whittingii Spiranthes diluvialis Cirsium virgenense Western hophornbeam Ostrya knowltonii Federally Listed Threatened ior t Concern Inofer 17 Kachina daisy Federal Species f the 9, 20 1 Nevada Las Vegas bear poppy pt. o Listed Critical Endangered De Federallyber 2Threatened Navajo sedge n v. ovem Listed Natio d on NFederal Species of Concern New Mexico raspberry vajo e Rock Daisy Federal Species of Concern in Na 4, archiv d te 86 Rosy bicolored ci Federal Species of Concern 16 beardtongue . 14No Satintail grass Federal Species of Concern Sawgrass 1 Sticky buckwheat Thompson’s indigo-bush 1 Federal Species of Concern Federal Species of Concern Federal Species of Concern Federally Listed Threatened Federally Listed Species of Concern; Arizona Salvage-restricted, Protected Native Plant Federal Species of Concern Species with the potential to be affected by the interim surplus criteria that are considered further. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-7 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 302 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.8.3.2.1 CHAPTER 3 Plant Species Removed from Further Consideration This section discusses the reasons for eliminating certain special-status plant species from detailed consideration. Special-status plant species that occur in hanging gardens at GCNRA include alcove bog orchid, alcove daisy, alcove deathcamas, canyonlands sedge, Kachina daisy, Navajo sedge, New Mexico raspberry, sawgrass, western hophornbeam and Virgin River thistle. The water source for these species comes from seepage from the Navajo sandstone that would not be affected by hydrologic changes associated with interim surplus criteria. Barrel cactus, Brady’s footcactus, rosy bicolored beardtongue, Jones cycladenia and Thompson’s indigo-bush are desert species. This habitat type and associated plant species would not be affected by interim surplus criteria. Hole-in-the-Rock prairie clover occurs in the Hall’s Creek and Escalante drainages in the GCNRA, which would not be affected by hydrologic changes associated with the interim surplus criteria. ior ter Rock daisy occurs at Cedar Mesa in GCNRA, growing in sandstone along 7 margins the he In be0affected by of an ephemeral stream channel at the canyon bottomt. of would29, 2 1 that t not Dep mber interim surplus criteria. n v. e Natio d on Nov ajo Wilson’s Creek in the GCNRA, an area that would Satintail grass occurs within lower rchive Nav d in surplus a not be affected cite by interim6864, criteria. -1 o. 14 N Sawgrass has been found in the riparian zone of Alcove Canyon in Grand Canyon National Park, and in the riparian zone of Garden Canyon on the cliffs above Lake Powell. These riparian zones would not be affected by interim surplus criteria. Ute ladies’ tresses occur in moist to wet meadows along perennial streams at elevations between 4,300 and 7,000 feet msl. These occurrences are above those elevations that occur within the area under consideration. As such, this species would not be affected by interim surplus criteria. Virgin River thistle occurs on sandy or gravelly alkaline slopes and washes and around saline seeps, alkaline springs or stream terraces. It occurs between elevations of 1968 and 6562 feet msl, and is associated with Mojave mixed scrub habitat. This habitat type would not be affected by interim surplus criteria. As such, this species would not be affected by interim surplus criteria. 3.8.3.2.2 Plant Species Considered Further Geyer’s Milkvetch - Geyer’s milkvetch is known to occur along the shoreline of Lake Mead and is associated with stabilized sand dunes and sandy soils. Population trends COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-8 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 303 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 have not been well documented for Geyer’s milkvetch. Germination may be tied to rainfall, and poor seed production and insect infestations may contribute to the limited distribution and/or small population sizes observed for this variety (Mozingo and Williams, 1980). Some populations have been directly affected by rising water levels at Lake Mead (i.e., Middle Point). Additional causes of decline for this taxon may include shoreline recreation, trampling and grazing by burros and livestock, off-road vehicle use, and utility corridors (Niles et al., 1995). Threats to Geyer’s milkvetch in the study area have not been well defined. This variety may be potentially threatened by: 1) loss of habitat from inundation and rising water levels at Lake Mead; 2) invasion of shoreline (beach) habitat by other plant species (i.e., tamarisk and arrowweed); and possibly 3) trampling and grazing by burros. Geyer’s milkvetch occurs further back from the shoreline and may be less affected by these factors (E. Powell, 2000). Shoreline recreation does not currently appear to be a major threat to this species because the beaches where it occurs do not receive heavy recreational use. In addition, the species typically flowers and sets seed prior to the beginning of heavy use periods at Lake Mead (Niles et al., 1995; E. Powell, 2000). However, rising lake levels may potentially affect this species directly by inundation of plants or indirectly through inundation of suitable habitat. ior Inter is17clustered Grand Canyon Evening Primrose - Grand Canyon evening e of th primrose 0 a pt.yelloweor 29, 2at anthesis herbaceous perennial plant with small flowers .thate D are b r white ion v aging. The (flowering), but may turn to pink or lavender withNovem Grand Canyon evening Nat primrose occurs on beachesavajoor near ed on stem Colorado River in the vicinity along iv the main N of Separation Canyon iand downstream of Diamond Creek where available beach habitat d n 64, arch cite is exposed (Brian, 2000 168Phillips, 2000). This species is likely adversely affected . 14- and when beaches No disturbed through erosion or deposition of sediments during flood are events. Some degree of flooding occurs seasonally as the result of increases in sidechannel inflows during rainfall events. Additional flood flows result from periodic BHBF releases from Glen Canyon Dam. The degree to which flooding adversely affects this subspecies and which water levels are detrimental to the plants and its habitat is unknown. However, the amount of beach habitat in the Grand Canyon has decreased under post-dam conditions, and the remaining habitat is often invaded by riparian vegetation (Schmidt et al., 1998). Because this subspecies is found on good camping beaches, particularly in the lower portion of the Grand Canyon, it may also be adversely affected by disturbance associated with recreational beach use; however, this potential effect is not related to the interim surplus criteria. Las Vegas Bear Poppy - Las Vegas bear poppy is a short-lived perennial species, occurring along the lower levels of the Lake Mead shoreline (E. Powell, 2000). This plant occurs on gypsum soils below the high water line of Lake Mead (1225 feet msl) on sloping flats. Little is known about the life cycle of the Las Vegas bear poppy, and populations vary in a “boom or bust” pattern (E. Powell, 2000). This species would benefit from lower water levels at Lake Mead, and could be adversely affected by COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-9 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 304 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 increases in water levels although timing of water fluctuations and associated effects to this species are unknown. Sticky Buckwheat - Sticky buckwheat is found primarily along the Overton Arm of Lake Mead (Reveal and Ertter 1980, Niles et al., 1995). Smaller, potentially significant populations occur in the vicinity of Overton Beach, along the Virgin River Valley, and along the Muddy River. Major threats to sticky buckwheat at Lake Mead include: 1) loss of habitat from inundation and rising water levels at Lake Mead; 2) invasion of shoreline (beach) habitat by other plant species (i.e., tamarisk and arrowweed); and possibly three) trampling and grazing by burros. Shoreline recreation does not currently appear to be a major threat to this species because the beaches where it occurs do not receive heavy recreational use. In addition, the species typically flowers and sets seed prior to the beginning of heavy use periods at Lake Mead (Niles et al., 1995). This species would benefit from lower water levels at Lake Mead, and could be adversely affected by increases in water levels. 3.8.3.3 SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES Special-status wildlife species with the potential to occur within the area under consideration in the United States are listed in Table 3.8-2. Two invertebrate, two ior Inter and two amphibian, and one reptile species are of concern. Eleven bird species 017 f the pt. o on er 29, 2 mammals are of concern. A number “1” after .the e D species b the table indicates the ion v Nosurplus species has the potential to be affected by the interim vem criteria alternatives, and is Nat d on therefore assessed in more detail.o vaj a ive in N rch ited 6864, a c -1 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-10 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 305 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Table 3.8-2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring Within the Area of Analysis Common Name Scientific Name Status Invertebrates MacNeill’s sootywing skipper Hesperopsis gracielae Federal Species of Concern Kanab ambersnail Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis Federally Listed Endangered; Arizona Wildlife of Special Concern Amphibians Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens Arizona Candidate for Listing Relict leopard frog Rana onca Nevada State Protected; Arizona Wildlife of Special Concern Kinosternon sonoriense sonoriense California Species of Special Concern Falco peregrinus anatum California Endangered; Nevada State Protected and Endangered California Endangered Reptiles Sonoran mud turtle Birds American peregrine falcon Arizona Bell’s vireo 1 Vireo bellii arizonae ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove 1 Laterallus jamaicensis California black rail jo N coturniculus Nava archived in 1 Aechmophorus clarkii Clark's grebe cited 16864, 4.1 1 Accipiter cooperii California Species of Special Cooper's hawk No Bald eagle 1 Haliaeetus leucocephalus Federally Listed Threatened; California Endangered; Nevada State Protected and Endangered Federal Species of Concern; California Threatened Arizona Wildlife of Special Concern Micrathene whitneyi Concern California Endangered Gilded flicker Colaptes chrysoides California Endangered Southwestern willow 1 flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus Federally Listed Endangered (critical habitat designated); California Endangered; Nevada State Protected Federally Listed Endangered; California Threatened Federally Proposed Endangered; California Endangered; Nevada State Protected Elf owl 1 1 1 Rallus longirositris yumaniensis Yuma clapper rail Western yellow-billed cuckoo 1 Coccyzus americanus Mammals Colorado River cotton rat Sigmodon arizonae plenus Occult little brown bat Myotis lucifugus occultus 1 Federal Species of Concern; California Species of Special Concern Federal Species of Concern; California Species of Special Concern Species with the potential to be affected by the interim surplus criteria that are considered further in this analysis. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-11 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 306 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.8.3.3.1 CHAPTER 3 Wildlife Species Removed from Further Consideration The Kanab ambersnail occurs in semi-aquatic habitat associated with springs and seeps. In the Grand Canyon, Kanab amber snail were originally known to occur only at Vasey’s Paradise, a large perennial spring. As part of an effort to recover the species, Kanab amber snails were translocated from Vasey’s Paradise to three other locations. One of the criteria used to select these sites was that it be above the level of any potential future flood flows past Glen Canyon dam. These populations would not be affected by the adoption of interim surplus criteria. Reclamation has consulted with the Service on the effects to the Vasey’s Paradise population from the operations of Glen Canyon Dam. The resulting biological opinion (USFWS, 1996) continues to be implemented and will not be affected by the proposed action. There will be no effect from the adoption of interim surplus criteria. The northern leopard frog is known to occur in association with a spring at one site below Glen Canyon Dam. The population was monitored before and after the 1996 BHBF and found to persist under these flows. This species receives consideration under the Glen Canyon Dam AMP (see Section 3.2.2). The minor changes to operations of Glen Canyon due to adoption of the interim surplus criteria are not expected to affect the northern leopard frog. erior Int 0 f the several17 o Historically, the relict leopard frog (Rana onca) was known from 9, 2 locations ept. ber 2 D along the Virgin river, and from the Overtonv. of ovem to north n atiothe arm N Lake MeadMeadow of St. George, N n River and o Utah. This species was also known from ed Muddy Valley Wash vajo v in Nevada, northwest of the Overtonchi This species was thought to be extinct, but in Na 4, ar Arm. cited 1 of 6 was rediscovered at three 6851 potential habitat sites surveyed in 1991. Surveys 4conducted for No. 1 relict leopard frog included potential habitat within the historical range of the species (Bradford and Jennings 1997). There are confirmed sightings of this species at springs about two miles (3.2 km) west of Stewarts Point on the Overton Arm of Lake Mead. A fourth population of leopard frog on the Virgin River near Littlefield, Arizona is within the range of the lowland leopard frog (R. yavapaiensis) and is still awaiting additional studies to confirm its taxonomic status. Other unconfirmed sightings are on the Virgin River near Littlefield, Arizona and about four km (2.5 miles) downstream from Hoover Dam. In general, leopard frogs inhabit springs, marshes, and shallow ponds, where a yearround water supply is available. Emergent or submergent vegetation such as bulrushes or cattails provides the necessary cover and substrate for cover and oviposition (Jennings et al., 1994). Suitable aquatic habitat, as well as, adjacent moist upland or wetland soils is required by the relict leopard frog. In addition, dense herbaceous cover and a canopy of cottonwoods or willows characterize habitat for this species. The relict leopard frog populations located near the Overton Arm of Lake Mead are associated exclusively with geothermally influenced and perennial desert spring communities. Because the known populations are currently confined within a five-mile COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-12 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 307 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 (8km) area (Bradford and Jennings 1997), they are susceptible to extirpation from localized impacts. Threats to this species include habitat destruction, lowering of the water table, and predation by introduced bullfrogs (AGFD, 1996; AGFD 1998). The known occurrences of relict leopard frogs are in association with springs that will not be affected by the interim surplus criteria alternatives being considered. If additional emergent marsh vegetation develops at the Lake Mead and Virgin River deltas as the result of lower lake levels, it may provide potential habitat for the relict leopard frog. However, predation by introduced fishes and bullfrogs may preclude occurrence of the leopard frogs in these areas. Reclamation concludes that the interim surplus criteria do not have the potential to affect the relict leopard frog. MacNeill’s sootywing skipper is a butterfly found along the Colorado River from southern Utah and Nevada to Arizona and southeastern California (Reclamation, 1996a). Confirmed records of this species are reported for the Arizona counties of Mohave, La Paz, Yuma, Yavapai, Maricopa and Pinal. The MacNeill’s sootywing skipper is also present in San Bernardino, Riverside and Imperial counties in California. This species also occurs along the Muddy River above Lake Mead (Austin & Austin, 1980). erior Int The larval host plant for MacNeill’s sootywing skipper is quailbrush (Atriplex f the and2017 dense lentiformis). Quailbrush is the largest salt bush found .in Arizona 9, forms pt o . DeRivermber 2 and Emmel, 1973). thickets along the drainage system of theon v Colorado e (Emmel Nati located in ov n N alkaline soil areas with adequate Quailbrush is associated withvajo a floodplains ed o water resources (KearneyN Peebles, 1951). Specific surveys for this species and in and 4, archiv cited not 86 larval host plants have -16been conducted in the lower Grand Canyon; however, the 14 documented occurrence of MacNeill’s sootywing skipper along the Muddy River above No. Lake Mead indicates there is a likelihood of occurrence in the lower Grand Canyon. Suitable habitat for this species likely requires stands of more than one host plant (W. Wiesenborn, 1999). Although this species occurs in the area of analysis, the host plant occurs on alluvial floodplains and has little potential to be affected by the alternatives considered for the interim surplus criteria. Lake Powell and Lake Mead provide breeding and wintering habitat for American peregrine falcons. The peregrine falcon breeds at sites on Lake Mead, and the upper portion of Lake Mohave. Wintering and breeding peregrines are also found around Lake Powell, with an estimated 50 breeding areas (Interior, 1995), and 19 wintering territories (Hetzler, 1992a). Based on historical data, the average height above water of peregrine nests at GCNRA is approximately 460 feet (141 meters), with average cliff heights of 630 feet (193 meters) (Hetzler 1992a, Hetzler 1992b). These data include nest sites in Glen Canyon immediately below the Glen Canyon Dam as well as sites on Lake Powell. Glen Canyon Dam operations have resulted in increased riparian vegetation which supports a larger population of passerines and increased the food base for peregrine falcons. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-13 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 308 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Existing and potential American peregrine falcon breeding habitat also occurs in the Grand Canyon between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead and in Black Canyon, (south of Lake Mead). Because their nesting sites are well above the water and their food base has increased, peregrine falcons would not be affected by hydrologic changes associated with the interim surplus criteria and have been eliminated from further analysis. The Sonoran mud turtle, Colorado River cotton rat, and occult little brown bat were removed from further consideration because there are no known occurrences in the analysis area. 3.8.3.3.2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Considered Further Arizona Bell’s Vireo - The Arizona Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii arizonae) is distributed throughout the river systems of the Southwest desert and have been documented in the Virgin and Muddy rivers, and the lower Colorado River. Since 1900, populations of this subspecies of Bell’s vireo have declined along the lower reaches of the Colorado River, where it is now a rare, to locally uncommon, summer resident from Needles south to Blythe (Brown et al., 1983; Zeiner et al., 1990a; Rosenberg et al., 1991). Since the completion of Glen Canyon Dam in 1963, the Bell’s vireo has expanded its range eastward into Grand Canyon National Park (Brown et al., 1983). Anrextensive riparian ior Inte 17 scrub, that has developed along the Colorado River in thefGrand Canyon largely the 0 pt. o er 29 2 composed of tamarisk and willow, supports a significant population,of Bell’s vireo e b v. D (Brown et al., 1983). The Grand Canyon population ofem vireo is regionally ation on Nov Bell’s oN important due to the substantial decline ofed subspecies at lower elevations. The this avaj NArizona rchiv vireo may potentially be affected by the inby 4, a Bell’s riparian habitat utilized ited 6 interim surplusc criteria.-168 4 No. 1 Bald Eagle - The bald eagle historically ranged throughout North America except extreme northern Alaska and Canada and central and southern Mexico. In 1978, in response to lowering population and reproductive success, the Service listed the bald eagle throughout the lower 48 states as endangered except in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington and Oregon, where it was designated as threatened (43 FR 6233, February 14, 1978). In 1982, a recovery plan was developed specifically for the southwestern bald eagle; the geographic boundary includes southeast California within 10 miles of the Colorado River or its reservoirs. The bald eagle population has clearly increased in number and expanded its range since it was listed. This improvement is a direct result of the banning of DDT and other persistent organochlorines, habitat protection, and from other recovery efforts (60 FR 36001, July 12, 1995). On August 11, 1995, FWS reclassified the bald eagle from endangered to threatened in the lower 48 states. (60 FR 133, pg. 3600, August 12, 1995). Reclamation’s 1996 BA concluded that its Lower Colorado river operations and maintenance activities are not likely to adversely affect the food resources, foraging opportunities, or the nesting habitat of the bald eagle. Based on data from bald eagle winter counts conducted by the AGFD since 1992, eagles are not considered rare within COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-14 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 309 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 the project area. Wintering birds are expected to continue using the river and most likely will congregate where food resources are plentiful and excessive disturbance from recreation can be avoided. The 1996 BA also cites studies by Hunt et al., (1992) that conclude reservoirs and dams did not appear to have a negative effect on bald eagle reproduction. River operations and maintenance may affect establishment of newly regenerated cottonwood/willow stands that could provide future nesting and perching substrate for eagles. However, as documented in Hunt et al. (1992), bald eagles can successfully nest on other substrates (cliffs, pinnacles). Reclamation’s ongoing native riparian plant restoration program has the potential to increase available tree nesting and perching habitat along the river. No evidence exists to suggest that the food resources available in the reservoirs and river are limiting nesting. Because of the minor changes to the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and the minor hydrologic changes in the reservoirs and along the river, Reclamation determined that adoption of the interim surplus criteria would not adversely affect the bald eagle. California Black Rail - California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) have recently been documented in the Virgin River Canyon, including the corridor above Lake Mead (McKernan, 1999). In general, Flores and Eddleman (1995) found that black rails utilize marsh habitats with high stem densities and overhead coverage that were drier and closer to upland vegetation than randomly selected teriorMarsh edges n sites. he ICalifornia7bulrush and with water less than 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) deep dominated by , 201 of t ept. ber 29 three-square bulrush (Scirpus californicus and.S. americanus, respectively) are utilized v D vem most frequently. Areas dominated byation are also used regularly, but only in a small cattail No N v and hived on proportion to their availability ajo generally within 50 meters (164 feet) of upland c in Na vegetation wheretwater depth is , arcentimeters (1.2 inch). The occurrence and i ed 6864 3.0 c potential impacts to14-1 along the river corridor in Mexico are also discussed in species No. Section 3.16. Clark’s Grebe − Clark's grebes (Aechmophorus clarkii) are typically less abundant than the western grebe at most locations throughout their range (Ratti, 1981; Zeiner et al., 1990a). A 1977 winter survey found Clark's grebes comprised less than 12 percent of Aechmophorus grebe sightings at locations within California and areas near Lake Mead (Ratti, 1981). At Lake Mead, a total of 321 western grebes were detected during the winter, while only three Clark's grebes were observed. At Lake Havasu, western grebes are also more abundant than Clark’s grebes in the winter. However, Clark’s grebes are more numerous in the breeding season, making up approximately 65 percent of the breeding colony (Rosenberg et al., 1991). Although the cattail and bulrush marsh habitat found at the Lake Mead delta exhibits characteristics preferred by Clark’s grebe, it is not known whether this species currently occurs at the delta. The marsh habitat at the Lake Mead and Virgin River deltas, and in the Colorado and Virgin rivers above Lake Mead may potentially be utilized by Clark’s grebe and may be affected by the interim surplus criteria. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-15 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 310 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Cooper’s Hawk − Cooper’s hawks (Accipiter cooperii) are associated with deciduous mixed forests and riparian woodlands and nests mainly in oak woodlands, but also use willow or eucalyptus woodlands. The Cooper’s hawk nests near streams and prefers mature trees with a well-developed understory for nesting sites (Ziener et al., 1990a). Breeding activity has been documented in the lower Grand Canyon, below Separation Canyon, and in the lower Virgin River above Lake Mead (McKernan, 1999). The riparian habitat currently utilized by Cooper’s hawk in the lower Grand Canyon and lower Virgin River may be affected by the interim surplus criteria. Elf Owl − The elf owl (Micrathene whitneyi) is a secondary cavity nester and, as a result, the population status of the elf owl is directly dependent on available nesting holes in trees made by woodpeckers. As an insectivore, the elf owl is also dependent on sufficient numbers of insects during the breeding season (Johnsgard, 1988). In California, at the extreme northwest edge of its range, the elf owl is likely declining in the few desert riparian habitats that it occupies (Johnsgard, 1988). There may also be a general decline in Arizona, although it may be increasing its range in north-central Arizona and western New Mexico. The species’ overall status in the Southwest has not been determined. The elf owl was never a common or widespread species along the lower Colorado River. Surveys of riparian habitats in the lower Colorado River Valley in 1987 reported between 17 and 24 owls at ten different sites (CDFG,or te i I 25 r 1991). heton breeding pairs Population estimates in California for the early 1990s weret17 017 f pt. oin the rGrand2 29, Canyon may (CDFG, 1991; Rosenberg et al., 1991). Riparian habitat be v. De vem ion owl; however, based on the available provide suitable breeding habitat for the elf No Nat vajo hived on information, it is unknown whether elf owls occur. The riparian habitat along the c n Na Colorado RivercaboveiLake Meadar be utilized by elf owl and has the potential to be ited 6864, may affected by the interim -1 . 14 surplus criteria. No Gilded Flicker − The gilded flicker (Colaptes chrysoides) occurs along the lower Colorado River Valley in southern Arizona and southeastern California (Rosenberg et al., 1991). In California, the gilded flicker is an uncommon resident along the Colorado River north of Blythe (Garrett and Dunn, 1981, CDFG, 1991). During the breeding season, the gilded flicker is found in saguaro habitats, mature cottonwood-willow riparian forests, and occasionally mesquite habitats with tall snags (CDFG, 1991; Rosenberg et al., 1991). This species was historically widespread in riparian habitat all along the Colorado River Valley. Based on available information, it is not known whether this species occurs in the lower Grand Canyon, although suitable habitat is present in both the riparian and mesquite habitats. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher − The Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) is a riparian obligate, neotropical migratory insectivore that breeds along rivers, streams, and other wetlands where dense willow, cottonwood, tamarisk, or other similarly structured riparian vegetation occurs (Service, 1995a; McKernan 1999; AGFD, 1997e). Populations of breeding Southwestern willow flycatchers have been recorded at the upper Lake Mead delta, the Virgin River delta, Mormon Mesa North, and the Lower Grand Canyon (AGFD, 1997e; Sogge et al., 1997). However, due to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-16 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 311 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 high lake levels, as discussed previously, the Lake Mead and Virgin River delta willow flycatcher habitat has been inundated. This change in reservoir elevation has permitted suitable willow riparian habitat to develop in the Colorado River corridor from Lake Mead up to approximately Separation Canyon (McKernan, 1999). The occurrence of this species and habitat below Lake Mead to the SIB is discussed in the BA for this proposed action (Reclamation, 2000). The Grand Canyon population of Southwestern willow flycatcher is important from a scientific and management perspective because it is one of the longest continuously monitored populations in the southwest (Sogge et al., 1997). In support of this view, the USFWS designated river mile 39 downstream to river mile 71.5 as critical habitat for this species (USFWS, 1997a, 1997c). This habitat occurs in the upper Grand Canyon and will not be affected by the interim surplus criteria. High lake levels (above 1192 feet) appear to be detrimental to Southwestern willow flycatcher nesting habitat at Lake Mead delta due to potential loss of suitable nest trees (Reclamation, March 1998). Lake levels below 1192 feet during the willow flycatcher breeding season (April through August) appear to allow for increased willow habitat establishment which would be beneficial to the species. From January 1978 until June 1990, Lake Mead elevations were above 1182 feet on a continuous erior In June 1990, basis. Int below that Lake Mead elevation declined to approximately 1182 feet and stayed 017 f the p . o er 29, 2 elevation until the end of 1992 (Reclamation, 2000). tIf saturated soils are present in . De b areas occupied by willow flycatcher, declines in lake levels during June have little to no ion v Novem at jo N v Mead’s effect on nesting. In contrast, when Lake ed on elevation is high enough to inundate Nava duringiJune and July (Reclamation, 2000), willow in the delta, which typically occurs, arch 64 cited be affected because their territories and possibly nest sites would flycatchers would not4-168 o. 1 be established.NBecause suitable habitat utilized by Southwestern willow flycatcher may be affected by changes in Lake Mead water levels that would result from implementation of the interim surplus criteria, the species is considered in the environmental consequences section below. The interim surplus criteria are not expected to result in hydrologic changes below Hoover, Davis and Parker dams that would adversely affect the flycatcher. Yuma Clapper Rail − The Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis), one of seven North American subspecies of clapper rails, occurs primarily in the lower Colorado River Valley in California, Arizona and Mexico. It is a fairly common summer resident from Topock Gorge south to Yuma in the United States, and at the Colorado River delta in Mexico. In the area under consideration, the Yuma clapper rail is associated with freshwater marshes with the highest densities of the subspecies occurring in mature stands of cattails and bulrush (Reclamation, August 1999). In recent years, individual clapper rails have been heard at Laughlin Bay and Las Vegas Wash in southern Nevada (NDOW, 1998), and individuals have been documented at the Virgin and Muddy rivers including the Virgin River floodplain between Littlefield, AZ and the Virgin River Delta, NV (McKernan, 1999), and at sites within the lower Grand Canyon (McKernan, 1999). The occurrence of the Yuma Clapper below Lake Mead to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-17 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 312 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 the SIB is discussed the BA for this proposed action (Reclamation, 2000). The marsh habitat utilized by Yuma clapper rail has the potential to be affected by the interim surplus criteria. Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo − Historically, the western form of the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) was a fairly common breeding species throughout the river bottoms of the western United States and southern British Columbia (Gaines and Laymon, 1984). Due to the loss of riparian woodland habitat, the cuckoo has become an uncommon to rare summer resident in scattered locations throughout its former range. Western yellow-billed cuckoo have been documented in riparian habitat in the lower Grand Canyon and Virgin River above Lake Mead (McKernan, 1999) (Reclamation, 2000) as well as in habitat along the river corridor below Lake Mead and has the potential to be affected by the interim surplus criteria. 3.8.3.4 SPECIAL-STATUS FISH SPECIES Described below are special-status fish species present within the area under consideration. Table 3.8-3 lists special-status fish species including common name, scientific name and status. Currently, the Service is supplementing existing recovery plans for the four endangered fish species included in this analysis. erior t 7 he In . of t listed9, 201 Critical habitat has been designated for each of the federally er 2 fish species (Federal pt De Register: March 21, 1994), and portionsionthis habitat existb of v. em within the area of potential Nat d on Nov effect (Reclamation, 2000). vajo ive Na d in 64, archTable 3.8-3 cite 68 Special-Status -1 Species Potentially Occurring Within the Area of Analysis . 14 Fish No Common Name Scientific Name Bonytail Gila elegans Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius Flannelmouth sucker Catostomus latipinnis Humpback chub Razorback sucker Gila cypha Xyrauchen texanus Status Federally Listed Endangered (critical habitat designated); California Endangered; Nevada State Protected Federally Listed Endangered (critical habitat designated); California Endangered Federal Species of Concern; Arizona Wildlife Species of Concern; Bureau of Land Management Nevada Special Status Species Federally Listed Endangered (critical habitat designated) Federally Listed Endangered (critical habitat designated) Bonytail − Adult bonytail (Gila elegans) were once found throughout the big rivers and major tributaries of the Colorado River basin. Younger fish utilize the smaller streams and quiet areas. Bonytail prefer substrate which consists of clay, soft mud, or mud and sand, or occasionally rocks, gravel or rubble with little or no vegetation (Sigler COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-18 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 313 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 and Miller, 1963; Wydoski, 1995). Adults range between eight and 17 inches in length and weigh just over one pound. The species can live for over 40 years. Spawning occurs in late spring to early summer usually over gravel bars with no nest being constructed. Gravid females can carryover 10,000 eggs each. Bonytail are carnivorous, feeding on insects, crustaceans, small fish, and snails; however, filamentous algae are often consumed (NPS, 1998). The bonytail is now the rarest native fish within the Colorado River Basin (NPS, 1998). The decline in the number of bonytail are thought to be a result of changes in historical stream flow and water temperatures, blockage of migratory routes by dams and introduction of non-native fish species. At Lake Powell, present numbers are accounted for by fish older than 40 years of age; no recruitment has been demonstrated in recent years (NPS, 1998). Bonytail are believed to be extirpated in the Colorado River from Glen Canyon Dam to Hoover Dam (McCall, 1979 and Reclamation, 1996a). Small populations may still exist in the Upper Basin, but there is much confusion in fish identification due to the similarity in physical appearance with roundtail chubs (Reclamation, 1996a). Five suspected bonytail were captured in Cataract Canyon between 1985 and 1988, with one caught in Lake Powell near Wahweap Marina (Maddux et al., 1993erior and Reclamation, Int 1995). 017 f the 9, 2 pt. o . De efromeHoover Dam to Davis b r2 Critical habitat for bonytail includes theion v t Colorado River m Naincludes n Nov Dam, including Lake Mohave.aIt also ed o the Colorado River from the northern v jo boundary of Havasu National Wildlife Refuge to Parker Dam, including Lake Havasu. in Na 4, archiv cited 1686 The largest remaining population of bonytail in the entire Colorado River Basin resides 4in Lake Mohave. . 1 were at least nine augmentation stockings of bonytail into Lake No There Mohave between 1981 and 1991 (Reclamation, 1996a). Efforts are being undertaken to repatriate bonytail back to Lake Havasu from lakeside coves using young obtained from Dexter National Fish Hatchery (Reclamation, 1996a). The primary limiting factor for bonytail appears to be non-native fish predation of the early life stages (egg to subadult) (Reclamation, 1996a). Colorado pikeminnow − The Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) is the largest member of the minnow family within North America and is endemic to the Colorado River system. It was, historically, the top predator fish in the Colorado River, but native populations are now restricted to the upper Colorado River Basin (Reclamation, 1996a). A portion of their current distribution includes the Colorado River from Palisades, Colorado, downstream to Lake Powell (NPS, 1998). Colorado pikeminnow have been captured in Lake Powell as recently as 1999 (Reclamation, file data). Designated critical habitat within the area of effect for the analysis is limited to the normal pool elevation of Lake Powell. Colorado pikeminnow are now considered extirpated from the entire Lower Basin; where they were once extremely abundant. The last known wild adults from the lower Colorado River were captured in the 1960s, and the last known specimens from the Gila River basin were collected in 1958 (Minckley, COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-19 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 314 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 1973). Colorado pikeminnow were taken from Lake Havasu in the 1970s. Populations in the upper basin are thought to be stable or increasing, with documented natural recruitment. The species is adapted to large seasonal flow variations, high concentrations of silt, turbulence, periodically low food availability and naturally variable riverine subsystems. It is typically a big river fish where the current is strong and the water heavily silt laden. Colorado pikeminnow are migratory and can utilize anywhere from 100 to 200 miles of river to complete their life cycle. Spawning takes place from spring to late summer depending on water temperatures. Larva and juvenile pikeminnow can drift 60 to 150 miles from spawning beds into nursery areas where they mature to a size that mostly prevents predation (Maddux et al., 1993; Sigler and Miller, 1963). Flannelmouth sucker − The flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis) was historically found in medium to large rivers throughout the upper and lower Colorado River drainage (Joseph et al., 1977; AGFD, 1996a). Although the flannelmouth sucker is currently widely distributed in the upper Colorado River Basin (Holden and Stalnaker 1975a, b; McAda, et al., 1994), its occurrence in the lower Colorado River Basin has become more restricted. The species’ range in the Upper Basin includes the main stem of the Colorado River, numerous tributaries that drain a large portionrof r te io Colorado and Utah, and the San Juan River drainage in New Mexico and tUtah.nIn the Lower Basin, he I 017 of pt. of suitable 9, 2 (Sublette et 2habitat the flannelmouth sucker occurs only in localized areas . De ber al., 1990). Populations in the Lower Basin occur in ovem Colorado River, Virgin ion v N the Little Nat d Canyon, and immediately below Davis River, Colorado River in Glen ajo v Canyon, iGrandon ve Na Dam, and severalted intributariesarch Colorado River above Lake Mead (AGFD, small , to the ci 864 1996a; Valdez and Carothers, 1998). 4-16 1 No. Flannelmouth suckers typically require medium to large flowing streams and react poorly to impounded habitats or habitats influenced by impoundments (Minckley, 1973), and the artificial thermal regime created by impoundments. Subadult flannelmouth suckers in the Grand Canyon use sheltered shoreline habitats, backwaters, and tributary inflows (Valdez and Ryel, 1995). Conversely, adults can be found in a variety of mainstem habitats, including: tributary mouths, vegetated shorelines, midchannel cobble bars (Valdez and Ryel, 1995), eddies (Holden and Stalnaker, 1975a; and Valdez and Ryel, 1995) and riffles (Holden and Stalnaker, 1975a). Spawning can take place from spring to early summer and is often preceded by an upstream migration. Since 1986, the AGFD has conducted yearly monitoring of flannelmouth sucker populations in the Colorado River from Lees Ferry downstream to Lake Mead. The Glen Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (1998) has funded monitoring and research activities for this species. The objective of this program is to provide the knowledge base required to implement ecosystem management strategies within an adaptive management framework. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-20 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 315 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Humpback chub − Endemic to the Colorado River, the humpback chub (Gila cypha) inhabits the canyon-bound sections of the Colorado, Green and Yampa rivers, with high fidelity for particular localized sites. Young are not known to widely disperse. The historical abundance and distribution of the fish is not well known. Designated critical habitat includes the Colorado River from Nautiloid Canyon to Granite Park in the Grand Canyon, and the lower eight miles of the Little Colorado River, including its confluence with the Colorado River. The largest population still extant is found in and near the Little Colorado River within the Grand Canyon (Maddux et al., 1993; Valdez and Ryel, 1995). This population uses the Little Colorado River for spawning and rearing. The possibility exists that humpback chub found in the Middle Granite Gorge and lower Grand Canyon may represent a separate population (Reclamation, 1996a). Humpback chub becomes reproductively active between May and July depending on location and the hydrograph. Males become reproductively mature within three years. Spawning occurs during the highest spring flows when water temperatures approach 68°F (20°C) over cobble or gravel surfaces. Larvae tend to utilize silty bottom habitats. Later, humpback chub utilize a variety of habitats within a boulder strewn canyon environment (i.e., pools, riffles and eddies). They move between habitats dependent on life history needs and natural habitat change (NPS, 1998). r terio Ininvertebrates and Young humpback chub feed mainly from the bottom eatingthe of small , 2017 pt.also feed 29floating aquatic and diatoms. Adults also feed mainly from the bottom but . De e ber on terrestrial insects (SWCA, 1997; Valdezion v and Ryel, 1995;m at Nov Wydoski, 1995). ajo N ived on av Razorback sucker d The razorback ch − in N 4, ar sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) was formerly the most cite 1 of 6 widespread and abundant 68the big-river fishes in the Colorado River. In the lower 14basin, razorbacko. N sucker apparently began to decline shortly after impoundment of Lake Mead in 1935. Today the species occupies only a small portion of its historical range, and most occupied areas have very low numbers of fish. Critical habitat for the razorback sucker includes Lake Mead and Lake Mohave, and the river reach between them. It also includes the Colorado River and its 100-year floodplain from Parker Dam to Imperial Dam. Reclamation's BA includes a detailed discussion of this species occurrence and requirements (Reclamation, 2000). In Lake Mead, the fish were abundant for many years after the reservoir filled, but declined during the 1960s and 1970s. The current population in Lake Mead is estimated to be less than 300 fish. The capture of a small number of juvenile adults since 1997 along with recent capture of larval razorback sucker in the spring of 2000 (Holden, Personal communication) indicates some successful recruitment is taking place. There are two populations of razorback sucker in Lake Mead in Las Vegas Bay and Echo Bay. A five-year study is underway to determine population size and movements of this fish and to determine why there is a small number of fish able to recruit, thus enabling a small number of razorback sucker to persist in Lake Mead. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-21 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 316 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 The razorback sucker is a large fish, reaching over two feet in length and eight pounds in weight. Reproduction in the lower basin has been studied in Lake Mead and Lake Mohave. Spawning in Lake Mohave typically begins in January or February, while in Lake Mead it begins slightly later (Jonez and Sumner, 1954). Spawning typically runs 30 to 90 days at water temperatures ranging from 55°F to 70°F (13°C to 21°C). Spawning areas tend to be wave-washed, gravelly shorelines and shoals. Fish spawn in water from three to 20 feet in depth with the majority of fish in the five- to 10-foot range. Razorback suckers apparently spawn continuously throughout the spawning season, with females releasing only a portion of their gametes at each event. Spawning occurs both day and night on Lake Mohave (Reclamation, file data). Eggs hatch in five to 10 days depending on water temperature. Optimal hatching success is around 68°F (20°C); hatching does not occur at extremes of cold or hot (50°F or 86°F; 10 C to 30 C) (Marsh and Minckley, 1985). Larvae swim up within several days and begin feeding on plankton. Juvenile razorback suckers in lakeside rearing ponds hide during the day in dense aquatic vegetation and under brush and debris and in rock cavities (Reclamation, 1996a, 2000). Most of the remnant populations of razorback sucker are found in Lake Mead and Lake Mohave (Reclamation, 2000). They are considered rare in the Grand Canyon and have o data). been documented in Lake Powell as recently as 1999 (Reclamation, file r nteri by non-native Spawning success has been limited by the predation of eggshe Iyoung017 and of t ,2 ept. ber 2sucker that have been species. Currently, efforts are being made to introduce razorback 9 .D v raised in areas free of predators into Lake n to vem NatioMohaveNohelp establish a larger population n of breeding adults, and continued studyiofed o the persistent population in Lake Mead is vajo in Na 4, arch v planned (Reclamation, 2000). d ite 6 c 168 . 143.8.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES No This section evaluates the potential effects on special-status species and their habitat that could occur as a result of implementation of the interim surplus criteria alternatives under consideration. This section is divided into three main special-status species categories: plants, wildlife and fish. For each category, the potential effects under baseline conditions are presented first, followed by a discussion of the alternatives as compared to baseline conditions. 3.8.4.1 EFFECTS ON SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES Only four plant species would potentially be affected by hydrological changes associated with the interim surplus criteria alternatives: Geyer’s milkvetch, Grand Canyon evening primrose, Las Vegas bear poppy and sticky buckwheat. 3.8.4.1.1 Baseline Conditions Geyer’s milkvetch, which occurs along the shoreline of Lake Mead, is mainly threatened by loss of habitat from inundation as a result of rising water levels at Lake COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-22 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 317 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Mead, invasion of shoreline (beach) habitat by tamarisk and arrowweed, and possibly trampling and grazing by burros. Shoreline recreation does not currently appear to be a major threat to this species because the beaches where it occurs do not receive heavy recreational use. This species would be affected by variations in Lake Mead surface elevations if suitable habitat were inundated. Baseline conditions indicate a decreased potential over time for such inundation to occur. If lake levels decline, exposing sand dune habitat and sandy soils, the species could benefit. However, if these areas are colonized by tamarisk after being exposed, there would be no net benefit. Grand Canyon evening primrose are found in beach habitat within the Grand Canyon. The beach habitat in the Grand Canyon is often invaded by riparian vegetation and is also utilized by recreationists, which results in adverse conditions for Grand Canyon evening primrose establishment. To the extent that beach habitat is altered by releases from Glen Canyon Dam, this species is covered under the Glen Canyon Dam ROD (1996) and Adaptive Management Program. Indirect effects to the habitat for this species may, however, result from fluctuations in Lake Mead pool elevations. Under baseline conditions, Lake Mead elevations are projected to decline over time. Reductions in Lake Mead elevations would likely result in an increase in exposed beach habitat in the lower Grand Canyon to Lake Mead that would potentially provide more r suitable habitat for Grand Canyon evening primrose. terio 7 he In of Lake Mead shoreline. As . the t r 29, 201 pt Las Vegas bear poppy occurs along the lower levels of . De embe with the Geyer’s milkvetch, this speciesion v benefit from lower water levels at Lake would at Nov Mead and would be adversely ajo N byed on affected v any increases in water levels. Benefits of i Nav lower surface elevations would bearch if invasion of exposed areas by tamarisk or d in 64, negated ite c other weedy exotic plant species were to occur. 168 . 14No Sticky buckwheat is found primarily along the Overton Arm of Lake Mead with smaller, potentially significant populations occurring in the vicinity of Overton Beach, along the Virgin River Valley, and along the Muddy River. As with the other three special-status plant species discussed, the major threats to sticky buckwheat at Lake Mead are the loss of habitat from inundation as the result of rising water levels at Lake Mead, and the invasion of shoreline (beach) habitat by tamarisk and arrowweed. This species could potentially benefit from lower lake levels at Lake Mead provided the newly exposed habitat was not colonized by weedy exotic plant species. 3.8.4.1.2 Effects of the Alternatives Potential effects to special-status plant species under the each of the alternatives would be similar to baseline conditions. Each alternative would result in Lake Mead elevations that would vary from those under baseline conditions, with the Flood Control Alternative resulting in slightly higher reservoir elevations, and the Basin States, Six States, California and Shortage Protection alternatives having lower reservoir elevations as compared to baseline projections. (Section 3.3 discusses the modeling results concerning potential future reservoir elevation trends in detail.) The differences in COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-23 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 318 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 potential future Lake Mead elevations under the alternatives as compared with baseline conditions are not expected to adversely affect the special-status plant species discussed above, as lower Lake Mead elevation trends may benefit these species. 3.8.4.2 EFFECTS ON SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES Special-status wildlife species with potential to occur in the area under consideration are Arizona Bell’s vireo, bald eagle, California black rail, Clark’s grebe, Cooper’s hawk, elf owl, gilded flicker, Southwestern willow flycatcher, Yuma clapper rail and western yellow-billed cuckoo. Under baseline conditions and each of the alternatives, the water surface elevation projected for Lake Powell indicates a potential for slightly declining water levels during the first 15 years of the period of analysis. Figure 3.3-6 in Section 3.3 shows modeled Lake Powell elevations. The differences between the alternatives and baseline conditions would not affect any special-status wildlife species identified for this analysis and as a result, Lake Powell is not discussed further. 3.8.4.2.1 Baseline Conditions ior Water fluctuations of Lake Mead generally preclude development ter 7 he In of shoreline riparian vegetation, with the exception of tributary inflow areas such as the9, 201River and . of t r 2 Virgin pt . e e vegetation be Lake Mead deltas (Reclamation, 1999). WoodyD ion v riparian m to the(i.e., cottonwood at Separationv No Canyon and willow) become abundant fromN Lake Mead delta ajo below d on as lake levels declinedin Nav highhive years of 1983-1986 (Reclamation, 1995). following rc runoff a d cit for 16864, As the probabilitye declining reservoir levels increases over time under baseline projections (asNo. 14 Figure 3.3-13 in Section 3.3), an increase in the amount of shown on sediment exposed in the Lake Mead and Virgin River deltas would again create favorable conditions for establishment of woody riparian habitat. An increase in riparian habitat along the deltas would potentially benefit Arizona Bell’s vireo, Cooper’s hawk, elf owl, gilded flicker, western yellow-billed cuckoo and Southwestern willow flycatcher. The interim surplus criteria alternatives are not expected to impact these species in the river corridor below Hoover Dam to the SIB (Reclamation, 2000). The increase in the probability for Lake Mead water levels to decline under baseline projections would also increase potential for sediment exposure that may create suitable conditions for marsh vegetation to develop and/or expand at the Lake Mead and Virgin River deltas, as well as along the Colorado, Virgin and Muddy rivers above Lake Mead. This would in turn increase the amount of preferred habitat for California black rail, Clark’s grebe and Yuma clapper rail. Riparian and marsh vegetation is typically located within the shallow water table zone near the lake shoreline. Although lowering lake levels has the potential to increase the amount of riparian and marsh vegetation because of increased sediment exposure, these habitat types would only become established if lake levels do not drop excessively. If COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-24 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 319 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 the exposed sediment is too far above the water table, riparian and marsh habitat is not likely to become established. 3.8.4.2.2 Effects of the Alternatives Potential effects on special-status wildlife species would be similar to baseline conditions. Each alternative would result in Lake Mead elevations that would vary from those under baseline conditions, with the Flood Control Alternative resulting in slightly higher reservoir elevations, and the Basin States, Six States, California, and Shortage Protection alternatives having lower reservoir elevations as compared to baseline projections. (Section 3.3 discusses the modeling results concerning potential future reservoir elevation trends in detail.) Under each of the alternatives, vegetation associated with Lake Mead, including riparian and marsh habitat in the Virgin River and Lake Mead deltas, would experience changes similar to those described above under baseline conditions. Consequently, the potential for changes in special-status species’ habitat associated with Lake Mead, and the Lake Mead and Virgin River deltas under the alternatives would be similar to those described for baseline conditions above. 3.8.4.3 EFFECTS ON SPECIAL-STATUS FISH SPECIES rior Operations at Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam include variouste e In programs designed 1 of th 29, 2 the7 to aid in the conservation and recovery of endangered .native species in 0 lower ept r Colorado River basin. These programs ion v. D include Sectionembe v 7 consultations under the ESA, atand ROD (1996), and the LCRMSCP. n No the Glen Canyon Dam Operationo N AMP vaj the ived o Reclamation is also d participant in rchUpper Colorado and San Juan River Basin a in Na ,a cite 1 Programs for endangered fish in the upper Colorado River Recovery Implementation6864 basin. CriticalNo. 14for all four of the endangered fish species has been designated by habitat the Service. Adverse modification of these habitats is prohibited under Section 7 of the ESA. These programs and protections will remain in effect under baseline conditions and each of the interim surplus criteria alternatives. As discussed, conditions are not favorable for endangered fish. Future baseline conditions and each of the interim surplus criteria are expected to increase, to varying degrees, the potential for reduced reservoir surface elevations. The following discuss effects of the alternatives on each of the special-status fish species. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-25 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 320 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.8.4.3.1 CHAPTER 3 Baseline Conditions Bonytail - Under baseline conditions, it is anticipated that bonytail in the Colorado River Basin and their designated critical habitat would continue to be protected under the ESA. Reclamation has consulted with the Service under Section 7 of the ESA on the operation of Glen Canyon and Hoover dams. The resulting biological opinions will remain in effect. Reservoir operations remain within historical ranges, and efforts to protect, recover, and monitor the species status would continue. The main effort to protect and conserve bonytail in the Lower Basin is the reintroduction of fingerling bonytail from the Dexter National Fish Hatchery, New Mexico that have been reared in predator-free ponds into Lake Mohave by the NFWG. The primary limiting factor for bonytail under existing habitat conditions is predation of early life stages by non-native species. This program is designed to address predation and maintain genetic stocks of bonytail. The main efforts to protect and conserve bonytail in the Upper Basin are conducted through the Upper Colorado Recovery Implementation Program (UC-RIP). This program is designed to recover the bonytail in the Upper Basin by 2010. Colorado pikeminnow - Under baseline conditions, it is anticipated rior Colorado e that pikeminnow pikeminnow would continue to be restricted to the Upper Basin.Int Colorado7 f the 9, 201 and their designated critical habitat would continue pt.be protected under the ESA. The to o r2 De mbe Colorado pikeminnow is extirpated fromon areas considered in this analysis except for all v. ove ati Lake Powell. The ability of the jColorado ed on N to successfully reproduce in a o N iv pikeminnow av Lake Powell has not beenN arc Successful spawning occurs in riverine habitats d in confirmed. h cite and16864, drift downstream to rear in sheltered environments. above Lake Powell, - larvae then 14 Survival of larvae .that drift into Lake Powell is limited by predation by non-native fish. No As development of water continues to occur in the upper basin, lower lake elevations are expected to occur. This will increase the amount of sheltered riverine habitat and indirectly benefit the survival of some larvae by preventing them from drifting into open water areas of the reservoir where the risk of predation is greater. The main efforts to protect and conserve Colorado pikeminnow in the Upper Basin are conducted through the UC-RIP, plus the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (SJ-RIP). This program is designed to recover the pikeminnow in the Upper Basin by 2010. Flannelmouth sucker - Under baseline conditions, it is anticipated that flannelmouth sucker populations in the project area would continue to be found in riverine habitats and tributaries. The species is not well adapted to reservoir habitats and are seldom found there. The low survival of eggs and larvae in the reservoirs may be attributed to impacts from cold water temperatures or predation by non-native species. These conditions would continue to limit the reproductive success of flannelmouth sucker in the reservoirs. For flannelmouth sucker that spawn in rivers upstream of Lake Mead and Lake Powell or other inflow areas, survival of larvae that drift into the reservoirs is limited by cold water temperatures and predation of non-native fish. Lower lake COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-26 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 321 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 elevations may increase the amount of sheltered riverine habitat and indirectly benefit the survival of some larvae by preventing them from drifting into open water areas of the reservoir where the risk of predation is greater. Efforts to improve habitat conditions under the UC-RIP, SJ-RIP, Glen Canyon Dam AMP and the Lower Colorado MSCP will benefit the flannelmouth sucker. Humpback chub - Under baseline conditions, it is anticipated that humpback chub populations would continue to be restricted to riverine and tributary habitats in the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon. The humpback chub and its designated critical habitat would continue to be protected under the ESA, the 1996 ROD, flow regimes and other activities as prescribed under the 1995 biological opinion and the Glen Canyon Dam AMP. In addition to the populations of the Grand Canyon, there are five stable populations in the Upper Basin. The UC-RIP and SJ-RIP are making progress toward recovery of the species. The humpback chub is considered extirpated from all other areas within the lower Colorado River Basin. Razorback sucker - Under baseline conditions, it is anticipated that razorback sucker populations in the Lower Basin would continue to be limited primarily to Lake Mead and Lake Mohave and designated critical habitat would continue to be protected under the ESA. Spawning success has been limited by predation of eggstandor n eri larvae by nonnative fish. Efforts are currently being made by the NFWG hesupplement7 to I 201 adult of t pt. lakes er 29, river with young breeding populations of razorback suckers by stocking . De band the io at v Mohave reared in predator free ponds. Operations n Lake Novemare conducted in an effort to Nat conserve and protect razorback sucker by ed on vajo hiv controlling the amount of lake fluctuation in Na rc during the spawning season. 64five-year study of the remnant razorback sucker ited 68 A , a c Mead is scheduled to be completed by 2002. These practices are population in Lake 14-1 No. expected to continue under baseline conditions and all the interim surplus criteria alternatives. 3.8.4.3.2 Effects of the Alternatives Potential effects on the five special-status fish species discussed above would be similar to baseline conditions. Each alternative would result in Lake Powell and Lake Mead surface elevations that would vary from those under baseline conditions, with the Flood Control Alternative resulting in slightly higher reservoir elevations, and the Basin States, Six States, California and Shortage Protection alternatives having lower reservoir elevations as compared to baseline projections. (Section 3.3 discusses the modeling results concerning potential future reservoir elevation trends in detail.) Efforts toward protection and recovery of these species would continue under each of the alternatives in the same manner as describe above for baseline conditions. Potential changes in BHBF and low steady summer flow frequencies are discussed in Section 3.6 of this FEIS, and Reclamation has determined that these effects would not be likely to adversely affect special-status fish species. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.8-27 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 322 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.9 RECREATION 3.9.1 INTRODUCTION The Colorado River, Lake Mead and Lake Powell provide water-based recreation opportunities that are of local, regional and national significance, as well as international interest. This recreation analysis addresses five specific recreation-related issues associated with potential effects that could result from implementation of the interim surplus criteria alternatives considered in this document. The issues addressed are potential effects to: • Reservoir marinas and boat launching and shoreline access for Lake Powell and Lake Mead; • Lake Mead and Lake Powell boating and navigation; • River and whitewater boating; • Sport fishing in Lake Powell, Lake Mead and the Colorado or i River below Inter 17 Hoover Dam; and he 20 of t ept. ber 29, • Recreational facilities operationalv. D n costs. em Natio d on Nov vajo e The interim surplus alternatives would not change the current and projected operations in Na 4, archiv d Havasu and thus would not affect recreation on those reservoirs. of Lakes Mohavete ci and 1686 14No. MARINAS, BOAT LAUNCHING AND SHORELINE 3.9.2 RESERVOIR ACCESS This section considers potential effects of the interim surplus criteria alternatives on Lake Powell and Lake Mead marinas, boat launching facilities and other important shoreline access areas. 3.9.2.1 METHODOLOGY Information in this section was compiled after review of available published and unpublished sources, and through personal communication with Reclamation, NPS and resource specialists. Thorough review of existing literature on the Colorado River provided information on reservoir recreation use for both Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Where available, the number of facilities at each marina, boat launching ramp and shoreline access area are included. From the information compiled, representative threshold pool elevations were selected for facilities, at or below which certain facilities may be rendered inoperable or relocation of facilities could be required to maintain their operation. These thresholds COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 323 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 were chosen based on either information provided in studies, communications with NPS personnel, or from comments received regarding the DEIS. Discussions of the probabilities of these thresholds occurring is detailed in the Environmental Consequences Section (Section 3.9.2.3). The probability of reservoir elevations occurring below these levels under baseline conditions and the action alternatives was identified using river system modeling as described in Section 3.3. Data generated from the river system model include the probability (represented graphically in the Environmental Consequences section) that the water level related to each alternative would be above the specified “threshold” pool elevations for each year during the period of analysis. The graphs indicate the general trend of elevation probabilities and present the incremental differences in probabilities for baseline conditions and each of the alternatives. 3.9.2.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Recreational boating on Lake Mead and Lake Powell is dependent upon access to the water via shoreline facilities such as marinas, docks and launch ramps. Fluctuation in water levels is a normal aspect of reservoir operations, and facilities are designed and operated to accommodate it. However, decreased pool elevations or rior e increased variations or rates in pool elevation fluctuation could resultthe Int in increased operation costs, 017 f temporary closures or possibly permanent closures. pt. o 29, 2 e r D be n v. ovem atioand on NMead depend on annual inflow from Reservoir pool elevations at Lake Powell d Lake ajo N Navandarchivefrom the respective dam to the Colorado the Colorado River d in upstream, outflow cit for 16864, River downstreame water deliveries. Operation of the Colorado River generally 14results in the highest pool elevations in Lake Powell in mid-summer and in Lake Mead, No. early winter. In general, pool levels in Lake Powell and Lake Mead tend to fluctuate on an annual cycle rather than on a monthly or seasonal cycle. Lake Powell historical pool fluctuations have normally ranged from 20 to 25 feet per year (Combrinks and Collins, 1992). Since operation of Glen Canyon Dam began in 1966, Lake Mead pool fluctuation has normally ranged from 5 to 25 feet per year. 3.9.2.2.1 Lake Powell Recreation Resources Lake Powell is located in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (GCNRA) in southern Utah and northern Arizona. Typical recreation activities that occur at Lake Powell include swimming and sunbathing, power boating, fishing, off-beach activities associated with boat trips (such as hiking and exploring ruins), house boating, personal water craft use, canoeing, kayaking, sailing, and other activities (USBR, 1995b). A carrying capacity study (NPS, 1991) provided information on the potential limits of boater use on Lake Powell. The study also showed that the average length of stay at the GCNRA is 4.5 days. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 324 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Visitation numbers for the entire GCNRA between 1990 and 1999 are provided in Table 3.9-1. The data indicate that there are seasonal variability in recreation use. The majority of use occurs in the summer months of June, July and August. The visitation numbers shown for 1995 through 1999 are considerably lower than visitation between 1990 and 1994 due to changes in NPS methods for calculating visitation. However, the seasonal pattern of visitation does not change; use remains highest in summer months. The majority of visitors to the GCNRA travel either less than 30 miles to visit (29.1 percent) or travel 121 to 240 miles (28.9 percent). This indicates that the area is used predominantly by local and regional visitors. Table 3.9-1 Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Visitation Year Jan Feb March April May June July August Sept Oct Nov Dec Total 1990 77,617 109,042 135,039 253,638 289,993 501,288 467,981 483,023 350,026 227,061 129,691 78,750 3,103,129 1991 81,875 97,120 118,182 199,462 346,764 451,674 503,752 568,030 396,785 247,982 120,822 78,442 3,210,890 1992 83,044 114,889 139,787 246,993 346,727 525,610 572,869 659,809 478,032 245,565 122,386 82,847 3,620,558 1993 60,927 1994 69,663 120,307 174,272 264,265 364,826 576,355 665,583 439,177 321,961 212,729 83,903 123,836 201,141 372,425 526,202 624,549 644,534 530,550 259,119 111,607 99,097 76,031 3,470,194 63,607 3,371,842 94,508 50,362 2,469,521 ior te89,670 48,269 2,532,087 1996 In r 17 0 f the 1997 49,954 54,401 115,523 157,249 245,000 288,742 420,927 437,846. 266,992 187,467 , 85,595 48,507 2,458,203 pt o er 29 2 e 285,105 197,673 77,247 50,315 2,467,199 1998 39,241 55,538 89,971 171,234 267,509 389,167 445,423 398,776 v. D mb ation on441,791ve No 305,006 200,457 89,799 55,503 2,667,249 1999 44,755 51,657 118,141 155,831 261,931N jo 426,744 515,641 Nava archived Source: Based on NPS data. in 4, cited 16 numbers changed in 1995. This resulted in significant reductions in visitation numbers * NPS methods for calculating visitation86 compared to prior years. 14No. * 35,814 66,553 88,414 151,369 196,905 410,610 435,840 461,431 285,118 192,597 41,303 1995 50,553 96,296 209,243 231,655 419,288 447,417 442,180 268,266 187,949 Recreation boating is the largest type of boating activity on Lake Powell, with an estimated 1.5 million boater nights per year in 1988. Although use at some of the major marinas, such as Wahweap, Hall’s Crossing and Bullfrog, decreased during a low water period in 1989, the total number of boats on Lake Powell was reported to have increased 14.5 percent by July 31, 1989, compared to the same period in 1988 (USBR, 1995b). Specific facilities and reservoir elevations important to their operation are discussed in the following sections. Map 3.9-1 depicts Lake Powell and the locations of shoreline facilities. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 325 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Map 3.9-1 Lake Powell and Associated Shoreline Recreation Facilities ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-4 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 326 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.9.2.2.2 Shoreline Public Use Facilities Public use facilities at Lake Powell that include water-based recreation activities are Wahweap, Dangling Rope Marina, Halls Crossing, Bullfrog, Hite, and Antelope Point. The GCNRA Proposed General Management Plan (NPS, 1979) describes the estimated capacity and development at these areas; these estimates are based on general concepts only and further detailed planning was proposed to begin after the plan’s acceptance in 1979. Table 3.9-2 summarizes the activities at each of the sites. If the actual number of improvements (boat slips, mooring buoys, houseboats, etc.) at a facility are known, it is listed in Table 3.9-2; otherwise, the presence of an improvement is indicated with a bullet (•). If an improvement does not exist, it is denoted with “N/A.” Below is a description of the shoreline public use facilities at Lake Powell. Wahweap – The facilities at Wahweap are the closest to Glen Canyon Dam, located off Interstate 89 at the mouth of Wahweap Bay. According to a study that addressed fluctuating lake levels and recreation use, the Stateline Launching Ramp at Wahweap became inoperable in 1989 when the lake elevation decreased to below 3677 feet msl (Combrink and Collins 1992). In 1993, NPS extended the Wahweap and Stateline boat ramps down to an operable level of 3612 feet msl (Henderson, 2000). erior Dangling Rope Marina – The facilities at Dangling Rope Marinant proposed to e I were of th All 2 17 . Canyon. 29,the0facilities float, t replace the facilities at Rainbow Marina in Forbidding Dep addition r e and they are only accessible by boat (NPS, 1979). In vemb to the facilities, tour n v. atiofor visits to Rainbow Bridge National No boats depart from Dangling Rope Marina ed on jo N Nava seasoniv n Monument during the irecreation, arch (NPS, 1993). There are no known reservoir cited would64 surface elevations that -168 impair operation of this facility. No. 14 Halls Crossing – The facilities at Halls Crossing are located off Utah Highway 276 on the east shore of Lake Powell, across the bay from Bullfrog Marina. According to a study that addressed fluctuating lake levels and recreation use, the Halls Crossing Ferry Ramp became inoperable in 1989 when the lake elevation decreased to below 3675 feet msl (Combrink and Collins, 1992). In 1993, NPS extended the boat ramp down to an operable level of 3612 feet msl (Henderson, 2000). Bullfrog – The facilities at Bullfrog are located midway up Bullfrog Bay, off of Utah Highway 276 and across the bay from Halls Crossing. According to a study that addressed fluctuating lake levels and recreation use, the Bullfrog Ferry Ramp became inoperable in 1989 when the lake elevation decreased to below 3675 feet msl. In addition, the Bullfrog Utility Service became inaccessible when the lake elevation decreased to below 3670 feet msl (road access was also unavailable at the slips) (Combrink and Collins, 1992). In 1993, NPS extended the boat ramp down to an operable level of 3612 feet msl (Henderson, 2000). COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 327 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Table 3.9-2 Lake Powell Shoreline Public Use Facilities Facility Wahweap Dangling Rope Marina Halls Crossing Bullfrog Hite Antelope Point * Lodging (rooms) 375 N/A 20 56 5 200-225 Restaurant/Snack Bar 2/1 N/A/1 •/1 1/1 N/A • Tour boats 9 N/A N/A 1 N/A 2 Boat slips 870 N/A 165 254 6 250-300 Mooring buoys 180 N/A 141 220 54 N/A Rental houseboats 175 N/A 89 112 21 60 Rental small boats 150 N/A 44 50 27 60 Dry storage 450 N/A 230 750 109 • RV park (spaces) 120 N/A 32 24 N/A 150 Marina campstore 1 1 1 1 N/A 1 Store • • 1 1 1 1 Boat repair • • • • N/A N/A gas r r t150io Parking (spaces) 2,500 N/A 300 1,575 e In e h 017 ft Campground (sites) 215 N/A 64 100 6 pt. o er 29, 2 . De e50 b m Picnic (sites) 124 N/A ion v20 N/A Nat d N/A Nov N/A n Day use N/A N/A vajoN/A e o beaches/trails in Na 4, archiv c ed 2 686 N/A Launching ramps it 1 1 1 -1 . 14N/A Airstrip N/A N/A 3,5002,100-foot, No Service station • • gas • foot, paved • 220 • N/A • 1 N/A paved Visitor center, cultural center • N/A N/A N/A N/A Ranger station • N/A • • N/A • Employee housing • • • N/A • • Concessionaire quarters 80 N/A 30 40 10 N/A Dorm units 119 6 24 96 0 N/A 7,80010,100 2,4003,100 3,4004,400 7,90010,300 2,5003,300 N/A Capacity (use per day) • Source: 2000. NPS 1979. Proposed General Management Plan and personal communication, Norm Henderson, NPS, • indicates presence of an improvement. N/A not applicable – indicates no improvement. * Facilities shown are proposed. Existing facilities include an entrance station, gravel parking area, two permanent toilets, and a boat ramp. The Navajo Nation and NPS are in the process of developing the site. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-6 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 328 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Hite – The facilities at Hite are located off of Utah Highway 95. According to a study that addressed fluctuating lake levels and recreation use, the Hite Launching Ramp became inoperable in 1989 when the lake elevation decreased to below 3677 feet msl (Combrink and Collins 1992). In 1993 NPS extended the boat ramp down to an operable level of 3612 feet msl. However, the ramp area is known to be useable down to 3630 feet msl (Henderson, 2000). Antelope Point – The facilities at Antelope Point are located off of Arizona Highway 98 on the southern side of Lake Powell. Development of Antelope Point only began recently, and data on visitation has not been collected on a formal basis. Existing facilities at the site consist of an entrance station where fees are collected, two permanent toilets, a large gravel parking area that can accommodate 220 vehicles, and a public boat ramp. The Navajo Nation, in conjunction with NPS, has plans to develop the site as a resort destination, and is in the process of selecting a master developer for the project. Facilities proposed for the site in the Development Concept Plan are listed in Table 3.9-2, above. The existing boat ramp at Antelope Point currently extends down to 3677 feet msl. NPS provided Reclamation with construction drawings for extending the boat ramp down to 3620 feet msl as water elevation declines. The extended boat ramperior allow would Int 36257 msl, houseboats and other watercraft to launch down to elevations e f th around 01 feet pt o er 29, 2 assuming about 5 feet of free board (Bishop, Personal .Communication, 2000). NPS . De b also provided Reclamation with a preliminary Antelopeem Marina layout drawing ion v Nov Point at for reservoir elevation of 3600ajo N ved on not been established that a marina v feet msl, but it has in Na 4, archi would be operableed this level. t at ci 1686 . 14- Monument – The Rainbow Bridge National Monument is Rainbow Bridgeo N National located on the south shore of Lake Powell and is bounded on three sides by the Navajo Reservation near the Utah/Arizona border. The facilities at the monument include courtesy docks, restrooms, a floating walkway, and a floating interpretive platform. Trails from the dock lead to viewing areas. One viewing area is used when Lake Powell is below the full-pool elevation of 3700 feet msl, and the other is used when the reservoir is at full-pool elevation. The docks and trail system are designed to accommodate lake level fluctuations allowed in the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and powerplants (from 3490 feet msl to 3700 feet msl) (NPS, 1993). If the lake levels fall below 3650 feet msl, the dock facilities would be moved and the old land trail through Bridge Canyon (submerged at full pool) would be hardened and used for access. The floating walkway and interpretive platforms would be removed and stored. The courtesy docks would be connected to the land trail with a short walkway (NPS, 1990). However, large quantities of silt that have been deposited where Bridge Creek flows into Lake Powell could create access problems at low water surface elevations. The large silt flats are difficult to cross with floating walkways; special construction techniques may be required to bridge these areas. At some lake elevations, it may be infeasible to maintain water access to the monument (NPS, 1993); however, the specific elevation is not known. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-7 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 329 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 When Lake Powell is operated below 3700 feet msl, some of the Rainbow Bridge National Monument is within a high hazard flash flood area. The 100- and 500-year flood elevations in Bridge Creek are estimated to be 7.5 feet and 10 feet above the creek channel, respectively. For the area well upstream of Lake Powell, the trail follows the creek and is above both the 100- and 500-year floodplains. However, the trail route in the transition zone between the reservoir and creek, along the lake’s edge, could be subject to water surface elevation increase, surface turbulence, and significant velocities, depending on the lake elevation at the time of flooding and the magnitude of the flood. For the lake itself, there would be little or no discernable water surface increase and the turbulence would be limited. When Lake Powell is at full operating pool, flash flood areas are well upstream of the reservoir, in the Bridge Creek Canyon drainage outside the monument. The General Management Plan for Rainbow Bridge includes a Flash Flood Mitigation Plan. In the event of combined low pool elevations and flash flood conditions, there are four components of the mitigation plan that would be put in place. These components include: 1) a wayside exhibit with information to inform visitors of possible flash flood hazards; 2) additional signage in the flood hazard zones to alert visitors where to move in case of a flood; 3) identification of evacuation and emergency measures, including chain of command responsibilities, emergency supply locations, and rior nte support facilities; and 4) installation of a warning system that would alert of the to evacuate. visitors I 2017 , t. Dep er 9 . access to mbarea2was primarily by foot. Prior to the construction of Glen Canyonon v ati Dam, Nove the Since the creation of Lake Powell, access ed on primarily by water, although the area ajo N iv is now Nav is also accessible tby trails througharch Mountain. Access to the monument is d in 64, Navajo ci e 168 restricted during the recreation season in accordance with the monument’s carrying 14capacity of 200 people at one time. In addition, access is limited daily during certain No. times of the day. Boat tours to the monument are allowed during the busier time of the day and originate at Dangling Rock Marina. All tours have an NPS interpreter on board to convey the monument’s significance. Access during quieter times of the day is limited to five to eight private boats. During the off-season, access to the monument is unrestricted except that boat tours are managed to ensure that only one tour boat at a time is present at the monument (NPS, 1993). 3.9.2.2.2.1 Threshold Elevations From the information presented above on reservoir pool elevations, three elevations, 3677 feet msl, 3626 feet msl and 3612 feet msl, were identified as representative threshold elevations below which shoreline facilities at Lake Powell could be affected. The existing boat ramp at Antelope Point extends down to elevation 3677 feet msl. This elevation is identified as one of the threshold elevations for the analysis of marinas and boat ramps at Lake Powell. As discussed above, the extended boat ramp would be operable down to 3625 feet msl. The elevation of 3626 feet msl is discussed in the boating navigation and safety section (Section 3.9.3.3.1) and is considered to be COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-8 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 330 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 representative of the threshold elevation for the extended boat ramp. Since the minimum reservoir elevation at which the Antelope Point Marina would be operable has not yet been established, the threshold elevations of 3626 feet msl (discussed above) and 3612 feet msl (discussed below) are assumed to apply to a future marina at Antelope Point. As discussed above, the boat ramps at Wahweap, Halls Crossing, Bullfrog, and Hite are designed to operate down to 3612 feet msl. It is not known what adjustments and capital improvement costs would be required if elevations were to decline to below 3612 feet msl. As such, 3612 feet msl is used in this analysis as the lower threshold elevation for marinas and boat ramps at Lake Powell. The threshold elevations of 3677 feet msl, 3626 feet msl and 3612 feet msl are used to evaluate baseline conditions and the effects of interim surplus criteria alternatives on shoreline facilities at Lake Powell in the Environmental Consequences section (Section 3.9.2.3.1). The threshold elevation of 3626 feet msl is evaluated in Section 3.9.3.3.1. 3.9.2.2.3 Lake Mead Recreation Resources rior e Lake Mead, the reservoir created by the construction of Hoover IDam, is located in the e nt 7 f thNevada 201northern Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LMNRA) in pt. o southern 29, and r . De Arizona. The LMNRA contains 1.5 million acres andvembe ion v No encompasses the 100-mile-long Nat Lake Mead, 67-mile-long Lake Mohave, the surrounding desert, and the isolated vajo fullhived on of approximately 1210 feet msl, Shivwits Plateau in d in Na At aarc pool elevation Arizona. cite 1 is 64, Lake Mead’s surface area68153,235 acres, the storage capacity is 25.9 maf and there are 695 miles of o. 14 (USBR, 1996b). Lake Mead is the largest man-made lake in N shoreline the Western Hemisphere. LMNRA receives approximately ten million visitors annually. Typical water-based recreation activities that occur on Lake Mead include: swimming, boating, houseboating, fishing, sailboarding, paddlecraft use, scuba diving (USBR, 1996b). On average, the majority of boats are personal watercraft. There may be as many as 6000 boats combined on Lake Mead and Lake Mohave during a peak recreation use weekend. At Boulder Beach, which is located near the urbanized area of Las Vegas and surrounding communities, the personal watercraft percentage may be as high as 50 percent. 3.9.2.2.4 Shoreline Public Use Facilities at Lake Mead Six marinas at Lake Mead provide boat launching facilities as well as slips and storage, fuel and boat launches. In addition, there are three boat ramps without associated marinas and one site without a boat ramp. The marinas include Boulder Beach, Las Vegas Bay, Calville Bay, Echo Bay, Overton Beach and Temple Bar. The boat ramps are located at Hemenway, Government Wash and South Cove. Pearce Ferry has no COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-9 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 331 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 boat ramp and is used as a take out by private and commercial boaters that kayak and raft the Colorado River into Lake Mead. Facilities at the six marinas are summarized in Table 3.9-3, and all of the sites are described below. If the actual number of improvements (boat slips, etc.) at the facility is known, it is included in the table; otherwise, the presence of an improvement is indicated with a bullet (•). If there are no facilities at a location, this is indicated with an “N/A” for “not applicable.” Map 3.9-2 shows the locations of both developed and undeveloped sites on Lake Mead. Table 3.9-3 Lake Mead Marina Public Use Facilities Boulder Beach/ Lake Mead Marina Las Vegas Bay Calville Bay Echo Bay Overton Beach Temple Bar Lodging • N/A N/A • N/A • Restaurant • • • • • • Facility • N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Marina (boat slips) 750 • 650 320 • • Mooring buoys N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A • • N/A N/A Tour boats N/A or teriN/A • • In th•e 017 Dry storage • • •pt. of 29, 2 • De er RV Park (spaces) N/A N/An v. N/A emb 58 N/A v io Nat d on No Trailer village N/A 69 o • • • avaj rchN/Ae iv Trailer sewage dump d in N • • • • a cite 16864, Grocery/gift store • • • • - • o. 14 N Gasoline/Propane N/A • • • • Rental houseboats N/A Rental small boats N/A • • 7 111 • • • • • • • • • Parking (spaces) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Campground (sites) Boat sewage dump 154 89 80 166 N/A 153 Picnic (sites) • • • N/A N/A N/A Showers • N/A • • • • Launching ramps • • • • • • N/A N/A N/A • N/A • Airstrip Ranger station • • • • • • Self-service laundry • N/A • • • • N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Capacity (use per day) Source: NPS, 1995 • indicates presence of an improvement N/A not applicable – indicates no improvement COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-10 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-11 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Map 3.9-2 Lake Mead and Associated Shoreline Recreation Facilities AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 332 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 333 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Recreation boating is very popular at Lake Mead, and the shoreline public use facilities are associated with boating use. Most of the facilities shown in the Table 3.9-3 were designed to operate at full pool. However, NPS has determined costs associated with adjusting facilities based on lowered lake elevations. These facilities are out of their normal operating range at pool elevations of 1180 feet msl, requiring sizable capital expenditures to restore them to working order. In addition, there are additional costs associated with any 20-foot drop below this level. Hemenway – The boat ramp facility at Hemenway is the closest to Hoover Dam and is located off Nevada Highway 166. There is one courtesy dock and a parking area (Henderson, 2000). In addition, campgrounds and a group campground are located at Hemenway. The group campground is for self-contained vehicles, such as trailers and motor homes. There are no restrooms or tables. Boulder Beach – The facilities at Boulder Beach are located off of Lakeshore Scenic Drive, just off of Nevada Highway 167 outside of Boulder City, Nevada, and include restrooms, tables and grills. There is also a group campground at Boulder Beach for tent camping only with limited vehicle parking. Las Vegas Bay – The facilities at Las Vegas Bay are located off Lakeshore Scenic ior Inter 17 Drive, just off Lake Mead Drive (Nevada Highway 167). According to a marina 0 f the worker, when the lake elevation drops below 1190 feet msl, the boat ramps and floats pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D vemb have to be readjusted. tion o N Na vajo facilityd on e at Government Wash is located off Nevada Government Wash – TheNa ramprchiv d in boat , a Highway 167. cite is 16864 There - one courtesy dock and a parking area (Henderson, 2000). 14 No. Calville Bay – The facilities at Calville Bay are located off Nevada Highway 167 on the north shore of Lake Mead, midway up Calville Bay. Echo Bay – The facilities at Echo Bay are located off Nevada Highway 167, midway up Overton Arm. Overton Beach – The facilities at Overton Beach are located off Nevada Highway 169, near the top of Overton Arm. South Cove – The boat launching facilities at South Cove are located off Aztec Wash, which is off Interstate 93 in Arizona. There is one courtesy dock, picnic facilities, and unpaved parking (Henderson, 2000). In addition, there is an airstrip approximately four miles from the facilities at South Cove (Henderson, 2000). Temple Bar – The facilities at Temple Bar are located on the south shore of Lake Mead at the end of an unnamed road off Interstate 93 in Arizona. Pearce Ferry - This area is located near Aztec Wash, which is off Interstate 93 in Arizona at the eastern end of the LMNRA. The area is a large, gravel wash with a COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-12 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 334 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 gentle slope down to the water. Vehicles are driven down to the water’s edge to load rafts and other small boats. There is parking and a year-round portable toilet, and primitive camping is allowed. There are no ramps, docks or other developed facilities at the site. The Hualapai River Runners are one of the commercial guide services that use Pearce Ferry as a take out. The River Runners conduct guided whitewater trips that put in at Diamond Creek, and float trips that put in at Quartermaster Canyon. All of these trips take out at Pearce Ferry. Comments from the Hualapai Tribe on the Draft EIS identified a Lake Mead pool elevation of 1183 feet msl as a threshold elevation for accessing the Pearce Ferry takeout. At this elevation and below, the river subdivides into smaller channels and large areas of silt and mud are exposed, prohibiting access to the take out. When Pearce Ferry is inaccessible as a takeout, boaters must continue downstream to South Cove, an additional 16 miles. This costs river runners fuel (for motorized craft), time (one to two more hours on the river) and possible safety problems (due to fatigue). For commercial boaters, the additional travel time to South Cove can also result in lost business by preventing guides from meeting river tour schedules. rior Inte f the 9, 2017 3.9.2.2.4.1 Threshold Elevations pt. o . De ember 2 nv v Natio d on N pool elevations where facilities or The description of facilities above identifies several o ajo access to facilities would Naaffected. hive Vegas Bay, 1190 feet msl was identified be v Las d in facilities arc Atrequire adjustment, but would continue to be e itwhich 6864, would as an elevation c at -1 operable. Elevation14 feet msl was identified by the NPS as the elevation at which o. 1180 N most other developed facilities would require capital expenditures, rather than just an adjustment, in order to maintain operation. Elevation 1183 feet msl was identified by the Hualapai Tribe in their comments on the DEIS as a threshold elevation for using the undeveloped Pearce Ferry site as a takeout for rafts and other whitewater boats. The DEIS evaluated the consequences of elevation 1180 feet msl for facilities at Lake Mead (Section 3.9.2.3.2). In response to the Hualapai Tribe’s comment on the DEIS regarding the threshold elevation of 1183 for Pearce Ferry, this FEIS evaluates the consequences of 1183 feet msl instead of 1180 feet msl. Therefore, 1183 feet msl is used as a representative threshold elevation for shoreline facilities and public access at Lake Mead and is used in the Environmental Consequences section (Section 3.9.2.3.2) to evaluate the effects of baseline conditions and interim surplus criteria alternatives on shoreline facilities and public access at Lake Mead. 3.9.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Recreational boating on Lake Mead and Lake Powell is dependent upon access to the water via public shoreline facilities such as marinas, docks and boat ramps, as well as COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-13 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 335 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 undeveloped launch areas. Some fluctuation in water level is a normal aspect of reservoir operations, and facilities are designed and operated to accommodate it. However, decreased pool elevations or increased variations or rates in pool elevation fluctuation could result in increased operation costs, facility improvements, temporary closures, or possibly permanent closure of shoreline facilities. As lake levels fluctuate, developed facilities must be adjusted accordingly. This could require moving and relocating docks, extending utility lines associated with shoreline facilities, increasing sewage pump capacity, reducing pressure on water supply lines to boats, adjusting and relocating buoys, moving breakwater barriers and channel markers, and extending launch and dock ramps (Combrink and Collins, 1992). If lake fluctuations exceed 25 feet, special adjustments to lake facilities would be necessary, including the relocation of anchors and the extension or reduction of utility lines and cables that provide utility service to floating facilities (Combrink and Collins, 1992). In addition, if developed facilities are temporarily or permanently closed or relocated, or undeveloped sites are no longer accessible, there may be associated increases in reservoir boating congestion or longer wait times at sites that remain open. This could have an effect on boating satisfaction. The cost of relocating developed facilities in response to changes in reservoir pool elevations is discussed in Section 3.9.6. erior Int f the 9, 2017 3.9.2.3.1 Lake Powell pt. o . De ember 2 nv ov Natio d on above, pool elevations of 3677 feet As discussed in the Affected Environment sectionN ajo i N v arc asve msl and 3612 feet msliwerea d n identified h representative thresholds that are problematic ite at Lake 4, c for shoreline facilities -1686 Powell. Elevation 3677 feet msl was identified as a threshold elevation 14 the existing Antelope Point, and the NPS identified 3612 feet No. for msl as a threshold for several other facilities. These are elevations below which facility adjustments or capital improvements would be required. There are two other threshold elevations not treated directly below. Elevation 3626 feet msl has also been defined as a threshold elevation for the design boat ramp at Antelope Point. This elevation is discussed in Section 3.9.3.3.1. Facilities at Rainbow Bridge would be affected by pool elevations of 3650 feet msl or below, as described above in Section 3.9.2.2. Although specific probabilities of remaining above elevation 3650 feet msl were not determined, the probabilities that lake elevations would remain above 3650 feet msl would be between the probabilities for the threshold elevations of 3677 and 3612 feet msl, which are discussed below. Figure 3.9-1 provides an overview of the differences in end-of-July water surface elevation trends under baseline conditions and the action alternatives over the period of analysis. Figure 3.9-2 and Table 3.9-4 indicate the probability of Lake Powell elevation exceeding the threshold of 3677 feet msl in July. The probability would decrease the COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-14 3500 2000 3520 3540 3560 3580 3600 3620 3640 3660 3680 3700 3720 2005 2010 2015 Shortage Protection Alternative California Alternative Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative Baseline Conditions 2020 3.9-15 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 10th Percentile ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N 50th Percentile 90th Percentile Figure 3.9-1 Lake Powell End of July Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions th th 90 , 50 and 10th Percentile Values COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Water Surface Elevation (feet) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2045 3612 3626 3650 3677 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 336 of 1200 0% 2000 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2005 2010 2015 2020 3.9-16 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 ior Shortage Inter Protection Alternative e of th 29, 2017 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N California Alternative Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative Baseline Conditions Figure 3.9-2 Lake Powell End of July Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to 3677 Feet msl COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 337 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 338 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 most over the initial 15 years of the period of analysis. During this time, the probability would decline from nearly 80 percent to less than 40 percent under baseline conditions and the alternatives. During years 16 through 25 the effects of the alternatives would diminish, although the probability of exceeding elevation 3677 feet msl would remain low (roughly 30-40 percent). After year 25 there would be no discernable effect of the alternatives for the remainder of the analysis period; the probability of exceeding elevation 3677 feet msl would remain fairly low at around 40 to 45 percent. The differences between the alternatives would be most apparent during the first 15 years. The greatest difference occurs in year nine, when the difference between baseline conditions and the Shortage Protection Alternative is 19 percent. The Flood Control Alternative, with results that are nearly identical to those of baseline conditions, has the lowest probability of pool elevations dropping below 3677 feet msl, whereas the Shortage Protection and California alternatives have the highest probability. The Basin States and Six States alternatives have probabilities between the baseline conditions and the Shortage Protection Alternative. Table 3.9-4 Probabilities of Lake Powell Elevation Exceeding 3677 feet in July ior Inter 17 f the 20 Alternative pt.- o er 29, – 49 e 16 25 b Years 26 Years 1-15 v. D Years m ation on Nove N Baseline Conditions 46%-40% vajo79%-39% d 40%-34% e in Na 4, archiv Basin States Alternative 686 78%-36% 39%-34% 46%-40% cited 1 . 14No Flood Control Alternative 79%-39% 40%-35% 46%-40% Range of Probability Six States Alternative 78%-36% 39%-34% 46%-40% California Alternative 75%-33% 40%-34% 46%-40% Shortage Protection Alternative 75%-33% 39%-34% 46%-40% The probability of Lake Powell pool elevation exceeding the threshold of 3612 feet msl in July under baseline conditions and each of the alternatives is shown in Figure 3.9-3 and Table 3.9-5. The probability is greater than 70 percent throughout the period of analysis. The probability begins at 100 percent, due to the relatively full initial elevation, and declines gradually throughout the period of analysis. In general, probabilities decrease within a 10 to 15 percent range during the initial 15-year period, followed by an additional 10 to 15 percent decrease from years 16 through 34. For the remainder of the analysis period, decreases are around 5 percent. The differences between the alternatives is slight, with the greatest difference in probabilities being about eight percent. The Flood Control Alternative has the same COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-17 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 339 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 probabilities as baseline conditions and therefore would have no effect. The other alternatives have probabilities less than or equal to baseline conditions. The Shortage Protection and California Alternatives have effects similar to each other and result in the greatest departure (maximum eight percent) from baseline conditions. The Six States and Basin States alternatives are between the Shortage Protection Alternative and baseline conditions, and have a maximum departure of five percent from baseline conditions. Each of the alternatives is discussed below in more detail with respect to the patterns indicated on Figures 3.9-2 and 3.9-3 and Tables 3.9-4 and 3.9-5. Table 3.9-5 Probabilities of Lake Powell Elevation Exceeding 3612 feet in July Range of Probability Alternative Years 1-15 Baseline Conditions Years 16-34 Years 35-49 100%-91% 88%-76% 78%-72% 76%-72% r terio In 78%-72% Flood Control Alternative 100%-91% 88%-76% 017 f the pt. o er 29, 2 . De 87%-75% b Six States Alternative 100%-88% 76%-72% ion v Novem at N n jo California Alternative ava 100%-87% 85%-75% 76%-72% ed o in N 4, archiv d 6 cite 1 Alternative Shortage Protection68 100%-86% 84%-75% 76%-72% . 14o N Basin States Alternative 100%-88% COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-18 86%-75% 70% 2000 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 2005 2010 2015 2020 3.9-19 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 California Alternative 2045 Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative Baseline Conditions 2050 CHAPTER 3 ior Inter Protection Alternative e Shortage of th 29, 2017 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Figure 3.9-3 Lake Powell End of July Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to 3612 Feet msl COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 340 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 341 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.9.2.3.1.1 Baseline Conditions The probability under baseline conditions that Lake Powell pool elevation is above 3677 feet msl in July decreases from 79 percent in year 1 to 39 percent in year 15. In years 16 through 25, the probability ranges between 40 and 34 percent. For the remainder of the analysis period the probability ranges between 40 and 46 percent. The early declining probabilities (for baseline conditions and alternatives) can be mostly attributed to increasing consumptive use of Colorado River water in the Upper Basin. The later rise is attributed to the suspension of equalization requirements between Lake Powell and Lake Mead (see Section 1.4.2). There is a high probability that July Lake Powell pool elevation would exceed the threshold of 3612 feet msl for the baseline condition throughout the period of analysis. Between years 1 and 15, the probability decreases from 100 percent to 91 percent. Between years 16 and 34, the probability continues to decrease gradually from 88 percent to 76 percent. For the remainder of the analysis period, the probability decreases slightly, ranging between 78 and 72 percent. The declining trend of all probabilities (baseline conditions and alternatives) can be mostly attributed to increasing consumptive use of Colorado River water in the Upper Basin. ior Inter 17 3.9.2.3.1.2 Basin States Alternative 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e The probability of the Lake Powell poolion v. D exceeding 3677 feet msl in July is elevation mb at Nove baseline conditions. In the slightly lower under the Basin ajo NAlternative than under States on ved Nav archifrom 78 percent to 36 percent under the Basin first 15 years, the probability decreases in , cit d probability States Alternative.eThe 16864 during this period is one percent to eight percent 14lower than under baseline conditions. In years 16 to 25, the probability decreases to a No. low of 34 percent, then rises to 39 percent. During this period, the probability is generally the same as for baseline conditions. For the remainder of the analysis period, probabilities fluctuate between 40 and 46 percent, and are generally the same as under baseline conditions. The probability of Lake Powell elevation exceeding 3612 feet msl in July under the Basin States Alternative is slightly lower than for the baseline conditions. Between years 1 and 15, the probability decreases from 100 percent to 88 percent, compared to a 91 percent probability under baseline conditions. During this period, the probability is typically up to two percent less than under baseline conditions. Between years 16 and 34, the probability continues a gradual decline to 75 percent, and ranges between zero and five percent less, but typically between zero and two percent less, than under baseline conditions. For the remaining years of analysis, the probability continues to decline to a low of 72 percent in year 2050, and is within one percent of the probability under baseline conditions. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-20 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 342 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.9.2.3.1.3 Flood Control Alternative The probability of Lake Powell pool elevation exceeding 3677 feet msl under the Flood Control Alternative is approximately the same as for baseline conditions. In the first 15 years, the probability decreases from 79 to 39 percent, and is within one percent of the probability under baseline conditions. From years 16 to 25, the probability fluctuates between 40 and 35 percent. The probability during this period is typically the same as under baseline conditions. By the end of the period of analysis, the probability remains fairly constant, between 40 and 46 percent. During this period, the probability is typically the same as under baseline conditions. The probability of Lake Powell pool elevation exceeding 3612 feet msl under the Flood Control Alternative is generally the same as that described for baseline conditions throughout the period of analysis. 3.9.2.3.1.4 Six States Alternative The probability of Lake Powell pool elevation exceeding 3677 feet msl under the Six States Alternative is very similar to the Basin States Alternative discussed above. In early years, the probability is up to seven percent less than under baseline conditions. rior In later years, the probability is generally the same as under he Inte conditions. baseline 7 01 of t 29, 2 ept. 3612rfeet msl under the Six The probability of Lake Powell pool elevation.exceedingmbe v D ation BasinNove Alternative. In early years, the States Alternative is also very similar to the on States jo N Nava ar than ed probability is up to four percent less chivunder baseline conditions. In later years, the in cited 16864 probability is typically the same ,as under baseline conditions. 14No. 3.9.2.3.1.5 California Alternative The probability of Lake Powell pool elevation exceeding 3677 feet msl is lower under the California Alternative than under baseline conditions. In the first 15 years, the probability declines from 75 percent to a low of 33 percent, and ranges from 4 to 16 percent less than under baseline conditions. In years 16 to 25, the probability increases slightly, ranging from 34 to 40 percent, and is typically the same as under baseline conditions. For the remainder of the analysis period, the probability increases slightly, remaining between 40 and 46 percent, and is always within one percent of baseline conditions. The probability of Lake Powell pool elevation exceeding 3612 feet msl under the California Alternative is slightly lower than under baseline conditions. Between years 1 and 15, the probability decreases from 100 percent to 87 percent and is from zero to eight percent less than under baseline conditions. The probability continues to decrease from 85 to 75 percent in years 16 through 34, and is up to seven percent less than under baseline conditions. For the remaining years of analysis, the probability ranges between 76 and 72 percent, and is from zero to two percent less than under baseline conditions. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-21 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 343 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.9.2.3.1.6 Shortage Protection Alternative The probability of Lake Powell pool elevation exceeding 3677 feet msl under the Shortage Protection Alternative is not significantly different from the California Alternative discussed above. In early years, the probability is up to 19 percent less than under baseline conditions. In later years, the probability is typically the same as under baseline conditions. The probability of Lake Powell pool elevation exceeding 3612 feet msl under the Shortage Protection Alternative is not significantly different from the California Alternative discussed above. In early years, the probability is up to eight percent less than under baseline conditions. In later years, the probability is within two percent of the probability under baseline conditions. 3.9.2.3.2 Lake Mead As discussed in the Affected Environment section above, a pool elevation of 1183 feet msl was identified as a representative threshold that is problematic for shoreline access at Lake Mead. Figure 3.9-4 provides an overview of the difference in end-of-year water surface elevations under baseline conditions and each of the action alternatives. ior Inter 17 Although elevations would typically be lower during the summer peak-use period, the 0 f the differences between baseline conditions and action alternatives would be similar to pt. o er 29, 2 e .D b those presented herein. vem ion v Nat d on No vajo the probability of Lake Mead elevation exceeding Figure 3.9-5 and Tablen Na indicate hive i 3.9-6 arc ited feet6864,the end of the year. As shown in Figure 3.9-5, the c the threshold of 1183 msl at -1 probability is low . 14 the period of analysis due primarily to effects associated with o over N baseline conditions. In the initial 15 years of analysis, the probabilities under baseline conditions and the alternatives decline by more than 20 percent. Shortly after year 15, the probabilities under baseline conditions and the alternatives converge near 35 percent. Subsequently, a probability of 28 to 36 percent is maintained until the end of the analysis period. Table 3.9-6 Comparison of Lake Mead Elevation Exceedance Probabilities for Elevation 1183 Feet Alternative Year 0-15 Years 16 - 49 Baseline Conditions 65%-36% 36%-29% Basin States Alternative 55%-32% 35%-29% Flood Control Alternative 65%-36% 38%-29% Six States Alternative 55%-32% 35%-29% California Alternative 45%-25% 35%-28% Shortage Protection Alternative 47%-26% 34%-28% COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-22 1000 2000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200 1220 2005 2010 2015 Shortage Protection Alternative California Alternative Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative Baseline Conditions 2020 3.9-23 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 10th Percentile ior Inter 17 e of th 50th9, 20 Percentile pt. . De ember 2 v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N 90th Percentile Figure 3.9-4 Lake Mead End of December Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternative to Baseline Conditions th th th 90 , 50 and 10 Percentile Values COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Water Elevation (feet) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2045 1170 1183 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 344 of 1200 0% 2000 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2005 2010 2015 2020 3.9-24 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 or nteri 7 IStates Alternative e of th Six 29, 201 pt. California Alternative . De ember v n Shortage Protection Alternative Natio d on Nov jo Nava archive in cited 16864, o. 14 N Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative Baseline Conditions Figure 3.9-5 Lake Mead End of December Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to 1183 Feet msl COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 345 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 346 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.9.2.3.2.1 Baseline Conditions The probability of Lake Mead pool elevation exceeding 1183 feet msl declines from 65 percent to 36 percent under baseline conditions during the first 15 years of the analysis period. In the remaining years of the analysis period, the probability ranges between 36 and 29 percent. The general declining trend of Lake Mead elevations over time can be attributed to increases in Upper Basin use. 3.9.2.3.2.2 Basin States Alternative The probability of Lake Mead pool elevation exceeding 1183 feet msl in the first 15 years of the analysis period declines from 55 percent to 36 percent under the Basin States Alternative. The probability during this period is typically up to nine percent less than under baseline conditions. In remaining years of the analysis period, the probability ranges between 35 and 29 percent. During this period, the probability is within one percent of the probability under baseline conditions. 3.9.2.3.2.3 Flood Control Alternative The probability of Lake Mead pool elevation exceeding 1183 feet msl inr the first 15 io years of the analysis period declines from 65 percent to 36 percenttunder the Flood In er 17 he the probability ranges 20 Control Alternative. In remaining years of the analysis of t ept. period,r 29,1183 feet msl under D be between 38 and 29 percent. The probability v. exceeding elevation on of Novem atiapproximately the same as under baseline the Flood Control Alternative would be ajo N d on conditions throughout itheNav analysisvperiod. entire rchi e n a cited 16864, 14 3.9.2.3.2.4 Six States No. Alternative The probability of Lake Mead pool elevation exceeding 1183 feet msl in the first 15 years of the analysis period declines from 55 percent to 32 percent under the Six States Alternative. In remaining years of the analysis period, the probability ranges between 35 and 29 percent. The probability is nearly identical to that for the Basin States Alternative discussed above. 3.9.2.3.2.5 California Alternative The probability of Lake Mead pool elevation exceeding 1183 feet msl is lowest under the California Alternative in most years. In the first 15 years, the probability ranges between 45 and 25 percent. This is up to 26 percent lower than under baseline conditions. After year 16, the probability is within one percent of the probability under baseline conditions. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-25 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 347 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.9.2.3.2.6 Shortage Protection Alternative The probability of Lake Mead pool elevation exceeding 1183 feet msl under the Shortage Protection Alternative is nearly the same as under the California Alternative. In the first 15 years, the probability ranges between 47 and 27 percent and is up to 26 percent lower than under baseline conditions. After year 16, the probability associated with the Shortage Protection Alternative generally converges with baseline conditions and the other alternatives, similar to the California Alternative. 3.9.3 RESERVOIR BOATING/NAVIGATION This section discusses potential effects of the interim surplus criteria on reservoir boating and navigation. This includes a discussion of areas on the reservoir that could become unsafe for boating at certain elevations due to exposed rocks or other obstructions, and safe boating densities that indicate the number of boats that can safely be accommodated on the reservoirs at one time. Boating navigation and safe boating capacities on Lake Powell and Lake Mead are dependent upon water surface elevations. As lake levels decline, so does the available surface area. Hazards such as exposed rocks may become more evident,r or changes in rio for navigation patterns may be necessary. The area of the reservoirsnte he I available7 boating is t 201 also reduced, which may affect the number of boatspt. of safely operate at one time. e that can er 29, At low pool elevations, special buoys orion v. Dmayvemb to warn boaters of markers o be placed Nat d o placed navigational hazards. In addition, signs may ben N in areas that are deemed vajo hive unsuitable for navigation.Na in arc d cite 16864, 143.9.3.1 METHODOLOGY No. Description of the affected environment is based on a literature review of published and unpublished documents and maps, and personal communications with NPS staff at the GCNRA and LMNRA. Information received includes the identification of navigation issues associated with recreational boating on Lake Powell and Lake Mead, such as navigation safety and safe boating densities. Low reservoir pool elevations identified in the literature or through discussions with NPS as being of concern for reservoir boating and navigation are discussed herein. Assessment of environmental consequences associated with implementing the interim surplus criteria alternatives is based on river system modeling and probability analyses of Lake Powell and Lake Mead pool elevations exceeding identified thresholds. Safe boating capacity is another aspect of boating navigation and safety. Safe boating is one factor that can be used to assess the carrying capacity of a reservoir. To date, no determination of carrying capacity (number of boats at one time) has been made for either Lake Powell or Lake Mead. However, the NPS is currently developing a carrying capacity approach for managing water-based recreation on Lake Mead that is based on COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-26 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 348 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 the U.S. Forest Service Recreation Opportunity Spectrum system. Results of the NPS study were not available for this analysis. A safe boating density of nine acres per boat was established for the GCNRA (USBR, 1995b) at Lake Powell. The safe boating density could be used to assess the effects of the interim surplus criteria alternatives on boating safety if daily boating levels for the reservoir were available. However, there is no known information on the level of daily or peak boating use, such as whether the current boating densities on the reservoirs have approached or exceeded the safe boating density (as discussed below). Without information on current reservoir boat densities, it is not known whether future reductions in pool elevations at Lake Powell and Lake Mead would result in unsafe boating conditions. 3.9.3.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.9.3.2.1 Lake Powell Boating Navigation and Safety In 1986, the GCNRA developed an “Aids to Navigation Plan” for Lake Powell that identified boating safety issues on the reservoir and low pool elevations that could affect boating (NPS, 1986). The navigation system uses regulatory buoys and other or nteri 7 marking devices to warn boat operators of hazardous conditionsIassociated with 1 f the subsurface obstructions or changes in subsurface conditions that 29, 20 hazardous for pt. o er could be e safe passage. Placement of many of these n v. D devices b dependent on the lake marking em is Natio d on Nov elevation. ajo ive Nav d in 36804, arch there are several places that remain passable, cit below 686 feet msl, At pool elevationse -1 although buoys are placed for safe navigation. At elevation 3626 feet msl and 3620 feet o. 14 N msl, there are two areas on the reservoir that are closed to commercial tour boats and recreational boats, respectively, because of hazardous obstructions to navigation. One of the areas is around Castle Rock, just east of the Wahweap Marina, and the other is around Gregory Butte, which is about midway to Dangling Marina from Wahweap (as shown on Map 3.9-1). At elevation 3626 feet msl commercial tour boats leaving the Wahweap Marina heading up reservoir (east) must detour 8.5 miles around the southern end of Antelope Island. At Gregory Butte, commercial tour boats must detour 4.5 miles around Padre and Gregory Buttes (NPS, 1986). The added mileage and increased travel time makes the more popular half-day trips of the area infeasible for commercial tour boat operators. In addition, the added mileage may influence recreational boaters to remain in the area of Wahweap Bay, which can result in congestion (Henderson, 2000). In addition to buoys marking obstructions, the Aids to Navigation Plan also established a marked travel corridor to guide boat travel on Lake Powell. This primary travel corridor is the main channel of the old Colorado River bed and is marked with buoys along the entire length of the reservoir. Except for the reservoir mouth, there are no known pool elevations at which boat passage along this main travel corridor becomes restricted and affects boating. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-27 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 349 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Near the upstream end of the reservoir, where the San Juan River enters, a delta has formed that can affect river boaters coming into Lake Powell at low pool elevations. River boaters from the San Juan River paddle through Lake Powell to a location where a boat transports them 20 to 25 miles (depending on the pick-up location) to the Hite Marina. At low water surface elevations, the river boaters must travel further downstream to reach a location that is accessible to the transport company’s boat. Although this results in more miles to paddle to the takeout, there is usually enough current in the river to carry the boats. For some boaters, the added mileage is an opportunity to paddle additional rapids on the Colorado River in Cataract Canyon (Hyde, 2000). For others, the additional mileage is seen as exposure to additional navigational hazards, possibly requiring portaging of boats due to restricted channel widths and subsurface conditions. 3.9.3.2.1.1 Lake Powell Safe Boating Capacity Recreational boating is the most frequent type of boating activity on Lake Powell, with an estimated 1.5 million boaters per year. One of the most popular activities at Lake Powell is to take houseboats and motor boats for multiple day excursions to explore the reservoir. rior Inte 17 f the at 9, 2time (i.e., safe The number of boats that Lake Powell can safely accommodate 2 one 0 t. o Dep mber . Outdoor Recreation standard of nine boating capacity) is based on a 1977 Bureau v of tion amount ove surface acres per boat (USBR, ajo Na Thed on N of water storage in Lake Powell 1995b). v e directly influences thein Na area rchiv reservoir and the number of boats that can d surface 4, aof the cite 1 86 safely be on the reservoir.6Table 3.9-7 lists median July Lake Powell surface areas for baseline conditions 14 alternatives in the year 2016 and identifies the safe boating No. and capacity of the reservoir at those elevations, based on an assumed maximum safe density of nine acres per boat. The surface area of Lake Powell is reduced by approximately 9 to 10 percent for each 20-foot drop. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-28 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 350 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Table 3.9-7 Lake Powell Safe Boating Capacity at Water Surface Elevations Scenario Median Elevation in July of Year 15 (feet msl) Water Surface Area (acres) Safe Boating 1 Capacity Baseline Conditions 3665 134,600 14,956 Basin States Alternative 3664 134,100 14,900 Flood Control Alternative 3665 134,600 14,956 Six State Alternatives 3664 134.100 14,900 California Alternative 3660 130,800 14,533 Shortage Protection Alternative 3659 130,200 14,467 1 Number of boats, assuming safe density of 9 acres per boat. At full pool for Lake Powell (3700 feet msl), the surface area is 160,782 acres. Using the safe boating density of nine surface acres per boat, Lake Powell’s safe boating capacity at full storage is approximately 17,865 boats. As pool elevation decreases, the surface area available for boats also decreases. While safe reservoir boating carrying ior capacity is reduced at lower lake elevations, there may be additional shoreline camping Inter 17 0 f the available due to more exposed beaches. However, boating capacity,is more constrained pt. o er 29 2 e v. of by safe boating densities than by the availabilityD camping sites on Lake Powell mb ation on Nove (Combrink and Collins, 1992).ajo N d ive Nav d in 64, arch 3.9.3.2.2 Lake ite Boating Navigation and Safety cMead 168 14No. Similar to the navigation system on Lake Powell, regulatory buoys and other marking devices are used on Lake Mead to warn boat operators of dangers, obstructions, and changes in subsurface conditions in the main channel or side channels. As with Lake Powell, the main channel of the old Colorado River bed forms the primary travel corridor on Lake Mead and is marked along its entire length with buoys for boating guidance. In addition, regulatory buoys are placed in areas where there may be a danger for safe passage. Excursions from Lake Mead into the Grand Canyon are a popular activity. Boats entering the Grand Canyon usually launch at Pearce Ferry, South Cove or Temple Bar (refer to Map 3.9-2). There are no developed facilities at South Cove or Pearce Ferry. Points of interest in the Grand Canyon include Columbine Falls, Bat Cave, Spencer Creek, and Separation Canyon. In addition to sightseeing being a popular activity, many boaters include overnight camping stays on these excursions (USBR, 1995b). The upper arms and inflow areas of Lake Mead are considered dangerous for navigation due to shifting subsurface sediments. In the main channel of the reservoir, the Grand COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-29 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 351 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Wash Cliffs area is the beginning of dangerous navigation conditions, and no houseboats are allowed beyond this point (NPS, undated). Over the years, sediment has built up in the section of the reservoir between Grand Wash and Pearce Ferry. When lake elevations drop below 1170 feet msl, the sediment is exposed as mud flats and there is no well-defined river channel. As a result, the area is too shallow for motor boats to navigate upstream and into the lower reaches of the Grand Canyon. With fluctuating flows, even smaller crafts have a difficult time accessing the area because of the shifting nature of the channel (USBR, 1995b). Based on this information, 1170 feet msl is considered a threshold elevation for safe boating navigation at Lake Mead. While the area around Pearce Ferry is an issue for navigation at 1170 feet msl, it is also inaccessible as a take out for whitewater boaters at elevation 1183 feet msl and boaters must paddle an additional 16 miles to South Cove (Henderson, 2000). Paddling to South Cove includes paddling through the section of reservoir between Pearce Ferry and Grand Wash. (Refer to Section 3.9.2.2.3 for a description of the Pearce Ferry facility, and Section 3.9.2.3.2 for an analysis of environmental consequences associated with elevation 1183 feet msl.) erior In addition to the boating navigation issues summarized above, there are 17 e Int 0 swimmer f thVegas,Bay and safety issues at Lake Mead. At Gypsum Wash (between Las r 29 2 pt. o . De withmbe Government Wash), there are cliffs that iare popular ove recreationists for jumping into nv Nat o 1180 n N msl, the water is too shallow for o the lake. When lake elevations are belowed o feet avaj rchiv cliff jumping from thisn N i location., Another jumping spot that was poplar during the late 4 a cited levels were down is an area called “33 Hole.” This location is 1980’s when reservoir -1686 4 popular for cliff o. 1 N jumping when the lake elevation reaches 1165 feet msl. Cliff jumping at both locations is discouraged by the NPS for safety reasons (Burke, 2000). Since the activity is discouraged, the identified elevations were not considered as thresholds for evaluation of effects. 3.9.3.2.3 Lake Mead Safe Boating Capacity The LMNRA receives approximately ten million visitors annually. Of those that participate in water-based recreation, most either swim, boat, fish, sailboard, use paddlecraft, or scuba dive (USBR, 1996b). Since no boating capacity has been established for Lake Mead, the safe boating density of nine acres per boat established for Lake Powell was assumed; safe boating capacities were determined based on reservoir elevation/surface area relationships. There is no daily or peak boating use information available to establish the relationship between actual boating densities and the safe boating capacity values shown below in Table 3.9-8. This table shows Lake Mead surface area under the predicted pool elevations for baseline conditions and the alternatives at the end of 2016, and identifies the safe boating capacity of the reservoir based on an assumed maximum safe density of nine acres per boat. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-30 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 352 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Table 3.9-8 Lake Mead Safe Boating Capacity at Water Surface Elevations Scenario Median Elevation at End of Year 15 (feet msl) Water Surface Area (acres) Safe Boating 1 Capacity Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six State Alternatives California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative 1162 1143 1162 1145 1131 1130 120,200 108,100 120,200 109,400 102,100 101,700 13,356 12,011 13,356 12,156 11,344 11,300 1 Number of boats, assuming safe density of 9 acres per boat. At full pool for Lake Mead, the operating surface area is 153,235 acres. Using the safe boating density of nine surface acres per boat, Lake Mead’s safe boating capacity at full storage is approximately 17,000 boats. As pool elevation decreases, the safe boating capacity also decreases. 3.9.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES rior Boating navigation and safe boating densities on Lake Powelle Inte Mead are and Lake 17 f th 20 . ofluctuate,9hazards, such as dependent upon water surface elevations. As lakeept levels r2 , v. D mbe exposed rocks at lower pool elevations tor different navigational patterns at higher a ion on Nove special buoys or markers may N elevations, may become evident. oAt low pool elevations, vaj Nanavigational ed chiv hazards. In addition, signs may be placed in be placed to warn boaters of in 4, ar ited for navigation. c areas deemed unsuitable1686 - No. 14 Assessment of environmental consequences of the alternatives on boating navigation and safety is based on river system model output, described in detail in Section 3.3. The probability of effects under baseline conditions and the alternatives was determined through identifying the probability of exceeding a representative “threshold” pool elevation during the period of analysis. The selection of the threshold pool elevation is based on the known boating navigation issues discussed in the Affected Environment section above. The probabilities of the reservoirs remaining above the identified threshold elevations are identified for baseline conditions and the interim surplus criteria alternatives, and differences between probabilities under baseline conditions and alternatives are compared. In addition to navigation issues that occur at low pool elevations, the number of boats that can safely be accommodated on the reservoir at one time (safe boating capacity) is also a reservoir boating issue. As discussed previously, the lack of boating use data and spatial modeling of the effects of the alternatives on shoreline conditions precludes a quantitative or qualitative assessment of the impacts associated with the alternatives. In general, as pool elevations change, so does the reservoir surface area and the number of boats that can safely be accommodated on the reservoir. Therefore, the alternatives that COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-31 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 353 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 result in the greatest potential for lower surface elevations would tend to increase the likelihood of exceeding safe boating densities. Without current and projected boating use levels for comparison to surface areas under the alternatives, it cannot be determined whether the change in available surface area would result in an exceedance of the calculated safe boating capacities shown in Tables 3.9-7 and 3.9-8, so environmental consequences related to safe boating capacity are not analyzed further. 3.9.3.3.1 Lake Powell For Lake Powell boating navigation, a reservoir pool elevation of 3626 feet msl was identified as a representative threshold in Section 3.9.3.2.1. Figure 3.9-1 (presented previously) shows elevation trends for baseline conditions and the alternatives over the period of analysis. In addition, as discussed in the section on shoreline facilities (Section 3.9.2.2.2), elevation 3626 feet msl is also close to the elevation for a new proposed boat ramp at Antelope Point, which will extend down to 3620. Using an assumption of six feet for freeboard, the environmental consequences associated with elevation 3626 for navigation are applicable to the future operability of the proposed ramp at Antelope Point. rior Inte 1 f the 3626 feet7 under Figure 3.9-6 depicts the probability of pool elevations .exceeding29, 20 msl pt o . De ember v baseline conditions and each of the alternatives. Table 3.9-9 presents a comparison of tion n Nov the probabilities associated withjo Na1 through 15, 16 through 28, and 29 through 49. years va ed o The probability decreasesNa 100chiv percent) during the analysis period under in (from , ar to 65 cited all 8 the baseline conditions and-16of64 alternatives. The probability is greatest for baseline conditions andNo. Flood Control Alternative, and least for the California and Shortage the 14 Protection Alternatives. The Six States and Basin States alternatives have probabilities between the others. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-32 60% 2000 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 2005 2010 2015 2020 3.9-33 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Flood Control Alternative ior Six States Inter Alternative e 17 of th California Alternative t. 9, 20 p 2 v. De vember Shortage Protection Alternative n Natio d on No jo Nava archive in cited 16864, o. 14 N Basin States Alternative Baseline Conditions Figure 3.9-6 Lake Powell End of July Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to 3626 Feet COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 354 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 355 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Table 3.9-9 Probabilities of Lake Powell Elevation Exceeding 3626 feet in July Projected Condition Years 1 - 15 Range of Probability Years 16 - 28 Years 29 - 49 Baseline Conditions 100%-86% 84%-72% 72%-65% Basin States Alternative 100%-80% 80%-71% 71%-65% Flood Control Alternative 100%-86% 84%-72% 73%-65% Six States Alternative 100%-80% 80%-71% 71%-65% California Alternative 100%-75% 73%-69% 71%-65% Shortage Protection Alternative 100%-74% 74%-69% 71%-65% 3.9.3.3.1.1 Baseline Conditions The probability of Lake Powell pool exceeding the safe boating navigation elevation of 3626 feet msl in July gradually decreases from 100 percent to 65 percent under baseline conditions during the entire period of analysis. The probability decreases more slowly under baseline conditions and the Flood Control Alternative than under the other ior Inter decreases from alternatives. In the first 15 years of the analysis period, thethe f probability 017 100 to 86 percent. From years 16 to 28, the probability o pt. decreases 9, 2 84 to 72 percent. r 2 from De mbe For the remainder of the analysis period,on v. the probability continues to decrease, declining ati Nove from 72 to 65 percent. ajo N ed on v in Na rchiv ited 6864, a c 3.9.3.3.1.2 Basin States Alternative -1 o. 14 N The probability of Lake Powell pool elevation exceeding 3626 feet msl gradually decreases from 100 percent to 65 percent under the Basin States Alternative during the entire period of analysis. During the first 15 years, the probability declines more rapidly than under baseline conditions, dropping from 100 to 80 percent. The probability in year 15 is six percent less than under baseline conditions. Between years 16 and 28, the probability begins to converge with the probabilities of baseline and the other alternatives, and ranges between 80 and 71 percent. During this period, the probability is up to 7 percent less than under baseline conditions. For the remainder of the analysis period, the probability is similar to baseline conditions and the other alternatives, continuing to decline to a low of 65 percent. 3.9.3.3.1.3 Flood Control Alternative For the Flood Control Alternative, the probability of Lake Powell pool elevation exceeding 3626 feet msl is practically the same as for baseline conditions throughout the analysis period. As shown in Figure 3.9-6, there are only three years in which the probability is different (within one to two percent) from baseline conditions. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-34 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 356 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.9.3.3.1.4 Six States Alternative The probability of Lake Powell elevation exceeding 3626 feet msl under the Six States Alternative is identical to the probability under the Basin States Alternative in all but four years, when there is a one percent difference. 3.9.3.3.1.5 California Alternative The California Alternative results in the lowest probability of Lake Powell pool elevation exceeding 3626 feet msl. The probability decreases from 100 to 75 percent in the first 15 years of the analysis period. Between years 16 and 28, the probability begins to converge with the probabilities under baseline and the other alternatives, ranging between 73 and 69 percent. For the remainder of the analysis period, the probability is similar to baseline conditions and the other alternatives, continuing to decline to a low of 65 percent. During these three periods, the probability is up to 14 percent, 12 percent and 5 percent, respectively, below the probability under baseline conditions. 3.9.3.3.1.6 Shortage Protection Alternative ior ter For the Shortage Protection Alternative, the probability of Lake IPowell pool elevation 7 he n Alternative exceeding 3626 feet msl is nearly the same as underpt. of t the California9, 201 2 throughout the analysis period. The probabilityD up toember v. ise ion of theNov 12 percent less than under 16 baseline conditions during the first Nat ajo 15 yearsd on analysis period. Between years and 28, the probability n Navto convergee begins chiv with the probabilities under baseline i 4, ar ited alternatives, and is up to 11 percent less than under baseline conditions and c other 686 the -1 conditions. For the 14 o. remainder of the analysis period, the probability is within 5 percent N of baseline conditions. 3.9.3.3.2 Lake Mead A reservoir pool elevation of 1170 feet msl was identified as the representative threshold for boating navigation at Lake Mead, as described in Section 3.9.3.2.2. Figure 3.9-7 depicts the probability of Lake Mead end-of-December pool elevations exceeding 1170 feet msl for baseline conditions and the alternatives. Table 3.9-10 compares the probabilities associated with years 1 through 15, years 16-22, and years 23 through 49. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-35 0% 2000 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2005 2010 2015 2020 3.9-36 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 ior Inter 17 e 20 of thShortage Protection Alternative ept. ber 29, D m n v. atio on Nove N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N California Alternative Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative Baseline Conditions Figure 3.9-7 Lake Mead End of December Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to 1170 Feet COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 357 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 358 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Table 3.9-10 Probabilities of Lake Mead End-of-December Elevation Exceeding 1170 feet Range of Probability Projected Condition Years 1 – 15 Years 16 - 22 Years 23 - 49 100%-45% 45%-38% 40%-34% Basin States Alternative 99%-38% 40%-38% 40%-34% Flood Control Alternative 100%-46% 47%-39% 42%-34% Six States Alternative 100%-39% 40%-38% 40%-34% California Alternative 80%-33% 40%-36% 40%-34% Shortage Protection Alternative 80%-34% 40%-35% 40%-34% Baseline Conditions Under baseline conditions and the alternatives, the probability of Lake Mead pool elevation exceeding 1170 feet msl declines during the interim period, then stabilizes for the remainder of the period of analysis. The probability is greatest for baseline ior conditions and the Flood Control Alternative, and least for the California and Shortage Inter 17 Protection Alternatives. The Basin States and Six States alternatives 20 probabilities have f the pt. o er 29, e between the others. b v. D n em Natio d on Nov 3.9.3.3.2.1 Baseline Conditionso vaj e in Na 4, archiv d ite 6 The probabilitycof Lake 168 pool elevation exceeding the safe boating and navigation - Mead . 14msl at the end of the year declines from 100 to 34 percent under No elevation of 1170 feet baseline conditions throughout the entire period of analysis. Probabilities decrease more slowly under baseline conditions than under all alternatives except for Flood Control. In the first 15 years of analysis, the probability declines from 100 to 45 percent. Between years 16 and 22, the probability continues to decline from 45 to 38 percent, as the alternatives converge with baseline conditions. For the remainder of the analysis period, the probability under baseline conditions is similar to the alternatives, ranging between 40 and 34 percent. 3.9.3.3.2.2 Basin States Alternative The probability of Lake Mead pool elevation exceeding 1170 feet msl declines from 99 to 34 percent throughout the entire period of analysis for the Basin States Alternative. As with most other alternatives, the decrease occurs during the interim period and occurs more quickly than under baseline conditions. In the first 15 years of the analysis period, the probability drops from 99 percent to 39 percent and is typically up to 13 percent less than under baseline conditions. Between years 16 and 22, the probability stabilizes and converges with baseline conditions. The range of probability is from 40 to 38 percent, and is up to five percent less than under baseline conditions. For the COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-37 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 359 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 remainder of the analysis period, the probability is within one percent of baseline conditions, ranging between 40 and 34 percent. 3.9.3.3.2.3 Flood Control Alternative The probability of Lake Mead pool elevation exceeding 1170 feet msl under the Flood Control Alternative is typically up to two percent greater than under baseline conditions. In the first 15 years of analysis, the probability decreases from 100 to 46 percent, and is within one percent of baseline conditions. Between years 16 and 22, the probability continues to decline, ranging between 47 and 39 percent, and is typically one percent greater than under baseline conditions. For the remainder of the analysis period, the probability is up to 4 percent greater than baseline conditions, ranging between 42 and 34 percent. 3.9.3.3.2.4 Six States Alternative The effects of the Six States Alternative would be nearly the same as those for the Basin States Alternative. In the first 15 years of the analysis period, the probability of Lake Mead elevation exceeding 1170 feet msl is typically up to 11 percent less than under baseline conditions. Between years 16 and 22, the probability stabilizesrand converges rio of with baseline conditions. The probability is typically within twonte he I percent17baseline 2 of t conditions. For the remainder of the analysis period, tthe probability is 0 ep . ber 29, within one . D andempercent. percent of baseline conditions, ranging between 40 v 34 ion v No Nat vajo hived on 3.9.3.3.2.5 Californian Na i Alternativerc ited 6864, a c 14- Mead pool elevation exceeding 1170 feet msl under the The probability of.Lake 1 No California Alternative is similar to that under the Shortage Protection Alternative and less than under baseline conditions and the other alternatives. In the first 15 years, the probability drops from 80 to 33 percent, then rises to 35 percent. The probability is up to 31 percent less than under baseline conditions. Between years 16 and 22, the probability rises slightly and converges with baseline conditions and the other alternatives. The probability ranges from eight percent less than to the same as under baseline conditions. For the remainder of the analysis period, the probability is within one percent of baseline conditions. 3.9.3.3.2.6 Shortage Protection Alternative The effects of the Shortage Protection Alternative are very similar to those described for the California Alternative. The probability of Lake Mead pool elevation exceeding 1170 feet msl is generally within one percent of the probability under the California Alternative throughout the period of analysis. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-38 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 360 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.9.4 CHAPTER 3 RIVER AND WHITEWATER BOATING The Grand Canyon Protection Act directs the Secretary to operate Glen Canyon Dam in accordance with the additional criteria and operating plans specified in Section 1804 of the Act, and to exercise other authorities under existing law in such a manner as to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established, including but not limited to natural and cultural resources and visitor use. The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (AMP) was established as a Federal Advisory Committee to assist the Secretary in implementing the Grand Canyon Protection Act. As discussed in Section 3.2.2, the AMP provides a process for assessing the effects of current operations of Glen Canyon Dam on downstream resources and using the results to develop recommendations for modifying operating criteria and other resource management actions. While the interim surplus criteria could have an influence on releases from Glen Canyon Dam, such releases will be governed by the criteria in the Record of Decision, which was developed in full consideration of both the safety and quality of recreational experiences in Glen and Grand Canyons. A summary of the Glen Canyon Dam Record of Decision has been included as Attachment D of this FEIS. erior nt the I f criteria 9, 2017 would The only effect that implementation of the interimept. o D surplus er 2 alternatives have on whitewater boaters would be theon v. possibilityovemb pool elevations in Lake of lowered ati Nboaters onn NSan Juan River often end their trips o Powell and Lake Mead. Whitewater e avaj levels in d o the at Lake Powell. Whilen N i decreased archiv Lake Powell have effects on take out points d , 4 cite in the Colorado and San1686 4- Juan Rivers, they also may expose additional rapids in Cataract 1 Canyon, which would expand whitewater rafting opportunities. Section 3.9.3.2.1 No. discusses boaters entering Lake Powell. Whitewater boaters on the Colorado River often end their trips in Lake Mead. Pearce Ferry is the preferred Lake Mead take out for boaters, but it may not be accessible when the reservoir pool elevation is below 1183 feet msl. An analysis of this elevation is presented in Section 3.9.2.2. A take out is also available at Diamond Creek, upstream of Lake Mead at the Hualapai Reservation. The Hualapai Tribe maintains the take out area and road and charges a fee for take out. The Hualapai Tribe also conducts river trips from Diamond Creek (on the Colorado River) to Pearce Ferry. This concession may be affected if trips encounter changes in availability of the Pearce Ferry take out. 3.9.5 SPORT FISHING This section considers potential effects of the interim surplus criteria alternatives on recreational opportunities associated with sport fishing at Lake Powell, Lake Mead and Lake Mohave (between Hoover and Davis Dam). Sport fishing in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead will not be affected by the interim surplus criteria action due to the protection afforded by the Adaptive Management Program (see COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-39 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 361 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Section 3.9.4). Fluctuations in flows between Hoover Dam and the SIB under the alternatives would be within the historical operating range of the river. Therefore, changes in flows under the alternatives would not affect recreation within these areas. Adverse effects on sport fisheries from potential changes in water temperature below Hoover Dam would not be expected, as discussed in Section 3.7.3. 3.9.5.1 METHODOLOGY The discussion of the affected environment for reservoir fishing is based on a review of published documents. Much of this information was derived from the following sources: for Lake Powell, the Fish Management Plan, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (NPS, 1996); and for Lake Mead, the Desert Lake View Newspaper, Fall/Winter 1999. In addition, creel information and angler fishing data has been obtained from state agencies in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada responsible for managing the fisheries resources at Lake Mead, Lake Powell, and Lake Mohave. Assessment of potential impacts on sport fishing in Lake Powell, Lake Mead and Lake Mohave is based on information presented in other sections of the document regarding sport fishery populations (Section 3.7), reservoir shoreline facilities (Section 3.9.2) and reservoir navigation (Section 3.9.3). There were no specific reservoir ipool elevation or Inter 7 thresholds related to sport fishing identified from the literature reviewed.1Catch rates 0 f the for reservoir fishing are assumed to be directly related.to reservoir9, 2 discussed in pt o er 2 habitat e D mb Section 3.7, Aquatic Resources. Fishingon v. i satisfaction v assumed to be directly related ataccesson theois e via shoreline facilities, andto N water the general recreation issues ofajo N v boating ed to boating navigation potential for , archi or reservoir detours due to low pool elevations. in Na 4hazards v ited 3.7, 6 As discussed incSection 168catch rates are not expected to be affected by fluctuations 4in pool elevations.. 1 No 3.9.5.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.9.5.2.1 Sport Fishing in Lake Powell As discussed in Sections 3.7 and 3.8, native Colorado River species have not done well in the reservoir environment. While some native species may spawn in the reservoir, it is believed that the majority of young are eliminated by sport fish predators. The predominant sport fishery in Lake Powell revolves around striped bass. The striped bass depend on threadfin shad as a food source, so it is critical to maintain a balanced shad population for the striped bass. The threadfin shad in Lake Powell are at the northernmost portion of their range and are very sensitive to fluctuations in water temperature. In addition to striped bass, Lake Powell supports largemouth and smallmouth bass, walleye, channel catfish, bluegill, and black crappie. Lake Powell has been stocked with fish almost annually, beginning in 1963 (NPS, 1996). COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-40 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 362 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Lake Powell is a popular fishing destination. Over three million people visit the GCNRA annually, and those that fish spend a total of close to two million angler hours in pursuit of a variety of sport fish. Nearly all anglers fish by boat due to the cliff-like canyon walls of the reservoir. Shore angling is rare. Annual angler use, based on boat fishing, is estimated to average 72,608 days. The majority of anglers (42 percent) come from Utah, followed by Colorado (24 percent) and Arizona (23 percent). California and other states make up the remaining 11 percent (Gustaveson, 2000). Currently, the catch rate is 0.3 fish per hour, a number that has declined in recent years due to angling pressure. Approximately one-half of the fish caught are harvested, which results in an average annual harvest of 300,000 fish (NPS, 1996). Fishing catch rates and harvest rates differ at Lake Powell due to changing public attitudes towards catch and release. Most anglers release smallmouth bass and harvest striped bass. In 1997, 86 percent of the smallmouth bass caught were returned, compared to only 28 percent of the 396,000 striped bass caught (Gustaveson, 2000). Most Lake Powell anglers seek a fishing opportunity and would rather catch any fish, compared to a targeted individual species. However, when asked forraor i species In e anglers tend to preference, most anglers prefer to catch black bass or striped bass. t Most17 f the 9, 0 target species they expect to catch most readily. (Gustaveson, 2000). 2 pt. o e r2 .D be on v Novem atiincreasing biocontaminant concentration in Recent studies have indicated a trend of d on oN avaj rchive Ndam. Selenium has been found in plankton and in striped aquatic organisms nearn i the ,a cited 1686 yet bass. Although there have not 4 been any apparent negative impacts on striped bass 14reproduction, selenium can pose a health risk to anglers from consumption. If the No. presence of selenium continues, educating the anglers and performing risk assessment studies may be necessary (NPS, 1996). 3.9.5.2.2 Sport Fishing in Lake Mead Fishing is a favorite activity at Lake Mead. Largemouth bass, striped bass, channel catfish, rainbow trout, bullhead catfish, sunfish, crappie, and bluegill can be found in Lake Mead. Lake Mead is famous for its striped bass, with an occasional catch weighing over 40 pounds, although weights of three to five pounds are more common. Angler survey results from NDOW indicate that since 1984, striped bass have been the species most sought after by anglers by a wide margin (62.7 percent) (NDOW, 2000). Fishing for striped bass or largemouth bass is good throughout the entire lake, but panfish and catfish are more prevalent in the upper Overton Arm. The Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW) stocks rainbow trout from late December through the spring months. The razorback sucker, a protected fish species, must be COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-41 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 363 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 returned to the water immediately and carefully, if caught. Fishing is generally better in the fall months of September, October and November. Larger fish are caught by deep water trolling in spring from March through May. To fish from shore, a valid license is required from the state where the fishing occurs. If fishing from a boat or other flotation device, a use stamp from the other state is required. Rainbow trout fishing also requires an additional stamp. Children under 14 are not required to have a license. The NDOW conducts annual creel and angler use surveys of Nevada licensed anglers (resident and non-resident). While Arizona licensed anglers also fish in Lake Mead, it is estimated that roughly 80 percent of the fishing use on the reservoir is represented in the NDOW surveys (Sjöberg, 2000). NDOW’s annual statewide angler questionnaire is mailed out to 10 percent of all Nevada licensed anglers, resident and non-resident. Table 3.9-11 presents data from 10 years of questionnaires. Table 3.9-11 Nevada Division of Wildlife Annual Angler Questionnaire Results for Lake Mead Fish per ior Angler Inter 17 Day he 0 . of t pt10.72 er 29, 2 44,444 476,543 940,608 De 21.16 1.97 . b ion v Novem t 41,012 488,381 jo Na 934,807 n 11.91 22.79 1.91 o va ived Na ch n 47,873 d i 792,883 , ar 1,532,481 16.56 32.01 1.93 cite 16864 4- 558,301 46,460 1 1,314,508 12.02 28.29 2.35 No. Anglers Angler Days Fish Harvest (all species) Days per Angler Fish per Angler 1993 46,649 697,117 1,699,816 14.94 36.44 2.44 1994 45,507 648,928 1,710,412 14.26 37.59 2.64 1995 47,630 574,972 1,590,413 12.07 33.39 2.77 1996 42,715 554,625 1,410,440 12.98 33.02 2.54 1997 43,747 505,892 1,239,840 11.56 28.34 2.45 1998 43,831 612,551 1,568,676 13.98 35.79 2.56 Average 44,987 591,019 1,394,200 13.10 30.88 2.36 Year 1989 1990 1991 1992 Source: NDOW, Statewide Angler Questionnaire Database, 1989 through 1998, cover letter dated 5 October, 2000. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-42 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 364 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 The Arizona Department of Game and Fish estimated the Arizona licensed angler use for Lake Mead (based on Nevada survey results) to be 118,422 days in 1995. Combined with Nevada’s use estimate for the same year, there were 693,394 angler days on Lake Mead in 1995 (83 percent from Nevada, and 17 percent from Arizona). 3.9.5.2.3 Sport Fishing in Lake Mohave This section discusses sport fishing in Lake Mohave, below Hoover Dam. Table 3.9-12 shows the developed access sites and facilities at Lake Mohave. Table 3.9-12 Lake Mohave Developed Recreation Facilities Facilities Willow Beach Cottonwood Cove Katherine • • • Lodging N/A • • Trailer Village (fee) N/A • • Campground N/A • • • • • Ranger Station erior Food Service • • e Int 017 f th Grocery/Gift Shop pt. o • er 29, 2 • . De b ion v Novem Gasoline • a•t on jo N Picnic Area • • Nava archived in ited 6864, N/A Shower (fee) c • 1 . 14Trailer SewageNo Dump • • Marina • • • • • • Boat Sewage Dump • • • Self-service laundry N/A • • • • • N/A • • Propane Service Houseboat Rentals Source: NPS, 1995. indicates presence of improvement • N/A indicates no improvement In Lake Mohave there are largemouth bass, striped bass, channel catfish, rainbow trout, bullhead catfish, sunfish, crappie and bluegill. Because Lake Mohave is within the LMNRA, the same fishing rules and requirements described above for Lake Mead apply to Lake Mohave. NDOW stocks rainbow trout in the lake from late December through the spring months. The USFWS stocks rainbow trout throughout the year, with concentrated stocking October through May. Three protected species, including razorback sucker, Colorado squawfish, and bonytail chub, are the last of the native Colorado River fish and can be found in Lake Mohave. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-43 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 365 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 When caught, these fish must be released. Fishing is open year round, but the best fishing generally occurs in September, October and November. For deep water trolling, March through May is best. Fishing on Lake Mohave can be exceptional. Bass and trout often run three pounds, with some trout weighing as much as 10 or more pounds. Anglers fish for big trout at Willow Beach, while Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing offer both bass and trout fishing. Within the last few years, striped bass fishing has become very popular. The NDOW conducts annual creel surveys at Cottonwood Cove and Willow Beach. In 1998, angler use for Lake Mohave was estimated at 155,654 angler days, about the same as in 1997. The 1998 lake-wide harvest was estimated at 414,954 fish. Of the species caught, 80 percent were striped bass and 12 percent were rainbow trout. Other species included largemouth bass, channel catfish, and sunfish. 3.9.5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.9.5.3.1 Sport Fishing in Lake Powell, Lake Mead and Lake Mohave Reduced reservoir surface elevations could affect recreational reservoir fishing by ior decreasing the number of fishing days and angler satisfaction.eThe er Int lower pool 7 th elevations could cause temporary or permanent closure of relocation of01 pt. or er 29, 2 shoreline e b facilities, thus requiring the boat angler to n v. D another launch site, fish from io either travel tom ove at day. on Nnavigational issues, such as the the bank, or possibly forego fishingN Also, jo that Nava arch ved closure of areas of theireservoirs, could iincrease travel times to desired fishing locations n cited 16864, and result in reduced angler satisfaction. Lower pool elevations may make some shoreline fishingo. 14 inaccessible. In addition, as discussed in Section 3.9.3.2, as pool N areas elevations lower, the surface area available for boats and safe boat capacity decreases. The boat angler may need to call ahead for reservoir conditions. Lake Mohave surface elevations will not be affected by any of the alternatives. No direct information on angler success rates or angler satisfaction in relationship to reservoir pool elevations is available. Therefore, potential effects were determined indirectly through consideration of potential effects on sport fishery production and water access for boat and shore anglers. The effects of the alternatives on sports fishery production are discussed in detail in Section 3.7.4. The effects on boating access, including shoreline facilities that provide access to the water for boat angling and navigational constraints on boating, are discussed in Sections 3.9.2 and 3.9.3. As discussed in Section 3.7.4, Sport Fisheries, potential reductions in surface elevations associated with the interim surplus criteria alternatives are not expected to affect sport fishery composition or quantities within the reservoirs. As such, angler success rates at Lake Powell and Lake Mead would not be reduced. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-44 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 366 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.9.6 CHAPTER 3 RECREATIONAL FACILITIES OPERATIONAL COSTS In order to keep reservoir marinas, boat launching, public use beaches and shoreline access operational, facility owners/operators and agencies providing utility connections must respond to fluctuating pool elevations. This section focuses on the operational and capital costs of keeping recreational facilities in operation as reservoir surface elevations change. Potential revenue effects from changes in recreation use are not considered. As discussed above, it is not expected that baseline conditions or interim surplus criteria would result in facility closures, as most facilities can be relocated to maintain operation at lower reservoir elevations. 3.9.6.1 METHODOLOGY Information in the affected environment section was compiled after review of available published and unpublished sources and through personal communication with NPS specialists. Available data do not cover all facilities. Furthermore, the analysis is generally based on professional judgment, extrapolating from limited historical data. However, the analysis provides a useful approximation of the order ofior magnitude of Inter 17 costs to recreational facilities that may be incurred under projections for each of the f the 9, 20 alternatives. pt. o 2 e .D ber vem ion vcosts, projections of the costs associated Nat d Using data associated with facility relocation on No vajo hivthe river system modeling discussed in Section with declines were made Na results of e in using4, arc itedpotential costs use model projections associated with the 50 6 c 3.3. Calculations of -168 percent exceedence 14 . probability elevations for years 2002 through 2016. This No simplified methodology addresses multi-year changes in elevation, and does not consider costs associated with facility adjustments to accommodate monthly fluctuations. 3.9.6.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The following sections discuss costs associated with relocation of reservoir marinas and boat launching facilities at Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Many of the facilities at Lake Powell and Lake Mead were constructed when the reservoirs were near their maximum pool elevations of 3700 feet msl and 1210 feet msl, respectively. 3.9.6.2.1 Lake Powell The costs of fluctuating pool elevations on Lake Powell marinas and boat-launching facilities were calculated by Combrink and Collins (1992). The study calculated operating costs for one-foot fluctuations (termed “normal adjustments”) and for adjustments when the pool fluctuation exceeds 25 feet (termed “special adjustments”). The normal adjustments are adjustments made within the range of regular operations and are done routinely as water levels change during the year. Special adjustments COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-45 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 367 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 include relocations of anchors and extensions of cables and utilities. The study found that major capital investments would be needed; cost estimates were developed based on a 50-foot decline in pool elevations. Additional data for the Antelope Point Marina has been provided by the Navajo Nation and National Park Service. Construction drawings have been prepared to allow extension of the ramp from 3677 to 3620 feet msl, with a reported capital cost estimate of approximately $500,000 (Bishop, Personal Communication, 2000). This cost has been included in NPS planning for Antelope Point. Table 3.9-13 presents the costs incurred per adjustment in the form that the data was collected. In order to use the data to compare different alternatives, it has been converted into a cost per foot of fluctuation. Data collected in 1989 has been updated to 2000 price levels. Table 3.9-13 Costs Associated with Adjustments to Lake Powell Recreation Facilities Cost per Adjustment 1 Adjustment Cost Category Cost per Foot ior Inter 17 f the$1,721 0 Operating Cost for a Normal Adjustment $1,275 t. $1,721 p o er 29, 2 (based on one-foot fluctuation) De mb n v. o ove Operating Cost for a Special Adjustment Nati $33,460 $45,171 $1,807 on N ajo (fluctuations exceeding 25 feet) av ed in N 4, archiv $2,000,000 Capital Cost for each 50-foot drop $2,700,000 $54,000 cited 1686 4Total Cost per Foot. 1 $57,528 No 1989 Price 2 Level Additional Capital Cost for drop below 3677 4 water surface elevation 2000 Price 3 Level $500,000 1 . Operating costs are the cost of adjusting the existing facilities for fluctuations and consist of labor hours. Capital costs consist of construction of ramp extensions, utility line extensions and relocations. 2 Combrink and Collins (1992). 3 Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers. 1989 average is 124.0. March 2000 is 167.8. Adjustment factor: 167.8/124.0 = 1.35 4 Capital cost to extend the toe of the existing Antelope Point Marina from 3677 to 3620 feet msl (Bishop, Personal Communication, 2000). Table 3.9-13 indicates there are costs associated with even minor changes in pool elevations. However, the cost of capital improvements required to extend utilities and access below the range of elevations that can be accommodated by existing infrastructure is much larger than the operating costs incurred within the capacity of the existing infrastructure. It should be noted that many of the Lake Powell shoreline facilities were extended in 1992/93 to accommodate reduced Lake Powell surface elevation down to 3612 feet msl. Due to these extensions, the actual costs of relocating facilities in the event of future COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-46 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 368 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Lake Powell surface elevation declines may be lower than those indicated in the analysis. 3.9.6.2.2 Lake Mead NPS provided information on costs associated with relocation of facilities at Lake Mead. The operating levels range between full pool elevation (1210 feet msl) and 1180 feet msl. When Lake Mead declines to 1180 feet msl, adjustments need to be made to the major facilities. Costs to make these adjustments for each of the major facilities at year 2000 price levels range from $560,000 to $970,000. NPS has also determined that additional incremental drops of 20 feet in elevation will incur additional costs, ranging from $480,000 to $800,000 (Henderson, 2000). Costs associated with fluctuating pool elevations are available for federally-owned facilities at LMNRA from unpublished data assembled by the Resource Management Office, Lake Mead NRA (Henderson, Burke and Vanderford, April 17 and 18, 2000). In addition, Overton Beach Marina (letter dated March 29, 2000) and Lake Mead Resort (letter dated April 11, 2000) provided information to Reclamation indicating the costs associated with fluctuating reservoir elevations. Table 3.9-14 presents these costs. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove N Cost per jo Fluctuation Increment Nava archived in , c ted 1 1686 of Cost toiLMNRA facilities4 surface elevation occurrence below $ 6,011,000 1180 feet.msl o 14 N Table 3.9-14 Costs Incurred to Recreational Facilities from Lake Mead Pool Fluctuations (Year 2000 Price Level) Line No. 1 2 3 5 Cost to Temple Bar Resort from a 10-foot drop 7 4 Cost to Overton Beach Marina Facilities from a fluctuation from 1150 3 feet msl to 1130 feet msl (20 feet) 6 3 Cost to Overton Beach Marina facilities from a fluctuation from 1212 3 feet msl to 1150 feet msl (62 feet) 5 2 Cost to Lake Mead Resort Marina from a 20-foot drop in elevation 4 1 Cost to LMNRA facilities at 1160 feet msl and at each additional 1 20-foot drop Cost to Echo Bay Resort from a 20-foot drop from 1213 feet msl to 5 1193 feet msl $ 5,080,000 2 4 $ 91,400 $ 60,000 $ 425,000 $ 12,500 $ 38,400 Unpublished data from Lake Mead NRA. Letter dated April 11, 2000, from Lake Mead Resort to Reclamation. The letter quantifies cost for a drop from current pool elevations. It also notes that a drop below 1150 would, in the NPS’s judgement, require abandonment of the basin within which the resort is located. Letter dated March 29, 2000, from Overton Beach Marina to Reclamation. Letter dated March 27, 2000, from Temple Bar Resort. Midpoint of range ($10,000 to $15,000) is used. Letter further notes that a drop below 1125 feet msl would require a complete relocation of the marina, including buildings located on land. Letter dated March 16, 2000, from Echo Bay Resort to Reclamation. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-47 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 369 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.9.6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.9.6.3.1 Lake Powell As discussed in the methodology section, an estimate can be made of the cost impacts of the alternatives on Lake Powell recreational facilities under some basic conditions. Estimates in this section are for aggregate relocation costs associated with all identified Lake Powell shoreline facilities. Table 3.9-15 shows estimated incremental costs that would be incurred from Lake Powell surface elevation decreases associated with the median elevation projections for baseline conditions and each alternative from 2002 through 2016 (Figure 3.9-1 presents these elevations graphically). These impacts are based on a cost of $57,528 per foot change in elevation, developed based on the information shown in Table 3.9-12. Table 3.9-15 Costs Associated with Potential Relocation of Lake Powell Recreational Facilities 1 Under Alternatives Compared to Baseline Conditions (Year 2000 Price Level) or iIncremental Cost Inter during 15-Year 017 3 f the pt. o er 29, 2 Period . De b Baseline Conditions 3665 n 0 --------io v Novem at ajo N3664 ed on Basin States Alternative 1 $ 747,864 iv Nav d in 64, arch $ 0 Flood Control Alternative 3665 0 cite 168 4Six States Alternative 1 3664 1 $ 747,864 No. Median Elevation in Year 2016 2 (feet msl) Elevation Below Baseline Conditions (feet) California Alternative 3660 5 $1,208,088 Shortage Protection Alternative 3659 6 $1,438,200 Alternative 1 2 3 Assumes pool elevation decreases constantly over time, following 50% probability of exceedence elevation. Based on 50 percent probability of exceedence elevation projected from modeling on July 31 of each year. Table 3.9-13. $57,528 per foot for each facility. No incremental cost is included for extending the ramp at the Antelope Point Marina.. By 2050, the median elevation of all alternatives is within a two-foot range (3662.5 to 3664.6) and the difference in costs is small. 3.9.6.3.2 Lake Mead As discussed in the methodology section, an estimate can be made of the cost impact of the alternatives on Lake Mead recreational facilities using certain assumptions. Table 3.9-16 shows estimated incremental costs that would be incurred from Lake Mead surface elevation decreases associated with the median elevation projections for COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-48 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 370 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 each alternative as compared to baseline conditions from 2002 through 2016 (Figure 3.9-4 presents the median elevations graphically). Table 3.9-16 Costs Associated with Potential Relocation of Lake Mead Recreational Facilities 1 Under Alternatives Compared to Baseline Conditions Elevation in Year 2016 2 (feet msl) Elevation Below Baseline Conditions Incremental Cost during 15-Year Period Baseline Conditions 1162 N/A NA Basin States Alternative 1143 19 $ 5,243,900 Flood Control Alternative 1162 0 0 Six States Alternative 1146 16 $ 5,243,900 California Alternative 1131 31 $ 10,348,900 4 Shortage Protection Alternative 1130 32 $ 10,773,900 5 Alternative 3 3 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited elevation4, all alternatives is the same (1110.6 feet msl), and By 2050, the median -1686 under 4 no differencesNo. 1 would occur. in cost 1 2 3 4 5 Assumes pool elevation decreases constantly over time, following 50% probability of exceedence elevation. Based on 50 percent probability of exceedence elevation on December 31 of each year projected from river system modeling. Lines 2, 3, 4 and 6 from Table 3.9-14. Two times Line 2, one times Line 3 and 4, and three times Line 6 from Table 3.9-14. Two times Line 2, one times Lines 3, 4 and 5, and three times Line 6 from Table 3.9-14. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.9-49 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 371 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.10 ENERGY RESOURCES 3.10.1 INTRODUCTION The analyses in this section consider two specific issues associated with energy resources. The first issue considered is potential changes in hydropower production from Hoover Dam and Glen Canyon Dam; the second is potential increases in energy requirements of the Southern Nevada Water System (SNWS) Lake Mead intake, Navajo Generating Station cooling water intake in Lake Powell and the City of Page potable water intake in Lake Powell. 3.10.2 HYDROPOWER This section discusses potential changes in power production that could occur as a result of the interim surplus criteria under consideration. The analysis focuses on changes in production from Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam for each alternative compared to baseline conditions. 3.10.2.1 METHODOLOGY ior ter In order to determine the effects of the interim surplus criteria alternatives,7 he In detail1 the of t information produced from the river system modeling .described 29, 20 in Section 3.3 in ept Canyon and Hoover . D Glenember has been used. This model simulates operation of nv Natio d interimv powerplants under baseline conditions and theon No surplus criteria alternatives. The vajo output quantities of then Na that arehive i model 4, arc important in determining the effects of the d alternatives on cite generation are: power 1686 No. 14- • Annual average Lake Powell Elevation; • Annual average Glen Canyon Powerplant Energy Production; • Annual average Lake Mead Elevation; • Annual average Hoover Powerplant Energy Production; • Annual average Lake Mohave Elevation (constant at an elevation of 647 feet msl throughout the period of analysis). These quantities, derived from the model runs, are shown in Tables 1, 2, 5 and 7 in Attachment P. In addition, powerplant capability curves for Glen Canyon and Hoover powerplants showing powerplant capacity as a function of lake elevation (or net effective head) are required to determine how the capacity varies for each alternative throughout the study period. Powerplant capability curves used for the analysis are presented in Tables 3 and 4 in Attachment P. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.10-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 372 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Table 3 of Attachment P uses discharge multipliers to determine the maximum operable capacity of the Glen Canyon Powerplant. The maximum water release of 25,000 cfs (restricted except during power system emergencies) is divided by the discharge multiplier to calculate the capacity. Table 4, for Hoover Powerplant, uses the theoretical turbine curve data for heads from 560 feet to 590 feet. Below 560 feet of head, a ratio of 2062/2074 has been applied to the turbine curve data to reflect recent downratings of units A3, A4, and A8 as reported in a letter dated July 2000, from the Area Manager of Reclamation to Western. As used herein, powerplant capacity refers to the load that a generator or facility can achieve at a given moment. Energy is a measure of electric capacity generated over time. Comparing the projected amount of powerplant generating capacity and energy production available under the various alternatives with baseline projections produces a probabilistic measure of the effects of the alternatives on power production if the assumptions contained in the forecasts covering water supply materialize. The methodology for determination of the effects of the alternatives is to compare the change in capacity and energy production, on an annual basis, between baseline conditions and each alternative. Annual average generating capacity and energy available from Glen Canyon and Hoover powerplants was determinedior the using Inter discussed in reservoir elevation and energy output quantities from system modeling 017 f the pt. o of 29, 2 Section 3.3, and the powerplant capability curves.eModelinger energy production is b v. D based on aggregate turbine production curves. Annual em ation on Nov average capacity and energy jo N v alternatives are shown in Tables 5 and 7 in production for baseline conditions and theed Navaenergy production is also shown in Figures 3.10-1 and chi i Attachment P. Annualn 4 r ited average , a 6 c 3.10-2. Comparisons4-168annual average energy production associated with each 1 of the . annual average energy production of baseline conditions are shown alternative and the No in Tables 6 and 8 in Attachment P. 3.10.2.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The energy resources that could be affected by changes in Colorado River operation are Glen Canyon Powerplant and Hoover Powerplant electrical power output. The reservoirs behind these facilities are operated to store Colorado River water for delivery in the Lower Colorado River Basin below Glen Canyon Dam, and water to meet delivery obligations to Arizona, California, Nevada and Mexico downstream of Hoover Dam. 3.10.2.2.1 Factors of Power Production In general, the two factors of a hydroelectric system, excluding machinery capability, that are directly related to power production are the net effective head on the generating units, and the quantity of water flowing through the turbines. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.10-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 373 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 The net effective head is the difference between the water surface elevations of the forebay behind a dam and in the tailwater below the dam. The head determines the maximum capacity, measured in MW, that is available from the powerplant. The nameplate capacity of Glen Canyon Powerplant is 1296 MW. However, the maximum operating capacity of Glen Canyon Powerplant generators is approximately 1200 MW due to turbine restrictions (Western, 1998). Because the maximum allowable water release has been limited to 25,000 cfs, the maximum operable capacity for Glen Canyon is limited to 1048 MW, except during a power system emergency. The maximum operating capacity of Hoover Powerplant is 2074 MW. The net effective head on the powerplant is influenced by the reservoir surface elevations and operating strategies for both the upstream and downstream reservoirs. The quantity of water flowing through the turbines (water releases) determines the amount of energy produced, measured in gigawatt-hours (GWh). The net energy generated during fiscal year 1998 from Glen Canyon Powerplant and Hoover Powerplant was 6626 GWh and 5768 GWh, respectively (Western, 1998 and Reclamation, 2000). The turbines at a powerplant are designed to produce maximum efficiency at a design head. At design head, the plant can produce the maximum capacity and r most te io the Innetreffective head on energy per acre-foot of water passing through the turbine.f Ase th the 017 pt. o er 29, 2 the powerplant is reduced from design head because of reduced forebay (upstream . De is reduced, the electrical capacity of b reservoir) elevation, the power outputation v of the turbine ovem N jo N ved o and the generator attached to the turbine is reduced,n the efficiency of the turbine is i Nava aas net effective head decreases until, below the in reduced. This reduction continues rch ited 6864, c minimum elevation for-power generation, the turbines cannot be operated safely and 1 1 downstream water deliveries. Minimum power elevation o.for 4 must be bypassed N generally occurs at a point where cavitation within the turbine causes extremely rough operation, air may become entrained in the water, and/or vortices may appear in the forebay. 3.10.2.2.2 Power Marketing and Customers The effects of any surplus or deficit in power generation are incurred by the customers to whom the power from Glen Canyon and Hoover powerplants is allocated. The contracts for power from Glen Canyon Dam terminate in 2025. The contracts for power from Hoover Dam terminate in 2017. The identity of the recipients of power from these resources is not known for about two-thirds of the period of analysis for Hoover Dam and about one-half of the period of analysis for Glen Canyon Dam. Therefore, an analysis of the effects of the alternatives compared with those of baseline conditions will consider the general effects in the overall areas served by the resources, although a future group of power customers would be impacted similarly to current customers. The states that would be affected by changes in energy and capacity at Glen Canyon and Hoover powerplants are Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, New COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.10-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 374 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Mexico and Colorado. These states make up the Rocky Mountain, Arizona-New Mexico-Southern Nevada, and California-Mexico areas of the Western Systems Coordinating Council (WSCC). Electrical energy produced in each of these areas is derived from a variety of sources. The power from Glen Canyon Powerplant and Hoover Powerplant contributes a small, but significant portion of the energy produced in these areas. The total generation capability of the areas as of January 1, 1999, is 86,348 MW. The generation capability of each WSCC area is: • Rocky Mountain 10,584 MW • Arizona-New Mexico-Southern Nevada 22,272 MW • California-Mexico 53,492 MW Glen Canyon and Hoover powerplants contribute approximately 3.6 percent of the total generating capability of these three areas of WSCC (WSCC, 1999). The maximum capacity available from Glen Canyon Powerplant at elevation 3700 feet msl has been restricted to approximately 1200 MW. However, as stated above, the maximum operable capacity at Glen Canyon Powerplant is limited to 1048 MW due to water release restrictions, except during power system emergencies. Therefore, for the or nte i 7 IGlenrCanyon purposes of this analysis, the operable capacities of Hooverthe 01 f and powerplants are 2074 MW and 1048 MW, respectively,o a total9, 2 pt. for r 2 of 3122 MW. e D v. mbe ation on Nove 3.10.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, The environmental consequences of a change in river operations that impacts power 14production can be .measured by the increase or decrease in capacity and energy available No from the powerplants. The power production under the alternatives is compared with power production under baseline conditions to determine the incremental effects of each alternative, using annual average modeled reservoir levels and downstream releases. Reductions in capacity, energy, and generation ancillary services from Glen Canyon and Hoover powerplants under baseline conditions would ultimately need to be replaced by either types of generation. Additional incremental reductions under each alternative would also ultimately need to be replaced. The replacement of Glen Canyon and Hoover powerplant generation could be accomplished through a number of different strategies. If capacity loss can be expected for long periods of time, construction of new generation would likely occur. If capacity loss is intermittent throughout the period of analysis, purchases from the short-term market would be expected. If energy loss can be expected for a long period of time, either construction of new generation or operation of higher-cost generation for longer periods of time during the day would be expected. If energy loss is intermittent throughout the period of analysis, replacement from the short-term market would be anticipated. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.10-4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 375 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.10.2.3.1 Baseline Conditions 3.10.2.3.1.1 Glen Canyon Dam The annual average capacity and energy production at Glen Canyon Dam under baseline projections are shown in Table 5 in Attachment P; the annual average energy production is shown in Figure 3.10-1. The powerplant capacity begins at 1020 MW in 2002 and is reduced to 960 MW in 2016 because of reductions in lake elevation. Subsequently, the capacity increases to 990 MW in 2041, then decreases to 975 MW in 2050. From 2002 through 2016, the greatest annual decrease in capacity is 13 MW between 2012 and 2013. The annual reduction throughout the early years is from two to six MW, representing less than a one percent decline in capacity from the powerplant per year. The output varies cyclically between 2017 and 2050, with annual increases or decreases in capacity of two to six MW. Under baseline conditions, the energy available from Glen Canyon Dam averages 4532 GWh from 2002 through 2016, and 4086 GWh through the rest of the period of analysis. Energy production increases the first year of the study. Thereafter, annual reductions in energy production are generally less than 50 GWh per year through 2016. Annual reductions in energy from 2017 through 2050 are generally less r riothan 40 GWh. Inte f the 9, 2017 3.10.2.3.1.2 Hoover Dam pt. o . De ember 2 nv Natio d Hooverv The annual capacity and energy jproduction at on No Powerplant under baseline va o e conditions are shown in Table 7 of Attachment P; the annual average energy production in Na 4, archiv d cite 16 The is shown in Figure 3.10-2. 86 powerplant capacity begins at 2062 MW in 2002 and is reduced to 2033 o. 14 2016 because of reductions in lake elevation. Capacity N MW in decreases to 1865 MW in the year 2050. From 2002 through 2016, the greatest annual decrease in capacity is nine MW. This reduction represents less than a one percent per year decline in capacity from the powerplant through 2016. From 2017 through the remainder of the period of analysis, the annual capacity reductions are generally less than 10 MW. The energy available from Hoover Powerplant averages 4685 GWh from 2002 through 2016, and 3903 GWh through the rest of the period of analysis. Energy production increases during the first three years of the period of analysis, with annual reductions from 2004 through 2016 of generally less than 50 GWh. Annual reductions in energy from 2017 through 2050 are predominantly less than 60 GWh. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.10-5 3500 2000 3750 4000 4250 4500 4750 5000 5250 5500 Figure 3.10-1 Glen Canyon Powerplant Annual Average Energy Production 2005 2010 2015 2020 3.10-6 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Shortage Protection Alternative California Alternative Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative Baseline Conditions ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Energy Production (GWh) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 376 of 1200 3000 2000 3250 3500 3750 4000 4250 4500 4750 5000 5250 5500 Figure 3.10-2 Hoover Powerplant Annual Average Energy Production 2005 2010 2015 2020 3.10-7 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Shortage Protection Alternative California Alternative Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative Baseline Conditions ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Energy Production (GWh) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 377 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 378 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.10.2.3.1.3 Combined Capacity and Energy Reduction Under Baseline Conditions The combined capacity reduction from Glen Canyon and Hoover powerplants through 2016 is 89 MW under baseline conditions. The combined energy production in 2016 is 403 GWh less than year 2002 energy production. In 2050, the capacity reduction is 242 MW less than 2002 levels, and the energy available is reduced 1807 GWh from year 2002 production. Under baseline conditions, power customers can expect a reduction in production from present levels in the future. Because of the gradual withdrawal over time, the deficit is expected to be replaced by short-term purchases made by either the power customers or Western, at the power customer’s option, in accordance with contract terms. 3.10.2.3.2 Basin States Alternative 3.10.2.3.2.1 Glen Canyon Dam The average capacity available from Glen Canyon Powerplant under the Basin States Alternative is shown in Table 5 of Attachment P. The powerplant capacity begins at 1014 MW in 2002 and is reduced to 960 MW in 2016. The capacity varies two to four MW each year until 2050, at which time powerplant capacity is at 975 or ri MW. The average annual capacity available through the period of analysisInt987 MW. is e 7 he of t , 201 ept. earlyer 29through 2016, and The annual energy available averages 4527 GWh in theemb years v. D ation on Novenergy production in 2050 is 4209 GWh throughout the period of analysis. Annual jo N Nava archived 3875 GWh. in cited 16864, 1 3.10.2.3.2.2 Hoover 4No. Dam The average capacity available from Hoover Powerplant is shown in Table 7 of Attachment P. The powerplant capacity begins at 2061 MW in 2002 and is reduced to 1971 MW in 2016. The capacity either increases or decreases in consecutive years by up to 44 MW, with the capacity in 2050 being 1865 MW. The average capacity available throughout the period of analysis is 1935 MW. The average annual energy available is 4701 GWh through 2016, and 4087 GWh throughout the period of analysis. Annual energy production in 2050 is 3496 GWh. 3.10.2.3.3 Flood Control Alternative 3.10.2.3.3.1 Glen Canyon Dam The average capacity and energy available from Glen Canyon Powerplant under the Flood Control Alternative are shown in Table 5 of Attachment P. The powerplant capacity begins at 1020 MW in 2002 and is reduced to 962 MW in 2016. The decline continues to 975 MW in the year 2050. From 2002 through 2016, the greatest annual decrease in capacity is 12 MW. This reduction represents less than a one percent COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.10-8 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 379 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 average decline in powerplant capacity per year through 2016. The capacity either increases or decreases in consecutive years through the remainder of the period of analysis. Capacity changes from the period 2016 through 2050 are predominantly in the two to six MW range each year, either increasing or decreasing. Annual energy production from Glen Canyon averages 4532 GWh in the early years through 2016 and averages 4223 GWh throughout the period of analysis. Annual energy production in 2050 is 3875 GWh. 3.10.2.3.3.2 Hoover Dam The annual capacity and energy available from Hoover Powerplant under the Flood Control Alternative are shown in Table 7 of Attachment P. The powerplant capacity begins at 2062 MW in 2002 and is reduced to 2033 MW in 2016. Powerplant capacity continues on a declining trend, until the capacity reaches 1865 MW in 2050. The greatest declines in the period from 2002 through 2016 are five and 13 MW, with the annual decline in capacity being predominantly one to two MW. Under the Flood Control Alternative, the annual energy available from Hoover Powerplant averages 4686 GWh during the period 2002 through 2016.oThe average for ri r the period from 2017 through 2050 is 3908 GWh. The average Inte entire study for the f the 9, 2017 period is 4146 GWh. pt. o 2 e .D ber ion v Novem 3.10.2.3.4 Six States Alternative Nat on jo Nava archived in 3.10.2.3.4.1 Glened Dam cit Canyon864, 4-16 1 No. The capacity available from Glen Canyon Powerplant under the Six States Alternative begins at 1014 MW in 2002 and decreases to 960 MW in 2016. The capacity then follows a generally increasing trend through 2043, after which annual reductions lead to a capacity of 975 MW in 2050. The capacity available averages 980 MW throughout the period of analysis. Annual changes of between two and five MW are predominant in the Six States Alternative. The annual energy production averages 4527 GWh through 2016, and 4211 GWh throughout the period of analysis. Annual energy reductions throughout the period of analysis are predominantly less than 50 GWh. 3.10.2.3.4.2 Hoover Dam The capacity available from Hoover Powerplant under the Six States Alternative begins at 2061 MW in 2002 and decreases to 2005 MW in 2016. The capacity then follows a decreasing trend until the output reaches 1865 MW in 2050. The predominant annual capacity reductions throughout the study period are less than 10 MW. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.10-9 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 380 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 The average annual energy production is 4698 GWh through 2016. The average annual energy production throughout the period of analysis is 4091 GWh. Annual energy production reductions in successive years are predominantly less than 50 GWh. 3.10.2.3.5 California Alternative 3.10.2.3.5.1 Glen Canyon Dam The capacity available from Glen Canyon Powerplant under the California Alternative begins at 1007 MW in year 2002, and is reduced to 958 MW in 2016. The capacity follows a generally increasing trend from 2016 through the end of the period of analysis. In 2050, the capacity is 975 MW. Annual changes in plant capacity are generally between two and five megawatts. Energy production at Glen Canyon averages 4516 GWh through 2016, and 4193 GWh throughout the entire period of analysis. Annual changes in energy production are generally less than 30 GWh. 3.10.2.3.5.2 Hoover Dam r The capacity available from Hoover Powerplant under the CaliforniarAlternative begins te io he In 2017 follows a at 2061 MW in year 2002, and is reduced to 1907 MW inf2016. The capacity o t 29, ept.of the period of analysis. In generally downward trend from 2016 through . D end mber the nv e 2050, the capacity of Hoover is 1867 atio Annual ov N MW. d on Nchanges in plant capacity are ajo v generally less than 10 imegawatts. rchive n Na a cited 16864, Annual energy production at Hoover averages 4709 GWh through 2016, and 4016 GWh 14No. of analysis. Annual changes in energy production are throughout the period predominantly less than 20 GWh. 3.10.2.3.6 Shortage Protection Alternative 3.10.2.3.6.1 Glen Canyon Dam The capacity available from Glen Canyon Powerplant under the Shortage Protection Alternative begins at 1009 MW in 2002 and is reduced to 958 MW in the year 2016. The capacity generally increases to 988 MW in the early 2040s, then is reduced to 975 MW in the year 2050. Annual capacity variations are generally from two to six megawatts. Energy production averages 4518 GWh through 2016, and 4193 GWh throughout the entire study period. Annual energy production variations are generally less than 30 GWh. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.10-10 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 381 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.10.2.3.6.2 Hoover Dam The capacity available from Hoover Powerplant under the Shortage Protection Alternative begins at 2061 MW in 2002 and is reduced to 1904 MW in 2016. The capacity follows a generally decreasing trend from 2016 through 2050, when the capacity reaches 1865 MW. Annual capacity reductions are predominantly in the two to five megawatt range. Annual energy production averages 4733 GWh from the beginning of the period of analysis to 2016, and 4047 GWh throughout the entire period of analysis. Annual variation throughout the period of analysis is generally less than 100 GWh. 3.10.2.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES As discussed above, the amounts of capacity and energy available as a result of each alternative operating strategy vary on an annual basis. The important measurement of the effects of each alternative is their comparison with the baseline conditions. As indicated, the resources available from Glen Canyon and Hoover powerplants can be expected to be reduced over time, due primarily to increased depletions in the Upper Basin states. This effect is included in model runs for baseline conditions. ior Inter hecapacity017 energy of t Table 3.10-1 summarizes the differences between hydropower 29, 2 and ept. ber Values under the .D generation under each alternative and under baseline conditions. m ion v greater than atslightly n Nove under baseline conditions. N Flood Control Alternative are typically ajo do Values under the Californiaav Shortage e in N and , archiv Protection Alternatives are the furthest from cited 1 values baseline conditions, while6864 under the Six States and Basin States alternatives are 14closer to baseline conditions. No. The capacity and energy differences (reductions) between each alternative and baseline conditions would be replaced by power available from the market. The greatest singleyear difference in energy generation at Glen Canyon Powerplant under any of the alternatives as compared to baseline conditions is 102 GWh, under the California and Shortage Protection Alternatives (see Table 6 of Attachment P) or about 2.5 percent of the modeled average annual generation of Glen Canyon. The effects of interim surplus alternatives are greater at Hoover Powerplant. The greatest single-year difference in annual energy generation under any of the alternatives as compared to baseline conditions is 328 GWh under the California Alternative (see Table 8 of Attachment P), or about eight percent of the modeled average annual energy generation. The average annual generation during the period of analysis under the Preferred (Basin States) Alternative is 0.8 percent (0.3 percent at Glen Canyon and 1.3 percent at Hoover) less than under baseline conditions. The quantities of capacity needed to replace reductions, while not significant when compared to the total capacity installed in the three WSCC regions, may be significant to the entity losing the capacity. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.10-11 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 382 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Table 3.10-1 1 Hydropower Capacity and Energy – Comparison of Alternatives to Baseline Conditions 2 (Difference between baseline conditions and each alternative ) Alternative 2002 – 2016 2017 – 2050 Average Annual Average Annual Capacity Energy Capacity Energy (MW) (GWh) (MW) (GWh) 2002 – 2050 Average Annual Capacity Energy (MW) (GWh) Glen Canyon Powerplant Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative -10 0 -10 -21 -21 -5 0 -5 -16 -14 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -16 1 -15 -35 -36 -4 0 -4 -8 -7 -13 1 -12 -30 -29 Hoover Powerplant Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative -14 1 -11 -47 -45 15 0 13 24 20 -14 1 -12 -23 -20 -87 5 -80 -193 -147 -14 1 -12 -30 -28 -56 3 -51 -127 -96 ior Inter 17 e of th -103 , 20 -18 -24 10 ept. -15 r 29 D 1 n v. 0 1 b 1 m e 6 e Natio d on Nov-13 -21 8 -95 -16 vajo -68 e 8 -24 -228 -38 in Na 4, archiv ited 686 -66 6 -21 -183 -35 c 4-1 1 No. Total Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative 1 Appendix P, Tables 8 and 10 compare each alternative to baseline conditions. 2 -69 4 -63 -157 -125 Positive (negative) value indicates that cost is higher (lower) under the alternative. At Glen Canyon, the greatest single-year difference in capacity compared to baseline conditions is 36 MW under the Shortage Protection Alternative (see Table 6 of Attachment P). This amount represents a decrease of 3.5 percent from baseline conditions and approximately 0.3 percent of the installed capacity in the Rocky Mountain Area. At Hoover, the greatest single-year difference in capacity compared to baseline conditions is 137 MW under the California Alternative (see Table 8 of Attachment P). This amount represents a decrease of 6.7 percent from baseline conditions and about 0.2 percent of the installed capacity in the three-state marketing area for Hoover. Additional water releases resulting from four of the five alternatives (all but the Flood Control Alternative) under consideration will increase the energy available from the powerplants during the first two to seven years of the interim period. This can be expected to reduce energy purchases by the customers from alternate, higher priced COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.10-12 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 383 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 resources. Future reductions in power production can be expected to necessitate increased purchases of capacity to meet peak loads and reserves. Purchases of replacement power by power customers would result in changes in costs and increased exposure to market volatility. 3.10.3 SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER SYSTEM LAKE MEAD INTAKE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS This section discusses potential increases in operating costs of the SNWS Lake Mead intakes that could occur as a result of implementation of the interim surplus criteria alternatives. Increased pumping costs could occur if the alternatives cause lower Lake Mead water surface elevations than baseline conditions. 3.10.3.1 METHODOLOGY River system modeling, described in detail in Section 3.3, provided the average monthly elevation of Lake Mead for each year during the study period for baseline conditions and each of the alternatives. These elevations are shown in Table 2 of Attachment P. Increases or decreases in net effective pumping head correspond to decreases or increases in Lake Mead Surface elevations. The net effective pumping head differences ior Inter 1 2 between the baseline and the alternative strategies are also shown in Table7 of f the Attachment P. Using an estimate prepared by SNWA.(Johnson, 29, 20 incremental pt o er 2000) for e b pumping costs of $28,000 per year associated . D each foot of increased pumping ion v with ovem at is shown in Table 2 of Attachment P. N head, the increased cost of each jalternative d on aoN v e n Na , ar iv d iNVIRONMENT ch cite 3.10.3.2 AFFECTED E 16864 14No. through the SNWA, diverts most of its allocation of Colorado The State of Nevada, River water from Lake Mead through the SNWS into the Las Vegas Valley and adjacent areas. The power-consuming features of this system are the pumping plants from Lake Mead to the water treatment facility. The energy required to provide this lift is a function of the net difference in elevation between the Lake Mead water surface and the water treatment facility. Any increase in the net effective pumping head would increase the amount of energy required to pump each acre-foot of water from Lake Mead. The net effective pumping head will increase as the Lake Mead elevation falls. Water users in Clark County, Nevada and possibly others would absorb increased costs associated with water supply. 3.10.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The difference in net effective pumping head between each alternative and baseline projections is used to determine the effects of each alternative on pumping cost. The following analysis uses the estimate of $28,000 per year per foot increase in net effective pumping head furnished in the aforementioned letter. Baseline pumping costs were not calculated. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.10-13 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 384 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.10.3.3.1 Baseline Conditions and Alternatives Under baseline conditions, the average elevation of Lake Mead declines from 2002 through 2050. These results indicate that under baseline conditions and each of the alternatives, SNWA can expect pumping costs to increase due to the increase in net effective pumping head. Table 3.10-2 summarizes potential differences between pumping costs under the alternatives and baseline conditions. Table 3.10-2 Southern Nevada Water System Lake Mead Intake Energy Requirements 1 Average Annual Power Cost – Comparison of Alternatives to Baseline Conditions (Differences between baseline conditions and each alternative) Alternative Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative 1 2 2002-2016 $ 229,395 $ -32,685 $ 214,779 $ 544,843 $ 532,635 2017 - 2050 $ 94,352 $ -21,025 $ 88,027 $ 205,652 $ 170,314 2002 - 2050 $ 135,691 $ -24,594 $ 126,829 $ 309,486 $ 281,229 $28,000/per year per foot increase in net effective pumping head at year 2000 price level Positive (negative) value indicates that cost is higher (lower) under the alternative. ior Inter results in The Flood Control Alternative, when compared to baselinetconditions, 017 f he 9, 2 pt. ointo er system. The Basin reduced costs for SNWA to pump Colorado Rivere D water m its 2 n v. pumpingb increases of about States and Six States alternatives resulttin averageNove cost a io ajo N ived on The California Alternative and the $130,000 per year over the av period of analysis. N entire h Shortage Protectiond in Alternative , arc in average pumping cost increases of about cite the 864 result of analysis. $300,000 per year over-16 entire period 14 No. 3.10.4 INTAKE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AT LAKE POWELL This section discusses potential changes in pumping costs for two entities that pump water from Lake Powell: the Navajo Generating Station which obtains cooling water from Lake Powell, and the City of Page which obtains municipal water from Lake Powell. Incremental differences in pumping costs are associated with differences in modeled average Lake Powell surface elevations between baseline conditions and alternatives. 3.10.4.1 METHODOLOGY River system modeling, described in detail in Section 3.3, provided the average elevation of Lake Powell for each year during the study period for baseline conditions and for each of the alternatives. Increases or decreases in net effective pumping head correspond with decreases or increases in Lake Powell surface elevations. Lake Powell elevations and the net effective pumping head differences between baseline conditions and the alternatives are shown in Table 1 of Attachment P. Estimates of the differences COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.10-14 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 385 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 in pumping costs were calculated using these changes in pumping head, as well as estimates of annual water use, unit energy costs and pump efficiency. The formula for calculating energy requirements (E) as a function of pump lift (H) is: E = V * 1.024 * (H/e) Where V is the volume of water pumped and e is pump efficiency. 3.10.4.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The Navajo Generating Station is a 2250 MW, coal-powered plant jointly owned by Reclamation, Salt River Project, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Arizona Public Service Company, Nevada Power and Tucson Electric Power. The Salt River Project (SRP) operates the plant. The SRP projects that water use will be approximately 29,000 afy in the future. Power for the intake pumps is obtained from auxiliary power units at the Generating Station at a cost of $0.0104 per kWh. Pump efficiency is estimated by SRP at 75 percent. (Weeks, 2000) The City of Page provides municipal water to approximately 7800 residents from Lake erior produced at Powell. The intake pump station is operated by Reclamation e Int power 7 using 01 f th dominated the Glen Canyon Power Plant. Municipal water usept. Page is r 29, 2 by residential in o e e v. D A negligible amount of treated use with substantial residential landscape irrigation. ovemb ation for use at the dam. Presuming 275 gallons N water is delivered by the cityvajo N to Reclamation on v Na wouldhbe ed per day per resident, annual use , arc i approximately 2400 afy. An overall in ited for864pump station was used as a reasonable estimate. A cost c efficiency of 75 percent 16 the 4of $0.03 per kWh . 1 estimated as the cost of the electricity. No was 3.10.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The difference in net effective pumping head between each alternative and baseline projections was used to determine the effects of each alternative on pumping cost. Baseline pumping costs were not calculated. Under baseline projections, the average elevation of Lake Powell declines from elevation 3685 feet msl in year 2002 to elevation 3661 feet msl in year 2050 (Appendix P, Table 1). Table 3.10-3 compares the annual power costs of each alternative to baseline conditions. As Lake Powell water elevations are within hundredths of a foot for baseline conditions and for the Flood Control Alternative, no change in pumping costs would occur. For all other alternatives, Lake Powell water elevations average less than under baseline conditions. Average pumping costs would be higher for both the Navajo Generating Station (average increase of $808 per year over the period of analysis for the Basin States Alternative) and for the Reclamation-operated raw water intake serving the City COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.10-15 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 386 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 of Page. (Average increase of $193 per year over the period of analysis for the Basin States Alternative). Table 3.10-3 Intake Energy Requirements at Lake Powell Average Annual Power Cost – Comparison of Alternatives to Baseline Conditions (Difference between baseline conditions and each alternative) Alternative 2002–2016 Navajo Generating Station Intake Energy Requirements Basin States $ 2,216 Flood Control 0 Six States 2,129 California 4,651 Shortage Protection 4,660 2 City of Page Municipal Water Supply Basin States $ 529 Flood Control 0 Six States 508 California 1,110 Shortage Protection 1,112 1 2 2017–2050 $ 186 0 172 303 312 $ 808 0 771 1,634 1,643 $ $ 193 0 184 390 392 44 0 41 72 74 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. E(kWh) = 1.024 * 29,000 * (H/0.75). Cost = E(kWh) * $ 0.0104 E(kWh) = 1.024 * 2,400 * (H/0.75). Cost = E(kWh) * $ 0.03 Estimates are annual averages for the indicated time periods. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.10-16 2002–2050 1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 387 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.11 AIR QUALITY 3.11.1 INTRODUCTION Adoption of interim surplus criteria would not involve new construction or physical activities that would result in air emissions within the area of potential effect considered in this FEIS. Air quality effects discussed in this FEIS are limited to changes in fugitive dust emissions that could result from changes in exposed reservoir shoreline as a result of potential changes in Lake Mead and Lake Powell water surface elevations. 3.11.2 FUGITIVE DUST FROM EXPOSED SHORELINE This air quality analysis provides an overview of ambient air quality in the project area, as well as a qualitative review of the potential changes in fugitive dust emissions associated with the project alternatives when compared to fugitive dust emissions that may occur under baseline projections. 3.11.2.1 METHODOLOGY Variations in fugitive dust emissions can result from changes in the arearof exposed io shoreline due to changes in water operating levels. The amountsnter he I of fugitive dust and 17 generated per acre of exposed shoreline vary dependingof t soil 9, 20 pt. uponer 2 characteristics e other factors such as moisture content, wind v. D direction, and local topography. In mb ion speed, ovemission potential from exposed at fugitive dust e N developing a methodology for ajo N reviewing d on v Lake Mead, the following assumptions were made: shoreline around Lakein Na andarchive Powell cited 16864, 14• The incremental changes in exposed shoreline area are related to incremental No. changes in water surface elevation as indicated by existing reservoir area elevation data. However, the true area of exposed shoreline terrain is also affected by the slope of the terrain along the shoreline. To account for sloping terrain, an average shoreline slope of 30 degrees and 45 degrees from horizontal was assumed for Lake Mead and Lake Powell, respectively. • Incremental changes in fugitive dust emissions are directly proportional to the changes in exposed shoreline area. Although some portions of exposed area would have varying potential to generate fugitive dust, it is assumed that these areas are distributed proportionally throughout the potential range of reservoir surface elevations. Therefore, exposed areas were assumed to have a similar emission rate for a given amount of exposed shoreline. It should be noted, however, that estimated fugitive dust emissions were not calculated for this analysis, and it is likely that certain areas of the exposed shoreline would be expected to have higher emission rate factors than others. For example, delta areas with high amounts of fine sediment deposit would be a more likely source of fugitive dust generation than more compact or rocky soils at other exposed locations. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.11-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 388 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Based on these assumptions and using modeling results associated with projected median surface elevations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead, potential changes in shoreline exposure under baseline conditions and the interim surplus criteria alternatives were identified. 3.11.2.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Ambient conditions in the Las Vegas (Lake Mead) area are characterized by low annual precipitation and generally light winds. Windrose data for the Las Vegas area for the period 1992 through 1996 indicate the predominant wind directions to be from the west, southwest, and south (i.e., away, rather than toward the Las Vegas metropolitan area) throughout the year. Wind speeds are less than five miles per hour (mph) for approximately 25 percent of the year and greater than 25 mph for less than one percent of the year. The average wind speed is approximately nine mph. Ambient conditions are similar for the Lake Powell area. Windrose data for Page, Arizona for the period 1992 through 1996 indicates there is no predominant wind direction. Rather, wind direction is somewhat evenly distributed, with the exception of winds from the southeast occurring less frequently. Wind speeds are less than five mph for more than 65 percent of the year and greater than 20 mph for less than one percent of the year. The average wind speed is less than five mph. erior Int f the 9, 2017 border. Lake Mead is located on the Nevada (Clark County)/Arizona (Mohave County) pt. o er 2 . De the federal Clean Air Act, in the Air quality regulations, including implementation ofovemb nv at Clark n N Ntheio d oCounty Air Pollution Control Division Lake Mead area are administered by vajo ve (Nevada) and the Arizona Departmenthi Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Air quality in Na 4, arc of d cite 1686 regulations in the Lake-Powell area, which is located on the Arizona/Utah border, are 4 administered by o. 1 N the ADEQ and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality. Pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, the EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for a number of air pollutants, which are considered harmful to public health or the environment. There are two types of NAAQS, primary and secondary. Primary standards are designed to set limits for the protection of public health, including the health of sensitive populations (receptors) such as asthmatics, children and the elderly. Secondary standards are designed for the protection of the public welfare, including visibility as well as damage to animals, crops, vegetation and buildings. The EPA has established annual average and 24-hour average NAAQS for particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Although the PM10 standards have been in effect for some time, the PM2.5 standards are more recent (1997). Because development of baseline data for the latter is an ongoing effort and final implementation of the PM2.5 standards may not occur for years, the discussion of fugitive dust emissions focuses on PM10, which are more commonly understood and encompass PM2.5 emissions in any event. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.11-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 389 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Fugitive dust emissions such as those from exposed reservoir shorelines can contribute to PM10 concentrations. To the extent that exposed shoreline is characterized by relatively fine or light soils, fugitive dust emissions can result. However, given the apparent nature of the reservoir shorelines (more gravel surface than soil) and the relatively low average winds in the reservoir areas, soil materials from exposed shoreline areas do not appear to result in significant fugitive dust emissions. Another possible source of particulate emissions is from the deposition of dried plant material left along the shoreline as the water level recedes. Given the nature of the lakes’ bottom compositions and the relatively slow rate of reservoir water level decreases, it is unlikely that this type of emissions source would be significant. The lakes do not appear to contain high levels of algae, and the water levels are projected to decline by a few feet per year (relative to baseline conditions). At this rate, algae or other forms of plant matter would be likely to recede with the water rather than be deposited along the shoreline. Particulate emissions in the Lake Mead and Lake Powell areas do not appear to be a significant problem. While some urban areas (including Las Vegas, North Las Vegas and Henderson) within Clark County are not in attainment of the NAAQS for PM10, the rest of the county, including Lake Mead, is in attainment of the standard. The portion ior Inter PM10 standard. e of Mohave County adjacent to Lake Mead is also in attainment of the 017 of th 29, 2 The northern central Arizona and southern UtahDept. area, including Lake Powell, is also in . ber attainment of the PM10 standard. This attainment status corresponds with windrose ion v Novem Nat information for both areas (i.e., relatively ed on vajo hiv low average wind speeds implying low wind a blown dust emissions in N 4, arc the relatively low levels of dust generated from ited on average) and c 86 human activities. 4-16 No. 1 Since both lake areas are used primarily for recreational purposes, there are limited sensitive receptor population concentrations such as asthmatics, children or elderly living in these areas. 3.11.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Based on modeled median surface elevations, baseline conditions will likely result in decreased reservoir water levels and increases in exposed shoreline for both Lake Mead and Lake Powell over the period of analysis. Median elevations under each of the alternatives indicate a similar potential for increased shoreline exposure over time. Tables 3.11-1 and 3.11-2 indicate Lake Mead and Lake Powell median surface elevations identified through modeling (described in Section 3.3), as well as reservoir surface area and exposed shoreline (based on shoreline slope estimates discussed in Section 3.11.2.1) associated with these elevations. The greatest difference in exposed shoreline between baseline conditions and each of the alternatives would generally occur in the first half of the modeled period, as indicated under years 2016 and 2026 in Tables 3.11 and 3.11-2. By year 2036, there are relatively minor variations in exposed COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.11-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 390 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 shoreline associated with the median elevations under the alternatives as compared with baseline projections. Specifically, modeling results indicate an increased potential for fugitive dust emissions under the Basin States, Six States, California and Shortage Protection alternatives when compared with baseline projections throughout the initial, approximately 35 to 40 years of the projections, with the greatest differences in shoreline exposure potential occurring at or near the end of the interim period, in the year 2016. The Flood Control Alternative would have a slightly decreased potential for fugitive dust emission over the entire period of analysis when compared with baseline conditions. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.11-4 CHAPTER 3 1143 Basin States Alternative 1125 1126 2026 1120 1121 2036 1 1111 1111 2050 108.1 120.2 2016 99.3 99.8 2026 97.4 97.6 2036 Reservoir Surface Area (acres x1000) 93.6 93.6 2050 56.3 42.3 2016 66.4 65.9 2026 68.6 68.4 2036 Exposed Shoreline Area (acres x1000) 2 1162 1128 1119 1111 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 1 Flood Control Alternative 120.2 3.11-5 100.7 96.8 93.6 42.3 64.8 69.3 ior Inter54.8 17 66.4 68.5 Six States 1145.5 1124.7 1120.4 1110.6 109.4 99.3 97.5 93.6 e Alternative of th 29, 20 t. California 1131.2 1116.4 1117.6 1110.6 102.1 D p m 93.6 63.2 70.4 69.9 .95.9 e 96.3 ber v Alternative ation on Nove N 101.7 Shortage 1117.6 1110.6 96.3 93.6 63.7 69.7 69.9 1130.2 1117.9 vajo hived 96.5 Protection Na c Alternative ar ed in 8 citsurface elevations. 64, Based on modeled median reservoir 6 Area of exposed shoreline represents the area -1 would be exposed below the full pool elevation of Lake Mead for the various water surface elevations indicated, 14 that Lake Mead’s water surface area is 156,845 acres at water surface elevation of 1219.6 feet msl. assuming an average shoreline slope of 30 degrees. No. 1162 2016 Baseline Conditions Scenario Surface Elevation (feet msl) 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 2050 Table 3.11-1 Median Lake Mead Surface Elevation, Surface Area and Exposed Shoreline Area Under Baseline Conditions and Alternative Projections AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 391 of 1200 CHAPTER 3 3665 2016 3666 2026 3670 2036 1 3663 2050 134.6 2016 135.2 2026 138.0 2036 Reservoir Surface Area (acres x1000) 132.6 2050 37.0 2016 36.2 2026 32.2 2036 Exposed Shoreline Area (acres x1000) 2 3664 3666 3670 3663 134.1 135.2 138.0 132.6 37.7 36.2 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.11-6 assuming an average shoreline slope of 45 degrees. Lake Powell’s water surface area is 160,782 acres at water surface elevation of 3700 feet msl. 2 1 Basin States Alternative 32.2 39.9 39.3 39.9 37.6 39.9 39.9 2050 ior I er 17 36.2 32.2 Flood Control 3665 3666 3670 3665 134.6 135.2 138.0 134.2nt 37.0 e Alternative of th 29, 20 t. Six States 3664 3666 3670 3663 134.1 135.2 ep 138.0 132.6 37.7 36.2 32.2 er .D Alternative nv emb tio 131.6 ov California 3660 3661 3670 3663 Na jo 130.8ed on N 138.0 133.0 42.4 41.3 32.2 Alternative Nava archiv in Shortage 3659 3661 4, Protection cited 36706863663 130.2 131.6 138.0 132.6 43.2 41.3 32.2 Alternative -1 o. 14 Based on modeled median surface elevations. N Area of exposed shoreline represents the area that would be exposed below the full pool elevation of Lake Powell for the various water surface elevations indicated, Baseline Conditions Scenario Surface Elevation (feet msl) Table 3.11-2 Median Lake Powell Surface Elevation, Surface Area and Exposed Shoreline Area Under Baseline Conditions and Alternative Projections AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 392 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 393 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.12 VISUAL RESOURCES 3.12.1 INTRODUCTION This visual resource analysis addresses the scenic resources at Lake Mead and Lake Powell. The analysis centers on the potential effects of increased shoreline exposure that could result from implementation of the interim surplus criteria alternatives considered in this document. 3.12.2 METHODOLOGY The evaluation of the effects of the alternatives on the visual resources is based on an assessment of the changes in reservoir shorelines caused by potential decreases in reservoir water surface elevations. More precisely, the modeling indicates the increased range of water level swings between the highs when reservoirs are full and the lows that could occur when the Colorado River Basin natural runoff is low. The potential water level lows have been described in Section 3.3 in terms of probability of occurrence, based on operation model output. Consequently the visual effects are also presented in terms of the probabilities of shoreline changes. Owing to the subjective nature of visual qualities, this analysis is presented as a qualitative assessment of potential visual effects. rior Inte 17 f the of exposed shoreline 20 Changes in water elevation have differing effects on theo ept. amount 29, r D mb lake depending on topography; the analysis tion v. changes in e levels to shoreline relates the a interpretedofrom existing topographic maps. N ve topography. The shoreline changesN on jo were Nava archivedis derived from NPS documents and The description of the iaffected environment n cited 16864, commercial maps and literature describing scenery in the LMNRA and the GCNRA. 14No. 3.12.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Both Lake Mead and Lake Powell are situated in desert areas of the Colorado River Basin. While the desert vistas at the reservoir sites have a certain scenic attractiveness of their own, the reservoirs have added a contrasting visual element that increases the visual attractiveness of the areas, which are now dedicated as national recreation areas. The uniqueness of the reservoirs with their contrasting surroundings has been widely illustrated in travel and vacation literature, and has formed well known visual images which help to draw multi-day visitors seeking water related recreation, and touring motorists making day visits. The reservoir water levels fluctuate both yearly and, to a lesser degree, seasonally. During high runoff years reservoir inflows exceed the required releases and water is stored, causing the water level to rise. During lower runoff years, when releases are greater than inflows, water levels decline. The effects of water level changes on visual qualities in the GCNRA and LMNRA depend greatly on the distance from which the shoreline is viewed, and the type of topography forming the shoreline. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.12-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 394 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.12.3.1 CHAPTER 3 LAKE POWELL Glen Canyon National Recreation Area is located in the Canyonlands area of the Colorado Plateau. The plateau includes parts of Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona and is drained by the Colorado River and its many tributaries. The primary attraction of the GCNRA is Lake Powell, a 186-mile-long reservoir on the Colorado River that is formed by Glen Canyon Dam. Lake Powell extends along what was once the Colorado River, through Glen Canyon and numerous side canyons to form more than 1960 miles of reservoir shoreline. Recreationists enjoy exploring the endless side channels and canyons of the reservoir by boat, often spending several days on the water in houseboats or camping in remote areas. The combined qualities of visual attractiveness and branching waterways create an attraction for many recreationists. 3.12.3.1.1 Landscape Character In “carving” out the canyon landforms, the Colorado River and its tributaries formed a labyrinthine pattern of deep twisted canyons whose towering walls exhibit the geological history of the region. The sedimentary rock formations show multihued sandstone and limestone layers and change color under differing sun angles occurring during the day. Much of the land surface is bare rock with no soil cover. With little erior soil cover or moisture, there is minimal vegetation and littlehe Int relief from the sun and the 017 ft winds that blow across the vast plateau. Consequently, o terraced,plateau landscape pt. the er 29 2 De b above the canyon walls displays the vaston v. of ovesandstone and limestone. i expanse N red m at on These red, orange and beige rocko N j formations result in a dramatic landscape of towering Nava ofaslickived and steep-sided canyons. Since the filling rock spires, undulatingn i plateaus , rch rock 4 cited decades ago, a dramatic contrast to this arid red rock of Lake Powell several-1686 4 1 environment evolved in the form of the deep blue waters of Lake Powell, with their No. erratic patterns on the landscape likened to a blue lightening bolt in the red-orange desert. Secluded side canyons support cottonwoods and poplars because of the shelter from the wind provided by the canyon walls, and presence of water from tributaries. Tamarisk, a non-native, invasive species, thrives along the lakeshore and in stream bottoms, wherever it can find abundant water, forming a ring of green vegetation along the less steep slopes of the reservoir. The reservoir and its protected surroundings in the GCNRA form a valued recreation resource. 3.12.3.1.2 Sensitive Viewing Locations The shoreline of Lake Powell and its adjacent landscape can be viewed from the surrounding land at Glen Canyon Dam and its vicinity and from limited areas of the canyon rim, notably the recreation-oriented area extending upstream of the lake from the west end of the dam. Access by boat permits the greatest amount and variety of scenic vistas; boaters generally look forward to viewing canyon scenery during their visit to the area. The vistas are relatively short in relation to the surface area of the lake, because of the COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.12-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 395 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 sinuous shape of the lake, and the fact that much of the area lies in side canyons and isolated basins along the meandering course of the former Colorado River corridor. When Lake Powell water level declines, a white band of calcium carbonate appears on rock surfaces where cliffs or rocky slopes form the reservoir rim. In areas where the lakeshore consists of sand and gravel, an exposed beach belt emerges. 3.12.3.2 3.12.3.2.1 LAKE MEAD Landscape Character Lake Mead is situated in the northern part of the Mojave Desert and is surrounded by an austere desert landscape. The lake extends about 66 miles upstream from Hoover Dam and has about 695 miles of irregular shorelines with large bays and small coves. Lake Mead is framed by low mountains with jagged rocky faces and profiles. Intervening canyons and washes provide variation to the terrain, with the combination presenting an interesting rugged type of scenery for many visitors. While the landscape at midday is relatively subdued in terms of color, the contrast with the blue water of the lake provides an appealing scenic area for visitors. Moreover, the contrasting “moods” ior of the surrounding desert visible between sunrise and sunset createter In memorable scenic f the 9, 2017 experiences. pt. o 2 . De ber ion v Novem 3.12.3.2.2 Sensitive Viewing Locations on Nat vajo hived in Na 4, corridor where Lake Mead is located consists of rc The portion of cited the Colorado Rivera 86 -16 alternating narrow. rocky canyons and wide alluvial basins. Most of the lake and its o 14 N shoreline is visible only to people at widely scattered access points and from boats on the lake. The major exceptions are the broad Hemenway Wash area on the west side of the Boulder Basin of the lake, the Las Vegas Bay area on the west side of Boulder Basin and Hoover Dam. The Hemenway Wash area is a broad colluvial fan extending upslope from the lake to the River Mountains on the west, with one contiguous area named Hemenway Valley extending upslope southward and forming the northern part of Boulder City. At the lake shore, the broad expanse of gradually sloping desert terrain has been developed into a series of water-based recreation areas, consisting of, in a northward direction, Hemenway boat launching area and water craft area (boating area with launching ramps, docks, and shoreline areas designated for personal water craft use), the Boulder Beach area, a largely unimproved gravel beach area for recreation including swimming, windsurfing and sunbathing, with an adjacent overnight campground and a mobile home community, and then the Lake Mead Marina, providing a boat berthing area, restaurant and boat launching and docking facilities. Westerly of the shoreline area, up the sloping desert terrain, is the boundary between the LMNRA and the beginning of the Hemenway Valley section of Boulder City. This area COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.12-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 396 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 has been extensively developed with condominiums and homes ranging in price up to millions of dollars, with much of the area having been developed to take advantage of lake vistas and views of the surrounding hills and desert landforms. Las Vegas Bay to the north is a relatively narrow area of Lake Mead that is the initial vista presented to people driving to the lake from the Las Vegas Valley. Vistas of the lake are distant because the roads serving the area tend to be on benches above the lake from which direct views of the shoreline are distant and intermittent. Hoover Dam is at the south end of a narrow, steep-walled canyon, which is visible only from the dam and the Arizona abutment and visitor parking areas. When Lake Mead water level declines, two elements of the area’s vista are readily visible. One element is the exposed beach belt around the perimeter of the reservoir where the bottom consists of sand and gravel. The other element is a white band of calcium carbonate on rock surfaces where cliffs or rocky slopes form the reservoir rim. 3.12.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.12.4.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS ior Inter 17 f the 9, 0 pt. o conditions2would fluctuate r2 D The water surface elevation of Lake Powell undere m e n v. baseline b e between full level and lower level, with ithe amount ov duration of fluctuation Nat o d on Nand ajo Colorado River system. Moreover, the potential v depending on natural runoff in the rchive in Na 4, a dwould increase with the passage of time as the Upper Divisions range of fluctuations cite 1686 states increase their 14- of river water. An annual fluctuation of approximately 20 feet use No. is projected, in step with the seasonal runoff cycle. Considering the annual fluctuation, 3.12.4.1.1 Lake Powell the "average full" Lake Powell elevation for this analysis is considered to be an average of approximately 3690 feet msl. While the timing of major water level variations can not be predicted, nor the length of time the water level would remain at the full level or at any other specific level, the probable range of future baseline water levels has been estimated by the model. As shown on Figure 3.3-6, the median water level decline would be 25 feet below the average full level by the end of 15 years, after which the median level would remain at or above that decline to 2050. There is also a 10 percent probability that the water level would decline as much as 75 feet below the average full level by the end of 15 years, and as much as 135 feet by 2050. However, as noted above, these lows would be temporary, with a likelihood that the reservoir level would fluctuate up to full level when high natural runoff conditions occur. The declines cited above represent the average water levels under an annual 20-foot variation. The visual consequences of such water level declines would affect boaters viewing two types of shoreline. First, colorful sandstone canyon walls could show a white band of COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.12-4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 397 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 calcium carbonate deposit between the full water level and the lower water level, which would detract from the visual contrast of rock and water. Second, the shoreline areas consisting of sandy or gravelly desertscapes with their unique desert vegetation would be altered by the interposition of a beach belt of sand and gravel between the full water level and the lower water level. This could also alter the contrasting contact between the blue water and the natural desert, and in some cases, distance boaters from the natural terrain. 3.12.4.1.2 Lake Mead As described in Section 3.3, the water surface elevation of Lake Mead under baseline conditions would fluctuate between a full pool and increasingly lower lake levels, with the amount and duration of fluctuations depending on natural runoff in the Colorado River system. The potential range of fluctuations would increase with the passage of time as the Upper Division states increase their use of river water. While the timing of major water level variations can not be predicted, nor the length of time the water level would remain at the full level or at any other specific level, the probable range of water levels has been estimated by the model. An annual fluctuation of 10 to 20 feet is projected, in step with the seasonal runoff cycle. Considering the annual fluctuation, the "average full" Lake Mead elevation for this analysis is considered itorbe an average ter o of approximately 1215 feet msl. he In 017 ft ,2 t. o Dep mber 29 .level would decline 50 feet below the As shown on Figure 3.3-13, the median iwater nv ve Nat o d on Nothe median decline would continue average full level by the end va15 years, after which of jo e to 105 feet by 2050.dThere is alsoar10 percent probability that the median water level in Na 4, a chiv c te 1 120 would decline asi much-as686 feet below the average full level by the end of 15 years, 4 180 feet by the end 1 30 years, and then continue a gradual decline to 200 feet by 2050. No. of However, as noted above, these lows would be temporary, with the probability that the level of Lake Mead level would fluctuate up to full level when high natural runoff conditions occur. The visual effect of such a decline perceived by the public would vary depending on the proximity to the reservoir. Persons close to, or on, Lake Mead would perceive that the water level had dropped greatly. However, along most of the alluvial shoreline the exposed bottom would exhibit expanses of gravel. Boaters viewing cliff shorelines would see a band of white calcium carbonate deposits that would probably detract from their appreciation of the rock walls. Persons outside the LMNRA could notice a reduction in reservoir level, depending on their distance from the lake and the degree of visibility of the lake shore. However, beyond the alteration of the water shoreline and the increased prominence of islands and outcrops in the lake, no degradation of the viewshed would be anticipated. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.12-5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 398 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.12.4.2 3.12.4.2.1 CHAPTER 3 BASIN STATES ALTERNATIVE Lake Powell Under this alternative the median water level would decline 25 feet below the average full level by the end of 15 years, after which the median decline would be virtually the same as under baseline conditions to 2050. There is also a 10 percent probability that water level would temporarily decline as much as 85 feet below the average full level by the end of 15 years, and continue a gradual decline to 140 feet by 2050. However, as noted above, these lows would be temporary, with a likelihood that the reservoir level would fluctuate up to full level when high natural runoff conditions occur. The declines cited above represent the average water levels under an annual 20-foot variation. The visual consequences would involve the same scenic changes described above for baseline conditions. 3.12.4.2.2 Lake Mead Under this alternative the median water level would decline 70 feet below the average full level by the end of 15 years, after which the median decline would reach 105 feet ior by 2050. There is also a 10 percent probability that water level would temporarily Inter 17 he decline as much as 135 feet below the average full levelof tthe end of20 years, and 205 pt. by er 29, 15 e feet by the end of 30 years and during the n v. D periodb 2050. However, as noted ioremainingovem tothe reservoir level would Na d likelihood that above, these lows would be temporary,twith aon N vajo natural runoff conditions occur. fluctuate up to full level when high rchive in Na a cited 16864, 14The visual consequences would involve the same scenic changes described above for No. baseline conditions. 3.12.4.3 3.12.4.3.1 FLOOD CONTROL ALTERNATIVE Lake Powell Under this alternative the Lake Powell water levels would be virtually the same as under baseline conditions. The visual consequences would involve the same scenic changes described above for baseline conditions. 3.12.4.3.2 Lake Mead Under this alternative Lake Mead water levels would be virtually the same as under baseline conditions. The visual consequences would involve the same scenic changes described above for baseline conditions. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.12-6 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 399 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.12.4.4 3.12.4.4.1 CHAPTER 3 SIX STATES ALTERNATIVE Lake Powell Under this alternative the median water level would decline 25 feet below the average full level by the end of 15 years, after which the median decline would be virtually the same as under baseline conditions to 2050. There is also a 10 percent probability that water level would temporarily decline as much as 85 feet below the average full level by the end of 15 years, and continue a gradual decline to 140 feet by 2050. However, as noted above, these lows would be temporary, with a likelihood that the reservoir level would fluctuate up to full level when high natural runoff conditions occur. The declines cited above represent the average water levels under an annual 20-foot variation. The visual consequences would involve the same scenic changes described above for baseline conditions. 3.12.4.4.2 Lake Mead Under this alternative the median water level would decline 70 feet below the average full level by the end of 15 years, after which the median decline would reach 105 feet ior by 2050. There is also a 10 percent probability that water level would temporarily Inter 17 he decline as much as 130 feet below the average full levelof tthe end of20 years, and 205 pt. by er 29, 15 e feet by the end of 30 years and during the n v. D periodb 2050. However, as noted ioremainingovem tothe reservoir level would Na d likelihood that above, these lows would be temporary,twith aon N vajo natural runoff conditions occur. The visual fluctuate up to full level when high rchive in Na a itedinvolve 64,same scenic changes described above for baseline c consequences would 168 the conditions. No. 14 3.12.4.5 3.12.4.5.1 CALIFORNIA ALTERNATIVE Lake Powell Under this alternative the median water level would decline 30 feet below the average full level by the end of 15 years, after which the median decline would be virtually the same as under baseline conditions. There is also a 10 percent probability that the water level would decline as much as 95 feet below the average full level by the end of 15 years, and continue a gradual decline to 140 feet by 2050. However, as noted above, these lows would be temporary, with a likelihood that the reservoir level would fluctuate up to full level when high natural runoff conditions occur. The declines cited above represent the average water levels under an annual 20-foot variation. The visual consequences would involve the same scenic changes described above for baseline conditions. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.12-7 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 400 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.12.4.5.2 CHAPTER 3 Lake Mead Under this alternative the median water level would decline 85 feet below the average full level by the end of 15 years, after which the median decline would reach 105 feet by 2050. There is also a 10 percent probability that water level would temporarily decline as much as 145 feet below the average full level by the end of 15 years, and 210 feet by the end of 30 years and during the remaining period to 2050. However, as noted above, these lows would be temporary, with a likelihood that the reservoir level would fluctuate up to full level when high natural runoff conditions occur. The visual consequences would involve the same scenic changes described above for baseline conditions. 3.12.4.6 3.12.4.6.1 SHORTAGE PROTECTION ALTERNATIVE Lake Powell Under this alternative the median water level would decline 30 feet below the average full level by the end of 15 years, after which the median decline would be virtually the same as under baseline conditions to 2050. There is also a 10 percent probability that ior the water level would decline as much as 95 feet below the averageer level by the end Int full 17 the of 15 years, and continue a gradual decline to 140 feet.byf2050. 29, 20 as noted pt o er However, e b above, these lows would be temporary lows, v. D a likelihood that the reservoir level ion with Novem at natural runoff conditions occur. The declines would fluctuate up to full level when high ajo N d on cited above represent the Nav waterilevels under an annual 20-foot variation. average rch ve in a cited 16864, 14The visual consequences would involve the same scenic changes described above for No. baseline conditions. 3.12.4.6.2 Lake Mead Under this alternative the median water level would decline 85 feet below the average full level by the end of 15 years, after which the median decline would reach 105 feet by 2050. There is also a 10 percent probability that the water level would temporarily decline as much as 140 feet below the average full level by the end of 15 years, and 210 feet by the end of 30 years and during the remaining period to 2050. However, as noted above, these lows would be temporary, with a likelihood that the reservoir level would fluctuate up to full level when high natural runoff conditions occur. The visual consequences would involve the same scenic changes described above for baseline conditions. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.12-8 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 401 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.13.1 INTRODUCTION Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, objects and landscapes. Historic properties are cultural resources that meet one or more of the Secretary’s criteria of significance found at 36 CFR 60.4 and are listed on, or have been found eligible for inclusion, in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The term also includes sites of traditional religious and cultural significance to an Indian Tribe that meet one or more of the NRHP criteria – traditional cultural properties. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, requires all federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on historic properties. 3.13.2 APPROACH TO ANALYSIS The first step in the Section 106 process, as set forth at 36 CFR 800.3(a), is for the Agency Official to determine if a proposed action meets the definition of an undertaking. An “undertaking” is defined at 36 CFR 800.16(y) as “a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a ior Inter agency; those federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf the federal 17 0 f of a carried out with federal financial assistance; thoseept. o a federal 2 requiring r 29, permit, license or v. D mbe approval; and those subject to State or local regulation administered pursuant to a ation The Nove has the authority to declare jo agency.” on Secretary delegation or approval by a federal N ved Nava artheiLROC developed pursuant to the Colorado surplus conditionsed inreference to ch with , 4 cit River Basin Project Act,1686 make surplus determinations during the AOP 4- and to 1 development process. Using the existing LROC and AOP process, the Secretary has No. declared the existence of surplus conditions every year since 1996 and could continue to do so in the absence of interim criteria. Reclamation has determined development and implementation of interim surplus criteria for use in conjunction with the LROC and AOP process has the potential to temporarily change the way in which surplus is determined for the period 2000-2015. Development and implementation of interim surplus criteria can thus be construed as a temporary change in an ongoing activity that is part of an existing program, the latter being the delivery of Colorado River water. Thus, it meets the definition of an undertaking for the purposes of complying with Section 106 of the NHPA. The second step in the Section 106 process is to determine if the undertaking has the potential to cause effects to historic properties. If an undertaking “does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties,” pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), the Agency Official has no further obligations under Section 106. Effect is defined at 36 CFR 800.16(i) as “alteration to the characteristics of a historic property qualifying it for inclusion in or eligibility for the National Register.” Reclamation has determined development of interim surplus criteria is an undertaking, but one without potential to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.13-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 402 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 affect historic properties. Reclamation’s rationale for this determination is outlined below. 3.13.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The term area of potential effects (APE) is defined at 36 CFR 800.16(d) as “the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist.” This section goes on to state “the area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects cause (sic) by the undertaking.” For the purposes of evaluating the potential for development and implementation of interim surplus criteria to affect historic properties, the APE has been differentially defined for Lake Powell, Lake Mead, the Grand Canyon, and the reservoirs and river corridor from below Hoover Dam to the SIB. This is to address the effects of changes in lake elevations and mean monthly flow rates predicted by the hydrological modeling runs presented earlier in this EIS, and other factors. The APE definitions used in this analysis are as follows: Lake Powell: That area around the margin of the lake extending from the historic maximum pool elevation of 3708 feet msl, to the 3595-foot contour. rThe 3595-foot e ior contour has been selected as the low elevation cutoff point,the Int as hydrological modeling 017 f runs indicate there is a 10 percent probability the surface elevation9, 2 lake could pt. o er 2 of the De Alternative. b drop to this level by 2016 for the Shortagen v. io Protection vem t o a N aj N vtheolakehived on Lake Mead: That area iaround n Na arc margin extending from its historic high water ited feet864, The 1083-foot contour has been selected as the low level of 1225.5c 1083-16 msl. to 1 elevation cutoff point4 this represents the minimum pool level necessary for continued No. as power generation. The maximum flood pool elevation is 1229 feet msl. Colorado River through the Grand Canyon: As discussed in Section 1.4.2, the Glen Canyon EIS analyzes the effects of operation of Glen Canyon Dam on downstream resources of the Grand Canyon, including cultural resources. The Record of Decision (ROD) for this EIS provides for monitoring and management of affected cultural resources. Section 106 compliance for existing operations and implementation of surplus criteria are and will be subject to the Cultural Resources Programmatic Agreement prepared with respect to the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. Thus it will not be considered further in this analysis. Colorado River from Hoover Dam to SIB: Downstream from Hoover Dam, the Colorado River flows through a relatively narrow valley along which are located Lake Mohave and Davis Dam, Lake Havasu and Parker Dam, and a series of smaller dams that serve to impound and divert water for specific purposes. As indicated in Section 3.3.4, although Lake Mohave and Lake Havasu are located within the overall APE of the current action, implementation of interim surplus criteria will have no effect on the surface elevations or operation of these reservoirs. As a consequence, they are not COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.13-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 403 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 considered further in this analysis. Below Davis and Parker dams, the river is fringed by riparian vegetation and marshy backwaters, and a series of levees serve to contain its flow. Because under all but the most exceptional circumstances (e.g., a catastrophic flood event, levee failure, etc.), the flow of the Colorado River is expected to be contained within its channel and the levees, and the APE for free-flowing stretches is considered to be the river channel and that area of the floodplain lying within the levees. 3.13.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The No Action and each of the action alternatives could result in changes in the surface elevations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead and changes in release patterns and flow of the Colorado River below Hoover Dam. These changes could result in changes in erosional and/or depositional processes that could affect historic properties, were such properties present. However, Reclamation considers the probability for the existence of cultural resources retaining qualities that would qualify them for listing on the NRHP within the interim surplus criteria APEs, as defined above, to be extremely low. Although Hoover and Glen Canyon dams were constructed prior to passage of the NHPA in 1966, attempts were made to locate and salvage information from significant prehistoric and historic archaeological sites prior to inundation by Lake Mead and Lake erior Powell. As a result of these efforts, numerous kinds of siteshe Int masonry including 17 20 of t structures, wattle and daub roomblocks, rockshelters,tlithic and ceramic scatters, trails, ep . ber 29, D m shrines, quarry locations, salt mines, andon v. towns, mills, roads, etc., are known to historic atilakes.on Nove N be submerged beneath the waterso the ed vaj of iv Na arch d in itecondition 64,the No Action Alternative, impacts that are likely to c Under the baseline -168 for . 14inundated by the reservoirs can be expected to vary in kind and have occurred No to sites degree, depending on a number of factors including the type of site, slope, the substrate on which the site is located, the site’s elevation with respect to historic operation of the reservoir, the number of times a site has been inundated, exposed and re-inundated, etc. In areas where the lake margins make contact with unconsolidated sediments (i.e., alluvial fans, fluvial deposits, etc.), wave action and rising and falling water levels can cause cutting and bench formation, exposure and removal of finer-grained sediments, and sorting and redistribution of coarser materials in the sediment matrix along the slope of the bench or beach. If offshore currents are present, materials may be redistributed along the direction of flow. Where lake margins intersect with lenses or large exposures of poorly consolidated bedrock (e.g., carbonate cemented sandstones, formations containing large quantities of gypsum, etc.), rising and falling water coupled with wave action can, over time, result in undercutting and collapse. Lithic artifacts may suffer edge damage or become water-worn, bone items may be splintered or deteriorate completely, and entire classes of cultural materials (i.e., basketry, vegetal food remains, etc.) can be lost as a result of repeated episodes of exposure and inundation. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.13-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 404 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 In general, sites within the range of a reservoir’s historic high and low elevations that have been repeatedly inundated and exposed can be expected to have suffered the greatest amount of damage. Since its equalization with Lake Mead in 1974, surface elevations for Lake Powell have fluctuated between 3708 and 3627 feet msl. Sites located between these elevations can thus be expected to have suffered moderate to severe levels of inundation damage and are unlikely to have qualities that would qualify them for consideration as historic properties eligible for potential listing on the NRHP. Modeling runs indicate there is a 10 percent probability the surface level of Lake Powell will drop to 2595 feet msl by 2016. Sites situated between 3627 feet msl and the maximum low of 2595 feet msl predicted by the modeling runs can be expected to have been damaged as the waters of the lake rose, but in the absence of other factors (i.e., strong subsurface currents, landslides, etc.), damage should be less than that anticipated for sites located at higher elevations. Given this, there is a slight possibility sites located between 3627 and 2595 feet might retain some quality that would qualify them for listing on the NRHP. Lake Mead rose to its historic high elevation of 1225.5 feet msl in 1983 and has dropped to its historic low elevation of 1083 feet on two occasions. The first drop occurred during the period extending from 1954 to 1957, while the second occurred or during 1965 and 1966. Sites located between 1225 and 1083 feet msl ican be expected Interto be 7 e to have suffered inundation damage. Damage to all sites f texpected 201 severe given o is h 29, pt.large annual fluctuation range in the 60-plus years the reservoir has been operating,e v. D the mber o 75 reservoir elevation (from 10 to as muchtiasn feet,Noveto the filling of Lake Powell), prior a on ajo N the historic low on two occasions. Reclamation and the reduction in pool elevation to ived Nav considers it is highly unlikely sites exist between elevations of 1225 and 1083 feet msl d in 64, arch cite 168 that will retain any qualities that would qualify them for consideration as historic 14No. properties eligible for potential listing on the NRHP. Development and implementation of interim surplus criteria will result in changes in release patterns and mean monthly flow rates along the Colorado River below Hoover Dam. The results of the hydrological modeling runs for all interim surplus criteria alternatives indicate there will be an increase in mean monthly flow rates from Hoover Dam downstream to Parker Dam, while mean monthly flow rates below Parker Dam will decrease. The Colorado River drains a vast watershed covering portions of seven states. Prior to construction of Hoover Dam, discharge rates along the river varied seasonally, averaging 20,000 cfs with peak flows in excess of 200,000 cfs, making the river extremely dynamic and unpredictable in its behavior. Examination of historic maps during archival work conducted in association with a series of recent cultural resource inventories in the vicinity of Yuma, Arizona (i.e., Bischoff et al., 1998; Huber et al., 1998a, Huber et al., 1998b; Sterner and Bischoff 1998), indicated the Colorado River altered its course several times between the 1840s and the 1950s, in one case meandering two miles across its floodplain. Geomorphological trenching on the floodplain in areas behind the modern levees revealed the presence of sedimentary COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.13-4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 405 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 deposits characteristic of a high energy fluvial environment. Such deposits are unlikely to contain in situ cultural remains. Inventory of several parcels located on the floodplain was also revealing. Only recent trash was found on parcels located inside the levee system, while the earliest cultural materials identified on parcels outside the levees did not pre-date construction of the levee. Prehistoric cultural remains were confined to locations on the first terrace above the 100-year floodplain. The site patterning observed during these studies is doubtless applicable in a general way to other valleys along the reach of the Colorado River below Hoover Dam. Flow releases associated with development and implementation of interim surplus criteria will be within existing operational limits. Increases in flow rates for the reach of the Colorado River between Hoover and Parker dams and decreases in flow rates below Parker Dam do not have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, as the river in these areas is entrenched and confined in its channel by a system of levees. Furthermore, studies conducted in the vicinity of Yuma, Arizona, suggest that were bank erosion to occur, sediments adjacent to the current river channel would most likely reflect deposition under high-energy fluvial conditions. Sediments deposited under such conditions are unlikely to contain in situ cultural remains that would possess qualities that would qualify them for consideration as historic properties potentially r eligible for listing on the NRHP. terio 7 he In . of t releases201 p of No surface-disturbing activities will occur as a result t flow er 29, associated with . De b development and implementation of interim surplus ovem as such releases will not ion v N criteria, at require construction of newavajo N Noed on facilities. v modification of existing facilities would be ch in Npotentialrfor iimpacts to the structure or functioning of necessary; thus there is no ited 6864, a cNational Historic Landmark), Parker Dam or Imperial Dam (both of Hoover Dam (a 1 . 14odetermined eligible for listing on the NRHP). which have been N In conclusion, cultural resources that might exist within the APE for Lake Powell and Lake Mead have been repeatedly inundated, exposed, and re-inundated, making it highly unlikely that any retain qualities that would qualify them for consideration as historic properties eligible for listing on the NRHP. Increases and decreases in mean monthly flow rates below Hoover Dam do not have the potential to affect historic properties as flows will be confined to the river channel, which, when not confined by rocky canyon walls, is contained within levees. Were bank erosion to occur, sediments adjacent to the channel are of a type unlikely to contain cultural materials. There is virtually no chance cultural resources retaining qualities that would qualify them for consideration as historic properties potentially eligible for inclusion on the NRHP exist within the APE of the present undertaking. Reclamation thus considers development and implementation of interim surplus criteria to be an undertaking without the potential to affect historic properties. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), having determined development and implementation of interim surplus criteria to be an undertaking with no potential to affect historic properties, Reclamation has no further obligations under Section 106 or Part B of 36 CFR 800. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.13-5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 406 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Reclamation has prepared a memorandum discussing this issue and has forwarded it to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.13-6 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 407 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.14 INDIAN TRUST ASSETS 3.14.1 INTRODUCTION Indian Trust Assets (ITAs) are legal assets associated with rights or property held in trust by the United States for the benefit of federally recognized Indian Tribes or individuals. The United States, as trustee, is responsible for protecting and maintaining rights reserved by, or granted to, Indian Tribes or individuals by treaties, statutes and executive orders. All Federal bureaus and agencies share a duty to act responsibly to protect and maintain ITAs. Reclamation policy, which satisfies the requirement of Interior’s Departmental Manual at 512 DM 2, is to protect ITAs from adverse impacts resulting from its programs and activities whenever possible. Reclamation, in cooperation with Tribe(s) potentially impacted by a given project, must inventory and evaluate assets, and then mitigate, or compensate, for adverse impacts to the asset. While most ITAs are located on a reservation, they can also be located off-reservation. Examples of ITAs include lands, minerals, water rights and hunting and fishing rights. ITAs include property in which a Tribe has legal interest. For example, tribal entitlements to Colorado River water rights established in each of the Basin States pursuant to water rights settlements are considered trust assets, and erior t the reservations of these Tribes may or may not be located along the river. The present perfected federal he In 2017 of t reserved rights are rights held directly by the tribal entities for r 29, ept. bethe reservations in whose v. D m name the rights are listed in the Decree.iontribe may also have other off-reservation at A on Nove N into account. o interests and concerns that must jbe taken ed ava v in N rchi ited into64, a c Reclamation has entered 68 government-to-government consultations with potentially 4-1 o identify and address concerns for ITAs. The Tribes include those in affected Tribes to . 1 N the Ten Tribes Partnership whose landholdings are situated along the Colorado River and various tributaries in the Upper and Lower Basins. Additionally, meetings have been held with the central Arizona Tribes served by CAP facilities, the Coachella Valley Consortium of Mission Indians and other interested Tribes within the Lower Colorado Region. Through meetings and discussions among the Tribes, BIA and Reclamation staff (see Chapter 5), the following sections describe ITAs that have been identified to have the potential to be impacted by interim surplus criteria. 3.14.2 TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP The Tribes comprising the Ten Tribes Partnership are listed below together with the states in which their reservations are located: COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.14-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 408 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Northern Ute Tribe Jicarilla Apache Tribe Navajo Nation Southern Ute Indian Tribe Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Fort Mojave Indian Tribe Chemehuevi Tribe Colorado River Indian Tribes Quechan Indian Tribe Cocopah Indian Tribe CHAPTER 3 Utah New Mexico Arizona, New Mexico and Utah Colorado Colorado and New Mexico Arizona, Nevada and California California Arizona and California Arizona and California Arizona The CRSS demand database used for the model analysis in this FEIS includes discrete representation of the Ten Tribes’ demand schedules through “demand nodes” in the model. The Tribal demands and their respective points of diversion were obtained from the Tribes in the summer of 2000. The schedules and the full quantified entitlements on which they are based are shown in Attachment Q. The following discussion describes the Ten Tribes’ water rights by Tribe. 3.14.2.1 NORTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE – UINTAH AND OURAY RESERVATION erior The Northern Ute Tribe is located in northeastern Utah in the e Int River 7 h Green 20 watershed. . of t two federal1 Quantification of the Tribe’s water rights began inept with r 29, court Decrees D 1923 e that quantified the water rights for the Uintah Indianovemb Project (UIIP). A 1960 Irrigation n v. atio on N report, commonly referred tovajtheN as o “Decker Report,” divided lands on the reservation a groups haved ive into seven groups. ThoseN d in land4, arch served as the basis for discussions of c te 1686 settlement of thei Tribe’s water right claims over the subsequent 40 years. Congress 4ratified a 1990No. 1 tabulation of the Tribe’s water rights in 1992 subject to re-ratification by the Tribe and State of Utah. That tabulation utilizes the Decker Report’s land groups as follows: 1. UIIP lands with water rights decreed by the federal court in 1923, and certified by the State of Utah on the Lakefork, Yellowstone, Uinta and Whiterock rivers. Priority date - October 3, 1861. 2. UIIP lands with water rights certificated by the State of Utah served from the Duchesne River including the towns of Duchesne, Randlett and Myton. Priority date October 3, 1861. 3. Lands that are or can be served from the Duchesne River through UIIP which are not certificated by the state. Priority date would be October 3, 1861. 4. Lands found to be productive and economically feasible to be irrigated from privately constructed ditch systems on the Duchesne River or its tributaries above Pahcease Canal. Priority date would be October 3, 1861. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.14-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 409 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 5. Lands susceptible to irrigation and proposed to be developed within the Central Utah Project. Priority date would be October 3, 1861. 6. Lands east of the Green River served from the White River for which Applications to Appropriate Water were once filed with the State of Utah. 7. Lands east of the Green River found to be productive and economically feasible to be irrigated from privately constructed ditch systems now in operation or to be constructed along the Green River, White River, Willow Creek, Bitter Creek, Sweet Water Creek and Hill Creek. Tables quantifying the Tribe's diversion and depletion rights as tabulated in the 1990 Tabulation (but not yet ratified by the Tribe or state) are included in the Ten Tribes Depletion Schedule (Attachment Q). The diversion rights total approximately 480,000 af with depletions of 248,943 af. The water rights appurtenant to the Group 5 Duchesne Basin lands are proposed to be transferred to the Green River with a seven percent reduction explaining the difference in the table totals. Current water diversions by the Northern Ute Tribe are approximately 250,000 afy for irrigation applications and a small amount of M&I use for oil and gas and a small culinary water system. rior The Northern Ute Tribe has five demand points modeled in he CRSS: two demand the Inte f t River2017 point on points on the Green River, two demand points on the tDuchesne 29, and one p.o . De ember the White River. v ion v t No j Na v vaIo hiRed on A Na 3.14.2.2 JICARILLAin PACHE NDIAN ESERVATION rc ited 6864, a c 1Indian The Jicarilla Apache 4-1 Reservation is located in the upper reaches of the San Juan No. River Basin and the Rio Chama Basin in northwestern New Mexico. The reservation straddles the Continental Divide. Pursuant to the Jicarilla Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act (“Settlement Act”), the Tribe is authorized to divert 40,000 afy from the San Juan River Basin, 32,000 afy of which may be depleted. The Settlement Act provides the Tribe the right to divert 33,500 afy or deplete 25,500 afy from either the Navajo Reservoir supply or directly from the Navajo River as it crosses the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation. The Settlement Act also authorizes the Tribe to divert and deplete 6,500 afy from the San Juan River Basin through the transmountain San Juan-Chama Project. The Jicarilla Apache Tribe agreed to subordinate its 1880 priority date for the 40,000 afy (diversion) of “future use” federal reserved water rights in exchange for the 1955 priority date associated with the two federal projects. The Tribe’s agreement to subordinate its 1880 priority date for the 1955 date is discussed in a settlement contract between the Jicarilla Apache Tribe and the Secretary. The settlement contract is ratified by the Settlement Act. These are fully adjudicated rights, which, by virtue of the Settlement Act, the Tribe may market to the full extent that the law allows. The Tribe’s long-term plans for this water include both off-reservation leasing and on-reservation development. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.14-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 410 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 In addition to these “future use” water rights adjudicated in accordance with the Settlement Act, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe also has adjudicated rights to divert 5,683.92 afy or to deplete 2,195 afy, whichever is less, for historic and existing water uses. Thus, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe’s total water diversion rights from the San Juan River Basin amount to 45,683 afy and the Tribe’s overall depletion rights from the San Juan Basin total 34,195 afy. In the CRSS model, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe is represented by four demand points: There is a single node on the upper San Juan River for the current on-reservation uses of the Tribe and those Reclamation assumed were planned for the future. The Tribe’s portion of the San Juan – Chama export diversion is in an existing demand point and does not need to be separated. During 2000, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe anticipates entering into a lease of 16,200 afy through 2025 to Public Service Company of New Mexico for depletion at the San Juan Generating Station. In addition, the Tribe anticipates entering into other short-term off-reservation water leases, ultimately preserving some off-reservation leases in 2060 while allowing the Tribe to use the majority of its San Juan River Basin depletions on-reservation. In order to show the change in water leases, a new demand point has been added to show the Jicarilla water going to the power station and future changes in deliveries. The Tribe is investigating o the feasibility of leasing 7,500 afy of water to the City of Gallup via the r nteri Gallup-Navajo Municipal Water Supply Project. The Jicarilla lease portionhe the project 7 a new of I 01 is ft pt. o er 29, 2 demand point in the CRSS model. . De b nv em Natio d on Nov R ajo 3.14.2.3 NAVAJO INDIANavESERVATION e in N 4, archiv d cite 168 in The Navajo Nation is located6 northeastern Arizona, southeastern Utah and 14northwestern New. Mexico. Navajo reserved water rights to the mainstream Colorado No River, the Little Colorado River and the San Juan River basins are not adjudicated. The Navajo Indian Irrigation Project was authorized by P.L. 87-483. When authorized, the project was envisioned as a gravity irrigated system with an average annual diversion of 508,000 afy, and a resulting depletion of 254,000 afy. Since authorization in 1962, the project has been re-designed as a pressurized sprinkler system with an anticipated average annual diversion of 337,500 afy, and a resulting depletion of 270,500 afy. The priority date for this diversion and depletion is not later than October 16, 1957. The CRSS model includes six demand points for the Navajo Nation. There is a demand point for NIIP on the San Juan River upper reach. Current use and development data listed for the NIIP demand point are from the development schedule in the NIIP Biological Assessment dated June 11, 1999. The Navajo Nation also has a small share in the Animas-La Plata Project (ALP) of 4,680 af of withdrawal and 2,340 af of depletion annually. This future withdrawal and use has been accounted for in the CRSS model by splitting the existing ALP M&I node for New Mexico uses and adding a separate point on the Upper San Juan Reach for the Tribe’s ALP water. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.14-4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 411 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Present uses in the San Juan River Basin for project areas other than the NIIP have been quantified in the hydrology models of the basin in the formulation of the Animas-La Plata Project Draft EIS. CRSS demand points exist for the future Gallup-Navajo Project showing 5,000 acre-feet of depletion in Arizona and 17,500 acre-feet of depletion in New Mexico. The existing point was updated to include the Cudei Irrigation Project with the Hogback node, as these projects will soon be combined into a single diversion. A demand point was added to the CRSS to include the existing Fruitland, New Mexico project in the model. Other minor uses on the Navajo Reservation have been included in natural flow calculations and are not included as consumptive demands in the CRSS model. The Navajo Nation currently operates a marina at Antelope Point on Lake Powell. The boat ramp is not operational when the lake level is below elevation 3,677 feet msl. See Section 3.9.2.3.1, Lake Powell, regarding impacts to Lake Powell elevations. 3.14.2.4 SOUTHERN UTE RESERVATION The Southern Ute Indian Tribe is located in southwestern Colorado just west of Navajo Reservoir. The Tribe has settled its water rights pursuant to agreement with the State of Colorado and pursuant to 1988 federal legislation effective Decemberior 1991. The er 19, settlement requires the construction of the Animas-La Plata he Int The 17 has the Project. Tribe of , 2 La . the tAnimas and0 Plata Rivers right to reopen the adjudication of their water rightspt De on implementation. The er 29 if certain agreed upon dates are not mettiregarding projectmb n v. a o of n Nove agreement provides the Tribevajo a varietyd odirect flow rights with priorities ranging with N ve Na from 1868 to 1976 in streams and archi passing through the Southern Ute Reservation. d in , rivers cite 16864 The CRSS model . 14 demand points for the Southern Ute Tribe. In the model, the Nohas two Present Level - Colorado Agriculture demand point on the San Juan River has been split to separate Southern Ute Tribal uses from non-reservation uses. The Tribe also has a right to 39,525 acre-feet of water with 19,762 acre-feet of depletion from the future ALP with a project priority of not later than 1966 for M&I use. To account for the Southern Ute portion of the water use, the demand point in Colorado was split into three to separate Southern Ute, other tribes and non-tribal uses. 3.14.2.5 UTE MOUNTAIN UTE INDIAN RESERVATION The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe is located in the southwestern corner of Colorado with a small part in northwestern New Mexico. The Tribe has settled its water rights pursuant to agreement with the State of Colorado and pursuant to 1988 federal legislation effective December 19, 1991. The settlement requires the construction of the AnimasLa Plata Project. If it should prove impossible to construct this project, the Tribe has the right to reopen the adjudication of their water rights on the Animas and La Plata Rivers. The agreement provides the Tribe with a variety of direct flow rights with priorities COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.14-5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 412 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 ranging from 1868 to 1985 in three streams, the Mancos River, San Juan River and Navajo Wash, which pass through the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation. The CRSS model has four demand points for the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. In the model the Present Level - Colorado Agriculture demand point on the Lower San Juan River was split in two to separate Ute Tribal uses. The Tribe also possesses 25,180 acre-feet of storage with 19,260 acre-feet of depletion per year from the Dolores Project for agricultural and other uses with a project priority of not later than 1963. The Dolores Project is accounted for in the CRSS model at two points, one of which is for the Ute Mountain Tribal water use. The Ute Mountain Ute Reservation will have a share of the water in the future ALP. The Tribe will receive 39,525 af of withdrawal and 19,762 af of depletion rights from the ALP as it is now formulated. This water is intended for M&I use on the reservation. To account for the Ute Mountain Ute portion of the water use, the demand point in Colorado was split into three separate parts: Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, other Tribes and non-Tribal uses. ior Inter 17 0 f the The Fort Mojave Indian Reservation is located in the tLower Colorado River Basin p . o er 29, 2 e .D where Nevada, Arizona and California meet.vThe Tribe possesses present perfected mb ation stem of the e Nov Colorado River in all three of federal reserved water rights from the main on ajo N d the states that contain in Nav land, pursuant to the Decree in Arizona v. California reservation rchive a d , and 1984). Since the original Decree was entered, ci Decrees (1979 and supplementalte 6864 4-1been added to the reservation along with rights to 6.464 acre1,102 acres of No. have land 1 3.14.2.6 FORT MOJAVE INDIAN RESERVATION feet per acre of water as specified in the 1979 Decree. The amounts, including added lands, priority dates, and state where the water rights are perfected, are as follows: Amount (afy) Acreage Priority Date State 27,969 4,327 September 18, 1890 Arizona 75,566 11,691 February 2, 1911 Arizona 103,535 16,018 13,698 2,119 September 18, 1890 California 12,534 1,939 September 18, 1890 Nevada 129,767 20,076 Arizona subtotal Total The Fort Mojave Indian Tribe has exercised its water rights in California in excess of the amounts currently decreed. In it's June 19, 2000 Opinion, the United States COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.14-6 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 413 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Supreme Court accepted the Special Master’s uncontested recommendation and approved the proposed settlement of the dispute respecting the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation. Under the settlement, the Tribe is awarded the lesser of an additional 3,022 af of water or enough water to supply the needs of 468 acres. The attached tables are estimates of use based upon calculations derived from records of electrical consumption at the various pump stations and are not from measured flows. The CRSS model contains four demand sub points for the Tribe’s water diversions, which are divided among three states. The points are on the Lake Mohave reach of the model, and are further divided into sub points by state. A separate sub point is included for Reservation Land development, but has a diversion of zero af at this time. Current depletion amounts for the CRSS model nodes have been updated to reflect the most recent consumptive use numbers provided by the Lower Colorado River Accounting System (LCRAS) report for calendar year 1998. Future depletions at full development are calculated as the greater of 70 percent of diversion rights and the per acre rate of consumptive use from the LCRAS report multiplied by the full right acreage of the Tribe. 3.14.2.7 CHEMEHUEVI INDIAN RESERVATION erior Int The Chemehuevi Indian Reservation is located in southern tCalifornia near7 Lake f he water rights from the o . reserved 29, 201 t Havasu. The Tribe possesses present perfected federal Dep mber main stem of the Colorado River pursuant n v. Decree in Arizona v. California and to the ove atio supplemental Decrees (1979 vajo N The amounts, priority dates, and state where and 1984). ed on N Na hv the rights are perfected, are as follows: i d in , arc cite 16864 14Amount o. Acreage N (afy) 11,340 1900 Priority Date State February 2, 1907 California The lands of the Chemehuevi Tribe are mostly on the plateau above the shoreline of Lake Havasu. Present agricultural water use is limited. Currently, the CRSS model includes a demand point for the Chemehuevi Reservation on the Lake Havasu reach of the model. Current depletion amounts for the CRSS model nodes have been updated to reflect the most recent consumptive use numbers provided by the LCRAS report for calendar year 1998. Future depletions at full development are calculated as the greater of 70 percent of diversion rights and the per acre rate of consumptive use from the LCRAS report multiplied by the full right acreage of the Tribe. 3.14.2.8 COLORADO RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION The Colorado River Indian Reservation is located in southwestern Arizona and southern California south of Parker, Arizona. The Tribes possess present perfected federal reserved water rights from the main stem of the Colorado River pursuant to the Decree COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.14-7 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 414 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 in Arizona v. California and supplemental Decrees (1979 and 1984). The amounts, priority dates, and state where the rights are perfected, are as follows: Amount (afy) Acreage Priority Date State 358,400 53,768 March 3, 1865 Arizona 252,016 37,808 November 22, 1873 Arizona 51,986 7,799 November 16, 1874 Arizona 662,402 99,375 10,745 1,612 November 22, 1873 California 40,241 6,037 November 16, 1874 California 3,760 564 May 15, 1876 California 54,746 8,213 717,148 107,588 Arizona subtotal California subtotal Total erior Intthe Colorado River The CRSS Model presently has three demand sub-nodes listed for 2017 f the 9, pt. o diversions are split between Tribe on the reach above Imperial Dam number. The waterber 2 v. De ve ion demands andm separate sub-node for future sub-points for California demands, Nat Arizona n No a v jo h depletion pumped diversions in Arizona.aCurrentived o amounts for the CRSS model nodes in Na rc have been updated to reflect the ,most recent consumptive use numbers provided by the ited 6864 a c -1 LCRAS report for.calendar year 1998. Future depletions at full development are o 14 of 70 percent of diversion rights and the per acre rate of N calculated as the greater consumptive use from the LCRAS report multiplied by the full right acreage of the Tribe. 3.14.2.9 QUECHAN INDIAN RESERVATION (FORT YUMA) The Fort Yuma Indian Reservation (Quechan Tribe) is located in southwestern Arizona and southern California near Yuma, Arizona. The Tribe possesses present perfected federal reserved water rights from the main stem of the Colorado River pursuant to the Decree in Arizona v. California and supplemental Decrees (1979 and 1984). The amounts, priority dates and state where the rights are perfected, are as follows: Amount (afy) Acreage Priority Date State 51,616 7,743 January 9, 1884 California COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.14-8 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 415 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 A recent Supreme Court decision issued on June 19, 2000 allows the Tribe to proceed with litigation to claim rights to an additional 9,000 acres of irrigable lands. Proving this claim would increase the water rights for the reservation. Water for the Quechan Tribe is diverted from the Colorado River at Imperial Dam and delivered through the Yuma Project Reservation Division-Indian Unit. The Tribe has other small uses at homestead sites south of Yuma, Arizona. The current water uses shown in the following tables include only Quechan Indian Tribe uses within the Fort Yuma Reservation. These uses are accounted for in the CRSS model with one diversion point on the Imperial Dam Diversions reach. The current withdrawal and depletion values have been updated to reflect the most recent consumptive use numbers provided by the LCRAS report for calendar year 1998. Future depletions at full development are calculated as the greater of 70 percent of diversion rights and the per acre rate of consumptive use from the LCRAS report multiplied by the full right acreage of the Tribe. 3.14.2.10 COCOPAH INDIAN TRIBE The Cocopah Indian Reservation is located in southwestern Arizona near Yuma, Arizona. The Tribe possesses present perfected federal reserved wateror eri rights from the main stem of the Colorado River pursuant to the Decree in the Int v. California and Arizona 017 f supplemental Decrees (1979 and 1984). The amounts, priorityrdates, 2 state where pt. o e 29, and De b the rights are perfected, are as follows: tion v. ovem N Na vajo hived on Amount (afy) N Acreage Priority Date in a rc ited 6864, a c 7,681 1 1,206 September 27, 1917 14No. State Arizona 2,026 318 June 24, 1974 Arizona 1,140 190 1915 Arizona 10,847 1,714 Total The rights listed above and in the attached tables include only that water diverted directly from the Colorado River at Imperial Dam. In addition to these rights, the Tribe has numerous well permits that divert groundwater that may be connected to the Colorado River within the boundaries of the United States (studies are ongoing). The 1974 present perfected federal reserved right for the Cocopah Indian Reservation is unique because of its more recent priority date. The 1979 supplemental Decree in Arizona v. California specifies that in the event of a determination of insufficient mainstream water to satisfy present perfected rights pursuant to Article II (B) (3) of the 1964 Decree, the present perfected rights set forth in paragraphs (1) through (5) of Article II (D) of the Decree must be satisfied first. The 1984 supplemental Decree in Arizona v. California recognized the present perfected federal reserved right for the COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.14-9 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 416 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Cocopah Indian Reservation dated June 24, 1974, and amended paragraph (5) of Article II (D) of the Decree to reflect this 1974 right. The Tribe is involved in litigation to claim rights to a total of 2,400 acres of irrigable lands. Proving this claim would further increase the water rights for the reservation. Water diversions for the Cocopah Indian Tribe are listed at two demand nodes in the CRSS model on two of the model reaches. A demand point on the Imperial Dam diversion reach accounts for all of the Tribe’s rights and current uses in Arizona. Another node is provided for future pumped diversions below Imperial Dam, but it has a diversion of zero af at the current time. Current depletion amounts for the CRSS model nodes have been updated to reflect the most recent consumptive use numbers provided by the LCRAS report for calendar year 1998. Future depletions at full development are assumed to be 100 percent of the diversions as the location of the reservation prevents a return flow within Arizona. 3.14.2.11 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The Ten Tribes have a significant amount of undeveloped water rights. The current availability of surplus water on the Colorado River is primarily a direct result of unused rior existing entitlements, including those of the Tribes. The Ten e Intehave raised Tribes 17 th significant concerns that interim surplus criteria could: 1)ffoster a 9, 20 on surplus pt. o er 2reliance De b water on the part of other entitlement holders; .2) providemdisincentive for those ion v Nove a at development; and 3) have the practical entitlement holders to support ajo NTribal d on future Nav abilityitoe effect of diminishing the Tribes’ arch v utilize their entitlements. d in cite 16864, The interim surplus 14 No. criteria will not alter the quantity or priority of tribal entitlements. In fact, as noted by the description of the Ten Tribes’ water rights above, the Tribes have the highest priority water rights on the Colorado River. Surplus determinations have been made since 1996. The interim surplus criteria would not make any additional surplus water available as compared with current conditions, but rather would provide more objective criteria for surplus determinations. Moreover, the preferred alternative would quantify the amounts of surplus water to be made available. Reclamation does not believe that identifying the limited amounts of surplus water will provide any additional disincentives for Tribal water development. Interim surplus criteria are intended to assist in the effort to reduce the overreliance by California on surplus water. The selection of any of the alternatives of this proposed action does not preclude any entitlement holder from using its water. 3.14.2.11.1 Upper Basin Mainstem Tribes As expected, the model analyses showed that interim surplus criteria would have no effect on Upper Basin deliveries, including the Tribal demands above Lake Powell. As noted in Section 3.4.4.4, the normal delivery schedules of all Upper Basin diversions would be met under most water supply conditions. Only under periods of low COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.14-10 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 417 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 hydrologic conditions would an Upper Basin diversion be shorted. Although the model is not presently configured to track the relative priorities under those conditions, such effects are identical under baseline and all alternatives. 3.14.2.11.2 Lower Basin Mainstem Tribes Under normal conditions, deliveries to Lower Basin users are always equal to the normal depletion schedules, including those for the Tribes. Under shortage conditions, only CAP and SNWA share in the shortage until CAP goes to zero (which was not observed in any of the modeling runs done for this EIS). Therefore, the Tribes of the Ten Tribe Partnership in the Lower Basin would receive their scheduled depletion, with the exception of the Cocopah Tribe that has some Arizona Priority 4 water. However, adoption of the interim surplus criteria would not significantly increase the risk of shortages to holders of Arizona Priority 4 water. For example, the modeling analysis indicates that under the preferred alternative, the occurrence of Priority 4 shortages would be approximately four percent greater than under baseline conditions. 3.14.3 TRIBES SERVED BY CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT Various Indian tribes and communities in central Arizona have been provided water rior pursuant to CAP contracts by either direct Secretarial actions e Ithrough negotiated or nte 017 f th water rights settlements (CAP Tribes). CAP water has played a primary role in pt. o er 29, 2 . De b facilitating water rights settlements in Arizona; it is expected to play such a role in the ion v Novem at future. In fulfillment of the trust o N o the aj responsibility,n impact of shortages upon the water i primary NavTribeschaved concern. supplies provided to the CAP ar is d in cite 16864, 14The Tribes that receive CAP water are listed below together with the counties in which No. their reservations are located: Gila River Indian Community San Carlos Indian Tribe Tohono O’Odham Nation Tonto Apache Tribe Yavapai-Apache Indian Community Fort McDowell Indian Community Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community Ak Chin Indian Community Pascua-Yaqui Tribe Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe 3.14.3.1 3.14.3.1.1 Maricopa and Pinal Gila, Pinal and Graham Pina, Maricopa and Pinal Gila Yavapai Maricopa Maricopa Pinal Pima Yavapai WATER RIGHTS SETTING CAP Priority Scheme An understanding of the CAP priority scheme is vital in order to understand how shortages could potentially impact the different priorities of CAP water and CAP water COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.14-11 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 418 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 users, including Indians. Traditionally, Reclamation’s view is that the CAP has five priorities of water rights. The first priority is known as Colorado River water. Colorado River water was secured by the United States for settlement of certain Indian water claims. The second priority includes M&I water and Indian Homeland water. The third priority is Indian agricultural water that was allocated to tribes by the Secretary but was not classed as Homeland water. The fourth priority is M&I water above the first 510,000 af of the M&I allocation (equal to 128,823 af). The fifth priority is non-Indian agricultural water. The fifth priority is available to several users besides non-Indian agriculture. For example, 312,898 af of fifth priority CAP water, called Excess water, is available to the Central Arizona Groundwater Recharge District (CAGRD) for groundwater recharge, non-Indian agriculture, and the Arizona Water Banking Authority (AWBA) for in-lieu recharge and direct groundwater recharge. The remaining portion of fifth priority CAP water, 51,800 af, is non-Indian agricultural water that is assumed to be allocated to Indian users. The priorities discussed in this section are internal to the CAP and must not be confused with priorities of water entitlements along the mainstream of the Colorado River. The future allocation of CAP water to some CAP priorities is not definitive because of ior In er 17 the dual possibility of finalizing or not finalizing two settlements. tOne settlement is 0 f the entities among the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC),ept. o Arizona9, 2 and the certain r2 e v D United States (GRIC Settlement). The tsecond.settlementmb CAP Settlement a ion on Nove is the between the United States and ajo Centraled the N Arizona Water Conservation District Nav archiv (CAWCD). Under d in shortage, potential impacts to Indian CAP water users differ te 6 c whether CAP 4, is allocated under settlement or without settlement. depending upon i -168 water No. 14 Table 3.14-1 provides, in units of afy, allocations of CAP water to CAP priorities for certain Indian Tribes or communities under two scenarios. The first scenario, Likely Future Without, reflects assignment of water rights absent final GRIC and CAP settlements. The second scenario, With Settlement, assumes final GRIC and CAP settlements. The primary difference between the two scenarios is that with final settlements, GRIC is assigned an additional 102,000 af of non-Indian agricultural water and the United States reserves 69,800 af of other non-Indian water for future water rights settlements. Table 3.14-2 reflects the CAP priority scheme under the two scenarios and identifies the points at which shortages on the Colorado River begin to impact different priorities of CAP water. Normal year diversions of CAP water are assumed to be 1.5 maf. Reductions for system losses result in deliverable water of 1,415,000 af. The effects of shortages on CAP water associated with various priorities is as follows: Fifth Priority. In the event of a shortage on the river restricting deliveries of CAP water to 925,000 af, the fifth priority water rights would go unfulfilled. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.14-12 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 419 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Table 3.14-1 Central Arizona Project Indian Water Allocations Unit: Acre-Feet Annually Likely Future without GRIC (afy) Indian Tribe and Allocation Gila River Indian Community Indian Allocation Indian Priority – HVID Settlement Water M & I – ASARCO Non-Indian Agric.-RWCD Other Total San Carlos Indian Tribe Indian Allocation M & I Priority Indian Reallocation (Ak Chin)(minus losses) With GRIC Settlement (afy) 17,000 18,600 226,500 17,000 18,600 102,000 328,500 12,700 18,145 30,800 12,700 18,145 30,800 61,645 61,645 45,800 28,200 74,000 45,800 28,200 74,000 128 128 128 128 1,200 25,000 50,000 75,000 25,000 50,000 75,000 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 309,828 54,428 255,400 70,900 31,733 35,145 51,800 1,518 498,424 309,828 54,428 255,400 70,900 31,733 35,145 153,800 1,518 69,800 670,224 603,678 312,898 1,415,000 Indian Allocation Total Fort McDowell Indian Community 173,100 17,800 1,200 1,200 Total Tohono O'Odham Nation (San Xavier, Schuk Toak, Chui-Chu) Indian Allocation Non-Indian Agric. Total Tonto Apache Tribe Indian Allocation Total Yavapai-Apache Indian Community 173,100 17,800 603,678 141,098 1,415,000 ior 1,200 Inter 17 the 0 4,300 f 4,300 Indian Allocation pt. o 13,933r 29, 2 13,933 Indian Priority-HVID e v. D mbe Total 18,233 18,233 ation on Nove Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community N o Indian Allocation 13,300 13,300 ed avaj Colorado River (net of N 20,900 20,900 in losses)4, archiv d Non-Indian te 5,000 5,000 ci Agric. 1686 Total 439,200 39,200 .1 Ak Chin Indian Community No Indian Allocation Colorado River Total Pascua Yaqui Tribe Indian Allocation Total Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (assigned to Scottsdale) Indian Allocation Total Total Indian Allocations Indian Allocation Homeland Agricultural Colorado River Indian Priority-HVID M & I Priority Non-Indian Agric. Unassigned HVID Future Settlements (agric. priority) Total Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Non-Indian Agricultural Water Supply Total Normal Water Supply Source: Central Arizona Project 1996 Water Supply Study for Stage II Cost Allocation Draft EIS for allocation of CAP water supply -- June, 2000 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.14-13 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 420 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Fourth Priority. Subsequent reductions would impact M&I water amounts in excess of 510,000 af. Consequently, any M&I priority water which has been reallocated for Indian use would also be affected. Third Priority. The next block of water to be impacted by shortages is a portion of the Indian agricultural water. The deliveries to GRIC would be reduced by 25 percent of its agricultural allocation; all other tribes having Indian agricultural water would be reduced by 10 percent of their respective agricultural allocations. Second Priority. The remaining M&I and Indian priority water would be reduced on a pro rata basis as water deliveries decrease. First Priority. Colorado River water would be unavailable only if a shortage were severe enough that no diversion could be made into central Arizona. 3.14.3.1.2 Examples of Reductions of CAP Water Deliveries Table 3.14-3 demonstrates the incidence of reductions to the CAP Indian supplies during shortage on the Colorado River under the Likely Future Without r scenario. terioto show the Various quantities of CAP water deliveries have been assumed in order 7 he In that represents a varying impacts between Indian tribes. The amountpt. CAP water9, 201 of of t 2 e division between one priority and the nextn v. Dpriority isber higher m referred to here as a “break ve io point.” For example, the estimated Nat point n No the fifth and fourth priorities is ajo break ed o between Nav ar 1,050,302 af. A total available CAPchiv supply of 1,050,302 af means that no d in CAP4waterwater be made. If the shortage decreases the ci e 1 deliveries of fifthtpriority 686 , would available total No. 14 supply below 1,050,302 af, deliveries of fourth priority CAP CAP water water would be impacted. Similarly, between the fourth and third priorities, the break point is 921,479 af. The division between the third and second priority is 869,974 af. Finally, the last break point is 68,400 af. See Section 3.4.4.1.2 for a summary of the Arizona modeled annual depletions under normal, surplus and shortage conditions. Reductions in Indian water supplies in the fifth priority are estimated to be 51,800 af. The affected amount of Indian water supply in the fourth priority is 7,087 af. The third priority Indian agricultural water affected totals 51,505 af. Indian priority water in the second priority totals 317,132 af. Finally, the Colorado River priority water held by Indians totals 68,400 af. Table 3.14-4 shows the same information as Table 3.14-3, but assumes a final GRIC and CAP settlement. The same priority scheme is applied as used in the without settlement scenario. In this instance, GRIC is allocated an additional 102,000 af of nonIndian agricultural water. The amount of 69,800 af of non-Indian agricultural water is held by the United States for future Indian water rights settlements. As a result, the potential Indian/federal loss in the fifth priority increases to 223,600 af, as compared with 51,800 af without settlement. Impacts to the other priorities remain the same. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.14-14 Pro rata reduction of Indian and M & I water Second: Likely 801,574 68,400 GRIC Future without Total 68,4001 801,574 869,9742 Indian agricultural water (reduce 25 % of GRIC ag. water, and 10 % of other Indian ag.) 51,505 6 5 4 921,4793 3.14-15 The traditional USBR interpretation of shortage sharing criteria is used in the analysis of the likely future with and without the GRIC settlement. It is understood that new shortage sharing criteria are included in the GRIC settlement but the settlement is under negotiation at the current time. Reclamation believes that the use of the traditional shortage sharing criteria for likely future with GRIC settlement will not have a major effect on the relative difference among the alternatives. GRIC Settlement" amount is the sum of 153,800 af of reallocated agricultural water and 69,800 af of reallocated agricultural water held by U. S. for future Indian water settlements The amount is an estimate of the excess water pool, with and without settlement between the U.S. and CAWCD Likely Future" amount is 51,800 af of reallocated agricultural water Amount is the difference between 638,823 af and 510,000 af of M&I priority water Amount is made up of 43,275 af of GRIC water and 8,230 af of other Indian agricultural water COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 7 6 5 4 3 1,415,000 1,273,902 1,050,302 921,479 869,974 68,400 Water With GRIC Settlement 68,4001 Total Water Notes: 1 The total represents the Yuma Mesa water (50,000 af) plus Wellton-Mohawk water (22,000 af) minus estimated transmission losses. 2 Total is composed of 510,000 af of M&I water plus 33,251 af of HVID water plus 258,323 af of Indian water after reductions in third priority and losses Fifth: Fifth: Fourth: Acre-Feet Per Year ior Inter 17 51,505 e (Indian agric. water is that portion of original allocation which is not "Homeland") of th 29, 20 pt. r . De embe1,050,302 M & I water above 510,000 acre feet, including M&I reallocations to Indiansv 128,823 128,823 n atio on Nov N vajo hived Non-Indian agricultural water reallocated to Indians 51,800 1,102,102 223,600 in Na 4, arc cited 1686 Excess water (priority = 1, CAGRD, 2, Agric., 3 AWBA ) 312,898 1,415,000 141,098 14No. Colorado River Water – Yuma Mesa and Wellton Mohawk First: Third: CHAPTER 3 Table 3.14-2 7 Traditional Reclamation Priorities for Central Arizona Project Water AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 421 of 1200 1 226,500 61,645 74,000 128 1,200 18,233 39,200 75,0001 500 500 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N 1,518 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.14-16 Ak-Chin values are not additive because system losses on the 50,000 af of Colorado River Priority water are borne by San Carlos Tribe, except in the instance of CAP deliveries restricted to Colorado River rights only [first priority]. In this case system losses are borne by Ak-Chin. Total Reductions First Priority Colo. River M&I and Indian Second Priority Third Priority Indian Ag. M&I Fourth Priority Agricultural Fifth Priority CHAPTER 3 Accumulated CAP Total Tohono Tonto Yavapai Pascua Yavapai Water Reduction GRIC San Carlos FMIC SRPMIC Ak Chin Unassigned Reductions Reductions O'Odham Apache Apache Yaqui Prescott per Priority Supply HVID 1,415,000 none none none none none none none none none none 115,000 1,300,000 5,865 8,892 1,577 16,334 215,000 1,200,000 10,965 16,625 2,948 30,538 315,000 1,100,000 16,065 24,357 4,319 44,741 364,698 1,050,302 18,600 28,200 5,000 51,800 51,800 50,302 1,000,000 1,339 1,429 2,767 125,302 925,000 3,334 3,559 6,894 128,823 921,479 3,428 3,659 7,087 58,887 21,479 900,000 18,047 1,501 334 555 1,043 21,479 51,505 869,974 43,275 3,600 800 1,330 2,500 51,505 110,392 69,974 800,000 14,072 4,748 3,928 11 105 1,592 1,045 1,964 44 44 133 27,684 169,974 700,000 34,182 11,533 9,542 27 254 3,866 2,538 4,771 106 106 322 67,248 269,974 600,000 54,292 18,317 15,156 43 404 6,141 4,032 7,578 168 168 511 106,812 369,974 500,000 74,402 25,102 20,770 59 554 8,416 5,525 10,385 231 231 701 146,375 469,974 400,000 94,512 31,887 26,384 75 704 10,690 7,018 13,192 293 293 890 185,939 569,974 300,000 114,622 38,672 31,998 91 853 12,965 8,511 15,999 356 356 1,079 225,502 669,974 200,000 134,732 45,457 37,612 107 1,003 15,240 10,005 18,806 418 418 1,269 265,066 769,974 100,000 154,842 52,242 43,226 123 1,153 17,514 11,498 21,613 480 480 1,458 304,630 799,074 68,400 161,197 54,386 45,000 128 1,200 18,233 11,970 22,500 500 500 1,518 317,132 427,524 70,900 0 20,900 47,500 68,400 Table 3.14-3 Reductions in Indian CAP Water Supplies During Times of Shortage on Colorado River Likely Future Without GRIC Settlement AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 422 of 1200 2 1 70,900 799,074 769,974 669,974 569,974 469,974 369,974 269,974 169,974 69,974 51,505 21,479 128,823 125,302 50,302 364,698 315,000 215,000 115,000 Reduction 328,500 161,197 154,842 134,732 114,622 94,512 61,645 54,386 52,242 45,457 38,672 31,887 3,559 1,429 28,200 24,357 16,625 8,892 San Carlos Tohono Tonto Yavapai O'Odham Apache Apache none none none none none FMIC 5,000 4,319 2,948 1,577 none none SRPMIC Ak Chin Pascua Yaqui none 74,000 45,000 43,226 37,612 31,998 26,384 128 128 123 107 91 75 1,200 1,200 1,153 1,003 853 704 18,233 18,233 17,514 15,240 12,965 10,690 39,200 20,900 11,970 11,498 10,005 8,511 7,018 75,0002 47,500 22,500 21,613 18,806 15,999 13,192 500 500 480 418 356 293 500 500 480 418 356 293 1,518 1,518 1,458 1,269 1,079 890 69,800 69,800 60,288 41,149 22,010 68,400 317,132 304,630 265,066 225,502 185,939 146,375 106,812 67,248 27,684 51,505 21,479 7,087 6,894 2,767 223,600 193,130 131,819 70,508 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.14-17 Ak-Chin values are not additive because system losses on the 50,000 af of Colorado River Priority water are borne by San Carlos Tribe, except in the instance of CAP deliveries restricted to Colorado River rights only [first priority]. In this case system losses are borne by Ak-Chin. 599,324 282,192 230,687 223,600 Accumulated Total Yavapai Unassigned Reserved Reductions Reductions Federal per Priority Prescott HVID none none none ior 3,428 3,659 Inter 17 the 20 18,047 1,501 334 555 t. of 1,043 ep 2,500 ber 29, D 43,275 3,600 800 n v. 1,330 ovem tio N 14,072 4,748 3,928 11 105 44 44 133 jo Na ve1,592on1,045 1,964 a d v 27 hi 3,866 2,538 4,771 106 106 a 34,182 11,533in N 322 d 9,54264, arc 254 ite 54,292c 18,317 15,156 511 68 43 404 6,141 4,032 7,578 168 168 14-1 74,402 o. 701 N 25,102 20,770 59 554 8,416 5,525 10,385 231 231 3,334 1,339 120,600 104,166 71,097 38,029 none GRIC CHAPTER 3 Due to ongoing GRIC negotiations, Reclamation decided to use the traditional USBR interpretation of shortage sharing criteria to compare the relative differences among alternatives. Reclamation believes that the negotiated shortage sharing criteria to be included in the GRIC settlement will not impact the relative differences among alternatives. 0 70,900 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 869,974 900,000 921,479 925,000 1,000,000 1,050,302 1,100,000 1,200,000 1,300,000 1,415,000 First Priority Colo. River Total Reductions M&I and Indian Second Priority Third Priority Indian Ag. M&I Fourth Priority Agricultural Fifth Priority CAP Water Supply 3.14-4 Reductions in Indian CAP Water Supplies During Times of Shortage on Colorado River Likely Future with GRIC Settlement AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 423 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 424 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Losses of fifth priority water impacts only GRIC, Tohono O’Odham Nation (TON), Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) and the United States. Fourth priority losses impact only GRIC and the San Carlos Apache Tribe (San Carlos). Third priority Indian agricultural water losses impact GRIC, San Carlos, TON and SRPMIC. If Colorado River shortages reduce CAP deliveries below 869,974 af, thereafter all Indian tribes are affected on a proportional basis, except for SRPMIC and Ak Chin, who have rights to Colorado River water. Tables 3.14-3 and 3.14-4 show reductions within each priority as water supplies diminish for selected delivery and supply scenarios. 3.14.3.2 3.14.3.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Impacts Resulting from Baseline Conditions and Alternatives Under the current CAP operational assumptions regarding shortage on the Colorado River, diversions to the CAP are estimated to be restricted to one mafy with deliveries of about 925,000 af. The assumptions and estimated shortages of CAP Indian water deliveries determined in this EIS did not consider implementation of any proposals to provide for firming of the CAP Indian water supply. Should firming programs be developed forior portions of the Inter 17 non-Indian agricultural priority water supply allocated to the Tribes, the reductions f the calculated in this EIS may be overstated. The relative.impacts between0 pt o er 29, 2 alternatives e b shown here are not anticipated to changeon v. D v i significantly. em Nat d on No vajo baseline conditions show a zero percent chance of ive Baseline. Reclamationn Na estimates a h d i 2002 64, ofrc2016. For the period 2002 through 2050, the cite 1 shortage for the period 68through 14average chance of.shortage is about 35.7 percent. Thus, over the next 49 years, it is No expected that 17.5 of those years will be shortage and 31.5 will be either normal or surplus. This scenario would result in a loss of about 120,645 af of M&I priority water out of a total of 1,722,105 af over a 49-year period for Indian Tribes. Under the current definition of shortage impacts to CAP, a shortage year would necessarily eliminate delivery of any non-Indian agricultural priority water. In the Likely Future Without scenario, Indian tribes would lose 51,800 af of non-Indian agricultural priority water in each shortage year, or a total of about 906,500 af out of a total of 2,538,200 af over a 49-year period. Under the With Settlement scenario, the annual loss would be 223,600 af of non-Indian agricultural water, or a total of 3,913,000 af out of a total of 10,956,400 af over the 49-year period. Basin States Alternative. Model runs by Reclamation indicate a 39.2 percent chance of shortage over the next 49 years. Under the Preferred Alternative, 19.2 years of shortages are projected to occur. The loss of M&I priority water for Indian Tribes would total about 132,365 af out of a total of about 1,722,105 af. For the Likely Future Without Settlement scenario, total non-Indian agricultural priority water lost would be COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.14-18 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 425 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 about 994,560 af. With Settlement, the total non-Indian agricultural priority water lost would be about 4,293,120 af. Six States Alternative. Employing the assumptions of the Six State Plan, the period of a zero percent chance of shortage would be 2002 through 2008, a slightly shorter period compared to baseline conditions. For the period 2002 through 2050, the average chance of shortage would be about 38.8 percent. This results in 19 years of shortage and 30 years of normal or surplus years. About 130,986 af of M&I water out of a total of 1,722,105 af would be lost to the Indian Tribes during the next 49 years. Applying the current shortage criteria would mean that all non-Indian agricultural priority water would not be delivered in a water short year. In the future without settlement scenario, Indian Tribes would lose a total of about 984,200 af out of a total of 2,538,200 af. In the With Settlement scenario, the total loss to Indians would increase to about 4,248,400 af of a total of 10,956,400 acre-feet. California Alternative. The California Alternative is more restrictive in that the period of zero percent chance of shortage would last only five years between 2002 through 2006. An average 42.3 percent chance of shortage would prevail through the study period. Hence, the total years of shortage would increase to 20.7. Theor of M&I i loss In aer of priority water for Indian Tribes would total to about 142,706 af of t total17 about f the 9, 20 1,722,105 af during the next 49 years. pt. o e r2 v. D vembe ation River shortage would eliminate any n No As in the previous two scenarios,o N vaj a Coloradowater. For the Likely Future Without ed o deliveries of non-Indian agricultural chiv in Na r priority itedthe total64, a not delivered to Indians would be about 1,072,260 c Settlement scenario, -168 water 14 af out of a total of.about 2,538,200. With Settlement, the total water lost by Indians No would be about 4,628,520 acre-feet out of a total of about 10,956,400 af. Shortage Protection Alternative. Estimates by the Reclamation show a 41.1 percent chance of shortage over the next 49 years. Therefore, the total number of years of shortage would increase to 20.3. The expected loss of M&I priority water for Indian Tribes would total about 139,948 acre-feet over the study period. For the Likely Future Without Settlement, total non-Indian agricultural priority water not available for delivery to Indians would be about 1,051,540 af. With Settlement, total non-Indian agricultural priority water lost would be about 4,539,080 af. Flood Control Alternative. The number of years of zero percent shortage are 9 years, 2002-2010. The chance of shortage is 35.5 percent over the 49-year period. The years of shortage are 17.4 years. M&I water loss to Indians is 119,956 af. Under the Likely Future Without, total loss of non-Indian agricultural priority water is 901,320 af. With Settlement, 3,890,640 af non-Indian agricultural priority water would be lost. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.14-19 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 426 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.14.3.2.2 CHAPTER 3 Summary of Impacts While shortages on the Colorado River and the resulting impact upon the CAP are impossible to eliminate, the selection of interim surplus criteria does affect the magnitude of impacts. The most severe impact upon water resources of central Arizona Indian tribes and communities is projected to occur under the California Alternative. Conversely, the least impact upon Indian CAP water supplies is projected to occur under the Flood Control Alternative. Comparison of the Preferred Alternative with the baseline projections results in a loss of Indian M&I water of about 11,720 af. Under the Likely Future Without Settlement scenario, the loss of non-Indian agricultural priority would be about 88,060 af and the impact under the With Settlement scenario would be a loss of about 380,120 af. Compared with the baseline projections, the implementation of the Six States Alternative would increase total shortages to Indians in the CAP service area by 10,341 af of M&I water and under the Likely Future Without Settlement scenario 77,700 af of non-Indian agricultural priority water. Similarly, under the Likely Future Without Settlement scenario, the loss of non-Indian agricultural priority water would increase to 335,400 af. rior Inte f the 9that017M&I impact Comparisons of the California Alternative with the pt. o shows , 2 the baseline . De ember 2 scenario the nonwould be 22,061 af and under the Likelyon v Without Settlement ti Future ov Indian agricultural priority watero Na would n N loss of 165,760 af. Under the With impact d o be a vaj e Settlement scenario, the loss of non-Indian agricultural priority water would increase to in Na 4, archiv d 715,520 af. cite -1686 14 No. Comparison of the Flood Control Alternative to baseline projections shows gains to Indian CAP water users of 689 af of M&I water. Under the Likely Future Without scenario, Indians would gain 5,180 af of non-Indian priority water. Under the With Settlement Scenario, Indians would gain 22,360 af of non-Indian agricultural water. This alternative is the best alternative for Indian CAP water users and Indian trust asset protection. Finally, comparing the Shortage Protection Alternative with the baseline, the M&I impact would be a loss of 14,174 af. The impact to non-Indian agricultural priority water would be a loss of 145,040 under the Likely Future Without Settlement scenario and With Settlement, the loss would be 626,080 af. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.14-20 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 427 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.15 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Environmental justice refers to the fair treatment of people of all races, income and cultures with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Fair treatment implies that no person or group of people should shoulder a disproportionate share of negative impacts resulting from the execution of environmental programs. Executive Order 12898, dated February 11, 1994, establishes the achievement of environmental justice as a federal agency priority: To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and consistent with the principles set forth in the report on the National Performance Review, each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States… The memorandum accompanying the order directs heads of departments and agencies to analyze environmental effects of federal actions, including human health, economic and ior Interadverse effects on social effects when required by NEPA and to address significant and 017 f the 2 pt. o er 2 policy and strategy minority and low-income communities. Interior and Reclamation 9, . De importance of providing b n v the for addressing environmental justice also stresses Novem Natio in thenNEPA process considering the effects opportunities for community vajo a involvemented o ch v in Non minority iand low income populations and communities of Reclamation'sited decisions 4, ar 6 and identifyingc mitigation68 4-1 measures in consultation with the affected communities. No. 1 Populations that depend on the Colorado River for their water supply include minority and low-income communities in rural and urban areas in each of the seven Basin States. On- and off-reservation populations of Native American Indians are included. Reclamation has involved potentially affected Tribes and the BIA to identify and address Tribal concerns (see Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination). This includes Tribes with reservations along the Colorado River, as well as Tribes with Colorado River water rights in the Basin States. Tribal concerns are discussed in Section 3.14, Indian Trust Assets, and are based on further evaluation of impacts as they affect Tribal interests. Reclamation is not aware of exposure of any minority or low-income populations to a human health or environmental hazard that would result from implementation of interim surplus criteria. No significant difference in the distribution of benefits and burdens would occur to minority or to low-income communities from any of the alternatives. Scoping for, and public review of, the DEIS did not identify potential adverse impacts on minority populations in the United States, including Native American, Hispanic or COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.15-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 428 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 low-income communities. No minority or low-income communities are expected to be affected in any disproportionate way as a result of any of the action alternatives considered in this EIS. Therefore, no potentially significant environmental justice issues are analyzed further in this section. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.15-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 429 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.16 TRANSBOUNDARY IMPACTS 3.16.1 INTRODUCTION Potential effects on resources in Mexico could occur from changes in the frequency and magnitude of excess flows to Mexico (i.e., flows in excess of scheduled deliveries to Mexico) as a result of adoption of interim surplus criteria. The analysis in this section utilizes results of system modeling as described in Section 3.3 to determine potential changes in excess flows to Mexico and discusses the potential effects on the natural and physical environment within Mexico. The potential effects on scheduled delivery of water to Mexico under the terms of the United States-Mexico Water Treaty of 1944 (Treaty) are presented in Section 3.4, Water Supply. This analysis of potential impacts in Mexico is fully consistent with Executive Order 12114 - Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions and CEQ Guidance on NEPA Analyses for Transboundary Impacts, dated July 1, 1997. Each of these documents are contained within Attachment B, Environmental Guidelines for Transboundary Impacts. ior Inter 17 the 0 For the analysis of impacts in Mexico, the direct potentialf effect 29interim surplus pt. o er of , 2 e D mb criteria would be associated with changes n v. frequency of excess flows to Mexico. in the atio to Mexico e Nov between baseline conditions and The incremental differences inajo N flows on excess av ived Ncriteriaaalternatives were determined using modeling of the each of the interim surplus d in 64, rch ite Colorado Rivercsystem-as68 1 described in Section 3.3. . 14 No 3.16.2 METHODOLOGY Environmental conditions currently existing and those expected to result from the full development of the Upper Division states’ apportionments are part of the baseline conditions. The impacts attributable to interim surplus criteria would include changes to excess flow frequency downstream of Morelos Dam and the reduction of available excess flows for irrigation and M&I use in Mexico. However, the potential effects of the reduced excess flows on Mexico's resources cannot be specifically determined due to the uncertainty of water use once it flows across the NIB into Mexico. The waters of the Colorado River, once delivered to Mexico, as agreed upon in the Treaty, are within the exclusive control of Mexico. The Treaty contains no provisions requiring Mexico to provide water for environmental protection, nor any requirements relating to Mexico’s use of that water. It is reasonably foreseeable that Mexico will continue to maximize consumptive use of Colorado River water for agricultural, municipal and industrial purposes. Potentially affected species that occur in Mexico and that are federally listed as endangered under the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) are the desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius), Vaquita (Phocaena sinus) and totoaba (Totoaba macdonaldi); listed bird species which occur in Mexico include the Southwestern COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 430 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and the Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis). Consideration is also given to the Yellow-billed cuckoo (coccyzus americanus), which is proposed for listing. Additional species of special concern and their habitat that are addressed in this section are the California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), Elf owl (Micrathene whitneyi), Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii arizonae), and Clark’s grebe (Aechmophorus clarkii). The Vaquita and totoaba are species associated with the Colorado River as it flows into the Gulf of California and occur only in Mexico. Critical habitat for species listed under the ESA is only designated within the United States and therefore, habitat in Mexico is not protected under the ESA. The desert pupfish and each of the bird species occur in both the United States and Mexico, and potential impacts to these species and their habitat within the United States are discussed in Section 3.8. 3.16.3 CONSULTATION WITH MEXICO Pursuant to an international agreement for mandatory reciprocal consultations, Reclamation, through the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC), consulted with Mexico in an effort to identify Mexico’s concerns with regard to potential transboundary impacts from adoption of interim surplus criteria. erior Int f the 9, 2017 on April t. in During the preparation of the DEIS, a meeting was heldo Henderson, Nevada, Dep surplus 2 . interim embercriteria was described 12, 2000, during which the topic of developing nv ov Natio meeting was held in Mexico City, Mexico, for the Mexican delegation. Aajo subsequent d on N av the hive on May 11 and 12, 2000. N d in During arcMay 11-12, 2000 meeting, Reclamation provided te 4, additional data ci which had686 requested by Mexico and technical issues were 1 been 14discussed. Reclamation requested that Mexico provide an analysis of how the No. incremental changes between baseline conditions and the interim surplus criteria would affect Mexico. In response, a letter from Commissioner J. Arturo Herrera of the Mexican Section of the IBWC, was provided to the United States Section of the IBWC on May 22, 2000. The original letter, and an English translation, is included in Attachment T (Mexico advised the IBWC that there is no objection to the public release of this diplomatic document). In this transmittal, Commissioner Herrera expressed a concern that currently proposed plans for the distribution of surplus water among the Lower Division states tend to reduce excess flows below Morelos Dam over the 15-year period of the interim surplus criteria. Mexico estimates that the elimination of these excess flows would have the following effects on the Mexican natural and physical environment: 1. Effects on the recharge of the aquifer both in quantity and quality, reducing the beneficial use of the same; 2. Increase in salinity in the 200,000 hectares (500,000 acres) of cultivation in the Mexicali Valley, since part of the surplus is used to leach this soil; COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 431 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3. Deterioration in the quality of water delivered to Mexico at the Southerly International Boundary (SIB), especially in terms of salinity given that the flows of fresh water are used to reduce high concentrations of salinity at this site; 4. Deterioration in the quality of water received by Mexico at NIB in reducing the flow to the value of the Mexican demand and maintaining the discharges to the river from agricultural drains in the Yuma, Arizona area; 5. In the upper part of the Sea of Cortez, species in danger of extinction or which require special protection will be affected, such as the rarest and most scarce cetacean in the world, the sea cow (Vaquita) and the Totoaba. Also, commercial fishing activities will be affected in the region, especially shrimping and two species of Corvina, fish which had not appeared in significant numbers in the last 25 years; and, 6. In terms of the existing flora in the reach between Morelos Dam and the mouth of the Colorado River at the Sea of Cortez, in recent years around 33,000 hectares (85,500 acres) of native riparian vegetation have been restored in the channel, mostly poplars, willows, mesquite and salt cedar, among other species which are fundamental in the ecosystem since many of these are used as nesting areas for a ior Inter 17 great number of birds, such as the Yuma clapper rail, the yellow seagull, the sea f the would0 swallow and the royal blue swan, among others,pt. o which29, 2 be affected by same . De ember these measures. ion v t ov Na d o N vajo during then e Na Coordination with Mexico continued hiv DEIS review period and development d in 64, arc cite 168 of this FEIS. Reclamation met with representatives of Mexico on August 31, 2000, to 14brief them on the operational modeling process described in Section 3.3. In response to No. the DEIS, comment letters were provided to Reclamation from the Border Affairs Coordinator of Mexico’s National Water Commission and from the IBWC. Both letters reiterated the issues raised in Commissioner Herrera’s May 22, 2000, letter and are included in Volume III of this FEIS along with Reclamation’s responses to the specific issues raised in the letters. Mexico provided further correspondence on October 10, 2000, which is also included in Attachment T. In this letter, Mexico suggests there be more consideration of habitat and species information in Mexico. Although Reclamation recognizes the potential for the United States, acting through the Secretary of State, to continue to work with Mexico on a bi-national basis to clarify and resolve Mexico's concerns, it is not clear that the concerns raised are associated with interim surplus criteria. Issues not arising from interim surplus criteria are outside of the scope of this FEIS. However, such issues could become the subject of other cooperative, bi-national processes of a voluntary nature. Attachment T also contains a draft document dated December 28, 1999 that states the United States “Authority and Assumptions” for the United States-Mexico consultations under the Treaty and subsequent resolutions and Minutes. Within that document, the COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 432 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 United States acknowledges Mexico’s rights under the authority of Article 10 of the Treaty: “Mexico has the right to 1.5 maf annually.” As discussed in Section 3.4.4, statistical projections from the model with respect to flows to Mexico indicated that under baseline conditions and each of the interim surplus criteria alternatives, Mexico would receive no less than its apportionment of 1.5 maf per year. Thus, interim surplus criteria would not affect the ability of the United States to meet Treaty obligations. However, as noted in Chapter 1, Mexico would share reductions in delivery if extraordinary drought conditions were to significantly reduce deliveries to Lower Division states below their basic apportionments. The “Authority and Assumptions” also reiterates the United States position that “Mexico may schedule an additional 200,000 af of surplus annually, but does not have the right to Colorado River water beyond the 1.5 maf” and provides that the United States will develop and supply technical data that identify the potential future deliveries of up to 200,000 af of surplus for use in Mexico. Technical information regarding the frequency of occurrence of Mexico’s 200,000 af delivery pursuant to the Treaty is presented with the water supply discussion in Section 3.4.4.5. Further clarification is needed to distinguish between the delivery of surplus flows and the delivery of excess flows to Mexico. Mexico has an annual apportionment of 1.5 ior Inter 17 may maf of Colorado River water, based on the provisions of thehe Treaty. Mexico 0 of t p1.5 er 29 2 receive additional Colorado River water (beyond the t. maf) under, two conditions. e .D mb First, when surplus water exists in excess of v amount that can be beneficially used by ation then Nove the Basin States, Mexico is avajo N ved o additional 200,000 af of water. Under apportioned up to an i in N is available when flood control releases are made. This current practice, this 200,000 4, arch ited 686 c water, which Mexico 4-1 schedule throughout the year in accordance with Article 15 may o. 1referred to as “surplus” water. This class of “surplus” water under of the Treaty, is also N the Treaty is distinct however, from surplus water for use in the Lower Basin states as described in Article II(B)(2) of the Decree and Article III of the LROC. Second, the delivery of excess flows to Mexico may result from flood control operations, unanticipated contributions from events such as flooding along the Gila River and/or other factors resulting in canceled water orders by water users below Parker Dam. Excess flows are therefore typically considered to be any flows that are over and above the 1.5 maf normal apportionment (or 1.7 maf in certain years) that may be available to Mexico pursuant to the Treaty. It is acknowledged that Mexico has complete autonomy as to how they choose to manage apportioned and excess Colorado River flows. 3.16.4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.16.4.1 HISTORICAL COLORADO RIVER BETWEEN THE SOUTHERLY INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND THE GULF OF CALIFORNIA The Colorado River flows approximately 1440 miles from its headwaters in the Rocky Mountains to its mouth at the Gulf of California. The location of the Colorado River COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 433 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 within Mexico is shown on Map 3.16-1. The 22-mile reach of the river from the NIB to the SIB acts as the east-west boundary between Baja California in Mexico and the state of Arizona in the United States. This section of the river is referred to as the Limitrophe Division. Although the section of the river between the SIB and the Gulf of California (which is also called the Sea of Cortez) is less than 50 air miles in length, the river meanders as much as 175 miles through this stretch (Browne, 1869; Rudkin, 1953). Historically, the portion of the Colorado River within Mexico could be divided into two reaches: the upper reach, which was influenced mainly by flood events; and the lower reach, which was influenced mainly by tidal fluctuations in the Gulf of California. The upper reach extends from the international boundary to approximately the confluence of the Rio Hardy and the Colorado (Mearns, 1907). The plant community found in this reach of the Colorado was similar to that found in the Yuma Valley. Large cottonwoods and dense willow thickets lined the river channel and oxbows within the floodplain (Johnson, 1869; Mearns, 1907). Honey and screwbean mesquites formed large dense thickets in areas that were subject to occasional overbank flooding (Bolton, 1930; Thwaites, 1905). Dense stands of arrowweed were noted in many historical journals throughout this reach of the river (Bolton, 1930; Mearns, 1907). Unlike the or nte i 7 Ilargermarshes were portion of the Colorado River that lies within the United States, f the 201 pt. o eexpanses of cattails, common within this stretch of the river. Several journals note r 29, e v. D mb rushes, and cane (Twaites, 1905; Mearns, 1907; Bolton, 1930). Large grass savannas ation on Nove jo N were present within the floodplain that supported a cattle industry from the late 1800's Nava archived through the earlyt1900's (Mearns, 1907; Kniffen, 1929 in Ohmart, 1982; Bolton, 1930). ed in 4, ci 1686 . 14- the lower reach of the Colorado River, below the Rio Hardy to The ecosystem found in No the Gulf of California was heavily influenced by tidal fluctuations in the Gulf of California and by heavy soil deposition from annual flood events. As the river meandered south of its confluence with the Rio Hardy, cottonwoods became scarce. Dense thickets of mesquite and arrowweed were still recorded on the upper terraces within this reach of the river. Dense stands of willows formed on newly deposited sediments. Large marshes, comprised mainly of cattails, rushes, and cane, dominated this stretch of the river (United States War Department, 1852; Mearns, 1907). Saltgrass became prevalent at the mouth of the river (Kniffen, 1929 in Ohmart, 1982). 3.16.4.2 PRESENT STATUS OF THE COLORADO RIVER BETWEEN THE NIB AND THE GULF OF CALIFORNIA Human activities have significantly changed the lower Colorado River ecosystem since the early 1900's. Completion of Morelos Dam in 1950 allowed delivery of Colorado River water to irrigate lands in the Mexicali Valley. Flooding along the river is an infrequent event and riparian vegetation is sustained by groundwater, excess flows and/or return flows from agriculture. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 434 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Map 3.16-1 Colorado River Location Within Mexico ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-6 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 435 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 A 1997 survey of floodplain vegetation along the lower Colorado River (CH2MHill, 1997) classified 88 percent of over 4300 acres of the Limitrophe Division as saltcedar. Saltcedar (also commonly referred to a tamarisk) is an exotic species that appeared along the mainstem Colorado River about 1920 (Ohmart et al., 1988) and has displaced native riparian species throughout the lower Colorado River. Cottonwood willow communities were mapped on only 7.5 percent of the area, and the historically common and large marshes comprise only 3.5 percent of the communities. The most current information available on the vegetation composition present along the upper reach of the Colorado River floodplain between the SIB and the Rio Hardy comes from a 1999 study conducted by the University of Monterrey (Guaymas), the University of Arizona, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Sonoran Institute (Glenn, unpub. data and Luecke et al., 1999). Aerial and remote sensing methods, combined with ground surveys to check accuracy, were used to estimate the number of acres of each habitat type. Habitat types were separated into two broad categories: (1) areas where Fremont cottonwood and Goodding willow comprised greater than 10 percent of the stand (determined by measuring percent vegetation cover by using remote sensing techniques); and (2) areas where Fremont cottonwood and Goodding willow comprised less than 10 percent of the stand. In stands where cottonwoods anderior comprised willows Int subdivided by greater than 10 percent of the vegetative cover, the standsf were further 017 the pt o eForest,2 height class and density (Open Gallery Forest, Closed .Gallery r 29, and Shrub . De b Dominated). In stands where cottonwoods and willowsem ion v Nov comprised less than 10 percent at of the vegetative cover, the avajo were further n stands N ved odivided by species composition N chi (saltcedar/arrowweed in saltcedar/mesquite). ted and 4, ar ci 686 14-1 .Monterrey study estimated approximately 9545 acres of greater than The University of No 10 percent cottonwood-willow habitat, 4492 acres classified as open gallery forest and 5053 acres classified as shrub dominated. Analysis of tree ring data indicated that the majority of these cottonwood-willow stands had been regenerated during high flow events over the last two decades, especially the 1993 Gila River flood event. This study also identified 25,829 acres of saltcedar/arrowweed habitat. Although the study does not specify, it is likely that these stands were actually monotypic saltcedar and monotypic arrowweed stands or clumps as arrowweed does not usually grow as a mixed stand with other vegetation types. Interestingly, this study did not identify any saltcedar/mesquite acreage within the entire study area (E. Glenn, 2000). In December, 1998, biologists from the Bureau of Reclamation, San Bernardino County Museum, and the Upper Gulf of California and Colorado River Delta Biosphere Preserve conducted an aerial survey of the Rio Hardy and the Colorado River to determine potentially suitable Southwestern willow flycatcher breeding habitat. This survey noted that the vegetation at the confluence of the Rio Hardy and Colorado River was mostly narrow, dry stands of saltcedar. Northeast of the town of Venustiano Carranza, patches of Goodding willow and Fremont cottonwood were evident. Approximately five kilometers north of the Mexican Railroad crossing of the Colorado COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-7 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 436 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 River, the river contained long, linear stands of Goodding willow with a few cottonwoods also present. Approximately 15 kilometers south of San Luis, Sonora, the Colorado River begins to broaden out and from this point north to the NIB, a variety of habitats believed to be suitable breeding habitat for Southwestern willow flycatcher were present (McKernan, 1999). The Cienega de Santa Clara (Cienega) is a large wetland complex located adjacent to the mouth of lower Colorado River in Sonora, Mexico. It is a large basin approximately 80,000 acres in size, including roughly 9700 vegetated acres with the remaining area consisting of highly saline tidal salt flats. The Cienega is typically included in discussions of the region of the Colorado River from the Rio Hardy confluence to the Sea of Cortez. Geologically, the Cienega was formed by a tectonic slump. The Colorado River probably at many times in the geologic past flowed through the Cienega on its way to the Sea of Cortez. The Cienega retains sea water which intrudes into the southern end as a result of tidal action and evaporation results in TDS of the water exceeding 60,000 ppm in some areas. The upper end of the Cienega has two major brackish water inflows; the Main Outlet Drain Extension (MODE) and the Riito Drain (Drain). The MODE transports saline irrigation return flows from the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation ior Inter carries irrigation and Drainage District (WMIDD) east of Yuma, Arizona, f the Drain017 and the 2 pt. o er 2 The return flows from the eastern Mexicali Valley in Sonora, Mexico. 9, MODE and the . De 28,000 af of water, respectively. b Drain annually contribute approximatelyon v 140,000 and em Nati todthen Nov including springs along the There are other smaller sources of inflow e o Cienega, vajo in Na 4, archiv eastern edge. ted 6 ci -168 . 14water is approximately 3,200 ppm TDS while the salinity of the Salinity in the No MODE Drain is approximately 4,600 ppm TDS. This brackish water inflow supports the wetland vegetation at the upper end of the Cienega. The vegetation is limited by the brackish water interface with the highly saline water and soils comprising the extensive salt flats of the southern portion of the Cienega. The salt flats and associated shallow water exceed 60,000 ppm TDS. This is a result of tidal action bringing sea water into the basin, and evaporation and subsurface drainage accounting for water loss from the basin. The vegetation in the Cienega is dominated by cattail and bulrush. The cattail and bulrush is interspersed with small channels and open water pools. The water depths in the vegetated area vary from one to four feet. The vegetated area supports a variety of bird species. There is considerable use of the open water by waterfowl, including many varieties of ducks and geese. Several fish species are found in the fresher water areas of the Cienega including largemouth bass, carp, channel catfish, and tilapia. Several species of shiners and mollies are also found in the Cienega. Also notable is the presence of United States Federally listed threatened or endangered species, state designated special status species, and internationally COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-8 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 437 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 recognized species of concern. These include the Yuma clapper rail, desert pupfish, Bald eagle, and American peregrine falcon. The present size of the vegetated area of the Cienega is a result of construction of the MODE which carries brackish irrigation return flows from the WMIDD. Prior to the completion of the MODE the vegetated area of the Cienega was less than 500 acres and this consisted mainly of a narrow fringe to the east of the present large vegetated area. Since 1977, when the MODE was completed, the vegetated area has expanded from virtually no vegetation to its present size. Because flows into the Cienega are from the MODE and Drain and the Cienega is not connected to the floodplain of the Colorado River, natural and physical resources located within the Cienega are not anticipated to be affected by the adoption of interim surplus criteria. The lower Colorado River supported a large estuary at its mouth in the Sea of Cortez. The historic lower Colorado River exhibited the typical annual fluctuations in flow with the peak flows generally occurring in the spring to early summer. These flows carried nutrients and sediments into the estuary, creating the conditions suited for various phases of the life history of the endemic species. rior e e Int 017 f thlack of,annual inflow from The upper end of the Sea has remarkably changedept.to the due o 9 2 . D ofedams and water diversions ber 2 the lower Colorado River, following theion v m t construction events of note that have resulted N been onlyn Nov upstream. In recent years, there jhavea three va o this estuary from the lower Colorado River. High ed o in large quantities of water a in Nreachingrchiv ,a cited on the lower Colorado River during flood control operations flows were experienced 16864 14from 1983 through 1987 and flows from the Gila River through the lower Colorado No. River reached the estuary in 1993. There were space building flows in the fall of 1997 and fall of 1998 and flood control releases in January 1998. All but the flows of 198385 and 1993 probably had little effect on the Sea of Cortez. Therefore, the hydrology of the estuary is primarily dominated by tidal processes and sediment contribution to the estuary is a result of erosion of the delta itself (Carriquiry and Sanchez, 1999). In spite of the reduced inflow from the lower Colorado River the estuary is extremely rich in nutrients, with the corresponding richness of plankton, leading to rich amounts of organisms on up the food chain. High chlorophyll values are found in the estuary typical of very rich coastal waters (Santamaria-Del-Angel, et al. (1994). Zooplankton biomass values are similar to those of the rich central Sea of Cortez, and the values for the channels around Montague Island at the mouth of the Colorado River are as high as those of estuaries and coastal lagoons (Farfan and Alvarez-Borrego, 1992). The nutrient inflow is primarily a result of agricultural drainage into the Rio Hardy, which joins the lower Colorado River immediately above the Sea. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-9 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 438 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.16.5 EXCESS FLOWS TO MEXICO Currently, water has the potential to flow past Morelos Dam under three circumstances: (1) as a result of operational activities upstream (e.g., canceled water orders in the United States, maintenance activities, etc.); (2) during a Gila River flood event; and (3) during flood control releases along the mainstream Colorado River. However, Mexico has complete autonomy as to how it chooses to manage scheduled and excess flows that arrive at Morelos Dam. Water released from Parker Dam, under orders from irrigation districts in Imperial Valley, Coachella Valley, and the lower Colorado River Valley, normally takes up to three days to reach its point of diversion. Occasionally, unforeseen events, such as localized precipitation, force the irrigation districts to cancel these water delivery orders after the water has been released at Parker Dam. Usually, the water is diverted at Morelos Dam for use in Mexico; however, some of this water may flow past Morelos Dam. The volume of water passing by Morelos Dam is rarely enough to have much effect on species and habitat in Mexico below the NIB. Adoption of interim surplus criteria will not affect water that flows past the NIB as a result of canceled water orders. Gila River flood events are extremely rare. Only once has flow beenrrecorded over e ior 27,500 cfs 4,000 cfs at the Dome, Arizona, gaging station since 1941. the1993, up to 7 In Int 01 f flowed past the Dome gaging station as a result ofept.1993 Gila 29, 2 flood (USGS, the o r River v. D v mbe 1999). The 1993 flood created much ofithe habitat presently found along the Colorado o at on on 2000).e River below its confluence with jtheN (Glenn, N va o Gila ed in Na 4, archiv ited are8almost entirely due to flood control releases originating at c Excess flows to Mexico16 6 Hoover Dam. No. 14 As discussed in Section 3.3.1.2, these flood control releases are dictated by the flood control criteria established for Lake Mead and Hoover Dam and are dependent upon hydrologic conditions. 3.16.5.1 BASELINE CONDITIONS The potential range of water deliveries to Mexico under the baseline conditions and surplus alternatives was discussed in Section 3.4.4.5. Flows below Morelos Dam at various seasons were also analyzed in Section 3.3.4.5.4. Both the frequency and magnitude of excess flows are important factors in restoring and maintaining riparian habitat below Morelos Dam and are analyzed in more detail in this section. It should be emphasized that Mexico’s management decisions at and below Morelos Dam are not modeled. This is due to uncertainty of what Mexico chooses to do with excess water. Therefore, the hydrologic analyses assume that any water in excess of Mexico’s scheduled surplus deliveries are those flows that have the potential to occur below Morelos Dam. Figure 3.16-1 presents a comparison of the frequency of occurrence of future delivery of excess flows to Mexico observed under the surplus alternatives to those of baseline COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-10 0% 2000 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 2005 2010 2015 2020 3.16-11 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N 2045 California Alternative Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative Baseline Conditions Figure 3.16-1 Probability of Occurrence of Excess Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Probability of Occurence AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 439 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 440 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 conditions. The frequency of occurrence is compiled by counting the number of modeled traces for each year that have excess flows and dividing by the total number of traces. As illustrated in Figure 3.16-1, with the exception of the Flood Control Alternative, the excess flows below Morelos Dam occur less frequently under the surplus alternatives when compared to baseline, during the interim surplus criteria period (2002 to 2016). These differences decrease to negligible amounts after 2027. The low frequency of occurrence in excess flows under the baseline conditions in the first year (2002) can be attributable to the relatively low reservoir starting conditions (approximately 33 feet below full content level at Lake Mead). The differences between the baseline and surplus alternatives, with the exception of the Flood Control Alternative, can be attributed to more frequent surplus deliveries which tend to lower Lake Mead reservoir levels. With lower reservoir levels, the frequency of flood control events (which are the primary source of the excess flows) is decreased. The maximum frequency under baseline conditions is observed in 2006 (35 percent). Thereafter, a gradual declining tendency is observed to about 16 percent in 2050. The gradual declining trend observed under both the baseline conditions and surplus alternative coincide with the Basin States’ plans to maximize consumptive use of their Colorado River water apportionment for agricultural, municipal and industrial use application, as exhibited by the Basin States’ demand projections. terior In 017 f he .afoortgreater9are necessary for p It is generally believed that periodic flows of 250,000t 2 ,2 . De in mber maintaining the health of the Colorado tion v River corridor veMexico and the upper end of a No the Sea of Cortez (Leucke et vajo N and d on restore floodplain habitat. Figure al., 1999) ve help to i in Na 3.16-2 presents the probability4, arch ited 686 of occurrence of excess flows greater than 250,000 af c and Figure 3.16-3 shows the probability of occurrence of excess flows greater than -1 o. 14 Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam. 1,000,000 af below the N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-12 0% 2000 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 2005 2010 2015 2020 3.16-13 Year 2025 2030 2035 Shortage Protection Alternative California Alternative Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative Baseline Conditions 2040 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Figure 3.16-2 Potential Magnitude of Excess Flows Greater than 250,000 Acre-Feet Below Mexico Diversions at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Probability of Occurrence AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2045 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 441 of 1200 0% 2000 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 2005 2010 2015 2020 3.16-14 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N 2045 Baseline Conditions Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Six States Alternative California Alternative Shortage Protection Alternative Figure 3.16-3 Potential Magnitude of Excess Flows Greater Than 1,000,000 Acre-Feet Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Probability of Occurrence AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 442 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 443 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.16.5.2 CHAPTER 3 COMPARISON OF SURPLUS ALTERNATIVES TO BASELINE CONDITIONS Figure 3.16-1 presented a graphical comparison of the probability of delivery of future excess flows to Mexico under the surplus alternatives to those under the baseline conditions. A similar comparison for selected years is presented in tabular format in Table 3.16-1. In general, the Flood Control Alternative provides the highest frequency while the California and Shortage Protection alternatives provide the lowest frequency. The largest difference in frequency observed at the end of the interim surplus criteria period (2016) and is about seven percent for the California and Shortage Protection alternative compared to baseline conditions. This difference is reduced to approximately one percent by 2026. In 2016, the difference in frequency between the Basin States and Six States when compared to baseline conditions is three and two percent, respectively. After 2016, the differences in frequency between the surplus alternatives and baseline conditions gradually decreases to one percent or less by 2050. Table 3.16-1 Frequency Occurrence of Excess Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2026 2050 Basin States Alternative Flood Control Alternative ior Inter 17 e 20 of th 20% 15% 20% pt. 15% er 29, 7% e v D 31% 26% 31%. 27% b 24% m ation on Nove 33% 28%o N 33% 28% 24% vaj ed 27% in Na 25% rchiv 27% 25% 24% ited 6864, a 31% 27% 24% c31% 1 27% 35% 4 27% 35% 27% 24% .1 No Baseline Conditions 28% 25% 24% 22% 25% 24% 25% 25% 22% 19% 16% 26% 22% 20% 21% 21% 22% 20% 21% 19% 18% 15% 28% 26% 25% 25% 26% 24% 25% 26% 25% 20% 16% Six States Alternative 25% 22% 20% 21% 22% 24% 20% 21% 20% 19% 15% California Alternative 24% 20% 19% 18% 18% 18% 15% 15% 15% 18% 15% Shortage Protection Alternative 9% 25% 27% 24% 25% 24% 24% 21% 19% 18% 18% 18% 15% 15% 15% 18% 15% As discussed in Section 3.3.4.5.4, the annual volume of excess flows can be compared for the surplus alternatives and baseline conditions. Figures 3.16-4 and 3.16-5 show the cumulative distributions for years 2016 and 2050, respectively (Figure 3.3-28 showed the data for 2006). Although the frequency of occurrence of flows of a particular magnitude is decreased, the range of excess flows is preserved for the surplus alternatives when compared to baseline conditions. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-15 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 0% 10% 20% 30% 50% 60% 3.16-16 Percent of Values Less than or Equal To 40% Shortage Protection Alternative 70% 80% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v Baseline Conditions ation on Nov Basin States Alternative jo N vaAlternative ived Na Flood Control d in States64, arch cite Six 68 Alternative -1 o. 14California Alternative N Figure 3.16-4 Potential Magnitude of Excess Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2016 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Total Annual Flow (mafy) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 90% 100% CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 444 of 1200 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 0% 10% 20% 30% 50% 60% 3.16-17 Percent of Values Less than or Equal To 40% Shortage Protection Alternative 70% 80% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v Baseline Conditions ation on Nov Basin States Alternative jo N vaAlternative ived Na Flood d in Control , arch 64 cite Six States Alternative -168 Alternative 14 No. California Figure 3.16-5 Potential Magnitude of Excess Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Year 2050 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Total Annual Flow (mafy) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 90% 100% CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 445 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 446 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Alternatively, the potential magnitudes of excess flows for the 75th and 90th percentiles are shown in Figure 3.16-6. The 75th and 90th percentile values are also presented in tabular format for years 2002 through 2026 in Table 3.16-2 and Table 3.16-3, respectively. The 75th percentile flow is defined as the flow that would not be exceeded 75 percent of the time (i.e., the minimum flow that would be expected to occur 25 percent of the time) and likewise, the 90th percentile flow would be expected to occur 10 percent of the time. In summary, there are only minor differences in the potential magnitudes and potential frequencies of excess flows between baseline conditions and the Basin States Alternative. During the interim surplus criteria period, the average frequency of occurrence of beneficial flows (exceeding 250,000 af) in any year is 24.5 percent for baseline conditions, which is equivalent to approximately one year in four. This compares to a frequency of 17.8 percent for the California Alternative (one year in six) and 21.3 percent for the Basin States Alternative (one year in five). After the interim surplus criteria period, the average frequency of occurrence is approximately the same for all surplus alternatives and baseline (ranging between 17.0 percent and 18.2 percent or about one in every six years). The above probabilities indicate conditions below Morelos Dam would be similar to ior Inter possible to those presumed to be beneficial. Leucke, et al, 1999 states tit e not yet 017 is of h these , 2 quantify with certainty the required volume andDept. frequency ofer 29high flows. v. emb ation on Novfour years under the baseline While the probable frequency ofjo N va approximately one in ved would change to a probable frequencyhi approximately one in five years under the in Na 4, arc of d cite 168 change in benefits to species and habitat would likely be Basin States Alternative, the 6 4insignificant. No.riparian vegetation existing along the Colorado River corridor in The 1 Mexico is extremely resilient. Mexico has complete discretion over the use of water entering that country. As stated before, excess flows are generally diverted when possible species and habitat can benefit only when the amount of water arriving at Mexico is in excess of that which can be diverted. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-18 2000 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year 2025 3.16-19 75th Percentile 2030 2035 2040 2045 Shortage Protection Alternative California Alternative Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative Baseline Conditions ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 90th Percentile o. 14 N Figure 3.16- 6 Potential Magnitude of Excess Flows To Mexico th th 90 and 75 Percentile Values COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Total Annual Flow (mafy) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2050 CHAPTER 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 447 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 448 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Table 3.16-2 Excess Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions th 75 Percentile Values for Selected Years (kaf) Baseline Conditions 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 0 406 645 153 534 545 318 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Flood Control Alternative 0 406 645 195 534 545 319 239 0 0 253 0 0 221 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Six States Alternative 0 146 536 0 500 386 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Basin States Alternative 0 109 536 0 500 386 282 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 California Alternative 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-20 Shortage Protection Alternative 0 0 186 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 449 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Table 3.16-3 Excess Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions th 90 Percentile Values for Selected Years (kaf) Baseline Conditions 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 870 2510 2112 2560 2918 2495 2157 2230 1641 1758 1378 1680 1368 1464 1999 2034 1492 1630 1276 1167 1136 1130 1338 823 1422 Flood Control Alternative 870 2510 2111 2584 3822 2772 2369 2249 2542 2124 1924 1680 1391 1464 1999 2034 1492 1629 1417 1254 1136 1130 1336 823 1521 Six States Alternative 412 2116 2368 2249 2203 2489 1924 2172 1522 1563 947 1014 857 1595 1189 2033 1201 1548 1041 876 1112 981 1338 823 1422 Basin States Alternative 429 2068 2550 2274 2481 2489 2227 2175 1583 1881 1438 1049 857 1611 1114 1957 1201 1358 1032 876 1112 981 1338 823 1422 California Alternative 0 1608 1610 2135 1083 1954 1445 1426 1295 1100 887 792 823 631 599 1032 1041 924 1048 876 1106 988 1348 833 1537 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-21 Shortage Protection Alternative 0 1709 1924 2171 1083 2076 1765 1516 1441 1226 934 837 840 821 647 915 1132 1028 828 796 1112 981 1261 823 1422 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 450 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.16.5.3 CHAPTER 3 POTENTIAL TRANSBOUNDARY EFFECTS OF REDUCED FLOOD FLOW FREQUENCY As discussed in the previous sections, modeling of baseline conditions and each of the interim surplus criteria alternatives indicates a potential for reductions in the frequency of excess flows delivered to Mexico throughout the period of analysis. Excess flows can have both positive and negative impacts on salinity, groundwater, and water available for diversion by Mexico at Morelos Dam. This section discusses the general effects of excess flows to Mexico, and the potential impacts of reduced frequencies of such flows. Potential effects on floodplain habitat and species within Mexico could also occur from a reduction in excess flows to Mexico are discussed in Section 3.16.6. 3.16.5.3.1 General Effects of Flood Flows On the positive side, excess flows to Mexico are lower in salinity than normal flows (i.e., flows associated with traditional downstream requirements and deliveries). These flows can, therefore, improve the water quality of deliveries to farms in the United States and Mexico, thereby reducing the salinity of the deep percolation from farm application and gradually improving the quality of groundwater and drainage return flows. rior e e Int 7 f this larger 201better during Because the volume and quality of water arriving ept. o at the NIB 29, and r flood flow conditions, the salinity levelsion v. D be embe at NIB will v lower than in normal years. The o Nat salinity of flows carried to the ajo and intod on N closely reflect the salinity of flows v SIB flowse Mexico to improve the groundwater quality arriving at NIB. Thesen Naqualityrchiv will tend i high a cited 1 levels, and raise the groundwater6864 along the river channel downstream of Morelos Dam. 14No. However, on the negative side, higher river elevations resulting from flood control releases can cause groundwater levels to rise. In agricultural and urban areas, higher groundwater levels can cause crop damage or damage to municipal facilities. Higher groundwater levels can also require increased drainage pumping after flood conditions occur to return groundwater levels to normal, non-damaging conditions. In addition, flood flows carry more sediment, which is deposited in the river channel both upstream and downstream of Morelos Dam. This sediment deposition will have the tendency to raise river levels for normal flow conditions, raise the groundwater levels near the river and reduce flow carrying capacity of the river channel both above and below Morelos Dam. Flows in excess of 15,000 cfs below Imperial Dam and below Morelos Dam can be very destructive and can cause substantial damage to levees, river structures, and other private and public facilities. Considerable expense can be incurred to protect these facilities. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-22 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 451 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.16.5.3.2 CHAPTER 3 Effects of Reduced Excess Flows As discussed in Section 3.16.5.1 and 3.16.5.2, modeling indicates an increasing likelihood over time of reduced frequency of excess flows to Mexico. Such reductions would occur to varying degrees under baseline conditions and each of the alternatives. The potential effects in Mexico of reduced excess flow frequencies could include the following: • Mexico would have fewer opportunities to take water in excess of their maximum water order for uses such as groundwater recharge for agricultural and municipal wells, leaching of salts from farm soils, raising of additional crops, and improvement of water quality being delivered to farms along the east bank of the Colorado River. • Groundwater levels downstream of areas being farmed in the United States and Mexico would decline and salinity levels of the groundwater would be expected to increase. However, damage caused by high groundwater would be less frequent and less substantial than experienced in the past. Also, it would take less time and less volume of additional drainage pumping to return groundwater to acceptable levels, reducing impacts to the salinity of flows arriving at NIB once deliveries to Mexico ior Inter 17 return to normal levels. 0 f the 2 pt. o r 29, . De bembethan those experienced in • The frequency of future excess flowson v likelyve less ati would No the past, reducing the potential for damage to public and private facilities and ajo N ived on av reducing costsed in N witharch and flood control releases. Also the duration associated , floods cit 864 of flood control releases would be less, further reducing damage to levees and river 4-16 1 control structures. No. • Less sediment control work would be required in the river channel, reducing maintenance costs for both Mexico and the United States. 3.16.5.4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS TO SPECIAL-STATUS STATUS AND HABITAT IN MEXICO 3.16.5.5 POTENTIAL EFFECTS TO HABITAT IN MEXICO The historic reduction in Colorado River flows below the NIB affected the ecosystem of the delta. However, these reductions have been instituted while meeting the requirements of an international treaty and the diversion and use of such treaty water is solely at Mexico's discretion. Except for periods of high flow or flood control operations, little water reaches the delta and the upper Gulf. It is not within Reclamation’s discretionary authority to make unilateral adjustments to water deliveries to the international border. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-23 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 452 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Riparian habitat, along the Colorado River between the NIB and the Gulf of California, requires scouring flood events for regeneration. Both the frequency and magnitude of excess flows are important for this regeneration. As discussed previously, changes in the potential frequency and magnitude of beneficial excess flows (flows greater than 250,000 af) is not significantly affected by interim surplus criteria. As shown in Figure 3.16-4, under baseline conditions, the frequency of such excess flows to Mexico could potentially decrease over the next 25 years. The frequencies under the interim surplus alternatives follow this trend albeit lower during the interim surplus criteria period, with the maximum differences between the surplus alternatives and the baseline conditions occurring in 2015. It is difficult to quantify the effect of reduced frequencies of excess flows to the existing habitat. The majority of the existing cottonwood-willow habitat regenerated during the 1983-87 Colorado River and 1993 Gila River flood events. This habitat has been sustained by a variety of potential water sources, including high groundwater and agricultural runoff. Special status species that utilize riparian habitat along the Mexican reach of the Colorado River could be affected by the decrease in frequency of flood control releases and excess flows that occur below the Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam. Existing ior Inter 17 clearing, e habitat is, and will continue to be adversely affected by wildfire, agricultural of th 29, 20 and clearing for channel maintenance and flood Dept. New habitat is less likely to control. . ber regenerate due to the decrease in flood tion v frequency. However, these events are likely to vem a No occur whether or not surplus vajo Nare ved on criteria implemented. As shown in Figure 3.16-1, all a i alternatives (includingin N 4, arch ited the6baseline condition) indicate a decrease in frequency of flood 6 c control releases and excess 8 14-1 flows over the period of analysis (2002 through 2050), due . Basin depletions. to increased Upper No The Cienega de Santa Clara is the largest wetland in the delta. This action will not affect the habitat occurring there, as the Cienega is sustained by irrigation return flows from the United States that will not be affected by the proposed action. The Rio Hardy wetlands occurring at the confluence of the Rio Hardy are also expected not to be affected by the action. These wetlands are also sustained by agricultural runoff, from the west side of the Mexicali Valley. 3.16.5.5.1 Potential Effects to Special Status-Species in Mexico 3.16.5.5.2 Desert pupfish The desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius) is a small killifish with a smoothly rounded body shape. Adults generally range from 2-3 inches in length. Males are smaller than females and during spawning the males are blue on the head and sides and have yellow edged fins. Most adults have narrow, dark, vertical bars on their sides. The species was described in 1853 from specimens collected in San Pedro River, Arizona. There are two recognized subspecies and possibly a third form (yet to be COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-24 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 453 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 described). The nominal subspecies, Cyprinodon macularius macularius, occurs in both the Salton Sea area of southern California and the Colorado River delta area in Mexico and is the species of concern, herein. The other subspecies is C.m. eremus and is endemic to Quitobaquito Spring, Arizona. The desert pupfish was listed as an endangered species on March 31, 1986. Critical habitat for the species was designated in the United States at the time of listing and included the Quitobaquito Spring which is in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, and San Felipe Creek along with its two tributaries Carrizo Wash and Fish Creek Wash in southern California. All of the former and parts of the latter were in federal ownership at the time of listing. Reclamation purchased the remaining private holdings along San Felipe Creek and its tributary washes and turned them over to California Department of Fish and Game in 1991. All of the designated critical habitat is now under state or federal ownership. Desert pupfish are adapted to harsh desert environments and are extremely hardy. They routinely occupy water of too poor quality for other fishes, most notably too warm and too salty. They can tolerate temperatures in excess of 110° F; oxygen levels as low as 0.1 ppm; and salinity nearly twice that of sea water (over 70,000 ppm). In addition to their absolute tolerance of these parameters, they are able to adjustterior and tolerate rapid, extreme changes to these same parameters (Marsh and Sadahe In Pupfish have a 1993). 017 of t pt. rapidlyrand can reproduce as 29, 2 short life span, usually only two years, but they De . mature embe many as three times during the year. ation v Nov jo N ve on i streams, Nava arcsmalld Desert pupfish inhabitin springs, h and 4 ited desertfish ,usually inhabit very creeks, marshesoftenmargins of cwater. The86 6 larger bodies of shallow water, too shallow 14-1 for other fishes. o. Present distribution of the subspecies C. m. macularius includes N natural populations in at least 12 locations in the United States and Mexico, as well as over 20 transplanted populations. One of the natural populations in Mexico is in the Cienega de Santa Clara, a 100,000acre shallow basin on the Colorado River delta 60 miles south of the United States/Mexico border. The area is about 90 percent unvegetated salt flats with a number of small marsh complexes along the eastern edge of the bowl where it abuts an escarpment. The area is disconnected from both the Colorado River and the Gulf (Sea of Cortez), however extreme high tides result in the lower half of the basin becoming inundated to a level of one foot or less of salt water from the gulf. The marsh areas on the east side are small and are spring fed. The largest marsh complex is on the northeast side where two agricultural drains provide relatively fresh water inflows. The desert pupfish occur in a number of these marsh complexes. Reclamation biologists discovered this population of desert pupfish in 1974 during preproject investigations for a feature of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project. At that time, inflow to the Cienega was by agricultural return flows from the COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-25 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 454 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Riito Drain in Mexico which provided about 35 cfs flow. The project feature being investigated was construction of a bypass canal for drain water from WMIDD. Desert pupfish were found in the marsh along with mosquito fish, sailfin mollies, carp and red shiners. The bypass canal was completed in 1978 and provided a steady flow of over 150 cfs to the marsh. Based upon aerial surveys, the added inflow caused the marsh to grow from an estimated 300 acres of vegetated area in 1974 to roughly 10,000 acres in 1985. Recent aerial surveys show that while the inflows have continued, the marsh has not continued to grow in size. Desert pupfish continue to exist in the marsh. The fish tend to inhabit the shallow edges of the marsh in vegetated areas. Desert pupfish from the Cienega were transported to Dexter National Fish Hatchery during May 1983, and many of the transplanted populations in the United States are of this subspecies and stem from this initial transplant. Reclamation has determined that desert pupfish would not be affected by the implementation of interim surplus criteria. The main population exists in the Cienega de Santa Clara which is not dependent on flows from the lower Colorado River. As such, the potentially reduced frequency of excess flows that may occur as a result of the adoption of interim surplus criteria would not have a direct effect on the water in the Cienega. The other populations of desert pupfish are not found proximate to the ior Inter 17 Colorado River. 0 f the 9, 2 pt. o . De ember 2 3.16.5.5.3 Vaquita nv Natio d on Nov vajo e The Vaquita (Phocaena sinus) is a smallv in Na 4, archi porpoise and is widely believed to be the most d cite 168 in endangered marine cetacean 6 the world (Klinowska 1991; Taylor and Gerrodette 1993). It is also o. 14 endemic species of marine mammal from the Gulf. N the only The Vaquita was listed as “Vulnerable” in 1978 by the IUCN-The World Conservation Union [formerly the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)] in their Red Data Book and also in the Mexican list of wild vertebrates in danger of extinction. The Vaquita was also listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) of Wild Fauna and Flora on 28 June 1979, and in February 1985 as an endangered species under the United States Endangered Species Act. Recently, this porpoise was classified as “Endangered” in the IUCN Cetacean Red Data Book. The Vaquita is very similar in external morphology to the harbor porpoise (Phocaena phocaena). Based on a very small sample and a maximum recorded total length of about five feet, the Vaquita may be the smallest of all the delphinoids (Brownell et al., 1987). The pectoral fins are larger and the dorsal fin is higher proportionally to the body length than in any other extant porpoise species (Brownell et al., 1987). The coloration of adult Vaquitas is unique. On the dorsal portion, the color is dark gray, the sides are pale gray, and the ventral surface is white with some pale-gray COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-26 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 455 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 elongated spots. The porpoise has a large, dark eye spot and lip patches that contrast with the gray background (Ramirez, 1993). The life history of the Vaquita appears, in many ways, to be similar to its better-studied congener, the harbour porpoise, from the Bay of Fundy, Canada and the Gulf of Maine. Both species have a maximum longevity of about 20 years (Hohn, et al., 1996). Little is known about the reproductive biology of the species. It has been suggested that calving occurs in the spring and mating in late spring or soon thereafter (Vidal, 1990). Food habits are also practically unknown; Fitch and Brownell (1968) reported small fish such as grunt (Orthopristis reddingi) and croaker (Bairdiella icistia) from stomach contents and Brownell (1982) also reported squid. More details regarding the life history of the Vaquita are documented in Vidal (1995) and Hohn, et al., (1996). The range of the Vaquita is restricted to the northwestern corner of the Gulf of California, Mexico (Jaramillo-Legorreta, et al., 1999), representing the most restricted range for any cetacean species (Ramirez 1993). Stranding data, mortalities in fishing nets and sightings of live animals all confirm that the present distribution of Vaquita is concentrated in a small area rear Rocas Consag in the northwestern Gulf of California (Gerrodette, et al., 1995). Sightings outside of this region (south of 30E 45' N latitude) may represent occasional departures by some individuals from the center of distribution ior Interto climatic (Silber and Norris, 1991) or temporary extensions in distribution due 017 f the pt. o er 29, 2 changes (Vidal, 1990). The region south of Puerto Penasco, Sonora, Mexico, remains . De b insufficiently monitored to further increase the accuracy m population estimates and to ion v Noveof at on establish the southern limit avthe geographic range of the species (Ramirez 1993). The of ajo N N thatarchived in range of the Vaquita overlaps 4, of the endangered totoaba, to which it may be linked cited 1993).6 ecologically (Ramirez -168 4 No. 1 A number of factors make the Vaquita an extremely difficult species to survey; habitat characteristics such as turbid water, fraction of the time spent at the surface, elusive behavior, and its erratic surfacing mode (Ramirez 1993). Despite these difficulties, and biases in collection of survey data, it is clear that the species is rare. The total population size is estimated to be 567 animals, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 177 to 1073 (Jaramillo-Legorreta, et al., 1999). The Vaquita is particularly vulnerable to incidental mortality in gillnets. The Vaquita has probably been incidentally caught in gillnets since the mid-1920’s. It can be assumed the significant expansion of the fishing industry during the early 1940’s further reduced the population (Vidal, 1995). Vaquita bycatch in gillnet fisheries was identified as a defining factor which may drive the species to extinction. The total estimated incidental mortality caused by the fleet of El Golfo de Santa Clara was 39 Vaquitas per year, over 17 percent of the most recent estimate of population size. El Golfo de Santa Clara is one of three main ports that support gillnet fisheries throughout the range of the Vaquita. The fishing effort for San Felipe, Baja California appears to be similar to that of El Golfo de Santa Clara, suggesting that this estimate of incidental mortality of Vaquitas represents a minimum (D’Agrosa, et al., 2000). COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-27 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 456 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Ramirez (1993) identified three actual and potential impacts to the Vaquita: incidental mortality caused by fishery activities, reduced Colorado River flows into the Gulf of California and pollution from various sources associated with Colorado River flows into the Gulf. Rojas-Bracho and Taylor (1999) concluded habitat alteration from reduced flow of the Colorado River does not currently appear to be a risk factor because productivity remains high in Vaquita habitat. Pollutant loads are low and pose low to no risk. Reduced fitness from inbreeding depression and loss of genetic variability are unlikely to pose high risk currently, though risk will increase if Vaquitas remain at low abundance over long periods of time. Mortality resulting from fisheries is the greatest immediate risk for Vaquitas. Therefore, Reclamation concluded that the implementation of any of the interim surplus criteria alternatives would have no effect on the Vaquita. 3.16.5.5.4 Totoaba The totoaba (Totoaba macdonaldi) is a fish endemic to the Gulf of California. In 1976 the species was listed as threatened under the Convertion on International Trade in rior Endangered Species (CITES). On May 21, 1979, the totoaba e Inte in7 United was listed the 1 th States as endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species fAct (44 FR 20 pt. o 29, 99). e .D ber vem ion v a seasonal migration within the Gulf and Totoaba are large schooling fishjo Nundertake n No that at va ed o may live to 25 years ofn Na i age (Cisneros-Mata et al., 1995). Totoaba are the largest of the rchiv a cit ad 1686 reported weight of over 100 kg and a length of over two sciaenid fish, withe maximum4, 1 meters (Flanagan and4 No. Hendrickson 1976). Adults spawn in the shallow waters of the Colorado River delta in the upper Gulf where they remain for several weeks before migrating south. Spawning originally occurred from February to June. More recently, it has been determined that spawning takes place from February through April (Cisnereo-Mata, et al., 1995). Juveniles are thought to emigrate south after spending two years in the upper Gulf, which is considered their nursery ground (Flanagan and Hendrickson 1976). Juvenile fish eat small benthic organisms, mainly crabs and fish, amphipods, and shrimp; adults eat larger more pelagic items, such as sardines and adult crabs (Flanagan and Hendrickson 1976, Cisneros-Mata et al., 1995). Many aspects of the biology and ecology of this species are unknown. The totoaba is thought to have ranged from the mouth of the Colorado River to Bahia Concepcion on the west coast of the Gulf and to the mouth of the El Fuerte River in the east (Jordan and Everman 1896 cited in Berdegue 1955). Historically, millions of totoaba migrated north in the spring to spawn at the mouth of the Colorado River (Gause 1969). COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-28 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 457 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 A more thorough description of the life history of the totoaba is found in CisnerosMata, et al., 1995. The first commercial harvesting of totoaba began in the early 1890s and by 1942, annual catches peaked at 2.3 million kg. In 1975, the catch had declined to 59,142 kg (Lagomarsino 1991). Beginning as early as 1940, the Mexican government imposed restrictions on the commercial fishery for totoaba, and in 1975, the government designated totoaba as endangered and declared an indefinite prohibition on all types of commercial and recreational fishing (Flanagan and Hendrickson 1976). In April-June 1994, the School of Marine Sciences of the Autonomous University of Baja California developed a field technique that permitted successful capture and transport of totoaba broodstock from the Upper Gulf to the laboratory at Ensanada (True et al., 1997). They were able to keep these specimens of totoaba alive and successfully spawned them. In October of 1997 they released 250 juveniles, back into the upper gulf. These were four months old and 20-25 cm long. Despite the closure of the fishery, illegal exploitation continues. It is believed that the incidental catch of juvenile totoaba in the shrimp trawling fishery is the principal factor affecting recovery of the species (Barrera-Buevara, 1990). Much of the r io illegal Inter 17 gillnetting for totaba occurs during the spawning migration. hCurrent knowledge 0 ft e indicates that decrease of the adult stock may be responsible for 29,decline experienced pt. o er the 2 e D by the totoaba population (Cisneros-Mata,n v. 1995).emb tio et al., ov N Na vajo hivedaon Cisneros-Mata, et al., in Na concluded that negative impact on totoaba due to d (1995) , arc decreased flowcite the16864 River may be questionable because the claimed from - Colorado 14 effects would have caused extinction of totoaba over 40 years time. Flanagan and No. Hendrickson (1976) concluded that recruitment and over-fishing explained the decline better than habitat alteration. It is estimated that a steady flow of water reaching an annual total of 1.6 maf would be necessary to restore the brackish water conditions that historically occurred in the estuary (US Bureau of Reclamation file data). Even if that amount of water were available at present, Reclamation has no control over Colorado River water once it reaches the NIB. As illustrated in Figure 3.16-1, the adoption of interim surplus criteria has the potential to reduce the frequency of occurence of excess flows below the Mexico diversion of Morelos Dam by as much as seven percent during the interim surplus criteria period (California and Shortage Protection alternatives in year 2016). However, the range of excess flows (magnitude) that are expected to occur, albeit less frequent, under the surplus alternatives are not expected to vary from those observed under baseline conditions (see Figures 3.16-4 and 3.16-5). Therefore, based upon this potential reduced frequency of excess flows, the inadvertent mortality resulting from commercial fishing as described above and Reclamation’s lack of discretion over Colorado River water in Mexico led Reclamation to determine that the interim surplus criteria may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the totoaba. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-29 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 458 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.16.5.5.5 CHAPTER 3 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Willow flycatchers (Empidonax traillii extimus) are found throughout North America and are further divided taxonomically into four subspecies, E.t. brewseri, E.t. adastus, E. t. traillii, and E.t. extimus. The latter, E.t. extimus, the southwestern willow flycatcher, breeds on the Lower Colorado River and its tributaries (McKernan et al., 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000). In January 1992, the Service was petitioned to list the southwestern willow flycatcher, Empidonax traillii extimus as an endangered species. In July 1993, the species was proposed as endangered with critical habitat (58 FR 39495). On February 27 1995, the Service listed the southwestern willow flycatcher as an endangered species (60 FR 10694). The Service has not issued a recovery plan to date and the designated critical habitat does not include the lower Colorado River (60 FR 10694). As a member of the genus Empidonax, Willow flycatchers are known for the difficulty in identifying individuals to species in the field (Phillips et al., 1964; Peterson 1990; Sogge et al., 1997a). The Southwestern willow flycatcher is a small bird, approximately 5.75 inches in length, with a grayish green back and wings, whitish throat, light grey olive breast, and pale yellowish body. Two white wing bars are r visible. The upper mandible is dark, the lower light. The most distinguishable te io Intherabsent or faintly e taxonomic characteristic of the Southwestern willow flycatcher is 2017 of th p can e 2 positively visible eye ring. The Southwestern willow flycatchert. onlyrbe 9, . De b differentiated in the field from other species v its genus by its distinctive "fitzbew" ion of Novem at o N ed on song. avaj v in N 4 archi ited flycatchers, nest in riparian habitat characterized by dense stands c Southwestern willow -1686 14 of intermediate sized shrubs or trees. Most Southwestern willow flycatcher nests are No. located in the fork of a shrub or tree from four to 25 feet above the ground (Unitt 1987; Sogge et al., 1997a). These trees are either in or adjacent to soils that are either saturated or have surface water (Phillips et al., 1964; Muiznieks et al., 1994, McKernan 1998). The southwestern willow flycatcher is an insectivore, foraging within and above dense riparian habitat, catching insects in the air or gleaning them from the surrounding foliage. It also forages along water edges, backwaters, and sandbars adjacent to nest sites. Details on specific prey items can be found in Drost et al., (1998). On the Lower Colorado River, Southwestern willow flycatchers begin arriving on breeding territories in early May and continue to be present until August, with some records into early September (McKernan, 1998). Recent studies have documented nest building as early as May 1 (McKernan 1997) and fledging dates as late as September 9 (McKernan 1998). A long-distance migrant, the Southwestern willow flycatcher winters in Mexico from Nayarit and southwestern Oaxaca south to Panama and possibly extreme northwestern Columbia and migrates widely through the southern United States occurring as a regular migrant south to the limits of the wintering range (Peterson 1990; Sogge et al., 1997a, AOU 1998). Recent field studies in Costa Rica by Koronkiewicz and Whitfield (1999) COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-30 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 459 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 and studies of museum specimens by Phil Unitt (1999) collaborate previous information on the species’ range. One specimen of willow flycatcher captured in Costa Rica during the winter of 1999 was banded at the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in southern Nevada in July 1998 (Koronkiewicz and Whitfield 1999). The Ash Meadows NWR is within the identified breeding range of this southwestern subspecies and thus the capture in Costa Rica is the most recent confirmed wintering site of E.t. extimus. Breeding range for the species as a whole extends as far south as northern Sonora, and northern Baja California (AOU 1998) and north into Canada. Breeding range for the southwestern subspecies of the willow flycatcher, E. t. extimus, extends from extreme southern Utah and Nevada, through Arizona, New Mexico, and southern California, but records from west Texas and extreme northern Baja California and Sonora, Mexico remain lacking to date (Unitt 1987). Molina (1998) observed the species in exotic plantings in the El Golfo de Santa Clara fishing village, and in the saltcedar-mesquite-acacia woodland corridor along the pozos near El Doctor in 1997. The species has also been documented at El Doctor wetlands, Colorado River delta, Sonora, Mexico June 7 and 8, 1999 (Hinojosa-Huerta, 2000). These sighting confirm the area is used for migration, but does not confirm breeding. The presence of the subspecies after June 15 is required to confirm breeding (Sogge et al., 1997; Braden and McKernan 1998). A survey for southwestern willow flycatcher was conducted on the ior Inter birds were Copopah Indian Reservation near Yuma, Arizona in 2000. tTwenty-six017 f he pt.Itowas er 29, 2 the riparian detected on May 22 and June 6, 2000, and noneDe v. later. vemb concluded habitat on the Reservation was being ation a stopover area during the migration used as N n No (Garcia-Hernandez, et al., 2000).o vaj ed o a iv in N rch ited 6864, a cSouthwestern willow flycatchers found during the past five years of The majority of -1 o. 14 surveys on theN Lower Colorado River have been found in saltcedar, Tamarix ramosissima, or a mixture of saltcedar and native cottonwood and willow, especially Gooddings willow, Salix gooddingii, coyote willow, S. exigua and Fremont cottonwood, Populus fremontii. Based on available information at the time of this writing, aside from this general description, no clear distinctions can be made based on perennial species composition or foliage height profiles, as to what constitutes appropriate southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. Due to the difficulty in determining the presence of this species in dense habitat, their presence should not be ruled out until surveys have been conducted if habitat meeting the general description given above is present. Historically, the Southwestern willow flycatcher was widely distributed and fairly common throughout its range, especially in southern California and Arizona (Unitt 1987; Schlorff 1990). Nest and egg collections by Herbert Brown suggest that the Southwestern willow flycatcher was a common breeder along the lower Colorado River near Yuma in 1902 (Unitt 1987). Grinnell (1914) also believed that the Southwestern willow flycatcher bred along the lower Colorado River due to the similarities in habitat between the lower Colorado COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-31 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 460 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 River and other known breeding sites. He noted the abundance of Southwestern willow flycatchers observed in the willow association and possible breeding behavior. However, the date of his expedition corresponds more to the migration season of the Southwestern willow flycatcher with only a small overlap with the beginning of the breeding season. In 1993, the Service estimated that only 230 to 500 nesting pairs existed throughout its entire range (58 FR 39495). However, since extensive surveying has been implemented, this number has likely increased, especially on the lower Colorado River where the species was thought to have been extirpated (Hunter et al., 1987b; Rosenberg et al., 1991; McKernan and Braden 1999). Sixty-four nesting attempts were documented on the lower Colorado River from southern Nevada to Needles, California in 1998 (McKernan and Braden 1999). Several factors have caused the decline in Southwestern willow flycatcher populations. Extensive areas of suitable riparian habitat have been lost due to river regulation and channelization, agricultural and urban development, mining, road construction, and overgrazing (Phillips et al., 1964; Johnson and Haight 1984; Unitt 1987; Rosenberg et al., 1991; Sogge et al., 1997a). The total acreage of riparian vegetation has changed little in the last 20 years (Anderson and Ohmart 1976; Younker anderior Anderson 1986), Int (Rosenberg et al., although there is less native vegetation and more non-nativehe f t present 2017 pt. o er 2 willow flycatcher 1991). The most recent estimate of historical, potentially suitable 9, . De e the b habitat as delineated from 1938 aerialation v photography from m Grand Canyon to Mexico Nov is 89,203 acres (USBR 1999d). jOnly somed on of this potentially suitable habitat a o N i e portion Navhabitatcforvthe flycatcher, as the microclimate and other in can be assumed toed suitable 4, ar h it be 686 cwhich existed at the time are undeterminable. The total amount of factors required -1 o. 14 occupied habitat for willow flycatchers along the lower Colorado River in the United N States is estimated to be slightly over 6,000 acres (USBR 1999). A certain amount of habitat that apparently has the necessary components to be utilized as breeding habitat is not always being used (McKernan and Braden, 1998). This could indicate that lack of breeding habitat may not be what is limiting the Southwestern willow flycatcher’s population. In December, 1998, biologists from the Bureau of Reclamation, San Bernardino County Museum, and the Upper Gulf of California and Colorado River Delta Biosphere Reserve conducted an aerial survey of the Rio Hardy and the Colorado River to determine potentially suitable Southwestern willow flycatcher breeding habitat. Results of this survey indicate suitable habitat is present in the vicinity of Campo Mosqueda and Cucapa El Mayor and San Luis, Sonora along the Rio Colorado. Southwestern willow flycatchers utilize dense riparian habitat with moist soil or standing water present. Large volume flood control releases and Gila River flood flows are the primary condition under which riparian habitats are established in the delta and a high ground water table is needed to maintain this habitat. Potential reductions in the frequency of excess flows below Morelos Dam resulting from the adoption of either the Basin States, Six States, California or Shortage Protection alternative could potentially reduce the COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-32 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 461 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 amount of water available for groundwater recharge in the areas adjacent to the main channel of the Colorado River over an extended period of time. This, coupled with continued groundwater production in these areas, could affect the high groundwater table that is needed to maintain habitat used by the Southwestern willow flycatcher. However, Reclamation believes that groundwater recharge in these area is more a result of percolation induced by agricultural irrigation, drainage water and the more frequent but lower-volume excess flows that are attributable to unused water delivery orders (by users in the Lower Basin states) that make it past Morelos Dam. This belief, considered with the uncertainty associated with excess flows, led to Reclamation’s determination that the adoption of interim surplus criteria may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Southwestern willow flycatcher. 3.16.5.5.6 Yuma Clapper Rail Yuma clapper rails (Rallus longirostris yumanensis) are federally endangered. They are found in emergent wetland vegetation such as dense or moderately dense stands of cattails (Typha latifolia and T. domingensis) and bulrush (Scirpus californicus) (Eddleman 1989; Todd 1986). They can also occur, in lesser numbers, in sparse cattailbulrush stands or in dense reed (Phragmites australis) stands (Rosenberg et al., 1991). The most productive clapper rail areas consist of a mosaic of uneven-aged marsh rior Inteet al.,7 vegetation interspersed with open water of variable depths the f (Conway 01 1993). p . o er are 2 Annual fluctuation in water depth and residual marshtvegetation 29, important factors in . De emb determining habitat use by Yuma clapper rails (Eddleman 1989). ion v ov at N N vajo hived on Yuma clapper rails may begin exhibiting courtship and pairing behavior as early as in Na rc ited and 64, a cbuilding168 incubation can begin by mid-March, with the majority of February. Nest 4nests being initiated1 No. between late April and late May (Eddleman 1989, Conway et al., 1993). The rails build their nests on dry hummocks, on or under dead emergent vegetation and at the bases of cattail or bulrush. Sometimes they weave nests in the forks of small shrubs that lie just above moist soil or above water that is up to about 2 feet deep. The incubation period is 20-23 days (Ehrlich et al., 1988, Kaufman 1996) so the majority of clapper rail chicks should be fledged by August. Yuma clapper rails nest in a variety of different micro habitats within the emergent wetland vegetation type, with the only common denominator being a stable substrate. Nests can be found in shallow water near shore or in the interior of marshes over deep water (Eddleman 1989). Nests usually do not have a canopy overhead as surrounding marsh vegetation provides protective cover. Crayfish (Procambarus clarki) are the preferred prey of Yuma clapper rails. Crayfish were introduced into the lower Colorado River about 1934. This food source and the development of marsh areas resulting from river control such as dams and river management helped to extend the breeding range of the Yuma clapper rail. The original range of the Yuma clapper rail was primarily the Colorado River delta. The southernmost confirmed occurrence of Yuma clapper rail in Mexico was three birds COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-33 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 462 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 collected at Mazaltan, Sinaloa; Estero Mescales, Nayarit; and inland at Laguna San Felipe, Puebla (Banks and Tomlinson 1974). Crayfish comprise as much as 95 percent of the diet of some Yuma clapper rail populations (Ohmart and Tomlinson 1977). Availability of crayfish may be a limiting factor in clapper rail populations and is believed to be a factor in the migratory habits of the rail (Rosenberg et al., 1991). Eddleman (1989), however, has found that crayfish populations in some areas remain high enough to support clapper rails all year and that seasonal movement of clapper rails can not be correlated to crayfish availability. One issue of concern with the Yuma clapper rail is selenium. Eddleman (1989) reported selenium levels in Yuma clapper rails and eggs and in crayfish used as food were well within levels that will cause reproductive effects in mallards. Rusk (1991) reported a mean of 2.24 ppm dry weight selenium in crayfish samples from six lower Colorado River backwaters from Havasu National Wildlife Refuge, near Needles, California to Mittry Lake, near Yuma, Arizona. Over the past decade, there has been an apparent two to five fold increase in selenium concentrations in crayfish, the primary prey species for the Yuma clapper rail (King et al., 2000). Elevated concentrations of selenium (4.21- 15.5 ppm dry weight) were present in 95 percent of the samples collected from known food items of rails. Crayfish from the CienegariorSanta Clara in te de Inthe United States, but Mexico contained 4.21 ppm selenium, a level lower than f the in those 017 p . o e 29, 2 still above the concern threshold. Recommendations tfrom thisrlatest report on the . De b subject conclude that if selenium concentrations continue to rise, invertebrate and fish ion v Novem at eating birds could experiencevajo N inducedn selenium ed o reproductive failure and subsequent ch in Naal.,,2000). iv population declines d te (King et 4 ar ci 686 14 1 .may-be impacted by man-caused disturbance in their preferred Yuma clapper No rail habitat. In recent years the use of boats and personal watercraft has increased along the lower Colorado River. This has led to speculation that the disturbance caused by water activities such as those may have a negative impact on species of marsh dwelling birds. This subspecies is found along the Colorado River from Needles, California, to the Gulf, at the Salton Sea and other localities in the Imperial Valley, California, along the Gila River from Yuma to at least Tacna, Arizona, and several areas in central Arizona, including Picacho Reservoir (Todd 1986; Rosenberg et al., 1991). In 1985, Anderson and Ohmart (1985) estimated a population size of 750 birds along the Colorado River north of the International Boundary. The Service (1983) estimated a total of 1,700 to 2,000 individuals throughout the range of the subspecies. Based on call count surveys, the population of Yuma clapper rail in the United States appears to be holding steady (Service, Phoenix, Arizona, unpublished data). Due to the variation in surveying over time, these estimates can only be considered the minimum number of birds present (Eddleman 1989; Todd 1986). The range of the Yuma clapper rail has expanded in the past 25 years and continues to do so (Ohmart and Smith 1973; Monson and Phillips 1981; Rosenberg et al., 1991, COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-34 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 463 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 SNWA 1998, McKernan 1999), so there is a strong possibility that population size may increase. Yuma clapper rails are known to expand into desired habitat when it becomes available. This is evidenced by the colonization of the Finne-Ramer habitat management unit in Southern California. This unit was modified to provide marsh habitat specifically for Yuma clapper rail and a substantial resident population exists there. There is also recent documentation of the species in Las Vegas Wash, Virgin River and the lower Grand Canyon (SNWA 1998; McKernan 1999). A substantial population of Yuma clapper rail exists proximate to the Colorado River delta in Mexico. Eddleman (1989) estimated a total of 450 to 970 Yuma clapper rails were present there in 1987. The birds were located in the Cienega, Sonora, Mexico (200-400 birds), along a dike road on the delta proper (35-140 birds), and at the confluence of the Rio Hardy and Colorado River (200-400 birds). Piest and Campoy (AGFD) detected a total of 240 birds responding to taped calls in the Cienega. From these data, they estimate a total population of around 5,000 rails in the approximately cattail habitat the Cienega. Data from 1999 estimated the clapper rail population in the Cienega at 6400. Yuma clapper rail were thought to be a migratory species, the majority of them migrating south into Mexico during the winter, with only a small population resident in ior InterYuma clapper rail e the United States during the winter. Eddleman (1989) concluded the 017 of th 29, 2 was not as migratory as once thought and estimatedpt. approximately 70 percent remained . De ember in or near their home range during the winter. ion v ov at N N vajo hived on a A Recovery Plan was in N implemented rc 1983 for the Yuma clapper rail. The criteria for a in ited 6states,there must be a stable breeding population of 700-1000 c species 864 downlisting of the 4-1 individuals forNo. 1 of 10 years. Other goals to be met include: a period • Clarifying the breeding and wintering status in Mexico. • Obtaining an agreement with Mexico for management and preservation of the species. • Development of management plans for federal and state controlled areas where the rails are known to breed. Written agreements are made with federal and state agencies to protect sufficient wintering and breeding habitat to support the proposed population numbers. As of 1994 not all of the above recovery actions had been met, and the Yuma clapper rail remains classified as endangered. The recovery goals are currently being clarified by the Service based on information provided by rail experts in 1999. Yuma clapper rail use dense stands of cattail marsh habitat in the delta. The currently known populations of Yuma clapper rail in Mexico are found in areas supported COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-35 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 464 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 primarily by agricultural drainage water and would therefore, not be affected by potential reductions in excess flows available to Mexico as a result of the adoption of surplus criteria. Therefore, Reclamation determined that the Yuma clapper rail would not be affected by implementation of any of the interim surplus alternatives. 3.16.5.5.7 Yellow-billed Cuckoo The Yellow-billed cuckoo is proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Cuckoos are riparian obligates, found along the lower Colorado River in mature riparian forests characterized by a canopy and mid-story of cottonwood, willow and saltcedar, with little ground cover (Haltermann 1998). Within the area of interest, cuckoos occur during the breeding season from interior California and the lower parts of the Grand Canyon, and Virgin River delta in southern Nevada (McKernan 1999) south to southern Arizona, Baja California, Chihuahua, Choahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas and have been recorded breeding as far south as Yucatan. The species winters in the southern United States, and from northern South America to Northern Argentina (AOU 1998, Hughes 1999). Cuckoos are largely insectivorous, with cicadas, (Diceroprocta apache) comprising 44.6 percent of their diet on the Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge (Halterman 1998). The Bill Williams River is a tributary of the lower Colorado River near Parker Dam, Arizona. The lower 10 miles of thisor tributary is nteri 7 Icomprised of a large e designated as the Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge, of th 29 201 expanse of native cottonwood and willow habitat, ept. interspersed rwith ,saltcedar. This area .D be is believed to contain the largest cuckooion v o em at population invthe lower Colorado River Valley. N N vajo hived on Na In February 1998, the iwestern subspecies of the Yellow-billed cuckoo, C. a. ed n 64, arc itpetitioned8for listing under the ESA. The Service determined that the c occidentalis, was -16 o 14 petition presented .substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the N listing of the species may be warranted (Service 2000). Surveys for this species were conducted throughout Arizona in 1998 and 1999 (Corman and Magill 2000), and have been conducted on the Bill Williams River NWR, beginning in 1993 (Halterman 1994). In 2000, surveys have been expanded into southern Nevada and also include the Bill Williams River and Alamo Lake in Arizona. As presented in Table 3.16-4, the numbers of cuckoos detected have fluctuated widely since surveying began in 1993 on the Bill Williams River. In 1997, on the Kern River in California, numbers of cuckoos detected declined in a similar manner as that seen on the Bill Williams River during the same time period, 1994-1997. On the Kern River, cuckoos detected declined from 14 pairs in 1996 to six pairs in 1997 (Halterman 1998); on the Bill Williams, cuckoos detected declined from 26 pairs to 12 pairs. In 1990, numbers were back up on the Bill Williams, but down again in 1999. In other areas of the lower Colorado River in the United States, cuckoos have been detected as far south as Gadsden and Imperial National Wildlife Refuge (Corman and Magill 2000, McKernan 1999). COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-36 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 465 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Table 3.16-4 Yellow-billed Cuckoos Survey Results Survey Results BWRNWR Pairs Detected Single Birds Detected Nests Found Date First Pair Encountered 1993 22 11 6 June 25 1994 26 14 5 June 27 1997 12 11 3 June 20 1998 20 11 4 June18 1999 6 8 2 June 5 Without complete and standardized surveys, it can only be speculated that the birds are present in the Colorado River delta in Mexico. The range of this species includes the Colorado River delta (AOU, 1998). Yellow-billed cuckoos utilize mature riparian habitat with some mid- and under-story present. Large volume flood control releases and Gila River flood flows are the only condition under which riparian habitats are established in the delta, and a high ground water table is needed to maintain this habitat. Potential reductions in the frequency of excess flows below Morelos Dam resulting from the adoption of either the Basin States, Six States, California or Shortage Protection alternative could potentially reduce the amount of water available for groundwater recharge in the areas adjacent to the main or nteri 7 IThis, coupled with channel of the Colorado River over an extended period of time. f the high 01 continued groundwater production in these areas, could o pt. affect the 9, 2 groundwater 2 v. De vember n by the Yellow-billed cuckoo. However, table that is needed to maintain habitat tio a used No Reclamation believes that groundwater recharge in these area is more a result of ajo N ived on v a percolation inducedd in N by agricultural rch irrigation, drainage water and the more frequent but ite flows864, a attributable to unused water delivery orders (by c lower-volume excess 4-16 that are 1 users in the Lower. Basin states) that make it past Morelos Dam. This belief, combined No with the uncertainty associated with excess flows, led to Reclamation’s determination that the adoption of interim surplus criteria may affect, but is not likely to adversely impact the Yellow-billed cuckoo. 3.16.5.5.8 California Black Rail California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) is a federal species of concern and is protected by the state of California as a threatened species. Black rails are most often found in shallow salt marshes, but also utilize freshwater marshes, wet meadow-like areas and riparian habitat along rivers. Both males and females of this species exhibit slate black plumage with narrow, white barring on the back and flanks and a chestnut nape with a very short tail and a small black bill. Juveniles look much the same as adults, but their eyes are brown or olive rather than red like those of adults. Full grown birds measure about five to six inches in length. The life history and status of the California black rail are poorly known (Wilbur 1974, Evens et al., 1991), due to its secretive nature and tendency to inhabit densely vegetated marshes. The preferred habitat of the California black rail is characterized by minimum COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-37 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 466 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 water fluctuations that provide moist surfaces or very shallow water, gently sloping shorelines, and dense stands of marsh vegetation (Repking and Ohmart 1977). California black rails are most often found in areas where cattails (Typha sp.) and California bulrush (Scirpus californicus) are the predominant plant species (Rosenberg et al., 1991). While California black rails are more commonly associated with cattail and bulrush, habitat structure as described above was more effective than plant composition in predicting California black rail use of habitat. Water depth appeared to be a limiting factor, as the California black rails prefer shallow water (Flores and Eddleman 1995). The breeding season along the lower Colorado River extends from April through July (Flores and Eddleman 1995). California black rails eat mainly aquatic insects and some seeds (Ehrlich 1988, Rosenberg et al., 1991, Kaufmann 1996). This subspecies of California black rail occurs along the California coast from Tomales Bay in Marin County, south to San Diego and extreme northern Baja California and Veracruz. It also occurs in interior California around the Salton Sea and along the Colorado River from Imperial National Wildlife Refuge south to the International Boundary (Peterson 1990; Rosenberg et al., 1991, AOU 1998). The species has also been recorded as recently as 1997 at the Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge and at Havasu National Wildlife Refuge. Historically, the California black rail primarily occurred along the California coastline. In the mid-1970s, rioestimate of an r Inte 17 between 100 and 200 individuals was given for the areaof the Imperial National between 0 t. pand Ohmart29, 2 No e Wildlife Refuge and Mittry Lake, Arizona (Repking r 1977). v. D vembe quantitative data are yet available on the on ati current populations of the California black rail No N along the lower Colorado River jo in thevColorado River delta area, although the va or hi ed on Na rc species is presenttind in areas. Surveys are currently underway on the Lower Colorado i e both 6864, a c River between Havasu -1 14 National Wildlife Refuge and Yuma, Arizona. Various No. agencies, including BLM and the Service, survey California black rail concurrently during surveys for the Yuma clapper rail. California black rails utilize very shallow marshes containing cattail and bulrush and are sensitive to small changes in water levels. Some surface water is necessary for their presence to occur. Like the Yuma clapper rail, they are primarily found in areas supported by agricultural drainage water and would not be affected by the potential reduction in the frequency of occurrence of excess flows that may result from the adoption of interim surplus criteria. Therefore, Reclamation believes the California black rail will not be affected by implementation of any of the interim surplus alternatives. 3.16.5.5.9 Elf Owl The Elf owl (Micrathene whitneyi) is listed as endangered species by the state of California. The Elf owl is near the limit of its northwestern (central Riverside County, California) range along the Colorado River (AOU 1998,) and, as such, has never been abundant here (Rosenberg 1991). However, declines associated with loss of trees containing suitable cavities for nesting and loss of appropriate foraging habitat are COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-38 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 467 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 indicated (Rosenberg 1991). Elf Owls utilize abandoned woodpecker cavities or natural cavities for nesting. Declines in populations of woodpeckers on the lower Colorado River have been documented as well (Rosenberg 1991). In other parts of its range, namely central Arizona, saguaro cacti are more often used by Elf owls than on the lower Colorado River. Although saguaros are utilized along the Colorado River to some degree (as well as cottonwood, willow and mesquites), this cacti species is at its northwestern range, not extending further north than Fort Mojave, Arizona on the river. Therefore, it is less abundant in the Mohave Desert than in the Sonoran Desert. To the south in Mexico, the winter range of Elf owls is from southern Sinaloa, Michoacan, Morelos and Guerrero, Pueblo and northwestern Oaxaca (AOU 1998). Breeding occurs in Coahuila and Nuevo Leon south to Sonora, Guanajuato and Puebla and in southern Baja California (AOU 1998). Elf owls have been documented during breeding season as far south as Picacho, Imperial Co., California as recently as 1998 (McKernan 1999). Recent field documentation of breeding for this species in the Colorado River delta are not available at this time. However, there is suitable habitat present there (Briggs and Cornelius 1998 Glynn 1999), and similar species, such as the great horned owl, have been recently documented there (Hinojosa-Huerta, 2000). As with the willow flycatcher, if suitable habitat is present, the presence of the species should not be ruled out until adequate surveys have been conducted. rior te e In of th 29, 20 7 . enoughrto contain1either natural t Elf owls utilize mature riparian habitat with trees large Dep e n v. Largevemb flood control releases and cavities or cavities excavated by woodpeckers. atio on No volume Gila River flood flows are the ajo N ved under which riparian habitats are vonly conditions in Na higharchi water table is needed to maintain this habitat. established in thetdelta and a 4, ground ci ed the 86 Potential reductions in -16frequency of excess flows below Morelos Dam resulting 14 from the adoption .of either the Basin States, Six States, California or Shortage No Protection alternative could potentially reduce the amount of water available for groundwater recharge in the areas adjacent to the main channel of the Colorado River over an extended period of time. This, coupled with continued groundwater production in these areas, could affect the high groundwater table that is needed to maintain habitat used by the Elf owl. However, Reclamation believes that groundwater recharge in these area is more a result of percolation induced by agricultural irrigation, drainage water and the more frequent but lower-volume excess flows that are attributable to unused water delivery orders (by users in the Lower Basin states) that make it past Morelos Dam. This belief, combined with the uncertainty associated with excess flows, led to Reclamation’s determination that the adoption of interim surplus criteria is not likely to adversely impact the Elf owl. 3.16.5.5.10 Bell’s Vireo Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii arizonae) is protected as an endangered species by the state of California. It is a small, insectivorous grayish to greenish-yellow bird is found in riparian habitat along the lower Colorado River and its tributaries in dense brush, including willow, cottonwood, mesquite and saltcedar. In the vicinity of the lower COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-39 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 468 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Colorado River, the species breeds from interior California, southern Nevada and northwestern and east-central Arizona to northern Baja California, south through Sonora, southern Durango, Zacatecas, and southern Tamaulipas. During winter, it can be found as far south as north-central Nicaragua (AOU 1998). Bell’s vireos experienced a decline in southern California and throughout the lower Colorado River beginning in the 1950s. Between 1974-1984, breeding was documented at only a few locations on the river, all north of Cibola NWR (Rosenberg et al., 1991). Loss of habitat due to extensive flooding in 1983 is thought to have contributed to this decline. Stable populations in other parts of its range, including northern Mexico, prevented the species from being listed as endangered after being proposed in 1981 (Rosenberg et al., 1991). Without standardized surveys, it is difficult to determine the species’ current abundance. The species appears to be recovering from previous lows as its presence has been documented recently as far north as Meadow Valley Wash and the lower Virgin River in southern Nevada and below Imperial Dam to the south (McKernan 1999) and is one of the most frequently heard species throughout the area. Habitat does exist across the border in Mexico similar to what is utilized by this species in the United States and observations of this species there confirm its presence during the breeding r season (Hinojosa-Huerta, 2000). terio e In of th mesquite 7 . saltcedar,29, 201 cottonwood Bell’s vireos utilize mature riparian habitat withDept dense er n v. control emb and Gila River flood and willow stands present. Large volume flood v releases io at No flows are the only conditionsvajo N ved on habitats are established in the delta under which riparian Na rchi and a high grounded in table is ,needed to maintain this habitat. Potential reductions in it water 6864 a c the frequency of excess 1 4- flows below Morelos Dam resulting from the adoption of either o. 1States, California or Shortage Protection alternative could the Basin States, Six N potentially reduce the amount of water available for groundwater recharge in the areas adjacent to the main channel of the Colorado River over an extended period of time. This, coupled with continued groundwater production in these areas, could affect the high groundwater table that is needed to maintain habitat used by the Bell’s vireo. However, Reclamation believes that groundwater recharge in these area is more a result of percolation induced by agricultural irrigation, drainage water and the more frequent but lower-volume excess flows that are attributable to unused water delivery orders (by users in the Lower Basin states) that make it past Morelos Dam. This belief combined with the uncertainty associated with excess flows, led to Reclamation’s determination that the adoption of interim surplus criteria may affect but is not likely to adversely impact the Bell’s vireo. 3.16.5.5.11 Clark’s Grebe Clark’s grebe (Aechmophorus clarkii) is a species of special concern to the state of– Arizona. Extensive knowledge of this species in the Colorado River delta in Mexico is not available, so any speculation on its abundance and status there is based on known available habitat only. Clark’s grebes utilize marshes, lakes and bays with emergent COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-40 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 469 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 vegetation and can also be found on inland reservoirs and rivers (AOU 1998, Kaufman 1996, Rosenberg 1991). In the area of interest, the species is resident year round in Mexico south to Guerrero and western Puebla, and north of Mexico on lakes that do not freeze in winter, and winters from central California south to southern Baja California (AOU 1998). Clark’s grebes have been documented at the Cienega de Santa Clara (Hinojosa-Huerta, 2000). The species is present during winter on the lower Colorado River and has been documented nesting in cattail marshes on the lower Colorado River at Havasu National Wildlife Refuge, near Needles, California in recent years (M. Connolly Havasu National Wildlife Refuge, pers.comm). Threats to this species include recreation during breeding, as increased boating activity can swamp nests. In addition, as with other fish-eating species on the river, bioaccumulation of selenium in grebes is a potential threat both in the United States and in Mexico (King et al., 2000). Clark’s grebes utilize marsh habitat for nesting and some surface water is needed to maintain this habitat. They also require open water and a prey base of small fish and crustaceans for foraging. Like the Yuma clapper rail, they are primarily found in areas supported by agricultural drainage water and would not be affected by potential reductions in the frequency of occurrence of excess flows that may erior from the result Int adaptation of the interim surplus criteria. These factors ledtReclamation 17determine 0 to f he pt. o of 29 2 that the Clark’s grebe will not be affected by implementationer any,of the interim . De emb surplus alternatives. ion v ov at N N vajo hived on in Na rc ited 6864, a c -1 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.16-41 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 470 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.17 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS As discussed in this chapter, impacts are associated with changes in the difference between probabilities of occurrence for specific resource issues under study when comparing the action alternatives to baseline conditions. Reclamation has determined that most of the potential impacts identified are not of a magnitude that would require specific mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate their occurrence because the small changes in probabilities of occurrence are within Reclamation’s current operational regime and authorities under applicable federal law. In recognition of potential effects that could occur under baseline conditions or with implementation of the interim surplus criteria alternatives under consideration, Reclamation has developed a number of environmental commitments, described below, that will be undertaken if interim surplus criteria are implemented. Some commitments are the result of compliance with specific consultation requirements. 3.17.1 WATER QUALITY Reclamation will continue to monitor salinity and TDS the Colorado River as part of the ongoing Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program to ensure compliance with the numeric criteria on the river as set forth in the Forum’s 1999 Annual rior te Review. n the I , 20 7 . of Water Quality1Forum and the Reclamation will continue to participate in the. Lakept De Mead er 29 n va principal mb funding partner in studies e Las Vegas Wash Coordination Committee as Natio on Nov and ajoWashianddLake Mead. Reclamation is an active of water quality in the Las Vegas Nav h ve d in 6 Las Vegas Wash wetlands. partner in the restoration of the4, arc cite 168 14No. Reclamation is and will continue to acquire riparian and wetland habitat around Lake Mead and on the Lower Colorado River related to ongoing and projected routine operations. Reclamation will continue to participate with the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection and Kerr-McGee Chemical Company in the perchlorate remediation program of groundwater discharge points along Las Vegas Wash which will reduce the amount of this contaminant entering the Colorado River. Reclamation will continue to monitor river operations, reservoir levels and water supply and make this information available to the CRMWG, agencies and the public. See also Reclamation’s website (http.//www.lc.usbr.gov and http.//www.uc.usbr.gov). COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.17-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 471 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.17.2 RIVERFLOW ISSUES Reclamation will continue to work with the stakeholders in the AMP to develop an experimental flow program for the operations of Glen Canyon Dam which includes Beach/Habitat-Building-Flows (BHBFs) and is designed to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to and improve the values for which GCNP and GCNRA were established. 3.17.3 AQUATIC RESOURCES Reclamation will initiate a temperature monitoring program below Hoover Dam with state and other federal agencies to document temperature changes related to baseline conditions and implementation of interim surplus criteria and assess their potential effects on listed species and the sport fishery. The existing hydrolab below Hoover Dam will be modified as necessary to provide this temperature data. 3.17.4 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES Section 7 consultation is in progress and commitments will be identified in the ROD. ior Inter 17 f the Reclamation is initiating a bathymetric survey of Lake. Mead in fiscal20 2001 and pt o er 29, year . De e Area will coordinate with the Lake Mead NationalvRecreation mb to identify critical ion t Nov recreation facility elevations and o Na hazards that would be present under aj navigational on v ived various reservoir surface Na d in elevations.rch ,a cite 16864 14Reclamation will continue to monitor river operations, reservoir levels and water supply No. 3.17.5 RECREATION and make this information available to the CRMWG, agencies and the public. This operational information will provide the Lake Mead National Recreation Area and the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area with probabilities for future reservoir elevations to aid in management of navigational aids, recreation facilities, other resources, and fiscal planning. Reclamation will continue its consultation and coordination with the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and the Navajo Nation on the development of Antelope Point as a resort destination. 3.17.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES Reclamation shall continue to consult and coordinate with the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council), Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Tribes and interested parties with regard to the potential effects of the proposed action as required by Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act following the COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.17-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 472 of 1200 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Council’s recommended approach for consultation for the Protection of Historic Properties found at 36 CFR 800. 3.17.7 TRANSBOUNDARY IMPACTS It is the position of the United States State Department through the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) that the United States does not mitigate for impacts in a foreign country. The United States will continue to participate with Mexico through the USIBWC Technical Work Groups to develop cooperative projects beneficial to both countries. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3.17-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 473 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 474 of 1200 4 4.1 OTHER NEPA CONSIDERATIONS INTRODUCTION NEPA requires that the impacts to resources from proposed federal actions include the perspectives of cumulative impacts, relationship between short-term uses of the environment and long-term productivity, and irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. While an attempt was made to incorporate those considerations in the discussion for each resource, they are discussed further here in recognition of the emphasis they are given in NEPA and the CEQ Regulations. 4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS A cumulative impact is an impact that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). r terio he In 2017as a result t As discussed in Chapter 3, effects that could occur withinf the United States pt. o er 29, epotentialbchanges in the probabilities D of interim surplus criteria are each associated with n v. reductions and changes in Colorado em for Lake Mead and Lake Powell o Natio surface elevationNov n o j to ve SIB. Generally, other actions that could River flows from Glen n NavaDamchithe d i Canyon4, aconsidered in tandem with the effects of interim r result in cumulatived cite impacts when 686 surplus criteria (as. identified in Chapter 3) have been incorporated into modeling of 14-1 No future system conditions. Such actions include future increases in consumptive use of Colorado River water in the Upper Division states, intrastate water transfers in the Lower Division states and various requirements and constraints applied to the operation of the Colorado River system. The environmental effects of the various components of the CA Plan, including the various intrastate storage facilities (such as Cadiz, Hayfield/Chuckwalla, and Desert/Coachella projects), and the other related and ongoing actions are undergoing separate compliance. Where there is a federal nexus to actions in California, a combined CEQ/NEPA compliance document is being prepared. Potential cumulative effects to the resources affected by surplus criteria were analyzed within the 100-year floodplain of the lower Colorado River from the full-pool elevation of Lake Powell to the Gulf of California in Mexico through year 2050. Only the issue area of “transboundary impacts” was identified as possibly experiencing cumulative effects. No past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions in the United States are expected to result in cumulative impacts to the issue area of transboundary impacts. In addition to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 475 of 1200 OTHER NEPA CONSIDERATIONS CHAPTER 4 the direct and indirect effects on the physical and natural environment in Mexico from actions identified by Mexico that are discussed in Section 3.16, it is recognized that some future actions taken by Mexico may have a cumulative effect. Exactly what these actions are is not known at this time. Any impacts of these projects are the responsibility of Mexico. In addition, Reclamation is consulting with the Service on potential adverse effects to species found in both Mexico and the United States. For potentially affected species found only in Mexico, Reclamation is consulting with the National Marine Fisheries Service. Concurrent with these consultations, Reclamation is also continuing dialog with Mexico, through the IBWC’s Fourth Technical Work Group, to reach mutually agreeable solutions to address cumulative impacts. 4.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Because the implementation of interim surplus criteria is a management action that would require no direct physical change to the environment, for the purposes of this discussion, short-term uses of resources are limited to potential changes in the ior probability for certain environmental effects to occur as a result oftchanged system In er 17 refers to the conditions. Also for the purposes of this discussion, long-term productivity the 0 t. f ptheoperiodr in 9, 2 interim surplus 2 which e benefits that would be realized during and following v. D vembe criteria would be in place. ation No N o on avaj rc NPurpose of hived for Action, the benefit sought by means a and Need As stated in Sectiond in cite 1.1.3, 64, of the interim surplus4-168 alternatives consists of increasing the efficiency of the criteria 1 No Secretary's annual.decision-making process regarding the availability of Colorado River water. This would afford the mainstream users of this water a greater degree of predictability which would assist them in their water resources planning and operation. The resources that may be affected in the short-term would be primarily those affected by lower reservoir levels. The effects of the interim surplus criteria on those resources would depend on the alternative selected for implementation. The Flood Control Alternative would result in insignificant changes in reservoir levels from baseline conditions. The other four alternatives would tend to cause lower average water levels than baseline conditions by 2016 and for a limited period of time thereafter. However, these alternatives would have a greater probability of surplus water than the Flood Control Alternative or baseline conditions through the year 2016. Long-term benefits that would be realized due to interim surplus criteria would include increased opportunities for making more efficient use of Colorado River water supplies. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 476 of 1200 OTHER NEPA CONSIDERATIONS CHAPTER 4 4.4 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Irreversible commitments are decisions affecting renewable resources such as soils, wetlands and waterfowl habitat. Such decisions are considered irreversible because their implementation would affect a resource that has deteriorated to the point that renewal can occur only over a long period of time or at great expense or because they would cause the resource to be destroyed or removed. The application of the interim surplus criteria would include reviews at five-year intervals to consider the workability of the criteria in light of the multiple purposes served by the operation of the Colorado River system, including environmental maintenance. Based on those reviews, interim surplus criteria could be revised or eliminated as needed. If California fails to meet its water conservation and management goals throughout the stipulated term of implementation of the criteria (through 2016), the Secretary may choose to terminate the interim criteria and revert to the 70R Strategy. Finally, after 2016, determinations of the availability of surplus will revert to the AOP process. ior None of the resources assessed in this FEIS would experience a deterioration in Inter 17of e condition such that the resource would be destroyed or removed as a result 0 of th 2 pt. No Action 9, 2 e r Alternative. The implementation of interim surplus criteria or under the be v. D Colorado River System may also reset aton timeNothe m ati any on in ve future, due to high inflows, N resulting in full reservoirs. avajowouldved construction of facilities needed to N There archi be no in facilitate the Secretary's determination of surplus water under the criteria. 64, cited 168 . 14- of natural resources means loss of production or use of No Irretrievable commitment resources as a result of a decision. It represents opportunities foregone for the period of time that a resource cannot be used. All of the resources assessed in the FEIS would continue to be available for production or use under any of the alternatives; however, application of the interim surplus criteria may result in a determination for any given year that surplus water is available from the Colorado River. That water could also have been determined to be surplus in the absence of interim surplus criteria through the AOP process. Although water is a renewable resource, the delivery of surplus water under all of the alternatives, including no action, would irretrievably commit (to beneficial consumptive uses) the water declared to be surplus, but authorized by the Law of the River. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 477 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 478 of 1200 5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 5.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter describes Reclamation’s public involvement program and coordination with specific federal, state and local agencies, non-governmental organizations and the general public for the preparation of this FEIS. 5.2 GENERAL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES The public involvement program leading to this FEIS consisted essentially of two phases: project scoping and public hearings and public review of the DEIS. 5.2.1 PROJECT SCOPING In 1999, Reclamation conducted a public scoping process that featured public scoping meetings to inform interested parties of the purpose and need for the development of ior interim surplus criteria, and to obtain public comment to assist in identifying the scope Inter DEIS. The of the proposed action and environmental issues to be addressed in the 017 f the pt. o er 29, 2 Arizona; scoping meetings were held in June 1999 in LasDe . Vegas, Nevada; Phoenix, b on v Novem Ontario, California; and Salt Lake City, iUtah. The meetings were announced in at N on Federal Register notices onavajo 1999 and May 28, 1999, on Reclamation’s Lower N May 18,chived in Colorado Regiontinternet website ar by a press release on May 28, 1999. The press ci ed 16864, and release was mailed not 14 only to the media but also to hundreds of federal, state and local No. agencies, non-governmental organizations and private citizens known to have an interest in Colorado River operations. The public was asked to identify any concerns about development and implementation of the interim surplus criteria. Public comments in the form of letters to Reclamation (35 letters) and oral responses at the scoping meetings (eight presenters) expressed numerous concerns regarding the effect of the proposed interim surplus criteria on the future quantity of water available from the Colorado River, and other resource issues. Attachment R to this DEIS contains details of the scoping process and a digest of the public comments that resulted from the scoping process. Based on the scoping comments, Reclamation issued a Notice of Intent to prepare this DEIS in the Federal Register on December 7, 1999. Reclamation also discussed the development of the proposed interim surplus criteria with various agencies and groups at their own regular meetings or at meetings set up by Reclamation. Included were Indian Tribes and Indian Communities having allocations of Colorado River water, Basin States water resource departments, various water agencies within the states, contractors for federal hydropower, environmental groups and water agencies of Mexico. The coordination activities with each agency or group are summarized below in this chapter. Table 5-1 in Section 5.8 lists the agencies and COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 479 of 1200 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION CHAPTER 5 organizations that were invited to such meetings by letter, and/or met with Reclamation regarding interim surplus criteria on other occasions. 5.2.2 PUBLIC REVIEW OF DEIS The DEIS was distributed to interested federal, Tribal, state and local entities and members of the general public for a 60-day review when it was filed with EPA on July 7, 2000, and announced in the Federal Register. The DEIS was sent to 407 interested parties on Reclamation’s mailing list, and a copy of the DEIS was made available for public viewing on Reclamation’s Lower Colorado Region website. Reclamation conducted a public technical meeting at Las Vegas, Nevada on August 15, 2000, to provide information and answer questions regarding the modeling process for analysis in the DEIS. Between August 21 and August 24, 2000, Reclamation conducted public hearings on the DEIS in Ontario, California; Las Vegas, Nevada; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Phoenix, Arizona. Public comments from the hearings are noted in Volume III of this FEIS. The DEIS was available for public viewing on Reclamation’s website (www.lc.usbv.gov). The FEIS is now available at the same website. When the public review period closed on September 8, 2000, Reclamation had received 68 comment letters from the public, which are reproduced in Volume iIIIrof this FEIS. ter o Individual comments from the public resulted in technical and editorial changes to the he In 2017 ft 9, document. These included a change in the baselinept. o e operatingestrategy, better definition D . of the Basinb r 2 Alternative and of Tribal water rights and diversions, inclusion nv em States Natio andon Nov modeling results. refinements in descriptions of alternativesed operational vajo v Reclamation’s response to each , archi is included in Volume III. in Na comment d cite 16864 After the DEIS was14 No. completed and ready for public review and comment, Reclamation received the document “Interim Surplus Guidelines, Working Draft” from the Seven Basin States (Seven States Proposal). Reclamation made a preliminary review of the specific surplus criteria in the information presented by the Basin States and made a preliminary determination that the criteria were within the range of alternatives and impacts analyzed in the DEIS. After its review of the Seven States Proposal, Reclamation published it in the Federal Register of August 8, 2000 for review and consideration by the public during the public review period for the DEIS. 5.3 FEDERAL AGENCY COORDINATION 5.3.1 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE As noted in Section 1.1.5, NPS is a cooperating agency with Reclamation for the purpose of NEPA compliance for the interim surplus criteria, in recognition of its administration of national park and recreation areas along the Colorado River corridor. NPS staff participated in numerous meetings with Reclamation’s project evaluation team and participated in internal document reviews as sections of the DEIS were being prepared. This facilitated close coordination with the NPS regarding resources and COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 480 of 1200 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION CHAPTER 5 facilities potentially affected and the nature of the effects. The NPS offices involved in these activities are those at the GCNRA, Grand Canyon National Park and the LMNRA, under the coordination of the office at the GCNRA. 5.3.2 UNITED STATES SECTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION As noted in Section 1.1.5, the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) is a cooperating agency with Reclamation for the purposes of NEPA compliance for the interim surplus criteria, in recognition of its administration of Treaty obligations with Mexico. As such, USIBWC staff participated in numerous meetings with Reclamation’s project evaluation team and participated in internal document reviews as sections of the DEIS were being prepared. This facilitated close coordination with the USIBWC in developing information needed for this FEIS and in Reclamation’s participation in the consultation with Mexico as discussed below in Section 5.7. The USIBWC head office in El Paso, Texas was directly involved. 5.3.3 UNITED STATES BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) administers programs to promote iTribal economic r or I BIA 17 opportunity and to protect and improve Indian Trust Assets.hThente assisted t e and generally served Reclamation with the Tribal consultation described pt.Section 5.4 9, 20 in of r2 De of comment on the DEIS, the BIA in an advisory capacity to the Tribes. Through letters vembe n v. tio Colorado River operations and the interim No further amplified Tribal concernso Na aj regardingd on v e iv Na surplus criteria. arch d in cite 16864, 145.3.4 UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE INCLUDING No. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT COMPLIANCE Under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. δ 1536 (a)(2), each federal agency must, in consultation with the Secretary (either the Secretary of Commerce through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) or the Secretary of the Interior through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), insure that any discretionary action authorized, funded or carried out by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To assist agencies in complying with the requirements of Section 7(a)(2), ESA’s implementing regulations set out a detailed consultation process for determining the biological impacts of a proposed discretionary activity. The consultation process is described in regulations promulgated at 50 CFR δ 402. Adoption of specific interim surplus criteria by the Secretary is a discretionary federal action and is, therefore, subject to compliance with the ESA. On May 22, 2000, Reclamation provided the Service with a memorandum identifying listed or proposed species and designated critical habitat that may be present in the action area. The COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 481 of 1200 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION CHAPTER 5 Service provided a response to Reclamation on June 5, 2000, which concurred with Reclamation’s list and added two species: Bald Eagle and Desert Pupfish. This information was used to assess potential effects of the proposed interim surplus criteria. Copies of this correspondence are in Attachment S. Reclamation has prepared a BA which addresses the effects of both interim surplus criteria and the California Water Transfers (USBR, 2000), to reduce the consultation time frame on these two independent operational actions on the lower Colorado River. The BA and memorandum requesting formal consultation were mailed to the Service on August 31, 2000. The action area for the BA identified above is the 100-year floodplain of the Colorado River to the SIB and the full pool elevations of lakes Mead, Mohave and Havasu. Implementation of the interim surplus criteria is not expected to affect any listed species upriver of Lake Mead (full pool elevation) nor impact implementation of any provisions of the existing BO on the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. Within the United States, implementation of interim surplus criteria is not anticipated to affect any listed species in areas beyond the 100-year floodplain of the lower Colorado River and the full pool elevations of lakes Mead, Mohave and Havasu. Consultation with the Service is in progress and the results of the consultation will be identified in the erior ROD. nt the I , 20 fsurplus criteria17 listed Preliminary evaluations of the effects of adopting ept. o on D interimGlen r 29 e species which may be present in the river corridor below mb Canyon Dam led to the n v. o atioMore recentve conclusion that there would beajoaffect. ed on N output, resulting from refinement no N v of the model used to predict future damioperations and riverflows, indicated that there in Na 4, arch v ited 68the frequency with which flows recommended by the 1995 c would be a minor change in 6 -1 o 14 biological opinion.would be triggered, but that such changes would not adversely affect N any listed species between Glen Canyon and Lake Mead. Reclamation is consulting with the Service on these changes. Reclamation is also consulting with the Service regarding special status species in Mexico, which are discussed in Section 3.16. To facilitate consultation, Reclamation prepared a BA Supplement addressing the potential effects of interim surplus criteria (USBR, 2000), along the Colorado River corridor in Mexico from the SIB to the Sea of Cortez. Consultation is in progress and the results of the consultation will be identified in the ROD. 5.3.5 NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE The NMFS administers programs that support the domestic and international conservation and management of living marine resources. Under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, NMFS is the responsible federal agency for consultation on special status marine species. Reclamation consulted with NMFS regarding the special status fish at the upper end of the Sea of Cortez, which are discussed in Section 3.16. The consultation was facilitated by a BA supplementing the BA described in Section 5.3.4 (USBR, COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5-4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 482 of 1200 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION CHAPTER 5 2000). Consultation is in progress and the results of the consultation will be identified in the ROD. 5.3.6 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT COMPLIANCE As mentioned in Section 3.13 for Cultural Resources, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, requires all federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on historic properties, and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) a reasonable opportunity to comment when an action will have an effect on historic properties. The Council’s recommended approach for consultation for the Protection of Historic Properties is found in 36 CFR 800 (FR Vol. 64, No. 95, May 18, 1999, pages 27071-27084). The first step of the Section 106 process, as set forth in 36 CFR 800.3(a), is for the Agency Official to determine whether the proposed federal action is an undertaking as defined in §800.16(y) and, if so, whether it is a type of activity that has the potential to cause effects to historic properties. Reclamation has determined development and implementation of interim surplus criteria meets the definition of an undertaking, but an undertaking that is without potential to affect historic erior properties. Reclamation’s determination and the rationale fore Int its decision are 017 f th documented in Section 3.13. Per 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1),.if the undertaking does not pt o er 29, 2 . De ethe have the potential to cause effects on historicvproperties, mbagency official has no ion at Nov further obligations under Sectiono N or this part and Reclamation has fulfilled its aj 106 ived on av responsibilities to takein N account rthe effects of the development and d into 64, a ch cite 168 implementation of interim surplus criteria on historic properties. - No. 14 The Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) submitted written comments on the cultural resources section of the DEIS. The SHPO has indicated they do not agree with Reclamation’s position in the DEIS that development and implementation of interim surplus criteria are undertakings without potential to affect historic properties. Therefore, compliance with the consultation requirements of the NHPA is not necessary. The Nevada SHPO has stated that their opportunity to comment on effects to historic properties has been precluded by Reclamation and Interior's finding, and have asked that the matter be referred to the Council. Under the implementing regulations for Section 106, when there is a disagreement between an agency and a SHPO concerning the effect of an undertaking, the matter must be referred to the Council for comment and resolution. Reclamation believes the Council will agree with the Nevada SHPO that Section 106 compliance is necessary for this proposed action. Reclamation’s position is that this is not an action requiring Section 106 compliance, but more appropriately falls under Section 110 of the NHPA. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5-5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 483 of 1200 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION CHAPTER 5 Reclamation has prepared a memorandum discussing this issue and has forwarded it to the Council for review and further consultation. 5.4 TRIBAL CONSULTATION As discussed in Section 3.14, Indian Trust Assets, Reclamation has been coordinating river operations with the Indian Tribes and Communities who have entitlements to or contracts for Colorado River water, and those that may be affected by the proposed action. Representatives of various Tribes attended the scoping meetings in May 1999, and some provided Reclamation with written comments on the proposal for interim surplus criteria. Beginning in May 1999, Reclamation has had numerous meetings with the various Tribes who have an interest in the implementation of the interim surplus criteria. The Tribes and Communities fall generally into four groups: 1) the Colorado River Basin Indian Tribes (Ten Tribes Partnership) who have diversion rights from the Colorado River mainstream and various tributaries; 2) the Tribes and Communities of central Arizona that are served by CAP facilities; 3) the Tribes in the Coachella Valley Consortium of Mission Indians; and 4) other Tribes or Indian Communities who do not have a Colorado River water entitlement but nevertheless have an interest in the availability and io distribution of Colorado River water. The individual Tribes and Indian r Inter of 7 Communities in each of these groups are listed on Table 5-1he the end 01this at 2 of t ept. ber 29, chapter. .D m nv No e Natio d on was v Tribal water rights be A primary concern of the Ten Tribes Partnership that vajo e n Na the diversion iand that4, archiv point(s) for each Tribe be included in clearly acknowledged ited 6 6 the operational c model4-1as8 more accurately reflect Tribal diversions in the so to .1 oconcerns included over-reliance on unused Tribal water N modeling. Other allocations by non-tribal diverters and Lake Powell water level fluctuations with respect to resort development opportunity. Reclamation provided financial assistance to the Ten Tribes Partnership to assist the Tribes in cataloging their Colorado River depletion rights and conducting an active coordination process with Reclamation in connection with the interim surplus criteria. Using information provided by the Tribes, Reclamation added the diversion points to the model, as discussed in Sections 3.3 and 3.4. 5.5 STATE AND LOCAL WATER AND POWER AGENCIES COORDINATION Since the May 18, 1999 Federal Register notice announcing the development of interim surplus criteria, Reclamation has had various discussions with state and local water and power agencies regarding the proposed action. However, development of surplus criteria has been the subject of discussions for many years prior to 1999. Reclamation meets regularly with representatives of the Basin States, Indian Tribes and Communities, environmental organizations and other stakeholders as part of the CRMWG. Reclamation coordinates the development of the AOP for the Colorado COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5-6 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 484 of 1200 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION CHAPTER 5 River system through this group as required by federal law. It was through such coordination actions that Reclamation originally presented the alternative surplus strategies described in Section 2.2.1, Operating Strategies for Surplus Determination. The Basin States provided Reclamation with projections of the future depletions of the Colorado River water anticipated by water agencies in each state. The Upper Colorado River Commission compiled Upper Basin depletions, and the Lower Division states compiled their respective depletions. The projections were used as input to Reclamation’s operational modeling analysis, as discussed in Section 3.3. Reclamation also conducted coordination with water agencies in southern California regarding the environmental documentation being prepared for various components of California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan. In the early summer of 2000, the seven Basin States acting as a group, independent from Reclamation, formulated the Seven States proposal for interim surplus criteria which they provided to Reclamation after the DEIS was prepared, as discussed above in Section 5.2.2. Letters of comment on the DEIS from some of the Basin States contained additional commentary on the draft proposal. ior Inter 17 5.6 NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 COORDINATION e v. D mb ation on Nove N Several environmental organizations haveed vajo hiv expressed interest in the project and have Naand independent meetings with Reclamation. The Pacific in attended one or more public arc cited a 16864, of environmental organizations, submitted an Institute, representing4- consortium 1 interim surplus criteria proposal to Reclamation in February 2000, which is in No. Attachment G. As discussed in Section 2.2.3, the proposal included an additional allocation of water to Mexico for environmental purposes. The Pacific Institute’s interest in the project and coordinating role among the other environmental groups contributed to the coordination with Reclamation by various other non-governmental organizations, which are cited on Table 5-1 at the end of this chapter. In addition, through the CRMWG and other mechanisms, Reclamation worked with the various non-governmental organizations during the NEPA process. Specifically, Reclamation met with members of the organizations noted in Table 5-1 at their request, to discuss environmental and technical issues. 5.7 MEXICO CONSULTATION Pursuant to an international agreement for mandatory reciprocal consultations, the USIBWC has begun consultation with Mexico regarding the proposed interim surplus criteria. Reclamation has assisted USIBWC in conducting this consultation by providing information on the proposed interim surplus criteria and by participating in briefings with the Mexico Section of the IBWC and the Mexico National Water Commission. Meetings with representatives of Mexico were conducted in April and COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5-7 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 485 of 1200 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION CHAPTER 5 May 2000, during which representatives of Mexico provided their concerns regarding the potential effects of the interim surplus criteria. The USIBWC has prepared Terms of Reference for consultation with Mexico, which are contained in Attachment T, together with correspondence from Mexico during the scoping phase of the project. Coordination with Mexico during the DEIS review phase has consisted of several letters from the government of Mexico and public agencies in Mexico, which are reproduced in Volume III of the DEIS. Discussion with Mexico took place on November 14, 2000 concerning comments from Mexico. There was understanding that the consultation with Mexico through IBWC in the form of technical working groups will continue a forum for technical discussion to carry out, in the context of international comity, joint cooperation projects in support of the Colorado River riparian ecology to the Gulf of California that could have a benefit to the United States and Mexico. Executive Order 12114 instructs federal agencies to investigate the effects of federal actions in other countries. Reclamation has analyzed and documented the effects of the proposed interim surplus criteria on natural resources in Mexico. This analysis will provide an analytical tool for identifying those potential impacts that rior across the e extend international border and affect Mexico’s natural and physical e Int environment. This 017 f th approach is fully consistent with CEQ guidance on NEPA analyses , 2 transboundary pt. o er 29for . De impacts, dated July 1, 1997. Detailed information on vemb ion v No this analysis is addressed in Nat d on Chapter 3.16. vajo e in Na 4, archiv ited OF COORDINATION CONTACTS c 5.8 SUMMARY4-1686 1 No. Table 5-1 lists the agencies and organizations with which Reclamation coordinated through meetings and other personal contacts during the scoping and preparation period of this FEIS. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5-8 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 486 of 1200 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION CHAPTER 5 Table 5-1 Participants With Reclamation Regarding The Interim Surplus Criteria Environmental Impact Statement Process Meetings Agency or Organization Invited to or Requesting Meetings Federal Agencies National Park Service – Cooperating Agency Various plan formulation and evaluation meetings United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission – Cooperating Agency Various plan formulation and evaluation meetings; Briefings for Mexico Bureau of Indian Affairs 5/26/99, 12/15/99, 1/21/00, 2/24/00, 8/30/00 Environmental Protection Agency 6/15/99, 8/30/00 U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service Various Consultation Meetings on ESA Compliance National Marine Fisheries Service Consultation on Special Status Species in the Sea of Cortez, 10/12/00 ior Inter 17 Western Area Power Administration 6/15/99,f8/15/00 the 0 pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D Tribal Coordination – Ten Tribes Partnership mb ation on Nove 6/15/99, 11/16/19, 12/15/99, 2/24/00, Chemehuevi Tribe 5/26/99, jo N 2/25/00, 8/4/00 Nava archived in ited 6864, c Cocopah Indian Tribe 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 11/16/99, 2/15/99, 2/24/00, -1 o. 14 2/25/00, 8/3/00 N Geological Survey 6/15/99, 8/15/00 Colorado River Indian Tribes 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 11/16/1999, 12/15/99, 2/24/00, 2/25/00, 8/4/00 Fort Mojave Indian Tribe 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 11/16/19, 12/15/99, 2/24/00, 2/25/00, 8/2/00 Jicarilla Apache Tribe 5/26/99, 11/16/19, 12/15/99, 2/24/00, 2/25/00 Navajo Nation 5/26/99, 11/16/19, 12/15/99, 2/24/00, 2/25/00, 9/27/00, 8/3/00 Northern Ute Tribe 5/26/99, 11/16/19, 12/15/99, 2/24/00, 2/25/00, 8/17/00 Quechan Indian Tribe 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 11/16/19, 12/15/99, 2/24/00, 2/25/00, 8/2/00 Southern Ute Indian Tribe 5/26/99, 11/16/19, 12/15/99, 2/24/00, 2/2500 Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 5/26/99, 11/16/19, 12/15/99, 2/24/00, 2/25/00, 8/3/00 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5-9 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 487 of 1200 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION CHAPTER 5 Meetings Agency or Organization Invited to or Requesting Meetings Tribal Coordination –Tribes And Communities In Central Arizona Ak-Chin Indian Community 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 1/21/00, 8/3/00 Mojave-Apache Tribe 5/26/99, 1/21/00, 8/3/00 Gila River Indian Community 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 1/21/00, 8/3/00 Pasqua-Yaqui Tribe 5/26/99, 1/21/00 Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 1/21/00 San Carlos Indian Tribe 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 1/21/00, 8/3/00 Tohono O’Odham Tribe 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 1/21/00, 8/15/00, 8/3/00 Tonto Apache Tribe 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 1/21/00, 8/4/00 Yavapai-Apache Indian Community 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 1/21/00, 8/3/00 Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe 5/26/99, 6/15/99, 1/21/00 ior Inter 17 the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 8/30/00,f9/6/00 9, 20 pt. o er 2 . De b ion v Novem Augustine Band of Mission Indians [Contact attempted; DEIS sent] at on jo N Nava archived in Cabazon Band of Mission Indians [Contact attempted; DEIS sent] cited 16864, 14Morongo Band of Mission Indians 8/30/00 No. Tribal Coordination – Coachella Valley Consortium Of Mission Indians Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Tribe 1/21/00, 8/30/00 Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians [Contact attempted; DEIS sent] Tribal Coordination – Other Tribes Havasupai Indian Tribe 6/15/99, 5/26/99, 1/21/00 Hopi Tribe 6/15/99, 5/26/99, 1/21/00, 8/4/00 Hualapai Nation 6/15/99, 5/26/99, 1/21/00, 8/3/00 Kaibab Paiute Tribe 8/3/00 San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe 8/3/00 San Luis Rey Indian Water Authority 8/16/00 Zuni Indian Tribe 8/3/00 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5-10 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 488 of 1200 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION CHAPTER 5 Meetings Agency or Organization Invited to or Requesting Meetings State And Local Water And Power Agencies Arizona Department of Water Resources 6/15/99, 12/16/99 Central Arizona Water Conservation District 6/15/99, 8/15/00 Coachella Valley Water District 6/15/99, 6/6/00, 8/15/00 Colorado River Board of California 6/15/99, 12/16/99, 6/6/00, 8/15/00,11/14/00 Colorado River Commission of Nevada 6/15/99, 12/16/99 Colorado River Water Conservation District 8/15/00 Colorado Water Conservation Board 12/16/99, 8/15/00 Utah Division of Water Resources 12/16/99 Imperial Irrigation District 6/15/99, 6/6/00, 8/15/00, 11/14/00 Las Vegas Valley Water District 6/22/99 Metropolitan Water District, California 6/15/99, 6/6/00, 8/15/00 San Diego County Water Authority 8/15/00 Southern Nevada Water Authority 12/16/99, 8/15/00 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o 8/15/00 9, 2 New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission 12/16/99, er 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove 8/15/00 Office of the State Engineer, Wyoming jo N 12/16/99, Nava archived in Parker Valley Natural ted 12/16/99 4, ci Resources Conservation District 1686 41 Upper Colorado River Commission 6/15/99, 8/15/00 No. Non-Governmental Agencies Center for Biodiversity 12/15/99, 6/8/00 Defenders of Wildlife 12/15/99, 8/15/00 Environmental Defense 12/15/99, 8/15/00 Glen Canyon Action Network 8/22/00 Pacific Institute 12/15/99, 8/15/00 Southwest Rivers 12/15/99, 8/15/00 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5-11 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 489 of 1200 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION CHAPTER 5 Meetings Agency or Organization Invited to or Requesting Meetings Agencies of Mexico International Boundary and Water Commission, Mexico Section 4/12/00, 5/11/00, 5/12/00, 9/30/00, 11/9/00, 11/14/00 National Water Commission 4/12/00, 5/11/00, 5/12/00, 9/30/00, 11/9/00, 11/14/00 National Institute of Ecology 4/12/00, 9/30/00, 11/9/00, 11/14/00 Secretariat of Environment, Natural Resources and Fish 9/30/00, 11/14/00 5.9 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES This section contains a compilation of the Federal Register notices issued to inform the public about the formulation of interim surplus criteria alternatives and the preparation and availability of the DEIS. Table 5.2 lists the Federal Register notices, which are presented following the table. In addition to the notices issued, additional notices are planned following the publication of this FEIS to announce its availability and the ior Secretary’s ROD based on this FEIS. Inter 017 f the pt. o er 29, 2 Table 5-2 e b v. D Federal Register NoticesiRegarding Interim m at on on Nove Surplus Criteria jo N Nava archived Notice Title ed in 86 citPage 1Intent 4,Solicit Comments on the Development of Surplus Criteria for Volume 64, No. 95, - 6 to 27008, May 18, 1999 14 Management of the Colorado River and to Initiate NEPA Process. o. N Volume 64, No. 103, Page 29068, May 28, 1999 Public Meetings on the Development of Surplus Criteria for Management of the Colorado River and to Initiate NEPA Process Volume 64, No. 234, Page 68373, December 7, 1999 Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement Volume 65, No. 131, Page 42028, July 7, 2000 Notice of Availability of a draft environmental impact statement and public hearings for the proposed adoption of Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria Volume 65, No. 149, Page 47516, August 2, 2000 Notice of revised dates for public hearings on the proposed adoption of Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria Volume 65, No. 153, Page 48531, August 8, 2000 Notice of public availability of information submitted on a draft environmental impact statement for the proposed adoption of Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria (Colorado River Basin States: Interim Surplus Guidelines – Working Draft) Volume 65, No. 185, Page 57371, September 22, 2000 Notice of Correction to published Federal Register Notice of Availability (Colorado River Basin States: Interim Surplus Guidelines – Working Draft) COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5-12 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 490 of 1200 27008 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 18, 1999 / Notices MASSACHUSETTS RHODE ISLAND NORTH CAROLINA Middlesex County Hosmer Homestead, 138 Baker Ave., Concord, 99000659 Newport County Worcester County Gardner Uptown Historic District, Roughly along Central, Cross, Elm, Green. Glazier, Pearl and Woodland Sts., Gardner, 99000660 SOUTH DAKOTA Carteret County Cape Lookout Village Historic District, Cape Lookout, from Lighthouse to Cape Point, Harkers Island, 99000599 MISSOURI Gregory County Franklin County New Haven Residential Historic District, Roughly along Wall St. and Maupin Ave., and bounded by Washington and Bates Sts., New Haven, 99000661 Mitchell West Central Residential Historic District, Roughly bounded by First and Seventh Aves., Mitchell, 99000676 Tackett Underwood Building, Address Restricted, Gregory vicinity, 99000678 Lewis County Gray, William, House (La Grange, Missouri MPS), 407 Washington, La Grange, 99000666 Hay, Dr. J.A., House (La Grange, Missouri MPS), 406 W. Monroe St., La Grange, 99000664 McKoon, John, House (La Grange, Missouri MPS), 500 W. Monroe St., La Grange, 99000665 Rhoda, Fred, House (La Grange, Missouri MPS), 200 S. Second St., La Grange, 99000662 Waltman, A.C., House (La Grange, Missouri MPS), 302 Lewis St., La Grange, 99000663 Jerauld County Horsehead—Marbella, 240 Highland Dr., Jamestown, 99000675 Custer County [FR Doc. 99–12403 Filed 5–17–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–70–U Archeological site no. 39CU1619, Address Restricted, Custer vicinity, 99000679 Wessington Springs Carnegie Library (Historic Bridges in South Dakota MPS) 124 N. Main Ave., Wessington Springs, 99000677 Minnehaha County Palisades Bridge (Historic Bridges in South Dakota MPS), 25495 485th Ave., Garretson, 99000687 Walworth County Walworth County Courthouse (County Courthouses of South Dakota MPS), 4304 4th Ave., Selby, 99000680 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Intent to Solicit Comments on the Development of Surplus Criteria for Management of the Colorado River and to Initiate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior. ACTION: Notice to solicit comments and initiation of NEPA process. SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (‘‘Reclamation’’), is considering development of specific criteria that will identify those circumstances under which the Secretary of the Interior (‘‘Secretary’’) may make Colorado River water available for delivery to the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada (Lower Division States or Lower Basin) in excess of the 7,500,000 acre-foot Lower Basin apportionment. DATES: We must receive all comments at the address below on or before June 30, 1999. In addition to accepting written comments, we will hold public scoping meetings prior to the closing of the comment period. We will hold the public scoping meetings to allow the public to comment on the need for, and content of, specific surplus criteria as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process initiated by this notice. We will notify you of the dates, times, and places for these meetings through the Federal Register, media outlets, and to all respondents to this notice. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the Regional Director, Lower Colorado Region, Attention: Jayne Harkins, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 61470, Boulder City, Nevada 89006–1470. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary, pursuant to the Boulder Canyon Project Act of December 28, 1928, and the Supreme Court opinion rendered June 3, 1963, and decree entered March 9, 1964 (Decree), in the case of Arizona v. California, et al., is vested with the responsibility to manage the mainstream waters of the Colorado River in the Lower Basin. As the agency ior Inter 17 0 f the NEW HAMPSHIRE VIRGINIA pt. o er 29, 2 e Hillsborough County Franklin County v. D mb Francestown Meetinghouse, Rte 136, ation District,Nove Rocky Mount Historic N on Roughly Francestown, 99000667 vajo by h ve and Maynor Franklin, Nabounded rcE. iCourtdSt; and Maple Sts.; n Floyd Ave.; Ave., Rockingham County ted i 64, a ciParts of 168Rocky Mount, 99000683 Little Boar’s Head Historic District, 14- York County Atlantic Ave., Chapel Rd., Ocean Blvd., No. Sea Rd., and Willow Ave., North Hampton, Old Custom House, Jct. of Main and Read 99000668 NEW YORK Tompkins County First Presbyterian Church of Ulysses, Main St., Trumansburg, 99000669 NORTH CAROLINA Mecklenburg County McNinch, Frank Ramsay, House, 2727 Sharon Ln., Charlotte, 99000670 Sts., Yorktown, 99000682 WISCONSIN Forest County Otter Spring House, Approx. 80 meters S of Spring Pond Rd., Lincoln vicinity, 99000684 A Request for a Move has been made for the following resource: WISCONSIN OKLAHOMA Dane County Craig County First Methodist-Episcopal Church, South, 314 W. Candian Ave., Vinita, 99000673 Crosse, Dr. Charles G., House 133 W. Main St., Sun Prairie, 93000029 A Request for a Removal has been made for the following resource: Lincoln County National Guard Statistical Building, Park Rd., 1 blk W of 6th St., Chandler, 99000672 Oklahoma County Smith and Kernke Funeral Directors, 1401 NW 23rd St., Oklahoma City, 99000671 PENNSYLVANIA Delaware County Pennsylvania Railroad Station at Wayne, Jct. of N. Wayne Ave. and Station Rd., Wayne, 99000674 INDIANA Vermillion County Brouilletts Creek Covered Bridge, Co. Rds 100 W and 1700S over Brouilletts Cr., Clinton 94000586 A Correction is hereby made for the following resouce: For Technical reasons this nomination should not have been published and is no longer considered a pending National Register of Historic Places Nomination. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 491 of 1200 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 18, 1999 / Notices that has been designated to act in the Secretary’s behalf with respect to these matters, Reclamation intends to scope and, if appropriate, to develop and implement specific criteria under which ‘‘surplus’’ determinations will be made for the Lower Basin States. Currently, each year, the Secretary establishes an Annual Operating Plan (AOP) for the Colorado River Reservoirs. The AOP describes how Reclamation will manage the reservoirs over a twelve month period, consistent with the ‘‘Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of the Colorado River Reservoirs Pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Project Act of September 30, 1968’’ (Long-Range Operating Criteria) and the Decree. Reclamation consults annually with the Colorado River Basin States, Indian Tribes, and other interested parties in the development of the AOP. Further, as part of the AOP process, the Secretary makes annual determinations under the Long-Range Operating Criteria, regarding the availability of Colorado River water for deliveries to the Lower Division States. To meet the consultation requirements of federal law, Reclamation also consults with the Colorado River Basin States, Indian Tribes, and other interested parties during the five-year periodic reviews of the Long-Range Operating Criteria. In recent years, demand for Colorado River water in Arizona, California, and Nevada has exceeded the Lower Basin’s 7,500,000 acre-foot basic apportionment. As a result, criteria for determining the availability of surplus has become a matter of increased importance. Under these circumstances, the Secretary believes that it may be prudent to develop specific criteria that will guide the Secretary’s annual decision regarding the quantity of Colorado River water available for delivery to the Lower Basin States. Such surplus criteria would provide more predictability to States and water users. Reclamation anticipates however, that surplus criteria will be subject to change based upon new circumstances, and that such criteria may be interim in nature. Reclamation may implement the surplus criteria by revising the LongRange Operating Criteria set forth in Article III(3) or by developing interim implementing criteria pursuant to Article III(3) of the Long-Range Operating Criteria. Proceeding under Article III(3) may be particularly appropriate because Section 602 of the Colorado River Basin Project Act, as amended, requires that any modification to the Long-Range Operating Criteria be made ‘‘only after correspondence with the Governors of the seven Colorado River Basin States and appropriate consultation with such state representatives as each Governor may designate.’’ This statutory reference to the special role of the Basin States in matters relating to the Long-Range Operating Criteria underscores the importance of working closely with the states in developing surplus criteria. Reclamation intends to appropriately coordinate the development of surplus criteria with the Basin States, in accordance with this mandate. In that regard, Reclamation recognizes that efforts are currently underway to reduce California’s reliance on surplus deliveries. Reclamation will take account of progress in that effort, or lack thereof, in the decision-making process regarding specific surplus criteria. Reclamation also intends to make full use of technical information and approaches that have been developed through ongoing discussions with the Basin States. This information can be obtained through the Reclamation contact listed above. As part of the process initiated by this notice, Reclamation will analyze the effects of specific surplus criteria on potential future shortage determinations on the Colorado River. The criteria would be consistent with relevant Federal law, and would recognize relevant provisions of the Law of the River, which has evolved out of a combination of Federal and State statutes, interstate compacts, court decisions and decrees, an international treaty, contracts with the Secretary, operating criteria, regulations, and administrative decisions. Reclamation will utilize a public process pursuant to NEPA during the development of the surplus criteria. By this notice, Reclamation invites all interested parties, including the Colorado River Basin States, Indian Tribes, water users, members of the general public, organizations, and agencies to present written comments concerning the format for the criteria, the scope of specific surplus criteria, and the issues and alternatives that they suggest should be analyzed. As noted above, Reclamation will integrate the consultation requirements of Section 602 of the Colorado River Basin Project Act, as amended, into the NEPA process initiated by this notice. As part of this review, Reclamation will consult with state representatives of each of the Governors of the seven Colorado River Basin States, Indian Tribes, members of the general public, representatives of academic and scientific communities, environmental organizations, the recreation industry and contractors for 27009 the purchase of Federal power produced at Glen Canyon Dam. Dated: May 13, 1999. David J. Hayes, Acting Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 99–12491 Filed 5–17–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–94–P INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION AGENCY Overseas Private Investment Corporation Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Overseas Private Investment Corporation, IDCA. ACTION: Request for comments. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), Agencies are required to publish a Notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the Agency has prepared an information collection request for OMB review and approval and has requested public review and comment on the submission. OPIC published its first Federal Register Notice on this information collection request on March 5, 1999, in 64 FR #43, p. 10721, at which time a 60-calendar day comment period was announced. This comment period ended May 5, 1999. No comments were received in response to this Notice. This information collection submission has now been submitted to OMB for review. Comments are again being solicited on the need for the information, its practical utility, the accuracy of the Agency’s burden estimate, and on ways to minimize the reporting burden, including automated collection techniques and uses of other forms of technology. The proposed form under review is summarized below. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 17, 1999. ADDRESSES: Copies of the subject form and the request for review submitted to OMB may be obtained from the Agency Submitting Officer. Comments on the form should be submitted to the OMB Reviewer. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OPIC Agency Submitting Officer: Carol Brock, Records Manager, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20527; 202 336–8563. OMB Reviewer: Jeff Hill, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Docket ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 492 of 1200 29068 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 103 / Friday, May 28, 1999 / Notices Minnesota professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Bois Forte Band of the Minnesota Indian Tribe. In 1984, human remains representing one individual from a site located on private land within the exterior boundaries of the Bois Forte Reservation near Lake Vermillion by Bois Forte Tribal Police. These human remains were turned over to the Minnesota State Archeologist and the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council. No known individual was identified. The 16 associated funerary objects include three beaver mandibles, one lynx mandible, one elk naviculocuboid, one beaver innominate, one fragement of beaver incisor, six bone awls, one harpoon awl, one hide flesher (moose or elk metatarsal), and one iron tranche (ice chisel). Based on the associated funerary objects, this individual has been determined to be Native American from the historic period. These human remains and funerary objects were recovered within the exterior boundaries of the Bois Forte Reservation. Based on the above mentioned information, officials of the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council have determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2 (d)(1), the human remains listed above represent the physical remains of one individuals of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council have also determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2 (d)(2), the 16 objects listed above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony. Lastly, officials of the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council have determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2 (e), there is a relationship of shared group identity which can be reasonably traced between these Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Bois Forte Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. This notice has been sent to officials of the Bois Forte Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with these human remains and associated funerary objects should contact James L. (Jim) Jones, Cultural Resource Specialist, Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, 1819 Bemidji Ave. Bemidji, MN 56601; telephone: (218) 755-3825, before June 28, 1999. Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Bois Forte Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe may begin after that date if no additional claimants come forward. Dated: April 22, 1999. Francis P. McManamon, Departmental Consulting Archeologist, DeManager, Archeology and Ethnography Program. [FR Doc. 99–13600 Filed 5–27–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–70–F DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Public Meetings on the Development of Surplus Criteria for Management of the Colorado River and To Initiate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior. Notice of public meetings. ACTION: SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (‘‘Reclamation’’), is considering development of specific criteria that will identify those circumstances under which the Secretary of the Interior (‘‘Secretary’’) may make Colorado River water available for delivery to the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada (Lower Division States or Lower Basin) in excess of the 7,500,000 acre-foot Lower Basin apportionment. Reclamation published a Federal Register notice on Tuesday, May 18, 1999, regarding a Notice of Intent to solicit comments on the development of surplus criteria. Reclamation invites all interested parties to present oral or written comments concerning the following: (1) The need for the development of surplus criteria, (2) the format for the criteria (either by revising the LongRange Operating Criteria set forth in Article III(3) or by developing interim criteria pursuant to Article III(3) of the Long-Range Operating Criteria), and (3) the specific issues and alternatives to be analyzed in the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) process. DATES AND LOCATIONS: Written comments are requested by June 30, 1999, and should be sent to Regional Director, Lower Colorado Region, Attention: Jayne Harkins, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 61470, Boulder City, Nevada 89006–1470. Oral and written comments will be accepted at the public meetings to be held at the following locations: Tuesday, June 15, Meeting Room 1 on Level 3, Terminal 4, Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport, Phoenix, Arizona, 6:30 p.m.–9 p.m. Wednesday, June 16, Keller Peak Room, Doubletree Hotel, 222 N. Vineyard Ave., Ontario, California, 6:30 p.m.–9 p.m. Tuesday, June 22, Zeus C Room, Alexis Park Resort, 375 East Harmon, Las Vegas, Nevada, 6:30 p.m.–9 p.m. Wednesday, June 23, Hawk’s Nest Conference Room, Terminal 1, Salt Lake International Airport, Salt Lake City, Utah, 6:30 p.m.–9 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne Harkins, telephone (702) 293– 8190; faxogram (702) 293–8042; E-mail at: jharkins@lc.usbr.gov or Randall Peterson, telephone (801) 524–3758, faxogram (801) 524–3858; E-mail at: rpeterson@uc.usbr.gov. Dated: May 25, 1999. Eluid L. Martinez, Commissioner. [FR Doc. 99–13667 Filed 5–27–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–94–U DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ior Inter 17 f the 9, 20 of 1974; pt. o erPrivacy Act a SystemNotice of the 2 De of Records mb Removal of n v. atio on Nove Pursuant to the provisions of the jo N Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Nava archived in Procurement Policy and Review Group, cited 16864, Management and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division (JMD) is removing o. 14 N [AAG/A Order No. 167–99] a published Privacy Act system of records entitled ‘‘Delegations of Procurement Authority (DPA), JUSTICE/ JMD–018.’’ JUSTICE/JMD–018 was last published in the Federal Register on October 10, 1995, (60 FR 52704). The DPA is no longer being used or maintained. The system was originally used, as part of a pre-award review of contract actions above a certain threshold, to ensure contracting officers in the Department’s bureaus were exercising their procurement authority in accordance with the terms of their delegations. The system was also used to track training and career progression of bureau contracting officers. On May 31, 1995, the Procurement Executive discontinued the practice of performing pre-award reviews of all contract actions, including checks of contracting officers’ delegations. In addition, consistent with the Justice Acquisition Regulations (63 FR 16118–16136), which delegate the responsibility of developing and managing career development programs to the bureaus, the DPA is no longer used for career development purposes. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 493 of 1200 68373 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 1999 / Notices Adobe Road, Twentynine Palms, California 92277 Thursday, December 16, 1999 at 7 pm Needles City Hall, 1111 Bailey Avenue, Needles, California 92363 DATES: Comments must be received in writing to the Metropolitan Water District no later than February 22, 2000. ADDRESSES: Written comments on the Draft EIR/EIS should be mailed to: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Post Office Box 54153, Los Angeles, California 90054–0153, Attention: Mr. Dirk Reed. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Further information regarding the project may be obtained from Mr. Reed at (213) 217–6163 or Mr. Jack Safely at (213) 217–6981. Dated: December 1, 1999. Douglas Romoli, Acting District Manager. [FR Doc. 99–31604 Filed 12–6–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–40–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2 (d)(2)(ii), this cultural item is reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and is believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of an Native American individual. Officials of the Fort Concho National Historic Landmark have also determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2 (e), there is a relationship of shared group identity which can be reasonably traced between this item and Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas. This notice has been sent to officials of Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with this object should contact Kathleen S. Roland, Curator of Collections, Fort Concho National Historic Landmark, 630 S. Oakes St., San Angelo, TX 76903; telephone: (915) 657-4440 before January 6, 2000. Repatriation of this object to Yselta del Sur Pueblo may begin after that date if no additional claimants come forward. May 18, 1999 (64 FR 27008) and Friday May 28, 1999 (64 FR 29068) announcing its intention to consider the development of specific criteria that will identify those circumstances under which the Secretary may make Colorado River water available for delivery to the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada (Lower Division States or Lower Basin) in excess of the 7,500,000 acrefoot Lower Basin apportionment. Those notices announced four public scoping meetings and requested oral and written comments on the need for such criteria, the format for the criteria, the scope of specific surplus criteria, and the issues and alternatives that should be analyzed. The public comment period ran from May 18, 1999 until June 30, 1999. In addition to oral comments submitted at four public scoping meetings, we received 32 letters during the comment period. The respondents included one irrigation district, three water districts, two individuals, three environmental organizations, nine state agencies, two federal organizations, three tribes, two cities, three water users associations, one corporation, one water resource organization, one conservation district and one public utility. Based on the public comments received, Reclamation has made the decision to prepare an EIS that evaluates the potential impacts of alternative implementing interim criteria that will be used by the Secretary to determine surplus conditions for management of the Colorado River. Supplementary information is provided in the aforementioned May 18, 1999 Federal Register notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne Harkins, telephone (702) 293– 8190; faxogram (702) 293–8042; E-mail at: jharkins@lc.usbr.gov or Tom Ryan, telephone (801) 524–3732, faxogram (801) 524–3858; E-mail at: tryan@uc.usbr.gov. ior Inter 17 Notice of Intent to Repatriate a Cultural 0 f the Item in the Possession of the Fort pt. o er 29, 2 e Concho National Historic Landmark, v. D mb San Angelo, TX ation on Nove jo N AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. Nava CODErchived in BILLING a 4310–70–F ACTION: Notice. cited 16864, Notice is hereby given under the14DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR Native American Graves Protection and No. National Park Service Dated: November 30, 1999. Francis P. McManamon, Departmental Consulting Archeologist, Manager, Archeology and Ethnography Program. [FR Doc. 99–31568 Filed 12–6–99; 8:45 am] Repatriation Act, 43 CFR 10.10 (a)(3), of the intent to repatriate a cultural item in the possession of the Fort Concho National Historic Landmark, San Angelo, TX which meets the definition of ‘‘unassociated funerary object’’ under Section 2 of the Act. The cultural item is a large Jordano brown ceramic pot with a kill hole at the bottom. In 1952, this item was donated to the Fort Concho National Historic Landmark by Hollen Mayes. Museum documentation indicates it was removed from a burial in the Diablo Mountains near Van Horn, Culberson County, TX. While the external finish and interior have been greatly altered due to conservation attempts, the form and style of this item is consistent with known Tigua ceramics. Oral history presented by representatives of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas indicates this cultural item was originally in the possession of a Tigua (Ysleta del Sur Pueblo) tribal member who as killed near Van Horn, TX. Officials of the Fort Concho National Historic Landmark have determined VerDate 29-OCT-99 17:58 Dec 06, 1999 Jkt 190000 Bureau of Reclamation Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (‘‘Reclamation’’), proposes to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (‘‘EIS’’) for development of interim implementing criteria pursuant to Article III (3) of the Long-Range Operating Criteria that will be used by the Secretary of the Interior (‘‘Secretary’’) to determine surplus conditions for management of the Colorado River. Reclamation previously published Federal Register notices on Tuesday, PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Dated: December 1, 1999. David J. Hayes, Acting Deputy Secretary of the Interior. [FR Doc. 99–31681 Filed 12–6–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–94–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United States International Trade Commission. TIME AND DATE: December 10, 1999 at 11:00 a.m. E:\FR\FM\07DEN1.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 07DEN1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 494 of 1200 42028 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 131 / Friday, July 7, 2000 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Polk County DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Railway Clerks’ Mountain House, US 176, 0.6 mi. Se of jct. with Ozone Rd., Saluda, 00000842 Bureau of Reclamation National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before July 1, 2000. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60 written comments concerning the significance of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded to the National Register, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW, NC400, Washington, DC 20240. Written comments should be submitted by July 24, 2000. Beth M. Boland, Acting Keeper of the National Register. PENNSYLVANIA Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria AGENCY: Berks County Red Men Hall, 831–833 Walnut St., Reading, 00000843 Chester County Zook House, (West Whiteland Township MRA) 100 Exton Sq., Exton, W. Whiteland, 00000844 Dauphin County Star Barn Complex, Nissley Dr. at PA 283, Lower Swatara, 00000845 Lancaster County New Holland Machine Company, 146 E. Franklin St., New Holland, 00000846 Philadelphia County CONNECTICUT Bell Telephone Company Building, 1827–35 Arch St., Philadephia, 00000849 Hartford County York County Coult, Abraham, House, 1695 Hebron Ave., Glastonbury, 00000834 Hartford Electric Light Company Maple Avenue Sub-Station, 686 Maple Ave., Hartford, 00000833 Bixler, Michael and Magdealena Farmstead, 400 Mundis Race Rd., East Manchester, 00000850 Red Lion Borough Historic District, Roughly bounded by Edgewood Ave., Windsor Twp. line, MD&PA RR., Chestnut Rd., Country Club Rd., and York Twp. line., Red Line, 00000847 Sinking Springs Farms, Roughly bounded by Church Rd., Sinking Springs Ln., N. George St., Locust Ln., Susquehanna Trail and PA 238, Manchester, 00000848 Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability of a draft environmental impact statement and public hearings for the proposed adoption of Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria: INT–DES 00–25. SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Council on Environmental Quality’s Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the proposed adoption of specific criteria under which surplus water conditions may be determined in the Lower Colorado River Basin during the next 15 years. Cooperating agencies are the National Park Service and the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States Section. Information on public hearings may be found below in the DATES section. ADDRESSES: Send comments on the DEIS to Ms. Jayne Harkins, Attention BCOO– 4600, PO Box 61470, Boulder City, Nevada, 89006–1470, or fax comments to Ms. Harkins at (702) 293–8042. Comments must be received no later than September 8, 2000. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from public disclosure, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent’s identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public disclosure in their entirety. DATES: Comments on this DEIS must be received no later than September 8, 2000. Public hearings will be held to receive written or verbal comments on the DEIS from interested organizations and individuals on the environmental impacts of the proposal. The hearings ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e New Haven County v. D mb West Haven Green Historic District, Roughly ation on Nove along Main St., Campbell St., Church St. jo N and Savin St., West Haven, 00000832 Nava archived in NEBRASKA cited 16864, 14Lancaster County No. Herter Farmstead, 4949 S 148th, Walton, WISCONSIN 00000835 Ozaukee County NEW YORK Rensselaer County Bigelow School, 4228 W. Bonniwell Rd., Mequon, 00000851 St. Mark’s Episcopal Church, Main St., Hoosick Falls, 00000836 WYOMING Sullivan County Crook County Hankins Stone Arch Bridge, (Upper Delaware Valley, New York and Pennsylvania, MPS) Sullivan Cty. Rd. 94, E., Hankins, 00000838 Manny, Anthony, House, (Upper Delaware Valley, New York and Pennsylvania, MPS) 6 Hankins Rd., Hankins, 00000840 Tusten Stone Arch Bridge, (Upper Delaware Valley, New York and Pennsylvania, MPS) Tusten Rd. at Ten Mile River, Tusten, 00000839 NORTH CAROLINA Entrance Road—Devils Tower National Monument, (Devils Tower National Monument MPS) Devils Tower National Monument, Devils Tower, 00000854 Entrance Station—Devils Tower National Monument, (Devils Tower National Monument MPS) Devils Tower National Monument, Devils Tower, 00000853 Old Headquarters Area Historic District, (Devils Tower National Monument MPS) Devils Tower National Monument, Devils Tower, 00000852 Tower Ladder—Devils Tower National Monument, (Devils Tower National Monument MPS) Devils Tower National Monument, Devils Tower, 00000855 Chatham County [FR Doc. 00–17267 Filed 7–6–00; 8:45 am] Siler City Commercial Historic District, Roughly bounded by Second Ave., Birch Ave., Third St. and Beaver St., Siler City, 00000841 BILLING CODE 4310–70–P Westchester County Scarsdale Railroad Station, Popham Rd. at Bronx River Pkwy., Scarsdale, 00000837 VerDate 11<MAY>2000 23:50 Jul 06, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 07JYN1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 495 of 1200 42029 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 131 / Friday, July 7, 2000 / Notices will be held at the following times and locations: • August 3, Meeting Room 1 on Level 3, Terminal 4, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, Phoenix, Arizona, 7 p.m. • August 8, Big Bear Room, Doubletree Hotel, 222 N. Vineyard Ave., Ontario, CA, 7 p.m. • August 10, Jazz Room, Salt Lake City International Airport, 765 Terminal Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 7 p.m. • August 15, Comfort Dental Conference Room, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, 3720 Howard Hughes Parkway, Las Vegas, NV, 7 p.m. In addition to the public hearings, a separate hydrologic modeling meeting will be held on the same day as the public hearing in Las Vegas, NV. Reclamation will provide detailed assumptions and respond to questions regarding the model runs, use schedules, and post-processing analysis that was completed for this DEIS. The time and location for this technical meeting is as follows: • August 15, Comfort Dental Conference Room, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, 3720 Howard Hughes Parkway, Las Vegas, NV, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The hearings and the hydrologic modeling meeting will accommodate those with hearing impairments or other special requirements upon request by calling Janet Steele at (702) 293–8551 at least 48 hours prior to the hearing. The DEIS is available for viewing on the Internet at http://www.lc.usbr.gov and http://www.uc.usbr.gov. Copies of the DEIS, in the form of a printed document or on compact disk, are available upon written request to the following address: Ms. Janet Steele, Attention BCOO–4601, PO Box 61470, Boulder City, Nevada 89006–1470, Telephone: (702) 293–8785, or by fax at (702) 293–8042. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for a list of libraries where the DEIS is available for public inspection and review. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact Ms. Jayne Harkins at the above address or telephone Ms. Harkins at (702) 293– 8785. Range Operating Criteria (LROC) pursuant to the CRBPA. Within this legal framework, the Secretary makes annual determinations regarding the availability of surplus water from Lake Mead by considering various factors, including the amount of water in storage and predictions for natural runoff. The Decree provides that if there exists sufficient water available in a single year for release from Lake Mead to satisfy annual consumptive use in the states of Arizona, California, and Nevada in excess of 7.5 million-acre feet, such water may be determined by the Secretary to be made available as surplus water. The purpose of and need for establishing interim surplus criteria is to assist the Secretary in making annual determinations of surplus conditions, and will afford entities that have contracted for surplus water a greater degree of predictability with respect to the annual existence of surplus water available for diversion. This greater predictability would assist these entities in the management of their water resources. The DEIS presents four possible alternatives for implementation, plus a ‘‘No Action Alternative.’’ The DEIS does not include a preferred alternative. The interim surplus criteria alternatives have been formulated to be consistent with applicable federal law and the LROC, described above. The four potential action alternatives are: a ‘‘Flood Control Alternative,’’ which would provide surplus water only when flood control releases from Lake Mead are needed, based on the current criteria for making such releases; the ‘‘Six States Alternative’’ and ‘‘California Alternative,’’ both of which specify various Lake Mead water surface elevations to be used as ‘‘triggers’’ to indicate when surplus conditions exist; and the ‘‘Shortage Protection Alternative,’’ which would permit surplus conditions to be determined above a specific elevation positioned to ensure enough water remains in Lake Mead to provide a oneyear water supply to Arizona, California, Nevada, and Mexico, and to protect against dropping the lake’s water level below a specified elevation. Libraries Where the Draft EIS is Available for Public Inspection and Review: • Department of the Interior, Natural Resources Library, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240. • Lower Colorado Regional Office, PO Box 61470, Boulder City, Nevada 89006–1470. • Phoenix Area Office, Concorde Commerce Center, 2222 West Dunlap • • • • • • • • • • • Ave., Suite 100, Phoenix, Arizona 85069–1169. Yuma Area Office, 7301 Calle Aqua Salada, Yuma, Arizona, 85366–7504. Upper Colorado Regional Office, 125 South State St., Room 6107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138–1102. Boulder City Library, 813 Arizona, Boulder City, NV 89005. Henderson District Public Library, 280 South Water St., Henderson, NV 89015. Los Angeles Central Library, 630 W 5th St. Los Angeles, CA 90071. San Diego Central Library, 820 E St., San Diego, CA 92101. Salt Lake City Public Library, 209 E 500 S., Salt Lake City, UT 84111. Albuquerque Public Library, 501 Copper Ave. NW, Albuquerque, NM 87102. Denver Public Library, 10 W 14th Ave. Pkwy, Denver, CO 80204. Laramie County Library, 2800 Central Ave., Cheyenne, WY 82001. Phoenix Public Library (Burton Barr Central), 1221 N. Central Ave., AZ 85004. Government Reference Library, City Hall, 9th Floor, Tucson, AZ 85701. Mohave County Library, 1170 Hancock Rd., Bullhead City, AZ 86442. San Bernardino County Library, 1111 Bailey Ave., Needles, CA 92363. Lake Havasu City Library, 1787 McCulloch Blvd. North, Lake Havasu City, AZ, 86403. Parker Public Library, 1001 South Navajo Ave., Parker, AZ 85344. Palo Verde Valley Library, 125 W. Chanslor Way, Blythe, CA 92225. Yuma County Library, 350 S. 3rd Ave., Yuma, AZ 85364. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er•29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove • jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, • o. 14 N • SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) currently manages the lower Colorado River system in accordance with federal law (including the provisions of the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decree, as supplemented, in Arizona v. California (the Decree)), the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (CRBPA) and Long VerDate 11<MAY>2000 23:50 Jul 06, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 • • Dated: June 30, 2000. Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Department of the Interior. [FR Doc. 00–17194 Filed 7–6–00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigations Nos. 731–TA–872–883 (Preliminary)] Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Austria, Belarus, China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, and Venezuela AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Institution of antidumping investigations and scheduling of preliminary phase investigations. E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 07JYN1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 496 of 1200 47516 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 2, 2000 / Notices of the Gettysburg National Military Park located at 97 Taneytown Road, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325. Dated: July 20, 2000. John A. Latschar, Superintendent, Gettysburg NMP/Eisenhower NHS. [FR Doc. 00–19473 Filed 8–1–00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–70–M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Availability of the Draft Revision of the Vacation Cabin Site Policy at Lake Mead National Recreation Area AGENCY: ACTION: National Park Service, Interior. Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The National Park Service announces the availability for public review of the draft revision of the Vacation Cabin Site policy at Lake Mead National Recreation Area. COMMENTS: Written comments must be postmarked or transmitted by September 1, 2000. If individuals submitting comments request that their name and/or address be withheld from public disclosure, it will be honored to the extent allowable by law. Such requests must be stated prominently in the beginning of the comments. There also may be circumstances wherein the NPS will withhold a respondent’s identity as allowable by law. As always: NPS will make available to public inspection all submissions from organizations or businesses and from persons identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations and businesses; and, anonymous comments may not be considered. ADDRESSES: The draft revision of the Vacation Cabin Site policy is available on the Internet at http://www.nps.gov/ lame/concessions/vcs.html. Requests for copies and written comments should be sent to Superintendent, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, 601 Nevada Highway, Boulder City, Nevada 89005 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concessions Program Management at 702/293–8923. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The last revision of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area Vacation Cabin Site policy occurred in 1992. Cabin site lease extensions expired in 1999 and 2000 and are being reauthorized for a oneyear extension upon expiration. When the revised cabin site policy is finalized new permits will be issued for a five year period, the maximum length of time allowed by law. The finalized policy will become part of the permit. There are three vacation cabin site areas within Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Stewart’s Point (54 sites), located along Lake Mead in Nevada, approximately two miles northeast of Rogers Spring. Temple Bar (32 sites), located along Lake Mead in Arizona, approximately one mile southeast of Temple Bar Resort. Katherine (35 sites), located along Lake Mohave in Arizona, approximately two miles north of Katherine Landing. Dated: July 14, 2000. Alan O’Neill, Superintendent, Lake Mead National Recreation Area. [FR Doc. 00–19474 Filed 8–1–00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–70–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from public disclosure, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent’s identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public disclosure in their entirety. DATES: The public comment period on the DEIS remains unchanged and comments on this DEIS must be received no later than September 8, 2000. Public hearings will be held to receive written or verbal comments on the DEIS from interested organizations and individuals on the environmental impacts of the proposal. The public hearings identified in the Federal Register notice published on July 7, 2000 (65 FR 42028) will not be held. Instead, a revised schedule for the hearings follows. The hearings will be held at the following times and locations: • August 21, Big Bear Room, Doubletree Hotel, 222 N. Vineyard Ave., Ontario, CA, 7 p.m. • August 22, Comfort Dental Conference Room, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, 3720 Howard Hughes Parkway, Las Vegas, NV, 7 p.m. • August 23, Jazz Room, Salt Lake City International Airport, 765 Terminal Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah, 7 p.m. • August 24, Meeting Room 1 on Level 3, Terminal 4, Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport, Phoenix, Arizona, 7 p.m. In addition to the public hearings, a separate hydrologic modeling meeting will be held in Las Vegas, NV. Reclamation will provide detailed assumptions and respond to questions regarding the model runs, use schedules, and post-processing analysis that was completed for this DEIS. The time and location for the hydrologic modeling meeting has not changed from the information provided in the Federal Register notice published on July 7, 2000 (65 FR 42028). The time and location for this technical meeting is as follows: • August 15, Comfort Dental Conference Room, Las Vegas Chamber ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N SUMMARY: Pursuant to Nava archived Section 102(2)(C) in the National Environmental Policy cited 16of 6(NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and 8 4, Act 14- the Council on Environmental Quality’s No. VerDate 11<MAY>2000 23:28 Aug 01, 2000 AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior. ACTION: Notice of revised dates for public hearings on the proposed adoption of Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria: INT–DES 00–25. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the proposed adoption of specific criteria under which surplus water conditions may be determined in the Lower Colorado River Basin during the next 15 years. This notice updates the Federal Register notice published on July 7, 2000 (65 FR 42028) and provides notice of revised dates for public hearings on the proposed adoption of Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria. Information on revised dates and locations for public hearings may be found below in the DATES section. ADDRESSES: The comment period on the DEIS remains unchanged. Send comments on the DEIS to Ms. Jayne Harkins, Attention BCOO–4600, PO Box 61470, Boulder City, Nevada, 89006– 1470, or fax comments to Ms. Harkins at (702) 293–8042. As provided in the Federal Register notice published on July 7, 2000 (65 FR 42028), comments on the DEIS must be received no later than September 8, 2000. Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02AUN1.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 02AUN1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 497 of 1200 47517 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 2, 2000 / Notices of Commerce, 3720 Howard Hughes Parkway, Las Vegas, NV, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The hearings and the hydrologic modeling meeting will accommodate those with hearing impairments or other special requirements upon request by calling Janet Steele at (702) 293–8551 at least 48 hours prior to the hearing. The DEIS remains available for viewing on the Internet at http:// www.lc.usbr.gov and http:// www.uc.usbr.gov. Copies of the DEIS, in the form of a printed document or on compact disk, remain available upon written request to the following address: Ms. Janet Steele, Attention BCOO–4601, PO Box 61470, Boulder City, Nevada 89006–1470, Telephone: (702) 293– 8785, or by fax at (702) 293–8042. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact Ms. Jayne Harkins at the above address or telephone Ms. Harkins at (702) 293– 8785. Dated: July 28, 2000. Erica Petacchi, Federal Register Liaison. [FR Doc. 00–19580 Filed 8–1–00; 8:45 am] Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on January 20, 2000 (65 F.R. 3246). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on June 1, 2000, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission transmitted its determinations in this investigation to the Secretary of Commerce on July 27, 2000. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3327 (July 2000), entitled Extruded Rubber Thread from Malaysia (Inv. No. 731– TA–527 (Review)). Issued: July 27, 2000. By order of the Commission. Donna R. Koehnke, Secretary. [FR Doc. 00–19570 Filed 8–1–00; 8:45 am] Investigations Nos. 731–TA-639 and 640 (Review). Issued: July 27, 2000. By order of the Commission. Donna R. Koehnke, Secretary. [FR Doc. 00–19568 Filed 8–1–00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigations Nos. 701–TA–309–A–B and 731–TA–528 (Review)] Magnesium From Canada Determinations On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States International Trade Commission determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)) (the Act), that revocation of the countervailing duty orders 2 and the antidumping duty order on magnesium from Canada would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION ior Inter 17 e 0 of th pt. From er 29, 2 e Forged Stainless Steel Flanges v. D INTERNATIONAL TRADE mb Background India and Taiwan n atio on Nove COMMISSION jo N Determination The Commission instituted these [Investigation No. 731–TA–527 (Review)] Nava archived in on (64 FR 4, ited 68On the basis of the record developed reviewsand August 2, 1999,November 4, c Extruded Rubber Thread From 41961) determined on 1 in 6 subject five-year reviews, the the 14- United States International Trade Malaysia 1999, that it would conduct full reviews No. (64 FR 62690, November 17, 1999). BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P [Investigations Nos. 731–TA–639 and 640 (Review)] 1 Determination On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on extruded rubber thread from Malaysia would likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Background The Commission instituted this review on August 2, 1999 (64 FR 41954) and determined on November 4, 1999 that it would conduct a full review (64 FR 62689, November 17, 1999 ). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission’s review and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)). VerDate 11<MAY>2000 23:28 Aug 01, 2000 Commission determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on forged stainless steel flanges from India and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Background The Commission instituted these reviews on December 1, 1999 (64 FR 67313, December 1, 1999) and determined on March 3, 2000 that it would conduct expedited reviews (65 FR 15009, March 20, 2000). The Commission transmitted its determinations in these reviews to the Secretary of Commerce on July 26, 2000. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3329 (July 2000), entitled Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India and Taiwan: 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 207.2(f)). Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Notice of the scheduling of the Commission’s reviews and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on February 10, 2000 (65 FR 6628). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on May 31, 2000, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission transmitted its determinations in these investigations to the Secretary of Commerce on July 25, 2000. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3324 (July 2000), entitled Magnesium from Canada: Investigations Nos. 701–TA– 309–A–B and 731–TA–528 (Review). Issued: July 26, 2000. 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)). 2 Commissioner Thelma J. Askey dissenting. E:\FR\FM\02AUN1.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 02AUN1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 498 of 1200 48531 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 8, 2000 / Notices Street, NW., Room 7418, Washington, D.C. 20240. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Wes Henry at 202/208–5211 or Dr. William Schmidt at 202/501–9269. Maureen Finnerty, Associate Director, Park Operations and Education. [FR Doc. 00–19955 Filed 8–7–00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–70–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior. ACTION: Notice of public availability of information submitted on a draft environmental impact statement for the proposed adoption of Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria: INT–DES 00–25. SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Council on Environmental Quality’s Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the proposed adoption of specific criteria under which surplus water conditions may be determined in the Lower Colorado River Basin during the next 15 years. A notice of availability and public comment period was provided in a Federal Register notice published on July 7, 2000 (65 FR 42028). As noted in the Federal Register notice published on May 18, 1999 (64 FR 27008), during this NEPA process Reclamation is consulting with state representatives of each of the Governors of the seven Colorado River Basin States, Indian Tribes, members of the general public, representatives of academic and scientific communities, environmental organizations, the recreation industry and contractors for the purchase of Federal power produced at Glen Canyon Dam. Reclamation has received information from the Colorado River Basin States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming during the public comment period on the proposed adoption of Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria. The information provided to Reclamation is the product of significant effort on the part of the representatives of the Governors of the Colorado River Basin States. As noted in the Federal Register notice published on May 18, 1999 (64 FR 27008), the statutory framework for operation of Colorado River Reservoirs underscores the importance of working with the Colorado River Basin States in developing interim surplus criteria. Reclamation has made a preliminary review of the specific surplus criteria in the information presented by the Basin States and has made a preliminary determination that such criteria are within the range of alternatives and impacts analyzed in the DEIS. The information provided by the States does contain details regarding proposed surplus criteria that may be helpful to others preparing comments in response to the Federal Register notice published on July 7, 2000 (65 FR 42028). Accordingly, Reclamation is providing this information for public consideration during the public comment period on this action. That period will not be extended. Reclamation will be analyzing the issues and information presented in this submission, along with all other public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the proposed adoption of Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria. Reclamation, along with the Department of the Interior, will utilize this information, along with all other public comments, as appropriate, during its preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement and accompanying Record of Decision. The information provided by the representatives of the Colorado River Basin States may be found below in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. The DEIS, and the information provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below are available for viewing on the Internet at http:// www.lc.usbr.gov and http:// www.uc.usbr.gov. ADDRESSES: The comment period on the DEIS remains unchanged. Send comments on the DEIS to Ms. Jayne Harkins, Attention BCOO–4600, PO Box 61470, Boulder City, Nevada, 89006– 1470, or fax comments to Ms. Harkins at (702) 293–8042. As provided in the Federal Register notice published on July 7, 2000 (65 FR 42028), comments on the DEIS must be received no later than September 8, 2000. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from public disclosure, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent’s identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public disclosure in their entirety. Copies of the DEIS, in the form of a printed document or on compact disk, remain available upon written request to the following address: Ms. Janet Steele, Attention BCOO–4601, PO Box 61470, Boulder City, Nevada 89006–1470, Telephone: (702) 293-8785, or by fax at (702) 293–8042. DATES: The public comment period on the DEIS remains unchanged and comments on this DEIS must be received no later than September 8, 2000. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact Ms. Jayne Harkins at the above address or telephone Ms. Harkins at (702) 293– 8785. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb Interim Surplus Guidelines—Working Draft ation on Nove N vajo hived I. Background Na d in 64, arc A. The Boulder Canyon Project Act of cite 168 1928 (28 Stat. 1057) (the ‘‘BCPA’’), 41 authorized the Secretary of the Interior No. VerDate 11<MAY>2000 18:19 Aug 07, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following information was received from the Colorado River Basin States: (the ‘‘Secretary’’) to construct Hoover Dam and the All-American Canal, and to contract for the delivery and use of water from such facilities for irrigation and domestic uses. The effectiveness of the BCPA was contingent upon ratification of the Colorado River Compact of 1922 (the ‘‘Compact’’) by the Colorado River Basin States, or, in the alternative, upon ratification by six of said states, including California. The effectiveness of the BCPA was further contingent upon agreement by the state of California, by act of its legislature, irrevocably and unconditionally with the United States and for the benefit of the other Colorado River Basin States, as an express covenant and in consideration of the passage of the BCPA, to limit the aggregate annual consumptive use (diversions less returns to the river) of water of and from the Colorado River for use in California, to no more than 4.4 million acre-feet (‘‘maf’’) per year of the waters apportioned to the Lower Basin States by Article III(a) of the Compact, plus not more than one-half of any excess or surplus waters unapportioned by the E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 08AUN1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 499 of 1200 48532 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 8, 2000 / Notices Compact, such use to be always subject to the terms of the Compact. Six states, including California, ratified the Compact by 1929. The California Legislature also passed the California Limitation Act (Act of March 4, 1929; Ch. 16, 48th Sess.). Thus, the conditions of the BCPA were satisfied, the President proclaimed the BCPA effective on June 25, 1929 and the Secretary thereafter constructed Hoover Dam and the All-American Canal and executed contracts for the delivery and use of water from such facilities. Arizona ratified the Compact in 1944. Before the Secretary entered into water delivery contracts with California agencies, he requested such agencies to agree to relative priorities of rights among them. This was accomplished by the California Seven-Party Agreement of August 18, 1931, incorporated into the water delivery contracts (the ‘‘California Seven Party Agreement’’), which established the following priorities within California: CALIFORNIA SEVEN-PARTY AGREEMENT Priority Acre-feet annually Description 1 ................................................................ 2 ................................................................ 3(a) ............................................................ 3(b) ............................................................ 4 ................................................................ 5(a) ............................................................ 5(b) ............................................................ 6(a) ............................................................ 6(b) ............................................................ 7 ................................................................ Total ................................................... Palo Verde Irrigation District—gross area of 104,500 acres .... ................................... ........................ Yuma Project (Reservation Division)—not exceeding a gross area of 25,000 acres ........................ Imperial Irrigation District and lands in Imperial and Coachella Valleys to be served 3,850,000 by the All-American Canal. Palo Verde Irrigation District—16,000 acres of mesa lands ...... ................................. ........................ Metropolitan Water District and/or City of Los Angeles and/or others on coastal 550,000 plain. Metropolitan Water District and/or City of Los Angeles and/or others on coastal 550,000 plain. City and/or County of San Diego 1 ............................................................................... 112,000 Imperial Irrigation District and lands in Imperial and Coachella Valley ....................... ........................ Palo Verde Irrigation District—16,000 acres of mesa lands ...... ................................. 300,000 Agricultural Use in the Colorado River Basin in California .......................................... ........................ ....................................................................................................................................... 5,362,000 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e apportionments mb apportioned consistent with the BCPA The California Seven-Party Agreement supplied from then v. D and the opinion of the Court, but in no decreed to eachio the respective states. thus allocated water both within at of on Nove N event shall more that 4.4 maf be The ajo enjoins d Secretary from California’s limitation of 4.4 maf per vDecree hive the a year, as well as surplus water above that N in releasing mainstream water controlled apportioned for use in California rc a d by64, amount. Only about one-half cite of the 8 the United States for irrigation and including all present perfected rights. 16domestic use in the Lower Division § 301(b) of the Colorado River water under Priorities 4, 5(a) and 5(b) 14 States (Arizona, California and Nevada) UnderProject Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 885, Basin diverted by the Metropolitan Water No. 1 In 1946, the City of San Diego, San Diego County Water Authority, Metropolitan Water District and the Secretary entered into a contract in which the right to storage and delivery of Colorado River water vested in the City of San Diego was merged with and added to the rights of the Metropolitan Water District under conditions since satisfied. District of Southern California (the ‘‘MWD’’) through its Colorado River Aqueduct is within the 4.4 maf limitation. Diversions under Priorities 5(a) and (b) are dependent upon surplus water being made available. The amounts of water allocated to Priorities 1, 2, 3(a) and 3(b) were not quantified by priority, but were aggregated to not exceed 3.85 maf. In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court entered its Decree in Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340 (1964) (the ‘‘Decree’’), pursuant to its Opinion in the same case, 373 U.S. 546 (1963). The Decree and the Court’s Opinion confirmed and ordered the apportionment by the BCPA of water available for release from water controlled by the United States in the mainstream of the Colorado River downstream from Lee Ferry and within the United States to the states of Arizona (2.8 maf per year); California (4.4 maf per year); and Nevada (0.3 maf per year). The Decree also established certain federal reserved rights, and provided for the quantification of present perfected rights, all to be VerDate 11<MAY>2000 10:54 Aug 07, 2000 except in the following circumstances: 1. If sufficient mainstream water is available for release to satisfy 7.5 maf of annual consumptive use in the three Lower Division States, such water shall be made available in accordance with the basic apportionments set forth above. This is referred to as a ‘‘Normal Year.’’ (Article II(B)(1)). 2. If sufficient mainstream water is available for release to satisfy in excess of 7.5 maf of annual consumptive use in the three Lower Division States, water in excess of 7.5 maf shall be apportioned 50% for use in Arizona and 50% for use in California; provided, however, that in the event the United States so contracts with Nevada (which it has) then 46% of such surplus is apportioned for use in Arizona and 4% of such surplus is apportioned for use in Nevada. This is referred to as a ‘‘Surplus Year.’’ (Article II(B)(2)). 3. If insufficient mainstream water is available for release to satisfy 7.5 maf of annual consumptive use in the three Lower Division States, then after satisfying present perfected rights in order of priority, such water shall be Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 diversions from the Colorado River for the Central Arizona Project (the ‘‘CAP’’) shall be so limited as to assure the availability of water in quantities sufficient to provide for the aggregate annual consumptive use by holders of present perfected rights, by other users in the State of California served under existing contracts with the United States by diversion works theretofore constructed, and by other existing Federal reservations in that State, of 4.4 maf, and by users of the same character in Arizona and Nevada. This is referred to as a ‘‘Shortage Year.’’ (Article II(B)(3)). 4. If, in any one year, water apportioned for consumptive use in a State will not be consumed in that State, the Secretary may make available such apportioned but unused water during such year for consumptive use in another Lower Division State. No rights to the recurrent use of such water shall accrue by reason of the use thereof. (Article II(B)(6)) In the Criteria for Coordinated LongRange Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs Pursuant to the Colorado E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 08AUN1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 500 of 1200 48533 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 8, 2000 / Notices River Basin Project Act of September 30, 1968 (P.L. 90–537) (the ‘‘Criteria’’), the Secretary adopted Criteria implementing his authorities under the BCPA, as enjoined by the Decree. Article III of the Criteria provides for the determination of Normal, Surplus and Shortage conditions for the release from Lake Mead of mainstream water downstream from Lee Ferry for use in the Lower Division States. B. California’s basic annual mainstream apportionment of Colorado River water is 4.4 maf, whereas its use of Colorado River water has ranged from 4.2 to 5.2 maf since 1975. In the past, California was able to consumptively use water above its basic annual apportionment because the water use by both Arizona and Nevada was below their basic annual apportionments. In 1991 and 1992, as California faced its fifth and sixth consecutive years of severe drought, entities in California were able to divert all of the water that they requested or could transport from the Colorado River within the Lower Basin’s apportionment. However, Nevada’s Colorado River water use was forecasted to exceed its basic apportionment of 300,000 acre-feet (‘‘af’’) in the first decade of the 21st century, and Arizona’s water use was projected to reach its basic annual apportionment of 2.8 maf. This meant that, in the future, without the Secretary declaring a Surplus condition, California’s use of Colorado River water would be limited to its 4.4 maf basic apportionment, some 750,000 af less than its forecasted use of Colorado River water. The bulk of any mandated reduction in California’s water use would occur within the priorities held by MWD, which serves the coastal plain of southern California through its Colorado River Aqueduct. Since 1964, California has made significant investments to offset the eventual reduction in available Colorado River water. These investments have included: developing additional sources of imported water, conservation (demand reduction and use efficiency improvements), surface and groundwater storage, local supplies, conjunctive use programs, reclaimed water projects, and recovery and treatment of contaminated groundwater. While these investments have significantly increased supplies and reduced demand for imported water, they have not been adequate to offset the reduction of Colorado River water to 4.4 maf per year, when considered in conjunction with population increases and the reduction in dependable State Water Project (the ‘‘SWP’’) and Los Angeles Aqueduct supplies. This reality has fueled further efforts to maximize the beneficial use of Colorado River water in California through cooperative conservation programs and transfers of conserved water. C. Nevada is quickly approaching full use of its 0.3 maf basic apportionment. Nevada’s basic apportionment is projected to meet its domestic needs (excluding groundwater recharge) until approximately 2007. Also, Nevada has a need for additional water above its basic apportionment before 2007 for groundwater recharge in local groundwater basins. Nevada’s long-term options for additional water supply include surplus Colorado River water, participation in the Arizona groundwater bank, a number of in-state options such as the Muddy and Virgin Rivers, recovery and treatment of poor quality shallow groundwater, import of groundwater from basins within Nevada, and recovery of water from local groundwater banks. Nevada projects that even with an aggressive water conservation program it will need additional water for domestic needs in about 2007 and the need will steadily increase to almost 40,000 af in 2016. Nevada also projects it could use an additional 30,000 to 50,000 af per year for local groundwater recharge when surplus supplies are available. D. Arizona’s Lower Basin apportionment is divided among a number of major agricultural, Indian, and municipal contractors. Geographically, there are numerous diversions by contractors located along the River corridor and there is the singular diversion by the CAP which delivers water through a series of aqueducts to the interior portion of the State. Arizona’s uses of Colorado River water are increasing rapidly, but primarily because the CAP, which was declared substantially complete in the early 1990’s, is becoming more fully utilized. In contrast, uses by contractors located along the Colorado River in the Yuma and Parker areas have been developed for many years and their consumption has been stable. Increased municipal growth in the Yuma and Mohave County areas will gradually increase water demands over a period of many years, but some of the growth will result in a corresponding decrease in agricultural demand as farm lands are subdivided and urbanized. Onreservation uses by Indian Tribes located in proximity to the River are also well established, although the potential for increased consumptive use exists, especially on the Colorado River Indian Tribes (the ‘‘CRIT’’) Reservation. CAP water uses will increase over time as municipal and Indian contractors complete necessary water treatment and delivery infrastructure. In the meantime, the CAP will deliver significant quantities of water to irrigation districts who will use the water to displace groundwater supplies. Arizona has also developed a major capability to use CAP water that would otherwise be unordered, for groundwater recharge activities. The largest purchaser of water for recharge purposes is the Arizona Water Banking Authority (the ‘‘AWBA’’), whose primary purpose is to firm municipal CAP water deliveries. E. In January 1986, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) issued a special report titled Colorado River— Alternative Operating Strategies for Distributing Surplus Water and Avoiding Spills. This report suggested operating strategies for avoiding Lake Mead spills that went beyond the Field Working Agreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers for Flood Control Operation of Hoover Dam and Lake Mead, but were, in essence, based on similar principles. Under one of these strategies, limited surpluses would be determined based on the need to provide adequate storage capacity for an assumed runoff rather than the actual yearly forecast in order to reduce the probability of reservoir spills. One of the alternatives considered assumed that runoff to be the value of the 70th percentile of exceedance based on the historic record, which is equivalent to about 17.331 maf runoff above Lake Powell. This strategy was named OS 0.70 (‘‘70R’’) or ‘‘space building to avoid reservoir spills’’ in the 1986 report. This and other strategies have been utilized for long-range operation projections since 1986. F. On October 18, 1999, the respective boards of Coachella Valley Water District (‘‘CVWD’’), Imperial Irrigation District (‘‘IID’’), MWD and the State of California released the Key Terms for Quantification Settlement (the ‘‘Key Terms’’) as the basis for obtaining public input and completing a Quantification Settlement Agreement (‘‘Settlement Agreement’’) among the districts. The Settlement Agreement provides the basis for California to reduce its reliance on Colorado River water above its basic apportionment. The agreement further will quantify the rights and uses of Colorado River water by designating water budgets for CVWD, IID, and MWD. The quantification of the rights and uses of water with respect to priorities 3 and 6 of the 1931 California Seven Party Agreement is designed to ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. VerDate 11<MAY>2000 10:54 Aug 07, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 08AUN1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 501 of 1200 48534 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 8, 2000 / Notices help facilitate implementation of cooperative water supply programs, and provide a quantified baseline from which conservation and transfer programs can be measured. The Settlement Agreement is expected to be fully executed in January 2001, after the conditions precedent contained in the Key Terms have been satisfied. California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan (the ‘‘Plan’’), is a framework by which programs, projects, actions, policies and other activities would be coordinated and cooperatively implemented allowing California to meet its Colorado River water needs within its basic apportionment in Normal years. The Plan describes resource and financial investments and provides overall coordination on important initiatives undertaken by the Colorado River Board of California member agencies and others. The diverse components of the Plan are designed to help protect and optimize California’s Colorado River resources. Some of these are associated components, meaning that they don’t directly involve Colorado River water but are needed by implementing entities to meet their water needs within California’s Colorado River water apportionment. The components of the Plan are broad in scope addressing both quantity and quality of California’s share of Colorado River water. The California agencies with Colorado River rights and contractual interests are the principal implementing entities for the programs and projects described in the Plan, and for obtaining the necessary program and project approvals, conducting appropriate environmental reviews, and ensuring compliance with endangered species acts (federal and state). The Plan is intended to be dynamic and flexible enough to allow for modifications in, and periodic updates to, the framework when and where appropriate, and to allow for the substitution of programs and projects within the Plan’s components when they have been found to be more cost effective and/or appropriate. Programs undertaken by the California agencies to transition California’s use of Colorado River water to its basic apportionment without potential major water supply and economic disruptions include: • Further quantification of rights and use of Colorado River water in California where helpful to facilitate the optimum use of California’s Colorado River resources; • Cooperative core water supply programs and voluntary transfers; • Increased efficiencies in water conveyance and use; • Water storage and conjunctive use programs to increase normal and dry year water supplies; • Voluntary water exchanges; • Administrative actions necessary for effective use and management of water supplies; • Improved reservoir management and operations; • Drought and surplus water management plans; • Coordinated project operations for increased water supply yield; and • Groundwater management. The State of California has supported Plan implementation from the General Fund. Most notably, $235 million was appropriated in 1998 for lining portions of the All American and Coachella Canals ($200 million) and for groundwater storage and conjunctive use programs ($35 million) identified in the Plan. Also, between 1996 and 2000, California voters approved historic levels of general obligation bond financing for improving California water supply reliability, water quality and for restoring watershed ecosystems. The funding support provided by the $995 million Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act in 1996; the $2.1 billion Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Act in 2000; and the $1.97 billion Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Act in 2000 extend to the implementation of the Plan. The proposed Settlement Agreement, other proposed interagency agreements and associated implementation agreement(s) with the Secretary, together with the Secretary’s administration of water rights and use below Glen Canyon Dam, constitute the principal binding and enforceable provisions of the Plan. Provisions regarding third and sixth priority use provide the mechanisms needed to help facilitate the voluntary shift of approximately 380,000 af per year from agricultural use to urban use on the coastal plain of Southern California and the needed quantified baseline by which such programs can be measured. The Settlement Agreement, when fully executed, provides the basis for California to meet its Colorado River water supply needs from within its annual apportionment of Colorado River water. Specific terms of the settlement include: • A shift of 380,000 acre-feet per year from agriculture to urban use, through water acquisitions from IID and CVWD to MWD and SDCWA and forbearance of the use of 38,000 acre-feet per year of 6th priority water by IID and CVWD for MWD’s use; • Caps on use of water by IID and CVWD under the third priority at 3.1 maf and 0.33 maf, respectively; • The exclusive right for MWD to utilize all water below 420,000 acre-feet per year unused by the Palo Verde Irrigation District and the Yuma ProjectReservation Division collectively; • A permanent water supply of 16,000 acre-feet per year for the San Luis Rey (the ‘‘SLR’’) Indian Water Rights Settlement, from the All American and Coachella Canal Lining Projects; • Deductions from IID, CVWD, and MWD’s supplies to permit the Secretary to satisfy use of miscellaneous and Indian present perfected rights by holders of those rights as they were not addressed in the 1931 Seven-Party Agreement, the majority of the rights having been quantified in 1979; and • A net yield of up to 90,000 acre-feet per year from the IID–MWD Conservation Program for MWD over a period of up to approximately 75 years. Table 1 summarizes the yields and estimated start dates of the core cooperative voluntary water conservation/transfer projects and associated exchanges: ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. TABLE 1.—COOPERATIVE WATER CONSERVATION/TRANSFER PROJECTS Estimated start date Cooperative water conservation/transfer projects Annual yield (af) MWD/IID 1988 Water Conservation Program .............................................................. SDCWA/IID Transfer and SDCWA/MWD Exchange ................................................... MWD/CVWD SWP Water Transfer/Colorado River Water Exchange ......................... Coachella Canal Lining-MWD/SLR 4 ............................................................................ All American Canal Lining-MWD/SLR 3 ....................................................................... 100,000–110,000 2 .................................... 130,000–200,000 3 .................................... 35,000 ....................................................... 26,000 ....................................................... 367,700 ..................................................... VerDate 11<MAY>2000 18:55 Aug 07, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 08AUN1 (1) 2002 2003 5 2005 4 2006 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 502 of 1200 48535 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 8, 2000 / Notices TABLE 1.—COOPERATIVE WATER CONSERVATION/TRANSFER PROJECTS—Continued Estimated start date Cooperative water conservation/transfer projects Annual yield (af) IID/CVWD/MWD Conservation Program ...................................................................... 100,000 6 ................................................... 2007 1 Complete. 2 Yield to MWD, except for 20,000 af per year to be made available to CVWD. to SDCWA. 4 Yield to MWD and San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Parties. 5 Date by which full conservation benefits will be achieved. 6 Yield to CVWD, MWD has an option to acquire water CVWD does not need. MWD assumes responsibility for 50,000 af per year to CVWD after year 45 of the Settlement Agreement. 3 Yield The agencies’ Colorado River entitlement water use budgets are adjusted for each increment of transfer, resulting in an overall reduced use of Colorado River water by California. There is approximately a 20-year transition period before the core water conservation/transfers are fully implemented. All of the core conservation/transfers to the coastal plain of southern California are proposed to occur within a ten-year implementation period. The agencies responsible for implementing the components of the Plan intend to move forward as quickly as possible. In a number of cases, environmental documentation must be prepared and, in certain cases, permits and approvals must be secured from state and/or federal agencies to permit projects to move forward. It should be understood that some components and/ or associated components may be modified but would still produce the same conceptual results, or that other options may be substituted if they are found to be more effective and appropriate. There are also related activities, such as the Salton Sea (the ‘‘Sea’’) restoration efforts. Congress specified in Public Law 105–372 that alternatives to restore the Sea should not include importation of any new or additional water from the Colorado River and should account for the transfer of water out of the Salton Sea Basin. The Plan also includes consideration of environmental factors. Implementation of the Plan will reduce California’s reliance on the Colorado River without severe dislocations in either urban or agricultural areas. Fundamentally, programs and projects in the Plan are not designed to increase water supplies to accommodate increased population growth. Thus, their implementation will not stimulate new growth, foster unplanned urban development, affect demands on local or regional transportation systems, require new public services and utilities, or create long-term increases in ambient noise levels. Their implementation will make a de minimis contribution to cumulative land use impacts and have a de minimis effect on associated socioeconomic resources, such as employment, earnings, and housing. The Plan and the accompanying Settlement Agreement programs and projects are designed to preserve the ability to meet existing needs while diverting less water from the Colorado River. In accordance with the Plan, California’s use of Colorado River water during the Interim Period will decline over time. During the Interim Period (2002–2016), MWD will use surplus water, when available, to meet direct water supply demands on the coastal plain while programs and projects in the Plan are implemented, as well as to provide a source of water for conjunctive use and storage programs. Following the Interim Period, beyond 2016, MWD’s water supply demands will be met from occasional years of surplus water, conjunctive use and storage withdrawals, dry year transfers, and other water acquisitions. California expects to have the projects shown in Table 1 yield the following amounts of water in the years shown: for the Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs Pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Project Act of September 30, 1968 (P.L. 90–537) (the ‘‘Criteria’’). Additionally, these Guidelines rely on the authority of the Secretary to make apportioned but unused water in one Lower Division State available for use for irrigation and domestic uses in another state under Article II(B)(6) of the Decree. These Guidelines are adopted for the purpose of providing enhanced domestic water supply reliability in the Lower Division States during a transition period ending December 31, 2016 (the ‘‘Interim Period’’), in accordance with the priorities contained in water delivery contracts or agreements. These Guidelines become effective only when the Settlement Agreement becomes effective. The Guidelines include triggers that will implement Normal, Surplus or Shortage deliveries at specified target elevations of storage in Lake Mead. They also include benchmarks, reporting mechanisms and reviews by which California and agencies within California will demonstrate measurable and defined progress in meeting the goals of the California’s Plan described herein. If sufficient progress is not being made, these Guidelines will automatically terminate. The State of California and its affected agencies have recognized and agreed upon, and the Secretary has agreed with, the plan for implementation of agreements that will increase the efficiency of use within Priorities 1 through 3 of the California Seven-Party Agreement of August 18, 1931, and thereby reduce the amount of water required for irrigation and potable uses under such priorities. Savings shall be made available for use on the coastal plain of Southern California within California’s basic annual apportionment of 4.4 maf. These Guidelines include measures to be undertaken by MWD to provide reparation to Arizona for increased water supply shortages associated with interim operations, both during the ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. VerDate 11<MAY>2000 10:54 Aug 07, 2000 Date 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 Acre feet .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... 340,000 460,000 490,000 510,000 540,000 II. Authority and Purpose The purpose of these Guidelines is to provide direction for an Interim Period for the annual determination by the Secretary of Normal, Surplus, and Shortage conditions for the pumping or release from Lake Mead of mainstream water downstream from Lee Ferry for use in the Lower Division States. These Guidelines are used under the authority of the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 (28 Stat. 1057) (the ‘‘BCPA’’), the Decree in Arizona v. California, 376 U. S. 340 (1964) (the ‘‘Decree’’) and in furtherance of Article III of the Criteria Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 08AUN1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 503 of 1200 48536 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 8, 2000 / Notices effective period and for so long thereafter as such risk is present. During the Interim Period and after the termination of these Guidelines, the Secretary will withhold, deliver and account for water in accordance with such described reparation. These Guidelines are not intended to, and do not: • Guarantee or assure any water user a firm supply for any specified period; • Change or expand existing authorities under the body of law known as the ‘‘Law of the River’’; • Address intrastate storage or intrastate distribution of water; • Change the apportionments made for use within individual States, or in any way impair or impede the right of the Upper Basin to consumptively use water available to that Basin under the Compact; • Affect any obligation of any Upper Division State under the Colorado River Compact; • Affect any right of any State or of the United States under § 14 of the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 105); § 601(c) of the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 885); the California Limitation Act (Act of March 4, 1929; Ch. 16, 48th Sess.); or any other provision of the ‘‘Law of the River’’; or • Affect the rights of any holder of present perfected rights or reserved rights, which rights shall be satisfied within the apportionment of the State within which the use is made in accordance with the Decree. III. Allocation of Unused Apportionment Water Under Article II(B)(6) Article II(B)(6) of the Decree allows the Secretary to allocate water that is apportioned to one Lower Division State, but is for any reason unused in that State, to another Lower Division State. This determination is made for one year only and no rights to recurrent use of the water accrue to the state that receives the allocated water. Historically, this provision of the Decree has been used to allocate Arizona’s and Nevada’s apportioned but unused water to California. Water use projections made for the analysis of these interim Guidelines indicate that neither California nor Nevada is likely to have significant volumes of apportioned but unused water during the Interim Period. Depending upon the requirements of the AWBA for intrastate and interstate OffStream Banking, Arizona may have significant amounts of apportioned but unused water. Before making a determination of an interim Surplus condition under these Guidelines, the Secretary will determine the quantity of apportioned but unused water from the basic apportionments under Article II(B)(6), and will allocate such water in the following order of priority: 1. Meet the Direct Delivery Domestic Use requirements of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (‘‘MWD’’) and Southern Nevada Water Authority (‘‘SNWA’’), allocated as agreed by said agencies; 2. Meet the needs for Off-stream Banking activities in California by MWD and in Nevada by SNWA, allocated as agreed by said agencies; and 3. Meet the other needs for water in California in accordance with the California Seven-Party Agreement as supplemented by the Settlement Agreement. Domestic Surplus. The amount of such Surplus shall equal: a. For Direct Delivery Domestic Use by MWD, 1.212 maf reduced by: 1.) the amount of basic apportionment available to MWD and 2.) the amount of its domestic demand which MWD offsets in such year by offstream groundwater withdrawals or other options. The amount offset under 2.) shall not be less than 400,000 af in 2001 and will be reduced by 20,000 af/yr over the Interim Period so as to equal 100,000 af in 2016. b. For use by SNWA, one-half of the Direct Delivery Domestic Use within the SNWA service area in excess of the State of Nevada’s basic apportionment. c. For Arizona, one-half of the Direct Delivery Domestic Use in excess of the State of Arizona’s basic apportionment. 2. Full Domestic Surplus: In years when Lake Mead content is projected to be above elevation 1145 ft., but less than the amount which would initiate a Surplus under B.3 or B.4 hereof on January 1, the Secretary shall determine a Full Domestic Surplus. The amount of such Surplus shall equal: a. For Direct Delivery Domestic Use by MWD, 1.250 maf reduced by the amount of basic apportionment available to MWD. b. For use by SNWA, the Direct Delivery Domestic Use within the SNWA service area in excess of the State of Nevada’s basic apportionment. c. For use in Arizona, the Direct Delivery Domestic Use in excess of Arizona’s basic apportionment. 3. Quantified Surplus: In years when the Secretary determines that water should be released for beneficial consumptive use to reduce the risk of potential reservoir spills based on the OS 0.70 alternative strategy (‘‘70R’’) as described in the Bureau of Reclamation’s CRSSez Annual Colorado River System Simulation Model Overview and Users Manual, revised May 1998, the Secretary shall determine and allocate a Quantified Surplus sequentially as follows: a. Establish the volume of the Quantified Surplus. b. Allocate and distribute the Quantified Surplus 50% to California, 46% to Arizona and 4% to Nevada, subject to c. through g. that follow. c. Distribute California’s share first to meet basic apportionment demands and MWD’s Direct Delivery Domestic Use and Off-stream Banking demands, and then to California Priorities 6 and 7 and other surplus contracts. Distribute Nevada’s share first to meet basic apportionment demands and then to the remaining Direct Delivery Domestic Use and Off-stream Banking demands. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. For purposes of these guidelines, the following definitions do apply: ‘‘Domestic’’ use shall have the meaning defined in the Compact. ‘‘Direct Delivery Domestic Use’’ shall mean direct delivery of water to domestic end users of other municipal and industrial water providers within the contractor’s area of normal service, including incidental regulation of Colorado River water supplies within the year of operation but not including Off-stream Banking. ‘‘Direct Delivery Domestic Use’’ for MWD shall include delivery of water to end users within its area of normal service, incidental regulation of Colorado River water supplies within the year of operation, and Off-stream Banking only with water delivered through the Colorado River Aqueduct. ‘‘Off-stream Banking’’ shall mean the diversion of Colorado River water to underground storage facilities for use in subsequent years from the facility used by a contractor diverting such water. VerDate 11<MAY>2000 10:54 Aug 07, 2000 IV. Determination of Lake Mead Operation During the Interim Period A. Normal In years when available Lake Mead storage is projected to be at or below elevation 1,125 ft. and above the Shortage triggering level on January 1, the Secretary shall determine a Normal year. B. Surplus 1. Partial Domestic Surplus: In years when Lake Mead storage is projected to be between elevation 1125 ft. and elevation 1145 ft. on January 1, the Secretary shall determine a Partial Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 08AUN1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 504 of 1200 48537 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 8, 2000 / Notices Distribute Arizona’s share to surplus demands in Arizona including Offstream Banking and interstate banking demands. Arizona, California and Nevada agree that Nevada would get first priority for interstate banking in Arizona. d. Distribute any unused share of the Quantified Surplus in accordance with Section III, Allocation of Unused Apportionment Water Under Article II(B)(6). e. Determine whether MWD, SNWA and Arizona have received the amount of water they would have received under Section IV.B.2., Full Domestic Surplus if a Quantified Surplus had not been declared. If they have not, then determine and meet all demands provided for in Section IV.B.2. (a), (b) and (c). f. Any remaining water shall remain in storage in Lake Mead. 4. Flood Control Surplus: In years in which the Field Working Agreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers for Flood Control Operation of Hoover Dam and Lake Mead requires releases greater than the downstream beneficial consumptive use demands, the Secretary shall determine a Flood Control Surplus in that year or the subsequent year. In such years, releases will be made to satisfy all beneficial uses within the United States, including unlimited off-stream groundwater banking, and section 215 deliveries under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 1263) (the ‘‘RRA’’). After all beneficial uses within the United States have been met, the Secretary shall notify the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission that there may be a surplus of water as provided in Article 10 of the Mexican Water Treaty of 1944. may require additional reductions in accordance with the Decree and law. V. Determination of 602(a) Storage in Lake Powell During the Interim Period During the Interim Period, 602(a) storage requirements determined in accordance with Article II (1) of the Criteria shall utilize a value of not less than 14.85 maf (elevation 3630 feet) for Lake Powell. VI. Implementation of Guidelines During the Interim Period the Secretary shall utilize the currently established process for development of the Annual Operating Plan for the Colorado River System Reservoirs (‘‘AOP’’) and use these Guidelines to make determinations regarding Normal, Surplus, and Shortage conditions for the operation of Lake Mead and to allocate apportioned but unused water. The Secretary also shall apply, as appropriate, the provisions of these Guidelines related to reparation and termination. The operation of the other Colorado River System reservoirs and determinations associated with development of the AOP shall be in accordance with the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, the Criteria, and other applicable laws. In order to allow for better overall water management during the Interim Period, the Secretary shall undertake a ‘‘mid-year review’’ allowing for the revision of the current AOP, as appropriate based on actual runoff conditions which are greater than projected, or demands which are lower than projected. The Secretary shall revise the determination for the current year only to allow for additional deliveries. Any revision in the AOP may occur only after a re-initiation of the AOP consultation process as required by law. As part of the AOP process during the Interim Period, California shall report to the Secretary on its progress in implementing the Plan. off the River of 500,000 af per year, unless otherwise agreed by MWD and Arizona. The holders of Priorities 6 and 7 under the California Seven-Party Agreement and Nevada have waived any claim to such water. After the Interim Period, if the Secretary makes a shortage determination in which deliveries to Arizona would be reduced and, if MWD has diverted water under IV. B.1 and/or IV. B.2 herein, MWD has agreed to forbear the delivery off the river of an amount of water equal to such reductions to Arizona, unless otherwise agreed by MWD and Arizona. The holders of Priorities 6 and 7 under the California Seven-Party Agreement and Nevada have waived any claim to such water. The total amount of water forborne by MWD during or after the Interim Period pursuant to these guidelines shall not exceed one maf. The reparation obligation of MWD shall terminate at such time after the Interim Period that the Secretary determines a Surplus based on the Flood Control strategy or as otherwise agreed by MWD and Arizona. ior Inter 17 f the These 0 9 2 Guidelines shall terminate: pt. o er 2A. ,On December 31, 2016, or e v. D mb B. In the event California has not ation on Nove implemented conservation measures as jo N set forth in the Settlement Agreement, Nava archived which actually reduce its need for d in 64, cite 168 surplus Colorado River water by the following amounts by the date . 14No indicated: C. Shortage In a year when the Secretary projects that future water supply and demands would create a 20% or greater probability that Lake Mead would drop below elevation 1050 feet in a year prior to or in the year 2050, the Secretary shall determine a Shortage. This strategy is defined in the Bureau of Reclamation’s CRSSez Annual Colorado River System Simulation Model Overview and Users Manual, revised May 1998. In any year when a shortage is declared, the Secretary shall deliver no more than 4.4 maf for consumptive use in California and no more than 2.3 maf for consumptive use in Arizona. Nevada shall share in shortages as required by law. If reservoir conditions continue to deteriorate, the Secretary VerDate 11<MAY>2000 10:54 Aug 07, 2000 VII. Reparation for Increased Water Supply Shortages It is possible that the operation of Lake Mead under these Guidelines will result in the Secretary determining a shortage condition more frequently, or for a shortage to be more severe, or for a shortage to be longer in duration than would otherwise have occurred, during the Interim Period or thereafter. During the Interim Period, if the Secretary makes a shortage determination in which deliveries to Arizona would be reduced, and if MWD has diverted water under IV. B.1 and/or IV. B.2 herein, MWD has agreed to forbear the delivery Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 VIII. Termination of Guidelines Date Acre feet January 1, 2006 ........................ January 1, 2011 ........................ 280,000 380,000 In such event, the Bureau of Reclamation shall account for the total volume of Colorado River water diverted into underground storage from the Colorado River Aqueduct by and for the benefit of MWD under any Full Domestic Surplus determination. MWD has agreed to forbear diversions in an amount equal to such volume in the next following Normal or Shortage year(s) in an amount not to exceed 200,000 af per year, and the holders of Priorities 6 and 7 under the California Seven-Party Agreement have waived any claim to such water. Such obligation shall be terminated in the first year that the Secretary determines a Surplus under a 70R strategy or a Flood Control strategy. Upon termination, Lake Mead operations, for the purpose of determining Surplus, shall immediately revert to 70R. Note: We will prepare a E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 08AUN1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 505 of 1200 48538 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 8, 2000 / Notices separate document describing inadvertent overruns and average decree accounting that may be incorporated into the criteria or adopted separately.’’ Dated: August 3, 2000. Eluid L. Martinez, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation. [FR Doc. 00–20033 Filed 8–7–00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Lodging of Consent Decrees Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (‘‘CERCLA’’) Notice is hereby given that nine proposed consent decrees in United States v. Mountain Metal Company, et al., Civil Action No. CV–98–C–2562–S, and consolidated action Exide Corporation and Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Aaron Scrap Metals, et al., Civil Action No. CV–98–J–2886–S, were lodged on August 1, 2000 with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division. In these actions, the United States has sought recovery of response costs under section 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607, and Exide Corporation and Johnson Controls, Inc. have sought recovery of response costs under section 113 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9613, against over forty defendants with respect to the Interstate Lead Company (‘‘ILCO’’) Superfund Site, located in Leeds, Jefferson County, Alabama (‘‘the Site’’). The United States has now agreed to settlement of its claims under sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, for existing contamination at the Site with respect to nine defendants: (1) Arch Metals, Inc.; (2) Del’s Metals Co., Inc.; (3) Harry Gordon Scrap Materials, Inc.; (4) Kar-Life Battery Company, Inc.; (5) Lead Products Co., Inc.; (6) Mixon, Inc.; (7) Mountain Metal Company, Inc.; (8) T.A. Pollack Co., Inc.; and (9) Wooster Iron & Metal Company f/k/a Metallics Recycling, Inc. Under the consent decrees, the companies will pay the following amounts to the United States: (1) $17,000 for Arch Metals, Inc.; (2) $20,400 for Del’s Metals, Inc.; (3) $83,640 for Harry Gordon Scrap Materials, Inc.; (4) $11,560 for Kar-Life Battery Company, Inc.; (5) $90,870 for Lead Products Co., Inc.; (6) $17,820 for Mixon, Inc.; (7) $170,000 for Mountain Metal Company, Inc.; (8) $14,500 for T.A. Pollack Co., Inc. and (9) $63,933 for Wooster Iron & Metal Company f/k/a Metallics Recycling, Inc. The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed consent decrees. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20044, and should refer to United States v. Mountain Metal Company, et al., Civil Action No. CV–98–C–2562–S, and consolidated action Exide Corporation and Johnson Controls, Inc., v. Aaron Scrap Metals, et al., Civil Action No. CV–98–J–2886–S, and DOJ # 90–11–2– 108/2. Any of the proposed consent decrees may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Northern District of Alabama, 200 Robert S. Vance Federal Building & Courthouse, 1800 5th Ave. N., Room 200, Birmingham, AL 35203–2198, and at U.S. EPA Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303. A copy of any of the proposed Consent Decrees also may be obtained by mail from the Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $8.00 (25 cents per page reproduction costs) per Consent Decree, payable to the Consent Decree Library. Ensure Timely Cleanup of Site Decommissioning Management Plan Sites’’ (SDMP Action Plan) (57 Federal Register 13389); and (2) on July 14, 2000, (DP part 2) for that portion of the site intended to meet the requirements of the License Termination Rule (LTR) in 10 CFR part 20, Subpart E, ‘‘Radiological Criteria for License Termination,’’ published in July 1997 (62 Federal Register 39057). Environmental Assessment Summary This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses only the part 1 decommissioning. Part 2 will be the subject of a separate evaluation. Under the Part 1 DP (hereafter, decommissioning plan) Molycorp, Inc., will remediate contaminated soils on the main facility grounds and at a separate location where slag materials have been concentrated by past operations (i.e., slag pile) to unrestricted release levels. The decision to dispose of the materials on site will be addressed in part 2. This EA reviews the environmental impacts of the decommissioning actions proposed by Molycorp, Inc. in the decommissioning plan (part 1) for its facility located in Washington, Pennsylvania. In connection with the review of plans for the proposed action, NRC staff is preparing a safety evaluation report (SER), that evaluates compliance of the proposed action with NRC regulations. On issuance, the SER will be available in NRC’s Electronic Reading Room, on NRC’s Web site http:/ /www.nrc.gov/adams/index.html. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N NavaS. Gelber, ived in Bruce arch cited 16Deputy,Chief, Environmental Enforcement 864 4- Section, Environment and Natural Resources 1 Division. No. VerDate 11<MAY>2000 18:19 Aug 07, 2000 [FR Doc. 00–19950 Filed 8–7–00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–15–M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 040–08778] Finding of No Significant Impact Related to Amendment of Source Materials License SMB–1393 Molycorp. Inc., Washington, PA, Facility The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuing an amendment to Source Materials License No. SMB–1393 issued to Molycorp, Inc. (Molycorp or licensee), to authorize decommissioning of its facility in Washington, Pennsylvania. In preparation for cleanup of the site, Molycorp submitted its initial decommissioning plan (DP) to the NRC in July 1995. The DP has been supplemented twice: (1) First on June 30, 1999, (DP Part 1) to reflect the licensee’s intent to decommission a portion of the site using cleanup criteria contained in NRC’s ‘‘Action Plan to Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Proposed Action The decommissioning activities proposed by Molycorp include: • Identify the location, depth, and thickness of areas containing greater than 10 picoCuries per gram (0.37 Becquerels per gram) total thorium. • Mobilize equipment, set up decontamination facilities, and implement erosion control measures in preparation for excavation activities. • Survey the site area to establish spatial coordinates of contaminated areas identified from site characterization radiological surveys. • Excavate clean overburden and stockpile onsite. • Excavate all soil and slag containing average contamination levels in excess of the unrestricted use criteria. • Stockpile excavated material in preparation for loading onto transports. Stockpiling duration is estimated at two weeks. Excavation and stockpiling of waste will not occur until NRC has approved a disposal location for the waste. E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 08AUN1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 506 of 1200 57371 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 185 / Friday, September 22, 2000 / Notices • Imperial Public Library, 200 W. 9th Street, Imperial, California; telephone: (760) 355–1332 • Indio Branch Library, 200 Civic Center Mall, Indio, California; telephone: (760) 347–2383 • Palm Springs Library, 300 S. Sunrise Way, Palm Springs, California; telephone: (760) 322–7323 • San Diego Central Library, 820 E Street, San Diego, California; telephone: (619) 236–5800 • Los Angeles Public Library, 630 W. Fifth Street, Los Angeles, California 90071; telephone: (213) 228–7000 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This DEIS/DEIR is a revised and updated version of a DEIS/DEIR for the Coachella Canal Lining Project filed by Reclamation and the CVWD and issued for public comment on January 11, 1994. At that time, because of funding constraints, construction of the project was deferred, and a Final EIS/EIR was not completed. The proposed action evaluated in the revised DEIS/DEIR is the same as in the previous document— to install a concrete lining within the existing cross-section of unlined portions of the canal (33.2 miles) using conventional construction methods and diverting water around each section while it is being lined. Alternatives evaluated in the DEIS/DEIR, also the same as in the original DEIS/DEIR, include No Action, Underwater Lining, and Parallel Canal Construction. The purpose of this federal action is to conserve 30,850 acre-feet annually of water presently being lost as seepage from the earthen reaches of the Coachella Canal. A specific quantity of conserved water would be assigned to the Department of the Interior to facilitate implementation of the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act (Public Law 100–675, November 17, 1988). Remaining quantities of conserved water would be distributed to southern California to meet present water demand and to assist the State in attaining the goals of California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan. The federal action includes approval of transfers and exchanges of conserved Coachella canal water among California’s Colorado River water contractors. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria; Correction AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior. ACTION: Notice of correction to published Federal Register notice of availability. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation is correcting information published in the Federal Register issue date of Tuesday, August 8, 2000 (Vol. 65, No. 153). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact Ms. Jayne Harkins at (702) 293–8785. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On page 48534, in Table 1., ‘‘Cooperative Water Conservation/Transfer Projects’’, under the column labeled ‘‘Cooperative water conservation/transfer projects’’, the footnote for ‘‘All American Canal Lining-MWD/SLR’’ should be ‘‘4’’ instead of ‘‘3.’’ In the ‘‘Estimated start date’’ column of the same table, the footnote for year ‘‘2006’’ should be ‘‘5’’ instead of ‘‘4.’’ On page 48536, in the far right column, subsection ‘‘IV.B.3.b.’’ should read ‘‘Allocate and distribute the Quantified Surplus 50% to California, 46% to Arizona and 4% to Nevada subject to c. though f. that follow.’’ instead of ‘‘* * * subject to c. though g. that follow.’’ by November 21, 2000, to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to John A. Trelease, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 210–SIB, Washington, DC 20240. Comments may also be submitted electronically to jtreleas@osmre.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request a copy of the information collection request, explanatory information and related form, contact John A. Trelease, at (202) 208–2783. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8 (d)]. This notice identifies information collections that OSM will be submitting to OMB for extension. This collection is contained in 30 CFR 840. OSM has received burden estimates, where appropriate, to reflect current reporting levels or adjustments based on reestimates of burden or respondents. OSM will request a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity. Comments are invited on: (1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency’s burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany OSM’s submission of the information collection request to OMB. This notice provides the public with 60 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity: Title: Permanent Program Inspection and Enforcement Procedures, 30 CFR Part 840. OMB Control Number: 1029–0051. Abstract: This provision requires the regulatory authority to conduct periodic inspections of coal mining activities, and prepare and maintain inspection reports for public review. This information is necessary to meet the requirements of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and its public participation provisions. Public review assures the public that the State is meeting the requirements for the ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Dated: September 15, 2000. Dated: September 13, 2000. Robert W. Johnson, Regional Director. [FR Doc. 00–24425 Filed 9–21–00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P VerDate 11<MAY>2000 14:24 Sep 21, 2000 Robert W. Johnson, Regional Director. [FR Doc. 00–24424 Filed 9–21–00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Notice of Proposed Information Collection AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is announcing its intention to renew its authority to collect information for the permanent program inspection and enforcement procedures at 30 CFR Part 840. DATES: Comments on the proposed information collection must be received Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22SEN1.SGM pfrm03 PsN: 22SEN1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 507 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 508 of 1200 GLOSSARY A abutment A structure that supports the ends of a dam or bridge. accretion Gradual increase in flow of a stream due to seepage, ground-water discharge, or tributary inflow. acre-foot Volume of water (43,560 cubic feet) that would cover one acre to a depth of one foot. active storage Reservoir capacity that can be used for authorized purposes. aerate To supply or charge with gas, usually air. ior Inter 17 0 f the Existing biological, physical, social,29, 2 affected environment pt. o er and economic e D conditions tof n v. subjectmb a ioan area Nove to change, both directly N andjindirectly, as on result of a proposed human the va o Naaction. rchived in a cited 16864, 14No. Process of filling and raising the level of a streambed, aggradation flood plain, or sandbar by deposition of sediment. The opposite of degradation. algae Simple plants containing chlorophyll; most live submerged in water. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS GL-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 509 of 1200 GLOSSARY allocation, allotment Refers to a distribution of water through which means specific persons or legal entities are assigned individual rights to consume pro rata shares of a specific quantity of water under legal entitlements. For example, a specific quantity of Colorado River water is distributed for use within each Lower Division State through an apportionment. The water available for consumptive use in that state is further distributed among water users in that state through the allocation. An allocation does not establish an entitlement; the entitlement is normally established by a written contract with the United States. alluvium Sedimentary material transported and deposited by the action of flowing water. ambient Surrounding natural conditions (or environment) in a given place and time. ior Inter 17 f the Vertebrate animal that has a life stage9, 20 and a amphibian pt. o er 2 in water De mb life stage onon v. i land (i.e., salamanders, frogs and toads). at Nove on jo N Nava archived i annual flow weightedn 6 weighted average of monthly total dissolved solids cited 168A 4, average concentration 14- (TDS) concentrations for a year, where the weight for No. each month is based on the relative flow for each month. apportionment Refers to the distribution of water available to each Lower Division state in normal, surplus or shortage years, as set forth, respectively in Articles II (B)(1), II (B)(2) and II (B)(3) or the Decree in Arizona v. California. arroyo A gully or channel cut by an ephemeral stream. B backwater A relatively small, generally shallow area of a river with little or no current. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS GL-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 510 of 1200 GLOSSARY banked groundwater Water that has been stored temporarily in a groundwater aquifer. Banked groundwater can be recovered for use at a later time. base load Minimum load in a power system over a given period of time. baseload plant Powerplant normally operated to carry base load; consequently, it operates essentially at a constant load. Basin States The seven states referred to in the Compact as making up the Colorado River watershed; Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and California. benthic Bottom of rivers, lakes, or oceans; organisms that live on the bottom of water bodies. biological opinion ior Document stating the U.S. Fish andInter Wildlife Service 17 the and the National Marine t. of Fisheries Service 0 p 29, 2 opinion as to r De whether a federal .action is embe jeopardize the ion v Nov likely to Nat d o continued existence of a threatened or endangered vajo orhresult in n destruction or adverse e the in Naspeciesrc iv ,a 64 168modification of critical habitat. cited 14No. bright line A groundwater term; the interface between surface water and groundwater. C candidate species Plant or animal species not yet officially listed as threatened or endangered, but which is undergoing status review by the Service. catch At a recreational fishery, refers to the number of fish captured, whether they are kept or released. (See harvest.) channel margin bar Narrow sand deposits which continuously or discontinuously line the riverbank. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS GL-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 511 of 1200 GLOSSARY cladophora Filamentous green alga important to the food chain in the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam. Colorado River Basin The drainage basin of the Colorado River in the United States. Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum The organization dedicated to controlling Colorado River salinity consisting of representatives of the seven Basin States Colorado River Simulation System An operational model of the Colorado River system based on a monthly timestep. commercial river trip Trip organized by a boating company that conducts tours for paying passengers. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o byrthe9, 2 The reference pointDe designatedbe 2 Colorado River compact point v. Upper and compact ation the Novem Lower Colorado River dividing N vajo Lee ed on Nabasins –chivFerry, Arizona. in ar cited 16864, 14- United States Congress Congress No. Compact The Colorado River Compact of 1922 consumptive use The total water diversions from the Colorado River, less return flows to the river. Cooperating Agency With respect to the NEPA process, an agency having jurisdiction by law or special expertise concerning an aspect of a proposed project action that is requested by the Lead Agency to participate in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. coordinated operation Generally, the operation of two or more interconnected electrical systems to achieve greater reliability and economy. As applied to hydropower resources, the operation of a group of hydropower plants to obtain optimal power benefits with due consideration for all other uses. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS GL-4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 512 of 1200 GLOSSARY Court United States Supreme Court criteria Standards used for making a determination. Critical habitat Specific areas with physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a listed species and which may require special management considerations or protection. These areas have been legally designated via Federal Register notices. CRSSez A simplified version of CRSS based on a yearly timestep. cubic foot per second (cfs) A measure of water flow equal to one cubic foot of water passing a point on the stream in one second of time. cultural resource ior Building, site, district, structure, or Inter significant in he objector 17 history, architecture, archeology, culture 20science. . of t pt 29, . De ber ion v Novem Nat vajo hived on D in Na rc ited 6864, a c dead storage o. 14-1 Reservoir space from which stored water cannot be N evacuated by gravity. Decree Decree entered in Arizona v. California delta Sediment deposit formed at the mouths of the Colorado River and other rivers where they enter Lake Powell, Lake Mead or the Gulf of California. depletion Loss of water from a stream, river, or basin resulting from consumptive use. deposition Settlement of material out of the water column and on to the streambed. Occurs when the energy of flowing water is unable to support the load of suspended sediment. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS GL-5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 513 of 1200 GLOSSARY discharge (flow) Volume of water that passes a given point within a given period of time; expressed in this document in cfs. dissolved oxygen (DO) Amount of free oxygen found in water; perhaps the most commonly employed measurement of water quality. Low DO levels adversely affect fish and other aquatic life. The ideal dissolved oxygen for fish life is between seven and nine mg/l; most fish cannot survive when DO falls below 3 mg/l. drawdown Lowering of a reservoir’s water level; process of depleting reservoir or groundwater storage. E excess flow to Mexico or ecosystems eddy Flow at NIB in excess of Mexico’s scheduled delivery. teri Complex system composed of a community of fauna he In 2017 and flora and that system’s of t pt. chemical and physical 29, environments. v. De ember n atio Nov ajo N ived on Nav ar of d in Current chwater moving against the main current in a 64, cite 168circular pattern. 14No. electric power system Physically connected electric generating, transmission, and distribution facilities operated as a unit under one control. electrical demand Energy requirement placed upon a utility’s generation at a given instant or averaged over any designated period of time. endangered species A species or subspecies whose survival is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. energy Electric capacity generated and/or delivered over time. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS GL-6 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 514 of 1200 GLOSSARY entitlement Refers to an authorization to beneficially consume Colorado River water pursuant to (1) a decreed right, (2) a contract with the United States through the Secretary of the Interior or (3) a Secretarial reservation of water. epilimnion See stratification. euphotic Of, relating to, or constituting the upper layers of a body of water into which sufficient light penetrates to permit growth of green plants. eutrophic A body of water, often shallow, containing high concentrations of dissolved nutrients with periods of oxygen deficiency. excess capacity Power generation capacity available on a short-term ior basis in excess of the firm capacity available through Inter 17 e long-term contracts. 20 of th 9, pt. . De ember 2 nv Natio d on Nov vajo F e in Na 4, archiv d 6 cite firm energy or power -168Non-interruptible energy and power guaranteed by the . 14 supplier to be available at all times except for reasons No of uncontrollable forces or "continuity of service" contract provisions. flood control pool Reservoir volume above the active conservation and joint-use pool that is reserved for flood runoff and then evacuated as soon as possible to keep that space in readiness for the next flood. flow Volume of water passing a given point per unit of time expressed in cfs. peak flow – Maximum instantaneous flow in a specified period of time. return flow – Portion of water previously diverted from a stream and subsequently returned to that stream or to another body of water. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS GL-7 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 515 of 1200 GLOSSARY forage fish Generally, small fish that reproduce prolifically and are consumed by predators. forebay Impoundment immediately above a dam or hydroelectric plant intake structure. The term is applicable to all types of hydroelectric developments (storage, run-of-river, and pumped-storage). fry Life stage of fish between the egg and fingerling stages. fuel replacement energy Electrical energy generated at a hydroelectric plant as a substitute for energy that would have been generated by a thermal electric plant. full pool Volume of water in a reservoir at maximum design elevation. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e G v. D mb ation on Nove jo egg. MatureN gamete Nava archived in cited 16864, Specific location on a stream where systematic gaging station o. 14N observations of hydrologic data are obtained through mechanical or electrical means. gigawatt-hour (GWh) One billion watt-hours of electrical energy. H headwater The source and upper part of a stream. herbivore Animal that feeds on plants. heterogeneous Consisting of dissimilar ingredients or constituents. hydrology Science dealing with natural runoff and its effect on streamflow. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS GL-8 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 516 of 1200 GLOSSARY hydroelectric power Electrical capacity produced by falling water. hypolimnetic zone The deep portion of a lake or reservoir volume generally classified as below the level of the thermocline. hypolimnion See stratification. I impoundment Body of water created by a dam. inflow Water flowing into a lake or reservoir from a river and/or its tributaries; or water entering a river from tributaries. J-K rior Inteor National United States Fish and Wildlifehe jeopardy opinion f t Service 017 pt. o ethat9, 2 Marine Fisheries Service opinion r 2 an action is . De b likely to jeopardize the ovem existence of a listed ion v Ncontinued at N on adverse vajo ived in the Naspeciesrorhresultcriticaldestruction oropinion includes habitat. The d in modification of ,ac 64 cite 168reasonable and prudent alternatives, if any. 41 No. juvenile Young fish older than 1 year but not having reached reproductive age. L larval fish An immature stage that develops from the fertilized egg before assuming the characteristics of the adult. Las Vegas Valley The topographic basin containing the City of Las Vegas, the City of North Las Vegas, the City of Henderson and certain unincorporated townships of Clark County. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS GL-9 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 517 of 1200 GLOSSARY Las Vegas Wash The natural drainage channel for the entire Las Vegas Valley. It is dominated by wastewater flows from the City of Las Vegas, Clark County Sanitation District, and City of Henderson wastewater treatment plants. It terminates in the Las Vegas Bay of Lake Mead. Law of the River As applied to the Colorado River, a combination of federal and state statutes, interstate compacts, court decisions and decrees, federal contracts, an international treaty with Mexico and formally determined operating criteria. Lead Agency The agency initiating and overseeing the preparation of an environmental impact statement. Lee Ferry A reference point marking division between the Upper and Lower Colorado River Basins. The point is located in the mainstream of the Coloradoor River 1 mile n eri 7 below the mouth of the Paria River Iin tArizona. 1 the 20 of ept. ber 29, v. D m Locationation of ColoradoNoveferry crossings (1873 to River Lees Ferry N n USGS stream gage above the vajo 1928) and site of o ed the in NaParia archiv d , River confluence. cite 16864 14No. limnology Scientific study of the physical characteristics and biology of lakes, ponds, and streams. load Amount of electrical power or energy delivered or required at a given point. Lower Basin The part of the Colorado River watershed below Lee Ferry, Arizona; covers parts of Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. Lower Division A division of the Colorado River system that includes the states of Arizona, Nevada and California. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS GL-10 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 518 of 1200 GLOSSARY Lower Division states Arizona, California and Nevada as defined by Article II of the Colorado River Compact of 1922. M magnitude A number characteristic of a quantity and forming a basis for comparison with similar quantities such as flows. A number representing the intrinsic or apparent brightness of a celestial body on a logarithmic scale in which an increase of one unit corresponds to a reduction in the brightness of light by a factor of 2.512. mean monthly flow Average flow for the month, usually expressed in cfs. median Middle value in a distribution, above and below which lie an equal number of values. or 017 f the pt. o er 29, 2 . De of emb megawatt-hour (MWh) One millionon v i watt-hours ovelectrical energy. N Nat vajo hived on in NaThe,intermediate level of a lake or reservoir trophic arc mesotrophic cited 864 -16 state, less productive with respect to algal biomass and o. 14 N nutrient levels than a eutrophic water body, but more megawatt (MW) One million watts of electrical power teri In(capacity). productive than an oligotrophic lake or reservoir. milligram per liter Equivalent to one part per million. Minute 242 Minute 242, August 30, 1973 of the International Boundary and Water Commission United States and Mexico pursuant to the Mexican Water Treaty. Similar to an amendment. morphometry A branch of limnology that deals with the morphological measurements of a lake and its basin. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS GL-11 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 519 of 1200 GLOSSARY N no jeopardy opinion United States Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service opinion that an action is not likely to jeopardized the; continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. O off-peak energy Electric energy supplied during periods of relatively low system demand. oligotrophic A body of water characterized by low dissolved plant nutrient and organic matter, and rich in oxygen at all depths. on-peak energy r Electric energy supplied during periods ofo teri relatively he In 2017 high system demand. t. of t 9, Dep mber 2 n v. atio Nove ajo N ived on P-Q Nav d in 64, arch cite 8 Pacific Institute 14-16 Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, . No Environment and Security. peak load Maximum electrical demand in a stated period of time. pelagic Of, relating to, or living or occurring in open water. penstock Conduit pipe used to convey water under pressure to the turbines of a hydroelectric plant. percentile A statistical term. A descriptive measure that splits ranked data into 100 parts, or hundredths. For example, the 10th percentile is the value that splits the data in such a way that 10 percent of the values are less than or equal to the 10th percentile. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS GL-12 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 520 of 1200 GLOSSARY permeability (soil) Ease with which gasses, liquids, or plant roots penetrate or pass through a layer of soil. PM2.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in mean diameter. PM10 Particulate matter less than 10 microns in mean diameter. power Electrical capacity generated, transferred or used. probability In this EIS, the relative frequency with which a range of modeled values occurs. For example, the probability of Lake Mead elevation exceeding 1180 ft msl in June 2005 is equal to the number of modeled elevations greater than 1180 ft in June 2005, divided by the total number of modeled elevations in June 2005 or (equal to 85 due to 85 traces being modeled). nteri 7 he I . of t r 29, 201 pt . De be Process of obtaining citizen input into each stage of public involvement ion v Novem at of planning documents. Required as a N development vajo h into on Namajorainputived any EIS. in rc cited 16864, 14No. R ramp rate The rate of change in instantaneous output from a powerplant. The ramp range is established to prevent undesirable effects due to rapid changes in loading or, in the case of hydroelectric plants, discharge. rated head Water depth for which a hydroelectric generator and turbines were designed. reach A specified segment of a stream, channel, or other water conveyance. recruitment Survival of young plants and animals from birth to a life stage less vulnerable to environmental change. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS GL-13 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 521 of 1200 GLOSSARY redd Depression in river or lake bed dug by fish for the deposition of eggs. return flow credit Water returned to the Colorado River that can be rediverted in the same year. Diverted Colorado River water that is returned to the river in the year in which it was diverted is credited against a water user's total diversions. riffle A stretch of choppy water caused by an underlying rock shoal or sandbar. riparian Of, on, or pertaining to the bank of a river, pond, or lake. riparian obligate A species dependent upon riparian habitat. ior RiverWare S salinity A commercial river system simulationter he In computer 17 program that was configuredfto simulate 20 . o t r 29, operation of pt . e the Colorado River D thisembe on v for v EIS. ati No ajo N ived on v in Na rch ited 6864, a c -1 o. 14 N A term used to refer to the dissolved minerals in water, also referred to as total dissolved solids. Secchi disk Instrument used to determine the depth to which light penetrates lake water. Used as an aid to establish the euphotic zone, which marks that area of a lake where primary productivity (energy production by photosynthesis) occurs. sediment Unconsolidated solid material that comes from weathering of rock and is carried by, suspended in, or deposited by water or wind. sediment load Mass of sediment passing through a stream. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS GL-14 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 522 of 1200 GLOSSARY seepage Relatively slow movement of water through a medium, such as sand. spawn To lay eggs, especially fish. spawning beds Places in which eggs of aquatic animal's lodge or are placed during or after fertilization. spills Water releases from a dam in excess of powerplant capacity. spillway Overflow facility at a dam, usually consisting of a sill at the full-reservoir water surface elevation. spinning reserves Available capacity of generating facilities synchronized to the interconnected electric system so that it can be called upon for immediate userin response io to system problems or sudden load Inter he changes.17 ft 20 Water surface elevation. t. o ep r 29, stage v. D mbe ation on Nove N vajo hived stratification NaThermalclayering of water in lakes and streams. Lakes in r 64, a cited 168usually have three zones of varying temperature: 14- (1) epilimnion – top layer with essentially uniform No. warmer temperature; (2) metalimnion – middle layer of rapid temperature decrease with depth; and (3) hypolimnion – bottom layer with essentially uniform colder temperatures. T tailwater Water immediately downstream of the outlet from a dam or hydroelectric powerplant. thermocline The zone of maximum change in temperature in a water body, separating upper (epilimnetic) from lower (hypolimnetic) zones. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS GL-15 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 523 of 1200 GLOSSARY total dissolved solids (TDS) A measure of the inorganic or mineral content of water, commonly expressed in milligrams per liter. traditional cultural property A site or resource that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community. tributary River or stream flowing into a larger river or stream. turbidity Cloudiness of water, measure by how deeply light can penetrate into the water from the surface. U-V Upper Basin The part of the Colorado River watershed above Lee Ferry, Arizona; that covers parts of Arizona, Colorado, or New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Interi 017 f the pt. o er 29, 2 . De b Commission established by the Upper Colorado River Upper Colorado River ion v Novem at N Basin Compact of appointed members from the Upper Commission vajo hive on NaDivision Statesd in whose purpose is to secure the storage arc 6 water cited 168of4, for beneficial consumptive use in the Upper 14- Basin. No. Upper Division A division of the Colorado River system that includes the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. W-X watershed The drainage area upstream of a specified point on a stream. Y-Z young-of-year Small fish hatched from eggs spawned in the current year. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS GL-16 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 524 of 1200 INDEX INDEX Canyonlands sedge.......................................3.8-7 Central Arizona Project (CAP) ............................ 1-9, 1-17, 1-19, 2-29, 3.3-11, 3.3-13, 3.3-18, Adaptive Management Program (AMP) .............. 3.4-3, 3.4-4, 3.4-6, 3.4-7, 3.4-8, 3.4-10, 3.41-24, 1-25, 1-30, 1-31, 3.6-2, 3.7-5, 3.7-8, 3.818, 3.4-34, 3.4-42, 3.14-1, 3.14-11, 3.14-12, 12, 3.8-23, 3.8-25, 3.8-27, 3.17-2 3.14-13, 3.14-14, 3.14-15, 3.14-16, 3.14-17, air quality ................................................... 3.11-1 3.14-18, 3.14-20 Ak Chin Indian Community................................. Chemehuevi Tribe.................. 3.14-2, 3.14-7, 5-9 .... 3.14-11, 3.14-13, 3.14-16, 3.14-17, 3.14-18 Cienega de Santa Clara ........................................ alcove bog orchid......................................... 3.8-8 3.3-71, 3.16-8, 3.16-24, 3.16-25, 3.16-26, alcove daisy.................................................. 3.8-8 3.16-34, 3.16-41 alcove deathcamas ....................................... 3.8-8 Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)........... American peregrine falcon................................... ................1-23, 2-3, 3.4-7, 3.4-8, 3.4-9, 3.4-26 .......................... 3.8-11, 3.8-13, 3.8-14, 3.16-9 Cocopah Indian Tribe .......................................... Annual Operating Plan (AOP) ............................. 3.3-18, 3.6-11, 3.14-2, 3.14-9, 3.14-10, 3.141-2, 1-3, 1-15, 1-16, 2-2, 2-6, 2-7, 2-13, 2-14, 11, 5-9 3.3-1, 3.4-8, 3.13-1, 4-3 Colorado Basin River Forecast Center1-21, 3.3-2 Antelope Point .................... 3.9-5, 3.14-5, 3.17-2 Colorado pikeminnow.......................................... area of potential effect 1-5, 3.8-18, 3.11-1, 3.13-2 ................3.7-3, 3.8-18, 3.8-19, 3.8-20, 3.8-26 Arizona Bell’s vireo.......... 3.8-11, 3.8-14, 3.8-24 Colorado River Aqueduct ..................3.4-7, 3.4-8 Arizona v. California ........................................... Colorado River Assurance Program............. B-15 1-1, 1-2, 1-9, 11, 2-4, 3.14-6, 3.14-7, 3.14-8, Colorado River Basin Compact (Compact) ......... 3.14-9 ior ....................... 1-2,t1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-15 In er 17 assumptions.......................................................... Coloradoof thBasin Salinity Control Act.......... River e 20 1-4, 2-1, 2-22, 2-30, 3.3-9, 3.3-10, 3.3-11, 3.3pt. ....................................................1-9, 11, 3.5-5 e r 29, D 12, 3.3-15, 3.3-16, 3.3-17, 3.3-18, 3.4-9, 3.4mbe n v. ColoradoeRiver Basin Salinity Control Program 16, 3.4-17, 3.4-18, 3.4-26, 3.4-34, 3.5-9, Natio 3.5Nov on .......................................... 3.5-1, 3.5-3, 3.17-1 jo 20 Nava archived Colorado River cotton rat...............3.8-11, 3.8-14 d in Colorado River Delta ........................................... citeB 16864, ........................... 1-29, 3.3-72, 3.16-7, 3.16-32 41 No. Colorado River Floodway Protection Act............ bald eagle .......................................3.8-14, 3.8-24 ........................................................1-21, 3.6-9 Bard Irrigation District............................... 3.6-11 Colorado River Indian Reservation...................... beach/habitat-building flows (BHBFs) ................ 1-19, 3.3-42, 3.3-54, 3.3-55, 3.3-57, 3.3-58, 1-24, 1-25, 1-30, 2-26, 3.3-3, 3.3-18, 3.6-1, 3.3-59, 3.3-60, 3.3-61, 3.3-62, 3.4-4, 3.14-7 3.6-2, 3.6-3, 3.6-4, 3.6-5, 3.6-6, 3.8-9, 3.8-12, Colorado River Indian Tribes .............3.14-2, 5-9 3.8-27 Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS) boating ................................................................. .................................................................3.3-9 ........ 2-27, 3.9-1, 3.9-2, 3.9-3, 3.12-3, 3.16-41 Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS) ........ bonytail ................... 3.7-2, 3.8-18, 3.8-19, 3.8-26 3.3-9, 3.14-2, 3.14-3, 3.14-4, 3.14-5, 3.14-6, Boulder Basin ...................................................... 3.14-7, 3.14-8, 3.14-9, 3.14-10 1-32, 2-26, 3.4-12, 3.5-1, 3.5-11, 3.5-12, 3.5Colorado River water apportionment................... 13, 3.5-18, 3.5-19, 3.5-20, 3.5-22, 3.12-3 1-3, 1-5, 1-9, 1-10, 1-12, 1-13, 1-15, 1-16, 119, 1-22, 1-28, 2-25, 2-30, 3.3-10, 3.3-16, 3.43, 3.4-6, 3.4-7, 3.4-8, 3.4-9, 3.4-10, 3.4-12, 3.4-14, 3.4-16, 3.4-26, 3.4-44, 3.4-47, 3.5-5, C 3.16-4, 3.16-12 California 4.4 Plan ............... 1-22, 2-2, 2-3, 3.4-9 critical habitat....................................................... California black rail ............................................. 1-27, 1-29, 1-30, 1-31, 3.8-2, 3.8-11, 3.8-17, 2-30, 3.8-1, 3.8-11, 3.8-15, 3.8-24, 3.16-2, 3.8-18, 3.8-19, 3.8-21, 3.8-26, 3.8-27, 3.16-25, 3.16-37, 3.16-38 3.16-30, 5-3 California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan (CA cultural resources .................... 1-25, 1-30, 3.13-1 Plan)................................................................. cumulative impacts .........................................1-5 1-22, 1-23, 1-28, 1-29, 2-3, 2-4, 2-7, 3.4-9, 4-1 A COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS IND-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 525 of 1200 INDEX Gila River Indian Community.............................. 3.14-12, 3.14-13, 3.14-14, 3.14-15, 3.14-16, Davis Dam ........................................................... 3.14-17, 3.14-18, 5-10 1-11, 1-17, 1-19, 1-21, 2-26, 3.3-5, 3.3-45, gilded flicker ..................................3.8-16, 3.8-24 3.4-12, 3.5-16, 3.6-9, 3.6-10, 3.6-12, 3.8-19, Glen Canyon Dam................................................ 3.8-20, 3.13-2 1-8, 1-9, 1-16, 1-19, 1-21, 1-24, 1-25, 1-26, 1depletion schedules .............................................. 30, 1-31, 2-24, 2-26, 3.3-1, 3.3-2, 3.3-3, 3.3-6, 3.3-11, 3.3-12, 3.3-13, 3.3-15, 3.3-16, 3.3-18, 3.3-9, 3.3-15, 3.3-18, 3.3-19, 3.3-27, 3.5-2, 3.4-3, 3.4-4, 3.4-6, 3.4-10, 3.4-14, 3.4-16, 3.43.5-3, 3.5-4, 3.6-1, 3.6-2, 3.6-3, 3.6-6, 3.6-8, 18, 3.4-20, 3.4-23, 3.4-24, 3.4-26, 3.4-28, 3.43.7-2, 3.7-3, 3.7-5, 3.7-8, 3.8-1, 3.8-5, 3.8-9, 31, 3.4-33, 3.4-34, 3.4-36, 3.4-38, 3.4-41, 3.43.8-12, 3.8-13, 3.8-14, 3.8-15, 3.8-19, 3.8-23, 42, 3.4-44, 3.4-47, 3.14-11 3.8-25, 3.8-27, 3.9-2, 3.9-5, 3.10-1, 3.10-2, desert pupfish....................................................... 3.10-3, 3.10-5, 3.10-8, 3.10-9, 3.10-10, 3.12-2, 2-30, 3.8-1, 3.16-1, 3.16-9, 3.16-24, 3.16-25, 3.13-2, 3.17-2, 4-1, 5-4 3.16-26 Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (GCNRA) ......................................................... E 1-4, 1-10, 3.7-6, 3.8-2, 3.8-3, 3.8-5, 3.8-6, 3.88, 3.8-13, 3.9-2, 3.9-3, 3.9-5, 3.12-1, 3.12-2, elf owl ................................. 3.8-1, 3.8-16, 3.8-24 3.17-2 environmental commitments................................ Grand Canyon ...................................................... ................................... 1-5, 3.1-1, 3.1-3, 3.17-1 1-4, 1-10, 11, 1-24, 1-31, 2-27, 3.5-16, 3.6-1, excess flow........................................................... 3.6-2, 3.7-5, 3.7-8, 3.8-4, 3.8-6, 3.8-7, 3.8-8, 2-30, 3.3-1, 3.3-72, 3.16-1, 3.16-2, 3.16-4, 3.8-9, 3.8-12, 3.8-13, 3.8-14, 3.8-16, 3.8-17, 3.16-5, 3.16-10, 3.16-12, 3.16-15, 3.16-18, 3.8-18, 3.8-20, 3.8-21, 3.8-22, 3.8-23, 3.8-27, 3.16-22, 3.16-23, 3.16-24, 3.16-26, 3.16-29, 3.13-2, 3.16-32, 3.16-35, 3.16-36, 5-3 ior 3.16-32, 3.16-36, 3.16-37, 3.16-38, 3.16-39, Inter 17.................3.8-7 Grand Canyonhe 3.16-40, 3.16-41 0 f t evening-primrose GrandtCanyon Protection2 of 1992................. Executive Order 12898 .............................. 3.15-1 p . o er 29, Act e v. D .....................1-10, 11, 1-24, 1-31, 3.7-5, 3.7-8 mb ation on Nove Gulf of California ................................................ F jo N 1-29, 3.16-2, 3.16-4, 3.16-5, 3.16-7, 3.16-23, Nava archived fishing .................................................................. n 3.16-24, 3.16-25, 3.16-26, 3.16-27, 3.16-28, d i3.9-2, 3.14-1, 3.16-3, , c te 16864 2-28, 3.7-6, 3.7-7, i3.9-1, 3.16-29, 3.16-32, 3.16-34, 4-1 3.16-27, 3.16-29, 3.16-31 o. 14 N flannelmouth sucker.......................3.8-20, 3.8-26 H flood control operation......................................... Headgate Rock Dam ..... 1-19, 1-20, 3.3-54, 3.4-4 1-20, 3.3-3, 3.3-4, 3.4-26, 3.6-8, 3.6-9, 3.16-4, historic properties................................................. 3.16-9, 3.16-23 .......3.13-1, 3.13-2, 3.13-3, 3.13-4, 3.13-5, 5-5 flood flow............................................................. Hoover Dam......................................................... 3.3-2, 3.6-1, 3.6-9, 3.6-10, 3.6-11, 3.8-9, 3.81-9, 1-17, 1-19, 1-20, 1-21, 1-32, 2-7, 2-24, 212, 3.16-22, 3.16-32, 3.16-37, 3.16-39, 3.1626, 3.3-1, 3.3-3, 3.3-5, 3.3-6, 3.3-9, 3.3-15, 40 3.3-29, 3.3-30, 3.3-42, 3.3-43, 3.3-45, 3.5-2, flooding................................................................ 3.5-3, 3.5-5, 3.5-7, 3.5-10, 3.5-11, 3.5-12, 3.51-15, 1-20, 3.3-71, 3.6-9, 3.6-11, 3.8-9, 3.1613, 3.5-16, 3.5-18, 3.5-26, 3.6-1, 3.6-8, 3.6-9, 4, 3.16-5, 3.16-40 3.6-10, 3.6-11, 3.6-12, 3.7-1, 3.7-4, 3.7-5, 3.7Fort McDowell Indian Community...................... 6, 3.8-2, 3.8-6, 3.8-12, 3.8-19, 3.8-24, 3.8-25, ...............................................3.14-11, 3.14-13 3.9-1, 3.10-1, 3.10-2, 3.10-3, 3.10-5, 3.10-8, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe....... 3.14-2, 3.14-6, 5-9 3.10-9, 3.10-10, 3.10-11, 3.12-3, 3.12-4, 3.132, 3.13-3, 3.13-4, 3.13-5, 3.16-10, 3.17-2 G humpback chub .......... 1-30, 3.7-3, 3.8-21, 3.8-27 Gila River............................................................. hydropower .......................................1-21, 3.10-1 1-8, 1-15, 3.3-2, 3.3-6, 3.3-71, 3.4-3, 3.8-19, 3.14-11, 3.14-12, 3.14-13, 3.16-4, 3.16-7, I 3.16-9, 3.16-10, 3.16-24, 3.16-32, 3.16-34, Imperial Dam ....................................................... 3.16-37, 3.16-39, 3.16-40, 5-10 1-19, 1-20, 1-23, 3.3-42, 3.3-54, 3.3-63, 3.371, 3.4-4, 3.4-8, 3.5-1, 3.5-2, 3.5-3, 3.5-4, 3.5D COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS IND-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 526 of 1200 INDEX 5, 3.5-7, 3.5-9, 3.5-10, 3.8-21, 3.13-5, 3.14-8, 3.14-9, 3.14-10, 3.16-22, 3.16-40 Imperial Irrigation District (IID).......................... 1-23, 2-3, 3.3-10, 3.3-54, 3.4-7, 3.4-8, 3.4-9, 3.4-10, 3.4-26 Indexed Sequential Method ...........3.3-13, 3.3-14 Indian Trust Assets (ITA) .... 2-29, 3.14-1, 3.15-1 International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) ............................................................ 1-1, 1-4, 1-5, 1-9, 11, 1-21, 3.3-71, 3.16-2, 3.16-3, 3.17-3, 4-2 Lake Mohave ....................................................... 1-17, 1-19, 1-21, 3.3-3, 3.3-6, 3.3-11, 3.3-15, 3.3-43, 3.3-45, 3.5-16, 3.6-9, 3.7-1, 3.7-4, 3.82, 3.8-5, 3.8-13, 3.8-19, 3.8-21, 3.8-22, 3.8-26, 3.8-27, 3.10-1, 3.13-2, 3.14-7 Lake Powell ......................................................... 1-4, 1-6, 1-15, 1-17, 1-19, 1-21, 1-24, 1-25, 130, 1-31, 2-24, 2-26, 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 2-30, 3.3-2, 3.3-4, 3.3-5, 3.3-6, 3.3-13, 3.3-15, 3.316, 3.3-17, 3.3-18, 3.3-19, 3.3-20, 3.3-21, 3.322, 3.3-23, 3.3-31, 3.4-1, 3.4-3, 3.4-41, 3.5-1, 3.5-2, 3.5-9, 3.5-17, 3.6-1, 3.6-2, 3.6-3, 3.6-4, 3.6-5, 3.6-6, 3.6-7, 3.7-1, 3.7-2, 3.7-3, 3.7-4, J 3.7-5, 3.7-6, 3.7-7, 3.7-8, 3.8-1, 3.8-2, 3.8-3, Jicarilla Apache Tribe.......................................... 3.8-5, 3.8-8, 3.8-9, 3.8-13, 3.8-19, 3.8-22, 3.8............................... 3.14-2, 3.14-3, 3.14-4, 5-9 24, 3.8-26, 3.8-27, 3.9-1, 3.9-2, 3.9-3, 3.9-4, Jones cycladenia ................................3.8-7, 3.8-8 3.9-5, 3.10-1, 3.10-14, 3.10-15, 3.10-16, 3.111, 3.11-2, 3.11-3, 3.11-6, 3.12-1, 3.12-2, 3.12K 3, 3.12-4, 3.12-6, 3.12-7, 3.13-2, 3.13-3, 3.134, 3.13-5, 3.14-5, 3.14-10, 4-1 Kachina daisy.....................................3.8-7, 3.8-8 Las Vegas bear poppy .......................................... Kanab ambersnail ..........................3.8-11, 3.8-12 .............................. 3.8-7, 3.8-9, 3.8-22, 3.8-23 Las Vegas Valley ................................................. L 1-32, 3.3-12, 3.4-12, 3.5-1, 3.5-12, 3.5-13, Laguna Dam............. 1-19, 3.3-71, 3.6-10, 3.6-11 or 3.5-15, 3.5-18, 3.10-13,i3.12-4, 5-11 Lake Havasu ........................................................ Inter 17 Las Vegas Wash................................................... 0 f the3.5-13, 3.5-14, 3.5-15, 3.5-16, 1-17, 1-19, 1-20, 1-32, 3.3-6, 3.3-11, 3.3-15, 3.5-11,o pt. 3.5-12, r 29, 2 e 3.3-54, 3.4-4, 3.4-7, 3.7-1, 3.7-4, 3.8-2, 3.8-5, v. D 3.5-17, 3.5-18, 3.5-19, 3.5-20, 3.5-22, 3.8-17, mbe 3.8-15, 3.8-19, 3.8-20, 3.13-2, 3.14-7 ation on Nove 3.17-1 3.16-35, oN Lake Mead ........................................................... ed Law of the River ................................................... avaj r 1N1-20, 1-21,chiv 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-15, 1-17, i1-19, n 1-1, 1-4, 1-6, 1-8, 1-10, 1-11, 3.3-1, 3.4-1, 3.4,a cited 16 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 24, 1-29, 1-30, 1-31, 1-32, 2-1,864 41, 4-3 142-5, 2-7, 2-8, 2-11, 2-14, 2-15, 2-18, 2-19, 2Lee Ferry.. 1-6, 1-8, 1-10, 1-12, 1-19, 2-8, 3.3-29 o. 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 2-30, N 20, 2-22, 2-24, 2-26, Lees Ferry ............................................................ 3.3-2, 3.3-9, 3.3-10, 3.3-11, 3.3-12, 3.3-13, ....... 1-6, 1-8, 3.3-6, 3.3-7, 3.3-8, 3.8-5, 3.8-20 3.3-14, 3.3-15, 3.3-17, 3.3-18, 3.3-19, 3.3-27, Limitrophe Division.......... 3.3-71, 3.16-5, 3.16-7 3.3-42, 3.3-45, 3.3-47, 3.3-56, 3.3-58, 3.3-63, Long-Range Operating Criteria (LROC) ............. 3.3-64, 3.3-71, 3.3-72, 3.3-75, 3.4-3, 3.4-10, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-9, 1-15, 1-16, 1-17, 1-24, 2-4, 3.4-12, 3.4-17, 3.4-18, 3.4-34, 3.4-42, 3.5-1, 2-6, 2-7, 2-11, 2-15, 3.3-1, 3.3-2, 3.3-9, 3.6-8, 3.5-9, 3.5-11, 3.6-8, 3.6-9, 3.7-1, 3.7-4, 3.7-5, 3.13-1, 3.16-4 3.7-6, 3.7-7, 3.7-8, 3.8-1, 3.8-2, 3.8-3, 3.8-4, low steady summer flow ...................................... 3.8-5, 3.8-6, 3.8-8, 3.8-9, 3.8-10, 3.8-12, 3.8................................. 2-26, 3.6-1, 3.6-6, 3.8-27 13, 3.8-14, 3.8-15, 3.8-16, 3.8-17, 3.8-18, 3.8Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 20, 3.8-21, 3.8-22, 3.8-23, 3.8-24, 3.8-25, 3.8Conservation Plan (LCRMSCP) ............3.8-27 26, 3.8-27, 3.9-1, 3.9-2, 3.10-1, 3.10-13, 3.1014, 3.11-1, 3.11-2, 3.11-3, 3.11-5, 3.12-1, M 3.12-3, 3.12-4, 3.12-5, 3.12-6, 3.12-7, 3.13-2, Metropolitan Water District of Southern 3.13-3, 3.13-4, 3.13-5, 3.16-10, 3.16-12, 3.17California (MWD)............................................ 1, 3.17-2, 4-1, 5-4 1-17, 1-19, 1-20, 1-23, 2-3, 2-5, 3.3-13, 3.3Lake Mead delta................................................... 54, 3.4-6, 3.4-7, 3.4-8, 3.4-9, 3.4-10, 3.4-26, 3.8-2, 3.8-3, 3.8-4, 3.8-5, 3.8-15, 3.8-16, 3.83.4-42, 3.5-9 17, 3.8-24, 3.8-25 Mexicali Valley.................................................... Lake Mead National Recreation Area ............3.3-71, 3.16-2, 3.16-5, 3.16-8, 3.16-24 (LMNRA) ........................................................ Morelos Dam ....................................................... 1-4, 3.8-2, 3.8-3, 3.8-6, 3.12-1, 3.12-3, 3.12-5, 1-19, 2-30, 3.3-10, 3.3-42, 3.3-71, 3.3-72, 3.33.17-2 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS IND-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 527 of 1200 INDEX 73, 3.3-74, 3.3-75, 3.3-76, 3.3-77, 3.3-78, 3.379, 3.4-16, 3.16-1, 3.16-2, 3.16-3, 3.16-5, 3.16-10, 3.16-11, 3.16-12, 3.16-13, 3.16-14, 3.16-15, 3.16-16, 3.16-17, 3.16-18, 3.16-20, 3.16-21, 3.16-22, 3.16-24, 3.16-29, 3.16-32, 3.16-37, 3.16-39, 3.16-40 12, 3.8-19, 3.8-21, 3.13-2, 3.13-4, 3.13-5, 3.16-4, 3.16-10, 3.16-36 Pascua-Yaqui Tribe..................................3.14-11 perchlorate .....................................3.5-17, 3.17-1 point of diversion .........................3.3-54, 3.16-10 present perfected rights (PPR) ............................. ................................. 1-13, 3.4-4, 3.4-7, 3.14-9 purpose and need..............1-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-10, 5-1 N National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ....... Q 1-1, 1-4, 1-5, 1-10, 1-15, 1-28, 2-4, 2-6, 3.354, 3.8-1, 3.15-1, 3.16-1, 4-1 Quechan Indian Tribe .......................................... National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)........ ............................... 3.6-11, 3.14-2, 3.14-9, 5-9 ............................... 3.13-1, 3.13-3, 3.17-2, 5-5 National Park Service (NPS) ............................... R 1-1, 1-4, 3.4-12, 3.7-2, 3.7-3, 3.7-5, 3.7-7, 3.8razorback sucker .................................................. 3, 3.8-5, 3.8-19, 3.8-21, 3.9-1, 3.9-2, 3.9-3, ..................3.7-3, 3.7-4, 3.8-21, 3.8-22, 3.8-27 3.9-5, 3.12-1 relict leopard frog...........................3.8-12, 3.8-13 National Recreation Area.......................1-4, 1-10 Rio Hardy............................................................. National Registry of Historic Places (NRHP) 3.16-5, 3.16-7, 3.16-8, 3.16-9, 3.16-24, 3.16.......................... 3.13-1, 3.13-3, 3.13-4, 3.13-5 32, 3.16-35 natural flows ........................................................ riparian habitat ..................................................... ..............1-8, 1-12, 3.3-6, 3.3-9, 3.3-13, 3.14-5 1-25, 1-29, 1-30, 2-27, 3.5-22, 3.8-4, 3.8-5, natural runoff ....................................................... 3.8-14, 3.8-16, 3.8-17, 3.8-18, 3.8-24, 3.16-10, 1-6, 1-8, 2-8, 3.5-2, 3.12-1, 3.12-4, 3.12-5, o 3.16-24, 3.16-30, 3.16-31, r 3.12-6, 3.12-7 nteri 3.16-32, 3.16-37, 3.16-39, f the I 3.16-40 017 Navajo Nation ...................................................... RiverWare ........................................3.3-9, 3.3-10 pt. o er 29, 2 ................... 3.14-2, 3.14-4, 3.14-5, 3.17-2, 5-9 . De bicolored b Navajo sedge......................................3.8-7, 3.8-8 on i v rosy ovem beardtongue ..........................3.8-8 at N on New Mexico raspberry.......................3.8-7,N jo 3.8-8 S Nava archived No Action Alternative.......................................... in ited 2-6, 6864, ...............................2-1, c Salinity ......................................................1-9, 11 1 3.1-2, 3.13-3, 4-3 Northerly International Boundary (NIB) ............. San Carlos Indian Tribe ... 3.14-11, 3.14-13, 5-10 . 14No 3.3-10, 3.3-71, 3.3-72, 3.16-1, 3.16-3, 3.16-5, San Diego County Water Authority ..................... 3.16-8, 3.16-10, 3.16-22, 3.16-23, 3.16-24, ................................ 1-23, 3.3-54, 3.4-10, 5-11 3.16-29 sawgrass .......................................................3.8-8 Northern leopard frog ................................ 3.8-11 Sea of Cortez........................................................ Northern Ute Tribe................. 3.14-2, 3.14-3, 5-9 1-29, 3.16-3, 3.16-5, 3.16-8, 3.16-9, 3.16-12, 3.16-25, 5-4, 5-9 O Secretarial Implementation Agreement................ ............................................... 1-24, 1-28, 1-29 Occult little brown bat ............................... 3.8-11 sedimentation ............................ 1-25, 1-30, 3.6-1 operating strategies .............................................. Senator Wash Reservoir................................1-19 ..................2-1, 2-6, 2-7, 2-14, 3.10-3, 3.10-11 sensitivity analysis ............ 3.3-17, 3.3-18. 3.4-10 Sonoran mud turtle.........................3.8-11, 3.8-14 P Southerly International Boundary (SIB) .............. Pacific Institute ....................... 2-3, 2-4, 5-7, 5-11 1-21, 1-29, 1-30, 3.3-10, 3.5-26, 3.16-3, Palo Verde Diversion Dam .................................. 3.16-4 1-11, 1-19, 1-20, 3.3-42, 3.3-54, 3.3-63, 3.3Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) ....... 64, 3.3-65, 3.4-7 1-19, 1-32, 3.3-5, 3.3-12, 3.3-13, 3.3-18, 3.3Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) .................. 30, 3.3-31, 3.4-6, 3.4-10, 3.4-12, 3.4-34, 3.5-9, ............................... 3.3-54, 3.4-7, 3.4-10, 3.5-9 3.5-11, 3.5-12, 3.5-14, 3.5-15, 3.5-17, 3.5-18, Parker Dam .......................................................... 3.5-20, 3.5-22, 3.5-23, 3.5-25, 3.10-13, 3.101-11, 1-17, 1-19, 1-21, 1-23, 2-24, 2-26, 3.3-5, 14, 3.14-11, 3.16-35 3.3-17, 3.3-42, 3.3-43, 3.3-45, 3.3-54, 3.4-7, Southern Nevada Water System (SNWS) ............ 3.5-3, 3.5-7, 3.5-10, 3.6-9, 3.6-10, 3.6-11, 3.6......2-26, 2-28, 3.5-1, 3.10-1, 3.10-13, 3.10-14 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS IND-4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 528 of 1200 INDEX Southern Ute Indian Tribe ..... 3.14-2, 3.14-5, 5-9 Southwestern willow flycatcher........................... 1-26, 2-30, 3.8-1, 3.8-4, 3.8-11, 3.8-16, 3.817, 3.8-24, 3.16-2, 3.16-7, 3.16-30, 3.16-31, 3.16-32 sport fisheries....................................................... .... 2-28, 3.7-1, 3.7-2, 3.7-5, 3.7-6, 3.7-7, 3.7-8 sticky buckwheat............... 3.8-10, 3.8-22, 3.8-23 V vaquita............................................3.8-1, 3.16-26 Virgin River ......................................................... 2-27, 3.4-12, 3.5-18, 3.8-3, 3.8-4, 3.8-5, 3.8-7, 3.8-8, 3.8-10, 3.8-12, 3.8-13, 3.8-15, 3.8-16, 3.8-17, 3.8-18, 3.8-20, 3.8-23, 3.8-24, 3.8-25, 3.16-35, 3.16-36, 3.16-40 W T water quality......................................................... 1-5, 1-32, 3.5-3, 3.5-6, 3.5-9, 3.5-11, 3.5-15, 3.5-19, 3.5-20, 3.5-22, 3.5-23, 3.5-25, 3.7-1, 3.7-6, 3.8-6, 3.16-22, 3.16-23, 3.17-1 water rights........................................................... 1-13, 1-23, 3.3-29, 3.4-3, 3.4-7, 3.4-14, 3.141, 3.14-2, 3.14-3, 3.14-4, 3.14-5, 3.14-6, 3.147, 3.14-8, 3.14-9, 3.14-10, 3.14-11, 3.14-12, 3.14-14, 3.15-1, 5-2, 5-6 water transfers...................................................... 1-28, 1-29, 3.3-9, 3.3-10, 3.3-11, 3.3-17, 3.354, 3.4-7, 3.4-10, 3.4-26, 4-1 Western hophornbeam .................................3.8-7 temperature .......................................................... 1-24, 1-26, 1-31, 3.3-1, 3.3-2, 3.5-18, 3.5-19, 3.5-22, 3.7-1, 3.7-5, 3.7-6, 3.7-7, 3.7-8, 3.8-6, 3.8-22, 3.17-2 Ten Tribes Partnership......................................... ...........................2-29, 3.3-16, 3.14-1, 5-6, 5-9 Tohono O'Odham Nation......................... 3.14-13 Tonto Apache Tribe ......... 3.14-11, 3.14-13, 5-10 totoaba ................................................................. .2-30, 3.8-1, 3.16-1, 3.16-27, 3.16-28, 3.16-29 traditional cultural properties (TCPs) ........ 3.13-1 U United States – Mexico Water Treaty of 1944 Y ior Inter 17 (Treaty) ............................................................ 0 f the Yavapai-Apache Indian,Community.................... 1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 1-9, 11, 1-15, 1-16, 1-17, 2-4, 2pt. o er 29 23.14-11, 3.14-13, 5-10 e ..................................... D 7, 2-25, 2-30, 3.3-1, 3.3-6, 3.3-10, 3.3-11, 3.3- on v. mb Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe ............................. ati Nove 71, 3.4-14, 3.4-16, 3.5-5, 3.16-1, 3.16-3, N on ..................................... 3.14-11, 3.14-13, 5-10 jo 3.164 Nava archived yellow-billed cuckoo........... 3.8-1, 3.8-18, 3.8-24 in United States Army Corps of Engineers, cited 16864 Yuma clapper rail................................................. (Corps) ............................................................. 2-30, 3.8-1, 3.8-11, 3.8-17, 3.8-24, 3.16-2, . 14- 2-15, 3.3-3, 3.3-5, 1-17, 1-20, 1-21, 2-7, 2-14, No 3.16-3, 3.16-9, 3.16-33, 3.16-34, 3.16-35, 3.6-8, 3.6-9, 3.6-10, 3.6-11, 3.6-12 3.16-38, 3.16-41 Upper Basin Compact ............................1-9, 1-12 Yuma Desalting Plant ...............................3.3-11 Ute ladies’ tresses ..............................3.8-7, 3.8-8 Ute Mountain Ute Tribe....................................... ............................... 3.14-2, 3.14-5, 3.14-6, 5-9 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS IND-5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 529 of 1200 REFERENCES American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 1985. American Ornithologist's Union Checklist of North American Birds, 35th supplement. The Auk 102:680-686. ________. 1998. Checklist of North American Birds, 7th edition. American Ornithologists’ Union. Washington, DC. 829 pp. Anderson, B.W., and R.D. Ohmart. 1976. Vegetation type maps of the lower Colorado River from Davis Dam to the Southerly International Boundary. Final Report. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, Nevada. ________. 1985. Habitat use by clapper rails in the lower Colorado River Valley. Condor 87: 116-126. Anderson, E.R., and D.W. Prichard. 1951. Physical limnology of Lake Mead, Lake Mead Sedimentation Survey. U.S. Navy Electronic Laboratory, San Diego, CA. Rep. No. 258, Oct. 3rd, 1951, 153 pp. Angrandi, T.R., R.W. Clarkson, D.A. Kinsolving, D.M. Kubly, and S.A. Morgensen, 1992. Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River: Responsesrior aquatic of the nte Technical biota to dam operations, Glen Canyon Environmentale I h Studies2017 Report. of t Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, .Arizona. 29, ept .D ber on v vem ti No Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD).o1992. Ditch evening primrose jo Na ved assp. hesperia). n v (Camissonia specuicola Draft unpublished abstract compiled in Na 4, rchi ited the Heritagea Management System, Arizona Game and Fish and edited by c 1686 Data Department,14. Phoenix, AZ., 3 pp. o N _______. 1995. Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ, 3 pp. _______. 1996. Wildlife of special concern in Arizona: Public review draft. Nongame and endangered wildlife program, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. _______. 1997a. Nongame field notes - Kanab ambersnail http://www.gf.state.az.us/fishwild/ngame_b.htm. _______. 1997b. Nongame field notes - southwestern willow flycatcher http://www.gf.state.az.us/fishwild/ngame_b.htm. _______. 1997c. Occult little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus occultus). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ, 4 pp. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 530 of 1200 REFERENCES _______. 1998. Relict leopard frog (Rana onca). Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ, 3 pp. Austin, G.T. and A.T. Austin. 1980. Butterflies of Clark County, Nevada. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera, 19 (1) : 1-63. Baker, J.R., et al. 1977. Limnological aspects of Lake Mead, Nevada-Arizona, US Bureau of Reclamation, Rep. No. REC-ERC-77-9, 83 pp. _______ and L.J. & Paulson. 1978. The Las Vegas Wash density current in Lake Mead. Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 22nd Annual Meeting. April 1978. Flagstaff, AZ. Banks, R.C. and R.E. Tomlinson. 1974. Taxonomic position of certain clapper rails of southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico. Wilson Bull. 86:325335. Barlow, J., T. Gerrodette, and G. Silber. In press. First estimates of vaquita abundance. Marine Mammal Science. Barneby, R.C. 1989. Intermountain flora: vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Volume III, part B: Fabales. Bronx, NY: The New YorkrBotanical terio Garden, 279 pp. he In 17 t t. of 9, 20 Barrera, J.C. 1990. The conservation of Totoaba ep D macdonaldi,r(Pisces: Scianidae), in e 2 n v. of Fishemb the Gulf of California, Mexico. tio a Journal Nov Biology. 37 (Supplement A): ajo N ived on 201-202. Nav h d in , arc ite La pesqueria de totoaba (Cynoscion macdonaldi) en San Felipe, Berdegue, A.J. c1955. -16864 14 Baja California. Revista de la Sociedad Mexicana de Historia Natural. 16:45No. 78. Bevans, H.E., et al. 1996. Synthetic organic compounds and carp endocrinology and histology in Las Vegas Wash and Las Vegas and Callvaille Bays of Lake Mead, N, 1992 and 1995. USGS Water Res. Invest. Rep. 96-4266. 12 pp. Bischoff, Matt C., Edgar K. Huber, David Ferraro, and Michael Hogan. 1998. Class II Inventory of a 30-Acre Parcel on the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation for the Sediment-Removal Remediation Work at River Mile 31, Yuma County, Arizona. Statistical Research Technical Report 98-30, Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona. Report Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Regional Office, Boulder City, NV (LC-CA-9811-1 [N]). Bishop, D. 2000. Personal Communication. Dan Bishop, NPS, November 14. Blinn, D.W., and G.A. Cole. 1991. Algal and invertebrate biota in the Colorado River: comparison of pre- and post-dam conditions. Colorado River Ecology and Dam. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 531 of 1200 REFERENCES Bolton, H.E. 1930. Editor. Anza’s California Expeditions. Volumes III & IV. University of California Press, Berkley, California. Bookman-Edmonston Engineering, Inc. 1999. Salinity Management Study, Technical Appendices. June. Braden, Gerald, T. and R.L. McKernan. 1998. Nest cycles, vocalizations, and survey protocols of the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). Report to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado River Regional Office, Boulder City, NV, 36pp. Bradford, D.F. and R.D. Jennings. 1997. Population status of the relict leopard frog (Rana onca). Poster session (text), Desert Fishes Council Meeting, Death Valley National Park. November. Bradley, W.G. 1966. Status of the cotton rat in Nevada. Journal of Mammology 47:349-350. Brian, N.J. 1987. Aerial photography comparison of 1983 high flow impacts to vegetation at eight Colorado River beaches. Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Technical Report. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah. As cited in Operation of Glen Canyon Dam, Final Environmental Impact Statement. r U.S. Dept of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, March, 1995.erio Int f the 017 9, 2 _______. 2000. Botanist, National Park Service, ept. oCanyon NRA. Personal Grand . D 7 April.ber 2 v Communication with J. Valeriusion email. ovem t via o Na on N va 1998.hOpportunities for ecological improvement along Briggs, M.K. and S. Cornelius. j ived in Na 4, and Delta. Wetlands 18(4): 513-529. arc d the lowerite River c Colorado 86 -16 Brown, B.T. 1993. 14 No. Bell’s vireo in The birds of North America, no. 35. Poole, A., P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, editors. Philadelphia, PA: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists’ Union. _______, G.S. Mills, R.L. Glinski, and S.W. Hoffman. 1992. Density of nesting peregrine falcons in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist, Vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 188-193. _______, S.W. Carothers, and R.R. Johnson. 1983. Breeding range expansion of Bell’s vireo in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Condor 85:499-500. Brown, P. 1998. Biologist. Personal communication with T. Adkins. July 24. Browne, J.R. 1869. Resources of the Pacific Slope. A statistical and descriptive summary of the mines and minerals, climate, topography, agriculture, commerce, manufactures, and miscellaneous productions, of the states and territories west of the Rocky Mountains. With a sketch of the settlement and exploration of lower California. D. Appleton and Company, New York, New York, 678 pp. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 532 of 1200 REFERENCES Brownell, R.L. 1982. Status of the cochito, Phocoena sinus, in the Gulf of California. FAO, Advisory Committee on Marine Resources Research. Mammals in the Seas: small cetaceans, seals, sirenians, and otters. FAO Fish. Ser. 5:85-90. _______, L.T. Findley, O. Vidal, A. Robles, and S. Manzanilla. 1987. External morphology and pigmentation of the vaquita, Phocoena sinus. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 3-22-30. Burke, B. 2000. Personal Communication. Bill Burke, NPS, March 22. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1991. 1990 annual report on the status of California's state listed threatened and endangered plants and animals. March. _______. 1992. Annual report on the status of California state listed threatened and endangered animals and plants. State of California, The Resources Agency. 203 pp. _______. 1994. California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database: Special animals. August. Carlson, R.E. 1977. A tropic state indexes for lakes. Limnology. and Oceanography. 22:361-369. rior Inte Carothers, S.W., and B.T. Brown. 1991. The Coloradoof thethrough 017 Canyon: River Grand 9, 2 ept. Natural History and Human Change.vUniversity ofber 2 Press, Tucson Arizona .D m Arizona. ation n Nove N vajo ed o CH2MHill. 1997. 1997 Vegetationrmapping and GIS Development. Prepared for the in Na 4, a chiv ited Reclamation, Lower Colorado River Regional Office, Boulder c U.S. Bureau of -1686 1 City, Nevada,4 pp. No. 36 Cisneros-Mata, M.A., G. Montemayor-Lopez, and M.J. Roman-Rodriquez. 1995. Life history and conservation of Totoaba macdonaldi. Conservation Biology, 9(4): 806-814. CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species). No date. The first meeting of the conference of the parties to the interational trade in endangered species of the wild fauna and flora. CITES, Berne, Switzerland. Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning, Clark County, Nevada. 1997. Las Vegas Valley 208 Water quality Management Plan Amendment. Las Vegas, Nevada. July. 127 pp. plus appendices. Clarke, A.H. 1991. Status survey of selected land and freshwater gastropods in Utah. Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 70 pp. plus appendices. Cockrum, E.L. 1956. Homing, movements, and longevity of bats. Journal of Mammology 37:48-57. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 533 of 1200 REFERENCES Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum. 1999. Water Quality Standards for Salinity Colorado River System. 1999. Review. June. Colorado River Board of California (CRB). 1997. “Colorado River Board 4.4 Plan,” unpublished Draft, December 17, 1997. Colorado River Board of California, 2000. California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan, Draft, May 2000. Combrink and Collins. 1992. The impact of fluctuating lake levels on Lake Powell, a recreational use and facility adjustment study. Conway, C.J., W.R. Eddleman, S.H. Anderson, and L.R. Hanebury. 1993. Seasonal changes in Yuma clapper rail vocalization rate and habitat use. Journal of Wildlife Management 57(2): 282-290. Corman, Troy E. and R.T. Magill. 2000. Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo in Arizona: 1998 and 1999 Survey Report. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 150. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. Cronquist, A. 1994. Intermountain flora: vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Volume V: Asterales. Bronx, NY: The New York Botanical Garden. 573 pp. rior Inte D’Agrosa, C., C.E. Lennert-Cody, and O. Vidal. 2000. of the Bycatch17Mexico’s t. Vaquita 29, 20 in Artisanal Gillnet Fisheries: Driving av. Dep Small Populationrto Extinction. mbe Conservation Biology 14(4): 1110-1119. Nove ation n N vajo ed o Deacon, J.E. 1975. d in Na monitoring program. University of Nevada Las Vegas. Lake Mead rchiv ite to Clark64, a Wastewater Management Agency. 207 pp. c Final Report -168 County . 14 N Lake Mead monitoring program. University of Nevada Las Vegas. _______. 1976. o Final Report to Clark County Sanitation District No. 1. 182 pp. _______. 1977. Lake Mead monitoring program. University of Nevada Las Vegas. Final Report to Clark County Sanitation District no. 1. 55 pp. _______ and R.W. Tew. 1973. Interrelationships between chemical, physical, and biological conditions of the waters of Las Vegas Bay of Lake Mead, Final Report. Las Vegas Water District. 186 pages. Decker, E.L. 1960. Report on the Water Right Claims Uintah and Ouray Reservation, Utah. Ute Indian Tribe. December 12, 1960. Drost, Charles, A., M.K. Sogge, and E. Paxton. 1998. Preliminary Diet Study of the Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Report submitted to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix, July 1998. Eddleman, W.R. 1989. Biology of the Yuma clapper rail in the southwestern U.S. and northwestern Mexico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, IA no. 4-AA-30-020060. 127 pp. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 534 of 1200 REFERENCES Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder’s handbook: A field guide to the natural history of North American birds. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, Inc. 785 pp. Emmel, T.C. and J.F. Emmel. 1973. The butterflies of southern California. Science series 26, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA. Evens, J.G., G.W. Page, L.S. Laymon, and R.W. Stallcup. 1991. Distribution, relative abundance and status of the California black rail in western North America. Condor 93:952-966. Fitch, J.E. and R.L. Brownell. 1968. Fish otoliths in cetacean stomachs and their importance in interpreting feeding habits. Journal Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 25:25612574. Fitzpatrick, L. 2000. Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, AZ. Personal Communication with A. Pool. 14 April. Flanagan, C.A. and J.R. Hendrickson. 1976. Observations on the commercial fishery and reproductive biology of totoaba, Cynoscion macdonaldi, in the northern Gulf of California. Fishery Bulletin 74:531-544. Flores, R.E. and W.R. Eddleman. 1995. California black rail use of rior in habitat nte southwestern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management I59(2):357-363. 17 the t. of 9, 20 Ford, D.E. 1990. Reservoir transport processes. In: K.W. Thornton, B.L. Kimmel and Dep m er 2 n v. EcologicalbPerspectives. John Wiley F.E. Payne (eds.). Reservoir Limnology: Nove atio ajo N ived on and Sons. NY. 15-42. Nav h d in , arc Gaines, D. and cite Laymon. 4 S.A. -1686 1984. Decline, status, and preservation of the yellow1 billed cuckoo 4 California. Western Birds 15:49-80. No. in Garcia-Henrandez, J., O. Hinojosa-Huerta, E.P. Glenn, V. Gerhart, and Y. Carrillo. 2000. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey in Cocopah Territory, Yuma, Arizona. Report prepared for: The Cocopah Indian Tribe, W. County 15 and Avenue G, Somerton, AZ. Garrett, K. and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of southern California: status and distribution. Los Angeles, CA: The Artisan Press. 408 pp. Gerrodette, T., Fleischer, L.A., Perez-Cortes, H., and B.V. Ramirez. 1995. Distribution of the Vaquita, Phocoena sinus, based on Sightings from Systematic Surveys. Rep. Int. Wha. Commn (Special Issue 16):273-282. Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. 1986. Aids to Navigation Plan. GCNRA, July. Glenn, E.P. 2000. Personal communication. Professor, Soil, Water, and Environmental Science Department, Environmental Research Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-6 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 535 of 1200 REFERENCES Grinnell, J. 1914. An account of the mammals and birds of the lower Colorado Valley with special reference to the distributional problems presented. University of California Publications in Zoology 12(4):51-294. Gustaveson, W., et al. 1998. Summary of Sport Fisheries Harvest, Pressure and Success, 1964 to 1997, measured by Creel Survey at Lake Powell, UT/AZ. Sport Fish Restoration Act Project F-46-R, Publication Number 98-15. Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. September. Hafner, D.J., E. Yensen, and G.L. Kirkland, Jr., editors. In press. North American rodents: action plan for species of conservation concern. 423 pp. Hall, E.R. 1946. Mammals of Nevada. Las Vegas, NV: University of Nevada Press. 710 pp. _______. 1981. Mammals of North America. Volume II, second edition. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. 1,181 pp. Halterman, M.D. 1998. Population Site Tenacity and habitat requirements of the yellow-billed cuckoo at the Bill Williams River, Arizona: summer 1998. Report for USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado River Regional Office, ior Boulder City, Nevada. Inter f the 017 _______. 2000. Population Status of the yellow-billed.cuckoo at 29, Bill Williams River, the 2 pt o . De ember Arizona: summer 1999. Report tion v Bureau of Reclamation, Lower for USDI ov N Na Boulder City, Nevada. Colorado River Regionaljo va Office, ed on n Na chiv i ar _______ and S. A. Laymon. 1994. Population Site Tenacity and habitat requirements of cited 16864, the yellow-billed cuckoo at the Bill Williams River, Arizona: summer 1993. 14No.USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Bill Williams River NWR, Parker, Report for Arizona. Henderson, N. 2000. Personal Communication. Norm Henderson, NPS, March 23. Hetzler, B.C. 1992a. Winter peregrine falcon survey. Glen Canyon National Recreation Area – 1991-1992. Edited by C. Pinnock. Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. March. _______. 1992b. Breeding peregrine falcon monitoring. Glen Canyon National Recreation Area – 1992. Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. September. Hinojosa-Huerta, O., S. DeStafano, and W.E. Shaw. 2000. Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Use of the Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis) in the Colorado River Delta, Mexico. Annual Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Hoffman, D.A., and A.R. Jonez. 1973. Lake Mead, a case history. Pages 220-223. In W.C. Ackerman, GF. White and E.B. Worthington (eds.). Man-made Lakes; Their Problems and Environmental Effects. Geophysical Monograph Series No. 17. 847 pp. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-7 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 536 of 1200 REFERENCES Hoffmeister, D.F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. 602 pp. Hohn, A.A., A.J. Read, S. Fernandez, O. Vidal, and L.T. Findley. 1996. Life History of the Vaquita, Phocoena sinus (Phocoenidae, Cetecea). J. Zool. London 239, 235251. Holden, P.B. and C.B. Stalnaker. 1975a. Distribution and abundance of mainstream fishes of the middle and upper Colorado River basins, 1967-1973. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 104:217-231. _______. 1975b. Distribution of fishes in the Delores and Yampa river systems of the upper Colorado Basin. The Southwestern Naturalist 19:403-412. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 156 pp. Huber, Edgar K., Jeffrey H. Altschul, Matthew A. Sterner, David Ferraro, Matt C. Bischoff, and Michael Hogan. 1998a. Class II Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the Dredge Spoil Disposal Site, Imperial County, California. Statistical Research Technical Report 98-1, Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona. Report Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Regionalor i Office, Boulder Inter 17 City, NV (LC-CA-98-02 [P]). 0 f the pt. o 9, 2 _______. Matt C. Bischoff, David Ferraro, and Michael Hogan. 2 . De ber 1998b. Yuma ion vand Novem Resources of Six Parcels Sediment-Removal Project Phases III on IV: Cultural Nat vajo River. ed Along the Lower Colorado chiv Statistical Research Technical Report 98-36, in Na r StatisticaltResearch, Inc., Tucson, Arizona. Report Prepared for the U.S. i ed 6864, a c -1 Department 14the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Regional o. of Office,N Boulder City, NV (LC-CA-98-11-2 [P]). Hughes, J. M. 1999. Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). In The Birds of North America, No. 418 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Hulse, A.C. 1982. Reproduction and population structure in the turtle, Kinosternon sonoriense. The Southwest Naturalist 27(4):447-456. Hunt, W.G., D.E. Driscoll, E.W. Bianchi, and R.E. Jackman. 1992. Ecology of bald eagles in Arizona. Part A: population overview. Report to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Contract 6-CS-30-04470. BioSystems Analysis, Inc., Santa Cruz, CA. 235 pp. Hunter, W.C., B.W. Anderson, and R.D. Ohmart. 1987a. Avian community structure in a mature floodplain forest after extensive flooding. Journal of Wildlife Management 51(2):495-502. _______. 1987b. Status of breeding riparian-obligate birds in southwestern riverine systems. Western Birds 18:10-18. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-8 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 537 of 1200 REFERENCES Hyde, P., 2000. Executive Director of Policy, Southwest Rivers. Comment letter on DEIS, dated September 8. Jaramillo-Legorreta, A.M., L. Rojas-Bracho, and T. Gerrodette. 1999. A New Abundance Estimate for Vaquitas: First Step for Recovery. Marine Mannal Science, 15(4):957-973. Jennings, M.R., M.P. Hayes, and Animal Management Division Research Section, Metro Washington Park Zoo. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California; final report. Submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, CA. Contract no. 8023. 240 pp. + appendices. Jennings, R.D., B.R. Riddle, and J.P. Jaeger. In preparation. Rediscovery of Rana onca in southern Nevada and its systematic relationships with southwestern leopard frogs (Rana pipiens complex). Johnsgard, P.A. 1988. North American owls: biology and natural history. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Johnson, C.G. 1869. The Territory of Arizona, embracing a history of the territory; its mineral, agricultural, and commercial advantages; its climate and boundaries; i r and the great Colorado of the Pacific. V. Ryan, Publisher,tSano In er Francisco, 17 the California. 32 pp. t. of 9, 20 Dep er 2 mb Johnson, Jeffrey. 1990. Hawks, eagles,ion v. of North America. Washington, at and falconsove N DC: Smithsonian InstitutionN vajo Press.ed on n Na chiv ar Johnson, Jeffrey.ited i Memorandum entitled Increased Pumping Costs Per Foot of c 2000.16864, Drop in Mead4. 1 Elevation. Southern Nevada Water Authority. May 3, 2000. No Johnson, R.R., and L.T. Haight. 1984. Riparian problems and initiatives in the American Southwest: A regional perspective. In California Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management, R.E. Warner and K.M. Hendrix (eds), University of California Press. pp. 404-412. Jonez, A., and R.C. Sumner. 1954. Lakes Mead and Mohave investigations: A comparative study of an established reservoir as related to a newly created impoundment. Federal Aid to Fisheries Restoration Project Completion Report, F-1- R, 1-186. Nevada Game and Fish Commission, Reno, Nevada. Joseph, T.W., J.A. Sinning, R.J. Behnke, and P.B. Holden. 1977. An evaluation of the status, life history, and habitat requirements of endangered and threatened fishes of the upper Colorado River system. FWS/OBS-77-62. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, CO. Kasprzk, M. and Bryant, G. 1998. Results of Biological Investigations from the Power Virgin River Vegetation Management Study, Report No. REC-ERC-89-2, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO, March. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-9 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 538 of 1200 REFERENCES Kaufman, K. 1996a. Lives of North American birds. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 675 pp. Kearney, T.H., R.H. Peebles, and collaborators. 1951. Arizona flora. Second edition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1,085 pp. Kimmel, B.L., O.T. Lind, and L.J. Paulsen. 1990. Reservoir primary production. Pages 134-194. In K.W. Thornton, B.L. Kimmel, and F.E. Payne (eds). Reservoir Limnology: Ecological Perspectives. John Wiley and Sons. NY. King, Kirke A., A.L. Velasco, J. Garcia-Hernandez, B.J. Zaun, J. Record, and J. Wesley. 2000. Contaminants in potential prey of the Yuma Clapper Rail: Arizona and California, USA, and Sonora and Baja. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, Phoenix, AZ. King T. and M. Robbins. 1991. A status survey of Kinosternon sonoriense and Bufo alvarius along the California side of the lower Colorado River basin. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries. 9 pp. + table. Klinowska, M. 1991. Vaquita, Phocoena sinus, Norris and McFarland, 1958. Pp 105108. In: Dolphins, porpoises and whales of the world. IUCN Red Data Book, ior Gland, Switzerland. Inter f the 017 9, 2 Knight, T.S. 1983. Vascular flora of the Muddy Mountains, Clark County, Nevada. pt. o . De ember 2 v Madroño 30(4):31-51. tion ov o Na on N Koronkiewicz, Thomas J.Navaj J. Whitfield. 1999. Surveys for Wintering Willow and M. ived arch d in 64,traillii) in Costa Rica and Panama. Final Report: Flycatchers (Empidonax cite 8 Submitted .to the16 14- Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix, AZ, November 5, 1999. No Kubly, D., L. Stevens. Personal communication from 1994 BO for EIS, ACP4. _______. Personal Communication. As cited in Final Biological Opinion Operation of Glen Canyon Dam as the Modified Low Fluctuating Flow Alternative of the Final Environmental Impact Statement Operation of Glen Canyon Dam. 2-2193-F-167. December 1994. Prepared by: Ecological Services, Arizona State Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona. LaBounty, J.F. and M.J. Horn. 1996. Report of Significant Findings-Las Vegas/boulder Basin Investigations. Bur. of Rec. Tech. Mem. No. 8220-96-14. 5 pp. _______. 1997. The influence of drainage from the Las Vegas Valley on the Limnology of Boulder Basin, Lake Mead, Arizona-Nevada. Lake and Reserv. Mgmt. 13(2):95-108. Lagomarsino, I.V. 1991. Endangered species status review: Totoaba macdonaldi. National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region, Administrative Report SWR-91-01 Lara, J.M. and J.L. Sanders. 1970. . Bur. of Rec. Report. 172 pages. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-10 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 539 of 1200 REFERENCES Luecke, D.F., J. Pitt, C. Congdon, E. Glenn, C. Valdes-Casillas, and M. Briggs. 1999. A Delta Once More: Restoring Riparian and Wetland Habitat in the Colorado River Delta. EDF Publications, 1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20009. Maddux, Henry R., Lesley A. Fitzpatrick, and William R. Noonan. 1993. Colorado River endangered fishes critical habitat biological support document. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City. 225 pp. Marsh, P.C.and D.Papoulias. 1989. Ichthyoplankton of Lake Havasu, a Colorado River impoundment, Arizona-California. California Department of Fish and Game 75(2): 68-73. _______, and D.W. Sada. 1993. Desert Pupfish Recovery Plan. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 67 pp. _______, and W.L. Minckley. 1985. Aquatic Resources of the Yuma Division, lower Colorado River. Final Report to Bureau of Reclamation. Arizona State University Center for Environmental Studies, Tempe, AZ. 222 pp. Maser, C., J.E. Rodiek, and J.W. Ghomas. Cliffs Talus, and Caves, in Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests, the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. USDA r Forest Service, Ag. Handbook No. 553. Portland, Oregon. terio In 1979. f the 017 McAda, C.W., J.W. Bates, J.S. Cranney, T.E. Chart, W.R. Elmblad,, and T.P. Nesler. pt. o er 29 2 . De program: Summary of results, 1994. Interagency standardizedimonitoring ovemb nv N Nat o Implementation Program for the Endangered 1986-1992, final report. jo va Recovery d on e v Fishes of the upper Coloradochi Basin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in Na r River ited 6864, a Denver,cCO. -1 . 14 No1997. Status, Distribution, and Habitat Affinities of the Southwestern McKernan, R.L. Willow Flycatcher Along the Lower Colorado River, Year 1 – 1996, San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands, CA, November. _______ and Braden, G. 1998. Status, Distribution, and Habitat Affinities of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Along the Lower Colorado River, Year 2 – 1997, San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands, CA., March. _______. 1999. Status, distribution, and habitat affinities of the southwestern willow flycatcher along the Lower Colorado River: Year 3 – 1998. Submitted to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado River Region, Boulder City, NV. March. Mearns, E.A. 1907. Mammals of the Mexican boundary of the United States. A descriptive catalogue of the species of mammals occurring in that region; with a general summary of the natural history, and a list of trees. U.S. National Museum Bulletin. 56. 530 pp. Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 293 pp. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-11 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 540 of 1200 REFERENCES Molina, K.C., 1998. Preliminary Reconnaissance of Potential Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trailli extimus) Habitats along the Rio Colorado and Associated Wetlands in Baja California Norte and Sonora, Mexico. Report prepard for Robert McKernan, San Bernardino County Museum, Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, CA. Monson, G., and A. Phillips. 1981. Revised Checklist of Arizona Birds. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 240 pp. Mozingo, H.N. and M. Williams. 1980. Threatened and endangered plants of Nevada: an illustrated manual. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management. 268 pp. Muiznieks, B.D., T.E. Corman, S.J. Sferra, M.K. Sogge, and T.J. Tibbitts. 1994. Arizona Partners in Flight southwestern willow flycatcher survey 1993. Arizona Game and Fish Department Report, Phoenix, Arizona. Munz, P.A. 1974. A flora of southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1,086 pp. National Park Service (NPS) 1977. Glen Canyon Bullfrog Basin, Development Concept Plan, National Recreation Area/Arizona & Utah. January 1977. erior _______. 1979. Proposed General Management Plan. Glene Int National h Canyon 7 . of t r 29, 201 Recreation Area, July; reprinted August 1991.t ep v. D mbe n _______. 1987. Water Resources Management Plan ve Environmental Assessment, Natio d on No and o Glen Canyon National aj Nav Recreation e hiv Area, April. d in , arc c e 16864 _______. 1990. itRainbow Bridge National Monument General Management Plan, 1 Development 4 No. Concept Plan, Resource Management Plan, Interpretive Prospectus, and Environmental Assessment, Rocky Mountain Region NPS, USDI, July. _______. 1991. Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Statement for Management, August. _______. 1993. Rainbow Bridge National Monument General Management Plan, Development Concept Plan, interpretive Prospectus, June. _______. 1995. Lake Mead National Recreation Area brochure. GPO: 1995-387038/00232. _______. 1996. Fish Management Plan, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. State of Utah and State of Arizona, April. _______. 1998. Effects of scientific collecting and research program on endangered and threatened fish species. Biological Assessment. National Park Service. Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. April 1998. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-12 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 541 of 1200 REFERENCES _______. 1999. Lake Mead National Recreation Area Resource Management Plan and State of the Park Report. With Appendix A, Lake Mead NRA “Vital Signs” Monitoring Program, and Appendix A, December. _______. Undated. Antelope Point Concept Plan, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. _______. Undated. Plant Communities of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Carl Hayden Visitors Center, Page, Arizona. Navajo Nation and National Park Service. 1986. Antelope Point Final Development Concept Plan Environmental Assessment, (Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.), March. Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW). 1998. Comments on LCR MSCP preliminary species conservation goals: bird species. Prepared by C. Tomlinson, nongame biologist, Nevada Division of Wildlife, Las Vegas, NV. _______. 2000. Memorandum dated 5 October 2000 regarding the NDDW statewide angler questionnaire for years 1989 through 1998. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF). 1997. Biota information system of New Mexico. Revised September 1997. erior http://www.fw.vt.edu/fishex/nmex/_main/species.html Int 17 the t. of 9, 20 Niles, W.E., P.J. Leary, J.S. Holland, and F.H.. Landau. 1995. rOccurrence and Dep mbe 2 nv distribution of Astragalus geyeriio triquetrus e at var. on Nov (three-cornered milk-vetch) and ajo N buckwheat) in Lake Mead National Recreation Eriogonum viscidulum (sticky hived Nav d in regionsarc Area andite c adjacent6864, of Nevada and Arizona. Prepared for the U.S. Department 14the Interior, National Park Service, Lake Mead National of -1 o. Area, Boulder City, NV. 74 pp. N Recreation _______. 1997. Survey of special status plants in the eastern Mojave desert. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 110 pp. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. No date. Lower Colorado River multi-species conservation program proposed vegetation classification. Presented to Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Steering Committee, Glendale, CA. Pulled off of the internet. Ohmart, R.D. 1982. Past and present biotic communities of the Lower Colorado River mainstem and selected tributaries: Volume 1 Davis Dam to Mexican border. Report to Bureau of Reclamation. 238 pp. _______, B.W. Anderson, and W.C. Hunter. 1988. The Ecology of the Lower Colorado River from Davis Dam to the Mexico-United States International Boundary: A Community Profile. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 85(7.19). _______, and R.E. Tomlinson. 1977. Foods of western clapper rails. Wilson Bulletin 89:332-336. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-13 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 542 of 1200 REFERENCES _______, and R.W. Smith. 1973. North American clapper rail (Rallus longirostris) literature survey with special consideration being given to the past and present status of yumanensis. USBR, Contract No. 14-06-300-2409. 45 pp. Ouarda, T., Labadie, J., and Fontane, D. 1997. “Indexed Sequential Hydrologic Modeling for Hydropower Capacity Estimation,” Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Vol. 33, No. 6, December. Paulson and Baker. 1981. Influence of the Las Vegas Wash density current on nutrient availability and phytoplankton growth in Lake Mead. In: H.G. Stefan (ed.) Symposium on Surface Water Impoundments ASCE. June 2-5, 1980. Minneapolis, MN. 1638-1647. Paulson, L.J., J.R. Baker, J.E. Deacon. 1980. The limnological status of Lake Mead and Lake Mohave under present and future powerplant operations of Hoover Dam. Lake Mead Limnological Research Center. Tech. Rep. No. 1, UNLV. 229 pp. Peterson, R.T. 1990. A field guide to western birds, 3rd edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp. Phillips, A.M. 1998. Botanical consultant. Personal communication with P. Gordonior Reedy, April 29, from http://www.lcrmscp.org/Download/plants.doc. Inter f the 017 _______. 2000. Botanical consultant. Personal communication29, 2 Valerius. April with J. pt. o . De ember 7. nv tio ov o Na on N v G. e Phillips, A.R., J. Marshall, andaj Monson.d1964. The birds of Arizona. University of n Na Arizona.iv d iTucson,4, arch 212 pp. Arizona Press, cite 86 -16 Platt, J. 2000.No. 14 of Fluctuating Reservoir Elevation on Recreation Use and Impact Value, Bureau of Reclamation. Denver, CO, February. Powell, E. 1998. Botanist, National Park Service, Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Personal communication with P. Gordon-Reedy, April 28, May 12. _______. 2000. Personal Communication. Botanist, National Park Service, Lake Mead National Recreation Area. 19 April. Pope, Donald R. 1999. Letter to Bureau of Reclamation, Subject: Colorado River surplus Determinations. Yuma County Water Users' Association. June 25. Prentki, R.T. and L.J. Paulson. 1983. Historical Patterns of Phytoplankton Productivity in Lake Mead. In: V.D. Adams and V.A. Lamarra (eds.) Aquatic Resources Management of the Colorado River Esosystem. Ann Arbor Science Purb. Ann Arbor, MI. Pages 105-123. Ramirez, B. 1993. Recovery plan for the vaquita, Phocoena sinus. Final report sponsored by Marine Mammal Commission, Washington D.C, Contract No. MMC-T94070800. pp. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-14 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 543 of 1200 REFERENCES Ratti, J.T. 1979. Reproductive separation and isolating mechanisms between sympatric dark-phase and light-phase western grebes. The Auk 96:573-586. ________. 1981. Identification and distribution of Clark’s grebe. Western Birds 12:41-46. Regional Environmental Consultants (RECON). 1997. Preliminary draft: Clark County multiple species habitat conservation plan and environmental impact statement for issuance of a permit to allow incidental take of 83 species in Clark County, Nevada. Prepared for Clark County Department of Administrative Services, Las Vegas, NV and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, NV. December. Repking, C.F., and R.D. Ohmart. 1977. Distribution and density of black rail populations along the lower Colorado River. Condor 79: 486-489. Reveal, J.L. 1985a. Annotated key to Eriogonum (Polygonaceae) of Nevada. Great Basin Naturalist 45(3):493-519. _______. 1985b. Types of Nevada buckwheats (Eriogonum: Polygonaceae). Great Basin Naturalist 45(3):488-492. _______, and B.J. Ertter. 1980. Eriogonum darrovii, E. hookeri, E. inerme, E nutans var. nutans, E. nutans var. glabrum, E. viscidulum, and E. zionis.r Madroño terio 27(3):141-142. he In 17 t t. of 9, 20 2 Rifkind, Simon H. 1960. Special Master Report top U.S. Supreme Court of the v De theember n v. . v United States in the case of Natio Arizona California, December 5, 1960. n No vajo ed o Roefer, P.A., J.T. Monscvitz and D.J. hiv in Na rc Rexing. 1996. The Las Vegas crypotosporidiosis ited Amer. 4, a Works. Assoc. 88(9):95-106. c outbreak. Jorn.-1686 Water . 14 Rogers, Keith.No 1998. Scientists Plan Study of Lake Mead Fish. Las Vegas Review Journal. Friday, September 11, 1998. Rojas-Bracho, L., and B.L. Taylor. 1999. Risk Factors Affecting the Vaquita (Phocoena sinus). Marine Mammal Science, 15(4)974-989. Rorabaugh, J. 1998. Herpetologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Personal communication with M. Fugagli. August 18. http://www.lcrmscp.org/Download/reptiles Rosenberg, K.V., R.D. Ohmart, W.C. Hunter, and B.W. Anderson. 1991. Birds of the Lower Colorado River Valley. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. 416 pp. Rosenfield, R.N. and J. Bielefeldt. 1996. Lifetime nesting area fidelity in male Cooper’s hawks in Wisconsin. Condor 98:165-167. Rudkin, C.N. 1953. A voyage on the Colorado - 1878. By F. Berton. Translated and edited by C.N. Rudkin. Glen Dawson, Los Angeles, California. 103 pp. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-15 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 544 of 1200 REFERENCES Rusk, M. K. 1991. Selenium risk to Yuma clapper rails and other marsh birds of the lower Colorado River. MS Thesis. Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 75pp. Sartoris, J.J. and D.A. Hoffman. 1971. Measurement of currents in Lake Mead with the deep water isotopic current analyzed (DWICA). Bureau of Reclamation Epo. REC-ERC-71-38. 17 pp. Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A manual of California vegetation. California Native Plant Society. 471 pp. Schlorff, R.W. 1990. Status review of the willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Department Candidate Species Report 90-1. 23 pp. Schmidt, J.C., R.H. Webb, R.A. Valdez, G.R. Marzoff, and L.E. Stevens. 1998. The roles of science and values in river restoration in the Grand Canyon. Colorado River 1:31 (preliminary document, subject to review). Serena, M. 1986. Distribution, habitat preferences, and reproductive success of Arizona Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii arizonae) along the LCR in 1981. Final report to California Department of Fish and Game, endangered, threatened, and rare ior wildlife project E-W-5, job IV-38.I. Inter f the 017 Sigler, William F. and Robert R. Miller. 1963. Fishes of Utah. 29, 2 Utah State Department pt. o . De pp. mber of Fish and Game. Salt Lake City,n v 203 ve Utah. o tio o Na on N aj ed Silber, G.K. and K.S. Norris.v1991. Geographic and seasonal distribution of the in Na 4, An. hiv Biol. Univ. Nal. Auton. Mexico. Ser. Zool. arc Inst. d vaquita,cPhocoena sinus. ite 86 62:263-268.14-16 . No Sjöberg, J. 2000. Personal Communication. Fisheries Area Manager, Nevada Division of Wildlife, Southern Region. September 29. Skaggs, R.W., D.H. Ellis, W. Graininger Hunt, and T.H. Johnson. 1988. Peregrine falcon. Proceedings of the southwestern raptor management symposium and workshop, R.L. Glinski et al., editors. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation. Sogge et al. 1995a. From Glen Canyon Dam Modification to Control Downstream Temperatures Plan and Draft Environmental Assessment. _______. M.K., C. Van Riper III, T.J. Tibbitts, and T. May. 1995b. Monitoring winter bald eagle concentrations in the Grand Canyon: 1993-1995. National Biological Service Colorado Plateau Research Station, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. As cited in Glen Canyon Dam Modifications to Control Downstream Temperatures, Plan and Draft Environmental Assessment. U.S. Dept of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, January, 1999. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-16 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 545 of 1200 REFERENCES _______, M. K., R.M. Marshall, S.J. Sferra and T.J. Tibbetts. 1997a. A southwestern willow flycatcher natural history summary and survey protocol. Technical Report NPS/NAUCPRS/NRTR-97/12. 38pp. _______, M.K., T.J. Tibbitts, and J.R. Peterson. 1997b. Status and breeding ecology of the southwestern willow flycatcher in the Grand Canyon. Western Birds 28:142-157. Spence, John R. 1992. Final report threatened, endangered and rare plant species of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 1992 survey work. Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Resource Management. Sredl, M.J. 1997. Ranid frog conservation and management. Technical report 121, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 89 pp. Sterner, Matthew A. and Matt C. Bischoff. 1998. Class III Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of Phase II Dredge Spoil Disposal Areas, Yuma County, Arizona. Statistical Research Technical Report No. 98-24, Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona. Report Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Regional Office, Boulder City, NV (LC-CA-98-08 [P]). erior e Int Stevens, L.E. 1993. The impacts of Glen Canyon Damof triparian , 2017 and soil on h vegetation pt.Canyon,r Arizona: 1992 Final 29 e e stability in the Colorado River corridor, D n v. Grand emb ati Park Service Cooperative Studies Unit, Administrative Report. National o on Nov jo N ved Northern ArizonaNava University, Flagstaff, Arizona. As cited in Operation of Glen in rchi Canyoncited Final864, a Dam, Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Dept of Interior, 6 Bureau of . 14-1 oReclamation. March, 1995. N _______, and T.J. Ayers. 1991. The impacts of Glen Canyon Dam on riparian vegetation and soil stability in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: 1991 Draft Annual Report. National Park Service Cooperative Studies Unit, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. As cited in Operation of Glen Canyon Dam, Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Dept of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. March, 1995. Stevens, L.E., V.J. Meretsky, D.M. Kubly, J.C. Nagy, C. Nelson, J.R. Petterson, F.R. Protiva, and J.A. Sorenson. 1997. The impacts of an experimental flood from Glen Canyon Dam on the endangered Kanab ambersnail at Vasey’s Paradise, Grand Canyon, Arizona: draft final report. Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, AZ. 43 pp. Sublette, J.E., M.D. Hatch, and M.S. Sublette. 1990. The fishes of New Mexico. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Steven W. Carothers Associates, Inc. (SWCA). 1997. Grand Canyon data integration. _______. No date. Project, synthesis report. Environmental Consultants, Flagstaff, Arizona. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-17 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 546 of 1200 REFERENCES Taylor, B.L. and T. Gerrodette. 1993. The uses of statistical power in conservation biology: the vaquita and northern spotted owl. Conservation Biology 7:489-500. Texas A&M Department of Biology Herbarium (TAMU). 1997. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service candidate listings: Onagraceae. http://www.isc.tamu.edu/Flora/fwsccona.htm. Terres, J.K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 1,109 pp. Thornton, K.W. 1990. Perspectives on reservoir limnology. Pages 1-14 In K.W.Thornton, B.L. Kimmel, and F.E. Payne (eds.). Reservoir Limnology: Ecological Perspectives. John Wiley and Sons. NY. Thwaites, R.G. Editor. 1905. The personal narrative of James O. Pattie of Kentucky, during an expedition from St Louis, through the vast regions between that place and the Pacific Ocean, and thence back through the City of Mexico to Vera Cruz, during journeys of six years, etc. Edited by Timothy Flint (1833). Arthur H. Clark company, Cleveland, Ohio. 379 pp. Titus, K. and J.A. Mosher. 1981. Habitat selection of woodland hawks in the central Appalachians. The Auk 98:270-281. erior Int Todd, R.L. 1977. Black rail, little black rail, black crake, Farrallon rail (Laterallus 7 f the 9, 201of Migratory jamaicensis). Pages 71 – 83 in G.C. Sanderson, o Management pt. ed. er 2 De Shore and Upland Game Birds tion v. America.mb Assoc. Fish and Wildlife in North e Int. Na pp. on Nov Agencies, Washington,ajo 358 ed v DC. n Na chiv ar _______. 1986. iAed i c t saltwater 64, hen in Arizona: a history of the Yuma clapper rail 8marsh -16 (Rallus longirostris yumanensis). Arizona Game and Fish Dept., Fed. Aid Proj. o. 14 N W-95-R. Completion Rept. 290 pp. True, C.A., A.S. Loera, and N.C. Castro. 1997. Acquisition of Broodstock of Totoaba macdonaldi: Field Handling, Decompression, and Prophylaxis of an Endangered Species. Progressive Fish-Culturist 59:246-248. Turner, R.M. and M.M. Karpiscak. 1980. Recent vegetation along the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1132. As cited in Operation of Glen Canyon Dam, Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Dept of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. March, 1995. Tyus, H.M. 1985. Homing behavior noted for Colorado squawfish. Copeia 1985:213215. Unitt, P. 1987. Empidonax traillii extimus: An endangered subspecies. Western Birds 18(3): 137-162. _______. 1999. A multivariate approach to the identification of the Willow Flycatcher and its subspecies. Draft Final Report submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix Area Office, Phoenix, Arizona. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-18 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 547 of 1200 REFERENCES U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, May 1982. Technical Report E-82-5, Fluctuation Water levels in Reservoirs; an Annotated Bibliography on Environmental Effects and Management for Fisheries. G.R. Plosky. _______. July 1982. Colorado River Basin, Hoover Dam: Review of Flood Control Regulation. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 1980. Colorado River Simulation System Documentation, Colorado River Simulation Model, User’s Manual, June, Revised April 1988. _______. 1981. Hoover Powerplant Modification Feasibility Report, Appendix C – Hydrology. Boulder City, Nevada. May 1981. _______. 1985. Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS): System Overview, Denver, CO. _______. 1986. Colorado River, Alternative Operating Strategies for Distributing Surplus Water and Avoiding Spills. January 1986. _______. 1988. Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Final Report. _______. 1990. Colorado River Floodway Maps. (The maps are terior In supplemental to the Colorado River Floodway Protection Act, Public Lawe 017 f th 99-450,2October 8, 1986), pt. o er 29, Boulder City, NV, August. b v. De tion ovem N Na _______. 1992. Vegetation Management Study, Lower Colorado River, Phase 1, vajo hived on Na Boulder City, NV, September. arc d in cite 16864, _______. 1995a. Biological assessment of a one time test of beach/habitat-building 14No. flow from Glen Canyon Dam: Spring 1996. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah. As cited in Glen Canyon Dam Modifications to Control Downstream Temperatures, Plan and Draft Environmental Assessment. U.S. Dept of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region. January, 1999. _______. 1995b. Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah. _______. 1996a. Description and Assessment of Operations, Maintenance, and Sensitive Species of the Lower Colorado River. Final Biological Assessment prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region. 207 pp. + appendices. _______. 1996b. Description and Assessment of Operations, Maintenance, and Sensitive Species of the Lower Colorado River (aka Multi-Species Conservation Plan Biological Assessment.), Boulder City, NV, August. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-19 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 548 of 1200 REFERENCES _______. 1996c. Scoping Report for Interim Surplus Criteria, Draft, Navigant Consulting for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, NV and Denver, CO. May. _______. 1996d. Southern Nevada Water Authority Treatment and Transmission Facility Final EIS, Boulder City, NV, and the Southern Nevada Water Authority, (With 63-page Executive Summary bound separately), September. _______. 1998a. CRSSez Annual Colorado River System Simulation Model: Overview and Users Manual, River Operations Team, Boulder City, NV, May. _______. 1998b. Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Work Group Charter. December 28. _______. 1998c. Willow Flycatcher Disturbances, Threats and Protective Management Along the Lower Virgin and Colorado Rivers – 1997. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Regional Office, Boulder City, Nevada. March. _______. 1999a. 29th Annual Report and 2000 Annual Operating Plan for Colorado River System Reservoirs, December. _______. 1999b. (2 volumes), Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for erior Rulemaking for Offstream Storage of Colorado River e Int and Development Water 017 f th and Release of Intentionally Created Unused t. o pApportionment, in the Lower 29 2 De ber Division States (43 CFR Part 414),n v. ve NV, io Boulder City, m October. t o o Na on N _______. 1999c. Glen Canyon jDam hived ava rcModification to Control Downstream in Nand4Environmental Assessment. (Available on the Internet Temperatures Plan 86 , a cited 16 at www.uc.usbr.gov), Salt Lake City, UT, January. . 14- No _______. 1999d. Long term restoration program for the historical Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trailii extimus) habitat along the Lower Colorado River. Report by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado River Regional Office submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona. 70pp. _______. 2000. Final Biological Assessment for Proposed Interim Surplus Criteria, Secretarial Implementation Agreements for California Water Plan Components and Conservation Measures on the Lower Colorado River (Lake Mead to the Southerly International Boundary). U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region. August 31, 2000. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1988. Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Final Report. _______. 1989. Hydrologic Determination: Water Availability from Navajo Reservoir and the Upper Colorado River Basin for Use in New Mexico. Prepared by Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT. February. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-20 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 549 of 1200 REFERENCES _______. 1992. Pre-Reconnaissance Investigation Study in Yuma Valley, Arizona. 28 pp. _______. 1995. Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement, FES 95-98, March 21, 1995, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region. _______. 1996. Record of Decision on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement. _______. 1999. Quality of Water, Colorado River Basin, Progress Report No. 19. Prepared by Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT, January. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1983. Yuma clapper rail recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 51 pp. _______. 1990. Bonytail chub recovery plan. CO. _______. 1991. Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan. FWS-Region 6, Denver, CO. 56 pp. _______. 1992a. Handbook of Arizona’s endangered, threatened, and candidate plants. Summer. rior n _______. 1992b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; te rule to list the the I final017 Kanab ambersnail as endangered. Federalept. of 57(75):13,656-13,661. Register 9, 2 .D ber 2 April 17. vem ion v Nat n No _______. 1992c. Handbookvajo of Arizona’sed o endangered, threatened, and candidate in Na 4, archiv plants. cited Summer. 6 -168 14 _______. 1994a. .Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of No critical habitat for the Colorado River endangered fishes: razorback sucker, Colorado squawfish, humpback chub, and bonytail chub. Federal Register Vol. 59 (54). _______. 1994b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed rule to reclassify the bald eagle from endangered to threatened in most of the lower 48 states. Federal Register 59:35584-35604. July 12. _______. 1994c. Final Biological Opinion Operation of Glen Canyon Dam as the Modified Low Fluctuating Flow Alternative of the Final Environmental Impact Statement Operation of Glen Canyon Dam. 2-21-93-F-167. Prepared by: Ecological Services, Arizona State Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona. _______. 1995a. Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 21 pp. _______. 1995b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule determining endangered status for the southwestern willow flycatcher: Southern California, southern Nevada, southern Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Western Texas, COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-21 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 550 of 1200 REFERENCES southwestern Colorado, and extreme northwestern Mexico. Federal Register 60(38):10694-10714. February 27. _______. 1997a. Biological and Conference Opinion on Lower Colorado River Operations and Maintenance, Albuquerque, NM. April 30, (Letter report, 196 pages). _______. 1997b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final determination of critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher. Federal Register 62(140):39129-39147. July 22. _______. 1997c. Biological and Conference Opinion on lower Colorado River operations and maintenance – Lake Mead to Southerly International Boundary. Albuquerque, NM. 196 pp. _______. 1997d. Final determination of critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher; Correction; Arizona, California, and New Mexico. Federal Register 62(161):44228. August 20. _______. 2000. Notice of 90-day finding on petition to list the yellow-billed cuckoo as endangered, with critical habitat. February 17, 2000, Federal Register 65 (33): 8104-8107. erior of 9, 20 ept. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1988. Field .Screening of ber 2 Quality, Bottom Water v D m Sediment and Biota Associated tion Irrigationve a with on No Drainage in the Yuma Valley, N o e Resource Investigations Report 88-4002. Arizona for 1986-87. vaj USGS Water d in Na 4, archiv d c e Screening _______. 1995. itField -1686 of Water Quality, Bottom Sediment, and Biota 14 Associated. with Irrigation Drainage in the Yuma Valley, Arizona. USGS Water No nt _______. No date. Program for endangered fishes in the upper IColorado River basin. 17 the Resources Investigation Report 97-4236. _______. 1999. Information obtained from USGS Internet site. U.S. War Department. 1852. Report of the Secretary of War, communicating in compliance with a resolution of the Senate, a reconnaissance of the Gulf of California and the Colorado River by Lieutenant Derby. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 28 pp. Unitt, P. 1987. Empidonax traillii extimus: An endangered subspecies. Western Birds 18(3): 137-162. Unitt, Phillip. 1999. A multivariate approach to the identification of the Willow Flycatcher and its subspecies. Draft Final Report submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix Area Office, Phoenix, AZ. Valdez, R.A. 1991. Evaluation of the alternatives for the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement. BIO/WEST Report No. TR-250-06, Logan, Utah. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-22 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 551 of 1200 REFERENCES _______, and S.W. Carothers. 1998. The aquatic ecosystem of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. Grand Canyon data integration project synthesis report. Final report prepared for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, Utah. 250 pp. _______, and Ronald J. Ryel. 1995. Life history and ecology of the humpback chub (Gila cypha) in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona. Final Report. Vidal, O. 1990. Population biology and exploitation of the vaquita, Phocoena sinus. Rep. To the IWC, June, Amsterdam. _______. 1995. Population Biology and Incidental Mortality of the Vaquita, Phocoena sinus. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. (Special Issue 16):272. Vollenweider, R.A. 1970. Scientific fundamentals of lakes and flowing waters, with particular reference to nitrogen and phosphorus as factors in eutrophication. Rep. DAS/CSL/6827, Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris. 192 pp. Walker, M. No date. USBR personal communication. As cited in Status, distribution, and habitat affinities of the southwestern willow flycatcher along the lower Colorado River – Year 1 – 1996. Submitted to: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation i r Lower Colorado River Region, Boulder City, Nevada and U.S.o Inter Fish and e 017 Wildlife Service Carlsbad Field Office, Carlsbad, f th Submitted pt. o California. 2 County by: 29, er Robert L. McKernan Biological ScienceDe . section SanbBernardino on v Novem iNovember 1997.s Museum, Redlands, California. t o Na on avaj ved Walsberg, G. and K.A.n N i Voss-Roberts.h1983. Incubation in desert-nesting doves: rc i ited egg864, a Physiological Zoology 56:88-93. c mechanisms for-16 cooling. o 14 NG.. 1975. Limnology. Saunders College Pub. 743 pp. Wetzel, Robert Wiesenborn, W. 1999. Sunlight avoidance compared between Hesperopsis gracielae (MacNeill) (lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) and Brephidium exilis (Boisduval) (Lepidoptera : Lycaenidae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist 75 (3) : 147-152. Wiesenborn, W.D. 1997. Hesperopsis gracielae (MacNeill) (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) flight between hostplants and Prosopis glandulosa Torrey. PanPacific Entomologist 73(3):186-189. Wilbur, R.L., and N. Ely. 1948. The Hoover Dam Documents. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 80th Congress, 2nd Session, House Document No. 717. 936 pp. Wilbur, S.R. 1974. The literature of the California black rail. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Spec. Sci. Rep. Wildl. 179. 17 pp. Wydoski, Richard S. 1995. Genetics management plan. Recovery Implementation. Younker, G.L., and C.W. Anderson. 1986. Mapping methods and vegetation changes along the lower Colorado River between Davis Dam and the border with COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-23 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 552 of 1200 REFERENCES Mexico. Final Rept. to U.S. Bur. Rec., Lower Colo. Reg., Boulder City, NV. 21 pp., 1 appendix, 21 maps. Zeiner, D.C., Jr., W.F. Laudenslayer, K.E. Mayer, and M. White, editors. 1988. California’s wildlife. Volume I. Amphibians and reptiles. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 272 pp. _______. 1990a. California’s wildlife. Volume II. Birds. California statewide wildlife habitat relationships systems. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 732 pp. _______. 1990b. California’s wildlife. Volume III. Mammals. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 407 pp. Zimmerman, E. 1998. Professor of Biology, University of North Texas. Personal Communication with T. Adkins. July 29. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS REF-24 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 553 of 1200 LIST OF PREPARERS This Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, P.O. Box 61470, Boulder City, Nevada, 890061470. A list of persons who prepared various sections, significant background material or participated to a significant degree in preparing the statement is presented below. Name Qualifications Participation DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PREPARERS Bureau of Reclamation B.S., Geological Engineering; Registered Professional Engineer in Nevada and California; 13 years lower Colorado River operations and flood plain management ept. Agency Lead, Operations Modeling, Review/Comment years as environmental protection specialist Review/Comment Curtis, Dave B.A., Wildlife Biologist; Environmental Protection Specialist; 20 years as resource management specialist EIS Manager, Review/Comment Gould, Glen M.A., Fisheries Management; 20 years experience with compliance, biological studies and habitat restoration on the lower Colorado River Agency Review Karas, Christine B.S., Zoology; 17 years in biological science Special Status Species, Aquatic Resources, Transboundary Harkins, Jayne ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 .D ber ion v Novem Management Oversight, Rinne, William M.S., Nat o Zoology/Biology; vajyears hived on and Agency Review 23 Environmental in Na water rc ited 6864, amanagement. c -1 o. 4 EIS Manager, Green, James (Pat) 1 M.A., Anthropology: 24 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS LOP-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 554 of 1200 LIST OF PREPARERS Name Qualifications Participation Fulp, Terry Ph.D. in Mathematical and Computer Sciences; M.S. in Civil Engineering; M.S. in Geophysics; 21 years Research/development of watershed and river system management computer technology Operations Modeling, Model Configuration Kleinman, Alan Ph.D., Economics; 30 years water resource economics Native American Water Rights Ryan, Tom B.A., Psychology; B.S., Civil Engineering; 10 years reservoir operations – Colorado River Storage Project Upper Basin Operations, Agency Review Morton, Tony B.S., Wildlife Conservation; Agency Review ior 20 years natural resource Inter 17 and environmental 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 protection e D v. mb ation on Nove Indian Trust Assets Selig, Margot M.S., N jo Agricultural Economics; ed Nava archiv7 years in experience in water resource cited 16864, management 41 No. Springer, Roland B.S., M.S., Civil Engineering; 9 years water resources/environmental engineering Hydrology, Agency Review Swett, John M.S., Forestry; B.S. Wildlife Management; 21 years in silviculture, habitat restoration ecology and wildlife management Biologist, Transboundary Impacts West, Lorrie B.S., Soil and Water Science Environmental Specialist, Comments & Responses, Environmental Justice, Transboundary Issues Williams, Bruce B.S., Civil Engineering; 17 years Colorado River operations Modeling Output, Technical Review COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS LOP-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 555 of 1200 LIST OF PREPARERS Name Qualifications Participation REVIEWERS Card, Joan J.D., Law Attorney; Advisor, Solicitor’s Office Office of the Solicitor, Agency Review Carson, Rod B.S., Engineering; 25 years exp. in water resource management; Hydraulic Engr., River Operations; Operations Modeling, Agency Review Coulam, Nancy Ph.D., Anthropology; UC Region Archaeologist Agency Review Ellis, Bruce Ensminger, Dale Agency Review B.S., Business Admin.; 29 years contracting exp., Contract & Repaymt. Spec. 10 years specializing in water resources Water rights contracts and delivery commitment; Agency Review ior InterAgency Fagot, Kevin the f Hydrology, 017 pt. o Review 9, 2 r2 De mbe n v. atio Nove Modeling, Agency Review Gilmore, Andrew ajo N ived on Nav rch d in 64, aM.S., Science & Civil Agency Review Gold, Rick cite 168 B.S., Engineering; over 30 years 14No. exp. natural resources mgt.; Deputy Regional Director Hicks, Patricia M.S. Degree; 26 years exp.; LC Regional Archaeologist Kubly, Dennis Liljegren, Frederick Cultural Resources, Agency Review Agency Review Degree, Landscape Architecture; regional outdoor recreation specialist Agency Review Marks, Adrienne ITAs, Agency Review Martin, Bill Agency Review Murphy, Deon Electrical Engineer; B.S. Science Mineral Engineering., (Electrical & Mathematics); Reg. Engr., State of CO; 20 years exp. with Reclamation COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS LOP-3 Power analysis, Agency Review Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 556 of 1200 LIST OF PREPARERS Name Parry, Brian Qualifications B.S., Education, M.S., Human Resources Management, Juris Doctorate; UC Native American Affairs Program Manager Peterson, Randy Raulston, Barbara Participation Agency Review Agency Review M.S., Biology, B.S., Biology; 8 years exp. in wildlife mgt., habitat restoration ecology on lower CO River Biology, Agency Review Shrader, Thomas Agency Review Siano, Lorraine Agency Review Smith, Joe Agency Review r terio he InAgency Review Smith, Ron t 017 f Energy, pt. o er 29, 2 . De b Snow, Robert Office of the Solicitor, ion v Novem at Agency Review on jo N Nava archived n Agency Review Trueman, Davecited i B.S., Biology; M.S., 4, 1686 Biology; 20 years exp.; 41 No. Program Manager, CO River Salinity Control Program; Chief, Water Quality Group Verburg, Katherine A.B., Politics; J.D., Law; 25 years legal experience; Field Solicitor COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS LOP-4 Office of the Solicitor, Agency Review Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 557 of 1200 LIST OF PREPARERS Name Qualifications Participation National Park Service Henderson, Norm M.S., Ecology; B.S., Biology Burke, Bill Recreation Data Collection, Agency Review Recreation Data Collection, Agency Review International Boundary and Water Commission United States and Mexico, United States Section Echlin, Douglas M.S., Biological Science; B.S., Biological Science Project Leader, EIS Coordination Kuo, Rong Ph.D., Civil Engineering; P.E., Civil Engineering Technical Document Review Robinson, James B.S., Civil Engineering; P.E., Civil Engineering Division Engineer, Document Review or teri he In 2017 of t ept. ber 29, D v TEAM m INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA PROJECT . ation on Nove jo N Project Management Linser, Larrya B.S., Agricultural Nava archived in Engineering; 25 years as ited 6864, c -1 specialist in surface and o. 14 N groundwater management, water rights and river basin operations Malinowski, Jaya M.S., Public Administration; B.A., Sociology; 20 years in water resource management Project Management, Description of Alternatives Anderson, Richarda B. S., Civil Engineering; 10 years in water resource planning Modeling Analysis, Project Coordination Argo, Reginab B.S., Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology; 2 years terrestrial and aquatic ecological studies Special Status Species, Critical Habitat and Other Important Habitat COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS LOP-5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 558 of 1200 LIST OF PREPARERS Name Qualifications Participation Baker, Kimberleea B.S., Animal Science/Minor Agriculture Business Management, Certificates in Word and Powerpoint Document Production Beckley, Michaelc M. A., Design; B.A., Advertising Design; 8 years directing marketing projects and designing brochures, catalogs, newsletters and websites Graphic Design Bohnenkamp, Pazzia 25 years administrative, document preparation and word processing Document Production Bonoff, Michaelb M.S., Applied Biology; B.S., Biology; 20 years as aquatic scientist Water Quality Analysis Burke Trahan, Tracya A.A., Social Sciences; 15 years of document and graphic production Document Production Caldwell, Kathya M.A., Urban Planning and Environmental Policy Analysis; B.A., Political Science; 16 years in public policy and water resource management Project Manager, Document Coordinator Carter, Toma B.S., Electrical Engineering; 29 years on power and water systems operations, powerplant operations and power contracts Socioeconomics, Power Production and Revenue ior Inter 17 Brennan, Skip M.S., Environmental the Management fContract 9, 20 Management and Policy; t. o p e r2 B.A., Geology v. D mbe n e Natio d on Nov b ajo Environmental Water Quality Analysis Brezack, James M.S., hive Nav d in 64, arcB.S., Biology; Science; cite 168 14 years in water resources 14No. and wastewater planning c COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS LOP-6 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 559 of 1200 LIST OF PREPARERS Name Qualifications Participation Crabtree, Allena M.S., Resource Management; B.S., Forestry Project Consultation Davidson, Sandyb B.S., Forest Management; 16 years in environmental science and natural resources management Recreation Delp, Boba B.A., Economics; Specializes in environmental impacts associated with electrical power and water facilities Environmental Resources Analysis Coordination Drake, Diannaa 22 years experience in administrative and office management Word Processing Einert, Martina B.S., Civil Engineering; 30 years in water project planning and evaluationpt. e Project Setting,r terio Alternatives, Water Supply he In 17 20 of t r 29, v. D mbe Goodavish, Marthab M.C.R.P, City and Regionale Recreation ation on Nov jo N Planning; ived Nava archB.L.A., in Landscape cited 16864,years in Architecture; 17 natural resource o. 14 planning, recreation/visual N resource management Hall, Timothya M.S., Civil Engineering; B.S., Civil Engineering; 3 years in water resource planning Modeling Analysis Harlow, Dianea 25 years of administrative and office management experience. Volume I Production/Preparation Hanna, Dianea B.S., Watershed Management; 6 years exp. in water resources Volume III Production/Preparation, Website design COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS LOP-7 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 560 of 1200 LIST OF PREPARERS Name Qualifications Participation Hibbler, Thora B.S., Mechanical Engineering; B.A., Languages; 18 years in air quality and emissions permitting, compliance and auditing and air quality impact analysis Lamb, Susana 14 years documentation Document Coordination, preparation/word processing Word Processing Lawing, Carolea 24 years energy and water resource management Document Production Lee, Erica B.A., English; 5 years in geographic information services, project analysis and support GIS Services Lindsay, Renaea 6 years documentation Document Coordination, ior Inter 1 preparation/word processing Word Processing 7 he Air Quality 20 of t ept. Modeling Analysis r 29, D Morad, Armond B.S., Civil Engineering; mbe n v. 2 years in tio resources ve awater on No jo N services Nava archived ed in 864, Wildlife and Fisheries Special Status Species and Pool, Aliciab cit 16 B.S., . 14Habitat Science; 9 years in No a endangered and sensitive species habitat analysis Rhone, Richarda B.S., Civil Engineering; 40 years in water resources development, operations, engineering and management Richardson, Lisaa QA/QC Technical Edits M.I.M., Master of International Management; B.S., International Business; 8 years of environmental project management and regulatory compliance Stone, Mariannea 20 years administrative, document preparation and word processing COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS LOP-8 Project Review Document Production Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 561 of 1200 LIST OF PREPARERS Name Qualifications Participation Strand, Bobc B. S., Agricultural Engineering; 36 years in river hydraulics and sedimentation engineering Sedimentation Swaney, Wayneb B.S., Resource Development and Water Resources; 11 years on fishery, instream flow, hydrology and watershed projects Water Supply and Instream Flow Requirements, Special Status Species and Habitat Valerius, Janeb M.S., Range Ecology; B.A., Environmental Biology; 19 years conducting ecological, botanical and wetland studies Special-Status Species, Critical Habitat and Other Important Habitat Vickers, Bradc Operations Modeling B.S., Agriculture and ior Irrigation Engineering; Inter 17 20 years exp. development f the 20 o of watershed and riverept. basin r 29, e v. D computer technology; ovemb ation on N N reservoir d vajo operations e Na rchiv d in 64, aGeology; 40 years in Weber, Ernie cite 8 B.A., 4-16 water quality, conjunctive 1 No. use of ground and surface a Salinity, Water Quality water and salinity control of Colorado River Wilcox, Scottb M.Ed., Natural Resource Management; B.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology; 20 years in water resource analysis and fish habitat assessments Resource Analysis, Oversight Zoraster, Johna B.A., Economics; B.S., Civil Engineering; 20 years in civil, environmental and public works projects Scoping, Flood Flows, Socioeconomic Analysis, Document Coordination COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS LOP-9 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 562 of 1200 LIST OF PREPARERS Name Zubia, Rubena a b c Qualifications Participation B.S., Civil Engineering; 14 years in water resources and civil engineering projects Hydrological Data Analysis Staff members of Bookman-Edmonston Engineering, Water Resources Practice of Navigant Consulting, Inc. Staff members of EA Engineering, Science, & Technology, Inc. Independent subcontractors to Bookman-Edmonston Engineering, Water Resources Practice of Navigant Consulting, Inc. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS LOP-10 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 563 of 1200 DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION Commentors on the DEIS Individuals Jacqueline Garcia Mark Belles Verna Forbes-Willson Eleanor Inskip Dave Miller Earl Zarbin Organizations American Water Resources, Inc. Center for Biological Diversity (Defenders of Wildlife, Glen Canyon Institute, i r Glen Canyon Action Network, Pacific Institute, Environmentalo Inter Defense, Sierra e 01 Club, Friends of Arizona Rivers, El Centro det. of th Ambiental 7 Intergracion p Derechor 29, 2 e e Garcia-Hernandez) Economica del Sur, A.C., Fred Cagle, Jaqueline mbe v. D ation on Nove Defenders of Wildlife jo N Pacific Institute for Studies avDevelopment, Environment and Security N in a archived in Southwest Riversted ci 864, -16 14 No. Water User Agencies & Organizations Central Arizona Water Conservation District (Central Arizona Project) Coachella Valley Water District Colorado River Energy Distributors Association Colorado River Water Conservation District Cottonwood Creek Consolidated Irrigation Company Emery Water Conservancy District Grand Water & Sewer Imperial Irrigation District Irrigation and Electrical District Association of Arizona Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Mohave County Water Authority Ouray Park Irrigation Company Salt River Project San Diego County Water Authority Southern California Edison Company Southern Nevada Water Authority COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS DIST-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 564 of 1200 DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION Water User Agencies & Organizations (Continued) Uintah Water Conservancy District Union Park Water Authority Upper Colorado River Commission Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District Local Agencies City of Phoenix, Office of the City Manager Grand County Council, Utah State Agencies Arizona Power Authority (Fant) Arizona Power Authority (Mulholland) Arizona Department of Water Resources Arizona Game and Fish Department Colorado River Board of California ior California Regional Water Quality Control Board Inter 17 Colorado Department of Natural Resources 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e Nevada Department of Transportation v. D vemb Nevada State Historic Preservation Nation Office n No New Mexico Environmental vajo hived o Department i Na Commission rc New Mexico Interstaten ited Stream4, a c 86 16 Colorado River Commission of Nevada . oof14 N Utah Department Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources Office of Federal Land Policy (State of Wyoming) Tribes Agua Calliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Hualapai Nation Navajo Nation Dept of Justice Navajo Tribal Utility Authority Ten Tribes Partnership (Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, Cocopah Indian Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribes, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, Jicarilla Apache Indian Tribe, Navajo Nation, Northern Ute Indian Tribe, Quechan Indian Tribe, Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe) Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS DIST-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 565 of 1200 DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs, Pacific Regional Office, Sacramento Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo Region, Gallup Environmental Protection Agency, San Franscico Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix International Boundary and Water Commission - U.S. Section, El Paso National Park Service, Washington, DC Western Area Power Administration, Phoenix (Counsil) Western Area Power Administration, Phoenix (Montoya) Western Area Power Administration, Salt Lake City Mexican Agencies/Organizations Autonomous University of Baja California International Boundary and Water Commission - Mexico Section Mexicali Business Coordinating Council Mexicali Economic Development Council Mexico - National Water Commission ior Inter 17 0 f the Non-Commentors pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove Other Tribal Contacts jo N Nava archived in Ak Chin IndiancCommunity 64, ited 68 Gila River Indian . 14-1 Community No Havasupai Tribal Council Hopi Tribe Mohave Apache Community Council Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Pascua Yaqui Tribe Pueblo of Zuni San Carlos Tribal Council San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe Tohono Oodham Nation Tonto Apache Tribal Council Yavapai Apache Nation Yavapai Prescott Tribe Elected Officials U.S. Senate, AZ, Senator John McCain U.S. Senate, AZ, Senator Jon Kyl U.S. House of Representatives, AZ, J.D. Hayworth COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS DIST-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 566 of 1200 DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION Elected Officials (Continued) U.S. House of Representatives, AZ, Jim Kolbe U.S. House of Representatives, AZ, Ed Pastor U.S. House of Representatives, AZ, John Shadegg U.S. House of Representatives, AZ, Matt Salmon U.S. Senate, CA, Senator Barbara Boxer U.S. Senate, CA, Senator Dianne Feinstein U.S. House of Representatives, CA, Joe Baca U.S. House of Representatives, CA, Brian Bilbray U.S. House of Representatives, CA, Mary Bono U.S. House of Representatives, CA, Ken Calvert U.S. House of Representatives, CA, Randy Cunningham U.S. House of Representatives, CA, Bob Filner U.S. House of Representatives, CA, Duncan L. Hunter U.S. House of Representatives, CA, Jerry Lewis U.S. House of Representatives, CA, Ron Packard U.S. Senate, NV, Senator Richard Bryon U.S. Senate, NV, Senator Harry Reid U.S. House of Representatives, NV, Shelly Berkley U.S. House of Representatives, NV, Jim Gibbons of ior Inter 17 the 20 pt. e r 29, v. D mbe Libraries ation on Nove jo N Nava archived Department of cited in Natural Resources Library the Interior 64, 168 Government Reference-Library . 14 No Albuquerque Public Library Boulder City Library Denver Public Library Henderson District Public Library Lake Havasu City Library Laramie County Library LC Regional Office Library Boulder City Los Angeles Central Library Mohave County Library Palo Verde Valley Library Parker Public Library Phoenix Concorde Commerce Center Library Phoenix Public Library Salt Lake City Public Library San Bernardino County Library San Diego Central Library Upper Colorado Regional Office Library Yuma Area Office Library Yuma County Library COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS DIST-4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 567 of 1200 ior Inter 17 the t. of r 29, 20 Dep mbe n v. tio ove jo Na ved on N va in Na 4, archi cited 1686 o. 14 N Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 568 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 569 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Attachment A - Long Range Operating Criteria Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs Pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Project Act of September 30, 1968 (p.l. 90-537) Attachment B - Environmental Guidelines for Transboundary Impacts Executive Order 12114 Guidance on NEPA Analyses for Transboundary Impacts, Council on Environmental Quality, 1997 Attachment C - Dams and Reservoirs Along the Lower Colorado River Attachment D - Glen Canyon Dam Operation Record of Decision Record of Decision based on Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final or Environmental Impact Statement, March 1995e Interi 017 f th t. Six r 2 pby o States9, 2 Attachment E - Surplus Criteria Proposal . De embe ion v Reservoir Operation Criteria Related to Proposal for InterimNat Mead n Nov jo Lake ed Year vaand Shortage o Declarations, December 4, 1998 Surplus,n Na i Normal rchiv ited 6864, a c F Surplus Criteria Proposal by California Attachment14- 1 No. Surplus Criteria for Management of the Colorado River, Exhibit A to a draft document entitled Key Terms for Quantification of Settlement Among the State of California, IID, CVWD, and MWD Attachment G - Surplus Criteria Proposal by Pacific Institute Letter report dated February 15, 2000 Excerpts from September 8, 2000, letter of comment on the Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria DEIS Attachment H - Lower Division Depletion Schedules Arizona’s Depletion Schedule Nevada’s Depletion Schedule California’s Depletion Schedule with Transfers California’s Depletion Schedule without Transfers COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS i Case:VOLUME II 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page OF CONTENTS 14-16864, 570 of 1200 TABLE Attachment I - Draft Interim Surplus Guidelines Basin States Alternative Interim Surplus Guidelines Attachment J - Detailed Modeling Documentation Attachment K - Upper Division Depletion Schedule Depletion Schedule for Upper Division States, December 1999 Attachment L - Sensitivity Analysis Comparing Baseline with Transfers to Baseline Without Transfers Lake Powell Water Surface Elevations Lake Mead Water Surface Elevations Hoover Dam Flood Control Releases Water Supply Attachment M - Sensitivity Analysis of Modeled Lake Mead Water Level Protection Assumptions or teri he In 2017 Lake Mead Water Surface Elevations . of t 9, pt . De ember 2 Lake Powell Water Surfacen v Elevations Natio d on Nov vajo Attachment N n Comparison hive i - Na 4, arc of Colorado River Flows 6 cited 16 of Comparison8 Flows Downstream of the Havasu National Wildlife . 14Diversion No Refuge Comparison of Flows Upstream of the Colorado River Indian Reservation Diversion Comparison of Flows Downstream of the Palo Verde Irrigation District Diversion Comparison of Flows Below Morelos Dam Attachment O - Water Supply for Lower Division States Arizona Water Supply California Water Supply Nevada Water Supply COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS ii Case:VOLUME II 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page OF CONTENTS 14-16864, 571 of 1200 TABLE Attachment P - Energy Analysis Worksheets Average Lake Mead Elevation and Comparison of SNWA Power Cost Average Lake Powell Elevation Glen Canyon Dam Discharge Multiplier and Powerplant Capacity vs. Elevation Hoover Powerplant Capacity vs. Elevation Glen Canyon Powerplant Summary of Average Annual Capacity and Energy Glen Canyon Powerplant Comparison to Baseline Conditions Hoover Powerplant Summary of Average Annual Capacity and Energy Hoover Powerplant Comparison to Baseline Conditions Attachment Q - Ten Tribes Depletion Schedule Tables of Water Demand Nodes, Water Rights and Depletions for Ten Tribes Partnership Members used in operational modelior ter he In 2017 Attachment R - Public Scoping Process of t ept. ber 29, v. D vem Public Scoping Process tion a No N d on vajoScopingeMeetings & Response Letters Analysis of Public rchiv in Na ited 6864, a c Attachment14- 1 . S - Correspondence with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and N Marine Fisheries Services Nationalo Memorandum of May 22, 2000 from Boulder Canyon Operations to Arizona Ecological Services Memorandum of June 5, 2000 from Interior Bureau of Reclamation Memorandum of August 14, 2000 from Interior to the Bureau of Reclamation Memorandum of August 31, 2000 from Reclamation to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Memorandum of November 29, 2000 from Bureau of Reclamation to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Attachment T - Consultation with Mexico Draft Authority and Assumptions Letter from Commissioner of Mexico Section of IBWC to United States Section of IBWC dated May 22, 2000 [in Spanish]. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS iii Case:VOLUME II 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page OF CONTENTS 14-16864, 572 of 1200 TABLE Letter from Commissioner of Mexico Section of IBWC to the United States Section of IBWC dated May 22, 2000, English translation. Letter from Commissioner of Mexico Section of IBWC to United States Section of IBWC dated October 10, 2000 [in Spanish]. Letter from Commissioner of Mexico Section of IBWC to the United States Section of IBWC dated October 10, 2000, English translation. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS iv Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 573 of 1200 ATTACHMENT A Long Range Operating Criteria This attachment consists of a document referred to as the Long Range Operating Criteria for Colorado River Reservoirs, which controls the annual determinations of ior Colorado River water available for delivery to the Lower DivisiontStates. This In er 17 f the 9 2 consultation document is subject to review at five-year intervals by. the Secretary, in 0 pt o federal law. with the Basin States and others as required by applicable ber 2 v. De m n e Natio d on Nov ajo ive Nav d in 64, arch cite 168 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 574 of 1200 Long-Range Operating Criteria CRITERIA FOR COORDINATED LONG-RANGE OPERATION OF COLORADO RIVER RESERVOIRS PURSUANT TO THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN PROJECT ACT OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1968 (P.L. 90-537) These Operating Criteria are promulgated in compliance with Section 602 of Public Law 90-537. They are to control the coordinated long-range operation of the storage reservoirs in the Colorado River Basin constructed under the authority of the Colorado River Storage Project Act (hereinafter “Upper Basin Storage Reservoirs”) and the Boulder Canyon Project Act (Lake Mead). The Operating Criteria will be administered consistent with applicable Federal laws, the Mexican Water Treaty, interstate compacts, and decrees relating to the use of the waters of the Colorado River. The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter the “Secretary”) may modify the Operating Criteria from time to time in accordance with Section 602(b) of P.L. rior te90-537. The he In least every 5 Secretary will sponsor a formal review of the Operatingof t Criteria at , 2017 pt. Governor may designate years, with participating by State representatives as each ber 29 . De ion v Novem appropriate. and such other parties and agenciesNathe Secretary may deem as t I. on jo Nava archived n ANNUALed i cit REPORT64, 168 . 14o (1) OnN January 1, 1972, and on January 1 of each year thereafter, the Secretary shall transmit to the Congress and to the Governors of the Colorado River Basin States a report describing the actual operation under the adopted criteria for the preceding compact water year and the projected plan of operating for the current year. (2) The plan of operation shall include such detailed rules and quantities as may be necessary and consistent with the criteria contained herein, and shall reflect appropriate consideration of the uses of the reservoirs for all purposes, including flood control, river regulation, beneficial consumptive uses, power production, water quality control, recreation, enhancement of fish and wildlife, and other environmental factors. The projected plan of operation may be revised to reflect the current hydrologic conditions, and the Congress and the Governors of the Colorado River Basin States shall be advised of any changes by June of each year. 1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 575 of 1200 II. OPERATION OF UPPER BASIN RESERVOIRS (1) The annual plan of operation shall include a determination by the secretary of the quantity of water considered necessary as of September 30 of each year to be in storage as required by Section 602(2) of P.L. 90-537 (hereinafter “602(a) Storage”). The quantity of 602(a) Storage shall be determined by the Secretary after consideration of all applicable laws and relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) Historic streamflows; The most critical period of record; Probabilities of water supply; Estimated future depletions in the upper basin, including the effects of recurrence of critical period of water supply; (e) The “Report of the Committee on Probabilities and Test Studies to the Task Force on Operating Criteria for the Colorado River,” dated October 30, 1969, and such additional studies as the Secretary deems necessary; ior (f) The necessity to assure that upper basin consumptive uses not be Inter 1to assure the impaired because of failure to store fsufficient , 20 7 water pt. oand er 29P.L. 90-537. e deliveries under Section .602(a)(1) b(2) of v D n em Natio d on Nov (2) If in the planavajo hiveither: N of operation, e d in 64, arc cite 168 (a) 4- Upper Basin Storage Reservoirs active storage forecast for 1 The No. September 30 of the current year is less than the quantity of 602(a) Storage determined by the Secretary under Article II(1) hereof, for that date; (b) The Lake Powell active storage forecast for that date is less than the Lake Mead active storage forecast for that date: The objective shall be to maintain a minimum release of water from Lake Powell of 8.23 million acre-feet for that year. However, for the years ending September 30, 1971 and 1972, the release may be greater than 8.23 million acre-feet if necessary to deliver 75,000,000 acre-feet at Lee Ferry for the 10-year period ending September 30, 1972. (3) If, in the plan of operation, the Upper Basin Storage Reservoirs active storage forecast for September 30 of the current water year is greater than the quantity of 602(a) Storage determination for that date, water shall be released annually from Lake Powell at a rate greater than 8.23 million 2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 576 of 1200 acre-feet per year to the extent necessary to accomplish any or all of the following objectives: (a) 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; (b) To maintain, as nearly as practicable, active storage in Lake Mead equal to the active storage in Lake Powell, and (c) To avoid anticipated spills from Lake Powell. (4) In the application of Article II(3)(b) herein, the annual release will be made to the extent that it can be passed through Glen Canyon Powerplant when operated at the available capability of the powerplant. Any water thus retained in Lake Powell to avoid bypass of water at the Glen Canyon Powerplant will be released through the Glen Canyon Powerplant as soon as practicable to equalize the active storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead. III. or nte i 7 Ishallr not1prejudice (5) Releases from Lake Powell pursuant to these criteria , 20 f the pt. o interests 9 respect to the position of either the upper orv. De basin ber 2 with lower ionpursuantovemColorado River Compact. required deliveries at Lee Ferry N to the Nat vajo hived on in Na rc OPERATION OF LAKE MEAD ited 6864, a c 1 . 14oreleased from Lake Powell, plus the tributary inflows between N (1) Water Lake Powell and Lake Mead, shall be regulated in Lake Mead and either pumped from Lake Mead or released to the Colorado River to meet requirements as follows: (a) Mexican Treaty obligations; (b) Reasonable consumptive use requirements of mainstream users in the Lower Basin; (c) Net river losses; (d) Net reservoir losses; (e) Regulatory wastes (2) Until such time as mainstream water is delivered by means of the Central Arizona Project, the consumptive use requirements of Article III(1)(b) of these Operating Criteria will be met. (3) After commencement of delivery of mainstream water by means of the Central Arizona Project, the consumptive use requirements of Article 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 577 of 1200 III(1)(Reclamation) of these Operating Criteria will be met to the following extent: (a) Normal: The annual pumping and release from Lake Mead will be sufficient to satisfy 7,500,000 acre-feet of annual consumptive use in accordance with the decree in Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340 (1964). (b) Surplus: The Secretary shall determine from time to time when water in quantities greater than "Normal" is available for either pumping or release from Lake Mead pursuant to Article II(b)(2) of the decree in Arizona v. California after consideration of all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following: (i) the requirements stated in Article 111(1) of these Operating Criteria; (ii) requests for water by holders of water delivery contracts with the United States, and of other rights recognized in the decree in Arizona v. California; (iii) actual and forecast quantities of active storage in Lake ior Mead and the Upper Basin Storage Reservoirs; and Inter 17 e (iv) estimated net inflow to Lake tMead. , 20 of h 9 pt. . De ember 2 n v shall ov (c) Shortage: The Secretary N determine from time to time when atio ajo N ived on is available to satisfy annual v insufficient mainstream water in Na 4, arc d consumptive usehrequirements of 7,500,000 acre-feet after cite 1686 consideration of all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, 14No. the following: (i) the requirements stated in Article III(1) of these Operating Criteria; (ii) actual and forecast quantities of active storage in Lake Mead; (iii) estimate of net inflow to Lake Mead for the current year; (iv) historic streamflows, including the most critical period of record; (v) priorities set forth in Article II(A) of the decree in Arizona v. California; and (vi) the purposes stated in Article 1(2) of these Operating Criteria. The shortage provisions of Article II(B)(3) of the decree in Arizona v. California shall thereupon become effective and consumptive uses from the mainstream shall be restricted to the 4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 578 of 1200 extent determined by the Secretary to be required by Section 301(b) of Public Law 90-537. IV. DEFINITIONS (1) In addition to the definitions in Section 606 of P.L. 90-537, the following shall also apply: (a) "Spills," as used in Article II(3)(c) herein, means water released from Lake Powell which cannot be utilized for project purposed, including, but not limited to, the generation of power and energy. (b) "Surplus," as used in Article III(3)(b) herein, is water which can be used to meet consumptive use demands in the three Lower Division States in excess of 7,500,000 acre-feet annually. The term "surplus" as used in these Operating Criteria is not to be construed as applied to, being interpretive of, or in any manner having reference to the term "surplus" in the Colorado River Compact. (c) "Net inflow to Lake Mead," as used in Article III(b)(iv) and (c)(iii) herein, represents the annual inflow to nterior in Lake Mead he I 17 excess of losses from Lake Mead. of t t. 9, 20 pArticle II(4)2herein, means that (d) "Available capability," as v. De used in ber vem ion of the powerplant that is physically portion of the totalat N capacity n No availableavageneration. d o for jo hive N in arc cited 16864, 14No. 5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 579 of 1200 ATTACHMENT B Environmental Guidelines for Transboundary Impacts This attachment contains federal instruction and guidelines governing the analysis of the Transboundary Impacts in Section 3.16 of the FEIS. Two documents are r included – Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad tof rio In e Major Federal 017 f th NEPA Analysis for Actions, and Council on Environmental Quality Guidance on e pt. o er 29, 2 Transboundary Impacts, July 1, 1997. v. De mb n e Natio d on Nov ajo ive Nav d in 64, arch cite 168 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 580 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Executive Order 12114 - Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 581 of 1200 erior e Int 017 2 of th ept. ber 29, .D v tion ovem o Na ed on N vaj in Na 4, archiv cited 1686 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 582 of 1200 erior e Int 017 2 of th ept. ber 29, .D v tion ovem o Na ed on N vaj in Na 4, archiv cited 1686 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 583 of 1200 erior e Int 017 2 of th ept. ber 29, .D v tion ovem o Na ed on N vaj in Na 4, archiv cited 1686 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 584 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. CEQ Guidance on NEPA Analyses for Transboundary Impacts July 1, 1997 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 585 of 1200 erior e Int 017 2 of th ept. ber 29, .D v tion ovem o Na ed on N vaj in Na 4, archiv cited 1686 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 586 of 1200 erior e Int 017 2 of th ept. ber 29, .D v tion ovem o Na ed on N vaj in Na 4, archiv cited 1686 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 587 of 1200 erior e Int 017 2 of th ept. ber 29, .D v tion ovem o Na ed on N vaj in Na 4, archiv cited 1686 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 588 of 1200 erior e Int 017 2 of th ept. ber 29, .D v tion ovem o Na ed on N vaj in Na 4, archiv cited 1686 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 589 of 1200 erior e Int 017 2 of th ept. ber 29, .D v tion ovem o Na ed on N vaj in Na 4, archiv cited 1686 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 590 of 1200 erior e Int 017 2 of th ept. ber 29, .D v tion ovem o Na ed on N vaj in Na 4, archiv cited 1686 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 591 of 1200 erior e Int 017 2 of th ept. ber 29, .D v tion ovem o Na ed on N vaj in Na 4, archiv cited 1686 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 592 of 1200 ATTACHMENT C Dams and Reservoirs Along the Lower Colorado River This attachment describes the dams and reservoirs on the mainstem of the Colorado River from Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona to Morelos Dam along the international r boundary with Mexico. The role that each plays in the operationnterioColorado I of the 17 the River system is also explained. , 20 t. of Dep mber 29 n v. atio Nove ajo N ived on Nav d in 64, arch cite 168 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 593 of 1200 COLORADO RIVER DAMS AND RESERVOIRS Lake Powell to the Southerly International Boundary The following discussion summarizes the dams and reservoirs along the Colorado River from Lake Powell to the Southerly International Boundary (SIB) with Mexico and their specific roles in the operation of the Colorado River. Individual dams serve one or more specific purposes as designated in their federal construction authorizations. Such purposes are, water storage, flood control, river regulation, power generation, and water diversion to Arizona, California, Nevada and delivery to Mexico. The All-American Canal is included in this summary because it conveys some of the water delivered to Mexico and thereby contributes to the river system operation. The dams and reservoirs are listed in the order of their location along the river proceeding downstream from Lake Powell. Glen Canyon Dam – Glen Canyon Dam, which formed Lake Powell, is a principal part of the Colorado River Storage Project. It is a concrete arch dam 710 feet high and 1,560 feet wide. The maximum generating discharge capacity is 33,200 cfs which may be augmented by an additional 15,000 cfs through the river outlet works. The active capacity of Lake Powell is 24,300,000 af. Lake Powell has no legislated flood control space. The required system flood control space is allocated among selected project reservoirs including Lake Powell, to augment the 1.5 maf required to be available in Lake Mead. erior Int 017 f the of9, 2Colorado River Hoover Dam – Hoover Dam was constructed in the Black o pt. Canyonr 2 the De e about 36 miles from Las Vegas, Nevada. Hoover v. was vemb ion Dam No constructed to provide storage for at of water for irrigation and domestic uses and river regulation and flood control, jo N storage on ved Nava aalso iconstitutes a major use of Lake Mead. The dam generation of hydropower. Recreation rch d in c the 16864, is 726 feet high andite water depth is approximately 590 feet. Lake Mead can store water to a maximum elevation 141,221.4 feet above msl (maximum water surface). Hoover Dam of No.raised position would equal elevation 1229 feet. At that elevation Lake spillway gates in the Mead has a nominal "live capacity" of 27,377,000 af and an active capacity of 17,353,000 af above elevation 1083 feet msl, the minimum elevation for power generation. However, sediment accumulation in the upper end of the reservoir is gradually decreasing the water storage capacity. The dam backs water upstream approximately 115 miles creating a surface area of about 163,000 acres at its maximum design water surface elevation of 1229 feet msl. Flood storage of 1.5 maf is located between elevation 1,219.6 and 1,229 msl. Hoover Powerplant is a major source of hydropower in the Southwest. The powerplant generating capacity is rated at approximately 2,062,000 Kw with maximum release capacity of approximately 49,000 cfs. The spillways have a maximum release capacity of about 400,000 cfs at 1,232 msl with the drum gates in a closed position. This provides a total release capacity of 449,000 cfs. Davis Dam – Davis Dam and Powerplant are 67 miles downstream from Hoover Dam, and approximately 2 miles upstream from Laughlin, Nevada, and Bullhead City, Arizona. The dam’s primary purpose is to re-regulate Hoover Dam releases and aid in delivery of Mexico’s annual apportionment of 1.5 maf, and meet downstream demand. Located on the Arizona side of the river, the Davis Dam Powerplant has five generating units, each rated at 50,000 1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 594 of 1200 Kw, whose combined hydraulic capacity is 31,000 cfs. Lake Mohave lies behind Davis Dam and is bounded for most of its 67-mile length by the steep walls of Pyramid, Eldorado, and Black Canyons. The lake is relatively narrow, not more than 4 miles across at its widest point, but provides significant recreation opportunities and habitat for fish and wildlife. The lake also captures and delays flash flood discharge from the side washes below Hoover Dam. Typical flow time from Hoover Dam to Lake Mohave is 4 to 6 hours. The lake has a storage capacity of 1,818,000 af. Parker Dam – Parker Dam spans the Colorado River between Arizona and California 17 miles northeast of the town of Parker, Arizona. Parker Dam’s primary purpose is to provide reservoir storage from which water can be pumped into the Colorado River aqueduct and the CAP aqueduct. Lake Havasu, the reservoir behind Parker Dam, is about 45 miles long and covers 20,390 acres. It can store 648,000 af of water. Typical flow time from Davis Dam to Lake Havasu is 1 to 1.5 days. Parker Powerplant is located on the California side of the Colorado River immediately below the dam. It houses four hydroelectric generating units, each of which can produce 30,000 Kw of hydroelectric power. Four 22-foot diameter penstocks carry up to 5,500 cfs each, to feed the generating units. Fifty percent of the plant’s power output is reserved for MWD’s use to pump water along the Colorado River aqueduct to the Pacific Coast. The erior remaining power is Int marketed by WAPA, a DOE agency. Under an agreement betweene 01 and f th Reclamation7 MWD, the latter agency financed essentially the entire cost of pt. o constructing Parker Dam. MWD’s 29, 2 De er Whitsett Pumping Plant, 2 miles upstream from the.dam on vemb ion v No Lake Havasu, lifts water from the at reservoir into the Colorado River Aqueduct. ajo N d on v ive in Na d Headgate 4, arch is located on the river about 14 miles below 6 cit Headgate Rock Dame– -168 Rock Dam Parker Dam about a . 14northeast of the town of Parker. It was constructed as a diversion mile No structure to provide irrigation water to the Colorado River Indian Reservation. A 3-unit, lowhead powerplant is built into the dam structure. The water retained by the dam is named Lake Moovalya, which extends upstream approximately 10 miles and contributes a stable water surface to the recreational area referred to as the Parker strip. The dam raises the river water level approximately 15 feet but develops no useable storage. The water releases below Headgate Rock Dam mirror the releases from Parker Dam. The maximum powerplant discharge is 20,000 cfs. The maximum generating capacity of the powerplant is 19.5 MW. Typical flow time from Parker Dam to Headgate Rock Dam is 1 to 4 hours. Palo Verde Diversion Dam – The Palo Verde Diversion Dam consists of a concrete, gated structure with an adjacent embankment, constructed as a permanent replacement for the old Palo Verde rock weir. The dam raises the water levels approximately 12 feet, which is sufficient for the gravity flow to provide the water supply to the Palo Verde Valley including the city of Blythe. The impoundment has no useable storage even though the backwater from the dam reflects approximately 15 miles upstream. The dam is operated and maintained by the PVID. Typical flow time from Headgate Rock Dam to Palo Verde Diversion Dam is about 1 day. Senator Wash Pumping/Generating Plant and Regulating Reservoir – The Senator Wash 2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 595 of 1200 facility is a pumped offstream storage facility located approximately 2 miles upstream from Imperial Dam. It was constructed to supplement limited storage behind Imperial Dam and Laguna Dam responding to sudden changes in water delivery requirements at Imperial Dam; the water travel time from Davis Dam to Imperial Dam is 3 days or more. When sufficient storage is not available at Imperial and Laguna Dams, Senator Wash is used to regulate excess flows arriving at Imperial Dam to prevent over deliveries to Mexico, and to ensure demands can be met when flows arriving at Imperial Dam are less than water user demand. The reservoir elevation fluctuates according to water user demand and flows arriving at Imperial Dam. The reservoir has a capacity of 13,836 af at elevation 251 feet msl. However, current reservoir restrictions prevent raising the reservoir to elevation 251 feet due to concerns with seepage and high hydraulic pressure under the toe of Senator Wash Dam and along Squaw Lake Dike. Imperial Dam – Imperial Dam, approximately 18 miles northeast of Yuma, Arizona, was constructed to provide a diversion of Colorado River water to the Imperial and Coachella Valleys, to the Reservation Division and the City of Yuma through the first reach of the AllAmerican Canal on the west side of the dam; and to the Gila Project and the Yuma Auxiliary Project through the Gila Gravity Main Canal on the east side of the dam. Imperial Dam, which raised the water surface above the original river 23 feet to elevation rior feet msl, was 181 Inte Canal; 2,200 cfs designed to provide a maximum diversion of 15,155 cfs for the All-American 17 0 f the for the Gila Gravity Main Canal; and was designed to passta maximum29, 2of 180,000 cfs. p . o er flood e .D b Typical flow time from Palo Verde Diversionon vto Imperial Dam is about 2 days. vem ti Dam No jo Na ved vathat originally on a capacity of 85,000 af but, as was Imperial Dam created a ireservoir archi had n Na ited quickly 4, with sediment. Intermittent dredging and sluicing c anticipated, the reservoir 686 filled -1 operations are required to maintain a small reservoir pool of about 1,000 af in capacity to o. 14 N ensure diversions can be made to the All-American Canal and Gila Gravity Main Canal. Desilting works were provided for both the All-American Canal and Gila Gravity Main Canal. Sediment accumulations are sluiced downstream to the Laguna Desilting Basin where the sediment is removed by dredging and disposed of adjacent to the desilting basin. All-American Canal, Pilot Knob and Siphon Drop Powerplants – The All-American Canal is approximately 80 miles long and provides irrigation water to over 500,000 acres of land in the Imperial Valley, over 78,000 acres in the Coachella Valley, approximately 15,000 acres in the Reservation Division of the Yuma Project, and over 40,000 acres in the Valley Division of the Yuma Project. Situated along the All-American Canal are two turnouts through which water is released for use in Mexico and in the Reservation Division, after passing through a powerplant at each turnout. A wasteway was constructed on the All-American Canal at Pilot Knob, to which a power generation facility was added. Both facilities are located upstream of Morelos Dam. The wasteway was constructed to protect the All-American Canal and provide a place to discharge excess water back to the Colorado River, in particular those deriving from side wash inflows or sudden water user cutbacks in Imperial Valley. Pilot Knob Powerplant was constructed to allow generation of power from water deliveries made in satisfaction of the 1944 Treaty with 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 596 of 1200 Mexico. Pilot Knob has 55 feet of hydraulic head and can produce up to 33,000 Kw of electricity. Siphon Drop Powerplant operates to develop power from Yuma Project deliveries and deliveries made to Mexico. Currently, if Mexico's order at the NIB, less drainage return flows and sediment control flows below Imperial Dam, is greater than 800 cfs, the water is routed through the Pilot Knob Powerplant to generate power, which then takes away water that would otherwise have been delivered either below Laguna Dam or through Siphon Drop Powerplant and the California wasteway near Yuma, Arizona. If Mexico's order at the NIB, less drainage return flows and sediment control flows below Imperial Dam, is less than 800 cfs, the water is normally routed through the Siphon Drop Powerplant to generate power. Siphon Drop Powerplant requires a minimum flow of 350 cfs to operate and, to the extent possible, this flow is maintained through delivery requirements to Mexico and water ordered for the Valley Division of the Yuma Project. The Yuma Main Canal wasteway, more commonly referred to as the California wasteway, was constructed to protect the Yuma Main Canal if excess flows are diverted into the canal or sudden cutbacks in water use in the Yuma Valley occur. The wasteway allows those excess flows to be diverted back into the Colorado River. Now a portion of the water delivery to Mexico is routed down the All-American Canal through Siphon Drop Powerplant and the ior Inter 17 Yuma Main Canal wasteway. the 20 of ept. ber 29, .D Laguna Dam – Laguna Dam was originally tconstructed (1905 m ve - 1909) to serve as a diversion ion v aMain Canal Nothe California side of the Colorado N n on structure and desilting works for the jYuma va o ed o River and for the North iGila Canal onrchiv n Na , a the Arizona side of the Colorado River. The dam cited 1 the original stream bed approximately 13 feet. However, now raised the water level above 6864 these canals receive their4 the All-American Canal, diverted at Imperial Dam. And .1 Noas a water from structure for sluicing flows that control sediment below Laguna Dam serves regulating Laguna Dam, and to help store excess flows that arrive at Imperial Dam to prevent over deliveries to Mexico. Water stored behind Laguna Dam can be used to make up part of Mexico's water order when a shortage of water relative to water user demand arrives at Imperial Dam. Laguna Dam also protects the downstream toe of Imperial Dam. Typical flow time from Imperial Dam to Laguna Dam is about 2 hours. Total storage behind Laguna Dam is currently estimated to be 700 af. Prior to the 1983 Colorado River flood the capacity was approximately 1,500 af. Dredging was carried out behind Laguna Dam in the 1950s to the early 1970s, in order to maintain its relatively small storage capacity. Sediment removed from above Laguna Dam was placed directly downstream of the rockfill weir in the flood plain. Morelos Dam – Morelos Dam is located along the limitrophe section of the Colorado River, approximately 9 miles southwest of Yuma, Arizona. Morelos Dam was constructed by Mexico to provide a diversion for the delivery of Colorado River water to the Mexicali Valley. Mexico is responsible for the operation and maintenance of Morelos Dam and associated expenses. 4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 597 of 1200 Under Minute 242 (Minutes are defined as decisions of IBWC and signed by the Mexican and United States commissioners of IBWC) of the Mexican Water Treaty of 1944, up to 140,000 af annually of agricultural drainage water can be delivered to Mexico at the SIB. The remaining 1,360,000 af of water is to be delivered to Mexico at the NIB annually and diverted at Morelos Dam to the Mexicali Valley of Mexico Flows below Morelos Dam occur only when water in excess of Mexico's diversion requirements arrives at the dam, in which case the excess is normally passed through Morelos Dam into the original Colorado River Channel downstream. Water in excess of Mexico's water order occurs when surplus or flood releases are made from either the Colorado River system or the Gila River system. Excess water arriving at Mexico may also result from side wash inflows that occur above or below Imperial Dam; from a sudden drop in water user demand; or when insufficient storage is available in Senator Wash, Imperial or Laguna reservoirs. Flows arriving at Morelos Dam normally range from about 900 cfs to over 3,000 cfs during the year. During 1983, flows in excess of 40,000 cfs arrived at the NIB due to flood control releases on the Colorado River, and in 1993 flows in excess of 25,000 cfs arrived at the NIB due to flooding on the Gila River. Typical flow time from Laguna Dam to Morelos Dam is about 6 hours. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. 5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 598 of 1200 ATTACHMENT D Glen Canyon Dam Operation Record of Decision This attachment is the October 8, 1996 Record of Decision prepared for the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement, March ior 1995. Inter 017 f the pt. o er 29, 2 . De b ion v Novem at on jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 599 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 600 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 601 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 602 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 603 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 604 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 605 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 606 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 607 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 608 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 609 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 610 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 611 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 612 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 613 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 614 of 1200 ATTACHMENT E Surplus Criteria Proposal by Six States This attachment is a December 4, 1998 document prepared by representatives of Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming presenting their joint or recommendations on interim surplus criteria. nteri 7 he I . of t r 29, 201 pt . De be ion v Novem at on jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 615 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 616 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 617 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 618 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 619 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 620 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 621 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 622 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 623 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 624 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 625 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 626 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 627 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 628 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 629 of 1200 ATTACHMENT F Surplus Criteria Proposal by California This attachment contains a document prepared by agencies in California presenting their recommendations on interim surplus criteria. This document was published as r Exhibit A of an October 15, 1999 document entitled Key Terms Interio for Quantification of 17 Settlement Among the State of California, IID, CVWD.and the t of MWD. , 20 Dep mber 29 n v. atio Nove ajo N ived on Nav d in 64, arch cite 168 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 630 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 631 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 632 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 633 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 634 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 635 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 636 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 637 of 1200 ATTACHMENT G Surplus Criteria Proposal by Pacific Institute This attachment contains correspondence from the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security. Included are a February 15, 2000 letter r report presenting their proposed alternative for interim surplus criteriaio an excerpt Inter and7 f th in , 2 they from their September 8, 2000 letter of comment on the DEIS,e which 01 propose pt. o er 29entire text of their De certain modifications of the alternative proposed in February. The b n v. III. ioVolumeNovem a in September 8, 2000 letter is reproduced t n oN vaj ed o in Na 4, archiv cited 1686 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 638 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 639 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 640 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 641 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 642 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 643 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 644 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 645 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 646 of 1200 Excerpts from Pacific Institute Comments on the Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteriaor teri he In 2017 f Draft Environmental. Dept. omtber 2Statement Impact 9, v n e Natio d on Nov ajo ive Nav d in 64, arch cite 168 14No. A report of the P A C I F I C INSTITUTE FOR S TUDIES IN DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENT AND SECURITY 654 13t h Street Oakland, CA 94612 Phone (510) 251- 1600 Fax (510) 251- 2203 www.pacinst.org mcohen@pacinst.org Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 647 of 1200 Pacific Institute comments on the Interim Surplus Criteria DEIS September 8, 2000 Page 8 of 14 The following information is excerpted from an attachment to the Pacific Institute's letter of September 8, 2000 commenting on the Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria Draft EIS. PACIFIC INSTITUTE PROPOSAL The “Environmental Interim Surplus Criteria,” submitted by ten NGOs and subsequently endorsed by the Center for Biological Diversity and The Wilderness Society, should be analyzed in a supplemental DEIS. These criteria would satisfy the objective of facilitating California’s reduction in its use of C olorado River water, without forcing the environment to bear the costs of such actions. Although similar in many respects to the Six States Plan, the Environmental Criteria differ sufficiently to merit appraisal in a supplemental DEIS. In the following, and per previous conversations and correspondence with Reclamation staff, we offer suggestions as to how best to model the Environmental Interim Surplus Criteria, and suggest several specific projections that should be included in the supplementalrDEIS. ior Inte f the 9, 2017 Clarifications: pt. o 2 . De ember “2) baseline delta flows” so Reclamation should model the monthlytirelease schedule under nv o Nov that these delta flows are relatively jo Na throughout the year aconstantived on Nav d in the 4, arch release schedule under “5) delta flood flows” so that Reclamation shouldemodel 6 monthly cit 1 8 100% of such releases4are6 . 1 - made from May through July, peaking in June at a ratio of 35%: No 45%: 20% (flows in other months would be released by the baseline flow trigger, above) Due to difficulties in modeling a Secretarial determination of “No Net Loss,” for the purposes of modeling Reclamation should assume that such a determination is made Differences between the Environmental Criteria (“NGO”) and the 7 States’ Plan (“States”): Normal elevation trigger:  1120.4 for NGO,  1125 for States Baseline delta flows 0.032 MAF above elevation 1120.4 for NGO; none for States Partial M&I/Domestic surplus elevation triggered between 1125 & 1145 for both; for purposes of these modeling runs, the quantities of water released under the two plans are equivalent Full M&I/Domestic Surplus triggered above elevation 1145. NGO plan equivalent to States’ plan with the following exceptions: Total deliveries through the Colorado River Aqueduct would be limited to 1.212 million acre-feet under the NGO plan instead of 1.250 under the States’ plan Delta Flood Flows triggered by Reclamation 70 percent flood control avoidance elevation (70A1) under the NGO plan; no such release under the States’ Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 648 of 1200 Pacific Institute comments on the Interim Surplus Criteria DEIS September 8, 2000 Page 9 of 14 Full Surplus/Quantified Surplus 70R trigger for both plans, although for the purposes of determining the trigger elevation the NGO plan considers the above delta baseline and flood flows as “uses” and the States plan does not (so the trigger elevation will be higher under the NGO plan). Unlike the States’ plan, under the NGO plan, no water would be made available to California or Nevada for off-stream storage, including groundwater banking, under this tier, and no surplus water would be made available to Arizona for such purposes under this tier. Flood Control Surplus equivalent for the two plans Shortage Criteria the NGO plan does not establish shortage criteria ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 649 of 1200 ATTACHMENT H Lower Division Depletion Schedules This attachment contains schedules of projected depletions (consumptive use) of Colorado River system water by the Lower Division States. These schedules were r used in the Colorado River Simulation System to model the rivernterio operation I system17 the under baseline conditions and the alternatives. , 20 t. of Dep mber 29 n v. atio Nove ajo N ived on Nav d in 64, arch cite 168 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 650 of 1200 Attachment H Lower Division Depletion Schedules Overview This attachment to the Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria FEIS consists of the depletion schedules for the Lower Division states (17 tables) that were used to simulate the Colorado River water demands under the modeled baseline conditions and each of the surplus alternatives. These schedules contain the states’ projections of future water needs. Separate schedules were used for normal, surplus, and shortage conditions. Schedules used for more than one alternative and/or baseline conditions are hereafter noted accordingly. It should be noted that the data presented in this attachment is model input data and should not be confused with the model output data discussed in Section 3.3.4 and 3.4 of the main document. Normal Depletion Schedules With and Without California Transfers The surplus alternatives (Basin States, California, Flood Control, Six States, and ior Shortage Protection alternatives) and the baseline conditions used normal schedules that Inter 17 included proposed California intrastate water transfers. of the , 20 . ept r 29 e A breakdown of the depletions for the major v. D in each n divertersvemb state is included in the atioare aggregated into a single amount that is No appropriate schedule. Smaller ajo N on v diversions e Users). Table H-1 presents a summary of iv Na(i.e. Other AZ d referred to as “Other Users” in arch c ted 16864, the Lower Basinidepletion schedule that shows depletions for the major diverters and other users by No. 14well as a total for the lower basin. The “other user’s” depletion state as schedules (from Table H-1) for the states of Arizona, California and Nevada are shown in more detail on Tables H-3, H-4 and H-5, respectively. The baseline conditions were also modeled without California intrastate water transfers and the results were evaluated in a sensitivity analysis (see Attachment L). The California intrastate water transfers affect the schedules of MWD, CVWD and IID only. The depletion schedule for these entities under the baseline without transfers modeled conditions are also presented in Table H-2. It should be noted that the transfers were based on Reclamation’s interpretation of the original California 4.4 Plan (December 1997) and subsequent discussions with the State of California with respect to data changes. It should also be noted that IID’s depletion schedule under these modeled conditions reflects IID’s most recent 10-year average depletion. The California Alternative normal schedule is shown in Table H-11. This schedule is not to be confused with the depletion schedules that were used to model the four other surplus alternatives (Basin States, Flood Control, Six States, and Shortage Protection alternatives). Under the California Alternative, PVID is assumed to transfer 100,000 acre-feet to the MWD under normal conditions. This modeling assumption is indicative of the type of intrastate water transfer that might occur under the California Plan and is not intended to imply that the transfer will occur. The depletion schedules of the rest of H-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 651 of 1200 the California users, as well as for the states of Arizona and Nevada remained unchanged from the normal schedules used to model the other alternatives. For all normal schedules, Arizona depletions for the first four years (2002 through 2005) are below its 2.8 million acre-feet (maf). Arizona’s unused apportionment is distributed as follows: • Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (73 percent of unused apportionment), and • Southern Nevada Water Authority (27 percent of unused apportionment) Shortage Depletion Schedules Under shortage conditions, the model used operating rules to determine the shortage condition deliveries, instead of using specific shortage schedules, as discussed in Section 3.3.3. Under a Level 1 shortage condition, the CAP deliveries are reduced to one mafy and the SNWA receives a delivery reduction equal to four percent of the total shortage amount. The model computes and allocates these Level 1 shortage condition deliveries in years r when the modeled conditions render a Level 1 shortage condition. terio H-6 presents a In Table17 f t e 9, 20 summary of the Lower Division depletion schedule with theh pt. o reduced CAP and SNWA De depletions under a Level 1 shortage condition.. The California r 2 be normal depletion amount on v N vem ibasin after aoLevel 1 shortage is computed. at is included to show a total for the lower n oN avaj ed o A Level 2 shortage d in N occurs chiv Lake Mead water surface elevation drops ar teconditiona Level if the cimsl. Under 64, 2 shortage condition, the deliveries to the CAP and 8 below 1000 feet -16 o 14 SNWA are further. reduced, as needed, to maintain the Lake Mead water level at 1000 N feet msl. If the Lake Mead water level continues to drop and if the CAP deliveries are reduced to zero, then at that time, the deliveries to MWD and Mexico would also be reduced, as needed, to maintain the Lake Mead water surface level at 1000 feet msl. CAP deliveries of zero were not observed in the simulations conducted as part of this FEIS. Surplus Depletion Schedules For the baseline conditions and Shortage Protection Alternative, the full surplus depletion schedule was used to model deliveries under surplus water supply conditions. Under a full surplus condition, the full amount of surplus water requested by each agency with a surplus water contract is delivered. Furthermore, a full surplus delivery would be available under baseline conditions and all surplus alternatives when water is released from Lake Mead in excess of lower basin demands due to flood control regulations. Under these conditions, the model will assume delivery of up to the annual full surplus schedules, depending upon which month the flood control begins. Once a flood control surplus is determined, it remains in effect for the remainder of that calendar year. The full surplus schedules are shown in Table H-7. It should be noted that this schedule includes the California intrastate H-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 652 of 1200 water transfers. The only difference between the full surplus schedules of the with transfers and without transfers conditions is the IID depletion. IID’s full surplus amount without transfers is equal to a constant 3,240,000 afy, while the full surplus amount with transfers is equal to 250,000 afy plus IID’s normal schedule from Table H-1. The full surplus schedules for the baseline without transfers condition are shown in Table H8. The Six States Alternative used a “tiered” surplus strategy, making different amounts of water available under each tier (or level) as specified for the Lake Mead elevation triggers. The first level is identical to the baseline (70R), and therefore uses the full surplus schedules with transfers. The second and third level surplus schedules for the Six State alternative are shown in Tables H-9 and H-10, respectively. The California Alternative also used a “tiered” surplus strategy, making different amounts of water available under each tier (or level) as specified for the Lake Mead elevation triggers. The first and second level surplus schedules for the California Alternative are shown in Tables H-12 and H-13 and do not include the transfer of 100,000 acre-feet to MWD from PVID’s schedule. The third level surplus schedules are shown in Table H-14 and again would transfer 100,000 acre-feet to MWD. Surplus water deliveries to Arizona and Nevada occur only in the first level of surplus and are full surplus deliveries. No surplus deliveries to Arizona and Nevada rior take place te would in the second or third levels. he In 2017 of t ept. 29, The Basin States Alternative also used a “tiered” surplus mber (similar to that of the strategy v. D ation on of ove available under each tier (or N water Six States Alternative) making different amounts ajo N ived level) as specified for in Nav Mead elevation triggers. The first level of surplus is the Lake arch ited 6 second shown in TablecH-15. The 864, and third level surplus schedules are shown in Table -1 H-16 and Table H-17, respectively. o. 14 N The contents of Tables H-1 through H-17 are listed on the following tabulation. H-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 653 of 1200 LISTING OF TABLES H-1 Normal Schedules with California Intrastate Transfers (kaf) H-2 Normal Schedules without California Intrastate Transfers (kaf) H-3 State of Arizona - Other Users (kaf) H-4 State of California - Other Users (kaf) H-5 State of Nevada - Others Users (kaf) H-6 Lower Division Level 1 Shortage Schedules (kaf) H-7 Full Surplus Schedule with California Transfers (kaf) H-8 Full Surplus without California Intrastate Transfers (kaf) H-9 Six State Alternative Level 2 Surplus Schedules (kaf) H-10 Six State Alternative Level 3 Surplus Schedules (kaf) H-11 H-12 H-13 H-14 H-15 H-16 H-17 ior Inter 17 the 0 California Plan Surplus Schedules Level .1of pt (kaf)er 29, 2 e v. D mb California Plan Surplus Schedules Levelve ation on No 2 (kaf) jo N ved Nava arcSchedules Level 3 (kaf) California Plan Surplus hi d in citeStates6864, Basin 14-1 Plan Surplus Schedules Level 1 (kaf) No. California Plan Normal Schedules (kaf) Basin States Plan Surplus Schedules Level 2 (kaf) Basin States Plan Surplus Schedules Level 3 (kaf) H-4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 654 of 1200 Table H-1 Normal Schedules with California Intrastate Transfers (kaf) CALIFORNIA Year CA Others MWD IID 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 444 445 446 447 449 451 454 456 459 463 468 472 477 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 645 674 758 743 784 802 819 837 855 870 865 861 856 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 852 802 802 802 802 2050 482 802 ARIZONA CVWD CA TOTAL AZ Other CAP 2959 2939 2902 2882 2811 2786 2761 2736 2711 2686 2681 2676 2671 2666 2661 2656 2651 2646 2641 2636 2631 2626 2621 2616 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2661 2661 2661 2661 360 354 350 356 356 361 366 371 376 381 386 391 396 401 406 411 416 421 426 431 436 441 446 451 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 4407 4412 4455 4427 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 1332 1337 1342 1348 1353 1359 1364 1369 1375 1375 1376 1376 1377 1378 1378 1379 1380 1380 1381 1382 1383 1385 1386 1388 1389 1390 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1402 1403 1403 1403 1404 1404 1404 1404 1405 1405 2661 456 4400 1405 NEVADA AZ Total NV Other 1458 1447 1382 1415 1447 1441 1436 1431 1425 1425 1424 1424 1423 1422 1422 1421 1420 1420 1419 1418 1417 1415 1414 1412 1411 1410 1408 1407 1406 1405 1404 1403 1402 1402 1401 1400 1399 1398 1398 1397 1397 1397 1396 1396 1396 1396 1395 1395 2790 2784 2724 2763 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 1395 2800 SNWP L.B. 26 26 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 21 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 277 278 294 282 272 272 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 279 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 303 304 321 310 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 13 287 300 7500 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. H-5 TOTAL NV Total Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 655 of 1200 Table H-2 Normal Schedules without California Intrastate Transfers (kaf) Date 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 CA Other 444 445 446 447 449 451 454 456 459 463 468 472 477 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 MWD 644 647 690 660 631 629 626 624 621 617 612 608 603 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 IID 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 2990 CVWD 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 CA Total 4407 4412 4455 4427 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. H-6 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 656 of 1200 Table H-3 State of Arizona - Other Users (kaf) Date Lake Mead NRA Kingman Ft. Mohave Ind. Res. 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 50 55 60 63 65 68 70 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 Town of Mohave Mohave Havasu Unused Parker & Parker Ag. Valley Valley M&I NWR Depletion Other I&DD Users 25 25 24 24 24 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 19 19 20 21 22 22 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 Imperial NWR Cibola NWR CRIR CRIR Pumped Gila Gravity Main Canal Cocopah Ind. Res. City of Yuma Yuma Co. WUA 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 10 10 11 12 13 14 14 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 343 351 359 367 376 386 395 405 414 424 434 443 453 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 463 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 549 543 537 531 526 521 516 510 505 499 494 487 482 477 476 477 477 476 477 477 476 477 477 477 477 476 477 477 476 476 476 476 477 476 476 476 477 477 476 477 477 476 477 477 477 476 477 477 476 25 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 37 38 38 39 39 40 40 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 267 264 262 259 257 255 252 250 248 245 242 239 237 234 234 234 234 234 234 233 233 233 232 232 232 231 231 230 229 229 230 230 230 229 229 230 230 230 229 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. H-7 Arizona Total Arizona Pumpers Other 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1332 1337 1342 1348 1353 1359 1364 1369 1375 1375 1376 1376 1377 1378 1378 1379 1380 1380 1381 1382 1383 1385 1386 1388 1389 1390 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1402 1403 1403 1403 1404 1404 1404 1404 1405 1405 1405 Ft. Mohave Ind. Res. 14 13 13 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Needles 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Chemehuevi Ind. Res. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Others & Misc. PPRs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial NWR H-8 5 7 8 9 11 13 15 17 19 23 27 31 35 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 CRIR Ind. Res. 383 381 380 379 378 377 375 374 373 372 370 369 367 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 PVID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unused Depletion 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 AAC Yuma Project Bard Unit 19 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 32 33 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 AAC Yuma Project Res. Unit Quechan ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Havasu NWR Table H-4 State of California - Other Users (kaf) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 California Pumpers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Pumpers Below NIB 444 445 446 447 449 451 454 456 459 463 468 472 477 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 Total California Other Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 657 of 1200 Ft. Mohave Ind. Res. 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Year 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Needles 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Chemehuevi Ind. Res. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Others & Misc. PPRs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial NWR H-9 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 CRIR Ind. Res. 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 366 PVID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unused Depletion 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 AAC Yuma Project Bard Unit 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 AAC Yuma Project Res. Unit Quechan ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Havasu NWR Table H-4 State of California - Other Users (kaf) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 California Pumpers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Pumpers Below NIB 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 Total California Other Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 658 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 659 of 1200 Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Table H-5 State of Nevada - Other Users (kaf) Mohave Ft. Mohave Laughlin M&I Steam Plant Ind. Res. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Total NV Other 26 26 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 21 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. H-10 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 660 of 1200 Table H-6 Lower Division Level 1 Shortage Schedule (kaf) Year CA Total AZ Other CAP AZ Total NV Other SNWP NV Total Total LB 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 4407 4412 4455 4427 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 1332 1337 1342 1348 1353 1359 1364 1369 1375 1375 1376 1376 1377 1378 1378 1379 1380 1380 1381 1382 1383 1385 1386 1388 1389 1390 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1402 1403 1403 1403 1404 1404 1404 1404 1405 1405 1405 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 2332 2337 2342 2348 2353 2359 2364 2369 2375 2375 2376 2376 2377 2378 2378 2379 2380 2380 2381 2382 2383 2385 2386 2388 2389 2390 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2402 2403 2403 2403 2404 2404 2404 2404 2405 2405 2405 26 26 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 21 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 258 260 278 265 253 254 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 262 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 284 286 305 293 281 282 282 282 282 282 282 282 282 282 282 282 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 284 284 284 284 284 284 284 7023 7034 7102 7068 7034 7041 7046 7051 7057 7057 7058 7058 7059 7060 7060 7061 7063 7063 7064 7065 7066 7068 7069 7071 7072 7073 7075 7076 7077 7078 7079 7080 7081 7081 7082 7083 7084 7085 7085 7086 7086 7086 7088 7088 7088 7088 7089 7089 7089 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. H-11 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 661 of 1200 Table H-7 Full Surplus Schedule With California Intrastate Water Transfers (kaf) Date CA Other MWD IID CVWD CA Total AZ Other CAP AZ Total NV Other SNWP NV Total Total LB 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 444 445 446 447 449 451 454 456 459 463 468 472 477 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 3209 3189 3152 3132 3061 3036 3011 2986 2961 2936 2931 2926 2921 2916 2911 2906 2901 2896 2891 2886 2881 2876 2871 2866 2861 2861 2861 2861 2861 2861 2861 2861 2861 2861 2861 2861 2861 2861 2861 2861 2861 2861 2861 2861 2911 2911 2911 2911 2911 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 5487 5468 5432 5413 5344 5322 5299 5276 5254 5233 5233 5233 5232 5232 5227 5222 5217 5212 5207 5202 5197 5192 5187 5182 5177 5177 5177 5177 5177 5177 5177 5177 5177 5177 5177 5177 5177 5177 5177 5177 5177 5177 5177 5177 5227 5227 5227 5227 5227 1332 1337 1342 1348 1353 1359 1364 1369 1375 1375 1376 1376 1377 1378 1378 1379 1380 1380 1381 1382 1383 1385 1386 1388 1389 1390 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1402 1403 1403 1403 1404 1404 1404 1404 1405 1405 1405 1658 1647 1582 1615 1652 1680 1715 1750 1787 1812 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 2990 2984 2924 2963 3005 3039 3079 3119 3162 3187 3211 3211 3212 3213 3213 3214 3215 3215 3216 3217 3218 3220 3221 3223 3224 3225 3227 3228 3229 3230 3231 3232 3233 3233 3234 3235 3236 3237 3237 3238 3238 3238 3239 3239 3239 3239 3240 3240 3240 26 26 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 21 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 312 314 316 316 321 326 330 334 338 342 345 349 353 357 361 365 369 373 378 382 387 391 395 400 404 408 412 415 418 423 427 431 435 439 443 448 452 456 460 464 468 472 476 480 485 489 493 497 501 338 340 343 344 349 354 359 363 367 371 374 378 382 386 390 394 398 402 407 411 416 420 424 429 425 421 425 428 431 436 440 444 448 452 456 461 465 469 473 477 481 485 489 493 498 502 506 510 514 8815 8792 8699 8720 8698 8715 8737 8758 8783 8791 8818 8822 8826 8831 8830 8830 8830 8829 8830 8830 8831 8832 8832 8834 8826 8823 8829 8833 8837 8843 8848 8853 8858 8862 8867 8873 8878 8883 8887 8892 8896 8900 8905 8909 8964 8968 8973 8977 8981 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. H-12 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 662 of 1200 Table H-8 Full Surplus without California Intrastate Transfers (kaf) Date CA Other MWD IID CVWD CA TOTAL 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 444 445 446 447 449 451 454 456 459 463 468 472 477 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 482 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 5518 5519 5520 5521 5523 5526 5528 5531 5533 5538 5542 5547 5551 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 5556 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. H-13 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 663 of 1200 Table H-9 Six State Alternative Level 2 Surplus Schedules (kaf) Date 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 CA Other 444 444 445 447 449 452 453 456 459 464 468 473 477 482 482 CA Total 4974 4949 4909 4896 4828 4810 4793 4775 4757 4742 4747 4751 4756 4760 4760 AZ Other 1332 1337 1342 1348 1353 1359 1364 1369 1375 1375 1376 1376 1377 1378 1378 CVWD CA Total AZ Other 360 354 350 356 356 361 366 371 376 381 386 391 396 401 406 4724 4699 4659 4646 4578 4560 4543 4525 4507 4492 4497 4501 4506 4510 4510 1332 1337 1342 1348 1353 1359 1364 1369 1375 1375 1376 1376 1377 1378 1378 MWD IID CVWD 1212 1212 1212 1212 1212 1212 1212 1212 1212 1212 1212 1212 1212 1212 1212 2959 2939 2902 2882 2811 2786 2761 2736 2711 2686 2681 2676 2671 2666 2661 360 354 350 356 356 361 366 371 376 381 386 391 396 401 406 IID 2959 2939 2902 2882 2811 2786 2761 2736 2711 2686 2681 2676 2671 2666 2661 Date CA Other MWD 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 444 444 445 447 449 452 453 456 459 464 468 473 477 482 482 962 962 962 962 962 962 962 962 962 962 962 962 962 962 962 AZ Total 2790 2784 2724 2763 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 NV Other 26 26 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 CAP AZ Total NV Other 1458 1447 1382 1415 1447 1441 1436 1431 1425 1425 1424 1424 1423 1422 1422 2790 2784 2724 2763 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 26 26 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 CAP 1458 1447 1382 1415 1447 1441 1436 1431 1425 1425 1424 1424 1423 1422 1422 NV Total 304 304 322 311 301 303 308 312 316 320 324 328 331 332 336 Total LB 8068 8038 7955 7970 7929 7913 7901 7887 7873 7862 7871 7879 7887 7892 7896 SNWP NV Total Total LB 278 278 295 283 273 274 275 277 279 281 283 285 287 287 289 304 304 322 311 301 302 304 306 308 310 312 314 316 316 318 7818 7788 7705 7720 7679 7662 7647 7631 7615 7602 7609 7615 7622 7626 7628 SNWP 278 278 295 283 273 275 279 283 287 291 295 299 302 303 307 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in Table H-10 cited 16864, Six State . 14- Alternative Level 3 Surplus Schedules (kaf) No H-14 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 664 of 1200 Table H-11 California Plan Normal Schedules (kaf) Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 CA Other 61 63 65 68 71 75 78 82 86 92 98 104 110 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 PVID 283 281 280 279 278 277 275 274 273 272 270 269 267 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 MWD IID CVWD 745 774 858 843 884 902 919 937 955 970 965 961 956 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 952 902 902 902 902 902 2959 2939 2902 2882 2811 2786 2761 2736 2711 2686 2681 2676 2671 2666 2661 2656 2651 2646 2641 2636 2631 2626 2621 2616 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2661 2661 2661 2661 2661 360 354 350 356 356 361 366 371 376 381 386 391 396 401 406 411 416 421 426 431 436 441 446 451 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 CA TOTAL 4407 4412 4455 4427 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 AZ Other CAP 1332 1337 1342 1348 1353 1359 1364 1369 1375 1375 1376 1376 1377 1378 1378 1379 1380 1380 1381 1382 1383 1385 1386 1388 1389 1390 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1402 1403 1403 1403 1404 1404 1404 1404 1405 1405 1405 1458 1447 1382 1415 1447 1441 1436 1431 1425 1425 1424 1424 1423 1422 1422 1421 1420 1420 1419 1418 1417 1415 1414 1412 1411 1410 1408 1407 1406 1405 1404 1403 1402 1402 1401 1400 1399 1398 1398 1397 1397 1397 1396 1396 1396 1396 1395 1395 1395 AZ Total 2790 2784 2724 2763 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 NV Other SNWP 26 26 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 21 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 277 278 294 282 272 272 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 279 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 287 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. H-15 NV Total 303 304 321 310 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Total LB 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 7500 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 665 of 1200 Date 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 CA Other 61 63 65 68 71 75 78 82 86 92 98 104 110 116 116 PVID 383 381 380 379 378 377 375 374 373 372 370 369 367 366 366 Date CA Other PVID 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 61 63 65 68 71 75 78 82 86 92 98 104 110 116 116 383 381 380 379 378 377 375 374 373 372 370 369 367 366 366 MWD 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 Table H-12 California Plan Surplus Schedules Level 1 (kaf) AZ AZ NV IID CVWD CA Total CAP Other Total Other 3209 3189 3152 3132 3061 3036 3011 2986 2961 2936 2931 2926 2921 2916 2911 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 5487 5468 5432 5413 5344 5322 5299 5276 5254 5233 5233 5233 5232 5232 5227 1332 1337 1342 1348 1353 1359 1364 1369 1375 1375 1376 1376 1377 1378 1378 1658 1647 1582 1615 1652 1680 1715 1750 1787 1812 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 2990 2984 2924 2963 3005 3039 3079 3119 3162 3187 3211 3211 3212 3213 3213 26 26 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Table H-13 MWD 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 California Plan Surplus Schedules Level 2 (kaf) CA AZ AZ NV IID CVWD CAP Total Other Total Other 2959 2939 2902 2882 2811 2786 2761 2736 2711 2686 2681 2676 2671 2666 2661 360 354 350 356 356 361 366 371 376 381 386 391 396 401 406 5012 4987 4947 4934 4866 4848 4831 4813 4795 4780 4785 4789 4794 4798 4798 1332 1337 1342 1348 1353 1359 1364 1369 1375 1375 1376 1376 1377 1378 1378 H-16 1458 1447 1382 1415 1447 1441 1436 1431 1425 1425 1424 1424 1423 1422 1422 2790 2784 2724 2763 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 26 26 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 SNWP NV Total Total LB 312 314 316 316 321 326 330 334 338 342 345 349 353 357 361 338 340 343 344 349 354 359 363 367 371 374 378 382 386 390 8815 8792 8699 8720 8698 8715 8737 8758 8783 8791 8818 8822 8826 8831 8830 SNWP NV Total Total LB 277 278 294 282 272 272 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 303 304 321 310 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 8105 8076 7992 8007 7966 7948 7931 7913 7895 7880 7885 7889 7894 7898 7898 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 666 of 1200 SNWP NV Total Total LB 277 278 294 282 272 272 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 271 303 304 321 310 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 8005 7976 7892 7907 7866 7848 7831 7813 7795 7780 7785 7789 7794 7798 7798 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N ved i Nava archTable H-15 d in States iteBasin 6864,Plan Surplus Schedules Level 1 (kaf) c 1 AZ AZ NV . MWD oIID14 CVWD CA Total CAP SNWP N Other Total Other NV Total Total LB 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 338 340 343 344 349 354 359 363 367 371 374 378 382 386 390 8640 8611 8514 8541 8520 8541 8569 8595 8624 8638 8670 8678 8688 8697 8701 Date CA Other PVID 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 61 63 65 68 71 75 78 82 86 92 98 104 110 116 116 283 281 280 279 278 277 275 274 273 272 270 269 267 266 266 Date CA Other 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 444 445 446 447 449 451 454 456 459 463 468 472 477 482 482 Table H-14 California Plan Surplus Schedules Level 3 (kaf) CA AZ AZ NV IID CVWD CAP Total Other Total Other MWD 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 3130 3110 3073 3053 2982 2957 2932 2907 2882 2857 2852 2947 2842 2937 2832 2959 2939 2902 2882 2811 2786 2761 2736 2711 2686 2681 2676 2671 2666 2661 489 483 478 485 485 490 495 500 505 510 515 520 525 530 535 360 354 350 356 356 361 366 371 376 381 386 391 396 401 406 4912 4887 4847 4834 4766 4748 4731 4713 4695 4680 4685 4689 4694 4698 4698 5312 5287 5247 5234 5166 5148 5131 5113 5095 5080 5085 5089 5094 5098 5098 1332 1337 1342 1348 1353 1359 1364 1369 1375 1375 1376 1376 1377 1378 1378 1332 1337 1342 1348 1353 1359 1364 1369 1375 1375 1376 1376 1377 1378 1378 H-17 1458 1447 1382 1415 1447 1441 1436 1431 1425 1425 1424 1424 1423 1422 1422 1658 1647 1582 1615 1652 1680 1715 1750 1787 1812 1835 1835 1835 1835 1835 2790 2784 2724 2763 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2990 2984 2924 2963 3005 3039 3079 3119 3162 3187 3211 3211 3212 3213 3213 26 26 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 26 26 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 312 314 316 316 321 326 330 334 338 342 345 349 353 357 361 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 667 of 1200 Table H-16 Basin States Plan Surplus Schedules Level 2 (kaf) Date 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 CA Other 444 444 445 447 449 452 453 456 459 464 468 473 477 482 482 MWD IID CVWD 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 2959 2939 2902 2882 2811 2786 2761 2736 2711 2686 2681 2676 2671 2666 2661 360 354 350 356 356 361 366 371 376 381 386 391 396 401 406 CA Total 5012 4987 4947 4934 4866 4848 4831 4813 4795 4780 4785 4789 4794 4798 4798 AZ Other 1332 1337 1342 1348 1353 1359 1364 1369 1375 1375 1376 1376 1377 1378 1378 CAP 1458 1447 1382 1415 1447 1441 1436 1431 1425 1425 1424 1424 1423 1422 1422 AZ Total 2790 2784 2724 2763 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 NV Other 26 26 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 SNWP 278 278 295 283 273 275 279 283 287 291 295 299 302 303 307 NV Total 304 304 322 311 301 303 308 312 316 320 324 328 331 332 336 Total LB 8106 8076 7993 8008 7967 7951 7939 7925 7911 7900 7909 7917 7925 7930 7934 NV Total 304 304 322 311 301 302 304 306 308 310 312 314 316 316 318 Total LB 7688 7678 7615 7650 7629 7632 7637 7641 7645 7652 7679 7705 7732 7756 7778 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Table H-17 Basin States Plan Surplus Schedules Level 3 (kaf) Date 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 CA Other 444 444 445 447 449 452 453 456 459 464 468 473 477 482 482 MWD IID CVWD 832 852 872 892 912 932 952 972 992 1012 1032 1052 1072 1092 1112 2959 2939 2902 2882 2811 2786 2761 2736 2711 2686 2681 2676 2671 2666 2661 360 354 350 356 356 361 366 371 376 381 386 391 396 401 406 CA Total 4594 4589 4569 4576 4528 4530 4533 4535 4537 4542 4567 4591 4616 4640 4660 AZ Other 1332 1337 1342 1348 1353 1359 1364 1369 1375 1375 1376 1376 1377 1378 1378 H-18 CAP 1458 1447 1382 1415 1447 1441 1436 1431 1425 1425 1424 1424 1423 1422 1422 AZ Total 2790 2784 2724 2763 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 2800 NV Other 26 26 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 SNWP 278 278 295 283 273 274 275 277 279 281 283 285 287 287 289 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 668 of 1200 ATTACHMENT I Draft Interim Surplus Guidelines This attachment contains draft guidelines to provide reviewers with an understanding of the proposed format and content of the proposed interim surplus criteria. ior Inter 17 It should be noted that the surplus depletion schedules shown e these20 guidelines are f th in pt. o the r 29, of surplus e estimated and are intended to provide an approximation of be amounts v. D em water that would be provided at theNation elevationsvof Lake Mead. various n No vajo ed o in Na 4, archiv cited 1686 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 669 of 1200 Draft Colorado River Interim Surplus Guidelines for Basin States Alternative 1 INTRODUCTION The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, is implementing these specific interim guidelines under which surplus water conditions would be determined in the Colorado River Basin. The long-term management objectives of the Colorado River system require the Secretary to: • • • • • • • • Minimize flood damages from river flows, Release water only in accordance with the 1964 Decree r in Arizona v. terio California (Decree), he In 2017 of t Protect and enhance the environmentalDept. of er 29, resources the basin, b v. Provide reliable delivery of watern beneficial m atio foron Nove consumptive use, N Increase flexibilityavajo deliveries under a complex allocation system, N of waterchived ar Encouraged in cite efficient 64, of renewable water supplies, 8 use -16 Minimize curtailment to users who depend on such water supplies, and o. 14 N Consider power generation needs. On an annual basis, the Secretary has applied factors, including but not limited to those found in Article III(3) (b) (i-iv) of the LROC, in annual determinations of the availability of surplus quantities for pumping or release from Lake Mead. As a result of actual operating experience through preparation of annual plans of operation, particularly during recent years when there has been increasing demand for surplus water, the Secretary has determined that there is a need for more specific surplus criteria, consistent with the Decree and applicable Federal law, to assist in the Secretary’s annual decision making during an interim period. Additionally, through adoption of specific interim surplus criteria, the Secretary will afford mainstream users of Colorado River water, particularly those in California who currently utilize surplus flows, a greater degree of predictability with respect to the likely existence, or lack thereof, of surplus conditions on the river in a given year. Adoption of the interim surplus criteria is intended to recognize California’s plan to reduce reliance on surplus deliveries, to assist California in moving towards its allocated share of Colorado River water, and to avoid hindering such efforts. Implementation of interim surplus criteria would take into account progress, or lack I-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 670 of 1200 thereof, in California’s efforts to achieve these objectives. The surplus criteria identify the estimated specific amount of surplus water to be made available in a given year, based upon factors such as the elevation of Lake Mead. The increased level of predictability with respect to the prospective existence and quantity of surplus water, will assist in the planning and operations by all entities that receive surplus Colorado River water pursuant to contracts with the Secretary. 2 2.1 BACKGROUND LONG RANGE OPERATING CRITERIA The Long Range Operating Criteria (LROC) provides that the Secretary will determine the extent to which the reasonable beneficial consumptive use requirements of mainstream users in the Lower Division can be met. Pursuant to Article II(B)2 of the Decree, if there exists sufficient water available in a single year for pumping or release from Lake Mead to satisfy annual consumptive use in the states of California, Nevada, and Arizona in excess of 7.5 maf, such water may be determined by the Secretary to be made available as “surplus” water. The Secretary is authorized to determine the conditions upon which such water may be made available. The Colorado River Basin ior Project Act directed the Secretary to adopt criteria for coordinated tlong-range operation In er 17 of reservoirs on the Colorado River in order to comply withhe carry20 the provisions out . of t and eptProject er 29, Colorado River of the Colorado River Compact, the Boulder v. D Canyon mb Act, the ation Treaty.e Storage Project Act and the U.S.-Mexico Watern Nov N o avaj ved o chi These Guidelines ed into implement Section III (3) of the LROC. The guidelines do serve N 4, ar to the United Mexican States (Mexico) pursuant it c not apply to determinations86 surplus -16 of o. 14 to the United States-Mexico Water Treaty of 1944. N 2.2 ANNUAL OPERATING PLAN The Secretary prepares, on an annual basis, an Annual Operating Plan (AOP) describing the projected operation of the Colorado River reservoirs for the current year. The AOP is prepared in consultation with the seven Basin States Governors’ representatives; the Upper Colorado River Commission; appropriate Federal agencies; representatives of the academic and scientific communities, environmental organizations, and the recreation industry; water delivery contractors; contractors for the purchase of Federal power; others interested in Colorado River operations; and the general public, through the Colorado River Management Work Group. The AOP describes actual operations under the LROC, as required by the CRBPA. 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTATION AND DOCUMENTATION Environmental analyses have been conducted for this proposal pursuant to the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) involving the following consultation and documentation: I-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 671 of 1200 • • Consultation with Tribes • Consultation with Mexico pursuant to international agreement • 3.1 ESA consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service • 3 DEIS published in July 2000 Final EIS published in December 2000 CONDITIONS OF IMPLEMENTATION EFFECTIVE DATES These guidelines will be in effect 30 days from publication of the Secretary’s Record of Decision (ROD) in the Federal Register. The guidelines will, unless subsequently modified, remain effective through December 31, 2016. After the interim period, the surplus criteria will revert to the “no action” conditions (i.e., determinations will be made on an annual basis through the AOP process.) ior Inter 17 3.2 ALLOCATION OF SURPLUS WATER 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e .D The interim surplus criteria set forth in Section 4 identifymb circumstances for the on v No e the atiavailability ofvsurplus water. These criteria do Secretary’s annual determinationo N on aj of the not address the allocationNasurplus chived of v water. Surplus water will continue to be allocated in ar for use among theed Division cit Lower 6864, States in a manner consistent with the percentages 1 identified in the o. 14- While these criteria will not specifically address the allocation Decree. N of surplus within a State or among the Lower Basin States, the Secretary recognizes that the Lower Division States and individual contractors for Colorado River water are considering arrangements that may affect the utilization of surplus water during the period identified in Section 3.1. It is expected that water orders from Colorado River contractors will be submitted to reflect forbearance arrangements made by Lower Division states and individual contractors. The Secretary will deliver water to contractors in a manner consistent with these arrangements, to the extent that the water orders from contractors reflect these arrangements. Surplus water will only be delivered to entities with contracts for surplus water. 3.3 MODELING AND DATA The August 24-Month Study projections for the January 1 system storage and reservoir water surface elevations will be used to determine the applicability of interim surplus guidelines. In preparation of the AOP, Reclamation will utilize the 24-Month Study and/or other modeling methodologies appropriate for the determinations and findings necessary in I-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 672 of 1200 the AOP. Reclamation will utilize the best available data and information, including the National Weather Service forecasting to make these determinations. 3.4 CALIFORNIA’S COLORADO RIVER WATER USE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS The Secretary will annually review the status of implementation of the California Colorado River Water Use Plan during the development of the AOP. California will need to reduce its need for surplus Colorado River water by the following amounts by the dates indicated: Date January 1, 2006 January 1, 2011 Amount (acre-feet) 280,000 380,000 In the event that California has not reduced its use by the above quantities, the interim surplus determinations will be based upon the 70R Strategy, for either the remainder of the period identified in Section 3.1 or until such time as California complies with the ior reductions identified in Section 3.1. Inter e 017 f th pt. o er 29, 2 De mb 3.5 UNUSED APPORTIONMENTS tion v. a Nove on jo N the Secretary from making unused normal or Nothing in these guidelinesava N precludes hived in arc surplus apportionments of Colorado River water available to another State pursuant to cited 16864, Article II(B)6 ofo. 14the Decree. N 3.6 PERIODIC REVIEW These guidelines for interim surplus criteria serve to implement Article III(3) of the LROC and will be reviewed concurrently with the LROC 5-year review. The Secretary will base annual determination of surplus conditions on these criteria, unless extraordinary circumstances arise. Such circumstances could include operations necessary for safety of dams or other emergency situations, or other activities arising from actual operating experience. 4 GUIDELINES The following guidelines will be used, together with other appropriate considerations as required in the Colorado River Basin Project Act, the LROC and the Decree to guide the determination of the availability of surplus water for use within the Lower Division States. The following sections describe the Lake Mead water surface elevations at which various specified amounts of surplus water would be made available for use within the Lower Division states. The Secretary expects to make the specified quantities of water identified in Sections 4.1 through 4.5 available as surplus during the I-4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 673 of 1200 15-year period. The precise amounts of annual surplus quantities will continue to be reviewed on an annual basis during the preparation of the AOP, as required by applicable federal law. The review will use the methodology for the Basin States Alternative set forth in Chapter 2 of the FEIS, actual operating experience, and updated information on the demand for Colorado River water by Lower Division contractors. 4.1 LAKE MEAD BELOW ELEVATION 1125 FEET If the projected January 1 Lake Mead elevation is below 1125 feet msl, the annual pumping and release from Lake Mead will be sufficient to satisfy up to 7.5 MAF of annual consumptive use in accordance with the Decree. 4.2 LAKE MEAD AT OR ABOVE ELEVATION 1125 FEET If the projected January 1 Lake Mead elevation is at or above 1125 feet msl and below 1145 feet msl, surplus water would be made available. The estimated annual amounts of surplus water available for pumping and release from Lake Mead (in addition to the 7.5 maf normal apportionment) are listed in the following schedule: ior Inter 17 Amount Available e Year 0 of th pt.(kaf) er 29, 2 e 200 b 2002 n v. D em atio N2003 d on Nov200 vajo 2004 e 150 in Na 4, archiv 2005 150 ited 686 c 4-1 2006 150 1 No. 2007 150 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 4.3 150 150 150 200 200 250 250 300 300 LAKE MEAD AT OR ABOVE ELEVATION 1145 FEET If the projected January 1 Lake Mead elevation is at or above 1145 ft. msl but below the spill avoidance strategy assuming the runoff value of the 70th percentile of exceedance based on the historic record of runoff above Lake Powell, surplus water would be made available. The annual amounts of surplus water available for pumping and release from I-5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 674 of 1200 Lake Mead (in addition to the 7.5 maf normal apportionment) are listed in the following schedule: Amount Available (kaf) 650 600 550 550 500 500 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 ior Inter 17 f the If the projected January 1 Lake Mead storage provides insufficient9, 20 for the coming pt. o er 2 space e year (based on the 70R Strategy), and ision v. the flood mb release criteria listed below D ovecontrol Nat d o the quantity of surplus water available. below, the Secretary would determine annually n N vajo e The quantity is determined a assuming v 70th percentile historical runoff, along with in N by 4, archi the d e normal 7.5 mafcit delivery1686 to Lower Division states, for the next year. Applying these . 14- storage, the projected reservoir storage at the end of the next values to currento N reservoir 4.4 70R STRATEGY year is calculated. The surplus is determined if the estimated space available at the end of the next year is less than the space needed by flood control criteria. The quantity of the surplus is the difference between the space required and the estimated available space. The above methodology would require calculation of the annual quantity each year during the period identified in Section 3.1. The estimated annual amounts of surplus water available for pumping and release from Lake Mead (in addition to the 7.5 maf normal apportionment) are listed in the following schedule: I-6 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 675 of 1200 Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 4.5 Amount Available (kaf) 1150 1150 1050 1050 1050 1050 1100 1100 1150 1150 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 FLOOD CONTROL SURPLUS ior Inter control releases If the projected January 1 system contents projects Hoover tDam flood 017 f he 2 based on the 1984 Hoover Dam, Lake Mead, Waterpt. o Manual, the annual Control er 29, . De eto satisfy all reasonable and b pumping and release from Lake Mead willn v sufficient m atio be Nov beneficial consumptive uses inajo Lower ed on the N Basin with valid surplus contracts with the v in Na estimatediv rch annual amounts of surplus water available for Secretary of the Interior. The 4, a cited 1686 pumping and release from Lake Mead (in addition to the 7.5 maf normal 14apportionment) are listed in the following schedule: No. Amount Available (kaf) 1350 1350 1350 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1600 1650 1650 1650 1700 1700 Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 I-7 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 676 of 1200 ATTACHMENT J Detailed Modeling Documentation The river system operation analysis for this FEIS was conducted with Reclamation’s Colorado River Simulation System model implemented in the RiverWare modeling r system. This attachment contains detailed documentation of theInterio process. modeling 017 f the pt. o er 29, 2 . De b ion v Novem at on jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 677 of 1200 Detailed Modeling Documentation This attachment describes the reservoir operating rules and related data used in Reclamation’s Colorado River Simulation System, as implemented in the RiverWare modeling system. BACKGROUND Long-term policy and planning studies on the Colorado River have typically used model results from the Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS), a Fortran-based modeling system, developed in the 1980's. CRSS originally ran on a Cyber mainframe computer, but was ported to run on both personal computers and Unix Workstations in 1994. CRSS modeled twelve major reservoirs and some 115 diversion points throughout the Upper and Lower basins on a monthly time step. A major drawback of CRSS was that the operating policies or rules were “hardwired” into the modeling code, making modification of those policies difficult. Based on the need to initiate surplus and shortage studies for the Lower Basin in the early 1990’s, Reclamation developed an annual time step model, CRSSez (BOR, 1998). CRSSez primarily models the operation of Lakes Powell and Mead, representing the ior n reservoirs Iofter 17 below reservoirs above Powell as one aggregate reservoir, and thef effect e o th was 20 Mead as part of the water demand necessary fromDept. CRSSez 29, used in the Interim Mead. . ber Surplus Criteria EIS process to facilitate tthen v vem io development of possible alternatives to be Na d on No analyzed. vajo a ve in N rchi ited 6864, a c Also in 1994, Reclamation began a collaborative research and development program with -1 o. 14 and the Tennessee Valley Authority with the goal of developing N the University of Colorado a general-purpose modeling tool that could be used for both operations and planning on any river basin. This modeling tool, known as RiverWare, is now being used by the Upper and Lower Colorado Regions for both planning and monthly operations (Fulp, 1999). A major advantage of RiverWare is that the operational policies or rules are no longer "hardwired" into the modeling code (Zagona, et al, 1999). The user expresses and prioritizes the rules through the RiverWare graphical user interface, and RiverWare then interprets the rules when the model is run. Multiple rule sets can be run with the same model and this provides the capability for efficient "what-if" analysis with respect to different policies. Reclamation replaced the original CRSS model with a new model implemented in RiverWare in 1996. The new model has the same spatial and temporal resolution, uses the same basic input data (hydrology and consumptive use schedules), and uses the same physical process algorithms as the original CRSS. A rule set was also developed to mimic the policies contained in the original model. Comparison runs were made between the original CRSS and the new model and rule set, with typical differences of less than 0.5% (BOR, 1996). J-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 678 of 1200 The second phase of the program to replace CRSS consists of examining the rules extracted from CRSS and developing new rule sets that reflect current operational policy as well as to investigate and improve, where necessary, the physical process methodologies. A team of Reclamation engineers from the Upper and Lower Colorado Regions has been established for these purposes and this phase is on going. DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL As previously mentioned, the features represented in the model are identical to the original CRSS model. In summary, twelve reservoirs are modeled (Fontenelle, Flaming Gorge, Taylor Park, Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, Crystal, Navajo, Starvation, Powell, Mead, Mohave, Havasu) and approximately 115 diversions are modeled (demands and return flows) throughout the basin. The Lower and Upper Basin diversion and depletion schedules used in this EIS are documented in Section 3.4.5 and Attachments G and J respectively. The hydrologic "natural" inflows (flows corrected for upstream regulation and consumptive uses and losses) at 29 inflow points throughout the basin were also used from the standard CRSS hydrology data set covering the period 1906-1990. For the analysis conducted for this EIS, only the operation of Lake Powell was updated to rior n the 7 reflect current operational policy in the Upper Basin. Operation Iofte other reservoirs in 1 the t. the r 29 20 the Upper Basin essentially followed the operationpin of original, CRSS. Operation of e D e Lakes Mead, Mohave, and Havasu alsoofollowed thatemb original CRSS, with the of the n v. ati as describedvbelow. No exception of the surplus and shortageN vajo rules ed on in Na 4 archiv ited LAKE ,POWELL RESERVOIRS c ABOVE1686 14The reservoirs above Lake Powell are operated to meet monthly storage targets (or “rule No. curves”) and downstream demands. The basic procedure is that given the inflow for the current month, the release will be either the release necessary to meet the target storage or the release necessary to meet demands downstream of the reservoir, whichever is greater. The rule curves are input for each reservoir, but are modified during the run for Flaming Gorge, Blue Mesa, and Navajo to simulate operations based on the imperfect inflow forecasts that are encountered in actual reservoir operations. Furthermore, each reservoir is constrained to operate within user-supplied minimum and maximum releases (mean monthly release in cfs) as specified in the following table: J-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 679 of 1200 Reservoir Fontenelle Flaming Gorge Starvation Taylor Park Blue Mesa Morrow Point Crystal Navajo Min Release 500 800 100 50 270 300 300 300 Max Release 18700 4900 5000 5000 5000 5000 4200 5900 For Flaming Gorge, Blue Mesa, and Navajo, the target storage is computed by using an inflow forecast for the spring runoff season (January through July), again to mimic the imperfect forecasts seen in actual operations. The forecasted inflow (for the current month through July) is computed as a weighted average of the long-term average natural inflow and the natural inflow assumed for the year being modeled. The weights used are: Month Natural Inflow Weight 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 Average Natural Inflow weight 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. January February March April May June July The long-term, average natural inflows into each reservoir are (1000 af): Reservoir Flaming Gorge Blue Mesa Navajo Jan 23.3 34.0 18.8 Feb 20.9 39.5 24.6 Mar 33.8 94.6 69.3 Apr 87.9 176.0 176.9 May 250.4 339.8 297.3 Jun 327.8 561.6 284.7 Jul 157.5 346.8 120.1 Based on the inflow forecast, the rule computes the volume necessary to release from the current month through July, assuming the reservoir will fill in July: Release needed for the current month = (current contents - live capacity + predicted remaining inflow) divided by the number of months remaining until the end of July J-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 680 of 1200 The target storage for the current month is then computed, adjusting for any gains or losses above the reservoir: Target storage = previous storage - release needed + gains - losses LAKE POWELL OPERATION As previously stated, the operation of Lake Powell was modified to reflect current operating polices. In the original CRSS rules, Lake Powell was operated on a rule curve that was not adjusted for an inflow forecast. Two other higher priority rules ensured that the minimum objective release of 8.23 million afy was met and that equalization of Lakes Powell and Mead was accomplished when necessary. The rule curve operation of Lake Powell was replaced by a new rule that better represents current operational practices. This new rule consists of a forecast-driven, spring runoff operation (January through July) that attempts to fill the reservoir to a July target storage and a fall operation (August through December) that attempts to draw down the reservoir to a December target storage. For this EIS, the July and December targets were 23.822 maf (500 kaf of space) and 21.900 maf (2.422 kaf of space) respectively. In addition, a rule was r added to simulate the occurrence of Beach Habitat Building Flows rio Inte (BHBF’s or “spike” the flows). The minimum objective release and equalizationf rules were 2017essentially the kept pt. o that reflect the 1996 Record of e r 29, same as in the original CRSS rules. Release . D vconstraintsmbe e ation on No also added to the Lake Powell rule Decision on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam were v ajo N ived v set. ch n Na i ar cited 16864, 14 LAKE POWELL INFLOW - ORECAST No. F computed an inflow forecast for Lake Powell and adjusted it Since the original CRSS rules for use by the flood control operation at Lake Mead, the same forecasting algorithm could be applied to the new operation of Lake Powell. The unregulated Lake Powell inflow forecast from the current month through July is computed as: natural flow into Lake Powell - estimated Upper Basin depletions + the forecast error where the forecast error is computed using equations derived from an analysis of past Colorado River forecasts and runoff data for the period 1947 to 1983. As detailed in the original CRSS overview document (BOR, 1985), analysis of these data revealed two strongly established patterns: (1) high runoff years are under-forecast, and low runoff years are over-forecast; (2) the error in the current month's seasonal forecast is strongly correlated with the error in the preceding month's forecast. A regression model was developed to aid in determining the error to be incorporated into the seasonal forecast for each month from January to June. The error is the sum of a deterministic and a random component. The deterministic component is computed from the regression equation. The random component is computed by multiplying the standard error of the regression J-4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 681 of 1200 equation by a random mean deviation selected from a standard normal distribution. The forecast error equation has the following form (all runoff units are maf): Ei = ai Xi + bi E(i-1) + Ci + Zr di where: i = month Ei = error in the forecast for month "i." Xi = natural runoff into Lake Powell from month "i" through July. ai = linear regression coefficient for Xi. E(i-1) = previous month's forecast error bi = linear regression coefficient for E(i-1). ci = constant term in regression equation for month "i." ior Inter 17 e di = standard error of estimate for regression of th for 20 pt. equation29, month "i." e r v. D mbe The following table summarizes the regression equation coefficients for each month: ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, ai bi ci di 14- Month No. January 0.70 0.00 -8.195 1.270 Zr = randomly determined deviation February March April May June 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.80 0.90 0.76 0.85 0.79 -0.278 0.237 0.027 0.132 0.150 0.977 0.794 0.631 0.377 0.460 The magnitude of the June forecast error is constrained to not exceed 50 percent of the May forecast error and the July forecast error is equal to 25 percent of the June forecast error. SPRING RUNOFF OPERATION (JANUARY THROUGH JULY) To accomplish the spring operation, the unregulated forecast is first adjusted to account for potential reservoir regulation above Powell. This potential regulation is currently computed as just the sum of the available space (live capacity – previous month’s storage) in Fontenelle, Flaming Gorge, Blue Mesa, and Navajo. Using the regulated forecasted inflow, the total volume of water necessary to release from the current month through July is computed as: J-5 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 682 of 1200 total volume to release = previous storage – July target storage + forecasted regulated inflow – loss due to evaporation – loss due to bank storage – The release for the current month is then computed by multiplying the total volume to release by a fraction for the current month, where the fraction reflects a user-supplied preferred weighting pattern. The weights and resulting fractions used for this study are as follows: Spring Season January February March April May June July Weights 0.170 0.160 0.130 0.100 0.100 0.160 0.180 Fractions 0.170 0.193 0.194 0.185 0.227 0.471 1.000 The fraction is computed as current month's weight divided by the sum iofrthe current and ter o remaining month's weights for the season. he In 17 t 20 of ept. ber 29, D During the spring operation, however, theon v. em ati computed release is constrained to be at least as N the numberNov n of months remaining. This constraint o great as the total volume divided by avaj rc ed o in Nis releasedhiv in the season during high forecast years. Lake ensures that sufficient water ited 6 4, a early Powell’s spring c operational 86 -1 release is further constrained in each month to be within a o. 14 range (currently set to 6500 and 25000 cfs respectively). minimum and maximum N FALL OPERATION (AUGUST THROUGH DECEMBER) Conceptually, the computation for the fall operation is identical to that done for the spring operation. The regulated inflow forecast is simply the natural inflow, adjusted for Upper Basin depletions, and potential reservoir regulation with no forecast error added. The potential reservoir regulation is again computed as the sum of the available space in Fontenelle, Flaming Gorge, Blue Mesa, and Navajo, where the space is the target storage in December for each reservoir minus the previous month’s storage. User-supplied weights are also used to compute the current month release from the total volume to release in the fall. The weights and resulting fractions are as follows: J-6 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 683 of 1200 Fall Season August September October November December Weights 0.266 0.200 0.156 0.156 0.222 Fractions 0.266 0.272 0.292 0.413 1.000 Two additional constraints are placed on the computed monthly release to ensure a smooth operation. In July, the release is constrained to be at least 1.0 maf if Powell’s storage is greater than 23.0 maf. From July through December, the release is constrained to not exceed 1.5 maf, as long as a 1.5 maf release results in a storage at Lake Powell less than 23.822 maf. Powell’s fall operational release is further constrained in each month to be within a minimum and maximum range (currently set to 6500 and 25000 cfs respectively). MINIMUM OBJECTIVE RELEASE A higher priority rule ensures that the previously described Powell operation will satisfy a minimum objective release to the Lower Basin, currently equal to 8.23 maf over each water year (October through September). Similar to the weighting and release fraction scheme used for the operational rule, a preferred release pattern for eachrimonth to meet the e or IntThe release pattern (in minimum objective release is supplied and a fraction is computed. 017 f the pt. o er 29, 2 kaf) and resulting fractions are as follows: De v. mb ation on Nove jo N Release Fraction Month d Nava archive600 October 0.073 d in 64, cite 168 November 600 0.079 14No. December 700 0.100 January 800 0.126 February 700 0.127 March 600 0.124 April 600 0.142 May 600 0.165 June 700 0.231 July 800 0.343 August 900 0.588 September 630 1.000 The fraction is computed as current month's release divided by the sum of the current and remaining month's releases through September. Each month the rule computes the volume of water remaining to meet the minimum objective release for the current water year (accounting for the water released previously in J-7 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 684 of 1200 the water year) and multiplies that volume by the release fraction. The release determined by the operational rule must then be at least as great as this resulting minimum objective release for the month. EQUALIZATION OF LAKES POWELL AND MEAD The equalization of storage between Lakes Powell and Mead is implemented in a rule that first determines if equalization needs to occur, and if so, then determines how much water to release from Powell to accomplish it. The rule is in effect from January through September of each year. The rule states that equalization needs to occur if two criteria are met: (1) if the storage in the Upper Basin meets the 602(a) requirement, and (2), if the projected end-of-water-year (EOWY) storage in Lake Powell is greater than that in Lake Mead. The storage in the Upper Basin is computed for each month (January through September) and consists of the predicted EOWY storage in Lake Powell, plus the sum of the previous month’s storage for Flaming Gorge, Blue Mesa, and Navajo. That storage is then compared to the computed value of 602(a) storage, described below to see if the 602(a) requirement is met each month. The method of estimating the EOWY storage is described below. rior te The release for equalization is computed by taking half of e Indifference between the th the , 2017 f and dividing by the number of predicted EOWY contents of Lake Powell and Lakept. o De Mead ber 29 months remaining through September.tiEvaporation vembank storage losses at Lakes and n v. o Nacalculation,Nresulting in an iterative procedure to n o o Powell and Mead are includedain the v jo ved arrive at the computed equalizationarchi The iteration stops when the forecasted EOWY in Na 4, release. cited 1 and contents of Lake Powell 686 Lake Mead are within a user-specified tolerance. That 14tolerance is currently set to 25000 acre-feet. No. The computed equalization release for each month is constrained in three ways. If the additional release due to equalization would cause the total Upper Basin storage to drop below the 602(a) requirement, then the amount of the equalization release is reduced to prevent this from happening. Likewise, the equalization release is reduced if it would cause Lake Mead contents to exceed its exclusive flood control space. Finally, the equalization release is constrained to be less than or equal to the maximum power plant capacity at Lake Powell (currently set to 33,100 cfs). 602(a) STORAGE REQUIREMENT As stated in the CRSS overview document (BOR, 1985), “602(a) storage refers to the quantity of water required to be in storage in the Upper Basin so as to assure future deliveries to the Lower Basin without impairing annual consumptive uses in the Upper Basin”. The current implementation of that storage requirement duplicates the original CRSS calculation. It computes the storage necessary in the Upper Basin to meet the minimum objective release and Upper Basin depletions over the next “n” years, assuming the inflow over that period would follow that seen in the most “critical period on record”. J-8 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 685 of 1200 The critical period in the Colorado River basin occurred in 1953-1964, a length of 12 years. Inflows from these years are used in the calculation of 602(a) storage. At the beginning of each calendar year, a value for 602(a) storage is computed by the following formula: 602a = {(UBDepletion + UBEvap)* (1 - percentShort/ 100) + minObjRel - criticalPeriodInflow} * 12 + minPowerPoolStorage where: 602a = the 602(a) storage requirement UBDepletion = the average over the next 12 years of the Upper Basin scheduled depletions UBEvap = the average annual evaporation loss in the Upper Basin (currently set to 560 kaf) percentShort = the percent shortage that will be applied to Upper Basin depletions during the critical period (currently set to zero) minObjRel = the minimum objective release to the Lower Basin (currently set to 8.23 maf) criticalPeriodInflow = average annual natural inflow into the Upper Basin during the critical period (1953-1964) (currently set to 12.18 maf) rior I pool 17 minPowerPoolStorage = the amount of minimum powernte to be preserved in the 20 Upper Basin reservoirs (currently set to 5.179pt. of maf) e r 29, D mbe n v. atioas found in ve original CRSS data files ported No the on All parameter values currently ajo N used were Nav archived from the Cyber mainframe in 1994. in cited 16864, 14PREDICTING END-O.F-WATER-YEAR (EOWY) CONTENTS OF LAKES POWELL AND MEAD No Lake Powell EOWY content is predicted each month by taking the previous month’s storage, adding the estimated inflow, subtracting the estimated release, and subtracting the estimate of evaporation and change in bank storage. All estimated values are for the period from the current month through September. The estimated inflow is just the regulated inflow forecast previously discussed, where the forecast error is included through July. The estimated release is based on the spring operation (through July) and the fall operation for August and September. The estimated evaporation and bank storage losses are based on an initial estimate of the EOWY content. Similarly, the Lake Mead EOWY content is predicted each month by taking the previous month’s content, adding the estimated Powell release, subtracting the estimated Mead release, adding the average gain between Powell and Mead, subtracting the Southern Nevada depletion, and subtracting the estimate of evaporation and change in bank storage. Again, all values are for the period from the current month through September. Lake Mead’s release is estimated as the sum of the depletions downstream of Mead and the reservoir regulation requirements (including evaporation losses) for Lakes Mohave and Havasu minus the gains below Mead. J-9 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 686 of 1200 BEACH /HABITAT BUILDING FLOWS (BHBF’S) Under the current rule that implements BHBF’s, a BHBF is triggered for the current month if the following conditions are met: • in January, if the unregulated inflow forecast for January through July (the natural flow – Upper Basin depletions plus forecast error) is greater than the “January trigger volume” (currently set to 13.0 maf) • in January through July, if the current month’s Powell release is greater than the “release trigger” (currently set to 1.5 maf) or if the release volume for the current month through July equally distributed over those months would result in a release greater than the “release trigger” Once a BHBF has been triggered, if Powell would have had to spill in that month anyway, the total outflow from Powell is not increased; rather the volume for the BHBF (currently set to 200 kaf) is taken from the total outflow already determined by the operational rule. If Powell was not going to spill in that month, then the total outflow from Powell is increased (i.e., the volume for the BHBF is taken from Powell’s storage). Under the case where the BHBF is triggered even though the current month’s release is less than the “release trigger”, the rule re-sets Powell’s outflow for that month to the trigger release amount (1.5 maf). rior e e Int f thyear.9, 2017 Under all circumstances, only one BHBF is madeDept. o per calendar r 2 mbe n v. atio on Nove LAKE MEAD OPERATION ajo N Nav to hived Lake Mead is operatednprimarily arcmeet downstream demand, including downstream di ite 64, depletions (both c U.S. and168 Mexico) and reservoir regulation requirements. In any month, the 14N . rule computes theodownstream depletions based on schedules that have been set as input data or by other rules (for the case of surplus or shortage in the Lower Basin). The reservoir regulation requirements for Lakes Mohave and Havasu include water necessary to meet their storage targets and evaporation losses for each month. The operation rule computes the release necessary from Lake Mead to meet that total downstream demand minus gains below Mead. This release may be increased, however, based on flood control procedures. MEAD FLOOD CONTROL There are three flood control procedures currently in effect for different times of the year. These procedures were developed in the original CRSS and were based on the Field Working Agreement between Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE, 1982). The first procedure is in effect throughout the year. Its objective is to maintain a minimum space of 1.5 maf in Lake Mead, primarily for extreme rain events. This space is referred to as the exclusive flood control space and is represented by the space above elevation 1219.61. The second procedure is used during the spring runoff forecast season (January through July). The objective during this period is to route the maximum forecasted inflow through the reservoir system using specific rates of Hoover Dam discharge, assuming that the lake will fill (to elevation 1219.61) at the end of July. The J-10 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 687 of 1200 third procedure is used during the space building or drawdown period (August through December). The objective during this period is to gradually draw down the reservoir system to meet the total system space requirements in each month in anticipation of the next year’s runoff. EXCLUSIVE FLOOD CONTROL SPACE REQUIREMENT As previously noted, this requirement states that space in Lake Mead must be a minimum of 1.5 maf at all times. If the release computed to meet downstream demand results in a Lake Mead storage that would violate this space requirement, the rule computes the additional release necessary to maintain that space. SPRING RUNOFF SEASON (JANUARY THROUGH JULY) The flood control policy requires that the maximum forecast be used where that forecast is defined as the estimated inflow volume that, on average, will not be exceeded 19 times out of 20 (a 95% non-exceedance). The rule first computes the inflow forecast to Lake Mead by taking the Lake Powell forecast previously described and adds the long-term, average natural tributary inflows between Lakes Powell and Mead. The maximum forecast is then estimated by adding an additional volume (the “forecast error term”) to that inflow forecast. The forecast error term is given in the following table, taken r io from the original Inter 17 CRSS data: the 20 of ept. ber 29, v. D m ation on Nove NPeriodd Forecast Error Forecast vajo Term (maf) e in Na Januaryc–hiv d 4.980 , ar July cite 16864 February – July 4.260 14No. March – July 3.600 April – July May – July June – July July - July 2.970 2.525 2.130 0.750 The Field Working Agreement defines an iterative algorithm by which the current month’s release is determined. Certain release levels are specified and are given in the following table: Release Level 1 2 3 Release (cfs) 19000 28000 35000 4 40000 5 73000 Description Parker powerplant capacity Davis powerplant capacity Hoover powerplant capacity (in 1987) Approx. max. flow non-damaging to streambed Hoover controlled discharge capacity J-11 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 688 of 1200 The flood control release needed for the current month is determined by: release needed for the current month = maximum forecasted inflow - current storage space in Lake Powell (below 3700 feet) – current storage space in Lake Mead (below 1229 feet) + 1.5 maf (exclusive space) - evaporation and bank storage losses from Lakes Powell and Mead - Southern Nevada depletion – future volume of water released (assuming a release level from the table for the remaining months through July) If the computed release for the current month is greater than that assumed for the future months, the future level is increased and the current month release is re-computed. The computation stops once the computed release for the current month is less than or equal to that assumed for the future months. If the computed release is greater than the previously assumed level, that release is used for the current month; otherwise, the previously assumed level is used. The rule sets Lake Mead’s release to the flood control release if it is greater than the release previously computed to meet downstream demands. rior Inte 1 SPACE BUILDING (AUGUST THROUGH DECEMBER) 0 (storage below f the Lake, Mead7 o The flood control policy states the flood control storage.space inr 29 2 ept D month from August through January: e elevation 1229 feet) required at the beginning v. each ovemb tion of N Na vajo hived on Space in Na rc ited 6864, a Date c Required -1 ( maf) o. 14 N August September October November December January 1.50 2.27 3.04 3.81 4.58 5.35 However, these targets may be reduced to the minimum of 1.5 maf in each month if additional space is available upstream in active storage. Certain upstream reservoirs are specified with a maximum creditable space for each: J-12 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 689 of 1200 Reservoir Powell Navajo Blue Mesa Flaming Gorge plus Fontenelle Max. Creditable Storage Space ( maf) 3.8500 1.0359 0.7485 1.5072 In each month (July through December), if the release computed to meet downstream demands results in an end-of-month Lake Mead storage that would violate the space requirement adjusted for upstream storage, the rule computes the additional release necessary to maintain that space. However, these releases are constrained to be less than or equal to 28,000 cfs. LAKE MOHAVE AND LAKE HAVASU OPERATION Lakes Mohave and Havasu are operated to meet a user-specified target storage at the end of each month. These storage targets are given in the following table: ior Inter 17 Month 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb January 539.1 ation on Nove February o N 539.1 vaj ed March 557.4 in Na 4, archiv cited 16April 593.6 86 611.4 . 14- May No June July August September October November December Mohave Target Storage (kaf) 1644.0 1698.7 1698.7 1698.7 1753.9 1666.0 1543.0 1417.0 1371.1 1371.1 1478.0 1585.0 Havasu Target Storage (kaf) 611.4 580.0 561.1 557.4 548.2 542.7 539.1 LOWER BASIN SHORTAGE STRATEGIES As discussed in Section 3.3.3.4, although there are no established shortage criteria for the Lower Basin, shortage rules were developed and used in the model simulation to address concerns related to low Lake Mead elevations. For this DEIS, a “two-level” shortage protection strategy was used. In Level 1 shortage, the shortage determination is based on comparing the January 1 Lake Mead elevation to a user-input trigger elevation, where the trigger elevations are determined from other modeling studies to protect a significant elevation within a given degree of confidence. If Lake Mead’s elevation at the beginning of the year is less than the J-13 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 690 of 1200 trigger elevation, a Level 1 shortage is declared and certain Lower Basin depletions are reduced. The shortage remains in effect for that calendar year. For this DEIS, Level 1 protection of elevation 1083 feet (minimum power pool) and Level 1 protection of elevation 1050 feet (minimum water level for operation of Southern Nevada’s upper diversion intake) were studied separately. Trigger elevations were input to protect each elevation with an 80% probability; however, actual model runs showed that the protection was less (approximately 74%). As discussed in Section 3.3.4.1, these trigger elevations will be adjusted for the Final EIS to ensure an 80% protection probability. Under Level 1 shortage, the Central Arizona Project (CAP) depletion is set to a given amount (1.0 maf for this DEIS) and Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) is reduced by 4% of the total reduction as given by: SNWSshort = SNWSnorm – (0.04*(CAPnorm-CAPshort)/0.96) where the subscripts denote the normal and shortage depletion amounts. Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and other water users (including Mexico) do not take a Level 1 shortage. ior ter he In 2017 of t Under Level 2 shortages, further cuts are imposed pt. keep Lake9, e to D SNWA’s r 2 Mead above elevation e 1000 feet (the minimum water level for toperation of ovemb lower diversion intake). At n v. a io on end-of-water-year (EOWY) Lake Mead N the beginning of each year, the ajo N v rule estimates the ed elevation (using Level 1nshortage, schedules and normal schedules for other users). If the i Na 4 archiv d cite 1 1000 EOWY elevation is below 686 feet, CAP and SNWA are cut further to keep Lake Mead 14above 1000 feet. o. CAP delivery is reduced to zero, MWD and Mexico have shortages N If imposed, again in an amount necessary to keep the reservoir above 1000 feet. Shortages to Mexico consist of shorting Mexico proportionately to the total shortages imposed on United States (U.S.) users: Mexshort = Mexnorm * (U.S.shortage/U.S.norm) For this DEIS, however, Level 2 shortages were never severe enough to impose shortages on MWD and Mexico. LOWER BASIN SURPLUS STRATEGIES As discussed in Chapter 2, several surplus strategies were proposed for inclusion in this DEIS. Of the five alternatives that were developed and analyzed in detail (the No Action Alternative and the four action alternatives), four distinct strategies were used: the Flood Control Strategy, the R strategy, the P strategy, and the Multi-tiered Trigger strategy. J-14 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 691 of 1200 FLOOD CONTROL STRATEGY Under the Flood Control strategy, a surplus condition is based on the flood control procedures previously described for Lake Mead. For each month, the rule calculates the release necessary for flood control and declares a surplus for the remainder of the calendar year if that release is greater than the release necessary to meet normal downstream demand. Monthly “full” surplus schedules are then set for the remainder of the year, where the monthly surplus schedules are determined by applying monthly percentages to the annual “full” surplus values given in Attachment G (Table G-4). Mexico receives up to an additional 200 kaf only under a flood control surplus. Under most cases, the flood control release is sufficient to meet the increased downstream demand; however, if that is not the case, the rule increases the release so that the surplus demands are met. All alternatives analyzed in this EIS used the Flood Control surplus strategy, in addition to any other strategies. R STRATEGY Under the R surplus strategy, a surplus condition is based on the system space requirement at the beginning of each year. Based on an assumed runoff, Upper and Lower Basin depletion schedules, and Lake Powell and Lake Mead contents at the beginning of the year, rior the volume of water in excess of the system space requirementInte end of the year is at the 17 the 0 estimated. If that volume is greater than zero, a pt. of is rdeclared and full surplus surplus 29, 2 e D e schedules are met for the year. It should tbe n v. thatovemb of the R strategies include a io notedn N variations volume is distributed to a “volume limited” surplus, where N the computed surplus vajo just ed o certain Lower Basin users (i.e., a fullrsurplus is not assumed). in Na , a chiv ed cit 864 4-16 1 The assumed runoff corresponds to a particular percentile historical runoff. For example, No. the 75R strategy assumes a runoff corresponding to the 75th percentile (75% of the historical values are less than that value, or approximately 18.1 maf of natural inflow into Lake Powell). Based on the original CRSS implementation, the surplus volume is computed by: SurVol = (PowellStorage + MeadStorage – maxStorage ) x ( 1.0 + aveBankStorCoeff) + runoff – UBdemand – Lbdemand Where: PowellStorage = Lake Powell content at the beginning of the year MeadStorage = Lake Mead content at the beginning of the year maxStorage = maximum combined storage at Lakes Powell and Mead that will meet the system space requirement at the beginning of the year, assuming 30% of that requirement will be met by the reservoirs upstream of Powell (live capacity of Lakes Powell and Mead - 0.7 x 5.35 maf = 47.96 maf) aveBankStorageCoeff = average of Lake Powell and Lake Mead bank storage J-15 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 692 of 1200 coefficients runoff = assumed percentile runoff UBdemand = Upper Basin depletion scheduled for the year + the average evaporation loss in the Upper Basin (same as assumed in equalization, 560 kaf) LBdemand = sum of the depletions below Powell + the evaporation losses in the Lower Basin (average loss of 900 kaf at Mead and computed for Lakes Mohave and Havasu, based on the target storage) – average gains between Powell and Mead (801 kaf) – average gains below Mead (427 maf) P STRATEGY Under the Protection or P strategy, a surplus is determined if there is sufficient water in Lake Mead to meet normal Lower Basin depletions (7.5 maf), while avoiding the likelihood of a future shortage determination. Analogous to Level 1 shortages, the surplus determination is based on comparing the January 1 Lake Mead elevation to a user-input trigger elevation, where the trigger elevations are determined from other modeling studies to protect the shortage line with a given degree of confidence. If the Lake Mead elevation is greater than the trigger elevation, a full surplus is declared for that calendar year. For this DEIS, an 80% confidence of avoiding future Level 1 shortages was used to compute the trigger elevations (Section 2.3.5). ior ter he In 2017 of t MULTI-TIERED TRIGGER STRATEGY ept. ber 29, D Under the multi-tiered trigger strategies, n v. o various ovem atielevation Namounts of surplus water are made available, depending upon LakeaMead’s ed on at the beginning of each calendar year. jo N Navandarchiv Both the Six States ed in Alternative , the California Alternative use this strategy. The trigger citthis DEIS864each alternative are discussed in Sections 2.3.3 and 2.3.4 6 for elevations used in 14-1 respectively. The o. surplus depletion schedules used for each alternative are detailed in N another attachment. J-16 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 693 of 1200 REFERENCES Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), 1982, “Water Control Manual for Flood Control: Hoover Dam and Lake Mead, Colorado River”, Los Angeles, California Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), 1985, “Colorado River Simulation System: System Overview”, Denver, Colorado Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), 1998, “CRSSez: Annual Colorado River System Simulation Model, Overview and Users Manual”, Boulder City, Nevada Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), 1996, “Replacement of the Colorado River Simulation System”, Draft Report, Boulder City, Nevada Fulp, T., 1999, “Colorado River Operations”, paper presented at Climate Change Symposium, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Systems (CIRIES), Boulder, Colorado Fulp, T., Vickers, B., Williams, B., and King, D., 1999, “Replacing an iInstitutional Model: r or Int at 17 The Colorado River Simulation System Example”, paper presented e the WaterPower 99 0 f the conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, Las Vegas, NV 29, 2 pt. o e r v. D vembe o ation oandNGoranflo, M., 1999, “RiverWare: A Zagona, E., Shane, R., Fulp,vT.,oMagee,eT., n aj N iv d a Generalized Tool ford in N Reservoir System Modeling”, paper (No. 99301) submitted Complex rch iteAmerican64, a Resources Association c 8 Water to the Journal of the 4-16 1 No. J-17 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 694 of 1200 ATTACHMENT K Upper Division Depletion Schedule This attachment consists of a table displaying the schedule of projected Colorado River system depletions, or consumptive use, by the Upper Division. These r depletions were used to model the operation of the river system Interibaseline under o conditions and the interim surplus criteria alternatives.. of the in the 2017 Shown table are eptArizona’s apportionment of r 29, projected depletions of the Upper Division states and mbe v. D ation on Nove water from the Upper Basin. The depletion schedule was developed by the Upper jo N Basin states and was compileda provided by the Upper Colorado River Nav and rchived in Commission incited December 1999., The depletion schedule was then modified slightly 64 a 168subsequently from the Ten Tribes Partnership, presented to incorporate data received 14No. in Attachment Q. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 695 of 1200 Table K-1 Upper Basin Depletion Schedule (kaf) Calendar Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 New Reservoir Colorado Utah Wyoming Mexico Arizona Evaporation 2419 859 501 449 45 574 2433 873 503 466 45 574 2447 886 505 484 45 574 2494 899 507 501 45 574 2501 913 508 510 45 574 2509 926 510 520 45 574 2517 940 512 529 45 574 2524 953 514 539 45 574 2580 1009 517 548 50 574 2583 1013 519 552 50 574 2586 1017 520 557 50 574 2588 1020 522 561 50 574 2591 1024 524 565 50 574 2594 1028 526 570 50 574 2597 1032 527 573 50 574 2600 1036 529 576 50 574 2603 1041 531 579 50 574 2606 1045 532 583 50 574 rior 2626 1055 535 589 50 te 574 2629 1062 537 590 50 e h In 2017 t of 50 29, 574 2633 1069 540 591ept. 574 r D 2636 1077 542 on v.593 50 574 mbe e 2639 1084 544 574 Nati d o594Nov 50 n jo 547 ve 595 2643 1091va 50 574 i Na ch n 2646ed i 1099 4, ar549 597 50 574 it c 2649 1107 551 599 50 574 1686 o 14 1114 2652. 553 600 50 574 N 2656 1122 556 602 50 574 2675 1129 571 604 50 574 2677 1134 575 604 50 574 2679 1139 580 604 50 574 2680 1145 584 604 50 574 2682 1150 588 604 50 574 2684 1155 593 605 50 574 2686 1160 597 605 50 574 2688 1165 601 605 50 574 2689 1171 605 605 50 574 2691 1176 610 605 50 574 2703 1177 615 605 50 574 2708 1180 622 605 50 574 2712 1184 629 605 50 574 2717 1187 637 605 50 574 2721 1190 644 605 50 574 2726 1194 651 605 50 574 2731 1197 658 605 50 574 2735 1200 665 605 50 574 2740 1203 673 605 50 574 2744 1207 680 605 50 574 2776 1207 687 605 50 574 Page 1 of 1 Total Upper Basin 4847 4893 4940 5019 5052 5084 5117 5149 5278 5291 5303 5316 5328 5341 5353 5365 5378 5390 5429 5443 5457 5471 5485 5499 5514 5529 5545 5560 5603 5614 5626 5637 5649 5660 5671 5683 5694 5706 5724 5739 5754 5769 5784 5800 5815 5830 5845 5860 5899 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 696 of 1200 ATTACHMENT L Sensitivity Analysis Comparing Baseline with Transfers to Baseline Without Transfers ior This attachment illustrates the water surface elevations of Lake Powell and Lake nter 7 he Iwater transfers. The of t Mead under baseline conditions with and without the tCalifornia 9, 201 2 ep . quantities of water as D transfers involve changes in the delivery point.for certainmber nv ve tio proposed in part of California’s Colorado Rivern No Use Plan. o Water jo Na va ed in Na 4, archiv d cite 1686 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 697 of 1200 Sensitivity Analysis Comparing the Modeled Baseline Without Transfers to Baseline With Transfers Conditions OVERVIEW This attachment provides a summary of the sensitivity analysis conducted to assess the potential effect of the modeled California intrastate water transfers. The sensitivity analysis compares the results of the modeled baseline without transfers condition to those of the baseline with transfers condition. Only two potential hydrologic effects resulting from the modeled California intrastate water transfers were observed. The first effect is the lower amount of surplus water that California would receive under the baseline without transfers condition reflecting a lower depletion schedule that was used to model California’s maximum full surplus demand projections. The second is the potential change in river flows for that portion of the river located between Parker Dam and Imperial Dam. This potential change in river flows is associated with the change in the point of delivery of water that is being transferred between the agricultural agencies and MWD. Additional discussion on these two potential hydrologic effects and other hydrologic aspects evaluated under this sensitivity analysis follows: ior Inter 17 f the 20 pt. o er baseline without transfers The Lake Powell water surface elevations observed under the modeled 29, e .D m The result of this comparative condition were compared to the baseline with transfers condition.b on v atidifference Nove the water surface levels observed Nno d on between analysis indicates that there is essentially vajo e under the two modeled baseline conditions. iv in Na 4, arch Figure L-1 presents a comparison of the 90th, 50th d observed under the two modeled baseline conditions (with and without c values 1686 and 10th percentileite transfers). A summary14this same information is presented in tabular format in Tables L-1, L-2 No. of and L-3, respectively. LAKE POWELL WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS LAKE MEAD WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS Similar to the water surface elevations observed for Lake Powell, the differences that were observed in Lake Mead water surface elevations under the two baseline conditions (with and without transfers) were minimal to none. Observed differences in the 90th, 50th and 10th percentile values of the two baseline conditions varied less than plus or minus two feet. A graphical comparison of the 90th, 50th and 10th percentile values for the two modeled baseline conditions is presented in Figure L-2. A similar comparison of the 90th, 50th and 10th percentile values for the modeled conditions are presented in tabular format in Tables L-4, L-5 and L-6, respectively. HOOVER DAM FLOOD CONTROL RELEASES The differences in the frequency of Hoover Dam (Lake Mead) flood control releases between the two modeled baseline conditions (with and without transfers) averaged one-half of one percent higher under the baseline with transfers condition during the 15-year interim surplus criteria period. This average difference increased to seven-tenths of one percent for the ensuing 34-year period. A graphical comparison of the frequency of Lake Mead flood releases under the two modeled baseline conditions is presented in Figure L-3. The slightly higher frequency of Hoover L-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 698 of 1200 Dam flood control releases observed under the baseline with transfers condition can be mostly attributed to the lower depletion schedule that was used to model California’s full surplus demands under these modeled conditions (see discussion on Water Supply below). Since the magnitude of the surplus deliveries are lower under the baseline with transfers condition, more water remains in Lake Mead and this increases the probability of more frequent flood control releases, however slightly. WATER SUPPLY The water deliveries to the Lower Division states under the two baseline conditions (with and without transfers) were evaluated to determine the effect of the modeled water transfers, if any. A summary of the evaluation of each states’ water deliveries under the two different baseline conditions follows: Arizona The observed magnitude and corresponding frequency of water deliveries to Arizona under the two baseline conditions were essentially the same. No significant differences in the amount of water that Arizona would receive under the two baseline conditions were observed. Figure L-4, presents a comparison of the 90th, 50th and 10th percentile values for the modeled Arizona water deliveries under the two baseline conditions, respectively. Figure L-5 presents a comparison of the frequency of occurrence of different amounts of annual water deliveries to Arizona during the modeled 15-year interim surplus criteria period. Figure L-6 presents a similaror i comparison for the Inter 17 ensuing 34-year period (2017 to 2050). As illustrated in these two figures, there is very little f the variation in both the frequency and magnitude of water deliveries to Arizona20 pt. o er 29, between the two De modeled baseline conditions. n v. emb atio Nov ajo N ived on California Nav d in 64, arch cite 16 to The observed water deliveries 8 California under the two baseline conditions differed as a result 14of the different depletion schedules used to model California’s demands. Different depletion No. schedules incorporating different maximum full surplus demand schedules were used to model the two baseline conditions. California’s modeled full surplus depletion schedule under the baseline without transfers condition begins at approximately 5.52 maf (year 2002), increases steadily to 5.56 maf by 2015, and remains at this level thereafter. California’s modeled full surplus depletion schedule under the baseline with transfers condition begins at approximately 5.49 maf (year 2002), steadily decreases to approximately 5.2 maf by 2025 and generally remains close to this level thereafter. As a result of the different depletion schedules used to model the two baseline conditions, the observed magnitude of surplus deliveries to California is substantially higher under the baseline without transfers condition, as illustrated in Figure L-7 which compares the 90th percentile values of the modeled depletions. In general, the 90th percentile values coincide with the maximum full surplus depletion schedules that were used to model the respective baseline conditions. The frequency and magnitude of normal condition deliveries to California did not differ and there were no shortage condition deliveries observed as illustrated in Figure L-9. Figure L-8 presents a comparison of the frequency of occurrence of different annual water deliveries to California during the modeled 15-year interim surplus criteria period. Figure L-9 presents a similar comparison for the ensuing 34-year period (2017 to 2050). As illustrated in these two figures, only the magnitude of the surplus deliveries differ between the two baseline conditions (i.e. the frequency of surplus deliveries is similar). L-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 699 of 1200 Nevada The observed magnitude and corresponding frequency of water deliveries to Nevada under the two different modeled baseline conditions were essentially the same. No significant differences in the amount of water that Nevada would receive under the two baseline conditions were observed. Figure L-10 presents a comparison of the 90th, 50th and 10th percentile values for the modeled Nevada water deliveries under the two baseline conditions, respectively. Figure L-11 presents a comparison of the frequency of occurrence of different annual water delivery amounts to Nevada during the modeled 15-year interim surplus criteria period. Figure L-12 presents a similar comparison for the ensuing 34-year period (2017 to 2050). As illustrated in these two figures, there is very little variation in both the frequency and magnitude of water deliveries to Nevada between the two modeled baseline conditions. RIVER FLOWS Only two river segments were observed to be affected by the modeled California intrastate water transfers, they are – the reach of river between Parker Dam and the Palo Verde Diversion Dam and the reach of river between the Palo Verde Diversion Dam and Imperial Dam. The reduced river flow (between 200,000 to 300,000 afy) below Parker Dam is associated with the change in diversion points resulting from the modeled California intrastate water transfers. This amount accounts for approximately 3 to 4 percent of the approximate average seven maf of annual flow r that was observed in these reaches of the Colorado River. The transfersnterio I are anticipated to occur during the peak months when flows in these lower river reaches are e their seasonal highs. 017 f th at pt. o theer 29, 2 ranges that Figures L-13a through L-16b present a graphical comparison of b seasonal flow . De were projected downstream of the Palo Verde Diversion Dam for years 2006, 2016, 2025 and ion v Novem Nat 2050. Therefore, in terms of mean monthly flows, on change in point of diversion of the vajo hived the a transferred water may d in N peak flows that range from 10,000 cfs to 12,500 cfs by as much the , arc ite reduce6864mean monthly flows appears to be significant, the potentially c as 800 cfs. While this reduction in 4-1 reduced flows are still 1 o. within the normal annual flow range of these reaches of the Colorado N River (annual range is between 3,500 cfs to 12,500 cfs). As such, the potential reduced flows are not expected to result in any significant hydrological, environmental or socio-economic impacts. L-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 700 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 701 of 1200 Figure L-1 List of Figures Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers / Lake Powell End of July Water Surface Elevations / 90th, 50th and 10th Percentile Values L-2 Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers / Lake Mead End of December Water Surface Elevations / 90th, 50th and 10th Percentile Values L-3 Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers / Frequency of Flood Control Releases at Lake Mead L-4 Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers / Arizona Annual Depletions / 90th, 50th and 10th Percentile Values L-5 Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers / Arizona Annual Depletions / Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to (Years 2002 – 2016) L-6 Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers / Arizona Annual Depletions / Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to (Years 2017 – 2050) L-7 Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers / California Annual Depletions / 90th, 50th and 10th Percentile Values L-8 Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers / California Annual Depletions / Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to (Years 2002 – 2016) L-9 Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers / California Annual Depletions / Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to (Years 2017 – 2050) L-10 Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers / Nevada Annual Depletions / 90th, 50th and 10th Percentile Values L-11 Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers / Nevada Annual Depletions / Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to (Years 2002 – 2016) L-12 L-13a L-13b r terio InAnnual Depletions / Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers / the 017 f Nevada Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to (Years pt. o 2050) 29, 2 2017 – r . De mbe Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers / Colorado River Flow - Downstream ion v Flows veRepresented by January Flows (Years t of Palo Verde Diversion Dam / Na Seasonn Noas jo Winter ed o 2006 and 2016) Nava in - California rchiv Sensitivityed it Analysis6864, a Intrastate Water Transfers / Colorado River Flow - Downstream c of Palo Verde 4-1 1 Diversion Dam / Winter Season Flows as Represented by January Flows (Years 2025 No. and 2050) L-14a Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers / Colorado River Flow - Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam / Spring Season Flows as Represented by April Flows (Years 2006 and 2016) L-14b Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers / Colorado River Flow - Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam / Spring Season Flows as Represented by April Flows (Years 2025 and 2050) L-15a Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers / Colorado River Flow - Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam / Summer Season Flows as Represented by July Flows (Years 2006 and 2016) L-15b Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers / Colorado River Flow - Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam / Summer Season Flows as Represented by July Flows (Years 2025 and 2050) L-16a Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers / Colorado River Flow - Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam / Fall Season Flows as Represented by October Flows (Years 2006 and 2016) L-16b Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers / Colorado River Flow - Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam / Fall Season Flows as Represented by October Flows (Years 2025 and 2050) L-5 Water Surface Elevation (feet) 3500 2000 3520 3540 3560 3580 3600 3620 3640 3660 3680 3700 2005 2010 2015 2020 L-6 Year 2025 2030 2035 10th Percentile - Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 10th Percentile - Baseline NO TRANSFERS 50th Percentile - Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 50th Percentile - Baseline NO TRANSFERS 2040 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N 10th Percentile vajo hived Na c in ar cited 16864, 90th Percentile - Baseline NO TRANSFERS o. 14 N 90th Percentile - Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 50th Percentile 90th Percentile Figure L-1 Sensitivity Analysis – California Intrastate Water Transfers th th th Lake Powell End of July Water Surface Elevations – 90 , 50 and 10 Percentile Values 2045 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 702 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 703 of 1200 Table L-1 Lake Powell 90th Percentile Water Surface Elevations Date 7/31/02 7/31/03 7/31/04 7/31/05 7/31/06 7/31/07 7/31/08 7/31/09 7/31/10 7/31/11 7/31/12 7/31/13 7/31/14 7/31/15 7/31/16 7/31/17 7/31/18 7/31/19 7/31/20 7/31/21 7/31/22 7/31/23 7/31/24 7/31/25 7/31/26 7/31/27 7/31/28 7/31/29 7/31/30 7/31/31 7/31/32 7/31/33 7/31/34 7/31/35 7/31/36 7/31/37 7/31/38 7/31/39 7/31/40 7/31/41 7/31/42 7/31/43 7/31/44 7/31/45 7/31/46 7/31/47 7/31/48 7/31/49 7/31/50 Baseline with Transfers 3699.2 3699.2 3699.1 3699.3 3699.8 3699.7 3699.4 3699.0 3699.2 3699.0 3698.9 3698.8 3698.5 3698.8 3699.3 3698.7 3699.1 3699.1 3699.1 3699.4 3698.1 3699.1 3699.1 3698.8 3698.9 3699.1 3699.3 3699.1 3699.0 3699.0 3699.2 3698.2 3698.8 3699.4 3698.7 3698.1 3699.2 3699.2 3699.1 3698.6 3698.5 3699.1 3699.0 3699.1 3699.5 3699.3 3698.9 3699.2 3698.8 Baseline No Transfers 3699.2 3699.2 3699.1 3699.3 3699.9 3699.7 3699.4 3699.0 3699.2 3699.1 3698.9 3698.8 3698.5 3698.8 3699.3 3698.7 3699.1 3699.1 3699.1 3699.4 3698.2 3699.1 3699.1 3698.8 3698.9 3698.6 3699.3 3699.0 3699.0 3698.8 3699.2 3698.2 3699.3 3699.4 3699.0 3698.2 3699.3 3699.2 3699.1 3698.7 3698.4 3699.1 3699.0 3699.1 3699.5 3699.3 3698.9 3699.2 3698.8 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. L-7 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 704 of 1200 Table L-2 Lake Powell 50th Percentile Water Surface Elevations Date 7/31/02 7/31/03 7/31/04 7/31/05 7/31/06 7/31/07 7/31/08 7/31/09 7/31/10 7/31/11 7/31/12 7/31/13 7/31/14 7/31/15 7/31/16 7/31/17 7/31/18 7/31/19 7/31/20 7/31/21 7/31/22 7/31/23 7/31/24 7/31/25 7/31/26 7/31/27 7/31/28 7/31/29 7/31/30 7/31/31 7/31/32 7/31/33 7/31/34 7/31/35 7/31/36 7/31/37 7/31/38 7/31/39 7/31/40 7/31/41 7/31/42 7/31/43 7/31/44 7/31/45 7/31/46 7/31/47 7/31/48 7/31/49 7/31/50 Baseline with Transfers 3688.0 3689.4 3688.0 3688.2 3683.5 3684.2 3681.0 3679.3 3677.4 3675.0 3674.8 3670.4 3667.8 3665.8 3665.0 3666.9 3664.5 3663.9 3664.2 3664.5 3664.6 3665.0 3664.7 3667.0 3666.0 3665.6 3664.3 3663.4 3664.4 3665.2 3666.4 3667.2 3668.0 3669.1 3669.6 3671.1 3672.0 3671.8 3672.4 3672.3 3669.5 3669.7 3668.7 3666.3 3666.0 3665.8 3664.6 3662.8 3661.9 Baseline No Transfers 3688.0 3689.4 3688.0 3688.3 3683.5 3684.3 3681.3 3679.6 3677.9 3675.5 3674.8 3670.4 3667.9 3666.0 3665.0 3665.4 3664.6 3663.9 3664.4 3664.5 3664.6 3665.5 3664.7 3667.0 3665.9 3665.6 3664.7 3663.4 3664.5 3665.2 3666.4 3667.2 3668.0 3669.1 3669.6 3671.1 3672.0 3671.8 3672.8 3673.0 3670.2 3670.4 3669.4 3666.4 3666.6 3666.2 3665.6 3663.1 3662.5 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. L-8 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 705 of 1200 Table L-3 Lake Powell 10th Percentile Water Surface Elevations Date 7/31/02 7/31/03 7/31/04 7/31/05 7/31/06 7/31/07 7/31/08 7/31/09 7/31/10 7/31/11 7/31/12 7/31/13 7/31/14 7/31/15 7/31/16 7/31/17 7/31/18 7/31/19 7/31/20 7/31/21 7/31/22 7/31/23 7/31/24 7/31/25 7/31/26 7/31/27 7/31/28 7/31/29 7/31/30 7/31/31 7/31/32 7/31/33 7/31/34 7/31/35 7/31/36 7/31/37 7/31/38 7/31/39 7/31/40 7/31/41 7/31/42 7/31/43 7/31/44 7/31/45 7/31/46 7/31/47 7/31/48 7/31/49 7/31/50 Baseline with Transfers 3671.4 3656.8 3654.6 3645.0 3642.5 3641.2 3636.8 3636.2 3635.4 3631.1 3628.2 3623.9 3621.5 3615.6 3615.0 3606.9 3600.3 3600.3 3600.5 3597.7 3598.7 3595.7 3595.8 3598.2 3596.6 3596.7 3595.5 3595.9 3594.5 3592.2 3591.6 3591.4 3581.0 3580.1 3579.9 3579.3 3569.1 3569.4 3568.2 3566.1 3566.1 3564.9 3563.2 3561.9 3561.2 3560.0 3559.1 3556.4 3552.6 Baseline No Transfers 3671.4 3656.8 3654.6 3645.0 3642.6 3641.3 3636.9 3636.4 3635.6 3631.5 3628.2 3624.1 3621.5 3615.7 3615.2 3607.4 3601.2 3600.7 3601.2 3598.0 3596.8 3595.8 3596.0 3598.4 3596.8 3596.8 3595.5 3596.1 3594.6 3592.2 3592.1 3591.9 3581.0 3580.1 3579.9 3579.3 3569.1 3569.4 3568.2 3566.1 3566.1 3565.1 3562.9 3561.9 3561.2 3560.0 3559.1 3556.5 3552.7 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. L-9 Water Surface Elevation (feet) 1000 2000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200 1220 2005 2010 2015 2020 L-10 Year 2025 10th Percentile 2030 2035 2040 2045 10th Percentile - Baseline WITH TRANSFERS ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov 90th Percentile - Baseline NO TRANSFERS N vajo hived 90th Percentile - Baseline WITH TRANSFERS Na d in 64, arc 50th Percentile - Baseline NO TRANSFERS cite 168 50th Percentile - Baseline WITH TRANSFERS o. 14 10th Percentile - Baseline NO TRANSFERS N 50th Percentile 90th Percentile Figure L-2 Sensitivity Analysis – California Intrastate Water Transfers th th th Lake Mead End of December Water Surface Elevations – 90 , 50 and 10 Percentile Values 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 706 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 707 of 1200 Table L-4 Lake Mead 90th Percentile Water Surface Elevations Date 12/31/02 12/31/03 12/31/04 12/31/05 12/31/06 12/31/07 12/31/08 12/31/09 12/31/10 12/31/11 12/31/12 12/31/13 12/31/14 12/31/15 12/31/16 12/31/17 12/31/18 12/31/19 12/31/20 12/31/21 12/31/22 12/31/23 12/31/24 12/31/25 12/31/26 12/31/27 12/31/28 12/31/29 12/31/30 12/31/31 12/31/32 12/31/33 12/31/34 12/31/35 12/31/36 12/31/37 12/31/38 12/31/39 12/31/40 12/31/41 12/31/42 12/31/43 12/31/44 12/31/45 12/31/46 12/31/47 12/31/48 12/31/49 12/31/50 Baseline with Transfers 1215.2 1215.2 1215.1 1215.2 1215.2 1215.2 1215.1 1215.2 1215.2 1214.7 1215.3 1215.2 1215.2 1215.3 1215.2 1214.7 1215.2 1214.2 1213.7 1212.8 1214.8 1213.9 1214.6 1214.0 1211.5 1214.2 1214.2 1213.5 1214.1 1214.1 1214.7 1214.3 1214.5 1214.2 1213.5 1212.3 1212.7 1210.9 1209.5 1210.9 1210.3 1209.6 1207.9 1211.1 1209.5 1211.8 1209.7 1210.1 1208.9 Baseline No Transfers 1215.2 1215.2 1215.1 1215.2 1215.2 1215.2 1215.1 1215.2 1215.2 1215.2 1215.3 1215.2 1215.3 1215.3 1215.2 1215.0 1215.2 1215.3 1214.9 1213.7 1214.8 1214.0 1214.4 1214.9 1213.9 1214.0 1214.1 1214.1 1214.9 1214.0 1214.9 1214.9 1214.9 1214.3 1213.5 1213.2 1213.2 1213.0 1213.7 1211.4 1212.3 1210.9 1209.9 1213.3 1210.3 1213.0 1211.1 1211.3 1208.7 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. L-11 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 708 of 1200 Table L-5 Lake Mead 50th Percentile Water Surface Elevations Date 12/31/02 12/31/03 12/31/04 12/31/05 12/31/06 12/31/07 12/31/08 12/31/09 12/31/10 12/31/11 12/31/12 12/31/13 12/31/14 12/31/15 12/31/16 12/31/17 12/31/18 12/31/19 12/31/20 12/31/21 12/31/22 12/31/23 12/31/24 12/31/25 12/31/26 12/31/27 12/31/28 12/31/29 12/31/30 12/31/31 12/31/32 12/31/33 12/31/34 12/31/35 12/31/36 12/31/37 12/31/38 12/31/39 12/31/40 12/31/41 12/31/42 12/31/43 12/31/44 12/31/45 12/31/46 12/31/47 12/31/48 12/31/49 12/31/50 Baseline with Transfers 1187.0 1189.5 1187.8 1187.8 1182.0 1178.9 1180.8 1177.6 1177.1 1172.7 1171.4 1167.2 1163.0 1166.6 1159.8 1158.7 1154.0 1148.5 1148.0 1141.1 1137.7 1136.4 1131.9 1130.3 1124.0 1127.5 1124.7 1122.9 1122.2 1121.3 1121.5 1122.0 1119.8 1119.1 1119.3 1119.1 1120.0 1119.6 1115.2 1113.9 1113.0 1112.5 1108.4 1106.3 1108.3 1107.6 1111.5 1110.8 1109.0 Baseline No Transfers 1187.0 1189.7 1188.1 1187.8 1182.2 1179.1 1180.8 1178.2 1177.9 1173.6 1172.1 1167.2 1163.8 1167.1 1162.1 1156.0 1154.0 1149.5 1149.1 1141.9 1138.9 1137.7 1131.9 1132.2 1125.7 1128.0 1124.0 1123.3 1123.0 1122.0 1120.7 1119.8 1120.9 1120.3 1120.7 1118.5 1120.0 1119.6 1117.2 1115.7 1114.6 1113.0 1110.3 1108.8 1109.0 1110.0 1110.2 1111.9 1110.6 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. L-12 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 709 of 1200 Table L-6 Lake Mead 10th Percentile Water Surface Elevations Date 12/31/02 12/31/03 12/31/04 12/31/05 12/31/06 12/31/07 12/31/08 12/31/09 12/31/10 12/31/11 12/31/12 12/31/13 12/31/14 12/31/15 12/31/16 12/31/17 12/31/18 12/31/19 12/31/20 12/31/21 12/31/22 12/31/23 12/31/24 12/31/25 12/31/26 12/31/27 12/31/28 12/31/29 12/31/30 12/31/31 12/31/32 12/31/33 12/31/34 12/31/35 12/31/36 12/31/37 12/31/38 12/31/39 12/31/40 12/31/41 12/31/42 12/31/43 12/31/44 12/31/45 12/31/46 12/31/47 12/31/48 12/31/49 12/31/50 Baseline with Transfers 1176.4 1168.3 1163.1 1156.7 1154.1 1149.9 1142.8 1134.6 1129.0 1122.1 1115.6 1104.6 1098.8 1096.2 1093.4 1088.3 1089.3 1087.0 1083.3 1076.5 1075.9 1067.4 1061.1 1057.2 1051.4 1042.4 1035.3 1029.0 1025.5 1021.6 1021.7 1022.5 1021.3 1016.7 1016.8 1014.2 1013.6 1012.8 1012.0 1010.4 1009.0 1010.4 1010.2 1009.6 1010.5 1009.4 1010.4 1009.4 1008.9 Baseline No Transfers 1176.4 1168.3 1163.0 1156.7 1154.1 1150.1 1142.7 1134.6 1129.3 1122.2 1115.6 1104.8 1099.5 1096.3 1093.3 1088.5 1089.6 1087.7 1083.6 1076.4 1075.9 1067.3 1061.5 1057.2 1051.3 1042.3 1035.6 1028.9 1025.5 1021.6 1021.6 1023.1 1021.1 1015.5 1015.9 1014.4 1013.3 1012.6 1012.0 1010.3 1009.0 1010.4 1010.3 1009.9 1010.5 1010.0 1009.4 1010.0 1009.7 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. L-13 Frequency of Occurrence 0% 2000 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 2005 2010 2015 2020 L-14 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N 2045 Baseline Conditions WITH TRANSFERS Baseline Conditions NO TRANSFERS Figure L-3 Sensitivity Analysis – California Intrastate Water Transfers Frequency of Flood Control Releases at Lake Mead 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 710 of 1200 Annual Depletions (mafy) 1.50 2000 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 Baseline Conditions with and without transfers superimposed for 50th percentile 90th Percentile 2005 2010 2015 2020 L-15 Year 2025 2030 2035 10th Percentile - Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 10th Percentile - Baseline NO TRANSFERS 50th Percentile - Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 50th Percentile - Baseline NO TRANSFERS 2040 2045 ior Inter 17 e 2 of th 2Baseline 0 with ept. ber 9, Conditions 50th and without transfers 10th Percentile . D superimposed for and 10th percentile v tion n Novem a ajo N ived o v Baseline Conditions with and without transfers superimposed for 10th percentile in Na 4, arch cited 1686 90th Percentile - Baseline NO TRANSFERS o. 14 N 90th Percentile - Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 50th Percentile Baseline Conditions with and without transfers superimposed for 90th percentile Figure L-4 Sensitivity Analysis – California Intrastate Water Transfers th th th Arizona Annual Depletions – 90 , 50 and 10 Percentile Values 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 711 of 1200 Annual Depletions (mafy) 1.50 100% 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% L-16 Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to 30% 20% Baseline WITH TRANSFERS Baseline NO TRANSFERS ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Figure L-5 Sensitivity Analysis – California Intrastate Water Transfers Arizona Annual Depletions – Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to (Years 2002 – 2016) 10% 0% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 712 of 1200 Annual Depletions (mafy) 1.50 100% 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 90% 80% 70% 50% 40% L-17 Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to 60% 30% 20% 10% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc Baseline NO TRANSFERS cite 168 14 Baseline WITH TRANSFERS No. Figure L-6 Sensitivity Analysis – California Intrastate Water Transfers Arizona Annual Depletions - Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to (Years 2017 – 2050) 0% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 713 of 1200 Annual Depletions (mafy) 4.30 2000 4.50 4.70 4.90 5.10 5.30 5.50 5.70 2005 2010 2015 50th Percentile 2020 L-18 Year 2025 2030 2035 Baseline Conditions with and without transfers superimposed for 50th and 10th percnetiles 2040 2045 10th Percentile ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v 90th Percentile - Baseline NO TRANSFERS ation on Nov 90th Percentile - Baseline WITH TRANSFERS jo N ved Nava archi 50th Percentile - Baseline NO TRANSFERS in 50th Percentile - Baseline WITH TRANSFERS ited 6864, c 10th Percentile - Baseline NO TRANSFERS -1 o. 14 10th Percentile - Baseline WITH TRANSFERS N 90th Percentile Figure L-7 Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers th th th California Annual Depletions – 90 , 50 and 10 Percentile Values 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 714 of 1200 Annual Depletions (mafy) 4.30 100% 4.50 4.70 4.90 5.10 5.30 5.50 5.70 90% 80% 70% 50% 40% L-19 Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to 60% 30% 20% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline WITH TRANSFERS Baseline NO TRANSFERS Figure L-8 Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers California Annual Depletions – Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to (Years 2002 – 2016) 10% 0% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 715 of 1200 Annual Depletions (mafy) 4.30 100% 4.50 4.70 4.90 5.10 5.30 5.50 5.70 90% 80% 70% 50% 40% L-20 Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to 60% Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 30% 20% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline NO TRANSFERS Figure L-9 Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers California Annual Depletions – Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to (Years 2017 – 2050) 10% 0% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 716 of 1200 Annual Depletions (kafy) 2005 90th Percentile - Baseline NO TRANSFERS 90th Percentile - Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 50th Percentile - Baseline NO TRANSFERS 50th Percentile - Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 10th Percentile - Baseline NO TRANSFERS 10th Percentile - Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 90th Percentile 2010 2015 2020 L-21 Year 2025 10th Percentile 2030 2035 2040 2045 Baseline Conditions with and without transfers superimposed for 50th and 10th r terio Baseline Conditions with Intransfers superimposedand without e for 90th of th 29, 2017 t. p v. De vember n Natio d on No Conditions with and without jo Baseline transfers superimposed for 50th Nava archive d in 6450th Percentile , cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline Conditions with and without transfers superimposed for 10th 200 2000 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Figure L-10 Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers th th th Nevada Annual Depletions – 90 , 50 and 10 Percentile Values 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 717 of 1200 Annual Depletions (kafy) 200 100% 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 90% 80% 70% 50% 40% L-22 Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to 60% 30% 20% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline WITH TRANSFERS Baseline NO TRANSFERS Figure L-11 Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers Nevada Annual Depletions – Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to (Years 2002 – 2016) 10% 0% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 718 of 1200 Annual Depletions (kafy) 200 100% 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 90% 80% 70% 50% 40% L-23 Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to 60% 30% 20% ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline WITH TRANSFERS Baseline NO TRANSFERS Figure L-12 Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers Nevada Annual Depletions – Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to (Years 2017 – 2050) 10% 0% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 719 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 720 of 1200 Figure L-13a Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers Colorado River Flow – Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam Winter Season Flows as Represented by January Flows Years 2006 and 2016 January 2006 25,000 Baseline NO TRANSFERS 20,000 Flow (cfs) Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 ior 75% Inter 17 the Percent of Values Less of or Equal20 pt. than er 29, to . De b ion v Novem at on jo N Nava archived in January 2016 cited 16864, 25,000 14No. 0% 25% 50% 100% Baseline NO TRANSFERS 20,000 Flow (cfs) Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% Percent of Values Less Than or Equal to L-24 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 721 of 1200 Figure L-13b Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers Colorado River Flow – Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam Winter Season Flows as Represented by January Flows Years 2025 and 2050 January 2025 25,000 Baseline NO TRANSFERS 20,000 Flow (cfs) Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 i r 75%o Inter 17 ft e Percent of Values Less thanh Equal to0 pt. o orr 29, 2 . De be ion v Novem at on jo N January 2050 Nava archived in cited 16864, 425,000o. 1 N 0% 25% 50% 100% Baseline NO TRANSFERS 20,000 Flow (cfs) Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% Percent of Values Less than or Equal to L-25 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 722 of 1200 Figure L-14a Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers Colorado River Flow – Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam Spring Season Flows as Represented by April Flows Years 2006 and 2016 April 2006 25,000 Baseline NO TRANSFERS 20,000 Flow (cfs) Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 i r 75%o Inter 17 f the Percent of Values Less than or Equal to0 pt. o er 29, 2 . De b ion v Novem at on jo N Nava archived 2016 in April cited 16864, 25,000 14No. 0% 25% 50% 100% Baseline NO TRANSFERS 20,000 Flow (cfs) Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% Percent of Values Less than or Equal to L-26 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 723 of 1200 Figure L-14b Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers Colorado River Flow – Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam Spring Season Flows as Represented by April Flows Years 20256 and 2050 April 2025 25,000 Baseline NO TRANSFERS 20,000 Flow (cfs) Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 75%or i Interto 17 heEqual 20 Percent of Values Less than or of t ept. ber 29, v. D m ation on Nove N vajo ed in Na 4, archiv April 2050 d cite 1686 425,000o. 1 N 0% 25% 50% 100% Baseline NO TRANSFERS 20,000 Flow (cfs) Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% Percent of Values Less than or Equal to L-27 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 724 of 1200 Figure L-15a Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers Colorado River Flow – Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam Summer Season Flows as Represented by July Flows Years 2006 and 2016 July 2006 40,000 Baseline NO TRANSFERS 35,000 Flow (cfs) 30,000 Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 i r 75%o Inter 17 f the Percent of Values Less than or Equal to0 pt. o er 29, 2 . De b ion v Novem at jo N d on Nava archiveJuly 2016 in cited 16864, 40,000 14No. 0% 35,000 25% 50% 100% Baseline NO TRANSFERS 30,000 Flow (cfs) Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% Percent of Values Less than or Equal to L-28 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 725 of 1200 Figure L-15b Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers Colorado River Flow – Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam Summer Season Flows as Represented by July Flows Years 2025 and 2050 July 2025 40,000 Baseline NO TRANSFERS 35,000 30,000 Flow (cfs) Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 75%or i Interto 17 heEqual 20 Percent of Values Less than or of t ept. ber 29, v. D m ation on Nove N vajo ed in Na 4, archiv July 2050 d cite 1686 440,000o. 1 N 0% 35,000 25% 50% 100% Baseline NO TRANSFERS 30,000 Flow (cfs) Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% Percent of Values Less than or Equal to L-29 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 726 of 1200 Figure L-16a Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers Colorado River Flow – Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam Fall Season Flows as Represented by October Flows Years 2006 and 2016 October 2006 25,000 Baseline NO TRANSFERS 20,000 Flow (cfs) Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 i r 75%o Inter 17 f the Percent of Values Less than or Equal to0 pt. o er 29, 2 . De b ion v Novem at on jo N Nava archived in October 2016 cited 16864, 25,000 14No. 0% 25% 50% 100% Baseline NO TRANSFERS 20,000 Flow (cfs) Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% Percent of Values Less than or Equal to L-30 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 727 of 1200 Figure L-16b Sensitivity Analysis - California Intrastate Water Transfers Colorado River Flow – Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam Fall Season Flows as Represented by October Flows Years 2025 and 2050 October 2025 25,000 Baseline NO TRANSFERS 20,000 Flow (cfs) Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 75%or i Interto 17 heEqual 20 Percent of Values Less than or of t ept. ber 29, v. D m ation on Nove N vajo ed October 2050 in Na 4, archiv d cite 1686 425,000o. 1 N 0% 25% 50% 100% Baseline NO TRANSFERS 20,000 Flow (cfs) Baseline WITH TRANSFERS 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% Percent of Values Less Than or Equal to L-31 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 728 of 1200 ATTACHMENT M Sensitivity Analysis of Modeled Lake Mead Water Level Protection Assumptions This attachment illustrates the water surface elevations of Lake Mead and Lake ior Powell when modeled using a shortage assumption other thane Intused in the FEIS. was er 017 f th In the modeling for the FEIS analysis, it was assumed .that the Lake ,Mead water pt o er 29 2 . De surface elevation of 1083 feet msl would be protected bymb determining the existence ion v Nove draw the water level at of a shortage declaration when the operation threatened to on jo N below 1083. For the sensitivity analysis, the Lake Mead water surface elevation of Nava archived in 1050 feet msl wased as686alternate assumed water level to be protected. The cit used 1 the 4, 14results of the sensitivity analysis are shown by plots of reservoir water levels for No. Lake Mead and Lake Powell. These plots are to be compared with the plots on the corresponding figures in Section 3.3. The plots for elevation 1050 protection were produced by the CRSS model configured in the same manner as for the analysis using the Lake Mead water level of 1083 feet msl as a protection level. In both cases an 80 percent probability of protecting the Lake Mead water level was programmed into the model. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 729 of 1200 ATTACHMENTS Sensitivity Analysis of Shortage Protection Assumptions Overview This attachment to the Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria FEIS presents the results of a sensitivity analysis conducted to assess the effects of using different Lake Mead shortage protection lines in the modeling of the baseline conditions and surplus alternatives. As discussed in Section 3.3.3.4, it was assumed that the Lake Mead water surface elevation of 1083 feet msl would be protected with a certain degree of confidence (approximately 80% of the time). Also, as discussed in Section 3.3.4.1, separate modeling studies were used to determine a “protection line” or trigger such that if Mead’s elevation falls below that line, a Level 1 shortage is declared. The actual assurance achieved with respect to the protection of this level (water surface elevation 1083-foot msl) was about 73% through year 2040. For the sensitivity analysis, the modeling assumptions included a lower protection line (one that would protect Lake Mead water surface elevation of 1050 feet msl approximately 80% of the time). The shortage protection triggers terior used for that were he In comparison of the this purpose are presented graphically in Figure M-1. A graphical 2017 of t ept. ber 29, probability of Lake Mead water surface elevations dropping below 1050 feet msl is v. D ve presented in Figure M-2. This figure ation compares the waterm No surface elevations observed o N ed o under the surplus. As seen in Figure Majthose observed n under the baseline conditionsv Na to hiv d in 64, under 2, the level of protection achievedarc the baseline conditions was approximately ite c 8 75% through the year4-16 and then further decreased to 73 percent by 2050. 1 2040 No. The sensitivity analysis evaluates the effect that a change to the shortage protection assumptions for the baseline conditions, the Basin States alternative, and the Shortage Protection Alternative would have on the water surface elevations of Lakes Powell and Mead. The relative differences in Lake Powell and Lake Mead water levels between the surplus alternatives and the baseline conditions using the 1050 feet msl Lake Mead water level protection criteria were determined to be similar to those observed under the 1083 feet msl Lake Mead water level protection criteria. There is also little to no difference in the observed Lake Powell water levels under the modeled conditions using the 1083 and 1050 feet msl shortage criteria. However, in general, the 1050 feet msl Lake Mead water level protection criteria provided lower Lake Mead water levels under the baseline conditions and the surplus alternatives. Lake Mead Water Surface Elevations Figure M-3 compares the 90th, 50th and 10th Percentile Values of Lake Mead water surface elevations observed under the baseline conditions to that of the surplus alternatives, using the 1050 shortage protection triggers. This figure can be compared to Figure 3.3-13 in Volume I of the FEIS that reflects the same information using the 1083 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS M-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 730 of 1200 ATTACHMENTS feet protection criteria. In Figure M-4, a direct comparison of the 90th, 50th, and 10th percentile values of the observed Lake Mead elevations for each shortage assumption is shown for baseline conditions. Figures M-5 and M-6 show the same comparison for the Shortage Protection and Basin States Alternatives, respectively. As noted in these three figures, the 90th percentile values for the three modeled conditions are similar. There are some differences between the 50th percentile values and the 10th percentile values of the three modeled conditions. Generally, the 50th and 10th percentile values are similar during the initial years and then depart. Departures are observed much earlier in time for the Shortage Protection Alternative (Figure M-6), then the Basin States Alternative (Figure M-5) and finally the baseline conditions (Figure M-4). Lower lake water levels are observed for the modeled conditions that use the 1050 feet msl shortage protection criteria. This is attributable to the more liberal modeled criteria that allows the lake to be drawn down to lower levels before the shortage triggers kick-in and water delivery reductions begin. Summaries of the observed differences in Lake Mead water levels are presented in Tables M-1, M-2 and M-3. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Table M-1 Lake Mead Water Surface Elevations th th th 90 , 50 and 10 Percentile Values for Baseline Conditions Comparison of Lake Mead Shortage Protection Criteria (1083 to 1050) Departures (49-year Period) th 10 Percentile th th 90 Percentile Values 50 Percentile Values Values Maximum Departure 1.65 14.73 12.80 Minimum Departure -0.62 0.00 0.00 Average Departure 0.06 5.45 4.60 Table M-2 Lake Mead Water Surface Elevations th th th 90 , 50 and 10 Percentile Values for Basin States Alternative Comparison of Lake Mead Shortage Protection Criteria (1083 to 1050) Departures (49-year Period) th 10 Percentile th th 90 Percentile Values 50 Percentile Values Values Maximum Departure 1.62 14.84 12.96 Minimum Departure -0.64 0.00 0.00 Average Departure 0.10 5.92 5.15 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS M-2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 731 of 1200 ATTACHMENTS Table M-3 Lake Mead Water Surface Elevations th th th 90 , 50 and 10 Percentile Values for Shortage Protection Alternative Comparison of Lake Mead Shortage Protection Criteria (1083 to 1050) Departures (49-year Period) th 10 Percentile th th 90 Percentile Values 50 Percentile Values Values Maximum Departure 3.36 23.56 26.22 Minimum Departure -1.84 0.00 0.00 Average Departure 0.23 9.21 9.72 Lake Powell Water Surface Elevations Figure M-7 compares the 90th, 50th and 10th percentile Lake Powell water surface elevations observed under the baseline conditions and all of the surplus alternatives, using the 1050 shortage protection triggers. This figure can be compared to Figure 3.3-6 in Volume I of the FEIS that reflects the same information using the 1083 feet protection criteria. In Figure M-8, a direct comparison of the 90th, 50th, and 10th percentile Lake Powell elevations for each shortage protection assumption is shown for ior baseline conditions. Figures M-9 and M-10 show the same comparison for7 Shortage Inter 1 the the Protection and Basin States Alternatives respectively.t.Asf shown29, 20 M-8, M-9 p o er in Figures e b and M-10, differences observed under the n v. D Basin States Alternative and io baseline, ovem to be insignificant. This at N Shortage Protection Alternative jo N are minimum on considered and Nava archived indicates that the use of different Lake Mead shortage protection criteria has very little in cited 168 water to no impact on Lake Powell 64, surface elevations. No. 14- Summaries of the observed differences in Lake Powell water levels are presented in Tables M-4, M-5 and M-6. Table M-4 Lake Powell Water Surface Elevations th th th 90 , 50 and 10 Percentile Values for Baseline Conditions Comparison of Lake Mead Shortage Protection Criteria (1083 to 1050) Departures (49-year Period) th 10 Percentile th th 90 Percentile Values 50 Percentile Values Values Maximum Departure 0.48 0.00 0.00 Minimum Departure -0.13 0.00 0.00 Average Departure 0.02 0.00 0.00 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS M-3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 732 of 1200 ATTACHMENTS Table M-5 Lake Powell Water Surface Elevations th th th 90 , 50 and 10 Percentile Values for Basin States Alternative Comparison of Lake Mead Shortage Protection Criteria (1083 to 1050) Departures (49-year Period) th 10 Percentile th th 90 Percentile Values 50 Percentile Values Values Maximum Departure 0.20 0.00 0.00 Minimum Departure -0.13 0.00 0.00 Average Departure 0.01 0.00 0.00 Table M-6 Lake Powell Water Surface Elevations th th th 90 , 50 and 10 Percentile Values for Shortage Protection Alternative Comparison of Lake Mead Shortage Protection Criteria (1083 to 1050) Departures (49-year Period) th 10 Percentile th th 90 Percentile Values 50 Percentile Values Values Maximum Departure 0.25 2.78 5.37 Minimum Departure -0.02 0.00 0.00 Average Departure 0.03 0.33 1.68 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS M-4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 733 of 1200 ATTACHMENTS List of Figures M-1 Lake Mead Level 1 Shortage Triggers M-2 Lake Mead Water Surface Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Percent of Values Greater Than or Equal to 1050 feet (80P-1050) M-3 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline for 1050 Shortage Protection th th th 90 , 50 , and 10 Percentile Values M-4 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations Comparison of Shortage Assumptions for Baseline Conditions th th th 90 , 50 , and 10 Percentile Values M-5 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations Comparison of Shortage Assumptions for Basin States Alternative th th th 90 , 50 , and 10 Percentile Values M-6 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations Comparison of Shortage Assumptions for Shortage Protection Alternative th th th 90 , 50 , and 10 Percentile Values M-7 Lake Powell End-of-July Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives and Baseline for 1050 Shortage Protection M-8 M-9 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb Lake Powell End-of-July Water Elevations ation on Nove N Comparison of Shortagevajo Assumptions for d Baseline Conditions th th th Na hive 90 , 50 , and 10n Percentile Values di , arc cite 16864 Lake Powell End-of-July Water Elevations 14Comparison of Shortage Assumptions for Basin States Alternative No. th th th 90 , 50 , and 10 Percentile Values M-10 Lake Powell End-of-July Water Elevations Comparison of Shortage Assumptions for Shortage Protection Alternative th th th 90 , 50 , and 10 Percentile Values COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS M-5 1000 2000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200 1220 2005 2010 2015 2020 M-6 2025 Year 2030 2035 2040 2050 12/8/00 2:09 PM 2045 Shortage Trigger for Protection of 1050 foot Elevation Shortage Trigger for Protection of 1083 foot Elevation ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Water Surface Elevation (feet) Figure M-1 Lake Mead Level 1 Shortage Triggers Assumed for Modeling ATTACHMENTS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 734 of 1200 50% 2000 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 2005 2010 2015 2020 M-7 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050 12/8/00 2:09 PM 2045 Shortage Protection Alternative California Alternative Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Baseline Conditions COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Percentage of Values Greater than or Equal to 1050 feet 100% Figure M-2 Lake Mead Water Surface Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Percent of Values Greater than or Equal to 1050 (80P-1050) ATTACHMENTS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 735 of 1200 1000 2000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200 1220 90th Percentile 2005 2010 2015 2020 M-8 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050 12/8/00 2:09 PM 2045 10th Percentile Shortage Protection Alternative California Alternative Six States Alternative ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. 50th Percentile . De ember v tion n Nov a ajo N ived o v in Na 4, arch cited 1686 Baseline Conditions 14Basin States Alternative No. Flood Control Alternative Figure M-3 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline for 1050 Shortage Protection th th th 90 , 50 , and 10 Percentile Values COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Water Surface Elevation (feet) ATTACHMENTS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 736 of 1200 1000 2000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200 1220 2005 2010 2015 2020 M-9 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 12/8/00 2:09 PM 90th % - Baseline Conditions (80P-1083) 90th % - Baseline Conditions (80P-1050) 50th % - Baseline Conditions (80P-1083) 50th % - Baseline Conditions (80P-1050) 10th % - Baseline Conditions (80P-1083) 10th % - Baseline Conditions (80P-1050) ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Water Surface Elevation (feet) Figure M-4 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations Comparison of Shortage Assumptions for Baseline Conditions th th th 90 , 50 , and 10 Percentile Values ATTACHMENTS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 737 of 1200 1000 2000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200 1220 50th % - Basin States Alternative (80P-1083) 90th % - Basin States Alternative (80P-1050) 90th % - Basin States Alternative (80P-1083) 2005 2010 2015 2020 M-10 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 10th % - Basin States Alternative (80P-1083) 50th % - Basin States Alternative (80P-1050) r terio InAlternative17 10th % - Basine (80P-1050) th States t. of r 29, 20 p v. De vembe n Natio d on No jo Nava archive in cited 16864, o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Water Surface Elevation (feet) Figure M-5 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations Comparison of Shortage Assumptions for Basin States Alternative th th th 90 , 50 , and 10 Percentile Values 12/8/00 2:09 PM 2050 ATTACHMENTS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 738 of 1200 1000 2000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200 1220 2005 2010 2015 2020 M-11 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 12/8/00 2:09 PM 10th % - Shortage Protection Alternative (80P-1083) 50th % - Shortage Protection Alternative (80P-1050) ior Inter 17(80P-1050) 10th % - Shortagee th Protection Alternative t. of r 29, 20 p v. De vembe n Natio d on No jo Nava archive in cited 16864, o. 14 N 50th % - Shortage Protection Alternative (80P-1083) 90th % - Shortage Protection Alternative (80P-1050) 90th % - Shortage Protection Alternative (80P-1083) Figure M-6 Lake Mead End-of-December Water Elevations Comparison of Shortage Assumptions for Shortage Protection Alternative th th th 90 , 50 , and 10 Percentile Values COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Water Surface Elevation (feet) ATTACHMENTS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 739 of 1200 3500 2000 3520 3540 3560 3580 3600 3620 3640 3660 3680 3700 3720 2005 2010 2015 Shortage Protection Alternative California Alternative Six States Alternative Flood Control Alternative Basin States Alternative Baseline Conditions 2020 M-12 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 50th Percentile 90th Percentile ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 10th Percentile o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Water Surface Elevation (feet) Figure M-7 Lake Powell End-of-July Water Elevations Comparison of Surplus Alternatives and Baseline for 1050 Shortage Protection th th th 90 , 50 , and 10 Percentile Values 2050 12/8/00 2:09 PM 2045 ATTACHMENTS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 740 of 1200 3500 2000 3520 3540 3560 3580 3600 3620 3640 3660 3680 3700 3720 2005 2010 2015 2020 90th % - Baseline Conditions (80P-1083) 90th % - Baseline Conditions (80P-1050) 50th % - Baseline Conditions (80P-1083) 50th % - Baseline Conditions (80P-1050) 10th % - Baseline Conditions (80P-1083) 10th % - Baseline Conditions (80P-1050) M-13 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Water Surface Elevation (feet) Figure M-8 Lake Powell End-of-July Water Elevations Comparison of Shortage Assumptions for Baseline Conditions th th th 90 , 50 , and 10 Percentile Values 12/8/00 2:09 PM 2050 ATTACHMENTS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 741 of 1200 3500 2000 3520 3540 3560 3580 3600 3620 3640 3660 3680 3700 3720 2005 2010 2015 2020 10th % - Basin States Alternative (80P-1050) 10th % - Basin States Alternative (80P-1083) 50th % - Basin States Alternative (80P-1050) 50th % - Basin States Alternative (80P-1083) 90th % - Basin States Alternative (80P-1050) 90th % - Basin States Alternative (80P-1083) M-14 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Water Surface Elevation (feet) Figure M-9 Lake Powell End-of-July Water Elevations Comparison of Shortage Assumptions for Basin States Alternative th th th 90 , 50 , and 10 Percentile Values 2050 12/8/00 2:09 PM 2045 ATTACHMENTS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 742 of 1200 3500 2000 3520 3540 3560 3580 3600 3620 3640 3660 3680 3700 3720 2005 2010 2015 2020 M-15 Year 2025 10th % - Shortage Protection Alternative (80P-1050) 10th % - Shortage Protection Alternative (80P-1083) 50th % - Shortage Protection Alternative (80P-1050) 50th % - Shortage Protection Alternative (80P-1083) 90th % - Shortage Protection Alternative (80P-1050) 90th % - Shortage Protection Alternative (80P-1083) 2030 2035 2040 2045 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Water Surface Elevation (feet) Figure M-10 Lake Powell End-of-July Water Elevations Comparison of Shortage Assumptions for Shortage Protection Alternative th th th 90 , 50 , and 10 Percentile Values 12/8/00 2:09 PM 2050 ATTACHMENTS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 743 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 744 of 1200 ATTACHMENT N Comparison of Colorado River Flows This attachment presents a comparison of seasonal Colorado River flows between the baseline conditions and the alternatives. The comparison is made by means of a r group of plots for each of four stations along the river. Each group erio Int corresponds to a single modeled flow measurement location on the river of the figure017 a and each 2 within ept. the seasonal , r 29figures is further D group corresponds to one of the four seasons. .Each of mbe nv e divided into four sub-figures. EachNatio sub-figure dealsov a separate modeled year. o on N with ajflow is ipresented in this manner for the following d Data describing ColoradoNav River h ve d in the64, arcNational Wildlife Refuge diversion; upstream locations: downstream of 8 Havasu cite 16 of the Colorado River Indian Reservation diversion; downstream of the Palo Verde 14No. Irrigation District diversion; and below Mexico’s diversion at Morelos Dam. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 745 of 1200 Index of Flow Data Plots ior Inter 17 0 Figures Station h ft e pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb N-1a through N-4b Havasu NWR ation on Nove jo N ved N-5a through N-8b Nava archiColorado River Indian Reservation in ited 68N-12b cN-9a through 64, Palo Verde Diversion Dam -1 . 14through N-16b Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam o NN-13a COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 746 of 1200 Figure N-1a Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Havasu NWR Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2006 and 2016 Jan u ary 2006 25,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative 20,000 Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative Flow (c fs ) 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 0 0 f the pt. o 75% 29, 2 100% e r 0% 25% 50% be v. D t V a s Le N tha em aofionlueon s s ovn or Equa l to P e rcN jo e nt Nava archived in cited 16864, 14Jan u ary 2016 No. 25,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative 20,000 Flow (cfs) Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rce n t o f V a lu e s L e ss th a n o r Eq u a l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-2 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 747 of 1200 Figure N-1b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Havasu NWR Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2026 and 2050 Jan u ary 2026 25,000 Flow (cfs) 20,000 15,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protec tion A lternative 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 0 0 f the pt. o 75%r 29, 2 100% e e 0% 25% .D n v50% ov mb atiolu e sonss th a neo r Eq u a l to N P e rce nN f V a Le jo t o Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Jan u ary 2050 25,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protec tion A lternative Flow (cfs) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rce n t o f V a lu e s L e ss th a n o r Eq u a l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-3 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 748 of 1200 Figure N-2a Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Havasu NWR Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2006 and 2016 Ap ril 2006 25,000 Flow (c fs ) 20,000 15,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative 10,000 Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative 5,000 ior Inter 17 0 f the 0% 25% 50% pt. o 75% 29, 2 100% etha n or Equa lrto P e rc e nt of V a luev. Ds s Le s mbe ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Ap ril 2016 o. 14 25,000 N 0 Flow (cfs) 20,000 15,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative 10,000 Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rce n t o f V a lu e s L e ss th a n o r Eq u a l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-4 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 749 of 1200 Figure N-2b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Havasu NWR Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2026 and 2050 Ap ril 2026 25,000 Flow (cfs) 20,000 15,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternativ e 10,000 Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternativ e 5,000 ior Inter 100% 0% 25% 50% 17 the f 75% t or u r to 0 pa.n o Eqea l 29, 2 P e rce n t o f V a lu e s . e ss th L De b ion v Novem at on jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Ap ril 2050 . 1425,000 No 0 Flow (cfs) 20,000 15,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternativ e 10,000 Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternativ e 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rce n t o f V a lu e s L e ss th a n or Eq u a l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-5 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 750 of 1200 Figure N-3a Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Havasu NWR Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2006 and 2016 Ju ly 2006 40,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative 35,000 30,000 Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative Flow (c fs ) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 the 20 0% 25% 50% pt. of 75% etha n or Equa lrto29, 100% D P e rc e nt of V a n v. s s lue s Le mbe atio on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Ju ly 2016 o. 14 40,000 N 0 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative 35,000 Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative 30,000 Flow (cfs) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rce n t o f V a lu e s L e ss th a n o r Eq u a l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-6 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 751 of 1200 Figure N-3b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Havasu NWR Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2026 and 2050 Ju ly 2026 40,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e 35,000 30,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e Flow (cfs) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 017 f the pt.n o r Eqer l29, 2 P e rce n t o f V a lu e v. e ss th a o b u a to s L De em ion Nat d on Nov vajo e in Na 4, archiv d cite 1686 Ju ly 2050 o. 14 40,000 N 0 35,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e 30,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e Flow (cfs) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rce n t o f V a lu e s L e ss th a n o r Eq u a l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-7 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 752 of 1200 Figure N-4a Colorado River Seasonal Flows Upstream of Colorado River Indian Reservation Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2006 and 2016 Octo b er 2006 30,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative 25,000 Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative Flow (c fs ) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 f the pt. o Equa lrto29, 2 P e rc e nt of V a lue s . Ds tha n or Le s e v mbe ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Octo b er 2016 30,000 14 No. 0 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative 25,000 Flow (cfs) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rce n t o f V a lu e s L e ss th a n o r Eq u a l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-8 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 753 of 1200 Figure N-4b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Upstream of Colorado River Indian Reservation Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2026 and 2050 Octo b er 2026 30,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e 25,000 Flow (cfs) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 ior Inter 100% 7 he P e rce n t o f V a lu e s L e ss th a. of t u a l to , 201 pt n o r Eqer 29 . De b ion v Novem at on jo N Nava archived 2050 in Octo b er cited 16864, 30,000 14No. 0% 50% 75% Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e 25,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e 20,000 Flow (c fs ) 25% 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rc e nt of V a lue s Le s s tha n or Equa l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-9 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 754 of 1200 Figure N-5a Colorado River Seasonal Flows Upstream of Colorado River Indian Reservation Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2006 and 2016 Jan u ary 2006 25,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative Flow (cfs) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 he 0% 25% 50% . f t75% 9 0 100% pta noo r Eq ura 2to , 2 e P e rce n t o f V a lu e s.LD th e ss be l ion v Novem at on jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Jan u ary 2016 1425,000 No. 0 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative Flow (cfs) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rce n t o f V a lu e s L e ss th a n o r Eq u a l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-10 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 755 of 1200 Figure N-5b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Upstream of Colorado River Indian Reservation Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2026 and 2050 Jan u ary 2026 25,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e Flow (c fs ) 20,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 0 f the 0% 25% 50% pt. o 75%r 29, 2 100% etha n or Equa l to D P e rc e nt of V an v.Le s s lue s mbe atio on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Jan u ary 2050 1425,000 No. 0 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e Flow (c fs ) 20,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rc e nt of V a lue s Le s s tha n or Equa l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-11 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 756 of 1200 Figure N-6a Colorado River Seasonal Flows Upstream of Colorado River Indian Reservation Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2006 and 2016 Ap ril 2006 25,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative Flow (cfs) 20,000 Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 017 f the pt.no r Eqer l29, 2 P e rce n t o f V a lu e v. e ss th a o b u a to s L De em ion Nat d on Nov vajo e in Na 4, archiv d cite 1686 Ap ril 2016 o. 14 25,000 N 0 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative Flow (cfs) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rce n t o f V a lu e s L e ss th a n o r Eq u a l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-12 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 757 of 1200 Figure N-6b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Upstream of Colorado River Indian Reservation Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2026 and 2050 Ap ril 2026 25,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e Flow (c fs ) 20,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protec tion A lternative 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 0 f the 0% 25% 50% pt. o 75%r 29, 2 100% etha n or Equa l to P e rc e nt of V a luev. Ds s Le s mbe ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Ap ril 2050 . 1425,000 No 0 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e Flow (c fs ) 20,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protec tion A lternative 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rc e nt of V a lue s Le s s tha n or Equa l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-13 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 758 of 1200 Figure N-7a Colorado River Seasonal Flows Upstream of Colorado River Indian Reservation Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2006 and 2016 Ju ly 2006 40,000 35,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative 30,000 Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative Flow (cfs) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 017 f the pt.no r Eqer l29, 2 P e rce n t o f V a lu e v. e ss th a o b u a to s L De em ion Nat d on Nov vajo e in Na 4, archiv d cite 1686 Ju ly 2016 o. 14 40,000 N 0 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative 35,000 Flow (cfs) 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rce n t o f V a lu e s L e ss th a n o r Eq u a l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-14 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 759 of 1200 Figure N-7b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Upstream of Colorado River Indian Reservation Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2026 and 2050 Ju ly 2026 40,000 35,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e 30,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e Flow (c fs ) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 the 20 0% 25% 50% pt. of 75% etha n or Equa lrto29, 100% D P e rc e nt of V a n v. s s lue s Le mbe atio on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Ju ly 2050 o. 14 N 40,000 0 35,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e 30,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e Flow (c fs ) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rc e nt of V a lue s Le s s tha n or Equa l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-15 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 760 of 1200 Figure N-8a Colorado River Seasonal Flows Upstream of Colorado River Indian Reservation Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2006 and 2016 Octo b er 2006 30,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative 20,000 Flow (cfs) 25,000 Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 017 f the pt.no r Eqer l29, 2 P e rce n t o f V a lu e v. e ss th a o b u a to s L De em ion Nat d on Nov vajo e in Na 4, archiv d cite 1686 Octo b er 2016 o. 14 N 30,000 0 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative 25,000 Flow (cfs) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rce n t o f V a lu e s L e ss th a n o r Eq u a l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-16 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 761 of 1200 Figure N-8b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Upstream of Colorado River Indian Reservation Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2026 and 2050 Octo b er 2026 30,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e 25,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e Flow (c fs ) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 the 20 0% 25% 50% pt. of 75% etha n or Equa lrto29, 100% D P e rc e nt of V a lue v. s s s Le mbe ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Octo b er 2050 1430,000 No. 0 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e 25,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e Flow (c fs ) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rc e nt of V a lue s Le s s tha n or Equa l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-17 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 762 of 1200 Figure N-9a Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2006 and 2016 Jan u ary 2006 25,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative Flow (c fs ) 20,000 Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 0 f the 0% 25% 50% pt. o 75% 29, 2 100% e tha n or Equarl to P e rc e nt of V a lue s. Le s s v D mbe ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Jan u ary 2016 1425,000 No. 0 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative Flow (cfs) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rce n t o f V a lu e s L e ss th a n o r Eq u a l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-18 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 763 of 1200 Figure N-9b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2026 and 2050 Jan u ary 2026 25,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e Flow (cfs) 20,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 0 f the 0% 25% 50% pt. o 75%r 29, 2 100% eth a n o r Eqe a l to P e rce n t o f V a lu e v. e ss s LD mb u ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Jan u ary 2050 14No. 25,000 0 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e Flow (c fs ) 20,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rc e nt of V a lue s Le s s tha n or Equa l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-19 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 764 of 1200 Figure N-10a Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Diversion Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2006 and 2016 Ap ril 2006 25,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative Flow (cfs) 20,000 Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% the 017 t f pa.n o r Eqer l29, 2 P e rce n t o f V a lu e v. e ss th s L De o b u a to m ion at Nove N n vajo ed o in Na 4, archiv cited 1686 Ap ril 2016 o. 14 25,000 N 0 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative Flow (cfs) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rce n t o f V a lu e s L e ss th a n o r Eq u a l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-20 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 765 of 1200 Figure N-10b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2026 and 2050 Ap ril 2026 25,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e 20,000 Flow (c fs ) Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 the 20 0% 25% 50% pt. of 75% etha n or Equa lrto29, 100% P e rc e nt of V a luev. Ds s Le s mbe ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Ap ril 2050 o. 14 N 25,000 0 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e Flow (c fs ) 20,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rc e nt of V a lue s Le s s tha n or Equa l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-21 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 766 of 1200 Figure N-11a Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2006 and 2016 Ju ly 2006 40,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative 35,000 30,000 Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative Flow (cfs) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 017 f the pt.no r Eqer l29, 2 P e rce n t o f V a lu ev. e ss th a o b u a to s L De em ion Nat d on Nov vajo e in Na 4, archiv d cite 1686 Ju ly 2016 o. 14 40,000 N 0 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative 35,000 Flow (cfs) 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rce n t o f V a lu e s L e ss th a n o r Eq u a l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-22 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 767 of 1200 Figure N-11b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2026 and 2050 Ju ly 2026 40,000 35,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e 30,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e Flow (c fs ) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 0 f the 0% 25% 50% pt. o 75%r 29, 2 100% e tha n or Equa l to D P e rc e nt of V an v.Le s s lue s mbe atio on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Ju ly 2050 o. 14 N 40,000 0 35,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e 30,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e Flow (c fs ) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rc e nt of V a lue s Le s s tha n or Equa l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-23 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 768 of 1200 Figure N-12a Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2006 and 2016 Octo b er 2006 30,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative 25,000 Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative Flow (c fs ) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 0 f the 0% 25% 50% pt. o 75% 29, 2 100% etha n or Equa lrto P e rc e nt of V a luev. Ds s Le s mbe ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Octo b er 2016 30,000 14No. 0 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative 25,000 Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative Flow (c fs ) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rc e nt of V a lue s Le s s tha n or Equa l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-24 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 769 of 1200 Figure N-12b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Downstream of Palo Verde Diversion Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2026 and 2050 Octo b er 2026 30,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e 20,000 Flow (c fs ) 25,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 0 f the 0% 25% 50% pt. o 75% 29, 2 100% etha n or Equa lrto P e rc e nt of V a luev. Ds s Le s mbe ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Octo b er 2050 1430,000 No. 0 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e 20,000 Flow (c fs ) 25,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rc e nt of V a lue s Le s s tha n or Equa l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-25 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 770 of 1200 Figure N-13a Colorado River Seasonal Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2006 and 2016 Jan u ary 2006 25,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative Flow (c fs ) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 0 f the 0% 25% 50% pt. o 75% 29, 2 100% e tha n or Equar to P e rc e nt of V a lue s.Le s s v D mbe l ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Jan u ary 2016 1425,000 No. 0 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative Flow (cfs) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rce n t o f V a lu e s L e ss th a n o r Eq u a l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-26 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 771 of 1200 Figure N-13b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2026 and 2050 Jan u ary 2026 25,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e Flow (cfs) 20,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 0 f the 0% 25% 50% pt. o 75%r 29, 2 100% eth a n o r Eqe a l to P e rce n t o f V a lu e v. e ss s LD mb u ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Jan u ary 2050 14No. 25,000 0 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e Flow (c fs ) 20,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rc e nt of V a lue s Le s s tha n or Equa l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-27 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 772 of 1200 Figure N-14a Colorado River Seasonal Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2006 and 2016 Ap ril 2006 25,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative 20,000 Flow (c fs ) Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 0 f the 0% 25% 50% pt. o 75%r 29, 2 100% etha n or Equa l to P e rc e nt of V a luev. Ds s Le s mbe ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Ap ril 2016 o. 14 25,000 N 0 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative Flow (c fs ) 20,000 Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rc e nt of V a lue s Le s s tha n or Equa l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-28 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 773 of 1200 Figure N-14b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2026 and 2050 Ap ril 2026 25,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e 20,000 Flow (c fs ) Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 0 f the 0% 25% 50% pt. o 75% 29, 2 100% etha n or Equa lrto D P e rc e nt of V a n v. s s lue s Le mbe atio on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Ap ril 2050 o. 14 25,000 N 0 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e Flow (c fs ) 20,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rc e nt of V a lue s Le s s tha n or Equa l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-29 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 774 of 1200 Figure N-15a Colorado River Seasonal Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2006 and 2016 Ju ly 2006 40,000 35,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative 30,000 Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative Flow (c fs ) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 0 f the 0% 25% 50% pt. o 75% 29, 2 100% etha n or Equa lrto P e rc e nt of V a luev. Ds s Le s mbe ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Ju ly 2016 40,000 14o. N 0 35,000 25,000 Flow (c fs ) 30,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rc e nt of V a lue s Le s s tha n or Equa l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-30 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 775 of 1200 Figure N-15b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2026 and 2050 Ju ly 2026 40,000 35,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e 30,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e Flow (c fs ) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 the 0 0% 25% 50% pt. of 75% 2 2 etha n or Equa lrto 9, 100% D P e rc e nt of V an v.Le s s lue s mbe atio on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Ju ly 2050 o. 14 40,000 N 0 35,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e 30,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e Flow (c fs ) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rc e nt of V a lue s Le s s tha n or Equa l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-31 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 776 of 1200 Figure N-16a Colorado River Seasonal Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2006 and 2016 Octo b er 2006 30,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative 25,000 Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative Flow (c fs ) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 0 f the 0% 25% 50% pt. o 75% 29, 2 100% etha n or Equa lrto P e rc e nt of V a lue s . D vLe s s mbe ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Octo b er 2016 1430,000 No. 0 20,000 Flow (c fs ) 25,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternativ e Flood Control A lternative Six States A lternativ e Calif ornia A lternativ e Shortage Protec tion A lternative 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rc e nt of V a lue s Le s s tha n or Equa l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-32 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 777 of 1200 Figure N-16b Colorado River Seasonal Flows Below Mexico Diversion at Morelos Dam Comparison of Surplus Alternatives to Baseline Conditions for Modeled Years 2026 and 2050 Octo b er 2026 30,000 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e 25,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e Flow (c fs ) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 ior Inter 17 0 f the 0% 25% 50% pt. o 75% 29, 2 100% etha n or Equa lrto D P e rc e nt of V a n v. s s lue s Le mbe atio on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, Octo b er 2050 1430,000 No. 0 Bas eline Conditions Bas in States A lternative Flood Control A lternativ e 20,000 Flow (c fs ) 25,000 Six States A lternative Calif ornia A lternative Shortage Protection A lternativ e 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% P e rc e nt of V a lue s Le s s tha n or Equa l to COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS N-33 100% Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 778 of 1200 ATTACHMENT O Water Supply for Lower Division States This attachment presents additional plots of the projected amounts of water that would be available to each Lower Division state under baseline conditions and the r interim surplus criteria alternatives. The plots show, for each year, erio Int the annual th 017 f h and amount available (depletions) under the maximum; 90. , 50tth, e 10th percentiles; pt o er 29, 2 and minimum values as discussed in Sectionv. DWater Supply. 3.4, e mb n e Natio d on Nov ajo ive Nav d in 64, arch cite 168 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 779 of 1200 Index of State Depletion Plots Figure O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6 O-7 O-8 O-9 O-10 O-11 O-12 O-13 O-14 O-15 O-16 O-17 O-18 Title Arizona Modeled Annual Depletions Under Baseline Conditions Arizona Modeled Annual Depletions Under Basin States Alternative Arizona Modeled Annual Depletions Under Flood Control Alternative Arizona Modeled Annual Depletions Under Six States Alternative Arizona Modeled Annual Depletions Under California Alternative Arizona Modeled Annual Depletions Under Shortage Protection Alternative California Modeled Annual Depletions Under Baseline Conditions California Modeled Annual Depletions Under Basin States Alternative California Modeled Annual Depletions Under Flood Control Alternative ior Inter 17 California Modeled Annual Depletions Under Six States Alternative 0 f the p . o e 29, 2 California Modeled Annual Depletions UndertCaliforniarAlternative e b v. D California Modeled Annual Depletions Under vem ation on No Shortage Protection Alternative jo N Nevada Modeled Annual Depletions Under Baseline Conditions Nava archived Nevada d in 64, cite Modeled Annual Depletions Under Basin States Alternative 168Annual Depletions Under Flood Control Alternative Nevada 14Modeled No. Nevada Modeled Annual Depletions Under Six States Alternative Nevada Modeled Annual Depletions Under California Alternative Nevada Modeled Annual Depletions Under Shortage Protection Alternative COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS O-1 Annual Depletion (mafy) 2005 2010 Maximum Values 90th Percentile 50th Percentile 10th Percentile Minimum Values 2015 2020 O-2 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1.40 2000 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90 3.00 3.10 3.20 3.30 3.40 Attachment O-1 Arizona Modeled Annual Depletions Under Baseline Conditions Maximum; 90th, 50th, and 10th Percentile; Minimum Values 2045 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 780 of 1200 Annual Depletion (mafy) 2005 2010 Maximum Values 90th Percentile 50th Percentile 10th Percentile Minimum Values 2015 2020 O-3 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1.40 2000 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90 3.00 3.10 3.20 3.30 3.40 Attachment O-2 Arizona Modeled Annual Depletions Under Basin States Alternative Maximum; 90th, 50th, and 10th Percentile; Minimum Values 2045 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 781 of 1200 Annual Depletion (mafy) 2005 2010 Maximum Values 90th Percentile 50th Percentile 10th Percentile Minimum Values 2015 2020 O-4 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1.40 2000 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90 3.00 3.10 3.20 3.30 3.40 Attachment O-3 Arizona Modeled Annual Depletions Under Flood Control Alternative Maximum; 90th, 50th, and 10th Percentile; Minimum Values 2045 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 782 of 1200 Annual Depletion (mafy) 2005 2010 Maximum Values 90th Percentile 50th Percentile 10th Percentile Minimum Values 2015 2020 O-5 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1.40 2000 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90 3.00 3.10 3.20 3.30 3.40 Attachment O-4 Arizona Modeled Annual Depletions Under Six States Alternative Maximum; 90th, 50th, and 10th Percentile; Minimum Values 2045 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 783 of 1200 Annual Depletion (mafy) 2005 2010 Maximum Values 90th Percentile 50th Percentile 10th Percentile Minimum Values 2015 2020 O-6 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1.40 2000 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90 3.00 3.10 3.20 3.30 3.40 Attachment O-5 Arizona Modeled Annual Depletions Under California Alternative Maximum; 90th, 50th, and 10th Percentile; Minimum Values 2045 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 784 of 1200 Annual Depletion (mafy) 2005 2010 Maximum Values 90th Percentile 50th Percentile 10th Percentile Minimum Values 2015 2020 O-7 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1.40 2000 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90 3.00 3.10 3.20 3.30 3.40 Attachment O-6 Arizona Modeled Annual Depletions Under Shortage Protection Alternative Maximum; 90th, 50th, and 10th Percentile; Minimum Values 2045 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 785 of 1200 Annual Depletion (mafy) 2005 2010 Maximum Values 90th Percentile 50th Percentile 10th Percentile Minimum Values 2015 2020 O-8 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4.00 2000 4.10 4.20 4.30 4.40 4.50 4.60 4.70 4.80 4.90 5.00 5.10 5.20 5.30 5.40 5.50 5.60 Attachment O-7 California Modeled Annual Depletions Under Baseline Conditions Maximum; 90th, 50th, and 10th Percentile; Minimum Values 2045 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 786 of 1200 Annual Depletion (mafy) 2005 2010 Maximum Values 90th Percentile 50th Percentile 10th Percentile Minimum Values 2015 2020 O-9 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4.00 2000 4.10 4.20 4.30 4.40 4.50 4.60 4.70 4.80 4.90 5.00 5.10 5.20 5.30 5.40 5.50 5.60 Attachment O-8 California Modeled Annual Depletions Under Basin States Alternative Maximum; 90th, 50th, and 10th Percentile; Minimum Values 2045 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 787 of 1200 Annual Depletion (mafy) 2005 2010 Maximum Values 90th Percentile 50th Percentile 10th Percentile Minimum Values 2015 2020 O-10 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4.00 2000 4.10 4.20 4.30 4.40 4.50 4.60 4.70 4.80 4.90 5.00 5.10 5.20 5.30 5.40 5.50 5.60 Attachment O-9 California Modeled Annual Depletions Under Flood Control Alternative Maximum; 90th, 50th, and 10th Percentile; Minimum Values 2045 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 788 of 1200 Annual Depletion (mafy) 2005 2010 Maximum Values 90th Percentile 50th Percentile 10th Percentile Minimum Values 2015 2020 O-11 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4.00 2000 4.10 4.20 4.30 4.40 4.50 4.60 4.70 4.80 4.90 5.00 5.10 5.20 5.30 5.40 5.50 5.60 Attachment O-10 California Modeled Annual Depletions Under Six States Alternative Maximum; 90th, 50th, and 10th Percentile; Minimum Values 2045 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 789 of 1200 Annual Depletion (mafy) 2005 2010 Maximum Values 90th Percentile 50th Percentile 10th Percentile Minimum Values 2015 2020 O-12 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4.00 2000 4.10 4.20 4.30 4.40 4.50 4.60 4.70 4.80 4.90 5.00 5.10 5.20 5.30 5.40 5.50 5.60 Attachment O-11 California Modeled Annual Depletions Under California Alternative Maximum; 90th, 50th, and 10th Percentile; Minimum Values 2045 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 790 of 1200 Annual Depletion (mafy) 2005 2010 Maximum Values 90th Percentile 50th Percentile 10th Percentile Minimum Values 2015 2020 O-13 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4.00 2000 4.10 4.20 4.30 4.40 4.50 4.60 4.70 4.80 4.90 5.00 5.10 5.20 5.30 5.40 5.50 5.60 Attachment O-12 California Modeled Annual Depletions Under Shortage Protection Alternative Maximum; 90th, 50th, and 10th Percentile; Minimum Values 2045 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 791 of 1200 Annual Depletion (kafy) 2005 2010 2015 2020 O-14 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 10th Percentile Minimum Values ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 Maximum Values 1490th Percentile No. 50th Percentile COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 200 2000 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 Attachment O-13 Nevada Modeled Annual Depletions Under Baseline Conditions Maximum; 90th, 50th, and 10th Percentile; Minimum Values 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 792 of 1200 Annual Depletion (kafy) 2005 2010 2015 2020 O-15 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 10th Percentile Minimum Values ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 Maximum Values 90th Percentile o. 14 N 50th Percentile COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 200 2000 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 Attachment O-14 Nevada Modeled Annual Depletions Under Basin States Alternative Maximum; 90th, 50th, and 10th Percentile; Minimum Values 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 793 of 1200 Annual Depletion (kafy) 2005 2010 2015 2020 O-16 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 10th Percentile Minimum Values ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 Maximum Values 490th Percentile 1 No. 50th Percentile COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 200 2000 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 Attachment O-15 Nevada Modeled Annual Depletions Under Flood Control Alternative Maximum; 90th, 50th, and 10th Percentile; Minimum Values 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 794 of 1200 Annual Depletion (kafy) 2005 2010 2015 2020 O-17 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 10th Percentile Minimum Values ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 Maximum Values 90th Percentile 14No. 50th Percentile COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 200 2000 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 Attachment O-16 Nevada Modeled Annual Depletions Under Six States Alternative Maximum; 90th, 50th, and 10th Percentile; Minimum Values 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 795 of 1200 Annual Depletion (kafy) 2005 2010 2015 2020 O-18 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 10th Percentile Minimum Values ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 Maximum Values 1490th Percentile No. 50th Percentile COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 200 2000 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 Attachment O-17 Nevada Modeled Annual Depletions Under California Alternative Maximum; 90th, 50th, and 10th Percentile; Minimum Values 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 796 of 1200 Annual Depletion (kafy) 2005 2010 2015 2020 O-19 Year 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 10th Percentile Minimum Values ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 Maximum Values 1490th Percentile No. 50th Percentile COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 200 2000 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 Attachment O-18 Nevada Modeled Annual Depletions Under Six States Alternative Maximum; 90th, 50th, and 10th Percentile; Minimum Values 2050 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 797 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 798 of 1200 ATTACHMENT P Energy Analysis Worksheets This attachment contains worksheets with calculations used for the energy resources analysis in this FEIS. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS AVERAGE: 2002-2016 2017-2050 2002-2050 Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Comparison to Baseline (feet msl) Table 1 3,672 3,662 3,666 3,673 3,662 3,666 3,667 3,662 3,664 3,667 3,662 3,664 3,661 3,662 3,662 3,661 3,662 3,662 0 0 0 -5 0 -2 -5 0 -2 -11 -1 -4 -11 -1 -4 Shortage Flood Protection Control Six States Basin States California Baseline Conditions Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative 3,685 3,685 3,682 3,682 3,678 3,679 3,685 3,685 3,682 3,682 3,678 3,679 3,684 3,684 3,682 3,681 3,675 3,677 3,683 3,683 3,678 3,677 3,671 3,672 3,680 3,680 3,674 3,675 3,667 3,668 3,679 3,679 3,672 3,672 3,663 3,664 3,678 3,678 3,672 3,672 3,663 3,663 3,676 3,676 3,669 3,669 3,660 3,660 3,674 3,674 3,667 3,666 3,656 3,655 3,670 3,670 3,663 3,662 3,653 3,652 3,668 3,668 3,661 3,661 3,651 3,650 3,661 3,661 3,653 3,652 3,650 3,649 3,658 3,658 3,651 3,652 3,650 3,650 3,655 3,655 3,652 3,652 3,651 3,650 3,653 3,654 3,653 3,653 3,652 3,652 3,655 3,655 3,654 3,654 3,652 3,652 3,655 3,655 3,654 3,654 3,653 3,653 3,656 3,656 3,655 3,655 3,655 3,655 3,658 3,658 3,657 3,657 3,657 3,657 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,660 3,660 3,659 3,659 3,658 3,658 3,660 3,660 3,659 3,659 3,659 3,659 3,659 3,659 3,659 3,659 3,657 3,657 3,661 3,661 3,661 3,661 3,660 3,660 3,662 3,662 3,661 3,660 3,658 3,658 3,662 3,662 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,658 3,659 3,659 3,659 3,659 3,659 3,659 3,660 3,660 3,660 3,660 3,660 3,660 3,661 3,661 3,661 3,661 3,661 3,661 3,661 3,661 3,661 3,661 3,661 3,661 3,663 3,663 3,663 3,663 3,663 3,663 3,664 3,664 3,664 3,664 3,664 3,664 3,664 3,664 3,664 3,664 3,664 3,664 3,665 3,665 3,665 3,665 3,665 3,665 3,666 3,666 3,666 3,666 3,666 3,666 3,666 3,666 3,666 3,666 3,666 3,666 3,668 3,668 3,668 3,668 3,668 3,668 3,668 3,668 3,668 3,668 3,668 3,668 3,667 3,667 3,667 3,667 3,667 3,667 3,669 3,669 3,668 3,668 3,667 3,667 3,667 3,667 3,667 3,667 3,666 3,666 3,668 3,667 3,668 3,668 3,668 3,668 3,666 3,666 3,666 3,666 3,666 3,666 3,664 3,664 3,663 3,663 3,663 3,663 3,665 3,666 3,665 3,665 3,665 3,665 3,662 3,662 3,662 3,662 3,662 3,662 3,662 3,662 3,662 3,662 3,662 3,662 3,660 3,660 3,660 3,660 3,660 3,660 3,661 3,661 3,661 3,661 3,661 3,661 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Shortage Flood Protection Control Six States Basin States California Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative 0 -3 -3 -6 -6 0 -3 -3 -6 -6 0 -3 -3 -9 -8 0 -5 -5 -12 -11 0 -6 -5 -13 -12 0 -7 -7 -16 -15 0 -6 -6 -15 -15 0 -7 -7 -16 -16 0 -7 -8 -18 -19 0 -7 -8 -17 -18 0 -7 -7 -16 -18 0 -8 -9 -11 -12 0 -7 -6 -8 -8 0 -3 -3 -4 -4 0 0 0 -2 -2 0 -1 -1 -3 -3 0 -1 -1 -2 -2 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -2 -2 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 0 0 0 -2 -2 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 -4 -4 0 -4 -4 -4 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 0 -1 -2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Average Water Surface Elevation (feet msl) Average Lake Powell Elevation Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 799 of 1200 1,191 1,191 1,189 1,190 1,184 1,182 1,183 1,179 1,180 1,175 1,174 1,169 1,166 1,170 1,163 1,160 1,156 1,152 1,152 1,144 1,141 1,136 1,135 1,134 1,131 1,130 1,127 1,128 1,126 1,124 1,122 1,123 1,122 1,122 1,121 1,119 1,120 1,120 1,118 1,115 1,117 1,113 1,113 1,109 1,109 1,111 1,113 1,113 1,110 1,179 1,126 1,142 AVERAGE: 2002-2016 2017-2050 2002-2050 Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Baseline Conditions 1,180 1,127 1,143 1,191 1,191 1,192 1,191 1,187 1,183 1,183 1,179 1,180 1,175 1,175 1,172 1,172 1,170 1,163 1,160 1,157 1,152 1,152 1,144 1,141 1,136 1,135 1,133 1,132 1,131 1,128 1,130 1,126 1,126 1,128 1,123 1,122 1,121 1,123 1,120 1,120 1,119 1,118 1,119 1,117 1,116 1,113 1,109 1,112 1,113 1,113 1,112 1,110 Flood Control Alternative 1,171 1,123 1,138 1,187 1,187 1,186 1,183 1,179 1,176 1,176 1,173 1,171 1,168 1,164 1,158 1,157 1,157 1,149 1,146 1,139 1,141 1,138 1,135 1,131 1,129 1,131 1,128 1,128 1,128 1,127 1,128 1,123 1,123 1,122 1,121 1,120 1,121 1,121 1,119 1,120 1,120 1,118 1,115 1,117 1,113 1,113 1,109 1,109 1,111 1,113 1,113 1,110 Six States Alternative 1,171 1,123 1,137 1,160 1,119 1,131 1,182 1,182 1,178 1,176 1,169 1,167 1,166 1,161 1,159 1,152 1,151 1,145 1,135 1,136 1,135 1,131 1,129 1,127 1,127 1,123 1,122 1,118 1,119 1,119 1,118 1,123 1,122 1,121 1,122 1,121 1,120 1,119 1,118 1,120 1,120 1,116 1,116 1,120 1,118 1,116 1,118 1,114 1,113 1,109 1,110 1,111 1,113 1,113 1,111 California Alternative 1,160 1,120 1,132 1,183 1,183 1,180 1,178 1,170 1,168 1,164 1,163 1,154 1,151 1,149 1,143 1,142 1,139 1,133 1,130 1,136 1,131 1,131 1,127 1,125 1,126 1,128 1,123 1,118 1,124 1,122 1,123 1,122 1,120 1,119 1,119 1,118 1,120 1,121 1,118 1,116 1,120 1,118 1,115 1,117 1,113 1,113 1,109 1,109 1,111 1,113 1,113 1,110 Shortage Protection Alternative Flood Control Alternative 0 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 2 1 2 0 1 6 0 0 -1 2 1 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 -8 -3 -5 -4 -4 -3 -6 -5 -6 -7 -6 -9 -8 -10 -11 -9 -12 -15 -14 -17 -11 -13 -9 -10 -7 -4 -7 -4 -2 0 0 -3 -1 0 -2 -2 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Six States Alternative -8 -3 -5 -4 -4 -3 -5 -5 -6 -8 -7 -9 -8 -11 -11 -10 -14 -17 -16 -19 -14 -9 -9 -9 -8 -4 -7 -4 -2 -1 -2 -3 -1 0 -2 -4 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Basin States Alternative -19 -7 -11 -9 -9 -11 -14 -16 -15 -17 -19 -21 -23 -23 -24 -30 -33 -28 -29 -27 -25 -25 -21 -19 -18 -16 -15 -13 -7 -5 -7 -3 -4 -2 -4 -4 -2 -1 -3 -4 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 California Alternative Comparison to Baseline (feet msl) -19 -6 -10 -8 -8 -9 -12 -14 -14 -19 -16 -25 -24 -26 -26 -23 -31 -30 -30 -20 -21 -20 -17 -16 -10 -7 -12 -13 -6 -5 -5 -4 -4 -2 -4 -4 -2 0 -1 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shortage Protection Alternative Flood Control Alternative $0 $0 -$67,480 -$24,920 -$68,040 -$28,840 $0 $280 -$16,520 -$3,640 -$19,040 -$75,040 -$187,040 $0 $0 $0 -$21,840 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$9,520 $28,280 -$5,600 -$42,280 -$19,600 -$59,920 -$10,640 -$40,600 -$174,160 -$10,360 -$3,920 $29,680 -$53,200 -$24,080 $0 $10,920 $0 -$104,440 $10,360 -$81,760 $0 $840 -$80,360 -$55,720 $560 $1,960 $560 -$32,685 -$21,025 -$24,594 $214,779 $88,027 $126,829 $117,320 $117,320 $81,200 $178,640 $150,920 $167,720 $186,480 $170,240 $248,640 $212,240 $281,120 $301,840 $251,160 $346,640 $410,200 $394,520 $464,240 $313,040 $370,720 $258,720 $286,720 $200,200 $111,160 $189,840 $101,360 $42,000 $7,000 $2,520 $78,960 $35,000 $1,680 $52,080 $56,560 $16,800 $0 $11,760 $2,800 -$4,760 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Six States Alternative $229,395 $94,352 $135,691 $124,320 $124,320 $92,960 $152,880 $130,480 $175,000 $210,000 $191,240 $246,680 $235,760 $309,680 $307,720 $266,000 $404,040 $469,840 $450,520 $527,800 $378,840 $255,920 $264,600 $256,760 $213,360 $120,680 $182,280 $103,600 $44,800 $25,200 $60,200 $85,960 $35,000 $4,200 $52,080 $111,160 $24,080 $0 $8,120 $2,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Basin States Alternative $544,843 $205,652 $309,486 $253,120 $253,120 $305,760 $392,840 $434,560 $424,760 $475,440 $518,000 $575,960 $636,160 $652,400 $681,520 $843,920 $932,680 $792,400 $808,080 $752,920 $686,840 $696,360 $598,640 $535,920 $493,080 $452,200 $424,200 $371,840 $186,760 $151,200 $205,240 $95,480 $101,920 $58,240 $120,680 $117,600 $43,120 $35,000 $79,520 $106,680 -$15,120 -$3,640 -$19,320 -$14,280 -$17,080 -$4,480 -$4,480 -$16,800 -$21,000 -$4,480 -$4,200 -$4,480 California Alternative $532,635 $170,314 $281,229 $222,600 $222,600 $251,720 $330,400 $395,080 $404,040 $536,200 $453,320 $703,920 $666,400 $715,400 $734,720 $651,000 $854,560 $847,560 $851,760 $552,440 $580,440 $568,680 $479,920 $444,360 $266,280 $197,400 $327,040 $368,200 $165,760 $139,160 $143,080 $99,960 $115,080 $65,800 $123,200 $120,960 $46,200 $0 $24,920 $110,040 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Shortage Protection Alternative Pumping Power Cost Comparison to Baseline ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N 1,187 1,187 1,186 1,184 1,180 1,176 1,175 1,172 1,171 1,167 1,163 1,158 1,156 1,155 1,146 1,144 1,137 1,138 1,142 1,135 1,132 1,128 1,131 1,128 1,128 1,128 1,126 1,126 1,123 1,123 1,122 1,121 1,118 1,121 1,121 1,119 1,120 1,120 1,118 1,115 1,117 1,113 1,113 1,109 1,109 1,111 1,113 1,113 1,110 Basin States Alternative Average Water Surface Elevation (feet msl) Table 2 Average Lake Mead Elevation and Comparison of SNWA Pumping Power Costs Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 800 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 801 of 1200 Table 3 Glen Canyon Dam Discharge Multipliers and Powerplant Capacity vs. Elevation Elevation 3701 3700 3699 3698 3697 3696 3695 3694 3693 3692 3691 3690 3689 3688 3687 3686 3685 3684 3683 3682 3681 3680 3679 3678 3677 3676 3675 3674 3673 3672 3671 3670 3669 3668 3667 3666 3665 3664 3663 3662 3661 3660 3659 3658 3657 3656 3655 3654 3653 3652 3651 Multiplier 23.80692 23.84850 23.89344 23.93840 23.98306 24.02769 24.07231 24.11692 24.16154 24.20538 24.25000 24.29384 24.33846 24.38231 24.42615 24.47000 24.51384 24.55769 24.60076 24.64461 24.68846 24.73153 24.78000 24.82846 24.87692 24.92461 24.97307 25.02077 25.06846 25.11615 25.16385 25.21154 25.25923 25.30692 25.35385 25.40154 25.44846 25.49539 25.54231 25.58923 25.63615 25.68308 25.73539 25.78770 25.83923 25.89154 25.94385 25.99539 26.04692 26.09846 26.15000 Capacity (MW) 1,050 1,048 1,046 1,044 1,042 1,040 1,039 1,037 1,035 1,033 1,031 1,029 1,027 1,025 1,023 1,022 1,020 1,018 1,016 1,014 1,013 1,011 1,009 1,007 1,005 1,003 1,001 999 997 995 993 992 990 988 986 984 982 981 979 977 975 973 971 969 968 966 964 962 960 958 956 Elevation 3650 3649 3648 3647 3646 3645 3644 3643 3642 3641 3640 3639 3638 3637 3636 3635 3634 3633 3632 3631 3630 3629 3628 3627 3626 3625 3624 3623 3622 3621 3620 3619 3618 3617 3616 3615 3614 3613 3612 3611 3610 3609 3608 3607 3606 3605 3604 3603 3602 3601 3600 Multiplier 26.20153 26.25307 26.30384 26.35538 26.40615 26.45692 26.50769 26.55846 26.60923 26.66000 26.71000 26.76692 26.82384 26.88000 26.93692 26.99307 27.04923 27.10538 27.16076 27.21692 27.27307 27.32846 27.38384 27.43923 27.49461 27.55000 27.60461 27.66000 27.71461 27.76923 27.82384 27.88538 27.94692 28.00846 28.07000 28.13076 28.19230 28.25307 28.31384 28.37461 28.43538 28.49538 28.55538 28.61615 28.67615 28.73538 28.79538 28.85538 28.91461 28.97384 29.03307 Capacity (MW) 954 952 950 949 947 945 943 941 940 938 936 934 932 930 928 926 924 922 920 919 917 915 913 911 909 907 906 904 902 900 899 897 895 893 891 889 887 885 883 881 879 877 875 874 872 870 868 866 865 863 861 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 802 of 1200 Table 4 Hoover Dam Powerplant Capacity vs. Elevation Elevation 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 Capacity (MW) 1,863 1,865 1,867 1,868 1,870 1,872 1,873 1,875 1,877 1,878 1,880 1,882 1,884 1,885 1,887 1,889 1,890 1,892 1,894 1,895 1,897 1,899 1,900 1,902 1,904 1,905 1,907 1,909 1,918 1,935 1,936 1,938 1,940 1,942 1,943 1,945 1,963 1,971 1,974 2,003 2,005 2,007 2,008 2,010 2,012 2,014 2,015 2,017 2,019 2,024 2,026 2,027 2,029 2,031 2,033 2,034 2,036 2,038 2,040 2,043 2,044 2,046 2,048 2,050 2,051 Elevation 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 Capacity (MW) 2,053 2,055 2,057 2,058 2,058 2,059 2,060 2,060 2,061 2,061 2,061 2,061 2,061 2,061 2,062 2,062 2,062 2,062 2,062 2,062 2,062 2,062 2,062 2,062 2,062 2,062 2,062 2,062 2,062 2,062 2,062 2,062 2,062 2,062 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Page 1 of 1 AVERAGE: 2002-2016 2017-2050 2002-2050 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 YEAR 997 978 983 1,020 1,020 1,018 1,016 1,011 1,009 1,007 1,003 999 992 988 975 969 964 960 964 964 966 969 969 973 973 971 975 977 977 971 973 975 975 979 981 981 982 984 984 988 988 986 990 986 988 984 981 982 977 977 973 975 4,532 4,086 4,222 4,763 4,778 4,697 4,651 4,607 4,603 4,553 4,532 4,468 4,448 4,408 4,419 4,377 4,351 4,324 4,309 4,305 4,268 4,254 4,226 4,213 4,207 4,193 4,186 4,182 4,159 4,154 4,156 4,135 4,113 4,113 4,096 4,091 4,065 4,050 4,026 4,005 4,005 3,999 3,995 3,975 3,968 3,959 3,957 3,933 3,928 3,912 3,904 3,875 Baseline Conditions CAPACITY (MW) ENERGY (GWh) 997 978 984 4,532 4,087 4,223 4,763 4,777 4,698 4,650 4,606 4,603 4,549 4,530 4,471 4,452 4,407 4,424 4,378 4,347 4,328 4,309 4,303 4,269 4,255 4,227 4,214 4,206 4,192 4,190 4,185 4,154 4,162 4,163 4,133 4,112 4,120 4,096 4,089 4,064 4,055 4,030 4,008 4,006 3,999 3,998 3,976 3,969 3,961 3,958 3,933 3,928 3,913 3,904 3,875 987 977 980 1,014 1,014 1,014 1,007 999 995 995 990 986 979 975 960 956 958 960 962 962 964 968 969 971 971 971 975 975 969 971 973 975 975 979 981 981 982 984 984 988 988 986 988 986 988 984 979 982 977 977 973 975 4,527 4,071 4,211 4,799 4,813 4,733 4,675 4,638 4,606 4,551 4,515 4,438 4,417 4,399 4,389 4,336 4,305 4,285 4,263 4,257 4,234 4,224 4,195 4,195 4,190 4,180 4,167 4,172 4,147 4,143 4,146 4,124 4,102 4,088 4,088 4,077 4,051 4,033 4,014 3,998 3,996 3,993 3,990 3,970 3,962 3,954 3,947 3,925 3,918 3,906 3,898 3,870 Six States Alternative CAPACITY (MW) ENERGY (GWh) 987 977 980 1,014 1,014 1,013 1,005 1,001 995 995 990 984 977 975 958 958 958 960 962 962 964 968 969 971 971 971 975 973 969 971 973 975 975 979 981 981 982 984 984 988 988 986 988 986 988 984 979 982 977 977 973 975 4,527 4,069 4,209 4,802 4,814 4,736 4,679 4,638 4,607 4,553 4,514 4,436 4,416 4,399 4,391 4,329 4,301 4,285 4,257 4,250 4,232 4,222 4,192 4,195 4,188 4,178 4,167 4,170 4,146 4,141 4,144 4,122 4,098 4,086 4,087 4,075 4,049 4,032 4,013 3,996 3,995 3,992 3,989 3,969 3,961 3,954 3,947 3,924 3,917 3,905 3,897 3,870 Basin States Alternative CAPACITY (MW) ENERGY (GWh) 975 976 976 1,007 1,007 1,001 993 986 979 979 973 966 960 956 954 954 956 958 958 960 964 968 969 969 971 968 973 969 969 971 973 975 975 979 981 981 982 984 984 988 988 986 986 984 988 984 979 982 977 977 973 975 4,516 4,050 4,193 4,857 4,864 4,780 4,720 4,661 4,599 4,555 4,481 4,401 4,380 4,342 4,317 4,280 4,256 4,245 4,213 4,209 4,187 4,186 4,159 4,172 4,164 4,159 4,146 4,152 4,126 4,115 4,117 4,095 4,073 4,077 4,064 4,050 4,022 4,016 4,005 3,990 3,987 3,987 3,981 3,962 3,948 3,939 3,934 3,913 3,909 3,897 3,891 3,865 California Alternative CAPACITY (MW) ENERGY (GWh) ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N 1,020 1,020 1,018 1,016 1,011 1,009 1,007 1,003 999 992 988 975 969 964 962 964 964 966 969 969 973 973 971 975 977 977 971 973 975 975 979 981 981 982 984 984 988 988 986 990 986 986 984 981 984 977 977 973 975 Flood Control Alternative CAPACITY (MW) ENERGY (GWh) Glen Canyon Powerplant Summary of Average Annual Capacity and Energy Production Table 5 976 976 976 1,009 1,009 1,005 995 988 981 979 973 964 958 954 952 954 954 958 958 960 964 968 969 969 971 968 973 969 969 971 973 975 975 979 981 981 982 984 984 988 988 986 986 984 988 984 979 982 977 977 973 975 4,518 4,050 4,193 4,841 4,851 4,777 4,721 4,674 4,615 4,563 4,482 4,409 4,392 4,354 4,320 4,275 4,250 4,240 4,213 4,203 4,186 4,181 4,162 4,169 4,166 4,160 4,147 4,151 4,124 4,121 4,120 4,095 4,072 4,075 4,071 4,051 4,021 4,015 4,003 3,988 3,986 3,984 3,980 3,961 3,952 3,937 3,934 3,911 3,911 3,898 3,892 3,865 Shortage Protection Alternative CAPACITY (MW) ENERGY (GWh) Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 803 of 1200 AVERAGE: 2002-2016 2017-2050 2002-2050 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 YEAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 -10 -1 -4 -5 -5 -4 -9 -12 -14 -12 -13 -13 -13 -13 -15 -13 -6 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 0 -2 -2 0 0 -2 -8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 -5 -15 -12 37 34 35 24 31 3 -2 -17 -31 -31 -8 -30 -41 -46 -38 -46 -48 -35 -30 -31 -18 -17 -13 -19 -11 -12 -11 -11 -11 -11 -25 -7 -14 -14 -17 -12 -7 -8 -6 -5 -4 -6 -5 -9 -8 -9 -6 -5 -5 Six States Alternative CAPACITY (MW) ENERGY (GWh) -10 -1 -4 -5 -5 -5 -11 -10 -14 -12 -13 -15 -15 -13 -17 -12 -6 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 0 -2 -2 0 0 -4 -8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 -5 -16 -13 39 36 39 27 32 5 0 -18 -33 -32 -9 -28 -48 -50 -39 -51 -55 -36 -32 -34 -19 -19 -15 -19 -13 -13 -13 -12 -12 -15 -27 -9 -16 -15 -18 -13 -9 -10 -7 -6 -5 -7 -6 -10 -9 -11 -7 -6 -5 Basin States Alternative CAPACITY (MW) ENERGY (GWh) -21 -1 -8 -13 -13 -17 -23 -25 -30 -28 -30 -34 -32 -32 -21 -15 -8 -2 -6 -4 -2 -2 0 -4 -2 -4 -2 -8 -8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 -2 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 -16 -35 -30 94 86 82 68 54 -4 2 -51 -67 -68 -66 -102 -97 -95 -78 -96 -96 -81 -67 -67 -41 -43 -35 -39 -30 -33 -39 -39 -40 -40 -37 -31 -40 -43 -34 -21 -15 -18 -12 -13 -12 -20 -20 -23 -21 -18 -16 -13 -10 California Alternative CAPACITY (MW) ENERGY (GWh) -21 -1 -7 -11 -11 -13 -21 -23 -28 -28 -30 -36 -34 -34 -23 -15 -9 -2 -6 -4 -2 -2 0 -4 -2 -4 -2 -8 -8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 -2 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 -14 -36 -29 79 73 80 70 68 12 10 -51 -59 -56 -54 -99 -102 -101 -83 -96 -101 -82 -73 -64 -44 -40 -34 -39 -31 -35 -33 -37 -40 -41 -38 -25 -40 -44 -36 -23 -17 -18 -15 -15 -14 -16 -23 -23 -22 -17 -15 -12 -10 Shortage Protection Alternative CAPACITY (MW) ENERGY (GWh) ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N 0 -2 0 -2 0 0 -4 -2 3 4 -1 5 1 -4 5 0 -2 1 1 2 1 -1 -1 4 2 -5 7 7 -1 -1 6 1 -2 -1 5 4 3 1 0 4 2 1 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 Flood Control Alternative CAPACITY (MW) ENERGY (GWh) Glen Canyon Powerplant Comparison of Capacity and Energy Production to Baseline Conditions (Average Annual Value) Table 6 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 804 of 1200 AVERAGE: 2002-2016 2017-2050 2002-2050 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 YEAR 2,055 1,902 1,949 2,062 2,062 2,062 2,062 2,061 2,061 2,061 2,059 2,060 2,055 2,053 2,044 2,038 2,046 2,033 2,027 2,017 2,010 2,010 1,945 1,940 1,909 1,907 1,905 1,900 1,899 1,894 1,895 1,892 1,889 1,885 1,887 1,885 1,885 1,884 1,880 1,882 1,882 1,878 1,873 1,877 1,870 1,870 1,863 1,863 1,867 1,870 1,870 1,865 4,685 3,903 4,142 4,451 4,870 4,893 4,853 4,852 4,862 4,781 4,714 4,652 4,621 4,592 4,580 4,553 4,519 4,487 4,479 4,449 4,374 4,389 4,337 4,294 4,230 4,189 4,151 4,108 4,041 3,959 3,958 3,961 3,929 3,887 3,856 3,855 3,840 3,803 3,757 3,727 3,730 3,665 3,650 3,584 3,617 3,606 3,547 3,566 3,565 3,532 3,534 3,532 Baseline Conditions CAPACITY (MW) ENERGY (GWh) 2,056 1,903 1,950 4,686 3,908 4,146 4,451 4,863 4,859 4,836 4,873 4,874 4,777 4,708 4,657 4,626 4,611 4,577 4,553 4,523 4,497 4,474 4,448 4,376 4,389 4,339 4,299 4,241 4,203 4,130 4,124 4,060 3,986 3,954 3,956 3,940 3,888 3,844 3,875 3,837 3,807 3,778 3,740 3,726 3,661 3,649 3,591 3,623 3,623 3,544 3,593 3,577 3,525 3,552 3,511 2,044 1,890 1,937 2,061 2,061 2,061 2,061 2,059 2,057 2,057 2,051 2,048 2,043 2,034 2,024 2,019 2,019 2,005 1,971 1,936 1,940 1,935 1,907 1,900 1,897 1,900 1,895 1,895 1,895 1,894 1,895 1,887 1,887 1,885 1,884 1,882 1,884 1,884 1,880 1,882 1,882 1,878 1,873 1,877 1,870 1,870 1,863 1,863 1,867 1,870 1,870 1,865 4,698 3,823 4,091 4,664 4,993 4,959 4,918 4,890 4,859 4,801 4,721 4,622 4,586 4,561 4,529 4,485 4,472 4,412 4,352 4,309 4,275 4,284 4,226 4,195 4,121 4,110 4,026 3,975 3,941 3,870 3,838 3,805 3,783 3,767 3,741 3,742 3,723 3,711 3,726 3,677 3,645 3,593 3,626 3,569 3,592 3,580 3,552 3,557 3,548 3,526 3,503 3,499 Six States Alternative CAPACITY (MW) ENERGY (GWh) 2,041 1,889 1,935 2,061 2,061 2,061 2,061 2,060 2,057 2,055 2,050 2,048 2,040 2,033 2,024 2,017 2,015 1,971 1,945 1,918 1,935 1,942 1,907 1,902 1,895 1,900 1,895 1,895 1,895 1,892 1,892 1,887 1,887 1,885 1,884 1,878 1,884 1,884 1,880 1,882 1,882 1,878 1,873 1,877 1,870 1,870 1,863 1,863 1,867 1,870 1,870 1,865 4,701 3,816 4,087 4,680 4,994 4,968 4,911 4,901 4,864 4,807 4,714 4,629 4,585 4,571 4,529 4,482 4,464 4,408 4,330 4,308 4,262 4,280 4,216 4,198 4,119 4,092 4,017 3,962 3,939 3,862 3,836 3,784 3,760 3,759 3,732 3,738 3,718 3,708 3,704 3,655 3,643 3,593 3,625 3,568 3,592 3,597 3,544 3,543 3,551 3,517 3,496 3,496 Basin States Alternative CAPACITY (MW) ENERGY (GWh) 2,008 1,880 1,919 2,061 2,061 2,058 2,057 2,044 2,040 2,038 2,029 2,026 2,010 2,008 1,963 1,907 1,909 1,907 1,900 1,897 1,894 1,894 1,887 1,885 1,878 1,880 1,880 1,878 1,887 1,885 1,884 1,885 1,884 1,882 1,880 1,878 1,882 1,882 1,875 1,875 1,882 1,878 1,875 1,878 1,872 1,870 1,863 1,865 1,867 1,870 1,870 1,867 4,709 3,709 4,016 4,956 5,175 5,032 4,987 4,923 4,850 4,816 4,711 4,623 4,543 4,483 4,452 4,407 4,366 4,315 4,151 4,162 4,158 4,182 4,104 4,038 4,007 3,933 3,878 3,825 3,769 3,700 3,692 3,674 3,659 3,642 3,624 3,634 3,619 3,606 3,598 3,544 3,564 3,518 3,563 3,511 3,535 3,509 3,478 3,490 3,479 3,434 3,426 3,413 California Alternative CAPACITY (MW) ENERGY (GWh) ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N 2,062 2,062 2,062 2,062 2,061 2,061 2,061 2,059 2,060 2,055 2,055 2,050 2,050 2,046 2,033 2,027 2,019 2,010 2,010 1,945 1,940 1,909 1,907 1,904 1,902 1,900 1,895 1,899 1,892 1,892 1,895 1,887 1,885 1,884 1,887 1,882 1,882 1,880 1,878 1,880 1,877 1,875 1,870 1,863 1,868 1,870 1,870 1,868 1,865 Flood Control Alternative CAPACITY (MW) ENERGY (GWh) Table 7 Hoover Powerplant Summary of Average Annual Capacity and Energy Production 2,010 1,882 1,921 2,061 2,061 2,060 2,058 2,046 2,043 2,034 2,033 2,014 2,008 2,005 1,943 1,942 1,936 1,904 1,899 1,909 1,900 1,900 1,894 1,890 1,892 1,895 1,887 1,878 1,889 1,885 1,887 1,885 1,882 1,880 1,880 1,878 1,882 1,884 1,878 1,875 1,882 1,878 1,873 1,877 1,870 1,870 1,863 1,863 1,867 1,870 1,870 1,865 4,705 3,756 4,047 4,881 5,127 5,057 5,004 4,931 4,907 4,808 4,711 4,614 4,558 4,479 4,427 4,393 4,359 4,317 4,183 4,180 4,185 4,207 4,121 4,077 4,067 4,010 3,911 3,846 3,834 3,771 3,737 3,710 3,714 3,683 3,659 3,684 3,670 3,666 3,652 3,595 3,619 3,586 3,625 3,564 3,585 3,572 3,524 3,540 3,522 3,488 3,475 3,453 Shortage Protection Alternative CAPACITY (MW) ENERGY (GWh) Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 805 of 1200 AVERAGE: 2002-2016 2017-2050 2002-2050 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 YEAR 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 12 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 2 2 2 3 0 3 10 0 0 -2 3 2 0 -2 0 7 0 5 0 0 5 3 0 -2 0 0 5 3 -11 -12 -12 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -4 -4 -8 -12 -12 -19 -20 -19 -27 -28 -56 -81 -70 -75 -38 -39 -12 -7 -10 -5 -3 0 0 -5 -2 0 -3 -3 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 -80 -51 213 123 67 65 38 -3 19 7 -30 -35 -31 -51 -69 -47 -75 -127 -141 -99 -105 -111 -98 -109 -78 -125 -133 -100 -89 -120 -156 -146 -120 -115 -113 -117 -92 -31 -50 -84 -72 -24 -16 -25 -26 5 -8 -16 -6 -31 -33 Six States Alternative CAPACITY (MW) ENERGY (GWh) -14 -14 -14 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -4 -6 -9 -12 -15 -20 -20 -21 -31 -62 -83 -100 -75 -69 -38 -38 -13 -7 -10 -5 -3 -2 -3 -5 -2 0 -3 -7 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 -87 -56 228 124 75 58 49 2 26 0 -23 -35 -21 -51 -72 -55 -79 -149 -141 -112 -109 -121 -96 -112 -97 -134 -145 -102 -97 -122 -176 -169 -128 -124 -117 -122 -95 -53 -72 -87 -72 -25 -17 -25 -9 -2 -23 -14 -15 -38 -36 Basin States Alternative CAPACITY (MW) ENERGY (GWh) (Average Annual Value) -47 -23 -30 -1 -1 -4 -5 -17 -21 -23 -30 -34 -45 -45 -81 -131 -137 -126 -127 -120 -116 -116 -58 -55 -30 -27 -25 -22 -12 -8 -12 -7 -5 -3 -7 -7 -3 -2 -5 -7 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 24 -193 -127 505 305 139 134 71 -12 35 -3 -29 -77 -109 -128 -146 -154 -172 -328 -287 -216 -206 -233 -256 -224 -255 -272 -283 -272 -259 -266 -287 -269 -245 -232 -221 -221 -196 -159 -182 -165 -148 -87 -73 -82 -96 -69 -76 -85 -98 -108 -118 -45 -20 -28 -1 -1 -2 -4 -15 -18 -27 -26 -46 -47 -48 -101 -96 -110 -129 -129 -108 -110 -110 -51 -50 -17 -12 -18 -22 -10 -8 -8 -7 -7 -5 -7 -7 -3 0 -2 -7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 -147 -96 429 256 165 151 79 45 27 -3 -37 -63 -112 -153 -161 -160 -170 -297 -269 -189 -181 -216 -216 -163 -178 -240 -262 -206 -188 -221 -250 -215 -204 -197 -172 -170 -137 -105 -131 -110 -79 -25 -21 -32 -34 -23 -25 -43 -44 -59 -79 Shortage Protection Alternative California Alternative CAPACITY (MW) ENERGY (GWh) CAPACITY (MW) ENERGY (GWh) Comparison of Capacity and Energy Production to Baseline Conditions ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N 0 -7 -34 -17 20 12 -4 -6 5 5 20 -3 -1 3 10 -5 -1 2 0 2 6 10 14 -21 16 19 27 -4 -4 11 1 -12 20 -2 5 21 14 -4 -5 -2 7 5 17 -3 27 12 -7 18 -21 Flood Control Alternative CAPACITY (MW) ENERGY (GWh) Table 8 Hoover Powerplant Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 806 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 807 of 1200 ATTACHMENT Q Ten Tribes Depletion Schedule This attachment contains a summary of Tribal water demands of the Ten Tribes Partnership used in FEIS modeling in the Colorado River Simulation System r (CRSS). This listing has been updated from that presented in thenterio I DEIS. 017 f the pt. o er 29, 2 . De b ion v Novem at on jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 808 of 1200 Attachment Q Ten Tribes Depletion Schedules This attachment was derived from information sent to Reclamation from the Ten Tribes Partnership, as well as conversations held directly with representatives of the Jicarilla Tribe. As discussed in the DEIS, the CRSS model was altered to directly represent the scheduled diversions for the Ten Tribes. Upper Basin Tribal Water Rights and Diversions Table Q-1 lists the water rights and diversion locations of the Ten Tribes members in the Upper Basin, whose diversions are part of the Upper Division states apportionments. For each tribe, the table lists the diversion points which are represented in the CRSS model, the current annual volumes of diverted water (estimated 2000 volumes), and the full Colorado River water right held by the Tribe. As discussed in Section 3.14, the water rights are usually based on the amounts of agricultural acreage cited. Table Q-2 lists, for each Tribe, the current and projected depletions at each model demand node (representing each diversion point) used in model analysis. The depletions for each diversion point consist of the withdrawal from the river system minus the return flow to the river system, both of which are cited on the table. ior Inter 17the state Because each Tribal diversion is attributed to one of the of theBasin states, . Upper 29, 20 diversion and depletion schedules used in the v. Dept model includeber Tribal diversions and the vem ion depletions. Interim surplus criteria had t effect on Upper Basin deliveries, as expected, Nano n No including the Indian demands vajo Lake ed o As noted in Section 3.4.4.4, the above Powell. Na hiv normal deliverycited in of all Upper Basin diversions would be met under most water schedules 64, arc 68 supply conditions. .An Upper Basin diversion would be shorted only under periods of 14-1 low hydrologicNo conditions and inadequate regulating reservoir storage capacity upstream of the diversion points. The model is not presently configured to track the relative priorities under those conditions. However, such effects are identical under baseline conditions and all alternatives. Lower Basin Tribal Water Rights and Diversions Table Q-3 lists the water rights and diversion locations of the Ten Tribes members in the Lower Basin, whose diversions are part of the Lower Division states normal apportionments. For each tribe, the table lists the diversion points which are represented in the CRSS model, the current annual volumes of diverted water (estimated 2000 volumes), and the full Colorado River water right held by the Tribe. As discussed in Section 3.14, the water rights are usually based on the amounts of agricultural acreage cited. Table Q-4 lists, for each Tribe, the current and projected depletions at each model demand node (representing each diversion point) used in model analysis. The depletions for each diversion point consist of the withdrawal from the river system minus the return flow to the river system, both of which are cited on the table. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 809 of 1200 Because each Tribal diversion is attributed to one of the Lower Basin states, the state diversion and depletion schedules used in the model include the Tribal diversions and depletions. Under normal conditions, deliveries to the Lower Basin are always equal to the normal depletion schedules, including those for the Indian tribes. Under shortage conditions, only CAP and SNWA share in the shortage until CAP goes to zero (which was not observed in any of the modeling runs done for this FEIS). Therefore, all tribes in the Ten Tribes Partnership in the Lower Basin receive their scheduled depletion amounts with the exception of the Cocopah Tribe, which has some Arizona Priority 4 water. However, the model is currently configured to assign all Priority 4 shortages to CAP, not other Priority 4 water users, as discussed in Section 3.4.4.4. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Ute Mountain Ute Ute Mountain Ute Ute Mountain Ute Ute Mountain Ute Southern Ute Southern Ute Jicarilla Apache Jicarilla Apache Jicarilla Apache Jicarilla Apache Arizona New Mexico New Mexico New Mexico New Mexico New Mexico Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan Green White Green Duchesne Duchesne River Basin 1 of 1 Animas-La Plata M And I - Ute Mntn Colorado Ag - Ute Mntn Dolores Import - Ag Use - Ute Mntn Dolores Import - M And I - Ute Mntn Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Totals Upper Basin Totals Ten Tribes Partnership Totals Southern Ute Tribal Totals Gallup-Navajo Indian Water Supply-Tem Navajo Indian Irrigation Project Animas-LP New Mexico M&I - Navajo Gallup Mun. Water Supply Proj.-Navajo New Mexico Ag Hogback - Cudei New Mexico Ag Fruitland - Misc Navajo Tribal Totals Point Description Ute Indian Uses Since 1965 Ute Indians Compact (White River) Ute Indians Compact (Green River) Ag Abv Randlett-Pl-Ag - Ute New Indian Lands - Ute Indian Compact Northern Ute Tribal Totals 0 2 17 2 21 555 1310 42 0 183 0 0 20 12 215 12 0 20 218 0 250 0 500 5415 0 5915 164992 265941 13815 0 63881 0 0 4348 2609 70838 3000 0 4350 66074 0 73424 40 27 23 2 92 1137 2063 49 40 89 32 0 7 8 46 5 338 5 18 42 32 440 12 63 124 218 54 471 M&I 6750 7500 M&I 14250 285067 424715 16328 M&I 16328 9500 M&I Transbasin M&I 9500 M&I 110630 M&I M&I 9130 6957 126717 3000 13192 27280 66074 8726 118272 Full Right Allocated Allocated (kaf) Acres ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. New Mexico San Juan Jicarilla Apache 4 1000 . De ember 16 nv New Mexico San Juan San Juan Thermal-(PNM) - Jicarilla Lease 0 Natio d on Nov New Mexico San Juan San Juan-Chama Export (Jicarilla Portion) 7 o New Mexico San Juan Future Off-Reservation M&I Leases 0 avaj rc NJicarilla ApachehiveTotals in 27 1000 Tribal a cited 16864, 4- P.L.-Ag Colorado Colorado San Juan 42 13815 o. 1Juan Animas-La Plata M So. Utes Utes Colorado And I - So. N San 0 0 State Utah Utah Utah Utah Utah Tribe Northern Ute Northern Ute Northern Ute Northern Ute Northern Ute Current Withdrawal Irrigated (kaf) Acres Table Q-1 Summary of Ten Tribes Partnership Water Rights and Diversion Locations in the Upper Basin Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 810 of 1200 State Utah Utah Utah Utah Utah Tribe Northern Ute Northern Ute Northern Ute Northern Ute Northern Ute Ag Abv Randlett-Pl-Ag - Ute Ute Indians Compact (Green River) Ute Indians Compact (White River) Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Water Type 218 109 109 20 10 10 0 0 0 2000 12 6 6 218 109 109 30 15 15 8 4 4 218 109 109 42 21 21 16 8 8 218 109 109 54 27 27 24 12 12 218 109 109 68 34 34 32 16 16 218 109 109 84 43 41 40 20 20 Duchesne New Indian Lands - Ute Indian Compact 1 of 4 Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow 0 0 0 6 4 2 12 9 3 54 40 14 218 109 109 124 63 61 63 31 32 2040 12 6 6 471 249 222 36 27 9 218 109 109 100 50 50 56 28 28 Development Schedule by Year (kaf) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 12 12 12 12 12 12 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 ior24 18 Inter 17 30 13 18 22 e of th 29, 520 6 8 pt. . De 250ember 326 354 384 v Northern Ute Tribal Totals Withdrawal v 274 300 Depletion ation oFlow No125 138 153 167 183 200 N d vajo hiveReturn n 125 136 147 159 171 184 Na c in ar cited 16864, o. 14 N Duchesne Green White River Basin Point Description Green Ute Indian Uses Since 1965 Table Q-2 Summary of Ten Tribes Partnership Development Schedules in the Upper Basin 422 220 202 471 249 222 54 40 14 218 109 109 124 63 61 63 31 32 2050 12 6 6 471 249 222 54 40 14 218 109 109 124 63 61 63 31 32 2060 12 6 6 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 811 of 1200 New Mexico San Juan New Mexico San Juan Navajo Navajo Gallup Mun. Water Supply Proj.-Navajo Animas-LP New Mexico M&I - Navajo Navajo Indian Irrigation Project Gallup-Navajo Indian Water Supply-Tem Point Description Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Water Type 0 0 0 0 0 0 183 146 37 0 0 0 2000 5 5 0 4 2 2 269 215 54 0 0 0 10 10 0 5 3 2 313 250 63 5 5 0 14 14 0 5 3 2 325 260 65 5 5 0 18 18 0 5 3 2 330 264 66 5 5 0 18 18 0 5 3 2 333 266 67 5 5 0 New Mexico San Juan New Mexico Navajo Navajo New Mexico Ag Hogback - Cudei 2 of 4 Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow 20 10 10 24 12 12 26 13 13 32 16 16 42 21 21 18 18 0 5 3 2 338 270 68 5 5 0 2040 440 333 107 32 16 16 42 21 21 18 18 0 5 3 2 336 269 67 5 5 0 Development Schedule by Year (kaf) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 ior32 28 Inter 17 36 e 14 16 18 of th 29,142016 18 pt. . De 12em14 er16 18 22 26 b v San Juan New Mexico Ag Fruitland - Misc Withdrawal tion n Nov6 7 8 9 11 13 Depletion a 6 7 8 9 11 13 ajo N iveReturn Flow do Nav arch Withdrawal 215 316 375 395 412 423 iTribal Totals Navajo n Depletion 162 241 289 305 317 323 cited 16864, Return Flow 53 75 86 90 95 100 4o. 1 N New Mexico San Juan Navajo San Juan River Basin Arizona State Navajo Tribe Table Q-2 Summary of Ten Tribes Partnership Development Schedules in the Upper Basin 438 332 106 440 333 107 32 16 16 42 21 21 18 18 0 5 3 2 338 270 68 5 5 0 2050 440 333 107 32 16 16 42 21 21 18 18 0 5 3 2 338 270 68 5 5 0 2060 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 812 of 1200 New Mexico San Juan Jicarilla Apache Colorado Colorado Southern Ute Southern Ute *The PNM lease begins in 2006 New Mexico San Juan Jicarilla Apache Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Water Type Future Off-Reservation M&I Leases San Juan-Chama Export (Jicarilla Portion) Withdrawal Depletion Withdrawal Depletion *San Juan Thermal-(PNM) - Jicarilla Lease Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Jicarilla Apache Point Description 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 4 2 2 2000 3 3 7 7 16 16 0 11 7 4 3 3 7 7 16 16 0 11 7 4 4 4 7 7 16 16 0 11 7 4 4 4 7 7 16 16 0 11 7 4 Jicarilla Apache Tribal Totals 3 of 4 Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow 11 9 2 37 33 4 37 33 4 38 34 4 38 20 10 10 49 26 23 38 34 11 4 4 7 7 16 16 0 11 7 4 69 36 33 16 8 8 49 26 23 38 34 11 4 4 7 7 16 16 0 11 7 4 Development Schedule by Year (kaf) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 ior34 4 Inter 17 the 45 ,462048 f San Juan P.L.-Ag Colorado - So. Utes Withdrawal 42 o ept. 44 er2329 24 25 Depletion D 22 23 b Return 20 n v.Flow ovem21 22 22 23 tio a N 0 4 6 9 12 San Juan Animas-La Plata M And Ijo Utes Withdrawal a - So. N iveDepletion d on v 0 2 3 5 6 in Na 4, arch Return Flow 0 2 3 4 6 d cite 1686 Southern Ute Tribal Totals Withdrawal 42 48 51 55 60 Depletion o. 14 22 25 26 29 31 N Return Flow 20 23 25 26 29 New Mexico San Juan Jicarilla Apache River Basin New Mexico San Juan State Jicarilla Apache Tribe Table Q-2 Summary of Ten Tribes Partnership Development Schedules in the Upper Basin 65 34 31 75 39 36 26 13 13 49 26 23 38 34 11 4 4 7 7 16 16 0 11 7 4 2040 82 43 39 33 17 16 49 26 23 38 34 11 4 4 7 7 16 16 0 11 7 4 2050 89 46 43 40 20 20 49 26 23 38 34 11 4 4 7 7 16 16 0 11 7 4 2060 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 813 of 1200 Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Ute Mountain Ute Ute Mountain Ute Ute Mountain Ute State Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Totals Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Water Type Dolores Import - M And I - Ute Mntn Dolores Import - Ag Use - Ute Mntn Colorado Ag - Ute Mntn Animas-La Plata M And I - Ute Mntn Point Description 2 1 1 17 13 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 2000 2 1 1 19 15 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 1 1 20 16 4 6 3 3 6 3 3 2 1 1 21 17 4 8 4 4 9 5 4 2 1 1 23 18 5 10 6 4 12 6 6 2 1 1 23 18 5 12 7 5 16 8 8 4 of 4 21 15 6 29 20 9 34 23 11 69 43 26 2 1 1 23 18 5 18 11 7 26 13 13 2040 1100 698 402 2026 1350 676 59 37 22 2 1 1 23 18 5 14 8 6 20 10 10 Development Schedule by Year (kaf) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 ior47 40 Inter 17 53 e of th 29,272031 34 13 16 19 t. Dep 555 mber 854 910 968 v. Upper Basin Totals Withdrawal v tion n No349e 704 797 562 595 622 oFlow 206 457 524 292 315 346 jo Na veDepletion Return 247 273 d Nava archi Withdrawal 1310 1509 1663 1780 1836 1894 in Ten Tribes Partnership Totals cited 16864, Depletion 763 952 1097 1214 1247 1274 Return Flow 547 557 566 566 589 620 41 No. San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan River Basin Table Q-2 Summary of Ten Tribes Partnership Development Schedules in the Upper Basin 1033 659 374 1959 1311 648 2044 1362 682 1118 710 408 80 51 29 2 1 1 23 18 5 22 15 7 33 17 16 2050 2063 1372 691 1137 720 417 92 58 34 2 1 1 23 18 5 27 19 8 40 20 20 2060 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 814 of 1200 California Arizona Arizona Colorado River Colorado River Colorado River Cocopah Cocopah Quechan California Chemehuevi Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado River Basin 1 of 1 CRIR Calif CRIR Arizona CRIR Pumped Colorado River Tribal Totals Chemehuevi Ind Res. Chemehuevi Tribal Totals Point Description Fort Mohave Indian Res.(Nevada) Fort Mohave Indian Res.(Arizona) Fort Mohave Indian Res.(Calif.) Fort Mohave Land Development Fort Mojave Tribal Totals 5 591 0 596 2 2 5 81 27 0 113 3165 76633 0 79798 100 100 716 10925 3354 0 14995 1874 0 1874 139648 424715 926 2063 7743 7743 8213 99375 0 107588 1900 1900 1939 16018 2586 0 20543 12 0 12 52 52 55 662 0 717 11 11 13 104 17 0 134 Full Right Allocated Allocated (kaf) Acres ior Inter 17 e 0 of th 31 9, 23656.4 California Colorado Yuma Proj. Reservation Unit 2 3656.4 ept. ber 31 D Quechan Tribal Totals m n v. atio on Nove N Arizona Colorado Cocopaho Indian Reservation 13 2400 vaj Indian Reservation a ived Arizona Colorado NCocopah 0 0 d in Cocopah Tribal h , arc Totals 13 2400 cite 16864 Lower Basin Totals 755 100949 o. 14 N 1310 265941 Ten Tribes Partnership Totals State Nevada Arizona California California Tribe Fort Mojave Fort Mojave Fort Mojave Fort Mojave Current Withdrawal Irrigated (kaf) Acres Table Q-3 Summary of Ten Tribes Partnership Water Rights and Diversion Locations in the Lower Basin Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 815 of 1200 State Nevada Arizona California California California California Arizona Arizona Tribe Fort Mojave Fort Mojave Fort Mojave Fort Mojave Chemehuevi Colorado River Colorado River Colorado River Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Fort Mojave Tribal Totals Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Water Type Fort Mohave Land Development Fort Mohave Indian Res.(Calif.) Fort Mohave Indian Res.(Arizona) Point Description Fort Mohave Indian Res.(Nevada) 0 0 0 27 15 12 81 36 45 2000 5 2 3 0 0 0 17 12 5 92 60 32 0 0 0 17 12 5 104 73 31 0 0 0 17 12 5 104 73 31 0 0 0 17 12 5 104 73 31 0 0 0 17 12 5 104 73 31 Colorado Colorado Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Colorado River Tribal Totals 1 of 2 Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow CRIR Pumped CRIR Arizona Depletion Return Flow 596 330 266 0 0 0 591 327 264 3 2 113 53 60 627 376 251 0 0 0 612 367 245 9 6 122 80 42 667 433 234 0 0 0 637 414 223 19 11 134 94 40 717 502 215 0 0 0 662 463 199 39 16 717 502 215 0 0 0 662 463 199 39 16 717 502 215 0 0 0 662 463 199 39 16 11 8 3 134 94 40 0 0 0 17 12 5 104 73 31 2040 13 9 4 717 502 215 0 0 0 662 463 199 717 502 215 0 0 0 662 463 199 55 39 16 11 8 3 55 39 16 11 8 3 11 8 3 134 94 40 0 0 0 17 12 5 104 73 31 Development Schedule by Year (kaf) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 13 13 13 13 13 13 8 9 9 9 9 9 5 4 4 4 4 4 ior 134 Inter 134 7 134 e 94 of th 29,94201 94 40 40 40 t. Dep 2 mber 8 11 11 11 v. Colorado Chemehuevi Ind Res. Withdrawal 5 tion n Nov1e 3 5 8 8 8 a Depletion N 1 2 3 3 3 3 do vajo hiveReturn Flow Na Totals arc in Chemehuevi Tribal Withdrawal 2 5 8 11 11 11 cited 16864, Depletion 1 3 5 8 8 8 Return Flow 1 2 3 3 3 3 41 No.CRIR Calif Colorado Withdrawal 5 15 30 55 55 55 Colorado Colorado Colorado River Basin Colorado Table Q-4 Summary of Ten Tribes Partnership Development Schedules in the Lower Basin 717 502 215 0 0 0 662 463 199 55 39 16 11 8 3 11 8 3 134 94 40 0 0 0 17 12 5 104 73 31 2050 13 9 4 717 502 215 0 0 0 662 463 199 55 39 16 11 8 3 11 8 3 134 94 40 0 0 0 17 12 5 104 73 31 2060 13 9 4 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 816 of 1200 State California Arizona Arizona Tribe Quechan Cocopah Cocopah Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Withdrawal Depletion Cocopah Indian Reservation Cocopah Tribal Totals Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Quechan Tribal Totals Cocopah Indian Reservation Withdrawal Depletion Return Flow Water Type Yuma Proj. Reservation Unit Point Description 0 0 0 13 13 0 31 17 14 31 17 14 2000 0 0 0 13 13 0 38 23 15 38 23 15 0 0 0 12 12 0 45 29 16 45 29 16 0 0 0 12 12 0 52 36 16 52 36 16 0 0 0 12 12 0 52 36 16 52 36 16 0 0 0 12 12 0 52 36 16 52 36 16 2 of 2 13 13 0 13 13 0 12 12 0 12 12 0 0 0 0 12 12 0 52 36 16 52 36 16 2040 926 652 274 2026 1350 676 12 12 0 0 0 0 12 12 0 52 36 16 52 36 16 Development Schedule by Year (kaf) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 ior12 12 Inter 17 12 e of th 29,122012 12 0 0 0 Return Flow pt. . De ember v v Lower Basin Totals Withdrawal No755 ation on 414 805 866 926 926 926 495 573 652 652 652 jo N veDepletion d Nava archi Return Flow 341 310 293 274 274 274 in cited 16864, - Ten Tribes Partnership Totals Withdrawal 1310 1509 1663 1780 1836 1894 763 952 1097 1214 1247 1274 o. 14 Depletion N 547 557 566 566 589 620 Return Flow Colorado Colorado Colorado River Basin Table Q-4 Summary of Ten Tribes Partnership Development Schedules in the Lower Basin 926 652 274 1959 1311 648 682 1362 2044 274 652 926 12 12 0 0 0 0 12 12 0 52 36 16 52 36 16 2050 691 1372 2063 274 652 926 12 12 0 0 0 0 12 12 0 52 36 16 52 36 16 2060 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 817 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 818 of 1200 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT R Public Scoping Process This attachment summarizes the scoping process conducted by Reclamation in 1999 to inform the public of the proposal to formulate interim surplus criteria and to ior obtain public input to the alternative formulation process. Inter 017 f the pt. o er 29, 2 . De b ion v Novem at on jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 819 of 1200 PUBLIC SCOPING PROCESS INTRODUCTION This attachment summarizes public and governmental agency responses received during the initial scoping process. It consists of verbal responses at public scoping meetings held by Reclamation and written responses that are included in the summary table. This section also describes the various agencies involved in the production of this document, and associated permitting or formal consultation that may be necessary. “Scoping” is an integral part of the NEPA process. It provides “an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action” (40 CFR § 1501.7). In the June 9, 1999 letter, addressed to “all interested persons”, Reclamation inviting ior public participation in the scoping meeting, Reclamation invitedInteror written oral f the 9, 2017 comments concerning the following: pt. o 2 De ber n v. ioof surplus ovem (2) the format for the N criteria, Nat “(1) the need for the development vajoArticle ed on the Long-Range Operating criteria [either iby Na n revising archivIII(3) of ited developing, interim criteria pursuant to Article III(3) of the Criteriac by 16864 or Long-Range14 No. Operating Criteria], and (3) the specific issues and alternatives to be analyzed in the National Environment Policy Act process.” SCOPING ACTIVITIES AND ISSUES SCOPING ANNOUNCEMENTS Two notices were published in the Federal Register regarding the development of surplus criteria for management of the Colorado River. The first notice (64 FR 27008), published on May 18, 1999, was Reclamation’s Notice to solicit comments and initiation of NEPA Process. The second notice (64 FR 29068), published on May 28, 1999, was Reclamation’s Notice of public meetings. Reclamation issued a press release on May 19, 1999 to ten newspapers, announcing the publication in the Federal Register of the Notice of Intent. 1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 820 of 1200 The public scoping meetings were announced by press release and by a memorandum sent to interested parties. Reclamation sent the press release to ten newspapers on May 28, 1999 with the dates and locations of the scoping meetings. The memorandum was sent on June 9, 1999 to nearly 530 interested parties. PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS Four public scoping meetings were held within the Colorado River Basin (including the Southern California service area) as part of the scoping process. The location, date, attendance and number of oral comments received at each meeting are summarized in Table 1. Table 1 Summary of Scoping Meetings Date June 15, 1999 June 16, 1999 June 22, 1999 June 23, 1999 Location Phoenix, AZ Ontario, CA Las Vegas, NV Salt Lake City, UT Number Attending Number Speaking 34 4 12 r1 terio 6 32 n the I , 2017 15 t. of 2 p 29 . De ber ion v Novem Nat on vajo hivedMEETINGS Na ISSUES RAISED THROUGH SCOPING in arc cited 16864, 14A total of 35 response letters and eight oral responses (several individuals and No. organizations made both oral and written comments) were received during the scoping process. To assist in understanding public concerns, a list of all responses including the name of the person commenting, their organizational affiliation, if any, and the subjects which they commented on is included in Table 2. A review of the responses helped identified areas of concern. The review used a list of five areas to categorize the responses: • • • • • Authorized project purposes (32 comments, 26% of the comments) Habitat (12 comments, 10%) Socio-economic (11 comments, 9%) Special concerns (10 comments, 8%) Process ( 57 comments, 46%) 2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 821 of 1200 Typically the responses included comments in several different categories and often had several thoughts in a single category. For purposes of quantifying the public concerns, multiple thoughts in a single category contained in a single response were only counted once. AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES The Boulder Canyon Project Act identified five authorized project purposes: navigation, flood control, water supply, recreation and power. Nineteen (19) of the 32 comments in this category focused on water supply. There was no single focus of these water supply comments. Only one comment was received on navigation and the concern with regard to navigation was not identified. HABITAT The twelve (12) comments on habitat were wide ranging. There were no concerns expressed over air quality. ior Inter 17 f the , 20 pt. o focused. 9All eleven The comments on Socio-economic concerns v. De were highly ber 2 m addressed the regional distribution of ation supply. ove high level of concern is due N waterd on N This va o e to recognition that the allocationj of surplus water and impacts of shortages are not n users of Colorado iall Na 4, archiv River water. There were no concerns d equally shared cite among 86 raised with possible14-16 on land use, social conditions or growth inducing . impacts o impacts. NoteN the comments on project purposes discussed previously could that SOCIO-ECONOMIC also be considered socio-economic. SPECIAL CONCERNS The ten comments received within the area of Special Concerns noted the potential impacts of the Interim Surplus Criteria on Indian Issues (predominately reliability of water supply) and on obligations to Mexico. PLAN FORMULATION PROCESS The 57 comments received on the process to be followed dominated the letters. Many had specific alternatives they wanted considered. Most significant among those were supporters of the “Six States Plan” and supporters of the “California Plan”. Additional remarks included opinions as to whether or not the Long-Range Operating Criteria should be modified to implement to Interim Surplus Criteria, 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 822 of 1200 concerns that the alternatives address the impacts on Lake Powell and three requests for additional time to respond. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. 4 Maureen George Rachel Thomas Joe Muniz (original of letter 2) Donald R. Pope Tom Levy Stanley M. Pollack 3 4 5 7 8 Navigation Flood Control Water Supply Recreation Power Fishery Habitat Backwater Channel 1 1 1 Endangered Species/ESA Water Quality Air Quality Salton Sea Other habitat/ general Land Use Change Social Conditions Regional Impacts Growth-inducing Mexico 1 1 1 Process 1 1 1 Water Supply: Increased water from surpluses increases dependency in-lieu of alternative supplies or conservation. Alternatives: Analysis based on no storage available at Lake Powell. Need for Development of Surplus Criteria: LROC is inadequate. Wants criteria established. Habitat: Increased consumptive use reduces instream uses. Other Process: Wants full NEPA. Water Supply and Indian Issues: May impact tribes' water supply rights. Other Process: Tribes need funding for technical assistance in review of study. Tribes need more time to comment on Scope. Remarks (Note: "1" is used throughout as an indicator that can be computed by Excel. There is no ranking or priority associated with this digit) Gen. Managr & Ch Eng'r Water Rights Counsel Coachella Valley Water District The Navajo Nation, Dept of Justice, Natural Resources Unit. Association 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Indian Issues: May impact tribal water rights. Other Process: Tribes need more time to comment on Scope. 1 Support comments of Colorado River Board of California. Development of Surplus Criteria: More definitive criteria needed, but w/i framework of AOP. Mexico: Need more specific guidelines for surpluses to Mexico. Water Supply & Alternatives: Favor more liberal definition of surplus -- 50% or 30% flood probability should trigger surplus releases. Flood Control & Geology: Hoover releases in excess of 19,000 cfs cause flooding/high groundwater on 25,000 ac of farm land. Also subject to flooding: Gila Valley, City of Yuma, County of Yuma, Cocopah Indians, Yuma Project, Bard ID, Quechan Tribe. ior Inter 17 e 20 of th 29,supply & Regional: Concerned with impact of shortages 1 1 ept. ber Water and AZ. Some cities along river do not have D on City n v. tio ovem 1 supplemental source to river. to comment period. a N President Arizona Other Process: Request extension ajo N ived on v People for the Na USA d in 64, arch Chairman CO River Original of letter No. 2. (Boxes checked at letter only to avoid cite 168 Basin Tribes double counting) Partnership 14 . Manager Yuma County No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Criteria Format: No need to revise LROC. Need for Water Users' Chairman, Colorado Jicarilla River Basin Apache Tribes Tribe Partnership ("Ten Tribes Partnership") City Lake Havasu Attorney City Executive Glen Canyon Director Institute Position Organization Scoping Comments and Meeting Record Joe Muniz (faxed by Jessica Aberly, att.) 2 6 Pamela Hyde Letter #/Oral Comment # Meeting Date Transcript Page 1 Name Indian Issues Special Socioeconomic concerns Geology Alternatives Habitat Criteria Format Need for Development of Surplus Criteria Other Process Legal Issues Authorized project purposes Colorado River Delta Table 2 Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria -- Analysis of Public Scoping Meetings & Response Letters Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 823 of 1200 State of Colorado, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Department of Natural Resources Gregory Oleson 14 Arizona Department of Water Resources Scoping Comments and Meeting Record Corporate US Filter Counsel Rita P. Director Pearson (via fax) (original rec'd 7/6/99) Secretary International Boundary and Water Commission Chairman Central of the Arizona Board Project Association 13 12 Robert S. Lynch, Attny (via faxoriginal rec'd 7/6/99) Manuel R. Ybarra (via fax) (original rec'd 7/6/99) 11 Director Peter H. Evans (via fax) (original received 7/6/99) 10 Public (member of Lake Mead Water Quality Forum & SNWA Water Quality Citizens Advisory Committee) Position Organization Larry J. Citizen Paulson, Ph.D. (via e-mail) (reference No. 25 also) Letter #/Oral Comment # Meeting Date Transcript Page 9 Name Navigation Flood Control Water Supply Recreation Power Fishery Habitat Backwater Channel 1 1 Endangered Species/ESA Water Quality Air Quality Salton Sea Other habitat/ general Land Use Change Social Conditions Regional Impacts Growth-inducing Mexico Colorado River Delta 1 Process 1 Water Supply, Water Quality & Regional: In favor of lower levels at Lake Mead to reduce evaporation. Concerned with hierarchy of beneficial uses (see oral comments O-6) NV needs more than 4%. NV relies of credits due to return flows of treated wastewater and contaminated groundwater to Lake Mead via Las Vegas Wash. Criteria Format: Follow NEPA. Alternatives: Operate Mead to reduce evaporation. Remarks (Note: "1" is used throughout as an indicator that can be computed by Excel. There is no ranking or priority associated with this digit) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Criteria Format & Need for development of Surplus Criteria: No change in LROC is needed. Regional Impacts: AZ is particularly sensitive to shortages. Power: Normal water deliveries probably maximize power. Flood control & Geology: Minimize flood damage. High flows cause water logging and increase need for drainage pumping in Yuma Area (per oral comments). Recreation & Environment: Balance these purposes. 1 Criteria Format & Legal Issues: Criteria should address & establish consistency w/ exist laws. Alternatives: Emphasize efficiencies of water markets. Mexico: Must meet treaty obligations. Water quality: Salinity of water delivered to Mexico. Alternatives & Regional: Will not favor any alternative which isn't tied to CA 4.4 Plan (specific steps are listed). Needs to allocate surpluses among states. Banking in CA of Co River water limited to when a reservoir spill is otherwise imminent. Must be interim. Must examine & mitigate increased risk of shortage on AZ & NV. Includes a proposed criteria. Extra M&I water to CA must be incremental to other sources available to CA. Water Supply & Regional: Concerned that balancing between Mead and Powell and more liberal criteria at Mead will lead to lowering Powell and impacts on Upper Basin supply. Need for development of surplus criteria: Not needed. Implementation Options: Don't change LROC. Power: Study 1083 elevation and gauge power impacts. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na 1 1 d 1in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N 1 Indian Issues Special Socioeconomic concerns Geology Alternatives Habitat Criteria Format Need for Development of Surplus Criteria Other Process Legal Issues Authorized project purposes Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 824 of 1200 Larry R. Deputy Dozier (via General fax) Manager Wayne E. Cook (via fax) (original received 7/6/99) D. Larry Anderson, P. E. (via fax) 18 19 20 Gordon W. State Fassett (via Engineer fax - original rec'd 7/6/99) 17 Wyoming State Engineer's Office Scoping Comments and Meeting Record State of Utah, Dept of Natural Resources, Div of Water Resources Executive Upper Director Colorado River Commission Director Navigation Flood Control Water Supply Recreation Power Fishery Habitat Backwater Channel 1 Colorado River Delta 1 1 1 1 1 Endangered Species/ESA Water Quality Air Quality Salton Sea Other habitat/ general Land Use Change Social Conditions Regional Impacts Growth-inducing Mexico 1 1 1 Process 1 1 Water supply & Indian Issues: Water supply must be reliable. Colorado River Delta: Cottonwood-willow forests depend on spills. Need for development of surplus criteria: Dire need for specific criteria for surplus, shortage and normal years. Endangered Species: Compliance with Endangered Species Act. Other issues: Letter listed others without discussing, they have been checked off. Remarks (Note: "1" is used throughout as an indicator that can be computed by Excel. There is no ranking or priority associated with this digit) 1 1 1 1 1 Need for development of Surplus Criteria: Concur. Alternatives: Dependent on CA 4.4 Plan. Criteria Format: Oppose changes to LROC. 3 Criteria Format: NEPA process not required. Use the AOP process. Alternatives: Concur with Six Basin States Proposal recommendations. or nt for i of both Surplus and Shortage criteria. Criteria INeeder development of Surplus Criteria: Support e development of th 29, 2017 LROC. Format: Don't modify pt. . De ember v Central 1 1 1 Criteria Format: NEPA process not required. Use the AOP ation 1 on Nov 1 1 Arizona process. Alternatives & Regional: AZ is impacted first by jo N ved Project shortages. Thus consider shortages. CA to comply with 4.4. AZ Nava archi (Central in to get RRA Section 215 waiver. Power & Regional: CAP is d Arizona Water cite largest AZ user of Hoover B & C power allocation (from 15 Jun 64, Conservation hearing comment O-3) -168 District) o. 14 N Bernadine President, Fort McDowell Boyd (via Tribal Indian fax-original Council Community rec'd 7/6/99) 16 Legal Defenders of Director Wildlife Litigation Counsel Position Organization William J. Snape, III and John A. Fritschie (via faxoriginal rec'd 7/6/99) Letter #/Oral Comment # Meeting Date Transcript Page 15 Name Indian Issues Special Socioeconomic concerns Geology Alternatives Habitat Criteria Format Need for Development of Surplus Criteria Other Process Legal Issues Authorized project purposes Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 825 of 1200 Gerald R. Executive Colorado Zimmerman Director River Board of California 27 28 29 Cental Arizona Project City City of Attorney Farmington Chief, National Park 1 Water Service Operation s Branch Executive Arizona Director Municipal Water Users Association Citizen Public Scoping Comments and Meeting Record Jay B. Burnham Larry J. Paulson, Ph.D. William I. Jackson, Ph.D. (via fax-original rec'd 7/6/99) 25 26 Roger Manning 24 Navigation Flood Control Water Supply Recreation Power Fishery Habitat Backwater Channel 1 1 Colorado River Delta 1 1 1 1 Endangered Species/ESA Water Quality Air Quality Salton Sea Other habitat/ general Land Use Change Social Conditions Regional Impacts Growth-inducing Mexico 1 1 Process 1 1 1 1 Water supply: Generally in favor of more liberal surplus as long as shortage addressed. Legal: Consistent w/ AZ vs. CA. Also, concur w/AZ DWR comments. Water supply: M&I uses should be higher priority than before other uses. Alternatives: Depend on CA efforts and success with 4.4 Plan. Must address shortages. Format for the criteria: Do not incorporate into LROC. Use AOP as vehicle it implement criteria. Other process: Develop specific surplus criteria prior to NEPA process. Regional: States have special role. Remarks (Note: "1" is used throughout as an indicator that can be computed by Excel. There is no ranking or priority associated with this digit) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 Original of No 18 Fax. Water Supply & Regional: Upper Basin will in future need more than allocation & should have rights to surplus flows. Criteria Format: Support NEPA process. Recreation & Habitat in General: Dependent on frequency of spills from Powell & impacted by flows. Liberal surplus criteria will reduce natural spills. Recreation and Fishery Habitat: Impacts when Powell below 3,650. Navigation: Issue when Mead below 1170. Alternatives: Prefer fuller reservoirs. Need for development of surplus criteria: In favor. 1 Alternatives: Must have specific term. Contain 3 tiers of surplus. Criteria Format: Develop pursuant to LROC & use in conjunction w/LROC to develop AOP. Need for Development of Surplus Criteria & Water Supply: Exist criteria does not optimize Water Supply. Other Process: Dependent on Cal 4.4 Plan & agreements internal to CA, or comments don't apply. Alternatives:r o Address shortages include climate changes. Other range nteri Colorado of consumption scenarios, include water Iprocess: Include7 River Delta: Cottonwood-willow forests conservation. 1 0 f the depend on spills. Endangered species: Include formal Section t. o 9, 2 7 Dep mber 2consultations w/USF&W. Mexico: Mexico has surplus rights v. under '44 treaty. (Oral Comments O-7). tion n Nove Na d o jo 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Concur with AZ DWR comments. Nava archive in cited 16864, See letter 9. (Boxes checked at letter 9 only to avoid overcounting) o. 14 N Michael Cohen 23 Research Pacific Associate Institute for studies in development, environment, and security. Tim Henley Manager Arizona Water Banking Authority 22 Position Organization Richard Chairman Colorado Bunker and General River Patricia Manager Commission Mulroy (via of Nevada & fax) Southern Nevada Water Authority Letter #/Oral Comment # Meeting Date Transcript Page 21 Name Indian Issues Special Socioeconomic concerns Geology Alternatives Habitat Criteria Format Need for Development of Surplus Criteria Other Process Legal Issues Authorized project purposes Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 826 of 1200 35 34 33 32 31 30 Letter #/Oral Comment # Meeting Date Transcript Page O-1 15-Jun 49 O-2 15-Jun 57 General Metropolitan Manager Water District of Southern California Ronald R. Gastelum Larry Dozer Deputy Central General Arizona Manager Project (Central AZ Water Conservation District) Bob Lynch Chairman Central Arizona Project Assoc. Thomas C. President American Havens Water Resources,Inc . Philip B. Upper New Mexico Mutz CO River Interstate Commissi Stream oner for Commission NM John Penn Attorney, Imperial Carter Horton, Irrigation Knox, District Carter & Foote Nino J. Southen Mascolo California Edison Co. Herb Dishlip Assistant AZ DWR Director Secretary/ Colorado General River Water Manager Conservation District Position Organization R. Eric Kuhn Name No comments at this hearing. Scoping Comments and Meeting Record O-3 15-Jun 61 O-4 16-Jun Navigation Flood Control Water Supply Recreation Power Fishery Habitat Backwater Channel 1 Endangered Species/ESA Water Quality Air Quality Salton Sea Other habitat/ general Land Use Change Social Conditions Regional Impacts Growth-inducing Mexico Colorado River Delta 1 Process 1 1 1 Water Supply & Regional: Oppose increased drawdown of Powell caused by equalization. Recreation and Power: Drawdown of Powell would adversely affect both. Alternatives: Must be tied to CA 4.4 Plan. Must be interim. Modify or eliminate equalization. Also: Endorse comments of Colorado Water Conservation Board. 1 Concur with Colorado River Board comments. Remarks (Note: "1" is used throughout as an indicator that can be computed by Excel. There is no ranking or priority associated with this digit) There were no comments at the 16 Jul scoping meeting. See letter 11. (Boxes checked at letter only to avoid double counting) See letter 18. (Boxes checked at letter only to avoid double counting) See letter 13. (Boxes checked at letter only to avoid double counting) 5 Other process: Need to address 50 to 100 year path rather than short term. ior Inter 17 t e Need Development of Surplus Criteria: Not until CA 4.4 of 1 h 29,for20 . pt1 1 developed. Format: Use the . De ember Plan isAlternatives:Criteriaterm strategy must Annual Operating Plan. Short terminate if CA nv doesn't make progress. Natio d on Nov jo 1 Other Process: Concur with Colorado River Board of CA Nava archive comments only if settlement of issues being negotiated by CRB d in 64, agencies. Otherwise, reopen comment period to allow IID & cite 168 other CA agencies to submit independent comments.. 4o. 1 N No comments, but interested in water banking. 1 1 1 1 Indian Issues Special Socioeconomic concerns Geology Alternatives Habitat Criteria Format Need for Development of Surplus Criteria Other Process Legal Issues Authorized project purposes Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 827 of 1200 Letter #/Oral Comment # Meeting Date Transcript Page O-7 O-6 O-5 22-Jun 22-Jun 22-Jun 33 31 & 41 28 & 35 Brent Israelsen Navigation Flood Control Water Supply Recreation Power Fishery Habitat Backwater Channel 1 Endangered Species/ESA Water Quality Air Quality Salton Sea Other habitat/ general Land Use Change Social Conditions Regional Impacts Growth-inducing Mexico Special Socioeconomic concerns Indian Issues Habitat Geology Alternatives Colorado River Delta Process See letter 23. (Boxes checked at letter only to avoid double counting). See letter 9. (Boxes checked at letter only to avoid double counting). See letter 5 (Boxes checked at letter only to avoid double counting). 6 Remarks (Note: "1" is used throughout as an indicator that can be computed by Excel. There is no ranking or priority associated with this digit) or nteri 7 IWater Supply:1Consider extended drought. e 20 of th 29,Supply and Regional: Estimation of Upper Basin 1 1 ept. ber Water D depletions. n v. v 16 13 ti0o0 11 0 n 5No16 em 7 5 Comments by category 1 3 19 4 5 1 0 2 1 2 0 Na 1 5 3 2 d Comments by group 32 12 57 vajo hive11 o 10 Na Total comments c 122 in ar cited 16864, o. 14 N Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security. Las Vegas Sun Newspaper Salt Lake Tribune Mike Cohen Mary Manning Public Manager Yuma County Water Association Position Organization Larry Paulson Donald Pope Name Scoping Comments and Meeting Record O-9 O-8 23-Jun 22-Jun 29 36 Criteria Format Need for Development of Surplus Criteria Other Process Legal Issues Authorized project purposes Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 828 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 829 of 1200 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT S Correspondence with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service This attachment contains correspondence between Reclamation and the U.S. Fish ior and Wildlife Service on Section 7 consultation regarding the potential effects of Inter 17 e 0 interim surplus criteria downstream on listed species t. of th Lake Mead in pand upstream9of2 e of Mexico. Downstream of r2 , the United States, and in the Colorado River v. D area embe Delta ationchanges ovwater delivery points under Lake Mead the consultation alsojo N addressed on N in d va Use iPlan. Upstream of Lake Mead the California’s Colorado iRiver Water rch ve n Na , a d minor operational changes of Glen Canyon Dam operation on consultation involved cite 16864 evaluation of theo. 14- from the Colorado River corridor below Glen Canyon Dam. N effects Consultation with the National Marian Fisheries Service addressed effects on aquatic species in the Colorado River estuary and the upper Sea of Cortez. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 830 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 831 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 832 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. r terio n the I , 2017 t. of r 29 p . De embe v tion n Nov jo Na ved o Nava archi in ited 6864, c 1 . 14No Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 833 of 1200 r terio n the I , 2017 t. of r 29 p . De embe v tion n Nov jo Na ved o Nava archi in ited 6864, c 1 . 14No Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 834 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 835 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 836 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 837 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 838 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 839 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 840 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 841 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 842 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 843 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 844 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 845 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 846 of 1200 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT T Consultation with Mexico This attachment consists of the following documents and correspondence prepared individually by the United States Section and the Mexico Section of the International ior Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC and MIBWC, respectively), as part of Inter 17 ft e the consultation between the United States and Mexicohregarding 0 proposed the pt. o er 29, 2 e interim surplus criteria. v. D mb n e Natio d on Nov ajo Draft Authority andav Assumptions governing the US-Mexico consultations on ive in N River interim surplus criteria prepared by the dColorado 4, arch the proposed cite 1686 USIBWC, .December 28, 1999; 14No Letter of May 22, 2000 from Commissioner J. Arturo Herrera Solis, MIBWC, to Commissioner John M. Bernal, USIBWC, regarding potential effects on Mexico’s natural and physical environment; English translation of May 22, 2000 letter from Commissioner J. Arturo Herrera Solis, MIBWC, to Commissioner John M. Bernal, USIBWC, regarding potential effects on Mexico’s natural and physical environment; and Letter of October 10, 2000 from Commissioner J. Arturo Herrera Solis, MIBWC, to Commissioner John M. Bernal, USIBWC, transmitting additional information regarding Mexico’s natural environment and the shrimp harvest in the Sea of Cortez. English translation of letter of October 10, 2000 from Commissioner J. Arturo Herrera Solis, MIBWC, to Commissioner John M. Bernal, USIBWC, transmitting additional information regarding Mexico’s natural environment and the shrimp harvest in the Sea of Cortez. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 847 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 848 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 849 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 850 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 851 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 852 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 853 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 854 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 855 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 856 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 857 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 858 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 859 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 860 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 861 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 862 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 863 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 864 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 865 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 866 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 867 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 868 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 869 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 870 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 871 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 872 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 873 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 874 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 875 of 1200 ior Inter 17 the t. of r 29, 20 Dep mbe n v. tio ove jo Na ved on N va in Na 4, archi cited 1686 o. 14 N Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 876 of 1200 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME III INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME III ............................................................................................ 1 PART A – PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORAL COMMENTS ...............................................A-1 PART B – COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES .......................................................... B-1 Individuals Garcia..................................................................................................................................... B-3 Belles ...................................................................................................................................... B-4 Forbes Willson...................................................................................................................... B-5 Inskip ..................................................................................................................................... B-6 Miller...................................................................................................................................... B-7 Zarbin .................................................................................................................................... B-9 Organizations r American Water Resources, Inc. ...................................................................................... B-11 terio he In 2017 American Water Resources, Inc. ...................................................................................... B-12 of t ept. ber 29, D American Water Resources, Inc. ...................................................................................... B-14 n v. vem ati 1............................................................................... B-16 Center for Biological Diversity, et,alo N n No vajo ed o Defenders of Wildlife ........................................................................................................ B-22 in Na 4, archiv Pacific Institute ................................................................................................................... B-34 cited 1686 Southwest Rivers................................................................................................................ B-51 . 14- No Water User Agencies and Organizations Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) ............................................ B-59 Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) ...................................................................... B-63 Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA) ........................................ B-67 Colorado River Water Conservation District (CRWCD).............................................. B-69 Cottonwood Creek Consolidated Irrigation Company (CCCIC)................................ B-71 Emery Water Conservancy District (EWCD)................................................................. B-72 Grand Water and Sewer (GW&S).................................................................................... B-73 Imperial Irrigation District (IID) ...................................................................................... B-74 Irrigation and Electrical Districts Association of Arizona (I&EDAA)........................ B-77 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD)....................................... B-89 Mohave County Water Authority (MCWA) .................................................................. B-95 Ouray Park Irrigation Company (OPIC) ........................................................................ B-98 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS III-i Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 877 of 1200 VOLUME III TABLE OF CONTENTS Water User Agencies and Organizations (Continued) Salt River Project (SRP) ..................................................................................................... B-99 San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) ........................................................... B-100 Southern California Edison Company (SCEC) ............................................................ B-102 Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA)............................................................... B-104 Uintah Water Conservancy District (UWCD).............................................................. B-106 Union Park Water Authority (UPWA) ......................................................................... B-109 Upper Colorado River Commission (UCRC)............................................................... B-116 Local Agencies City of Phoenix, Office of the City Manager ................................................................ B-119 Grand County Council (Utah)........................................................................................ B-122 State Agencies Arizona Power Authority (APA)................................................................................... B-123 Arizona Power Authority (APA)................................................................................... B-128 Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) .................................................... B-130 Arizona Game and Fish Department (AG&FD) .......................................................... B-136 ior Inter 17 Colorado River Board of California (CRBC) ................................................................ B-141 0 f the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) ................................ B-142 pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D vemb Colorado Department of Natural Resources (CDNR) ................................................ B-144 ation on (NMISC)............................................... B-146 No New Mexico Interstate StreamN vajo Commission ed v Colorado River Commissionarchi in Na 4, of Nevada (CRCN) ....................................................... B-148 itedCommission (Nevada State Historic Preservation Colorado c River -1686 14 Office-NSHPO).............................................................................................................. B-151 No. New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) .................................................... B-154 Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources (UDNR, DWR)............................................................................................................... B-155 Office of Federal Land Policy (State of Wyoming) (WOFLP).................................... B-157 Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians ...................................................................... B-165 Hualapai Nation............................................................................................................... B-167 Navajo Nation Department of Justice (excludes attachments).................................. B-187 Navajo Tribal Utility Authority ..................................................................................... B-191 Ute Mountain Ute Tribe ................................................................................................. B-193 Ten Tribes Partnership .................................................................................................... B-194 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS III-ii Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 878 of 1200 VOLUME III TABLE OF CONTENTS Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)....................................................................................... B-221 Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo Region ..................................................................... B-223 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)..................................................................... B-225 U.S. Fish and Wildlife...................................................................................................... B-238 International Boundary and Water Commission, United States Section (IBWC, U.S. Section) ..................................................................................................... B-278 National Park Service (NPS)........................................................................................... B-281 Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) ........................................................... B-286 Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) ........................................................... B-287 Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) ........................................................... B-289 Mexican Agencies/Organizations Autonomous University of Baja California (AUBC)................................................... B-291 International Boundary and Water Commission, Mexican Section (IBWC, Mexican) ........................................................................................................... B-294 Mexicali Business Coordinating Council (MBCC) ...................................................... B-296 Mexicali Economic Development Council (MEDC) ................................................... B-298 National Water Commission (NWC) ............................................................................ B-300 rior Inte f the 9, 2017 Additional Tribe pt. o . De ember 2 nv Natio d on Nov Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians....................................................................................... B-303 vajo e in Na 4, archiv d c te 1686 Oral Comments i 14No. Noble.................................................................................................................................. B-305 1 This letter was submitted by the following organizations: Defenders of Wildlife Environmental Defense El Centro de Derecho Ambiental e Integracion Economica del Sur, A.C. Friends of Arizona Rivers Glen Canyon Action Network Glen Canyon Institute Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security Sierra Club Fred Cagle Jaqueline Garcia-Hernandez COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS III-iii Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 879 of 1200 VOLUME III INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME III Reclamation, acting on behalf of the Secretary, published a Notice of Availability of a DEIS for Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria, and a schedule of public hearings in the Federal Register on July 7, 2000 (Vol.65, No. 131). Additionally, Reclamation published a Notice of Public Availability of Information on the DEIS on August 8, 2000, in the Federal Register (Vol. 65, No. 153) for public review and comment. Over 400 copies of the DEIS were distributed to interested federal, Tribal, state, and local entities and members of the general public for review, and the document was also available for public viewing on Reclamation’s Lower Colorado Region website. Public hearings were held to receive oral comments on the DEIS during the month of August 2000. In addition to oral comments made at these hearings, Reclamation received 68 letters with comments pertaining to the DEIS. Reclamation has reviewed all comments received during the Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria DEIS public comment period. As a result of Reclamation’s review of comments pertaining to the DEIS, and r pursuant to the requirements of the NEPA, Reclamation has nterio this FEIS. I prepared 7 e t the , 0 the Volumes I and II of the FEIS contain the revisedttextfofh EIS and 1 p . ocontains two2parts: Part A er 29 attachments, respectively. Volume III, thisDe volume, n v. hearings mb for the DEIS, and Part B ati publicn Nove held discusses oral comments received ato o ajo N ireceived by Reclamation, accompanied by contains copies of n Nav letters ved i comment, arch individual issues raised in each letter. Reclamation’s specific864 responses to cited -16 14 No. Reclamation received a significant number of comments regarding the purpose and need for this action (development and adoption of interim surplus criteria), and related and ongoing activities. In particular, questions were asked with regard to the relationship of interim surplus criteria to California’s efforts to reduce its over reliance on Colorado River water. Reclamation believes that, in addition to the individual responses provided in Part B of this volume, it is appropriate to provide the following general response to these questions. General Response Pertaining to the Purpose and Need of Interim Surplus Criteria Reclamation determined in 1999 that there was a need for development of specific surplus criteria (see Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 27008 (May 18, 1999) in Chapter 5 of Volume I). Recent experience in preparing the AOPs for the Colorado River Reservoirs has demonstrated the difficulty in making surplus determinations without specific criteria. In addition, the most recent five-year review of the LROC, completed in 1998, produced numerous comments encouraging the Secretary to develop surplus criteria, (see Federal Register Vol. 63, No. 9256, at COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 880 of 1200 VOLUME III INTRODUCTION 9258-59 [Feb. 24, 1998].) Many parties, including Reclamation, have long recognized the operational benefits that accrue from development of objective, measurable, predictable criteria to guide operation of important storage reservoirs, such as Lake Mead. At the time of the last review of the LROC, the Secretary found that surplus criteria (and, if adopted, 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.” (See Federal Register Vol. 63, at 9259). In response, in 1999, Reclamation proposed adoption of surplus criteria for the operation of Hoover Dam (See Federal Register No. 27008, May 18, 1999). The current approach to adoption of surplus criteria differs from that identified in the last LROC review only in that it utilizes a formal NEPA process for evaluation of impacts as opposed to the more informal AOP process established by the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, as amended. In order to build in the ability to respond to actual operating experience, Reclamation also decided to have such criteria implement the provisions of the Decree (Article II(B)(2)) and the LROC (Article III(3)(b)), and be reviewable on a five-year basis at the same time as the LROC is routinely reviewed. rior Inte 17 In addition to these operations-based reasons for adopting surplus criteria, current f the 9exceeds 7.5 maf), utilization of Colorado River water in the Lower tBasin (which , 20 p.o . De ofember 2 provides an listed as one of the factors at Articleon v ti III(1)(b)(ii)ov the LROC, additional basis for both thejo Na of surplus criteria and is a factor that adoption d on N va e Reclamation considered when choosing a preferred alternative. As a result of in Na 4, archiv d cite 1 over operating experience 686 recent years, it is clear that one of the most important issues for No. 14 River management is the need to bring use of Colorado River Colorado water into alignment with the allocation regime adopted by Congress in section 4 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 (BCPA) (see 43 U.S.C. 617c(a)). The pressing need for attention to this important issue is exacerbated by the overallocation of the Colorado River due to flawed assumptions of its long-term yield that were incorporated into the 1922 Colorado River Compact. For example, the average annual natural flow of the Colorado River at Lees Ferry (1906 to 1998) has recently been estimated at 15.1 maf, while the average prior to the time of the Compact (1906 to 1921) was 18.1 maf. The regime established by the BCPA limits California to 4.4 maf, absent availability of either surplus water or other unused water. Reclamation intends to insure that the adoption of surplus criteria will provide objective and predictable criteria in a manner that will facilitate the Secretary’s enforcement of the basic provisions of the Law of the River. As such, when Reclamation commenced this process (see Federal Register No. 27008-09, May 18, 1999), it recognized that efforts were underway to reduce California’s reliance on surplus deliveries and that it would “take account of progress in that effort, or lack COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 881 of 1200 VOLUME III INTRODUCTION thereof, in the decision-making process regarding specific surplus criteria.” (Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 27009). The information available on California’s efforts led Reclamation to propose that the term of the surplus criteria parallel the period of key activities for California’s planned reduction in use of Colorado River water. Accordingly, the question of whether to adopt surplus criteria is primarily related to sound water resource management. Having decided that adoption of surplus criteria is appropriate and warranted at this time, the Secretary will consider the impact of interim surplus criteria on California’s need for an appropriate implementation period to reduce its over reliance on Colorado River water. As part of his final decision regarding surplus criteria, the Secretary will integrate the California issues with all other aspects of his watermaster duties, particularly its impacts on other state allocations and Tribal users. In summary, Reclamation believes that adoption of interim surplus criteria is warranted at this time and believes that adoption of such criteria should complement the Secretary’s watermaster duties on the lower Colorado River, which include facilitating adherence to the Lower Basin’s allocation regime. Further, the adoption of interim surplus criteria is not a component of California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan, but should not frustrate California’s effortsor reduce its ri to Colorado River usage. As such, Reclamation does not he Inte the Purpose believe that 7 1 t and Need statement as presented in the DEIS ept. of is inadequate. 29, 20 in light of However, r clarify the information v. D the significant commentary on this issue, and in anembe o effort to ation modified v Purpose and Need discussion N presented in the FEIS, Reclamation has on N the vajo hived in Chapter 1 of d in Na to reference the relationship between the proposed surplus the FEIS , arc cite 168 actions to reduce its dependence on surplus water. criteria and California’s 64 - No. 14 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 882 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 883 of 1200 VOLUME III PART A PART A - PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORAL COMMENTS Reclamation facilitated a series of public hearings to receive oral comments on the DEIS. Public hearings were held between August 21 and August 24, 2000, in the cities of Ontario, California; Las Vegas, Nevada; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Phoenix, Arizona. Each of the individuals who provided oral comments are listed in Table 1, below. Transcripts were prepared for each of the public hearings to provide a written record, and are available upon request. With one exception, each person who provided oral comments at the public hearings also submitted, or represented an organization that submitted, written comments to Reclamation. Reclamation has reviewed the transcripts of oral testimony and determined that the written comments discussed each of the issues that had been raised in the oral comments made by speakers. Because responses have been provided for each of the specific issues raised in the written comments (see Part B of this volume), Reclamation has determined that responses to oral comments are not necessary (with one exception, as noted below). Table 1 is an index of those providing oral comments and the associated comment letters which contain responses to similar issues raised in the oral comments. Note that one commentor, Mr. Wade Noble, raised issues at the Phoenix, Arizona, meeting that were not specifically reiterated in a written comment submittal. Asior Reclamation such, Inter the7 has included a transcript of Mr. Noble’s statement, and has responded to 1 issues raised f the 9, 20 by Mr. Noble in Part B of this volume (see Letter 69). t. o p e r2 Name v. D mbe ation on Nove Table 1 jo N ve Comments at Public Hearings Persons Who a i Nav Provided Oral d in arch cited 16864, Associated Comment Organization Letter in Part B o. 14 N Ontario – August 21, 2000 James Bond Gerald Zimmerman San Diego County Water Authority Colorado River Board of California Letter 27 Letter 39 Las Vegas – August 22, 2000 George Caan Colorado River Commission of Nevada David Donnelly Southern Nevada Water Authority David Orr Glen Canyon Action Network Salt Lake City – August 23, 2000 Letter 43 Letter 29 1 Letter 10 Larry D. Anderson Wayne Cook Letter 46 Letter 32 State Division of Water Resources, Utah Upper Colorado River Commission Phoenix – August 24, 2000 Herb Dishlip Larry Dozier Doug Fant Robert Lynch Wade Noble 1 2 Arizona Department of Water Resources Central Arizona Water Conservation District Arizona Power Authority Irrigation & Electrical Districts Association of Arizona Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation & Drainage District Letter 37 Letter 14 Letter 35 Letter 22 2 Letter 69 The Glen Canyon Action Network was one of eleven organizations that jointly submitted comment letter 10 on the DIES. A transcript of oral comments provided by Mr. Wade Noble has been included in Part B as Letter 69. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS A-1 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 884 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 885 of 1200 VOLUME III PART B PART B – COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES This section contains copies of comment letters concerning the Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria DEIS that were received by Reclamation. Also included are Reclamation’s responses to each of the specific issues raised in these letters. Comment letters have been categorized according to their source, as listed in the Volume III Table of Contents. Each letter has been subdivided into specific issues to which Reclamation has prepared responses. Specific issues are indicated with vertical black lines marked within the left margin of each letter, with sequential numbering that indicates a reference number for each issue. Responses to each issue are numbered accordingly, and are presented to the right of each letter. ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS B-1 6 5 4 e Forbes Willson ......................................................................................................................................................... B-5 e Int rior 17 th t. of r 29, 20 Inskip........................................................................................................................................................................ B-6 p v. De vembe n Miller........................................................................................................................................................................ B-7 Natio d on No jo Zarbin ....................................................................................................................................................................... B-9 Nava archive in cited 16864, o. 14 N 3 Belles........................................................................................................................................................................ B-4 2 Page # Garcia ....................................................................................................................................................................... B-3 Individual Name 1 Letter # INDIVIDUALS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 886 of 1200 1 RESPONSES INDIVIDUAL - GARCIA B-3 LETTER 1 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. r 1: The Pacific . De for theeInstitutediscussed in Section 2.2.3. as anresponses tobut not analyzedand mbe n v depth ov reasons Proposal was considered See alternative Comment 11-2 in tio 13-4. jo Na ved on N a v in Na 4, archi cited 1686 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 887 of 1200 RESPONSES INDIVIDUAL - BELLES B-4 LETTER 2 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc 1: Reclamation notes the preference for the Shortage Protection Alternative. We also cite 168 wish to note that while the Shortage Protection Alternative would tend to produce the 4lowest reservoir levels, it shares with all alternatives the probability that the reservoirs o. 1 N would refill during periods of above-normal runoff. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 888 of 1200 B-5 LETTER 3 1: The EIS was prepared in close coordination with our Upper Colorado Regional Office in Salt Lake City, Utah. We have relied upon their involvement along with input from stakeholders of the Upper Basin states during the scoping, document preparation and public review processes to ensure Upper Basin issues and concerns are adequately addressed in the EIS. It is not accurate to consider water from the Animas or San Juan rivers, or any other of the Upper Basin tributaries, as surplus. It is only water in Lake Mead that the Secretary could make available for use in the Lower Division states that would be considered "surplus." Impacts of the surplus alternatives to the Upper Basin are limited to changes that may occur to the water levels in Lake Powell. INDIVIDUAL - FORBES-WILLSON RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 889 of 1200 RESPONSES INDIVIDUAL - INSKIP B-6 LETTER 4 ior Inter 17 the of Institute Proposal was0 t Pacific r 29, 2 considered alternative 1: The . in Dep for thembediscussed in Section 2.2.3. as anresponses tobut not analyzedand See Comment 11-2 v. depth ve reasons n 11-6. Natio d on No jo Nava archive in cited 16864, o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 890 of 1200 INDIVIDUAL - MILLER 2: Comment noted. Risks to Upper Basin states are limited due to Article III (3) (b) of the Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of the Colorado River Reservoirs pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Project Act of September 30, 1968 (Long Range Operating Criteria LROC). Pursuant to these documents, equalization criteria for Lakes Mead and Powell are suspended as reservoir elevations decrease and demands increase, delinking effects in the Upper Basin from surplus declarations. 1: Comment noted. RESPONSES B-7 LETTER 5 ior Inter 17 f the 20 3: Development of additional water storage within the Upper Colorado River Basin would not othe proposed 29,and is therefore not addressed in this EIS. t satisfy the p for e need. ber action D n v4:. Comment noted.m e Natio d on Nov jo Nava archive 5: See response to Comment 5-2 above. in cited 16864, 6: Comment noted. o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 6 5 4 3 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 891 of 1200 INDIVIDUAL - MILLER 7: As discussed above, the effects of interim surplus criteria on the Upper Basin are limited to changes in Lake Powell water level due to equalization provisions of the Colorado River Basin Projects Act of 1968. Given the current climate surrounding new water storage projects in the West, high elevation storage would take many years for formulation, approval and development. Your suggested commitment is beyond the scope of this EIS, which is to evaluate impacts of proposed criteria for declaring surplus conditions on the Colorado River during the next 15 years. RESPONSES B-8 LETTER 5 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 t. Dep mb between . believe that coordinationer the Upper Division and Lower Division states has resulted 8: v We adequate assessment of potential ationin anon ofNove period for theimpacts to the Upper Basin. We further believe that noof extension the comment DEIS accordance with Department jo N ved Interior Departmental Manual, the commentwas warranted. In for 60 days following filing of the period was open Nava archi the with EPA. The notice that provided the working draft of the Seven States proposal for DEIS in consideration along with the DEIS specified that its availability did not change the length of the ited 6864, c DEIS comment period. -1 14 No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 8 7 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 892 of 1200 2 1 RESPONSES B-9 INDIVIDUAL - ZARBIN LETTER 6 2: Reclamation agrees that attempting to predict future inflows is an impossible task. However, even with specific guidelines in place, the Secretary will utilize Article III(3)(b) of the LROC and the guidelines in making a water supply determination for use by the Lower Division states each year in the AOP process. The establishment of specific guidelines in no way guarantees any of the Lower Division states surplus water over the next 15 years. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. Comment Noted. . De 1: ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 893 of 1200 B-10 ior Inter 17 e o th 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFTfBLANK.9, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 894 of 1200 B-11 LETTER 7 ORGANIZATIONS - AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES, INC. RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 t. Dep . Comment noted.mber v1: ation on Nove N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 895 of 1200 ORGANIZATIONS - AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES, INC. RESPONSES B-12 LETTER 8 period. The filing date of the DEIS was July 7, 2000 and the public comment period officially ended on September 8, 2000. Reclamation believes that this 63-day period allowed sufficient time for review and comment on the DEIS. One of the four public hearings to receive public comments on the DEIS was held in an Upper Basin state, in Salt Lake City, Utah. As discussed in the DEIS, the area of potential effect analyzed in the EIS is the Colorado River corridor from Lake Powell down to the SIB. Because the majority of this area is located within the Lower Basin, and because surplus determinations made by the Secretary influence water supply in the Lower Division states, holding the majority of the public hearings within the Lower Basin was determined appropriate. The NEPA process, including scoping and the preparation and distribution of the DEIS and this FEIS, has provided an opportunity for Reclamation to identify and disclose to the public the potential effects of interim surplus criteria. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 1: CEQ regulations require a 45-day minimum review period for a DEIS, starting after a Notice of Availability is published in the Federal Register. Reclamation's practice is to o. 14 N extend this review period an additional 15 days, allowing for a 60-day minimum comment COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERI FEIS 1 VOLUME III, PART Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 896 of 1200 B-13 LETTER 8 2: Predictions of future climate are difficult to make, and there are conflicting points of view within the scientific community. Although the index sequential method of modeling using historical records is not a perfect predictor, it provides a rigorous representation of possible future hydrology during the coming decades. Statistical distributions obtained using this method do provide an indication of what could happen during periods of drought, using past drought scenarios as indicators. ORGANIZATIONS - AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES, INC. RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 897 of 1200 ORGANIZATIONS - AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES, INC. RESPONSES B-14 LETTER 9 2: A requirement that California make progress on its Colorado River Water Use Plan may be included in ISC Guidelines. California is responsible for funding any costs associated with compliance and implementation of their plan components. This includes costs for mitigating impacts of those actions that require Secretarial approval as determined by other federal and state environmental compliance documents. which result from releases to Lake Mead to "equalize" storage between the two reservoirs as discussed in Section 1.4.2 of the EIS. Reclamation is only proposing surplus criteria be in effect for an interim 15-year period, during which time they would be subject to review every 5 years, along with reviews of the LROC. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 1: Reasons the Upper Basin states support adoption of interim surplus guidelines are discussed in the interim surplus criteria proposals submitted by Six-States (see Attachment 41 E), and by the Seven States proposed criteria (see Federal Register notice in Chapter 5). No. Impacts to the Upper Basin states are based on changes to water levels in Lake Powell, COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 898 of 1200 3: As noted in EIS section 2.3, the interim surplus criteria would terminate at the end of the 15-year period. In the absence of subsequently specified criteria, surplus determinations would be made as is currently done, as part of the annual operating plan development (AOP) process. If California is not making progress in implementing its Colorado River Water Use Plan, the Secretary may choose to revert back to 70R Strategy or the AOP process during the interim period. ORGANIZATIONS - AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES, INC. RESPONSES B-15 LETTER 9 4: Reclamation is not aware of any program or process by this name. It is the intent of this current process to carefully consider any potential adverse consequences of alternative courses of action discussed by this document. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4 3 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 899 of 1200 B-16 LETTER 10 ORGANIZATIONS - CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 900 of 1200 B-17 LETTER 10 4: Based on experience gained in modeling the operation of the alternatives in the DEIS, it was apparent to Reclamation that the shortage triggers proposed by the Seven States would place the effects of operating with those triggers and their related provisions in the midst of the range of the alternatives presented in the DEIS. It was also apparent that the effects of the Seven States Proposal would relate to those of other alternatives as a matter of degree rather than as new and different kinds of impacts. The preferred alternative in this FEIS derived from the Seven States Proposal has been subjected to the same analysis as the other alternatives in the FEIS. 2: See the response to Comment 11-2 and 11-6. 1: See response to Comment 11-2 and 11-6. ORGANIZATIONS - CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 3: The 4.4 Plan has been superseded by California's draft Colorado River Water Use Plan (CA Plan), which has been publically available from the Colorado River Board of California. o. 14 N For more information see response to Comment 11-11. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4 3 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 901 of 1200 5: Reclamation did not structure the preferred alternative precisely as described in that draft proposal, but made some changes for consistency with the purpose and need for the proposed action, Reclamation policy and operational procedures. ORGANIZATIONS - CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY RESPONSES B-18 LETTER 10 ior Inter 17 t e 6: The preferred alternative in this FEIS would not change the Secretary's discretion 20 of ofh 2river flows, which stems from the Law of the River. . regarding the regulation Colorado 9, eptcontainedberDraft Seven States Proposal is not included in the preferred D Clause IV.B.3.f in the alternative. n v. em tio ov jo Na ved on N Nava archi in 7: Reclamation is consulting with the Service for the delta area of Mexico, as discussed in cited 16864, Section 5.3.4 of the FEIS. The action area extends to the Sea of Cortez. o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 7 6 5 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 902 of 1200 B-19 LETTER 10 9: Cumulative transboundary impacts are discussed in Section 4.2. Implementation of the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (LCRMSCP) is expected to prevent adverse cumulative effects to the biological resources of the lower Colorado River. The LCRMSCP is being developed to mitigate the adverse effects on resources from current and future water diversions and power production with the cooperation of federal, state, Tribal and other public and private stakeholders. The LCRMSCP will include the creation and enhancement of habitat and augmentation of native fish species populations from Lake Mead to the SIB. The LCRMSCP is evaluating the appropriate amount of acreage for restoration. Currently, acreage estimates range from a low of 3,000 acres to a high of 80,000 acres of riparian woodland, marsh, open water and mesquite habitat. 8: Regarding the effects on species found in both Mexico and the United States (such as the southwestern willow flycatcher), Reclamation is consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. For potentially affected species found only in Mexico, Reclamation is consulting with the National Marine Fisheries Service. Concurrent with these consultations, Reclamation is also continuing its dialog with Mexico to reach mutually agreeable solutions. ORGANIZATIONS - CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 10: Comment noted. Reclamation believes that the level of analysis for energy resources o. 14 N presented in the EIS appropriately identifies the potential effects of interim surplus criteria. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 10 9 8 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 903 of 1200 B-20 LETTER 10 ORGANIZATIONS - CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 904 of 1200 B-21 LETTER 10 ORGANIZATIONS - CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 905 of 1200 ORGANIZATIONS - DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE RESPONSES B-22 LETTER 11 eliminated it from detailed analysis. It mirrors the Six States Alternative which was analyzed in depth. The portion of the Pacific Institute proposal calling for delivery of water to the Gulf of California is not within the purpose and need for the action and thus not analyzed. A Supplemental DEIS is not required because it did consider a portion of a reasonable alternative as noted above. See Response 13-4. The Seven States draft proposal and Reclamation's Basin States Alternative analyzed in the EIS are within the range of the other alternatives analyzed and their impacts are very similar to the Six States and California Alternatives. The California 4.4 Plan is not an issue in this EIS and a working draft of California's Colorado River Water Use Plan published in May 2000 has been available for public review through the Colorado River Board of California. Endangered species, transboundary, and cumulative impact analyses have been updated as a normal course proceeding from a draft to a final EIS and no supplement is required. ior Inter 17 f the 9, 20 1: The overall goal of the interim surplus criteria is not to return California to it 4.4 maf odiscussed in Section 2.2.3 of the EIS, providing flows to the Gulf of apportionment. As pt. California would not meet the purpose and need for ISC. The status of habitat along the . DeRiver inember 2 in an analysis of impacts of the interim criteria. v ation Colorado ov concluded discussed N Mexico is that the alternatives would not result in a significant additional Reclamation has N on jo harm to downstream habitat and is working with Mexico to collaboratively solve problems in Nava archived Mexico. in cited 16864, o. 14 N 2: A discussed in Section 2.2.3, Reclamation considered the Pacific Institute proposal but COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 906 of 1200 3: See above response. Note that the EIS presents information with regard to Colorado River flows to Mexico under baseline conditions and the alternatives. Note also that additional information has been added to the discussion of these flows in Section 2.16.5 of the FEIS. The allocation of surplus water is not discretionary. The decree issued March 9, 1964 by the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. California apportioned surplus water for use as follows: 50% for use in California, 46% for use in Arizona and 4% for use in Nevada. However, the Secretary must annually adopt an Annual Operating Plan (AOP) for operation of the Colorado River reservoirs. The AOP establishes the plan of operations for Colorado River reservoirs during the coming year and establishes whether the coming year will be a surplus, normal or shortage year. The Secretary's discretion lies in his determination as to whether sufficient water is available for release to satisfy consumptive use in Arizona, California and Nevada in excess of 7.5 maf. In making this determination, the Secretary considers existing water storage conditions in the Colorado River basin and projected inflows and beneficial consumptive use requirements of Colorado River mainstream use. The respondent commented that releases for navigation and regulation, like flood control releases, are not subject to the injunction for consumptive use amounts set forth in Article II of the Decree. However, in the case cited by the respondent, Laughlin River Tours, Inc. et al. v. Bureau of Reclamation, et al., the United States District Court stated the following: "each of the priorities is interdependent on the other, and the Secretary has broad discretion in meeting the needs of [lower] priorities. . . . " The court found that Section 6 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act does not require the Secretary to maximize first priority purposes before establishing criteria to meet lower priorities. The Secretary must operate the Colorado River System in a manner that complies with the water release requirements set forth in Article II of the Decree, but each priority cannot be looked at individually at the expense of ignoring the others. ORGANIZATIONS - DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE RESPONSES B-23 LETTER 11 5: The Secretary's statements, in his December 1999 address, were not intended to be contrary to federal law or treaty. The Defenders of Wildlife definition of surplus is not contained in the Decree. The Secretary recognized, in his statement, the need for greater cooperation with Mexico and for consultation on delta issues in the Joint Declaration. Other mechanisms that the Department of the Interior, and particularly the Bureau of Reclamation, have been working on include the Joint Declaration and the follow-up conference held October 11, 2000, in Washington, D.C. Reclamation is also actively participating in the Fourth Technical Work Group (Delta Task Force), which is a bi-national group working to conduct a joint baseline study of the water and natural resource conditions in the Cienega de Santa Clara and the adjoining lowermost part of the delta of the Colorado River utilizing the resources of these agencies in monitoring, field work, photography and data exchange. finally resulted in a clear definition of the Secretary's discretionary authority. Reclamation believes the scope of this NEPA analysis and concurrent ESA consultation for proposed interim surplus criteria is consistent with the Secretary's discretion and responsibilities as water master of the lower Colorado River. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived discussed above, Reclamation agrees that the Secretary not only has broad discretion in making 4: As Na the Lower Division states d in 64, arc surplus water available for beneficial use inReclamation's requirementwhile meeting treaty obligations to Mexico, but is responsible for doing so. to release water only for cite 168 reasonable beneficial use pertains only to use within the Lower Division states; we are not responsible 41 for accounting for use of water delivered to Mexico. Reclamation has not avoided ESA consultation by No. narrowly defining its discretion; in fact it was the process of consulting on on-going operations that COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5 4 3 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 907 of 1200 B-24 LETTER 11 9: The stated purpose is to provide greater predictability of when surplus water is and is not available to assist in the Secretary's management of the lower Colorado River for all states and water users. Reclamation has fashioned a new alternative based on the Seven States proposal and believes this alternative does fit within the purpose and need for this action. need for interim surplus criteria, the Pacific Institute's proposal is not analyzed in this FEIS. 6: An EIS need not consider an infinite range of alternatives, only reasonable and feasible ones and those reasonably related to the purposes of the project that afford a reasoned choice by the decision maker. The rule of reason shall be utilized in development of a range of alternatives. NEPA does not require a separate analysis of alternatives which are not significantly distinguishable from alternatives actually considered, or which have substantially similar consequences. For these reasons, Reclamation considered the Pacific Institute proposal but eliminated it from further analysis because part of it did not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action and the remainder of the alternative mirrored the Six State's Alternative which was analyzed in depth for the DEIS. Please also refer to the response to Comment 11-2. ORGANIZATIONS - DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v The for the surplus defined the Treaty is beyond ation 7: ondetermination of guidelines or criteriacriteria. Water delivery toinMexico is regulated by Nov the jo N ved purpose of and need for interim surplusbased on consultation between the United Nava archi the Treaty and various treaty modifications States and Mexico. The 1984 and 1998 deliveries were uncontrollable flood flows. in ited 6864, c -1 8: Because the domestic elements of the Pacific Institute's proposed interim surplus criteria o. 14 are similar to, and within the range of, those contained in the alternatives already being N analyzed, and because the delivery of additional water to Mexico is beyond the purpose and COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 9 8 7 6 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 908 of 1200 10: After a review of the criteria in the Working Draft Seven States Proposal, Reclamation formulated the Basin States Alternative to match that proposal as closely as possible while maintaining consistency with the Law of the River and current operating policy. Reclamation considered the informal discussions with the public during the public review period and comments received on the DEIS. ORGANIZATIONS - DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE RESPONSES B-25 LETTER 11 11: The California Colorado Water Use Plan is not part of this federal action (see response 57-15). The quantities of surplus water made available under each surplus alternative are now detailed in Chapter 2. The specific deliveries to California under the preferred alternative (Basin States) are shown in Figure 3.4-2 and detailed in Attachment H. A draft of the Plan was made available on Coachella Valley Water District's website (www.cvwd.org) prior to the release of the DEIS. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 11 10 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 909 of 1200 12: Reclamation agrees that the use of surplus water for groundwater recharge when storage in Lake Mead and Lake Powell have been partially depleted increases the risk of subsequent shortages and intensifies the effects on other resources. This is recognized in the derivation of the permitted amounts of surplus water to be made available to the Lower Division states with the lower Lake Mead water level surplus triggers. As can be seen in the surplus water quantities cited in Chapter 2, the surplus water available would be lower at lower Lake Mead water levels. However, such provisions are not included in the Shortage Protection Alternative because that alternative represents an extreme that helps to define the range of options for interim surplus criteria. ORGANIZATIONS - DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE RESPONSES B-26 LETTER 11 assumptions made with respect to modeling the bypass flows are intended only to provide a thorough and comprehensive accounting of Lower Basin water supply. The U.S. is exploring options for replacement of the bypass flows, including options that would not require operation of the Yuma Desalting Plant. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 13: The purpose of this action, as stated in Section 1.1.1 of this FEIS, is to adopt interim t. surplusDep delivery of surplus water to Arizona, California and Nevada. This . criteria for NOTmberto identify conditions when Mexico may schedule this v proposed action is intended ationadditional 0.2 maf,vas stated in Section releasesthisstrictly aDelivery of assumption asto No e flood control 1.1.4 of is FEIS. modeling surplus water stated N Mexico during Lake on vajo hived Section 3.3.3.3. Mead in Na in rc ited 6864, a c 14: Operation of the Yuma desalting plant was strictly a modeling assumption. It should be noted that the U.S. recognizes that it has an obligation to replace, as appropriate, the 14-1 bypass flows. The assumptions made herein, for modeling purposes, do not necessarily No. represent the policy that Reclamation will adopt for replacement of bypass flows. The COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 14 13 12 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 910 of 1200 15: The FEIS includes an analysis of impacts for the Limotrophe Division (from the NIB to the SIB). The area of potential effect described in Section 3.2 is associated with areas in the U.S. The transboundary analysis considers potential effects in Mexico consistent with NEPA and CEQ guidelines. The area considered in Mexico is described fully in Section 3.16. ORGANIZATIONS - DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE RESPONSES B-27 LETTER 11 17: The basis for the 1,478,000 tons of salt control is described in the "1999 Review Water Quality Standards for Salinity Control Colorado River System" prepared by the Forum. 16: The seven state Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, in cooperation with Reclamation, USDA, BLM, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and EPA has, since 1972, been overseeing the plan of implementation to maintain the salinity at or below the adopted criteria. Maintenance of the criteria is the result of rigorous analyses. The plan is reviewed every three years and approved by EPA. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 17 16 15 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 911 of 1200 19: Section 3.16 has been revised to reflect available information at NIB. Mexico retains control at Morelos Dam as to what is done with the water that arrives there. However, excess water diverted may not be consumptively used in Mexico, but released back to the Rio Hardy and Colorado River as waste and/or irrigation drainage. No data is available to Reclamation on the amount of these wasteway and drainage return flows, so final disposition of diverted water is not known by Reclamation. 18: Comment noted. Section 3.16.6.1 has been revised to state that "... reductions have been instituted while meeting the requirements of an international treaty and the diversion and use of such Treaty water is solely of Mexico's discretion." At least since execution of the Treaty, it is incorrect to state that responsibility for reductions of flows to the Colorado River delta lies with United States interests alone. ORGANIZATIONS - DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE RESPONSES B-28 21: See response to Comment 10-8. LETTER 11 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na 20: See above response. Note that the EIS presents information with regard to Colorado d in 64, arc River flows to Mexico under baseline conditions and the alternatives. Note also that cite 168 additional information has been added to the discussion of these flows in section 3.3.4.5.4 entitled "River Flows between Imperial Dam and Morelos Dam" of the FEIS. o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 21 20 19 18 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 912 of 1200 23: This correction has been made. 22: This information is included in Reclamation's analysis. ORGANIZATIONS - DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE RESPONSES B-29 LETTER 11 30: The recent completion of a recovery plan for the southwestern willow flycatcher is noted in the analysis, and is limited to activities in the United States. 29: This statement has been removed. Reclamation has received input supporting and opposing analysis of impacts on the totoaba in Mexico. 24: This citation has been corrected. ior Inter 17 e f t added. obeenh 29, 20 25. This citation has pt. . De ember v Recent ov ation 26: n Nresearch for the vaquita has been incorporated in the analysis. o jo N ved 27: The information has been cited in the analysis for the totoaba. Nava archi in cited 16864, 28: The analysis is recognizes effects of past, current and reasonably foreseeable operations on the totoaba as part of the baseline condition. 14No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 913 of 1200 33: As discussed in the EIS, the potential effects on system conditions (including reservoir elevations and river flows) were determined by modeling potential future conditions under baseline conditions and each of the alternatives. To the extent possible, expected future actions that would affect system conditions were included in system conditions modeling, and the impacts of these actions are therefore accounted for in the resource analyses in Chapter 3 of the EIS. In addition, implementation of the LCRMSCP is expected to prevent adverse cumulative effects to the biological resources of the lower Colorado River. The LCRMSCP is being developed to mitigate the adverse effects on resources from current and future water diversions and power production with the cooperation of federal, state, Tribal and other public and private stakeholders. The LCRMSCP will include the creation and enhancement of habitat and augmentation of native fish species populations from Lake Mead to the SIB. The LCRMSCP is evaluating the appropriate amount of acreage for restoration. Currently, acreage estimates range from a low of 3,000 acres to a high of 80,000 acres of riparian woodland, marsh, open water and mesquite habitat. 32: This information on the yellow-billed cuckoo is included. 31: The analysis includes an update for the Yuma clapper rail. ORGANIZATIONS - DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE RESPONSES B-30 LETTER 11 35: No significant impacts have been identified that require specific mitigation. However, Section 3.17 has been added to the FEIS to discuss environmental commitments that Reclamation would undertake upon adoption of interim surplus criteria through the Secretary's Record of Decision. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na Section 4.2 has been modified and Reclamation beleives that it has appropriately d in 64, arc addressed potential cumulative effects of the proposed action. cite 168 14 34: See response to Comment 10-9. No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 35 34 33 32 31 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 914 of 1200 36: The action area extends to the Sea of Cortez. Reclamation is consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service for the delta area of Mexico and effects of the interim surplus criteria on species that occur in both the U. S. and Mexico or only in Mexico are discussed in Section 3.16, Transboundary Impacts. ORGANIZATIONS - DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE RESPONSES B-31 LETTER 11 status species in Section 3.16 has been revised. Reclamation has concluded that implementation of interim surplus criteria may affect, but is unlikely to adversely, some species and is consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS, as required by Section 7 of the ESA. ior Inter 17 e 37: Reclamation is informally consulting with NMFS, as described in Section 5.3.5 of the of th of effects,on20vaquita and totoaba in Mexico is also FEIS. Reclamation's assessment 29 the pt. included in Section 3.16.6 ofber . De em the FEIS. The August 14 memo is included in Attachment S. v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N 38: As indicated by response to Comment 11-36 above, the analysis of effects to special COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 38 37 36 cnt'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 915 of 1200 B-32 LETTER 11 39: A comprehensive discussion of this issue is in the end of the next section. Reclamation does not believe that a Supplemental DEIS is required. We have expanded the area of potential effect and revised analyses of water quality and sensitive species impacts. A preferred alternative and environmental commitments are identified in the FEIS. The ROD will discuss the environmentally preferred alternative. ORGANIZATIONS - DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 39 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 916 of 1200 B-33 LETTER 11 ORGANIZATIONS - DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 917 of 1200 B-34 LETTER 12 ORGANIZATIONS - PACIFIC INSTITUTE RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 918 of 1200 B-35 LETTER 12 ORGANIZATIONS - PACIFIC INSTITUTE RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 919 of 1200 B-36 LETTER 12 ORGANIZATIONS - PACIFIC INSTITUTE RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 920 of 1200 ORGANIZATIONS - PACIFIC INSTITUTE RESPONSES B-37 LETTER 12 2: The area of potential effect has been expanded to include consideration of the Colorado River 100-year floodplain to the SIB. The Transboundary analysis has been modified in the FEIS and Reclamation believes this section appropriately assesses potential effects in Mexico. 1: Reclamation agrees and has modeled and analyzed the Basin State Alternative for this FEIS. It should be noted that this alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 921 of 1200 4: See response to Comment 57-11. 3: Section 3.16.5.3 has been added to the FEIS to provide information on the general potential impacts that the implementation of interim surplus criteria may have on the frequency of excess flows to Mexico as well as the potential resultant impacts to groundwater recharge and salinity South of the SIB. Reclamation does not concur with the suggestions presented under the headings - "Baseline", "Cumulative Impacts" and "Environmental Responsibilities." Reclamation's rationale for using the analyses criteria and type of analysis presented in the DEIS and FEIS are explained and detailed in these documents. See responses below. ORGANIZATIONS - PACIFIC INSTITUTE RESPONSES B-38 LETTER 12 9: Comment noted. Please refer to the introduction to Volume III regarding the proposed action and its relationship to California's program to reduce its dependence on surplus water. 8: Comment noted. Section 3.16.6 of the FEIS has been expanded to provide more information on the potential effects of changes in excess flows on habitat and threatened or endangered species in Mexico for each of the alternatives. 7: Reclamation disagrees with the commentor's opinion that the DEIS is inadequate and should be revised and a supplemental DEIS reissued. Reclamation has followed regulations implementing NEPA and it is accepted practice to update, refine, clarify and make factual corrections to the content and analyses in the EIS resulting from improved data control, public comments, coordination with interested parties and incorporate these changes into the document and circulate it as a FEIS. e ior IntandrReclamation believes that it has appropriately 5: Section 4.2 has been e 17 th modified addressed potential cumulative effects20 proposed action. t. of r 29, of the Dep mbe v. 6: An EIS need not consider an infinite range of alternatives, only reasonable and feasible n ve Natio d oonesNothose reasonably related to the purposes of the project that afford a reasoned and n jo maker. reason of range Nava archive choice by the decisiondoes notThe rule aofseparateshall be utilized in developmentare anot of alternatives. NEPA require analysis of alternatives which in significantly distinguishable from alternatives actually considered, or which have cited 16864, substantially similar consequences. For these reasons Reclamation considered the Pacific Institute alternative but eliminated it from further analysis because part of it did not meet the 41 purpose and need of the proposed action and the remainder of the alternative mirrored the No. Six States Alternative which was analyzed in depth. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 922 of 1200 B-39 LETTER 12 ORGANIZATIONS - PACIFIC INSTITUTE RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 923 of 1200 10: Comment noted. B-40 LETTER 12 ORGANIZATIONS - PACIFIC INSTITUTE RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 10 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 924 of 1200 ORGANIZATIONS - PACIFIC INSTITUTE RESPONSES B-41 LETTER 12 12: See Sections 1.3.6 and 3.3.1.2 for explanations of flood control operations for Lake Mead (Hoover Dam). ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived 11: See response to Comment 22-8. Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 12 11 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 925 of 1200 13: Potential effects on special-status species within the expanded area of potential effect are addressed Section 3.8 of the FEIS. Map 3.2-1 has been revised to more accurately represent the area of potential effect considered within the U.S. as well as areas within Mexico that are addressed in Section 3.16, Transboundary Impacts. ORGANIZATIONS - PACIFIC INSTITUTE RESPONSES B-42 LETTER 12 15: Reclamation believes that the analysis presented in this section. Section 3.16, Transboundary Impacts, has been modified for the FEIS and adequately and appropriately identifies potential effects of interim surplus criteria in Mexico. Note that Reclamation is committed to working with Mexico to address specific concerns. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 14: See response to Comment 12-8. 14No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 15 14 13 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 926 of 1200 B-43 19: See response to Comment 12-5. LETTER 12 18: Comment noted. Section 3.16.6.1 has been revised to state that "...reductions have been instituted while meeting the requirements of an international treaty and the diversion and use of such treaty water is solely at Mexico's discretion." At least since execution of the Treaty, it is incorrect to state that responsibility for reductions of flows to Colorado River delta lies with U.S. interests alone. 16: Potential effects on special-status species within the river corridor between Hoover Dam and the SIB are addressed in the BA for ISC/SIAs and have been summarized in Section 3.8 of the FEIS. ORGANIZATIONS - PACIFIC INSTITUTE RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v o ation onThe EISv as necessary to identify the differences jo N ved 17: Neachdiscusses these potential effects baseline conditions. Table 3.16-1 has been between of the alternatives compared to Nava archi updated in the FEIS with revised data. in ited 6864, c -1 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 19 18 17 16 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 927 of 1200 20: See responses to Comment 11-8 and 13-4. ORGANIZATIONS - PACIFIC INSTITUTE RESPONSES B-44 LETTER 12 ior Inter 17 Pacific Institute's proposed interim 21: Reclamation has he the clarifications of the t noted surplus criteria, and the recital of differences between its proposal and the Seven States . revised r 2 of 20 tTheof provisions9,Pacific Institute's plan have been included in Attachment p Proposal. of the entitled Surplus v. FDe FEIS embe Criteria Proposal by Pacific Institute. ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 21 20 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 928 of 1200 22: Comment noted. B-45 LETTER 12 ORGANIZATIONS - PACIFIC INSTITUTE RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. Comment DSee . 23: e response tober 18. nv em tio ov jo Na ved on N Nava archi in cited 16864, o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 23 22 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 929 of 1200 25: See response to Comment No. 14-10 for information regarding depletion schedules used in the FEIS. 24: See the response to Comment No. 31-8 for a discussion of the Index Sequential Method. Other methods are possible, and Reclamation is evaluating them for future use. ORGANIZATIONS - PACIFIC INSTITUTE RESPONSES B-46 LETTER 12 28: See response to Comment No. 11-14 for a discussion of the FEIS assumption that the Yuma Desalination Plant will begin operations after 2022. Mexico's 1.5 maf annual apportionment is actually delivered below Morelos Dam, the entire delivery to Mexico was modeled at Morelos Dam. This basic assumption, while different than actual practice, served to simplify and facilitate the analysis of water deliveries to Mexico under the baseline conditions and surplus alternatives. ior Inter 17 the ofLake Mead29, 20 1, 2002 was used for the initial condition t. e projected See er elevation on January DThep in . 26:FEIS modeling.mbresponse to Comment No. 13-22 for further discussion. v ation on Nove N vajo hived 27: The following excerpt will be added to Section 3.4.3.6 to address the Mexico water Na supply delivery requirements under Minute 242: Minute 242 provides, in part, that United d in 64, arc States will deliver to Mexico approximately 1,360,000 acre-feet (1,677,545,000 cubic meters) cite 168 annually upstream of Morelos Dam and approximately 140,000 acre-feet (172,689,000 cubic 4meters) annually on the land boundary at San Luis and in the limitrophe section of the o. 1 N Colorado River downstream from Morelos Dam. It should be noted that while a portion of COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 28 27 26 25 24 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 930 of 1200 30: Reclamation did not use only a single year as the basis for the baseline in the DEIS. See the response to Comment 57-11 for an explanation of the derivation of the baseline. 29: There is not yet a consensus in the scientific community regarding whether long-term climate change will result in overall wetting or drying of the Colorodo River Basin. The use of the Index Sequential Method captures a wide range of flow conditions that enables the evaluation of future water supply conditions under different hydrologic scenarios. See the response to Comment No. 31-8 for a discussion of the Index Sequential Method. ORGANIZATIONS - PACIFIC INSTITUTE RESPONSES B-47 LETTER 12 31: Reclamation's statement that the Seven States Proposal was substantially similar to the Six States Alternative was a conclusion about the need for a preliminary analysis to accompany the DEIS. The preferred alternative has been derived from the Seven States draft proposal, and has been analyzed in this FEIS at the same degree of detail as the other alternatives. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 31 30 29 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 931 of 1200 B-48 LETTER 12 35: Comment noted. All tables and figures have been updated to reflect data modeled for FEIS, and have been made more readable. The incorrect statement regarding frequency of flows to Mexico being greater for the baseline and flood control alternatives has been corrected. 32: Figures and text were provided in the various sections of the DEIS and FEIS that describe current and historical conditions, many on an annual basis. ORGANIZATIONS - PACIFIC INSTITUTE RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. 33: See Comment . De response tober No. 13-27 for a discussion of seasonal analyses. v m n e Natio d on Nov jo Nava archive in 34: See response to Comment No. 13-28 for a discussion of model time steps. cited 16864, o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 35 34 33 32 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 932 of 1200 36: The Seven States Proposal is identified as the Basin States Alternative/Preferred Alternative in the FEIS. The Basin States Alternative has been evaluated in this FEIS. Several particular sections of the Basin States Alternative, including III.3.(f) have not been incorporated in the Basin StatesAlternative/Preferred Alternative. ORGANIZATIONS - PACIFIC INSTITUTE RESPONSES B-49 LETTER 12 sufficient mainstream water is available for release to satisfy annual consumptive use in excess of 7.5 maf, such excess consumptive use is surplus, and 50 percent shall be apportioned for use in California, 46 percent apportioned for use in Arizona, and 4 percent for use in Nevada. When making a surplus determination, the Secretary must apply the criteria in the Long-Range Operating Criteria (Section 602 of P.L. 90-537) in development of the Annual Operating Plan. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc 37: The Secretary, under the powers vested by Congress in Section 5 of the BCPA, as cite 168 confirmed by Section II(B)(2)of the 1964 Decree, has certain discretionary authority to determine whether any year is a surplus, normal or shortage year. When more than 7.5 maf 14 of Colorado River water is available for consumptive use during a calendar year in the three No. lower Division States, this is a surplus determination. Pursuant to the Decree II(B)(2), if COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 37 36 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 933 of 1200 B-50 LETTER 12 38: The DEIS and FEIS include a section on "Environmental Justice" (3.15) for purposes of addressing potential economic and social impacts on minority and low-income populations. Executive Order 12898 establishes the achievement of environmental justice as a priority, but this direction is specific to minority and low-income populations in the United States. No socio-economic effects are anticipated due to implemnation of any of the interim surplus alternatives. In addition, the transboundary impacts section of the EIS, which addresses impacts to natural resources on Mexico, does not anticipate any adverse effects to sensitive biological resources along the river in Mexico. This includes potential impacts to commercial or subsistence harvesting of shrimp, fish or crops in Mexico. ORGANIZATIONS - PACIFIC INSTITUTE RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 38 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 934 of 1200 B-51 2: Comment Noted. LETTER 13 ORGANIZATIONS - SOUTHWEST RIVERS RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 ept. r 1: v. D Noted. mbe Comment n e tio ov jo Na ved on N Nava archi in cited 16864, o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 935 of 1200 3: Please refer to the response to Comment 10-4. ORGANIZATIONS - SOUTHWEST RIVERS RESPONSES B-52 LETTER 13 ior Inter 17 e of th 2 range of0 4: An EIS need not consider an infinite9, 2 alternatives, only reasonable and feasible ept. b ones and those reasonably related to the purposes of the project that afford a reasoned . Dthe decision maker. er rule of reason shall be utilized in development of a range v choice by m The ationof alternatives.ovedoes fromrequire a separate analysis of alternatives whichsubstantially N NEPA not alternatives actually considered, or which have are not N significantly vajo hived on distinguishable these reasons, Reclamation considered the Pacific Institute similar consequences. For Na proposal but eliminated it from further analysis because part of it did not meet the purpose in rc and need of the proposed action and the remainder of the alternative mirrored the Six State's ited 6864, a c Alternative which was analyzed in depth for the DEIS. Please also refer to the response to -1 Comment 11-2. 14 No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4 3 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 936 of 1200 5: The purpose and need acknowledge California's efforts to lower their Colorado River consumptive use. The DEIS did note that in Section 1.4, Related and Ongoing Activities, the 4.4 Plan, now the California Colorado River Water Use Plan (CA Plan), was under development. Further, the CA Plan is not a federal action. To the extent federal actions are required as part of the plan, each element will undergo appropriate environmental compliance. As evidenced by the recent draft version of the CA Plan, this is still a work in progress although various parties have different views. Reclamation has never viewed surplus as a part of the CA Plan. Moreover, the measure of progress in implementing the CA Plan concerns reduction in water need rather than physical or institutional arrangements. ORGANIZATIONS - SOUTHWEST RIVERS RESPONSES B-53 LETTER 13 8: An anlaysis of the frequency with which the triggering criteria for BHBFs and low steady summer flows would be met under each of the alternatives has been conducted for the FEIS (see Section 3.6). When compared to the baseline conditions, the probability of a BHBF being triggered under the preferred alternative is reduced by 1.1% during the interim period (through 2016) and by 0.1% during the remaining period (through 2050). The probability of a low steady summer flow being triggered under the preferred alternative is reduced by 2.9% during the interim period and increased by 0.3% during the subsequent period. Given the margin of error in forecasting runoff, these proposed minor changes are not expected to impact the resources in the Colorado River corridor form Glen Canyon Dam to the headwaters of Lake Mead. 6: Revised depletion schedules provided by the Basin States were used in FEIS analyses. See response to Comment No. 14-10 for more detail. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na 7: The area of potential effect has been expanded for the FEIS to include the Colorado River d in 64, arc cite 168 and 100-year floodplain to the Southerly International Boundary within the U.S. Section 3.16 of the EIS, Transboundary Impacts, addresses potential effects within Mexico. 41 No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 8 7 6 5 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 937 of 1200 B-54 LETTER 13 preferred alternative in the FEIS does not define the agency's final decision but lets the public know what the agency considers the best alternative. No supplemental DEIS is required. 9: Additional information has been included in Section 4.2 of the FEIS to expand the cumulative impacts analysis. However, impacts of the California Colorado River Water Use Plan or from off-stream storage and banking is considered to be outside of the area of potential effect of the proposed action. The 4.4 Plan and off-stream storage by the California parties are ongoing and other projects are only proposals at this time. These potential actions are speculative at present and without decisions that constitute an action for analysis; and do not depend on interim surplus criteria but rather are state actions. Reasonably foreseeable California actions will be analyzed through the CEQA process and, if decision documents are available will be incorporated into this EIS. Actions required under the approved 1997 LCR Operations Biological Opinion are not subject to NEPA. ORGANIZATIONS - SOUTHWEST RIVERS RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 10: CEQ regulations do not require the identification of a preferred alternative in the DEIS, if o. 14 N none has been determined. A preferred alternative will be identified in the FEIS. Defining a COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 10 9 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 938 of 1200 21: Revised depletion schedules provided by the Basin States were used in FEIS analyses. See response to Comment No. 14-10 for more detail. 12: See response to Comment No. 31-8a for a discussion of the Index Sequential Method of modeling. 11: See response to Comment No. 31-8a for a discussion of the Index Sequential Method of modeling. ORGANIZATIONS - SOUTHWEST RIVERS RESPONSES B-55 LETTER 13 26: Reclamation assumes that California will abide by the use determinations as spelled out in Article II(B)(1-3) of the Decree, therefore ALL alternative model runs assume a California use of 4.4 maf when the Secretary makes the determination of a normal year (7.5 maf available) in accordance with Article II(B)(1) of the Decree. California has prepared and submitted depletion schedules that specify the amount of water scheduled for delivery and the location at which delivery is requested under normal, surplus and shortage water supply conditions. The delivery of water to California during the interim surplus criteria period is dependent on the prevailing water supply conditions and is modeled pursuant to this and the applicable depletion schedule. A copy of the revised depletion schedule prepared and submitted by California and used for the modeling of the baseline and surplus alternatives for the FEIS is included in Attachment H. 25: The 75R modeling criteria used in the DEIS has been changed to 70R for the FEIS. Section C of this volume includes a discussion of this change. 22: The starting Lake Mead elevation used in the FEIS model was changed from January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2002 in order to reflect estimated reservoir conditions at the beginning of the interim surplus period. Reclamation used the 24-month study model to develop a January 1, 2002 projection based on reservoir content in September 2000 and forecasted and average future hydrologic conditions. This enabled setting the FEIS model start date to match the interim surplus criteria start date of January 1, 2002. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v o ation 23: The deliveryv Colorado River water to Mexico was simplified in the model to simplify and on N of jo N vedfacilitate the analysis of water deliveries to Mexico. An explanation of how water is actually Mexico and modeling assumptions Nava archi delivered to been added theSection 3.3.3.3 (Generalwith respect to the delivery of water to Mexico has to Modeling Assumptions). d in 64, cite 168 24: The FEIS assumed that the Yuma Desalination Plant would be operational after 2022. See response to Comment No. 37-11 for further discussion. o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 26 25 24 23 22 21 12 11 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 939 of 1200 B-56 LETTER 13 year are the variables in the system with the greatest impact on the system. However, Reclamation believes that the DEIS was accurate regarding predictability and that given certain hydrologic assumptions users will be able to predict with greater certainty the existence of surplus and expected amounts of surplus available, doing away with the dynamic factors currently used in the AOP. 27: The intent of the analysis presented in Section 3.3.4.5 was not to evaluate the maximum or variation in seasonal flows to the delta but rather to evaluate and acquire an understanding of the potential effect of the surplus criteria under the modeled surplus alternatives relative to the modeled baseline conditions. Reclamation is of the opinion that the analysis presented in Section 3.3.4.5 accomplishes this. 13: Additional explanation has been added to Section 3.3.and Section 3.4 with respect to the interpretation of the figures in these sections and the meaning of the analysis results. ORGANIZATIONS - SOUTHWEST RIVERS RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation28: onRiverWare model is a monthly time step model and as such is limited to evaluation of Nov jo N ved The River operation conditions on an aggregated monthly basis. Reclamation will take Nava archi Colorado into consideration when making future improvements to the RiverWare model. this suggestion in ited 6864, c -1 14: Reclamation agrees that we can not absolutely predict when surplus flows will be o. 14 N available in coming years. Inflow into the Colorado River and carryover storage from year to COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 14 28 27 13 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 940 of 1200 15: See response to Comment 11-9. Whether or not California actually reduces to 4.4 maf does not eliminate the need for objective criteria that are subject to periodic reviews. Reclamation believes the preferred alternative meets the purpose and need and also will assist California in moving towards using 4.4 maf during the term of the interim surplus criteria. ORGANIZATIONS - SOUTHWEST RIVERS RESPONSES B-57 LETTER 13 18: Section 3.9.4 has been revised to include the beneficial effects of lower pool elevations for whitewater boating in the Colorado River at the headwaters of Lake Powell. 17: The descriptions of designated critical habitat have been corrected for the bonytail and humpback chub. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 ept. b added 16: . D 3.16.5.3 has beener to the FEIS to provide additional information on the Section v impacts vemthat to implementation the interim resultant impacts to ation general potentialexcess flows theMexico as well asofthe potentialsurplus criteria may have on the frequency o of Nrecharge and salinity south of the international border. Section 3.16.6 has been N on jo groundwater expanded to include additional impacts of the proposed interim Nava archived criteria on special statusinformation about potentialwhich may occur in both United surplus species and their habitat d in 64, States and Mexico. The Executive Order on Environmental Effects Abroad, as discussed by cite 168 3.16.2, focuses on impacts to natural resources, and specifically excludes consideration of socioeconomic impacts. o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 18 17 16 15 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 941 of 1200 19: The preferred alternative in this FEIS has been derived from the Seven States proposal. Reclamation did not structure the preferred alternative precisely as described in that draft proposal, but made some changes for consistency with the purpose and need of the proposed action, Reclamation policy and operational procedures. ORGANIZATIONS - SOUTHWEST RIVERS RESPONSES B-58 LETTER 13 additional detail from public comment, modeling, and coordination with interested parties and agencies. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc 20: Reclamation does not concur with the opinion expressed in this comment. The analysis cite 168 of effects of the alternatives on reservoir levels and river flows, and the potential effects on 4resources, provide a meaningful disclosure of effects for public consideration and permit a o. 1 N reasoned choice by the decision maker. This FEIS contains various refinements and COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 20 19 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 942 of 1200 Mohave County Water Authority (MCWA)............................................................................................................................................... B-95 Ouray Park Irrigation Company (OPIC)..................................................................................................................................................... B-98 Salt River Project (SRP)............................................................................................................................................................................. B-99 San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) ......................................................................................................................................... B-100 Southern California Edison Company (SCEC) .......................................................................... ............................................................... B-102 Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) .............................................................................. ............................................................... B-104 Uintah Water Conservancy District (UWCD) ............................................................................ ............................................................... B-106 Union Park Water Authority (UPWA) ....................................................................................... ............................................................... B-109 Upper Colorado River Commission (UCRC)............................................................................. ............................................................... B-116 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA) ...................................................................................................................... B-67 16 ior Inter 17 e Colorado River Water Conservation District (CRWCD) ........................................................................................................................... B-69 of th 29, 20 pt. Cottonwood Creek Consolidated Irrigation Company (CCCIC)................................................................................................................ B-71 . De ember v Emery Water Conservancy District (EWCD)............................................................................................................................................. B-72 ation on Nov N Grand Water and Sewer (GW&S) .............................................................................................................................................................. B-73 vajo hived Na Imperial Irrigation District (IID) ................................................................................................................................................................ B-74 d in 64, arc cite 168 Irrigation and Electrical Districts Association of Arizona (I&EDAA)....................................................................................................... B-77 o. 14 Southern California (MWD) ..................................................................................................................... B-89 Metropolitan Water District of N Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) ................................................................................................................................................. B-63 15 Page # Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) .......................................................................................................................... B-59 Agency Name 14 Letter # WATER USER AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 943 of 1200 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - CAWCD RESPONSES B-59 LETTER 14 2: The Department notes that CAWCD did not "fell the EIS process was necessary or helpful". The Secretary has determined that development and implementation of interim surplus criteria is a discretionary federal action that may have significant impacts on the environment, thus is subject to NEPA process through the preparation of an EIS. The EIS analyzes the potential impacts to resources and forms the technical basis for the Secretary to make an informed decision in the Record of Decision of which alternative best meets the purpose and need for the proposed action and what impacts are expected. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N 1: preferred alternative in this FEIS derived from the Seven States proposal. Reclamation vajo hived The structure the preferred alternativeisprecisely as described in that draft proposal, but made did not in Na 4, arc some changes for consistency with Reclamation policy and operational procedures. cited 1686 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 944 of 1200 B-60 LETTER 14 8: As discussed in the purpose and need, the purpose is to provide "a greater degree of predictability" of when surplus water is, or is not, available. Reclamation agrees that some of the interim surplus criteria alternatives would facilitate California's reduction of its water use to 4.4 maf. However, this is not the primary purpose. As noted in Section 2.3, the interim surplus criteria would terminate at the end of the 15-year period. In the absence of subsequently specified criteria, surplus determinations would be made as is currently done, as part of the AOP process. Section 1.4.1 discusses the termination of the interim surplus criteria prior to the end of 15 years. development and evaluation of interim surplus criteria under this FEIS is not intended to establish shortage criteria for the operation of Lake Mead. However, it was necessary to include some shortage criteria in the model simulations to address concerns related to low Lake Mead water levels. The selected Lake Mead level protection assumptions were applied to the model to facilitate the evaluation of the baseline conditions and surplus alternatives. 4: The 70R strategy was used as the baseline in the FEIS. The Basin States alternative in this FEIS is derived from the Seven States proposal. 3: Comment noted. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - CAWCD RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v The ation 5: onSecretary intends to appropriately report the accumulated volume of water delivered to Nov jo N vedMWD under surplus conditions. The Secretary intends to honor forebearance arrangements Nava archi made by various parties for reparations of future shortage conditions. in 6: Comment noted. cited 16864, o. 14 N 7: There are no established shortage criteria for the operation of Lake Mead. Further, the COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 8 7 6 5 4 3 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 945 of 1200 9: Comment noted. Reclamation believes that the level of analysis for energy resources presented in the EIS appropriately identifies the potential effects of interim surplus criteria. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - CAWCD RESPONSES B-61 13: Comment noted. LETTER 14 12: The applicable guidance appears to be contrary to your comment. EO 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, 44 FR 1957, 1979 WL 25866 (Pres.) requires that federal agencies "... consider the significant effects of their actions on the environment outside the U.S., its territories and possessions,..." Recent CEQ guidance for transboundary impacts, dated July 1,1997, appears consistent with the approach in the Executive Order. current negotiations and as such, could not be adequately modeled for the FEIS. The water supply conditions modeled for the FEIS were used to evaluate the relative differences in water deliveries to each state under baseline conditions and the surplus alternatives. The normal, surplus and shortage condition water depletion schedules modeled in the FEIS are consistent with the depletion schedules prepared by the Basin States for this purpose. ior Inter 17 the used DEIS of schedules29,in 20 for the modeling of the baseline conditions 10: The water t. p depletion er and surplus alternatives were revised and updated by the Basin States for the FEIS. The . De developed these revised schedules in coordination with Reclamation, the v states emb tion individualNovRiver water contractors, Indian Tribes and local agencies. A summary of the various Colorado on jo Na vedupdated Upper and Lower Division depletion schedules are presented in Attachments H and K Nava archi of the FEIS, respectively. in 11: The modeled Colorado River water deliveries under the baseline conditions and surplus cited 16864, alternatives assumed that all Arizona shortages would be absorbed by the Central Arizona Project. Reclamation acknowledges that under the current priority framework, there would be 14 some sharing of Arizona shortage between the Central Arizona Project and other Priority 4 No. users. However, the bases or formula for the sharing of Arizona shortages is the subject of COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 13 12 11 10 9 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 946 of 1200 B-62 LETTER 14 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - CAWCD RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 947 of 1200 B-63 LETTER 15 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - CVWD RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 948 of 1200 1: Comment noted. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - CVWD RESPONSES B-64 LETTER 15 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived The Secretary's responsibilities in administering the river system and water delivery Na 2: d in 64, arc contracts are addressed in Chapter 1. For further information regarding reasonable and ite c beneficial use and Reclamation's authority, see response to 56-29. 68 14-1 No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 949 of 1200 B-65 LETTER 15 6: We note your comment and have revised the first paragraph under Section 3.4.4.2, to address the transition period. 4: Comment noted. 3: We note your comment and have added a third paragraph under Section 3.4.3.3 to add more details on the California priority system. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - CVWD RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ov ation 5: Comment noted. No transfers of California Colorado River entitlements may occur without o approval jo N ved then N of the Secretary of the Interior. Mere determination of the operational criteria for Nava archi surplus condition pursuant to the LROC favor no particular party in any state. Surplus waters in are distributed in accordance with Article II(B)2 of the Decree unless other voluntary cited 16864, arrangements among the parties are in place. 14 No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 6 5 4 3 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 950 of 1200 7: Nothing in the DEIS implies an extension of U.S. federal authority into Mexico, nor could it. The US Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) is a cooperator in this EIS process. As such, the USIBWC had an opportunity to review and comment on the DEIS and this FEIS prior to public availability. Accordingly, we decline the request to delete Section 3.16. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - CVWD RESPONSES B-66 LETTER 15 ior Inter 17 f t e 9, oneedh the proposed20 is to provide more specific surplus criteria 8: The purpose and of action pt. r and increased predictability e regard to surplus determinations. Reclamation is preparing a . De document towith 2 the Secretarial Implementation Agreements associated v NEPAvemb consider n separate Natio d withn No Colorado River Water Use Plan. o the California vajo hive Section 4.2 has been modified and Reclamation believes that it has appropriately addressed Na potential cumulative effects of the proposed action. Reclamation does not believe the d in 64, arc adoption of surplus criteria is a component of the "California Plan," but does believe that cite 168 surplus criteria should neither frustrate nor hinder California's efforts to reduce its Colorado 4River water use. o. 1 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 8 7 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 951 of 1200 4 3 2 1 1:The EIS analysis is intended to be an analysis of the alternatives compared to the baseline projections. As discussed in Section 3.1.3, baseline projections are used to compare possible future without interim surplus criteria to future with interim surplus criteria conditions. Under baseline conditions and each of the alternatives, the fact that reservoir elevations will have an increased probability to fall over time is predominantly a result of increased depletions in the Upper Basin states. Reclamation believes that the level of analysis for energy resources presented in the EIS, and the comparison of the alternatives to baseline conditions appropriately identifies the potential effects of interim surplus criteria. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - CREDA RESPONSES B-67 4: Please see response to Comment 16-2. LETTER 16 3: This analysis is not intended to analyze the effects of the Glen Canyon Dam Operation EIS and Record of Decision. The assumptions that were used for interim surplus criteria modeling related to operating points were used in the analysis of power production for both baseline conditions and each of the alternatives. Since the analysis contained in this EIS is concerned with the difference between baseline conditions and the alternatives, and the underlying assumptions are the same for all cases, the net difference should not change substantially. incremental changes. The quantities of capacity needed to replace incremental reductions, while not significant when compared to the total capacity installed in the WSCC region, may have impacts on power contractors that must purchase replacement power. These impacts were not analyzed in the FEIS. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on2: Nov shows the effects of each alternative reservoir operating strategy when N The analysis vajo hived comparedthe baseline strategy and the alternatives are shown on a yearly basis. This to the baseline strategy. Increases or decreases in energy and capacity Na between in rc a analysis accurately reflects the operating constraints on the powerplants in the modeling cited 16864, parameters. Powerplant operations change daily with differing conditions, but from an overall power production perspective, the analysis results provide a useful comparison of 14the anticipated reduction in energy and capacity within the WSCC region. A substantial No. portion of the reduction is included in baseline conditions; alternatives would result in COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 952 of 1200 7: Please see response to Comment 16-2. 6: Please see response to Comment 16-2. 5: Please see response to Comment 16-2. B-68 LETTER 16 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - CREDA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 7 6 5 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 953 of 1200 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - CRWCD RESPONSES B-69 LETTER 17 3: The preferred alternative in this FEIS is derived from the Draft Seven States Proposal. The Upper Basin depletion schedule prepared in December 1999 was used to model the operation of the baseline and all the alternatives in this FEIS. The baseline has also been changed to the 70R operating strategy. 2: The baseline has been changed to a 70R strategy for the FEIS. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na 1: The preferred alternative in this FEIS is derived from the Seven States proposal. d in 64, arc Reclamation did not structure the preferred alternative precisely as described in that draft ite c proposal, but made some changes for consistency with the purpose and need for the -168 proposed action, Reclamation policy and operational procedures. 14 No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3 cont'd below 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 954 of 1200 4: Comment noted. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - CRWCD RESPONSES B-70 LETTER 17 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. is e Glen Canyon Dam boperated to the 1.4.2. .5:De1.3.3 discusses the r accordingprocessLROC as discussed in Section the m LROC for modification of n v Section Thisvedoes not address and the between review andand the Colorado River tio LROC. o EIS the LROC jo Na ved on N Concerns over thethoughdisparities review process. River Compact and the Compact. relationship between the Colorado a v LROC should be addressed the LROC in Na 4, archi d cite 1686 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5 4 3 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 955 of 1200 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - CCCIC RESPONSES B-71 LETTER 18 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. er . De The preferred alternative in this FEIS is derived from the Seven States Proposal. n v 1: ovemb structure the preferred alternative precisely as described in that draft tio Reclamation did not proposal, jo Na ved on N but made some changes for consistency with Reclamation policy and operational procedures. Nava archi in cited 16864, o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 956 of 1200 B-72 1: See response to Comment 13-19. LETTER 19 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - EWCD RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 957 of 1200 B-73 1: See response to Comment 13-19. LETTER 20 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - GW&S RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 958 of 1200 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - IID RESPONSES B-74 LETTER 21 3: The applicable guidance appears to be contrary to the comment. EO 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, 44 FR 1957, 1979 WL 25866 (Pres.) requires that Federal agencies "... consider the significant effects of their actions on the environment outside the U.S., its territories and possessions...." The more recent CEQ guidance for transboundary impacts, dated July 1,1997, appears consistent with the approach in the Executive Order. See response to Comment 22-5. 2: See response to Comment 43-2. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N alternative this FEIS is the Seven vajo hived1: The preferrednot structureinthe preferredderived fromprecisely as States Proposal. draft Reclamation did alternative described in that in Na 4, arc proposal, but made some changes for consistency with the purpose and need for the ited 686 c proposed action, Reclamation policy and operational procedures. 14-1 No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 959 of 1200 4: Comment noted. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - IID RESPONSES B-75 Colorado River Water Use Plan and intrastate water transfers. See response to Comment 37-11 for more detail. LETTER 21 r terio but not Inconsidered17 analyzed as an alterantive in 5: The Pacific Institute Proposal was e this FEIS. See responses to Comment 11-2 and 11-6. of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived6: Comment noted. Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N 7: All alternatives analyzed in the FEIS assume implementation of the California COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 7 6 5 4 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B , Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 960 of 1200 B-76 LETTER 21 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - IID RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 961 of 1200 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - I&EDAA RESPONSES B-77 LETTER 22 1: Consultation and coordination is an ongoing process during the preparation of an EIS. Reclamation is aware of the regulations and guidance you cite, and makes every reasonable effort to include and respond to late comments from regulatory agencies. To the extent possible, Reclamation also includes other substantive comments received after the close of the public comment period for the DEIS. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 962 of 1200 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - I&EDAA RESPONSES B-78 LETTER 22 3: Comment noted. Reclamation believes that the level of analysis for energy resources presented in the EIS appropriately identifies the potential effects of interim surplus criteria compared with baseline conditions. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na 2: The preferred alternative in this FEIS is derived from the Seven State Proposal. d in 64, arc Reclamation did not structure the preferred alternative precisely as described in that draft cite 168 proposal, but made some changes for consistency with the purpose and need for the proposed action, Reclamation policy and operational procedures. o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3 2 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 963 of 1200 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - I&EDAA RESPONSES B-79 LETTER 22 4: The applicable guidance appears to be contrary to your comment. EO 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, 44 FR 1957, 1979 WL 25866 (Pres.) requires that Federal agencies "... consider the significant effects of their actions on the environment outside the U.S., its territories and possessions,..." Recent CEQ guidance for transboundary impacts, dated July 1,1997, appears consistent with the approach in the Executive Order. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 964 of 1200 B-80 LETTER 22 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - I&EDAA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 965 of 1200 B-81 LETTER 22 5: NEPA does cover actions taken in the United States. The Executive Order 12114 is used to provide the decisionmaker complete information regarding the impact of the decision (See Section 1-1 of the EO in Attachment B). Additional guidelines on the applicability of NEPA to transboundary impacts that may occur as a result of proposed federal actions in the United States are contained in a memorandum prepared by the Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality. A copy of this document (CEQ Guidance on NEPA Analyses for Transboundary Impacts - July 1, 1997) is also provided in Attachment B. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - I&EDAA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 966 of 1200 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - I&EDAA RESPONSES B-82 7: See response to Comments 22-4 and 22-5.. LETTER 22 ior Interfurther17 regarding consultation with 6: Reclamation agrees. See e Chapter 5 for information Mexico. of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 7 6 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 967 of 1200 B-83 8: See response to Comment 22- 4. LETTER 22 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - I&EDAA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Reclamation notes that the cited CEQ guidance memorandum does not provide 9: exemptions based on instances where treaties exist. in Na 4, arc cited 1686 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 9 8 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 968 of 1200 B-84 13: Comment noted. LETTER 22 10: ESA consultation on this domestic action was completed between Reclamation and the Service and NMFS as directed by the Department of Interior Solicitor and the Commissioner of Reclamation. There is no final resolution of the legal question of application of the ESA to extraterritorial impacts. Reclamation and the Department recognize that this consultation may provide more information than the law requires. However, doing so provides the Secretary a better basis for his determinations and a better understanding of potential impacts. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - I&EDAA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 11: Comment noted. e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N 12: vajo hived Comment noted. Na c in ar cited 16864, o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 13 12 11 10 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 969 of 1200 14: Comment noted. B-85 15: Comment noted. LETTER 22 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - I&EDAA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 15 14 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 970 of 1200 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - I&EDAA RESPONSES B-86 LETTER 22 17: Comment noted. Reclamation acknowledges there are various sound public policy perspectives on this issue. Reclamation has appropriately focused on its ESA compliance within the United States. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N 16: vajo hived Comment noted. Na c in ar cited 16864, o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 17 16 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 971 of 1200 B-87 LETTER 22 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - I&EDAA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 972 of 1200 B-88 LETTER 22 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - I&EDAA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 973 of 1200 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - MWD RESPONSES B-89 LETTER 23 2: Reclamation appreciates the willingness of state and local agency representatives to participate in a dialogue on the interim surplus criteria during the NEPA process. This has been of assistance in compiling water demand projections and other operational aspects for the analysis. 1: The preferred alternative in this FEIS is derived from the Seven States Proposal. Reclamation did not structure the preferred alternative precisely as described in that draft proposal, but made some changes for consistency with Reclamation policy and operational procedures. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 974 of 1200 B-90 LETTER 23 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - MWD RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 975 of 1200 4: The suggested edit was included in the FEIS. 3: Comment noted, the change has been made. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - MWD RESPONSES B-91 LETTER 23 9: The fifth sentence of the first paragraph in Section 3.3.3.4 has been changed to read as follows: "Elevation 1083 feet msl is the minimum water level for effective power generation at the Hoover Powerplant based on its existing turbine configuration." A quantitative definition for "effective" as it is used in connection with power generation has been added to Section 3.10.2.1. e ior Intther 17 e 5: The suggested editfwas included in 20 o th 29, FEIS. ept. ber D n v.Your comment enoted. This paragraph has been deleted. Section 3.6.4.1 has more ov is m atio 6:on Nregarding Public Law 99-450. N vajo hivedinformation Na d in 64, arc 7: Your comment is noted. This paragraph has been deleted. cite 168 14 8: Reclamation assumes this comment is referring to page 1-22, paragraph 1, line 5 of the No. DEIS. The sentence has been changed. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 976 of 1200 11: The last sentence of the fifth paragraph in Section 3.4.3.3 has been changed to read as follows - Since 1996, California has received as much as 800,000 af above its annual 4.4 maf normal apportionment due to determinations by the Secretary of surplus conditions on the Colorado River through the AOP process. 10: The suggested edit was made. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - MWD RESPONSES B-92 17: The referenced paragraph has been removed from the document. 12: The suggested edit was made. LETTER 23 ior Inter 17 f the 9, 20 13: The suggestedo was made. edit pt. . De ember 2 v last of o ation 14: The toNpartv the last sentence of the seventh paragraph in Section 3.4.3.3 has been on jo N vedrevised reflect the information provided. Nava archi in cited 16864, 15: The suggested edit was made. 14No. 16: The suggested change was made. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 977 of 1200 19: We agree the second subparagraph under paragraph 3.14.2.6 needs to be revised to recognize the Supreme Court's recent opinion. However, in revising the paragraph, we relied primarily on the suggested rewording from the Ten Tribes Partnership. See response comment 53-14. 18: Comment noted. This section has been revised to incorporate information resulting from modeling conducted for the FEIS. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - MWD RESPONSES B-93 23: The correction will be made. suggested. LETTER 23 20: In Table 3.14-1, San Carlos Apache, M&I Priority, 18,145 acre-feet per year is listed as the M&I allocation under both the future with the GRIC settlement and the future without the GRIC settlement. This volume of water is based on the CAP Simulation Study and the draft EIS for the CAP Reallocation, dated June 2000. A note is provided in Table 3.14-1 stating that 18,135 AF per year is the volume of water which should be listed because that volume was allocated in the legislation. A footnote was written in the FEIS to explain the two numbers. The "1" in Table 3.14-1, San Carlos Apache, Indian Reallocation (Ak Chin) (minus losses), will be corrected to read "30,800". ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 21: The quantity and acronym have been corrected. 14No. 22: The sentence referred to is in Attachment C of the FEIS. It has been modified as COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 23 22 21 20 19 18 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 978 of 1200 B-94 LETTER 23 25: Median reservoir elevations, which were used for the power analysis, remain above 1083 feet throughout the period of analysis. Therefore, elevations 1083 and 1050 feet were not included in the table. 24: This correction has been made. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - MWD RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 25 24 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 979 of 1200 B-95 LETTER 24 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - MCWA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 980 of 1200 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - MCWA RESPONSES B-96 LETTER 24 5: As described in Section 3.3.3.4, the magnitude of the shortage to CAP was strictly a modeling assumption. The Colorado River Basin Project Act provided California with a 4.4 maf priority over CAP diversions. 4: As stated in Chapter 2 of the FEIS, the Secretary will continue to apportion water consistent with the applicable provisions of the Decree. The Secretary will also honor forebearance arrangements made by various parties for the delivery of surplus water or reparations for future shortages. 3: See responses to Comment 53-16 and 14-11 for discussions of depletion schedules and Arizona shortages. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Seeov to Comment 53-16 and 14-11 for discussions of depletion schedules N responses ajo N ived 1: Arizona shortages. and v in Na 4, arch cited 1686 2: See responses to Comment 53-16 and 14-11 for discussions of depletion schedules and Arizona shortages. o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5 4 3 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 981 of 1200 B-97 LETTER 24 Colorado River water available to fourth priority users would be shared pro rata among CAP and non-CAP entitlement holders. 9: See response to Comment 53-16 for a discussion of depletion schedules. 8: See response to Comment 33-3. 7: See response to Comment 56-32, regarding reparations. 6: See response to Comment 56-32, regarding reparations. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - MCWA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De Commentmber evaluation of Arizona's groundwater banking programs is 10: noted. The v tion n outside ve of this project. othe scope a N ajo N ived o 11: No cumulative impacts have been identified for the issues raised in this comment. v in Na 4, arch Note that potential effects on water users in Arizona are identified in Section 3.4 of the EIS. cited 1686 12: We have modified the reference to reductions in times of shortage in the third o. 14 N paragraph on page 3.4-15, to recognize that in Arizona a reduction in the amount of COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 982 of 1200 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - OPIC, INC. RESPONSES B-98 LETTER 25 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De1: The ember in this FEIS is derived from the Seven States Proposal. preferred alternative v Reclamation ation on Nov did not structure the preferred alternative precisely as described in thatof N draft proposal, but made some changes for consistency with the purpose and need the proposed action, Reclamation policy and operational procedures. vajo hived in Na 4, arc cited 1686 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 983 of 1200 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - SRP RESPONSES B-99 LETTER 26 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Support of comments submitted by Colorado River Energy Distributors Association 1: comment noted. in Na 4, arc ited 686 c -1 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 984 of 1200 1: Comment noted. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - SDCWA RESPONSES B-100 LETTER 27 2: Reclamation concurs with the position expressed in this comment with respect to the Basin State alternative included in this FEIS. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 cont'd below 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 985 of 1200 3: Reclamation has noted the comment regarding the relative roles of 70R and 75R strategies in portraying differences among alternatives. See response to Comment 57-11 for additional information. B-101 LETTER 27 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - SDCWA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3 2 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 986 of 1200 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - SCEC RESPONSES B-102 Reclamation believes the baseline used appropriately reflects future conditions. LETTER 28 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc 1: The 70R strategy is used for the baseline in this FEIS. Reclamation has updated the cite 168 surplus depletion schedules for California, Arizona and Nevada. This and other 4changed modeling assumptions could account for the increased energy amounts in this o. 1 N process. The updated schedules will be utilized in future annual rate processes. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 987 of 1200 2: Comment noted. Although no impacts were identified that required mitigation, the FEIS includes a discussion of environmental commitments in Section 3.17. Note also that the baseline used in the FEIS (a 70R operating strategy) has been modified from that presented in the DEIS (a 75R operating strategy). WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - SCEC RESPONSES B-103 LETTER 28 ior Inter 17 e 20 of th 2of9, FEIS, Reclamation recognizes that the 3: As discussed. Section 3.10.2.2 the t in epcapability ofber is important. The differences in the amount of load-following Hoover .D capacity available em for n videntified inovEIS.load-following between the baseline strategy and the alternatives tio is the jo Na ved on N a v in Na 4, archi cited 1686 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3 2 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 988 of 1200 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - SNWA RESPONSES B-104 LETTER 29 1: The preferred alternative in this FEIS is derived from the Draft Seven States Proposal. Reclamation did not structure the preferred alternative precisely as described in that draft proposal, but made some changes for consistency with the purpose and need of the proposed action, Reclamation policy and operational procedures. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 cont'd below VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 989 of 1200 B-105 LETTER 29 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - SNWA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 990 of 1200 B-106 LETTER 30 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - UWCD RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 991 of 1200 6 5 1: Comment noted. B-107 6: The preferred alternative in this FEIS is derived from the Seven States Proposal. Reclamation did not structure the preferred alternative precisely as described in that draft proposal, but made some changes for consistency with the purpose and need of the proposed action, Reclamation policy and operational procedures. 5: Comment noted. 4: Comment noted. LETTER 30 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - UWCD RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ov ation2: Comment noted. jo N ved on N Nava archi in cited 16864, 3: Comment noted. o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4 3 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 992 of 1200 B-108 LETTER 30 8: The determination of surplus conditions for 2001 is based on the factors listed in Article III(3)(b) of the LROC. This Article allows for consideration of all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, those specifically listed in the Operating Criteria, whether or not a decision is made for the proposed interim suplus criteria. 7: Comment noted. Reclamation recognizes that the Upper Basin disagrees with the minimum objective release currently in the LROC. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - UWCD RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 8 7 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 993 of 1200 B-109 LETTER 31 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - UPWA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 994 of 1200 1: The DEIS recognized that future water development will be taking place in the Upper Basin. The computer model simulations of the Colorado River used in the DEIS incorporate an Upper Division depletion schedule, developed by the Upper Colorado River Commission in 1996 in coordination with the Upper Basin States. This Upper Basin depletion schedule, as contained in Appendix K, shows Upper Basin water development taking place in the future with Upper Basin depletions increasing with time. For the FEIS a revised depletion schedule, developed in 1999, was incorporated into the Colorado River computer model. While the analysis performed for the FEIS uses increasing depletion estimates for the Upper Division, the development of specific new water projects within the Upper Division and the environmental compliance and the legal issues to be resolved in such specific projects are not part of the scope of this proposed action. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - UPWA RESPONSES B-110 LETTER 31 3: The Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (CRBPA), in Section 602 (a)(3), states that water not required to be stored under Sections 602 (a)(1) and 602 (a)(2) of the CRBPA shall be released from Lake Powell under specified conditions, and one of those conditions is if it can be reasonably applied in Lower Division States to the uses specified in Article III (e) of the Compact. Article III (e) of the Compact specifies water must be applied to domestic and agricultural uses. The CRBPA further specifies that water is not to be released from Lake Powell when the active storage in Lake Powell is less than the active storage in Lake Mead. As long as the conditions set forth in the CRBPA and the LROC for Colorado River reservoirs are satisfied, we believe the release of surplus water for groundwater banking is fully in compliance with applicable law. Finally, the Lower Division states each define groundwater banking to be a beneficial use. from surplus water deliveries to the Lower Basin is an important impact being analyzed in this EIS. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 2: The analysis does show that Lake Powell storage is sensitive to periods of drought N under all alternatives considered in the EIS. Changes in Lake Powell storage resulting COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 995 of 1200 B-111 specific projects are not part of the scope of this proposed action. LETTER 31 4: As noted in Section 1.4.2, the equalization requirement in the LROC is the mechanism through which delivery of surplus water to the Lower Basin can influence the operation of Glen Canyon Dam resulting in changes to the storage of water in Lake Powell. Changes in Lake Powell storage resulting from surplus water deliveries to the Lower Basin is an important impact being analyzed in this EIS. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - UPWA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 t. Dep that future . DEIS recognizedmber water development will be taking place in the Upper 5: v The The computer model simulations of the in the DEIS ov ationBasin. n NUppere depletion schedule,Colorado River usedUpper Colorado River incorporate developed by the jo N ved o an 1996 inBasin coordination with the Nava archi Commission in shows Upper Basin waterUpper Basin states. That Upper Division depletion schedule, development taking place in the future in with Upper Basin depletions increasing with time. For the FEIS, a revised depletion ited 6864, c schedule, developed in 1999, was being incorporated into the Colorado River computer model. While the analysis performed for the FEIS uses increasing depletion estimates 14-1 for the Upper Division, the development of specific new water projects within the Upper No. Division and the environmental compliance and the legal issues to be resolved in such COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5 4 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 996 of 1200 7: See response to Comment 5-2 with regard to effects of interim surplus criteria on the Upper Basin. The FEIS addresses the risk of severe drawdown of Lake Mead. 8: The method used to model the future inflows into the Colorado River in the FEIS is referred to as the Index Sequential Method (ISM). This technique has been used since the early 1980s and involves a series of simulations, each applying a different future inflow scenario. Each future inflow scenario is generated from the historical natural flow record by "cycling" through that record. As the method progresses, the historical record is assumed to "wrap around," yielding a possible 85 different inflow scenarios. The result of the ISM is a set of 85 separate simulations (referred to as "traces") for each operating criterion that is analyzed. The ISM captures the range of historical inflows that include drought periods, wet periods and in-between periods. This method enables an evaluation of the respective criteria over a broad range of possible future hydrologic conditions using standard statistical techniques. 6: Comment noted. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - UPWA RESPONSES B-112 LETTER 31 15: The Lake Powell water surface elevation of 3630 feet is not an elevation identified as a specific threshold water surface elevation. As such, this specific elevation was not analyzed. Other Lake Powell water surface elevations were analyzed that ranged from 3695 to 3612 feet. These range of elevations that were analyzed include all the elevations identified as specific threshold Lake Powell water surface elevations. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation 16:oWith Nov Please seeeffect, the Colorado River would still be operated according n interim surplus criteria in response to Comment No. 5-2. jo N vedto existing regulations. Nava archi 9: Elevations of lakes Powell and Mead may fluctuate more than 10 feet within any given year. in These fluctuations are represented by end-of-December analyses for Lake Mead and cited 16864, end-of-July water level analyses for Lake Powell. However, the Index Sequential Method of modeling which was performed using monthly time steps (see response to Comment 61-8), and 14 presentation of 10-percent, 50-percent and 90-percent exceedence levels (see Section 2.3.4) No. indicate reasonable responses of reservoir levels to a wide range of hydrologic conditions. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 9 16 15 8 7 6 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 997 of 1200 10: The statement that the "Lower Basin cannot be viewed in isolation from the Upper Basin", is a true and valid statement. In the analysis, both the Upper and Lower basins were considered. Future increased water development in the Upper Basin is incorporated into the analysis. Computer model simulations of the Colorado River used in the DEIS incorporate the 1996 Upper Basin depletion schedule, developed by the Upper Colorado River Commission in coordination with the Upper Basin States. For the FEIS, an updated depletion schedule, developed in 1999, was used. The computer modeling performed for all alternatives showed no instances where water stored in reservoirs above Lake Powell was required to be released to satisfy the requirements of the Colorado River Compact. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - UPWA RESPONSES B-113 LETTER 31 12: Reclamation is required to take certain actions to administer United States obligations under the Endangered Species Act and we acknowledge that some actions to meet species protection mandates may affect river operations. Reclamation's required actions to protect and enhance habitat for threatened and endangered species in the United States should not be interpreted as opposition to Upper Basin development. The United States does not assume an obligation to mitigate for adverse impacts in Mexico, but supports joint cooperation projects that would benefit both the United States and Mexico. We acknowledge that in the long run, Upper Basin development will reduce the amount of surplus water available for delivery in the Lower Basin. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De interim surplus er period, the agencies that have contracted for surplus v the v bcriteria tion11: During Nsurplusem when available, to meet direct water supply demands, as well as to water use o water, providensource of water for conjunctive use and storage programs. The delivery a jo Na ved owill River water users will be in accordance with the guidelines developed forof water to a v the selected in Na 4, archi Colorado surplus alternative, if one is selected, and will be consistent with the Law of the River. The d FEIS considered and evaluated the potential impact to the Upper Basin users resulting from the cite 1686 surplus alternatives. The analysis results indicated that the interim surplus criteria would have no significant effect on the Upper Basin users as a result of the interim surplus criteria. o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 12 11 10 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 998 of 1200 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - UPWA RESPONSES B-114 LETTER 31 14: Reclamation and other federal agencies have complex missions and sometimes conflicts arise on issues. For example, Reclamation's legal responsibility to administer the Endangered Species Act affects river operations and the timing of water deliveries. Reclamation does not oppose Upper Basin development but must fulfill its legal obligations under ESA, NEPA and other applicable federal legislation. We acknowledge that the construction and operation of water development projects has become more complicated with additional laws and environmental considerations, but such considerations cannot be ignored. reservoir elevations would continue under baseline conditions and the alternatives, which would likely result in future periods of both inundation and exposure of these areas. The proposed action would not change 602(a) equalization requirements. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 13: Additional riparian habitat could develop at various locations around Lake Mead when lower surface elevations occur. As discussed in Section 3.8, lower elevations could occur 14under baseline conditions and each of the alternatives depending primarily upon future No. hydrologic conditions and Lake Mead water releases. The EIS recognizes that fluctuating COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 14 13 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 999 of 1200 B-115 LETTER 31 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - UPWA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1000 of 1200 B-116 LETTER 32 WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - UCRC RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1001 of 1200 1: The preferred alternative in this FEIS is derived from the Seven States Proposal. Reclamation did not structure the preferred alternative precisely as described in that draft proposal, but made some changes for consistency with the purpose and need of the proposed action, Reclamation policy and operational procedures. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - UCRC RESPONSES B-117 LETTER 32 4: The 70R strategy has been used for the baseline in this FEIS. For additional information, see response to Comment 57-11. 3: Revised depletion schedules provided by the Basin States were used in analyses for the FEIS. See response to Comment No. 14-10 for more detail. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ov ation 2: Comment noted. jo N ved on N Nava archi in cited 16864, o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4 cont'd below 3 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1002 of 1200 5: The operational modeling for the Six States Alternative uses the 70R strategy after the 15-year interim period in this FEIS. WATER USER AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS - UCRC RESPONSES B-118 6: Please see response to Comment 37-11. LETTER 32 ior Inter 1of7 inflows into the Colorado River 7: All studies have been made without consideration periodic the from the Gila River above Yuma, AZ. Gila River flows are infrequent and unpredictable. The of not currently 9,up20 Gila River flows; there was insufficient . RiverWare CRSSt ep model . Dflow studies ofistheber 2 set to modelis reviewing this new data and will time to incorporate them into the model. The US Army Corps of Engineers has recently v m Gila ationcompleted Nove River inRiver. Reclamation consider modeling the Gila future studies. N vajo hived on Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 7 6 5 4 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1003 of 1200 34 33 Letter # Page # Grand County Council (Utah) .................................................................................................................................. B-122 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N City of Phoenix, Office of the City Manager ........................................................................................................... B-119 Agency Name LOCAL AGENCIES Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1004 of 1200 LOCAL AGENCIES - CITY OF PHOENIX RESPONSES B-119 LETTER 33 2: The 70R strategy is used for the baseline in this FEIS. For additional information, see response to Comment 57-11. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived 1: The preferred alternative in this FEIS is derived from the Seven States Proposal. Na Reclamation did not structure the preferred alternative precisely as described in that draft d in 64, arc proposal, but made some changes for consistency with the purpose and need of the proposed ite c action, Reclamation policy and operational procedures. -168 14 No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 cont'd below 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1005 of 1200 LOCAL AGENCIES - CITY OF PHOENIX RESPONSES B-120 LETTER 33 that there are concerns about the availability of information and agencies have a responsibility to undertake a reasonable search for relevant, current information. ior Inter 17 e of th 29 Alternative 3: The selection of the Basin States , 20 as the preferred alternative incorporates the t. of California's Depguidelines be Colorado River Water Use I. .implementationemfor thisralternative are in AttachmentPlan conservation progress. v Proposed ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N 4: Comment noted. (See response to Comment 22-4.) In addition, CEQ guidance recognizes COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4 3 2 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1006 of 1200 5: Comment noted. B-121 LETTER 33 LOCAL AGENCIES - CITY OF PHOENIX RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1007 of 1200 LOCAL AGENCIES - GRAND COUNTY COUNCIL RESPONSES B-122 LETTER 34 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N 1: preferred alternative in this EIS is derived the Seven Proposal. Reclamtion vajo hived The structure the preferred alternative preciselyfromdescribed inStatesdraft proposal, but made Na did not as that c in ar some changes for consistency with the purpose and need of the proposed action, Reclamation cited 16864, policy and operational procedures. 41 No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1008 of 1200 Colorado River Commission of Nevada (CRCN).................................................................................................... B-148 Colorado River Commission (Nevada State Historic Preservation Office-NSHPO) .............................................. B-151 New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) ................................................................................................. B-154 Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources (UDNR, DWR)......................................... B-155 Office of Federal Land Policy (Wyoming State Engineer’s Office) (WOFLP) ...................................................... B-157 43 44 45 46 47 42 41 40 39 38 e Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR)................................................................................................. B-130 e Int rior 17 th t. of r 29, 20 Arizona Game and Fish Department (AG&FD) ...................................................................................................... B-136 p v. De vembe n Colorado River Board of California (CRBC) .......................................................................................................... B-141 Natio d on No California Regional Water Qualityajo Boarde v Control hiv (CRWQCB) ............................................................................. B-142 in Na Resources (CDNR).............................................................................................. B-144 rc Colorado Department of Natural64, a ited 68 c 1 New Mexico Interstate4o. 1 Stream Commission (NMISC) ........................................................................................... B-146 N 37 Arizona Power Authority (APA).............................................................................................................................. B-128 36 Page # Arizona Power Authority (APA).............................................................................................................................. B-123 Agency Name 35 Letter # STATE AGENCIES Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1009 of 1200 RESPONSES STATE AGENCIES - APA B-123 LETTER 35 1: Comment noted. Reclamation believes that the level of analysis for energy resources presented in the FEIS, Section 3.10, appropriately identifies the potential effects of interim surplus criteria. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1010 of 1200 STATE AGENCIES - APA B-124 LETTER 35 represent actual measured flows. The system of measurement and adjustment for natural flows that Reclamation used for EIS analyses represents the best available information. Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 discuss natural runoff and modeling of future hydrology. It is anticipated that Lake Mead water levels and Hoover Powerplant production will be affected by the conditions modeled under the baseline conditions and surplus alternatives. The relative differences in potential impacts as presented in Sections 3.3 and 3.10 are the impacts that need to be considered as being associated with the implementation of the interim surplus criteria, under the respective surplus alternatives. 2: Comment noted. Figure 3.3-15 of the FEIS presents the probability for Lake Mead to be below 1,083 feet msl generated from DEIS modeling is approximately 42 to 43 percent (a 58 to 57 percent probability of avoidance) under baseline conditions and each of the alternatives during the final 15 years of analysis. As noted in Figure 3.3-15, Lake Mead water levels may fall below 1083 feet msl under modeled baseline and surplus alternatives. The interim surplus criteria has the potential to draw down the Lake Mead water levels earlier but to the same levels as the baseline conditions. RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc 3: The hydrology data used to model the operations of the Colorado River under baseline cite 168 conditions and the surplus alternatives were developed using Reclamation's historic Colorado River flow measurement data, in combination with estimates of historical depletions. The 41 resulting natural flow data represents an estimate of the flows that would have existed without No. storage or depletion by man. This is different than the recorded historical stream flows that COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3 2 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1011 of 1200 RESPONSES STATE AGENCIES - APA B-125 LETTER 35 5: See response to Comment 16-2. Impacts to individual power customers is beyond the scope of analysis in the EIS. Reclamation believes that the level of analysis for energy resources presented in the EIS appropriately identifies the potential effects of interim surplus criteria. 4: Section 3.10.2.3 includes a discussion of generation ancillary services, which include peaking power. A large portion of the potential losses is included in baseline conditions. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5 4 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1012 of 1200 6: Comment noted. RESPONSES B-126 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 6 VOLUME III, PART B LETTER 35 STATE AGENCIES - APA Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1013 of 1200 RESPONSES B-127 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B LETTER 35 STATE AGENCIES - APA Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1014 of 1200 RESPONSES B-128 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B LETTER 36 STATE AGENCIES - APA Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1015 of 1200 STATE AGENCIES - APA 1: See responses to Comments 22-4 regarding NEPA analysis and Comment 22-10 regarding ESA application in Mexico. The MSCP is a regulatory program to address ongoing and proposed actions within the U.S. RESPONSES B-129 LETTER 36 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ov ation2: Comment noted. Reclamation is pleased to work with any of the customers on resource o jo N veissues. n N Nava archi d in cited 16864, o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1016 of 1200 B-130 LETTER 37 STATE AGENCIES - ADWR RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1017 of 1200 1: As discussed in the purpose and need, the purpose is to provide "a greater degree of predictability" of when surplus water is and is not available. Reclamation agrees that the spill avoidance methodology of 70R would meet the purpose and need of the proposed action. Reclamation agrees that interim surplus criteria would complement California's efforts to reduce its water use. STATE AGENCIES - ADWR RESPONSES B-131 LETTER 37 2: The preferred alternative in this FEIS is derived from the Seven States Proposal. Reclamation did not structure the preferred alternative precisely as described in that draft proposal, but made some changes for consistency with the purpose and need of the proposed action, Reclamation policy and operational procedures. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1018 of 1200 3: Please see response to Comment 33-3. STATE AGENCIES - ADWR RESPONSES B-132 LETTER 37 6: The 70R strategy is used for the baseline in this FEIS. For more information, see response to Comment 57-11. ior Inter 17 f the 9, 20 4: Upon termination of the interim surplus criteria the Secretary's procedure for determining oshortage conditions would revert back to the AOP process, in which . surplus, pt or r . Denormal,eare considered2 discussed in Chapter 1. While the 70R strategy is numerous factors mbe as n vmathematically convenient as a representation of the baseline, it is only one of the factors tio consideredov jo Na ved on N by the Secretary in the AOP process. Nava archi 5: Reclamation appreciates the willingness of state and local agency representatives to in participate in a dialogue on the interim surplus criteria during the NEPA process. This has ited 6864, c been of assistance in compiling water demand projections and other operational aspects for the analysis. 4-1 o. 1 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 6 5 4 3 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1019 of 1200 STATE AGENCIES - ADWR RESPONSES B-133 LETTER 37 8: Reclamation used the 75R strategy for the upper tier of the Six States Alternative and for the period of analysis after the end of the interim period. Because 75R was selected as the baseline, Reclamation was concerned that the use of 70R as presented in the Six States Proposal would introduce inconsistencies into the modelling and compromise the results. In as much as 70R is being used for the baseline in this FEIS, the descriptin of the Six States Alternative will include 70R operation as initally proposed by the States. The inconsistencies in descriptions have been corrected. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na 7: Reclamation and the Department agree that the determination of surplus must be d in 64, arc cite 168 consistent with Article II(B)(2) of the Decree in Arizona v. California. The assumption that the Baseline and Flood Control Alternative declare a "full surplus" (unquantified surplus), reflects 41 the fact that the system is relatively full under those conditions. No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 8 7 6 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1020 of 1200 10: Revised depletion schedules provided by the Basin States were used in analyses for the FEIS. See response to Comment 14-10 for more detail. 9: Comment noted. Reclamation formulated the Storage Protection Alternative as an approximation of the maximum amount of surplus water that could be determined during the interim period, while maintaining a certain amount of water in storage for protection against future shortages. STATE AGENCIES - ADWR RESPONSES B-134 LETTER 37 15: ADWR's comment is noted. ADWR and Reclamation have a rather longstanding difference of opinion regarding shortage impacts on CAP. Under the GRIC Settlement, it is hoped that a resolution of this disagreement may be reached. The disagreement is over which priority takes a reduction first; the CAP fourth priority (M&I water greater than 510,000 AF) or the CAP third priority requiring a reduction of 25 percent of GRIC agricultural water and 10 percent of other CAP Indian agricultural water. 14: The interim surplus criteria alternatives under consideration would be used in years 2001 through 2015 to make surplus determinations for the next year. Thus, water deliveries in years 2002 through 2016 would be subject to interim surplus criteria. Discussion has been added to Chapter 2 of the FEIS to provide clarification. 11: For the FEIS, intrastate transfers were considered and modeled in all five surplus alternatives that were evaluated in the FEIS. This includes the 1988 IID/MWD agreement. The baseline (No Action) conditions were modeled with and without the transfers. A sensitivity analysis comparing a baseline with and without transfers to the Seven Basin States alternative, was conducted to evaluate the sensitivity of the transfers. Please see Appendix L of the FEIS for the results of this sensitivity analysis and Section 3.4 for the results of the water supply analysis. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na depletion were used in d in 64, arc 12: Revisedresponse toschedules provided by the Basin StatesLower Division analyses for the FEIS. See Comment 14-10 for more detail. The depletion ite c schedlues are Attachment H of the FEIS. -168 14 13: See response to Comment 14-11 regarding Arizona shortages. No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1021 of 1200 B-135 LETTER 37 STATE AGENCIES - ADWR RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 15 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1022 of 1200 B-136 LETTER 38 STATE AGENCIES - AG&FD RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1023 of 1200 STATE AGENCIES - AG&FD RESPONSES B-137 LETTER 38 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. 1: species that could Dam . DePotential effects on special-status have been includedoccur between HooverFEIS. and ber n v the Southerlymon sport fisheries from potential changesin Section 3.8 of theof water e International Boundary tio Potential effects in the temperature Nov Dam has developed and included jo Na ved on released from Hoover measuresbeenconsidered necessary for in Section 3.7.3 of the FEIS. a v No specific mitigation are the impacts identified. However, Section 3.17 has been added to the FEIS to discuss environmental commitments. in Na 4, archi cited 1686 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1024 of 1200 2: The area of potential effect has been expanded for the FEIS to include consideration of the Colorado River 100-year floodplain to the Southerly International Boundary. Potential effects on special-status species have been included in the FEIS in Section 3.8. STATE AGENCIES - AG&FD RESPONSES B-138 LETTER 38 6: The description of the affected environment in the reach from Parker Dam to Laguna Dam has been corrected by deleting discussion of the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District facilities. These facilities are not subject to damage from flooding on the Colorado River. Diversion Dam. The text has been revised to reflect this location. ior nt made. Ibeener 17 e 3: This change has of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v 4: 3.3-18d are ation on NovThe headings on Figures 3.3-18a to corrected. correct. The respective river location shown on Map 3.3-1 has been jo N ved Nava archi in cited 16864, o. 14 N 5: The subject river location modeled is immediately downstream of the Palo Verde COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 6 5 4 3 2 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1025 of 1200 7: Although the area of potential effect of interim surplus criteria extends from Lake Powell to the SIB (NIB in DEIS), the resource analysis focuses on more limited areas within the area of potential effect to address specific issues identified as having the potential to be affected by interim surplus criteria. As discussed in response to Comment 38-1, an additional issue associated with sport fisheries and sport fishing has been included in the FEIS. STATE AGENCIES - AG&FD RESPONSES B-139 LETTER 38 10: The analysis of effects to special-status species has been revised to include discussion for species that may occur in the potentially affected area from Lake Powell downstream to the SIB. ior Inter in the 7 8: This correction e been made 01 FEIS. th has t. of r 29, 2 p v. De9: Asvembine 3.7.3 of the DEIS, the section addresses sport fisheries in discussed Section Lake and Lake Mead regarding ation on No Powell and the potentialonly. Forofthe FEIS, additional informationtemperature of sport fishing effects interim surplus criteria on the jo N ved water released from Hoover Dam and associated effects on sport fishing in the lower Nava archi Colorado River between Hoover Dam and Lake Mohave has been added to Section in 3.7.3. Reclamation has determined that fluctuations in flows below Hoover Dam to ited 6864, c the SIB under the alternatives would be within the historical operating range of the -1 river and would, therefore, not affect aquatic resources within this segment. Note 14 also that the statement "the primary sport fish in the Colorado River is the rainbow No. trout" has been removed. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 10 9 8 7 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1026 of 1200 B-140 LETTER 38 11: Reclamation has determined that recreation (including sport fishing) within the river corridor between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead would continue to be addressed through the Adaptive Management Program and would, therefore, not be affected by interim surplus criteria (discussion of this Adaptive Management Program as it relates to sport fishing and recreation has been added to Sections 3.7.3 and 3.9.5 of the FEIS). As stated in Section 3.7.3, it is believed that minor changes in water temperature below Hoover Dam are not expected to adversely affect fish populations. Reclamation has determined that fluctuations in flows below Hoover Dam to the SIB under the alternatives would be within the historical operating range of the river and would, therefore, not affect sport fishing within these areas. STATE AGENCIES - AG&FD RESPONSES r terio read Incorrected to17 "Arizona Game and Fish 12: The Distribution List has been the 0 Department.". of 29, 2 ept D er n v. emb tio ov jo Na ved on N Nava archi in cited 16864, o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 12 11 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1027 of 1200 STATE AGENCIES - CRBC RESPONSES B-141 LETTER 39 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na 1: The preferred alternative in this FEIS is derived form the Seven State Proposal. d in 64, arc Reclamation did not structure the preferred alternative precisely as described in that draft cite 168 proposal, but made some changes for consistency with the purpose and need of the proposed action, Reclamation policy and operational procedures. o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1028 of 1200 1 STATE AGENCIES - CRWQCB RESPONSES B-142 LETTER 40 1: Off-river effects of storage and use of surplus water have been or are being addressed in existing or ongoing NEPA and/or CEQA/CESA compliance documents as appropriate. These activities are authorized by state actions, and include the Quantification Settlement Agreement PEIR, Secretarial Implementation Agreement EA, IID/SDCWA Transfer EIS/EIR, and the San Diego County HCP. The federal government does not have jurisdiciton over groundwater aquifers, recharge sites or other off-stream storage sites within the states. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1029 of 1200 4 3 2 3: The baseline spill avoidance strategy referred to in the comment utilizes a unique flow, for which associated effects are used to determine surplus conditions. A full range of historical flows were used to evaluate the baseline. See response to Comment No. 31-8 for a discussion of flows used for evaluation in the FEIS. 2: Return flows into the Salton Sea are the subject of the Salton Sea Restoration Project EIR/EIS and specific conservation activities proposed by the Imperial Irrigation District related to the transfer of conserved water to San Diego and reduced return flows to the Salton Sea are being addressed in the forthcoming EIR/EIS. Reduction of freshwater tributary inflows into the Salton Sea is not affected by or within the scope of the federal action addressed in this EIS. Water quality of tributary inflows/return flows is regulated by the Board, California Department of Heath Services, and EPA. STATE AGENCIES - CRWQCB RESPONSES B-143 LETTER 40 ior Inter 17 he of tthe results for , 2050 year period of analysis on a single figure to pt. 29the total It is useful to depict .4: Dea completemberwhat happens during the interim surplus criteria and the v present 35 yeare picture of instances, different presentations the two noted ensuing o ation on includedvwhen suchIninformation was thought to be appropriate.forAdditionally, theperiods N period. some vertical jo N ved were is varied, where needed, to focus on the results being presented. scale va i Na d in 64, arch cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1030 of 1200 STATE AGENCIES - CDNR RESPONSES B-144 4: See response to Comments 22-4 and 22-10. LETTER 41 3: Glen Canyon Dam is operated according to the LROC as discussed in Section 1.4.2. Section 1.3.3 discusses the LROC and the process for review and modification of the LROC. This EIS does not address disparities between the LROC and the Colorado River Compact. Concerns over the relationship between the Colorado River Compact and the LROC should be addressed through the LROC review process. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na 1: See response to Comment 11-9. d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 2: The 70R strategy is used for the baseline in this FEIS. See response to Comment 57-11 N for additional information. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4 cont'd below 3 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1031 of 1200 B-145 LETTER 41 6: The preferred alternative in this FEIS is derived from the Seven States proposal. Reclamation did not structure the preferred alternative precisely as described in that draft proposal, but made some changes for consistency with the purpose and need of the proposed action, Reclamation policy and operational procedures. 5: Comment noted. STATE AGENCIES - CDNR RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 6 5 4 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1032 of 1200 STATE AGENCIES - NMISC RESPONSES B-146 LETTER 42 3: Per your comment, the first sentence in the first paragraph of paragraph 1.3.2.2.2 has been modified. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na 1: Paragraph 1.3.2.2 has been revised to include language describing the Lower Basin's right d in 64, arc to increase its consumptive use by 1 maf. cite 168 41 No. 2: Per your comment, paragraph 1.3.2.2.1 has been modified. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1033 of 1200 B-147 LETTER 42 4: The preferred alternative in this FEIS is the Basin States Alternative which was derived from the draft Seven States Proposal. Reclamation was unable to structure the preferred alternative precisely as described in that draft proposal, but made some changes for consistency with the purpose and need of the proposed action, Reclamation policy and operational procedures. STATE AGENCIES - NMISC RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1034 of 1200 STATE AGENCIES - CRCN RESPONSES B-148 LETTER 43 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 1: The preferred alternative in this FEIS is derived form the Seven States proposal. Reclamation did not structure the preferred alternative precisely as described in that draft 41 proposal, but made some changes for consistency with the purpose and need of the No. proposed action, Reclamation policy and operational procedures. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1035 of 1200 B-149 LETTER 43 STATE AGENCIES - CRCN RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1036 of 1200 B-150 LETTER 43 STATE AGENCIES - CRCN RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1037 of 1200 B-151 LETTER 44 STATE AGENCIES - NSHPO RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1038 of 1200 1: Thank you for your comments and for bringing to our attention your concerns regarding Reclamation's ongoing operation of the Colorado River. Per your request, the matter of effects to historic properties resulting from the development of Interim Surplus Criteria (ISC) has been forwarded to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council). However, because development and implementation of ISC falls within the range of ongoing operations, and because the reservoirs will continue to be operated within historic operational parameters under the baseline conditions and action alternatives, Reclamation believes that the issues you raise are better addressed under Section 110, rather than Section 106, of the National Historic Preservation Act. Reclamation is aware of its responsibilities under Section 110 for managing historic properties on lands under its jurisdiction and will commit to consulting with you, the Council, tribes, and other interested parties within that framework. STATE AGENCIES - NSHPO RESPONSES COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3: Resources of religious or cultural significance are Traditional Cultural Properties included in our definition of historic properties in Chapter 3.13.1. 4 B-152 LETTER 44 4: Reclamation has referred the SHPO and Reclamation's disagreement to the Council for comment and further consultation. undertaking on cultural resources. Reclamation is also consulting with potentially affected tribes on a government-to-government basis to understand and address their concerns. Reclamation will stand by its determination of effect of this action on historic properties and will refer our disagreement to the Advisory Council for further comment and consultation. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc 2: Your office, the public, affected Indian tribes and local governments were provided an cite 168 opportunity to identify concerns for the effects of the proposal for interim surplus criteria as part of scoping and individual meetings with interested publics and the Ten Tribes, CAP 14Tribes, and Colorado River Tribes. Distribution of the DEIS and public hearings were another No. means of providing opportunity to comment on our assessment of the effects of this COMMENT LETTER 3 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1039 of 1200 B-153 LETTER 44 STATE AGENCIES - NSHPO RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e 5: Comment noted. f o th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1040 of 1200 B-154 1: Comment noted. LETTER 45 STATE AGENCIES - NMED RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1041 of 1200 B-155 2: The 70R strategy is used for the baseline in this FEIS. LETTER 46 STATE AGENCIES - UDNR, DWR RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. 1: Comment . De enoted. er b v tion n Nov m a ajo N ived o v in Na 4, arch cited 1686 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1042 of 1200 B-156 LETTER 46 3: The preferred alternative in this FEIS is the Basin States Alternative which was derived from the draft Seven States Proposal. Reclamation was unable to structure the preferred alternative precisely as described in that draft proposal, but made some changes for consistency with the purpose and need of the proposed action, Reclamation policy and operational procedures. Reclamation's detailed description of the Basin States Alternative is in Attachment I. STATE AGENCIES - UDNR, DWR RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1043 of 1200 B-157 LETTER 47 STATE AGENCIES - WOFLP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1044 of 1200 B-158 LETTER 47 STATE AGENCIES - WOFLP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1045 of 1200 STATE AGENCIES - WOFLP RESPONSES B-159 LETTER 47 ior Inter 17 e 1: References to California's draft Colorado River Water Use Plan (CA Plan) have been 20 of thfrom their previous draft "4.4 Plan" where appropriate in the FEIS. corrected to distinguish it ept. ber 29, D m n v. atio on Nove decision to continue interim surplus criteria within the 15-year interim N Secretary's vajo hived 2: Thewould be based on a number of factors which may include satisfactory progress period Na in rc towards meeting the goals of California's Colorado River Water Use Plan. Please refer to the response to Comment 33-3. ited 6864, a c -1 14 3: See response to Comment No. 11-13, regarding additional water deliveries to Mexico. No. This FEIS does not identify conditions for such deliveries. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3 cont'd 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1046 of 1200 B-160 5: Comment noted. LETTER 47 STATE AGENCIES - WOFLP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N 4: The suggested edit was included in the FEIS. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5 cont'd below 4 3 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1047 of 1200 B-161 LETTER 47 11: Comment noted. The term 4.4 Plan is no longer used to refer to California's current plan. 10: Comment noted. The term 4.4 Plan is no longer used to refer to California's current plan. Secretary of the Interior to the Congress of the United States on the Colorado River Floodway Protection Act", dated October 1992. 6: The suggested edit was included in the FEIS. STATE AGENCIES - WOFLP RESPONSES ior Interto "included", since the requirement is included in the 7: The word "addressed" was changed e LROC. of th 29, 2017 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov The wording was not modified in the FEIS. 8: Comment noted. ajo N ived v in Na 4, arch 9: The Secretary of the Interior and Reclamation has the responsibility to conduct reviews of cited 1686 the floodway mapping at 5-year intervals, annually inspect the floodway to determine if any 4encroachment is occurring, and perform other activities. The activities for Reclamation and o. 1 N other federal entities as recommended to Congress are reported in the "Final Report of the COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 11 cont'd below 10 9 8 7 6 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1048 of 1200 12: Comment noted. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 17 16 15 14 B-162 17: Comment noted. See response to Comment 37-8. 16: See response to Comment 37-8. LETTER 47 STATE AGENCIES - WOFLP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 15: See response to Comment 37-8. o. 14 N 14: Comment noted. 13: The change was made. 13 COMMENT LETTER 12 11 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1049 of 1200 19: The Secretary's decision to continue interim surplus criteria within the 15-year interim period would be based on a number of factors which may include satisfactory progress towards meeting the goals of the California Colorado River Water Use Plan. See Attachment I. 18: The first sentence of the first paragraph in Section 3.3.1.2 has been changed to read as follows - Hoover Dam is managed to provide at least 7.5 maf annually for consumptive use by the Lower Division states plus the United States' obligation to Mexico. STATE AGENCIES - WOFLP RESPONSES B-163 LETTER 47 26: The sentence has been corrected with wording that better matches the Federal Register Notice: "development of surplus criteria for management of the Colorado River." I were made available to the public at the technical presentation on August 15, 2000, at all the public hearings, and as requested by mail. The Detailed Modeling Documentation is Attachment J to the FEIS. 20: Comment noted. ior Inter 17 e 21: Comment noted. Change made, 20 of th 29 in FEIS. t. Dep .22: Correctionember "Raulston" is the correct spelling. v ation on Nov has been made. N vajo hived 23: Comment noted. The change has been made. Na d in 64, arc cite 168 24: The change was made. o. 14 N 25: Attachment I was prepared following the publication of the DEIS. Copies of Attachment COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1050 of 1200 B-164 LETTER 47 28: Table 2 is intended as a summary of the comments received. The specialists working on this EIS were provided with complete sets of the comment letters and with transcripts of the scoping meetings. 27: This change has been made in the document. STATE AGENCIES - WOFLP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 28 27 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1051 of 1200 53 52 51 e Navajo Nation Department of Justice (excludes attachments)................................................................................. B-187 e Int rior 17 th t. of r 29, 20 Navajo Tribal Utility Authority................................................................................................................................ B-191 p v. De vembe n Ute Mountain Ute Tribe ........................................................................................................................................... B-193 Natio d on No jo Ten Tribes Partnership ............................................................................................................................................. B-194 Nava archive in cited 16864, o. 14 N 50 Hualapai Nation........................................................................................................................................................ B-167 49 Page # Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.................................................................................................................. B-165 Tribe Name 48 Letter # TRIBES Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1052 of 1200 TRIBES - AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS RESPONSES B-165 LETTER 48 1a: Reclamation respectfully believes that appropriate consultation with Indian Tribal Governments occurred with respect to the development of Interim Surplus Criteria. A full listing of the consultations during the development of the Interim Surplus Criteria is found in Section 5.4. federal government does not have jurisdiction over groundwater aquifers, recharge sites or other off-stream storage sites within the states. Ongoing or new groundwater storage projects would be regulated by state and local regulations and compliance requirements under CEQA, California Water Control Board, and the California Department of Health Services. The Coachella Valley Water District's water management plan and the related state permitting process are probably where the Tribes will find the best available information. Reclamation has the authority to deliver water only to the diversion point along the mainstem Colorado River. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na 1: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and the Coachella Valley Water d in 64, arc District (CVWD) have and are currently storing portions of their basic and surplus ite c apportionments of Colorado River water for intrastate purposes but the U.S. has jurisdiction -168 over reserved Tribal water. Intrastate storage (e.g. groundwater storage) activities/facilities 14 are not within Reclamation's jurisdiction, and thus does not permit nor follow the water for No. environmental compliance purposes once delivered to a water user's point of diversion. The COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1a 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1053 of 1200 1a cont'd 2: Reclamation respectfully disagrees and does not believe that the DEIS is flawed. Further, see response to Comment 48-1, and 48-1a. TRIBES - AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS RESPONSES B-166 LETTER 48 3: Comment noted. The mailing list has been changed to reflect the need of three copies. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3 2 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1054 of 1200 B-167 LETTER 49 TRIBES - HUALAPAI NATION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1055 of 1200 B-168 LETTER 49 TRIBES - HUALAPAI NATION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1056 of 1200 B-169 LETTER 49 TRIBES - HUALAPAI NATION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1057 of 1200 B-170 LETTER 49 TRIBES - HUALAPAI NATION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1058 of 1200 B-171 LETTER 49 TRIBES - HUALAPAI NATION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1059 of 1200 B-172 LETTER 49 TRIBES - HUALAPAI NATION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1060 of 1200 B-173 LETTER 49 TRIBES - HUALAPAI NATION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1061 of 1200 B-174 LETTER 49 1: Reclamation respectfully believes that appropriate consultation with Indian Tribal Governments occurred with respect to the development of interim surplus criteria. A full listing of the consultations during the development of the interim surplus criteria is found in Section 5.4. TRIBES - HUALAPAI NATION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1062 of 1200 B-175 LETTER 49 1a: The interim surplus criteria will not alter the quantity of priority of Tribal entitlements. In fact, as noted by the description of the Tribes' water rights above, the Tribes have the highest priority water rights on the Colorado River. Surplus determinations have been made by the Secretary since 1996, and surplus water supplies have been utilized by valid Colorado River contractors under the Secretary's annual surplus determinations since that date. Adoption of ISC will not make any additional surplus water available as compared with current conditions, but rather will provide more objective criteria for surplus determinations and will quantify the amounts of surplus water to be made available on an annual basis. Reclamation does not believe that identifying the limited amounts of surplus water will provide any additional disincentives for Tribal water development. Interim surplus criteria are also intended to complement efforts by California to reduce its over reliance on surplus water. The selection of any of the alternatives of this proposed action does not preclude any entitlement holder from using its water rights. TRIBES - HUALAPAI NATION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 1a VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1063 of 1200 B-176 LETTER 49 3: Unquantified Colorado River water rights cannot be analyzed and as such does not constitute an environmental justice issue for this EIS. TRIBES - HUALAPAI NATION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 4: See response to Comment 49-1. o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4 3 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1064 of 1200 B-177 LETTER 49 5: Sections 3.9.2.2.3 and 3.9.2.3.2 of the FEIS have been expanded to include additional detail with regard to the importance of Pearce Ferry to the Hualapai, based on the Tribes comments on the DEIS. Note that although baseline conditions and the interim surplus criteria alternatives under consideration would result in increased probabilities for lower Lake Mead surface elevations over time, the primary influence on Lake Mead elevation reductions results from increases in Uper Basin depletions. TRIBES - HUALAPAI NATION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1065 of 1200 B-178 LETTER 49 6: Thank you for your comments and for bringing to our attention your concerns regarding Reclamation's on-going operation of the Upper and Lower Colorado River. Per a request from the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the matter of effects to historic properties that might result from development of Interim Surplus Criteria (ISC) has been forwarded to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council). Development and implementation of ISC falls within the range of on-going operations, and the reservoirs and the River will continue to be operated within historic operational parameters under both baseline conditions and action alternatives. Because of this, Reclamation believes many of the issues you raise with regard to historic properties are better addressed under Section 110, rather than Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Reclamation is aware of its responsibilities under Section 110 for managing historic properties on lands under its jurisdiction and will commit to consulting with the Hualapai and other tribes within that framework. In accordance with the direction provided by EO 13007, Reclamation is also committed to working with the Hualapai and other tribes with ties to the Lower Colorado River to accommodate access to and use of sacred sites, and to the extent practicable, not adversely affect the physical integrity of sacred sites which have been identified by the tribes as being located on lands under its jurisdiction. If the Hualapai or other tribes have information concerning sacred sites that are being impacted by on-going reservoir and river operations, Reclamation urges the tribes to bring these situations to the attention of the appropriate Reclamation office. TRIBES - HUALAPAI NATION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 6 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1066 of 1200 B-179 LETTER 49 TRIBES - HUALAPAI NATION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1067 of 1200 TRIBES - HUALAPAI NATION RESPONSES B-180 LETTER 49 7: The operation of the Colorado River and the development of interim surplus criteria are complex and highly technical in nature. A considerable effort was made to balance the needs of all members of the public and write the DEIS in language that could be understood by both a technical and non-technical audience. The writers of the DEIS acknowledge the difficulty of accomplishing this task. For the FEIS, the writers of the document have made a further effort to use plain language whenever possible. Chapter 5 has been modified to more fully describe the process to consult with Tribes. Several meetings regarding interim surplus criteria were held in which the Hualapai Tribe was invited. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 7 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1068 of 1200 B-181 LETTER 49 TRIBES - HUALAPAI NATION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1069 of 1200 B-182 LETTER 49 8: The DEIS and FEIS are technical documents and as such, contain substantial technical information. Reclamation has made every effort possible to provide extensive, understandable explanations of the technical analysis in the DEIS and FEIS. Further, during the public comment period, Reclamation conducted technical meetings and public hearings to receive questions and provide explanation on the technical aspects of the studies conducted and information presented in the DEIS. The dates and times of these meetings were published in letters mailed to interested parties, local newspapers and in the Federal Register. Furthermore, Reclamation also accommodated various agencies and other entities by meeting with them, at their request, to provide explanation on the technical aspects of the studies conducted and information presented in the DEIS. As such, Reclamation is of the opinion that it has made every effort possible to meet or exceed the standards for plain language, understandability, and low-income and minority community access. Chapter 5 of the FEIS entitled "Consultation and Coordination" includes Reclamation's public involvement process and coordination. See also response to Comment 49-7. TRIBES - HUALAPAI NATION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 8 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1070 of 1200 B-183 LETTER 49 TRIBES - HUALAPAI NATION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1071 of 1200 B-184 LETTER 49 This document is an attachment ot the Hualapai Nation's Septermber 8, 2000 comment letter. All relevant comments are addressed above in response to the September 8, 2000 letter. TRIBES - HUALAPAI NATION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1072 of 1200 TRIBES - HUALAPAI NATION RESPONSES B-185 LETTER 49 This document is an attachment to the Hualapai Nation's Septermber 8, 2000 comment letter. All relevant comments are addressed above in the response to the Septermber 8, 2000 letter. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1073 of 1200 B-186 LETTER 49 TRIBES - HUALAPAI NATION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1074 of 1200 B-187 LETTER 50 TRIBES - NAVAJO NATION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1075 of 1200 1: Comment noted. B-188 LETTER 50 TRIBES - NAVAJO NATION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N 2: See response to Comment 52-1. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1076 of 1200 TRIBES - NAVAJO NATION RESPONSES B-189 LETTER 50 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. Reclamation respectfully disagrees and does DEIS is deficient. .3: De doesmber that identifying thenot believe that the surplus water will v limited amounts tion Reclamationadditional believe for Tribal water development. of ove not disincentives a N provide ajo N ived on any v in Na 4, arch cited 1686 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3 2 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1077 of 1200 B-190 LETTER 50 5: Upper Basin accounting procedures are based on use, not delivery, and the Compact point is a better reference point for the Upper Basin than Glen Canyon Dam. The FEIS has been modified accordingly. Please see response to Comment 50-1 regarding resolution to Tribal water rights being constrained by the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact. 4: See response to Comment 51-3(b). TRIBES - NAVAJO NATION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5 4 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1078 of 1200 TRIBES - NAVAJO TRIBAL UTILITY AUTHORITY RESPONSES B-191 LETTER 51 3: (a) Reclamation recognizes that the Navajo Nation is a preference customer at Glen Canyon Dam. The status of a Tribe doesn't sanction any more of a status than that of a preference customer. This action will in no way affect the Tribes right to the power. Impacts to the power and energy produced at Glen Canyon Dam are found in Section 3.10. The Department does not view this as a trust asset as we are not affecting the contract right to the power. (b) Section 3.9.2.2.2 discusses impacts to Lake Powell and the operation of Antelope Point Marina. Reclamation and the Department have considered the analysis and feel the ISC alternatives are minor impacts to Lake Powell elevations. Reclamation and the Department believe that inflows and increasing UB depletions will have a greater impact on Lake Powell water surface elevations. The Marina and any other economic ventures on Lake Powell need to take into consideration the normal operational ranges of Lake Powell. (c) In the DEIS, Reclamation attempted to consider all Indian water rights that could be affected by interim surplus criteria, covering both adjudicated and non-adjudicated water rights. For the FEIS, Reclamation's RiverWare model, which simulates the operation of the Colorado River Basin, was modified to more accurately and precisely account for Indian water rights. ior Inter 17 e of th Comment , 20 916-2. 1: Please see response to pt. . De ember 2 v ation on Nov recognizes the Navajo Nation's concerns with regard to facilities at Antelope 2: Reclamation N of the criteria vajo hived Point. Section 3.9at LakeEIS discusses potential effects of interim surplusanalysison Section shoreline facilities Powell, including those at Antelope Point. The in Na c 3.9 of the FEIS has been modified to consider the probability of Lake Powell surface d in 64, ar elevations occuring below 3,677 ft msl (as opposed to an elevation of 3,670 ft msl cite 168 considered in the DEIS) and 3626 ft msl, based upon information provided by the NPS and 4the Navajo Nation. o. 1 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1079 of 1200 B-192 LETTER 51 TRIBES - NAVAJO TRIBAL UTILITY AUTHORITY RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1080 of 1200 TRIBES - UTE MOUNTAIN UTE TRIBE RESPONSES B-193 LETTER 52 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. 1: The Department is working closely with the State of California to reduce its over reliance . De River water. Theer of the Basin State alternative as the preferred b v tion of Coloradobrings withm selection measures and reversion to conservative ove it satisfactory progress alternative a N on incentive to California to reduce its are of met. The Depratment ajo N ivedsurplus criteria if those progress measures use notColorado River water. believes this will v provide in Na 4, arch 2: In response, Reclamation states that its policies with respect to the proposed action will cited 1686 not serve to reduce the development of the Ute Mountatin Ute Tribe's water rights. 14 No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1081 of 1200 B-194 LETTER 53 TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1082 of 1200 B-195 LETTER 53 TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1083 of 1200 TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES B-196 LETTER 53 1: The statement in the DEIS made by Reclamaton was in error. This statement has been modified. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 cont'd below VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1084 of 1200 2: Reclamation was in error. See Section 3.14 for additional analysis. TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES B-197 LETTER 53 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc 3: See Section 3.14 for additional analysis. After review of this additional material, the cite 168 Department has made the decision that a new draft was not necessary. 4o. 1 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3 2 1 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1085 of 1200 B-198 LETTER 53 TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1086 of 1200 B-199 LETTER 53 TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1087 of 1200 B-200 LETTER 53 TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1088 of 1200 4: Comment noted. B-201 LETTER 53 TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4 cont'd below VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1089 of 1200 B-202 LETTER 53 TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4 cont'd this page and next VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1090 of 1200 TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES B-203 LETTER 53 In the Lower Colorado Region, Reclamation and the Department have likewise undertaken numerous efforts to pursue opportunities for various Tribes to utilize their water rights. The Department has worked for years to address the needs of Lower Basin Tribes served by the Central Arizona Project in a comprehensive Arizona Water Rights Settlement. For example, recently this effort led to introduction of a bill in Congress that would address the claims of the Gila River Indian Community, resolving the largest Indian water rights claim in the western United States. ior Inter 17 the of acknowledges this20 and recognizes that a number of Tribes , . 5: The pt Department D been museer 29 concern The Department their entitlement date. . havee tounable to bmake better use oftotheir water rights. In the is committed to making v Upper Colorado ation oprogressove Tribes the Department have undertaken numerous efforts to pursue N help Region, Reclamation and N n jo opportunities for the Ten Tribes to utilize their water rights. Implementation of water right Tribe Tribe continues Nava archived settlements for both the Northern Uteseekingand the Jicarilla Apache the Colorado Uteto be a focus of the Department, along with final implementation of d in 64, settlement. In addition, the Department is working with the Navajo Nation on cite 168 reapportionment of the Navajo Reservoir, which will assist efforts to move the Navajo Indian 4Irrigation Project towards completion. Efforts also continue on a settlement of the Little o. 1 N Colorado River. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5 cont'd below 4 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1091 of 1200 TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES B-204 LETTER 53 7: The Department does not believe mitigation is warranted based upon the Department's conclusion that the proposed action will not adversely affect the water rights of the Tribes (or any entitlement holder). alternatives of this proposed action does not preclude any entitlement holder from using its water rights. ior Inter proposed action would preclude the Tribes or any 6: The Department does not believe this e entitlement holder from using their Colorado River entitlement. The interim surplus criteria of th priority9, 2017 In fact, as noted by the description p. not altert quantity 2 of Tribal .willDe theemborin rdeterminationsentitlements.made by the Secretarywater rights on of the Tribes' water rights eSection 3.14, the Tribes have the highest priority v the Coloradov Surplus n have been since 1996, o River. have been utilized by valid Colorado River and N water Natio d onsurplus annualsupplies determinations since that date. Adoption ofcontractors under the jo surplus ISC will not make any additional surplus but rather Nava archive Secretary's objectivewater available as compared with current conditions,the amountswill provide more criteria for surplus determinations and will quantify of d in 64, cite 168 surplus water to be made available on an annual basis. Reclamation does not believe that identifying the limited amounts of surplus water will provide any additional disincentives for Tribal water development. Interim surplus criteria is also intended to complement efforts by o. 14 N Califormia to reduce its over reliance on surplus water. The selection of any of the COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS part of 5 7 cont'd below 6 5 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1092 of 1200 B-205 LETTER 53 8: Reclamation disagrees with the commentor's opinion that the ITA analysis is deficient and the environmental impact of the proposed action is insufficient. To meet the requirements of NEPA, it is common practice to update DEIS information in the FEIS as was the case on Tribal water rights and uses. Reclamation has used the best information available in the DEIS and has updated the ITA section appropriately. The determination of Tribal water rights and uses are legal matters beyond the scope of the proposed action. The NEPA process is not the vehicle to determine water rights of any party. Reclamation did not exclude identification or analysis of Tribal water rights or uses in the DEIS. The DEIS and FEIS identifies and appropriately analyzes impacts to Tribal water rights based on information available to Reclamation, thus Reclamation believes it is not required to recirculate a revised DEIS. TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 8 7 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1093 of 1200 TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES B-206 LETTER 53 9: Reclamation provided the Partnership with a grant for participation in this process. CRSS has been modified based on the data provided by the Partnership and subsequent discussions with the Partnership consultants clarifying that data. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 9 cont'd below VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1094 of 1200 B-207 12: Comment noted. LETTER 53 10: The Department does not believe the alternatives of this proposed action preclude the Tribes from using their Colorado River entitltement. TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. er .11:De ehas incorporated the Partnerships' data into the model runs. n v Reclamation mb tio ov jo Na ved on N Nava archi in cited 16864, o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 12 cont'd below 11 10 9 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1095 of 1200 B-208 LETTER 53 14: We have revised the second subparagraph under paragraph 3.14.2.6 in the FEIS to adopt these suggestions from the Ten Tribes Partnership. 13: The Department declines the request to include the sources of water in the FEIS. Once tributary water commingles with Colorado River water it becomes Colorado River system water. This system water is used as such to make appropriate deliveries based on the Decree. The selection of any of the alternatives of this proposed action does not preclude any entitlement holder from using its water. TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 14 13 12 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1096 of 1200 B-209 LETTER 53 16: For the DEIS, the depletion schedules prepared and submitted by the Upper and Lower Basin states were used to model the basin water demands under normal, surplus and shortage water supply conditions. The states updated these schedules in consultation with the local agencies/tribes and Reclamation used the updated schedules in the modeling of the baseline conditions and surplus alternatives for the FEIS. All agency/tribe demands schedules are believed to have been appropriately modeled for the DEIS. However, for the DEIS, the demands of various agencies/tribes were clustered or aggregated at the respective nodal point on the model. For the FEIS, the demands of the individual agencies/tribes that have water service contracts with Reclamation and have direct diversions from the main stem Colorado River were disaggregated and modeled as individual demands at the respective nodal points on the model. See Attachment H which shows the Lower Basin use schedules and Attachment K which shows Upper Basin use schedules. All Tribes in the Ten Tribe Partnership, in the Lower Basin receive their scheduled depletion, with the exception of the Cocopah Tribe which has some Arizona Priority 4 water. 15: See response to Comment No. 31-7 for a discussion of the results of interim surplus criteria implementation. TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc 17: See response to Comment No. 53-16. cite 168 41 No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 17 16 15 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1097 of 1200 B-210 LETTER 53 20: The Department declines the request to adopt a Lower Basin Tribal Accounting Pool. 19: Comment noted. 18: Comment noted. TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 20 cont'd below 19 18 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1098 of 1200 B-211 LETTER 53 TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 20 cont'd below VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1099 of 1200 TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES B-212 Tribe depletions and diversions that were used in the FEIS alternatives. LETTER 53 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N 21: See response to Comment No. 71-16. See also Attachment Q which shows the Ten COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 21 cont'd below 20 cont'd at end VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1100 of 1200 B-213 LETTER 53 TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 21 cont'd below VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1101 of 1200 TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES B-214 LETTER 53 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na 22: The Department does not believe that the proposed action will serve as a disincentive d in 64, arc cite 168 to Indian water development. See response to Comment 53-6. 41 No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 22 cont'd below 21 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1102 of 1200 B-215 LETTER 53 TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 22 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1103 of 1200 B-216 LETTER 53 TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 20 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1104 of 1200 B-217 LETTER 53 TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 21 cont'd VOLUME III PART B , Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1105 of 1200 B-218 LETTER 53 TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 21 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1106 of 1200 B-219 LETTER 53 TRIBES - TEN TRIBES PARTNERSHIP RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1107 of 1200 B-220 ior Inter 17 e o th 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFTfBLANK.9, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1108 of 1200 62 61 60 59 58 57 Western Area Power Administration (WAPA)........................................................................................................ B-289 e Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ................................................................................................................ B-225 e Int rior 17 th t. of r 29, 20 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service................................................................................................................................. B-238 Dep mbe v. States Section (IBWC, U.S. Section) ............................. B-278 e International Boundary and Water Commission,on United Nati d on Nov jo National Park Service (NPS).................................................................................................................................... B-281 Nava archive in Western Area Powerd 64 cite Administration ,(WAPA)........................................................................................................ B-286 -168 (WAPA)........................................................................................................ B-287 Western Area Power14 Administration No. 56 Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo Region ................................................................................................................ B-223 55 Page # Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)................................................................................................................................ B-221 Agency Name 54 Letter # FEDERAL AGENCIES Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1109 of 1200 FEDERAL AGENCIES - BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS RESPONSES B-221 LETTER 54 2: The Salton Sea Watershed Tribes do not have Winters Rights to Colorado River Water thus there is no trust asset to impact. Potential impacts to Tribal assets from intrastate groundwater storage are not within the jurisdiction of Reclamation but are regulated by state and local regulations. Water to satisfy the San Luis Rey Water Rights Settlement is dependant on and shall be derived from conserved water from the lining of the All American Canal. Once lined, and conservation accounted for, a portion of the conserved water will be transferred by a point of delivery change to MWD facilities which is being addressed by separate Reclamation compliance documentation. Reclamation understands that the BIA is preparing separate environmental compliance for the use of this settlement water. The development nor transfer of the San Luis Settlement water is affected by the federal action addressed in this EIS. are the responsibility of MWD and are not caused by or the result of the federal action addressed in this EIS. ior Inter 17 the 1: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and the Coachella Valley Water 20 of and are currently,storing portions of their basic and surplus District (CVWD) have ept. of Colorado River29 for intrastate purposes. Intrastate storage (e.g. apportionments er water .D n vgroundwater storage) activities/facilities environmental Reclamation's jurisdiction, and thus embthe water for are not within compliance purposes once delivered tio does not permit nor follow ov o water aquifers, of diversion. The federal government does not within the states. jo Na ved to an Nuser's point recharge sites or other off-stream storage siteshave jurisdiction over groundwater Nava archi Ongoing or new groundwater storage projects would be regulated by state and local d in 64, regulations and compliance requirements under CEQA, California Water Control Board, and cite 168 the California Department of Health Services. Some groundwater projects may require federal permits or approvals thus a CEQA/NEPA document may be prepared. Potential o. 14 impact to trust assets on or adjacent to the Soboba Indian Reservation or the Morongo N Indian Reservation from the operation and maintenance of MWD's Colorado River aqueduct COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 cont'd below 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1110 of 1200 B-222 LETTER 54 3: The Riverside office of BIA was sent a copy of the FEIS, as requested. As a commentor, the Pacific Regional Office was added to the distribution list. FEDERAL AGENCIES - BUREAU OF INDIANS AFFAIRS RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3 2 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1111 of 1200 FEDERAL AGENCIES - BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, NAVAJO REGION RESPONSES B-223 LETTER 55 3: It is recognized that different percentiles could be used for presenting the information in Section 3.9.6, however, Reclamation believes that using median elevations appropriately presents the differences between the alternatives and baseleine conditions. It should be noted that using 90th percentile elevations would show no discernable differences between the alternatives and baseline conditions for Lake Powell or Lake Mead, and use of the 10th percentile elevations would indicate differences similar to those identified using the median elevations (see FEIS Figures 3.9.1 and 3.9.4). ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ov ation o1: See response to Comment 53-5. jo N ved n N Nava archi in cited 16864, 2: See response to Comment 59-2. o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1112 of 1200 B-224 LETTER 55 6: Due to the small difference in probabilities (discussed above) between the baseline conditions and preferred alternative, interim surplus criteria would not have a significant effect on the feasibility of a marina at Antelope Point. Reclamation is providing information to the Navajo Nation as requested, regarding results of analyses significant to Antelope Point. 5: Potential costs incurred from relocating marina facilities are addressed in Section 3.9.6. Section 3.2 states that the scope of the analysis at Lake Powell is limited to the maximum water surface elevation; regional economic effects are not analyzed. As shown in Figure 3.9-6, the probabilities of Lake Powell elevation falling below 3626 feet msl (the approximate bottom elevation of future boat ramp useability under baseline conditions and the preferred (Basin States) alternative) are typically within 5 percent of each other. 4: The discussion of threshold elevations, particularly for Antelope Point Marina, has been expanded. See Section 3.9.2.2.2 for a description of the elevations and Section 3.9.2.3.1 for an analysis of threshold elevations. FEDERAL AGENCIES - BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, NAVAJO REGION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v v ation o7: The water quality analysis in the EIS appropriately identifies the potential effects of n No jo N ved interim surplus criteria. Potential effects are discussed in terms of the general effects of changing reservoir elevations because specific elevations and periods that such elevations Nava archi would occur are unknown and cannot be predicted. d in 64, cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 7 6 5 4 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1113 of 1200 B-225 LETTER 56 FEDERAL AGENCIES - EPA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1114 of 1200 B-226 2: Comment noted. 1: Comment noted. LETTER 56 FEDERAL AGENCIES - EPA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1115 of 1200 4: Because the proposed action is implementation of interim surplus criteria (surplus has and will be delivered under the No Action Alternative/AOP), Reclamation has determined that analysis of potential indirect effects associated with the use of Colorado River water is outside of the area of potential effect as defined in the EIS and is not within the purview of Reclamation's Federal action or the NEPA process being conducted for interim surplus criteria. The indirect effects analysis from the use of any Colorado River apportionment is the responsibility of the California parties and any other state users. It should be noted that California's Colorado River depletion has been 600-800 kaf over their 4.4 apportionment for a number of years. This demand has been met historically through unused apportionment and surplus deliveries. 3: Potential effects on water supply to the lower Basin states, Indian Tribes, and Mexico; water quality; hydropower production; and recreational facilities are discussed in the EIS. Determining the effects on individual water users is beyond the scope of the EIS. Flows to Mexico and potential transboundary effects are discussed in Section 3.16. FEDERAL AGENCIES - EPA RESPONSES B-227 8: Comment noted. LETTER 56 7: Potential effects in Mexico will be addressed through continued coordination with Mexico. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. 5: No significant impacts er identified that . De hasembhavetobeenFEIS to discussrequire specific mitigation. However, been added environmental that n vSection 3.17 would commit uponthe of interim surplus criteria commitmentsSecretary's Reclamation adoption through the atio on Nov N vajo hived Record of Decision. Na d in 64, arc 6: The CAP master contract, through which the Tribes receive water has no guarantee of cite 168 the availability of water. The Department is of the opinion that the trust asset in this case is the contract the Tribes have for delivery of CAP water. This contract has fully disclosed the 14 potential diminishment of the water. The EIS, in Section 3.14.3 has fully disclosed the No. impacts of this action to the delivery of CAP water. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 8 7 6 5 4 3 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1116 of 1200 B-228 LETTER 56 FEDERAL AGENCIES - EPA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1117 of 1200 10: The Rule would establish the procedural framework for the Secretary to follow in considering, participating in, and administering Storage and Interstate Release Agreements (SIRA). The Rule establishes a framework only and does not authorize any specific activities. The Rule is based on the understanding that this type of offstream storage is a beneficial use of Colorado River water. To date no SIRA have been received by Reclamation for review and approval. California, specifically MWD, has voiced interested in interstate storage in Arizona. However, the quantity of water for storage and retrieval is substantially in excess of what is permitted by law for the Arizona Water Banking Authority. MWD's schedule for storage and retrieval also does not comply with Arizona State law. It is unknown if MWD would revise its proposed storage and retrieval quantities and schedule to meet Arizona law or if Arizona would amend its law. It is highly speculative if interstate banking under the Rule would benefit MWD considering MWD's development of its own storage facilities for intrastate storage purposes. It should be noted that California entities have and are presently storing portions of their basic and surplus apportionments for intrastate purposes. Interim surplus is unlikely to vary in quantity or quality from surplus Colorado River water already delivered. Intrastate storage activities/facilities are not within Reclamation's jurisdiction but are regulated by state and local regulations and compliance requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Some groundwater projects may require Federal permits or approvals thus a joint CEQA/NEPA may be prepared for the Cadiz, Hayfield/Chuckwalla , and Desert/Coachella projects. A draft EIR/EIS and Supplement for the Cadiz project has been published. Environmental documents for the latter two projects are in progress. 9: The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the interim surplus criteria alternatives were analyzed within the project area, which extends from the upper reaches of Lake Powell to the Southerly International Boundary with Mexico within the 100-year floodplain. Off-river effects of storage and use of surplus water have been or are being addressed in existing or ongoing NEPA and/or California Environmental Quality Act and California Endangered Species Act compliance documents as appropriate. These activities are authorized by state actions. These include the Quantification Settlement Agreement PEIR, Secretarial Implementation Agreement EA, IID/SDCWA Transfer EIS/EIR, and the San Diego County HCP. The federal government does not have jurisdiction over groundwater aquifers, recharge sites or other off-stream storage sites within the States. FEDERAL AGENCIES - EPA RESPONSES B-229 LETTER 56 12: The FEIS includes sensitivity analyses related to California intrastate transfers and the Lake Mead elevation at which shortage is declared. 11: Comment noted. See response to Comment 56-10. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 12 11 10 9 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1118 of 1200 13: The Bureau has determined that the Adaptive Management Program will protect whitewater boating opportunities in the Colorado River between Lake Powell and Lake Mead in compliance with the Grand Canyon Protection Act. Therefore, the interim surplus criteria would not adversely affect whitewater boating opportunities in the Colorado River. The Grand Canyon Protection Act directs the Secretary, among others, to operate Glen Canyon Dam in accordance with the additional criteria and operating plans specified in section 1804 of the Act and to exercise other authorities under existing law in such a manner as to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established, including but not limited to the natural and cultural resources and visitor use. The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (AMP) was established as a Federal Advisory Committee to assist the Secretary of the Interior in implementing the Grand Canyon Protection Act. We agree that interim surplus criteria could have an influence on releases from Glen Canyon Dam; however, releases will continue to be governed by the criteria in the Record of Decision which was developed in full consideration of both the safety and quality of recreational experiences in Glen and Grand Canyons. A summary of the Glen Canyon Dam Record of Decision has been included as Appendix D of this document. FEDERAL AGENCIES - EPA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. D ROD the Operation . Thee for emberof the Glen Canyon Dam is included as Attachment D. v v Pertinent o ation 14: n oninformation from itidentifies that theinaction alternativesthroughout the FEIS. Thethe o of flows (3.6) is summarized various sections would have river jo N ved section N Beach/Habitat-Building Flows and Low Steady Summer Flows.an effect on frequency Nava archi d in 64, 15: Reclamation does not review and independently change the Tribes and States water cite 168 supply projections, though Reclamation staff has some understanding of the calculation methods used. See response to Comment 56-29 of this letter for a complete description of o. 14 Reclamation's process for assuring the beneficial use of Colorado River water. N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS B-230 LETTER 56 16: The delivery of water to Mexico under all modeled conditions in this FEIS were consistant with the requirements of the Treaty. The diversion and use of such Treaty water is solely at Mexico's discretion. The delivery of excess flows to Mexico occurs when available flows in the Colorado River exceeds that amount that is necessary to meet the beneficial needs and uses of Lower Basin users in the United States. It is not within Reclamation's discretionary authority to make unilateral adjustments to water deliveries to the international border. Also, as mentioned in response to Comment 56-7, potential effects on habitat and special status species along the river in Mexico and efforts to restore the Delta are being addressed through continued coordination with Mexico. The Executive Order on Environmental Effects Abroad, as discussed by section 3.16.2, focuses on impacts to natural resources, and specifically excludes consideration of socioeconomic impacts. 16 15 14 13 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1119 of 1200 17: The U.S.-Mexico Treaty of 1944 guarantees an annual quantity of 1.5 maf to Mexico. This quantity is a scheduled delivery from Lake Mead, in addition to the 7.5 maf allocated to the Lower Division states. The Colorado River Compact of 1922 stated that if this right was recognized, the water would be supplied by water over and above the Basin States apportionment of 16 maf, and that if such water was insufficent, any deficiency would be borne equally by the upper and lower basin. Under shortage conditions, Article 10 (b) of the Treaty states "in the event of extraordinary drought or serious accident to the irrigation system in the United States....the water allotted to Mexico....will be reduced in the same proportion as consumptive uses in the United States are reduced." FEDERAL AGENCIES - EPA RESPONSES B-231 LETTER 56 20: Reclamation is a partner in the Las Vegas Wetland Restoration program and other programs around Lake Mead and along the Lower Colorado River. time. See also response to Comment 56-18. 18: Comment noted. Additional information regarding contaminants has been added to Section 3.5 of the FEIS. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc 19: Through a 1999 consent agreement with the Nevada Department of Environmental cite 168 Protection, remediation of perchlorate in groundwater entering Las Vegas Wash and Lake Mead will continue into the future which will reduce the concentration of perchlorate down 14 river, at the MWD intake, and below this point. It is expected that the California standard of No. 18 ppb for drinking water will not be exceeded but reduced in Colorado River water through COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 20 19 18 17 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1120 of 1200 21: The preferred alternative in this FEIS was derived from the draft Seven States Proposal, and was evaluated at the same degree of detail as the other alternatives. Reclamation did not structure the preferred alternative precisely as described in that draft proposal, but made some changes for consistency with the purpose and need of the proposed action, Reclamation policy and operational procedures. The proposed shortage determination criteria were not included in the preferred alternative. Reclamation regards California's proposed reparation to Arizona for increased shortages as a matter between California and Arizona, and has not included the reparation in this FEIS. The Secretary intends to honor reparation agreements among various entities. FEDERAL AGENCIES - EPA RESPONSES B-232 LETTER 56 22: Reclamation does not federalize intrastate uses of Colorado River water and does not follow the water for environmental compliance purposes once delivered to a water user's point of diversion. The federal government does not have jurisdiction over groundwater aquifers, recharge sites or other off-stream storage sites within the States. Those activities are authorized by state and local actions. Other federal permits and environmental compliance may be required for specific facilities on a case by case basis. See also response to Comment 56-10. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 22 21 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1121 of 1200 B-233 LETTER 56 the AOP for 2008, Reclamation would project the January 1, 2008 Lake Mead elevation using our 24 month study (2 year model). If the water surface elevation of Lake Mead were projected to be above approximately 1163 ft, the surplus volume stipulated for Tier 1 for 2008 would be triggered for delivery during 2008, regardless of the resulting lake level within year 2008. The monthly delivery to each Lower Division state would be according to its monthly surplus water demand schedule for Tier 1. In addition, the amount of surplus water allowed for delivery in 2008 would be subject to a determination of beneficial use by the Regional Director, Lower Colorado Region. 25: See Attachment H for additional information. 24: Shortage conditions for the Colorado River have not been defined. They were assumed for modeling purposes in the EIS. Section 3.3.3.4 describes the Lake Mead water level protection assumptions and the modeling conditions under which California could receive less than its normal apportionment. 23: Implementation of the California Plan and intrastate transfers was included in the FEIS Flood Control alternative. See response to Comment 37-11 for more details. FEDERAL AGENCIES - EPA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ov ation26: on Ndiscussion has been added to the Lower Division Demand Schedules (FEIS Additional jo N ved H) regarding the influence on surplus water deliveries. The guidelines (FEIS Att. I) Nava archi Att. be applied annually to whatever water surface elevation existed. would d in 64, cite 168 27: The surplus triggers would be used once a year to determine whether surplus o. 14 N conditions would occur in the following year. For example, in August 2007, while preparing COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 27 26 25 24 23 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1122 of 1200 29: Reclamation is currently and has been monitoring diversions, return flows and consumptive uses by water users along the Colorado River since 1964. Reclamation is required by the Supreme Court (Article V, Supreme Court Decree in Arizona v California dated March 9, 1964) to prepare and maintain complete, detailed and accurate annual records of: releases of water through regulatory structures, diversions, returns and consumptive uses by State and diverter, water ordered but not diverted, and deliveries to Mexico in satisfaction of their entitlement. Reclamation began preparing this report in 1964. Since then, the accounting and monitoring procedures have been augmented with a monthly report tracking users diversion, returns and consumptive uses throughout the year. In addition to the monthly reporting and end of year accounting, Reclamation approves water use estimates by major water users before the beginning of each calendar year. Title 43, CFR 417 requires entitlement holders to provide an estimate of monthly diversion requirements (schedule), for Reclamationˆs planning purposes, prior to the beginning of the calendar year. The major water users are also required by contract to provide a monthly water use report which includes actual diversions and return flows. Others either report annually or have diversions and return flows reported by the USGS at the end of the year. This information is reported to all interested parties in the monthly reports and the annual report titled "Compilation of Records in Accordance with Article V of the Decree of the Supreme Court of the United States in Arizona V. California, Dated March 9, 1964." The schedules are reviewed by the water conservation, water contracts, and water operations staff to ensure that the next year demands do not exceed contract holders entitlements and that the water requested will be available in the system. Monthly reports are tracked throughout the year to monitor trends in water use which indicate when users are likely to exceed their entitlements. When surplus water is available, entitlement holders are allowed to divert up to their entitlement for surplus water, if any, in addition to their basic entitlement for a normal year in which no surplus would be available. How much surplus water was diverted by an entitlement holder can be determined only at the end of the calendar year by comparing the actual use, as reported in the Decree Accounting report, to their entitlement. Reclamation is developing a method to compare actual use to entitlements for the purpose of identifying surplus uses and uses in excess of entitlement. 28: The purpose of this action is not to get California to 4.4 maf and thus the 4.4 Plan (now the CA Plan) is not within the scope of this EIS. Water transfers within California and their effects on and off the river are being handled by joint and separate NEPA and CEQA documentation. Through monitoring, verification, and accounting of all users uses, particularly as California begins to implement transfers and develop conservation programs, these data will be considered as part of the AOP process for measuring California's success in reducing its use to 4.4 maf. This description of monitoring, verification, and accounting of water use involves ongoing Reclamation processes that are outside the purpose and need of this action. FEDERAL AGENCIES - EPA RESPONSES B-234 LETTER 56 30: Reclamation is taking steps to require more accurate measurement and reporting of diversions and return flows to the river. The most common case of water users who divert water without a contract involve persons who divert water from a well that is replaced with Colorado River water. Reclamation is, and for the last 5 years has been, funding the Geological Survey to perform an inventory of wells in the Colorado river flood plain and on adjacent terraces and slopes that have the potential to pump Colorado River water. The Geological Survey, at Reclamation's request and with Reclamation funding, has completed two reports which document a method for use in making a presumption if the use of water pumped by a well is pumping Colorado River water. The first report, published in 1994, provides a method of accounting for the lower Colorado River between the mouth of the Grand Canyon and Laguna Dam. The second report, published in 2000, provides a method of accounting for the lower Colorado River from Laguna Dam to Mexico. All uses of Colorado River water must be reported in the Colorado River water accounting report required by the Supreme Court (Article V, Supreme Court Decree in Arizona v California dated March 9, 1964). To date, the initial well inventory is about half complete and the methods documented in the reports identified above have been used to presume if new or planned wells would likely pump water that should be accounted for as Colorado River water. Few existing wells have been made subject to the methods described within the above identified reports. Reclamation recognizes that the accounting of water required by the Supreme Court must include accurate records of diversions, return flows, and consumptive use. Past efforts to uniquely and separately identify unmeasured return flows for individual diverters have met with mixed success. While estimates for many diverters currently exist, they cannot be considered definitive. Reclamation and others recognized many years ago that estimates on unmeasured return flows could not be made without first estimating consumptive use by some method other than measured diversion less measured return. To this end, the lower Colorado River Accounting System (LCRAS) was developed to estimate agricultural consumptive use as the evapotranspiration of the crops and related uses plus a portion of the residual of a water budget between major structures along the lower Colorado River. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 33 32 31 30 29 28 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1123 of 1200 33: This issue is handled by an overall settlement in central Arizona between the United States and the CAWCD. The United States has made agreements which protect the Indian portion or interest in a shared aquifer. In addition, the storage of surplus water in an aquifer in a shared basin is considered a positive impact by tribes located within shared water basins because the water stored in the aquifer is increased. Chapter 5 has more specific information regarding the consultations with the Tribes. 32: Reclamation is not proposing to make reparations part of the interim surplus criteria. 31: See response to Comment 56-6. Reparations as provided in the Working Draft of the Seven States Plan would assist all users of CAP water. 30 (cont'd): LCRAS is fully functional and is undergoing a demonstration phase. The LCRAS program has also funded a study by the Geological Survey to determine the standard error of estimate of the stream-flow gages along the mainstream used by the LCRAS water budget. The results of this study will not only improve LCRAS, but will also identify and quantify the practical limits of water measurement capabilities with the current measurement network in place; providing the basis for an analysis of technically feasible and economically justifiable modifications to the current water-measurement network. The effort to identify diverters who exceed their entitlements includes an analysis of water use by riparian vegetation within diverter boundaries to determine the proper portion of water use by riparian vegetation that should be included in the consumptive use calculation for each diverter. The implementation of LCRAS, together with a determination of what portion of water use by riparian vegetation should be charged to each diverter, will provide a complete and supportable value of consumptive use that can be compared with the contract entitlement of the diverter. FEDERAL AGENCIES - EPA RESPONSES B-235 LETTER 56 38: Please refer to Section 3.3.4.5.4 for a description of river flows below Imperial Dam and delivery of water to Mexico. 37: Section 7 consultation is in progress. 36: The noted documents are incorporated by reference and are available for review by the public at Reclamation's Office. The BCO has been provided to interested public and agencies and is available on Reclamation's web site. 35: Additional analysis of potential effects below Lake Mead have been incorporated into Section 3.5, Water Quality, Section 3.7, Aquatic Resources, (potential effects of changes in Hoover Dam release water temperature on fisheries below Hoover Dam to Lake Mohave), and Section 3.8 to discuss potential effects between Hoover Dam and the SIB. 34: Some non-Indian agricultural water has been reallocated to Indian users of CAP water. When non-Indian agricultural water is allocated to Indians, the water retains its non-Indian agricultural priority and is referred to as "non-Indian agricultural water". Table 3.14-4 shows the potential loss of water by tribes under the GRIC Settlement. Line 3 of the title of Table 3.14-4 has been corrected to read, "Likely Future With GRIC Settlement." ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 38 37 36 35 34 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1124 of 1200 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS B-236 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N LETTER 56 40: The observed surpluses are due to relatively full starting conditions of Colorado River reservoirs. You will notice that the FEIS graphs have been modified. See Section 3.3.4.1 for a detailed explantion. 40 FEDERAL AGENCIES - EPA RESPONSES 39: Additional explanation has been added to Section 3.3.and Section 3.4 with respect to the interpretation of the figures in these sections and the meaning of the analysis results. COMMENT LETTER 39 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1125 of 1200 B-237 LETTER 56 FEDERAL AGENCIES - EPA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1126 of 1200 FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-238 LETTER 57 2: Additional explanation has been added to Section 3.3.and Section 3.4 with respect to the interpretation of the figures in these sections and the meaning of the analysis results. Mean monthly flows between Hoover and Parker Dams would increase during the interim surplus criteria period as a result of more frequent surplus deliveries (compared to baseline conditions). 1: Comment noted. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 cont'd below 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1127 of 1200 5: The purpose and need of the action is stated correctly. If surplus water is available all Lower Basin States may benefit as their water use needs approach and exceed their allocation. Nevada currently is using surplus water in calendar year 2000 and Arizona will benefit in the future when their need exceeds 2.8 maf. Reclamation's stated purpose to provide greater predictability allows Reclamation and users to project reservoir conditions and uses several years ahead. This allows users advance knowledge of when surplus will and more importantly will NOT be available. The current AOP decision making does not give basin users predictability regarding surplus designations. The Secretary may use the increased probability of surplus, given certain hydrologic assumptions, in making his decision regarding the choice of interim surplus criteria. 4: Specifically, changes in deliveries are often due to a "discrete" condition, such as the change from normal to shortage conditions. This can result in a sudden change in the 50th percentile line, as seen in Figure 3.4-5. 3: Comment noted. Additional explanation has been added to Section 3.3 and Section 3.4. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS B-239 LETTER 57 8: The proposed interim surplus criteria are not intended to provide California only with the amount of water to keep the Colorado river Aqueduct full. As is currently the case, when the Secretary determines that surplus water is avilable in the lower Colorado River Basin, the surplus water is available to the three Lower Division states as discussed in the Decree in Arizona v. California. Under the proposed interim surplus criteria, all three states may avail themselves of surplus water. Although, all use schedules may not have included unused apportionment available from other states . Certainly, the Secretary, each year when he develops the AOP and approves water orders, would consider Article II(B)6 of the Decree. 7 8 cont'd below 7: The water transfers are in the Flood Control Alternative operational modeling used for the FEIS. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 6: See response to Comment 13-5 41 No. COMMENT LETTER 6 5 4 3 2 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1128 of 1200 9: The alternatives based on proposals by the states do not necessarily contain all the provisions of the state's proposals. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-240 LETTER 57 13: The FEIS includes definitions in the glossary for water allocations, water allotments, and water entitlements. Words cited in the glossary will not be highlighted in the text of the document due to concern that it would be confusing and detract from the flow and readability of the document. 12: Additional discussion of potential effects below Lake Mead have been incorporated into Section 3.5, Water Quality; Section 3.8, Special-Status Species; and Section 3.7, Aquatics (potential effects of changes in Hoover Dam release water temperature on fisheries below Hoover Dam to Lake Mohave). 10: Reclamation did not structure the alternatives precisely as described in the attached proposals, but made some changes for consistency with Reclamation policy and operational procedures. ior Inter 17 the 20 11: The 75R . of was used for the baseline to represent the operation that has strategy occurred pthe recent past. In Reclamation's judgement the results of modeling the e in tLake Mead withrthe29, provided a suitable representation of the D of e 75R strategy n v.operation ovemb between 75R and 70R was a "close call"; however, and as conditions. The choice tio pastresult of public comment of the DEIS, Reclamation used the 70R strategy for a the N ajo N ived on modeling of the alternatives in this FEIS. While it is correct that the flood operational v control operating rules have played a major role in operating the system and determining in Na 4, arch surplus water in the last few years, the flood control rules have not always been used so ited 686 c the average operation is not strictly consistent with the flood control rules. Moreover, in the future when flood control operation does not occur, surplus determinations will be 4-1 1 made using the AOP process which considers a dynamic range of factors that may not No. involve flood control operations. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 13 12 11 10 9 8 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1129 of 1200 15: The California Colorado River Water Use Plan is not part of the federal action because the Plan contains purely California state actions. Reclamation's only federal action is to develop and implement interim surplus criteria which has independant utility in Colorado River management. The Secretary can and has delivered surplus without these criteria as noted under the No Action Alternative. California could be sucessful in reducing its excessive use of Colorado River Water through the Seven Party agreement if the parties could resolve their differences. The Plan will augment the Seven Party agreement for future water needs and uses. 14: The form and content of the summary has changed to reflect the FEIS. All Lower Basin States will benefit from the purpose and need for the action with the predictability of surplus triggers and deliveries that are dependable over the 15 year period. The surplus water that California will receive is replacement water for declining unused apportionment of the other Lower Basin States. Without the proposed action, under the No Action Alternative surplus determinations would be made by the Secretary through the AOP process. Under the Law of the River, California would still be entitled to 50% of any surplus determination and any basic or surplus apportionment unused by the other Lower Basin States. The purpose and need for this action will firm up water supplies for the next 15 years for water management purposes for all Lower Basin States. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-241 LETTER 57 21: The distinction between the summer low and the end-of-year level is noted in Section 3.3.4.2.3 of the FEIS. The summary has been rewritten. 20: After the 15-year interim period, the operation of Lake Mead would revert back to the AOL process, which is represented in the operation model by the 70R strategy for the FEIS. 19: The elevations of the tiers in the California Alternative were selected so as to control the depletion of storage in Lake Mead and Lake Powell year by year in the light of the growing Upper Basin depletion schedules. The provision for adjustment is to compensate for shifts in Upper Basin water use and thus keep total Basin depletions in future years as presently projected under this alternative. The direction (up or down) in which the Upper Basin depletion schedule may change is conjectural. No additional NEPA compliance would be made in the event of such change. use. The estimated amounts of surplus water they would divert in specific future years are contained in the States surplus water demand schedules, as discussed in Section 3.4. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v v ation o16: Comment noted n No jo N ved 17: The 70R strategy has been used for the baseline in this FEIS. Nava archi in 18: Under this alternative, surplus water would be determined to be available using the cited 16864, same procedure that has been used in the past when flood control releases have been made. Surplus water determinations would be limited to years when flood control 14 releases are needed. Once a surplus determination has been made, the Lower Division No. States would be allowed to divert as much surplus water as they can put to beneficial COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 21 cont'd below 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1130 of 1200 22b: Tribal water allocations are included in the state apportionments. If a Tribe is not using part of its water allocation, the unused part is available for other users within the state. 22a: The probabilities of surplus water for the Lower Division states are shown on Tables 3.4-1, 3.4-2, and 3.4-3. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 29 28: Revisions were made to Sections 3.8.2.3.3 and 3.8.2.3.3.5 28 B-242 LETTER 57 29: This analysis does not make any assumptions related to contract renewals. However, it is possible that Western Area Power Administration would only make contract commitments when the current contracts terminate based on the foreseeable amounts of capacity and energy during the next contract term. 27: The following statement has been added to the FEIS "In addition, fluctuations in water levels may potentially disrupt nesting of Yuma clapper rail and California black rail". discussed in Section 3.8 in the Environmental Consequences subsection. 23: A surplus for Mexico is only made under flood control conditions. ior Interup to 17 of damaging flows are inherent in 24: Comment noted.he variations Flow the level the analysis of habitat along the river, 20 as analyzed in this FEIS. of t 9, pt. . De analysis recognized 2 fluctuations anticipated for the action alternatives are ber that v 25: The m ation on Noveranges under which native species have diminished in the reservoirs. within historical N non-native sportfish species have, in general, vajo hived Populations of and the interim surplus criteria alternatives arebecome well established in the reservoirs, not expected to result in Na c any change to this trend. d in 64, ar cite 168 26: The summary has been changed to include the observation that new habitats could o. 14 N be colonized by other species, in particular non-native weedy species. This is also COMMENT LETTER 27 26 25 24 23 22b 22a 21 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1131 of 1200 32: See Table 1-1, "Documents Included in the Law of the River" for the complete reference. The specific documents to note as sources are: The Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928, the 1964 Supreme Court Decree in Arizona v. California, and the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, the Long Range Operating Criteria of 1970, and 43 CFR 417, "Procedural Methods for Implementing Colorado River Water Conservation Measures with Lower Basin Contractors and Others." 31: As discussed in Section S.4.4, continuation of interim surplus criteria would be at the discretion of the Secretary. The Secretary's decision to continue or terminate interim surplus criteria would be based on a number of factors which may include California's progress in meeting the goals of the California Colorado River Water Use Plan. 30: Reclamation believes that the current discussion in this section is adequate. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-243 LETTER 57 38: The discrepancy is due to the fact that the depletion schedule in Attachment J of the DEIS does not account for evaporation from Upper Basin storage units. This evaporation is shared by the Upper Basin States and should be accounted for as an Upper Basin depletion. After allowing for evaporation, the projected Upper Basin depletions will be very close to 6.0 maf in year 2050. We have updated Attachment K in the FEIS to show a column for evaporation from Upper Basin storage units. 37: We have revised paragraph 1.3.1 in the FEIS to make this clarification. 36: Section 3.3.3.3, General Modeling Assumptions describes the assumptions made in regards to when deliveries of Treaty surplus are available to Mexico. surplus water contracts with the Secretary. Surplus water, when made available, is shared as specified in the Decree--50 percent for use in California, 46 percent for use in Arizona and 4 percent for use in Nevada. Unused surplus water by one state may also be made available for use in another state. ior Inter 17 e 0 of th 29on how 33: Section 1.3.4.1 provides data , 2 many surplus years have been determined. ept. ber D response to 57-5. surplus criteria. n v. 34: SeedeterminationCommentannuallyCurrently, there is no specific Plan process andThe em surplus v Annual Operating atio on Nofactors. This is made allow theusing theDivision States the ability to plan their N does not Lower vajo hived dynamicwater management as well as they might. internal Na in rc 35: Under the terms of the Decree, when a Lower Division State needs more than its ited 6864, a c apportionment of consumptive use, the Secretary may make unused apportionment from -1 another state available to it. If the total Lower Division consumptive uses do not exceed 14 7.5 maf, surplus water is not needed by the Lower Division States. Surplus water may be No. made available to entities in Arizona, California and Nevada who have entered into COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1132 of 1200 41: In the event that the Gila River flows, normal deliveries to Mexico are not suspended. Any Gila River water that flows into the Colorado River becomes Colorado River System water that can be delivered to Mexico in satisfaction of the Mexican Water Treaty. If any Gila River flows result in more water being delivered to Mexico than Mexico scheduled, such excess deliveries do not count against the quantity of water delivered under the Treaty. 40: The listing of PPRs and amounts is not in this FEIS but may be found in the supplemental Decree in Arizona v. California, entered by the United States Supreme Court on January 9, 1979 (439 U.S. 419). 39: Consumptive use of Colorado River water in Arizona reported in the Article V Decree accounting records was 2,853.9 kaf in calendar year 1997. Annual consumptive use in Arizona has been less than 2.8 maf in calendar years 1998 (2,566.7 kaf) and 1999 (2,728.0 kaf), and has been projected to be about 2.7 maf for 2000. Consumptive use of Colorado River water in Nevada is projected to exceed that state's 300 kaf apportionment during calendar year 2000. To the extent that all water apportioned to any Lower Division state is not used in that state during any year, the Secretary may release that unused apportionment water under Article II (B) (6) of the Decree for consumptive use in another Lower Division state. Any unused apportionment so released for use in another state will be accounted for as such, effectively reducing a state's use of surplus water. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-244 LETTER 57 46: A portion of the water delivered to Mexico at the NIB is diverted in to the All American Canal and is delivered through the Pilot Knob and Siphon Drop powerplants into the Colorado River above the NIB. 45: We have modified the section for clarification. Section 1.3.5 describes the facilities on the Colorado River system and their respective storages, not the allocation of water to the Upper and Lower Divisions. 44: During a surplus year, an individual entitlement holder's schedule, diversion, and use of Colorado River water may include both a basic entitlement and surplus water. At the end of the year, the total consumptive use in the entitlement holder's state that year may be less than the apportionment that otherwise would have been available for use in that state in a normal year (basic apportionment). Therefore, even though Colorado River water may be scheduled, diverted, and used as surplus by individual entitlement holders, when Reclamation compiles the annual Article V Decree accounting records after the end of the year, Reclamation would account for this water as basic apportionment. Reclamation accounts for all water use in a Lower Division State as basic apportionment until the consumptive use in that state equals the basic apportionment for that state. This method of accounting is possible because any Colorado River water not used by an entitlement holder in any year passes to another entitlement holder in that state through existing contracts under the water-use priority system for that state. 43: Article II(B)(6) of the Decree does not preclude the Secretary from releasing a Lower Division State's unused apportionment for consumptive use in the other Lower Division States. This article of the Decree further stipulates that the users of another state's unused apportionment do not accrue rights to repeated use of this water. This means the Secretary has discretion as to whether to release this water. The Secretary will consider many factors, including but not limited to current and projected reservoir storage, hydrologic conditions, and requests for water deliveries for beneficial use in determining whether to release a state's unused apportionment for use in another state. Section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act requires contracts for delivery of Colorado River water to be for permanent service. Although a Colorado River water delivery contract is for permanent service, unused apportionment is available only when a state does not use all its apportionment and the Secretary releases that water for consumption in another state. 42: No NEPA or ESA compliance is required for ongoing operations, such as the LROC reviews under the criteria. However, a categorical exclusion checklist, dated October 31, 1997, was completed for the most recent LROC review that was initiated on August 14, 1996. In the event a review of the LROC identifies a need for a revision of the LROC, appropriate environmental compliance will be completed. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 47 cont'd below 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1133 of 1200 49: Details of the responsibility of the various federal agencies is outlined in the "Final Report of the Secretary of the Interior to the Congress of the United States on the Colorado River Floodway Protection Act", dated October 1992. Some of the major implementation methods have been the incorporation of the floodway maps into the National Flood Insurance Program and the Department ensuring that leases and uses of federal lands adjacent to the river are consistent with the operation and maintenance of the floodway. 48: Clarification has been made in Section 1.3.6. 47: The paragraph has been modified for clarification. For more detail regarding flood control releases, we would refer you to the COE Water Control Manual for Hoover Dam, Lake Mead. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-245 LETTER 57 54: The "P" strategy is computed using more than one year to project the risk of shortage. See Section 2.2.13 for additional information. 53: The "R" strategies are based on the runoff in the Upper Basin, measured at Lees Ferry, which is described in Section 3.3. Please See the response to Comment 57-11 regarding the selection of the 70R strategy. ior Inter 17 he of tto Comment 13-5. 0 ,2 50: pt. DeSee responseber 29 v. e tion n51: Commentm Na d o Nov noted. jo Nava archive in 52: The text has been revised as noted. cited 16864, o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1134 of 1200 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 62 cont'd below 61 60 59 58 B-246 62: Section 2.3 has been revised for clarification. 61: Please see response to Comment 33-3. 60: Section 2.2.5 has been revised. LETTER 57 establishment of triggering elevations on Lake Mead or flood control rules as the criteria for determining surplus water availability would enable water planners of the Basin States to forecast Colorado River water availability in advance with a reasonable degree of certainty and thereby avoid unpredictable water supply shortfalls that could result from year-to-year determinations under the AOP process. 58: The Six States and California Alternatives are derived from the triggers and other operational provisions described in the respective proposals from the states, but the alternatives evaluated do not necessarily contain all the provisions of those proposals. Thus what is actually covered and proposed for implementation is the specific provisions of the alternatives described in Chapter 2 and in the detailed Guidelines in Attachment I. The operational modeling results, expressed in terms of river flows, reservoir levels, and the associated environmental impacts for each alternative are unique to the specific provisions of each alternative. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc 59: While it is true that the alternatives having lower trigger elevations than the baseline cite 168 increase the probability of surplus water determinations during the interim period, the predictability aspect is critical to the integrated management of available water resources 41 by the Lower Division States. Each of the Lower Division States currently manages No. surface and groundwater sources to meet its water delivery commitments. The 57: See the response to Comment 11-6 and 11-8. 57 55: See the response to Comment 57-11 regarding the selection of the 70R strategy as the baseline. The determination of surplus conditions under the Flood Control Alternative would be the same procedure as was used in 1998-2000. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES 56 COMMENT LETTER 56: A conjunctive use is a state authorized program based on the use of a rechargeable groundwater aquifer to supplement surface water supply during periods of shortage. Groundwater pumped at such times would be replaced by artificial recharge when recharge water is available. See the response to Comment 57-8 regarding the formulation of an alternative to meet only California's needs. 55 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1135 of 1200 64: The same runoff data is used for the Baseline and all the alternatives. This point was clarified in the section cited. The elevations of the triggering line during the interim period are based on a statistical analysis of required reservoir space for runoff in relation to the cited percentage of runoff (i.e., 70R). If a surplus is determined based on that line, it is possible for the level of Lake Mead to go below the triggering line, depending on actual runoff conditions in the year. In as much as the baseline triggering elevations for surplus water determination would involve a relatively full condition of Lake Mead, there would be sufficient water to meet the States' desired depletions. Mexico would receive its additional apportionment of 200,000 acre-feet in years when flood control releases were necessary. This would occur when Lake Mead levels were high enough to invoke the flood control operating rules (i.e., the Lake Mead levels indicated by the average Flood control release trigger shown on Figure 2-1). 63: The change has been made. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-247 LETTER 57 69: Under the Six States Alternative, as under all alternatives, Mexico would receive its additional apportionment of 200,000 acre-feet in years when flood control releases were necessary from Lake Mead. 68: See response to Comment 37-8. for information regarding the 1.5 maf flood pool. ior Inter 17 e 20 ofbeth 29,any month for any alternative due to flood control 65: A surplus may determined in ept.other surplus alternatives determine surplus at the first of the year. See D the mber n v. 70R and1.1.1 for information regarding the 5-year review of the interim surplus criteria. Section e Natio d on Nov jo Nava archive 66: A five-year review is included in this alternative. in cited 16864, o. 14 N 67: See Section 2.3.2.2 for information regarding the 1211 elevation. See Figure 3.3-10 COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1136 of 1200 B-248 LETTER 57 77: See response to Comment 67-12. 77 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 76: Effects from the use of Colorado River water outside of the river corridor is beyond the scope of analysis necessary to determine the potential effects of interim surplus criteria. Also, see response to Comment 56-4. 74: Comment noted. 73: Yes. A correction has been made. 72: See response to Comment 57-69. 71: If the California Alternative were selected, the tiers described in Chapter 2 of the FEIS would be implemented. 70: The trigger elevations could move up or down. Appropriate environmental compliance would be performed. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N Secretary currently considers number of factors vajo hived 75: TheOperating Criteria to determine,aon an annual basis,consistentorwith the Long Range whether not surplus Na c conditions exist in the Lower Basin. This process (the No Action Alternative for the d in 64, ar purpose of the Interim Surplus Criteria EIS) provides less certainty with regard to surplus cite 168 determinations than the action alternatives under consideration. See FEIS Section 2.2.5 4for information regarding the baseline used for analysis in the FEIS, as well as response o. 1 N to comment 11-9 and 57-5 for additional information. COMMENT LETTER 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1137 of 1200 79: The US Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for developing the flood control operation plan for Hoover Dam and Lake Mead pursuant to 33 CFR 208.11. Please refer to these regulations for a more detailed description of the Corps flood control and space building operations. Specifically, space building releases can be as high as 29,000 cfs while releases to meet downstream demands are typically less than 20,000 cfs. Lake Mead is typically lower in the summer as increasing downstream demands are met. This should not be confused with the space requirement, which in effect sets an upper limit on the storage at Lake Mead. 78: Additional explantion has been added to Section 3.3.4.5. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-249 LETTER 57 84: The referenced statement and paragraph is appropriately located under Section 3.3 Modeling and Future Hydrology. 83: In the FEIS, the Flood Control Alternative includes implementation of the California Colorado River Water Use Plan. See response to Comment No. 37-11 for additional discussion. 82: See response to Comment No. 57-10. ior Inter 17 he 80: Yes. Thisfis t modeling assumption used for all alternatives and baseline. Flood the o occur when the , 20 inflow, combined with the storage in Lake control t. p releases er 29 hydrologic Mead, demand) necessary meet the . De resultsmreleases (in excess of downstream approximately 35% oftothe traces flood v in e in b tion n control regulations. 2016, under baseline conditions (see Figure 3.16-1). ovin 22% in Flood control releases occur in N Na d o 2007 and jo Nava archive in 81: Reclamation does not have the authority to modify the system space requirements (Table 3.3.2). As described in Section 3.3.3.3 and Attachment J, a minimum space of 1.5 cited 16864, maf is required at Lake Mead for flood control. 4o. 1 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 84 cont'd below 83 82 81 80 79 78 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1138 of 1200 86: As noted in Section 3.3.3.3, lakes Mohave and Havasu will continue to be operated in accordance with their existing rule curves. As such, the operating range of the water surface elevations and transit times of these two lakes are not expected to be affected. Additionally, the potential increase in transit time of lakes Mead and Powell are unlikely to affect productivity. 85: The referenced statements are appropriately located in the second paragraph of Section 3.3.4.2.3 (for Lake Powell) and the second paragraph of Section 3.3.4.4.3 (for Lake Mead). FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-250 LETTER 57 91: The fourth paragraph of Section 3.3.4.2.3 (for Lake Powell) and the third paragraph of Section 3.3.4.4.3 (for Lake Mead) have been expanded to provide additional explanation on the trending tendency of the 90th, 50th and 10th percentile lines. Specifically, the 90th percentile Lake Powell elevation does not change over time, indicating that Lake Powell is essentially full for 10% of the traces in all years. 90: The referenced discussion on the 85 traces is also addressed earlier in the chapter in Section 3.3.3.5, third paragraph. "Trace" refers to the output of a particular simulation, where the assumed inflows were derived using the indexed sequential method. ior Inter 17 e of th 2 added in0 87: This information has been 9, 2 Attachment J. pt. . De ember v v ation on88:NoShortage Protection Alternative was not analyzed differently. The The jo N ved referenced paragraph provides an explanation of the derivation of the shortage Nava archi protection lines, used in all of the alternatives and baseline to determine when in shortages occur. ited 6864, c -1 89: The first paragraph of DEIS Section 3.3.4.2.3 states that the elevation at the end 14 of the calendar year is near the seasonal low. Typically, the lowest end-of-month No. elevation for a year occurs between December and March. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 91 cont'd below 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1139 of 1200 92: The analysis of elevation 3695 ft msl is included to address the probability of Lake Powell filling each year. This would typically occur during June or July. For the FEIS, all analyses of Lake Powell elevations were changed to a common point (end-of-July). FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-251 LETTER 57 98: 80% of the modeled end-of-December Lake Mead elevations lie between the 90th and 10th percentile lines. 97: Much of the analysis in the FEIS uses end of December elevations for Lake Mead and end of July elevations for Lake Powell. Reclamation agrees that probabilities of remaining above various water surface elevations would be different during times of the year other than discussed in the FEIS. However, differences between alternatives and baseline conditions would be similar. 93: For the DEIS, the Lake Powell water levels observed for the baseline and surplus alternatives did not fall below 3550 feet. An analysis of the frequency of Lake Powell water levels falling below 3590 feet was included in the DEIS to provide a bottom range for the observed water levels. For the FEIS, this analysis was replaced with an analysis of elevation 3612 feet, below threshold elevation for marina and boat ramps. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. er . De comment appears to be directed toward 3.3.4.2, 4th paragraph. 80% of the n v 94: This vembLake Powell elevations lie between the 90th and 10th simulated end-of-July tio o percentile jo Na ved on N lines. Nava archi 95: Section 3.3.4.4.3, paragraph 1, states that Lake Mead water level generally in reaches its annual low in July. ited 6864, c -1 96: For the FEIS, the 90th percentile of the modeled Lake Mead water surface 14 elevation monthly values ranged between 1215.19 feet msl in 2002 to 1210.67 feet No. msl in 2050. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1140 of 1200 B-252 106: This paragraph has been divided into two, with the cumulative distribution function discussed first, in order to parallel subsequent text. LETTER 57 105: Subsections 3.3.4.5.1 through 3.3.4.5.4 refer to individual tables and graphs. The paragraph discussed in the comment is a general description of the analysis in these subsections. 101: The vertical scale is varied to focus the presentation of the results to the range of values observed under the respective modeled conditions. 100: The color pattern on Figure 3.3-14 has been changed as suggested. 99: The 1,200 foot Lake Mead elevation represents the elevation where Lake Mead is essentially full and is also below the top of the raised spillway. This has been included in the FEIS. Figure 3.3-14 presents the percent of the traces that had elevations equal or higher than elevation 1,200. The 90th percentile line depicted on Figure 3.3-13 shows where the top decile of the modeled values lies. Both figures present specific statistics that are accurate and relevant. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES ior t clearly Inis er shown in Figures 3.3-14 through 3.3-16. 102: Comment noted. he The timing 17 of t t. 9, 20 Dep3.3-8 mber 2 summary of a numeric v.103: TableTableeprovidesdecrease between 2016 the data presented in Figure 3.3-14. Values in and 2050. Hydrologic fluctuations tion contributeov 3.3-8 all jo Na ved on N to the minor variability of charted values near 2050 in Figure 3.3-14. Nava archi in 104: Additional explanation has been added to Section 3.3.and Section 3.4 with cited 16864, respect to the interpretation of the figures in these sections and the meaning of the analysis results. 4o. 1 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 99 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1141 of 1200 108: There is relatively little difference in the magnitude (Y-axis) of the mean monthly flow values and excess flows under the baseline and surplus alternatives. Figure 3.3-18a through Figure 3.3-18d and the other similar figures depict this. There are some differences in the frequency (X-axis) of excess flows in the winter season as represented by January for modeled year 2015 as depicted by Figure 3.3-18a. However, the differences in the frequency (X-axis) of excess flows in the other seasons are minimal to none, as depicted by Figure 3.3-18b through Figure 3.3-18d. In the FEIS the size of the data markers have been reduced and the size of the graphs were increased. 107: A definition for the term "mean monthly flow" has been added to the glossary. In the FEIS, all alternatives included the tranfers. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-253 113: See response to Comment No. 57-108. LETTER 57 112: In the FEIS, the Flood Control Alternative includes implementation of the California Colorado River Water Use Plan. See response to Comment 37-11 for additional discussion. 111: Section 1.4.1 discusses the relation between the California Colorado River Water Use Plan and interim surplus criteria. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. r . DeFlows greater be20,000 cfs are typically due to flood control relases, not n v 109: ovemthanThis has been noted in Section 3.3.1.2 and 3.3.4.5.1. downstream demands. tio jo Na ved on N Nava archi 110: The introductory text has been modified to include the additional percentiles in (Section 3.3.4.5). The maximums may not occur during the four months shown in the ited 6864, c figures. Hydrologic fluctuations contribute to the minor differences in the maximums. -1 14 No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 113 112 111 110 109 108 107 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1142 of 1200 115: In the FEIS, the Flood Control Alternative was modeled using California intrastate transfers. See response to Comment 37-11 for additional discussion. The difference in flows between historical conditions and surplus alternatives is minimal, and does not warrant the analysis proposed. 114: The numbering of Table 3.3-6 in section 3.3.4.5.2 has been changed to Table 3.3-14. Also, see response to Comment 57-110. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-254 LETTER 57 122: Analyzed flows were actually zero. The minimum 10 af/month (approximately 0.168 cfs) amount was added to keep the model and post-processing from yielding an error message if the algorithm or equation involved dividing by the river amount (i.e., you cannot divide by zero). The note has been removed to avoid confusion. 121: Also, see response to Comment 57-108. 120: Section 3.16 contains a more detailed discussion of flows entering Mexico. 116: Also, see response to Comment 57-108. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on117: Also, see response to Comment 57-110. Nov jo N ved Nava archi 118: Excess flows are expected to occur more frequently under the Flood Control in Alternative than under the other alternatives. Subject paragraph has been modified to ited 6864, c reflect this. -1 14 119: Also, see response to Comment 57-108. No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 122 121 120 119 118 117 116 115 114 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1143 of 1200 124a: Reclamation does not agree with this comment. The baseline alternative approximated the expected conditions without the project (interim surplus criteria). The potential impact that may result from the proposed interim surplus criteria can only be attributed to the difference in conditions between the baseline and the respective surplus alternative. 123: The DEIS and FEIS identified specific resources that could potentially be impacted by the implementation of the proposed interim surplus criteria. Additional explanation has been added to Section 3.3.and Section 3.4 with respect to the interpretation of the figures in these sections and the meaning of the analysis results. Sections presented in the FEIS adequately describe these resources; associated analyses adequately address the potential impacts. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-255 130: Please see Section 1.1.3 for a description of the purpose and need for this action. LETTER 57 129: Comment noted; the paragraph has been restated. Surplus criteria were developed to cover a wider range of hydrologic conditions than those between 1996 and 2000. Also, surplus conditions will benefit all Lower Basin States, not just the Metropolitan Water District. 128: Comment noted; the paragraph has been restated. 124b: The state of Arizona is the only Lower Basin state that has apportionment water that is currently not covered by a service contract. However, the exact amount is currently under dispute. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. D Figures 3.4-1 through schedules under normal, surplus and shortage . 125:e River waterber3.4-4 depict the respective state/basin's projected v Colorado m demand conditions. ation on Nove jo N ved 126: Additional language has been added to the seventh paragraph of Section Nava archi 3.4.3.2. in ited 6864, c 127: The discussion centers on the full surplus schedule, not the amount over the normal schedule. The 1st level shortage schedule for Arizona has nothing to do with 14-1 the probability of shortages. It is derived by subtracting the amount CAP would be No. shorted under a level 1 shortage form 2.8 maf. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 130 cont'd below 129 128 127 126 125 124b 124a 123 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1144 of 1200 B-256 LETTER 57 138: Please see response to Comment 57-10 for a discussion of Upper Basin depletions. 137: The State of Nevada has not provided specific details on initiatives or programs for groundwater banking in Arizona. Based on information available to Reclamation, the concept of Nevada-Arizona interstate banking appears to be highly feasible, although currently at a conceptual stage. full surplus water supply conditions. The delivery of limited surplus amounts are also possible. The amount above the normal depletion amount under limited or surplus water conditions is variable. 133: The full surplus depletion schedule plotted in Figure 3.4-2 of the DEIS for California was incorrectly plotted. The actual California depletion schedule that was used in the water supply analysis is presented in Table G-4 in Attachment G of the DEIS. The Lower Basin states prepared and submitted revised depletion schedules for the FEIS. This revised schedules are presented in Attachment H of the FEIS. 132: Please see response to Comment 11-11 for information on California's Colorado River Water Use Plan. 131: Please see Section 1.1.3 for description of the "Purpose and Need for Action." FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 t. Dep see response r .134: PleaseUse Plan.beto Comment 11-11 for information on California's Colorado v River Water m ation on Nove N vajo hived 135: The referenced project was a project undertaken by the CAP, SNWA and MWD. Na NEPA documentation was accomplished for the demonstration project (indirect recharge) d in 64, arc by a CEC (LC-93-9) dated April 9, 1993, and amended by CEC (LC-95-10) dated March cite 168 30, 1995. o. 14 N 136: The full surplus schedule specifies the total amount of water to be delivered under COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 138 137 136 135 134 133 132 131 130 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1145 of 1200 141: This analysis first ranks the outcome for the 85 traces for each condition modeled. The 90th percentile line depicts the value of the upper limit of the bottom 90 percent of the modeled values (traces) in any given year. Another way to say this, is the values of 10 percent of the outcome (traces) in a given year will be equal to or greater than the value depicted by the 90th percentile line for that year. The median values are represented by the 50th percentile line. The median value represents the depletion amount where half of the values are above and half are below. On Figure 3.4-5 of the DEIS, the 50th and 10th percentile lines sometimes overlie each other. When this ocurs, the implication is that there is very little or no difference between the values in the bottom half of the ranked values (modeled outcome). This all relates to the distribution of the values in the outcome for each condition being modeled. 140: Additional explanation has been added to Section 3.3.and Section 3.4 with respect to the interpretation of the figures in these sections and the meaning of the analysis results. 139: The scales and units used on each figure are clearly marked and readable. The vertical scale on various figures are varied to focus on the range of the data being presented. The line patterns on all figures have been reviewed and made consistent for the FEIS. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-257 LETTER 57 145: The percentage values presented under the column heading labeled "Normal" in Table 3.4-1 and similar tables in Section 3.4, represent the total percentage of time that depletions under the noted conditions would be at or above the normal depletion schedule amount. The values presented under the column labeled "Surplus" represent the total percentage of time that depletions under the noted conditions would be above the normal depletion schedule amount. The values presented under the column labeled "Shortage" represent the total percentage of time that depletions under the noted conditions would be below the normal depletion schedule amount. 144: Additional explanation has been added to Section 3.3.and Section 3.4 with respect to the interpretation of the figures in these sections and the meaning of the analysis results. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived 142: See response to Comment 57-141. Na d in 64, arc cite 168 143: See response to Comment 57-141. o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 145 144 143 142 141 140 139 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1146 of 1200 148: See response to Comment 57-133. 147: Figures 3.4-9 through 3.4-12 present the outcome of the modeling results in terms of the frequency and magnitude of surplus condition water supplies available to California under the baseline and surplus alternatives. California has developed a Colorado River Water Use Plan (the "Plan"). The Plan is a framework by which programs, projects, actions, policies and other activities would be coordinated and cooperatively implemented allowing California to meet its Colorado River water needs within its basic apportionment in Normal years. See response to Comment 11-11 for additional information on California's Colorado River Water Use Plan. 146: Paragraphs 1 through 4 in Section 3.4.4.1.2 include the subject discussion. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-258 LETTER 57 155: This additional modeling detail has been added to the modeling assumptions listed under ˆAssumptions Common to Baseline and All Alternativesˆ in Section 3.3.3.3. 154: The percentage values for Nevada under baseline conditions and the Flood Control Alternative in DEIS Table 3.4-3, Years 2001 to 2015, are incorrect. The correct values should have been 50 percent under baseline conditions and 52 percent under the Flood Control Alternative. This information will be updated for the FEIS using the new modeling output for the baseline and surplus alternatives. State of Nevada. Arizona's depletion schedule in the DEIS indicates that Arizona does not anticipate using its entire Colorado River water apportionment until 2005. During this period, the difference between Arizona's normal apportionment and the scheduled depletion is classified as unused apportionment water. This unused apportionment water is made available to the other Lower Division states if a demand for such water exists. Text discussing this use has been added to Section 3.4.3.2. In Attachment H of the FEIS under the discussion entitled "Normal depletion schedules with and without Calfiornia transfers" this text has been added explaining Arizona's unused apportionment. 149: Comment noted. r terio Inreferring to differences between Tables 3.4-1, 3.4-2, and he 150: We assume that you are 1 of atnumber of reasons for the 7 3.4-3. There are First, inconsistencies t. 9, 20 differences. DEIS.there werebeen corrected p in e schedules between alternatives in This has er 2 . Dsurplus depletionbArizona has not reached full use theits apportionment, and it was v in the FEIS. Second, of m assumed that California would thus be able to Third, ation on Noveerrors. These three tables have use additional water. FEIS. there were been modified in the jo N ved typographical Nava archi 151: Section 3.4.4.3.1 describes Figure 3.4-13. Also, please see the response to in Comment No. 57-141. ited 6864, c -1 152: See response to Comment 57-150. 14 No. 153: Nevada currently uses all of the Colorado River water apportioned for use within the COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 155 154 153 152 151 150 149 148 147 146 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1147 of 1200 157: The effect of interim surplus criteria on the delivery of surplus flows to Mexico is best depicted by Figure 3.4-18 (for years 2001 to 2015) and Figure 3.4-19 (for years 2016 to 2050) in the DEIS. This information is also summarized in Table 3.4-4. The Colorado River water supply deliveries to Mexico never dropped below 1.5 maf under the modeled conditions and as such, the respective figures depict this. 156: The probability of surplus water deliveries to the Lower Basin states and Mexico is highest in the early years due to the starting high reservoir conditions that were modeled. To a lesser extent, this is also affected by the increasing total basin depletions. It should be noted in the DEIS from Figure 3.3-13 that Lake Mead elevations decrease over time in all alternatives. Figure 3.4-30 is in reference to Mexico's modeled annual depletions under baseline conditions and shows Mexico's annual treaty depletion over time. FEDREAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-259 LETTER 57 165: Reclamation is not aware of any studies of damages in localized areas such as Laughlin. 164: Because of the uncertainty of the long-range salinity control projects, projections of future control projects that may be necessary to offset the effects of future water development beyond 2015 have not been made by the Forum. Note that modeling for the EIS considers only those salinity control programs currently in place. 163: Note that the information in Table 3.5-1 has been updated with modeling conducted for the FEIS. 162: The referenced paragraph has been revised for clarification. with Secretarial Implementation Agreements will be considered under separate NEPA compliance. 158: See response to Comment 57-145. The FEIS results show a potential for a small reduction (3 to 6 percent) in the frequency of excess flows under the Basin States, Six States, California and Shortage Protection alternatives and a potential for a small increase (1 percent) in the frequency of flows under the Flood Control Alternative, when compared to the baseline conditions for year 2016. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 ept. . DThe text has beenber in the FEIS to provide clarification. v159: m revised ation on Nove N vajo hived 160: Comment noted. However, Reclamation does not believe that this information would Na aid in understanding the flow system of the river at this point in the discussion. d in 64, arc ite c 68 161: Reclamation has considered this request; however, because modeling conducted for 14-1 the FEIS indicated a general reduction in salinity under each of the alternatives it was No. determined that this information was not necessary. The effects of transfers associated COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 165 164 163 162 161 160 159 158 157 156 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1148 of 1200 B-260 LETTER 57 174: The Colorado River Floodway Protection Act addresses flooding from 40,000 cfs flow events or 1-in-100 year flow events (if greater than 40,000 cfs). It does not address smaller or more frequent events. Table 3.6-4 in the FEIS, Discharge Probabilities from Hoover, Davis and Parker Dam, shows the probabilities of various flow events, including 40,000 cfs, under each alternative. 173: See response to Comment 57-170. Dam in excess of 8.23 maf. Table 3.6.2 is based on water year because the commitment for low steady summer flow releases is governed by annual release volumes from Glen Canyon Dam, which are accounted for by water year under the provisions of the LROC. This has been noted in Section 3.6.2. 170: Section 3.6.4 presents analysis of the potential for high flows (based on defined flow thresholds) below Hoover Dam with reference to the potential for causing flood damage, and is not intended to describe the general effects of river flows on resources within the river corridor. As discussed previously, Section 3.8 of the FEIS has incorporated summary information from the BA for interim surplus criteria regarding potential effects from changes in flows on special-status species and their habitat between Hoover Dam and the SIB. Reclamation is also consulting with your agency on the effects of approving the water transfers proposed by California's Plan. 169: Note that additional information has been included in Section 3.5.3 and Reclamation believes that the information presented in the FEIS appropriately identifies the potential water quality effects of interim surplus criteria. Potential effects to important resources are also presented appropriately in other sections of the FEIS. 168: Discussion in referenced paragraph has been revised to incorporate this information. 167: Comment noted. The table is located in the appropriate section. 166: Elevation 1,205 feet msl is the Hoover Dam spillway crest as identified in Table 3.5-3. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na 171: A plot of annual BHBF probabilities has been added to Section 3.6.2. d in 64, arc cite 168 172: The decreased probability of 8.23 maf release years for the "liberal" alternatives is a o. 14 N result of their increased probability of surplus, which results in releases from Glen Canyon COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 174 173 172 171 170 169 168 167 166 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1149 of 1200 B-261 LETTER 57 182: The analysis in the EIS is presented to compare the potential effects under the alternatives with those under baseline conditions. Revisions have been made to Section 3.7.3.3.1 to clarify the discussion. It should be noted that modeling indicates that although some alternatives would have increased probabilities for lower reservoir elevations, fluctuations under the alternatives and baseline conditions would be similar. It is acknowledged that management practices being developed for native species indicate a recruitment window may exist if water levels are very low and then rise suddenly. Study of these management strategies is currently underway and will continue. Information on current management strategies can be found in the BA prepared for interim surplus criteria and Secretarial implementation agreements. populations, and additional information has been included in the FEIS. It should be noted that although it is recognized that fluctuating water levels can affect fisheries, the alternatives under consideration are expected to result in fluctuations similar to baseline conditions. Historical conditions within Lake Powell and Lake Mead have resulted in those lakes being considered extremely popular striped bass fisheries that also support populations of largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, crappie, catfish, and carp. Both lakes have shown unprecedented natural reproduction and survival of striped bass. 178: Section 3.7 addresses potential effects of interim surplus criteria on lake habitat in Lake Powell and Lake Mead for both native and non-native species, and also addresses potential effects on sport fisheries within and between the two reservoirs. Section 3.8.2.3.3 discusses potential effects on special-status fish species. 177: Comment noted. This section is intended to address the potential for damaging flows, as discussed in the response to Comment 57-170. Developing a correlation between probabilities of damaging flows and surplus water delivery to Mexico is beyond the needs for evaluating potential effects on resources. 176: Values in Table 3.6.-4 (Table 3.6-3 in the DEIS) have been revised based on modeling performed for the FEIS. 175: Threshold flows are shown in the two bullets included in Section 3.6.4.1.4. Section 3.3.4.5 and Attachment N of the DEIS provide additional comparison of river flows below Hoover Dam. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on179: Discussion of Lake Powell habitat is located appropriately within the document. Nov jo N ved Nava archi in 180: Revisions have been made to Section 3.7.2.2.2 of the FEIS to discuss that razorback cited 16864, sucker is the only native species with a remnant population in Lake Mead. 14 No. 181: Section 3.7.2.2.3 discusses the effects of fluctuating reservoir elevations on fish COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 182 cont'd below 181 180 179 178 177 176 175 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1150 of 1200 FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES 183: The FEIS includes expanded and new discussions in appropriate sections of impacts to resources below Hoover Dam. COMMENT LETTER B-262 LETTER 57 188: This section is meant only to provide existing information. The analysis on how the changes in reservoir levels might impact these plant species is included in the Environmental Consequences section. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 t. 186: p FEIS considersr of increases in the of water . DeThefrom Hoover Damthe potential effectsreservoir elevations temperature fishery mbe under decreased n v released vebetween Hoover Dam and Lake Mohave in Sectionon the sport within the river 3.7.3. Reclamation has tio o determined that fluctuations flows below Hoover SIB under the alternatives jo Na ved on Nbe within the historicalinoperating range of theDam to thewould, therefore, not affect would river and Nava archi aquatic resources within this segment. in cited 16864, 187: Section 3.8 of the FEIS addresses species below Hoover Dam, downstream to the SIB with Mexico. o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 188 187 186 185 184 185: Studies are ongoing to determine effects of toxins on fish, with the premise that increased concentrations show increased effects, and to determine what limits need to be enforced. Section 3.5.3 discusses potential water quality effects associated with Las Vegas Wash and Lake Mead. 184: The 15 to 20-foot elevation changes described in the text occur over a year, not month-to-month. The rate of fluctuations would remain approximately the same with adoption of interim surplus criteria. Section 3.7.3.3.1 has been modified. 183 182 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1151 of 1200 191: The table, and subsequent discussion of the species, has been reorganized as you suggested. 190: Paragraph has been modified in the FEIS for clarification. 189: See response for Comment 57-187. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-263 197: See response to Comment 57-187. 196: The sentence has been reworded in the FEIS. LETTER 57 195: Additional information on marshes and backwaters along the Colorado River from below Hoover Dam to the SIB has been added. The discussion references findings from Reclamation's BA that examines potential effects of the implementation of the interim surplus criteria on these habitats. discussion of the FEIS. This information summarizes findings from the following Reclamation report: Willow Flycatcher Disturbances, Threats and Protective Management Along the Lower Virgin and Colorado Rivers - 1997 (Reclamation, 1998). 192: The discussion on lakeside habitat and riverside habitat in the lower canyon will be presented in separate sections in the FEIS in order to clarify these two distinct areas. No additional information will be added to the existing discussion on habitat in the lower canyon and potential changes in riverside and marsh habitat as it is adequately addressed. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on193: Thev river has been been organized underto detailed discussions from the No lakeside habitat has added with reference its own headings. Riverside habitat jo N ved along the lower (BA) prepared by Reclamation for the interim surplus criteria. biological assessment Nava archi d in 64, cite 168 o. 14 194: Additional information on water levels and development of riparian and marsh N habitats in the Lake Mead Delta and Lower Grand Canyon has been added to the COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 197 196 195 194 193 192 191 190 189 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1152 of 1200 200: Revisions have been made to the discussion of bonytail in the FEIS. 199: According to information included in McKernan, 1999, individual Yuma clapper rails have been documented at the Virgin and Muddy Rivers including the Virgin River floodplain between Littlefield, AZ and the Virgin River Delta, NV, and at sites within the lower Grand Canyon. No additional information on possible sightings of Yuma clapper rail in the Lake Mead Delta is available. 198: Additional information on lake elevation and breeding season for the Southwestern willow flycatcher has been added to the FEIS. This information was summarized from information included in the BA discussed in previous responses. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-264 LETTER 57 207: Comment noted. However, Reclamation believes that the information is presented appropriately. 206: This section has been modified to discuss that razorback sucker can be found in the lower Colorado River and Lake Havasu. Populations of razorback sucker within the San Juan River are outside of the area under consideration in the EIS. 205: See response to Comment 57-202 above. This information has been added to the FEIS. ior nt revised 7 Ibeener to use the term "repatriate" instead of e 201: Section 3.8.2.2.3 has of th 29, 201 "reintroduce." pt. . De The locationsber of designation v 202: Register notice (March of critical habitat for all four fish species references the o m ation onFederalnoted for each species. 21, 1994), and occurrence of critical habitat in the analysis Nis ve N vajo hived area This information has been noted in the FEIS. Na 203: d in 64, arc ite c 204: See response to Comment 57-202 above. 68 14-1 No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 207 206 205 204 203 202 201 200 199 198 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1153 of 1200 210: Modeling of future conditions under baseline conditions and the alternatives indicates increased potential for declining water levels at Lake Mead. Although the rate of changed potential for surface elevation reductions varies among the alternatives compared to baseline conditions, significant differences in seasonal fluctuations are not expected (or indicated through system modeling). No research directly addressing various lake levels and resulting development of riparian and marsh habitat is available. Only general historical information is available and is associated with post-drought years followed by high water years. As a result, a general approach that includes potential effects on vegetation based on the predicted declines in water levels is presented. 209: Comment noted. However, Reclamation believes that the information is presented appropriately. 208: It should be noted that the analysis considers how species would be affected by changing system conditions that could occur under baseline conditions and each of the alternatives. With regard to potential effects on special-status species, the differences between the alternatives is primarily associated with changes in probabilities for certain conditions to occur. A more complete and detailed analysis would involve extensive study of each of these species and their population dynamics. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-265 LETTER 57 214: Comment noted. See response to Comment 57-213. The last sentence has been clarified. 213: Flows below Hoover Dam would be within historical ranges under baseline conditions and each of the alternatives, and no impacts to special-status species fish within this segment would occur as a result of interim surplus criteria. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v Comment Reclamation believes that the analysis presented adequately ation o211: Nov noted.effects of the alternatives compared to baseline conditions. n jo N ved identifies the potential Nava archi in 212: The discussions for effects to fish species has been reformatted similar to that for the cited 16864, plant and wildlife species. Effects of the alternatives to razorback sucker in Lake Mead are analyzed. 14No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 214 213 212 211 210 209 208 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1154 of 1200 B-266 LETTER 57 222: Relevant information on angler use and success rates at Lake Mead, Lake Powell and Lake Mohave from the appropriate resource agencies in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada has been incorporated into Section 3.9.5.. However, it should be noted that, as discussed in Section 3.9.5, catch rates are not expected to be affected by interim surplus criteria. 221: It is assumed based on the comment content that the commentor is referring to the discussion below Figure 3.9-1 on page 3.9-14. Discussions of modeling results have been revised in the FEIS. 220: The paragraph referenced discusses results from the Combrink and Collins study on the effects of general lake level fluctuations on reservoir facilities at Lake Powell. As stated in the discussion "if lake fluctuations 'exceed' 25 feet, special adjustments would be necessary." Although required adjustments at specific facilities are not known, such adjustments would be necessary both under baseline conditions and the alternatives. 217: The analysis of probabilities associated with the occurrence of reservoir elevations below specified elevations was used in the recreation analysis because specific elevations were identifed for recreation resources. Other analyses in the EIS, including the analysis done to determine potential effects on special-status species, did not identify specific elevations with which to analyze probabilities. In these instances, the model projections of certain elevations, typically the median elevation in each year, were used to identify the differences between the alternatives and baseline conditions. 216: Reclamation has determined that fluctuations in flows below Hoover Dam to the SIB under the alternatives would be within the historical operating range of the river and would, therefore, not affect recreation within these areas. The FEIS does consider the potential effects of increases in the temperature of water released from Hoover Dam under decreased reservoir elevations on sport fishing within the river between Hoover Dam and Lake Mohave in Section 3.7.3. 215: The analysis has been revised to discuss potential effects to razorback sucker. Ongoing efforts to protect the species under the ESA will continue under baseline conditions and each of the alternatives. Because there are no known specific threshold elevations for razorback spawning, determining the specific probabilities associated with a particular elevation could not be done. The text was revised to mention ongoing studies of the razorback sucker population in Lake Mead. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . DeSectionember FEIS has been revised to include the typical annual range of v 218: 3.9.2.2 of the ation on Novelevations. Differences between baseline conditions and alternatives shown Lake Mead N jo for a single month represent differences throughout the year. Nava archived 219: Table 3.9-2 indicates existing facilities with the exception of Antelope Point. For in Antelope Point, proposed facilities are identified in the Development Concept Plan for the cited 16864, facility. A footnote in Table 3.9-2 and the written description of Antelope Point in the FEIS 41 provide information with regard to existing facilities at Antelope Point. No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 222 221 220 219 218 217 216 215 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1155 of 1200 225: The nameplate capacity of Glen Canyon is about 1,200 MW. Because of the flow restriction of 25,000 cfs, the powerplant can only produce 1,048 MW at maximum head. 224: The energy output of a powerplant is a function of the net effective head, the efficiency of the turbine and the quantity of water through the turbine. Obviously this changes from year to year. However, as a point of interest, the 30-year average conversion efficiency of Glen Canyon and Hoover is 463.8 kWh/AF and 456.2 kWh/AF, respectively. 223: Sections 3.7.3 and 3.9.5, both of which address sport fishing and the sport fishery, have been expanded. Special status fish species are addressed in Section 3.8.2.2.2. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-267 LETTER 57 230: Comment noted. Discussion of potential effects have been revised as practicable to clarify information presented in the FEIS. Note that the methodology used for analysis of various resources was dependent upon the amount of information available and the potential effects identified through modeling. 229: Section 3.13.4 discusses historical annual fluctuations of Lake Mead, which ranged to 75 feet. The 10 to 20 feet fluctuations discussed in Section 3.12.4.1.2 are projected based on modeling results. The increase of median Lake Powell elevations after the interim period is due to the suspension of equalization requirements as discussed in Section 1.4.2. 226: This analysis does not make any assumptions related to contract renewals. However, it is possible that Western Area Power Administration would only make contract commitments when the current contracts terminate based on the foreseeable amounts of capacity and energy during the next contract term. Potential increases or decreases in revenue from changes in power production are beyond the scope of analysis necessary to appropriately assess the potential effects of interim surplus criteria. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived 227: Average Lake Powell and Lake Mead shoreline slopes used for the air quality Na analysis are based on general estimates by persons with knowledge of the terrain d in 64, arc surrounding the two reservoirs. It should be noted that estimates were developed for the cite 168 purposes of comparing alternatives to baseline conditions, and determination of the actual slope was not necessary for this comparison. 14 No. 228: The temporary nature of reservoir levels has been noted in the discussion in the EIS. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 230 229 228 227 226 225 224 223 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1156 of 1200 232: A detailed discussion of Present Perfected Rights is beyond the space limitations available here. We suggest you read the Supreme Court Decision in Arizona v. California and supplemental decrees. Additional clarifying text has been modified in Section 3.14 to explain how Tribes water is acounted. As Tribal water is developed, and depletions in the Upper Basin increase, less water will be available for storage in Colorado River reservoirs. The modeling for the FEIS includes the increased use of water under Tribal rights over time in both the baseline and action alternatives. Modeling the increased use of water in the Upper Basin, including the Tribal water, is essential in predicting future reservoir levels. 231: Tribal water rights are trust assets that are covered under the section on Indian Trust Assets, not under the Cultural Resources section. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-268 LETTER 57 237: The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, located in the Upper Basin has about 50,000 acre-feet of undeveloped water. The Ute Mountain Ute's Tribal allocation is included in the Upper Basin schedule of increased depletions, and included in the modeling process as discussed in the response to Comment 57-232. 236: The Southern Ute Tribe, located in the Upper Basin has about 30,000 acre-feet of undeveloped water. The Southern Ute's Tribal allocation is included in the Upper Basin schedule of increased depletions, and included in the modeling process as discussed in the response to Comment 57-232. 235: The Navajo Tribe, currently has over 150,000 acre-feet of undeveloped water in the Upper Basin. The Navajo's Tribal allocation is included in the Upper Basin schedule of increased depletions, and included in the modeling process as discussed in the response to Comment 57-232. ior Interin the 17 Basin, has the right to deplete 248,943 e 233: The Northern Ute Tribe, located of th time,29, 20 Upper acre-feet of this water is yet acre-feet. t. the current At approximately 100,000 The Northern Depof increased er Ute's Tribal allocation is modeling the Upper Basin . undeveloped.embdepletions, and included in theincluded inprocess as discussed in v schedule v the No ation on response to Comment 57-232. jo N ved Nava archi 234: The Jicarilla Apache Tribe, located in the Upper Basin has about 30,000 acre-feet of in undeveloped water. The Jicarilla Apache Tribal allocation is included in the Upper Basin cited 16864, schedule of increased depletions, and included in the modeling process as discussed in the response to Comment 57-232. 14 No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 237 236 235 234 233 232 231 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1157 of 1200 238: There is no table in the DEIS that shows the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation is over-using its present perfected federal reserved water right in California. As the table shows in Section 3.14.2.5 of this FEIS, the Tribe's right in California was limited, prior to June 19, 2000, to an annual diversion not to exceed 13,698 acre-feet. The Fort Mojave Indian Reservation's reported diversions in the Article V Decree accounting records for use in California were 21,109 acre-feet in calendar year 1999. As of June 19, 2000, the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation's present perfected federal reserved right was increased to a maximum annual diversion right of 16,720 acre-feet for use in California (see response to Comment 57-19). This additional water right will help cover the amount of the overdraft but the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation may use its 16,720 acre feet of federal reserved right available for use in California on any lands within the reservation boundaries in California. The Fort Mojave Indian Reservation's reported diversions for use in Arizona were 80,252 acre-feet in calendar year 1999. Because the Tribe's water right for lands in Arizona is part of the 2.8 maf apportioned for use in the State of Arizona, any water that is not used by the Tribe first is made available to junior priority holders in Arizona. Any water within this 2.8 maf apportionment that is not used in Arizona may be released by the Secretary under Article II(B)(6) of the Decree as unused apportionment for use in another Lower Division state. Any of this water that is delivered to a California entitlement holder is unused apportionment, not surplus water. There is no loss to make up. If a holder of a Colorado River water entitlement does not use all the water to which it is entitled in any year, that entity does not retain a right to the unused water - it remains Colorado River System water and is available for the Secretary to release for use in another state as unused apportionment or surplus water, under Articles II(B)(6) or II(B)(3), respectively, of the Decree. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-269 LETTER 57 244: Excess flows to Mexico are defined as flows at the Northerly International Boundary (NIB) in excess of Mexico's scheduled delivery. When flood control releases occur at Lake Mead, Mexico is allowed to schedule up to an additional 200 kaf for delivery for that year. Excess flows under flood control releases are then flows in excess of that increased Mexico scheduled delivery. 243: See response to Comment 56-6. 242: The total diversions reported for the Cocopah Indian Reservation were 11,546 acre-feet during calendar year 1999, which exceeded the tribe's annual diversion right of 10,847 acre-feet. See the discussion under Comment 57-238. 241: The Quechan Tribe did not use all the present perfected Federal reserved water rights available for use by the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation in 1999, the most recent year for which Article V Decree accounting records are available. In 1999, the annual diversions reported for the tribe were 31,350 acre-feet. See the discussion under Comment 57-238. 240: The most recent Article V Decree accounting records are for calendar year 1999. As of 1999, the Colorado River Indian Tribes reported annual diversions of 599,509 and 5,791 acre-feet of diversions for use in the States of Arizona and California, respectively. These reported uses compare to the tribes' Federal reserved right maximum diversions of 662,402 and 54,746 acre-feet for Arizona and California, respectively. As for disposition if this unused water, see the discussion under Comment 57-238. 239: The Article V Decree accounting records show the Chemehuevi Indian Reservation diverted 664 acre-feet in calendar year 1998 and 265 acre-feet in 1999. The Tribe has proposed to lease some of its water right. Because the Tribe's water right is part of the 4.4 maf apportioned for use in the State of California, any water that is not used by the Tribe first is available to junior priority holders in California in accordance with the priority system established for California by the California Seven-Party Agreement dated August 18, 1931. There is no loss to be made up. See the discussion under Comment 57-238. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 245 cont'd below 244 243 242 241 240 239 238 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1158 of 1200 B-270 252: Reclamation assessment has been revised to discuss these concepts. LETTER 57 248: As stated in the DEIS on page 3-16-8, paragraph 2, "the relatively high frequencies occurring in years 2001 through 2005 result from the current full reservoir conditions". After 2005, there is a gradually declining trend out to 2050 that is due to the increasing Upper Basin depletions. 247: As discussed in Section 3.4.4.5.2 of the FEIS, Mexico receives surplus deliveries 26% of the time for the interim surplus criteria period under baseline conditions, and 23% of the time under the preferred alternative (Basin States Alternative). As noted in Section 3.3.3.3, all alternatives and baseline used identical Upper Basin depletions. 246: Additional information has been added to the FEIS concerning Mexico's practice of diverting excess flows (such water does not count against their allocation). 245: The discussion of historical versus current habitat notes when non-native species such as salt cedar and shrimp were introduced. Occurrence of the Southwestern willow flycatcher in Mexico is noted in Section 3.16.6, as is the status of Yuma clapper rail. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. notes that 249:De . Reclamationembofeinr1983 through 1987, excess flows at NIB were greater than 9 maf v annually, with a maximum 13.8 maf in 1984. ation 250:nAsNov in Section 3.3.3.5, the range of possible future hydrologic inflows modeled N o discussed vajo hived includes the 1983-1987 historical inflows. Such events will cause flood control releases of Na similar magnitudes in the future. in rc ited 6864, a c 251: The term "magnitude" has been added to the glossary of the FEIS to provide a definition for this tern. See response to Comment 11-18 which addresses reductions in historic river flows 14-1 below NIB. No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 252 251 250 249 248 247 246 245 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1159 of 1200 256: The discussion of the status of the Southwestern willow flycatcher notes this. 255: Inflow to and salinity of the Cienaga from MODE would not be affected by the interim surplus criteria. 254: This information is included in the discussion for the desert pupfish in Section 3.16.6.2.1 of the FEIS. 253: Excess flows to Mexico primarily result from flood control releases from Lake Mead. As shown in Figures 3.16-2 through 3.16-5 in the FEIS, the surplus alternatives have annual excess flow volumes over the same range as the volumes for the baseline conditions. The differences between the alternatives and baseline conditions are in the frequency of occurrence (or probability) of excess flow volumes of a particular magnitude (e.g. 2-3% for a volume of 4 maf in year 2005). FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-271 263: This has been added to the discussion. 262: No, they are two different areas in California. extending the breeding range of the rail has been moved up. LETTER 57 257: Reclamation could only find documents of flycatchers being observed in Mexico before its breeding season, and believes it is not reasonable to assume they breed in the area. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. D The .258: e analysismber focuses on acreages from a 1997 survey of floodplain vegetation v ove for the FEIS in the Limotrophe Division, a 1999 study conducted by the University ation on NEnvironmental Defense Fund, and the Sonoran Institute, andofaMonterrey, University of N Arizona, 1998 aerial survey of the vajo hived Rio Hardy and Colorado rivers. Na in rc 259: A map has been added to Section 3.16. ited 6864, a c -1 260: Comment noted. 14 No. 261: Mention of when crayfish were introduced to the lower Colorado River and its role in COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 263 262 261 260 259 258 257 256 255 254 253 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1160 of 1200 268: Comment noted. 267: As stated in the definition from the CEQ regulations, cumulative impact analyses include the proposed action and other actions. 266: Information on the legal status of the yellow-billed cuckoo has been revised. 265: This update has been added to the discussion. 264: Comment noted. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-272 LETTER 57 FEIS. Any changes to the interim surplus criteria or the LROC at the 5 year reviews would institute the need for appropriate environmental compliance. 269: The text has been edited. ior Inter 17 e 270: Increasing the availability of surplus water is not the purpose and need of the proposed of th for a9, 20 the purpose and need. action. See FEIS Section 1.1.3 2 definition of pt. . De ember v o ation 271:nCommentv jo N ved o N noted. Nava archi in 272: Following a decision to implement one of the action alternatives, the Secretary could choose to revert to the current method for determining surplus. A subsequent decision by the cited 16864, Secretary to revert to the current method (i.e., the AOP process without specific interim surplus 4criteria in effect) would be different than selecting the No Action Alternative at the present time. o. 1 N The likelihood and timing of such subsequent decision is speculative and not analyzed in the COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 272 cont'd below 271 270 269 268 267 266 265 264 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1161 of 1200 273: Reclamation does not believe recreational losses would be irreversible because the reservoirs and river level are constantly fluctuating up and down over time. Lower levels may actually improve some kinds of recreation such as reservoir fishing as fish become more concentrated. Regarding power losses, power production is not a primary function of Hoover Dam. It is third on the list of dam operation priorities behind flood control/improved navigation and irrigation/domestic uses/satisfaction of present perfected rights. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-273 LETTER 57 281: Please refer to Attachment H for a discussion of the water demand schedules. 280: Please refer to the purpose and need discussion in Chapter 1. 279: Reclamation's Six States Alternative was derived from the Six States proposal. The alternative is as described in Chapter 2, and the assumptions used for modeling are described in Section 3.3. 278: Yes, the requirement was included. ior Inter 17 e t magnitude flows" not 274: The term "annualh In the 2 ofannual basis representis0 commonly used in hydrology.specifiedFEIS, flows shown . an point. ept on ber 29, total volume over the year at the D .275: The L. Fitzpatrick citation has been replaced with information from McKernan (1999). v m ation on Nove N vajo hived 276: Please see response to Comment 57-275 above. Na d in 64, arc cite 168 277: This error from the DEIS has been corrected. These and additional references revising the transboundary impacts analysis have been incorporated into a single list of references in o. 14 N the FEIS. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 281 280 279 278 277 276 275 274 273 272 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1162 of 1200 285: The provisions of the Six States Alternative in this FEIS take precedence over the provisions cited in the attachment. 284: The influence of this document is discussed in the introduction to Section 2.2.4. 283: Reclamation does not anticipate any waiver of Arizona's percentage right to surplus water. The percentages would apply when a quantified surplus is declared that must be divided among the Lower Division states. 282: California would be monitored for its progress in implementing its Colorado River Water Use Plan. Each of the Lower Division states would be monitored as to use of its basic apportionment and purposes for which surplus water is used. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES B-274 LETTER 57 291: The explanation of surplus depletion schedules provided in this paragraph has been revised to provide more clarity. Additional more detailed explanation on the modeling criteria used to determine the availability and amount of surplus water deliveries under the modeled baseline conditions and the different surplus alternatives is provided in Attachment I of the FEIS. 290: In the FEIS, the Flood Control Alternative was modeled using California intrastate transfers. See response to Comment 37-11 for additional discussion. baseline conditions and surplus alternatives for the FEIS. Page numbers have been added. r te io Inpolicyrfor overrun accounting which we expect will be 286: Reclamation is formulating a t e published in the Federalh review and comment. ooff this Register for public 017in this FEIS. However, the matter is beyond the scope 2 is , 2 ept. bFEIS and9not described D er n v. Reclamation's understanding is that conjunctive use of groundwater will play an important em tio 287: ov jo Na ved onin N water supply for all the Lower Division states. role the Nava archi in 288: Comment noted. cited 16864, 41 No. 289: The depletion schedules have been replaced with revised schedules used to model the COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 291 290 289 288 287 286 285 284 283 282 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1163 of 1200 B-275 LETTER 57 300: It is difficult to decrease the scale of these graphs without losing data. The size of the data markers has been reduced to make it easier to distinguish between alternatives. Graphs in Attachment L supplement information in the main body of the FEIS. 299: Comment noted. 296: When surplus water delivery is based on a trigger elevation, the water level could drop below the trigger elevation once the deliveries are made. See also response to Comment 57-64. 295: As stated in the purpose and need discussion in Section 1.1.3, a greater degree of predictability is being sought for mainstream users of Colorado River water. 294: The Guidelines contain detailed provisions of Reclamation's preferred plan, and is not necessarily intended to conform to the Seven States proposal. 293: The attachment has bee revised. The draft guidelines focus on presenting information for the preferred alternative. It is now Attachment I. See response to Comment 57-279 above. 292: Attachment G of the DEIS is now Attachment H in the FEIS. The tables in these attachments represent the Lower Basin Depletion Schedules that were used as input to the model. These schedules were updated by the states in September 2000, and represent the states' projections of their future water demands under the respective water supply conditions. FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v 297: Nov ation onThe tables are in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. The tabulated values were produced by the jo N ved operational model. Nava archi in cited 16864, 298: Copies of this Attachment were available at the technical presentation on August 15, 2000, at the four public hearings for the DEIS, and upon request. It is Attachment J to the FEIS. 14No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 300 cont'd below 299 298 297 296 295 294 293 292 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1164 of 1200 302: This correction has been made for figures in the FEIS. 301: Comment noted. B-276 LETTER 57 FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 302 301 300 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1165 of 1200 B-277 LETTER 57 FEDERAL AGENCIES - U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1166 of 1200 FEDERAL AGENCIES - IBWC, U.S. SECTION RESPONSES LETTER 58 7: This correction has been made. 7 B-278 6: This correction has been made. 6 COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5: The text is arranged to accommodate the placement of figures in the respective section and to reduce the amount of white space on each page, and thus minimizing the size of the document. 4: The reference has been corrected. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 t. Dep acronyms was . 1: The list of ember amended to include CBRFC and CRSSez. The entry on page v ACR-2 corrected. o ation on Nwasv jo N ved 2: Correction made. Nava archi in cited 16864, 3: Correction made. o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER 5 4 3 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1167 of 1200 B-279 11: Comment noted. LETTER 58 9: Comment noted and Reclamation concurs with the information presented in this comment. Reclamation has revised the discussion for flows arriving at the NIB in Sections 3.3.4.5.4, 3.4.4.5 and 3.16.5 of the FEIS. 8: Comment noted. FEDERAL AGENCIES - IBWC, U.S. SECTION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc 10: Comment noted. cite 168 14 No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 11 10 9 8 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1168 of 1200 13: Comment noted. B-280 LETTER 58 12: The data in the FEIS has been updated (see Section 3.3.3.4 for a discussion). The description in Section 3.16.5.2 reflects these changes. FEDERAL AGENCIES - IBWC, U.S. SECTION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 13 12 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1169 of 1200 B-281 LETTER 59 FEDERAL AGENCIES - NPS RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1170 of 1200 B-282 LETTER 59 FEDERAL AGENCIES - NPS RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1171 of 1200 FEDERAL AGENCIES - NPS RESPONSES B-283 LETTER 59 2: As noted in this comment, the interim surplus criteria would be in effect for 15 years, after which these criteria would terminate and determination of surplus conditions would revert to the current AOP procedures. However, the model operation for each alternative was extended beyond the interim period, to 2050, with the interim criteria reverting to the baseline criteria, so that any after effects resulting from the alternatives would be indicated. The baseline model operation was also extended to 2050 so that comparisons could be made. The baseline operating strategy in the DEIS was not an alternative, but was established as a "benchmark" against which to compare the effects of the alternatives, as discussed in Section 2.2.5. This continues to be the case for the modeling analyses in this FEIS. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v v ation o1: The methodology used for analysis of various resources was dependent upon the amount n No jo N ved of information available and the potential effects identified through modeling. These methodologies are described for each resource/issue analyzed in the various sections of Nava archi Chapter 3 of the EIS. Note that analysis of recreation resources within both the Glen Canyon d in 64, and Lake Mead National Recreation Areas determined specific probabilities for certain cite 168 elevations important to shoreline facilities and navigation with the NRAs. The FEIS contains 4additional discussion and probability analysis for specific reservoir surface elevations identified o. 1 N through discussions with NPS and others during preparation of this document. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1172 of 1200 5: As discussed in the EIS in Sections 1.4.2 (Glen Canyon Dam Operations) and 3.2.2 (Adaptive Management Program Influence on Glen Canyon Dam Releases), the Adaptive Management Program would continue to address resources within the river corridor below Glen Canyon Dam. Two types of flows are of particular concern to the Adaptive Management Program: BHBFs and low steady summer flows. Sections 3.6.2 and 3.6.3 analyze the potential effects of interim surplus criteria on the frequencies of these two flow regimes. No additional analysis of the potential effects on resources within this segment of the river corridor is necessary because, as discussed, the Adaptive Management Program would continue to address these resources consistent with the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam ROD. Because flows below Hoover Dam are associated with water deliveries based on depletion schedules provided by the Lower Division states, modeling conducted for the EIS (which includes depletion schedules) produces forecasts of specific monthly flow volumes. In contrast, releases from Glen Canyon Dam are not made to meet water delivery schedules and are, instead, subject to the requirements of the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam ROD and the Adaptive Management Program. As such, it is not possible to provide the same level of modeling projections for Glen Canyon Dam releases. 4: Differences between baseline conditions and alternatives at the 3626 ft. level are typically less than five percent. Subsequent to publishing the DEIS, Reclamation received additional information regarding threshold elevations from NPS and the Navajo Nation. The FEIS discusses this information in Section 3.9.2.2.2.1, and presents analyses for threshold elevations of 3626 feet and 3677 feet msl. 3: It is recognized that different percentiles could be used for presenting the information in Section3.9.6. However, Reclamation believes that using median elevations, while not showing all circumstances, appropriately presents the differences between the alternatives and baseline conditions. FEDERAL AGENCIES - NPS RESPONSES B-284 LETTER 59 9: Revisions have been made to Section 3.8.2.2.3. Note that potential effects to special-status fish species were analyzed with respect to operations at both Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam. The section also notes that previously established recovery programs are to remain in place. No specific threshold elevations at Lake Powell pertaining to special-status fish species are known to have been developed. Revisions to the description of designated critical habitat were also made within the section. 8: The Department of the Interior agrees with this comment and the concept that it is important to conduct additional research to better understand and optimize the effects of BHBFs. The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Managment Program (AMP) was established as a Federal Advisory Committee to assist the Secretary of the Interior in implementing the Grand Canyon Protection Act of ctobger 30, 1992, which is embodied in Public Law 102-575. The Grand Canyon Protection Act directs the Secretary, among others, to operate Glen Canyon Dam in accordance with the additional criteria and operating plans specified in section 1804 of the Act and to exercise other authorities under existing law in such a manner as to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established, including but not limited to the natural and cultural resources and visitor use. Section VI of the October 8, 1996 Record of Decision on the Operations of Glen Canyon Dam Final EIS commits the Department to the implementation of BHBFs, the scheduling, duration, and flow magnitude of which will be recommended by the Adaptive Managment Work Group and scheduled through the Annual Operating Plan process. Reclamation agrees that the AMP is the proper forum in which to explore experimental fows so that in the future, when hydrologic conditions allow such BHBFs as management actions, they can be performed for the greatest benefit of the resources. In advance of the Record of Decision, the Department can report that efforts to expedite consideration and development of the parameters and criteria for future test flows, including BHBFs, are underway through a recently formed subgroup of the AMP's Technical Work Group. Reclamation intends to continue to pursue BHBFs through the AMP. We welcome the continued participation and input of the National Park Service in this effort. 7: A continous plot of the probability of BHBFs has been added to Section 3.6.2. 6: Information regarding potential effects on river flows and special status species below Glen Canyon Dam, within Grand Canyon and Glen Canyon, is in Section 3.8 of the FEIS. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1173 of 1200 B-285 LETTER 59 14: Potential effects on sport fisheries of increased temperature of water releases from Hoover Dam have been included in Section 3.7.3 of the FEIS. cannot be predicted. Use of the median elevations projected by system modeling to discuss differences between the alternatives and baseline conditions does not minimize these potential effects, and instead presents a reasonable means of comparison of potential future outcomes. 11: Reclamation agrees that the inventory and identification of cultural resources that was conducted prior to the completion of the reservoirs is inadequate by today's historic preservation standards. However, prior to completing the reservoirs, the National Park Service was in compliance with the Historic Sites Act of 1935; they did complete the surveys, investigations and researches of historic and archaeological sites, buildings, and objects for the purpose of determining which possessed exceptional value for commemorating or illustrating the history of the U.S. Furthermore, the NPS did comply with the Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 with respect to Lake Powell. Archeological data affected by construction of Glen Canyon Dam were preserved to the standards of the time. Reclamation continues to ensure that these data are preserved and accessible to the public based on the Historic Sites Act and Reservoir Salvage Act. 10: Reclamation's understanding was that most, if not all, historic properties located within the area of fluctuations of the reservoir had lost sufficient integrity that they would no longer be capable of conveying their historic significance. This comment provides important information that this is not the case for all historic properties. FEDERAL AGENCIES - NPS RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 ept. r 12: For purposes of the undertaking defined as the adoption of specific interim surplus criteria and the . Dthis EIS, the mbeor predicated effects appear to be encompassed within normal v nsubject of Normal or on-going operations are not the subject of this EIS, therefore, any effects or the eprojected tio operations.Nov n resolution of effects existing operations are beyond of this EIS. Reclamation is, jo Na ved oto comply withofthe National Historic Preservationthe scopeits implementing regulations. of course, Act and Nava archi eager agrees with the NPS that it has Section 110 responsibilities with respect to on-going Reclamation in operations. ited 6864, c -1 13: The water quality analysis in the EIS appropriately identifies the potential effects of the interim 14 surplus criteria. Potential effects are discussed in terms of the general effects of changing reservoir No. elevations because specific elevations and periods that such elevations would occur are unknown and COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 14 13 12 11 10 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1174 of 1200 1: Comment noted. As the EIS discusses, the amounts of power available from Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams will be reduced when lake levels decline. FEDERAL AGENCIES - WAPA RESPONSES B-286 LETTER 60 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 t. Dep mber 2:.The capacity of 2074 MW is produced from the application of theoretical turbine curves to v reservoir elevations. There will always difference between theoretical curves ation year-endNove results. Since the differencebe aapproximately 0.5 percent, this error is and n is N o actual operating vajo hivedbelieved to be within the error of the forecast. Na d in 64, arc cite 168 3: Comment noted. o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1175 of 1200 FEDERAL AGENCIES - WAPA RESPONSES B-287 LETTER 61 2: Please see response to Comment 16-2. Reclamation believes that the level of analysis for energy resources presented in the EIS appropriately identifies the potential effects of interim surplus criteria. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 t. D p er .Figuree of embpresents the range of Lake Powell water surface elevations n v 3.3-5 v the DEIS 1: tio o on under baseline four of the 85 hydrologic 10th modeled under the baseline jo Na vedmodeled Nthe results forconditions (90th, 50th and tracespercentile values). This same figure also shows conditions. The four traces provide a representation of the fluctuation that occurs under the Nava archi various assumed hydrologic sequences. As can be seen from these four traces, the water d in 64, surface elevations of Lake Powell fluctuate from full to lowered conditions throughout the cite 168 50-year modeled period. However, as time progresses, due to increasing Upper Basin 4depletions, Lake Powell's median and 10th percentile elveations decline. o. 1 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1176 of 1200 B-288 LETTER 61 FEDERAL AGENCIES - WAPA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1177 of 1200 B-289 LETTER 62 1: The titles to the Tables 2 and 4 were changed to "Average Monthly Energy Production At Lake Mead (GWh)" and "Average Monthly Energy Production at Lake Powell (GWh)," respectively. FEDERAL AGENCIES - WAPA RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1178 of 1200 B-290 ior Inter 17 e o th 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFTfBLANK.9, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1179 of 1200 67 66 e Mexicali Business Coordinating Council (MBCC) ................................................................................................. B-296 e Int rior 17 th t. of r 29, 20 Mexicali Economic Development Council (MEDC) ............................................................................................... B-298 p v. De vembe n National Water Commission (NWC) ....................................................................................................................... B-300 Natio d on No jo Nava archive in cited 16864, o. 14 N 65 International Boundary and Water Commission, Mexican Section (IBWC, Mexican)........................................... B-294 64 Page # Autonomous University of Baja California (AUBC)............................................................................................... B-291 Agency/Organization 63 Letter # MEXICAN AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1180 of 1200 MEXICAN AGNCIES/ORGANIZATIONS - AUBC RESPONSES B-291 LETTER 63 ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v 1: Interim ation on The surplus Surplus not the effects of management ofeffects of the implementation of Nov criteria, Criteria EIS addresses potential the Colorado a whole. jo N ved interim the impact analysis focuses on areas that may be affected byRiver assurplus As such, interim Nava archi criteria. Note that Section 3.16 of the EIS discusses the potential for decreased excess in flows to Mexico as a result of interim surplus criteria and identifies the potential effects to ited 6864, c the natural and physical environment within Mexico may be developed. 14-1 No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS supports 1 1 cont'd below VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1181 of 1200 B-292 LETTER 63 MEXICAN AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS - AUBC RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS supports 1 1 cont'd supports 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1182 of 1200 B-293 LETTER 63 2: The U.S. through the IBWC has entered into formal consultations with the Government of Mexico regarding this action. In the context of comity, joint cooperation projects in a support of the Colorado River riparian ecology to the Gulf of California that would have a benefit to the United States and Mexico. MEXICAN AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS - AUBC RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 supports 2 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1183 of 1200 MEXICAN AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS - IBWC, MEXICAN SECTION RESPONSES B-294 LETTER 64 5: Comment noted. See response to Comment 57-158 for a discussion of the change in excess flows to Mexico. 4: See response to Comment 31-8 for a discussion of the Index Sequential Method of modeling. A direct comparison with historical values is not representative, since current and projected depletions are greater than those in the past. 3: The delivery of water to Mexico under all modeled condtions in this FEIS was consistent with the requirements of the Treaty. The diversion and use of such Treaty water is solely at Mexico's discretion. The delivery of excess flows to Mexico occur when flows available in the Colorado River exceeds the amount needed to meet the beneficial water needs of Lower Basin users in the United States. It is not within Reclamation's discretionary authority to make unilateral adjustments to water deliveries to the international border. models accepted as the most representative currently available. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived 1: See response to Comment 11-13 regarding additional deliveries to Mexico. Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N 2: It is unclear what this comment means by "actual conditions." Reclamation used data and COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 5 cont'd below 4 3 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1184 of 1200 B-295 LETTER 64 7: See response to Comment 56-16. Also, the U.S. Section iterates that the United States Government does not assume any obligation to mitigate for adverse impacts in Mexico. At the same time, the U.S. Section observes that the IBWC consultations with Mexico are a forum to receive comments from the Government of Mexico and provide for technical discussion to carry out, in the context of comity, joint cooperation projects in support of the Colorado River riparian ecology to the Gulf of California that would have a benefit to the US and Mexico. Reclamation is working with the IBWC through the consultation process to identify joint cooperation projects. Mechanisms that the Department of the Interior, and particularly the Bureau of Reclamation, have been working on include the Joint Declaration and the follow-up conference held October 11, 2000, in Washington, D.C. Regarding the Colorado River delta area, Reclamation is also actively participating in the Fourth Technical Work Group (Delta Task Force). It is a bi-national group working to conduct a joint baseline study of the water and natural resource conditions in the Cienega de Santa Clara and the adjoining lowermost part of the delta of the Colorado River which utilizes the resources of participating agencies in monitoring, field work, photography and data exchange. 6: See response to Comment 56-16. MEXICAN AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS - IBWC, MEXICAN SECTION RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 7 6 5 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1185 of 1200 1: See response to Comment 66-1. B-296 LETTER 65 MEXICAN AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS - MBCC RESPONSES ior Inter 17 the of Comment29, 20 t. to See p . 2:De responsember 56-16. v ation on Nove N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 cont'd below 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1186 of 1200 3: Comment noted. See response to Comment 64-7. B-297 LETTER 65 MEXICAN AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS - MBCC RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3 2 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1187 of 1200 B-298 LETTER 66 1: As shown in Figure 3.16-1 in the DEIS, the probability of excess flows to Mexico for all years (2000-2050) is not zero (17 percent or greater for all surplus alternatives and baseline.) For the FEIS, the probabilities are 13 percent or greater from 2003 through 2050. MEXICAN AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS - MEDC RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e 2: See response to Comment 56-16. of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 2 cont'd below 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1188 of 1200 3: See response to Comment 56-16. B-299 LETTER 66 MEXICAN AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS - MEDC RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3 2 cont'd VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1189 of 1200 MEXICAN AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS - NWC RESPONSES B-300 3: See response to Comment 67-1. 2: See response to Comment 67-1. LETTER 67 1: Section 3.16.5.3 has been added to the FEIS to provide additional information on the general potential impacts that the implementation of the interim surplus criteria may have on the frequency of excess flows to Mexico as well as the potential resultant impacts to groundwater recharge and salinity south of the international border. See also responses to Comments 64-7 and 56-16. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 3 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1190 of 1200 B-301 7: Reclamation is continuing its consultation and coordinaton with the IBWC. See FEIS Sections 3.16 and 5.3.2 for updated information. LETTER 67 6: Section 3.16.6 of the FEIS includes additional information about potential impacts of the proposed interim surplus criteria on special status species and their habitat which may occur in both the U.S. and Mexico, including the Yuma Clapper Rail and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. The description of the affected environment acknowledges that habitat along the river is also used by many other species of concern. 5: Section 3.16.6 of the EIS discusses potential effects on the sea cow (Vaquita) and the totoaba, as well as other endangered species known to occur in Mexico. 4: Comment noted. Additional analysis regarding salinity at the NIB has also been added to the FEIS, in Section 3.16.5. MEXICAN AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS - NWC RESPONSES ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation Comment NovPlease see updated Section 3.16, Transboundary Impacts. 8: Noted. ajo N ived on v in Na 4, arch cited 1686 o. 14 N COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA 8 7 6 5 4 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1191 of 1200 B-302 ior Inter 17 e o th 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFTfBLANK.9, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1192 of 1200 68 Letter # Page # ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians................................................................................................................................. B-303 Tribe Name ADDITIONAL TRIBE Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1193 of 1200 ADDITIONAL TRIBE - KAIBAB BAND OF PAIUTE INDIANS RESPONSES B-303 LETTER 68 4: Potential effects on water quality are discussed in Section 3.5, and environmental commitments associated with water quality are discussed in Section 3.17 of the FEIS. 3: Comment noted. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. er .1:De environmental effects of interim surplus criteria are addressed in the EIS. Potential n v Specifically,vemb supply are discussed in Section 3.4; effects on special-status tio n No effects on water in Section 3.8; and effects on discussed jo Na ved ospecies and habitat areflow (BHBFs) and low steady summer flowthe frequency ofGlen Canyon beach/habitat-building releases from Nava archi Dam are discussed in Section 3.6. in cited 16864, 2: Comment noted. Reclamation has consulted with, and will continue to work with potentially affected Tribes to address their concerns. Tribal consultations undertaken in association with 14interim surplus criteria are discussed in Section 5.4. No. COMMENT LETTER COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4 3 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1194 of 1200 B-304 ior Inter 17 e o th 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFTfBLANK.9, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1195 of 1200 69 Letter # Page # ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N Oral Comments Provided by Mr. Wade Noble ........................................................................................................ B-305 Agency Name ORAL COMMENTS Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1196 of 1200 1: A new alternative, the Basin States Alternative, has been included in the FEIS. This alternative was derived from the Seven States proposal, and has been selected by Reclamation as the preferred alternative. ORAL COMMENTS - NOBLE B-305 LETTER 69 4: Evaluation of the method of accounting for return flow and the definition of beneficial use are not within the purpose and need for the proposed action and are therefore not addressed in the FEIS. 2: Comment noted. Section 3.10 of the FEIS discusses potential reductions in Hoover Dam powerplant capacity under baseline conditions and each of the alternatives. ior Inter 17 e of th 29, 20 pt. . De3: Comment noted.rFor the analysis in the FEIS, it was assumed that the Yuma be v tion n NDesaltingm would become operational in 2022 under baseline conditions as well ove Plant a as under interim surplus criteria 3.3.3.3, General Modeling ajo N ived o Assumptions). The suspension (See Sectioninterim surplus criteria prior to the end of of the tiered Nav arch in the 15-year period is discussed in Section 1.4.1. Attachment I to the FEIS includes draft guidelines for the administration of the interim surplus criteria under the Basin cited 16864, States Alternative which address standards for progress by California. o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS 4 3 2 1 VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1197 of 1200 B-306 ior Inter 17 e o th 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFTfBLANK.9, 20 pt. . De ember v ation on Nov N vajo hived Na d in 64, arc cite 168 o. 14 N COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA FEIS VOLUME III, PART B Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1198 of 1200 Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1199 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No. Case: 14-16864, 12/04/2017, ID: 10675851, DktEntry: 131-2, Page 1200 of 1200 ior Inter 17 0 f the pt. o er 29, 2 e v. D mb ation on Nove jo N Nava archived in cited 16864, 14No.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?