[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