CECW-AR (1110-2-1150a)

CECW-PE(CESPD-ET-P/30 September 1998) 2nd End Mr. Lucyshyn 202-761-0158
SUBJECT: Transmittal of Alamo Lake, Arizona Draft Feasibility Report

12 February 1999
HQ, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC 20314-1 000

FOR Commander, South Pacific Division, ATTN: CESPD-ET-P

1. Reference is made to CECW-AR memorandum dated 29 January 1999, subject: Alamo Lake, Arizona - Draft Feasibility Report, Enclosure 3.

2. A teleconference for the Alamo Lake Project was held on 5 February 1999. Participants in the teleconference included representatives from the HQUSACE, CESPD, and CESPL. The teleconference was held to obtain early HQUSACE involvement in the preparation of the final feasibility report prior to its submittal to Headquarters for Washington level policy review and approval. A complete summary of the comments, discussions and required actions reached during the teleconference is provided as Enclosure 4.

3. Upon satisfactorily responding to the remaining items contained in Enclosure 4, the district may forward the final feasibility report to HQUSACE. To assist in expediting the Washington level review process, a compliance memorandum should be prepared indicating how and where each of the remaining concerns was addressed in the final report.

FOR THE COMMANDER:

/signed/
Encls JAMES F. JOHNSON
wd encls 1-2 Chief, Planning Division
added 2 encls Directorate of Civil Works

3. CECW-AR Mem.
4. PGM

CECW-PE
SUBJECT: Transmittal of Alamo Lake, Arizona Draft Feasibility Report

CF:

CECW-P
CECW-PE
CESPL-PD
CECW-ZD

10 February 1999

Alamo Lake, Arizona

Draft Feasibility Report

Project Guidance Memorandum

1. Resolution of Review Comments from the Reconnaissance Guidance Memorandum.

A. Planning Guidance.

Comment: Section 301(b)(1) of WRDA 96 authorized the Secretary to operate the Alamo Dam to provide fish and wildlife benefits both upstream and downstream of the dam. Such operation shall not reduce flood control and recreation benefits provided by the project. This RGM will be used as a basis for establishing guidance for implementing Section 301(b)(1).

Discussion: In accordance with Section 301(b) to carry out such modifications the Corps of Engineers will need to complete a feasibility report to determine if such work is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and economic, as applicable. This feasibility report will be processed in a accordance with current procedures. Given the authority of Section 301(b)(1), additional congressional authority would not be required to implement reoperation of Alamo Dam for fish and wildlife benefits provided there is no reduction in flood control and recreation benefits afforded by the project.

The recommendation of the report will be for reoperation of Alamo Dam and reallocation of storage will not be required. Based on the results of the reconnaissance study, the modification of the project for fish and wildlife purposes can be accomplished through reoperation because it has no adverse impacts on existing project purposes, there is minimal cost, the local sponsor is expected to obtain required water rights, and the reoperation is within existing authority. Since there has been no effort to develop use of the water conservation space, there would be no impact on water conservation. The water rights being sought by the various resources agencies, if granted by the State of Arizona, will further limit the ability to develop the water conservation purpose.

Based on the assumption that implementation costs would be minimal and primarily for administrative actions, the costs to develop cost sharing arrangements and supporting documentation are expected to be excessive in comparison to actual implementation costs. Therefore, it would be more economical for the Federal Government to have each agency support their own efforts. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (rather than a project cooperation agreement) would be developed to document the respective responsibilities of the cooperating agencies and to implement the project reoperation.

The district expressed a desire to expedite the feasibility study to the maximum extent possible.

Required Action: The district will review reducing the scope, cost and time to produce the feasibility study and reflect those efforts in a revised PSP. The report will capitalize on prior information, and incorporate the results of prior studies, but will stand alone as a decision document. Because of the extensive formulation activities that have already occurred, it was agreed that the formulation of additional alternatives would not be required. The PSP will establish the rationale for limiting the plan formulation activities. In addition, the costs and schedules will be reevaluated in recognition of the redirected study efforts established at the RRC and identified in this memorandum. The NEPA documentation will be of adequate scope to support the required water control manual. Since this project will have environmental outputs which are not amenable to measurement using monetary values, economic justification is not required. Corps and the requirements of Section 301(b)(1) can be met by justifying the proposed plan on environmental values. A draft MOA to implement the proposed reoperation will be submitted with the final feasibility report but will not be included as a part of the report. The MOA will document the respective responsibilities of the cooperating agencies and be used to implement the project reoperation.

HQ Evaluation of Issue Resolution: No action required until the submission of the final feasibility report. HQUSACE suggests that the district coordinate a draft MOA with HQUSACE as soon as one is developed.

District Response: The draft MOA will be developed during the public review of the draft feasibility report and forwarded to HQUSACE as soon as it is developed. At a minimum the draft MOA will accompany the final feasibility report.

Discussion: Concern is resolved.

Required Action: The draft MOA implementing the proposed modification in the operation of Alamo Dam and Lake will be submitted with the final feasibility report, but will not be included as a part of the report.

Compliance: A draft MOA will be included with the final feasibility report.

Analysis: The district should submit a draft memorandum of agreement prior to completing the final feasibility report.

Required Action: Pursuant to previous guidance provided in the reconnaissance guidance memorandum and alternative briefing guidance memorandum the district will submit the draft MOA with the final feasibility report.

Return to Planning Guidance Page Top of Page

B. Dam Safety Considerations.

Comment: The report does not discuss the severity or status of the safety issues for Alamo Dam. In April 1984, it was determined that the project was hydrologically deficient such that the dam spillway was inadequate to pass the PMF. The Los Angeles District started work on a Dam Safety Evaluation Report in Fiscal Year 1995; however, a completion date for that report has not been established. Proceeding with a feasibility study to modify a project that does not meet its current authorized functions is questionable. The following items should be discussed at the RRC for this study.

(1) The nature of the dam safety concerns and the base condition assumptions for analyzing the spillway abilities for passing the PMF.

(2) The status of the ongoing Dam Safety Evaluation Report, including schedule for its completion, alternatives being considered and ,if required, when corrective work may be initiated.

(3) The impact, if any, of the proposed reoperation on the dam safety condition.

(4) The possible effects of the dam safety recommendation on the results of the feasibility report. Since there is a potential that the Dam Safety Evaluation Report findings could impact the recommendations of this feasibility report, the district should be certain that both efforts are fully coordinated. This should be discussed because the alternatives considered in the Dam Safety Evaluation could include breaching the dam or returning the project to a dry dam status. If either of these dam safety alternatives are chosen, then any feasibility study recommendations which include a permanent pool could not be implemented.

District Response: The reallocation of storage space has no adverse affect on the ability of the spillway to pass the PMF. The assumption in the dam safety model is that the dam is full regardless of the allocation. Thus, even if all of the pool area was allocated for dam safety in the model run, the spillway would still be inadequate. This assumption is different from when the dam was designed and constructed. The Dam Safety Evaluation Report has not been initiated due to lack of funding.

Discussion: Under existing conditions, the spillway at Alamo Dam only passes 33 percent of the PMF. The district=s evaluation was based on flood routings starting at the spillway crest and starting at the top of the water conservation pool. The district estimates that with the proposed reoperation for fish and wildlife purposes, Alamo Dam would be able to pass about 50 percent of the PMF. Thus, the proposed reoperation would increase the ability of the Alamo Dam spillway to pass larger events. Reallocation of the water conservation pool to flood control would not eliminate the dam safety concern. The district does not have a schedule for the resumption of the dam safety studies.

Required Action: The feasibility report will include a discussion of the existing dam safety concerns at Alamo Dam. Based on an evaluation of with and without project conditions, the feasibility report will identify the impacts of the proposed modification on dam safety. Use of existing flood routing are satisfactory. No additional flood routings will be required to document this dam safety item. Evaluation of impacts in the feasibility report will be based on available information.

HQ Evaluation of Issue Resolution: In response to the required action, the report states on page IV-2 that AThe opportunity exists through the proposed reoperation for fish and wildlife purposes to pass about 50 % of the PMF.@ (This statement also appeared in the reconnaissance report.) However, the same paragraph states that additional studies are needed prior to revising the Water Control Manual. The feasibility report need to determine and describe the required actions to address dam safety concerns and also the requirements to revise the Water Control Manual. This issue is not resolved. See comment 11.C, page 14.

District Response: The sentence that states Aadditional studies (for dam safety) are needed prior to revising the Water Control Manual@ will be deleted from the feasibility report. The proposed plan will provide the opportunity to improve the capability of the dam in passing 50 percent of the PMF, as opposed to 33 percent with the existing plan. The reason being is that the existing plan provides flood control releases at lower water surface elevation as compared to the current plan (1125 feet vs 1160.4 feet). Ongoing studies to assess spillway capability do not relieve the requirement to have a current water control manual. The report will be changed to indicate that additional studies are not needed prior to revising the water control manual.

Discussion: During the AFB conference call, it was concluded that the reoperation plan has no effect on the dam safety study because the spillway adequacy was evaluated based on the inflow design flood routing with the reservoir stage near spillway crest.

Required Action: The feasibility report will be revised to remove the sentence that states Aadditional studies (for dam safety) are needed prior to revising the Water Control Manual@ and will include a discussion describing that the adoption of the proposed water control manual is independent of the dam safety issue.

Compliance: The report has been revised to indicate that the reoperation plan has no effect on the dam safety study. The sentence that states Aadditional studies (for dam safety) are needed prior to revising the Water Control Manual@ has been deleted from Chapter IV, Section B. Existing Conditions, Dam Safety of the feasibility report and the following sentence has been added AReoperation of Alamo Dam would have no effect on the dam safety study because the spillway adequacy was evaluated based on the inflow design flood routing with the reservoir stage near spillway crest.@ The following sentence was added to chapter V, Section B. Planning Constraints, Spillway Issue: AHowever, because the spillway was evaluated on the inflow design routing with the starting reservoir stage near spillway crest elevation, the proposed reoperation alternatives would have no effect on the dam safety issue@. The following sentence was added to Chapter V, Section E. Analysis of Alternatives, Dam Safety: ATherefore, the adoption of a revised water control manual is independent of this dam safety issue.@

ANALYSIS: This concern is resolved.
C. Proposed Water Management Plan (Appendix D: Table 13), page 33, and page 35, paragraph 2 entitled UNACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVES.

Comment: As noted on page 35, the higher pool level plans of 1140 and 1171.3 performed poorly in meeting objectives. Maintaining pool levels in the 1140 and 1171.3 foot range greatly increases the lake surface area and subsequent annual evaporation amounts, resulting in further reductions of annual water deliveries to the Colorado River. The following items should be discussed and/or determined:

(1) Routings should be performed with the current pool level and the new operating plan as shown on page 5-13, figure 5-1 of the reconnaissance main report. Will the existing spillway pass the PMF with the new operating plan?

(2) Since the higher pool levels of 1140 and 1171.3 were determined to have performed poorly for a number of criteria items, the district should consider reallocating a portion of the existing conservation storage to flood control storage. By lowering the top of the conservation pool from 1171.3 (to as low as 1125), would the existing spillway pass the PMF with the lower starting pool and new operating plan?

District Response: Refer to the response to Comment 1.B.

Discussion: Refer to the discussion for Comment 1.B.

Required Action: Refer to the action required for Comment 1.B.

HQ Evaluation of Issue Resolution: This issue is resolved.

Compliance: The proposed operating plan will have no effect on the evaluation of the hydrologic adequacy of the dam in passing the PMF as explained in the response to item AB. Dam Safety Considerations@ above. Any statement in the report that indicates that the plan will increase the ability of the spillway to pass the design flood from 33 percent to 55 percent of the PMF, will be revised.

ANALYSIS: This concern is resolved. Return to Planning Guidance Page Top of Page

D. Without Project Baseline Storage Conditions.

Comment: Main report, page 3-6. The report shows 608,000 AF storage allocated for flood control, with its storage bottom elevation of 1171.3 feet. In the earlier July 1990 Reconnaissance Report, the comparable chart showed 697,255 AF storage allocated for flood control with its storage bottom elevation of 1160.4 feet. This amounts to a loss of flood control storage of 89,255 AF in the last 6 years. The district should clarify the current basis of storage allocation and control elevations for each authorized purpose.
District Response: The storage table for the 1996 report was recomputed in 1993 based on a sediment analysis conducted after the 1990 report.

Discussion: The storage allocation diagram presented in the 1996 reconnaissance report reflects existing conditions at Alamo Dam and is consistent with the information presented in the 1990 report. The information presented in the 1990 reconnaissance report reflected sediment load conditions projected to prevail at the end of the project=s period of evaluation (net curve). It was agreed that use of the current diagram, existing condition sediment load, was appropriate for formulation of release schedules for fish and wildlife purposes in the feasibility study. The district will determine the ability for the proposal to maintain the environmental outputs in the future.

Required Action: The feasibility report will clearly explain how the current storage allocation curve was developed. The evaluation in the feasibility report needs to note that expected sedimentation in the lake will not preclude the ability to achieve the proposed environmental outputs associated with reoperation of Alamo Dam. The assumptions that will be used in developing release schedules must be clearly established in the PSP, after full coordination between the district and division. This applies specifically to the target elevations that have been established from the authorized allocation of storage.

HQ Evaluation of Issue Resolution: HQUSACE review was not able to determine that this has been addressed in the report but was discussed in CESPL-WB undated memorandum, paragraph 3S provided to HQ on 8 October. This issue is not resolved.

District Response: The dam was authorized to have a storage allocated for flood control of at least 608,000 ac-ft. With the expected sedimentation, the bottom of the flood control pool would have to be set to 1160.4 feet to have this authorized storage space at the end of project life. With current conditions (using the latest storage-elevation table), from an elevation of 1171.3 feet to the spillway crest elevation would yield the required storage of 608,000 ac-ft. In order to ensure the preservation of the flood control storage to at least 608,000 ac-ft throughout the life of the project, the District and the Division have agreed that the report will be revised to designate the bottom of the flood control pool as 1160.4 feet for both existing and proposed plans. Although the plan proposed in the feasibility report was derived in the Bill Williams Study which used 1170.3 feet as the bottom of the flood control pool in the analysis, designating the bottom of the flood pool to 1160.4 feet will not result in any change to the proposed plan because under both designations the release schedule will still be the same. The feasibility report will be revised as indicated and water control manual will be prepared such that 1160.4 feet is designated as the bottom of the flood pool. The storage allocation diagram used as Figure 4-1 in the feasibility report was revised to show storage allocation at the end of project life, and to reflect current storage values at key elevations.

Discussion: The district indicated that the feasibility report will be revised to clearly explain how the current storage allocation curve was developed. The district noted that this issue does not effect formulation of the reoperation alternatives and the adoption of the proposed plan.
Required Action: The draft feasibility report will be revised as explained under ADistrict Response@ above.

Compliance: The report, EIS, and appendices have been modified to indicate that the bottom of the flood control pool is designated at elevation 1160.4 feet and that the end of project life storage allocation represents the without-project condition. Figure 4.1 has been modified as well to show the end of project storage allocation. The information included in ADistrict Response,@ above, was included in Chapter V, Section D. Preliminary Alternatives, BWRCTC Alternative Formulation/Analysis.

ANALYSIS: This concern is resolved.

E. Tunnel Outlet Capacity.

Comment: Page 4-12, paragraph 4.4.2.2 notes that the minimum elevation at which the outlet works can pass 7,000 cfs is elevation 1148.4 feet. Page 5-13, figure 5-1 suggests that 7,000 cfs can be released at an elevation as low as 1132 feet. The district should provide clarification at the RRC as to the ability to release the 7,000 cfs at the lower elevation or correct the inconsistency in the report.

District Response: Although enough head to force 7,000 cfs is not obtained until reaching 1148.4 feet, the range described in figure 5-1 is 1,000-7,000 cfs between elevations 1125 ft and 1132 ft is for descriptive purposes. A detailed table could be provided to describe the exact discharge obtainable at each foot increment between 1125 ft and 1132 ft.

Discussion: The district explained that figure 5.1 was an approximate graphical display of the proposed reoperation. The actual gate rating curve was used in the HEC-5 model to evaluate routing effects downstream.

Required Action: The feasibility report will clearly explain the tunnel outlet capacity and provide a table, as indicated in the response, for clarification.

HQ Evaluation of Issue Resolution: HQUSACE review was not able to determine that this has been addressed. This issue is not resolved.

District Response: A detailed table will be provided in the draft feasibility report for public review to describe the exact discharge obtainable at increments between 1125 ft and 1132 ft.

Discussion: The concern is resolved.

Required Action: The draft feasibility report will include a detailed table describing the exact discharge obtainable at one foot increments between elevation 1125 feet and 1132 feet.

Compliance: With the maximum gate opening requirement (80 percent of maximum opening) the maximum release that can be let out of the project between elevations 1125 feet and 1132 feet is less than 7,000 cfs. The difference in discharge between each foot of increment of elevation, however, is very small. Discharge will range between 6,472 cfs at el. 1125 feet to 6,621 cfs at el. 1132 ft. A release of 7,000 cfs can first be made at elevation 1148.4 feet. A table has been added to Chapter V, Section D. Preliminary Alternatives, 1,125 feet ABWRCTC Optimal@ Plan, showing the discharges for each foot increase in elevation.

ANALYSIS: This concern is resolved.

F. Geotechnical Investigations.

Comment: Subaccount 10, page B15, of the PSP, states that the project's affects on "benching" will be analyzed in feasibility. The report does not appear to discuss "benching" as an existing problem and therefore there is no information as the possible impact on the project should rate of benching increase under with-project conditions. The district should address this concern at the RRC and evaluate alternatives to address any problems in feasibility study.

District Response: Increased storage pool levels would increase the frequency of the waves of sufficient size and could potentially cause benching. In addition at higher pool levels the fetch gets longer therefore the size of the waves increase.

Discussion: After discussion between the district and division representatives it was determined that if there is a benching problem at Alamo Lake, it relates to the existing operation of Alamo Dam. Therefore, evaluation of benching concerns should not be included in the evaluation for reoperation of the dam for fish and wildlife outputs. If any benching problem is identified, it will be pursued under the O&M program.

Required Action: The PSP will be revised to eliminate the need for this effort.

HQ Evaluation of Issue Resolution: This issue is resolved.

Compliance: No further action is required.

ANALYSIS: This concern is resolved.

G. Water Rights.

Comment: The reconnaissance report raises a number of water rights issues related to the proposed project which must be clarified in order to establish that the recommended plan is implementable. First, the existing storage for water conservation is not under contract. However, the report states on page 18 that potential users have applied to the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) for rights to the unallocated water. ER 1105-2-100, paragraph 4-30.a.(5) stipulates that the Corps will look to the responsible State agency to resolve conflicts among water users. The ADWR January 31, 1995 letter notes that applications for Bill Williams River water were under consideration. The status and potential resolution of these applications needs to be clarified. Second, ER 1105-2-100, paragraph 7-45 requires the non- Federal sponsor to provide water rights for stored or released water. The non-Federal sponsor=s readiness to provide these water rights needs to be addressed. Third, the report states on page 18, paragraph 4-1 that the city of Scottsdale recently purchased water rights associated with property along the Bill Williams River. However, no mention is made of the potential for the proposed project to impact these (or any other) downstream water rights or for existing downstream water rights to impact the expected project benefits. The district and the sponsor should be prepared to discuss these three issues at the RRC.

District Response: Several water rights applications are still under consideration by the ADWR. Many of these applications have been contested and are awaiting resolution. None of the applications has been denied; however, several applications are several years old. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service=s instream flow water rights application is close to being approved by the ADWR. The other contested applicants are Bureau of Land Management, Arizona Game & Fish Department, and City of Scottsdale. The potential local sponsor currently owns the recreation pool rights and is aware of the requirements. As stated above they are seeking additional water rights.

There would be no impact to existing downstream water rights. More water would be released into the system, which would not detract from their right. Downstream water rights holders would not be allowed to pump or use the additional water because, by law, they have rights to an established amount, which are presently being satisfied. Since the water rights holders needs are being satisfied and they do not have a right to any more water, they would not impact the project. There is no more land available below the dam with which to attach a water right. Even if there were, the water right application would be junior to all other applications or rights on the river. As for the instream flow right application by the Service, the project plan would almost mirror the instream flow request and therefore be satisfied. There would be no need to exercise the right.

Discussion: Mr. William Werner of the Arizona Department of Game and Fish (ADGF) provided a history of the water rights issues at Alamo Dam. The ADGF has applied for additional water rights which would allow for implementation of the proposed reoperation for fish and wildlife. The ADGF recognizes that as sponsor for the proposed reoperation, it will be responsible for obtaining the necessary water rights. The State of Arizona recognizes the beneficial use of the water for riparian habitat purposes. No Native American water right issues have been expressed or identified. It is believed that the feasibility study could help expedite the approval of the water rights application.

Required Action: The feasibility study will clearly document the status of ADGF=s ongoing water rights acquisition. The district will ensure that the sponsor is fully aware of their requirements to acquire the necessary water rights as part of the proposed reoperation.

HQ Evaluation of Issue Resolution: Page IX-1 says that the sponsor shall acquire all necessary water rights for the conservation pool at Alamo Dam. Without explicitly stating so, it appears that water rights issues remain unresolved. This issue is not resolved.

District Response: The feasibility report will update the current status of the ADGF=s ongoing water rights acquisition. The draft report will also clearly establish the sponsor=s responsibility to acquire the water rights. The agencies are now working together so that the sponsor will be able to obtain the water rights.

Discussion: Mr. Bill Werner of the ADGF indicated that ADGF is working with other State resource agencies to ensure water rights concerns are resolved collectively within the State resource agencies.

Required Action: The draft feasibility report will include a full discussion of the provision of water rights necessary to implement the project. Such discussion must include a description of the quantity of water necessary; the purpose(s) for which the water will be applied; the process for obtaining such rights under state law; the anticipated costs and schedule therefor; identification of issues that may inhibit timely obtaining of such rights; the non-Federal sponsor=s obligation to provide such rights in a timely fashion; and that all costs attendant to provision of such water rights will be associated costs of the project to be borne 100 percent by the non- Federal sponsor and not shared with the Government.

Compliance: The following discussion has been added to Chapter VI of the main report:

Arizona Game and Fish currently holds water rights for the recreation pool, for recreation and wildlife, at Alamo Lake (see Arizona Certificate of Water Right CWR 3525 and CWR 33-29303 totaling 25,000 ac-ft.). Game and Fish and Arizona State Parks have a joint application pending, dated October 24, 1989, for recreation and wildlife, for the remainder of the water conservation pool. The requested amount is described as follows:

"The amount necessary for the first filling (321,489 AF), which will be accomplished during periods of flood flow of the Bill Williams River; and thereafter that amount necessary for the maintenance and infrequent flushing of a 6,350 acre lake."

The following discussion has been added to Chapter V, Section E. Analysis of Alternatives, Water Rights, of the main report:

Maintenance of the lake at elevation 1125, as identified in the proposed action, would require a water right for a total of 160,456 ac-ft, based on the revised area-capacity table based on present conditions, developed by the Los Angeles District Hydrology and Hydraulics Branch (included in Vol. II of the AProposed Water Management Plan For Alamo Lake and the Bill Williams River@).
At a minimum, Arizona Game and Fish would be responsible for obtaining rights to an additional 135,546 ac-ft of water to supplement existing rights up to elevation 1125 ft. The pending joint application exceeds the amount needed to hold water at 1125 ft. The process to resolve the outstanding water right application at Alamo Lake includes: applicant review of existing application for consideration of amendment of requested amount; applicant attempts to resolves protests with the Bureau of Land Management, City of Scottsdale, and Central Arizona Water Conservation District. If protests cannot be resolved with protestants directly, a hearing would be requested. A hearing would then be held within 60 days of the request pursuant to state law to resolve the matter. Costs to the applicant for obtaining needed water rights are limited to application fees, if needed, of $25.

In regard to resolution of protests, the Bureau of Land Management has been an active participant in the Bill Williams River Corridor Technical Committee following submission of their protest of the Game and Fish/Arizona State Parks joint application. The Bureau of Land Management submitted a letter to Game and Fish, dated December 22, 1994, which states:

AThe Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has participated in the development of water management recommendations for the Bill Williams River. We have reviewed the final report of the Bill Williams River Technical Committee, >Proposed Water Management Plan for Alamo Lake and the Bill Williams River.= BLM fully supports this proposed plan as the best alternative for meeting our management goals for the Bill Williams River riparian corridor.@

Game and Fish will meet with the Bureau of Land Management and other protestants to attempt resolution of protests. This meeting will be held before the completion of the final Feasibility Report and the documentation will be included in that report.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has a pending application for an instream flow water right, based on and in support of the AProposed Water Management Plan for Alamo Lake and the Bill Williams River@, for the Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge. The Fish and Wildlife Service has completed the required monitoring of stream flow in support of their application and completion of the process is pending. The Bureau of Land Management has a pending application for an instream flow water right for BLM lands between Alamo Dam and the Bill Williams National Wildlife Refuge.

The following item is included in Chapter VII, Section F. Non-Federal Responsibilities:

(2) The non-Federal sponsor shall acquire all necessary water rights to use the designated Water Conservation Pool at Alamo Dam for threatened and endangered species, fish and wildlife, riparian habitat, and recreation purposes.

ANALYSIS: Revising the report to include an integrated schedule showing estimated dates that the sponsor could provide necessary water rights and estimates of when the project could be implemented will resolve this issue.
H. Downstream Capture of Water. Return to Planning Guidance Page Top of Page

Comment: The restoration benefits in the downstream area depend on releases from the dam supporting habitat within the 37 mile long Bill Williams River corridor below the dam. If the additional releases are lost to the riparian zone due to additional groundwater pumping, infiltration, or evaporation, the habitat benefits will not be realized. Page 29 of the technical committee report indicates releases from Alamo Dam below about 300 cfs will be lost to the riparian zone by the time they reach Planet Ranch. However, the proposed releases from the dam would be on the order of 25-50 cfs except for a spring and fall release of up to 7,000 cfs. It is unclear from the report how riparian habitat benefits accrue below Planet Ranch. The district should describe the benefits to the lower reach of the Bill Williams River at the RRC.

District Response: When the aquifer under Planet Ranch is recharged and full (as in the 1993 flood event), only a small amount of water (as little as 10 cfs) entering the ranch at the east end is needed to maintain the aquifer, assuming that no pumping is taking place. With or without the dam, the river flows underground into the aquifer and resurfaces at the west end of Planet Ranch at the refuge boundary. In order for water to flow over the surface of the Planet Ranch aquifer, approximately 300 cfs would need to be released. However, since surface flows are not necessary for water to be discharged at the downstream end of Planet Ranch, we are not requesting that surface water be present at the Planet Ranch aquifer. If pumping were to continue at Planet Ranch, 10 cfs would not be enough to overcome to the pumping loss, nor is it enough to maintain the riparian habitat below the reach. Therefore, we have requested between 10 and 50 cfs depending upon the time of the year and lake elevation. This amount reflects the assumption that pumping will continue at Planet Ranch. The amount requested would be sufficient to maintain the habitat below Planet Ranch.

Discussion: Surface water and groundwater water rights are currently handled separately in the State of Arizona. Downstream capture will not increase as a result in the change in the project operation. The modeling assumed a situation of maximum groundwater utilization at Planet Ranch, in determining reoperation parameters.

Required Action: The feasibility report will include the information contained in the response and discussion.

HQ Evaluation of Issue Resolution: This issue is resolved.

Compliance: Chapter V, Section C. Optimization Criteria, of the feasibility report has been changed to include the information contained in the response and discussion. The following text has been added to page V-9:

Base flows would minimally support existing riparian vegetation, and would consist of flows in the range of 10-50 cfs. The Bill Williams River flows underground into the aquifer at Planet Ranch and resurfaces at the west end of Planet Ranch at the refuge boundary. In order for water to flow over the surface of the Planet Ranch aquifer, approximately 300 cfs would need to be released. However, since surface flows are not necessary for water to be discharged at the downstream end of Planet Ranch, flows between 10 and 50 cfs depending upon the time of the year and lake elevation are all that is needed to maintain adequate flow below Planet Ranch. This amount would be sufficient to maintain the habitat below Planet Ranch with the assumption that pumping will continue at Planet Ranch.

ANALYSIS: This concern is resolved.

I. Impacts within the Existing Reservoir.

Comment: The proposed project is expected to provide ecosystem restoration benefits to the downstream area and provide additional forage area for bald eagles within the expanded pool. The report documents the expected habitat benefits in the downstream Bill Williams River; however, there is no assessment of the inundation impacts in the upper reservoir caused by the proposed fluctuating pool. Therefore, the net with-project benefits over the without project conditions are incomplete. The district must discuss the impacts to the habitat within the fluctuating pool levels at the RRC.

District Response: Inundation impacts in the upper reservoir caused by the proposed fluctuating pool were assumed to be negligible during the assessment of with-project benefits. Because non-native vegetation, particularly salt cedar, affords minimal wildlife value, the recommended plan proposes to avoid further inundation of reservoir areas currently invaded by non-native vegetation (e.g., salt cedar), which would result in the spread of salt cedar. With-project benefits assume reservoir conditions relating to vegetation will not worsen, nor will they increase significantly. The most significant environmental benefits occur in the downstream area.

Discussion: Mr. Bill Werner provided a discussion of the analyses that took place as part of the Bill Williams Task Force effort. It was determined by the task force that based upon soil, topography and available moisture, that the site has limited potential for significant habitat value. The judgement of all participating technical experts at the RRC was that there would be little negative impact and possible positive impacts, neither of which would be deemed significant. The district will address these impacts in a qualitative fashion.

Required Action: The feasibility report will address impacts of the reoperation proposal on upstream habitat in a qualitative manner. Any adverse impacts must be accounted for in the justification of the proposed plan.

HQ Evaluation of Issue Resolution: This issue is resolved.

Compliance: The feasibility report has been revised to include information in the above discussion. The following section is currently found in Chapter V, Section E Analysis of Alternatives, Biological Resources : AThere are no significant impacts from inundation of existing habitat around Alamo Lake under the 1,125 feet plan. The area that would be inundated consists primarily of non-native vegetation, such as salt cedar, that affords minimal habitat value. Following previous flood events that resulted in high lake levels much of the lake's perimeter vegetation was killed and replaced with salt cedar. The soils surrounding Alamo Lake are typically coarse and lack the elements to retain enough moisture to support salt cedar once the lake levels recede. However, a fringe of salt cedar exists near the typical water surface, adjoined by dead salt cedar on higher sites.@

ANALYSIS: This concern is resolved.

J. Cultural Resources.

Comment: The reconnaissance report states on page 30 that a relatively large area must be surveyed for cultural resources. In addition to the inundation area within the pool, cultural resources investigation may be required in the downstream areas which are expected to erode as a result of the change in project operation. If the appropriate impact area has not been defined, the proposed feasibility study will not be in compliance with ER 1105-2-100, chapter 7, section VII. The district should review the cultural resources work proposed for the feasibility study and discuss the need for downstream surveys at the RRC.

District Response: No archeological survey is required downstream from the dam because there will be no change in the maximum water release rates from the dam. The downstream footprint is not projected to deviate from without project conditions. Thus there are no anticipated adverse effects associated with the downstream project element.

Discussion: In its pre-project condition this downstream reach of the Bill Williams River was subject to river flows in excess of 80,000 cfs. Considering the magnitude of these flows, the likelihood that cultural resources exist is low in the highly alluvial sediment. It was agreed by the meeting participants that no additional cultural resources investigations would be required; however, SHPO will be coordinated with.

Required Action: The feasibility study will contain documentation of coordination with SHPO.

HQ Evaluation of Issue Resolution: The report and EIS address cultural resources. The district will continue coordination as appropriate during public review of the report. This issue is resolved.

Compliance: The following text has been added to Chapter V, Section E Analysis of Alternatives, Cultural Resources, of the main report:

A letter was sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) requesting concurrence with the determination that the reoperation alternative would not affect cultural resources listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. This letter is included in Appendix E of the EIS. Upon receipt of a letter from SHPO concurring with this determination, the change in operation project as planned will be in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CDR 800).

ANALYSIS: This concern is resolved.

K. Cost Impacts.

Comment: The report does not address or discuss potential operational changes and/or increased costs resulting from of any higher water surface elevation established behind Alamo Dam. The original gate system was designed for a pool elevation of 1070. It is unclear whether higher pool elevations will have any incrementally higher operational costs.

District Response: To the extent that additional environmental documentation would NOT be required to address any other operational activities, no cost increases would occur with maintaining a higher pool. The periodic draw-down to elevation 1100 for gate inspection would be addressed in the environmental documentation prepared for NEPA compliance. Personnel costs would not change and there would be no increased dam maintenance required by keeping an additional 55+/- feet of water behind the dam.

Discussion: The bulkhead gate at Alamo Dam was modified in the late 1980's to permit operation at 1100 ft. The district has determined that there would be no increase in O&M costs for the existing project with the proposed reoperation. There would be no additional costs associated with downstream monitoring since impacts will be extrapolated from current monitoring conducted by the USFWS at the Bill Williams National Wildlife Refuge. There is, also, no impact on the current study of water quality at Alamo Dam.

Required Action: The feasibility report will clearly document why no addition O&M costs are expected to accrue at Alamo Dam as a result of the proposed reoperation.

HQ Evaluation of Issue Resolution: The report states that there will not be an increase in O&M with the revised release schedule. This issue is resolved.

Compliance: The feasibility report has been revised to include information in the above discussion in Chapter V, Section E. Analysis of Alternatives. The following text has been added:

There are no anticipated increases in operations and maintenance costs associated with any of the alternative plans. The existing bulkhead gate was modified in the late 1980's to permit operations at 1,100 feet. It has been determined that the existing facilities would be more than adequate to accommodate a target lake elevation up to 1,125 feet. Personnel costs would not change and there would be no increased dam maintenance required if the water level behind the dam were to change. There would be no additional costs associated with downstream monitoring or water quality investigations since impacts would be extrapolated from monitoring currently taking place.

ANALYSIS: This concern is resolved.

2. Alternative Formulation Briefing Package.

A. Dam Safety Correction.

Comment: The district has assumed A... that (the) spillway deficiencies will be corrected.@ (See page V-5 at bottom of first paragraph.) Checking with the dam safety coordinator in headquarters, Charles Pearre in CECW-EP at 202-761-4531, indicates that the dam safety report is not finished nor money programmed for the correction thru FY 2001. In the feasibility report this quoted statement needs further clarification or qualification. In addition, the feasibility report should discuss the consequences to the proposed plan if the dam safety correction is not made or not made in a timely manner.

District Response: As indicated in the report, the spillway and potential deficiencies do not affect the manner in which the reservoir is operated. As indicated in the response to Comment 1.B., the proposed reoperation increases the portion of the PMF that may pass through the spillway from about 33% to about 50%. The statement in the report will be qualified to indicate that if spillway deficiencies are not corrected, then the reoperation would still be implemented.

Required Action: The statement in the report will be revised as indicated in the discussion.

Compliance: See comment 1.B. Adoption of the proposed water control plan is independent of the dam safety issue. There are no consequences to the proposed plan if the dam safety correction is not made, as stated in the comment. The sentences that indicate that the spillway deficiencies will be corrected have been deleted in the report. The following sentence has been added to Chapter IV, Section B. Existing Conditions, Dam Safety: AReoperation of Alamo Dam would have no effect on dam safety because the spillway adequacy was evaluated based on the inflow design flood routing with the reservoir stage near spillway crest.@

ANALYSIS: This concern is resolved.

B. Pool Drawdown Rates and Embankment Stability.

Comment: The proposed plan involves changes in the pool operation with possibly faster pool drawdowns at higher elevations. Any potential for embankment stability problems should be clarified in accordance with procedures in EM 1110-2-1902 in paragraph 11.B.

District Response: Concur. Bank stability will be clarified in the Feasibility report. The increases in the releases do not necessarily result in increases in drawdown since the volume of water per foot of elevation is greater at the higher elevations. This will be assessed in the draft report.

Discussion: Concern is resolved.

Required Action: The draft report will be revised to include an assessment of the effects drawdown rates have on embankment stability. Any potential problems will be clarified in accordance with procedures contained in EM 1110-2-1902.

Compliance: The proposed alternatives will have no impacts on embankment stability, as described below. A section entitled AEmbankment Stability@ has been added to Chapter V, Section B. Planning Constraints. This section reads as follows:

Changes in pool operation and drawdown rates could create a potential for embankment stability problems. An analysis of rapid drawdown for the upstream slope was performed using the as-built design parameters and the requirements of EM 1110-2-1902. An average drawdown rate of 6 feet a day was used to estimate the seepage line from both the maximum water surface elevation (1259.6 ft) and the spillway crest elevation (1235 ft) to elevation 1125 ft. The factor of safety for both conditions is 1.2, exceeding the minimum required for drawdown for maximum water surface and meeting the minimum required for drawdown from spillway crest.

The drawdown rate below elevation 1150 ft would be impacted by sediment storage. In the GDM the drawdown rate between elevation 1150 ft was below 6 feet a day without sediment storage. Sediment storage below elevation 1150 ft will significantly impact the drawdown rate. Below elevation 1150 ft operation should be based on not exceeding the 6 feet a day drawdown rate.

In addition, the following sentence has been added to the description of the 1125 feet plan in Chapter V, Section D. Preliminary Alternatives, 1,125 feet ABWRCTC Optimal@ Plan: ATo assure bank stability, drawdown should not exceed six feet per day when the water surface is below 1150 feet. Given the above release schedule, and assuming zero inflow, it was determined that the maximum possible drawdown was less than four feet per day. Therefore, this alternative would have no impacts to bank stability. @

ANALYSIS: This concern is resolved.

C. Revision of the Water Control Manual. Return to Planning Guidance Page

Comment: Page VII-4 in paragraph (6) and (8) notes the water control manual will be revised. The feasibility report should discuss the public hearings to be involved in the revision process in accordance with ER 1110-2-240 in paragraph 7.b.0

District Response: As established in the RGM, the NEPA documentation is to be of adequate scope to support the required water control manual. The NEPA process, that is underway, includes the opportunities for public involvement and information that are required by the regulation to appraise the general public of the plan for water control. This approach is similar to that used for the reoperation at Prado. In accordance with ER 1110-2-240, the water control manual will be made available for examination by the general public upon request at the Los Angeles District Office.

Discussion: The district believes the public involvement initiatives underway meet the requirements or ER 1110-2-240. However, the district will review the requirements of the ER to ensure that public involvement activities either underway or planned meet the requirements established for water control manuals.

Required Action: As indicated in the discussion.

Compliance: The report has been revised to indicate that a public meeting for the water control plan and manual is required before approval. The following section has been added to Chapter VII, Section H. Procedures for Implementation:

Upon approval of the feasibility report, the water control manual will be prepared. The schedule of revision will be as follows (month indicate time after approval of feasibility report):

- 1^st - 6^th month: Prepare manual incorporating proposed plan
- 6^th - 8^th month: In-house review
- 8^th -9^th month: Incorporate comments and send for public review
- 9^th -10^th month: Incorporate review comments and send to SPD for Review.
- 10^th- 11^th month: SPD Review period
- 11^th -12^th month: Public meeting, incorporate comments and final approval
ANALYSIS: This concern is resolved.

D. Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement, and Rehabilitation (OMRR&R). Top of Page

(1) Monitoring Costs.

Comment: Monitoring programs are often a feature identified in the OMRR&R of environmental enhancements efforts in accordance with EC 1105-2-210 for all aspects of paragraph 21 in cited guidance. There is no apparent discussion of this effort for the proposed plan. The feasibility report should clarify this concern and identify any needed resources.

District Response: There currently is a number of Federal, State, and Universities that are monitoring the Bill Williams due to its ecological significance to the Colorado River mainstem. These current efforts are adequate to determine the success of the proposed reoperation. The feasibility report will summarize the current monitoring efforts and there will be no incremental monitoring costs.

Discussion: Mr. Bill Werner of the ADGF provided a brief summary of 14 ongoing monitoring efforts that could be used at no cost to monitor the proposed restoration project. The district indicated the draft feasibility report will include summary information on each of the monitoring activities identified by Mr. Werner.

Required Action: The draft feasibility report will be revised to include summary information on ongoing monitoring efforts that could be used to monitor the proposed restoration project at no additional cost.

Compliance: The following information has been added to the main report in Chapter IV, Section B. Existing Conditions, Monitoring:

The following items describe the ongoing monitoring activities at Alamo Lake and along the Bill Williams River:

$bald eagle nest watch (annual and ongoing, coordinated by Arizona Game and Fish Department [AGFD])
$Alamo Lake fish surveys by electro-fishing and netting for species composition and age class distribution (annual and ongoing by AGFD)
$creel census (monthly by AGFD)
$priority pollutant sampling by AGFD/ADEQ/EPA
$Alamo Lake water quality monitoring by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Parker Fisheries Resource Office for the Corps of Engineers
$visitation records at Alamo State Park (ongoing by Arizona State Parks)
$Riparian area condition evaluations (RACEs) by Bureau of Land Management. Cross section transects set up on key areas on BLM land below Alamo Dam, to be re-evaluated periodically.
$Monitoring wells to evaluate adequacy of dam releases in maintaining the floodplain aquifer on the Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge (BWRNWR). Monitored by FWS during dry periods annually.
$stream gage maintained on BWRNWR by FWS, used in conjunction with data from Alamo gage to evaluate adequacy of releases and to support application for instream flow water rights
$Monitoring of geomorphic changes at cross sections and monitoring of associated vegetation changes by Pat Shafroth of USGS/NBS for FWS BWRNWR.
$Evaluation of geomorphic changes by analysis of a time sequence of aerial photography pre and post dam. Work by Pat Shafroth, USGS/NBS, and Kyle House, Arizona Geological Survey, through a grant from Arizona Water Protection Fund.
$visitation information by FWS for BWRNWR
$annual southwestern willow flycatcher surveys performed by:
- AGFD at and above Alamo Lake
- FWS at BWRNWR
- in 1998 Bureau of Reclamation did an intense survey
$annual breeding bird surveys, multiple agencies coordinated by AGFD

ANALYSIS: This concern is resolved.

(2) Safety.

Comment: The feasibility report needs to clarify any changes for periodic inspections, project instrumentation and dam safety assurance program activities required by ER 1110-2-100 and ER 1110-2-1155 resulting from the proposed plan. Costs to undertake any increased efforts or instrumentation for these activities need to be identified in the report.

District Response: The proposed plan allows for safety inspections and does not increase the need for existing inspection; thus, there is no additional cost.

Discussion: Concern is resolved.

Required Action: The draft report will clarify that the proposed plan allows for safety inspections and does not increase the need for existing inspection; thus, there is no additional cost

Compliance: There are no expected changes in the periodic inspections, project instrumentation and dam safety assurance program activities as implied. The report has been changed to indicate this. See Comment 1.K.
ANALYSIS: This concern is resolved.

E. General Engineering. The following concerns are persistent corporate problems found during policy reviews of many projects. These concerns should be addressed in the studies and documented in the forthcoming decision document for this project.

(1) Next Report.

Comment: The report should clearly state the next reporting after the decision document for this project - a DM or plans & specs. If the district proposes plans & specs next, then the decision document should contain full documentation of the completed design.

District Response: The next reporting for this document is the water control manual as stated on page VII-4. This will be further clarified in the draft report.

Discussion: Concern is resolved.

Required Action: The draft report will clarify that the next reporting for this effort will be the water control manual.

Compliance: This has been further clarified in Chapter VII, Section H. Procedures for Implementation of the main report.

ANALYSIS: This concern is resolved.

(2) Value Engineering.

Comment: For all projects costing in excess of $2,000,000, a value engineering study shall be performed. These studies can be performed at any stage of the project development. Not undertaking a value engineering study must be approved by the Division Commander and a copy provided to CEMP-EV. Reference paragraph 11d, ER 1110-2-1150, and enclosure 3 to CEMP- EV/CECW-E memorandum, subject: FY 96 Civil Works Program Value Engineering (VE) Program, dated 8 March 1996. The district is encouraged to use this process as often and as soon as possible and provide the status of value engineering studies in the feasibility report.

District Response: The implementation of the proposed plan requires no additional expenditure of federal monies beyond the preparation of the water control manual. Thus, no Value Engineering study is proposed.

Discussion: Concern is resolved.

Required Action: No further action is required.

Compliance: No further action is required.

ANALYSIS: This concern is resolved.

(3) Independent Technical Review (ITR).

Comment: Both the draft and final feasibility report should include a ITR certification with full documentation of the specific concerns raised in the ITR and the resolution of the concerns. Reference paragraph 5a, EC 11652-203, dated
15 October 1996.

RESPONSE: The draft and final feasibility report will have ITR certification with full documentation.

Discussion: Concern is resolved.

Required Action: The district will provide ITR certification and documentation with the draft and final reports.

Compliance: ITR certification and documentation will be included with the draft and final reports.

ANALYSIS: Submitting the certification of legal and technical review with the final report will resolve this concern.

F. Budgets.

Comment: The AFB report indicates the proposed plan does not require additional funding for the project. However, if this no-extra-funding scenario should change, the increased funding will come from the local sponsor for the additional OMRR&R costs. With this scenario, the district should strive to eliminate future budgeting for these items with O&M, General funds since there is a Corps corporate goal to contain increases in the O&M budget. If this does occur, the review team suggests that an arrangement be made with the local sponsor to either a) perform all of the OMRR&R for the proposed plan, b) provide Acontributed funds@ in advance for the Corps to perform the OMRR&R or c) a combination of both. For the second arrangement, see ER 1165- 2-30 and Army General Counsel memorandum dated July 3, 1996, subject: Authority to Implement and Accept Contributions Towards Work on Hydropower Facilities. Although the memorandum may not directly apply, the background is useful for this situation for the general applicability of 33 U.S.C paragraph 701(h). Any of these arrangements will help contain growth of the O&M budget, keep OMRR&R funding with the local sponsor, and eliminate money pass through from the sponsor through the Corps to the Federal Treasury. But, this arrangement would not eliminate Corps oversight for project function, safety or flood control responsibilities. Since this is somewhat novel, suggest the final feasibility report fully discuss all aspects of implementing the concept.

District Response: As indicated in the response to Comment 1.k., no increases in O&M costs are expected as a result of the reoperation. Even if this scenario were to change, the administrative costs involved in trying to assess and document any change would outweigh any cost impacts. This being the case, the investigation of alternative funding arrangements is not required.

Discussion: Concern is resolved.

Required Action: No further action is required.

Compliance: No further action is required.

ANALYSIS: This concern is resolved.

G. Report Recommendations.

Comment: The report, on pages VII-3 and VII-4, describes steps for project implementation that include obtaining congressional authorization. The RGM noted that WRDA 96 provided sufficient authorization to reoperate the existing Alamo Dam project to provide fish and wildlife benefits both upstream and downstream of the dam. The RGM also instructed the district that the recommendation for the report would be for reoperation, not reallocation of storage, staying within the WRDA 96 authorization. Therefore, the description of plan implementation steps that include seeking congressional authorization is incorrect and should be revised to reflect that congressional authorization is not needed. The Plan Formulation Review Comments show that the district is aware of this error but has submitted the report without revised pages. Please revise the report as appropriate.

District Response: The report is being revised to indicate that the recommendation would be for reoperation that is within the WRDA 96 authorization, and that congressional authorization is not required.

Discussion: Processing of the final report at Headquarters was discussed. It was explained the final report would undergo policy compliance assessment. The report would not need to undergo the 30 day state and agency review. Upon completion of the policy compliance assessment, the Headquarters recommendation on the project would be coordinated with ASA(CW) for review and approval. The project would be authorized upon ASA(CW) approval.

Required Action: The report will be revised to indicate that the recommendation would be for modification to the operation of Alamo Dam and Lake that is within the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 authorization, and that additional congressional authorization is not required.

Compliance: The feasibility report has been revised to include information in the above discussion in Chapter VII, Section H. Procedures for Implementation and in Chapter IX.

ANALYSIS: This issue will be resolved with the removal of the reference to State and Agency review in paragraph H(2), page VII-4.

H. Technical Review. Return to Planning Guidance Page

Comment: The documentation of technical review makes reference to unresolved comments made by the review team. However, much of the discussions revolve around information contained in technical appendices not provided with the AFB material. As such, fully understanding the concerns and the discussions is difficult. The district needs to better lay out the issues which surfaced during the district=s technical review process.

District Response: The submittal of the draft and final reports will include the technical appendices which will provide a basis for discussions presented in the technical review documentation. The two unresolved issues that were identified during the technical review process were documented in the memorandum and will be provided for and discussed at the AFB.

Discussion: The two unresolved issues pertained to monitoring of the project and the HEP analysis. The monitoring issue was resolved, see comment 2D. Regarding the HEP issue, the district determined that their concern would not effect the decision on the proposed project and will be revising their documentation to indicate resolution of the issue.

Required Action: The ITR submitted with the draft report will discuss how these issues were resolved.

Compliance: The ITR has been modified to include resolutions to all outstanding issues. This will be submitted with the draft report.

ANALYSIS: This concern is resolved.

I. Real Estate - Water Rights.

Comment: Notwithstanding that the table of contents in this report indicates that a real estate appendix has been prepared, the real estate appendix only contains the same letter submitted with the reconnaissance report. The main report simply indicates that no lands easements, rights-of- way, nor relocations will be required to implement the selected plan since no construction will occur. See paragraph VII.C on page VII-I. However, in other report locations significant discussion is devoted to the issue of water rights and the summary of the non-Federal responsibilities contained on page VII-2 charges the non-Federal sponsor with the responsibility of acquiring all necessary water rights to implement the proposed reoperation. Since the issue of water rights in this area has historically been contentious and litigious, we do not believe that this report adequately addresses the critical nature of this issue as it relates to availability of sufficient water rights, implementability of a plan dependent on significant additional rights, and the significant costs and time requirements that may attach to acquisition of such rights. In addition, this report fails to address whether water rights to be provided by the non-Federal sponsor are in the nature of LERRD (for which credit would be afforded for value) or are an associated cost of the project to be borne 100 percent by the sponsor outside of total project costs associated cost of the project to be borne 100 percent by the sponsor outside of total project costs. The district must provide a more thorough discussion and description on water rights issues for HQUSACE review before approval is given to release future draft reports for public review and comment. Top of Page

District Response: The Real Estate appendix has been revised to include a Real Estate Plan. As agreed at the RRC, associated costs incurred by the sponsor (water rights) will be the responsibility of the sponsor. As such, the water rights will be borne 100 percent by the local sponsor and not subject to cost-sharing. The feasibility report will be revised to reflect this.

Discussion: It was agreed that the report will need to discuss the implementation schedule for resolving water rights and preparation of the MOA. The schedule should demonstrate that the Corps and the non-Federal sponsor would be working in concert to implement the proposed reoperation in an efficient manner.

Required Action: See Action item 1.G.

Compliance: See Action Item 1.G.

ANALYSIS: The report indicates that a meeting to attempt to resolve protests of the Sponsor=s water rights application will be held prior to completion of the report (page V-34). The feasibility report should be revised to address resolution of the protests.

J. Real Estate - Lease Issues.

Comment: The report notes that there are lease and license agreements with the Arizona Department of Game and Fish and the Department of Parks. The real estate plan must specifically address the impact of the proposed plan on the existing lease and license agreements and specifically address impacts on any existing facilities (in addition to information provided on boat ramps) in the Real Estate Plan.

District Response: Will revise REP to address license agreements.

Discussion: Issue is resolved.
Required Action: The REP will be revised to fully identify and address impacts of the proposed plan on the existing lease and license agreements and existing facilities.

Compliance: There is no impact of the re-operation plan on the Lease and License agreements with Game and Fish or the Department of Parks. The Game and Fish agency is the sponsor of the re-operation of the Dam and therefore has no problem with the plan. Any impact of existing facilities has already been mitigated by the agency. This information will be included in the REP.

ANALYSIS: The concern with lease issues are resolved. Please note that the apparent transcription error contained in paragraph 15 of the Real Estate Plan regarding LERRD costs should be corrected. (Our understanding from previous meetings is that there are no LERRD costs associated with the recommended plan.)

3. Draft Feasibility Report.

A. Project Implementation

(1) Certification of Legal Review.

Comment: The report was submitted without certification of legal review by the Los Angeles District Office of Counsel. Pursuant to the guidance provided by EC 1165-2-203 and the Chief Counsel=s memo of 26 April 1996, CCC-J cannot review a decision document until it receives notice that the document has been certified as legally sufficient by the District Office of Counsel. Please provide this certification when the full report is next submitted for review by HQUSACE.

Required Action: The district will provide a certification of legal review with the final feasibility report submittal package.

(2) Implementation Agreement(s).

Comment: The report indicates that two agreements will be required to implement reoperation: first, an agreement between the Government and the non-Federal sponsor, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, that is reported to require many local cooperation requirements that are typical for cost shared projects proposed for construction. The second agreement reported to be required is an MOA Aamong the cooperating agencies, including the non-Federal sponsor, that serves to implement the project=s reoperation@ and include A[agreement on the disposition of water rights@. See sections F and G on pages VII-2 through 4. The need for two agreements to implement reoperation, and for many of the local cooperation items listed for this reoperation effort is not clear. Prior to completing the final report, the district must submit the draft document(s) for project implementation to CECW-AR for review. District experience with projects with similar project components such as Hansen Dam (reoperation) and Rio Salad (associated costs) may be helpful in preparing draft document(s). Please include certification of legal review.
Required Action: The district envisions only one implementation document, the MOA. Pursuant to previous guidance provided in the reconnaissance guidance memorandum and alternative briefing guidance memorandum the district will submit the draft MOA with the final feasibility report. A certification of legal review will be provided for the draft MOA.

B. Procedures for Implementation. The remaining procedures for implementing the project should be as follows:

1. District counsel provides HQUSACE a draft implementation document(s).

2. HQUSACE approval of the draft implementation document(s).

3. Policy review of final report and implementation document(s).

4. Office of ASA(CW) approves project.

5. Implementation document signed.

6. Implementation (construction) efforts.

a. District completes and processes draft Water Control Manual

b. Sponsor obtains water rights permit from State of Arizona

7. SPD provides approval of Water Control Manual and project is implemented.

This should meet the interest of the sponsor to have project approval to support the request for the water rights permit and the interest of the Corps to have an implementation agreement prior to revising the water control manual. The final report would have to e revised to include the final list of procedures for implementation, and items of local cooperation as are determined to be appropriate during review of the draft implementation document(s).

Required Action: Since the draft MOA is to be provided with the final feasibility report, the procedures for implementation should be revised to reflect Washington level Policy review of final report and draft implementation document (MOA) occurring concurrently.

Return to Planning Guidance Page Top of Page