Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead, 19873-19892 [E8-7760]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
• Bureau of Reclamation
• Reclamation Bureau

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 71 (Friday, April 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19873-19892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-7760]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation


Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and 
Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision for the 
adoption of Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages 
and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of 
Reclamation, published a Federal Register notice on November 2, 2007 
(72 FR 62272) which informed the public of the availability of the 
final environmental impact statement on the proposed adoption of 
specific Colorado River Lower Basin shortage guidelines and coordinated 
reservoir management strategies to address the operations of Lake 
Powell and Lake Mead, particularly under low reservoir conditions, 
through 2026. We are now notifying the public that the Secretary of the 
Interior signed the Record of Decision (ROD) on December 13, 2007. The 
text of the ROD is found below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terrance J. Fulp, Ph.D., at (702) 293-
8500 or e-mail at strategies@lc.usbr.gov; and/or Randall Peterson at 
(801) 524-3633 or e-mail at strategies@lc.usbr.gov.
    The ROD is electronically available on Reclamation's project Web 
site at: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies.html. 
Alternatively, a compact disc or hard copy is available upon written 
request to: Regional Director, Lower Colorado Region, Bureau of 
Reclamation, Attention: BCOO-1005, P.O. Box 61470, Boulder City, Nevada 
89006-1470; fax at (702) 293-8156; or e-mail at strategies@lc.usbr.gov.

    Dated: March 28, 2008.
Dirk Kempthorne,
Secretary, Department of the Interior.

Record of Decision; Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin 
Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead 
(December 2007)

    Recommending Official: Robert Johnson, Commissioner, Bureau of 
Reclamation, December 13, 2007.
    Approved: Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of the Department of the 
Interior, December 13, 2007.

Record of Decision; Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin 
Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead 
Final Environmental Impact Statement (November 2007)

I. Introduction

    The Colorado River Basin (Basin) is in the eighth year of drought--
the worst eight-year period in over a century of continuous 
recordkeeping. Reservoir elevations have declined over this period and 
the duration of this ongoing, historic drought is unknown. This is the 
first long-term drought in the modern history of the Colorado River, 
although climate experts and scientists suggest droughts of this 
severity have occurred in the past and are likely to occur in the 
future. The Colorado River provides water to two nations, and to users 
within seven western states. With over 27 million people relying on the 
Colorado River for drinking water in the United States, and over 3.5 
million acres of farmland in production in the Basin, the Colorado 
River is the single most important natural resource in the Southwest.
    The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) has a unique role on the 
Colorado River--charged with management of a vast system of dams and 
reservoirs that have provided water for the development of the 
Southwest.
    Under these conditions, conflict over water is unsurprising and 
anticipated. Declining reservoir levels in the Basin led to interstate 
and inter-basin tensions. As the agency charged with management of the 
Colorado River, the Department of the Interior (Department) had not yet 
developed operational rules for the full range of operations at Lake 
Powell and Lake Mead because these types of low-reservoir conditions 
had simply not yet occurred.
    Against this background, at the direction of the Secretary, the 
Department initiated a public process in May of 2005 to develop 
additional operational guidelines and tools to meet the challenges of 
the drought in the Basin. While water storage in the massive reservoirs 
afforded great protection against the drought, the Department set a 
goal to have detailed, objective operational tools in place by the end 
of 2007 in order to be ready to make informed operational decisions if 
the reservoirs continued to decline.
    During the public process, a unique and remarkable consensus 
emerged in the basin among stakeholders including the Governor's 
representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin States (Basin 
States). This consensus had a number of common themes: encourage 
conservation, plan for shortages, implement closer coordination of 
operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead, preserve flexibility to deal 
with further challenges such as climate change and deepening drought, 
implement operational rules for a long--but not permanent--period in 
order to gain valuable operating experience, and continue to have the 
federal government facilitate--but not dictate--informed decision-
making in the Basin.
    Today, this Record of Decision (ROD) constitutes the Department's 
final decision after facilitating, analyzing, and considering public 
input over the past two and one-half years, during which the ongoing 
drought continued to focus nationwide attention on the Basin. A broad 
range of considerations have been analyzed, involving water supply, 
environmental protection, hydropower production, and recreation--all 
benefits that flow from the management of the Colorado River.
    This document is the ROD of the Department of the Interior, 
regarding the Preferred Alternative for Colorado River

[[Page 19874]]

Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations 
of Lake Powell and Lake Mead (Guidelines). 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 applicable federal law.
    The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), 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 the National 
Environmental Policy Act. The Final Environmental Impact Statement--
Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and 
Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead, dated October 
2007 (FES-07-37) (Final EIS), was prepared pursuant to the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, the Council on 
Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) Regulations for Implementing the 
Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 
parts 1500 through 1508), Department of the Interior Policies, and 
Reclamation's NEPA Handbook. The Final EIS was filed with the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on October 26, 2007 and noticed 
by EPA (72 FR 62229) and Reclamation (72 FR 62272) in the Federal 
Register on November 2, 2007.
    The Final EIS was prepared by Reclamation to address the 
formulation and evaluation of specific interim guidelines for shortage 
determinations and coordinated reservoir operations, and to identify 
the potential environmental effects of implementing such guidelines. 
The Final EIS addresses the environmental issues associated with, and 
analyzes the environmental consequences of various alternatives for 
specific interim guidelines. The alternatives addressed in the Final 
EIS are those Reclamation determined would meet the purpose of and need 
for the federal action and represented a broad range of the most 
reasonable alternatives.
    The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Fish and Wildlife Service 
(FWS), National Park Service (NPS), Western Area Power Administration 
(Western) and the United States Section of the International Boundary 
and Water Commission (USIBWC) are cooperating agencies for purposes of 
assisting with the environmental analysis in the Final EIS.
    The BIA has responsibility for the administration and management of 
lands held in trust by the United States for American Indians (Indian) 
and Indian tribes located within the Basin. Developing forestlands, 
leasing assets on these lands, directing agricultural programs, 
protecting water and land rights, developing and maintaining 
infrastructure, and economic development are all part of the BIA's 
responsibility.
    FWS manages four national wildlife refuges along the Colorado 
River. Among its many other key functions, the FWS administers and 
implements federal wildlife laws, protects endangered species, manages 
migratory birds, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves 
and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and assists foreign 
governments with international conservation efforts.
    The NPS administers areas of national significance along the 
Colorado River, including Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Grand 
Canyon National Park, and Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The NPS 
conserves natural and cultural resources and administers visitor use, 
and also grants and administers concessions for the operation of 
marinas and other recreation facilities at Lake Powell and Lake Mead, 
as well as concessions' operations along the Colorado River between 
Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead.
    Western markets and transmits power generated from the various 
hydropower plants located within the Basin operated by Reclamation. 
Western customers include municipalities, cooperatives, public utility 
and irrigation districts, federal and state agencies, investor-owned 
utilities, and Indian tribes located throughout the Basin.
    The USIBWC is the United States component of a bi-national 
organization responsible for administration of the provisions of the 
February 3, 1944 Treaty between the United States and Mexico Relating 
to the Utilization of the Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and 
of the Rio Grande (1944 Treaty), which includes the Colorado River 
waters allotted to Mexico, protection of lands along the Colorado River 
from floods by levee and floodway construction projects, resolution of 
international boundary water sanitation and other water quality 
problems, and preservation of the Colorado River as the international 
boundary. The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) 
consists of the United States Section and the Mexican Section, which 
have their headquarters in the adjoining cities of El Paso, Texas and 
Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, respectively.

II. Decision

    The recommendation is the approval of the following federal action: 
The adoption of specific interim guidelines for Lower Basin shortages 
and coordinated operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead, as provided 
below in Section XI. These interim Guidelines are based upon the 
Preferred Alternative analyzed in the Final EIS, and include several 
operational refinements as a result of public input, described below in 
Section VII. The interim Guidelines would be used each year by the 
Department in implementing the Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range 
Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs Pursuant to the Colorado River 
Basin Project Act of September 30, 1968 (Long-Range Operating Criteria 
or Operating Criteria or LROC), through issuance of the Annual 
Operating Plan for Colorado River Reservoirs (AOP). The Guidelines 
would remain in effect for determinations to be made through 2025 
regarding water supply and reservoir operating decisions through 2026, 
as provided below in Section 8 of the Guidelines.
    The Preferred Alternative proposes:
     Discrete levels of shortage volumes associated with Lake 
Mead elevations to conserve reservoir storage and provide water users 
and managers in the Lower Basin with greater certainty to know when, 
and by how much, water deliveries will be reduced in drought and other 
low reservoir conditions;
     A coordinated operation of Lake Powell and Lake Mead 
determined by specified reservoir conditions that would minimize 
shortages in the Lower Basin and avoid the risk of curtailments in the 
Upper Basin;
     A mechanism to encourage and account for augmentation and 
conservation of water supplies, referred to as Intentionally Created 
Surplus (ICS), that would minimize the likelihood and severity of 
potential future shortages; and
     The modification and extension of the Interim Surplus 
Guidelines (66 Fed. Reg. 7772, Jan 25, 2001) (ISG) through 2026.

III. Background

    The Secretary, acting through Reclamation, is responsible for water 
management throughout the western United States. Reclamation's 
authority is limited throughout the west by the limiting provisions of 
Reclamation law, beginning with the Reclamation Act of 1902.
    The Secretary also has a broader and unique legal role as he 
manages the lower Colorado River system in

[[Page 19875]]

accordance with federal law, including the Boulder Canyon Project Act 
of 1928, the 1963 Decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona v. 
California, the 2006 Consolidated Decree of the U.S. Supreme Court in 
Arizona v. California (Consolidated Decree), the Colorado River Basin 
Project Act of 1968 (CRBPA), the LROC, and the Grand Canyon Protection 
Act of 1992, and other applicable provisions of federal law. Within 
this legal framework, the Secretary makes annual determinations 
regarding the availability of water from Lake Mead by considering 
various factors, including the amount of water in system storage and 
predictions for natural runoff. The CRBPA directed the Secretary to 
propose and adopt criteria: ``In order to comply with and carry out the 
provisions of the Colorado River Compact, the Upper Colorado River 
Basin Compact, and the Mexican Water Treaty, * * * for the coordinated 
long-range operation of the reservoir constructed and operated under 
the authority of the Colorado River Storage Project Act, the Boulder 
Canyon Project Act, and the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act.''
    Pursuant to the CRBPA, the narrative provisions of 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 Basin. The AOP is prepared by Reclamation, acting on 
behalf of the Secretary, in consultation with representatives of the 
Basin States and other parties, as required by federal law. In the AOP, 
with respect to operations of Hoover Dam, 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 Basin.
    As described in the Final EIS:
     A ``Normal Condition'' exists when the Secretary 
determines that sufficient mainstream water is available to satisfy 7.5 
million acre-feet (maf) of annual consumptive use in the Lower Division 
states (Arizona, California, and Nevada). 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 authorized by a water delivery contract with the 
Secretary.
     A ``Surplus Condition'' exists 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. The water available for excess consumptive use is surplus 
and is distributed for use in Arizona, California, and Nevada pursuant 
to the terms and conditions provided in the ISG. The current provisions 
of the ISG are scheduled to terminate in 2016. In general terms, the 
ISG link the availability of surplus water to the elevation of Lake 
Mead. When Lake Mead is full and Reclamation is making flood control 
releases, surplus supplies are unlimited. As Lake Mead's elevation 
drops, surplus water amounts are reduced, and ultimately eliminated. 
The ISG also link surplus availability to continued progress by 
California in reducing its agricultural use of water to benchmarks 
established in the ISG. If a state does not use all of its apportioned 
water for the year, the Secretary may allow other Lower Division states 
to use the unused apportionment, provided that the use is authorized by 
a water delivery contract with the Secretary.
     A ``Shortage Condition'' exists when the Secretary 
determines that insufficient mainstream water is available to satisfy 
7.5 maf of annual consumptive use in the Lower Division states. To 
date, the Secretary has never made such a determination, as flow in the 
Colorado River has been sufficient to meet Normal or Surplus delivery 
amounts. When making a shortage determination, the Secretary must 
consult with various parties as set forth in the Consolidated Decree 
and consider all relevant factors as specified in the LROC, including 
1944 Treaty obligations, the priorities set forth in the Consolidated 
Decree, and the reasonable consumptive use requirements of mainstream 
water users in the Lower Division states. If a state does not use all 
of its apportioned water for the year, the Secretary may allow other 
Lower Division states to use the unused apportionment, provided that 
the use is authorized by a water delivery contract with the Secretary.
    As discussed above, during the period from 2000 to 2007, the 
Colorado River has experienced the worst drought conditions in 
approximately one hundred years of recorded history. This drought in 
the Basin has reduced Colorado River system storage, while demands for 
Colorado River water supplies have continued to increase. From October 
1, 1999 through September 30, 2007, storage in Colorado River 
reservoirs fell from 55.8 maf (approximately 94 percent of capacity) to 
32.1 maf (approximately 54 percent of capacity), and was as low as 29.7 
maf (approximately 52 percent of capacity) in 2004. This drought was 
the first sustained drought experienced in the Basin at a time when all 
major storage facilities were in place, and when use by the Lower 
Division states met or exceeded the annual ``normal'' apportionment of 
7.5 maf pursuant to Article II(B)(1) of the Consolidated Decree.
    Currently, the Department does not have specific operational 
guidelines in place to address the operations of Lake Powell and Lake 
Mead during drought and low reservoir conditions. To date, storage of 
water and flows in the Colorado River have been sufficient so that it 
has not been necessary to reduce Lake Mead annual releases below 7.5 
maf; that is, the Secretary has never reduced deliveries by declaring a 
``shortage'' on the lower Colorado River. Without operational 
guidelines in place, however, water users in the Lower Division states 
who rely on Colorado River water are not currently able to identify 
particular reservoir conditions under which the Secretary would reduce 
the annual amount of water available for consumptive use from Lake Mead 
to the Lower Division states below 7.5 maf. Nor are these water users 
able to identify the frequency or magnitude of any potential future 
annual reductions in their water deliveries.
    Accordingly, the Secretary, acting through Reclamation, proposes 
adoption of specific Colorado River Lower Basin shortage guidelines and 
coordinated reservoir management strategies to address operations of 
Lake Powell and Lake Mead, particularly under drought and low reservoir 
conditions. These Guidelines are found at Section XI of this ROD. This 
action is proposed in order to provide a greater degree of certainty to 
United States Colorado River water users and managers of the Basin by 
providing detailed, and objective guidelines for the operations of Lake 
Powell and Lake Mead, thereby allowing water users in the Lower Basin 
to know when, and by how much, water deliveries will be reduced in 
drought and other low reservoir conditions.
    The Secretary has also determined the desirability of developing 
additional operational guidelines that will provide for releases 
greater than or less than 8.23 maf from Lake Powell. To further enhance 
this coordinated reservoir approach, the Secretary has determined a 
need for guidelines that provide water users in the Lower Division 
states the opportunity to conserve and take delivery of water in and 
from Lake Mead for the purposes of enhancing existing water supplies, 
particularly under low reservoir conditions. In addition, the Secretary 
has determined the need to modify and extend the ISG to coincide with 
the duration of the proposed new Guidelines. This will provide an 
integrated approach for reservoir management and more

[[Page 19876]]

predictability for future Lower Division water supplies.

IV. Alternatives Considered

    The purpose of the proposed federal action is to:
     Improve Reclamation's management of the Colorado River by 
considering trade-offs between the frequency and magnitude of 
reductions of water deliveries, and considering the effects on water 
storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead, and on water supply, power 
production, recreation, and other environmental resources;
     Provide mainstream United States users of Colorado River 
water, particularly those in the Lower Division states, a greater 
degree of predictability with respect to the amount of annual water 
deliveries in future years, particularly under drought and low 
reservoir conditions; and
     Provide additional mechanisms for the storage and delivery 
of water supplies in Lake Mead to increase the flexibility of meeting 
water use needs from Lake Mead, particularly under drought and low 
reservoir conditions.
    This proposed federal action considers four operational elements 
that collectively are designed to address the purpose and need for the 
proposed federal action. The interim Guidelines would be used by the 
Secretary to:
     Determine those circumstances under which the Secretary 
would reduce the annual amount of water available for consumptive use 
from Lake Mead to the Colorado River Lower Division states below 7.5 
maf (a ``Shortage'') pursuant to Article II(B)(3) of the Consolidated 
Decree;
     Define the coordinated operation of Lake Powell and Lake 
Mead to provide improved operation of these two reservoirs, 
particularly under low reservoir conditions;
     Allow for the storage and delivery, pursuant to applicable 
federal law, of conserved Colorado River system and non-system water in 
Lake Mead to increase the flexibility of meeting water use needs from 
Lake Mead, particularly under drought and low reservoir conditions; and
     Determine those conditions under which the Secretary may 
declare the availability of surplus water for use within the Lower 
Division states. The proposed federal action would modify the substance 
of the existing ISG and the term of the ISG from 2016 through 2026.
    Six alternatives are considered and analyzed in the Final EIS. The 
alternatives consist of a No Action Alternative and five action 
alternatives. The five action alternatives are: Basin States 
Alternative, Conservation Before Shortage Alternative, Water Supply 
Alternative, Reservoir Storage Alternative, and the Preferred 
Alternative. The action alternatives reflect input from Reclamation 
staff, the cooperating agencies, stakeholders, and other interested 
parties.
    Reclamation received two written proposals for alternatives that 
met the purpose and need of the proposed federal action, one from the 
Basin States and another from a consortium of environmental non-
governmental organizations (NGO). These proposals were used by 
Reclamation to formulate two of the alternatives considered and 
analyzed in the Final EIS (Basin States Alternative and Conservation 
Before Shortage Alternative). A third alternative (Water Supply 
Alternative) was developed by Reclamation, and a fourth alternative 
(Reservoir Storage Alternative) was developed by Reclamation in 
coordination with the NPS and Western. The No Action Alternative and 
the action alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS were posted on 
Reclamation's project Web site (https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/
strategies.html) on June 30, 2006.
    A fifth alternative, the Preferred Alternative, was developed (and 
included in the Final EIS) after consideration of the comments received 
on the Draft EIS and further analysis. The Preferred Alternative was 
posted on Reclamation's project Web site on June 15, 2007 and is 
composed of operational elements from the action alternatives 
identified and analyzed in the Draft EIS.
    The Preferred Alternative is the most reasonable and feasible 
alternative; all environmental effects of this alternative, as well as 
the No Action Alternative and the remaining four action alternatives 
have been fully analyzed in the Final EIS. The identified environmental 
effects of the Preferred Alternative are well within the range of 
anticipated effects of the alternatives presented in the Draft EIS and 
do not affect the environment in a manner not already considered in the 
Draft EIS.
    Reclamation identified the Preferred Alternative and the 
Conservation Before Shortage Alternative as the environmentally 
preferred alternatives, as provided in 50 CFR 1505.2. The combination 
of the ICS mechanism and the coordinated operations between Lake Powell 
and Lake Mead maintains and enhances water supply and environmental 
benefits at both reservoirs. In addition, these alternatives strike an 
appropriate balance between the storage of water for future deliveries 
and the lack of disruption of near-term water deliveries.
    Reclamation selected from among the four key operational elements 
disclosed in the Draft EIS to formulate the Preferred Alternative. 
Reclamation has determined that the four operational elements selected 
under this alternative best meet all aspects of the purpose and need of 
the proposed federal action.

A. No Action Alternative

    The No Action Alternative represents a projection of future 
conditions that could occur during the life of the proposed federal 
action without an action alternative being implemented. It provides a 
baseline for comparison of each of the action alternatives.
    Pursuant to LROC, the Secretary makes a number of determinations at 
the beginning of each operating year through the development and 
execution of the AOP, including the water supply available to users in 
the Lower Basin and the annual release from Lake Powell. However, the 
LROC currently does not include specific guidelines for such 
determinations. Furthermore, there is no actual operating experience 
under low reservoir conditions, i.e., there has never been a shortage 
determination in the Lower Basin. Therefore, in the absence of specific 
guidelines, the outcome of the annual determination in any particular 
year in the future cannot be precisely known. However, a reasonable 
representation of future conditions under the No Action Alternative is 
needed for comparison to each action alternative. The modeling 
assumptions used for this representation are consistent with the 
assumptions used in previous environmental compliance documents for the 
ISG, the Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement, and the Lower 
Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (LCR MSCP). However, 
the assumptions used in the No Action Alternative are not intended to 
limit or predetermine these decisions in any future AOP determination.

B. Basin States Alternative

    The Basin States Alternative was developed by the Basin States and 
proposes a coordinated operation of Lake Powell and Lake Mead that 
would minimize shortages in the Lower Basin and avoid risk of 
curtailments of Colorado River water use in the Upper Basin. This 
alternative includes shortages to conserve reservoir storage; 
coordinated operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead determined by 
specified reservoir conditions; a mechanism for the creation, 
accounting, and delivery of conserved system and non-system water 
(ICS); and a modification and extension of the ISG through 2026.

[[Page 19877]]

C. Conservation Before Shortage Alternative

    The Conservation Before Shortage Alternative was developed by a 
consortium of environmental NGOs, and includes voluntary, compensated 
reductions (shortages) in water use to minimize involuntary shortages 
in the Lower Basin and to avoid risk of curtailments of Colorado River 
water use in the Upper Basin. This alternative includes voluntary 
shortages prior to involuntary shortages; coordinated operations of 
Lake Powell and Lake Mead determined by specified reservoir conditions; 
an expanded ICS mechanism for the creation, accounting, and delivery of 
conserved system and non-system water, including water for 
environmental uses; and modification and extension of the ISG through 
2026. There are two aspects of the Conservation Before Shortage 
proposal that are unique to the Conservation Before Shortage 
Alternative: A funding mechanism for the voluntary conservation 
program, and a recommendation that a portion of the conserved water be 
used to benefit the environment. However, as noted in the Final EIS, 
the viability of the Conservation Before Shortage program funding 
proposal is not known at this time. The Department currently does not 
have the authority to implement all facets of this proposal and 
additional legislation would be necessary to gain such authority.

D. Water Supply Alternative

    The Water Supply Alternative maximizes water deliveries at the 
expense of retaining water in storage in the reservoirs for future use. 
This alternative would reduce water deliveries only when insufficient 
water to meet entitlements is available in Lake Mead. When reservoir 
elevations are relatively low, Lake Powell and Lake Mead would share 
water (``balance contents''). This alternative does not include a 
mechanism for the creation, accounting, and delivery of conserved 
system and non-system water in Lake Mead. The existing ISG would be 
extended through 2026.

E. Reservoir Storage Alternative

    The Reservoir Storage Alternative was developed in coordination 
with the cooperating agencies and other stakeholders, primarily Western 
and the NPS. This alternative would keep more water in storage in Lake 
Powell and Lake Mead by reducing water deliveries and by increasing 
shortages to retain more water in storage and thereby, benefit power 
and recreational interests. This alternative includes larger, more 
frequent shortages that serve to conserve reservoir storage; 
coordinated operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead determined by 
specified reservoir conditions (more water would be held in Lake Powell 
than under the Basin States Alternative); and an expanded mechanism for 
the creation, accounting, and delivery of conserved system and non-
system water in Lake Mead. The existing ISG would be terminated after 
2007.

F. Preferred Alternative

    The Preferred Alternative incorporates operational elements 
identified in the Basin States and Conservation Before Shortage 
alternatives. This alternative includes shortages to conserve reservoir 
storage and a coordinated operation of Lake Powell and Lake Mead 
determined by specified reservoir conditions that would minimize 
shortages in the Lower Basin and avoid risk of curtailments of use in 
the Upper Basin; and also adopts the ICS mechanism for promoting water 
conservation in the Lower Basin. It is anticipated that the maximum 
cumulative amount of ICS would be 2.1 maf pursuant to Section XI.D. of 
this ROD; however, the potential effects of a maximum cumulative amount 
of ICS of up to 4.2 maf have been analyzed in the Final EIS. This 
alternative also includes modification and extension of the ISG through 
2026.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ It is anticipated that elements of the decision adopted by 
this ROD will be implemented through a number of agreements. The 
following agreements are anticipated to be executed at or about the 
time of issuance of this ROD:
     Delivery Agreement between the United States and 
Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
     Delivery Agreement between the United States and The 
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD)
     Delivery Agreement between the United States, Southern 
Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) and the Colorado River Commission of 
Nevada (CRCN)
     Funding and Construction of the Lower Colorado River 
Drop 2 Storage Reservoir Project Agreement among the United States, 
SNWA, and CRCN
     Lower Colorado River Basin Intentionally Created 
Surplus Forbearance Agreement among the Arizona Department of Water 
Resources, the Southern Nevada Water Authority, CRCN, the Palo Verde 
Irrigation District (PVID), IID, Coachella Valley Water District 
(CVWD), MWD, and the City of Needles
     California Agreement for the Creation and Delivery of 
Extraordinary Conservation Intentionally Created Surplus among the 
PVID, IID, CVWD, MWD and the City of Needles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Basis for Decision

    In 2005, tensions among the Basin States brought the basin closer 
to multi-state and inter-basin litigation than perhaps any time since 
the adoption of the Compact. On May 2, 2005, in a decision of the 
Secretary, the Department outlined a number of fundamental 
considerations that would guide the NEPA process that concludes with 
the adoption of this ROD. These considerations include:
     Concern regarding the impacts of drought throughout the 
Colorado River Basin;
     A recognition of the recent history of close and 
productive working relationships among the Basin States;
     A belief that discussions among the states could 
facilitate the development of additional tools to improve coordinated 
operation of Colorado River reservoirs;
     A preference that operational strategies not be developed 
in the AOP setting, which is used by the Department to annually 
implement operational strategies that are developed through separate, 
public processes;
     An intention to develop operational tools that would avoid 
unnecessary, protracted or destabilizing litigation; and
     A commitment to continue to consult with and work with all 
stakeholders in the Basin.
    In light of the severity of the drought, the Department announced 
its intention to complete the development of drought and low-reservoir 
operational tools by December 2007, and to do so through an open, 
public process. In closing, the Secretary expressed the opinion that 
``all parties must work together to find creative solutions that will 
conserve reservoir storage and help to minimize the adverse effects of 
drought in the Colorado River Basin.''
    The fundamental basis for this decision is that each of the above 
foundational considerations have been honored and achieved through the 
development of a consensus seven-state recommendation that has been 
incorporated, as appropriate, into the Preferred Alternative adopted 
herein today.
    The Department selected the Preferred Alternative based on the 
Department's determination that it best meets all aspects of the 
purpose and need for the federal action, including: The need to remain 
in place for the extended period of the interim Guidelines; the 
desirability of the alternative based on the facilitated consensus 
recommendation from the Basin States; the likely durability of the 
mechanisms adopted in the Preferred Alternative in light of the 
extraordinary efforts that the Basin States and water users have 
undertaken to develop implementing agreements that will facilitate the 
water management tools (shortage sharing, forbearance, and conservation 
efforts)

[[Page 19878]]

identified in the Preferred Alternative; and the range of elements in 
the alternative that will enhance the Secretary's ability to manage the 
Colorado River reservoirs in a manner that recognizes the inherent 
tradeoffs between water delivery and water storage.
    Importantly for the long-term stable management of the Colorado 
River, adoption of this decision activates a legal agreement among the 
Basin States that contains a critically important provision: The Basin 
States have agreed to mandatory consultation provisions to address 
future controversies on the Colorado River through consultation and 
negotiation, as a requirement, before resorting to litigation. With 
respect to the various interests, positions and views of each of the 
seven Basin States, this provision adds an important new element to the 
modern evolution of the legal framework for the prudent management of 
the Colorado River.
    In recent years, in a number of settings, and facing a broad range 
of water management challenges, the Department has highlighted the 
important role of the Basin States in the statutory framework for 
administration of Basin entitlements and the significance that a seven-
state consensus represents. Multi-state consensus is a rare and unique 
achievement that should continue to be recognized and facilitated.
    With respect to the information within the scope of the proposed 
action, Reclamation concluded that the Preferred Alternative is a 
reasonable alternative and fully analyzed the environmental effects of 
this alternative in the Final EIS. The identified environmental effects 
of the Preferred Alternative are well within the range of anticipated 
effects of the alternatives presented in the Draft EIS and do not 
affect the environment in a manner not already considered in the Draft 
EIS. Thus, based on all available information, this alternative is the 
most reasonable, feasible, implementable, and durable alternative.
    Drought is not limited to the Southwest, nor are interstate 
tensions over water management. As a final basis for this decision, the 
Department believes that a model for interstate cooperation can be 
found in the elements of the Preferred Alternative adopted today.

VI. Public Response to the Final Environmental Impact Statement

    Following the Federal Register Notice of Availability of the Final 
EIS on November 2, 2007, and as of 8 p.m. (EST), Tuesday, December 11, 
2007, Reclamation received six comment letters on the Final EIS and the 
updated draft Interim Operational Guidelines for Lake Powell and Lake 
Mead posted November 16, 2007 on Reclamation's project Web site. After 
appropriate consideration, the Department concludes that the comments 
received do not identify or raise any significant issues that would 
require supplementing the Final EIS. The major issues noted in the 
comment letters are summarized below:
    The Basin States submitted a letter expressing their appreciation 
to Reclamation and Department staff for their diligence in working with 
the Basin States and others in developing the draft Guidelines for Lake 
Powell and Lake Mead; and they further stated that the adoption of the 
Guidelines ``represent a significant and historic milestone, reflecting 
the continuation of the consultative approach to river management 
between the federal government and affected states on the Colorado 
River.''
    The San Diego County Water Authority submitted a comment letter 
fully supporting the statements in the Basin States' letter to the 
Secretary on the Final EIS. The Authority also noted their concern that 
the proposed implementation of Guidelines, specifically ICS, should not 
inadvertently conflict with the implementation of certain terms of 
October 10, 2003 Allocation Agreement. The Department agrees that the 
creation, release, or delivery of ICS or the declaration of an ICS 
Surplus Condition in a calendar year shall not constitute a 
determination by the Secretary of the existence of surplus Colorado 
River water in that calendar year for the purposes of Section 9.2.2 of 
the Allocation Agreement Among the United States of America, The 
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Coachella Valley 
Water District, Imperial Irrigation District, San Diego County Water 
Authority, the La Jolla, Pala, Pauma, Rincon and San Pasqual Bands of 
Mission Indians, the San Luis Rey River Indian Water Authority, the 
City of Escondido and Vista Irrigation District, dated October 10, 
2003. This understanding has also been expressly stated in the proposed 
Delivery Agreements for IID and MWD (Section V of this ROD).
    The EPA submitted a comment letter noting it had no objections to 
the proposed project and some of the details of the Final EIS pertinent 
to their views. Further, EPA encouraged Reclamation to ``play an active 
role in facilitating comprehensive water management among all water 
sectors in the Basin.'' Reclamation intends to continue to pursue its 
mission in the 17 western states, and in particular on the Colorado 
River, to assist in meeting the increasing water demands of the West 
while protecting the environment and the public's investment in these 
structures. Reclamation places great emphasis on fulfilling its water 
delivery obligations, water conservation, water recycling and reuse, 
and developing partnerships with our customers, states, and Native 
American Tribes, and in finding ways to bring together the variety of 
interests to address the competing needs for our limited water 
resources.
    The Colorado River Board of California submitted comments on behalf 
of its member agencies on the updated draft Guidelines. The majority of 
the comments were editorial and to the extent the individual comments 
improved the clarity of the Guidelines they were incorporated into the 
Guidelines found in Section XI of this ROD.
    A comment letter dated November 12, 2007, was received from a 
single member of the public and noted his concern that the terms of the 
Biological Opinion (BO) should be met and that impacts due to climate 
change on ``listed fish and birds'' are addressed. FWS issued the BO on 
the Preferred Alternative described in this ROD on December 12, 2007. 
Reclamation has agreed to implement Conservation measures to benefit 
the listed species addressed in the BO and comply with the terms and 
conditions of the incidental take statement in the BO. Acknowledging 
the potential for impacts due to climate change and increased 
hydrologic variability, the Secretary proposes that the Guidelines be 
interim in duration and extend through 2026, providing the opportunity 
to gain valuable operating experience for the management of Lake Powell 
and Lake Mead, particularly for low reservoir conditions, and improve 
the basis for making additional future operational decisions, whether 
during the Interim Period (Section 8 of the Guidelines) or thereafter. 
In addition, the Preferred Alternative has been crafted to include 
operational elements that would respond if potential impacts of climate 
change and increased hydrologic variability are realized. In 
particular, the Preferred Alternative includes a coordinated operation 
element that allows for the adjustment of Lake Powell's release to 
respond to low reservoir storage conditions in Lake Powell or Lake Mead 
as described in Section 2.7 and Section 2.3 in the Final EIS. In 
addition, the Preferred

[[Page 19879]]

Alternative will enhance conservation opportunities in the Lower Basin 
and the retention of water in Lake Mead through adoption of the ICS 
mechanism. Finally, the Preferred Alternative includes a shortage 
strategy at Lake Mead that would result in additional shortages being 
considered, after appropriate consultation, if Lake Mead elevations 
drop below 1,025 feet mean sea level (msl).
    The Defenders of Wildlife submitted a comment letter dated December 
11, 2007, on behalf of their organization, the National Wildlife 
Federation, the Pacific Institute, and the Sierra Club regarding the 
updated draft Guidelines. The comments are limited to information that 
was published in Appendix S of the Final EIS dated November 2, 2007. 
The letter offers a number of clarifying comments, raises concerns 
regarding the appropriate mechanisms for consultation between federal 
and non-federal parties, and raises detailed comments regarding the 
implementation of the ICS and Developed Shortage Supply (DSS) 
components of the Guidelines. Reclamation thoroughly reviewed the 
comments submitted and concluded that no changes to the Guidelines were 
necessary. With respect to the issues regarding consultation, 
Reclamation will continue to meet all legal obligations for appropriate 
consultation with non-federal parties and believes that the commitments 
for continued consultation with the Basin States can be implemented in 
a manner consistent with the provisions of applicable federal law. 
Moreover, Reclamation believes that some of the concerns identified in 
this comment letter have been addressed by Section 7.D of the updated 
draft Guidelines posted on December 10, 2007, which provides that the 
Lower Colorado Regional Director will establish procedures for the 
implementation of ICS and DSS after issuance of this ROD. Reclamation 
will continue to work closely with all stakeholders in the development 
of ICS and DSS procedures and in the implementation and administration 
of the Guidelines.

VII. Refinement of Operational Guidelines for the Preferred Alternative 
in Response to Public Comments

    Hydrologic modeling of the Colorado River system was used to 
determine the potential hydrologic effects of each of the alternatives 
and also provided the basis for analyzing the potential effects on 
other environmental resources (such as recreation, biology, and energy, 
etc.). Nearly all modeling assumptions were common to each alternative; 
only the assumptions specific to each alternative were different. This 
approach allowed a relative comparison of the potential effects of each 
alternative compared to the No Action Alternative and lead to the 
identification of the Preferred Alternative.
    Historically, the determination of the annual release volume for 
Lake Powell could change on a monthly basis throughout the water year. 
This approach afforded great flexibility to respond to changing monthly 
runoff forecasts yet was practical to implement since there were 
effectively only two operational tiers (a minimum objective release of 
8.23 maf per year or releases greater due to equalization or spill 
avoidance). The annual release volume for Lake Mead, however, was 
essentially determined on an annual basis primarily to provide a 
greater degree of certainty to water users with respect to the water 
supply in the Lower Basin. The modeled operation of Lake Powell and 
Lake Mead for all alternatives in the Final EIS was consistent with 
this past operational experience and provided a valid basis for 
comparison.
    However, given the more complicated proposed operation for Lake 
Powell under all of the action alternatives, Reclamation conducted 
additional investigations and subsequently refined the operational 
guidelines to include a combined monthly/annual methodology to 
determine the annual release volume for Lake Powell. This methodology 
consists of a January 1 determination of the release volume with 
appropriate April adjustments to those volumes, and providing the 
necessary flexibility to respond to changing inflow forecasts while 
ensuring that the operation does not result in excessive changes in 
monthly releases from Lake Powell.
    In addition, comments were also received in both written and oral 
form from representatives of the Basin States with respect to the 
modeling assumptions used for the Basin States Alternative and the 
Preferred Alternative, reflected in Appendix S of the Final EIS. 
Specifically, the comments were in regard to the coordinated operation 
of Lake Powell and Lake Mead when Lake Powell is relatively high and 
operating near or in the equalization tier. A concern was identified 
where the proposed operation might not respond effectively when Lake 
Powell is relatively high, Lake Mead is relatively low, and a 
reasonably high inflow forecast occurs. Reclamation conducted 
additional investigations to identify approaches to ensure some 
additional water is released from Lake Powell when this situation 
arises.
    Reclamation refined the proposed operational guidelines to 
incorporate these changes (contained in Section 6, 7, and 8 of the 
Guidelines) and published those refinements on the project Web site on 
November 16, 2007. An evaluation concluded that these refinements to 
the proposed Guidelines would not result in substantial changes with 
regard to the environmental effects and fall within the impacts already 
analyzed in the Final EIS.

VIII. Environmental Impacts and Implementation of Environmental 
Commitments

    Hydrologic modeling of the Colorado River system was conducted to 
determine the potential hydrologic effects of the alternatives. 
Modeling provided projections of potential future Colorado River system 
conditions (i.e., reservoir elevations, reservoir releases, river 
flows) for comparison of those conditions under the No Action 
Alternative to conditions under each action alternative. Due to the 
uncertainty with regard to future inflows into the system, multiple 
simulations were performed in order to quantify the uncertainties of 
future conditions and as such, the modeling results are typically 
expressed in probabilistic terms.
    Hydrologic modeling also provided the basis for the analysis of the 
potential effects of each alternative on other environmental resources. 
The Final EIS evaluated 14 resource areas: Hydrologic resources 
(including reservoir storage and releases, groundwater, and water 
deliveries), water quality, air quality, visual resources, biological 
resources (including vegetation and wildlife and special status 
species), cultural resources, Indian trust assets, electrical power 
resources, recreation (including shoreline facilities, boating and 
navigation, and sport fish populations), transportation, socioeconomics 
(including employment, income and tax revenue, municipal and industrial 
water users, and recreation economics), environmental justice, indirect 
effects of the ICS mechanism, and climate change considerations. The 
potential effects to specific resources were identified and analyzed 
for each action alternative and compared to the potential effects to 
that resource under the No Action Alternative. These comparisons are 
typically expressed in terms of the relative differences in 
probabilities between the No Action Alternative and the action 
alternatives.
    Based on the analyses in the EIS, Reclamation determined that 
specific measures to avoid or mitigate environmental harm were not 
required,

[[Page 19880]]

with the exception of conservation measures for listed species as noted 
below. For other resource areas, the impacts of the Preferred 
Alternative were well within the range of the alternatives considered, 
and generally improved conditions compared to the No Action 
Alternative. For a few resource areas, the Preferred Alternative 
resulted in minor negative impacts compared to the No Action 
Alternative, and measures to avoid such impacts were determined to be 
unnecessary or not feasible.

A. Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Plan

    It is important to note that Reclamation is already undertaking 
significant environmental mitigation measures on the Colorado River, 
including the LCR MSCP from Lake Mead to the Southerly International 
Boundary (SIB) with Mexico, and implementation of activities pursuant 
to the 1996 Glen Canyon Dam ROD for the reach of the Colorado River 
from Glen Canyon Dam to Lake Mead.
    The LCR MSCP is a 50-year cooperative effort between federal and 
non-federal entities, approved by the Secretary in April 2005. This 
program was developed to address potential effects to listed and other 
selected special status species (covered species) from identified 
ongoing and future anticipated federal discretionary actions and non-
federal activities on the lower Colorado River (covered actions). The 
development and implementation of shortage criteria on the lower 
Colorado River was one of the federal covered actions (MSCP Biological 
Assessment Section 2.2.2.1) included in the LCR MSCP and covered under 
the LCR MSCP BO (FWS 2005). The LCR MSCP BO provides Endangered Species 
Act (ESA) compliance for the effects of covered actions for a reduction 
of Lake Mead reservoir elevations to 950 feet msl and flow reductions 
of up to 0.845 maf from Hoover Dam to Davis Dam, 0.860 maf from Davis 
Dam to Parker Dam, and 1.574 maf from Parker Dam to Imperial Dam. The 
LCR MSCP identified, and it is mitigating for, impacts to the covered 
species and their habitats from the flow reduction conditions described 
above. These impacts included the potential loss of up to:
     2,008 acres of cottonwood-willow habitats;
    133 acres of marsh habitat; and
     399 acres of backwater habitat.
    To address these impacts, the LCR MSCP will:
     Restore 5,940 acres of cottonwood-willow habitat;
     Restore 512 acres of marsh habitat;
     Restore 360 acres of backwater habitat;
     Stock 660,000 razorback sucker over the term of the LCR 
MSCP; and
     Stock 620,000 bonytail over the term of the LCR MSCP.
    In addition, these habitats will be actively managed to provide 
habitat values greater than those of the impacted habitats. While the 
LCR MSCP is geared toward special status species, it is important to 
understand that all species that use the habitats impacted by the LCR 
MSCP covered activities benefit by the conservation actions currently 
being carried out under the LCR MSCP.
    Reclamation has reviewed the effects of the Preferred Alternative 
in this Final EIS and has determined that all potential effects to 
listed species and their habitats along the Colorado River from the 
full pool elevation of Lake Mead to the SIB are covered by the LCR 
MSCP. FWS has concurred with Reclamation's determination in a letter 
dated November 28, 2007.

B. Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

    The 1996 Glen Canyon Dam ROD describes detailed criteria and 
operating plans for Glen Canyon Dam operations and includes other 
management actions to accomplish this objective; among these are the 
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (AMP). The AMP provides a 
process for assessing the effects of Glen Canyon Dam operations on 
downstream resources and project benefits. The results of that 
assessment are used to develop recommendations for modifying Glen 
Canyon Dam operations 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 
include federal and state agencies, representatives of the Basin 
States, Indian tribes, hydroelectric power customers, environmental and 
conservation organizations, and recreational and other interest groups.

C. Endangered Species Act Compliance

    In compliance with the ESA, Reclamation submitted a Biological 
Assessment (BA) to FWS on September 10, 2007 and requested formal 
consultation on the Preferred Alternative. Reclamation divided the 
analysis of potential effects on listed species into three geographic 
areas: Lake Powell to the upper end of Lake Mead, Lake Mead to the SIB 
with Mexico, and potential interdependent/interrelated effects on the 
Virgin and Muddy Rivers in southern Nevada. Reclamation determined the 
effects of the Preferred Alternative within the geographic area of the 
MSCP (Lake Mead to SIB with Mexico) were covered by the earlier 
consultation on LCR MSCP, and requested FWS' concurrence on this 
determination by memo dated October 26, 2007. FWS concurred with this 
determination by memo dated November 28, 2007. For the remainder of the 
action area, Reclamation determined the Preferred Alternative may 
affect, and is likely to adversely affect the southwestern willow 
flycatcher, humpback chub, and Kanab ambersnail, and that the Preferred 
Alternative may affect, but would not be likely to adversely affect 
seven other species.
    FWS issued its BO for the Preferred Alternative by memo dated 
December 12, 2007. The BO concurred with Reclamation's ``not likely to 
adversely affect'' findings for the seven species addressed in the BA, 
and found that the adverse effects to southwestern willow flycatcher, 
humpback chub, and Kanab ambersnail would not jeopardize the continued 
existence of those species. Reclamation has included the following 
conservation measures for listed species in the action area as part of 
its proposed action:
     Nonnative Fish Control--In coordination with other 
Department of the Interior AMP participants and through the AMP, 
Reclamation will continue efforts to control both cold- and warm-water 
nonnative fish species in the mainstem of Marble and Grand canyons, 
including determining and implementing levels of nonnative fish control 
as necessary. Control of these species using mechanical removal and 
other methods will help to reduce this threat.
     Humpback Chub Refuge--Reclamation will assist FWS in 
development and funding of a broodstock management plan and creation 
and maintenance of a humpback chub refuge population at a federal 
hatchery or other appropriate facility by providing expedited 
advancement of $200,000 in funding to the FWS during calendar year 
2008; this amount shall be funded from, and within, the amount 
identified in the 2005 LCR MSCP BO. Creation of a humpback chub refuge 
will reduce or eliminate the potential for a catastrophic loss of the 
Grand Canyon population of humpback chub by providing a permanent 
source of genetically representative stock for repatriating the 
species.

[[Page 19881]]

     Genetic Biocontrol Symposium--Reclamation will transfer up 
to $20,000 in fiscal year 2008 to FWS to help fund an international 
symposium on the use and development of genetic biocontrol of nonnative 
invasive aquatic species which is tentatively scheduled for January 
2009. Although only in its infancy, genetic biocontrol of nonnative 
species is attracting worldwide attention as a potential method of 
controlling aquatic invasive species. Helping fund an effort to bring 
researchers together will further awareness of this potential method of 
control and help mobilize efforts for its research and development.
     Sediment Research--In coordination with other Department 
of the Interior AMP participants and through the AMP, Reclamation will 
monitor the effect of sediment transport on humpback chub habitat and 
will work with the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center to 
develop and implement a scientific monitoring plan acceptable to FWS. 
Although the effects of dam operation-related changes in sediment 
transport on humpback chub habitat are not well understood, humpback 
chub are known to utilize backwaters and other habitat features that 
require fine sediment for their formation and maintenance. Additional 
research will help clarify this relationship.
     Parasite Monitoring--In coordination with other Department 
of the Interior AMP participants and through the AMP, Reclamation will 
continue to support research on the effects of Asian tapeworm on 
humpback chub and potential methods to control this parasite. 
Continuing research will help better understand the degree of this 
threat and the potential for management actions to minimize it.
     Monitoring and Research--Through the AMP, Reclamation will 
continue to monitor Kanab ambersnail and its habitat in Grand Canyon 
and the effect of dam releases on the species, and Reclamation will 
also continue to assist FWS in funding morphometric and genetic 
research to better determine the taxonomic status of the subspecies.
     Kanab Ambersnail Monitoring and Research--Through the AMP, 
Reclamation will continue to monitor Kanab ambersnail and its habitat 
in Grand Canyon and the effect of dam releases on the species, and 
Reclamation will also continue to assist FWS in funding morphometric 
and genetic research to better determine the taxonomic status of the 
subspecies.
     Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Monitoring and Research--
Through the AMP, Reclamation will continue to monitor southwestern 
willow flycatcher and its habitat and the effect of dam releases on the 
species throughout Grand Canyon and report findings to FWS, and will 
work with NPS and other AMP participants to identify actions to 
conserve the flycatcher.

IX. Implementing the Decision

A. Setting

    Against the backdrop of prolonged drought, in 2005, with reservoir 
elevations dropping rapidly, the Department was faced with the 
challenge of making operational decisions regarding modified operations 
of Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam. One of the challenges that the 
Department faced was that there were not detailed, objective guidelines 
to determine how the operation of the two reservoirs would be modified 
in drought and other low-reservoir conditions.
    After receiving conflicting recommendations from representatives of 
the four Upper Division and the three Lower Division states, the 
Secretary issued a decision on May 2, 2005, charging Reclamation with 
the development of operational tools that can continue to assure 
productive use of the Colorado River into the future, while avoiding 
unnecessary, protracted or destabilizing litigation.
    More than two years later, the drought conditions have continued 
and the need for detailed operational guidelines is even more necessary 
today as compared with mid-2005. Reclamation has conducted an extensive 
public process, seeking input from state, tribal and local governments, 
along with input from members of environmental organizations and 
members of the general public. These Guidelines represent the 
Department's determination as to the most appropriate set of guidelines 
to adopt at this stage of the ongoing drought.

B. Scope of Guidelines

    These Guidelines are intended to be applied each year during the 
Interim Period with respect to the operation and management of the 
waters of the Colorado River stored in Lake Powell and Lake Mead. The 
relevant sections of these Guidelines address the following:
     Determine those circumstances under which the Secretary 
would reduce the annual amount of water available for consumptive use 
from Lake Mead to the Colorado River Lower Division states below 7.5 
maf (a ''Shortage'') pursuant to Article II(B)(3) of the Consolidated 
Decree;
     Define the coordinated operation of Lake Powell and Lake 
Mead to provide improved operation of these two reservoirs, 
particularly under low reservoir conditions;
     Allow for the storage and delivery, pursuant to applicable 
federal law, of conserved Colorado River system and non-system water in 
Lake Mead to increase the flexibility of meeting water use needs from 
Lake Mead, particularly under drought and low reservoir conditions; 
and,
     Determine those conditions under which the Secretary may 
declare the availability of surplus water for use within the Lower 
Division states. The proposed federal action would modify the substance 
of the existing ISG and would change the term of the ISG from 2016 
through 2026.

X. Operational Setting

A. Criteria for the Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado River 
Reservoirs

    Section 602 of the CRBPA required the Secretary to propose and 
adopt criteria for the coordinated long-range operation of the 
reservoirs constructed and operated under the authority of the Colorado 
River Storage Project Act of 1956, the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 
1928 (BCPA), and the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act. The 
Secretary adopted such ``Long-Range Operating Criteria'' (LROC) in 1970 
and has been operating the Colorado River consistent with the LROC 
since 1970. In 2005, the Secretary approved minor changes to the text 
of the LROC. (70 FR 15873, Mar. 29, 2005). The Secretary identified the 
bases for the limited changes as: (1) Specific change in federal law 
applicable to the Op