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]
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 112000
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 112000
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 112000
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 112000
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 112000
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 112000
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 112000
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 112000
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 112000
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 112000
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 112000
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 112000
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 112000
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?