Notice of Availability for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan for the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam, Page, Arizona, 69850-69853 [2016-24338]
Download as PDF
69850
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 195 / Friday, October 7, 2016 / Notices
Dated: September 22, 2016.
J. Paul Loether,
Chief, National Register of Historic Places/
National Historic Landmarks Program.
[FR Doc. 2016–24260 Filed 10–6–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–52–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
[RR02013000, XXXR5537F3,
RX.19871110.1000000]
National Park Service
[PPIMIMRO3L, PPMRSNR1Y.AR0000,
FPDEFAULT]
Notice of Availability for the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for
the Long-Term Experimental and
Management Plan for the Operation of
Glen Canyon Dam, Page, Arizona
Bureau of Reclamation and
National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
The Department of the
Interior, through the Bureau of
Reclamation and National Park Service,
has prepared a Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) for the LongTerm Experimental and Management
Plan (LTEMP) for the operation of Glen
Canyon Dam and related non-flow
actions. The LTEMP would provide a
framework for adaptively managing
Glen Canyon Dam operations over the
next 20 years consistent with the Grand
Canyon Protection Act of 1992 and
other provisions of applicable Federal
law.
DATES: The Department of the Interior
will not issue a final decision on the
proposed action for a minimum of 30
days after the date that the
Environmental Protection Agency
publishes its Notice of Availability of
Weekly Receipt of Environmental
Impact Statements in the Federal
Register. After the 30-day public review
period, the Department of the Interior
will complete a Record of Decision
(ROD). The ROD will state the action
that will be implemented and discuss
all factors leading to that decision.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the
FEIS are available at the Glen Canyon
Dam LTEMP EIS Web site located at:
https://ltempeis.anl.gov/. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
a list of locations where compact disc
copies of the FEIS are available for
public inspection.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Katrina Grantz, Chief, Adaptive
Management Group, Bureau of
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Oct 06, 2016
Jkt 241001
Reclamation, kgrantz@usbr.gov, 801–
524–3635; or Mr. Rob Billerbeck,
Colorado River Coordinator, National
Park Service,
Rob_P_Billerbeck@nps.gov, 303–987–
6789.
Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
may call the Federal Relay Service at 1–
800–877–8339 to contact the above
individuals during normal business
hours. The Service is available 24 hours
a day, 7 days a week, in order to leave
a message or question with the above
named individuals. You will receive a
reply during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, as amended, the Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) and the
National Park Service (NPS) jointly
prepared the FEIS for the LTEMP in
cooperation with 15 cooperating
agencies including three Federal
agencies, six non-Federal agencies, and
six American Indian tribes. A primary
function of the LTEMP will be the
implementation of monthly, daily, and
hourly releases from Glen Canyon Dam
and related non-flow actions as part of
an experimental adaptive management
program in accordance with the Grand
Canyon Protection Act of 1992 (GCPA)
and in coordination with the Glen
Canyon Dam Adaptive Management
Program. This will be the first EIS
completed on the monthly, daily, and
hourly operations of Glen Canyon Dam
since 1995, which was a major point of
demarcation in attempting to achieve a
balance between project purposes and
natural resources protection.
The Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for the LTEMP was
filed with the Environmental Protection
Agency and issued to the public on
January 8, 2016, and a Notice of
Availability of the DEIS was published
in the Federal Register on that same
date (81 FR 963). A 122-day public
review and comment period for the
DEIS ended on May 9, 2016 (extended
32 days from the original 90-day
comment period which ended on April
7, 2016). During the public comment
period, two public meetings and two
public web-based meetings were held to
present information and answer any
clarifying questions. Public reaction
determined through the scoping process
and subsequent outreach efforts has
been instrumental in assuring a full
range of alternatives. The FEIS contains
responses to all comments received on
the DEIS.
Proposed Federal Action
The proposed Federal action is the
development and implementation of a
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
structured, long-term experimental and
management plan for operations of Glen
Canyon Dam. The LTEMP and the
Secretary of the Interior’s (Secretary)
decision would provide a framework for
adaptively managing Glen Canyon Dam
operations and other management and
experimental actions over the next 20
years consistent with the GCPA and
other provisions of applicable Federal
law.
The LTEMP would determine specific
options for dam operations (including
hourly, daily, and monthly release
patterns), non-flow actions, and
appropriate experimental and
management actions that will meet the
GCPA’s requirements, maintain or
improve hydropower production to the
greatest extent practicable, consistent
with improvement of downstream
resources, including those of
importance to American Indian tribes.
Purpose and Need for the Proposed
Federal Action
The proposed Federal action will help
determine specific dam operations and
actions that could be implemented to
improve conditions and continue to
meet the GCPA’s requirements and to
minimize—consistent with law—
adverse impacts on the downstream
natural, recreational, and cultural
resources in Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area and Grand Canyon
National Park, including resources of
importance to American Indian tribes.
The need for the proposed Federal
action stems from the need to use
scientific information developed since
the 1996 ROD to better inform the
public of Department of the Interior
decisions on dam operations and other
management and experimental actions
so that the Secretary may continue to
meet statutory responsibilities for
protecting downstream resources for
future generations, conserving species
listed under the Endangered Species
Act, avoiding or mitigating impacts on
National Register of Historic Places—
eligible historic properties, and
protecting the interests of American
Indian tribes, while meeting obligations
for water delivery and the generation of
hydroelectric power.
The FEIS Analyzes Seven Alternatives
The FEIS assesses the potential
environmental effects of seven
alternatives being considered: The NoAction Alternative (Alternative A) and
six Action Alternatives (Alternatives B,
C, D, E, F, and G), which are described
below. There are a number of
experimental and management actions
that would be incorporated into all of
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 195 / Friday, October 7, 2016 / Notices
the LTEMP Action Alternatives, except
where noted:
• High-flow experimental releases for
sediment conservation—
Implementation of high-flow
experiments (HFEs) under all
alternatives are patterned after the
current HFE Environmental Assessment
(EA) and Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) (adopted in 2012), but
some alternatives include specific
modifications related to the frequency of
spring and fall HFEs, the duration of fall
HFEs, the triggers for HFEs, and the
overall process for implementation of
HFEs, including implementation
considerations and conditions that
would result in discontinuing specific
experiments.
• Non-native fish control actions—
Implementation of control actions for
non-native brown trout (Salmo trutta)
and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss) are patterned after those
identified in the Non-native Fish
Control EA and FONSI (adopted in
2012), but some alternatives include
specific modifications related to the area
where control actions would occur, the
specific actions to be implemented, and
the overall process for implementation
of control actions, including
implementation considerations and
conditions that would result in
discontinuing specific experiments.
Non-native fish control actions are not
included in Alternative F. For
Alternative D, components of the Nonnative Fish Control EA and FONSI were
modified and integrated with other
actions in a tiered approach for
humpback chub (Gila cypha)
conservation.
• Conservation measures established
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
previous biological opinions—
Conservation measures identified in the
2011 Biological Opinion on operations
of Glen Canyon Dam included the
establishment of a humpback chub
refuge, evaluation of the suitability of
habitat in the lower Grand Canyon for
the razorback sucker (Xyrauchen
texanus), and establishment of an
augmentation program for the razorback
sucker, if appropriate. Other measures
include humpback chub translocation;
Bright Angel Creek brown trout and
rainbow trout control; Kanab ambersnail
(Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis)
monitoring; determination of the
feasibility of flow options to control
trout including increasing daily downramp rates to strand or displace age-0
trout, and high flow followed by low
flow to strand or displace age 0 trout;
assessments of the effects of actions on
humpback chub populations; sediment
research to determine effects of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Oct 06, 2016
Jkt 241001
equalization flows; and Asian tapeworm
(Bothriocephalus acheilognathi)
monitoring. Most of these conservation
measures are ongoing and are elements
of existing management practices, while
others are being considered for further
action under the LTEMP. Additional
conservation measures were developed
for the preferred alternative during
Endangered Species Act Section 7
consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
• Non-flow experimental and
management actions at specific sites
such as non-native plant removal,
revegetation with native species, and
mitigation at specific and appropriate
cultural sites. These actions would also
have involvement from tribes to capture
concerns regarding culturally significant
native plants, and would provide an
opportunity to integrate Traditional
Ecological Knowledge in a more applied
manner into the long-term adaptive
management program.
• Preservation of historic properties
through a program of research,
monitoring, and mitigation to address
erosion and preservation of
archeological and ethnographic sites
and minimize loss of integrity at
National Register historic properties.
• Continued adaptive management
under the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive
Management Program, including a
research and monitoring component.
Alternative A: The No-Action
Alternative
Alternative A represents continued
operation of Glen Canyon Dam as
guided by the 1996 ROD for operations
of Glen Canyon Dam: Modified low
fluctuating flow, as modified by recent
Department of the Interior decisions,
including those specified in the 2007
ROD on Colorado River Interim
Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages
and Coordinated Operations for lakes
Powell and Mead (Interim Guidelines)
(until 2026), the HFE EA, and the Nonnative Fish Control EA (both expiring in
2020). As is the case for all alternatives,
Alternative A also includes
implementation of existing and planned
NPS management activities, with
durations as specified in NPS
management documents.
Under Alternative A, daily flow
fluctuations would continue to be
determined according to monthly
volume brackets as follows: 5,000 cubic
feet per second (cfs) daily range for
monthly volumes less than 600
thousand acre-feet (kaf); 6,000 cfs daily
range for monthly volumes between 600
kaf and 800 kaf; and 8,000 cfs for
monthly volumes greater than 800 kaf.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69851
Under Alternative A, the current HFE
protocol would be followed until it
expired in 2020. Under this protocol,
high-flow releases may be made in
spring (March and April) or fall
(October and November). HFE
magnitude would range from 31,500 cfs
to 45,000 cfs. The duration would range
from less than 1 hour to 96 hours.
Frequency of HFEs would be
determined by tributary sediment
inputs, resource conditions, and a
decision process carried out by the
Department of the Interior. The HFE
protocol uses a ‘‘store and release’’
approach in which sediment inputs are
tracked over two accounting periods,
one for each seasonal HFE: Spring
(December through June) and fall (July
through November). Under the protocol,
the maximum possible magnitude and
duration of HFE that would achieve a
positive sand mass balance in Marble
Canyon, as determined by modeling,
would be implemented.
Under Alternative A, the current nonnative fish control protocol would be
followed until it expired in 2020.
Mechanical removal would primarily
consist of the use of boat-mounted
electrofishing equipment to remove all
non-native fish captured. Captured nonnative fish would be removed alive and
potentially stocked into areas that have
an approved stocking plan, unless live
removal fails, in which case fish would
be euthanized and used for later
beneficial use.
Alternative B
The objective of Alternative B is to
increase hydropower generation while
limiting impacts on other resources and
relying on flow and non-flow actions to
the extent possible to mitigate impacts
of higher fluctuations. Alternative B
focuses on non-flow actions and
experiments to address sediment
resources, non-native fish control, and
on native and non-native fish
communities.
Under Alternative B, monthly
volumes would be the same as under
current operations, but daily flow
fluctuations would be higher than under
current operations in most months.
Compared to current operations, the
hourly up-ramp rate would remain
unchanged at 4,000 cfs/hour, but the
hourly down-ramp rate would be
increased to 4,000 cfs/hour in November
through March and 3,000 cfs/hour in
other months.
Alternative B includes
implementation of the non-native fish
control protocol and HFE protocol
through the entire LTEMP period, but
HFEs would be limited to a maximum
of one in spring or fall every other year.
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
69852
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 195 / Friday, October 7, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
In addition to these experimental
actions, Alternative B would test trout
management flows and hydropower
improvement flows. With trout
management flows, high flows (e.g.,
20,000 cfs) would be maintained for 2
or 3 days followed by a very sharp drop
in flows to a minimum level (e.g., 5,000
cfs) for the purpose of reducing annual
recruitment of trout. Hydropower
improvement experiments would test
maximum powerplant capacity flows up
to four times during the LTEMP period,
but only in years with annual volumes
≤8.23 million acre-feet (maf).
Alternative C
The objective of Alternative C is to
adaptively operate Glen Canyon Dam to
achieve a balance of resource objectives
with priorities placed on humpback
chub, sediment, and minimizing
impacts on hydropower. Alternative C
features a number of conditiondependent flow and non-flow actions
that would be triggered by resource
conditions. The alternative uses
decision trees to identify when
experimental changes in base operations
or other planned action is needed to
protect resources. Operational changes
or implementation of non-flow actions
could be triggered by changes in
sediment input, humpback chub
numbers and population structure, trout
numbers, and water temperature.
Monthly release volumes under
Alternative C in August through
November would be lower than those
under most other alternatives to reduce
sediment transport rates during the
monsoon period. Release volumes in the
high power demand months of
December, January, and July would be
increased to compensate for water not
released in August through November,
and volumes in February through June
would be patterned to follow the
monthly hydropower demand as
defined by the contract rate of delivery.
Under Alternative C, the allowable
within-day fluctuation range from Glen
Canyon Dam would be proportional to
monthly volume (7 × monthly volume
in kaf). The down-ramp rate would be
increased to 2,500 cfs/hour, but the upramp rate would remain unchanged at
4,000 cfs/hour.
Experimentation under Alternative C
includes testing the effects of the
following actions: (1) Sedimenttriggered spring and fall HFEs through
the entire 20-year LTEMP period, (2) 24hour proactive spring HFEs in high
volume years (≥10 maf release volume),
(3) extension of the possible duration of
fall HFEs while maintaining a maximum
total volume of a 96-hour 45,000 cfs
release, (4) reducing fluctuations before
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Oct 06, 2016
Jkt 241001
and after HFEs, (5) mechanical removal
of trout near the Little Colorado River
confluence, (6) trout management flows,
and (7) low summer flows during the
entire LTEMP period to allow greater
warming.
Alternative D: The Preferred
Alternative
Alternative D is the preferred
alternative for the LTEMP. The objective
of Alternative D is to adaptively operate
Glen Canyon Dam to best meet the
resource goals of the LTEMP. Like
Alternative C, Alternative D features a
number of condition-dependent flow
and non-flow actions that would be
triggered by resource conditions.
Under Alternative D, the total
monthly release volume of October,
November, and December would be
equal to that under Alternative A to
avoid the possibility of the operational
tier differing from that of Alternative A,
as established in the 2007 Interim
Guidelines. The August volume was set
to a moderate volume level (800 kaf in
an 8.23 maf release year) to balance
sediment conservation prior to a
potential HFE and to address power
production and capacity concerns.
January through July monthly volumes
were set at levels that roughly track
Western Area Power Administration’s
contract rate of delivery. This produced
a redistribution of monthly release
volumes under Alternative D that would
result in the most even distribution of
flows of any alternative except for
Alternative G. The allowable within-day
fluctuation range from Glen Canyon
Dam would be proportional to the
volume of water scheduled to be
released during the month (10 ×
monthly volume in kaf in the highdemand months of June, July, and
August and 9 × monthly volume in kaf
in other months). The down-ramp rate
under Alternative D would be limited to
no greater than 2,500 cfs/hour, which is
1,000 cfs/hour greater than what is
allowed under Alternative A. The upramp rate would be 4,000 cfs/hour, and
this is the same as what is allowed
under Alternative A.
Experimentation under Alternative D
includes testing the effects of the
following actions: (1) Sedimenttriggered spring and fall HFEs through
the entire 20-year LTEMP period, (2) 24hour proactive spring HFEs in high
volume years (≥10 maf release volume),
(3) extension of the duration of up to
45,000 cfs fall HFEs for as many as 250
hours depending on sediment
availability, (4) mechanical removal of
trout near the Little Colorado River
confluence, (5) trout management flows,
(6) low summer flows in the second 10
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
years of the LTEMP period to allow
greater warming, and (7) sustained low
flows to improve the aquatic food base.
Alternative E
The objective of Alternative E is to
provide for recovery of the humpback
chub while protecting other important
resources including sediment, the
rainbow trout fishery at Lees Ferry,
aquatic food base, and hydropower
resources. Alternative E features a
number of condition-dependent flow
and non-flow actions that would be
triggered by resource conditions.
Under Alternative E, monthly
volumes would closely follow the
monthly hydropower demand as
defined by the contract rate of delivery.
The total monthly release volume of
October, November, and December,
however, would be equal to that under
Alternative A to minimize the
possibility of the operational tier
differing from that of Alternative A as
established in the Interim Guidelines. In
addition, lower monthly volumes
(relative to Alternative A) would be
targeted in August and September to
reduce sediment transport during the
monsoon period, when most sediment is
delivered by the Paria River. The
allowable within-day fluctuation range
from Glen Canyon Dam would be
proportional to the volume of water
scheduled to be released during the
month (12 × monthly volume in kaf in
high power demand months of June,
July, and August, and 10 × monthly
volume in kaf in other months).
Experimentation under Alternative E
includes testing the effects of the
following actions: (1) Sedimenttriggered fall HFEs through the entire
20-year LTEMP period, (2) sedimenttriggered spring HFEs only in the
second 10 years of the LTEMP period,
(3) 24-hour proactive spring HFEs in
high volume years (≥10 maf release
volume), (4) reducing fluctuations
before fall HFEs, (5) mechanical removal
of trout near the Little Colorado River
confluence, (6) trout management flows,
and (7) low summer flows in the second
10 years of the LTEMP period to allow
greater warming.
Alternative F
The objective of Alternative F is to
provide flows that follow a more natural
pattern of high spring, and low summer,
fall, and winter flows while limiting
sediment transport and providing for
warming in summer months. In keeping
with this objective, Alternative F does
not feature some of the flow and nonflow actions of the other alternatives.
Under Alternative F, peak flows
would be lower than pre-dam
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 195 / Friday, October 7, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
magnitudes to reduce sediment
transport and erosion given the reduced
sand supply downstream of the dam.
Peak flows would be provided in May
and June, which corresponds well with
the timing of the pre-dam peak. The
overall peak flow in an 8.23 maf year
would be 20,000 cfs (scaled
proportionately in drier and wetter
years), and would include a 24 hour
45,000 cfs flow at the beginning of the
spring peak period (e.g., on May 1) if
there was no triggered spring HFE in
same year, and a 168 hour (7 day)
25,000 cfs flow at the end of June.
Following this peak, there would be a
rapid drop to the summer base flow.
The initial annual 45,000 cfs flow
would serve to store sediment above the
flows of the remainder of the peak, thus
limiting sand transport further
downstream and helping to conserve
sandbars. The variability in flows
within the peak would also serve to
water higher elevation vegetation. There
would be no within-day fluctuations in
flow under Alternative F.
Low base flows would be provided
from July through January. These low
flows would provide for warmer water
temperatures, especially in years when
releases are warm, and would also serve
to reduce overall sand transport during
the remainder of the year.
Other than testing the effectiveness of
sediment-triggered HFEs, which would
continue through the entire LTEMP
period, there would be no explicit
experimental or condition-dependent
triggered actions under Alternative F.
Alternative G
The objective of Alternative G is to
maximize the conservation of sediment,
in order to maintain and increase
sandbar size. Under Alternative G, flows
would be delivered in a steady pattern
throughout the year with no monthly
differences in flow other than those
needed to adjust operations in response
to changes in forecast and other
operating requirements such as
equalization. In an 8.23 maf year, steady
flow would be approximately 11,400
cfs.
Experimentation under Alternative G
includes testing the effects of the
following actions: (1) Sedimenttriggered spring and fall HFEs through
the entire 20-year LTEMP period, (2) 24hour proactive spring HFEs in high
volume years (≥10 maf release volume),
(3) extension of the duration of up to
45,000 cfs fall HFEs for as many as 250
hours depending on sediment
availability, (4) mechanical removal of
trout near the Little Colorado River
confluence, and (5) trout management
flows.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Oct 06, 2016
Jkt 241001
Locations To Inspect Copies of the FEIS
Compact disc copies of the FEIS are
available for public inspection at the
following locations:
• J. Willard Marriott Library,
University of Utah, 295 South 1500 East,
Salt Lake City, Utah 84112.
• Cline Library, Northern Arizona
University, 1001 S. Knoles Drive,
Flagstaff, Arizona 86011–6022.
• Burton Barr Central Library, 1221
North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona
85004.
• Page Public Library, 479 South Lake
Powell Boulevard, Page, Arizona 86040.
• Grand County Library, Moab
Branch, 257 East Center Street, Moab,
Utah 84532.
• Sunrise Library, 5400 East Harris
Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89110.
• Denver Public Library, 10 West 14th
Avenue Parkway, Denver, Colorado
80204.
• Natural Resources Library, U.S.
Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street
NW., Main Interior Building,
Washington, DC 20240–0001.
Dated: October 3, 2016.
Thomas M. Iseman,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Water
and Science.
Michael J. Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Fish
and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2016–24338 Filed 10–6–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4332–90–P; 4312–CB–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–1023]
Certain Memory Modules and
Components Thereof, and Products
Containing Same; Institution of
Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that a
complaint was filed with the U.S.
International Trade Commission on
September 1, 2016, under section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Netlist, Inc. of
Irvine, California. Supplements to the
Complaint were filed on September 22,
2016 and September 23, 2016. The
complaint alleges violations of section
337 based upon the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation,
and the sale within the United States
after importation of certain memory
modules and components thereof, and
products containing same by reason of
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69853
infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent No. 8,756,364 (‘‘the ’364 patent’’);
U.S. Patent No. 8,516,185 (‘‘the ’185
patent’’); U.S. Patent No. 8,001,434 (‘‘the
’434 patent’’); U.S. Patent 8,359,501
(‘‘the ’501 patent’’); U.S. Patent No.
8,689,064 (‘‘the ’064 patent’’); and U.S.
Patent 8,489,837 (‘‘the ’837 patent’’).
The complaint further alleges that an
industry in the United States exists or
is in the process of being established as
required by subsection (a)(2) of section
337.
The complainant requests that the
Commission institute an investigation
and, after the investigation, issue a
limited exclusion order and cease and
desist orders.
ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for
any confidential information contained
therein, is available for inspection
during official business hours (8:45 a.m.
to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room
112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone
(202) 205–2000. Hearing impaired
individuals are advised that information
on this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810. Persons
with mobility impairments who will
need special assistance in gaining access
to the Commission should contact the
Office of the Secretary at (202) 205–
2000. General information concerning
the Commission may also be obtained
by accessing its internet server at
https://www.usitc.gov. The public
record for this investigation may be
viewed on the Commission’s electronic
docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
Office of Unfair Import Investigations,
U.S. International Trade Commission,
telephone (202) 205–2560.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority: The authority for institution of
this investigation is contained in section 337
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and
in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules
of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10
(2016).
Scope of Investigation: Having
considered the complaint, the U.S.
International Trade Commission, on
September 30, 2016, ordered that—
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, an investigation be instituted
to determine whether there is a
violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of
section 337 in the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation,
or the sale within the United States after
importation of certain memory modules
and components thereof, and products
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 195 (Friday, October 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69850-69853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24338]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
[RR02013000, XXXR5537F3, RX.19871110.1000000]
National Park Service
[PPIMIMRO3L, PPMRSNR1Y.AR0000, FPDEFAULT]
Notice of Availability for the Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan for the
Operation of Glen Canyon Dam, Page, Arizona
AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation and National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior, through the Bureau of
Reclamation and National Park Service, has prepared a Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Long-Term Experimental
and Management Plan (LTEMP) for the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and
related non-flow actions. The LTEMP would provide a framework for
adaptively managing Glen Canyon Dam operations over the next 20 years
consistent with the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 and other
provisions of applicable Federal law.
DATES: The Department of the Interior will not issue a final decision
on the proposed action for a minimum of 30 days after the date that the
Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability of
Weekly Receipt of Environmental Impact Statements in the Federal
Register. After the 30-day public review period, the Department of the
Interior will complete a Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD will state
the action that will be implemented and discuss all factors leading to
that decision.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the FEIS are available at the Glen
Canyon Dam LTEMP EIS Web site located at: https://ltempeis.anl.gov/. See
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for a list of locations where
compact disc copies of the FEIS are available for public inspection.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Katrina Grantz, Chief, Adaptive
Management Group, Bureau of Reclamation, kgrantz@usbr.gov, 801-524-
3635; or Mr. Rob Billerbeck, Colorado River Coordinator, National Park
Service, Rob_P_Billerbeck@nps.gov, 303-987-6789.
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call
the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above
individuals during normal business hours. The Service is available 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, in order to leave a message or question
with the above named individuals. You will receive a reply during
normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)
and the National Park Service (NPS) jointly prepared the FEIS for the
LTEMP in cooperation with 15 cooperating agencies including three
Federal agencies, six non-Federal agencies, and six American Indian
tribes. A primary function of the LTEMP will be the implementation of
monthly, daily, and hourly releases from Glen Canyon Dam and related
non-flow actions as part of an experimental adaptive management program
in accordance with the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 (GCPA) and
in coordination with the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program.
This will be the first EIS completed on the monthly, daily, and hourly
operations of Glen Canyon Dam since 1995, which was a major point of
demarcation in attempting to achieve a balance between project purposes
and natural resources protection.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the LTEMP was
filed with the Environmental Protection Agency and issued to the public
on January 8, 2016, and a Notice of Availability of the DEIS was
published in the Federal Register on that same date (81 FR 963). A 122-
day public review and comment period for the DEIS ended on May 9, 2016
(extended 32 days from the original 90-day comment period which ended
on April 7, 2016). During the public comment period, two public
meetings and two public web-based meetings were held to present
information and answer any clarifying questions. Public reaction
determined through the scoping process and subsequent outreach efforts
has been instrumental in assuring a full range of alternatives. The
FEIS contains responses to all comments received on the DEIS.
Proposed Federal Action
The proposed Federal action is the development and implementation
of a structured, long-term experimental and management plan for
operations of Glen Canyon Dam. The LTEMP and the Secretary of the
Interior's (Secretary) decision would provide a framework for
adaptively managing Glen Canyon Dam operations and other management and
experimental actions over the next 20 years consistent with the GCPA
and other provisions of applicable Federal law.
The LTEMP would determine specific options for dam operations
(including hourly, daily, and monthly release patterns), non-flow
actions, and appropriate experimental and management actions that will
meet the GCPA's requirements, maintain or improve hydropower production
to the greatest extent practicable, consistent with improvement of
downstream resources, including those of importance to American Indian
tribes.
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Federal Action
The proposed Federal action will help determine specific dam
operations and actions that could be implemented to improve conditions
and continue to meet the GCPA's requirements and to minimize--
consistent with law--adverse impacts on the downstream natural,
recreational, and cultural resources in Glen Canyon National Recreation
Area and Grand Canyon National Park, including resources of importance
to American Indian tribes.
The need for the proposed Federal action stems from the need to use
scientific information developed since the 1996 ROD to better inform
the public of Department of the Interior decisions on dam operations
and other management and experimental actions so that the Secretary may
continue to meet statutory responsibilities for protecting downstream
resources for future generations, conserving species listed under the
Endangered Species Act, avoiding or mitigating impacts on National
Register of Historic Places--eligible historic properties, and
protecting the interests of American Indian tribes, while meeting
obligations for water delivery and the generation of hydroelectric
power.
The FEIS Analyzes Seven Alternatives
The FEIS assesses the potential environmental effects of seven
alternatives being considered: The No-Action Alternative (Alternative
A) and six Action Alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, and G),
which are described below. There are a number of experimental and
management actions that would be incorporated into all of
[[Page 69851]]
the LTEMP Action Alternatives, except where noted:
High-flow experimental releases for sediment
conservation--Implementation of high-flow experiments (HFEs) under all
alternatives are patterned after the current HFE Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (adopted
in 2012), but some alternatives include specific modifications related
to the frequency of spring and fall HFEs, the duration of fall HFEs,
the triggers for HFEs, and the overall process for implementation of
HFEs, including implementation considerations and conditions that would
result in discontinuing specific experiments.
Non-native fish control actions--Implementation of control
actions for non-native brown trout (Salmo trutta) and rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) are patterned after those identified in the Non-
native Fish Control EA and FONSI (adopted in 2012), but some
alternatives include specific modifications related to the area where
control actions would occur, the specific actions to be implemented,
and the overall process for implementation of control actions,
including implementation considerations and conditions that would
result in discontinuing specific experiments. Non-native fish control
actions are not included in Alternative F. For Alternative D,
components of the Non-native Fish Control EA and FONSI were modified
and integrated with other actions in a tiered approach for humpback
chub (Gila cypha) conservation.
Conservation measures established by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service in previous biological opinions--Conservation measures
identified in the 2011 Biological Opinion on operations of Glen Canyon
Dam included the establishment of a humpback chub refuge, evaluation of
the suitability of habitat in the lower Grand Canyon for the razorback
sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), and establishment of an augmentation
program for the razorback sucker, if appropriate. Other measures
include humpback chub translocation; Bright Angel Creek brown trout and
rainbow trout control; Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis)
monitoring; determination of the feasibility of flow options to control
trout including increasing daily down-ramp rates to strand or displace
age-0 trout, and high flow followed by low flow to strand or displace
age 0 trout; assessments of the effects of actions on humpback chub
populations; sediment research to determine effects of equalization
flows; and Asian tapeworm (Bothriocephalus acheilognathi) monitoring.
Most of these conservation measures are ongoing and are elements of
existing management practices, while others are being considered for
further action under the LTEMP. Additional conservation measures were
developed for the preferred alternative during Endangered Species Act
Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Non-flow experimental and management actions at specific
sites such as non-native plant removal, revegetation with native
species, and mitigation at specific and appropriate cultural sites.
These actions would also have involvement from tribes to capture
concerns regarding culturally significant native plants, and would
provide an opportunity to integrate Traditional Ecological Knowledge in
a more applied manner into the long-term adaptive management program.
Preservation of historic properties through a program of
research, monitoring, and mitigation to address erosion and
preservation of archeological and ethnographic sites and minimize loss
of integrity at National Register historic properties.
Continued adaptive management under the Glen Canyon Dam
Adaptive Management Program, including a research and monitoring
component.
Alternative A: The No-Action Alternative
Alternative A represents continued operation of Glen Canyon Dam as
guided by the 1996 ROD for operations of Glen Canyon Dam: Modified low
fluctuating flow, as modified by recent Department of the Interior
decisions, including those specified in the 2007 ROD on Colorado River
Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations
for lakes Powell and Mead (Interim Guidelines) (until 2026), the HFE
EA, and the Non-native Fish Control EA (both expiring in 2020). As is
the case for all alternatives, Alternative A also includes
implementation of existing and planned NPS management activities, with
durations as specified in NPS management documents.
Under Alternative A, daily flow fluctuations would continue to be
determined according to monthly volume brackets as follows: 5,000 cubic
feet per second (cfs) daily range for monthly volumes less than 600
thousand acre-feet (kaf); 6,000 cfs daily range for monthly volumes
between 600 kaf and 800 kaf; and 8,000 cfs for monthly volumes greater
than 800 kaf.
Under Alternative A, the current HFE protocol would be followed
until it expired in 2020. Under this protocol, high-flow releases may
be made in spring (March and April) or fall (October and November). HFE
magnitude would range from 31,500 cfs to 45,000 cfs. The duration would
range from less than 1 hour to 96 hours. Frequency of HFEs would be
determined by tributary sediment inputs, resource conditions, and a
decision process carried out by the Department of the Interior. The HFE
protocol uses a ``store and release'' approach in which sediment inputs
are tracked over two accounting periods, one for each seasonal HFE:
Spring (December through June) and fall (July through November). Under
the protocol, the maximum possible magnitude and duration of HFE that
would achieve a positive sand mass balance in Marble Canyon, as
determined by modeling, would be implemented.
Under Alternative A, the current non-native fish control protocol
would be followed until it expired in 2020. Mechanical removal would
primarily consist of the use of boat-mounted electrofishing equipment
to remove all non-native fish captured. Captured non-native fish would
be removed alive and potentially stocked into areas that have an
approved stocking plan, unless live removal fails, in which case fish
would be euthanized and used for later beneficial use.
Alternative B
The objective of Alternative B is to increase hydropower generation
while limiting impacts on other resources and relying on flow and non-
flow actions to the extent possible to mitigate impacts of higher
fluctuations. Alternative B focuses on non-flow actions and experiments
to address sediment resources, non-native fish control, and on native
and non-native fish communities.
Under Alternative B, monthly volumes would be the same as under
current operations, but daily flow fluctuations would be higher than
under current operations in most months. Compared to current
operations, the hourly up-ramp rate would remain unchanged at 4,000
cfs/hour, but the hourly down-ramp rate would be increased to 4,000
cfs/hour in November through March and 3,000 cfs/hour in other months.
Alternative B includes implementation of the non-native fish
control protocol and HFE protocol through the entire LTEMP period, but
HFEs would be limited to a maximum of one in spring or fall every other
year.
[[Page 69852]]
In addition to these experimental actions, Alternative B would test
trout management flows and hydropower improvement flows. With trout
management flows, high flows (e.g., 20,000 cfs) would be maintained for
2 or 3 days followed by a very sharp drop in flows to a minimum level
(e.g., 5,000 cfs) for the purpose of reducing annual recruitment of
trout. Hydropower improvement experiments would test maximum powerplant
capacity flows up to four times during the LTEMP period, but only in
years with annual volumes <=8.23 million acre-feet (maf).
Alternative C
The objective of Alternative C is to adaptively operate Glen Canyon
Dam to achieve a balance of resource objectives with priorities placed
on humpback chub, sediment, and minimizing impacts on hydropower.
Alternative C features a number of condition-dependent flow and non-
flow actions that would be triggered by resource conditions. The
alternative uses decision trees to identify when experimental changes
in base operations or other planned action is needed to protect
resources. Operational changes or implementation of non-flow actions
could be triggered by changes in sediment input, humpback chub numbers
and population structure, trout numbers, and water temperature.
Monthly release volumes under Alternative C in August through
November would be lower than those under most other alternatives to
reduce sediment transport rates during the monsoon period. Release
volumes in the high power demand months of December, January, and July
would be increased to compensate for water not released in August
through November, and volumes in February through June would be
patterned to follow the monthly hydropower demand as defined by the
contract rate of delivery. Under Alternative C, the allowable within-
day fluctuation range from Glen Canyon Dam would be proportional to
monthly volume (7 x monthly volume in kaf). The down-ramp rate would be
increased to 2,500 cfs/hour, but the up-ramp rate would remain
unchanged at 4,000 cfs/hour.
Experimentation under Alternative C includes testing the effects of
the following actions: (1) Sediment-triggered spring and fall HFEs
through the entire 20-year LTEMP period, (2) 24-hour proactive spring
HFEs in high volume years (>=10 maf release volume), (3) extension of
the possible duration of fall HFEs while maintaining a maximum total
volume of a 96-hour 45,000 cfs release, (4) reducing fluctuations
before and after HFEs, (5) mechanical removal of trout near the Little
Colorado River confluence, (6) trout management flows, and (7) low
summer flows during the entire LTEMP period to allow greater warming.
Alternative D: The Preferred Alternative
Alternative D is the preferred alternative for the LTEMP. The
objective of Alternative D is to adaptively operate Glen Canyon Dam to
best meet the resource goals of the LTEMP. Like Alternative C,
Alternative D features a number of condition-dependent flow and non-
flow actions that would be triggered by resource conditions.
Under Alternative D, the total monthly release volume of October,
November, and December would be equal to that under Alternative A to
avoid the possibility of the operational tier differing from that of
Alternative A, as established in the 2007 Interim Guidelines. The
August volume was set to a moderate volume level (800 kaf in an 8.23
maf release year) to balance sediment conservation prior to a potential
HFE and to address power production and capacity concerns. January
through July monthly volumes were set at levels that roughly track
Western Area Power Administration's contract rate of delivery. This
produced a redistribution of monthly release volumes under Alternative
D that would result in the most even distribution of flows of any
alternative except for Alternative G. The allowable within-day
fluctuation range from Glen Canyon Dam would be proportional to the
volume of water scheduled to be released during the month (10 x monthly
volume in kaf in the high-demand months of June, July, and August and 9
x monthly volume in kaf in other months). The down-ramp rate under
Alternative D would be limited to no greater than 2,500 cfs/hour, which
is 1,000 cfs/hour greater than what is allowed under Alternative A. The
up-ramp rate would be 4,000 cfs/hour, and this is the same as what is
allowed under Alternative A.
Experimentation under Alternative D includes testing the effects of
the following actions: (1) Sediment-triggered spring and fall HFEs
through the entire 20-year LTEMP period, (2) 24-hour proactive spring
HFEs in high volume years (>=10 maf release volume), (3) extension of
the duration of up to 45,000 cfs fall HFEs for as many as 250 hours
depending on sediment availability, (4) mechanical removal of trout
near the Little Colorado River confluence, (5) trout management flows,
(6) low summer flows in the second 10 years of the LTEMP period to
allow greater warming, and (7) sustained low flows to improve the
aquatic food base.
Alternative E
The objective of Alternative E is to provide for recovery of the
humpback chub while protecting other important resources including
sediment, the rainbow trout fishery at Lees Ferry, aquatic food base,
and hydropower resources. Alternative E features a number of condition-
dependent flow and non-flow actions that would be triggered by resource
conditions.
Under Alternative E, monthly volumes would closely follow the
monthly hydropower demand as defined by the contract rate of delivery.
The total monthly release volume of October, November, and December,
however, would be equal to that under Alternative A to minimize the
possibility of the operational tier differing from that of Alternative
A as established in the Interim Guidelines. In addition, lower monthly
volumes (relative to Alternative A) would be targeted in August and
September to reduce sediment transport during the monsoon period, when
most sediment is delivered by the Paria River. The allowable within-day
fluctuation range from Glen Canyon Dam would be proportional to the
volume of water scheduled to be released during the month (12 x monthly
volume in kaf in high power demand months of June, July, and August,
and 10 x monthly volume in kaf in other months).
Experimentation under Alternative E includes testing the effects of
the following actions: (1) Sediment-triggered fall HFEs through the
entire 20-year LTEMP period, (2) sediment-triggered spring HFEs only in
the second 10 years of the LTEMP period, (3) 24-hour proactive spring
HFEs in high volume years (>=10 maf release volume), (4) reducing
fluctuations before fall HFEs, (5) mechanical removal of trout near the
Little Colorado River confluence, (6) trout management flows, and (7)
low summer flows in the second 10 years of the LTEMP period to allow
greater warming.
Alternative F
The objective of Alternative F is to provide flows that follow a
more natural pattern of high spring, and low summer, fall, and winter
flows while limiting sediment transport and providing for warming in
summer months. In keeping with this objective, Alternative F does not
feature some of the flow and non-flow actions of the other
alternatives.
Under Alternative F, peak flows would be lower than pre-dam
[[Page 69853]]
magnitudes to reduce sediment transport and erosion given the reduced
sand supply downstream of the dam. Peak flows would be provided in May
and June, which corresponds well with the timing of the pre-dam peak.
The overall peak flow in an 8.23 maf year would be 20,000 cfs (scaled
proportionately in drier and wetter years), and would include a 24 hour
45,000 cfs flow at the beginning of the spring peak period (e.g., on
May 1) if there was no triggered spring HFE in same year, and a 168
hour (7 day) 25,000 cfs flow at the end of June. Following this peak,
there would be a rapid drop to the summer base flow. The initial annual
45,000 cfs flow would serve to store sediment above the flows of the
remainder of the peak, thus limiting sand transport further downstream
and helping to conserve sandbars. The variability in flows within the
peak would also serve to water higher elevation vegetation. There would
be no within-day fluctuations in flow under Alternative F.
Low base flows would be provided from July through January. These
low flows would provide for warmer water temperatures, especially in
years when releases are warm, and would also serve to reduce overall
sand transport during the remainder of the year.
Other than testing the effectiveness of sediment-triggered HFEs,
which would continue through the entire LTEMP period, there would be no
explicit experimental or condition-dependent triggered actions under
Alternative F.
Alternative G
The objective of Alternative G is to maximize the conservation of
sediment, in order to maintain and increase sandbar size. Under
Alternative G, flows would be delivered in a steady pattern throughout
the year with no monthly differences in flow other than those needed to
adjust operations in response to changes in forecast and other
operating requirements such as equalization. In an 8.23 maf year,
steady flow would be approximately 11,400 cfs.
Experimentation under Alternative G includes testing the effects of
the following actions: (1) Sediment-triggered spring and fall HFEs
through the entire 20-year LTEMP period, (2) 24-hour proactive spring
HFEs in high volume years (>=10 maf release volume), (3) extension of
the duration of up to 45,000 cfs fall HFEs for as many as 250 hours
depending on sediment availability, (4) mechanical removal of trout
near the Little Colorado River confluence, and (5) trout management
flows.
Locations To Inspect Copies of the FEIS
Compact disc copies of the FEIS are available for public inspection
at the following locations:
J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, 295 South
1500 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112.
Cline Library, Northern Arizona University, 1001 S. Knoles
Drive, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011-6022.
Burton Barr Central Library, 1221 North Central Avenue,
Phoenix, Arizona 85004.
Page Public Library, 479 South Lake Powell Boulevard,
Page, Arizona 86040.
Grand County Library, Moab Branch, 257 East Center Street,
Moab, Utah 84532.
Sunrise Library, 5400 East Harris Avenue, Las Vegas,
Nevada 89110.
Denver Public Library, 10 West 14th Avenue Parkway,
Denver, Colorado 80204.
Natural Resources Library, U.S. Department of the
Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Main Interior Building, Washington, DC
20240-0001.
Dated: October 3, 2016.
Thomas M. Iseman,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Water and Science.
Michael J. Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2016-24338 Filed 10-6-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4332-90-P; 4312-CB-P