Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 4119 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

The authority for this action is the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq). 

Karen Knight, 

Director, Dam Safety and Infrastructure. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00806 Filed 1–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4332–90–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Reclamation 

[RR03240000, XXXR4079G1, 

RX.03441994.0209100] 

Central Arizona Project, Arizona; Water 

Allocations 

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation and the 

Office of the Secretary, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of final decision to 

reallocate non-Indian agricultural (NIA) 

priority Central Arizona Project (CAP) 

water. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Interior (Department) hereby issues 

notice of its final decision to reallocate 

NIA priority CAP water in accordance 

with the Arizona Department of Water 

Resources’ (ADWR) recommendation for 

reallocation. The Department will 

implement this decision by offering to 

enter into a subcontract with the entities 

and for the quantities of NIA priority 

CAP water listed in this notice, as 

recommended by ADWR. Any NIA 

priority CAP water subject to this 

decision which remains uncontracted 

after completion of the contracting 

process shall be available for future 

round(s) of ADWR recommendation and 

subsequent contracting. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Leslie Meyers, Bureau of Reclamation, 

Phoenix Area Office, 6150 West 

Thunderbird Road, Glendale, AZ 

85306–4001; telephone 623–773–6211; 

facsimile 623–773–6480; email 

lmeyers@usbr.gov. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

may call the Federal Relay Service at 1– 

800–877–8339 TTY/ASCII to contact the 

Ms. Meyers during normal business 

hours or to leave a message or question 

after hours. You will receive a reply 

during normal business hours. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Notices Related to CAP Water 

Previous notices related to CAP water 

were published in the Federal Register 

at 37 FR 28082, December 20, 1972; 40 

FR 17297, April 18, 1975; 41 FR 45883, 

October 18, 1976; 45 FR 52938, August 

8, 1980; 45 FR 81265, December 10, 

1980; 48 FR 12446, March 24, 1983; 56 

FR 28404, June 20, 1991; 56 FR 29704, 

June 28, 1991; 57 FR 4470, February 5, 

1992; 57 FR 48388, October 23, 1992; 65 

FR 39177, June 23, 2000; 65 FR 43037, 

July 12, 2000; 67 FR 38514, June 4, 

2002; 68 FR 36578, June 18, 2003; 69 FR 

9378, February 27, 2004; and, 71 FR 

50449, August 25, 2006. These notices 

and decisions were made pursuant to 

the authority vested in the Secretary of 

the Interior (Secretary) by the 

Reclamation Act of 1902, as amended 

and supplemented (32 Stat. 388, 43 

U.S.C. 391), the Boulder Canyon Project 

Act of December 21, 1928 (45 Stat. 1057, 

43 U.S.C. 617), the Colorado River Basin 

Project Act of September 30, 1968 (82 

Stat. 885, 43 U.S.C. 1501), the Arizona 

Water Settlements Act (Settlements Act) 

(Pub. L. 108–451, 118 Stat. 3478), and 

in recognition of the Secretary’s trust 

responsibility to Indian tribes. 

Background of CAP Water Allocations 

In a Record of Decision (ROD) 

published on March 24, 1983 (48 FR 

12446), the Secretary, among other 

actions, superseded and replaced the 

1980 ROD (45 FR 81265, December 10, 

1980), reiterated the allocations to 

Indian tribes reflected in that 1980 ROD, 

allocated CAP water for non-Indian 

municipal and industrial (M&I) uses, 

and allocated the remaining amount for 

NIA uses. Subject to certain conditions, 

the CAP water for Indian uses was 

allocated to 12 Indian tribes for 

irrigation use or for maintaining tribal 

homelands. Also subject to certain 

conditions, the CAP water for M&I uses 

was allocated based on the State of 

Arizona’s 1982 allocation 

recommendations for non-Indian 

entities that provided an amount of CAP 

water for M&I use to certain non-Indian 

entities, with the remaining amount of 

CAP water allocated for NIA use. The 

CAP NIA water was allocated to 23 nonIndian irrigation districts or other 

agricultural entities as a percentage of 

the NIA water supply that was available 

in any given year. 

Two-party CAP water service 

contracts were executed between the 

United States and individual Indian 

tribes in 1980 pursuant to the 1980 

ROD. CAP non-Indian M&I water 

service subcontracts and CAP NIA water 

service subcontracts were executed with 

those entities allocated CAP water and 

desiring to enter into subcontracts for 

CAP water. The CAP water service 

subcontracts for the non-Indian M&I 

water and the NIA water are three-party 

subcontracts among the entity, the 

Central Arizona Water Conservation 

District (CAWCD), and the Bureau of 

Reclamation (Reclamation). Some of the 

entities that were allocated NIA water 

and M&I priority water elected not to 

contract for the offered allocations. After 

completing the initial subcontracting 

process, 29.3 percent of the NIA water 

supply and 65,647 acre-feet per year of 

M&I water was not under contract. 

Congress enacted the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community Water 

Rights Settlement Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 

2558) (SRPMIC Act). Pursuant to section 

11(h) of the SRPMIC Act, the Secretary 

was required to request a reallocation 

recommendation from ADWR for the 

remaining NIA water that was not under 

contract. The Secretary was also 

required to reallocate the uncontracted 

CAP water for NIA use and to offer new 

or amendatory subcontracts for such 

water. 

By letter dated January 7, 1991, 

ADWR recommended an allocation to 

the Secretary. The Secretary published a 

notice on June 20, 1991 (56 FR 28404), 

inviting public comments on the 

proposed reallocation of CAP water. 

After considering the public comments, 

the Secretary published a final decision 

on February 5, 1992 (57 FR 4470). That 

decision contemplated that new or 

amendatory CAP water service 

subcontracts would be offered soon 

thereafter. 

CAP water service subcontracts for 

the reallocated water were not executed 

for several reasons, including but not 

limited to the following: (1) Some 

entities could not meet the financial 

feasibility requirements for receipt of 

CAP water; (2) lack of agreement on the 

form of the CAP water service 

subcontract, and (3) financial 

difficulties in the CAP NIA sector. 

Beginning in the early 1990s, longterm utilization of the CAP water 

available for reallocation under the 1992 

decision and of the uncontracted CAP 

M&I priority water was a central issue 

in negotiations to resolve various 

operational and financial disputes 

between Reclamation and CAWCD. 

After attempts at negotiations failed, 

water contracting issues were included 

in litigation and the resulting stipulated 

settlement between the United States 

and CAWCD. To implement some of the 

conditions contained in the stipulated 

settlement, new Federal legislation was 

required. 

After the 1992 decision but before 

Federal legislation was enacted, the 

Secretary published on June 4, 2002 (67 

FR 38514), a notice of proposed 

modification to the 1983 decision. The 

1983 decision provided that the M&I 

allocation can be made more firm by 

execution of feasible non-potable 

effluent exchanges with Indian tribes 

and the M&I allocation was subject to 

4120 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 

adoption of a pooling concept, whereby 

all M&I entities share in the benefits of 

effluent exchanges. The pooling concept 

provision was included in the CAP M&I 

water service subcontracts. The 2002 

proposed modification to the 1983 

decision was to delete the mandatory 

effluent pooling provision in M&I 

subcontracts with the cities of Chandler 

and Mesa, and from other M&I water 

service subcontracts upon request. That 

provision in the CAP M&I water service 

subcontracts was an impediment to 

effluent exchanges and effective water 

management in central Arizona. After 

review and consideration of the public 

comments, the final decision was 

published on June 18, 2003 (68 FR 

36578), deleting the mandatory effluent 

pooling provision. 

The Settlements Act was enacted on 

December 10, 2004, and provides, 

among other things, for: (1) A final 

allocation of CAP water, with a CAP 

supply permanently designated for 

Indian uses and a CAP supply 

designated for non-Indian M&I or NIA 

uses; (2) a reallocation by the Secretary 

of 65,647 acre-feet per year of currently 

uncontracted CAP M&I water to 20 

specific M&I entities; (3) ratification of 

the Arizona Water Settlement 

Agreement (the ‘‘Master Agreement’’) 

among the United States, ADWR, and 

CAWCD, which provides a statutorybased framework to enable the CAP NIA 

districts to relinquish existing rights to 

the delivery of CAP NIA priority water 

under their CAP water service 

subcontracts, including their rights, if 

any, to the reallocated water; and, (4) a 

reallocation of the relinquished and 

uncontracted NIA water supply to 

various Arizona Indian tribes and 

ADWR for future M&I use. 

On August 25, 2006, the Secretary 

published a final reallocation decision 

(71 FR 50449) that, among other things, 

reallocated the CAP NIA water and the 

uncontracted CAP M&I water. The 

August 2006 reallocation decision is 

summarized below: 

The Secretary’s decision reallocated 

up to 96,295 acre-feet of agricultural 

priority water per year to ADWR, 

pursuant to section 104(a)(2)(A) of the 

Settlements Act and subject to 

subparagraph 9.3 of the Master 

Agreement, to be held under contract in 

trust for further allocation pursuant to 

section 104(a)(2)(C) of the Settlements 

Act. Direct use of the agricultural 

priority water by ADWR is prohibited 

under the Master Agreement. 

In accordance with section 

104(a)(2)(C) of the Settlements Act, 

before water could be further allocated, 

the Director of ADWR had to submit to 

the Secretary a recommendation for 

reallocation. After receiving the 

recommendation, the Secretary carried 

out all of the necessary reviews for the 

proposed reallocation in accordance 

with applicable Federal law. If the 

Director’s recommendation was 

rejected, the Secretary was mandated to 

request a revised recommendation from 

the Director of ADWR and proceed with 

any reviews required. 

The reallocation of agricultural 

priority water to ADWR pursuant to 

section 104(a)(2)(A) and section 

104(a)(2)(C) of the Settlements Act was 

subject to the Master Agreement, 

including certain rights provided by the 

Master Agreement to water users in 

Pinal County, Arizona. The agricultural 

priority water reallocated to the ADWR 

was subject to the condition that the 

water retain its non-Indian agricultural 

delivery priority. 

As required in Section 

104(a)(2)(C)(i)(I) of the Settlements Act 

and the August 25, 2006 final 

reallocation decision, ADWR submitted 

to the Secretary a recommendation for 

reallocation of agricultural priority 

water. This recommendation was 

transmitted by letter dated January 16, 

2014, and ADWR requested the 

Secretary carry out all of the necessary 

reviews of the proposed reallocation in 

accordance with applicable Federal law. 

Reclamation prepared an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969, as amended, and pursuant to 

Section 104 of the Settlements Act. 

Public scoping was initiated on 

November 30, 2015 with a newsletter 

that was sent to interested parties and 

published on Reclamation’s website. 

Scoping comments were accepted via 

facsimile, email, U.S. mail, and inperson at the scoping meetings, which 

were held on December 8–10, 2015 in 

Phoenix, Casa Grande, and Tucson, 

Arizona, respectively. Reclamation 

received two public responses during 

this initial scoping period, one of which 

resulted in Reclamation honoring a 

request for a comment period extension 

to January 18, 2016. 

In June 2016, Reclamation mailed 

Notices of Availability of the Draft EA 

to Federal, state, and local agencies, 

Indian tribes, organizations, proposed 

recipients, and other interested 

stakeholders. A public meeting was held 

on June 22, 2016 in Casa Grande, 

Arizona, and the commenting period 

closed on July 22, 2016. Reclamation 

conducted in-person consultation with 

the Tohono O’odham Nation on 

February 17, 2017, and with the San 

Carlos Apache Tribe on June 16, 2017. 

The draft EA was revised in response to 

the comments received. A Notice of 

Availability for the Final Environmental 

Assessment—Arizona Department of 

Water Resources Recommendation for 

the Reallocation of Non-Indian 

Agricultural Priority Central Arizona 

Project Water in Accordance with the 

Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004 

was issued on November 15, 2019 and 

the Final Finding of No Significant 

Impact—Arizona Department of Water 

Resources Recommendation for the 

Reallocation of Non-Indian Agricultural 

Priority Central Arizona Project Water in 

Accordance with the Arizona Water 

Settlements Act of 2004 was signed on 

November 8, 2019. 

Rationale for Decision 

The Department’s decision is to 

allocate CAP NIA water in accordance 

with ADWR’s recommendation. The 

ADWR recommendation covered the 

initial phase, reallocating 46,629 acrefeet per year of NIA priority CAP water 

of the 96,295 acre-feet per year to be 

reallocated, as shown in the table in this 

notice. The total of 46,629 acre-feet per 

year of CAP NIA priority water in this 

phase is in two pools: (1) A municipal 

pool of 34,629 acre-feet for M&I water 

providers within the CAP service area 

and the Central Arizona Groundwater 

Replenishment District, and (2) an 

industrial pool of 12,000 acre-feet for 

industrial water users within the CAP 

service area. The rationale for the 

decision is based on the following: 

(1) ADWR’s extensive public 

outreach, in consultation with 

Reclamation, to interested parties 

regarding its recommendation. 

(2) An EA evaluating impacts of the 

proposed reallocation, in accordance 

with NEPA, and the resulting Finding of 

No Significant Impact (FONSI). 

The Final EA and FONSI can be 

found on Reclamation’s website at: 

https://www.usbr.gov/lc/phoenix/ 

reports/reports.html. 

Comments on the Proposed 

Reallocation and Responses 

The proposed allocation was 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 3, 2020 (85 FR 34232). Comments 

were accepted through July 6, 2020. The 

comments received, and responses to 

those comments, are summarized below. 

Three comment letters were received 

during the Federal Register notice 

public comment period. Two letters, 

one from the City of Buckeye and one 

from Rosemont Copper Company, dated 

June 30, 2020 and June 24, 2020, 

respectively, were submitted in support 

of the proposed action. One letter from 

the San Carlos Apache Tribe dated July 

6, 2020, was submitted opposing the 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 4121 

proposed action. The issues raised in 

this comment letter and Reclamation’s 

response to those comments are 

summarized here: 

Comment 1: The San Carlos Apache 

Tribe opposes the proposed reallocation 

of NIA Priority CAP water and 

respectfully requests that the Secretary 

decline to approve the proposed 

reallocation as described in Table 1 of 

the Final EA (p. 9 of Final EA). 

Response 1: The comment is noted. 

Comment 2: Reclamation has failed to 

fulfill its obligation to satisfy all 

applicable Federal Law in the Final EA. 

‘The Arizona Water Settlements Act 

(AWSA) states that, prior to making a 

decision to accept or reject ADWR’s 

recommendation, the Secretary shall 

carry out all necessary reviews in 

accordance with applicable law’ (p. 1 of 

Final EA). The Final EA does not satisfy 

that requirement. 

The Final EA contains no legitimate 

material analysis of the impacts of any 

of the proposed reallocations. ‘‘. . . 

prior to recipients taking and using the 

NIA Priority CAP Water reallocation, all 

environmental compliance, including 

NEPA, would have to be completed’’ (p. 

9 of Final EA). This quotation reflects 

the fact that there has been no specific 

environmental analysis of any of the 

individual recommended reallocations 

and that there has been no evaluation of 

the cumulative impact of the combined 

recommended reallocations. This 

approach ensures that there will never 

be an analysis of the cumulative impact 

of the recommended reallocations. ’The 

AWSA obligates the Secretary to 

approve or reject ADWR’s 

recommendation for reallocation’ (p. 5 

of Final EA). Therefore, this is a singular 

decision by the Secretary, the potential 

impacts of which must be reviewed in 

a comprehensive cumulative 

Environmental Impact Statement.’’ 

Response 2: The Final EA was 

developed in compliance with NEPA, 

the AWSA, and other applicable 

authorities. 

The scope of the Final EA was to 

evaluate the proposed decision of the 

Secretary to approve or reject ADWR’s 

recommendation for NIA Priority CAP 

water reallocation. The EA has 

identified the baseline conditions and 

evaluated impacts on the human 

environment associated with the 

Proposed Action to the degree they are 

known or reasonably foreseeable. Where 

potential future impacts might occur 

from a Proposed Recipient’s future 

construction of infrastructure to take 

and use its NIA Priority CAP water 

allocation, but no other details are 

known about the associated location of, 

or amount of ground disturbance 

anticipated by, this infrastructure, 

environmental compliance for such 

activities cannot be evaluated until 

those details are known. Further, CAP 

water service subcontracts that would 

entitle recipients of the reallocations to 

actually receive delivery of water in a 

particular year have not yet been issued. 

Each CAP water service subcontract 

typically includes a clause that states, in 

part, ‘‘notwithstanding any other 

provision of this subcontract, Project 

Water shall not be delivered to the 

Subcontractor unless or until the 

Subcontractor has obtained final 

environmental compliance from the 

United States . . .’’ This is to ensure 

that any site-specific environmental 

compliance processes that may be 

appropriate will be completed prior to 

actual delivery of any of the reallocated 

water. 

Comment 3: A decision to adopt the 

recommended reallocation would 

imprison what little unallocated CAP 

water remains available to the Central 

Arizona Project and would establish 

avenues of unjust enrichment for the 

proposed recipients of the 

recommended reallocations. Upon 

execution of the contracts, each 

proposed recipient would be in the 

position to ‘bank’ such water that is 

available to them under their 

reallocation, even though they may have 

no immediate need and/or delivery 

systems to accept and use the water 

within the proposed recipients’ service 

or project area. 

Response 3: The AWSA provides that 

the Director of ADWR shall submit to 

the Secretary a recommendation for 

reallocation of certain NIA Priority CAP 

water. The Secretary must either 

approve or reject the recommendation 

for reallocation. The AWSA does not 

authorize the Secretary to change 

certain recipients or direct alternate 

uses of the water. ADWR conducted a 

public process to evaluate and select the 

proposed recipients that were identified 

in its recommendation for reallocation. 

The proposed recipients identified by 

ADWR have indicated they will use the 

reallocated water in accordance with 

applicable laws, for direct use and/or 

recharge purposes. The Final EA 

evaluated, pursuant to NEPA, the effects 

on the human environment of the 

Secretary’s decision whether to approve 

or reject ADWR’s recommendation. 

Comment 4: The Final EA fails to 

disclose the length of time during which 

the reallocations would exist. Without 

the time component for each and all 

recommended reallocations, no credible 

impact analysis can be developed. 

Response 4: No particular length of 

time was specified because the 

reallocations would exist indefinitely. 

The analysis of impacts within the Final 

EA was framed as such. The Final EA 

further explains that actual delivery of 

the reallocated water will occur only 

after appropriate subcontracts have been 

executed. 

Comment 5: The Final EA fails to 

address that the growing demand is 

unsustainable as both a physical and 

economic fact. The analysis fails to 

show how the recommended 

reallocation would meet or lead to the 

achievement of a sustainable balance 

between water supply and water 

consumption under current conditions. 

‘In 2014, municipal water demand was 

1.4 million acre-feet annually (MAFA), 

which was 21 percent of Arizona’s 

water demand’ (p. 5 of Final EA). It also 

fails to analyze how the recommended 

reallocation would fuel the increased 

consumption of water and the 

exacerbation of demand. ‘The projected 

statewide water demand will increase to 

between 8.1 and 8.6 MAFA by 2035, 

and between 8.6 and 9.1 MAFA by 2060 

(Water Resources Development 

Commission (WRDC) (2011)’ (p. 5 of 

Final EA). The recommended 

reallocation based upon such growth is 

unsustainable and therefore 

irresponsible. 

Response 5: The Final EA addresses 

the issue of growing water demand in 

the State of Arizona. Additionally, the 

AWSA empowers the Director of ADWR 

to make a recommendation for 

reallocation of NIA Priority CAP water 

to the Secretary, and thus gives ADWR 

discretion to weigh, in the first instance, 

questions of sustainability and 

competing needs for the water. The 

recommendation for reallocation was 

based on ADWR’s evaluation criteria. 

The Secretary must either approve or 

reject the recommendation. 

Comment 6: The Final EA further fails 

to illustrate how the reduction of 

groundwater overdraft will occur in the 

face of increased water use by proposed 

recipients such as Resolution Copper. 

Response 6: As stated on pages 9–10 

of the Final EA, the Proposed Action 

includes reallocation of up to 2,238 

acre-feet (AF) annually to Resolution 

Copper. On pages 12–14, the Final EA 

further describes why Resolution 

Copper is not dependent on the 

reallocation of NIA water for mine 

operations and as such the mine would 

still be developed in the absence of this 

reallocation. The Final EA evaluated the 

impacts of the proposed reallocation of 

2,238 AF annually of NIA water to 

Resolution Copper to be used for 

groundwater recharge. An 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

addressing impacts resulting from the 

4122 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 

proposed mining operations and 

associated water use is being prepared 

by the Tonto National Forest (TNF) for 

the proposed Resolution Copper Mine. 

Comment 7: The Final EA fails to 

show how some of the recommended 

reallocations are hydrologically 

connected and therefore fails to analyze 

the impacts of the interconnections. 

Response 7: The Final EA analyzes 

both the affected environment and the 

anticipated impacts of the proposed 

reallocation on water resources. For 

Apache Junction and Town of Queen 

Creek, page 50 of the Final EA explains 

that ‘‘. . . based on their proposed 

direct use of their allocation, no adverse 

impacts are anticipated because there 

would be no change from the current 

uses.’’ Groundwater modeling using 

ADWR models for the Active 

Management Areas (AMAs) potentially 

affected by Proposed Recipients 

intending to directly use their CAP 

allocation has not been performed due 

to the direct use of the Proposed 

Recipients’ CAP allocation. 

Page 50 of the Final EA identifies that 

Johnson Utilities and Resolution Copper 

Mining would use its CAP allocation for 

recharge to offset their groundwater use. 

Central Arizona Groundwater 

Replenishment District’s (CAGRD) CAP 

allocation would be used to meet 

replenishment obligations incurred as a 

result of excess groundwater use by 

CAGRD members. No adverse impacts 

are anticipated from the use of CAP 

water to offset groundwater use and the 

use of existing infrastructure to convey 

the water. Groundwater modeling using 

ADWR models for the AMAs potentially 

affected by Proposed Recipients 

recharging their allocation has not been 

performed because of the small NIA 

allocation volumes for each subbasin 

affected and the net positive benefit to 

the AMAs from the Proposed Action. 

Pages 51–52 of the Final EA state that 

Resolution Copper would not be ‘‘. . . 

required to offset their permitted 

groundwater usage, [its] allocation 

would help in achieving or maintaining 

safe yield conditions in [Resolution’s] 

respective AMA.’’ Direct use of the CAP 

allocation by the mine, if developed, 

would help to alleviate groundwater 

decreases around the proposed 

wellfields. 

Additionally, as Page 53 of the Final 

EA states, Resolution Copper Mine is 

not dependent on the reallocation of 

NIA water for mine operations. 

Therefore, the Proposed Action under 

this EA is not a connected action with 

the development of the mine (see 

Section 3.1 of the Final EA). The effect 

mining operations would have on the 

East Salt River Valley Subbasin is not 

currently known but would be 

determined as part of the TNF NEPA 

process for the mine. Accrual of LongTerm Storage Credits under the 

Proposed Action until the mine is 

operational or for potential future direct 

use of the CAP allocation once the mine 

is operational will only benefit the East 

Salt River Valley Subbasin. 

Comment 8: The Final EA fails to 

analyze the impacts of recommended 

reallocation to proposed recipients on 

the San Carlos Apache Tribe and other 

Arizona tribal governments and entities 

that would be impacted by the 

development of the Resolution Copper 

Mine. It fails to recognize the vital and 

essential role that the recommended 

reallocation directly to Resolution 

Copper Mine would have on these 

Tribes.’’ 

Response 8: Please see Response #6. 

Pages 12–14 of the Final EA explain 

why the proposed Resolution Copper 

mine is not dependent on the 

reallocation of NIA water for mine 

operations; the two actions are separate 

and ‘‘not interdependent parts of a 

larger action, nor do they depend on a 

larger action for their justification.’’ An 

EIS is being prepared by the TNF for the 

Resolution Copper Mine project. The 

EIS will address any impacts on the 

human environment resulting from the 

proposed mining project. The 

Secretary’s decision regarding whether 

to approve or reject ADWR’s 

recommendation for reallocation of NIA 

Priority CAP water has no bearing on 

the viability of the proposed mine, and 

TNF’s decision regarding Resolution 

Copper’s proposed operations will be 

made after completion and review of its 

Final EIS. 

Comment 9: Clearly, Reclamation has 

failed to comply with all the applicable 

laws when it has not evaluated the 

cumulative impact of the entire 

proposed reallocation, including the 

environmental impact of the use of CAP 

water at the various locations and for 

the various activities anticipated by the 

reallocation. 

Response 9: Please see response #2. 

The EA has evaluated indirect and 

cumulative impacts associated with the 

Proposed Action to the degree those 

impacts are reasonably foreseeable, and 

not speculative or totally unknown. 

Most of the locations at which 

reallocated water may be used in the 

future are geographically distant, and it 

is therefore speculative whether, or 

how, cumulative impacts may arise 

from the use of CAP water in these 

locations. Pages 12–14 of the Final EA 

state ‘‘. . . water service subcontract for 

the Proposed Recipients contains 

language that requires completion of 

site-specific environmental clearances 

prior to any ground-disturbing activities 

related to constructing infrastructure 

necessary to take and use the reallocated 

water.’’ 

Comment 10: The Final EA does not 

analyze certain impacts, relies on 

incomplete or misleading calculations 

or information, or makes improper 

assumptions. 

Response 10: The comments appear to 

relate primarily to the sufficiency of the 

Final EA and not the proposed 

allocation decision itself. Reclamation 

considered all comments received 

relating to the Draft EA and made 

appropriate revisions before releasing 

the Final EA and issuing a FONSI. The 

Final EA and FONSI contained a 

thorough assessment of the potential 

effects of the proposed reallocation of 

NIA priority water on the quality of the 

human environment. The Final EA and 

FONSI fully comply with NEPA and 

appropriately inform the Secretary’s 

decision whether to approve or reject 

ADWR’s recommendation for 

reallocation. 

Secretarial Decision 

I hereby give notice of the 

Department’s decision to allocate CAP 

NIA priority water in the amounts and 

to the entities as set forth in the table 

in this notice, and direct the 

Commissioner of Reclamation, through 

the Regional Director, Lower Colorado 

Basin Region, Boulder City, Nevada, to 

proceed to enter into contracts in 

accordance with this decision. This 

decision is made after consideration of 

the comments received after a proposed 

allocation was published in the Federal 

Register on June 3, 2020 (85 FR 34232). 

A summary of those comments, and 

responses to those comments are 

contained below. 

CAP NIA priority water allocations 

are hereby modified in accordance with 

the information contained in the table 

below. This decision is effective as of 

the date of this notice. Insofar as 

previous allocation decisions are 

inconsistent with this allocation notice, 

the affected provisions of such decisions 

are hereby rescinded. 

The Department is publishing this 

decision of the reallocation of NIA 

priority CAP water in accordance with 

the Settlements Act, 118 Stat. 3478, and 

the Secretary’s Final Decision of CAP 

Water Reallocation, 71 FR 50449 

(August 25, 2006). The following table 

lists the entities to receive NIA priority 

CAP water and the quantities 

reallocated to each. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Notices 4123 

SECRETARY’S DECISION FOR REALLOCATION OF NIA PRIORITY CAP WATER

Municipal pool Industrial pool 

State of Arizona entity 

Amount in 

acre-feet 

per year 

State of Arizona entity 

Amount in 

acre-feet 

per year 

Carefree Water Company ............................................ 112 Viewpoint RV and Golf Resort ..................................... 400 

Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District ..... 299 New Harquahala Generating Company ....................... 400 

Town of Cave Creek .................................................... 386 Rosemont Copper Company ....................................... 1,124 

EPCOR—Sun City West .............................................. 1,000 Salt River Project ......................................................... 2,160 

Town of Queen Creek (Acquired H2O Water Company).4,162 Resolution Copper Mining ............................................ 2,238 

Town of Marana ........................................................... 515 Freeport-McMoRan-Sierrita Inc .................................... 5,678 

Apache Junction Water Utilities Community Facilities 

District.

817 

City of El Mirage ........................................................... 1,318 

Town of Gilbert ............................................................. 1,832 

City of Buckeye (Formerly was Town of Buckeye) ...... 2,786 

Johnson Utilities ........................................................... 3,217 

Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District 18,185 

Total NIA Priority CAP Water Reallocated to Municipal: 34,629 Total NIA Priority CAP Water Reallocated to Industrial: 12,000 

Total NIA Priority CAP Water Reallocated: 46,629 Acre-Feet Per Year 

Timothy R. Petty, 

Assistant Secretary for Water and Science. 

[FR Doc. 2021–01089 Filed 1–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4332–90–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

[S1D1S SS08011000 SX064A000 

211S180110; S2D2S SS08011000 

SX064A000 21XS501520; OMB Control 

Number 1029–0040] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Requirements for Permits 

for Special Categories of Mining 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Information 

Collection; request for comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, 

the Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), 

are proposing to renew an information 

collection. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before March 

16, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Send your comments on 

this information collection request (ICR) 

by mail to the Mark Gehlhar, Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, 1849 C. Street NW, Room 

4556–MIB, Washington, DC 20240; or by 

email to mgehlhar@osmre.gov. Please 

reference OMB Control Number 1029– 

0040 in the subject line of your 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request additional information about 

this ICR, contact Mark Gehlhar by email 

at mgehlhar@osmre.gov, or by telephone 

at 202–208–2716. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the 

general public and other Federal 

agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on new, proposed, revised, 

and continuing collections of 

information. This helps us assess the 

impact of our information collection 

requirements and minimize the public’s 

reporting burden. It also helps the 

public understand our information 

collection requirements and provide the 

requested data in the desired format. 

We are soliciting comments on the 

proposed ICR that is described below. 

We are especially interested in public 

comment addressing the following 

issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to 

the proper functions of the OSMRE; (2) 

will this information be processed and 

used in a timely manner; (3) is the 

estimate of burden accurate; (4) how 

might the OSMRE enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (5) how might the 

OSMRE minimize the burden of this 

collection on the respondents, including 

through the use of information 

technology. 

Comments that you submit in 

response to this notice are a matter of 

public record. We will include or 

summarize each comment in our request 

to OMB to approve this ICR. Before 

including your address, phone number, 

email address, or other personal 

identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Abstract: The information is being 

collected to meet the requirements of 

sections 507, 508, 510,515, 701 and 711 

of Public Law 95–87, which require 

applicants for special types of mining 

activities to provide descriptions, maps, 

plans and data of the proposed activity. 

This information will be used by the 

regulatory authority in determining if 

the applicant can meet the applicable 

performance standards for the special 

type of mining activity. 

Title of Collection: Requirements for 

Permits for Special Categories of 

Mining. 

OMB Control Number: 1029–0040. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents/Affected Public: State 

governments and mine permittees. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Respondents: 75. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 100. 

Estimated Completion Time per 

Response: Varies from 10 to 1,000 

hours, depending on activity. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: 6,000. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

obtain or retain a benefit. 

Frequency of Collection: One time. 

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour 

Burden Cost: $0.