Federal RegistM / Vol. 56, No. 119 / Thursday. June 20. 1991 / Notices

r

room 811!. Bethesda. Maryland 20892,Tel. 301-496-7030. will furnishsubstantive program information.

This notice is being published lessthan 15 days prior to the meeting due tothe difficulty of coordinating theattendance of members because ofconflicting schedules.(Cataloa of Federal Domettic AuistanceProgram Numbers: 93.393, Cancer Cause andPrevention Reaearch; 93.3$4. CancerDetection and Diagnosis Research: 93.395,Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, CancerBiology Reaearch: 93.397. Cancer CentersSupport; 93.398. Cancer Research Manpower;93.399. Cancer Control)[FR Doc. 91-14819 Filed &-19-91; 8:45 8m)8UJNG CODI: 41...1....

PublIc HaIth 5ervIce

Meeting of the ActvIHry Committe- onScienUnc Integilty, PubIc Health5ervIclJ

Pursuant to Public Law 92-463. noticeis hereby given of the meeting of theAdvisory Committee on ScientificIntegrity. Public Health Service. on July15-16, 1991 at the National Institutes ofHealth, Bethesda, MD. The meeting willtalee place July 15 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30p.m.. and on July 16 from 8:30 a,m. to12:30 p.m.. Building 31. C Wing.Conference room 7. The meeting will beopen to the public.

The Committee reviews andevaluates. on an ongoing basis. theefficacy of polides and procedures ofthe Department of Health and HumanServices in detecting. deterring,investigating. and resolving allegationsof scientific misconduct and makesrecommendations to the Secretary andthe Assistant Secretary for Health onimproving these policies andprocedures,

The purpose of the meeting will be tointroduce the Committee to the structureand function of the PHS ScientificIntegrity programs and to examineongoing activities. The Committeemembers will also begin to formulatefuture plan5 for the Committee.

Henrietta D. Hyatt-Knorr. ExecutiveSecretary. Advisory Committee onScientific Integrit~' Review, Rockwall H.suite 1113. 5515 Set;'lJity Lane. RockvilleMD 20852. (301) 443-5300. will furnishthe meeting agenda. a roster of theCommittee members, and substantiveprogram information upon request.Members of the public Wishing to makepresentations should contact theExecutive Secretary and forward a copyof their presentation at least two weeksahead of time. Depending on the numberof presentations and otherconsiderations, the Executive Secretary

S~I999 0037(02)(19-JUN-91-J4:47:11)

will allocate a time frame for eachspeaker.Lyle W. Blv_.Diracto,'. Office ofScientific Integrity Review.[FR Doc. 91-14654 Filed &-19-91: 8:45 am)8ILJJNQ CODE 41.17..

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

OffIce of the 5ecret8ry

central ArIZona Project (CAP) WaterAIIocItiona and Wider 5etvIceContracting

AGINeY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.ACTION: Notice of proposal Naterreallocation decision for uncontractedCAP non-Indian agricultural waterallocations and request for ccmments.

SUMIIAIIY: The purpose of this action isto provide public notice of theDepartment's proposes reallocation ofcurrently uncontracted CAP non-Indianagricultural water allocations. Except asnoted below. the Department proposedto reallocate 29.3 percent of CAPuncontracted non-Indian agriculturalwater allocations as recommended bythe Arizona Department of WaterResources (ADWR) and to offeramendatory or new subcontracts forsuch water to non-Indian agriculturalusers. The contracting process whichfollows the final allocation decision willinclude consideration of a full range ofcontracting terms and conditions andwill provide an opportunity for publicreview and comment. The Departmentwill reserve for discretionary use anynon-Indian agricultural allocations thatare uncontracted after completion of thecontracting process.DATES: All written comments relevant tothe proposed reallocation decision thatare received on or before July 22, 1991.will be considered.ADDMna: Interested parties shouldcontact Mr. Donald Walker. Contractsand Repayment Specialist, Bureau ofReclamation. Department of the Interior.1849 C Street, NW., Washington. DC20240 (telephone: 202-208-5871) or Mr.Steve Hvinden. Regional Economist.Bureau of Reclamation, PO Box 427,Boulder City. Nevada 8900S (telephone702-293-8851).IUPPLlMENTARY INfORMATION: PreviousDepartmental Federal R.ter noticesrelating to CAP water allocations are asfollows: 37 FR 28082. December 20, 1972;40 FR 17297, April 18. 1975: 41 FR 45883.October 18, 1978; 45 FR 52938, August 8.1980: 45 FR 81265. December 10. 1980; 46FR 29G44, June 2, 1981; 46 FR 60658,December 11, 1981; and 48 FR 12446.March 24. 1983. CAP water allocallon

decisions are made pursuant to theReclamation Act of 1902, 88 amendedand supplemented (32 Stat. 388, 43U.S.C. 391). the Boulder Canyon ProjectAct of December 21. 1928 (45 Stat. 1057.43 U.S.C. 617). the Colorado River BasinProject Act of September 30. 1968 (82Stat. 885. 43 U.S.C. 1501). theRegulations for Implementing theProcedural Provisions of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (40 CPR part1505), the Implementing Procedures ofthe Department of the Interior (516 OM5.4). and in recognition of the Secretary'strust responsibility to the Indian tribesof central Arizona.

Forcing Event

Section 11(h} of the Salt River Pima­Maricopa Indian Community WaterRights Settlement Act of 1988 (Pub. L.l00-512) (102 Stal 2559) provides thatthe Secretary must reallocateuncontracted non-Indian agriculturalCAP water within 180 days of receivingADWR's recommendations. The officialdate of receipt of ADWR's allocationrecommendations was January 29. 1991,thereby establishing July 26, 1991. as thedeadline for this reallocation decision.

Ba«:kgrouad

The CAP is a multi-purpose projectwhich provides water for municipal andindustrial (M&J). Indian. and non-Indianagricultural uses. The last allocations ofCAP water. the conditions upon whichthose allocations were made. and theprocedures for water service contractingwere published in the F.....Register(48 FR 12446, March 24. 1983). Thatnotice contained the Secretary's finaldecision. summarized CAP iaaues, andprovided basic baclcground lnfomationapplicable to this proposed reallocation.

In the 1983 notice. the Secretaryallocated 638.823 acre-feet of water peryear to non-Indian M&J users and309.828 acre-feet of water per year toIndian ulers. The non-Indianagricultural water users were to receiveany CAP supply that remained after thenon-Indian MAl and Indian entities usedth~ir entitlements. The supply allocatedto each of the 23 non-Indian agriculturalusers was stated in terms of apercentage of the total non-Indianagricultural supply. The non-Indianagricultural allocation was baaed on apercentage which represented eachallottee's portion of the totallrrisotedacreage, with an adjustment to renectany other surface watet supplyavailable to the allottee.

Since the 1983 notice was published.the Central Arizona Water ConservationDistrict (CAWCD) and the Bureau ofReclamation (Reclam.,;tion) have been

Federal Relister / Vol. 56, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20. 1991 / Notices!

S-O~I1999 0038(02)(19-JUN-91-14:47:14)

4703,1''MT.,,[16,30j...1Z·28-90

Department of Water Resources, theSecretary shall reallocate for non-JDdianagricultural UH all entitlement. toAgricultural Water that were notcontracted for by the entities to whichsuch entitlements were first madeavailable."

Issue 2. Impact of reallocationdecisions on CAP cost allocation.

Discussion: CAwen is the repaymententity for CAP through it. repaymentcontract with the United Statas.CAwen will rely on revenues receivedfrom the sale of power, ad valoremtaxes. and revenues from it. waterservice subcontractors to make itsannual payments to the United States.The question ansas as to how anyreallocation decision will impact theCAP cost allocation.

If the reallocation decision only altersthe distribution of uncontracted waterallocations 8IJlOD8 the non-Indianagricultural entities, there would be nochange in the amount of costs allocatedto CAWeD. If some of the non-Indianagricultural allocations were allocatedfor Indian water rights settlementpurposes. the CAP cost allocation wouldbe affected.

Issue 3. Impact of reallocationdecilion on the repayment capabUitiesof CAP non-Indian irrigation districts.

Discussion: Existing CAP waterentitlements for each irrigation districtwhich contracts for CAP water willchange. In almost all cases thequantities of CAP water available toeach irrigation district will increue.nus will affect the districts' operationand maintenance cost structure lincethe districts will probably use more CAPwater and less ground water than wouldhave been the case in the absence of thereallocation. II CAP water costs morethan ground water, which is likely to bethe case for most districts in the earlyyears of CAP operations, thereallocation might have an adverseimpact on the districts' ability to payCAP water aervice charset and to repaythe debt owed to the FederalGovernment for CAP distributionsystems.

Issue 4. Local concerns addressed byADWR,

Discussion: During its publicinvolvement proce88, ADWR heardnumerous local concerns, which arediscussed In Its January 15, 1991,reallocation report entitled"Recommendation to the Secretary ofthe interior on Reallocation of CentralArizona Project Non-indian AgrIculturalWater". These concerns, amons others,included whether (1) new entiUes shouldbe considered for an allocation. (2)entities outside of the CAWCD three·

opinions. options, and alternatives. Byletter dated January 15. 1991, ADWRsupplemented its recommendations tothe Secretary with a report explaining3le methodologies used to calculate thewater recommendations, diacuBBing thefactors considered in making therecommendations, and addre88ingissues and concerns raised by publiccomments. Some of these issues andconcerns are discussed below.

ADWR's report submitted with theJanuary 15, 1991, letter was fullyconsidered and used in developingoptions for consideration. Anyoneinterested In receiving a copy ofADWR's letters dated January 1 and 15.1991. and accompanying report, shouldrefer to the "Addresses" section of thisnotice for a contact person.

PoHcy and Lep11s1U88

Issue 1. Reallocation of uncontractednon-Indian agricultural waterallocations for use in central andsouthern ArIzona Indian water rightssettlements.

Discussion: Negotiated water rightssettlements with Indian tribes have beenand are being pursued by the UnitedStates for tribes in central and southernArIzona. Generally, the United Statesparticipates in settlements by making

, contributions of water and/or money.Potential water supplies for existing andfuture settlements are limited. Someparties view the uncontl'scted CAPagricultural water supply as a potentialIIOurce of water for Indian water rightssettlements.

The Deparbnent believes that thereare barriers which prohibit the firstround reallocation of non-Indianagricultural water for Indian waterrights settlements. As noted in the"Forcing Event" section of this notice,subsection l1(h) of the Salt River Pima­Maricopa Indian Community WaterRights Settlement Act of 1988 providesthat "Within thirty days after the date ofenactment of this Act. the Secretaryshall request the A.rl.zona Department ofWater Resources to recommend areallocation of non-Indian agriculturalCAP water that has been offered to butnot contracted for by potential non­Indian agricultural subcontractors.Within one hundred and eighty days ofreceipt of such recommendation, theSecretary shall reallocate such water fornon-Indian use. and the Secre+:uy anl!CAWCD shall thereafter offeramendatory or new subcontracts to non­Indian agricultural users." A similarprovision is Included In existing CAPwater service subcontracts withagricultural subcontractors. Thesubcontracts provide that "Afterconsultation with the Arizona

entering into long-term CAP wateraervice subcontract, with those entitiesreceiving an allocation of dAPagricultural water. CAWCO is the entitywhich haa contracted with Reclamationfor repayment of the costs of the project.The combined entitlement for entitieswhich have entered into CAP waterservice subcontracts subsequent to the1983 notice represents 70.7 percent ofthe non-Indian agricultural supply.Eleven entities have declined their CAPwater anocation for a total of 23.82percent of the non-Indian asriculturalsupply. Two entities which wereallocated the remaining 5.48 percent ofthe agricultural suoply have not yetcontracted for such water.

Water deliveries pursuant to thesubcontracts will begin fonowingReclamation's issuance of a notice ofcompletion for CAP. It is anticipatedthat such a notice will be issuedsometime in late 1992. In the meantime.CAP water deliveries have been madeand are being made through completedportions of the CAP aqueduct pursuantto interim water service contracts.

The 1983 notice provided for areallocation of the CAP water :Uter theinitial round of water servicecontracting had been completed. Aninterest in proceeding with thereallocation has existed for severalyears. However. the Department andADWR have refrained from proceedingwith the reallocation until there wasmore certainty about the amount ofallocations involved and until ongoingnegotiations for Indian water rightssettlements had been completed. TheSalt River Pima-Maricopa IndianCommunity Water Rights SettlementAct of 1988, in effect, compelled theSecretary to request ADWR InNovember of 1988 to make arecommended reallocation ofuncontracted non-Indian CAPagricultural water to the Secretary. Theamount of time that ADWR had torespond to the request was notspecified. However. ADWR wasrequired to complete itsrecommendation by January 1, 1991, bythe decision of the Arizona SuperiorCourt in the cue, Central ArizonoIrrigation and Drainage District et 01. v.Plummer. No. CIV-38812.

It: response to the request fromReclamation and in compliance with theCourt order, ADWR recommended tothe Secretary by it.leUer dated January1, 1991. how the remaining 29.3 percentof the non-Indian agricultural supplyshould be reallocated. In arrivlns at itsrecommendatlollf. ADWR conducted anextensive public Input and reviewprocess which elicited numerous

resulting from the up-rating program ofthe Hoover Dam Power Plant pur:auar.tto Pub. 1.. 98-381 (98 Stat. 1333)].

c. Demonstration to the latisfaction ofthe Secretary and the Department[ADWR] that there will be in placeprovisions to comply with section304(c)(1) of PubUc Law 90-631 for anyentity located outside of an existingActive Management Area or IrrigationNon-expanaion Area.

5. A determination of eligible acres bemade [by the Secretary] before asubcontract is offered to an entity inRecommendation No.3 above and theallocation adjusted, if necenary. in amanner consistent with the methodologyused by the Department [ADWR] in thisrecommended reallocation.

6. Once the record of decision is made[by the Secretary], the adjustmen~ tothe existins subcontractor's entitlementsbe completed in 6 months. Newsubcontracts should be executed within6 months [with the aIlottees1isted initem No.3] after the requirements ofRecommendation No.4 have beencompleted.

7. If any of the aIlottae. decides [sic]on a lesser entitlement than the amountrecommended. or that it does not wantto subcontract. then aU remainingentities' entitlements should beincreased [by the Secretary] in a mannerconsistent with the methodology usedby the Department [ADWR] in thisrecommended reallocation.

DiscussIon: ADWR developed threecriteria for determining whether anentity should be included in thereallocation. These criteria incl'lde thefollowing: (1) The entity must have landsthat are eligible to receive CAPagricultural water; (2) the entity must belocated in an area experiencing adeclining ground water table: and (3) theentity must currently be providing waterfor agricultural use.

In addition to the 10 entities that havesigned CAP water service subcontracts,ADWR has recommended allocations to:(1) Three new entities (MVWCDD andthe two State leases): (2) two entitielincluded in the 1983 allocation (SCIDDand FICO) but which have not yetsigned a CAP subcontract; and (3) oneentity (RID) which had previouslyrejected a CAP lubcontract butsubsequently decided to seek anallocation during the reallocationrecommendation procesl.

With one exception. all of theallottee. would take direct delivery ofCAP water. RID would benefit From thereallocation through an emuentexchange with the city of Phoenix. RID'sCAP agricultural water would bedelivered to Phoenix and Phoenix would

1.646.64

3.175.0

0.540.11

1.394.09

EldIlIng ProposednewentIlIIrMnt entI1lement(perCent) (percent)

18.01 22.74

0.28 0.307.87 8.738.36 6.97

20.48 22.754.34 7.234.83 4.835.96 6.33o.n o.n1.96 1.96

ArIzona State Land DepartmentLeue #O1...()O(l64 (PIcacho

Pecans) ..Leue 101-on685 (AguWr.) .

McMlIIlen Valley W.. COO(MVWCDOJ.. .

RooaeveIt 10 [RIO)... .

F8tITMll1I IlMIIlmenl Co.[FICO] .

San Carlos 100 [SClOOJ..

lniglllion diIlrIct(suOCO..lUlc1Ot)

complete text of the ADWRrecommendatit.1B is quoted below.Bracketed words are inserted forclarification purposes.

1. Entitlements contained in article4.13(a) of all existing non-Indianagricultural subcontracts be adjustedpursuant to article 4.13(b) a8 follows:

3. New subcontracts be offered withthe indicated entitlements to:

4703.FMT..,[16.SO],.,12-28-90

2. Entitlements for entities whichreceived original allocations [48 FR12446. March 24. 1983) but thecontractins deadlines have not beenimposed [entities which have notentered into water service subcontracts]be adjusted as follows:

Central ArIzona 100 ..CtwndIer Helghla Citrus

10.._ .~V*'fIO .HoHoI<am 10 .MMcope-StanfieIIOO ..New Megma 100 ..a..- Creek 10 .RoosewIt W.1er CO ..San Tan 10 ..Tonopah 10 .

4. No subcontract be offered to anentity in Recommendation No.3 aboveunless within one year from [theSecretary's] decision on the allocationthe entity provides the following:

a. Demonstration to the satisfaction ofboth the Secretary and Departmenl[ADWR) that it is economically feasibleto distribute CAP water for agriculturalp,'oductlon to the eligible lands in theentity's leasehold or serrice area andthere Is no impediment to any necessaryexchange agreements.

b. A commitment to relinquish anyallocation of "Hoover Btl electric power(Incremental capacity and energy

S-()51999 0039(02)(I9-JUN-91-14:47:18)

F~ Register I Vol. 56, No. 119 I Thursday, June 20, 1991 I Notices!

county lervice area should beconsidered for an allocation, and (3)CAP water should be reallocated to theState active management areas (AMA)in the lame proportion 88 in the 1983allocation.

The Department does not believe thatthe reallocation must be limited to theexistins subcontractors. With respect towhether CAP water can only bedelivered for uae within CAWCD'sthree-county service area (Maricopa.Pinal, and Pima Counties), CAWCD'srepayment contract provides fordelivery of CAP water outside ofCAWCO's service area if theContractins Officer approves suchdelivery. Therefore, the Departmentbelieves that CAP agricultural water canbe allocated, as ADWR recommends, foruse outside the three-county area.

Entities in the Tucson area haveindicated that agricultural waterallocations that were rejected in theoriginal contractins process should bereallocated to the same AMA. Theseentities have indicated that the ADWRrecommendations result in a gain to theother AMA's at the expense of theTucaonAMA.

The Department does not believe thatthe water allocation relationship. thatexisted in the 1983 allocation mustnecessarily be preserved in thereallocation. Non-Indian agriculturalsupplies for CAP have been allocatedand continue to be allocated on theba.is of eligible acreage. Since 801...e ofthe irrigation districts within the TucsonAMA rejected their CAP waterallocations. there are fewer eligiblelands within the Tucson AMA that canparticipate in the reallocation. TheDepartment cannot require entities inthe Tucson AMA to contract for CAPagricultural water. Allocation of CAPwater on the basis of eligible acreagecannot be accomplished by adheringstrictly to the water allocationrelationships among AMA's that existedin the 1983 allocation.

Options

1. Reallocate in accordance withADWR recommendations.

2. Reallocate to the 10 exillt'.ngsubcontractors, with the stipulation thatany allocations not contracted forwithin 180 days of the reallocationdecision shall revert to the Secretary fordiscretionary use.

3. Reallocate a8 recommended byADWR. with the stipulation that anyallocations not contracted within thetimeframes recommended by ADWRshall revert to the Secretary fordiscretionary use.

Option 1. Reallocate in accordancewith ADWR recommendations. The

Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 1991 / NoticesI

----

27.57S.785.837.700.911.98

27E1

0.3610.62

8.48

1S,01

0.287.678.36

20.484.344.&35.880.771.98

Central Arizona 101)...•..Chandler Heights

CilruIIO ..Harquata var.t 10 ..HoHoKam 10 .Maricopa SUlnfield

100 .New Magma 100 ..au-t Creek 10 .ROOMVelt W co ..san Tan 10 .Tonopah 10 .

Secretary for discretionary use. Waterservice contracts would be offeredbased on the percentages shown in thetable below.

Discussion: Under this option. all C.\Pagricultural water allocations would bereallocated to existing subcontractorslocated in existing State-identifiedcritical ground watar baains.

The reservation feature of this optionmay provide a source of watar formeeting IDe Secretary's obligation astrustee for Indian tribes. Litigationconcerning Indian reserved water rightsin central and southern Arizona hasbeen proceeding for more than 15 years.Settl&ments have been reached inseveral cases. and negotiations are on­going for the San Carlos Apache Tribeand the Gila River Indian Community.The Secretary has not yet identified firmsupplies of water to meet his obligationsunder existing water rights settlementacts, and must identify and secureadditional bloclca of water for pendingsettlements. The Secretary is committedto finding sources of water for exiatingIndian water rights settlements wheresources of water have not beenidentified and in finding SOUJ'C81 ofwater for use in pending Indian waterrights settlements. Thi' option wouldalso be consistent with the Secretary'slegal obligation to protect the Federalreserved rights of Indian trib...

Option 3. Reallocate uncontractedagricultural water allocatiolll8'recommended by ADWR, with thestipulation that any aUocaUoDl notcontracted for within the timeframearecommended by ADWR .han revert tothe Secretary for discretionary u.e.

Discussion: This option i. acombination of options 1 and 2 abova.By selecting this option, the Secretarywould be adopting the State', criteriaand rationale for the reallocation butwould be retaining some flexibility foruse of the non-Indian agriculturalallocations In Indian water righlasettlements and for other purpoles inthe event that some of the unccntractedalloc.ations oro n\lt placed under

47G3.FMT...[16,30j...12-28-90

ADWR has recommended that twoother conditions be Imposed onMVWCDD in order for MVWCDO toreceive an offer of a CAP 6ubcontract.TIll' CAP authorizing legislatio:lp:Jvides that subcontracts must require.n~t adequate measures are in effect tocontrol expansion of irrigation fromaquifers in the subcontractor's servicearea. There is nothing under State lawwhich would prevent MVWCDD fromexpanding its irrigation service areaafter it receives a CAP subcontract. TheState has recommended that MVWCDDmust satisfy the Department and ADWRthat MVWCDD can meet the Federalrequirement. ADWR has alsorecommended that MVWCDD mustrelinquish its allocation of Hoover Belectric power as a condition off8C'living a CAP water servicesubcontract. This condition would placeMVWCDD on the same footing as theexisting CAP water subcontractors.which were required to relinquish theirentitlement to Hoover B power as acondition of receiving CAP water.Hoover B power is capacity and energymade available due to the up-rating ofthe power plant at Hoover Dam thatwas authorized by the Hoover DamPower Plant Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-381,98 Stat. 1333).

Under the CAP agricultural waterservice subcontracts, the agriculturalwater aervice subcontractors have theright to convert the agriculturalentitlement to an M&I entitlement at therate of 1 acre-foot per acre when theagricultural entitlement is no longerneeded for agricultural purposes orwhen the eligible lands convert to MBtIuse. Any expansion of the CAP eligibleacreage increases the potential for MBtIconversions in the future. Since MBtIwater made available as a result ofconversions has the same priority as theorigl.nsl 640,000 acre-feet of water thatwas allCiCBted for M&I use, theallocation of agricultural water to newareas has the potential to further dUutethe priority of the entire CAP M&I watersupply during times of CAP watersnortages.

Selection of this option would indicatethat the Secretary had accepted theState's criteria and rationale for thereallocation. The Department has ahistory of giVing deference to the State'srecommendations regarding the use ofColorado River water by non-Indianentities.

Option 2. Reallocate uncontraotedagricultural water allocations to the 10existing subcontractors with thestipulation that any allocations notcontracted for within 180 days of thereallocation decision shall revert to the

s-05l999 0040(02)(19-JUN 91-14:47:21)

deliver treated effluent to RID foragricultural purpoleS. Under the State'srecommendation. RID would have todocument to the Secretary and ADWRthat there is no impediment toimplementing such an exchange as aprerequisite to receiving an offer of aCAP water service subcontract. Thefacilities to deliver effluent fromPhoenix to RID will be constucted aspart of nn exchange agreement underthe Salt River Pima-Maricopa IndianCommunity Water Rights SettlementAct of 1988.

The State's recommendation wouldexpand the eligibl!'l land ba.,e (418,890acres) to receive CAP agriCl,lltural water.thereby increasing the possibility thatArizona will be able to use its fullapportionment of Colorado River water.One of the primary purposes 01 CAP isto provide a means for the State to fullyutilize such apportionment. The landbase currently under subcontract maynot be great enough to c.se all availableCAP agricultural water in the es!'lyproject years. Presently, the State docsnot have the capability to recharge largeamounts of CAP water during the 9arlyyears of the project.

Expanding the eligible land baseincreases F&.ieral oversight required foradministering the Reclamation ReformAct of 1982. However, these additionalFederal costs are not expected to besubstantial

ADWR has recommended thatMVWCDD receive a water allocation.The city of Phoenix owns most of thelands in the District. Phoenix haspwcllased the lands in MVWCDD as awater farm and intends to eventuallytransport ground water from such landstil the Phoenix service area. Phoenixplans to farm the land until such time asthe ground water is needed within itsservice area. The use of CAPagricultural water on the MVWCDDlands will allow Phoenix to retain moraground wat~r in the aquifer for futureuse in its service area.

An allocation to MVWCDD wouldrequire a high pump lift (approximately600 feet) to convey CAP water to theDistrict's lands. Nearly aU of the CAPagricultural water for other CAP userswill be delivered by gravity systems.Because of the high lift required forMVWCDD to utilize CAP water, theState has recommended that MVWCDOdocument that it has the financialcapability to take and use CAP waterfor agricultural purposes before asubcontract can be offered toMVWCDD. The State has alsorecommended that the financialfeasibility requirement be applied to RIOand the two State leases.

Fed,ral Register I Vol. 56. No. 119 I Thursday. June 20. 1991 I Notices

contract. Please refer to the discussionunder options 1 and 2. This optionwould not fully aCl:ept the State'srecommendation because it does notreallocate any agricultural aUocat! Jnsremaining after the contracting processto the remaining subcontractors.

PropoMd Reallocation Decision

Option No.3. The State has adoptedreasonable criteria for developing itsallocation recommendationa, end therecummendatlons were developedthrough a process which solicited publicinput. Given the existing contracts andthe legal requirements contained insectien 11(h) of the Salt River Pima­Maricopa Indian Community WaterRights Settlement Act that theuncontracted water allocations must beallocated for non-Indian agriculturaluse, the Department believes 'hat it isappropriate to defer to the Sta., willtrespect to the allocation of the uon­Indian agricultural water supply. TheDepartment has a history of givingdeference to the State'srecommendationa regarding theallocation of water among non-Indianentities and a poliey of deferring to theState on water issues unless there is ano'/errlcling Federal interest. TheDepartment believes, however, that it isappropriate that the Secretary retainsome flexibility to use any allocationsthat become available followingcompletion of the contracting programfor use in Indian water rightssettlements or for other purposes. Withthat understanding, the Departmentproposes to reallocate UDcontractedCAP non-Indian agricultural waterallocations and to proceed w:th waterservice contracting as recommended byADWR.

CompIiaoce with the NatioDalEnviroDmeatal PoUcy Act of1_(NEllA)

Previous notices concerningcompliance with NEPA in connectionwith CAP water allocations werepublished on June 2, 1981 [48 FR 29544);December 4. 1981 [48 FR 59316];December 11. 1981 [46 FR 60658]; andMarch 24. 1982 [47 FR 12689]. TheDepartment hal prepared anenvironmental assellment (EA) on theproposed reallocation decision and onalternative reallocation options. Thedraft EA is currently beiJlg circulatcJ forpublic review and comment. Anyoneinterested in receivfng a copy of thedraft EA should contact Mr. Hmce Ellis.Chief, Environmental Division. ArizonaProjects Office. Bureau of Reclamation.P.O. Box 9980, Phoenix, Arizona 85068(telephone 602-870-6767).

S~~I999 004t(02)(19-JUN-91-14:47:2S)

Once the EA has been completed, theDepartment will determine whether toprepare a "Finding of No SignificantImpact" or an environmental impactstatement. Implementation of thereallocation decision will be subject tofurther compliance with therequirements of NEPA.

Effect on Previous DecisionsWhen finalized, the proposed deciaion

will supplement, and to the extent it isinconsistent therewith. supersede thenon-Indian agricultural water allocationpublished by Secretary Watt on March24.1S83.

Dated: rune 17, 1991.ManlHll Lujan Jr.•Secretary ofthe Interior.[FR Doc. 91-14750 Filad ~19-fn;8:45 amIIILJJNQ COOl: 4a1O-OHl

Bureau of Lend Manapment

[AZ-930-01-4214-12; A-702, A-2tHJ

TennIna1Ion of lIuJtIpIe-U8eClat.siftcatlon and NUunII AreaDeaIgnatIon; AZ

AGDtCY: Bureau of Land Management.Interior.AC11ON: Notice.

IUIIIIARY: Present action terminates themultiple-use classification and naturalarea designation on approximately 44acres of public land and will allow for aland exchange for the enhancement ofother Bureau progralM. The subject areais in an area of potential developmentand no longer suitable for multiple·&semanagement or natural areadesignation. Dilposal of the property isin conformance with recommendationsin the Arizona Strip RelourceManagement Plan.......CTIft DATe: July 22. 1991.FOR PURTHU INFOMIATION CONTACT:John Mezes. Bureau CJf LandManagement, Arizona State Office, P.O.80>.. 16563. Phoenix. Arizona 85011. (602)~5509.

IlUPPl.DllfnARY INFOMlATION: On June20, 1967. and November 15. 1968. theland described below was included as apart of IT.ultiple-use cla8sificationactions segregating it from most forms ofentry under the general land laws tIJ1dthe mining laws pursuant to the termsand conditions of the Act of September19, 1964. On January 10, 1969. the areawas designated a ClasslU naturalenvironment area under the Bureau ofOutdoor Recreation system ofclassification.

With the pU8Qge of the "ArizonaWilderness Act of 1984" on August 28.

4703.FMT,..[16.30]...12.2S·00

1984. the Paria Canyon-Vermillion Cliffsarea was designated as wilderness.With boundary adjustments allowed bythe Wildeme{;s Act, tLe subject areawas eliminated from the wildernessdesignation. The lands retained itsmultiple-us9 classification and naturalarea dasignation. Lands affected by thisaction are located and identified asfollows:

Gila and Salt River MeridiaDT. 39 N.. R. 7 Eo.

Section 7. Lots 8 and 7. S¥.tS'n (thai portionbetween the wildemeu bound&ry.Vermillion Cliff. Lodge and the privateland beloJl8lng to the Badger CreekHomeownen lying we.t of Hlahway89A).

The area contains spproximately ... acresin Coconino Counly.

1. The classification decisiona datedJune 20. 1967. and Novembar 15.1968.and the natural area designation datedJanuary 10, 1•• as published in theFederal Register are hereby terminatedin their entirety as they affect tlte above­described lands.

2. At 10 a.m. on June 20. 1991. theabove-described land will be opened tooperation of the public land laws.subject to valid existing rights and theprovisiona of applicable law.

3. At 10 a.m. on fune 20. 1991. theabove-described land will be opened tolocation and entry under the UnitedStates mining laws. subject to validt!XiBting rights. the provision of existingwithdrawals. any segregation of recordand the requirements of applicable law.Appropriation of ~ands described in thisorder under the geDeral min.ins lawsprior to the date and time of restorationis unauthorized. Any such attemptedappropriation, including attemptedf.dverse poues8ion under ~o U.S.C. 38.shall vest no rights against the UnitedStates. Acts required to establish alocation and to initiate a right ofpOllsession are governed by State lawwhere not in conflict l\ith Federal law.The Bureau of Lend Management willnot intervene In disputes between rivallocators over possellsory rightllinceCongreas hal p~vicied for luchdeterminations in local COurtl.BeaWDOat Co McClure.Deputy State Directar. Land' and&n~w(1bleReBoJUT'C68.

[FR Doc. 91-t4718 Flied ~t9-fn: S:45 amiIIIUJNQ COOl: 4a1wt-M

IUT-050-01-4333-10I

Off·rC*l Vehicle (OR¥) o..IgnItton

AGENCY: Burcau of Land Managemcllt.Interior.