MARICOPA WATER DISTRICT 

♦ (623) 546-8266 ♦ FAX (623) 584-2536 

1

~ MVO 

March 25, 2024 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Attn: LTEMP SEIS Project Manager 

125 South State Street, Suite 800 

Salt Lake City, UT 84138 

LTEMPSEIS@usbr.gov 

Re: Comments re Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management 

Plan ("LTEMP") Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("DSEIS") 

- (89 Fed. Reg. 28, (Feb. 9, 2024)) 

Dear Project Manager: 

Maricopa Water District ("MWD") appreciates the oppmtunity to provide comments in on 

the important strategic analysis at issue in this DSEIS, namely the available alternatives to reduce 

the threat of smallmouth bass below the Glen Canyon Dam ("GCD"). We support the concept of 

preventing establishment of smallmouth bass and other nonnative warmwater invasive fish, but 

the DSEIS fails to sufficiently analyze alternatives that mitigate health and safety concerns 

resulting from the loss of GCD summer electric capacity, in a time where market purchases may 

not be available to replace the loss. Accordingly, we submit the following comments on the DSEIS 

and encourage the Bureau of Reclamation ("BOR" or "Reclamation") to ensure an outcome that 

is equitable, sustainable, and compliant with the requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act ("NEPA"). As drafted, the DSEIS does not meet NEPA's requirement to explore 

available alternatives. 

MWD provides electric service to customers in Maricopa County, Arizona. MWD is a 

long-time Film Electric Service ("FES") contractor with Western Area Power Administration 

("W AP A") for capacity and energy provided by the Colorado River Storage Project ("CRSP"). A 

majority of the CRSP system's critical summer generation and capacity comes from GCD. MWD 

is concerned about the short-te1m reliability impacts associated with the unavailability of capacity, 

whether due to L TEMP provisions rendering GCD generation unavailable, or due to increased 

demand on regional markets for summer peaking power. MWD has reviewed the DSEIS, the input 

from stakeholders leading up to the DSEIS, and comments prepared for the DSEIS. MWD wholly 

supports and agrees with the thoughtful comments ofCREDA, IEDA, and SRP. The DSEIS omits 

reasonable alternatives that could disrupt the establishment of smallmouth bass below GCD 

without flow modifications that diminish GCD electric generation and capacity. The DSEIS further 

fails to include adequate and meaningful discussion of the environmental and public safety effects 

that alternatives will impose on the electric utilities who receive electric generation and capacity 

from GCD, and the retail customers those electric utilities serve, due to the loss of summer electric 

capacity. 

I. EIS Legal Standard 

NEPA requires that an EIS must consider and assess the environmental consequences of 

the proposed action and reasonable alternatives to the action. 40 C.F .R. § 1502.14. "Consideration 
Bureau of Reclamation 

Attn: L TEMP SEIS Project Manager 

March 25, 2024 

Page 2 

of alternatives" is "the heart of the environmental impact statement." West/ands Water Dist. v. US. 

Dept. of Interior, 376 F.3d 853, 865 (9th Cir.2004). Reclamation must "specify the underlying 

purpose and need for the proposed action" which provides the framework for analyzing the range 

of alternatives that must be discussed in an EIS. Id., citing 40 C.F.R. § 1502.13; see also. City of 

Carmel-By-The-Sea v. US. Dep't ofTransp., 123 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir.1995). "The stated goal of 

a project necessarily dictates the range of 'reasonable' alternatives and an agency cannot define 

its objectives in unreasonably narrow terms." Id. at 1155 (citing Citizens Against Burlington, 

Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 192 (D.C.Cir.1991)). "Project alternatives derive from an [EIS's] 

'Purpose and Need' section." Id. 

An EIS must "[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives," 

"[i]nclude reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency," and "[i]dentify 

the agency's preferred alternative." Id., citing 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a), (c), (e). "The existence of 

a viable but unexamined alternative renders an environmental impact statement 

inadequate." Id. quoting Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 161 F.3d 

569,575 (9th Cir.1998). The EIS must consider reasonable alternatives that are feasible, effective 

and consistent with the basic policy objective of the EIS so that the "discussion of alternatives 

fosters informed decision-making and inf01med public participation." Id. quoting Calif. v. Block, 

690 F.2d 753, 767 (9th Cir. 1982). 

II. The DSEIS does not explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable 

alternatives 

The availability of nonflow alternatives to disrupt smallmouth bass populations needs to 

be evaluated in this SEIS, and not left to another "future NEPA actions" as proposed. (DSEIS, at 

1-6). Narrowing the purpose of the DSEIS to only "analyze additional flow options at [GCD]" is 

just the type of "unreasonably na1TOw" objective that courts have chastised. (Id.) See West/ands 

Water Dist., 376 F.3d at 1155. The single-minded focus on flows drives the process to overlook 

reasonable alternatives to addressing the identified need. As raised by IEDA and members of the 

GCD Adaptive Management Work Group, including SRP, alternative potential solutions to 

prevent entrainment include manipulation of reservoir elevation, application of a the1mal curtain 

or barrier net, habitat modifications, and physical modifications to address the -12-mile slough 

where the smallmouth bass and other invasive fish spawn. Failure to analyze these actions that 

address the identified need, when the costs of bypass flows to electric reliability are so significant, 

would be indefensible. Failure to examine these viable alternatives to flow modifications would 

render the DSEIS legally inadequate. See West/ands Water Dist. v. US. Dept. of Interior, 376 F.3d 

853, 865 (9th Cir.2004). 

III. The DSEIS does not adequately identify the effects on the public of a 

significant loss of summer electric capacity when market replacement 

resources may be scarce 

Due to drought and changing regional electric wholesale market conditions, the availability 

of market purchases of electric capacity and generation during critical summer months is not 

assured. The DSEIS bypass flow alternatives assume that W AP A will able to purchase 

replacement power to fulfill its contractual obligations to customers. (See DSEIS at 3-19.) The 

CLARKHILL\LOl 17\454319\276386544.v2-3/25/24 
Bureau of Reclamation 

Attn: LTEMP SEIS Project Manager 

March 25, 2024 

Page 3 

DSEIS briefly notes that WAPA's operational flexibility is affected by the availability and price 

of replacement power, (Id. at 3-20), but does not appear to analyze the availability or price of the 

replacement power the DSEIS identifies will be needed under the bypass alternatives. (Id. at 3-

19). MWD is affected first-hand by the electric power spot market. In the rush to replace GCD 

generation, WAP A and its contractors (including MWD) will all be looking for replacement power 

in the same capacity-short market environment forcing prices to rise. Transmission constraints 

could further squeeze market replacement power purchases. MWD has watched as increasingly 

drastic weather has caused the large importation of market purchases into the desert southwest, 

forcing the price of power to exceed $300/MWh, and spike to over $1,000 in times of shortage. 

As the Supreme Court has recognized, "[i]mplicit in NEPA's demand that an agency 

prepare a detailed statement on 'any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided 

should the proposal be implemented,' .. . is an understanding that the EIS will discuss the extent 

to which adverse effects can be avoided." Robertson, 490 U.S. at 352. MWD agrees with 

CREDA, IEDA, and SRP's comments that there are significant constraints on available capacity 

in the summer months. There are legitimate concerns that replacement capacity and peaking 

generation will not be available on the market to fill the loss of GCD.

1 This could lead to grid 

unreliability, which can threaten public safety. The DSEIS must be redrafted to analyze the effects 

of flow modifications on grid reliability, and must discuss the extent to which those adverse effects 

can be avoided via pursuing other mitigation opportunities, such as maintaining on-peak 

generation in the flow-based alternatives. 

IV. Conclusion 

MWD asks that Reclamation critically analyze all available alternatives to disrupt 

smallmouth bass populations below GCD. The inclusion of one non-bypass flow alternative is 

insufficient to address the concerns raised in response to the Environmental Assesses, as the DSEIS 

nonetheless fails to articulate or mitigate the effect on regional grid reliability caused by the loss 

of GCD generation. 

Sincerely, 

~ ( ~ Glen Vortherms 

Manager 

c: 

1 MWD in particular concurs in CREDA's comment that Hydropower Modeling Assumptions/ 

TMax should be rewritten by W AP A, as the Power and Energy analysis included in the DSEIS 

does not appropriately disclose an analysis of the effects, as required for either public comment or 

a final decision by the Secretary. 

CLARKHILL\LO l l 7\454319\276386544.v2-3/25/24