Needles City Council
February 13, 2024

(ACT) ACTION NEEDED
(INF) INFORMATION ONLY
(DIS) DISCRETIONARY
AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL

NEEDLES PUBLIC UTILITY AUTHORITY

CITY OF NEEDLES, CALIFORNIA

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1111 BAILEY AVENUE, NEEDLES
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2024
COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION – 5:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 6:00 PM

THE PUBLIC MAY ATTEND VIA TEAMS AND MAY SUBMIT ANY COMMENTS IN WRITING PRIOR TO NOON ON THE DAY OF THE MEETING BY EMAILING [email protected] TO JOIN THE LIVE TEAMS MEETING: log into the City of Needles website at www.cityofneedles.com to access the agenda and Click here to join the meeting If asked, enter the following: Meeting ID: 326 395 290# OR listen in and participate by calling Teams: 1-323-488-2227 - Meeting ID: 326 395 290# The meetings are being recorded.

Council Member Campbell will be participating via Teams from 526 Desnok, Needles, CA 92363 Council Member Pogue will be participating via Teams from Hilton Homewood Suites, 5049 Corporate Woods Drive, Pensacola, FL 32504

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

RECESS THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND CONVENE A JOINT COUNCIL / NPUA MEETING

PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS A three-minute time limit per person has been established.

RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION

EXECUTIVE SESSION
a. Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. b. Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): City of Needles v. Minasian, et. al., SB County Case Number CIVSB2328931
c. Conference with legal counsel regarding potential initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) (one potential case adverse to Otana Planet Green “OPG”)
d. NPUA/Council: Conference with legal counsel – anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d) 2, 3 and/or 4 (regarding potential litigation with Medical Investor Holdings LLC, NCA Management, 3247 AM LLC and 2103 D, LLC related to Cannabis taxes).

EXECUTIVE SESSION REPORT - by City Attorney

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

INVOCATION

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

CORRESPONDENCE

INTRODUCTIONS
CITY ATTORNEY – Parliamentary Procedures
As a courtesy to those in attendance, we would ask that cell phones be turned off or set in their silent mode. Thank you
PUBLIC APPEARANCE - Persons wishing to address the NPUA / City Council on subjects other than those scheduled are requested to do so at this time. When called by the Mayor, please announce your name and address for the record. In order to conduct a timely meeting, a three-minute time limit per person has been established by Municipal Code Section 2-18. Amendments to the California Government Code Section 54950 prohibits the City Council from taking action on a specific item until it appears on the agenda.

PRESENTATION
(A ten-minute time limit per presentation has been established per Municipal Code Section 2-18.)

1. Update on the Chamber of Commerce / Visitor Center (INF)

PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE NPUA/COUNCIL ITEMS
A three-minute time limit per person has been established.

NPUA / COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed. The Mayor or any member of the NPUA / City Council may pull an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Prior to NPUA / Council action, a member of the public may address the NPUA / City Council on matters scheduled on the Consent Calendar. A three-minute time limit per person applies. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Items 2 through 6 on the Consent Calendar by affirmative roll call vote (ACT)

2. Waive the reading and adopt Resolution 2024-8 authorizing an increase in the purchase/setup fee for electrical onsite materials from $50,000 to $90,000

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement dated August 10, 2020 with 3Degrees Group, Inc. through March 15, 2032 for the purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates “RECs”

4. Approval of New Exhibit to 2007 Lower Colorado Basin ICS Forbearance Agreement

5. Waive the reading and adopt Resolution No. 2024- 9 Certifying the Sewer System Management Plan dated January 2024

6. Accept Atlas Planning Solutions Proposal to Provide Consultant Professional Services for the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update for $60,80 plus 10% contingency for a total not to exceed amount of $66,198 and authorized staff to execute a Consultant Professional Services Agreement with Atlas Planning Solutions.

END OF NPUA CONSENT CALENDAR

ADJOURN THE JOINT NPUA/COUNCIL MEETING AND RECONVENE THE COUNCIL MEETING (Roll Call Previously Taken)

PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE COUNCIL ITEMS
A three-minute time limit per person has been established.

COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed. The Mayor or any member of the City Council may pull an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Prior to Council action, a member of the public may address the City Council on matters scheduled on the Consent Calendar. A threeminute time limit per person applies. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Items 7 through 10 on the Consent Calendar by affirmative roll call vote. (ACT)

7. Approve the Warrants Register through February 13, 2024

8. Approve the Regular Minutes of January 23, 2024 and the Special Meeting Minutes of January 30, 2024

9. Accept Change Order #3 to the Public Works Agreement with Cora Constructors, Inc. for the Lily Hill Water Booster Pump Station project resulting in an increase to the contract in the amount of $64,658.91 for a new total contract amount of $2,183,953.66; and authorize staff to execute said Change Order.

10. Hearing on Appeal of City’s Notice of Revocation of Cannabis Business License/Permit for the following Cannabis Businesses:
3247 Needles Highway, Suite E, Needles, CA (2103 D, LLC); 3247 Needles Highway, Suite A, Needles CA (3247 AM, LLC) 3241 Needles Highway, Needles, CA (NCA Management Co., LLC) 3253 Needles Highway, Needles CA (Medical Investor Holdings, LLC) HEARING CONTINUED UNTIL March 12, 2024.

END OF COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR

REGULAR COUNCIL ITEMS

11. Award the 2024 Edible Food Recovery Grant (ACT)

12. Waive the reading and adopt Resolution 2024-10 Naming the New Walking Trail at Jack to the Marilyn Hohstadt Mathews Trail (ACT)

13. Authorize those interested to attend the League of California Cities (LCC) City Leaders Summit in Sacramento April 17-19, 2024. (ACT)

14. Authorize those interested to attend the 2024 City / County Conference on May 16-17, 2024 in Lake Arrowhead (ACT)

15. Authorize those interested to attend the ICSC Event at the Las Vegas Convention Center on May 19-21, 2024 (ACT)

16. Authorize those interested to attend the Inland Empire Tourism Regional Summit in Riverside at the Marriott Riverside Convention Center, 3400 Market Street on Thursday, April 18 from 9am-5:30pm. (ACT)

17. Consider cancelling the second regular City Council / NPUA / HACN meetings in June, July, and August 2024 (ACT)

18. Authorize repairs to the Needles Aquatic Center not to exceed $5,933 to be funded by General Fund Reserves (ACT)

CITY ATTORNEY REPORT

CITY MANAGER REPORT

19. MANAGERS REPORT

COUNCIL REQUESTS
Councilmember Campbell
Councilmember McCorkle
Vice Mayor Merritt
Council Member Pogue
Councilmember Belt
Councilmember Longbrake
Mayor Jernigan

ADJOURNMENT

INTERNET ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS AND STAFF REPORT MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AT: HTTP://WWW.CITYOFNEEDLES.COM Posted: February 9, 2024
SB 343-DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS -- Any public record, relating to an open session agenda item, that is distributed within 72 hours prior to the meeting is available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office, 817 Third Street, Needles, CA 92363.

In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (760) 326-2113 ext 145. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-104 ADA Title II).

I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing Agenda was posted at the front entrance of City Hall not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Dated this 9th day of February 2024
/s/        Dale Jones, CMC, City Clerk

CITY OF NEEDLES, CALIFORNIA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING TYPE: Regular
MEETING DATE: February 13, 2024
TITLE: Adopt Resolution 2024-8 authorizing an increase in the purchase/set-up fee for electrical onsite materials from $50,000 to $90,000 BACKGROUND: Each megawatt of electricity requires one 1,000 KVA transformer with a suite of hardware components. The cost for each transformer was last adopted in 2018, and established a fee of $50,000 per transformer.

Over the last few years prices for electrical components have increased significantly. The attached “Exhibit A” represents the current market prices for the purchase and installation of each 1,000 KVA transformer. The Board of Public Utilities adopted Resolution 2-6-24 increase the fee from $50,000 to $90,000.

Board of Public Utilities approved the recommended action on February 6, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT: Increase in expenditures to be covered by associated onsite materials fee.

ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT:

None

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Adopt Resolution 2024-8 authorizing an increase in the purchase/set-up fee for electrical onsite materials from $50,000 to $90,000 SUBMITTED BY: Rainie Torrance, Utility Manager
City Manager Approval: _________________________________________ Date: _______________ Other Department Approval (when required): _______________________ Date: _02/07/24_________ 2/6/2024
Item 2.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-8

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
OF THE CITY OF NEEDLES, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2021-14 AND ADOPTING RESOLUTION 2024-8 AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE PURCHASE SETUP PRICE OF ELECTRICAL ONSITE MATERIALS WHEREAS, the new business ventures related to cannabis cultivation require 1 MW of electric per 20,000 sq ft canopy, and one 1,000 transformer set-up per 1 MW of power; and WHERAS, the cost of transformer setup, described in Exhibit “A” attached, has risen from $50,000 to $90,000; and
WHERAS, the increase of costs is being driven by inflation of the cost of materials.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Needles, California, hereby approves a ‘not-to-exceed” amount of $90,000 for the cost of a 1,000 KVA transformer set-up.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Needles, California, held on the 13th day of February 2024, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________________
Mayor
(SEAL)
ATTEST:________________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
City Attorney
Item 2.

EXHIBIT "A"
Current
transformer 20,000 45,000transformer pad 5,000 5,000conduit/conductor/other items 25,000 40,000 U‐guard
Riser boot
x3 Primary cable 1/0x3 Primary cable 4/0
Secondary Cable 1/0Secondary Cable 4/0
Alumaform bracket
wood crossarm
Elbow arresters
OH arresters
600A disconnect
Cutouts
Hot taps
C.T.'s
Meter Socket
PME9 Enclosure
installation
Total Expense $ 50,000 $ 90,000
note (1): Additional costs associated with inflation of costs of materials, changes in configurations from proposed plans to actual installation, as well a relocation of hardware requiring longer distance pulls, adding unforseen costs to each projectnote (2): some supplies may be purchased in bulk

INCREASE IN EXPENSE ASSOCIATED WITH ELECTRICAL ONSITE MATERIALS Item 2.

CITY OF NEEDLES, CALIFORNIA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING TYPE: Regular
MEETING DATE: February 13, 2024
TITLE: Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement dated August 10, 2020 with 3Degrees Group, Inc. through March 15, 2032 for the purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates “RECs”
BACKGROUND: The Needles Public Utility Authority is required to meet the California Energy Commission’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS), i.e. to include renewable energy as a portion of its energy supply portfolio. For POUs, the Energy Commission determines the Portfolio Content Category classification of procurement claims, calculates procurement requirements, and determines RPS compliance. Adopted regulations set the procurement quantity requirement targets are There are three primary categories of REC classification: • PCC 1 • PCC 2 • PCC 3. The City of Needles has a waiver to procure PCC 3 rec’s which are lower than PCC 1. PCC 1’s current market price is $75/rec. However, PCC 3 rec’s have increased significantly over the past several years due to the unbundle rec’s are being consumed by long-term PPA’s in addition to other states (Washington, Oregan, Colorado, Idaho) increasing REC consumption.

Pursuant to D.17-06-026:

Beginning with the 2021-2024 compliance period, each retail seller must demonstrate that at least 65% of the RECs it counts towards its PQR in the compliance period are associated with long-term contracts.

Long-term contracts are characterized as:
• Contracts that are at least 10 years or more in duration; • Contracts that are initially 10 years or more in duration, that may be extended for any period of time; and
• Contracts with an initial term of less than 10 years and the contract is amended by an extension of at least 10 continuous years of duration.

For compliance period 4 the NPUA RPS PCC3 requirement would be roughly a total of 133,797. The proposed 3Degrees contract will secure 150,000 recs for the current compliance period and cover future compliance periods.

Item 3.

Year
Retail
Sales
(MWh)
RPS
Target RPS Quantity
2021 79,161 35.75% 28,300
2022 80,950 38.50% 31,165
2023 84,997 41.25% 35,061
2024 89,247 44.00% 39,268
Staff contacted Amerex to seek a third-party offer for a 10-year offer. 3Degrees submitted a 10-year proposal of 50,000 recs for $8.25/each.

Staff attempted to obtain additional offers from Shell, Chevron, and historical rec suppliers however, due to the contract length and limited quantity of recs requested there were no offers submitted.

Current PCC 3 prices have increased to $9.00/rec since this contract was negotiated and continue to increase. The requirements also require the contract agreement date to start in 2020 to cover compliance periods.

CEC regulations include non-compliance penalties. Current penalties amount to $50 per renewable energy credit (REC) which is applied to the REC shortfall in a retail seller’s RPS procurement obligation.

The Board of Public Utilities approved the recommended action on February 6, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT:

FY 24 adopted electric budget will be charged $875,000 which includes the one-time Amerex broker fee of $50,000 and 3Degrees PCC 3 recs $825,000.

The funds for the FY 24 expenditures budget will come from excess in the power purchase account.

Thereafter, annual adopted electric budgets through FY 2032 will be charged $412,500 for RPS rec’s allowances for CEC compliance.

ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT:

The reduction in carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions helps mitigate the adverse effects of greenhouse gases on the environment and public health.

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement dated August 10, 2020 with 3Degrees Group, Inc. through March 15, 2032 for the purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates “RECs”
SUBMITTED BY: Rainie Torrance, Utility Manager
City Manager Approval: _________________________________________ Date: _______________ Other Department Approval (when required): _______________________ Date: _02/07/24_______ 2/6/2024
Item 3.

Confirmation Letter #2
This Confirmation Letter describes a transaction between Buyer and Seller for the sale, purchase and Delivery of Renewable Energy Certificates (“RECs”) pursuant to and in accordance with the terms of the Renewable Energy Certificate Purchase and Sale Agreement between the Parties dated August 10, 2020 (the “Agreement”) and constitutes part of and is subject to the terms and provisions of the Agreement.

Provided, that, to the extent there is a conflict between a provision of the Agreement and this Confirmation Letter, the terms of this Confirmation Letter shall control for the purposes of this transaction.

Initially capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein are defined in the Agreement.

Basic Commercial Terms:

Trade Date: September 21, 2023
Transaction Reference: 31870
Seller: 3Degrees Group, Inc.

Buyer: City of Needles
Facility: Seller's choice
Eligible Renewable Resource Type: Seller's choice
Geography: Seller's choice
Minimum Online Date: On or after January 1, 2005
Period Type [Generation, Reporting]: Generation
Time Period: 1) January 01, 2022 - December 31, 2022
2) January 01, 2023 - December 31, 2023
3) January 01, 2024 - December 31, 2024
4) January 01, 2025 - December 31, 2025
5) January 01, 2026 - December 31, 2026
6) January 01, 2027 - December 31, 2027
7) January 01, 2028 - December 31, 2028
8) January 01, 2029 - December 31, 2029
9) January 01, 2030 - December 31, 2030
10) January 01, 2031 - December 31, 2031
Product Quantity (REC): 1) 50,000
2) 50,000
3) 50,000
4) 50,000
5) 50,000
6) 50,000
7) 50,000
8) 50,000
9) 50,000
10) 50,000
2) Any additional annual compliance RSP REC’s will
be provided by 3Degrees Group, LLC.

Contract Price ($/REC): 8.25 USD
Product Specific Terms:

Applicable Standard(s): California Pub. Util. Code Sec 399.11 et seq.

Environmental Attributes retained by
Seller, if any:

None
Media Rights Conferred [yes, no] No
Item 3.

Transaction Reference: 31870
Long Term Procurement Requirement The Parties agree that this Confirmation is intended to comply with the requirements of California Code of
Regulations, Title 20, Division 2, Chapter 13, Section
3204(d)(2)(C):

1. As specified under “Time Period” above, and
“Delivery Date” below, this Confirmation provides a
nonzero quantity of RECs from eligible renewable
resources for a duration of at least 10 continuous
years.

2. As specified under “Product Quantity (REC)” above,
the quantity contracted for is the same in each year.

3. Buyer may not unilaterally terminate the Agreement
without incurring a penalty prior to the completion
of the Deliveries specified in this Confirmation
except in the case of an Event of Default by Seller,
as specified in Sections 2.1 and Articles 8 and 9 of
the Agreement.

4. As specified under “Product Quantity (REC)” and
“Contract Price ($/REC),” this Confirmation
includes express contract quantities and express
pricing terms.

Delivery Terms:

Delivery Date: 1) On or before October 10, 2023
2) On or before March 15, 2024
3) On or before March 15, 2025
4) On or before March 15, 2026
5) On or before March 15, 2027
6) On or before March 15, 2028
7) On or before March 15, 2029
8) On or before March 15, 2030
9) On or before March 15, 2031
10) On or before March 15, 2032
Delivery Obligation [Firm, Unit
Contingent, Project Contingent]:

Firm
Applicable Tracking System: WREGIS
Buyer Tracking Account Name:

Attestation Form: None - Tracking System only
Buyer Delivery Contact [Name,
Email]:

Rainie Torrance, [email protected]
Seller Delivery Contact [Name, Email]: Trade Operations, [email protected] The Parties agree to the transaction set forth herein and each Party represents that the person signing this Confirmation Letter on its behalf is authorized to execute on behalf of the Party for whom they sign. 3Degrees Group, Inc. City of Needles
Signature \s1\ Signature
Name \t1\ Name
Title \n1\ Title
Date \d1\ Date
Item 3.

Item 3.

Item 3.

Item 3.

Item 3.

Item 3.

Item 3.

Item 3.

Item 3.

Item 3.

Item 3.

Item 3.

Item 3.

Item 3.

August 10, 2020
Darren Karopczyc
Director, Trade Operations
Item 3.

Darren Karopczyc
Director, Trade Operations
August 10, 2020
Item 3.

Item 3.
74530.0098D\41981022.1

CITY OF NEEDLES, CALIFORNIA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING TYPE: Regular
MEETING DATE: February 13, 2024
TITLE: Approval of New Exhibit to 2007 Lower Colorado Basin ICS Forbearance Agreement
BACKGROUND: Since the mid 1900s, Needles has had a Surplus Contract with the US government that entitled the City to withdraw up to 10,000 acre feet of water from the Colorado River (via its groundwater pumps), whenever the flow of the Colorado River exceeded the needs of the entitled users (i.e. there was a Surplus). In the 1900s the City often used the Surplus contract to augment its water entitlements. However since the early 2000s, there has not been surplus water and it’s unlikely there ever will again.

In the early 2000s, the US and the principal users of Colorado River water engaged in a series of negotiations for guidelines to address shortages of River water. Ultimately, various parties agreed to “forbear” and conserve certain portions of their entitled water so that there would be enough to go around when shortages occur. (Those agreements are currently being renegotiated to address the much larger shortages that are foreseeable in the future.) One of the shortage agreements is the 2007 Lower Colorado Basin ICS Forbearance Agreement. In that agreement various parties agreed to enact a series of conservation measures to create “intentionally created surplus” (ICS) in which they would use less than their entitlements and be given credit for the amounts conserved. (Under the historic use-it-or-lose-it rule, conserved water would be lost). Those conservation measures are contained in a series of exhibits to the Forbearance Agreement. Needles was not called upon to enact conservation measures but did agree to “forebear” using its surplus contract to grab any of the surplus water created by the other parties.

In the enclosed letter dated December 6, 2023, the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District is asking Needles, and other parties to the Forbearance Agreement, to allow the District to add a new exhibit to the Agreement in order for that the District get credit for the conservation measures it is taking.

Needles has historically supported efforts on conserve of Colorado River water. Approval of the exhibit will not compromise the City’s water rights in any way.

Board of Public Utilities approved the recommended action on February 6, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT:
none

ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT:
none

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

Approval of New Exhibit to 2007 Lower Colorado Basin ICS Forbearance Agreement
Item 4.
74530.0098D\41981022.1
SUBMITTED BY:

Rainie Torrance, Utility Manager
City Manager Approval: _________________________________________ Date: _______________ Other Department Approval (when required): _______________________ Date: _______________ 2/2/2024
Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Contents
I. ICS Category ...................................................................................................................... 1 II. ICS Subcategory................................................................................................................. 1 III. Term .................................................................................................................................... 1 IV. Background ........................................................................................................................ 1 A. Yuma-Area Agriculture ......................................................................................................... 1 B. Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District ............................................................. 1 C. Intentionally Created Surplus .............................................................................................. 4 V. Project Description ............................................................................................................ 5 A. Overview .............................................................................................................................. 5 B. Pre-Irrigation Earthwork Activities ..................................................................................... 8 C. Water Delivery and Application Activities ......................................................................... 12 D. Other Extraordinary Conservation Activities .................................................................... 18 E. Summary ............................................................................................................................ 20 VI. Maximum Annual ICS Creation Volume ....................................................................... 20 VII. Limitations on the ICS Creation Amount ...................................................................... 20 VIII. Quantification Methodology ........................................................................................... 21 IX. Verification Methodology ................................................................................................ 22 X. Certification ...................................................................................................................... 23 XI. Delivery ............................................................................................................................. 24 XII. Reclamation Authority .................................................................................................... 24 XIII. Counterparts .................................................................................................................... 24 Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

Exhibit AE
Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (“WMIDD”) Extraordinary Conservation Intentionally Created Surplus (“EC-ICS”) Irrigation Efficiency Practices
I. ICS Category: Extraordinary Conservation Intentionally Created Surplus II. ICS Subcategory: 2.1 H, Other extraordinary conservation measures III. Term: Jan. 1, 2025 – Dec. 31, 2026
IV. Background:

A. Yuma-Area Agriculture:

More than a century ago, growers in the Yuma Valley and adjacent areas of southwest Arizona began irrigating fields consisting of some of the most productive soil in the United States. Early irrigation practices were generally crude and inefficient. Beginning in the 1960s, however, a combination of factors — including increased salinity of Colorado River water and a transition to a more consolidated food industry — pushed Yuma-area agriculture to identify innovative ways to improve irrigation consistency and efficiency.1 Today, Yuma-area growers rely on Colorado River water to grow America’s winter leafy greens and a wide variety of other valuable agricultural products. These growers feed the Nation.

The cultural practices used set Yuma far apart from other farming regions in the Colorado River Basin and the United States as a whole.

In recent decades, Yuma-area agriculture steadily increased its productive output, doubling crop yields in some cases and increasing the economic value of the area by 700%. Over the same period, its water use markedly decreased, by an average of 15% since 1990 (0.8 acrefoot/acre) and nearly 18% since 1975 (1.0 acre-foot/acre). 2 This decrease is attributable to a
variety of factors, including shifts in cropping patterns but especially the implementation of numerous irrigation efficiency practices that leave tens of thousands of acre-feet of water in the Colorado River every year.

B. Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (“WMIDD” or “District”):

WMIDD was established in 1951 to contract with the United States for the operation, maintenance, and repayment of the cost of the Wellton-Mohawk Division of the Bureau of 1 See YUMA CNTY. AGRIC. WATER COALITION, A CASE STUDY IN EFFICIENCY – AGRICULTURE AND WATER USE IN THE YUMA, ARIZONA AREA, at 11–12 (Feb. 2015), https://new.azwater.gov/sites/default/files/Final%20Yuma%20Report%20021715.pdf. 2 See id. at 17.

Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

Reclamation’s Gila Project. Although it relies exclusively on Colorado River water to irrigate about 59,000 acres of cropland, WMIDD is located within the valley of the Gila River, a nowtypically dry tributary of the Colorado River. The District is laid out from West to East, stretching from the Gila Canal on the west to Texas Hill on the east.

Map of Yuma-area irrigation districts, including WMIDD shown on the far right.

Under its consolidated contract executed pursuant to Section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928, the District is entitled to the consumptive use of 278,000 acre-feet (“AF”) of Priority 3 Colorado River water.3 WMIDD’s landowners and growers use this water to grow a variety of high-value agricultural products, including lettuce and other greens, broccoli, vegetable seeds, corn, cantaloupe, durum wheat, alfalfa, Sudan grass, and Bermuda grass seed. 4 Owing to a variety of innovative production and irrigation efficiency practices, the District’s growers can raise all these crops with a level of water efficiency unmatched by any growers outside the Yuma area. Yuma-area growers, including those in WMIDD, achieve average application efficiencies of 80–90%.
5 In fact, recent research indicates that many cropping 3 See BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, Listing of Individual Colorado River Entitlements in the State of Arizona – Third Priority, at 1 (Dec. 2022),
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/contracts/entitlements/Entitlements_AZ_Priority_3.pdf. 4 See WMIDD Crop Census Reports for 2020–2022, on file with WMIDD. 5 See YUMA CNTY. AGRIC. WATER COALITION, supra note 1, at 18; George Frisvold et al., Evaluating Gravity-Flow Irrigation with Lessons from Yuma, Arizona, USA, 10 SUSTAINABILITY 1548, 1565 (May 14, 2018), https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1548; Charles Sanchez & Andrew French, Yuma Ctr. of Excellence for Desert Agric., Quantitative Assessments of Water and Salt Balance for Cropping Systems in the Lower Colorado River Region, at 7 (Oct. 2023), on file with WMIDD.

Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

systems have average application efficiencies exceeding 90%.6 This efficiency results in the District routinely using much less Colorado River water than it might otherwise need.

WMIDD’s efficiency is a model for agriculture nationwide, but especially throughout the Colorado River Basin. The Basin is currently facing its worst drought in recorded history.

Meanwhile, food prices in the United States have steadily increased in the last several years.

Leadership like that exhibited by Yuma-area agriculture is thus more important than ever.

Produce fields within the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District.

The District is proud to achieve levels of efficiency unmatched elsewhere. Yuma-area agriculture is approximately 75% more water-efficient than agriculture in the rest of the Colorado River Basin.
7 It is proud to provide the Nation with high-quality agricultural products while conserving our most important natural resources. And it is proud to be a steward of the health and sustainability of the Colorado River system, on which millions of Americans rely.

Now, WMIDD is once again seeking innovative ways to ensure continued efficient use of its Colorado River entitlement. In particular, the District is seeking to participate more fully in 6 See Sanchez & French, supra note 5, at 28–31. All but two crops studied by Sanchez and French (furrow-irrigated celery and furrow-irrigated iceberg lettuce) had application efficiencies greater than 80%, several had application efficiencies of 90% or higher, and some reached 100% efficiency. See id. 7 See YUMA CNTY. AGRIC. WATER COALITION & YUMA FRESH VEGETABLE ASS’N, Yuma Is to Agriculture what Silicon Valley Is to Computers, ARIZ. FARM BUREAU (Mar. 22, 2023), https://www.azfb.org/Article/Yuma-is-to-Agriculture-What-Silicon-Valley-is-to-Computers.

Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

the Intentionally Created Surplus (“ICS”) program established by the Department of the Interior in 2007. This participation would recognize its excellent irrigation efficiency and enable its ongoing stewardship of the Colorado River.

C. Intentionally Created Surplus:

In 2007, facing what was then the worst stretch of drought years in recorded history, the Secretary of the Interior (“Secretary”) issued a Record of Decision for the Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead (“2007 Interim Guidelines”). Among other things, the 2007 Interim Guidelines established a program for the creation and delivery of ICS. ICS is unused water intentionally conserved by those with Colorado River entitlements through special conservation activities. The program promotes conservation and ensures adequate storage in Lakes Mead and Powell.

To accompany the 2007 Interim Guidelines, several parties with entitlements to Colorado River throughout the Lower Basin executed the Lower Colorado River Basin Intentionally Created Surplus Forbearance Agreement (“Forbearance Agreement”). Under the Forbearance Agreement, the parties agreed to waive certain rights to surplus Colorado River water under the Consolidated Decree in Arizona v. California, 547 U.S. 150 (2006). The Forbearance Agreement originally included fifteen Exhibits (A through O). Each Exhibit details an individual entity’s plan to create ICS through various conservation measures contemplated by the 2007 Interim Guidelines. Each party to the agreement separately approved each Exhibit. The agreement allows new Exhibits to be added with written approval by all the parties. It also specifies that “[s]uch approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.”8
Later, in 2019, the United States and the Colorado River Basin states developed and executed the Agreement Concerning the Colorado River Drought Contingency Management and Operations (“Companion Agreement”). Attached to the Companion Agreement was the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan Agreement (“LBDCP”), designed in part to create greater flexibility and incentivize additional voluntary conservation of water as ICS.

Among other things, Exhibit 1 to the LBDCP, entitled Lower Basin Drought Contingency Operations (“LBOps”), established additional requirements for adding new Exhibits to the Forbearance Agreement. Most important here, the parties to the LBDCP must approve or reject a proposed Exhibit within 120 days and provide a “meaningful explanation” of their decisions.9 As part of the LBDCP process, WMIDD received approval from the Secretary to add one new Exhibit to the Forbearance Agreement, Exhibit V. Exhibit V allows WMIDD to create Extraordinary Conservation ICS (“EC-ICS”) by fallowing cropland with a recent history of 8 See 2007 Forbearance Agreement, art. 3.2,
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/agreements/Forbearance.pdf. 9 See LBDCP, art. II(4)(d), https://new.azwater.gov/sites/default/files/media/Attachment%20B%20- %20LB%20DCP%20Agreement%20%28Final%29.pdf.

Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

irrigation and thereby reducing the District’s consumptive use of Colorado River water. With the addition of the LBDCP Exhibits, there are a total of thirty ICS Exhibits today (A through AD).

Here, WMIDD proposes another Exhibit to the Forbearance Agreement, under which it may receive ICS credits for extraordinary conservation activities associated with irrigation of lands within the District. In particular, WMIDD proposes to create EC-ICS by continuing to use various irrigation efficiency practices. If the District did not affirmatively continue to use these practices, it would beneficially use a significant volume of the water otherwise saved.10 It is past time that Yuma-area growers receive recognition and credit for their extraordinary conservation efforts, which contribute tens of thousands of acre-feet of water to the Colorado River each year.

V. Project Description:

A. Overview:

The water-saving irrigation efficiency practices to be employed by the District, and which will create EC-ICS, can be divided into two broad categories, summarized in the chart below.

Growers within WMIDD sometimes think about these activities less as water-saving measures, and more as cultural best practices for the crops grown. Yet water is never far from their minds. 10 Creation of EC-ICS by WMIDD as described in this Exhibit is comparable to that allowed by previously approved Exhibits for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (“MWD”) and the Southern Nevada Water Authority (“SNWA”), among others.

For instance, see Exhibit H, “Metropolitan Funded Imperial Irrigation District Water Conservation Program.” Exhibit H, at 1–2 (Dec. 13, 2007),
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/agreements/Forbearance.PDF. That Exhibit allows MWD to annually claim EC-ICS credits from water conserved because of irrigation efficiency improvements within IID, like concrete-lined canals, funded by MWD as early as 1988. See id.

Similarly, Exhibit W allows SNWA to create EC-ICS and annually claim ICS credits from water conserved because of municipal conservation measures implemented as early as 2002. See Exhibit W, “Southern Nevada Water Authority EC-ICS Using Municipal Conservation and Offstream Storage for Implementation under the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan.” LBOps ICS Exhibit W, at 1 (May 6, 2019), https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/dcpdocs/SNWA_ICS_Exhibits_and_Transmittal_Letter.pdf.

Exhibits X and Y, “Landscape Transformation Program” and “Indoor Water Conservation Devices,” are also analogous. Exhibit X annually credits WMD with EC-ICS for turf removed as far back as 2008, and for up to thirty years, without any further action by MWD after the initial removal, funded in part by MWD rebates. See LBOps ICS Exhibit X, at 1 (May 6, 2019), https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/dcpdocs/MWD_ICS_Exhibits_and_Transmittal_Letter.pdf.

Exhibit Y provides for EC-ICS creation and annually recurring ICS credits from water saved because of water-efficient fixtures installed up to twenty years prior. See LBOps ICS Exhibit Y, at 1–2 (May 6, 2019), https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/dcpdocs/MWD_ICS_Exhibits_and_Transmittal_Letter.pdf.

MWD and SNWA could, in theory, undo all these extraordinary conservation efforts in the future and thus use more water than they otherwise do each year. In the same way, conservation by WMIDD requires repeated choices to implement (or refrain from un-implementing) its efficiency practices, at significant economic cost. Absent those choices, the District would use much more water than it actually does.

Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

Now more than ever, the District’s growers pride themselves on their efficiency and have strong incentives to save water. The water savings associated with these activities are substantial, but so is their cost. Therefore, these practices constitute extraordinary conservation by the District.

WMIDD Irrigation Efficiency Practices
Pre-irrigation earthwork activities Water delivery and application activities Precision GPS- and laser-leveled fields
Furrow compression using press wheels
(a.k.a. “bolas”)
Shortened irrigation runs
Soil swaps
High-density plantings
Concrete-lined canals, ditches, and laterals
High-flow concrete turnouts
Electronic metering devices and gate control
Sprinkler germination
Full-crop life sprinkler irrigation
Greenhouse germination and transplant
production
Drip irrigation
Total projected water savings: 48,313 AF11
As shown in the lefthand column of the chart above, WMIDD will continue to prepare its fields for planting and irrigation in several ways that promote the efficient application of water.

This includes leveling fields with costly GPS and laser technologies, compressing furrows with press wheel implements known as “bolas,” using shorter irrigation runs, conducting “soil swaps,” and high-density plantings. These practices allow for the quick and uniform movement of water across the District’s fields, prevent loss of water below the root zones of crops, and overall maximize application efficiencies.

In addition, the righthand column shows that WMIDD will continue to deliver and apply irrigation water to its fields as efficiently as possible. Some of these activities are ubiquitous throughout the District. These include the use of concrete-lined canals, ditches, and laterals; high-flow concrete turnouts; and electronic metering devices and gate control using Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (“SCADA”) systems. Others are used for certain fields and crops where appropriate, including sprinkler germination, full-crop life sprinkler irrigation, greenhouse 11 See infra section VIII for the methodology by which this volume is estimated. Actual volumes are subject to actual total irrigable acreage and consumptive use in the relevant year of ICS creation.

Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

germination and transplant production, and drip irrigation. These practices maximize “crop per drop” — ensuring maximally efficient use of water applied to the fields.

Altogether, these practices allow the District annually to consumptively use over 48,000 AF less Colorado River water than it might otherwise need to produce comparable crop yields.

Therefore, absent these measures, a significant volume of the water saved thereby would be beneficially used by WMIDD.12
Below, each of these measures is described in depth. Each conserves water at great economic cost to the District and its landowners and growers. Growers must affirmatively choose before each season whether and to what extent to employ each of these measures, save those that needed implemented only once but continue to provide crucial water savings every year.
13 Thus, the District’s water-saving practices constitute conservation far more “extraordinary” than those underlying previously approved ICS Exhibits.14 Put differently, although many of these practices have been used by WMIDD and its landowners and growers for decades, they are by no means a given. Rather, growers and District management must make difficult decisions to implement those practices best suited to producing excellent yields in an economic and sustainable way, or to refrain from such practices in turn.

Just as a grower might choose to laser-level a lettuce field one year because the high price of lettuce justifies the cost, the grower may decide not to do so in a later year when it is not economical. To that point, each of these practices involve either high upfront capital expenditures and/or significant yearly investments by growers or the District.15 The conservation created by these practices is therefore truly extraordinary. The choice of whether and to what extent to use them directly impacts the extent to which WMIDD conserves precious Colorado River water it might otherwise need to feed the Nation. It is past time that Yuma-area growers receive recognition and credit for their extraordinary conservation efforts, which contribute tens of thousands of acre-feet of water to the Colorado River each year. 12 See supra note 10 (comparing EC-ICS creation by WMIDD under this Exhibit to previously approved EC-ICS Exhibits).
13 Cf. Exhibit H, supra note 10 (allowing repeated annual EC-ICS creation for canals lined within IID more than thirty years ago).
14 For example, MWD is eligible under Exhibit X for EC-ICS credits based on water savings attributable to turf removed under an incentive program nearly two decades ago. See Exhibit X, supra note 10, at 1–2.

Once a particular unit of turf is removed, MWD need take no further action to enjoy the associated water savings and can receive EC-ICS credit for up to thirty years thereafter. See id.; MWD Plan for the Creation of EC-ICS, Calendar Year 2022, supra note 10, at 14. By contrast, WMIDD and its landowners and growers must continually invest in their irrigation efficiency practices every year, or else the associated water savings would not result.
15 In fact, a highly conservative estimate of the cost to WMIDD and its growers of implementing these measures is at least $38.6 million each and every year. This is about $800 per acre-foot conserved.

Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

B. Pre-Irrigation Earthwork Activities:

This section concerns practices that occur before a field is planted and irrigated. There are several stages of preparing a field for irrigation, from disking and burying previous crop residue, to fracturing the soil so salts can leach out, to levelling the field to a perfectly flat grade, all before a seed is even planted. These practices promote the uniform distribution of water across the fields, ensure consistent germination and development of crops, and maximize yields.16 Shortened irrigation runs. First, growers within WMIDD use irrigation runs that are much shorter than traditional irrigation systems. Traditional fields generally have irrigation runs ranging from 0.25–0.5 miles long. Every flood-irrigated field in WMIDD, however, has much shorter irrigation runs, usually around 0.1 miles or 660 feet long.

Simplified diagram of standard field layout within the District, i.e., one 1,320-foot field cut down the middle to two fields with 660-foot shortened irrigation runs.

Shorter irrigation runs allow water to move more quickly across the field, reducing percolation and increasing uniformity of distribution. Growers maximize this benefit by engineering their fields to match the increased rate of flow from high-flow turnouts, discussed later, as well as the field’s border dimensions and soil type. Shorter runs allow water to be shut off sooner while ensuring it reaches the end of the field.

Shortened irrigation runs increase yields for the crops grown within the District. They also save significant volumes of water.
17 Depending on the inlet flow rate and the application depth required by each crop, cutting the length of irrigation runs in half can improve irrigation 16 See Sanchez & French, supra note 5, at 7, 35–42 (describing why pre-irrigation flooding to leach salts is crucial to the success of Yuma-area cropping systems and concluding that such leaching “is a beneficial use of water”).
17 See, e.g., Sanchez & French, supra note 5, at 32 (noting that application efficiencies for summer crops in the Yuma area, such as Durum wheat and Sudan grass, are higher than expected owing to “improvements in irrigation infrastructure” as well as “expert manipulation of flow and cutoff distance”).

0.25 miles / 1,320 feet
660 feet 660 feet Irrigation water
Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

efficiency by about 15–20%.18 Cutting the length in half again can improve efficiency by an additional 5–10%.19
Stitched photos of a standard lettuce field, divided into two fields with 660-foot shortened irrigation runs (left); close-up of lettuce field with water flowing down shortened runs (right).

Precision GPS- and laser-leveled fields. Every irrigated acre within the District is deadleveled or leveled to grade using costly laser or GPS technology. Fields are leveled at least every year, and sometimes more frequently. Dead-leveling is leveling a field to a 0.0 slope, with no or negligible drop from one end to the other, while leveling to grade leaves a slight incline. Deadleveling provides optimal water savings when coupled with sprinkler irrigation, which is the primary method used throughout the District.

Laser-leveling involves using a station in the middle of a field that projects a laser across it on a level plane. A tractor pulls a leveling blade or grader, which communicates with a control terminal in the tractor’s cab. The control terminal receives inputs from the laser and tells the farmer whether to raise or lower the grader, to remove more or less soil as needed to create a perfectly flat, level field.

GPS leveling systems, an even newer and more costly technology, use satellites to ensure a level field surface. GPS levelling is slightly more accurate, because the grader can be adjusted up and down as well as tilted left and right. Both methods ensure no more than a quarter-inch difference in field elevation from any one end to the other.

Leveling a field improves the uniformity of water distribution, which drastically increases crop yields and saves water. Leveling eliminates ponding at the downstream end of the field and allows sufficient time for infiltration at the inlet end of the field, avoiding over- and under18 See C.A. Sanchez et al., Management Guidelines for Efficient Irrigation of Vegetables Using ClosedEnd Level Furrows, 96 AGRIC. WATER MGMT. 43, 49–51 (2009). 19 See id.

Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

saturation. Additionally, minimal grades and fine soil help to reduce friction between the soil and water, reducing percolation below the root zone of the crop and eliminating runoff.

Tractor pulling a GPS levelling machine to dead-level a produce field (left); tractor pulling a laser-levelling machine, with laser station visible as a small blue tower in the right-center of the frame (right).

The water savings are substantial. An early study conducted in central Arizona estimated that leveled fields have 35–40% higher application efficiencies than traditional slope-furrow systems.
20 This translates to water savings for grain and grass crops of 0.83–2.5 AF/acre,21 and likely even greater for higher-water use crops like produce. More recent studies out of India are in accord, finding water savings of around 30% for laser-leveled fields as compared to nonleveled fields.22 Importantly, these savings are not cheap. Laser-leveling costs most growers between $110–120/acre, and some fields are leveled multiple times each year.23 Furrow compression using press wheels (“bolas”). Growers producing flood-irrigated row crops within WMIDD, representing about 70% of the District’s total irrigated acreage, use implements called press wheels or “bolas.” The bolas are pulled behind a tractor to compact the furrows into tight trapezoidal configurations. This reduces friction between the soil and the water, allowing rapid movement of water down the furrows, which limits percolation of water below the root zone of the crops and further improves the uniformity of water distribution. 20 See John Daubert & Harry Ayer, Laser Leveling and Farm Profits, Technical Bulletin No. 244, College of Agric., Univ. of Ariz., at 3 (1982),
https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/602141/TB244.pdf?sequence=1. 21 See id.
22 See, e.g., M.L. Jat et al., Laser Land Leveling: A Precursor Technology for Resource Conservation, Rice-Wheat Consortium Technical Bulletin Series 7 (2006); G.C. Wakchaure et al., Effect of Precision Land Levelling on Microenvironment and Sorghum Productivity in Water Scarce Deccan Region, 17 J.

AGROMETEOROLOGY 149 (2015).
23 To get some idea of the scale of this investment, if every irrigated acre in the District was laser-leveled just once each year, the total cost would easily exceed $6.9 million every year.

Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

Steel press wheel or “bola” implement (top), tractor pulling bolas to compress furrows in lettuce field (bottom left), close-ups of lettuce field furrow after being treated with bolas (bottom right).

Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

As with leveling fields, bolas are used in great part because they significantly improve yields for row crops like lettuce, but they also save a lot of water. As just mentioned, tightly compacting the furrows between rows prevents water from being lost below the root zone of the crops, where it cannot be beneficially used. Like laser-leveling, using bolas is a costly way to save water. Depending on the number of passes a field receives, using bolas can cost growers anywhere from $45–180/acre.24
Soil swaps. A growing number of landowners and growers in the District also conduct “soil swaps,” an extremely expensive process of converting fields made up of low-productivity sandy soils to highly productive and water-efficient cropland. For costs ranging anywhere from a few thousand dollars per acre all the way up to $20,000/acre, sandy topsoil is removed from a field and replaced with a thick cap of more productive soil. The new soil is usually created by mixing a lower clay level with richer, imported topsoil. Soil swaps greatly increase the yield and water efficiency of fields. Growers can apply much less water to fields prepared this way than they would need to if the sandy fields were left as-is.

High-density plantings. Finally, just in the last few years growers within the District have started to plant their fields at much higher densities than is standard practice elsewhere. For instance, the typical lettuce field fifteen years ago was planted with two lines of plants for each forty-inch bed. Today, growers are increasingly planting three lines in the same forty-inch beds, increasing the productive output of the average field by about 30% — without using a single drop more water than before.

High-density plantings result in extraordinary conservation because it is an innovative and expensive way to grow produce, and it saves significant volumes of water throughout the Colorado River Basin. With demand for lettuce and other leafy greens ever increasing, growers all over the country are being asked to increase their outputs. WMIDD’s growers can and do answer the call without using any more water, whereas other growers could supply the increased demand only with elevated water use.

C. Water Delivery and Application Activities:

This section deals with practices related to the delivery of water to fields and to the efficient application of water to those fields. They maximize “crop per drop” — the highest possible crop yields with as little water as practicable.

Concrete-lined canals, ditches, and laterals. All the canals, ditches, and laterals within WMIDD, apart from its main canal,25 are lined with concrete. The Bureau of Reclamation originally built the Wellton-Mohawk Division of the Gila Project this way, but since WMIDD 24 Assuming an average cost of about $110/acre, and around 44,000 row-cropped acres, using bolas can cost growers in WMIDD a total of over $4.8 million every year. 25 WMIDD’s main canal runs below the water table, so it gains water rather than losing it to seepage, making lining unnecessary. Additionally, lining this canal has proved technically infeasible in practice because a concrete lining literally floats on top of the water table.

Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

took over operation and maintenance of the Division in the 1950s, the District maintains and routinely repairs the infrastructure as needed.

Unlined canals, ditches, and laterals lose large volumes of water to seepage. Concrete linings significantly reduce those losses. One study from Eastern Colorado reported that concrete-lined ditches have 70% less seepage loss than unlined ditches. 26 A more recent Chinese
study found 60% water savings.27
Water flowing down a concrete-lined ditch (left), water running out of a high-flow concrete farm turnout (right).

High-flow concrete turnouts. Every turnout within WMIDD (i.e., the place where water is turned out of a ditch into a field) is a high-flow concrete turnout. Though most of these turnouts were installed in the early 1990s after a series of severe floods, the District and individual growers continue to maintain and regularly repair them.28 High-flow turnouts allow larger and 26 See Rachel Barta et al., COLO. WATER RES. RSCH. INST., COLORADO HIGH PLAINS IRRIGATION PRACTICES GUIDE 1–2 (2004), https://api.mountainscholar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/406cf962-a8f3- 4415-89c5-4005d52cb377/content.
27 See Xudong Han et al., An Experimental Study on Concrete and Geomembrane Lining Effects on Canal Seepage in Arid Agricultural Areas, 12 WATER 2343, at 2 & n.31 (2020). 28 Cf. LBOps ICS Exhibit Y, supra note 10 (EC-ICS creation by water-efficient fixtures installed up to twenty years ago).

Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

more consistent volumes of water to be applied to a field at a higher rate (e.g., 15–20 cubic feet per second) compared to traditional turnouts. The greater the speed of the water as it moves across the field, the less percolates below the root zone of the crops where it cannot be used. As a result, high-flow turnouts yield significant water savings.29 Electronic metering devices and gate control. The District also uses electronic metering devices and remote gate control technology, including Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (“SCADA”) systems, on all its water delivery infrastructure except for individual growers’ gates, which are monitored with meter stems.

Combined with other control methods like constant-head orifices, these systems provide consistent and predictable flow rates to growers and reduce operational spills. WMIDD uses SCADA specifically so its ditch riders can monitor flow, water elevation, and gate openings, and operate headgates, all remotely.

As with the other practices described here, electronic metering and gate control saves significant volumes of water. For example, a pair of studies from Australia and Oregon, each evaluating the water savings associated with the automation of just a small part of an irrigation system, reported 23% and 35% reductions in water use, respectively.30 Remote gate control unit in ditch rider’s vehicle (left), electronic gate meter (right). 29 See Brian C. Wilson et al., NEW MEXICO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER, Water Use by Categories in New Mexico Counties and River Basins, and Irrigated Acreage in 2000, Technical Report 51, at 41 (2003), https://tinyurl.com/57cdtsa7; ALLETTA BELIN ET AL., TAKING CHARGE OF OUR WATER DESTINY:

A WATER MANAGEMENT POLICY GUIDE FOR NEW MEXICO IN THE 21ST CENTURY 38 (2002), https://www.gilaconservation.org/Text/Taking_Charge_of_our_%20Water_Destiny.pdf (reporting savings of 0.16 AF/acre from laser-leveling and high-flow turnouts on pecan orchards and alfalfa fields). 30 See U.S. SOC’Y FOR IRRIGATION & DRAINAGE PROFESSIONALS, SCADA AND RELATED TECHNOLOGIES FOR IRRIGATION DISTRICT MODERNIZATION 181, 297 (2006),
https://mountainscholar.org/bitstream/handle/10217/46525/101_2005-USCIDVancouver.pdf?sequence=1#page=195.

Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

Electronic gate control and metering stations.

Sprinkler germination. All row crops within WMIDD are germinated using sprinklers rather than traditional “subbing.” Subbing is germinating crops by flooding the furrows in a field up to the seed continuously for a week or more. While subbing historically resulted in highly uniform germination, huge volumes of water were lost below the root zones of the crops where it could not be consumed and contributed to problematically high water tables. For these reasons, WMIDD now prohibits subbing.

Sprinkler germination, by contrast, involves running solid-set sprinklers continuously for about 36 hours, and thereafter for four to six hours each day as needed to keep the soil surface moist until the crop is established. For vegetable crops, sprinkler germination can reduce the water required for germination by 56–77%.31 Once again, the water savings are not cheap.

Sprinkler germination costs growers about $300–400/acre, much more than subbing.32 Another benefit of sprinkler germination is related to the composition of most soil in the Yuma area. Yuma-area soils are rich in salt and lime. If the soil gets even a little wet — such as by a brief rain — the surface can quickly dry and form a hard crust. Young produce plants, like 31 See YUMA CNTY. AGRIC. WATER COALITION, supra note 1, at 33; see also Sanchez & French, supra note 5, at 23–24 (noting that an average of just 7 inches of water is used for stand establishment in the Yuma area, thanks to sprinkler germination).
32 Again assuming about 44,000 acres planted with row crops, the cost of germinating crops with sprinklers throughout the District can easily exceed $13 million every year.

Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

lettuce, cannot break through this crust. Established stands can also be damaged when the wind blows their stems side to side, into the sharp edges of the crust. Routine sprinkling prevents this crust from forming and improves yields, all with minimal water inputs.

Sprinkler irrigation in the Dome Valley, the westernmost portion of WMIDD, © Ted Wood/The Water Desk (top); solid-set sprinkler arrays in fields in the District, running to germinate produce crops (bottom).

Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

Full-crop life sprinkler irrigation. All crops planted in wide-bed configurations — such as mixed greens, spinach, and more — in addition to being germinated with sprinklers, are irrigated to maturity with solid-set sprinklers. This adds about $150–200/acre to the cost of sprinkler germination, bringing the total to $450–600/acre.33 Sprinkling a crop to maturity multiplies the water savings associated with sprinkler germination across the entire life of the crop.34 Greenhouse germination and transplant production. A little over 10% of irrigated acreage within WMIDD is planted with crops that are greenhouse-germinated and then transplanted. This process entails germinating certain crops — including broccoli, cauliflower, and onions — with very small volumes of water inside climate-controlled greenhouses and later transplanting the established stands in the field. The process is expensive, ranging from $1,000–1,500/acre depending on crop density.35
Young produce transplants growing in climate-controlled greenhouses. 33 This would bring the total yearly cost of sprinkler germination and full-life irrigation to around $15.6 million, assuming an average cost of $525/acre and about 15,000 acres irrigated this way in a typical year. 34 See Sanchez & French, supra note 5, at 29.
35 10% of WMIDD’s irrigated acreage amounts to about 6,000 acres, so the annual cost of greenhouse germination and transplant production throughout the District is estimated to be at least $7.5 million.

Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

Greenhouse germination and transplant production allows farmers to grow longer-season crops in short-season fields, improves land-use efficiency, and makes for easier weed control. It also results in more uniform production. That means growers can better predict the water needs of the plants and scheduling of their harvests and produce more desirable crops.

Some growers purchase transplants from independent suppliers, and others run their own greenhouses. In either case, the process is precise and technical. Uniformity among seedlings is a priority, as is preventing diseases like black rot. The best way to achieve all these goals is to use as little water as possible. Young produce plants, crowded together in a large greenhouse, react adversely to excess moisture in the soil and air. Controlling irrigation and humidity is crucial for the health of the plants, and it also saves a lot of water.36 Drip irrigation. About 3,000 acres of cropland within WMIDD, mostly growing melons, are irrigated using drip systems, including some “N-Drip” (gravity-powered) irrigation. 37 Drip
irrigation involves applying water directly to the surface of the soil, next to the plant, or in the subsurface near the root zone using low-pressure, small-diameter hoses or pipes. Drip systems usually cost growers in WMIDD about $1,500/acre.38 This cost must be incurred annually and sometimes even more frequently, for multi-cropped fields.

Although drip irrigation probably uses about the same amount of water as sprinkler irrigation, it uses much less water than traditional flood irrigation.39 It also drastically improves yields for the crops for which it is appropriate, like melons. Finally, drip systems reduce evaporation from the soil and prevent some plant diseases.

D. Other Extraordinary Conservation Activities:

In addition to the activities described above, growers within the District engage in several other farming practices that save water. Crop selection and rotation, for example, are important 36 See, e.g., Maryam Khozaei et al., Evaluation of Direct Seeding and Transplanting in Sugar Beet for Water Productivity, Yield, and Quality under Different Irrigation Regimes and Planting Densities, 238 AGRIC. WATER MGMT. 106230 (2020) (reporting that transplant production reduced applied water and evapotranspiration for sugar beets grown in Iran by 24% and 25% respectively, relative to direct seeding). 37 As described in YUMA CNTY. AGRIC. WATER COALITION, supra note 1, at 41–42, as well as Sanchez & French, supra note 5, at 35–41, drip irrigation is not more widespread in the Yuma growing region for several reasons. For one thing, the high salt content of Yuma-area soils and the excellent application efficiencies achieved by Yuma growers necessitate periodic leaching using flood irrigation, which can limit the potential water savings associated with drip irrigation. See Sanchez & French, supra note 5, at

42. Additionally, crops are frequently planted or configured in fields in variable ways according to the type and the season. See id. Buried drip systems cannot be easily reconfigured in the same way, and thus limit planting configurations. See id.
38 Assuming a relatively stable amount of drip-irrigated acreage, drip irrigation generally costs growers in WMIDD a total of about $4.5 million every year.
39 See, e.g., T.L. Thompson et al., The Potential Contribution of Subsurface Drip Irrigation to WaterSaving Agriculture in the Western USA, 8 AGRIC. SCIS. IN CHINA 850 (2009).

Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

drivers of water consumption. In recent decades, growers have reduced production of cotton and alfalfa and turned to multi-crop systems that emphasize winter vegetables, especially lettuce and other greens. An increasing number of growers skip the summer crop rotation entirely to focus solely on winter vegetables. Multi-crop systems use much less water than perennial and fullseason systems.

Irrigation decisions related to the price of crops and other factors also result in important water savings. Alfalfa, for instance, is often grown on a three-year/four-year rotation with produce to naturally till the soil and replenish nitrogen. 40 The amount of water applied typically
declines from the first year in the alfalfa rotation to the last. Irrigation also varies significantly according to the price of alfalfa. If the price is high, growers typically irrigate their fields more heavily to get extra cuttings. And if the price is especially low, growers may water the alfalfa so little that it reaches the level of “deficit irrigation.” This means its consumptive use of water is greater than the amount of water applied to the field.

WMIDD itself also imposes several water-saving rules on landowners and growers to encourage conservation. Along with the anti-subbing rule noted earlier, the District’s Board has prohibited ponding or solarization of water.41 The Board can also restrict or prohibit planting certain crops such as wheat late in the year when the District’s water use is at its highest, and/or impose per-acre caps on growers’ water use.42
Finally, WMIDD saves several thousand acre-feet of water every year through its policy of not using a substantial portion of irrigable-status lands for crop production.43 In 2006, the District purchased 3,192.40 acres of farmland that are irrigable under its consolidated contract.

Since then, the District’s Board has repeatedly chosen not to assign the over 3,000 acres’ worth of irrigable status to available lands where it could be beneficially used for crop production.

WMIDD recognizes that some parties dispute whether leaving this land fallow qualifies for ICS creation.44 Under the 2007 Interim Guidelines, fallowing-based ICS projects must show a recent history of irrigation, and the land here has no “recent” irrigation history as the Guidelines use that term (i.e., irrigation post-2005). Nevertheless, the District’s repeated and costly choices not 40 This means that alfalfa will be grown in a field for three years, and then a produce crop will be grown in the same field for four years, on a repeating cycle. 41 Many growers in the Yuma area flood their fields with about six inches of water for a month to kill a soil fungus called sclerotinia that afflicts lettuce plants. WMIDD, however, has disallowed such flooding and instead mandates more effective fungicide treatments that save water. 42 In 2022, for example, the Board capped growers at 6 AF/acre out of concern that drought conditions in the Colorado River Basin could result in unprecedented cuts to Priority 3 water users in later years. 43 See WMIDD DCP Fallowing Exhibit No. 2 v. 3 (Proposed), at 2–3 (Dec. 2018), https://new.azwater.gov/sites/default/files/WMIDD%20DP%20Fallowing%20Exhibit%20No%20%202% 20v.3.pdf.
44 See, e.g., CAWCD’s Comments on Arizona ICS Exhibits Submitted to ADWR, at 4 (Jan. 14, 2019), https://new.azwater.gov/sites/default/files/2019%201%2014%20CAWCD%20Comments%20on%20AZ% 20ICS%20Exhibits_0.pdf.

Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

to repurpose this land for crop production constitutes extraordinary conservation under the 2.1 H subcategory, and it deserves recognition. Leaving the land idle represents a foregone economic opportunity and leaves thousands of acre-feet of water in the Colorado River every year.

Though the water savings associated with these practices and policies may be more difficult to quantify than those described earlier, they are no less important to WMIDD’s excellent water efficiency. They underscore the deeply rooted culture of conservation throughout the District and help growers leave water in the Colorado River.

E. Summary:

By preparing their fields prior to planting and irrigation in ways that maximize yields, growers within WMIDD also save massive volumes of water that they may otherwise need to support the same level of agricultural productivity. Once fields are planted and ready for water, irrigation is conducted with equal care and attention, leading to application efficiencies unmatched by any growers outside the Yuma area.

The efficiency practices described in this Exhibit cost the District and its landowners and growers millions of dollars every year. It’s a cost they must choose to incur before each growing season, weighing the relative benefits in terms of increased crop yields and water savings. When growers do so, they leave tens of thousands of acre-feet of water in the Colorado River. Thus, these practices constitute extraordinary conservation by WMIDD. The water saved is eligible to be credited to the District as EC-ICS under the 2007 Interim Guidelines and the LBOps.

VI. Maximum Annual ICS Creation Volume:

The maximum volume of EC-ICS that can be created during any Year under this Exhibit is limited to that volume of water conserved by irrigation efficiency measures in WMIDD’s service area, calculated as described below in section VIII — for example, 48,313 AF in calendar year 2022 — and by which WMIDD reduces its use of Colorado River water from the amount which would otherwise be approved by the Bureau of Reclamation.

VII. Limitations on the ICS Creation Amount:

The volume of water conserved annually pursuant to this Exhibit, and which is devoted to the creation of EC-ICS, is further limited to the quantities set forth below and in the Framework Agreement Among the United States, the State of Arizona, and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District for an Arizona ICS Program (“Arizona ICS Framework Agreement”). 45 First, the maximum amount of EC-ICS that WMIDD may create in any Year pursuant to this Exhibit is limited to the amount of Colorado River water that, if added to its consumptive use in that Year, would not result in an Inadvertent Overrun pursuant to the October 10, 2003 Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy.
45 See Arizona ICS Framework Agreement, art. 6–7,
https://new.azwater.gov/sites/default/files/AZ_ICS_Framework_Agreement.pdf.

Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

Second, the total amount of annual EC-ICS created by this program is limited to the amount of water that would have been delivered to WMIDD for beneficial use from the Colorado River, and in any event shall not exceed 10,000 AF/year for storage in Lake Mead and shall not exceed 20,000 AF in the aggregate.

VIII. Quantification Methodology:

The amount of water conserved by the efficiency measures described in this Exhibit and eligible to be credited to WMIDD as EC-ICS during any Year will be calculated as the difference between the District’s average per-acre consumptive water use (“APAU”) in 1990 and its APAU for such Year, adjusted for its total irrigable acreage (“TIA”) in the same Year, as shown in Equation 1 below.46 Equation 1 uses 2022 as the Year of ICS creation as an example, though the District anticipates the total conservation will remain relatively steady in the coming years.

Equation 1:

𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛2022 = (𝐴𝑃𝐴𝑈1990 × 𝑇𝐼𝐴2022)− (𝐴𝑃𝐴𝑈2022 × 𝑇𝐼𝐴2022) = AF conserved 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛2022 = (4.86 AF/acre × 62,744 acres)− (4.09 AF/acre × 62,744 acres) = 48,313 AF The year 1990 is used as the baseline because that year was a significant turning point for water efficiency within the District. Starting especially in the 1990s, growers throughout the Yuma area began transitioning away from perennial and full-season crops like citrus, cotton, and alfalfa to multi-crop production systems that include a winter vegetable crop and a shorter-season summer crop like wheat or melons. Growers also began to invest heavily in the water efficiency practices described in this Exhibit.47
As a result, consumptive water use by growers in the Yuma area has decreased greatly since 1990, by an average of 15% or 0.8 AF/acre.
48 This reduction would not have happened
without extraordinary and costly choices to implement the efficiency measures described in this Exhibit year after year. Absent such choices, WMIDD’s beneficial use of Colorado River water each year would be significantly greater.

APAU for a given Year is calculated as the District’s total consumptive water use (“CU”) in that Year divided by its TIA in that Year, as shown in Equation 2.49 Once again, 2022 is used as the relevant year of ICS creation as an example; the calculation for 1990 is also shown. 46 See LBOps ICS Exhibit W, supra note 10, at 2 (calculating the total amount of EC-ICS credited to SNWA through municipal conservation and offstream storage measures in a similar manner). 47 See id. at 1–2 (explaining the use of a 2002 baseline for SNWA’s EC-ICS calculations). 48 See YUMA CNTY. AGRIC. WATER COALITION, supra note 1, at 17. For WMIDD, the average reduction in consumptive use of 0.8 AF/acre translates to total estimated water savings of about 50,000 AF for all irrigable acreage within the District.
49 Cf. LBOps ICS Exhibit W, supra note 10, at 2 (similarly calculating net per capita consumptive water use within SNWA’s service area for purposes of its EC-ICS calculations).

Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

Equation 2:

𝐴𝑃𝐴𝑈2022 = 𝐶𝑈2022 ⁄ 𝑇𝐼𝐴2022 = AF/acre
𝐴𝑃𝐴𝑈2022 = 256,421 AF ⁄ 62,744 acres = 4.09 AF/acre
𝐴𝑃𝐴𝑈1990 = 𝐶𝑈1990 ⁄ 𝑇𝐼𝐴1990 = AF/acre
𝐴𝑃𝐴𝑈1990 = 315,637 AF / 65,000 acres = 4.86 AF/acre
Alternatively, the District’s total conservation each year owing to the efficiency practices described above can be calculated by comparing water use in 1990 to the present day, adjusting for total cropped acreage (“TCA”)50 instead of TIA. Using the same equations, this results in estimated total conservation of 102,239 AF. This figure reveals the extent to which growers within WMIDD have drastically increased their output while still using less water than before.

Since 1990, multi-cropped acreage in WMIDD has nearly doubled. Over the same period, consumptive water use dropped more than 60%. Using TCA to calculate conservation shows that growers are doing more with less water. Still, WMIDD proposes calculating its conservation using TIA instead of TCA so its yearly creation of EC-ICS is more predictable.51 In any event, section VI above reflects that the total amount of conservation that results from applying these two equations in any given Year will not necessarily be eligible to be credited to WMIDD as EC-ICS. Rather, the amount of EC-ICS created under this Exhibit is limited to the amount of water that would have been delivered to WMIDD for beneficial use from the Colorado River, and in any event shall not exceed 10,000 AF per year for storage in Lake Mead and shall not exceed 20,000 AF in the aggregate.

IX. Verification Methodology:

In accordance with Section 3.D.1 of the 2007 Interim Guidelines, in the Year immediately following the Year of creation of EC-ICS under this Exhibit, WMIDD will submit a Certification Report for the Secretary’s review containing appropriate information to demonstrate the amount of EC-ICS created under this Exhibit in that Year and that the method of creation was consistent with this Exhibit, an approved EC-ICS Plan of Creation, and a Delivery Agreement with the United States of America.

Each Certification Report will describe the irrigation efficiency practices implemented by the District’s growers in the relevant Year. Where appropriate, the Reports will also indicate the approximate number of acres, or a percentage of total acreage, on which each practice was used.

The District will verify this information by canvassing its growers and, where feasible, by providing photographic and other evidence of each practice’s implementation. The Bureau can 50 TCA is the sum of the District’s commercial acreage and multi-cropped acreage. See WMIDD Crop Census Reports for 2020–2022, on file with WMIDD.
51 Unlike irrigable acreage, which has stayed the same since the 1990s, cropped acreage varies slightly over time. This variance would impact the results of Equations 1 and 2 in each year.

Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

also verify this information by comparing the District’s annual Part 417 questionnaires and Form 2-7045 crop census reports to the Reports.

To confirm the amount of water saved by extraordinary conservation measures under this Exhibit, the Bureau may use the equations provided above. WMIDD’s CU as of 1990 and in the relevant Year of ICS creation should be determined according to the Bureau’s Article V Colorado River Accounting and Water Use Reports for those years.52 And its TIA for each year should be determined according to its respective crop census reports. 53 For the Bureau’s convenience, these
documents will be attached to WMIDD’s Certification Reports.

As for the amount of EC-ICS created because of such extraordinary conservation, WMIDD will claim the maximum amount of EC-ICS credits permitted under this Exhibit and other governing documents. Thus, if the result of Equation 1 is greater than or equal to the maximum amount of EC-ICS that can be created under this Exhibit, the amount of EC-ICS to be credited to WMIDD will be the same as the maximum.54 Conversely, if the result of Equation 1 is less than the maximum allowed, the amount of EC-ICS to be credited to WMIDD will be equal to the result of Equation 1.55 Both possible results are represented with if-then statements below as Equation 3.

Equation 3:

𝐼𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ≥ 𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝐸𝐶-𝐼𝐶𝑆,𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝐸𝐶-𝐼𝐶𝑆 = 𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝐸𝐶-𝐼𝐶𝑆 𝐵𝑢𝑡 𝑖𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 < 𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝐸𝐶-𝐼𝐶𝑆,𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝐸𝐶-𝐼𝐶𝑆 = 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 X. Certification:

As noted in section IX, pursuant to Section 3.D.1 of the 2007 Interim Guidelines, in the Year immediately following the Year of creation of EC-ICS under this Exhibit, WMIDD will submit a Certification Report for the Secretary’s review containing appropriate information to demonstrate the amount of EC-ICS created under this Exhibit and that the method of creation was consistent with this Exhibit, an approved ICS Plan of Creation, and a Delivery Agreement with the United States of America.
52 See, e.g., BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, 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, at 10 (1990), https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/4200Rpts/DecreeRpt/1990DecreeRpt.pdf; BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, COLORADO RIVER ACCOUNTING AND WATER USE REPORT: ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, AND NEVADA, at 16 (2022),
https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/4200Rpts/DecreeRpt/2022/2022.pdf. 53 See, e.g., WMIDD Crop Census Reports for 1990 and 2022, on file with WMIDD. 54 For instance, in 2022, assuming total conservation of 48,313 AF, WMIDD would have created 10,000 AF of EC-ICS, the maximum allowable under this Exhibit. 55 For instance, if WMIDD conserves a total of 9,000 AF in 2025, it will create 9,000 AF of EC-ICS.

Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

WMIDD acknowledges that, in accordance with Section 2.5 B of the Forbearance Agreement, the Secretary shall verify information in a Certification Report in consultation with the Lower Division States, and provide a final written decision as to the amount of EC-ICS created, which decision may be appealed by WMIDD or any party, as provided in Section 3.D.2 of the 2007 Interim Guidelines.

XI. Delivery:

EC-ICS created under this Exhibit shall be delivered in accordance with a Delivery Agreement between the United States of America and WMIDD, subject to a maximum annual delivery volume of 10,000 AF, or the total ICS volume created under this Exhibit and remaining undelivered, whichever is less.

XII. Reclamation Authority:

Reclamation Act of 1902, 32 Stat. 388, as amended and supplemented, including in particular, Boulder Canyon Project Act, 45 Stat. 1057, Act of March 4, 1921, 41 Stat. 1404, Act of January 21, 1927, 44 Stat. 1010, chapter 47, designated the Colorado River Front Work and Levee System, as amended, and P.L. 109-342, 120 Stat. 2922 § 396.

XIII. Counterparts:

This Exhibit may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which, together, shall constitute only one Exhibit AE. [SIGNATURES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

In Witness of this Exhibit AE to the Forbearance Agreement executed on December 13, 2007, the Parties affix their official signatures below, acknowledging approval of this document on this ____ day of __________, 20__.

Approved as to form: THE STATE OF ARIZONA acting through the ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF

WATER RESOURCES
By: _________________________________
Nicole Klobas
Chief Counsel
By: _________________________________
Thomas Buschatzke
Director
Attest: PALO VERDE IRRIGATION DISTRICT
By: _________________________________
J.R. Echard
General Manager
By: _________________________________
Bart Fisher
Board President
Attest and Approved: IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT
By: _________________________________
Geoffrey Holbrook
General Counsel
By: _________________________________
Alex Cardenas
President
Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

Approved as to form: THE CITY OF NEEDLES
By: _________________________________
John Pinkney
City Attorney
By: _________________________________
Janet Jernigan
Mayor
Approved as to form: COACHELLA VALLEY WATER

DISTRICT
By: _________________________________
Jeff Ferre
General Counsel
By: _________________________________
Jim Barrett
General Manager
Approved as to form: THE METROPOLITAN WATER

DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA
By: _________________________________
Marcia Scully
General Counsel
By: _________________________________
Adel Hagekhalil
General Manager
Item 4.

WMIDD ICS Exhibit AE – Irrigation Efficiency Practices

Approved as to form: SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER

AUTHORITY
By: _________________________________
Gregory Walch
General Counsel
By: _________________________________
John Entsminger
General Manager
Approved as to form: COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION OF
NEVADA
By: _________________________________
Aaron Ford
Nevada Attorney General
By: _________________________________
Eric P. Witkoski
Executive Director
Item 4.

Item 4.

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Notices 19873 Washington on the structure and
implementation of the Yakima River
Basin Water Conservation Program. In
consultation with the State, the Yakama
Nation, Yakima River basin irrigators,
and other interested and related parties,
six members are appointed to serve on
the CAG.

The basin conservation program is
structured to provide economic
incentives with cooperative Federal,
State, and local funding to stimulate the
identification and implementation of
structural and nonstructural costeffective water conservation measures in the Yakima River basin. Improvements
in the efficiency of water delivery and
use will result in improved streamflows
for fish and wildlife and improve the
reliability of water supplies for
irrigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Dawn Wiedmeier, Deputy Area
Manager, Yakima River Basin Water
Enhancement Program, telephone 509–
575–5848, extension 213.

Certification
I hereby certify that Charter renewal
of the Yakima River Basin Conservation
Advisory Group is in the public interest
in connection with the performance of
duties imposed on the Department of
the Interior.

Dirk Kempthorne,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. E8–7728 Filed 4–10–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P

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 [email protected];
and/or Randall Peterson at (801) 524–
3633 or e-mail at [email protected].

The ROD is electronically available on
Reclamation’s project Web site at:
http://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
[email protected].

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
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:21 Apr 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 Item 4.
19874 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Notices 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, investorowned 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
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:21 Apr 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 Item 4.

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Notices 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 longrange 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
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:21 Apr 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 Item 4.
19876 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Notices 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
(http://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.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:21 Apr 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 Item 4.

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Notices 19877 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.

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
V. Basis for Decision
In 2005, tensions among the Basin
States brought the basin closer to multistate 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)
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:21 Apr 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 Item 4.
19878 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Notices 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
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:21 Apr 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 Item 4.

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Notices 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 nonfederal 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,
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:21 Apr 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 Item 4.
19880 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Notices 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 cottonwoodwillow 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 coldand 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.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:21 Apr 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 Item 4.

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Notices 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 operationrelated 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 LongRange 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 Operating Criteria, (2)
language in the current text of the
Operating Criteria that was outdated,
and (3) specific modifications to Article
IV(b) of the Operating Criteria that
reflect actual operating experience.

It is the Department’s decision that
these Guidelines implement the LROC
on an annual basis through the Interim
Period and that the operation of the
relevant Colorado River reservoirs be
documented in each year’s AOP
(Subsection C, below). See also Section
7 of the Guidelines for further
description of the relationship between
the LROC and these Guidelines.

B. Interim Surplus Guidelines
Beginning in 1999, the Secretary
determined that there was a need for
detailed, objective guidelines to assist in
the determination of availability of
water in excess of 7.5 maf per year to
water users in the three Lower Division
states of Arizona, California, and
Nevada. One of the important issues
facing the Department at that time was
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:21 Apr 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 Item 4.
19882 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Notices the question of whether to modify the
LROC to address determination of a
Surplus Condition or whether to adopt
guidelines that would implement the
LROC with detailed provisions.

At the time, the Department sought
public input on the concept of
modifying Article III(3)(b) of the LROC
during the process that led to adoption
of the ISG. See 64 FR 27010 (May 18,
1999). After reviewing the public
comments received, the Department
announced its intention to adopt
‘‘interim implementing criteria pursuant
to Article III(3) of the Long-Range
Operating Criteria’’ rather than
modifying the actual text of the LROC.

See 64 FR 68373 (December 7, 1999).

This approach was carried through and
set forth in the ROD for the ISG adopted
by the Secretary. See 66 FR 7772, 7780
at Section XI(5) (‘‘These Guidelines,
which shall implement and be used for
determinations made pursuant to
Article III(3)(b) of the [Operating
Criteria] * * * are hereby adopted
***’’). See also discussion at 70 FR
15878 (March 29, 2005) (review of
LROC).

It is the Department’s decision in
adopting these Guidelines to continue
the approach initially adopted in the
ISG, and accordingly is not modifying
the LROC at this time. Instead, the
determinations made under these
interim Guidelines will implement the
relevant provisions of Article II (Lake
Powell) and Article III (Lake Mead)
during the Interim Period, as defined in
Section 7, herein.

C. Annual Operating Plan for Colorado
River Reservoirs
Section 602(b) of the CRBPA of 1968
requires that the Secretary transmit to
the Congress and to the Governors of the
Basin States, by January 1st of each year,
a report describing the actual operation
under the LROC for the preceding
compact water year and the projected
operation for the current year. This
report is commonly referred to as the
‘‘Annual Operating Plan’’ or the ‘‘AOP.’’
In 1992, in the Grand Canyon
Protection Act, Congress required that,
in preparing the 602(b) AOP, the
Secretary shall consult with the
Governors of the Basin States and with
the general public, including
representatives of academic and
scientific communities, environmental
organizations, the recreation industry;
and contractors for the purpose of
federal power produced at Glen Canyon
Dam.

Each year the Secretary implements
the provisions of the 1968 and 1992
statutes regarding the projected
operation of Colorado River reservoirs
and stakeholder consultation through
the Colorado River Management Work
Group. This process involves
appropriate consultation prior to
finalization of the proposed AOP. The
AOP is used to memorialize operational
decisions that are made pursuant to
individual federal actions (e.g., ISG,
1996 Glen Canyon Dam ROD, this ROD).

Thus, the AOP serves as a single,
integrated reference document required
by section 602(b) of the CRBPA of 1968
regarding past and anticipated
operations.

It is the Department’s decision that
these Guidelines be implemented on an
annual basis through the Interim Period
and documented in each year’s AOP.

This ROD addresses annual volumes of
releases from Glen Canyon Dam and
Hoover Dam. Accordingly, this ROD
does not modify the authority of the
Secretary to determine monthly, daily,
hourly, or instantaneous releases from
Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam. See
Section 7 of the Guidelines for further
description of the relationship between
the AOP and these Guidelines.

XI. Conditions of Implementation
A. Forbearance

1. Role of Forbearance Agreements
Within the Context of the Law of the
River and Relationship to Intentionally
Created Surplus (ICS)
For the purposes of these Guidelines,
the term ‘‘forbearance agreements’’
refers to agreements that a party who
has a right to surplus Colorado River
water could enter into that would
provide that party’s agreement to forgo
(or not exercise) its right to surplus
Colorado River water. In any such
agreements, the party agrees to
‘‘forbear’’ or refrain from exercising its
right to surplus Colorado River water
under the specified terms and
conditions of the applicable agreement.

Through such agreements, increased
flexibility of Colorado River water
management can be achieved—resulting
in greater conservation of water than
would otherwise be accomplished.

In Years in which the Secretary
determines that sufficient Mainstream
water is available for delivery to satisfy
annual consumptive use in the Lower
Division states in excess of 7.5 maf,
Article II(B)(2) of the Consolidated
Decree directs the Secretary to
apportion such surplus Mainstream
water 50% for use in California, 46% for
use in Arizona, and 4% for use in
Nevada. The Boulder Canyon Project
Act and Articles II(B)(2) and II(B)(6) of
the Consolidated Decree, taken together,
authorize the Secretary to apportion
surplus water and to deliver one Lower
Division state’s unused apportionment
for use in another Lower Division state.

Pursuant to such authority and for the
purpose of increasing the efficiency,
flexibility, and certainty of Colorado
River management and thereby helping
satisfy the current and projected
regional water demands, the Secretary
determined that it is prudent and
desirable to promulgate guidelines to
establish a procedural framework for
facilitating the creation and delivery of
ICS within the Lower Basin.

In the absence of forbearance, surplus
water is apportioned for use in the
Lower Division states according to the
specific percentages provided in Article
II(B)(2) of the Consolidated Decree
discussed above. In order to allow for
management flexibility, the seven
Colorado River Basin States have
recommended an operational program
for the creation and delivery of ICS. In
furtherance of this recommendation,
numerous major water users within the
Lower Basin have identified their
willingness, under specified
circumstances, to participate in such an
operational program. These parties have
submitted a draft ‘‘Forbearance
Agreement,’’ as preliminarily approved
by the parties, as part of a package of
documents (Appendix J) submitted for
consideration by the Secretary as a
necessary element to enable
implementation of the operations
contemplated by the Basin States
Alternative. The Secretary has
developed a Preferred Alternative based
on this information, as well as other
information submitted during the NEPA
process.

The parties to the Forbearance
Agreement have indicated that they
intend that the Agreement provide the
appropriate legal mechanism to achieve
successful implementation of this
element of the Preferred Alternative.

The parties have indicated that among
the conditions on their forbearance, they
will forbear only with respect to a
specified ICS volume and only to ICS
created by projects described in exhibits
attached to the Forbearance Agreement
or added thereto by written consent of
all parties. Given the voluntary nature of
the forbearance concept, it is
appropriate for the parties to clearly
identify the limited conditions upon
which their forbearance is granted.

Through adoption and
implementation of these Guidelines, the
Secretary will only approve the
creation, delivery and use of ICS in a
manner that is fully consistent with the
provisions of the Consolidated Decree,
including Articles II(B)(2) and II(B)(6)
therein. The Secretary will require
forbearance by the State of Arizona, the
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:21 Apr 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 Item 4.

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Notices 19883 Palo Verde Irrigation District, the
Imperial Irrigation District, the
Coachella Valley Water District, The
Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California, the City of Needles, and
other California entities as appropriate,
the Southern Nevada Water Authority,
and the Colorado River Commission of
Nevada for implementation of this
element of these Guidelines (regarding
ICS). If, in the opinion of the Secretary,
the State of Arizona or the Palo Verde
Irrigation District, the Imperial Irrigation
District, the Coachella Valley Water
District, The Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California, the City of
Needles, or other California entities as
appropriate, the Southern Nevada Water
Authority, or the Colorado River
Commission of Nevada, unreasonably
withhold forbearance, the Secretary
may, after consultation with the Basin
States, modify these Guidelines.

Moreover, the Secretary will ensure that
implementation of the ICS mechanism
does not infringe on the rights of any
third party who is a Contractor and who
is not a party to the Forbearance
Agreement.

2. Monitoring Implementation
Under these Guidelines, Colorado
River water will continue to be allocated
for use among the Lower Division states
in a manner consistent with the
provisions of the Consolidated Decree. It
is expected that Lower Division states
and individual Contractors for Colorado
River water have or will adopt
arrangements that will affect utilization
of Colorado River water during the
Interim Period. It is expected that water
orders from Colorado River Contractors
will be submitted to reflect forbearance
arrangements by Lower Division states
and individual Contractors. The
Secretary will deliver Colorado River
water to Contractors in a manner
consistent with these arrangements,
provided that any such arrangements
are consistent with the BCPA, the
Consolidated Decree and do not infringe
on the rights of third parties. Surplus
water will only be delivered to entities
with contracts for surplus water. ICS
will be delivered pursuant to Section

3.C. of these Guidelines and a Delivery
Agreement.

B. Delivery Agreement
Article II(B)(5) of the Consolidated
Decree in Arizona v. California states
that mainstream Colorado River water
shall be released or delivered to water
users in Arizona, California, and Nevada
‘‘only pursuant to valid contracts
therefore made with such users by the
Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to
Section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project
Act or any other applicable federal
statute.’’ Section 5 of the Boulder
Canyon Project Act authorizes the
Secretary to enter into such contracts.

Numerous Contractors in Arizona,
California, and Nevada now hold
contracts which entitle them to the
delivery of Colorado River water under
the circumstances and in the priorities
specified in the individual contracts.

Contracts entered into prior to the
adoption of these Guidelines do not,
however, expressly address
circumstances in which ICS or DSS
might be created or delivered.

To ensure the requirements of Section
5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act and
Article II(B)(5) of the Consolidated
Decree are complied with, and to reduce
the possibility of ambiguity, the
Secretary anticipates entering into
delivery contracts with any person or
persons intending to create ICS or DSS.

Such contracts are expected to address
the requirements set forth in the
Guidelines for the approval of ICS or
DSS plans, the certification and
verification of the ICS or DSS created
under the plans, the ordering and
delivery of ICS or DSS, the accounting
for ICS or DSS in the annual report filed
with the U.S. Supreme Court in
accordance with Article V of the
Consolidated Decree, and such other
matters as may bear on the delivery of
the ICS or DSS, as for example the point
of delivery and place of use, if not
already provided for under existing
contracts.

C. Mexico
The United States delivers an annual
allotment of Colorado River water to
Mexico pursuant to the treaty between
the United States of America and
Mexico relating to the utilization of
waters of the Colorado and Tijuana
Rivers and of the Rio Grande, signed
February 3, 1944, and its supplementary
protocol signed November 14, 1944. In
adopting these Guidelines the
Department of the Interior is making a
final agency action regarding the
operation of Lake Powell and Lake
Mead, and the delivery of water to water
users in the United States, in response
to the worst drought in the Basin in over
a century of recordkeeping.

Prior to adopting these Guidelines,
the Department provided information
on the proposed action to the USIBWC,
and met with representatives of the
Mexican Section of the IBWC and the
Mexican Government. The Department
has considered the information
provided by the USIBWC prior to
adopting these Guidelines, including
information representing the views of
the Government of Mexico. The
USIBWC has advised that the
Department may proceed with planning
and implementation activities for these
Guidelines with the understanding that
these Guidelines are not intended to
constitute an interpretation or
application of the 1944 Treaty or to
represent current United States policy
or a determination of future United
States policy regarding deliveries to
Mexico.

The Department notes the intention of
the Governments of the United States
and Mexico, memorialized in a Joint
Statement issued August 13, 2007, to
cooperate and collaborate regarding
issues related to the lower portion of the
Colorado River under the auspices of
the IBWC.

D. Intentionally Created Surplus

1. Findings
ICS may be created through projects
that create water system efficiency or
extraordinary conservation or tributary
conservation or the importation of nonColorado River System water into the Mainstream. ICS is consistent with the
concept that entities may take actions to
augment storage of water in the lower
Colorado River Basin. The ICS shall be
delivered to the Contractor that created
it pursuant to both Articles II(B)(2) and
II(B)(6) of the Consolidated Decree and
Forbearance Agreements.

Implementation of these Guidelines for
ICS is conditioned upon execution of
Forbearance Agreements and Delivery
Agreements as further provided for in
these Guidelines.

2. Purposes
The primary purposes of ICS are to:
(a) Encourage the efficient use and
management of Colorado River water;
and to increase the water supply in
Colorado River System reservoirs,
through the creation, delivery and use of
ICS; (b) help minimize or avoid
shortages to water users in the Lower
Basin; (c) benefit storage of water in
both Lake Powell and Lake Mead; (d)
increase the surface elevations of both
Lake Powell and Lake Mead to higher
levels than would have otherwise
occurred; and (f) assure any Contractor
that invests in conservation or
augmentation to create ICS that no other
Contractor will claim the ICS created by
the Contractor pursuant to an approved
plan by the Secretary.

3. Quantities
The maximum quantities of
Extraordinary Conservation ICS that
may be accumulated in all ICS
Accounts, at any time, upon the
effective date of these Guidelines is
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:21 Apr 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 Item 4.
19884 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Notices limited to the amounts provided in
Section 3.B.5. of these Guidelines. The
maximum quantities of Extraordinary
Conservation ICS that may be created
and/or delivered in any given Year are
also limited to the amounts provided in
Sections 3.B.4. and 3.C.4., respectively.

As described in the Final EIS,
Reclamation has analyzed ICS amounts
in excess of the amounts approved by
this Record of Decision and provided in
these Guidelines. Any decision by the
Secretary to increase the amounts in
excess of the amounts provided in these
Guidelines would be based on actual
operating experience and would require
modification of these Guidelines after
consultation with the Basin States.

E. Relationship With Existing Law
These Guidelines are not intended to,
and do not:

1. Guarantee or assure any water user
a firm supply for any specified period;

2. Change or expand existing
authorities under applicable federal law,
except as specifically provided herein
with respect to determinations under
the Long-Range Operating Criteria and
administration of water supplies during
the effective period of these Guidelines;

3. Address intrastate storage or
intrastate distribution of water, except
as may be specifically provided by
Lower Division states and individual
Contractors for Colorado River water
who may adopt arrangements that will
affect utilization of Colorado River
water during the effective period of
these Guidelines;

4. 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
Colorado River Compact;

5. Affect any obligation of any Upper
Division state under the Colorado River
Compact;

6. Affect any right of any State or of
the United States under Sec. 14 of the
Colorado River Storage Project Act of
1956 (70 Stat. 105); Sec. 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 applicable federal law;

7. 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, and in
the Lower Basin, in accordance with the
Consolidated Decree; or

8. Constitute an interpretation or
application of the 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) or to represent
current United States policy or a
determination of future United States
policy regarding deliveries to Mexico.

The United States will conduct all
necessary and appropriate discussions
regarding the proposed federal action
and implementation of the 1944 Treaty
with Mexico through the International
Boundary and Water Commission
(IBWC) in consultation with the
Department of State.

F. Definitions
For purposes of these Guidelines, the
following definitions apply:

1. ‘‘24-Month Study’’ refers to the
operational study that reflects the
current Annual Operating Plan that is
updated each month by Reclamation to
project future reservoir contents and
releases. The projections are updated
each month using the previous month’s
reservoir contents and the latest inflow
and water use forecasts. In these
Guidelines, the term ‘‘projected on
January 1’’ shall mean the projection of
the January 1 reservoir contents
provided by the 24-Month Study that is
conducted in August of the previous
Year.

2. ‘‘AOP’’ shall mean the Annual
Operating Plan for the Colorado River
System Reservoirs.

3. ‘‘Active Storage’’ shall mean the
amount of water in reservoir storage,
exclusive of bank storage, which can be
released through the existing reservoir
outlet works, consistent with the
Colorado River Basin Project Act of
1968 (82 Stat. 885).

4. ‘‘BCPA’’ shall mean the Boulder
Canyon Project Act of 1928 (28 Stat.
1057).

5. ‘‘Basin States’’ shall mean the seven
Colorado River Basin States of Arizona,
California, Colorado, New Mexico,
Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming.

6. ‘‘Certification Report’’ shall mean
the written documentation provided by
a Contractor that provides the Secretary
with sufficient information to allow the
Secretary to determine whether the
quantity of ICS or DSS approved by the
Secretary in an approved plan has been
created and whether the creation was
consistent with the approved plan.

7. ‘‘Colorado River System’’ shall have
the same meaning as defined in the
1922 Colorado River Compact.

8. ‘‘Consolidated Decree’’ shall mean
the Consolidated Decree entered by the
United States Supreme Court in Arizona
v. California, 547 U.S. 150 (2006).

9. ‘‘Contractor’’ shall mean an entity
holding an entitlement to Mainstream
water under (a) the Consolidated
Decree, (b) a water delivery contract
with the United States through the
Secretary, or (c) a reservation of water
by the Secretary, whether the
entitlement is obtained under (a), (b) or
(c) before or after the adoption of these
Guidelines.

10. ‘‘DSS Account’’ shall mean
records established by the Secretary
regarding DSS.

11. ‘‘Delivery Agreement’’ shall mean
an agreement consistent with these
Guidelines entered into between the
Secretary of the Interior and one or more
Contractors creating ICS.

12. ‘‘Developed Shortage Supply
(‘‘DSS’’)’’ shall mean water available for
use by a Contractor under the terms and
conditions of a Delivery Agreement and
Section 4 of these Guidelines in a
Shortage Condition, under Article
III(B)(3) of the Consolidated Decree.

13. ‘‘Direct Delivery Domestic Use’’
shall mean direct delivery of water to
domestic end users or 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. For the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (MWD), Direct Delivery
Domestic Use 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.

14. ‘‘Domestic Use’’ shall have the
same meaning as defined in the 1922
Colorado River Compact.

15. ‘‘Forbearance Agreement’’ shall
mean an agreement under which one or
more Contractors agree to forbear a right
to ICS, under a water delivery contract
or the Consolidated Decree.

16. ‘‘ICS Account’’ shall mean records
established by the Secretary regarding
ICS.

17. ‘‘ICS Determination’’ shall mean a
determination by the Secretary that ICS
is available for delivery.

18. ‘‘Intentionally Created Surplus
(‘‘ICS’’)’’ shall mean surplus Colorado
River System water available for use
under the terms and conditions of a
Delivery Agreement, a Forbearance
Agreement, and these Guidelines.
a. ICS created through extraordinary
conservation, as provided for in Section

3.A.1., shall be referred to as
‘‘Extraordinary Conservation ICS.’’
b. ICS created through tributary
conservation, as provided for in Section

3.A.2., shall be referred to as ‘‘Tributary
Conservation ICS.’’
c. ICS created through system
efficiency projects, as provided for in
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:21 Apr 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 Item 4.

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Notices 19885 2 70R is a spill avoidance strategy that determines
a surplus if the January 1 projected system storage
space is less than the space required by the flood
control criteria, assuming a natural inflow of 17.4
maf (the 70th percentile non-exceedence flow). See
ISG Final EIS at Section 2.3.1.2.

Section 3.A.3., shall be referred to as
‘‘System Efficiency ICS.’’
d. ICS created through the
importation of non-Colorado River
System Water, as provided for in
Section 3.A.4., shall be referred to as
‘‘Imported ICS.’’

19. ‘‘Interim Period’’ shall mean the
effective period as described in Section

8. 20. ‘‘Long-Range Operating Criteria
(‘‘LROC’’)’’ shall mean the Criteria for
the Coordinated Long-Range Operation
of Colorado River Reservoirs Pursuant to
the Colorado River Basin Project Act of
September 30, 1968 (Pub. L. 90–537),
published at 35 FR 8951 (June 10, 1970),
as amended March 21, 2005.

21. ‘‘Lower Division states’’ shall
mean the Colorado River Basin States of
Arizona, California, and Nevada.

22. ‘‘Mainstream’’ shall have the same
meaning as defined in the Consolidated
Decree.

23. ‘‘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.

24. ‘‘ROD’’ shall mean the Record of
Decision issued by the Secretary for the
Colorado River Interim Guidelines for
Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated
Operations for Lake Powell and Lake
Mead.

25. ‘‘Upper Division states’’ shall
mean the Colorado River Basin States of
Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and
Wyoming.

26. ‘‘Water Accounting Report’’ shall
mean the annual Colorado River
Accounting and Water Use Report—
Arizona, California, and Nevada that
includes, but is not limited to, the
compilation of records in accordance
with Article V of the Consolidated
Decree.

27. ‘‘Water Year’’ shall mean October
1 through September 30.

28. ‘‘Year’’ shall mean calendar year.

G. Interim Guidelines for the Operation
of Lake Powell and Lake Mead
These Guidelines shall include
Sections XI.A., B., E., and F. above and
this Section XI.G. These Guidelines
which shall implement and be used for
determinations made pursuant to the
Long-Range Operating Criteria during
the effective period identified in Section
8, are hereby adopted:

Section 1. Allocation of Unused Basic
Apportionment Water Under Article
II(B)(6)
A. Introduction
Article II(B)(6) of the Consolidated
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.

B. Application to Unused Basic
Apportionment
Before making a determination of a
Surplus Condition under these
Guidelines, the Secretary will determine
the quantity of apportioned but unused
water excluding ICS created in that Year
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 MWD and Southern
Nevada Water Authority (SNWA),
allocated as agreed by said agencies;

2. Meet the needs for Off-stream
Banking activities for use in California
by MWD and for use 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 Quantification
Settlement Agreement.

Section 2. Determination of Lake Mead
Operation During the Interim Period
In the development of the AOP, the
Secretary shall use the August 24-Month
Study projections for the following
January 1 system storage and reservoir
water surface elevations to determine
the Lake Mead operation for the
following Calendar Year as described in
this Section 2.

A. Normal Conditions

1. Lake Mead above elevation 1,075 feet
and below elevation 1,145 feet
In years when Lake Mead elevation is
projected to be above 1,075 feet and
below elevation 1,145 feet on January 1,
the Secretary shall determine either a
Normal Condition, or, under Section

2.B.5., an ICS Surplus Condition.

B. Surplus Conditions

1. Partial Domestic Surplus
[Adopted January 16, 2001; Deleted
December 13, 2007.]

2. Domestic Surplus
(Lake Mead at or above elevation
1,145 feet and below the elevation that
triggers a Quantified Surplus (70R
Strategy).)
In years when Lake Mead content is
projected to be at or above elevation
1,145 feet, but less than the amount
which would initiate a Surplus under
Section 2.B.3., Quantified Surplus, or
Section 2.B.4., Flood Control Surplus,
on January 1, the Secretary shall
determine a Domestic Surplus
Condition. The amount of such Surplus
shall equal—
a. From the effective date of these
Guidelines through December 31, 2015
(through preparation of the 2016 AOP):
(1) For Direct Delivery Domestic Use
by MWD, 1.250 maf reduced by the
amount of basic apportionment
available to MWD.
(2) For use by SNWA, the Direct
Delivery Domestic Use within the
SNWA service area in excess of the
State of Nevada’s basic apportionment.
(3) For use in Arizona, the Direct
Delivery Domestic Use in excess of
Arizona’s basic apportionment.
b. From January 1, 2016 (for
preparation of the 2017 AOP) through
December 31, 2025 (through preparation
of the 2026 AOP):
(1) For use by MWD, 250,000 af per
Year in addition to the amount of
California’s basic apportionment
available to MWD.
(2) For use by SNWA, 100,000 af per
Year in addition to the amount of
Nevada’s basic apportionment available
to SNWA.
(3) For use in Arizona, 100,000 af per
Year in addition to the amount of
Arizona’s basic apportionment available
to Arizona Contractors.

3. Quantified Surplus (70R Strategy) 2
In years when the Secretary
determines that water should be
delivered for beneficial consumptive
use to reduce the risk of potential
reservoir spills based on the 70R
Strategy the Secretary shall determine a
Quantified Surplus Condition and
allocate a Quantified Surplus
sequentially as follows:
a. Establish the volume of the
Quantified Surplus. For the purpose of
determining the existence, and
establishing the volume, of Quantified
Surplus, the Secretary shall not consider
any volume of ICS as defined in these
Guidelines.
b. Allocate and distribute the
Quantified Surplus 50 percent to
California, 46 percent to Arizona, and 4
percent to Nevada, subject to c. through
e. that follow.
c. Distribute California’s share first to
meet basic apportionment demands and
MWD’s demands, and then to California
Priorities 6 and 7 and other surplus
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:21 Apr 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 Item 4.
19886 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Notices 3Under current practice, surplus waters are made
available to Mexico pursuant to the 1944 Treaty
(when Mexico may schedule up to an additional 0.2
maf) when flood control releases are made. These
Guidelines are not intended to affect that practice.

Any issues relating to the implementation of the
1944 Treaty, including any potential changes in
approach relating to surplus declarations under the
1944 Treaty, would be addressed with Mexico as
appropriate through the USIBWC.
4To the extent permitted by federal law, monies
to pay construction, operation, maintenance, repair,
and/or replacement costs.
contracts. Distribute Nevada’s share first
to meet basic apportionment demands
and then to the remaining demands.

Distribute Arizona’s share to surplus
demands in Arizona including Offstream Banking and interstate banking demands. Nevada shall receive first
priority for interstate banking in
Arizona.
d. Distribute any unused share of the
Quantified Surplus in accordance with
Section 1.
e. Determine whether MWD, SNWA
and Arizona have received the amount
of water they would have received
under Section 2.B.2., if a Quantified
Surplus Condition had not been
determined. If they have not, then
determine and meet all demands
provided for in Section 2.B.2.

4. Flood Control Surplus
In years in which the Secretary makes
space-building or flood control
releases 3 pursuant to the 1984 Field
Working Agreement between
Reclamation and the Army Corps of
Engineers (as may be amended), the
Secretary shall determine a Flood
Control Surplus for the remainder of
that Year or the subsequent Year. In
such years, releases will be made to
satisfy all beneficial uses within the
United States, including unlimited Offstream Banking.

5. ICS Surplus
a. In years in which Lake Mead’s
elevation is projected to be above
elevation 1,075 feet on January 1, a
Flood Control Surplus has not been
determined, and delivery of ICS has
been requested, the Secretary may
determine an ICS Surplus Condition in
lieu of a Normal Condition or in
addition to other operating conditions
that are based solely on the elevation of
Lake Mead.
b. In years in which a Quantified
Surplus or a Domestic Surplus is
available to a Contractor, the Secretary
shall first deliver the Quantified Surplus
or Domestic Surplus before delivering
any requested ICS to that Contractor. If
available Quantified Surplus or
Domestic Surplus is insufficient to meet
a Contractor’s demands, the Secretary
shall deliver ICS available in that
Contractor’s ICS Account at the request
of the Contractor, subject to the
provisions of Section 3.C.

C. Allocation of Colorado River Water
and Forbearance and Reparation
Arrangements
[Content of 2001 ISG Section 2.C.,
Allocation of Colorado River Water and
Forbearance and Reparation
Arrangements, is now found at III.A., as
modified.]
D. Shortage Conditions

1. Deliveries to the Lower Division
States during Shortage Condition Years
shall be implemented in the following
manner:
a. In years when Lake Mead content
is projected to be at or below elevation
1,075 feet and at or above 1,050 feet on
January 1, a quantity of 7.167 maf shall
be apportioned for consumptive use in
the Lower Division States of which 2.48
maf shall be apportioned for use in
Arizona and 287,000 af shall be
apportioned for use in Nevada in
accordance with the Arizona-Nevada
Shortage Sharing Agreement dated
February 9, 2007, and 4.4 maf shall be
apportioned for use in California.
b. In years when Lake Mead content
is projected to be below elevation 1,050
feet and at or above 1,025 feet on
January 1, a quantity of 7.083 maf shall
be apportioned for consumptive use in
the Lower Division States of which 2.4
maf shall be apportioned for use in
Arizona and 283,000 af shall be
apportioned for use in Nevada in
accordance with the Arizona-Nevada
Shortage Sharing Agreement dated
February 9, 2007, and 4.4 maf shall be
apportioned for use in California.
c. In years when Lake Mead content
is projected to be below elevation 1,025
feet on January 1, a quantity of 7.0 maf
shall be apportioned for consumptive
use in the Lower Division States of
which 2.32 maf shall be apportioned for
use in Arizona and 280,000 af shall be
apportioned for use in Nevada in
accordance with the Arizona-Nevada
Shortage Sharing Agreement dated
February 9, 2007, and 4.4 maf shall be
apportioned for use in California.

2. During a Year when the Secretary
has determined a Shortage Condition,
the Secretary shall deliver Developed
Shortage Supply available in a
Contractor’s DSS Account at the request
of the Contractor, subject to the
provisions of Section 4.C.

Section 3. Implementation of
Intentionally Created Surplus
[Content of 2001 ISG Section 3.,
Implementation of Guidelines, is now
found at Section 7., as modified herein.]
A. Categories of ICS

1. Extraordinary Conservation ICS
A Contractor may create
Extraordinary Conservation ICS through
the following activities:
a. Fallowing of land that currently is,
historically was, and otherwise would
have been irrigated in the next Year.
b. Canal lining programs.
c. Desalination programs in which the
desalinated water is used in lieu of
Mainstream water.
d. Extraordinary conservation
programs that existed on January 1,
2006.
e. Extraordinary Conservation ICS
demonstration programs pursuant to a
letter agreement entered into between
Reclamation and the Contractor prior to
the effective date of these Guidelines.
f. Tributary Conservation ICS created
under Section 3.A.2. and not delivered
in the Year created.
g. Imported ICS created under Section

3.A.4. and not delivered in the Year
created.
h. Other extraordinary conservation
measures, including but not limited to,
development and acquisition of a nonColorado River System water supply used in lieu of Mainstream water within
the same state, in consultation with the
Basin States.

2. Tributary Conservation ICS
A Contractor may create Tributary
Conservation ICS by purchasing
documented water rights on Colorado
River System tributaries within the
Contractor’s state if there is
documentation that the water rights
have been used for a significant period
of Years and that the water rights were
perfected prior to June 25, 1929 (the
effective date of the Boulder Canyon
Project Act). The actual amount of any
Tributary Conservation ICS introduced
to the Mainstream shall be subject to
verification by the Secretary as provided
in Section 3.D. Any Tributary
Conservation ICS not delivered
pursuant to Section 3.C. or deducted
pursuant to Section 3.B.2. in the Year it
was created will, at the beginning of the
following Year, be converted to
Extraordinary Conservation ICS and will
thereafter be subject to all provisions
applicable to Extraordinary
Conservation ICS. Tributary
Conservation ICS may be delivered for
Domestic Use only.

3. System Efficiency ICS
A Contractor may make contributions
of capital 4 to the Secretary for use in
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:21 Apr 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 Item 4.

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Notices 19887 5Should other Contractor(s) elect to participate in
a system efficiency project following the Secretary
making an amount of water available to the
contributing Contractor(s), the Secretary shall
reduce the amount of water in the contributing
Contractor(s)’ ICS Account(s) and credit the electing
Contractor(s)’ ICS Account(s) in an equal amount in
accordance with the terms of the Secretary’s
agreement for the funding of the system efficiency
project.
projects designed to realize system
efficiencies that save water that would
otherwise be lost from the Mainstream
in the United States. An amount of
water equal to a portion of the water
conserved would be made available to
contributing Contractor(s) by the
Secretary as System Efficiency ICS.5
System efficiency projects are intended
only to provide temporary water
supplies. System Efficiency ICS will be
delivered to the contributing
Contractor(s) on a schedule of annual
deliveries as provided in an exhibit to
a Forbearance Agreement and Delivery
Agreement. The Secretary may identify
potential system efficiency projects,
terms for capital participation in such
projects, and types and amounts of
benefits the Secretary could provide in
consideration of non-federal capital
contributions to system efficiency
projects, including identification of a
portion of the water saved by such
projects.

4. Imported ICS
A Contractor may create Imported ICS
by introducing non-Colorado River
System water in that Contractor’s state
into the Mainstream. Contractors
proposing to create Imported ICS shall
make arrangements with the Secretary,
contractual or otherwise, to ensure no
interference with the Secretary’s
management of Colorado River System
reservoirs and regulatory structures.

Any arrangement shall provide that the
Contractor must obtain appropriate
permits or other authorizations required
by state and federal law. The actual
amount of any Imported ICS introduced
to the Mainstream shall be subject to
verification by the Secretary as provided
in Section 3.D. Any Imported ICS not
delivered pursuant to Section 3.C. or
deducted pursuant to Section 3.B.2. in
the Year it was created will be
converted, at the beginning of the
following Year, to Extraordinary
Conservation ICS and thereafter will be
subject to all provisions applicable to
Extraordinary Conservation ICS.

B. Creation of ICS
A Contractor may only create ICS in
accordance with the following
conditions:

1. A Contractor shall submit a plan for
the creation of ICS to the Secretary
demonstrating how all requirements of
these Guidelines will be met in the
Contractor’s creation of ICS. Until such
plan is reviewed and approved by the
Secretary, subject to such environmental
compliance as may be required, such
plan or any ICS purportedly created
through it shall not be a basis for
creation of ICS. An ICS plan will consist
of at a minimum the following
information:
a. Project description, including what
extraordinary measures will be taken to
conserve or import water;
b. Term of the activity;
c. Estimate of the amount of water
that will be conserved or imported;
d. Proposed methodology for
verification of the amount of water
conserved or imported; and
e. Documentation regarding any state
or federal permits or other regulatory
approvals that have already been
obtained by the Contractor or that need
to be obtained prior to creation of ICS.

A Contractor may modify its approved
plan for creation of ICS during any Year,
subject to approval by the Secretary. A
Contractor with an approved multi-Year
plan for System Efficiency ICS is not
required to seek further approval by the
Secretary in subsequent Years unless
the Contractor seeks to modify the plan.

2. There shall be a one-time deduction
of five percent (5%) from the amount of
ICS in the Year of its creation. This
system assessment shall result in
additional system water in storage in
Lake Mead. This one-time system
assessment shall not apply to:
a. System Efficiency ICS created
pursuant to Section 3.B. because a large
portion of the water conserved by this
type of project will increase the quantity
of system water in storage over time.
b. Extraordinary Conservation ICS
created by conversion of Tributary
Conservation ICS that was not delivered
in the Year created, pursuant to this
Section 3.B. because 5% of the ICS is
deducted at the time the Tributary
Conservation ICS is created.
c. Extraordinary Conservation ICS
created by conversion of Imported ICS
that was not delivered in the Year
created, pursuant to this Section 3.B.
because 5% of the ICS is deducted at the
time the Imported ICS is created.
d. ICS created under demonstration
programs in 2006 and 2007 which has
already been assessed the 5% system
assessment.

3. Except as provided in Sections

3.A.2. and 3.A.4., Extraordinary
Conservation ICS can only be created if
such water would have otherwise been
beneficially used.

4. The maximum total amount of
Extraordinary Conservation ICS that can
be created during any Year is limited to
the following:
a. 400,000 af for California
Contractors;
b. 125,000 af for Nevada Contractors;
and
c. 100,000 af for Arizona Contractors.

5. The maximum quantity of
Extraordinary Conservation ICS that
may be accumulated in all ICS
Accounts, at any time, is limited to the
following:
a. 1.5 maf for California Contractors;
b. 300,000 af for Nevada Contractors;
and
c. 300,000 af for Arizona Contractors.

6. Except as provided in Sections

3.A.2. and 3.A.4., no category of surplus
water can be used to create
Extraordinary Conservation ICS.

7. The quantity of Extraordinary
Conservation ICS remaining in an ICS
Account at the end of each Year shall be
diminished by annual evaporation
losses of 3%. Losses shall be applied
annually to the end-of-the-Year balance
of Extraordinary Conservation ICS
beginning in the Year after the ICS is
created and continuing until no
Extraordinary Conservation ICS remains
in Lake Mead. No evaporation losses
shall be assessed during a Year in which
the Secretary has determined a Shortage
Condition.

8. Extraordinary Conservation ICS
from a project within a state may only
be credited to the ICS Account of a
Contractor within that state that has
funded or implemented the project
creating ICS, or to the ICS Account of
a Contractor within the same state as the
funding entity and project and with
written agreement of the funding entity.

9. A Contractor must notify
Reclamation of the amount of ICS it
wishes to create for the subsequent Year
pursuant to an existing, approved plan.

A Contractor may request mid-Year
modification(s) to reduce the amount of
ICS created during that Year, subject to
the requirements of this Section 3.B. A
Contractor cannot increase the amount
of ICS it had previously scheduled to
create during the Year.

C. Delivery of ICS
The Secretary shall deliver ICS in
accordance with the following
conditions:

1. The delivery shall be consistent
with the terms of a Delivery Agreement
with a Contractor regarding ICS.

2. The Secretary has determined an
ICS Surplus Condition.

3. The existence of Forbearance
Agreements necessary to bring the
delivery of the ICS into compliance with
Articles II(B)(2) and II(B)(6) of the
Consolidated Decree.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:21 Apr 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 Item 4.
19888 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Notices

4. A limitation on the total amount of
Extraordinary Conservation ICS that
may be delivered in any Year is as
follows:
a. 400,000 af for California
Contractors;
b. 300,000 af for Nevada Contractors;
and
c. 300,000 af for Arizona Contractors.

5. If the May 24-Month Study for that
Year indicates that a Shortage Condition
would be determined in the succeeding
Year if the requested amounts for the
current Year under Section 3.C. were
delivered, the Secretary may deliver less
than the amounts of ICS requested to be
delivered.

6. If the Secretary releases Flood
Control Surplus water, Extraordinary
Conservation ICS accumulated in ICS
Accounts shall be reduced by the
amount of the Flood Control Surplus on
an acre-foot for acre-foot basis until no
Extraordinary Conservation ICS
remains. The reductions to the ICS
Accounts shall be shared on a pro-rata
basis among all Contractors that have
accumulated Extraordinary
Conservation ICS.

7. If a Contractor has an overrun
payback obligation, as described in the
October 10, 2003 Inadvertent Overrun
and Payback Policy or Exhibit C to the
October 10, 2003 Colorado River Water
Delivery Agreement, the Contractor
must pay the overrun payback
obligation in full before requesting or
receiving delivery of ICS. The
Contractor’s ICS Account shall be
reduced by the amount of the overrun
payback obligation in order to pay the
overrun payback obligation.

8. If more ICS is delivered to a
Contractor than is actually available for
delivery to the Contractor in that Year,
then the excess ICS delivered shall be
treated as an inadvertent overrun until
it is fully repaid.

9. A Contractor may request mid-Year
modification(s) to increase or reduce the
amount of ICS to be delivered during
that Year because of changed
conditions, emergency, or hardship,
subject to the requirements of this
Section 3.C.

10. The Contractor shall agree in the
Delivery Agreement that the records of
the Contractor relating to the creation of
ICS shall be open to inspection by the
Secretary and by any Contractor or
Basin State.

D. Accounting for ICS
The Secretary shall develop
procedures to account for and verify, on
an annual basis, ICS creation and
delivery. At a minimum such
procedures shall include the following:

1. A Contractor shall submit for the
Secretary’s review and verification,
appropriate information, as determined
by the Secretary, contained in a
Certification Report, to demonstrate the
amount of ICS created and that the
method of creation was consistent with
the Contractor’s approved ICS plan, a
Forbearance Agreement, and a Delivery
Agreement. Such information shall be
submitted in the Year following the
creation of the ICS.

2. The Secretary, acting through the
Lower Colorado Regional Director, shall
verify the information submitted
pursuant to this section, and provide a
final written decision to the Contractor
regarding the amount of ICS created.

The results of such final written
decisions shall be made available to the
public through publication pursuant to
Section 3.D.3. and other appropriate
means. A Contractor and any party to an
applicable Forbearance Agreement may
appeal the Regional Director’s
verification decision first to the
Regional Director and then to the
Secretary; and through judicial
processes.

3. Each Year the Water Accounting
Report will be supplemented to include
ICS Account balance information for
each Contractor and shall address ICS
creation, deliveries, amounts no longer
available for delivery due to releases for
flood control purposes, deductions
pursuant to Section 3.B.2., deductions
due to annual evaporation losses
pursuant to Section 3.B.7., any amounts
of ICS converted to Extraordinary
Conservation ICS, and ICS remaining
available for delivery.

Section 4. Implementation of Developed
Shortage Supply
[Content of 2001 ISG Section 4.,
Effective Period & Termination, is now
found at Section 8., as modified herein.]
A. Categories of DSS

1. Tributary Conservation DSS
A Contractor may create Tributary
Conservation DSS by purchasing
documented water rights on Colorado
River System tributaries within the
Contractor’s state if there is
documentation that the water rights
have been used for a significant period
of Years and that the water rights were
perfected prior to June 25, 1929 (the
effective date of the Boulder Canyon
Project Act). The actual amount of any
Tributary Conservation DSS introduced
to the Mainstream shall be subject to
verification by the Secretary as provided
in Section 4.D. Tributary Conservation
DSS may be delivered for Domestic Use
only.

2. Imported DSS
A Contractor may create Imported
DSS by introducing non-Colorado River
System water in that Contractor’s state
into the Mainstream, making sufficient
arrangements with the Secretary,
contractual or otherwise, to ensure no
interference with the Secretary’s
management of Colorado River System
reservoirs and regulatory structures.

Any arrangement shall provide that the
Contractor must obtain appropriate
permits or other authorizations required
by state and federal law. The actual
amount of any Imported DSS introduced
to the Mainstream shall be subject to
verification by the Secretary as provided
in Section 4.D.

B. Creation of DSS
A Contractor may only create DSS in
accordance with the following
conditions:

1. A Contractor shall submit a plan for
the creation of DSS to the Secretary
demonstrating how all requirements of
these Guidelines will be met in the
Contractor’s creation of DSS. Until such
plan is reviewed and approved by the
Secretary, subject to such environmental
compliance as may be required, such
plan, or any DSS purportedly created
through it, shall not be a basis for
creation of DSS. A DSS plan will consist
of at a minimum the following
information:
a. Project description, including what
extraordinary measures will be taken to
conserve or import water;
b. Term of the activity;
c. Estimate of the amount of water
that will be conserved or imported;
d. Proposed methodology for
verification of the amount of water
conserved or imported; and
e. Documentation regarding any state
or federal permits or other regulatory
approvals that have already been
obtained by the Contractor or that need
to be obtained prior to creation of DSS.

A Contractor may modify its approved
plan for creation of DSS during any
Year, subject to approval by the
Secretary.

2. There shall be a one-time deduction
of five percent (5%) from the amount of
DSS in the Year of its creation. This
system assessment shall result in
additional system water in storage in
Lake Mead.

3. DSS may only be created during a
Year when the Secretary has determined
a Shortage Condition.

4. DSS may only be created by a
project that is approved by the Secretary
for creation prior to the Secretary
determining a Shortage Condition.

5. A Contractor must notify
Reclamation of the amount of DSS it
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:21 Apr 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 Item 4.

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Notices 19889 6The Benchmark Quantities in 2003 and 2006
were met.
7The 2009 Benchmark Quantity is modified from

3.53 maf due to construction delays that have been
experienced for the All-American Canal Lining
Project.
wishes to create for the subsequent Year
pursuant to an existing, approved plan.

A Contractor may request mid-Year
modification(s) to reduce the amount of
DSS created during that Year, subject to
the requirements of this Section 4.B. A
Contractor cannot increase the amount
of DSS it had previously scheduled to
create during the Year.

C. Delivery of DSS
The Secretary shall deliver DSS in
accordance with the following
conditions:

1. The delivery shall be consistent
with the terms of a Delivery Agreement
with a Contractor regarding DSS.

2. The Secretary has determined a
Shortage Condition.

3. Delivery of DSS shall not cause the
total deliveries within the Lower
Division states to reach or exceed 7.5
maf in any Year.

4. Delivery of DSS shall be in
accordance with Article II(B)(3) of the
Consolidated Decree.

5. If a Contractor has an overrun
payback obligation, as described in the
October 10, 2003 Inadvertent Overrun
and Payback Policy or Exhibit C to the
October 10, 2003 Colorado River Water
Delivery Agreement, the Contractor
must pay the overrun payback
obligation in full before requesting or
receiving delivery of DSS. The
Contractor’s DSS Account shall be
reduced by the amount of the overrun
payback obligation in order to pay the
overrun payback obligation.

6. If more DSS is delivered to a
Contractor than is actually available for
delivery to the Contractor in that Year,
then the excess DSS delivered shall be
treated as an inadvertent overrun until
it is fully repaid.

7. A Contractor may request mid-Year
modification(s) to increase or reduce the
amount of DSS to be delivered during
that Year because of changed
conditions, emergency, or hardship,
subject to the requirements of this
Section 4.C.

8. The Contractor shall agree in the
Delivery Agreement that the records of
the Contractor relating to the creation of
DSS shall be open to inspection by the
Secretary or by any Contractor or Basin
State.

9. DSS may only be delivered in the
Year of its creation. Any DSS not
delivered pursuant to this Section 4.C.
in the Year it is created may not be
converted to Extraordinary Conservation
ICS.

D. Accounting for DSS
The Secretary shall develop
procedures to account for and verify, on
an annual basis, DSS creation and
delivery. At a minimum such
procedures shall include the following:

1. A Contractor shall submit for the
Secretary’s review and verification
appropriate information, as determined
by the Secretary, contained in a
Certification Report, to demonstrate the
amount of DSS created and that the
method of creation was consistent with
the Contractor’s approved DSS plan and
a Delivery Agreement. Such information
shall be submitted in the Year following
the creation of the DSS.

2. The Secretary, acting through the
Lower Colorado Regional Director, shall
verify the information submitted
pursuant to this section, and provide a
final written decision to the Contractor
regarding the amount of DSS created.

The results of such final written
decisions shall be made available to the
public through publication pursuant to
Section 4.D.3. and other appropriate
means. The Contractor may appeal the
Regional Director’s verification decision
first to the Regional Director and then to
the Secretary; and through judicial
processes.

3. Each Year the Water Accounting
Report will be supplemented to include
DSS information for each Contractor
and shall address DSS creation,
deliveries, and deductions pursuant to
Section 4.B.2.

Section 5. California’s Colorado River
Water Use Plan Implementation
Progress
A. Introduction
[Adopted January 16, 2001; Deleted
December 13, 2007.]
B. California’s Quantification
Settlement Agreement
[Adopted January 16, 2001; Deleted
December 13, 2007.]
C. California’s Colorado River Water
Use Reductions
The California Agricultural (Palo
Verde Irrigation District, Yuma Project
Reservation Division, Imperial Irrigation
District, and Coachella Valley Water
District) usage plus 14,500 af of Present
Perfected Right (PPR) use would need to
be at or below the following amounts at
the end of the Year indicated in Years
other than Quantified or Flood Control
Surplus (for Decree accounting purposes
all reductions must be within 25,000 af
of the amounts stated):

Benchmark date
(calendar year)
Benchmark
quantity (California
agricultural usage
& 14,500 AF of
PPR use in MAF)
2003 ................................ 6 3.75
2006 ................................ 6 3.64
Benchmark date
(calendar year)
Benchmark
quantity (California
agricultural usage
& 14,500 AF of
PPR use in MAF)
2009 ................................ 7 3.60
2012 ................................ 3.47
In the event that California has not
reduced its use in accordance with the
limits set forth above in any Year in
which the Benchmark Quantity applies,
the surplus determination under Section

2.B.2. of these Guidelines will be
suspended and will instead be based
upon the 70R Strategy, for up to the
remainder of the term of these
Guidelines. If however, California meets
the missed Benchmark Quantity before
the next Benchmark Date or the 2012
Benchmark Quantity after 2012, the
surplus determination under Section

2.B.2. shall be reinstated as the basis for
the surplus determination under the
AOP for the next following Year(s).

As part of the AOP process during the
Interim Period of these Guidelines,
California shall report to the Secretary
on its progress in implementing its
California Colorado River Water Use
Plan.

Section 6. Coordinated Operation of
Lake Powell and Lake Mead During the
Interim Period
[Content of 2001 ISG Section 6.,
Authority, is now found at Section 9., as
modified herein.]
During the Interim Period, the
Secretary shall coordinate the
operations of Lake Powell and Lake
Mead according to the strategy set forth
in this Section 6. The objective of the
operation of Lake Powell and Lake
Mead as described herein is to avoid
curtailment of uses in the Upper Basin,
minimize shortages in the Lower Basin
and not adversely affect the yield for
development available in the Upper
Basin.

The August 24-Month Study
projections of the January 1 system
storage and reservoir water surface
elevations, for the following Water Year,
shall be used to determine the
applicable operational tier for the
coordinated operation of Lake Powell
and Lake Mead as specified in the table
below.

Consistent with the provisions of this
Section 6, equalization or balancing of
storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead
shall be achieved as nearly as is
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:21 Apr 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 Item 4.
19890 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Notices practicable by the end of each Water
Year. When equalizing or balancing the
contents of the reservoirs, scheduled
Water Year releases from Lake Powell
will be adjusted each month based on
forecasted inflow, and projected
September 30 Active Storage at Lake
Powell and Lake Mead. In this Section
6, the term ‘‘storage’’ shall mean Active
Storage.

When determining lake elevations
and contents under this Section 6, no
adjustment shall be made for ICS.

Coordinated operation of Lake Powell
and Lake Mead as described herein will
be presumed to be consistent with the
Section 602(a) storage requirement
contained in the Colorado River Basin
Project Act.

Releases from Lake Powell for
coordinated operations will be
consistent with the parameters of the
Record of Decision for the Glen Canyon
Dam Final Environmental Impact
Statement and the Glen Canyon Dam
Operating Criteria (62 Fed. Reg. 9447,
March 3, 1997).

Notwithstanding the quantities set
forth in this Section 6, the Secretary
shall evaluate and take additional
necessary actions, as appropriate, at
critical elevations in order to avoid
Lower Basin shortage determinations as
reservoir conditions approach critical
thresholds. Any actions shall also be
consistent with avoidance of
curtailment of consumptive uses in the
Upper Basin.

April adjustments to Lake Powell
operations in the Upper Elevation
Balancing Tier (as specified in Sections

6.B.3. and 6.B.4.) shall be based on the
April 24-Month Study projections of the
September 30 system storage and
reservoir water surface elevations for the
current Water Year. Any such
adjustments shall not require reinitiation of the AOP consultation process. In making these projections, the
Secretary shall utilize the April 1 final
forecast of the April through July runoff,
currently provided by the National
Weather Service’s Colorado Basin River
Forecast Center.

A. Equalization Tier
In each Water Year, the Lake Powell
equalization elevation will be as
follows:

LAKE POWELL EQUALIZATION

ELEVATION TABLE
Water year Elevation
(feet)
2008 ............................................ 3,636 2009 ............................................ 3,639 2010 ............................................ 3,642 2011 ............................................ 3,643 2012 ............................................ 3,645 2013 ............................................ 3,646 2014 ............................................ 3,648 2015 ............................................ 3,649 2016 ............................................ 3,651 2017 ............................................ 3,652 2018 ............................................ 3,654 2019 ............................................ 3,655 2020 ............................................ 3,657 2021 ............................................ 3,659 2022 ............................................ 3,660 2023 ............................................ 3,662 2024 ............................................ 3,663

LAKE POWELL EQUALIZATION
ELEVATION TABLE—Continued
Water year Elevation
(feet)
2025 ............................................ 3,664 2026 ............................................ 3,666

1. In Water Years when Lake Powell
elevation is projected on January 1 to be
at or above the elevation stated in the
Lake Powell Equalization Elevation
Table, an amount of water will be
released from Lake Powell to Lake Mead
at a rate greater than 8.23 maf per Water
Year to the extent necessary to avoid
spills, or equalize storage in the two
reservoirs, or otherwise to release 8.23
maf from Lake Powell. The Secretary
shall release at least 8.23 maf per Water
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:21 Apr 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN11AP08.000</GPH> Item 4.

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Notices 19891 8These Guidelines are not intended to constitute
an interpretation or application of the 1944 Treaty
or to represent current United States policy or a
determination of future United States policy
regarding deliveries to Mexico. The United States
will conduct all necessary and appropriate
discussions regarding the proposed federal action
and implementation of the 1944 Treaty with Mexico
through the IBWC in consultation with the
Department of State.

Year and shall release additional water
to the extent that the additional releases
will not cause Lake Powell content to be
below the elevation stated in the Lake
Powell Equalization Elevation Table or
cause Lake Mead content to exceed that
of Lake Powell; provided, however, if
Lake Powell reaches the elevation stated
in the Lake Powell Equalization
Elevation Table for that Water Year and
the September 30 projected Lake Mead
elevation is below elevation 1,105 feet,
the Secretary shall release additional
water from Lake Powell to Lake Mead
until the first of the following
conditions is projected to occur on
September 30: (i) The reservoirs fully
equalize; (ii) Lake Mead reaches
elevation 1,105 feet; or (iii) Lake Powell
reaches 20 feet below the elevation in
the Lake Powell Equalization Elevation
Table for that year.

B. Upper Elevation Balancing Tier

1. In Water Years when the projected
January 1 Lake Powell elevation is
below the elevation stated in the Lake
Powell Equalization Elevation Table and
at or above 3,575 feet, the Secretary
shall release 8.23 maf from Lake Powell
if the projected January 1 Lake Mead
elevation is at or above 1,075 feet.

2. If the projected January 1 Lake
Powell elevation is below the elevation
stated in the Lake Powell Equalization
Elevation Table and at or above 3,575
feet and the projected January 1 Lake
Mead elevation is below 1,075 feet, the
Secretary shall balance the contents of
Lake Mead and Lake Powell, but shall
release not more than 9.0 maf and not
less than 7.0 maf from Lake Powell in
the Water Year.

3. When operating in the Upper
Elevation Balancing Tier, if the April
24-Month Study projects the September
30 Lake Powell elevation to be greater
than the elevation in the Lake Powell
Equalization Elevation Table, the
Equalization Tier will govern the
operation of Lake Powell for the
remainder of the Water Year (through
September).

4. When operating under Section

6.B.1, if the April 24-Month Study
projects the September 30 Lake Mead
elevation to be below 1,075 feet and the
September 30 Lake Powell elevation to
be at or above 3,575 feet, the Secretary
shall balance the contents of Lake Mead
and Lake Powell, but shall release not
more than 9.0 maf and not less than 8.23
maf from Lake Powell in the Water Year.

5. When Lake Powell is projected to
be operating under Section 6.B.2. and
more than 8.23 maf is projected to be
released from Lake Powell during the
upcoming Water Year, the Secretary
shall recalculate the August 24-Month
Study projection of the January 1 Lake
Mead elevation to include releases
above 8.23 maf that are scheduled to be
released from Lake Powell during the
months of October, November, and
December of the upcoming Water Year,
for the purposes of determining Normal
or Shortage conditions pursuant to
Sections 2.A. or 2.D. of these
Guidelines.

C. Mid-Elevation Release Tier

1. In Water Years when the projected
January 1 Lake Powell elevation is
below 3,575 feet and at or above 3,525
feet, the Secretary shall release 7.48 maf
from Lake Powell in the Water Year if
the projected January 1 elevation of
Lake Mead is at or above 1,025 feet. If
the projected January 1 Lake Mead
elevation is below 1,025 feet, the
Secretary shall release 8.23 maf from
Lake Powell in the Water Year.

D. Lower Elevation Balancing Tier

1. In Water Years when the projected
January 1 Lake Powell elevation is
below 3,525 feet, the Secretary shall
balance the contents of Lake Mead and
Lake Powell, but shall release not more
than 9.5 maf and not less than 7.0 maf
from Lake Powell in the Water Year.

Section 7. Implementation of
Guidelines
[Content of 2001 ISG Section 7,
Modeling and Data Authority, is now
found at Section 7.A., as modified
herein.]
A. AOP Process
During the Interim Period, the
Secretary shall utilize the AOP process
to determine operations under these
Guidelines concerning the coordinated
operations of Lake Powell and Lake
Mead pursuant to Section 6 of these
Guidelines, and the allocation of
apportioned but unused water from
Lake Mead and the determinations
concerning whether Normal, Surplus or
Shortage conditions shall apply for the
delivery of water from Lake Mead,
pursuant to Section 1 and Section 2 of
these Guidelines.

B. Consultation
The Secretary shall consult on the
implementation of these Guidelines in
circumstances including but not limited
to the following:

1. The Secretary shall first consult
with all the Basin States before making
any substantive modification to these
Guidelines.

2. Upon a request for modification of
these Guidelines, or upon a request to
resolve any claim or controversy arising
under these Guidelines or under the
operations of Lake Powell and Lake
Mead pursuant to these Guidelines or
any other applicable provision of federal
law, regulation, criteria, policy, rule, or
guideline, or regarding application of
the 1944 Treaty that has the potential to
affect domestic management of Colorado
River water, the Secretary shall invite
the Governors of all the Basin States, or
their designated representatives, and the
Department of State and USIBWC as
appropriate, to consult with the
Secretary in an attempt to resolve such
claim or controversy by mutual
agreement.

3. In the event projections included in
any monthly 24-Month Study indicate
Lake Mead elevations may approach an
elevation that would trigger shortages in
deliveries of water from Lake Mead in
the United States, the Secretary shall
consult with the Department of State,
the USIBWC and the Basin States on
whether and how the United States may
reduce the quantity of water allotted to
Mexico consistent with the 1944
Treaty.8

4. Whenever Lake Mead is below
elevation 1,025 feet, the Secretary shall
consult with the Basin States annually
to consider whether Colorado River
hydrologic conditions, together with the
anticipated delivery of water to the
Lower Division States and Mexico, is
likely to cause the elevation of Lake
Mead to fall below 1,000 feet. Upon
such a consideration, the Secretary shall
consult with the Basin States to discuss
further measures that may be
undertaken. The Secretary shall
implement any additional measures
consistent with applicable federal law.

5. During the Interim Period the
Secretary shall consult with the Basin
States regarding the administration of
ICS.

6. During the Interim Period the
Secretary shall consult with the Basin
States regarding the creation of ICS
through other extraordinary
conservation measures pursuant to
Section 3.A.1.h.

7. During the Interim Period the
Secretary shall consult with the Basin
States regarding the creation of System
Efficiency ICS pursuant to Section

3.A.3.

8. The Secretary shall consult with
the Basin States to evaluate actions at
critical elevations that may avoid
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:21 Apr 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 Item 4.
19892 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 71 / Friday, April 11, 2008 / Notices shortage determinations as reservoir
elevations approach critical thresholds.

C. Mid-Year Review
In order to allow for better overall
water management during the Interim
Period, the Secretary may undertake a
mid-year review to consider revisions to
the AOP. The Secretary shall initiate a
mid-year review if requested by any
Basin State or by the Upper Colorado
River Commission. In the mid-year
review, the Secretary may modify the
AOP to make a determination that a
different operational tier (Section 2.A.,
B., or D., or Section 6.A., B., C., or D.)
than that determined in the AOP will
apply for the remainder of the Year or
Water Year as appropriate, or that an
amount of water other than that
specified in the applicable operational
tier will be released for the remainder of
the Year or Water Year as appropriate.

The determination of modification of
the AOP shall be based upon an
evaluation of the objectives to avoid
curtailment of uses in the Upper Basin,
minimize shortages in the Lower Basin
and not adversely affect the yield for
development available in the Upper
Basin. In undertaking such a mid-year
review, the Secretary shall utilize the
April 1 final forecast of the April
through July runoff, currently provided
by the National Weather Service’s
Colorado Basin River Forecast Center,
and other relevant factors such as actual
runoff conditions, actual water use, and
water use projections. For Lake Mead,
the Secretary shall revise the
determination in any mid-year review
for the current Year only to allow for
additional deliveries from Lake Mead
pursuant to Section 2 of these
Guidelines.

D. Operations During Interim Period
These Guidelines implement the
LROC and may be reviewed
concurrently with the LROC five-year
review. The Secretary will base annual
determinations regarding the operations
of Lake Powell and Lake Mead on these
Guidelines unless extraordinary
circumstances arise. Such
circumstances could include operations
that are prudent or necessary for safety
of dams, public health and safety, other
emergency situations, or other
unanticipated or unforeseen activities
arising from actual operating
experience.

Beginning no later than December 31,
2020, the Secretary shall initiate a
formal review for purposes of evaluating
the effectiveness of these Guidelines.

The Secretary shall consult with the
Basin States in initiating this review.

Procedures will be established for
implementation of ICS and DSS by
Reclamation’s Lower Colorado Regional
Director.

Section 8. Interim Period and
Termination
[Adopted January 16, 2001; Deleted
and Modified December 13, 2007.]
A. Interim Period
These Guidelines will be effective
upon the date of execution of the ROD
for Colorado River Interim Guidelines
for Lower Basin Shortages and
Coordinated Operations of Lake Powell
and Lake Mead and will, unless
subsequently modified, remain in effect
through December 31, 2025 (through
preparation of the 2026 AOP).

The Department promulgated these
Guidelines based on consideration of
multiple sources of information,
including existing applicable
guidelines, information submitted by
the general public, an Agreement and
recommendation submitted by the
representatives of the Governors of the
seven Colorado Basin States, modeling,
and other information contained in
environmental compliance
documentation. The Secretary
recognizes that the Basin States’
recommendation was developed with
the intent to be consistent with existing
law, as addressed by Section 9 of the
April 23, 2007, Agreement among the
Basin States.

The Secretary recognizes that
differences exist with respect to
interpretations of certain provisions
contained in the Law of the River and
the proper application of those
provisions, including, for example,
Section 602(a) of the Colorado River
Basin Project Act of 1968. In lieu of a
formal determination regarding such
disputes, the Secretary will apply the
operational criteria in these Guidelines.

By way of further example, positions
and rights concerning the calculation of
the quantity of Section 602(a) storage
and releases of water from Lake Powell
are reserved. The Secretary, through the
adoption of these Guidelines, makes no
determination with respect to the
correctness of any interpretation of
Section 602(a) storage and release
requirements or other positions of the
individual Colorado River Basin States.

Actual operations under these
Guidelines shall not represent
interpretations of existing law by the
Secretary, nor predetermine in any
manner the means of operation that the
Secretary may adopt following the
Interim Period. Releases from Lake
Powell or Lake Mead pursuant to these
Guidelines shall not prejudice the
position or interests of either the Upper
or Lower Division States, or any
Colorado River Basin State, with respect
to required storage or deliveries of water
pursuant to applicable federal law,
either during or after the Interim Period.

B. Effective Period—Special Provisions

1. The provisions for the delivery and
accounting of ICS in Section 3 shall
remain in effect through December 31,
2036, unless subsequently modified, for
any ICS remaining in an ICS Account on
December 31, 2026.

2. The provisions for the creation and
delivery of Tributary Conservation ICS
and Imported ICS in Section 3 shall
continue in full force and effect until
fifty years from the date of the execution
of the ROD.

3. The provisions for the creation and
delivery of DSS in Section 4 shall
continue in full force and effect until
fifty years from the date of the execution
of the ROD.

C. Termination of Guidelines
Except as provided in Section 8.B.,
these Guidelines shall terminate on
December 31, 2025 (through preparation
of the 2026 AOP). At the conclusion of
the effective period of these Guidelines,
the operating criteria for Lake Powell
and Lake Mead are assumed to revert to
the operating criteria used to model
baseline conditions in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the
Interim Surplus Guidelines dated
December 2000 (i.e., modeling
assumptions are based upon a 70R
Strategy for the period commencing
January 1, 2026 (for preparation of the
2027 AOP)).

Section 9. Authority
These Guidelines are issued pursuant
to the authority vested in the Secretary
by federal law, including the Boulder
Canyon Project Act of 1928 (28 Stat.
1057), the Colorado River Storage
Project Act (70 Stat. 105), and the
Consolidated Decree issued by the U.S.

Supreme Court in Arizona v. California,
547 U.S. 150 (2006) and shall be used
to implement Articles II and III of the
Criteria for the Coordinated Long-Range
Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs
Pursuant to the Colorado River Basin
Project Act of September 30, 1968 (Pub.

L. 90–537), as amended.
[FR Doc. E8–7760 Filed 4–10–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:21 Apr 10, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.
1 Exhibit 1 to Attachment B - LBOps
Exhibit 1 to the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan Agreement

LOWER BASIN DROUGHT CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
I. Relationship to 2007 Interim Guidelines and Implementing Agreements These Lower Basin Drought Contingency Operations (LBOps) shall, in addition to the 2007 Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead (2007 Interim Guidelines) and the Implementing Agreements accompanying the 2007 Interim Guidelines, govern the operation of Lake Mead for the various periods set forth herein and as otherwise set forth in the 2007 Interim Guidelines. Terms defined in Section XI.F of the 2007 Interim Guidelines shall have the same meaning when used in these LBOps. In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of the 2007 Interim Guidelines and Implementing Agreements on the one hand, and these LBOps on the other, the provisions of these LBOps shall control; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed to impact the implementation of coordinated operations of Lakes Powell and Mead during the Interim Period as set forth in Section XI.G.6 of the 2007 Interim Guidelines. California Contractors that are Parties to the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan Agreement (LB DCP Agreement) shall be subject to provisions of these LBOps. California Contractors that are not Parties to the LB DCP Agreement shall not be subject to the provisions of these LBOps but shall instead remain subject to all of the applicable terms and conditions of the 2007 Interim Guidelines.

II. Definitions
“Binational ICS” shall mean Binational Intentionally Created Surplus as that term is used in the Interim Operating Agreements for Minutes 319 and 323 to the 1944 Mexican Water Treaty.
“Creation of Non-ICS Water” under these LBOps occurs when, and to the extent, the amount of Colorado River water available for use by a State in a given Year under Article II.B of the Consolidated Decree (after adjustments for reductions, Developed Shortage Supply creation or delivery, and ICS creation or delivery under the 2007 Interim Guidelines), exceeds the amount of Colorado River mainstream water consumptively used by that State in such Year. Such water shall not be DCP ICS. “DCP Contributions” shall mean those contributions benefiting Lake Mead through any of the following:
• Conversion of existing Extraordinary Conservation ICS to DCP ICS • Conversion of Extraordinary Conservation, System Efficiency, or Binational ICS created after the effective date of these LBOps to DCP ICS Item 4.
2 Exhibit 1 to Attachment B - LBOps
• Simultaneous creation and conversion of Extraordinary Conservation, System Efficiency, or Binational ICS to DCP ICS
• Creation of Non-ICS Water
“DCP ICS” shall mean Intentionally Created Surplus converted from Extraordinary Conservation ICS, System Efficiency ICS, or Binational ICS as set forth in these LBOps.

Reductions in Colorado River water available to a State pursuant to Section XI.G.2.D of the 2007 Interim Guidelines shall not constitute DCP ICS. “DCP ICS Account” shall mean records established by the Secretary regarding DCP ICS. “Effective Date” means the date first set forth in the LB DCP Agreement. “Intra-State DCP Agreements” means agreements among, as appropriate, the United States, a Lower Division State, Contractors, Tribes and local government entities within such state setting forth the relative rights and obligations among Contractors within the state regarding DCP Contributions.

III. Operational Provisions
A. Reservoir Elevation Projections
In making projections of Lake Mead water surface elevations as required throughout these LBOps, the Secretary shall use the Bureau of Reclamation’s August 24-Month Study for the most probable inflows unless expressly provided otherwise herein.

B. DCP Contributions
In addition to any reductions provided in Section XI.G.2.D. of the 2007 Interim Guidelines, from the Effective Date of these LBOps through December 31, 2025 (through preparation of the 2026 AOP), and consistent with applicable Intra-State DCP Agreements, the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada, shall make DCP Contributions as follows:

1. Arizona
a. Lake Mead January 1 elevation projected to be above 1,045 feet and at or below 1,090 feet
In Years when Lake Mead elevation is projected to be above 1,045 feet and at or below 1,090 feet on January 1, the State of Arizona shall make annual DCP Contributions in the total amount of 192,000 acre-feet. b. Lake Mead January 1 elevation projected to be at or below 1,045 feet Item 4.
3 Exhibit 1 to Attachment B - LBOps
In Years when Lake Mead elevation is projected to be at or below 1,045 feet on January 1, the State of Arizona shall make annual DCP Contributions in the total amount of 240,000 acre-feet.

2. Nevada
a. Lake Mead January 1 elevation projected to be above 1,045 feet and at or below 1,090 feet
In Years when Lake Mead elevation is projected to be above 1,045 feet and at or below 1,090 feet on January 1, the State of Nevada shall make annual DCP Contributions in the total amount of 8,000 acre-feet. b. Lake Mead January 1 elevation projected to be at or below 1,045 feet In Years when Lake Mead elevation is projected to be at or below 1,045 feet on January 1, the State of Nevada shall make annual DCP Contributions in the total amount of 10,000 acre-feet.

3. California
a. Lake Mead January 1 elevation projected to be above 1,040 feet and at or below 1,045 feet
In Years when Lake Mead elevation is projected to be above 1,040 feet and at or below 1,045 feet on January 1, the State of California shall make annual DCP Contributions in the total amount of 200,000 acre-feet. b. Lake Mead January 1 elevation projected to be above 1,035 feet and at or below 1,040 feet
In Years when Lake Mead elevation is projected to be above 1,035 feet and at or below 1,040 feet on January 1, the State of California shall make annual DCP Contributions in the total amount of 250,000 acre-feet. c. Lake Mead January 1 elevation projected to be above 1,030 feet and at or below 1,035 feet
In Years when Lake Mead elevation is projected to be above 1,030 feet and at or below 1,035 feet on January 1, the State of California shall make annual DCP Contributions in the total amount of 300,000 acre-feet. d. Lake Mead January 1 elevation projected to be at or below 1,030 feet In Years when Lake Mead elevation is projected to be at or below 1,030 feet on January 1, the State of California shall make annual DCP Contributions in the total amount of 350,000 acre-feet.

Item 4.
4 Exhibit 1 to Attachment B - LBOps

4. DCP Contributions for the benefit of another State
Contractors within one or more Lower Division States may make all or any portion of the DCP Contributions required of another Lower Division State under this Section III.B or DCP ICS repayment as required under Section III.F, provided:
(i) agreement by the necessary Parties in each of the Lower Division States to any such contribution(s) is made in writing consistent with any applicable Intra-State DCP Agreements.

Such agreement shall only be required of Parties to the LB DCP Agreement, non-Party consent is not required;
(ii) drafts of such agreements are provided to the Secretary and the Upper Division States prior to any required board
authorizations;
(iii) DCP Contributions on behalf of another State through conversion of ICS to DCP ICS shall accrue to the DCP ICS Accounts of applicable Contractors in the contributing State and not the State on whose behalf the contribution is made; and
(iv) notwithstanding the foregoing subsection (iii), the volume of any DCP ICS contributions made for the benefit of another State shall count against the storage limit set forth in Section IV.C below and the ICS delivery limit set forth in Section IV.D below of the State on whose behalf the contribution is made and not the contributing State.

C. Combined DCP Contributions and 2007 Interim Guidelines Shortages For purposes of illustrating the combined DCP Contributions volumes set forth in these LBOps and the shortages required under Section XI.G.2.D of the 2007 Interim Guidelines, Table 1 combines the applicable volumes by elevation for each State.

Item 4.
5 Exhibit 1 to Attachment B - LBOps
Table 1 – DCP Contributions and 2007 Interim Guidelines Shortages by State Projected
January 1
Lake Mead
Elevation
(feet msl)
2007 Interim
Guidelines
Shortages
DCP Contributions
Combined Volumes
(2007 Interim Guidelines Shortages & DCP
Contributions)
Arizona Nevada Arizona Nevada California Arizona Nevada California Lower
Division
States Total
(thousand acre-feet)
At or below
1,090 and
above 1,075
0 0 192 8 0 192 8 0 200
At or below
1,075 and at
or above
1,050
320 13 192 8 0 512 21 0 533
Below 1,050
and above
1,045
400 17 192 8 0 592 25 0 617
At or below
1,045 and
above 1,040
400 17 240 10 200 640 27 200 867
At or below
1,040 and
above 1,035
400 17 240 10 250 640 27 250 917
At or below
1,035 and
above 1,030
400 17 240 10 300 640 27 300 967
At or below
1,030 and at
or above
1,025
400 17 240 10 350 640 27 350 1,017
Below 1,025 480 20 240 10 350 720 30 350 1,100
D. Water Deliveries/DCP Contributions

1. Process regarding DCP Contributions
In any year that DCP Contributions are required, the Secretary shall meet and confer at least once each quarter with any Contractor that is required to make DCP Contributions (consistent with applicable Intra-State DCP Agreements) for the purpose of ensuring that the best available information regarding DCP Contribution status and the source of the DCP Contribution is available to both the Secretary and the affected Contractor. The Secretary shall consult upon request with any other Contractor regarding the implementation of DCP Contributions.

Item 4.
6 Exhibit 1 to Attachment B - LBOps

2. Delivery Schedule Adjustments
The Secretary shall adjust as necessary any scheduled deliveries of Colorado River water in a manner that ensures each State’s DCP Contributions are within 25,000 acre-feet of the amounts set forth in Section III.B by the end of the Year in which such DCP Contributions are required. Such adjustments shall be in accordance with any Intra-State DCP Agreements. Prior to making any delivery schedule adjustment pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall provide the affected Contractor the maximum practicable notice and an opportunity to meet and confer with the Secretary.

3. DCP Contributions Not Surplus
The Secretary shall not release pursuant to Article II.B of the Consolidated Decree any DCP Contribution during the Year of the DCP Contribution.

E. DCP Contributions Accounting Matters

1. DCP Contributions
On an annual basis, the Secretary shall document and publish in its Accounting Report pursuant to Article V of the Consolidated Decree, the amount of each of the DCP Contributions made pursuant to these LBOps.

2. DCP ICS and System Benefit
a. In the annual Water Accounting Report the Secretary shall separately account for and verify the creation and delivery of DCP ICS in a manner consistent with Section XI.G.3.D of the 2007 Interim Guidelines.
b. Any delivery of DCP ICS pursuant to Section III.F of these LBOps shall be limited to amounts documented and published by the Secretary pursuant to this Section III.E.2.
c. Beginning in 2027, and each Year thereafter, the Secretary shall diminish each DCP ICS Account by three percent (3%) for the benefit of the Colorado River System.
d. The provisions for DCP ICS accounting shall remain in effect through December 31, 2057, for any amounts remaining to be delivered on December 31, 2026.

3. Conversion of Excess DCP ICS to ICS
In the event Lake Mead’s January 1 elevation in a given Year is higher than that projected in the preceding August 24-Month Study, any DCP ICS creation that Item 4.
7 Exhibit 1 to Attachment B - LBOps
would not have occurred in such Year if the DCP Contribution had been determined based on Lake Mead’s actual January 1 elevation rather than a projection will instead remain available as the type of ICS originally created to the extent such volumes are the result of conservation actions consistent with ICS Exhibits to the 2007 Lower Colorado River Basin Intentionally Created Surplus Agreement (2007 ICS Agreement).

4. DCP Contribution Deficiency
Notwithstanding Section III.D.2, above, in the event that any final Water Accounting Report indicates that a State’s DCP Contribution in any prior Year is less than the exact amount required in Section III.B above, the State shall make DCP Contributions in the amount of the deficiency during the Year in which such final Water Accounting Report is published in addition to any DCP Contributions required by Section III.B for that Year.

5. Cumulative DCP Contributions Accounting
If at any time the cumulative volume of DCP Contributions is greater than or equal to 3.35 million acre-feet of contributions from Arizona, California and Nevada, the Secretary shall separately account for all such volumes in excess of 3.35 million acre-feet, and such volumes shall be available for delivery pursuant to Section III.F notwithstanding Section IV.C, below.

F. Delivery of DCP ICS

1. Annual Limits
Delivery of DCP ICS pursuant to this Section III.F shall be combined with and count toward the limitations on delivery of ICS set forth in Section XI.G.3.C.4 of the 2007 Interim Guidelines.

2. Effective Period of Annual limits
The annual limitations on delivery set forth in Section III.F.1 above shall remain in effect through December 31, 2057, for any amounts remaining to be recovered on December 31, 2026.

3. Delivery of DCP ICS through December 31, 2026; repayment obligations a. Lake Mead January 1 elevation projected to be above 1,110 feet In Years when Lake Mead’s January 1 elevation is projected to be above 1,110 feet, the States of Arizona, California and Nevada shall be permitted to schedule delivery of DCP ICS without any repayment obligation. b. Lake Mead January 1 elevation projected to be above 1,025 feet and at or below 1,110 feet
Item 4.
8 Exhibit 1 to Attachment B - LBOps
In Years when Lake Mead’s January 1 elevation is projected to be above 1,025 feet and at or below 1,110 feet, the States of Arizona, California and Nevada shall be permitted to have short-term access to existing DCP ICS (adjusted to reflect any borrowing or repayment pursuant to this Section) as reflected in the most recent final Water Accounting Report, with the obligation thatsuch volumes be repaid by December 31 of the Year following delivery. If there are insufficient repayments, the Secretary shall make appropriate delivery schedule adjustments consistent with Section III.D.2 to ensure that DCP ICS delivered pursuant to this Section III.F.3.b is fully and timely repaid.
c. Lake Mead January 1 elevation projected to be at or below 1,025 feet In Years when Lake Mead’s January 1 elevation is projected to be at or below 1,025 feet, delivery of DCP ICS shall not be permitted.

4. Delivery of DCP ICS from January 1, 2027, through December 31, 2057; repayment obligations
a. Lake Mead January 1 elevation projected to be above 1,110 feet In Years when Lake Mead’sJanuary 1 elevation is projected to be above 1,110 feet, the States of Arizona, California and Nevada shall be permitted to schedule delivery of DCP ICS without any repayment obligation. b. Lake Mead January 1 elevation projected to be above 1,075 feet and at or below 1,110 feet
In Years when Lake Mead’sJanuary 1 elevation is projected to be above 1,075 feet and at or below 1,110 feet, the States of Arizona, California and Nevada may schedule delivery of DCP ICS and shall, not later than the fourth Year following the Year in which the water was delivered, elect one of the following repayment options:

1. Repay such quantities before or during the fifth Year following the Year in which the water was delivered; or

2. Instruct the Secretary to reduce the DCP ICS Account from which the water was borrowed by an additional twenty percent (20%) of the amount borrowed before or during the fifth Year following the Year the water was delivered.

In the event there is insufficient DCP ICS repaid under option 1, or insufficient DCP ICS in the DCP ICS Account to make the adjustment contemplated in option 2, the Secretary shall make appropriate delivery schedule adjustments consistent with Section III.D.2 to ensure that DCP ICS delivered pursuant to this Section III.F.4.b is fully repaid by the end of the fifth Year following the Year in which it was delivered.

Item 4.
9 Exhibit 1 to Attachment B - LBOps
c. Lake Mead January 1 elevation projected to be above 1,025 feet and at or below 1,075 feet
In Years when Lake Mead’s January 1 elevation is projected to be above 1,025 feet and at or below 1,075 feet, the States of Arizona, California and Nevada shall be permitted to have short-term access to existing DCP ICS (adjusted to reflect any borrowing or repayment pursuant to this Section) as reflected in the most recent final Water Accounting Report, with the obligation to repay any such quantities by December 31 of the Year following the Year in which the water was delivered. If there are insufficient repayments, the Secretary shall make appropriate delivery schedule adjustments consistent with Section III.D.2 to ensure that DCP ICS delivered pursuant to this Section III.F.4.c is fully and timely repaid. d. Lake Mead January 1 elevation projected to be at or below 1,025 feet In Years when Lake Mead’s January 1 elevation is projected to be at or below 1,025 feet, delivery of DCP ICS shall not be permitted.

5. No System Assessment for DCP ICS Repayments
There shall be no system assessment on the creation of any ICS for conversion to DCP ICS as repayment pursuant to SectionsIII.F.3.b, III.F.4.b, and III.F.4.c above.

IV. Incentives for Enhanced Creation of Intentionally Created Surplus Benefitting Lake Mead
A. Provisions Relating to System and Evaporation Assessments

1. Total assessed losses – existing Extraordinary Conservation ICS The amount of Extraordinary Conservation ICS available as of the Effective Date in each ICS Account maintained by the Secretary is provided in the table attached hereto as Appendix “1” and incorporated herein by this reference. On the Effective Date, the Secretary shall assess additional losses as necessary such that the total assessed losses (including both system assessments and evaporation) for all ICS set forth in Appendix 1 is ten percent (10%). Through December 31, 2026, these volumes shall not be subject to any further assessments for system or evaporation losses.

2. Total assessed losses – Extraordinary Conservation, Tributary, or Imported ICS created after the Effective Date
There shall be a one-time deduction of ten percent (10%) of any Extraordinary Conservation, Tributary, or Imported ICS created after the Effective Date. Through December 31, 2026, these volumes shall not be subject to any further assessments for system or evaporation losses.

Item 4.
10 Exhibit 1 to Attachment B - LBOps

3. Replenishment Incentive
Notwithstanding Section IV.A.2 above, there shall be no assessment made upon the creation of Extraordinary Conservation ICS to the extent of the volume of Extraordinary Conservation ICS delivered to the same Contractor in the preceding Year.

4. Total assessed losses – System Efficiency ICS
System assessments and evaporation losses for System Efficiency projects created after the Effective Date, if any, will be determined on a case-bycase basis through exhibits to forbearance agreements.

B. Creation Limits Flexibility Consultation
If one but not all of the Lower Division States reaches its annual Extraordinary Conservation ICS creation limit as set forth in Section XI.G.3.B.4 of the 2007 Interim Guidelines, and if there remains a desire to create additional amounts of Extraordinary Conservation ICS, the Secretary, provided there is no objection by any Lower Division State not reaching its annual limit, may authorize additional Extraordinary Conservation ICS creation within the total annual limitation set forth in Section XI.G.3.B.4 of the 2007 Interim Guidelines (625,000 acre-feet).

C. Storage Limits Augmentation and Sharing
The maximum total amount of Extraordinary Conservation ICS, Binational ICS, and DCP ICS that may be accumulated in all ICS Accounts, at any time, is limited to the following:

1. 1.7 million acre-feet for California Contractors

2. 500 thousand acre-feet for Nevada Contractors

3. 500 thousand acre-feet for Arizona Contractors
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the appropriate Parties in Arizona, California, and Nevada may agree that one or more Lower Division State may make available ICS accumulation space within the limits set forth above to another Lower Division State for use by such state’s Contractors; provided (i) such agreements are in writing; and (ii) drafts of such agreements are provided to the Secretary and the Upper Division States prior to any required board authorizations.

D. Delivery of ICS
In addition to any Developed Shortage Supply, Extraordinary Conservation ICS, Binational ICS, and System Efficiency ICS shall be available for delivery as follows:

1. Lake Mead January 1 elevation projected to be above 1,045 feet and at or below 1,075 feet
Item 4.
11 Exhibit 1 to Attachment B - LBOps
In Years when Lake Mead’s January 1 elevation is projected to be above 1,045 feet and at or below 1,075 feet, the combined total delivery of Extraordinary Conservation ICS, Binational ICS, System Efficiency ICS and DCP ICS shall be limited to the quantities set forth in Section XI.G.3.C.4 of the 2007 Interim Guidelines.

2. Lake Mead January 1 elevation projected to be above 1,025 feet and at or below 1,045 feet
In Years when Lake Mead’s January 1 elevation is projected to be above 1,025 feet and at or below 1,045 feet, the combined total delivery of Extraordinary Conservation ICS, Binational ICS, System Efficiency ICS, DCP ICS, and the conversion of ICS to DCP ICS shall be limited to the quantities identified in Section XI.G.3.C.4 of the 2007 Interim Guidelines.

3. Lake Mead January 1 elevation projected to be at or below 1,025 feet In Years when Lake Mead’s January 1 elevation is projected to be at or below 1,025 feet, delivery of Extraordinary Conservation ICS, Binational ICS and System Efficiency ICS shall not be permitted.

E. Additional Cooperative Measures

1. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary within 43 C.F.R. Part 414 (Offstream Storage Of Colorado River Water And Development And Release Of Intentionally Created Unused Apportionment In The Lower Division States), interstate water transactions shall be permitted in Years when Lake Mead’s January 1 elevation is projected to be above 1,045 feet.

2. On or before the Effective Date, the party to the LB DCP Agreement from Arizona, the parties to the LB DCP Agreement from California, and the parties to the LB DCP Agreement from Nevada shall identify, for their respective States, such new or modified ICS Exhibits from that State that are necessary to implement the provisions of the LB DCP Agreement and these LBOps, and the Secretary shall approve and implement such new or modified ICS Exhibits. After the Effective Date, any new or modified ICS Exhibits shall only become effective pursuant to the provisions of the 2007 ICS Agreement.

3. The Secretary shall only deliver ICS created under the ICS Exhibits approved pursuant to Section IV.E.2 to the Contractor that created such ICS, or as otherwise directed by that Contractor subject to the 2007 Interim Guidelines.

4. The Secretary shall ensure that no other Contractor may claim as surplus under Article II.B of the Consolidated Decree any ICS created under the ICS Exhibits approved pursuant to Section IV.E.2.

Item 4.
12 Exhibit 1 to Attachment B - LBOps
F. Additional Intentional Conservation
The Secretary shall not release pursuant to Article II of the Consolidated Decree water intentionally conserved by a conservation program within a Lower Division State in which the Secretary participates and that results in reductions in consumptive use.

V. LBOps Implementation
A. AOP Process
The Secretary shall utilize the AOP process to determine operations under these LBOps in addition to those pursuant to the 2007 Interim Guidelines.

B. Consultation
The Secretary shall consult with the Lower Division States on the implementation of these LBOps in circumstances including, but not limited to, the following:

1. If any 24-Month Study for the most probable inflows projects that Lake Mead will reach an elevation of 1,075 feet or below by December 31 of the Year in which such study is produced, the Secretary and Lower Division States shall meet and consult at least twice annually to review current and projected operations and associated projected Lake Mead elevations, and to consider whether any adjustments to projected Lower Basin operations are prudent or necessary.

2. A position has not been formally expressed regarding a goal of operationally protecting a specific elevation of Lake Mead. In light of the foregoing, and for their individual and mutual benefit, the parties to the LB DCP Agreement have formally acknowledged their commitment to individual and collective action in the Lower Basin to avoid and protect against the potential for the elevation of Lake Mead to decline to elevations below 1,020 feet. Such parties made these commitments recognizing the individual and collective harm that could occur from prolonged interruptions in Lower Basin water supplies from the Colorado River and will implement the commitment identified in this paragraph as follows:

If any 24-Month Study for the minimum probable inflows projects that Lake Mead elevations will be at or below 1,030 feet anytime within the succeeding two Years, the Secretary and Lower Division States shall consult and determine what additional measures will be taken by the Secretary and Lower Division States to avoid and protect against the potential for Lake Mead to decline below 1,020 feet.

C. Term
These LBOps will remain in effect from the Effective Date through the Interim Period except for those matters for which longer periods are specified.

Item 4.
13 Exhibit 1 to Attachment B - LBOps
After the Interim Period the provisions for the accounting and delivery of DCP ICS shall remain in effect through December 31, 2057, as set forth in Section III.E.2.d, III.F.2 and III.F.4 above.

The provisionsfor the delivery of ICS set forth in Section IV.D above shall remain in effect through December 31, 2036, for any ICS remaining in an ICS Account on December 31, 2026.

The period during which Tributary Conservation ICS, Imported ICS, or Developed Shortage Supply may be created and delivered are unchanged from the 2007 Interim Guidelines.

Item 4.
14 Exhibit 1 to Attachment B - LBOps
Appendix 1 to the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Operations (LBOps) Table of Extraordinary Conservation (EC) ICS available as of the Effective Date, in accordance with Section IV.A.1 of the LBOps.

Footnotes:
1This column reflects ICS created through calendar year 2017, with system and evaporation assessments, consistent with the 2007 Interim Guidelines, applied through calendar year 2018. 2Additional system losses assessed by the Secretary to ensure that total assessed losses for all ICS set forth in Appendix 1 is at least 10%.
3EC ICS credited to CAWCD includes the conservation referenced in Footnote 8 of Table 11 in the 2015 Water Accounting Report and Footnote 7 of Table 11 in the 2016 Water Accounting Report. 4EC ICS credited to MWD includes the conservation referenced in Footnote 8 of Table 11 of the 2017 Water Accounting Report.
5EC ICS credited to SNWA includes the conservation referenced in Footnote 10 of Table 11 of the 2017 Water Accounting Report.

Values are in Acre-Feet
State/Contractor
Amount of EC ICS
Available
As Of the Effective
Date 1
Assessment Applied
Pursuant to Section
IV.A.1 of the LBOps 2
Amount of EC ICS
Available On the
Effective Date, After
Assessment
Arizona
Central Arizona Water Conservation
District 3 171,590 - 171,590
California
The Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California 4 387,136 (7,548) 379,588
Nevada
Southern Nevada Water Authority 5 173,093 (1,217) 171,876 Item 4.
15 Exhibit 1 to Attachment B - LBOps
EC ICS Creation 2015 through 2017
In addition to the conservation created through the ICS Exhibits approved with the 2007 ICS Agreement, ICS was created in 2015, 2016 and 2017 in accordance with the following ICS Exhibits:

LBOps ICS Exhibit Q - Central Arizona Water Conservation District – Funded Intentionally Created Surplus Water Supply from Conserved Water
LBOps ICS Exhibit W - Southern Nevada Water Authority – Extraordinary Conservation Intentionally Created Surplus using Municipal Conservation and Offstream Storage for Implementation under the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan EC ICS Creation in 2018
In addition to the conservation created through the ICS Exhibits approved with the 2007 ICS Agreement, ICS will be created in 2018 in accordance with the following ICS Exhibits:

LBOps ICS Exhibit R - Central Arizona Water Conservation District - Demand Reduction Incentives to Create Extraordinary Conservation Intentionally Created Surplus LBOps ICS Exhibit W - Extraordinary Conservation Intentionally Created Surplus using Municipal Conservation and Offstream Storage for Implementation under the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan
EC ICS Creation From 2019 Through Term of LBOps
In addition to the conservation created through the ICS Exhibits approved with the 2007 ICS Agreement, additional ICS Exhibits will be used to create EC ICS from 2019 through the term of the LBOps pursuant to Section IV.E.2 of the LBOps and the 2007 Interim Guidelines.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

Item 4.

City of Needles
817 Third Street, Needles, California 92363
(760) 326-2113  FAX (760) 326-6765
www.cityofneedles.com
Mayor Janet Jernigan
Vice Mayor Kirsten Merritt
Councilmember Tona Belt
Councilmember Ellen Campbell
Councilmember Jamie McCorkle
Councilmember JoAnne Pogue
Councilmember Henry Longbrake
City Manager Patrick Martinez
February 13, 2024
Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District
Robert R. Woodhouse, Board President, WMIDD
30570 Wellton-Mohawk Drive
Wellton, AZ 85356
RE: WMIDD Intentionally Created Surplus (“ICS”) Exhibit Mr. Woodhouse,
This is to confirm that, pursuant to your request dated December 6, 2023, on February 13, 2024, the City Council of the City of Needles, California, approved adding the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage Districts’ exhibit to the 2007 ICS Forbearance Agreement. We appreciate the District’s diligent effort to conserve Colorado River water.

Should you have any questions, please contact Rainie Torrance, Utility Manager at [email protected]
Janet Jernigan, Mayor
817 Third Street
Needles, CA 92363
Item 4.

CITY OF NEEDLES, CALIFORNIA

STAFF REPORT
MEETING TYPE:

MEETING DATE:

TITLE:

Regular
February 13, 2024
Adopt Resolution No. 2024- 9 Certifying the Sewer System Management Plan dated January 2024
BACKGROUND: The Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) under Order No. 2006-0003, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems (WDR).

The WDR requires the development and implementation of a written SSMP and defines eleven mandatory SSMP elements. The WDR also defines associated monitoring, record-keeping, reporting, and public notification requirements.

An SSMP revision is a major change to the SSMP or an Element of the SSMP. In addition, every five (5) years from the original governing board adoption, the Enrollee must completely evaluate the entire SSMP for changes that would further the implementation of the goals of the Enrollee and enhance compliance and effectiveness of the Enrollee’s operation, maintenance, and emergency response with the elements of the SSS WDR. This 5-year recertification process is required to be approved by the governing board even if no changes to the SSMP are proposed. It is recommended that any actions of the governing board be done by resolution.

Once formal adoption or re-certification by the governing board occurs, the SSMP must be placed (along with all references in the SSMP) on the Enrollee’s website. That website must be reported to the CIWQS system along with the formal adoption document approved by the governing board. If the Enrollee chooses not to place the document on the website or if a website is not available, the SSMP and all reference documents must be submitted electronically to the SSO Database or SWRCB, Division of Water Quality.

The Board of Public Utilities adopted resolution 2-6-24 1 BPU certifying the sewer system management plan dated January 2024 on February 6, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT: None

ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT:

RECOMMENDED
ACTION:

SUBMITTED BY:

None
Adopt Resolution No. 2024-9 Certifying the Sewer System Management Plan dated January 2024
Rainie Torrance, Utility Manager
City Manager Approval: _________________________________________ Date: _______________ Other Department Approval (when required): _______________________ Date: _______________ Agenda Item __________
Item 5.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-9

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF NEEDLES, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE CITY OF NEEDLES SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN ORIGINALLY ADOPTED ON DECEMBER 1, 2015 BY THE BOARD OF PUBLIC

UTILITIES OF THE CITY OF NEEDLES, CA
WHEREAS, All federal and state agencies, municipalities, counties, districts, and other public entities that own or operate sanitary sewer systems greater than one mile in length that collect and/or convey untreated or partially treated wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility in the State of California are required to comply with the terms of this Order. Such entities are hereinafter referred to as “Enrollees”; WHEREAS, Sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) are overflows from sanitary sewer systems of domestic wastewater, as well as industrial and commercial wastewater, depending on the pattern of land uses in the area served by the sanitary sewer system. SSOs often contain high levels of suspended solids, pathogenic organisms, toxic pollutants, nutrients, oxygen-demanding organic compounds, oil and grease and other pollutants. SSOs may cause a public nuisance, particularly when raw untreated wastewater is discharged to areas with high public exposure, such as streets or surface waters used for drinking, fishing, or body contact recreation. SSOs may pollute surface or ground waters, threaten public health, adversely affect aquatic life, and impair the recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment of surface waters; WHEREAS, Sanitary sewer systems experience periodic failures resulting in discharges that may affect waters of the state. There are many factors (including factors related to geology, design, construction methods and materials, age of the system, population growth, and system operation and maintenance), which affect the likelihood of an SSO. A proactive approach that requires Enrollees to ensure a system-wide operation, maintenance, and management plan is in place will reduce the number and frequency of SSOs within the state. This approach will in turn decrease the risk to human health and the environment caused by SSOs;
WHEREAS, Major causes of SSOs include: grease blockages, root blockages, sewer line flood damage, manhole structure failures, vandalism, pump station mechanical failures, power outages, excessive storm or ground water inflow/infiltration, debris blockages, sanitary sewer system age and construction material failures, lack of proper operation and maintenance, insufficient capacity and contractor-caused damages. Many SSOs are preventable with adequate and appropriate facilities, source control measures and operation and maintenance of the sanitary sewer system; WHEREAS, To facilitate proper funding and management of sanitary sewer systems, each Enrollee must develop and implement a system-specific Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). To be effective, SSMPs must include provisions to provide proper and efficient management, operation, and maintenance of sanitary sewer systems, while taking into consideration risk management and cost benefit analysis. Additionally, an SSMP must contain a spill response plan that establishes standard procedures for immediate response to an SSO in a manner designed to minimize water quality impacts and potential nuisance conditions;
WHEREAS, Many local public agencies in California have already developed SSMPs and implemented measures to reduce SSOs. These entities can build upon their existing efforts to establish a comprehensive SSMP consistent with this Order. Others, however, still require technical assistance and, in some cases, funding to improve sanitary sewer system operation and maintenance in order to reduce SSOs; WHEREAS, Both uniform SSO reporting and a centralized statewide electronic database are needed to collect information to allow the State Water Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) to effectively analyze the extent of SSOs statewide and their potential impacts on beneficial uses and public health. The monitoring and reporting program required by this Order and the attached Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 2006- 0003-DWQ, are necessary to assure compliance with these waste discharge requirements (WDRs); WHEREAS, An SSMP revision is a major change to the SSMP or an Element of the SSMP. In addition, every five (5) years from the original governing board adoption, the Enrollee must completely evaluate the entire SSMP for changes that would further the implementation of the goals of the Enrollee and enhance compliance and effectiveness of the Enrollee’s operation, maintenance and emergency response with the elements of the SSS WDR.

Item 5.

WHEREAS, the last SSMP re-certification was completed by the Board of Public Utilities on December 1, 2015 and then November 23, 2021;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Needles, California, hereby rescinds adopts Resolution 2024-9 certifying the Sewer System Management Plan PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Needles, California, held on the 13th day of February 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________________
Mayor
(SEAL)
ATTEST:________________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
City Attorney
Item 5.

Item 5.

Item 5.

Item 5.

Item 5.

Item 5.

Item 5.

Item 5.

Item 5.

Item 5.

Item 5.

Item 5.

Item 5.

Item 5.

Item 5.

Item 5.

Item 5.

Item 5.

Item 5.

Item 5.

Item 5.

City of Needles, California
Request for City Council Action
CITY COUNCIL NPUA Regular Special
Meeting Date: February 13, 2024
Title: Accept Atlas Planning Solutions Proposal to Provide Consultant Professional Services for the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update.

Background: The City of Needles is needing to update a decade old Hazard Mitigation Plan to address potential new natural hazards that may impact the community. The updated plan will identify and evaluate natural hazards such as dam failure, flash flooding, drought, earthquake, extreme heat and any others identified in the evaluation process. The goal is to update the plan to meet current FEMA requirements and engage the community to participate and contribute ideas during the process.

In 2021, an application was submitted to Cal OES for funding opportunities for Hazard Mitigation Assistance to update the City’s existing plan.

On August 21, 2023, the City received approval from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services for FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds in the amount of $113,413.50 for the mitigation plan and $6,270 for project management for a total of $119,683.50. The nonfederal share (local match) is $12,601.50, approximately 10% of the total funds awarded.

A Request for Proposals (RFP) was posted on October 18, 2023, with proposals due on November 15, 2023. A total of nine proposals were received by the deadline which were evaluated by a selection committee on the criteria outlined in the RFP. The following three firms were selected to move on to the interview process:

Atlas Planning Solutions $ 60,180
Integrated Solutions Consulting (ISC) $ 118,750
Risk Management $ 75,425
After further consideration of each of the team’s response, Atlas Planning Solutions was selected as the most qualified firm to perform the work within the allowable budget.

Fiscal Impact: Cost of $66,198 to be reimbursed from grant funds with 10% city match already budgeted.

Recommended Action: Accept Atlas Planning Solutions Proposal to Provide Consultant Professional Services for the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update for $60,180 plus 10% contingency for a total not to exceed amount of $66,198 and authorized staff to execute a Consultant Professional Services Agreement with Atlas Planning Solutions.

Submitted By: Kathy Raasch, Interim Development Services Director Approved: Not Approved: Tabled: Other:

Agenda Item: ____________
City Manager Approval: _____________________________ ______ Date: _ _ __ _____ __ Other Department Approval (when required): ______________ _ __ Date: __02/07/24 __ ________________
(h i d)
_____ 2/6/2024
______________ _ _
____________
Other:

Agenda Item: _____6_______
Item 6.
1 Attachment 1

CITY OF NEEDLES

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

1. PARTIES AND DATE.

This Agreement is made and entered into this ___ day of ________, between the CITY OF NEEDLES, a California Charter City, (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) and Atlas Planning Solutions (hereinafter referred to as “Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”

2. RECITALS.

2.1 Services.

The City solicited proposals to provide City of Needles and Consulting Services pursuant to that certain Request for Proposals, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”

2.2 Proposal
Consultant has made a proposal (“Proposal”) to the City dated November 15, 2023 to provide such professional services, which Proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”

2.3 Consultant.

City desires to retain Consultant to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of such services required by the City on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant possesses the necessary skills, licenses, certifications, qualifications, personnel and equipment to provide such services.

3. TERMS.

3.1 Scope of Services and Term.

3.1.1 Professional Services. Consultant agrees to perform the services described herein and in “Exhibit B” (“Services”). All Services shall be performed in the manner and according to the timeframe set forth in the Proposal. Consultant designates Aaron Pfannenstiel as Consultant’s professional responsible for overseeing the Services provided by Consultant.

3.1.2 Term. This Agreement shall become effective when executed and shall remain in effect until terminated as provided herein. Notwithstanding Item 6.
2 anything to the contrary in this Agreement, this Agreement shall automatically terminate after one (1) year unless extended in writing by the Parties with the approval of the City Council of the City.

3.1.3 Conflict. In the event that the terms of the Proposal shall conflict with the terms of this Agreement, or contain additional terms other than the Services to be rendered and the price for the Services, the terms of this Agreement shall govern and said additional or conflicting terms shall be of no force or effect.

3.2 Responsibilities of Consultant.

3.2.1 Control and Payment of Subordinates; Independent Contractor. The Services shall be performed by Consultant or by its employees under Consultant’s supervision. Consultant will determine the means, methods and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. The City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and not as an employee. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for other clients during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall also not be employees of the City and shall at all times be under Consultant’s exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall determine its own work hours and schedule; provide its own equipment; maintain its own offices; provide its own vehicles; insurance; cell phones and office phones; and Consultant shall be solely responsible for managing and supervising its personnel and employees. Consultant shall further be responsible for all reports and obligations, including, but not limited to:
social security taxes, income tax withholding, payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers’ compensation insurance.

3.2.2 Standard of Care; Performance of Employees. Consultant shall perform all Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services, and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. As provided for in Item 6.
3 the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from the City, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant’s failure to comply with the applicable standard of care. Any employee of the Consultant or its sub-consultants who is determined by the City to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely completion of a Project, a threat to the safety of persons or property, or any employee who fails or refuses to perform Services in a manner acceptable to the City, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the Consultant and shall not be re-assigned to perform any Services to City.

3.2.3 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law.

Consultant shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with the Services. If the Consultant performs any work contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to the City, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations.

3.2.4 Employment Eligibility. Consultant shall be solely responsible for obtaining Employment Eligibility Verification information from Consultant’s employees, in compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-603 (8 U.S.C. 1324a), and shall ensure that Consultant’s employees are eligible to work in the United States.

3.2.5 CalPers. In the event that Consultant employs, contracts with, or otherwise utilizes any CalPers retirees in completing any of the Services performed hereunder, such instances shall be disclosed in advance to the City and shall be subject to the City’s advance written approval.

3.2.6 Drug-free Workplace Certification. By signing this Agreement, the Consultant hereby certifies under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the Consultant will comply with the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1990 (Government Code, Section 8350 et seq.) and will provide a drug-free workplace.

3.2.7 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, Item 6.
4 state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees, City personnel and third parties appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life-saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures.

4. Indemnification; Insurance.

4.1 Insurance. Consultant shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit “C” attached to and made a part of this Agreement.

4.2 Indemnity for Professional Liability. When the law establishes a professional standard of care for Consultant’s Services, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City and any and all of its officials, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including legal counsel’s fees and costs, caused in whole or in part by any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission of Consultant, its officers, agents, employees or subconsultants (or any agency or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of professional services under this Agreement.

4.3 Indemnity Other than Professional Liability. Other than in the performance of professional services and to the full extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, and any and all of its employees, officials and agents from and against any liability (including liability for claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including legal counsel fees and costs, court costs, interest, defense costs, and expert witness fees), where the same arise out of, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in whole or in part, the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or by any individual or the City for which Consultant is legally liable, including but not limited to officers, agents, employees or subcontractors of Consultant.

Item 6.
5 4.4 Duty to Defend. In the event the City, its officers, employees, agents and/or volunteers are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from the performance of the Services encompassed by this Agreement, and upon demand by City, Consultant shall have an immediate duty to defend the City at Consultant’s cost or at City’s option, to reimburse City for its costs of defense, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the defense of such matters. Payment by City is not a condition precedent to enforcement of this indemnity. In the event of any dispute between Consultant and City, as to whether liability arises from the sole negligence of the City or its officers, employees, or agents, Consultant will be obligated to pay for City’s defense until such time as a final judgment has been entered adjudicating the City as solely negligent. Consultant will not be entitled in the absence of such a determination to any reimbursement of defense costs including but not limited to attorney’s fees, expert fees and costs of litigation.

5. Responsibilities of City.

5.1 Requests. The City agrees to comply with all reasonable requests of Consultant and provide reasonable access to documents including objectives and constraints, space, capacity, and performance requirements, flexibility, and expandability, and any budgetary limitations, reasonably necessary to the performance of Consultant's duties under this Agreement. In order to facilitate Consultant’s conformance with the performance schedule, the City shall respond to Consultant’s submittals in a timely manner.

5.2 City Representative. The City designates the City Manager or his designee as City representative (“City Representative”) with respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement. The City Representative shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, and interpret and define the City’s policy and decisions with respect to materials, equipment, elements, and systems pertinent to the Services covered by this Agreement.

6. Fees and Payments.

6.1 Compensation. City agrees to pay Consultant the amount of $60,180 . Consultant shall be paid at the rates set forth in the Proposal and shall not increase any rate without the prior written consent of the City. Notwithstanding anything in this Section 6, total fees and charges paid by City under this Agreement shall not exceed $60,180 without approval by the City Council of City.

6.2 Invoices. Consultant shall submit to the City a monthly itemized statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant.

The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. City shall have the Item 6.
6 right to review and audit all invoices prior to or after payment to Consultant. This review and audit may include, but not be limited to City’s:
a. Determination that any hourly fee charged is consistent with this Agreement's approved hourly rate schedule;
b. Determination that the multiplication of the hours billed times the approved rate schedule dollars is correct;
c. Determination that each item charged is the usual, customary, and reasonable charge for the particular item. If City determines an item charged is greater than usual, customary, or reasonable, or is duplicative, ambiguous, excessive, or inappropriate, City shall either return the bill to Consultant with a request for explanation or adjust the payment accordingly, and give notice to Consultant of the adjustment.

6.3 Payment. If the work is satisfactorily completed, City shall pay such invoice within thirty (30) days of its receipt. Should City dispute any portion of any invoice, City shall pay the undisputed portion within the time stated above, and at the same time advise Consultant in writing of the disputed portion.

6.4 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by the City Manager.

6.5 Additional Services. In the event Consultant performs additional or different services than those described herein without the prior written approval of the City Manager and/or City Council of City, Consultant shall not be compensated for such services. Consultant expressly waives any right to be compensated for services and materials not covered by the scope of this Agreement or authorized by the City in writing.

6.6 Prevailing Wages. Consultant is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000, et seq., (“Prevailing Wage Laws”), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance” projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. The City shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rates of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant’s principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest Item 6.
7 arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws.

6.7 Accounting Records.

6.7.1 Maintenance and Inspection. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of the City during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement.

7. General Provisions.

7.1 Termination of Agreement.

7.1.1 Grounds for Termination. The City or Consultant may, by written notice to the other party, terminate this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving written notice to the other party of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof, at least seven (7) days before the effective date of such termination. Upon termination, Consultant shall be compensated only for those Services which have been actually and adequately rendered to the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to no further compensation.

7.1.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein, Consultant shall provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data (as defined below), programming source code, plans reports and other information of any kind prepared by Consultant in connection with the performance of Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to provide such documents and other information within fifteen (15) days of the request.

7.1.3 Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, the City may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated.

7.2 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective Parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose:

Item 6.
8 To Consultant: Atlas Planning Solutions
6578 Barranca Dr,
Riverside, CA 92506
Attention: Aaron Pfannenstiel

To City: City of Needles
817 Third Street
Needles, CA 92363
Attention: City Manager
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the Party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.

7.3 FEMA Contract Terms and Certification. This Agreement is subject to the federally required contract provisions and the FEMA recommended provisions set forth in Exhibit “D” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict in the terms set forth in this Agreement and the terms set forth in Exhibit “D” attached hereto, the terms set forth in Exhibit “D” shall control.

7.4 Ownership of Materials and Confidentiality.

7.4.1 City Ownership. All documents and data (“Documents & Data”), including data on electric, digital or magnetic media, prepared by Consultant under this Agreement shall be the property of the City, except that Consultant shall have the right to retain copies of all Documents & Data for its records. The City shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time. Should Consultant, either during or following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any Documents & Data prepared in connection with this Agreement, Consultant shall first obtain the written approval of the City Manager.

7.4.2 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of the City, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally Item 6.
9 known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use the City’s name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of the City.

7.5 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement.

7.6 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both Parties.

7.7 Governing Law. This Agreement is entered into and shall be performed in Needles, California and shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.

Any claims arising under this Agreement shall be brought in the state or federal courts located in San Bernardino County.

7.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

7.9 City’s Right to Employ Other Consultants. The City reserves the right to employ other consultants at any time for any purpose.

7.10 Assignment; Sublease; Transfer. Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein without the prior signed written consent of the City Manager. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer.

7.11 Construction; References; Captions. Since the Parties or their agents have participated fully in the preparation of this Agreement, the language of this Agreement shall be construed simply, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any Party. Any term referencing time, days or period for performance shall be deemed calendar days and not work days. All references to Consultant include all personnel, employees, agents, and subcontractors of Consultant, except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. All references to the City include its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. The captions of the various articles and paragraphs are for convenience and ease of reference only, and do not define, limit, augment, or describe the scope, content, or intent of this Agreement.

Item 6.
10 7.12 Amendment; Modification. No supplement, modification, or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by both Parties.

7.13 Waiver. No waiver of any default shall constitute a waiver of any other default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant or condition. No waiver, benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a Party shall give the other Party any contractual rights by custom, estoppel, or otherwise.

7.14 No Third Party Beneficiaries. The Needles Public Utility Authority and other City entities shall be intended beneficiaries of this Agreement. Otherwise, there are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties.

7.15 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

7.16 Improper Payment. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability.

7.17 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer, or employee of the City, during the term of his or her service with the City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. Consultant has read and is aware of the provisions of Section 1090 et seq. and Section 87100 et seq. of the Government Code relating to conflicts of interest of public officers and employees. Consultant agrees that they are unaware of any financial or economic interest of any public officer or employee of the City relating to this Agreement. It is further understood and agreed that if such a financial interest does exist at the inception of this Agreement, the City may immediately terminate this Agreement by giving notice thereof. Consultant shall comply with the requirements of Government Code section 87100 et seq. and section 1090 in the performance of and during the term of this Agreement.

7.18 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but Item 6.
11 not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination.

7.19 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services.

7.20 Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement.

Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and bind each respective Party.

7.21 Attorney Fees. If any legal action or proceeding, including an action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled.

7.22 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original.

7.23 Contents of Request for Proposal and Proposal. Consultant is bound by the contents of City's Request for Proposal and the Proposal. In the event of conflict, the requirements of City's Request for Proposals and this Agreement shall take precedence over those contained in the Proposal. The incorporation of the Proposal shall be for the Services to be rendered and the price for such Services only, and any other terms and conditions included in the Proposal shall have no force and effect on this Agreement or the relationship between Consultant and/or City, unless expressly agreed to in writing.
[Remainder of the page intentionally left blank.]
Item 6.
12 SIGNATURE PAGE TO

CITY OF NEEDLES

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have made and executed this Agreement on the date and year set forth above.

CITY:

CITY OF NEEDLES
A municipal corporation and charter city
By: ________________________________
Janet Jernigan, Mayor

CONSULTANT
Atlas Planning Solutions
A California S- Corporation
By: ________________________________
Aaron
Pfannenstiel________________________
Its Chief Financial Officer
ATTEST:

By:________________________
Dale Jones, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:___________________________
John O. Pinkney, City Attorney
Item 6.

EXHIBIT A
Request for Proposals
[Attached behind this page]
Item 6.

CITY OF NEEDLES
Request for Proposals (RFP) for

LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE (LHMP)
RFP Posted on October 18, 2023
Proposals due by 4:00PM PST - November 15, 2023
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Needles (“City”) is seeking proposals from qualified consultants (hereinafter “Consultant” or “Consultants”) to develop an updated FEMA-approved Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) as described in this Request for Proposal (“RFP”).

Firms are solely responsible for ensuring their proposals are received by the submittal deadline. Proposals should be submitted in PDF format uploaded to PlanetBids and should be in a format allowing easy download and printing by the City. All pages should be 8-1/2” x 11” only, and easily printable and reproducible. Proposals received after the deadline will not be accepted and considered. Proposals must be received by no later than 4:00pm Pacific Standard Time, On November 15, 2023, via upload to PlanetBids at the following link:
https://pbsystem.planetbids.com/portal/57515/bo/bo-detail/109266 Proposals must be signed by a representative authorized to bind the company. The City reserves the right to reject all Proposals and to waive any minor informalities or irregularities contained in any proposal. Acceptance of any Proposal submitted pursuant to this RFP shall not constitute any implied intent to enter into a contract.

The contract award, if any, will be made to the firm who, in the City’s sole discretion, is best able to perform the required services in a manner most beneficial to the City of Needles.

The City’s most recent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan can be found in the documents tab in PlanetBids.

CITY OVERVIEW
The City of Needles is located in eastern San Bernardino County and is immediately adjacent to the Colorado River along the border of California and Arizona. The Southern tip of Nevada is located within ten (10) miles of the Northern tip of the City limits of the City of Needles.

The current population of Needles is 5,353 (January 1, 2021). The City encompasses about 31 square miles and is part of what is commonly referred to as the Colorado River Region which includes the Arizona communities of Lake Havasu City, Bullhead City, Fort Mohave (unincorporated) and Laughlin, Nevada. The community has Interstate 40 running through it (west to east) and Interstate 95 (north to south).

Item 6.

SCOPE OF WORK
Consultant shall manage, coordinate, prepare and administer the development of a single jurisdiction Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) Update for the City of Needles.

This scope and contract are intended to be inclusive of the entire LHMP update process from the initial planning and public outreach through the final approval by FEMA and adoption by the City of Needles. The Consultant shall prepare all necessary planning, administration, professional analysis, supporting documentation, and work required for the preparation and adoption of the City of Needles Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. The City’s current version of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is provided in PlanetBids under the documents tab.

The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan update scope of work includes the following phases:

Project Initiation
Consultant shall identify and assemble the Mitigation Planning Team. This phase includes formally inviting the participation of representatives to the Mitigation Planning Team and all necessary administrative tasks and meetings to establish the project timeline, tracking and accounting procedures.

Public Engagement
Consultant shall prepare an outreach strategy that appropriately involves stakeholders and the public. This phase includes defining the appropriate outreach efforts, identifying the applicable stakeholders, and determining how and when to effectively engage the community. The strategy should address both the initial planning process as well as the continual involvement of the public after the plan’s adoption. The public shall be engaged during all stages of the planning process, and the Consultant shall work with City staff to provide public notice and opportunity for feedback. Consultant shall be responsible for creating public surveys, and tracking, compiling, and reporting the survey results to the Planning Mitigation Team.

Plan Review
Consultant shall review the previous Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), determine if the planning area defined therein is still appropriate and if the City’s mitigation planning needs were met by the previous plan update. This phase is an overall performance review of the previous Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and includes the solicitation of feedback from the Planning Mitigation Team. Consultant shall coordinate plan review, compile review results, determine and document the status of previously identified strategies and projects, and ensure all technical elements and updates are current and accurate.

Risk, Capability, and Vulnerability Assessments
Item 6.

Consultant shall conduct both risk and capability assessments to determine the potential risks to the people, economy, and built and natural environments of the City, as well as identify the City’s existing authorities, policies, programs, and resources available to mitigate said risks. Based on the findings of the risk and capability assessments, Consultant shall also conduct a vulnerability assessment to determine and prioritize the City’s future mitigation strategies. This phase includes describing each risk, identifying all City assets and capabilities responsible for mitigating each risk, and summarizing the City’s vulnerability to each risk. The update should focus on the risks and impacts that have changed since the previous update was completed.

Mitigation Strategy
Consultant shall develop a mitigation strategy to serve as the long-term blueprint for reducing the potential impacts identified in the risk, capability, and vulnerability assessments. The mitigation strategy shall establish mitigation goals and actions, as well as develop an action plan that lays the groundwork for implementation by describing how the mitigation actions will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the City. This phase includes providing solutions for refining mitigation strategies and ensuring the identified projects align with state and federal mitigation goals and funding requirements.

Draft Plan Update, Local Review and Revisions
Consultant shall collect and compile all updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan elements from the Mitigation Planning Team and technical specialists and produce a Draft Update to the Plan. The draft plan shall be formalized for local publication and distributed to the Mitigation Planning team, stakeholders, and the general public. This phase includes review and incorporation of feedback provided during the local review process to finalize the plan update.

Plan Submittal, Acceptance and Adoption
Consultant shall prepare a final draft of the plan update to be submitted to the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This phase includes completion of the Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool (Regulation Checklist) to ensure the plan update meets the Federal requirements and correction of any plan elements returned by CalOES or FEMA for revision to obtain a notice from FEMA that the plan update is Approvable Pending Adoption (APA).

Integration with City General Plan Safety Element
Consultant shall coordinate with the City’s Development Services Director to integrate the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan into the General Plan Safety Element. These plans are being prepared simultaneously, and thus coordination shall be on-going throughout the plan update process and include all necessary meetings, conference calls, and document sharing required to complete the Safety Element in a timely manner.

Item 6.

Schedule
Consultant shall complete the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan update in 15 months or less, as outlined in the following draft schedule:

1. Project Initiation January, 2024

2. Public Outreach February - March

3. Plan Review February - March

4. Risk, Capability, & Vulnerability Assessments April - June

5. Mitigation Strategy June - July

6. Draft Plan Update, Local Review & Revisions July - September

7. Plan Submittal, Acceptance & Adoption September- December

8. Integration with City General Plan Safety Element January – March 2025

CONTENTS OF PROPOSAL
All Consultants’ proposals shall include the following:

1. Cover Letter
A cover letter summarizing key elements of the Consultant’s proposal. Indicate the address and telephone number of the Consultant’s office located nearest to Needles, California, and the office from which the Services will be managed.

2. Statement of Interest and Background.

Describe why the Consultant has an interest in this RFP and why it would be the City’s best choice, and a Statement of the Consultant’s background and philosophy.

3. Business Information.

State the full legal name of the Consultant’s business, including the state of incorporation, as applicable. State the number of years the Consultant has been practicing law. List the names of principals or officers authorized to legally bind the Consultant, including position titles.

4. Experience/Qualifications Information.

Provide information concerning your firm’s experience and qualifications directly related to the services set forth herein. Additionally, this section shall define the experience of the Project Manager, other key personnel and sub-consultants assigned to the Project. Include resumes for all managers, supervisors, and other key individuals including sub-consultants who will comprise the team.

Demonstrate the relevant expertise and experience of each team member. The designated Project Manager shall be the primary contact with the City during the Project period. The respondent must perform most of the services. Respondent shall disclose in the proposal all proposed subconsultant(s), including details regarding which tasks they would perform.

Item 6.

5. Approach/Methodology.

Consultant shall provide a detailed explanation how its firm would perform the Services required as set forth herein and demonstrate how the requirements and provisions of the scope of this Project will be implemented. Consultant shall demonstrate knowledge of the Project's Objectives and existing conditions/assumptions; identify potential issues/challenges; and describe your firm’s approach to minimize disruptions to performance. Consultant shall present a comprehensive plan for completing the specified Scope of Services. The proposal should demonstrate an efficient use of work force, material resources, equipment, and technology to complete the Project within the constraints outlined in the Scope of Services and provide any additional information that communicates how your team intends to achieve the required outcomes and fulfill the responsibilities of the anticipated Agreement. A Project schedule should be included that details each Service, the timeframe for each and showing the total number of calendar days from issuance of the Award through 100% completion of the Services.

6. References.

Provide a minimum of three (3) references for work similar to this Scope of Services that the Consultant has provided within the last five (5) years. Include a detailed description of the services, the agency or firm names, contact names, phone numbers, email addresses, and dates of services performed.

7. Cost Proposal
The Cost Proposal should include a fee schedule/pricing information for each Service, as may be necessary, and a total lump sum price for the full Scope of Services. Include hourly rates for each category of employee or sub-consultants required to perform the Scope of Services as set forth in this RFP.

QUESTIONS, ANSWERS, AND ADDENDUM TO RFP
Post any questions on PlanetBids by the question deadline of November 1, 2023.

Questions will be answered by Addendum to all registered firms.

Prior to the RFP Submittal Deadline, questions may arise regarding any aspect of this RFP. No later than 4:00 PM PST on November 1, 2023 (“RFP Questions Due Date”), all questions pertaining to this RFP shall be posted in the Q & A section of PlanetBids Vendor Portal.

The RFP Administrator will draft, in consultation with other City staff, a response to all questions submitted by all prospective Consultants. The responses will be emailed via PlanetBids to the inquiring Consultants after the RFP Questions Due Date and no later than 7 days prior to RFP submittal deadline. Changes to the RFP itself shall only be Item 6.
made by the City via a formal written addendum and shall become a part of the RFP document.

SUBMITTAL DEADLINE AND FORMAT
Proposals are due by 4:00 PM PST on November 15, 2023 (“RFP Submittal Deadline”). Proposals will only be accepted in Portable Document Format (PDF) via PlanetBids. One (1) digital copy of the proposal, along with one (1) digital copy of the cost proposal in PDF form shall be submitted no later than the RFP Submittal Deadline.

No exceptions to this requirement will be considered. Proposals submitted by any other method such as hard copy. Failure to completely send document(s) by the deadline shall result in disqualification. Proposals may be submitted at any time prior to the RFP Submittal Deadline.

SELECTION PROCESS
The City intends to evaluate Consultants based upon the data presented in the proposals submitted in response to this specific RFP. The City reserves the right to determine whether a proposal meets the requirements of this RFP and reject any proposal that, in the City’s sole and absolute discretion, fails to meet the detail or intent of the requirements. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals.

The City may utilize some or all of the following general selection criteria (Technical Evaluation, Interviews, and Reference Checks) to evaluate the proposals:

1. TECHNICAL EVALUATION
a. Qualifications of the Consultant and Consultant’s team conducting similar Services of comparable complexity and magnitude, particularly for government agencies.
b. Relevant experience of the Consultant with similar Services, including the level of education, training, licensing, and certification of staff. c. A demonstrated understanding of the City’s needs and the RFP requirements. d. The proposal is responsive, well organized and presented in a clear, concise, and logical manner; quality control, thoroughness, and ability to meet deadlines is well defined.
e. Capability to perform the Scope of Services promptly and in a manner that meets established deadlines.
f. Approach/Methodology identified in Consultant’s proposal. g. Ability to communicate and work effectively with City staff, other public agencies, and related parties as necessary to successfully perform the Scope of Services.
h. Availability, experience, and knowledge of all subconsultants engaged by the Consultant to complete the Scope of Services.
i. Fair, reasonable, and competitive cost to deliver the of the Scope of Services.

Item 6.

2. INTERVIEWS
a. The City reserves the right to conduct interviews with any Consultant.

Should the City pursue scheduling interviews, they are targeted to be scheduled the week of November 27, 2023.

3. REFERENCE CHECK
a. The City may perform reference checks for similar work completed for any Consultant interviewed.

SCHEDULE FOR SELECTION AND AWARD
All date shown are tentative and subject to change. The City will make every effort to adhere to the dates shown below. Advance notice of any changes to the schedule will be given to any firm that has submitted a response to this RFP by the deadline.

Provided below is the anticipated timeline to be followed for this RFP process:

1. Release of RFP ...........................................................October 18, 2023

2. Written questions due date........................................November 1, 2023

3. RFP Due Date .........................................................November 15, 2023

4. Evaluation of RFP Submittals ............. November 27-December 8, 2023

5. Consultant Interviews ......................... November 27-Decemebr 8, 2023

6. City Council Meeting Award.....................................December 12, 2023

7. Notice of Selection...................................................December 13, 2023

8. Kick-off Meeting...........................................................January 10, 2024

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
The City anticipates entering into an Agreement for Services (“Agreement”) with the selected Consultant(s) based on the negotiated Scope of Services and agreed upon fee. Proposal pricing shall include any and all applicable licenses, insurance coverage, endorsements, bonding and if necessary, any wage compliance deemed necessary to perform the Scope Services described in this RFP. City will not be responsible for reimbursing Consultant(s) for any charges not included in the Cost Proposal that are incurred in securing these requirements.

PROJECT BUDGET
$120,000
Item 6.

EXHIBIT B
Proposal
[Attached behind this page]
Item 6.

Item 6.

Atlas Planning Solutions
6578 BARRANCA DR | RIVERSIDE, CA 92506
Proposal for:

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
City of Needles
817 Third Street
Needles, CA 92363
Item 6.

Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | i Atlas Planning Solutions
Table of Contents
Table of Contents...........................................................................................................................i I. Cover Letter...........................................................................................................................1 II. Statement of Interest and Background ..................................................................................2 Atlas Planning Team Differentiators..........................................................................................2 III. Business Information..........................................................................................................3 Atlas Planning Solutions............................................................................................................3 IV. Experience/Qualifications Information................................................................................4 Qualifications and Experience of Proposed Project Staff..........................................................4 Team Organizational Chart .......................................................................................................5 V. Approach/Methodology........................................................................................................12 Project Approach.....................................................................................................................12 Scope of Work.........................................................................................................................13 Proposed Project Schedule and Timeline...................................................................................19 VI. Client References.............................................................................................................20 VII. Project Cost......................................................................................................................21 Attachment A – Staff Resumes................................................................................................. A-1 Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | ii Atlas Planning Solutions Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | 1 Atlas Planning Solutions
I. Cover Letter
November 15, 2023
City of Needles
817 Third Street
Needles, CA 92363
Dear Mr. Martinez,
As a unique community in eastern San Bernardino County and part of the Colorado River Region, Needles faces numerous challenges associated with natural and human-caused hazards.

Hazards like earthquakes, drought, dam failure and flooding, can have a significant impact on the daily lives of residents and city operations. Through the hazard mitigation planning process, the city can better understand how to manage the risks associated with the primary hazards that can impact the City. The City's desire to update its local hazard mitigation plan can become the catalyst to address many of the natural hazard issues and fix many of the problems created from past decisions. Knowing the challenges that cities face with limited budgets, reduced staffing, and limited resources, this opportunity can help ensure the community doesn't fall further behind.

This update can also provide opportunities for the City to better integrate the General Plan Safety Element into their overall mitigation strategy. When combined these documents can expand City capabilities and improve mitigation activities undertaken by City departments. In addition, this update process will require adherence to the latest revisions in FEMA guidance that went into effect on April 19, 2023. Atlas Planning recently completed one of the first plans approved by Cal OES and FEMA under this new guidance, and currently has another plan being reviewed by Cal OES/FEMA, which we believe will benefit Needles’ update process. With our home office located in Riverside CA, Atlas Planning Solutions has a regional familiarity and experience with other jurisdictions within the San Bernardino County area which can provide unique insight into local hazards.

For the Atlas Planning Solutions Team, Aaron Pfannenstiel will serve as the project manager and the City's primary point of contact. Mr. Pfannenstiel is committed to ensuring the highest quality product and process for the City and ensures that all personnel proposed will work on this project.

As a firm principal, Aaron has read and will comply with all terms and conditions contained in this RFP and is authorized to negotiate and execute contracts on behalf of the firm. If you have questions or would like to schedule an interview with our team, please contact us at your convenience.

Respectfully submitted,
Aaron Pfannenstiel
Primary Point of Contact
Aaron Pfannenstiel
Principal
Phone: 951-444-9379
Email: [email protected]
Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | 2 Atlas Planning Solutions
II. Statement of Interest and Background
The City's desire to update the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is a significant step towards improving the quality of life for current and future residents and property owners. Based on the RFP, the Atlas Planning Solutions (APS) team understands that this updated plan must:
• Meet Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) requirements and the latest guidance prepared by FEMA, which went into effect on April 19, 2023. • Meet the current and future needs of Needles staff and City Departments. • Meet the current and future needs of residents, businesses, and property owners. • Identify updated mitigation strategies and actions that make the community safer and more resilient.
• Create an easy and staff focused process to streamline the LHMP update. • Remain consistent with the City's General Plan, Emergency Operations Plan, and California State Hazard Mitigation Plan.
• Provide opportunities for community members and stakeholders to participate in the planning process.

Atlas Planning Team Differentiators
Based on these factors, the APS Team offers the following differentiators on why APS would be an ideal choice for the City of Needles’ LHMP update:

Passion – Members of our team are passionate about helping clients tackle the issues surrounding climate change, sustainability, hazards, and resilience. Helping clients address these issues is something we care about personally and professionally.

Experience – Members of our team have worked
in urban planning, hazard mitigation, and
emergency management for decades. This
experience has helped save time and money and
avoid many pitfalls that have befallen other
jurisdictions in the past.

Creativity – Hazard mitigation planning can be a
creative endeavor for our clients. Facilitating this
process has allowed many agencies to challenge
some of the long-held beliefs, establish new
policies, and create projects and opportunities that
leverage this process.

Knowledge – Our team understands how hazard
mitigation plans fit into the bigger picture for a City like Needles. Leveraging the process allows for
better integration into city systems and processes. Our goal is to ensure this plan and process helps the City better understand how to leverage new funding sources and accomplish more in the end.

Finally, this update provides an opportunity for Aaron Pfannenstiel to assist the City once again with hazard mitigation planning. Mr. Pfannenstiel was the previous author of the 2011 LHMP Annex, when he was employed at RBF Consulting/ Michael Baker International.

Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | 3 Atlas Planning Solutions
III. Business Information
Atlas Planning Solutions
Atlas Planning Solutions (APS) focuses on
making the world a better place. Founded in
2018 in Riverside, California, our mission is to
leverage our skills and experience in
comprehensive planning, climate adaptation,
and hazard mitigation, offering clients a wide
range of consulting services to help them
navigate their complex problems and issues.

Our focus is on successful client outcomes that
build agency capacity, create resilient places to
live and work, and create communities that
thrive in this ever-changing landscape.

As a small, woman-owned, and servicedisabled veteran-owned business in the State of California, APS understands that successful outcomes rely on client satisfaction, optimal project management, and a clear understanding of clients' needs. We strive to exceed our client's expectations, which has translated into repeat business and numerous referrals for our services.

APS specializes in the integration of planning tools like Local Hazard Mitigation Plans and Climate Adaptation Vulnerability Assessments into the General Plan. Since 2006, the State of California has incentivized the integration of these two documents, which has become a significant opportunity for communities throughout California.

Atlas Planning Solutions Business Information
Legal Name: Atlas Planning Solutions |S-Corporation, Incorporated in 2018 in the State of California.

Address: 6578 Barranca Drive, Riverside, CA 92506
Phone: 951-444-9376
Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Firm Principals/ Officers:
• Suzanne Murray – Principal/ CEO
• Aaron Pfannenstiel – Principal/ CFO/Project Manager
Staff Members:
• Dennis Larson – Senior Planner/GIS Analyst
• Crystal Stueve – Senior Planner
• Robert Jackson – Associate Planner
Number of Years in Business: 4+ years
Number of Years Performing Requested Services: 22+ Years Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | 4 Atlas Planning Solutions
To support this effort, Atlas Planning Solutions has partnered with Navigating Preparedness Associates. Our two firms frequently partner on projects to provide better client service and increased capabilities. The following are details regarding the firm and personnel:

Navigating Preparedness Associates (NPA) Firm Description Navigating Preparedness Associates (NPA), Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) is a Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Enterprise (SDVBE), California #1770371, with a single office located in Lafayette, California. Founded in 2014, NPA provides emergency management solutions for local, state, and federal government and private industry. Our associates are experts in delivering solutions across a broad spectrum of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery functions.

Navigating Preparedness Associates (NPA) has decades of experience in the following areas:
• Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) 2000 Compliant Hazard MitigationPlans • Water District Emergency Preparedness
• Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response
• City, County, and Special District Emergency Operations Plans • Maritime Threat Analysis and Response
• Catastrophic Incident Planning
• Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) Compliant Exercises IV. Experience/Qualifications Information
Qualifications and Experience of Proposed Project Staff The APS team is comprised of key staff with diverse skill sets and experience. We operate under a working principal model, whereby principal owners of the firm are actively involved and engaged with day-to-day client management, deliverable preparation, and project oversight based on client needs. The team members proposed for this effort are summarized below, and resumes are provided in Attachment A.

Aaron Pfannenstiel will serve as the Project Manager for the APS Team and brings over 20 years of community planning experience, focusing on emergency management, hazard mitigation, and community resiliency. With a background in geology, environmental studies, and urban planning, he helps clients understand hazards, assess vulnerabilities, and develop policies, programs, and mitigation strategies that make communities safer.

Suzanne Murray will serve as a Quality Assurance/Quality Control specialist. With over 16 years of technical writing and editing experience and an emphasis on documents and reports prepared for the federal government, including standard operating procedures, information reports, information and white papers, and presentations. Her primary role with Atlas Planning is preparing and reviewing hazard mitigation and emergency management documents.

Dennis Larson will serve as a senior planner and brings over 22 years of experience leading public agency management programs, policy research efforts, and technical analyses. Dennis will provide vital support to plan integration and vulnerability analysis portions of the plan. Mr. Larson's Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | 5 Atlas Planning Solutions
specialties include advanced planning project development, climate resiliency policy, Geographic Information Services, and economic impact analyses.

Crystal Stueve will serve as a primary researcher and author. With a strong background in writing and research and reliance on over 18 years of experience working for local and federal agencies, she understands the importance of clear communication, documentation of processes and outcomes, and developing plans that are easy to read, understand, and implement.

Robert Jackson will serve as a primary researcher and author. Mr. Jackson has supported Atlas Planning for the past three years, updating LHMPs and Safety Elements, and will bring that knowledge and experience to this effort for the City.

Lee Rosenberg is a Certified Emergency Manager (CEM) with over 35 years of experience leading real-world contingency operations and addressing complex emergency and disaster issues. Mr. Rosenberg is a retired US Navy Captain who also served as a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region IX (RIX) Federal Coordinating Officer. Mr. Rosenberg will serve as a senior planner and subject matter expert for this project, lending his experience and leadership to this project.

Team Organizational Chart
To effectively manage the APS Team, the following organization chart was developed to highlight how team members will interact with the City. The primary point of contact for the APS Team, Aaron Pfannenstiel, will be the primary point of contact with the City's Project Manager and the go-between for the rest of the APS Team. This structure is similar to many of the other successful projects completed by our team in jurisdictions throughout California.

All staff proposed on this organizational chart will perform the duties prescribed in this proposal.

If, for any reason, a staffing change is required, Aaron Pfannenstiel will notify the City's Project Manager of the proposed change and receive written approval for the proposed change prior to new staff working on the project.

Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | 6 Atlas Planning Solutions
Atlas Planning Solutions' Hazard Mitigation Planning Experience Atlas Planning Solutions staff have completed or are currently working on several Local Hazard Mitigation Plans and General Plan Safety Elements throughout the State. With extensive experience assisting communities as they address the changing legislative requirements and frameworks governing hazards and resiliency within California, Atlas Planning Solutions has a breadth of experience to support the City.

Over the past 10 years, Atlas Planning Solutions staff have assisted the following jurisdictions throughout Southern California (Jurisdictions with projects similar to the City of Needles LHMP update are in bold):

Atlas Planning Solutions Prior Experience
Jurisdiction LHMP
Assistance
Safety
Element
Assistance
Climate
Adaptation
Assistance
Evacuation
Assistance
City of Anaheim (2022)
City of Aliso Viejo (2023)
City of Canyon Lake (2022)
City of Capitola (2013)
City of Colton (2019)
City of Costa Mesa (2021)
City of Duarte (2013)
City of Encinitas (2023)
City of Fullerton (2019)
City of Hollister (2022)
City of Huntington Beach
(2012, 2017, 2022)
City of Irvine (2020)
City of La Palma (2020)
City of Laguna Beach (2018, 2021,
2023)
City of Laguna Woods (2017)
City of Lancaster (2021)
City of Loma Linda (2022)
City of Maricopa (2015)
City of Ontario (2023)
City of Palm Desert (2017)
City of Perris (2021)
City of Rancho Cucamonga (2021)
City of Redondo Beach (2020)
City of Santa Rosa (2016, 2022)
City of Saratoga (2012, 2023)
Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | 7 Atlas Planning Solutions
City of Seal Beach (2019)
City of South Gate (2018)
City of Stanton (2022)
City of Torrance (2017)
City of Vernon (2022)
City of Westminster (2017)
Town of Hillsborough (2023)
Town of Portola Valley (2023)
Town of Windsor (2017)
County of Butte (2023)
County of Inyo/City of Bishop (2017)
County of Mendocino (2021)
County of San Diego (2021)
County of Santa Clara (2023)
The following representative projects highlight Atlas Planning Solutions' relevant experience. Several of these provide reference information as identified by the RFP. 2023 Ontario LHMP Update | City of Ontario
Atlas Planning Solutions recently updated the 2018 City of Ontario LHMP. This update focused on re-prioritizing plan goals and mitigation actions. As part of the update, the City and APS collaborated on revisions to mitigation actions and priorities to ensure future actions were implementable, which was a big concern for the City. As part of this effort, our team is also updating the City's Emergency Operations Plan. As of October 17th, 2023, the plan was one of the first in the region to be reviewed under the new guidance and regulations and has completed the FEMA review process with only minor revisions. This plan is considered to have entered the Approval Pending Adoption (APA) status. The Ontario plan is one of the first LHMPs to be approved under the 2023 updated FEMA guidance and regulations.

Type of Contract: LHMP Update Preparation, Emergency Operations Plan Update, Evacuation Assessment, and Tabletop Exercises.

Key Staff: Aaron Pfannenstiel, Suzanne Murray, Crystal Stueve, Robert Jackson, Dennis Larson Reference Information
Company Name City of Ontario
Contact Name and Title Joseph Ramos
Company Address 425 E B St, Ontario, CA 91764
Contact Telephone Number 909-395-2542
Contact Email [email protected]
Timeframe August 2022 - Present
2023 Costa Mesa LHMP Update | City of Costa Mesa, CA
Atlas Planning Solutions is currently preparing the City of Costa Mesa's first Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. This plan focuses on key issues within the community, such as aircraft incidents, space weather, climate change, dam failure, seismic and geologic hazards, flooding, hazardous Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | 8 Atlas Planning Solutions
materials, and terrorism/mass-casualty incidents. As part of this effort, our team is also updating the City's Emergency Operations Plan and providing guidance on future updates to the General Plan Safety Element and Evacuation Assessment. The plan was recently reviewed by Cal OES and, after minor revisions, has been transmitted to FEMA for final review and approval. This project is currently within budget and the original schedule, even with delays suffered by the COVID-19 pandemic and changeover in City staff. Completion will occur on budget and within the original grant window identified by FEMA/Cal OES.

Type of Contract: LHMP Preparation and Emergency Operations Plan Update Key Staff: Aaron Pfannenstiel, Suzanne Murray, Crystal Stueve, Robert Jackson, Dennis Larson Reference Information
Company Name City of Costa Mesa
Contact Name and Title Brenda Emrick
Company Address 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Contact Telephone Number 714-327-7406
Contact Email [email protected]
Timeframe March 2021– March 2023
2022 Anaheim LHMP Update | City of Anaheim, CA
Atlas Planning Solutions recently updated the 2017 City of Anaheim LHMP. This update focused on re-prioritizing plan goals and mitigation actions. As part of the update, the City and APS collaborated on revisions to mitigation actions and priorities to ensure future actions were implementable, which was a big concern for the City. As part of this effort, Atlas Planning Solutions updated the City's General Plan Safety Element (adopted on 1/10/2023), addressing climate adaptation and evacuation concerns. This plan was approved in May 2022 and received zero comments from FEMA during their review. This project was completed on time and within the original budget.

Type of Contract: LHMP Update and General Plan Safety Element Update Key Staff: Aaron Pfannenstiel, Suzanne Murray, Crystal Stueve, Robert Jackson, Dennis Larson Reference Information
Company Name City of Anaheim
Contact Name and Title Dr. Jannine Wilmoth
Company Address 201 S. Anaheim Blvd, Suite 300, Anaheim, CA 92805 Contact Telephone Number 714-765-4095
Contact Email [email protected]
Timeframe June 2021 – January 2023
2022 / 2017 / 2012 Huntington Beach Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Updates | City of Huntington Beach, CA
Atlas Planning Solutions updated the City's 2022 LHMP. This is the third opportunity for Atlas Planning Solutions staff to support the City with their LHMP. Prior updates occurred in 2012 and 2017. These updates included reviews of city plans and policies, identification of facilities necessary for city operation, prioritization of hazards, preparation of hazard profiles that could impact the city, preparation of a risk assessment, and updated mitigation actions to reduce potential vulnerabilities in the future. The process included facilitating meetings with City Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | 9 Atlas Planning Solutions
department personnel and various stakeholders and close coordination with City staff to ensure that the appropriate focus and direction were used to complete the document. In addition, an online public opinion survey was distributed to over 3,000 residents, stakeholders, and interested parties via a press release, direct correspondence, and the City's website. The final review of both the 2012 and 2017 plans by Cal OES and FEMA Region IX resulted in minimal comments and revisions. The 2022 LHMP Update received zero comments from FEMA during their review and was adopted by the City in December 2022. This project was completed on time and within budget. All prior updates have also been completed in the same manner.

Type of Contract: LHMP Update
Key Staff: Aaron Pfannenstiel, Suzanne Murray, Crystal Stueve, Robert Jackson, Dennis Larson Reference Information
Company Name City of Huntington Beach
Contact Name and Title Brevyn Mettler, Emergency Services Coordinator Company Address 2000 Main St, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact Telephone Number 714-374-1565
Contact Email [email protected]
Timeframe July 2012 – Current (This includes all services provided to the City since 2012)
2021 Rancho Cucamonga LHMP Update | City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA Atlas Planning Solutions has assisted the City of Rancho Cucamonga since December 2019 with various hazard-related efforts. During this time, the APS Team assisted with an update to the General Plan Safety Element (as part of the Plan RC project), updated the City's 2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, supported the preparation of an Evacuation Assessment that met both SB99 and AB 747 requirements, and is currently updating the City's Emergency Operations Plan.

Key concerns throughout these projects focus on the prevalence of high wildfire risks that could trigger the need for emergency response and evacuations. Key outcomes of this effort include better integration of the EOP, LHMP, and Evacuation Assessment with the General Plan Safety Element and the ability of the City to better align goals, policies, and implementation actions across these different planning frameworks. The LHMP Update was completed in approximately 15 months (suffering minor delays during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic). Review and approval by Cal OES and FEMA involved minor revisions that significantly streamlined the review and approval process. This project was completed on time and within budget.

Type of Contract: LHMP Update, General Plan Safety Element Update, Evacuation Assessment, and EOP Update
Key Staff: Aaron Pfannenstiel, Suzanne Murray, Crystal Stueve, Robert Jackson, Dennis Larson Reference Information
Company Name City of Rancho Cucamonga (Fire Protection District) Contact Name and Title Joseph Ramos, Emergency Management Coordinator Company Address 10500 Civic Center Dr, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Telephone Number 909-774-3009
Contact Email [email protected]
Timeframe December 2019 – November 2021 (Significant delay due to Covid-19)
Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | 10 Atlas Planning Solutions
2021 County of Mendocino Safety Element Update, LHMP Update, and Climate Adaptation Vulnerability Assessment | County of Mendocino, CA
Atlas Planning Solutions led a multi-disciplinary team that updated the Mendocino County MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and General Plan Safety Element and prepared a Climate Adaptation Vulnerability Assessment. This update focused on recent wildfire incidents that have occurred within the region in the past three years, as well as the changing regulatory requirements necessary to ensure compliance with state law. Both the MJHMP and Climate Adaptation Vulnerability Assessment provide the foundation for goals and policies that the County and Cities will implement in the future, as well as mitigation strategies to further reduce potential hazards in the near term.

Type of Contract: Safety Element Update, LHMP Update, Climate Adaptation Vulnerability Assessment
Key Staff: Aaron Pfannenstiel, Suzanne Murray, Crystal Stueve, Robert Jackson Reference Information
Company Name County of Mendocino
Contact Name and Title Nash Gonzalez, Planning Director Company Address 501 Low Gap Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
Contact Telephone Number 707-234-6693
Contact Email [email protected]
Timeframe March 2020 – June 2021
2020 Irvine LHMP Update | City of Irvine, CA
Atlas Planning Solutions prepared the 2020 update of the City of Irvine LHMP. This update focused on refreshing the last updated plan in 2005 and ensuring the current version met all of the new FEMA requirements introduced in 2011. As part of the update, the APS Team had to navigate the changing conditions associated with COVID-19 restrictions and demands on staff time and capacity. The plan's update received minimal comments from Cal OES and obtained FEMA approval without comment.

Type of contract: LHMP Update
Key Staff: Aaron Pfannenstiel, Suzanne Murray, Crystal Stueve, Robert Jackson, Dennis Larson Reference Information
Company Name City of Irvine
Contact Name and Title Robert Simmons, Emergency Management Administrator Company Address 1 Civic Center Plaza, Irvine, CA 92606
Contact Telephone Number 949-724-7235
Contact Email [email protected]
Timeframe September 2019 – August 2020
2021 Laguna Beach Safety Element Update and 2023 Laguna Beach Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update | City of Laguna Beach, CA
Atlas Planning Solutions staff have supported several projects for the City of Laguna Beach. In 2021 APS supported the City's update of the General Plan Safety Element. This update focused Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | 11 Atlas Planning Solutions
on streamlining the Safety Element, which was previously adopted in 1995. As part of this process, APS updated the element to ensure compliance with Government Code, updated (SB 1241, SB 379, AB 2140) and supported the City during the Cal Fire/ Board of Forestry review and approval process, and facilitated discussions with Emergency and Disaster Preparedness Committee members that collaborated on the element update process. During the update, Aaron worked with Marc Weiner, James Brown, and Brenden Manning.

Prior to joining Atlas Planning Solutions, Aaron Pfannenstiel managed the preparation of the City's first LHMP. Key issues identified in this LHMP included wildfire (numerous incidents have impacted the community over the years), flooding, and landslides. During the hazard mitigation planning process, significant community outreach included social media outreach (via Facebook, Twitter, and Nextdoor), interactive and informative community workshops, and an online survey that gathered information from over 100 respondents. During the update, Aaron worked with Jordan Villwock (previous Emergency Services Coordinator for Laguna Beach).

APS also performed the 2023 LHMP update to the previous plan. This update supported their previous plan and the mitigation actions set forth in that plan, which included an update to current mitigation actions based upon status of completion. As of November 2023, the updated plan is currently at being reviewed by Cal OES so it can be forwarded to FEMA for final review and approval.

Type of Contract: Safety Element Update | LHMP (Update) Key Staff: Aaron Pfannenstiel, Suzanne Murray, Robert Jackson, Crystal Stueve, Dennis Larson Reference Information
Company Name City of Laguna Beach
Contact Name and Title Marc Wiener, Community Development Director Brendan Manning, Emergency Operations Coordinator
Company Address 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Contact Telephone Number 949-497-0361 | 949-497-0350
Contact Email [email protected]
[email protected]
Timeframe April 2023 - Current
Navigating Preparedness Associates (NPA) Hazard Mitigation Planning Experience NPA has completed the development of, or updates to, dozens of LHMPs. Key relevant past projects completed by NPA are identified below:
• Valley County Water District: LHMP update (2020)
• City of Lynwood LHMP (2020)
• City of Artesia LHMP (2020)
• City of Hawthorne LHMP (2020)
• County of Tulare Multi-jurisdiction LHMP (2018)
• Gila County, AZ Multi-jurisdiction LHMP (2018)
• City of Hermosa Beach LHMP (2017)
• City of Covina - Water Agency ERP (2017)
• City of Pittsburg, CA (2016)
• Water Emergency Transportation Authority: Develop LHMP and other projects (2016) Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | 12 Atlas Planning Solutions
V. Approach/Methodology
Project Approach
The APS Team approach to updating Needles's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan requires adherence to the following:

To complete this, the APS Team proposes the following project approach, which integrates the tasks identified in the RFP:

Planning Process

1. Project
Initiation

2. Public
Engagement
Plan Development

3. Plan Review

4. Risk, Capability,
and Vulnerability
Assessments

5. Mitigation
Strategy
Plan Documentation

6. Draft Plan
Update, Local
Review and
Revisions

7. Plan Submittal,
Acceptance and
Action
Plan Integration

8. Safety Element
Integration
Federal Laws
• Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), as amended.

Federal Regulations
• 44 CFR Part 201 Mitigation Planning.
• 44 CFR, Part 60, Subpart A, including § 60.3 Flood plain management criteria for flood-prone areas. • 44 CFR Part 77 Flood Mitigation Grants.
• 44 CFR Part 206 Subpart N. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

Federal Guidance
• FEMA Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide (FP 206-21-0002), effective April 19, 2023 State Requirements
• California Government Code §8685.9 and §65302.6 (commonly referred to as Assembly Bill 2140) – incentivizing integration of the LHMP into the General Plan Safety Element • California Government Code §65302 (G)(4) – requiring hazards exacerbated by climate change be discussed in the General Plan Safety Element
Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | 13 Atlas Planning Solutions
Scope of Work
The following scope of work is based on the APS Team's understanding of the desired tasks and level of effort necessary to complete a DMA 2000–compliant LHMP update. The scope developed is consistent with the City's RFP, including tasks that ensure an efficient and effective planning process. If any proposed tasks need refinement or further discussion, the APS Team will be happy to work with staff to address their needs.

1. Project Initiation
APS will conduct a Kick-Off meeting (in person or virtual) with key project management staff from the City, to form the Mitigation Planning Team (MPT), including key City Departments, identified stakeholders, and other relevant organizations/agencies that support City functions. This includes formal invitation for potential MPT members via email. As part of this meeting, the APS Team will conduct initial research and discuss key project outcomes, project timelines, prior planning efforts, and current issues facing the City. APS will also be responsible for the tracking, accounting procedures and LHMP update project status reports.

MPT Meetings
Although this is an update to the plan, the APS Team recommends three internal MPT meetings (in person or virtually) to facilitate the hazard mitigation planning process. A summary of the anticipated topics for these meetings include:

MPT Meeting 1 – Review the planning process, identification of key hazards of concern, data gathering and research, review of base maps, and confirmation of critical facilities list.

MPT Meeting 2 – Review of updated hazards mapping, risk assessment, and capabilities assessment.

MPT Meeting 3 – Review of draft mitigation actions and strategies and prioritization exercise to identify high priority initiatives.

Documentation of these meetings will become a foundation of the planning process described in the plan.

2. Public Engagement
In preparation for outreach and engagement activities, the APS Team will prepare a memorandum to the City describing the community engagement strategy in terms of groups to be contacted, the structure of meetings and workshops, and methods of advertising the events. As part of this task, the APS Team will coordinate with City staff to ensure the list of contacts is comprehensive and properly targeted.

Upon completion of the engagement memorandum, the APS Team will develop materials to advertise planned workshops and suggest additional methods of alerting residents and property owners about the planning process and the importance of the LHMP. Content for the Needles City Website and printable advertisements will be prepared for the community engagement opportunities identified in the memo.

The APS Team assumes two public meetings will be conducted, to provide input during plan development. The following meetings are anticipated:

Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | 14 Atlas Planning Solutions
Needles Community Outreach Meeting
The APS Team recommends conducting this meeting early in the planning process to allow elected/appointed officials, and community members an opportunity to learn about the LHMP planning/update process and provide feedback regarding the previous plan and new issues or trends of concern that the updated plan can address. This meeting will include a formal presentation to the audience. It is recommended that this meeting be conducted at a regularly scheduled City Council or Planning Commission meeting or a special meeting, if the City prefers to conduct this separately from those meetings.

Needles City Council Meeting
To release the Public Review Draft LHMP, the APS Team will support City staff with a presentation to City Council, which will provide an opportunity for feedback and comment from the Council as well as the public. This meeting will include a formal presentation, question and answer period, as well as an opportunity for community members to provide input and comment on the plan in person. If desired, this meeting could be conducted at the Planning Commission if the City prefers.

Hazard Mitigation Plan Survey
As part of the public outreach process, APS will create a hazard mitigation plan survey to poll the residents of the community on their experiences with natural hazards in the City. This survey, once approved by the MPT, will be made available for distribution on the City’s project website.

APS will monitor, track and finally compile the responses to the survey after the allotted public review time has been completed. APS will share the information with the MPT and incorporate the data into the updated LHMP per FEMA requirements.

City Staff Requirements
The APS Team anticipates City staff will support this task by reviewing the engagement strategy memo and outreach content; posting outreach content to the City website and any other means of outreach; assisting with arranging meeting locations, timing, and pertinent information; and attending meetings to provide feedback during the planning process.

3. Plan Review
APS will review the previous LHMP completed
in 2011. As part of this review process, APS will
ensure that the current hazards addressed in
the current version of the plan remain relevant
to the City, and identify, if any, new hazards
need to be added to the updated LHMP. The list
to the right identifies the current hazards
profiled in the 2011 LHMP and potential
additions due to updated FEMA guidance.

The APS Team as part of the review process, in partnership with the MPT, will discuss the current hazards profiled in the 2011 plan. During MPT Meeting #1 these hazard profiles will be confirmed and additional hazards/requirements will be discussed. The review process also includes an analysis and performance review of the previous LHMP’s mitigation actions and the current completion status of these actions. APS in collaboration with the MPT will determine which mitigation actions shall remain in the updated plan, which actions should be edited to better Current Hazard Profiles
Earthquake Hazards (includes Liquefaction)
Flood Hazards
Drought Hazards
Extreme Heat Hazards
Dam Failure Hazards
Hazardous Materials Release
Climate Change (new requirement)
Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | 15 Atlas Planning Solutions
address the City’s current needs, and which actions if any should be removed from the updated version of the plan. All of these changes shall be documented and included in the new plan as part of the update process and will meet the FEMA requirements As part of the hazard profile updates additional GIS mapping and analysis will be conducted.

Through this process, the City will have a deeper understanding of local conditions and how your critical facilities may be affected (see Figure 1 for an example).

As a standard practice, the APS Team addresses
climate change within each hazard profile to
ensure compliance with SB 379 requirements as
well as FEMA guidance. This approach has been
used by APS and has been found to make it
easier to focus on updating the content within the
plan, improving readability and continuity. The
data and information gathered during this task will
be shared with the MPT during Meeting #2.

During this task, we typically provide a public
outreach opportunity that conveys the overall
project information and initial information
gathered on the hazards of concern identified by
the MPT for public input and feedback.

City Staff Requirements
The APS Team anticipates City staff will provide feedback on relevant hazards, data, and historical information on the hazards of concern and guidance on new issues or concerns to be incorporated into the plan.

4. Risk, Capability, and Vulnerability Assessments
Upon confirming the City's critical facilities inventory and initial GIS mapping, the APS Team will conduct a vulnerability assessment that relies on this information. This vulnerability assessment will include potential loss estimates, an analysis of the City's development trends and potential changes to demographics, and a social vulnerability analysis, relying on available GIS datasets provided by the City or other local, state, and/or federal agencies (FEMA National Risk Index). All maps prepared will be provided in both ArcGIS and PDF formats for City use. The data and information gathered during this task will be shared with the MPT during Meeting #2. A key input will include using FEMA's National Risk Index to estimate potential losses (Figure 2). This is in Figure 2 - FEMA National Risk Index - Composite Annual Loss for Needles Figure 1 - Example of LHMP Seismic Hazards
Mapping
Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | 16 Atlas Planning Solutions
place of HazUS, as FEMA is now relying on this index to ensure greater consistency between local planning efforts and datasets developed by State and Federal agencies. One of the key factors to this portion of the update is ensuring that any risks and impacts that might have changed in the City since the previous plan was adopted are analyzed, evaluated, and discussed.

In addition to the mapping and analysis, the APS Team will also update the Capabilities Assessment to meet new FEMA requirements. This task includes a review of the existing planning regulations and programs that can support current mitigation capabilities. A key element of this review is identifying ways to expand this capability to ensure future efforts are easier and better integrated into the City mitigation planning framework.

City Staff Requirements
The APS Team anticipates City staff will provide feedback on the Critical Facilities Inventory, the vulnerability assessment and capabilities assessment results, and any relevant data/information that may assist with the analysis as part of this task.

5. Mitigation Strategy
To initiate the development of mitigation strategies and actions, the APS Team will review the General Plan Safety Element (being updated concurrently with the LHMP according to the RFP), Capital Improvement Plans, LHMPs from surrounding cities, and the State of California HMP.

Based on this review, recommendations for the plan's hazard mitigation goals will be provided to the MPT for discussion and feedback.

Upon completion of the Capabilities Assessment and Mitigation Goals, the APS Team will prepare City mitigation strategies and actions for future implementation. Using our mitigation action worksheets, we will identify the department lead for the specific mitigation action, funding and staffing resources, time frame for completion, and implementation steps for each prioritized mitigation action. The data and information gathered during this task will be shared with the MPT during Meeting #3. As part of the mitigation actions development, the APS Team will create a Monitoring and Implementation Workbook that is incorporated into the Appendix of the LHMP.

This workbook is intended to help City staff understand how mitigation actions should be monitored and implemented and opportunities to incorporate the plan and mitigation strategies and actions into other City functions and plans.

City Staff Requirements
The APS Team anticipates that City staff will provide feedback on potential strategies and capital improvement projects that may become actions. During MPT Meeting #2, it is expected that participants will help identify additional actions to incorporate into the plan, priorities for these actions, and other relevant information to finalize them.

6. Draft Plan Update, Local Review and Revisions
Upon completing the previous phases, the APS Team will prepare the Administrative Draft LHMP for City staff review. Using the process identified above, members of the MPT will be assisting with plan development as the research, mapping, and analysis are conducted. In doing so, MPT members will recognize much of the plan content based on their feedback and review in MPT meetings 1, 2, and 3. Upon completion, the plan will be provided to City staff for review and Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | 17 Atlas Planning Solutions
comment. Completion of the Administrative Draft LHMP will include a Chapter within the plan that identifies the following key information required by FEMA:
• LHMP Monitoring, Evaluation, Implementation, and Updates • Incorporation of the LHMP in existing planning mechanisms • Schedule for LHMP Implementation
• Continued Public Involvement during the 5-year implementation period.

Once the APS Team has received a consolidated set of comments on the Administrative Draft Plan, the Public Review Draft LHMP will be prepared alongside the FEMA Plan Review Tool, which accompanies the plan when submitted to Cal OES/FEMA for approval.

Upon completion of revisions and approval from the City, the Public Review Draft LHMP will be distributed for public review. Using the City's website and other means of outreach used by the City, the APS Team will work with staff to identify where the document can be accessed, either electronically or in hard copy. We typically recommend a review period of 30 days, but this can be modified based on staff desires and schedule constraints. We also anticipate City staff will share this as an informational item at a Needles City Council and Planning Commission meetings that occurs during the public review process, allowing for questions, comments, and feedback from the public and elected/appointed officials. A compilation of public review comments will be incorporated into the plan, where appropriate, before transmittal to Cal OES/FEMA.

City Staff Requirements
The APS Team anticipates City staff will provide feedback on the Administrative Draft LHMP document. If MPT members identify additional information during this review, this information can be shared and incorporated into the Public Review Draft LHMP.

The APS Team anticipates City staff will assist with outreach and engagement efforts during the public review period. Relying on content prepared by the APS Team, we will work with City staff during the public review period so they have the information needed to effectively share with residents and property owners.

7. Plan Submittal, Acceptance and Adoption
Upon completing the public review period, the APS Team will review the comments received and prepare the LHMP for transmittal to Cal OES/FEMA. Completing this task also includes finalizing the FEMA Plan Review Tool (Crosswalk), which accompanies the document when transmitted.

Upon receiving comments from Cal OES and FEMA (if warranted), the APS Team will prepare revisions and coordinate with agency staff until deemed satisfactory, allowing for City adoption.

City Staff Requirements
The APS Team anticipates City staff will review requested revisions by Cal OES/FEMA, if necessary.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Adoption
Upon receiving an Approvable Pending Adoption (APA) letter from FEMA, the APS Team will prepare a final version of the LHMP for presentation and adoption at City Council. The APS Team will assist staff with staff report content and an adoption resolution as part of this task. This step in the process concludes the hazard mitigation plan update and ensures compliance with state Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | 18 Atlas Planning Solutions
and Federal requirements. Upon adoption, the City becomes eligible for FEMA hazard mitigation grants for another 5-year period.

City Staff Requirements
The APS Team anticipates City staff will provide preferred document templates/formats for adoption materials and provide comments and feedback on presentation materials prepared by the APS Team. This task also assumes City staff will coordinate the dates and times for adoption hearings and any notice required to support those hearings.

8. Integration with City General Plan Safety Element
According to the RFP, the General Plan Safety Element is being updated concurrently with the LHMP. The major benefit to the City is that mitigation strategies from the LHMP and policies in Safety Element can be made to reinforce and support each other. As part of the update, coordination and communication with the Safety Element update team will be invaluable for both projects including; the sharing of historical and current hazard data, hazard mapping, and general hazard information, as well as policy development designed to compliment the two documents and ensure integration of ideas and policy. Key areas of focus for integration include climate adaptation information that helps with SB 379 compliance, as well as AB 747 compliance, which has been identified as an optional task. The Safety Element itself will also be incorporated into the LHMP through reference and specific language within the LHMP Resolution of Adoption.

Optional Tasks
While not specifically called out within the RFP, the Atlas Planning Solutions Team has identified the following optional tasks, which could compliment the City’s LHMP Update:
• AB 747 Evacuation Assessment – In accordance with AB 747, Cities and Counties in California are required to assess evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios in the development of a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

This task would include the necessary analysis required for AB 747 compliance similar to the projects we have completed or are currently underway.
• Emergency Operations Plan Update – the City of Needles is required to have an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) that complies with Federal and State requirements. The Atlas Planning Solutions Team has had great success supporting jurisdictions that undertake an EOP update alongside their LHMP updates. Through this effort, the City can realize greater efficiency and integration of these two plans further reinforcing how the City addresses natural and human-caused hazards.
• Table Top Exercise – Often the update of both the LHMP and EOP together provides an opportunity to train City Departments and staff on the proper use of emergency management documents and procedures. The use of a Table Top Exercise is a great way to help communities understand these plans and recognize their roles during an emergency incident.

This task would provide staff with an opportunity to exercise these documents and better understand expectations during a hazard incident.

Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | 19 Atlas Planning Solutions
Proposed Project Schedule and Timeline
The schedule provided assumes an efficient planning process and discrete timeframes for internal and external outreach and coordination. Based on the proposed schedule, the APS Team anticipates an 11 to 12-month schedule to complete this project.

1. Project Initiation
Kick-off Meeting (1) *
Current LHMP, Safety Element, Related Documents Review
Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Meetings/Work Sessions (3) * * *

2. Public Engagement
Public Outreach Workshops (2) * *
Engagement Strategy Development and Implementation

3. Plan Review
Updated Hazard Profiles
Updated Hazard Mapping
Updated Development Trends, Social Vulnerability, and Demographics

4. Risk, Capability, and Vulnerability Assessments
Develop Risk Assessment
Updated Vulnerability Assessment
Updated Capabilities Assessment

5. Mitigation Strategy
Current Mitigation Action Status and Review
Updated Mitigation Action Table/Matrix
Creation of Monitoring and Implementation Workbook

6. Draft Plan Update, Local Review and Revisions
Preparation of Administrative Draft LHMP
Preparation of Public Review Draft LHMP

7. Plan Submittal, Acceptance and Adoption
Preparation of Cal OES/FEMA Draft LHMP and Review Tool
Cal OES and FEMA Review/Revisions
City Council Adoption

8. Integration with City General Plan Safety Element
Safety Element Coordination/Integration
* Denotes a Meeting (virtual or in person)
LHMP Tasks January May June July August September October November December 2024
February March April
Atlas Planning Team Tasks Review Periods (Staff, Public, Agency) Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | 20 Atlas Planning Solutions
VI. Client References
The following client references are provided to the City of Needles for their review:

Client Name City of Huntington Beach APS has supported the City on updates to both the
Emergency Operations Plan
and Local Hazard Mitigation
Plan. LHMP Updates have
occurred in 2012, 2017, and
2022.

Contact Name and Title Brevyn Mettler, Emergency Services Coordinator
Company Address 2000 Main St, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact Telephone
Number
714-374-1565
Contact Email [email protected]
Timeframe July 2012 -Current
Client Name PlaceWorks APS has supported
PlaceWorks on various
projects since its inception.

Key projects include the City
of San Bernardino
LHMP/EOP Updates,
Hollister LHMP, and is
currently assisting with the
San Mateo County Safety
Elements update project.

Contact Name and Title Colin Drukker, Principal
Tammy Seale, Principal
Company Address 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Contact Telephone
Number
714-966-9220
Contact Email [email protected]
[email protected]
Timeframe Since 2018
Client Name City of Anaheim APS supported the City of
Anaheim with updates to
their General Plan Safety
Element and Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan, which
included the preparation of a
Climate Adaptation
Vulnerability Assessment.

Contact Name and Title Dr. Jannine Wilmoth
Company Address 201 S. Anaheim Blvd, Suite 300, Anaheim, CA 92805
Contact Telephone
Number
714-765-4095
Contact Email [email protected]
Timeframe June 2021 – January 2023
Client Name City of Rancho Cucamonga – (Prior)
City of Ontario (Current - 2023)
(Joseph Ramos recently accepted a position
at the City of Ontario, where Atlas Planning
Solutions is currently assisting the City with an
LHMP and EOP Update)
City of Rancho Cucamonga -
APS supported the City on
updates to not only the Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan, but
both the Safety Element and
Emergency Operations Plan.

City of Ontario - APS is
supporting the City with the
update to the LHMP (this is
one of the first LHMPs
approved by FEMA under
the new 2023 guidance), an
update to the Emergency
Operations Plan, as well as
completing an Emergency
Evacuation Assessment.

Contact Name and Title Joseph Ramos, Emergency Manager
Company Address 415 E. B Street, Ontario, CA 91764
Contact Telephone
Number
909-395-2580
Contact Email [email protected]
Timeframe City of Rancho Cucamonga (2019 – 2021
significant delay due to Covid-19 epidemic,
project was originally scheduled for 13-month
completion)
City of Ontario (August 2022 – Current)
Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | 21 Atlas Planning Solutions
VII. Project Cost
The cost proposal is included in a separate PDF for review, as instructed in the RFP submittal deadline and format section.

Item 6.

VII. Project Cost
The following cost proposal provided by Atlas Planning Solutions is based on the following assumptions:
• Plan preparation will rely on readily available information from relevant County and State plans. • The proposed fee is our best estimation based on our understanding of City needs. If any assumptions are incorrect or require refinement, the APS Team will be happy to work with the City to refine this estimate.
• Atlas Planning Solutions recommends a 10% contingency for the project to accommodate additional City needs or requests to be used under the direction and approval of the City’s Project Manager.

Atlas Planning Team Staff
Aaron Pfannenstiel
(APS)
Suzanne Murray (APS)
Dennis Larson (APS)
Crystal Stueve (APS)
Robert Jackson (APS)
Lee Rosenberg (NPA)
Hourly Billing Rates $ 225 $ 140 $ 175 $ 140 $ 120 150$ Kick-off Meeting (1) 2 2 2 2 2 $1,620
Current LHMP, Safety Element, Related Documents Review 2 2 4 4 $1,840 Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Meetings/Work Sessions (3) 12 6 12 $4,980 Public Outreach Workshops (2) 8 4 8 $3,320
Engagement Strategy Development and Implementation 2 8 2 8 $2,810 Updated Hazard Profiles 2 4 8 16 $4,050
Updated Hazard Mapping 2 24 $4,650
Updated Development Trends, Social Vulnerability, and Demographics 2 4 8 4 4 $3,450 Develop Risk Assessment 2 4 8 8 $3,230
Updated Vulnerability Assessment 2 4 8 4 8 $3,930
Updated Capabilities Assessment 2 4 16 $3,410
Current Mitigation Action Status and Review 2 4 8 $1,970 Updated Mitigation Action Table/Matrix 2 4 4 16 $3,490
Creation of Monitoring and Implementation Workbook 2 8 2 4 $2,330 Preparation of Administrative Draft LHMP 2 4 8 8 4 $3,690 Preparation of Public Review Draft LHMP 2 2 4 16 $3,210 Preparation of Cal OES/FEMA Draft LHMP and Review Tool 2 4 4 8 $2,530 Cal OES and FEMA Review/Revisions 4 2 4 4 $2,220
City Council Adoption 6 6 $2,070
Safety Element Coordination/Integration 4 4 $1,380
Total 64 48 48 72 144 22 $60,180
Table Top Exercise
Optional Tasks Budget Range
FEE

8. Integration with City General Plan Safety Element

1. Project Initiation

5. Mitigation Strategy

6. Draft Plan Update, Local Review and Revisions

4. Risk, Capability, and Vulnerability Assessments

2. Public Engagement

3. Plan Review

7. Plan Submittal, Acceptance and Adoption
$18,000-$22,000
$20,000-$32,000
$12,000-$18,000
AB 747 Evacuation Assessment
Emergency Operations Plan Update
Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | A-1 Atlas Planning Solutions
Attachment A – Staff Resumes
The following resumes for Atlas Planning Solutions Team members supporting the Needles LHMP Update are provided below.

Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | A-2 Atlas Planning Solutions

AARON PFANNENSTIEL, AICP
Principal, CFO
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 951-444-9379
Years of Experience: 22

EDUCATION/DEGREES
• MURP, 2005, Regional Planning/Urban Planning, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona • BA, 2001, Environmental Studies, University of California at Santa Barbara • BS, 2001, Geological Sciences, University of California at Santa Barbara PROJECT MANAGER | SAFETY ELEMENT AND HAZARD MITIGATION SME Aaron has 20 years of experience in community planning, focusing on emergency management, hazard mitigation, and community resiliency. With a background in geology, environmental studies, and urban planning, he helps clients understand hazards, assess vulnerabilities, and develop policies, programs, and mitigation strategies that make communities safer. Over the past decade, he has also trained hundreds of students, planners, and other professionals in these topics.

Aaron incorporates hazard mitigation into comprehensive planning projects to increase resiliency in communities. He prepares local and multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plans, emergency operations plans, general plans, and safety elements. He recently assisted clients with developing innovative planning practices as part of a pilot program that enhances communities' adaptation to wildfires. Aaron has also prepared environmental documents for CEQA compliance and due diligence and feasibility studies, and he has conducted community outreach and education efforts in communities throughout California.

RELEVANT AND CURRENT EXPERIENCE
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Updates
Supported the preparation and updates of Local Hazard Mitigation Plans for the following jurisdictions:
• City of Anaheim
• City of Costa Mesa
• City of Hollister
• City of Huntington Beach
• City of Irvine
• City of Loma Linda
• City of Rancho Cucamonga
• City of Stanton
• City of Vernon
General Plan Safety Elements
Supported the preparation of general plan safety element updates for the following jurisdictions:
• City of Anaheim
• City of Canyon Lake
• City of Encinitas
• City of Laguna Beach
• City of Lancaster
• City of Loma Linda
• City of Rancho Cucamonga
• City of Saratoga
• Town of Hillsborough
• Town of Portola Valley
• San Diego County
• Mendocino County
Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | A-3 Atlas Planning Solutions

SUZANNE MURRAY
Principal, CEO
Phone: 951-444-9379
Email: [email protected]
Years of Experience: 16
Education/Degrees:
• M.A., Current, Emergency Management/Homeland Security, AMU • M.A., 2008, English, National University
• B.A., 2004, English, University of California Riverside • A.A., 2007, Intelligence Operations, Cochise College, Sierra Vista, AZ • Certificate, 2021, Copyediting, UCSD Extension
TECHNICAL WRITER, EDITOR | RESEARCHER | ANALYST | EDUCATOR Suzanne Murray has authored many classified government documents throughout a 16-year career in the military. Notable documents include research and White Paper composition on Afghanistan tribes and human terrain in Afghanistan and Iraq, and North Korean cyberterrorism threats on United States ports of entry. Additional documents include training manuals for unit training to enhance readiness and training capabilities.

Relevant and Current Project Experience
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Updates
Supported the preparation and updates of Local Hazard Mitigation Plans for the following jurisdictions:
• City of Anaheim
• City of Costa Mesa
• City of Hollister
• City of Huntington Beach
• City of Irvine
• City of Loma Linda
• City of Rancho Cucamonga
• City of Stanton
• City of Vernon
General Plan Safety Elements
Supported the preparation of general plan safety element updates for the following jurisdictions:
• City of Anaheim
• City of Canyon Lake
• City of Encinitas
• City of Laguna Beach
• City of Lancaster
• City of Loma Linda
• City of Rancho Cucamonga
• City of Saratoga
• Town of Hillsborough
• Town of Portola Valley
• San Diego County
• Mendocino County

OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
United States Army Reserve, Human Intelligence Collector, 2004-Present SAIC, Researcher for Detained Personnel in Bagram Afghanistan, 2011-2013 Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | A-4 Atlas Planning Solutions

DENNIS LARSON
Senior Planner
Phone: 951-444-9379
Years of Experience: 24
Education/Degrees:
• MA, Economics, California State San Diego
• BA, Geography, California State San Diego
HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNER | GIS MAPPING TECHNICAL EXPERT | CLIMATE CHANGE

SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT
Mr. Larson has 18 years of experience in public agency program management, policy research, and technical analysis. His specialties include long-range planning, hazard mitigation, climate resiliency, Geographic Information Services, and economic impact analyses. Dennis helps public agencies and private firms develop and evaluate policies, programs, and strategies with measurable performance impacts.

Relevant and Current Project Experience
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Updates
Supported the preparation and updates of Local Hazard Mitigation Plans for the following jurisdictions:
• City of Anaheim, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
• City of Costa Mesa, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
• City of Hollister, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update • City of Huntington Beach Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update • City of Irvine, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
• City of Loma Linda Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update • City of Rancho Cucamonga Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update • City of Stanton, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
• City of Vernon, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update

OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
• San Diego Unified Port District, Port Master Plan Update, Safety and Resiliency Element • San Diego Unified Port District, AB691 SLR Vulnerability Assessment and Coastal Resiliency Report
• San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego Ocean Planning Partnership and Preliminary Assessment Report
• San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Comparing Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategies in San Diego: An Application of the NOAA Economic Framework
• City of Encinitas, FEMA Benefit-Cost Analysis for Coastal Hazard Resiliency • City of San Diego, Otay Mesa Community Plan Update, Public Facilities, Safety, & Services Element
Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | A-5 Atlas Planning Solutions

CRYSTAL STUEVE
Senior Planner
Phone: 951-444-9379
Email: [email protected]
Years of Experience: 16
Education/Degrees:
• MA, 2017, Mass Communications & Journalism, Kent State University • BS, 2012, Intelligence Management, Henley-Putnam University RESEARCHER | ANALYST | TECHNICAL WRITER AND EDITOR
Crystal Stueve has authored many classified government documents throughout her 19-year career in the military. Notable compositions include research and analytical reports on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and militia groups within Iraq, and tactical and strategic reporting on Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations and transnational organized crime that pose an immediate threat to national security.

Additional documents include training manuals and unit standard operating procedures to enhance unit readiness and training capabilities.

Relevant and Current Project Experience
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Updates
Supported the preparation and updates of Local Hazard Mitigation Plans for the following jurisdictions:
• City of Anaheim
• City of Costa Mesa
• City of Hollister
• City of Huntington Beach
• City of Rancho Cucamonga
• City of Stanton
• City of Vernon
General Plan Safety Elements
Supported the preparation of general plan safety element updates for the following jurisdictions:
• City of Anaheim
• City of Encinitas
• City of Lancaster
• City of Loma Linda
• City of Rancho Cucamonga
• City of Saratoga
• San Diego County
• Mendocino County
Emergency Operations Plan Updates
Supported the preparation of emergency operations plan updates for the following jurisdictions:

City of Costa Mesa, City of Loma Linda, City of Rancho Cucamonga, City of Newport Beach, Inyo County

OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
San Bernardino Police Department, Criminal Investigation Officer/EOC Specialist, 2018-2020 US Army Reserve, Human Intelligence Collector, 2014-Present US Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command (Airborne) – Emergency Operations Center Analyst, 2012-2014
United States Army Reserve, Weapons of Mass Destruction Specialist, 2002-2012 Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | A-6 Atlas Planning Solutions

ROBERT JACKSON
Associate Planner
Phone: 951-444-9379
Email: [email protected]
Years of Experience: 3
RESEARCHER | ANALYST
Robert Jackson has worked for Atlas Planning as an assistant planner and has been an integral part in a multitude of projects since joining the team. He has experience in Local Hazard Mitigation Plan document preparation and updates. General Plan Safety Element update research, document review, and composition. While newer to the planning world, he has proven to be a valuable asset to the Atlas Planning Team.

Relevant and Current Project Experience
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Updates
Supported the preparation and updates of Local Hazard Mitigation Plans for the following jurisdictions:
• City of Anaheim, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
• City of Costa Mesa, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
• City of Hollister, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update • City of Huntington Beach Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update • City of Irvine, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
• City of Loma Linda Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update • City of Rancho Cucamonga Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update • City of Stanton, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
• City of Vernon, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
General Plan Safety Elements
Supported the preparation of general plan safety element updates for the following jurisdictions:
• City of Anaheim General Plan Safety Element Update
• City of Canyon Lake Safety Element Update
• City of Encinitas Safety Element Update
• City of Laguna Beach General Plan Safety Element Update • City of Lancaster, General Plan Safety Element Update • City of Loma Linda General Plan Safety Element Update • City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Safety Element
• City of Saratoga General Plan Safety Element
• Town of Hillsborough General Plan Safety Element
• Town of Portola Valley General Plan Safety Element
• San Diego County General Plan Safety Element Update
• Mendocino County General Plan Safety Element Update
Item 6.

City of Needles Proposal for: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page | A-7 Atlas Planning Solutions
Lee Rosenberg, CEM
Managing Principal
Years of Experience: 40 years
Education and Certifications
• Certified Emergency Manager (CEM), International Association of Emergency Managers, 2021
• Northwestern University, Master of Engineering Management Professional Summary
Lee Rosenberg is the owner and managing director of Navigating Preparedness Associates. As the company leader, he provides direction to staff who deliver comprehensive emergency preparedness services to the government and industry. With more than 30 years of emergency management, national security, and homeland security experience, Mr. Rosenberg has a broad and deep knowledge of the practical application of operations and policy in these areas. He has a particular focus on hazard mitigation plan development and program implementation.

Mr. Rosenberg led the URS Corporation's Oakland environmental service department and West Coast emergency preparedness practice from 2008 to 2014. He served as a Federal Coordinating Officer for FEMA Region IX from 2006 to 2008, where he provided support to states for numerous presidentially declared disasters. Before working for FEMA, Mr. Rosenberg completed a 30-year career in the US Navy, during which time he served as the commanding officer of a destroyer and as the commander of a large amphibious assault craft base. He is a combat veteran of Operation Desert Storm and retired as a Captain.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Updates:
• City of Artesia
• City of Hawthorne,
• City of Lynwood
• Valley County Water District,
• City of Hermosa Beach
• Tulare County MJHMP
2015-2016 - San Francisco Bay Ferry/Water Emergency Transportation Authority, Emergency Response Plan (ERP) and EOP Revision
2006-2008 - FEMA RIX, Disaster Response Operations, Federal Coordinating Officer Director, Joint Field Office, Kiholo Bay Earthquake, Honolulu, HI 2004-2006 - US Navy, Deputy Chief of Staff, Plans and Exercises Division, US Coast Guard Pacific Area
1976-2006 - Captain, US Navy
Item 6.

Item 6.

Atlas Planning Solutions
6578 BARRANCA DR | RIVERSIDE, CA 92506
Proposal for:

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
Cost Proposal – Separate Cover
City of Needles
817 Third Street
Needles, CA 92363
Item 6.

Item 6.

EXHIBIT C
Insurance Requirements
Time for Compliance.

Consultant shall not commence Services under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City that it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City that the subcontractor has secured all insurance required under this section.

Minimum Requirements.

Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement.

Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage:
i. General liability. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language will not be accepted. ii. Automobile liability. Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with the Services to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident. iii. Professional liability (errors & omissions). Consultant shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than three (3) years after completion of the Services required by this Agreement. iv. Worker’s Compensation. Consultant shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer’s Liability Insurance (with limits of at least $1,000,000).

Item 6.

Other Provisions or Requirements
• Separation of Insureds; No Special Limitations. All insurance required by this Section shall contain standard separation of insured’s provisions. In addition, such insurance shall not contain any special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers. • Deductibles and Self-Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the City, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers; or (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses.
• Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M.

Best’s rating no less than A:VII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the City.
• Proof of insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers’ compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be approved by the City prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this contract. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. • City Approval. All coverage types and limits required are subject to approval, modification and additional requirements by City, as the need arises. Consultant shall not make any reductions in scope of coverage (e.g. elimination of contractual liability or reduction of discovery period) that may affect City’s protection without City’s prior written consent.
• Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Consultant shall be primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of City before the City’s own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.

City’s rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments.

Item 6.

In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the City nor does it waive any rights hereunder.
• Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants. • Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance.

Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City. • Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide to City with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which a ten (10) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage.
• Additional insured status. All policies required herein shall provide or be endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents, and volunteers shall be additional insureds under such policies.
• Pass through clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants, subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants, subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
• City’s right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City and Consultant may renegotiate Consultant’s compensation.

Item 6.
• Timely notice of claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant’s performance under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability policies.
• Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.

Item 6.
19 EXHIBIT D

FEMA CONTRACT TERMS AND CERTIFICATION
To the extent applicable, the following provisions apply to this Agreement:

1. PURPOSE. The parties are entering into the Agreement for a Hazard Mitigation Plan Update funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security--Federal Emergency Management (“FEMA”). The Agreement shall contain the federally required contract provisions in addition to the FEMA recommended provisions. In the event of a conflict in the terms set forth in the Professional Services Agreement and the terms set forth in this Exhibit D, the terms set forth in this Exhibit D shall control.

2. REMEDIES. All administrative, contractual, or other legal remedies available by law, including sanctions and penalties, are available to the parties in the event of a breach of contract.

3. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE OR CONVENIENCE. This Agreement may be terminated by the City with or without cause upon ten (10) days prior notice to the other party.

4. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY. During the performance of this Agreement, the Consultant agrees as follows:
a. The Consultant will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. The Consultant will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin.
b. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following:
1) Employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The Consultant agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. 2) The Consultant will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the Consultant, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin.

Item 6.
20 3) The Consultant will not discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because such employee or applicant has inquired about, discussed, or disclosed the compensation of the employee or applicant or another employee or applicant. This provision shall not apply to instances in which an employee who has access to the compensation information of other employees or applicants as a part of such employee's essential job functions discloses the compensation of such other employees or applicants to individuals who do not otherwise have access to such information, unless such disclosure is in response to a formal complaint or charge, in furtherance of an investigation, proceeding, hearing, or action, including an investigation conducted by the employer, or is consistent with the Consultant's legal duty to furnish information. 4) The Consultant will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice to be provided advising the said labor union or workers' representatives of the Consultant's commitments under this section, and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment.
5) The Consultant will comply with all provisions of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and of the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor.
6) The Consultant will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and by rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to his books, records, and accounts by the administering agency and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders.
7) In the event of the Consultant's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination clauses of this Agreement or with any of the said rules, regulations, or orders, this Agreement may be canceled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part and the Consultant may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts or federally assisted construction contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as provided in Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, or by rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by law.

Item 6.
21 8) The Consultant will include the portion of the sentence immediately preceding paragraph (1) and the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (8) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to section 204 of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. The Consultant will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the administering agency may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance:

Provided, however, that in the event a Consultant becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction by the administering agency, the Consultant may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.

The City further agrees that it will be bound by the above equal opportunity clause with respect to its own employment practices when it participates in federally assisted construction work: Provided, That if the City so participating is a State or local government, the above equal opportunity clause is not applicable to any agency, instrumentality or subdivision of such government which does not participate in work on or under the Agreement.

The City agrees that it will assist and cooperate actively with the administering agency and the Secretary of Labor in obtaining the compliance of contractors and subcontractors with the equal opportunity clause and the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor, that it will furnish the administering agency and the Secretary of Labor such information as they may require for the supervision of such compliance, and that it will otherwise assist the administering agency in the discharge of the agency's primary responsibility for securing compliance.

The City further agrees that it will refrain from entering into any contract or contract modification subject to Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, with a Consultant debarred from, or who has not demonstrated eligibility for, Government contracts and federally assisted construction contracts pursuant to the Executive Order and will carry out such sanctions and penalties for violation of the equal opportunity clause as may be imposed upon contractors and subcontractors by the administering agency or the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Part II, Subpart D of the Executive Order. In addition, the City agrees that if it fails or refuses to comply with these undertakings, the administering Item 6.
22 agency may take any or all of the following actions: Cancel, terminate, or suspend in whole or in part this grant (contract, loan, insurance, guarantee); refrain from extending any further assistance to the City under the program with respect to which the failure or refund occurred until satisfactory assurance of future compliance has been received from such City; and refer the case to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal proceedings.

5. DAVIS-BACON ACT. All transactions regarding this Agreement shall be done in compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 31413144, and 3146-3148) and the requirements of 29 C.F.R. pt. 5 as may be applicable. The Consultant shall comply with 40 U.S.C. 3141-3144, and 3146-3148 and the requirements of 29 C.F.R. pt. 5 as applicable. Contractors are required to pay wages to laborers and mechanics at a rate not less than the prevailing wages specified in a wage determination made by the Secretary of Labor. Additionally, contractors are required to pay wages not less than once a week.

6. COPELAND ANTI-KICKBACK ACT.
a. Consultant. The Consultant shall comply with 18 U.S.C. § 874, 40 U.S.C. § 3145, and the requirements of 29 C.F.R. pt. 3 as may be applicable, which are incorporated by reference into this Agreement.
b. Subcontracts. The Consultant orsubcontractorshall insert in any subcontractsthe clause above and such other clauses as FEMA may by appropriate instructions require, and also a clause requiring the subcontractors to include these clauses in any lower tier subcontracts. The prime Consultant shall be responsible for the compliance by any subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor with all of these contract clauses.
c. Breach. A breach of the contract clauses above may be grounds for termination of the Agreement, and for debarment as a Consultant and subcontractor as provided in 29 C.F.R. § 5.12.

7. CONTRACT WORK HOURS AND SAFETY STANDARDS ACT
a. Overtime Requirements. As required by 29 C.F.R. § 5.5(b), no contractor or subcontractor contracting for any part of the contract work which may require or involve the employment of laborers or mechanics shall require or permit any such laborer or mechanic in any workweek in which he or she is employed on such work to work in excess of forty hours in such workweek unless such laborer or mechanic receives compensation at a rate not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in such workweek.

Item 6.
23 b. Violation; Liability for Unpaid Wages; Liquidated Damages. In the event of any violation of the clause set forth in paragraph (1) of this section the Consultant and any subcontractor responsible therefor shall be liable for the unpaid wages.

In addition, such Consultant and subcontractor shall be liable to the United States (in the case of work done under contract for the District of Columbia or a territory, to such District or to such territory), for liquidated damages. Such liquidated damages shall be computed with respect to each individual laborer or mechanic, including watchmen and guards, employed in violation of the clause set forth in paragraph (1) of this section, in the sum of $27 for each calendar day on which such individual was required or permitted to work in excess of the standard workweek of forty hours without payment of the overtime wages required by the clause set forth in paragraph (1) of this section. c. Withholding for Unpaid Wages and Liquidated Damages. The City shall upon its own action or upon written request of an authorized representative of the Department of Labor withhold or cause to be withheld, from any moneys payable on account of work performed by the Consultant or subcontractor under any such contract or any other Federal contract with the same prime Consultant, or any other federally-assisted contract subject to the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, which is held by the same prime Consultant, such sums as may be determined to be necessary to satisfy any liabilities of such Consultant or subcontractor for unpaid wages and liquidated damages as provided in the clause set forth in paragraph (2) of this section. d. Subcontracts. The Consultant or subcontractor shall insert in any subcontracts the clauses set forth in paragraphs (1) through (4) of this section and also a clause requiring the subcontractors to include these clauses in any lower tier subcontracts. The prime Consultant shall be responsible for compliance by any subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor with the clauses set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.

8. RIGHTS TO INVENTIONS. All materials produced under this Agreement shall be considered “works for hire” as defined by the U.S. Copyright Act and shall be owned by the City.

9. CLEAN AIR ACT AND THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT. a. Clean Air Act. The Consultant agrees to comply with all applicable standards, orders or regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. The Consultant agrees to report each violation to the City and understands and agrees that the City will, in turn, report each violation as required to assure notification to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the appropriate Environmental Protection Agency Regional Office.

The Consultant agrees to include these requirements in each subcontract exceeding $150,000 financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance Item 6.
24 provided by FEMA.
b. Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The Consultant agrees to comply with all applicable standards, orders, or regulations issued pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. The Consultant agrees to report each violation to the City and understands and agrees that the City will, in turn, report each violation as required to assure notification to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the appropriate Environmental Protection Agency Regional Office. The Consultant agrees to include these requirements in each subcontract exceeding $150,000 financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance provided by FEMA.

10. DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION. If this Agreement is a covered transaction for purposes of 2 C.F.R. pt. 180 and 2 C.F.R. pt. 3000, the Consultant is required to verify that none of the Consultant's principals (defined at 2 C.F.R. § 180.995) or its affiliates (defined at 2 C.F.R. § 180.905) are excluded (defined at 2 C.F.R. § 180.940) or disqualified (defined at 2 C.F.R. § 180.935). The Consultant must comply with 2 C.F.R. pt. 180, subpart C and 2 C.F.R. pt. 3000, subpart C, and must include a requirement to comply with these regulations in any lower tier covered transaction it enters into.

This certification is a material representation of fact relied upon by the City. If it is later determined that the Consultant did not comply with 2 C.F.R. pt. 180, subpart C and 2 C.F.R. pt. 3000, subpart C, in addition to remedies available to the City, the Federal Government may pursue available remedies, including but not limited to suspension and/or debarment.

The bidder or proposer agrees to comply with the requirements of 2 C.F.R. pt. 180, subpart C and 2 C.F.R. pt. 3000, subpart C while this offer is valid and throughout the period of any contract that may arise from this offer. The bidder or proposer further agrees to include a provision requiring such compliance in its lower tier covered transactions.

11. PROCUREMENT OF RECOVERED MATERIALS. In the performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall make maximum use of products containing recovered materials that are EPA- designated items unless the product cannot be acquired i) competitively within a timeframe providing for compliance with the Agreement performance schedule; ii) meeting Agreement performance requirements; or ii) at a reasonable price.

Information about this requirement, along with the list of EPA-designated items, is available at EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines web site, https://www.epa.gov/smm/comprehensive-procurement-guideline-cpg-program. The Consultant also agrees to comply with all other applicable requirements of Section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

12. ACCESS TO RECORDS. The Consultant agrees to provide the City, the FEMA Administrator, the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their authorized Item 6.
25 representatives access to any books, documents, papers, and records of the Consultant which are directly pertinent to this Agreement for the purposes of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcriptions, to the extent allowed by law. The Consultant agrees to permit any of the foregoing parties to reproduce by any means whatsoever or to copy excerpts and transcriptions as reasonably needed. The Consultant agrees to provide the FEMA Administrator or his authorized representatives access to construction or other work sites pertaining to the work being completed under the Agreement. In compliance with the Disaster Recovery Act of 2018, the City and the Consultant acknowledge and agree that no language in this Agreement is intended to prohibit audits or internal reviews by the FEMA Administrator or the Comptroller General of the United States.

13. CONTRACT AMENDMENTS. This Agreement may only be amended upon the mutual written agreement of the parties.

14. DHS SEAL, LOGO, AND FLAGS. The Consultant shall not use the DHS seal(s), logos, crests, or reproductions of flags or likenesses of DHS agency officials without specific FEMA pre-approval.

15. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW, REGULATIONS, AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

This is an acknowledgement that FEMA financial assistance will be used to fund all or a portion of the Agreement. The Consultant will comply with all applicable Federal law, regulations, executive orders, FEMA policies, procedures, and directives.

16. NO OBLIGATION BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The Federal Government is not a party to this Agreement and is not subject to any obligations or liabilities to the non-Federal entity, Consultant, or any other party pertaining to any matter resulting from this Agreement.

17. PROGRAM FRAUD AND FALSE OR FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS OR RELATED ACTS. The Consultant acknowledges that 31 U.S.C. Chap. 38 (Administrative Remedies for False Claims and Statements) applies to the Consultant's actions pertaining to this Agreement.

Item 6.
26 18. BYRD ANTI-LOBBYING AMENDMENT, 31 U.S.C. § 1352 (AS AMENDED). Contractors who apply or bid for an award of $100,000 or more shall file the required certification.

Each tier certifies to the tier above that it will not and has not used Federal appropriated funds to pay any person or organization for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with obtaining any Federal contract, grant, or any other award covered by 31 U.S.C. § 1352. Each tier shall also disclose any lobbying with non-Federal funds that takes place in connection with obtaining any Federal award. Such disclosures are forwarded from tier to tier up to the recipient who in turn will forward the certification(s) to the awarding agency.

Required Certification. If applicable, contractors must sign and submit to the nonfederal entity the following certification.

APPENDIX A, 44 C.F.R. PART 18 — CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:

1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.

2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form- LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions.

3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this Item 6.
27 transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

The Consultant certifies or affirms the truthfulness and accuracy of each statement of its certification and disclosure, if any. In addition, the Consultant understands and agrees that the provisions of 31 U.S.C. Chap. 38, Administrative Remedies for False Claims and Statements, apply to this certification and disclosure, if any.
_______________________________________
Signature of Consultant’s Authorized Official
Aaron Pfannenstiel, Chief Financial Officer_______
Name and Title of Authorized Official
February 7, 2024___________________________
Date
Item 6.

City of Needles, California
Request for City Council Action
CITY COUNCIL NPUA Regular Special
Meeting Date: February 13, 2024
Title: Warrants
Background: n/a
Fiscal Impact: n/a
Environmental Impact:

Recommended Action: Approve the Warrants Register through February 13, 2024 Submitted By: Barbara DiLeo, Finance Department
City Manager Approval: Date:

Other Department Approval (when required): Date:

Approved: Not Approved: Tabled: Other:

Agenda Item: 7
Item 7.

CITY OF NEEDLES CITY COUNCIL
WARRANT SUMMARY TOTALS FOR JANUARY 24, 2024
1 /24 /2024(2) FUND AMT. 24-Jan 23-24 BUDGET
FUND 101 GENERAL FUND $ 503.11
101.1015.412 CITY ATTORNEY $ - $ 42 182.95 $ 80,000.00
101.1020.413 CITY MANAGER $ - $ 174 044.85 $ 230 592.00 101.1025.415 FINANCE DEPT. $ 160.00 $ 703 186.69 $ 987 957.00 101.1030.414 CITY CLERK/ COUNCIUMAYOR $ 495.52 $ 159 703.61 $ 329 339.00 101.1035.416 PLANNING /ZONING $ 199.95 $ 14 266.71 $ 402 016.00 101.1040.417 ENGINEERING $ - $ 196,997.46 $ 439 483.00
101.1060.410 COMMUNITY PROMOTIONS $ - $ 25 035.08 $ 103 945.00 101.1070.410 SENIOR CENTER $ - $ 36,445.17 $ 62,202.00
101.2010.421 SHERIFF $ - $ 2143 411.61 $ 3 759 034.00
101.2020.423 ANIMAL SHELTER/CONTROL $ 1 259.87 $ 122 725.34 $ 261 130.00 101.2025.424 BULDING & SAFETY $ - $ 145 435.54 $ 488 742.00 101.2030.423 CODE ENFORCEMENT $ - $ 348,926.12 $ 806,188.00 101.3010.431 PUBLIC WORKS $ 35.12 $ 376 652.44 $ 818 943.00 101.4730.472 SANITATION $ - $ 102 743.35 $ 177 467.00
101.5770.452. AQUATICS $ - $ 105 660.92 $ 246 913.00
101.5772.452 PARKS $ 199.76 $ 353 364.27 $ 760 504.00
101.5773.452 JACK SMITH PARK MARINA $ - $ 45 350.47 $ 115 646.00 101.577 4 .452 RECREATION $ 1 063.12 $ 243,151.94 $ 386 397.00 GENERAL FUND TOTAL ALL GF DEPARTMENTS $ 3 916.45 $ 10 456 498.00 FUND 102 GEN. FUND CAPITAL PROJECT $ - $ 17 470.94 $ 4541 710.00 FUND205 CDBG $ - $ 4 606.00 $ 74,559.00
FUND206 CEMETERY $ - $ 108 661.93 $ 258 022.00
FUND208 CAL TRANS GRANTS $ - $ 89.74 $ 1173 000.00
FUND210 SPECIAL GAS TAX $ - $ 81 179.00 $ 258 629.00
FUND213 DEPT OF HOUSE. & COMM DEVL $ - $ 34 780.00 $ 48 522.00 FUND 214 SANBAG NEW LOCAL MEAS I $ - $ - $ 450 000.00
FUND225 COPS-AB 3229 SUPPLEMENTAL $ - $ 78 960.60 $ 272 973.00 FUND227 HAZARD MITIGATION $ - $ 87.10 $ 132 285.00
FUND 233 JACK SMITH PARK MARINA $ - $ 132 936.25 $ 175 308.00 FUND238 STATE RECREATION GRANTS $ - $ 227 238.84 $ 2 819 424.00 FUND239 CA. CONSERV RECYLING GRANT $ - $ 4 399.09 $ 25 436.00 FUND270 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY $ - $ 170 394.44 $ 20,000.00 FUND470 RDA CAP PROJ.LOW & MOD. $ - $ 32 000.00 $ 100 954.00 FUND 501 NPUA $ - $ 1,293,746.88 $ 2,639,851.00
FUND 502 WATER DEPARTMENT $ 353.15 $ 1027 018.34 $ 2 161 380.00 FUND503 WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT $ - $ 704 711.61 $ 1312 828.00 FUND 505 SANITATION $ - $ 783 054.92 $ 1563 015.00
FUND 506 ALL AMERICAN CANAL PROJ. $ 19.99 $ 950 921.95 $ 1 041 800.00 FUND507 GOLF FUND $ - $ -
FUND 507-5761-453 GOLF MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT $ - $ 363 386.45 $ 696 256.00 FUND 507-5762-454 GOLF PRO SHOP DEPARTMENT $ - $ 220 670.61 $ 413 638.00 FUND 507 GOLF FUND TOTAL $ -
FUND 508 GUST.SVC/ UT BUSINESS OFFICE $ - $ 194 701.71 $ 496 825.00 FUND 509 MIS $ - $ 110 769.32 $ 273 100.00
FUND 510 ADMIN. FACILITY $ 17.00 $ 128 516.74 $ 244 375.00 FUND 511 FLEET MANAGEMENT $ 504.76 $ 122 091.01 $ 278 476.00 FUND 512 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT $ - $ 247,885.00 $ 247,885.00 FUND 520 SR DIAL A RIDE $
- $ 50 010.16 $ 453 450.00
FUND 521 DIAL-A-RIOE MEDICAL TRANS. $ - $ 9 814.12 $ 22 320.00 FUND525 NEEDLES AREA TRANSIT <NAT) $ - $ 388 957.22 $ 808 479.00 FUND575 HOUSING $ 4180.79 $ 766 353.74 $ 1 434 443.00
FUND 580 ELECTRIC $ 794.24 $ 7 723 426.09 $ 12 742 061.00 FUND 581 NPUA CAPITAL ELECTRIC $ - $ 51 110.43 $ 506 170.00 FUND 582 NPUA CAPITAL WATER $ - $ 3 074 509.64 $ 8 052 289.00 FUND650 IMPACT FEES NORTH NEEDLES $ - $ 16 709.13 $ 33 708.00 FUND651 IMPACT FEES SOUTH AREAS $ - $ 5139.72 $ 45 912.00 TOTAL ALL FUNDS & DEPARTMENTS $ 9,786.38 $ 24,443,744.39 $56,195,961.00 1/24/2024
Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

Item 7.

MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL

NEEDLES PUBLIC UTILITY AUTHORITY

HOUSING AUTHORITY CITY OF NEEDLES

CITY OF NEEDLES, CALIFORNIA

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1111 BAILEY AVENUE, NEEDLES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2024
THE 5:00 PM PORTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS RECESSED BY THE CITY CLERK TO 5:30 PM
COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION – 5:30 PM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Jernigan called the meeting to order at 5:41 pm

ROLL CALL -

PRESENT
Council Member Ellen Campbell via Teams
Council Member Jamie McCorkle
Mayor Janet Jernigan
Council Member JoAnne Pogue
Council Member Henry Longbrake
ABSENT
Vice Mayor Kirsten Merritt
Council Member Tona Belt
Also present was City Manager Patrick Martinez, City Attorney John Pinkney and City Clerk Dale Jones.

RECESS THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND CONVENE A JOINT COUNCIL / NPUA MEETING at 5:42 PM
PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS - None

RECESSED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION

EXECUTIVE SESSION
a. Public Employee Performance Evaluation pursuant to Government Code §54957 - Title of position: City Clerk
No Reportable Action
EXECUTIVE SESSION REPORT - City Attorney John Pinkney declared there was no reportable action, as noted above.

CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Jernigan called the meeting to order at 6:04 pm

ROLL CALL

PRESENT
Council Member Ellen Campbell via Teams
Council Member Jamie McCorkle
Mayor Janet Jernigan
Council Member JoAnne Pogue
Council Member Henry Longbrake
ABSENT – Mayor Jernigan announced an excused absence for Vice Mayor Kirsten Merritt and Council Member Tona Belt
Item 8.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Led by Mayor Jernigan
INVOCATION - Given by Council Member Campbell

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Council Member Pogue moved, second by Council Member McCorkle to approve the agenda Motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Members Campbell, McCorkle, Pogue, and Longbrake Noes: None

Absent: Council Member Belt and Vice Mayor Merritt
CONFLICT OF INTEREST - None
CORRESPONDENCE - None
INTRODUCTIONS - Mayor Jernigan acknowledged Former Council Members Tim Terral and Shawn Gudmundson in attendance.

CITY ATTORNEY – Parliamentary Procedures given by City Attorney Pinkney

PUBLIC APPEARANCE
Sheila Miller spoke about a disturbance at her daughter's house on Earl Court. Police were called and they responded to the incident.

PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE NPUA/COUNCIL ITEMS - None

NPUA / COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion made by Member/Council Member McCorkle, second by Member/Council Member Pogue to approve the NPUA/Council Consent Calendar Items 2 through 4. Motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Members/Council Members Campbell, McCorkle, Pogue, Mayor Jernigan and Longbrake Noes: None

Absent: Members/Council Member Belt and Vice Mayor Merritt

2. Authorized a change order for the purchase of a Terex TC55 Optima 2023 Freightliner bucket truck not to exceed $23,400 utilizing the electric vehicle replacement funds

3. Authorized Reliable Pump Inc. to complete two Hydromatic pump repairs not to exceed $15,531.74 to be funded by the Wastewater Asset Replacement Fund

4. Awarded bid to Phillips Excavating, Inc. for the Water Service Lateral Replacement Project in the amount of $990,399.00 plus 5% contingency for a total project cost of $1,039,918.95 and authorized staff to execute a Public Works Agreement with Phillips Excavating, Inc. and move forward with the Notice of Award and Notice to Proceed.

END OF NPUA CONSENT CALENDAR

ADJOURN THE JOINT NPUA/COUNCIL MEETING AND CONVENE A JOINT HACN/COUNCIL MEETING (Roll Call Previously Taken) at 6:15 PM
PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE HACN/COUNCIL ITEMS - None

HACN / COUNCIL REGULAR ITEM

5. Accept Change Order No. 2 (Final) for a total contract amount of $448,309.03 and a total project cost of $448,309.03 for work completed by Final Touch Construction for the Needles Housing Authority Window Replacement Project and authorize staff to execute said Change Order; and Accept the Notice of Completion for the Work.

City Manager Martinez reported.

Motion made by Member/Council Member McCorkle, second by Member/Council Member Longbrake to accept Change Order No. 2 (Final) for a total contract amount of $448,309.03 and a total project cost of $448,309.03 for work completed by Final Touch Construction for the Needles Housing Authority Window Replacement Project and authorize staff to execute said Item 8.

Change Order; and Accept the Notice of Completion for the Work Motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Members/Council Members Campbell, McCorkle, Pogue, Mayor Jernigan and Council Member Longbrake
Noes: None

Absent: Members/Council Member Belt and Vice Mayor Merritt

ADJOURN THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF NEEDLES MEETING AND RECONVENE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING (Roll Call previously taken) at 6:17 PM

PRESENTATION

1. Interim Deputy Chief of Operations Scott Tuttle, San Bernardino County Fire Protection District, gave a presentation on FP-5.

PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE COUNCIL ITEMS - None

COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember McCorkle pulled items 10 and 11 for discussion. City Manager Martinez responded and requested council direction on the location of the Route 66 Arch sign. Discussion ensued and council agreed that Front Street would be the best location.

Motion made by Council Member McCorkle, second by Council Member Pogue to approve the NCouncil Consent Calendar Items 6 through 12. Motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Members Campbell, McCorkle, Pogue, and Longbrake Noes: None

Absent: Council Member Belt and Vice Mayor Merritt

6. Approved the Warrants Register through January 23, 2024

7. Approved the Minutes of January 9, 2024

8. Waived the reading and adopted Resolution 2024-3 prioritizing and approving the dollar amount of Needles eligible projects for the Community Development Block Grant Funding in fiscal year 2024-2025

9. Authorized the Mayor to execute the award acceptance letter to CARB for the Needles Active Transportation Plan

10. Waived the reading and adopted Resolution 2024-6 approving a Categorical Exemption for the Proposed Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency Project, Phase 1; and authorize staff to proceed with the implementation; and direct staff to file the Notice of Exemption (NOE) with the State of California, Office of Planning and research, State Clearinghouse, and the San Bernardino County Clerk.

11. Route 66 Drive-Through Arch along Front Street

12. Authorized the City cosponsor the Run for the Wall with an approximate amount of $2,000 for services

END OF COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR

REGULAR COUNCIL ITEMS

13. Award the 2024 Edible Food Recovery Grant
Utility Manager Rainie Torrance reported on the grant. The applicants reviewed their programs and their intent on using the additional funding. After considerable discussion and debate among council the following motions were made.

Item 8.

Council Member Longbrake moved, second by Council Member McCorkle, to divide the grant equally between St Vincent De Paul and Firehouse Ministries. Motion failed by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Members Campbell, McCorkle and Longbrake
Noes: Council Member Pogue

Absent: Council Member Belt and Vice Mayor Merritt
Council Member Campbell moved, second by Council Member McCorkle, to give $2,000 to Firehouse Ministries, $2,000 to St. Vincent De Paul and $1,000 to Set Free. Motion failed by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Members Campbell, McCorkle and Pogue
Noes: Council Member Longbrake

Absent: Council Member Belt and Vice Mayor Merritt
Continued discussion ensued.

Council Member Pogue moved, second by Council Member McCorkle, to divide equally amongst the three applicants. Motion failed by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Members Campbell, McCorkle and Pogue
Noes: Council Member Longbrake

Absent: Council Member Belt and Vice Mayor Merritt
Council Member Longbrake moved, second by Council Member Pogue, to continue this item to the next Council Meeting on February 13, 2024. Motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Members Campbell, McCorkle, Pogue and Longbrake Noes: None

Absent: Council Member Belt and Vice Mayor Merritt

14. Waive the reading and adopt Resolution 2024-5 continuing Council Member McCorkle as representative to MDAQMD, and appoint a alternate.

Motion made by Council Member McCorkle, second by Council Member Longbrake to waive the reading and adopt Resolution 2024-5 continuing Council Member McCorkle as representative to MDAQMD, and appoint Mayor Jernigan as alternate. Motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Members Campbell, McCorkle, Pogue, and Longbrake Noes: None

Absent: Council Member Belt and Vice Mayor Merritt

15. Name Jack Smith Walking Trail after Marilyn Hohstadt Mathews Mayor Jernigan reported.

Council Member Longbrake moved, second by Council Member Pogue to create a Resolution naming Jack Smith Walking Trail after Marilyn Hohstadt Mathews. Item to be on Consent Calendar at the next Council Meeting on February 13 2024. Motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Members Campbell, McCorkle, Pogue, and Longbrake Noes: None

Absent: Council Member Belt and Vice Mayor Merritt

16. Hearing on Appeal of City’s Notice of Revocation of Cannabis Business License/Permit for the following Cannabis Businesses:
3247 Needles Highway, Suite E, Needles, CA (2103 D, LLC); 3247 Needles Highway, Suite A, Needles CA (3247 AM, LLC) 3241 Needles Highway, Needles, CA (NCA Management Co., LLC) Item 8.
3253 Needles Highway, Needles CA (Medical Investor Holdings, LLC) HEARING CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 13, 2024 (INF)

CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
Given by City Attorney John Pinkney

CITY CLERK REPORT
Given by City Clerk Dale Jones

17. MANAGERS REPORT
Given by City Manager Patrick Martinez

COUNCIL REQUESTS
Councilmember Campbell - Congratulated Patrick and Stacy Martinez on the arrival of their new baby; offered condolences to the Dressle family on the death in their family.

Councilmember McCorkle - Congratulated Patrick and Stacy Martinez on the arrival of their new baby; spoke about Rite-Aid closing and addressed the fact that it is not something the City had any control over.

Council Member Pogue - Congratulated Patrick and Stacy Martinez on the arrival of their new baby; spoke about Rite Aid closing and questioned if Needles Point Pharmacy could re-open.

Councilmember Longbrake - Spoke about angry citizens over the Rite Aid closure and Needles losing businesses; urged the City Manager to follow up on all leads for potential new businesses.

Mayor Jernigan - stated that the Housing Authority building improvements is looking better; attended the school board meeting with Rainie Torrance; Art in the Park has been moved to March 22 & 23 in Santa Fe Park encouraging high school students to participate; River Valley Arts Guild has invited NHS students to participate and will be offering classes and providing scholarships; addressed Rite Aid closure and reassured citizens that the City is doing everything possible to address the issue.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Jernigan adjourned the meeting at 7:43 pm
ATTEST:

Mayor Janet Jernigan City Clerk Dale Jones, CMC
Item 8.

MINUTES

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF NEEDLES, CALIFORNIA

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1111 BAILEY AVENUE, NEEDLES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2024 - 5:30 PM
Council Member Campbell participated via teams from 526 Desnok, Needles, CA 92363 Council Member Longbrake was unable to participate via teams, due to technical difficulties, from Comfort Inn Irvine Spectrum, 23702 Rockfield Blvd, Lake Forest, CA 92630 CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Jernigan called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm

ROLL CALL

PRESENT
Council Member Ellen Campbell
Vice Mayor Kirsten Merritt
Mayor Janet Jernigan
Council Member JoAnne Pogue
Council Member Tona Belt
ABSENT
Council Member Jamie McCorkle
Council Member Henry Longbrake
PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE COUNCIL ITEMS - None

REGULAR COUNCIL ITEMS

1. Adopt the Emergency Declaration Resolution No. 2024-7 Declaring a Local Emergency due to the Closure of the only California Pharmacy within Needles City Manager Patrick Martinez gave a staff report on the Rite Aid closure and reviewed the possible options to provide pharmaceutical needs for residents.

Council Member Campbell moved, second by Council Member Pogue, to adopt the Emergency Declaration Resolution No. 2024-7 Declaring a Local Emergency due to the Closure of the only California Pharmacy within Needles. Motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Members Campbell, Merritt, Pogue, and Belt Noes: None

Absent: Council Members McCorkle and Longbrake

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Jernigan adjourned the meeting at 5:41 pm
ATTEST:

Mayor Janet Jernigan City Clerk Dale Jones, CMC
Item 8.

City of Needles, California
Request for City Council Action