WSP13003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e 15882 Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 59/Tuesday, ~larch 29, 2005/~otices Comment Xo. 49-(Letter 1':0. 23): The Operating Criteria haw been flexible enough to allm.-,; for adjustments following the floods ofthe 1980s. they have bee'i't flexible enough to allow for the development of the interim operating criteria to aid California in reducing its use of Colorado River water to 4.4 million acre-feet per year, and they have been flexible enough to allow for experimental flow tests from Glen Canyon Dam in 1996 and again in 2004. .-\ll these were accomplished within the limitations prm."ided by the Colorado River Compact. the Upper Colorado Rh-er Basin Compact. and the Mexican Water Treaty. The Operating Criteria cannot be used to modiii." these basic documents. as some "\\"Ol:-Ild suggest. Response: The Department concurs. The Operating Criteria cannot be used to modify the Colorado River Compact. the Cpper Colorado Riyer Basin Compact. or the ~Iexican 'Vater Treatv. Comment So. SD-(Letter 1\0. 24): The Operaiing Criteria should meet the intent of the 1922 Colorado River Compact. yet be flexible enough to take into consideration variations in hydrologic conditions and drought. c Respo~'lse: The Operating Criteria were deyeloped to proyide sufficient t1exibility in the operation of Colorado River resen"oirs 'while meeting the requirements of interstate conipacts. federal laws, treaties. decrees, and regulations 2ermane to the Colorado Ri~"er. O'"er the past 34 years, the Operating Criteria hm,e proYided the t1exibility to properly ma.'1age the Colorado Riwr through pericds or average. abO\"e a'"erage. and below average inflow. Comment No. Sl-~Letter ~o. 24): The 1922 Colorado River Compact intended for a flexible water delb;en." schedule based on 10-Year a,"erages."The existing Operating Criteria app~ar to dictate a ~ minimal release that does not consider drought conditions. Re~ponse: See response to Comment No. 34. Comment .':0. S2-(Letter 1\0. 24;: A new minimal annual release given current conditions should be considered in the 6.5 to 7 million acre-foot range for the stabilization of both reservoirs. ~ Response: See response to Comments Ko. 34 and 38. Comment .Yo. 53-~Letter Xo. 24): The cost effectiye generation of hydroelectric power should~not be jeopardized at Glen Canyon Dam: therefore. a minimum la.lee elevation sh~uld be est~blished at Lake Powell. Response: See response to Comments No. 34. 38, and 39. Comment So. 54-(Letter :\0. 25): The following changes should be made to the Operating Criteria: In Article 1(2), after the word. "recreation." add the phrase. "protection of Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area." " Add the following paragraph as Article II(6): "In the application of Article II. Glen Canyon Dam will be operated and releases from Lake Powell made in accordance with the Grand Canyon Protection Act in order to protect. mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon J\'ational Park and Glen Canvon Xational recreation Area were - established. Annual releases will be made through the powerplant to the extent practicable except when above- powerplant releases are determined by the Secretan.- to be necessarY to meet the provisions of the Grand Canyon Protection Act. 'Vater releases pursuant to this paragraph will not affect allocations of water secured to the Colorado Ri,'er Basin States bvany compact, law. or decree." - . In Section IV~l)~a), after the phrase. "pow'er and energy." add the phrase, "and protection of natural and cultural resources in Grand Canvon Kational Park ~?-d Glen Canyon Recreation Area. Response: See response to Comments ~o. 10. 11, and 12. Comment So. 55-(Letter 1\0. 26;: The ~Ietropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) urges Reclamation not to commit to a five-vear hiatus in beginning the next reyiew ~f the Operating Criteria. A five-year hiatus prior to beginning the next review would amount to an eight-vear period between rm.iews. whil~ the Operating Criteria commit to a review at least eyery fiw years. Metropolitan belieyes that Reclamation should leave open the date that the next review will commence. basing that date instead upon actual operating experience or unforeseen circumstances. Response: See response to Comment 1\0.35. Comment .vo. 56-(Letter f\o. 27): The Colorado River Board of California [Board), in its ~Iarch 2002 letter, indicated that there was a need to provide additional specificity to provide guidance as the Annual Operating Plan (AOP) is deyeloped. This specificity is needed to address resef'.i'oir operations over the full range of expected operations and include releases during high water m:ents and conditions. as well as, during low water conditions and shortages. Although there was an identified need to pro'\;ide sufficient detail and substance to guide de,oelopment ofthe AOP, there is a greater need to bring this five-year review to a conclusion lI\>-ithin this five- year review period. Accordingly. the Board finds that Reclamation's proposed modifications to the Operating Criteria are acceptable. It is the Board's position that consideration of anv substantive modifications to the Operating Criteria should be delayed until the next re'\-iew is undertaken. - Response: Comment noted. Comment No. 57-(Letter No. 27): It is unclear from the Federal Register notice whether Reclamation plans in some way to note for the reader that certain text has been inserted or deleted through this review. As such, it is recommended that additions and deletions to the text of the Operating Criteria be noted in footnotes to the Operating Criteria. Response: The Deparhnent 'I.'\-ill denote additions and deletions to the text of the Operating Criteria using a combination of text strikeout, bolding, less than or greater than signs. and/or brackets. Comment No. 58-(Letter No. 27): At the public meeting held in Henderson, Nevada, on 1\ovember 19, 2004, Reclamation staff indicated an intent that the next review not begin until five years after the current review is ~oncluded. Such a schedule would depart from the review process required by the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968.1\0 such intent should be specified in a final decision regarding the current review. A decision regarding the timing of the beginning of the next review should be left open as it may be necessary to begin the next re"iew prior to the time suggested at the public hearing. Response: See response to Comment 1\0.35. Public Consultation ~leeting- ~ovember 19, 2004 Reclamation conducted a public consultation meeting in Henderson, :'Il'evada, on ~ovember 19. 2004. Two attendees provided oral comments at the meeting. A summary of the comments made and responses to those comments is as follows: Kara Gillon- Defenders of Wildlife: Why were no changes proposed to the Operating Criteria to reflect the Grand Canvon Protection Act? Will Reclamation conduct Kational Environmental Policy Act compliance to the proposed changes? Response: See response to Comments Ko. 8, 10, 11, 12, and 15. fern' Zimmerman--Colorado River Board of California: The Colorado River Board of California (Board) previously sent in a letter that stated that there is no need to change the Operating Criteria. The Operating Criteria need to