Laserfiche WebLink
<br />t,.'; <br /> <br />(3) Paragraphs (2)-(6) are inconsistent with each other. <br />First, paragraph (2) establishes as an overall <br />standard the minimization of adverse environmental <br />impacts. However, paragraphs (3)-(6) then speak in <br />somewhat different terms, leaving it unclear which <br />paragraph is to apply. This ambiguity could be <br />resolved by the insertion, in lieu of paragraphs <br />(3)-(6), of a new subsection (c) after paragraph (2) <br />to read as follows: <br /> <br />(c) In developing interim power <br />operating criteria, the Secretary shall, to <br />the extent required by section 4(b)(2) and <br />subject to section 4(b)(1), adjust <br />fluctuating water releases used for the <br />production of peaking hydroelectric power, <br />adjust rates of flow changes for fluctuating <br />flows, adjust minimum flow releases, and <br />adjust maximum flow releases. <br /> <br />There is a further ambiguity between subsections (b)(2) and <br />(f)(l). This arises because the latter subsection refers back <br />to the requirements of section 3, yet section 3 speaks in <br />different terms than does subsection 4(b)(2). Perhaps, it was <br />intended that subsection (f)(l) refer to section S(a), rather <br />than section 3, which would be appropriate. <br /> <br />Finally, and most importantly, section 4(b)(4). concerning <br />the minimization of flood releases, should be stricken. Flood <br />releases (i.e., releases in excess of powerplant capacity) have <br />nothing to do with power operating criteria. Furthermore, <br />flood releases are already addressed by the existing <br />Coordinated, Long-Range Operating Criteria, as discussed <br />above. <br /> <br />Costs of the EIS--Section SCd) <br /> <br />We believe that the costs of the EIS should be <br />nonreimbursable federal costs. Such costs are being incurred <br />in the pUblic interest and should therefore be borne by the <br />general treasury. We have so recommended in our April 23 <br />letter to the Secretary. <br /> <br />In this regard, we approve of section Sed) of the bill. <br />However, the word "direct" on line 21, page 9, needs to be <br />deleted. That is a term of art in the Bureau of Reclamation <br />which could be interpreted to mean that only a portion of the <br />full costs of the EIS would be nonreimbursable. <br /> <br />Findinqs--Section 2 <br /> <br />With respect to finding (5) on page 3 of the bill, we <br />strongly urge that it be deleted. It is not an accurate <br /> <br />-6- <br />