[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 213 (Friday, November 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56534-56539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-28101]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration
Record of Decision for the Salt Lake City Area Integrated
Projects Electric Power Marketing Program.
AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE), Western Area Power
Administration (Western), has completed a draft and final environmental
impact statement (EIS), DOE/EIS-0150, on its Salt Lake City Area
Integrated Projects (SLCA/IP) Electric Power Marketing Program. Western
is publishing this Record of Decision (ROD) regarding the level of its
commitment of electrical power and energy to be sold through the SLCA/
IP long-term firm electrical power contracts.
DATES: Western will implement this decision at the beginning of the
1997 Summer marketing season, April 1, 1997.
DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE: For a copy of this ROD or a copy of the SLCA/IP
Electric Power Marketing EIS and supporting documents, write to the
address below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Sabo,Western Area Power
Administration, CRSP Customer Service Center, P.O. Box 11606, Salt Lake
City, Utah 84147, (801) 524-5497.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western has prepared this ROD pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Council on
Environmental Quality NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-
1508), and DOE NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR Part 1021). This
ROD is based on information contained in the ``SLCA/IP Electric Power
Marketing Environmental Impact Statement,'' DOE/EIS-0150. Western has
considered all comments received on its commitment-level alternatives
and the other aspects of the EIS in preparing this ROD.
Background
Western is a power marketing administration within the DOE.
Western's Colorado River Storage Project Customer Service Center (CRSP-
CSC) is responsible for marketing power from the Colorado River Storage
Project (CRSP), Collbran Project and Rio Grande Project (known
collectively as the SLCA/IP), and the Provo River Project.
The SLCA/IP power marketing criteria specify terms and conditions
for long-term firm capacity and energy sales contracts. In 1980,
Western began examining its marketing criteria for long-term capacity
and energy from the SLCA/IP because the existing long-term firm
contracts were to expire in 1989. Through this process, Western
developed the proposed ``Post-1989 Criteria.'' Western prepared an
environmental assessment (EA) for implementation of the Post-1989
Criteria, and DOE approved a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
In 1988, the National Wildlife Federation and others filed suit against
Western regarding the adequacy of the EA and FONSI.
At that time, Western determined that it would prepare an EIS on
the Post-1989 Criteria to end the litigation and to respond to public
concerns about the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. The court entered an
order requiring SLCA/IP long-term firm contractual commitments of
capacity and energy to remain the same as current (1978) levels until
Western had completed an EIS. The court was concerned that an increase
in commitment, which was a principal feature of the Post-1989 Criteria,
might result in changed operation of the SLCA/IP powerplants and
changes in downstream environmental impacts. The EIS assessed potential
downstream impacts of power generation at SLCA/IP facilities in
compliance with that court order. After publication of the final EIS,
the court dismissed the lawsuit.
Purpose and Need
Western needs to determine the level of long-term firm capacity and
energy commitment from the SLCA/IP that will be made available to its
customers and that will form the basis for its SLCA/IP power marketing
program.
The commitment level selected must be consistent with its statutory
obligations and legal constraints. This necessarily requires a weighing
of economic, environmental, and other public considerations. Western's
action will have to achieve a balanced mix of purposes including
providing the greatest practicable amount of long-term firm capacity
and energy at the lowest possible rates consistent with sound business
principles, providing for long-term resource stability, having the
lowest practicable adverse environmental impacts, and being responsive
and adaptable to future operations of the SLCA/IP facilities.
Public Process
Public involvement in the EIS began with the publication of a
Federal Register notice of intent to prepare an EIS in April 1990.
Western held seven scoping meetings and received more than 21,000
written comments (mostly preprinted postcards) during the formal
scoping period. Western also developed a newsletter and mailing list to
keep the public informed about the EIS process and to enhance the
opportunity for review and comment.
After receiving comments from the public, Western developed a
scoping report to assist in characterizing and understanding the
scoping comments. From this report, Western developed a statement of
scope and a purpose and need statement for the EIS. Western described
the statement of scope and the purpose and need in public newsletters
requesting review and comment. Western proposed draft commitment-level
alternatives and analyzed hydropower operational scenarios for those
facilities which Western influences and exercises some measure of
operational control (Glen Canyon and Flaming Gorge Powerplants and the
Aspinall Units). These draft alternatives and operational scenarios
were submitted to the public for review and comment. After considering
the comments received, Western published a reasonable range of
alternatives and operational scenarios in advance of the draft EIS.
The draft EIS was made available to the public for review in March
1994. It was mailed to over 700 individuals and organizations. A notice
of availability was also published in the Federal Register. A
newsletter announcing both the availability of the draft EIS and the
schedule for public information hearings was sent to approximately
2,100 individuals. The draft EIS and all supporting documents were made
available for public review in regional libraries and in 11 reading
rooms.
Comments on the draft EIS were received from the public in written,
mailed-in form and at the five public hearings. During the comment
period, a total of 41 comment letters were received. Western visited
with coordinating agencies, cooperating agencies, environmental groups,
and customer groups before issuing the statement of scope, and
determining the range of commitment-level alternatives and hydropower
operational scenarios that would be considered. The
[[Page 56535]]
cooperating agencies were the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the
National Park Service (NPS), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service). The coordinating agencies were the states of Utah, Wyoming,
New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona.
In addition, Western carried on a continuous dialogue with the
Service and NPS regarding the technical adequacy of the analyses upon
which the EIS is based. The dialogue with the Service resulted in the
issuance of a Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report by the Service.
The final EIS was distributed to the public during late December
1995 and January 1996. The EPA notice of availability was published on
February 16, 1996 (61 FR 6242). A letter on the final EIS was received
from the Service reiterating previous concerns about water releases
from Flaming Gorge Dam. Concerns raised in the letter will be addressed
by Western, Reclamation, and the Service in the ongoing Section 7
consultation process on the operation of Flaming Gorge, the appropriate
forum for the resolution of water release issues.
Alternatives
Western's hydroelectric generation is highly variable among seasons
and years because of variation in natural hydrology. To create a firm
level of marketable electric resource and enhance its value as a
reliable source of electricity, Western markets hydroelectricity
supplemented with energy purchased from other utilities and non-utility
electrical generators.
The principal and determining feature of the SLCA/IP marketing
program is the sale of long-term firm capacity and energy at long-term
firm power rates. The amount of capacity and energy sold under long-
term firm contract is called the level of commitment, as this is the
amount of capacity and energy Western must generate and/or purchase to
meet contract requirements. The alternatives examined in the EIS were
based upon a reasonable range of levels of long-term firm commitments
and are called commitment-level alternatives.
The range of commitment-level alternatives evaluated in the EIS was
determined on the basis of a reasonable range of possible levels of
SLCA/IP generation of both capacity (which is equivalent to the
instantaneous output of a generator, usually stated in megawatts [MW])
and energy (the amount of power generated over a period of time,
usually stated in gigawatt-hours [GWh]). Within constraints set by
Reclamation, Western will schedule and release water on an hourly and
daily basis from the SLCA/IP in coordination with Reclamation and make
purchases as needed to meet the contractual commitments defined by the
alternatives.
The commitment-level alternatives considered in the EIS span the
range of commitments necessary and possible for Western to fulfill its
statutory obligations. Seven combinations of capacity and energy
commitments characterize the entire range of commitments that could be
offered by Western. Capacity commitments range from a low of 550 MW
(less than 40% of the historical commitment) to a high of 1,450 MW.
Energy commitments range from a low of 3,300 GWh (less than 60 percent
of the historical commitment) to a high of 6,200 GWh.
The major characteristics of the commitment-level alternatives
considered in the EIS are described in Table 1. In addition to two
moderate capacity and energy alternatives (3 and 6), the alternatives
include high capacity and energy (alternative 1, the preferred
alternative), low capacity and energy (alternative 4), high capacity
and low energy (alternative 2), and low capacity and high energy
(alternative 5) combinations.
Table 1.--Electric Power Marketing EIS Commitment-Level Alternatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
Capacity Energy Load factor schedule
Alternative commitment commitment (%) requirement Description
(MW) (GWh) (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No action............................. 1291 5700 50 35 Moderate capacity and high energy (the 1978
marketing program commitment level).
1 (preferred alternative)............. 1449 6156 48.5 35 High capacity and high energy (the post-1989
commitment level).
2..................................... 1450 3300 26 10 High capacity and low energy.
3..................................... 1225 4000 37 15 Moderate capacity and moderate energy.
4..................................... 550 3300 68 52 Low capacity and low energy.
5..................................... 625 5475 100 100 Low capacity and high energy.
6..................................... 1000 4750 54 33 Moderate capacity and moderate energy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Relative Impacts of the Commitment-Level Alternatives a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water, ecological,
Financial viability Regional economic Agricultural cultural, recreation,
Commitment-level alternative and retail rates activity production Air resources land use, and visual
resources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No action (1978 Marketing Criteria) Slight impacts on No impacts in any of No impacts on No impacts on local Impacts dependent on
financial viability the nine subregions agricultural or regional air hydropower
of Western's or in the two high- production. quality or noise. operations.
customers and the reliance counties.
retail rates charged
to end-users.
Commitment-level alternative 1 No impact on financial No impacts in any of Slight impact on Slight impact on Same as above.
(preferred alternative). viability; slight the nine subregions; agricultural local or regional
impact on retail slight impacts in the production. air quality or noise.
rates. two high- reliance
counties.
[[Page 56536]]
Commitment-level alternative 2..... Slight impact on Same as above......... Same as above........ Same as above........ Same as above.
financial viability;
moderate impact on
retail rates.
Commitment-level alternative 3..... Slight impact on Same as above......... Same as above........ Same as above........ Same as above.
financial viability;
moderate impact on
retail rates.
Commitment-level alternative 4..... No impact on financial Same as above......... Same as above........ Same as above........ Same as above.
viability; moderate
or large impacts on
retail rates.
Commitment-level alternative 5..... Slight impact on Same as above......... Same as above........ Same as above........ Same as above.
financial viability;
moderate to large
impact on retail
rates.
Commitment-level alternative 6..... Slight impact on Same as above......... Same as above........ Same as above........ Same as above.
financial viability;
moderate impact on
retail rates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western's Preferred Alternative and the Environmentally Preferred
Alternative
Commitment-level alternative No. 1, the post-1989 commitment level,
was developed and chosen as Western's preferred alternative during an
extended public process involving SLCA/IP customers and other
interested parties. This alternative was also identified as the
environmentally preferred alternative on the basis of the results of
the analyses in the EIS (see Table 2). This choice was made because,
under the preferred alternative, socioeconomic impacts, including
impacts to financial viability, retail rates, and regional and
agricultural economies, would be minimized. Furthermore, an analysis
cited in the EIS indicates that potential impacts to natural and
cultural resources result almost exclusively from hydropower operations
rather than from commitment levels. In other words, the preferred
alternative has no significant impacts to natural and cultural
resources and is the alternative which minimizes impacts to
socioeconomic resources.
Hydropower Operational Scenarios
In addition to analyzing the impacts of commitment-level
alternatives, the EIS evaluated the potential impacts of a reasonable
range of hydropower operations at Glen Canyon Dam, Flaming Gorge Dam,
and the Aspinall Unit (which includes the powerplants at the Blue Mesa,
Morrow Point, and Crystal dams). These are the three SLCA/IP facilities
that provide most of the hydropower marketed by Western, and over which
Western exercises some measure of hourly or daily control. The array of
potential hydropower operations--referred to as operational scenarios--
ranges from historical high hourly fluctuations to no hourly
fluctuation (baseload or steady flows) at each facility.
By considering both commitment-level alternatives and operational
scenarios together, examination of a full range of operations and
commitment levels and their combined impacts was possible. Actual
hydropower operations within the range of scenarios examined may come
about as a result of management decisions by Western and Reclamation.
Reclamation determines operational constraints (including minimum and
maximum release rates and monthly release volumes) for Federal
hydropower facilities, and Western makes operational decisions within
those constraints at Glen Canyon, Flaming Gorge, and the Aspinall Unit.
Environmental Consequences of Commitment-Level Alternatives
The impacts of commitment-level alternatives on water resources,
ecological resources, cultural resources, and recreation would depend
on the operational scenarios implemented at the hydropower facilities
under consideration (see Environmental Consequences of Hydropower
Operational Scenarios, below). No impacts on these environmental
resources were associated with the commitment-level alternatives
themselves.
Local and regional air quality and noise levels would be affected
only slightly by any of the commitment-level alternatives. Slight
impacts would result from differences in emission factors associated
with different types of electric generation and would be related to
shifts from hydroelectric generation to various types of thermal power
generation.
Commitment-level alternatives were analyzed for their potential
impacts on the financial viability of Western's utility customers, the
retail rates charged to the end-users of electricity, regional economic
variables (including population, employment, disposable income, and
gross regional product), agricultural production, and the use value of
recreational activities. In addition, the analysis considered the
potential effects that a change in Western's commitment levels could
have on the need for additional capacity and energy and on the mix of
generation options used to supply electricity to the affected region
and the resulting impacts on local and regional air quality. The
selection of a commitment level was determined to have no discernible
effect on other environmental resources.
Hydropower operational scenarios could affect socioeconomic
conditions through their effects on purchases and exchanges and the
resultant cost of electricity. Thus, it was necessary to specify both
an operational scenario and a commitment-level alternative to assess
[[Page 56537]]
overall socioeconomic and air resource impacts. Commitment-level
alternatives were paired with specific supply options, which consisted
of the full range of possible operational scenarios at each of the
three facilities considered in the EIS, combined with the power
purchases needed to meet a particular commitment level.
The environmental consequences of the combinations of commitment-
level alternatives and supply options considered in the EIS are
summarized in Table 2. None of the combinations of commitment-level
alternatives and supply options are expected to have a significant
effect in any of the nine subregions or any of the four regional
socioeconomic variables. Only slight impacts are likely on conservation
and renewable energy programs as measured in terms of consumption
efficiency and load management. These results are partly a reflection
of the fact that the power marketed by Western accounts for only about
10 percent of the total electricity consumed in the affected region. In
addition, much of the affected region has an excess supply of
generating capacity. This excess capacity would serve to offset the
adverse price effects of a reduction in the amount of Western's long-
term firm commitment of capacity and energy and thus blunt the regional
economic impacts of any increase in electricity prices.
A change in Western's long-term firm commitments is expected to
have a small effect on agricultural production, as measured by net
income to the agricultural sector at the state level. At the state
level, most of the impacts would consist of shifts from irrigated to
dry land farming methods for individual crops and some substitution
among crops. The largest impact indicated by the analysis was a
decrease in net agricultural income by about 1.2 percent in Utah in the
final year of the forecast period. This impact would occur under
commitment-level alternative No. 4, which represents the lowest long-
term firm commitment of capacity and energy.
Different combinations of commitment-level alternatives and supply
options could affect the financial viability of Western's utility
customers and the retail rates charged to end-users. The combination of
commitment-level alternative No. 2 with the full-range of dam
operations at the three affected facilities would leave the financial
viability of affected utilities unchanged. In addition, with this
combination, many of Western's utility customers would experience a
decline in their retail rates. However, the remaining combinations of
commitment-level alternatives and operational scenarios could result in
negative rate impacts. Commitment-level alternatives 4 and 5 combined
with steady flows at each dam would result in the largest weighted
average increase in retail rates (15 percent) across affected
utilities. The combination of alternative No. 4 and steady flows would
also result in the largest rate increase. Under these conditions, it is
estimated that the retail rates charged by municipal utilities in Utah
that rely on Western for more than 25 percent of their supply would
increase by 41 percent.
Overall, municipals in Utah and New Mexico, which have high
reliance on Western power, would experience the largest retail rate
impacts under any of the commitment-level alternatives. Utility
customers in Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada (which have low reliance
levels) would experience slight to moderate impacts on retail rates
under most alternatives. Utility customers in Wyoming, which have very
low reliance levels, would be largely unaffected.
Environmental Consequences of Hydropower Operational Scenarios
Most of the hydropower marketed by Western from the SLCA/IP is
generated at Glen Canyon Dam, Flaming Gorge Dam, and the Aspinall Unit.
At these CRSP facilities, Western has some discretion over hourly and
daily releases within Reclamation flow constraints. Impacts of
hydropower operational scenarios at these facilities are discussed in
this section.
Glen Canyon Dam
The operating scenarios described below are the alternatives
examined by the Department of the Interior in the Glen Canyon Dam EIS.
The description of the environmental consequences of these scenarios is
consistent with the analyses summarized in that EIS.
Continuation of historical operations and maximum power plant
capacity operational scenarios would have impacts on most environmental
resources similar to those that have occurred since the dam was
completed in 1963. Installation of the dam and, to a lesser extent, its
operations have affected most natural resources dependent on the river
and have produced the existing conditions for these resources.
Moderate and low fluctuating flow operational scenarios would
potentially produce moderate benefits for water resources (moderate
increases in the probability of a net gain in riverbed sand), cultural
resources, and white-water boating. These operational scenarios could
result in slight or moderate benefits to trout, native fish, angling,
and Federally-listed species: the peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and
southwestern willow flycatcher. Slight adverse impacts could occur to
the humpback chub, and adverse impact could occur to the Kanab
ambersnail.
Although steady flow scenarios could result in benefits to a number
of resources, some benefits may require occasional high flows to build
beaches and maintain fish habitats. Benefits could occur for water
resources (moderate increases in the probability of a net gain in
riverbed sand), aquatic ecology, terrestrial ecology, cultural
resources, and recreation. Benefits would potentially be expected for
Federally-listed species: the humpback chub, bald eagle, peregrine
falcon, and southwestern willow flycatcher. Marsh vegetation could
decrease under all of the steady flow scenarios. Beach and habitat
maintenance flows could have adverse effects on the Kanab ambersnail,
an endangered species.
Flaming Gorge Dam
The year-round high fluctuating flow operational scenario for
Flaming Gorge Dam features higher maximum releases and greater daily
flow fluctuations than occurred under historical operations. These
higher flows and daily fluctuations could result in adverse impacts to
some ecological resources, including trout, native fish, endangered
fish, and riparian vegetation. Since this scenario has a higher erosion
rate than steady flows, adverse impacts to cultural resources would
potentially be expected.
The remaining three operational scenarios at Flaming Gorge Dam are
seasonally adjusted and feature periods of restricted flow to meet
requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion
for operation of the facility. These scenarios exhibit a high sustained
flow in May or June, reduced fluctuations and lower flows in summer and
autumn, and steady flows when ice cover is present on the river. These
flows are intended to be protective of endangered fish in the system
and could result in benefits to these species, as well as to other
resources. Some adverse impacts could result from seasonal adjustment,
however. The spring peak in flows would potentially result in large
adverse impacts to anglers. The bald eagle and over-wintering waterfowl
could be adversely affected by steady flows in the winter. With steady
flows, less open ice-free water would be available for these species.
Seasonally-adjusted high fluctuations would potentially result in
moderate
[[Page 56538]]
changes to flow and stage patterns, but would potentially have erosion
rates similar to those of year-round high fluctuations. Slight to
moderate benefits are expected to native fish. This scenario would
potentially result in slight benefits to angling in mid-summer through
autumn (when fluctuations are reduced) and moderate benefits to white-
water boating during the spring peak flows. Slight adverse impacts are
expected to terrestrial ecology because of the inundation of some
riparian vegetation. Slight adverse impacts are also expected to trout
under year-round high fluctuations.
Although seasonally-adjusted moderate and steady flows are
relatively similar in their impacts to most resources, seasonally-
adjusted steady flows generally would potentially provide greater
levels of environmental benefits. Both scenarios would potentially have
reduced erosion rates and, thus, would potentially benefit water
resources and cultural resources. Slight or moderate benefits to trout
and moderate to large benefits to native and endangered fish, angling,
and white- water boating are also expected under these scenarios
because of reduced daily fluctuations. Seasonally-adjusted moderate
fluctuations are expected to have slight adverse impacts on terrestrial
resources because some existing riparian vegetation would be inundated
and lost.
Aspinall Unit
Because Crystal Dam reregulates flows from the Aspinall Unit, flows
in the Gunnison River below the Unit and the resources that depend on
those flows would not be affected by changes in hydropower operations.
Slight to moderate changes to flow and stage in Blue Mesa and Morrow
Point reservoirs would potentially occur because of seasonal
adjustments in releases and daily fluctuations. Despite these changes
in flow and stage, neither operational scenario is expected to result
in impacts to sediment, most ecological resources (aquatic ecology,
threatened and endangered species), cultural resources, land use, or
visual resources. Both scenarios would potentially result in slight
benefits to terrestrial resources in the headwaters of Crystal
Reservoir in the form of an increase in riparian vegetation. Slight
adverse impacts to the bald eagle are expected under the seasonally-
adjusted steady flow scenario because the reservoirs would freeze
earlier in the winter with reduced fluctuations. Slight adverse impacts
to boaters on Morrow Point and Crystal reservoirs could occur at low
water under the seasonally-adjusted high fluctuation scenario.
Summary of Public Comments
A number of specific issues were raised by agencies and the public
during the public review period of the draft EIS. Most Western
customers who commented on the draft EIS recommended that Western
select as the preferred alternative commitment-level alternative No. 1,
a high-capacity, high-energy alternative. Since publication of the
draft EIS, Western has chosen this commitment level alternative as the
preferred alternative and has also identified it as the environmentally
preferred alternative in the final EIS.
These customers also wrote that they agreed with the major findings
of the draft EIS, but were concerned that Western had relied on studies
(e.g.,Glen Canyon Environmental Studies) that were incomplete at the
time. Western's final EIS has been updated to incorporate the most
recent information available from these studies.
Concerns raised by the Service and NPS that the preferred
alternative would result in operations at hydropower facilities that
were more damaging to natural resources are not borne out by the
analyses in the EIS. The weak relationship between hydropower
operations and commitment levels allows a decoupling of selections of
commitment level and operational restrictions.
These same Federal agencies also expressed concern that
fluctuations at hydropower facilities would result in detrimental
impacts on downstream ecological resources. These impacts have been
fully considered and presented in the EIS. Western's decision regarding
a commitment level will not present an obstacle to any future decision
to change the operation of a hydropower facility by either Reclamation
or Western.
Finally, these agencies expressed concern that protection of
natural resources would require occasional releases that are above
powerplant capacity. Such releases would be under the jurisdiction of
Reclamation and are beyond the scope of Western's control of these
facilities.
Environmental groups commented that if Western made a high
commitment of electrical power, the bulk electrical purchases that
would be required would exceed Western's legal authority. Western has
determined that the alternatives included in the EIS are all lawful.
Environmental groups also mentioned that the analyses summarized in
the EIS were methodologically accurate, but expressed their preference
for a process that included interested publics in more detailed aspects
of the analysis process. Finally, environmental groups were concerned
about Western's treatment of air resource impacts and commented that
Western should be concerned with the absolute value of decreases in air
pollution that results from changed dam operation and not just with the
percentage change. The final EIS presented the absolute value of
expected air quality changes as well as the percentage change.
Decision
SLCA/IP Electric Power Program Commitment Level
Western has elected to implement the preferred alternative,
Alternative No. 1, as described in the final EIS and summarized in this
ROD at the beginning of the Summer marketing season- April 1, 1997.
This alternative best meets Western's purpose and needs and the needs
of Western's customers, while being responsive to the comments
received. The preferred alternative has no significant environmental
impacts. Its economic impacts are beneficial, relative to the no-action
alternative.
Hydropower Operational Scenarios:
Glen Canyon Powerplant: Western supports the preferred alternative
as identified in Reclamation's Glen Canyon Dam--Environmental Impact
Statement (GCD-EIS). This alternative was painstakingly crafted by the
cooperating agencies involved in the preparation of the GCD-EIS and
represents years of collaborative scientific effort. Western will
comply with the operational parameters specified in Reclamation's
preferred alternative.
Flaming Gorge Powerplant: A revised biological opinion on the
operation of Flaming Gorge Dam is anticipated to be issued to Western
and Reclamation in 1997. This biological opinion will represent the
conclusions of 5 years of study required by the first biological
opinion issued in 1991. Moreover, Reclamation has announced its
intention to prepare an EIS on the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam.
Because of these ongoing processes, considerable uncertainty exists
regarding the hydroelectric power resource at Flaming Gorge Dam.
Western will, therefore, coordinate with Reclamation to operate Flaming
Gorge Dam in compliance with the 1991 biological opinion and the
current operational criteria specified for this facility and will make
no further adjustments in its operation pending the environmental
reviews noted above.
[[Page 56539]]
Aspinall Powerplants: A 5-year study of operations of the Aspinall
powerplants is scheduled to be completed in 1997. A resulting
biological opinion on its operation will be prepared which will likely
require permanent changes in the operation of the three powerplants.
The change would be required to improve habitat for endangered fish
species. Therefore, uncertainty also exists with regard to the
hydroelectric power resource at the Aspinall units. Western will make
no further adjustments in their operation pending this biological
opinion.
Mitigation Action Plan
No Mitigation Action Plan will be prepared, as the proposed action
involves no construction, has no significant impacts to natural
resources, and has positive socioeconomic impacts.
Issued at Golden, Colorado, October 17, 1996.
J. M. Shafer,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-28101 Filed 10-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
