[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 2, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52197-52204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-22352]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1273-009]


Parowan City Utah; Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental 
Assessment

August 26, 2003.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)

[[Page 52198]]

regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office 
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for the 
Center Creek Hydroelectric Project located on Center Creek, in Iron 
County, Utah, and has prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) 
for the project. The project occupies 21.43 acres of United States 
lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management.
    The draft EA contains Commission staff's analysis of the potential 
environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the 
project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not 
constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the 
quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the draft EA is available for review at the Commission in 
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site 
at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary (FERRIS) link. Enter the 
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number 
field to access the document. For assistance contact FERC Online 
Support at [email protected] or toll-free at (866) 208-3676, 
or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.
    Any comments on this draft EA should be filed within 30 days from 
the date of this notice and should be addressed to: Magalie R. Salas, 
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. Please affix Project No. 1273-009 to all 
comments. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu 
of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web 
site http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    For further information, contact Gaylord Hoisington at (202) 502-
6032 or [email protected].

Linda Mitry,
Acting Secretary.

Draft Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License, Center Creek 
Hydroelectric Project, Utah

[FERC Project No. 1273-009]

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, 
Division of Hydropower--Environment and Engineering, 888 First Street, 
NE
Washington, DC 20426, August 2003

Table of Contents

Section

Summary
I. Application
II. Purpose of Action and Need for Power
    A. Purpose of Action
    B. Need for Power
    A. Parowan's Proposal
    1. Project Facilities and Operation
    2. Proposed Environmental Measures
    B. Staff's Preferred Alternative
    C. No-Action Alternative
    D. Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study
IV. Consultation and Compliance
    A. Agency Consultation
    B. Interventions
    C. Scoping
    D. Water Quality Certification
V. Environmental Analysis
    A. General Description of the Center Creek Basin
    B. Cumulative Effects
    C. Proposed Action and Action Alternatives
    1. Aquatic Resources
    2. Terrestrial Resources
    3. Threatened and Endangered Species
    4. Cultural Resources
VI. Developmental Analysis
VII. Comprehensive Development and Recommended
Alternative
VIII. Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
IX. Consistency with Comprehensive Plans
X. Finding of No Significant Impact
XI. Literature Cited
XII. List of Preparers

List of Figures

Figure

1. Project location for the Center Creek Hydroelectric Project, FERC 
No. 1273-009
2. Project facilities for the Center Creek Hydroelectric Project, 
FERC No. 1273-009
3. Natural and regulated inflow at the project diversion dam

List of Tables

Table

1. Recent retail power load for Parowan City
2. Parameters for economic analysis of the Center Creek Project

Summary

    On November 15, 2002, Parowan City filed an application for a 
subsequent license for the existing 600-kilowatt, Center Creek 
Hydroelectric Project located at the confluence of Center Creek (aka 
Parowan Creek) and Bowery Creek (a tributary to Parowan Creek) near the 
City of Parowan, in Iron County, Utah. The project occupies 21.43 acres 
of land managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 
Management. The project generates about 2,300 megawatt-hours (MWh) 
annually.
    The issues addressed in this draft environmental assessment are the 
potential effects of the continued operation and maintenance of the 
proposed project on: (1) Aquatic resources; (2) terrestrial resources, 
(3) threatened and endangered species; and (4) cultural resources. 
There are no major issues with this project.
    Parowan City's proposal to relicense the project includes the 
environmental measure to monitor and remove any noxious and undesirable 
plants after any ground-disturbing activities. Parowan City does not 
propose any changes to the project's facilities or operations.
    In this draft environmental assessment (EA), Commission staff 
analyze the effects of Parowan City's proposed project, with one 
additional staff recommended environmental measure (to develop a 
cultural resources management plan if any new or undocumented 
archeological or historic sites are discovered during project operation 
or maintenance) and the no-action alternative.
    We estimate the proposed project would generate an average of 2,300 
MWh annually at an annual cost of $18,000 and an annual net power 
benefit of $56,000. The cost of the staff's measure is minimal and 
would not affect project economics.
    Based on our independent analysis, we conclude that issuing a 
subsequent license for the project, with the environmental measure that 
we recommend, would not be a major federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment.

Environmental Assessment
Office of Energy Projects
Center Creek Hydroelectric Project

[FERC No. 1273-009-Utah]

I. Application

    On November 15, 2002, Parowan City (Parowan) filed an application 
for a subsequent license for the existing 600-kilowatt (kW) Center 
Creek Hydroelectric Project (project), located at the confluence of 
Center Creek (aka Parowan Creek) and Bowery Creek (a tributary to 
Parowan Creek) near the City of Parowan, in Iron County, Utah (figure 
1). The project occupies 21.43 acres of land managed by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

II. Purpose of Action and Need for Power

A. Purpose of Action

    The Federal Power Act (FPA) provides the Commission with the 
exclusive authority to license non-federal water power projects on 
navigable waterways and federal lands.
    For the project, the Commission must decide (1) whether to issue a 
license to Parowan, and if so, (2) what, if any, conditions should be 
placed on that license to protect or enhance existing

[[Page 52199]]

environmental resources and/or to mitigate for any adverse 
environmental impacts that would occur due to operation and maintenance 
of the project.
    This draft environmental assessment (EA) assesses the effects 
associated with operation of the proposed project and alternatives to 
the proposed project, and makes recommendations to the Commission on 
whether to issue a license, and if so, recommends terms and conditions 
to become a part of any license issued. In deciding whether to issue a 
license for a hydroelectric project, the Commission must determine 
that.
    Public access for the above information is available only through 
the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 
[email protected].
    The project would be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for 
improving or developing the waterway. In addition to the power and 
developmental purposes for which licenses are issued, the Commission 
must give equal consideration to the purposes of energy conservation, 
the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and 
wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), the 
protection of recreational opportunities, and the preservation of other 
aspects of environmental quality.
    In this draft EA, we, the Commission staff, assess the effects of 
operating the project as proposed by Parowan, and operating the project 
as proposed by Parowan with staff's mitigative and enhancement 
measures. We also consider the effects of the no-action alternative.

B. Need for Power

    Parowan operates the Center Creek Project (FERC No. 1273) and Red 
Creek Project (FERC No. 2782) to provide power to its customers through 
its municipal power system. In addition to these two sources, Parowan 
also meets its power needs by: (1) purchasing power through the Utah 
Association of Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), of which Parowan is a 
member, and (2) encouraging power conservation by its customers.
    Power demand for Parowan in recent years is summarized in table 1. 
Included in this power demand are residential, commercial, and other 
customers. Over the given 4-year period, total demand has risen about 7 
percent. As part of its energy conservation effort, Parowan annually 
distributes energy saving inserts that are provided by UAMPS. 
Additionally, Parowan is in the process of upgrading from a 2,400-volt 
delta system to a 12,470-volt wye system. Parowan is also converting 
street lighting from 200-watt mercury bulbs to 100-watt sodium 
fixtures.

           Table 1.--Recent Retail Power Load for Parowan City
                         [Source: Parowan City]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Retail
                            Year                              power load
                                                                (MWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998.......................................................        12.89
1999.......................................................        13.07
2000.......................................................        13.49
2001.......................................................        13.81
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The project is located in the Northwest Power Pool Area (NWPP) of 
the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) region of the North 
American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). WECC annually forecasts 
electrical supply and demand in the region for a 10-year period. The 
most recent report on annual supply and demand indicates that, for the 
period from 2002-2011, the average annual growth rate is projected to 
be 2.5 percent. In response to projected growth, WECC members will be 
adding or contracting for about 16,000 megawatts (MW) of new capacity 
generation during the 10-year period. The electricity generated from 
the project would benefit the region by providing a portion of the 
needed regional power.
    If relicensed, the project would continue to contribute to 
Parowan's power needs as well as meeting a small portion of the 
regional need for power. The project would also continue to displace 
non-renewable fossil-fueled power generation used by some of the 
facilities in the UAMPS, thereby conserving fossil fuel resources and 
avoiding associated atmospheric emissions.

III. Proposed Action and Alternatives

A. Parowan's Proposal

1. Parowan's Project Facilities and Operation
    The existing project consists of: (1) A 15-foot-high, 54-foot-long 
concrete overflow type diversion dam; (2) a radial gate; (3) trash 
racks; (4) a 19.9 acre-foot de-silting pond; (4) an 18 to 26-inch-
diameter, 19,300-foot-long steel penstock; (5) a 600-kW powerhouse; (6) 
an 80-foot-long, 2.4-kilovolt underground transmission line; and (7) 
appurtenant facilities (figure 2).
    Parowan proposes to continue operating the project run-of-river. 
When operating, the project diverts a maximum of 24 cubic feet per 
second (cfs) of stream flow from Center Creek. Water exiting the 
powerhouse goes into an irrigation canal for the use of downstream 
irrigation right-holders.
2. Proposed Environmental Measures
    Parowan proposes to monitor and remove any noxious and undesirable 
plants after any ground-disturbing activities. Parowan does not propose 
any changes to project facilities or operation.
    Public access for the above information is available only through 
the Public Reference Room, or by e-mail at 
[email protected].

B. Staff's Preferred Alternative

    The staff considered what, if any, protection, mitigation, and 
enhancement measures would be beneficial to those resources affected by 
the project and its operation. We recommend in addition to Parowan's 
proposal that if any archeological or historic sites should be 
discovered during project operation or maintenance, Parowan prepare a 
site-specific plan in consultation with the Utah State Historic 
Preservation Officer (SHPO) and BLM to evaluate the significance of the 
sites and to mitigate impacts to those sites that are determined to be 
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

C. No-Action Alternative

    Under the no-action alternative, the project would continue to 
operate under the terms and conditions of the existing license, and no 
new environmental protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures would 
be implemented. We use this alternative to establish the baseline 
environmental condition for comparison with other alternatives.

D. Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study

    We considered the following alternatives to Parowan's proposal but 
eliminated them from detailed study because they are not reasonable in 
the circumstances of this case.
1. Nonpower License
    A nonpower license is a temporary license that the Commission would 
terminate whenever it would determine that another governmental agency 
would assume regulatory authority and supervision over the lands and 
facilities covered by the nonpower license. In this case, no government 
agency has suggested its willingness or ability to do so. No party has 
sought a nonpower license, and we have no basis for concluding that the 
project should no longer be used to produce power.

[[Page 52200]]

Issuing a nonpower license, therefore, is not a realistic alternative 
in these circumstances.
2. Denial of License and Decommissioning the Project
    Project decommissioning could be accomplished with or without 
removing the project facilities. Either alternative would involve 
denial of the license application and surrender or termination of the 
existing license. In both cases, the energy that the project would 
generate would be lost, and consequently Parowan's need for the 
project's power would not be satisfied. Additionally, no participant 
has suggested decommissioning. For these reasons, we have no basis for 
recommending decommissioning of the project with or without removing 
the project facilities.

IV. Consultation and Compliance

A. Agency Consultation

    The Commission's regulations (18 CFR Section 4.38) require 
applicants to consult with the appropriate resource agencies before 
filing an application for a license. This consultation is the first 
step in complying with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the 
Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and 
other federal statutes. Pre-filing consultation must be complete and 
documented according to the Commission's regulations.
    When the Commission issues a notice that the application is ready 
for environmental analysis, formal comments may be submitted by 
concerned entities in accordance with section 4.34(b) of the 
Commission's regulations under the FPA. The comments provided by 
concerned entities are made part of the record and are considered 
during review of the proposed project.
    On May 8, 2003, the Commission issued a public notice indicating 
that the project was ready for environmental analysis, and soliciting 
motions to intervene, comments, terms and conditions, and 
prescriptions. We received one letter from the U.S. Department of the 
Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) filed July 1, 2003, in 
response to that notice. FWS recommends that Parowan monitor and remove 
any noxious and undesirable plants after ground-disturbing activities. 
As discussed in Section V.2 of this draft EA, Parowan has agreed to 
this recommendation making the recommendation a part of its proposed 
project.

B. Interventions

    In addition to filing comments, organizations and individuals may 
petition to intervene and become a party to the licensing proceedings. 
There are no interventions in this proceeding.

C. Scoping

    We issued Scoping Document 1 (SD1) on March 4, 2003, to enable 
appropriate federal, state, and local resource agencies, Indian tribes, 
other nongovernmental organizations, and individuals to participate in 
the identification of issues, concerns, and opportunities associated 
with this proposed action. Specifically, we requested the entities to 
forward written information that they believed would assist the 
Commission in conducting an accurate and thorough analysis of the site-
specific, as well as the cumulative effects of licensing the proposed 
project.
    On April 7, 2003, the FWS filed comments recommending that we 
address the effects of the project on terrestrial resources and make 
two changes to the endangered species list. We have addressed the FWS 
comments in the draft EA. Also, after we received SD1 comments, we 
issued a letter saying we would not issue an SD2 but would use SD1 as a 
basis for the environmental assessment taking into account the 
recommendations of the FWS.

D. Water Quality Certification

    Under Section 401(a) of the Clean Water Act,\1\ the Commission may 
not issue a license for a hydroelectric project unless the state 
certifying agency has either issued water quality certification for the 
project or has waived certification by failing to act on a request for 
certification within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 1 
year.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 33 U.S.C. `` 1341(a)(1).
    \2\ Section 401(a)(1) requires an applicant for a federal 
license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in any 
discharge into navigable waters to obtain from the state in which 
the discharge originates certification that any such discharge would 
comply with applicable water quality standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 13, 2001, Parowan applied to the Utah State Department of 
Environmental Quality (DEQ) for water quality certification (WQC) for 
the project. DEQ received the request on April 16, 2001. On June 17, 
2002, DEQ granted certification to Parowan for the project. The WQC 
contains no conditions.

V. Environmental Analysis

A. General Description of Center Creek Basin

    The project powerhouse is located near the south edge of town. The 
diversion structure is high in the mountains originating at the 
confluence of Center Creek (Parowan Creek) and Bowrey Creek. Parowan 
Creek upstream of the project area flows largely through the Dixie 
National Forest.
    The climate in the lower part of the Parowan Valley is semi-arid, 
with the mountains having somewhat cooler temperates. The average 
annual precipitation recorded at Parowan is 12.4 inches/year. Record 
high and low temperatures are 101 and minus 23 degrees Fahrenheit, 
respectively.
    The canyons have highly varied geologic formations with 
multicolored layers of rock, highly complex cliff formations, talus 
slopes, and towering spirals. Varied forms of shape, color, and complex 
patterns of rock and vegetation make the canyons in which the project 
is located, highly scenic. Natural vegetation is sparse in Parowan 
Valley but begins to increase gradually as increased elevation provides 
cooler temperatures and more precipitation. These higher and cooler 
canyons support different types and more abundant vegetation than is 
found in the arid foothills. East of the project, within the Dixie 
National Forest, mountain peaks range from 7,500 to 10,000 feet.

B. Cumulative Effects

    According to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for 
implementing NEPA (Sec.  1508.7), an action may cause cumulative 
impacts on the environment if its impacts overlap in time and/or space 
with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 
future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such 
other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor 
but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of 
time, including hydropower and other land and water development 
activities.
    Based on staff's review of Parowan's license application, and 
agency and public comments, we have determined that there are no 
cumulative impacts as a result of continued operation of the project. 
No other development activities exist or are anticipated, to the extent 
that we know, in the project area that, in conjunction with the 
continued operation of the project, would cumulatively affect resources 
within the project area.

[[Page 52201]]

C. Proposed Action and Action Alternatives

    In this section, we discuss the effects of the project alternatives 
on environmental resources. For each resource, we first describe the 
affected environment, which is the existing condition and baseline 
against which we measure effects. We then discuss and analyze the 
specific environmental issues.
    Only the resources that would be affected, or about which comments 
have been made by interested parties, are included in detail in this 
draft EA. At this time no new construction or modifications to the 
project are planned. Therefore, we have determined, based on our review 
of Parowan's license application, and as a result of our scoping 
process including agency and public comments, that geology and soils, 
aesthetics, recreation and land use, and socioeconomics would not be 
affected by the continued operation of the project and, therefore, will 
not be analyzed in detail in this EA.
1. Aquatic Resources

Affected Environment

Water Quantity

    The project's diversion dam collects water from Parowan Creek 
immediately below the confluence with Bowery Creek at an elevation of 
about 6,275 feet. Parowan Creek at the diversion dam drains an area of 
about 50 square miles. Lands within the Parowan Creek subbasin upstream 
of the diversion dam are largely within the Dixie National Forest with 
a small amount of private lands scattered throughout the area. The 
average elevation of the subbasin is about 8,900 feet. Parowan Creek 
drains into the greater Bonneville Basin, which is a closed basin 
(letter by Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy 
and Compliance, USFWS, Washington, DC, July 1, 2003).
    Surface water in Parowan Creek derives mostly from rainfall and 
snowmelt runoff. Snow is the dominant form of precipitation in the 
subbasin from October through April. Average total annual precipitation 
in the subbasin varies by elevation and temperature ranging from 12.4 
inches at the project powerhouse (6,000 feet) in the hot and arid, 
lowest portion of the subbasin to 35.8 inches near Brian Head Station 
(9,770 feet) in the cooler and wetter, upper portion of the subbasin. 
Parowan calculates the average total annual precipitation at the 
diversion dam to be about 30.4 inches.
    There are numerous springs in the project area fed by snowmelt 
originating in the upper subbasin. Additionally, the Parowan Creek bed 
is largely gravel and green vegetation carpets the landscape on both 
sides of the creek indicating that there is some sub-surface flow 
through the alluvium.
    Parowan Reservoir Company,\3\ at its Yankee Meadows Reservoir 
located on Bowery Creek about 7 creek miles upstream of the project 
diversion dam, largely regulates inflow to the immediate area of the 
project diversion dam intake. Parowan Reservoir Company impounds 
snowmelt runoff in the spring and releases it throughout the latter 
part of the summer to satisfy irrigation water supply needs. Under an 
unregulated flow condition, the annual hydrograph would show low or no 
flows occurring from November through March and again in July, peak 
flows in May and June, and transition flows in April and August through 
October (figure 1). Under the existing, regulated condition, the annual 
hydrograph is flat with flows ranging from a low of around 6.0 to 7.0 
cfs from September through March to 8.0 to 10.0 cfs from April through 
August. Parowan calculates the existing average annual inflow at the 
diversion dam to be about 8.0 cfs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Parowan Reservoir Company is a separate company that 
controls flows the flows for irrigation and for Parowan City to use 
at the Center Creek Project. Yankee Meadows Reservoir is an 
irrigation storage reservoir owned and operated by the Parowan 
Reservoir Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the existing average monthly inflows at the diversion dam 
are much below the hydraulic capacity of the project (24 cfs),\4\ peak 
flow data for the period of record 1964 to 1987 on Center Creek (USGS 
gage no. 10241470),\5\ a tributary to Parowan Creek about 0.5 miles 
upstream of the diversion dam, shows that flows upwards of 200 cfs 
occur in the project area, although infrequently.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Because the flow on average is much below the hydraulic 
capacity of the project, Parowan normally diverts all the flow in 
Parowan Creek at the diversion dam.
    \5\ Flow data accessed from the USGS Web site (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/peaks/?site no=10241470&agency cd=USGS) on 
June 27, 2003.
    \6\ Parowan calculates that a 200-cfs flow at the diversion dam 
has a recurrence interval of about 10 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Figure 3. Natural and regulated inflow at the project diversion dam 
as calculated by Parowan. ``Regulated inflow'' is a calculation of 
surface flow at the diversion based on the generation record. ``Natural 
inflow'' is a theoretical projection of the hydrograph based on the 
drainage area, mean annual precipitation, and main channel slope. The 
project does not account for surface flow that infiltrates the stream 
gravel before reaching the diversion dam; therefore, the projection 
somewhat overestimates surface flow at the project. (Source: staff)

Water Quality

    Parowan Creek upstream of the project area flows largely through 
the Dixie National Forest. The drainage area is high elevation, remote, 
and sparsely populated. The Utah Water Quality Board classifies Parowan 
Creek in the project area as a Category 1 High Quality Water protected 
for secondary contact recreation (Class 2B), coldwater species of game 
fish and other cold water aquatic life (Class 3A), and agricultural 
uses, including irrigation of crops and stock watering (Class 4).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Utah Administrative Code, R317-2, Standards of Quality for 
Waters of the State, effective March 1, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are no recent water quality data for Parowan Creek to our 
knowledge, however, because Parowan Creek largely flows through a 
sparsely populated area upstream of the project, we expect that the 
water quality of Parowan Creek in the project area is good.

Fisheries

    Parowan Creek upstream of the project diversion dam contains a 
self-sustaining population of rainbow trout and brown trout; however, 
there are no known fish populations downstream of the project diversion 
dam. (letter by Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental 
Policy and Compliance, USFWS, Washington, DC, July 1, 2003). A BLM 
habitat assessment of Parowan Creek conducted in 1982 \8\ describes 
Parowan Creek as possessing Agood habitat'' overall but that trout 
habitat is limited to Parowan Creek upstream of the project diversion 
dam. The BLM assessment states that although the bypassed reach is 
dewatered during the summer months, the stream banks are stable and 
there is a Afair'' amount of cover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Parowan included a copy of the BLM habitat assessment in 
Appendix E-7 of the license application.

Environmental Impacts and
Recommendations
Project Operation
    Parowan has a Utah state water right (75-27) to divert up 
to 24.0 cfs, the hydraulic capacity of the project, out of Parowan 
Creek, Center Creek, and Bowery Creek and its tributaries to be used 
for power generation. Parowan's right to this water is for non-
consumptive use; therefore, after using it for power generation, 
Parowan returns the diverted creek flows to an irrigation canal 
downstream of the powerhouse so as not to adversely affect downstream

[[Page 52202]]

irrigation water rights holders. By diverting the flow into the 
penstock, Parowan actually benefits some irrigators, because the 
diverted flow would otherwise pass downstream of the diversion dam and 
seep into the canyon alluvium where the water would have to be pumped 
to be utilized.
    Parowan also possesses a state water right (75-5) to pump 
1.047 cfs from the project forebay well to be used for power generation 
at the project.\9\ Parowan's right to the well water is for non-
consumptive use, and Parowan utilizes the water to increase penstock 
flow and also to keep the project forebay, desilting pond, and penstock 
from freezing during the winter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Parowan states that they use the forbay well for irrigation 
as well as power generation, and therefore, that the well is not 
considered part of the project. However, we note that the water 
right for the well provides for the use of the well for power 
generation by Parowan. Water is pumped from the well to be used, at 
least in part, for the generation of electricity at the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parowan states that it generally operates the project run-of-river, 
but occasionally utilizes the 19.9 acre-foot desilting pond for peaking 
purposes. Parowan proposes to continue operating the project in this 
fashion, which they term Arun-of-the-river'with a minor peaking 
capability component.'' No federal or state agency or Indian tribe has 
filed recommendations related to project operation.
    There is no indication that Parowan's mode of project operation in 
any way affects downstream water rights holders or aquatic resources. 
Parowan returns up to 24 cfs of diverted creek water to an irrigation 
canal after they use it for project generation, so there is no 
consumption of the diverted water. Because Parowan Creek drains into a 
closed basin where all the flow is either diverted by irrigators or 
lost to evaporation or seepage, there are no fisheries resources 
downstream of the project powerhouse affected by the project operation.

Project Flow Releases

    By letter to the applicant dated May 17, 2001 (see appendix E-1 of 
the license application), the FWS inquired if the project had the 
flexibility to provide flows that follow a more natural hydrograph. The 
natural hydrograph for the project area shows annual high flows 
occurring in the months of April through May and lower down to no flow 
(freezing conditions in December) the remainder of the year (figure 1). 
Parowan Reservoir Company largely regulates the inflow that comes into 
the immediate area of the project intake. The regulation of the inflow 
is done to ensure that irrigation needs downstream of the project are 
met throughout the growing season and not for meeting hydroelectric 
operational needs. Parowan Reservoir Company stores flows at its Yankee 
Meadows Reservoir and then releases the flows more evenly throughout 
the course of the year, thereby flattening the annual hydrograph 
(figure 1). The project has minor storage capacity, and therefore, is 
incapable of re-regulating Parowan Reservoir Company's shaping of the 
river flows. By flattening the natural hydrograph, Parowan Reservoir 
Company causes monthly average inflows to the project in most years to 
never exceed 10 cfs, so there is very little flow during the months of 
April through June relative to natural conditions from which to 
work.\10\ Therefore, we conclude that the project has no capacity to 
provide a flow regime that follows a more natural hydrograph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ When we say ``from which to work,'' we envision a situation 
where we establish a relatively high bypassed reach minimum flow in 
April, May, and June, and a lower or no minimum flow requirement the 
remainder of the year so as to mimic the natural hydrograph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Water Quality

    Parowan proposes no new construction or land-disturbance at the 
project that would lead to water quality problems,\11\ and there is no 
evidence to suggest that current project operation and maintenance 
adversely affect water quality. No federal or state agency or Indian 
tribe has filed recommendations related to water quality, and ODEQ's 
Section 401 WQC for the project has no water quality conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ However, we note that on page 4 of the license application, 
Parowan states that it will at some point need to install a direct 
bypass line around the project desilting pond to allow the pond to 
be drained for cleaning. Parowan states that they are not certain 
whether they will seek authorization for this modification as part 
of this relicense proceeding or through a separate proceeding, 
presumably through amendment of any license issued for the project. 
Due to Parowan's uncertainty, we do not recognize the modification 
as part of their formal proposal for this relicense proceeding, and 
therefore, we do not discuss the water quality-related effects of 
this action in this EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

    None.
2. Terrestrial Resources

Affected Environment

Vegetation

    The project area is wooded with a mixture of riparian vegetation. 
In general, a narrow band of riparian vegetation gives way to drier 
pinyon-juniper and sagebrush plant communities. The riparian and upland 
vegetation along the creek is a mixture of large narrowleaf 
cottonwoods, sandbar willows, box elder, a few river birch and maples, 
pines, Gambel oaks, skunkbrush, Mountain juniper, and sagebrush. The 
presence of both riparian species and more upland-drier species creates 
good wildlife habitat with varied structure and streamside shading.
    Green vegetation on both sides of the creek, above and below the 
diversion during low flow periods when the majority of the flow is 
diverted into the penstock signals the presence of sub-surface water 
flowing through the alluvium. Add to this, the flow from small springs 
and several smaller tributary canyons below the diversion, and the 
result is, the stream is seldom, if ever, completely without water and 
there is no evidence to suggest the riparian community will be affect 
by the continued operation and maintenance of the project.

Wildlife

    The habitat along the penstock and in the vicinity of the diversion 
supports many different animals including: cottontail rabbit, ground 
squirrels, chipmunks, woodrat, western harvest mouse, porcupine, and 
deer mouse and a variety of birds, both neotropical migrants and 
residents such as the grosbeak, towhee, bunting, warbler and thrush.

Environmental Impacts and
Recommendations

    Parowan does not propose any ground-disturbing activities that 
would disturb or remove important riparian vegetation. Given there are 
no proposed changes to project structures or operations, riparian 
vegetation along the project area would likely remain the same.
    In its letter filed July 1, 2003, the FWS makes the following 
Section 10(j) recommendation:
    The licensee shall monitor for noxious and undesirable plant 
species in any areas of surface disturbance caused by project related 
activities, including maintenance activities. If noxious and 
undesirable plant species are located, they shall be removed or treated 
with appropriate herbicide applications until destroyed. Surface 
disturbance shall include any activity resulting in vegetation clearing 
or breaking of the soil surface.
    FWS says the above condition is needed because noxious and 
undesirable plant species alter plant communities, generally resulting 
in a decline of native plant species which provide food and cover for 
wildlife. FWS says controlling noxious and

[[Page 52203]]

undesirable plants is necessary to protect and enhance wildlife habitat 
in the project area.
    Parowan agreed to implement this recommendation and Commission 
staff also agrees that this recommendation would ensure that noxious 
and undesirable plants do not become established because of project-
related activities. We recommend Parowan prepare a plan to control 
noxious and invasive weeds.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

    None.
3. Threatened and Endangered Species

Affected Environment

    By letter dated December 3, 2002, Commission staff requested a list 
of any threatened and endangered species at the project from the FWS. 
The FWS responded on December 26, 2002, saying that the following 
listed or candidate species may occur in the project area:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Species                               Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bald eagle.............................  Threatened.
California condor......................  Endangered.
Mexican spotted owl....................  Threatened.
Utah prairie dog.......................  Threatened.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Environmental Impacts and
 Recommendations

    Parowan surveyed the project area for threatened and endangered 
species and did not observe any of the above species. We have no other 
sources of information indicating these species exist in the area. 
Because we have no data indicating the above species exist within the 
project area, and because Parowan does not propose any changes to 
project structures or operations, we find that the proposed project 
would have no effect on threatened and endangered species.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

    None.
4. Cultural Resources

Affected Environment

    On May 4, 2001, and March 21, 2002, the State Historic Preservation 
Officer (SHPO) commented that no cultural resources, listed or eligible 
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be 
affected by the continued operation and maintenance of the project 
(letter from Barbara L. Murphy and James L. Dykmann, respectively, 
State of Utah, Department of Community and Economic Development, 
Division of State History, Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake 
City, Utah).
Environmental Impacts and
Recommendations

    If the project continues to operate as it has in the past, it is 
unlikely that any new sites would be discovered. However, if any new or 
undocumented archeological or historic sites are discovered during 
project operation or maintenance, Parowan should: (1) Consult with the 
SHPO and BLM about the discovered sites; (2) prepare a site-specific 
cultural resource management plan, including a schedule to evaluate the 
significance of the sites and to avoid or mitigate any impacts to sites 
found eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic 
Places; (3) base the site-specific plan on recommendations of the SHPO 
and BLM and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines 
for Archeology and Historic Preservation; (4) file the site-specific 
plan for Commission approval, together with the written comments of the 
SHPO and BLM; and (5) take the necessary steps to protect the 
discovered archeological or historic sites from further impact until 
notified by the Commission that all of these requirements have been 
satisfied.
    The Commission may require cultural resources work and changes to 
cultural resources management plans based on the filings. Parowan would 
not be allowed to implement a cultural resources management plan or 
begin any land-clearing or land-disturbing activities in the vicinity 
of any discovered sites until informed by the Commission that the 
requirements have been fulfilled.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

    None.

VI. Developmental Analysis

    In previous sections of this draft EA, we assess the effects of 
continued operation of the project on the environment. In this section, 
we look at the effect proposed environmental measures would have on the 
project's power benefits and summarize the cost of environmental and 
developmental measures considered in our analysis. Also in this 
section, we show: (1) the cost of the proposed environmental measures 
for the project and (2) how the proposed environmental measures would 
affect the project's economics.

A. Power and Economic Benefits of the Project

    The project has an installed capacity of 600 kW and provides an 
average annual energy generation of 2,300 MWh. Parowan does not propose 
any changes to project structures or operations. To calculate the 
economic benefits of the project, we equate the value of project power 
benefits to the current cost Parowan would have to pay for the same 
amount of energy and capacity using alternative generating resources. 
We do not consider future inflation effects in our analysis.
    The cost of alternative power is used as a threshold in our 
determination of positive or negative project power benefits. A 
positive net annual power benefit shows how much less it would cost 
Parowan to use the project's power instead of the most likely 
alternative power source. A negative net annual power benefit shows how 
much more it would cost to use the project's power instead of the most 
likely alternative power source.

B. Cost of Environmental Enhancement Measures

    Any measures proposed or recommended by Parowan, agencies, or 
Commission staff could affect project economics because of the cost of 
these measures or their effect on power generation.
    In this draft EA, we consider the implementation of a plan to 
control noxious and invasive weeds. The added cost of this measure is 
considered minimal. Such a plan would have negligible effects on 
project economics and would not affect annual generation.

C. Cost of Proposed Project

    The economic parameters we used for our analysis are shown in table 
3. The project, as proposed by Parowan, would have an annual cost of 
$18,000 (7.4 mills/kWh). The current annual value of power from the 
project would be $74,000 (32.1 mills/kWh). To determine whether the 
proposed project is economically beneficial, we subtract the cost of 
the project from the value of its power. As proposed, this project 
would yield a net annual power benefit of about $56,000 (24.7 mills/
kWh).

 Table 2.--Parameters for Economic Analysis of the Center Creek Project
               [Source: Parowan City and Commission staff]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Economic parameter                         Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of analysis...................  30 years.
Discount/interest rate...............  6.0 percent.\1\
Operation and maintenance............  $17,118 per year.\2\
Alternative energy value.............  32.1 mills per kWh.\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The discount and interest rates of 6.0 percent are provided by
  Commission staff as typical values for this type of analysis.
\2\ The annual operation and maintenance cost is estimated by Commission
  staff.

[[Page 52204]]

 
\3\ The alternative energy value for the project is based on Utah Power
  & Light Company's current avoided cost as found in Electric Service
  Schedule No. 37, effective March 11, 2002.

D. Cost of Staff-Recommended Alternatives

    Commission staff recommended one additional environmental measure: 
a cultural resource management plan, if during project operation and 
maintenance any new or undocumented archeological sites are discovered. 
The added cost of this measure and a plan to control noxious and 
invasive weeds is minimal and these measures would not affect project 
generation. Therefore, the staff-recommended alternative would have the 
same cost and generation benefits as the no-action alternative.

VII. Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative

    Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the FPA require the Commission to 
give equal consideration to all uses of the waterway on which a project 
is located. When we review a proposed project, we equally consider the 
environmental, recreational, fish and wildlife, and other non-
developmental values of the project, as well as power and developmental 
values. Accordingly, any license issued shall be best adapted to a 
comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or waterways 
for all beneficial public uses.
    Based on our independent review of agency and public comments filed 
on this project and our review of the environmental and economic 
effects of the proposed project and its alternatives, we selected the 
proposed project, with staff's additional measure, as the preferred 
option. We recommend this option because: (1) Issuance of a new 
hydropower license by the Commission would allow Parowan to operate the 
project as an economically beneficial and dependable source of 
electrical energy; (2) the 600-kW project would eliminate the need for 
an equivalent amount of fossil-fuel derived energy and capacity, which 
helps conserve these nonrenewable resources and limits atmospheric 
pollution; (3) the public benefits of the selected alternative would 
exceed those of Parowan's proposal and the no-action alternative, and 
(4) the recommended measures would protect existing environmental 
resources.
    We recommend the following environmental measures be included in 
any license issued by the Commission for the Center Creek Project: (1) 
monitor and remove any noxious and undesirable plants after ground-
disturbing activities; and (2) should archeological or historic sites 
be discovered during project operation or maintenance, prepare a site-
specific cultural resource management plan in consultation with the 
SHPO and BLM to evaluate the significance of the sites and to mitigate 
impacts to those sites that are determined to be eligible for inclusion 
in the National Register of Historic Places.
    From our evaluation of the environmental and economic effects of 
the project, we conclude that licensing the Center Creek Project with 
our additional recommended environmental protection measures would best 
adapt the project to a comprehensive plan for the Center Creek Basin.

VIII. Recommendations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

    Under the provisions of Section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydropower 
license issued by the Commission shall include conditions based on 
recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife 
agencies for the protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and 
wildlife resources affected by the project, where those conditions are 
not inconsistent with the purpose and requirements of the FPA or other 
applicable law.
    We received one Section 10(j) recommendation from the FWS in its 
letter filed July 1, 2003. FWS recommends that Parowan monitor and 
remove any noxious and undesirable plants after any ground-disturbing 
activities. As discussed in this draft EA, Parowan now includes this 
recommendation in its proposed project. Commission staff recommends 
Parowan prepare a plan to implement this recommendation.

IX. Consistency With Comprehensive Plans

    Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA requires the Commission to consider the 
extent to which a project is consistent with federal or state 
comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway 
or waterways affected by the project. We identified 9 plans filed by 
federal, and state agencies that address various resources in Utah; 
however, none are relevant to the continued operation of the project.

X. Finding of No Significant Impact

    We've prepared this environmental assessment for the project 
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Should the 
Commission decide to issue a license for the project, staff analysis 
shows that licensing the project would not be a major federal action 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. With our 
recommended measures existing environmental resources would be 
protected.

XI. Literature Cited

    Sunrise Engineering, Inc., 2001. Application for a License for a 
Minor Water Power Project--Center Creek Hydroelectric Project--Parowan 
City (FERC Project No. 1273). November 15, 2002.

XII. List of Preparers

    Gaylord W. Hoisington B Project Coordinator B Terrestrial, Cultural 
Resources, and Threatened and Endangered Species; Soil Conservationist; 
B.S., Recreation.
    Nicholas Jayjack B Aquatic Resources B Fishery Biologist; M.S., 
Environmental Science in Civil Engineering; B.S., Fisheries and Aquatic 
Sciences.
    Linda Lehman B Civil Engineer; M.S., Civil Engineering; B.S., Civil 
Engineering.

[FR Doc. 03-22352 Filed 8-29-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P