Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 7201

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

43 CFR Part 418

RIN 1006–AA37

Adjustments to 1988 Operating Criteria

and Procedures (OCAP) for the

Newlands Irrigation Project in Nevada

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of

supplementary information and

extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: This document announces the

availability of detailed information on

the computerized modeling run of

Newlands Project operations used in

developing the proposed rule, and the

availability of summary information on

other operations modeling runs

considered. Also, the comment period

on the proposed rule is extended by 60

days. The proposed rule adjusting the

1988 OCAP for the Newlands Irrigation

Project was published in the Federal

Register on December 9, 1996 (61 FR

64832). Written comments were

requested by February 7, 1997. Several

agencies and individuals have requested

additional information and asked that

the comment period be extended to

provide additional time for the

collection and analysis of relevant

information and preparation of

comments. As a result of these requests,

the comment period has been extended

until April 8, 1997.

DATES: Written comments should be

submitted to be received by April 8,

1997. All comments received on or

before that date will be considered and

addressed in the Final Rule. Comments

received after that date will be reviewed

and considered as time allows.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be to the

following address: Adjusted OCAP,

Truckee-Carson Coordination Office,

1000 E. William Street, Suite 100,

Carson City, NV 89701–3116.

Supplemental information is available

at the same address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey Zippin, Team Leader, TruckeeCarson Coordination Office, (702) 887–

0640, or Ann Ball, Manager, Lahontan

Area Office, (702) 882–3436.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Additional Information

Several individuals, organizations,

and agencies have requested additional

information regarding the proposed

Adjustments to the 1988 OCAP. These

parties want to see the data developed

using the Truckee River operations

model to examine in detail how the

proposal may affect the Newlands

Project water supply. The following

information is available:

• A single page summary of modeling

runs for the 1988 OCAP, the proposed

Adjustments to the 1988 OCAP, and

other modeling runs considered. This

document is identified as ‘‘Multiple

Modeling Runs Summary’’

• A 36-page summary of the ‘‘174,000

acre-foot Storage Target Run’’ for the

proposed rule including 29 parameters

relating to the Truckee River reservoir

releases, Truckee and Carson River

stream flow, Truckee Canal, Truckee

Division, Lahontan Reservoir, Carson

Division, Pyramid Lake, and Cui-ui.

This document is identified as

‘‘Proposed 1988 OCAP Adjustments

Modeling Summary.’’

• The 400-plus-page complete

modeled output used to develop the

proposed rule and identified as the

‘‘174,000 acre-foot Storage Target Run.’’

The data include monthly results for

approximately 100 parameters over the

94-year period 1901–1994.

Questions and Answers

Two public workshops were held in

Fallon and Fernley, Nevada, January 8

and 9, 1997, respectively, to describe

and answer technical questions about

the proposed adjustments to the 1988

OCAP. The following questions and

answers taken from the public

workshops and from additional

questions received on the proposed rule

are presented below to assist reviewers

in better understanding and

commenting upon the proposed rule.

1. Q. Did the computer modeling runs

used in developing the proposed rule

include precipitation, runoff, or

snowpack forecasts?

A. Administration of the OCAP every

year relies on real-time runoff forecasts.

However, the computer modeling uses

historical records of Truckee and Carson

River hydrology, including precipitation

and snowpack runoff, and an error

factor to simulate forecasting errors in

assessing how the proposed rule would

affect Newlands Project operations and

water supply over a 94-year period of

record.

2. Q. The model uses a total Project

diversion demand of 294,000 acre-feet.

Does this demand include both Carson

Division and Truckee Division demand?

A. Yes, the 294,000 acre-foot demand

includes active water rights in both

Divisions.

3. Q. In the computer model, the

‘‘beginning cui-ui’’ number (adult

females) remains constant in the

modeling runs. Why is a constant value

used?

A. The beginning cui-ui number is a

common starting number in the cui-ui

model. It is a calculated number,

approximately 50,000, from the Cui-ui

Recovery Plan. Because all the modeling

is essentially a hindcast, it uses

historical hydrology and historical

conditions in the cui-ui population as a

starting point. By using a common

beginning, we can evaluate the effects of

different water management actions on

cui-ui. This is the basis for comparison

of cui-ui population response to various

water regimes on the Truckee River.

4. Q. Should the computer model be

changed to reflect the increased cui-ui

population of today?

A. No, it is not necessary to use the

latest cui-ui numbers in evaluating

relative impacts of different modeling

runs. It is more important to use a

common beginning because we are

trying to compare the effects of different

modeling runs on cui-ui. In these

modeling runs, the starting number

represents an initial condition. Just as in

a bank account, you start with an initial

deposit and then adjust the balance over

time for deposits, withdrawals, interest,

and fees. You don’t go back and adjust

the initial deposit just because you have

more money in the bank today.

5. Q. Does the 294,000 acre-foot

demand include water rights acquired to

restore Stillwater National Wildlife

Refuge and Carson Lake and Pasture

wetlands?

A. Yes, it includes wetland water

rights acquired to date which are

approximately 5,200 acres of Carson

Division agricultural water rights.

6. (a) Q. Does the model assume

wetland water rights are used at 2.99

acre-feet per acre?

A. Yes, the modeling assumes a use

rate of 2.99 acre-feet per acre.

(b) Q. What happens to the additional

0.51 or 1.51 acre-feet per acre?

A. The additional 0.51 or 1.51 acrefeet per acre stays in Lahontan Reservoir

where it does two things. It increases

the Carson Division water supply to all

water users in shortage years; in full

water years it remains in Lahontan

Reservoir and reduces Truckee River

diversions to the Reservoir in

subsequent years.

7. Q. Are wetland water rights

assumed to come out of the Truckee

River diversions to the Project,

increasing shortages to the Carson

Division of the Project?

A. No, wetland water rights are

acquired, active, agricultural water

rights from within the Carson Division

or from sources on the Carson River

above Lahontan Reservoir. Water rights
7202 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

acquired within the Carson Division

share the same amount of Truckee River

water, if any, in a given year as the rest

of the Carson Division.

8. Q. Do the new conveyance

efficiency targets include the delivery to

Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge and

Carson Lake and Pasture?

A. Yes, the conveyance efficiency

targets apply to all water users,

including the wetlands.

9. Q. If Project facilities are altered or

new facilities constructed to aid water

deliveries to the wetlands, will

conveyance efficiency requirements be

adjusted to account for such changes?

A. Carson Division conveyance

efficiency measures the amount of water

delivered to headgates as a percentage of

the Lahontan Reservoir water released

to serve those water rights. Changes in

conveyance efficiency requirements

could be considered in the future. It is

premature to consider how changes to

the wetlands water delivery system

might affect conveyance efficiencies

until such time as we know how much

water delivery is affected, the stage of

the water acquisition program, the

geographic distribution of acquisitions,

the degree to which entire canal/lateral

systems are retired because appurtenant

water rights have been acquired,

conversion of Project irrigated lands and

water use to development or municipal

and industrial (M&I) use, and

conveyance efficiency improvements

made. At this time, it is impossible to

know whether conveyance efficiencies

would improve or decline from changes

in the water delivery system.

10. Q. How was the proposed 65.7

percent conveyance efficiency

requirement determined.

A. The 65.7 percent conveyance

efficiency is an example based on 1995

Project data. The Bureau of Reclamation

(BOR) constructed a linear extrapolation

comparing the conveyance efficiency

required in the 1988 OCAP for 64,850

water-righted acres with what would be

required for 59,075 water-righted acres.

11. Q. Does the proposed conveyance

efficiency requirement assume that the

Truckee-Carson Irrigation District

(TCID) will line canals?

A. No specific assumptions are made

on the methods by which TCID will

improve Project conveyance efficiency.

Canal lining would be one way to

improve conveyance efficiencies, as

would better water measurement.

Additional information on conveyance

efficiency has been provided to TCID

and other interested parties in the BOR’s

1994 efficiency study for the Newlands

Project. That document is available at

the address above.

12. Q. Is the proposed Lahontan

Reservoir storage target of 174,000 acrefeet a limit on how much water can be

stored in the Reservoir at any time?

A. No, the proposed end-of-June

storage target of 174,000 acre-feet would

be used to determine if water would be

needed from the Truckee River as a

supplemental supply to Carson River

inflow to the Reservoir. That target does

not limit how much water can be stored

in Lahontan Reservoir. Above the target,

Carson River water may fill the

Reservoir to its capacity.

13. Q. Since the adjustment to the

Lahontan Reservoir storage targets is

based in part on the reduced Project

demand when compared to the 1988

OCAP, what will happen if the water

transfer litigation results in greater

acreage and more water demand?

A. This is something that bears

watching and could be considered for

changes in the future. The outcome of

the water transfer litigation is unknown

and may not be resolved for several

years. Other changes within the Project

may affect water demand, including but

not limited to continued development of

agricultural lands, changes in demand

as the FWS acquires water (see number

4.b above), and water dedications to

future M&I use. At this time, it is not

possible to say whether future demand

will increase or decrease, or know the

magnitude of the change.

14. Q. Modeling for the 1988 OCAP

indicated four shortage years for the

Project. Why do the proposed

Adjustments to the 1988 OCAP show

nine shortage years?

A. The 1988 OCAP modeling used the

hydrology for the 80-year period, 1901–

1980, which included shortages in

drought years 1931, 1934, 1961, and

1977. The proposed Adjustments to the

1988 OCAP are modeled using the

hydrology from the 94-year period

1901–1994. The 14-year period 1981–

1994 included five additional drought

years (1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1994)

which adds five more shortage years.

When the 1988 OCAP is examined using

the 94-year hydrology, there are also

nine shortage years.

15. Q. Why was the end of June

storage target in Lahontan Reservoir

reduced by 19 percent (174,000 acre-feet

versus 215,000 acre-feet) when the

project acreage is only 9 percent less

than anticipated in the 1988 OCAP

(59,075 acres versus 64,850 acres)?

A. The proposed storage target

adjustments attempt to (among other

things) more closely balance the water

supply to the demand in the Carson

Division. The demand is based on

water-righted, irrigated acres to be

served. The supply is composed of

inflow to Lahontan Reservoir from the

Carson River and water from the

Truckee River as a supplementary

supply. In the proposed rule, the

Lahontan storage targets, which govern

Truckee River diversions, are adjusted

so that the decrease in average water

supply is commensurate with the

current demand. Just a percentage

comparison of storage targets and

acreage does not tell the whole story.

The proposed 19 percent change in the

storage target for regulating the

supplemental supply is not comparable

to the change in demand based on

water-righted, irrigated acres. For

example, even if demand were reduced

100 percent based on zero irrigated

acres, there would still be enough water

supply from the Carson River inflow

alone to serve tens of thousands of

acres. In developing the proposed rule,

percentage reductions in storage targets

were considered but those targets did

not adjust the supply to match the

current demand. Based on modeled

averages, Carson Division water supply

in the proposed Adjustments to the

1988 OCAP compared to under the 1988

OCAP assumptions indicates a decrease

of 7 percent (264,120 acre-feet versus

284,180 acre-feet). As noted in the

question, the acreage difference is 9

percent less.

16. Q. Why does modeling show a

difference in the proposal between the

water shortages in the Carson Division

between the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone

Tribe and the rest of the water users?

A. The difference in shortage between

the Fallon Tribe and the rest of the

Carson Division results from the cap on

their water use. During shortages,

Project water deliveries have been based

on total water-righted acres. The Fallon

Tribe total water right is 19,041 acrefeet, but use is capped at 10,587.5 acrefeet. [Public Law 101–618, section

103(c)] The Tribe’s supply of water in a

water short year is based on its water

right, thus in any shortage year down to

a 56 percent year, the Tribe would

receive all of its water permitted by the

use cap.

Extension of the Comment Period

The comment period on the proposed

Adjustments to the 1988 OCAP

rulemaking is extended to allow parties

to consider the supplemental material

being made available through this

notice, and because of flooding in

western Nevada. The Truckee, Carson,

and Walker Rivers in Nevada began

flooding on January 1, 1997, and

continued under flood watches and

warnings in some river segments for

several weeks. Some parties interested

in or affected by the proposed
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 32 / Tuesday, February 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 7203

rulemaking have been directly affected

by the flooding. Many more parties,

including the public, and local, State,

and Federal agencies wish to make

comments on the proposed rule but

have been preoccupied in flood water

management operations and/or flood

recovery activities. The Truckee-Carson

Coordination Office has received many

written requests for extension, all citing

the floods as affecting the time they

have available to review the proposed

rule and provide comments. An

additional 60 days would allow all

interested parties to review the

proposed rule and supplemental

information, and prepare and submit

comments.

John Garamendi,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–3946 Filed 2–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–RK–M

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Parts 6300 and 8560

[WO–420–1060–00 24 1A]

RIN 1004–AB69

Wilderness Management

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Extension of comment period

for proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On December 19, 1996, the

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

published a document in the Federal

Register announcing a proposed rule to

revise and update existing regulations

for management of designated

wilderness areas (61 FR 66968). The 60-

day comment period for the proposed

rule expires on February 18, 1997. BLM

has received several requests from the

public for additional time to comment

and is extending the comment period

for an additional 60 days.

DATES: Submit comments by April 21,

1997.

ADDRESSES:

If you wish to comment, you may:

(a) Hand-deliver comments to the

Bureau of Land Management,

Administrative Record, Room 401, 1620

L St., NW., Washington, DC.;

(b) Mail comments to the Bureau of

Land Management, Administrative

Record, Room 401LS, 1849 C Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20240; or

(c) Send comments through the

internet to WOComment@wo.blm.gov.

Please include ‘‘attn: AB69’’, and your

name and return address in your

Internet message. If you do not receive

a confirmation from the system that we

have received your internet message,

please contact us directly at (202) 452–

5030.

You will be able to review comments

at BLM’s Regulatory Affairs Group

office, Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, during regular

business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.)

Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob

Hellie, Cultural Heritage, Wilderness,

Special Areas & Paleontology Group, at

(202) 452–7703.

Dated: February 11, 1997.

Frank Bruno,

Acting Manager, Regulatory Affairs Group.

[FR Doc. 97–3823 Filed 2–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 73 and 76

[MM Docket Nos. 94–150, 92–51, 87–154,

91–221, 87–8, 96–222 & 96–197; DA 97–210]

Broadcast Services; TV Ownership;

Newspaper/Radio Cross Ownership

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

reply comment deadline.

SUMMARY: The Commission granted a

two-week extension of the deadline to

file reply comments in the above-cited

dockets in response to a request filed by

the Media Access Project (MAP) on

behalf of a number of other

organizations. The deadline to file reply

comments in these proceedings is now

March 21, 1997. The Commission

determined that a brief extension of the

reply comment deadline was warranted

to facilitate the development of a full

record, but declined to grant a longer

extension of the reply comment

deadline or to extend the deadline for

filing initial comments as requested by

MAP. The intended effect of this action

is to allow the parties additional time to

review the initial comments filed in

these proceedings and to prepare reply

comments responding to the issues

raised in the initial comments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Reply comments are

now due by March 21, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 2000 M Street, N.W., Suite

500, Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim

Matthews, Mania Baghdadi, Paul

Gordon, Roger Holberg or Charles Logan

(202) 418–2130, Mass Media Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Order granting an

extension of time for filing reply

comments in MM Docket Nos. 94–150,

92–51, 87–154, 91–221, 87–8, 96–222

and 96–197; DA 97–210, adopted

January 30, 1997, and released January

30, 1997. The complete text of this

Order is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Reference Center (Room

239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C., and also may be purchased from

the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

(202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street, N.W.,

Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037.

Synopsis of Order Extending Time for

Filing Reply Comments

1. On November 5, 1996, the

Commission adopted three related

rulemaking items regarding national and

local ownership of television stations

and attribution of broadcast and cable/

MDS ownership interests. Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, 61 FR 66987

(December 19, 1996) in MM Docket Nos.

96–222, 91–221, and 87–8, FCC 96–437

(released November 7, 1996) (national

ownership proceeding); Second Further

Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 61 FR

66978 (December 19, 1996) in MM

Docket Nos. 91–221 and 87–8, FCC 96–

438 (released November 7, 1996) (local

ownership proceeding); Further Notice

of Proposed Rule Making, 61 FR 67275

(December 20, 1996) in MM Docket Nos.

94–150, 92–51, and 87–154, FCC 96–436

(released November 7, 1996) (attribution

proceeding). Comments in all three of

these proceedings are currently due by

February 7, 1997, and reply comments

are currently due by March 7, 1997. In

addition, on September 17, 1996, the

Commission adopted a Notice of

Inquiry, 61 FR 53694 (October 15, 1996)

regarding its policy for waiving its

newspaper/radio cross ownership

restriction. Notice of Inquiry in MM

Docket 96–197, 11 FCC Rcd 13003

(1996). Comments in that proceeding

were initially due to be filed by

December 9, 1996, and reply comments

by January 8, 1997. By Order released

December 5, 1996, the Commission

extended the comment and reply

comment deadlines in that proceeding

to coincide with the comment and reply

comment deadlines in the national

ownership, local ownership, and

attribution proceedings. In so doing, the

Commission reasoned that the issues

raised in the newspaper/radio cross

ownership proceeding were similar to

those raised in the other three

rulemaking proceedings, and that it was

appropriate that the four proceedings

share the same comment and reply