ELECTRICAL DISTRICT NUMBER SEVEN 

of the County of Maricopa and State of Arizona 

OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN-MANAGER 

14629 WEST PEORIA AVENUE WADDELL, ARIZONA 85355-9617 

PHONE: 623-935-6253 

March 25, 2024 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Attn: LTEMP SElS Project Manager 

125 South State Street, Suite 800 

Salt Lake City, UT 84138 

L TEMPSEIS@usbr.gov 

FAX: 623-935-4360 EMAi L: powerandwater@aol.com 

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

Plan ("LTEMP") Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

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

Dear Project Manager: 

Electrical District Number Seven ("£07'') appreciates the opportunity to provide 

con1ments in on the important strategic analysis at issue in this DS:t::1S, 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. 

ED7 provides electric service to customers in Maricopa County, Arizona. £07 is a longtime Firm Electric Service ("FES") contractor \vith 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 swnmer generation and capacity comes from GCD. £07 

is concerned about the short-tenn reliability impacts associated \Vith the unavailability of 

capacity, whether due to LTEMP provisions rendering GCD generation unavailable, or due to 

increased demand on regional markets for summer peaking power. £07 has reviewed the 

DSEIS, the input from stakeholders leading up to the DSEIS, and comments prepared for the 

DSElS. ED7 wholly supports and agrees with the thoughtful conilllcnts of CREDA, 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 DSElS further fails to include adequate and meaningful discussion of the 
Bureau of Reclamation 

Attn: LTEMP SEIS Project Maoager 

March 25, 2024 

Page2 

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 ofsun1mer 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 § I 502. 14. 

"Consideration of alternatives" is "the heart of the environmental impact statement." West/ands 

Water Dist. v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 376 F.3d 853, 865 (9111 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. ld., citing 40 

C.F.R. § 1502.13; see also. City of Carmel- By-The-Sea v. U.S. 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., citiog 40 C.F.R. § 1502.l4(a), (c), (e). "The existence of 

a viable but unexamined alternative renders an environmental impact statement 

inadequate. " ld. quotiog Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Fed. Aviation Adn,in., 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 informed public participation." Id. quotiog 

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

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

alternatives 

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

be evaluated in th.is 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 narrow" 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 alternati ves to addressing the identified need. As raised by !EDA 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 them1al 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 arc so 

significant, would be iodefensible. Failure to exantine these viable alternatives to flow 
Bureau ofReclwnation 

Attn: LTEMP SEIS Project Manager 

March 25, 2024 

Pagc3 

1nodifications would render the DSETS legally inadequate. See Wes/lands Water Dist. v. U.S. 

Dept. of Interior, 376 F.3d 853, 865 (9m Cir.2004). 

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

sij!Dificant loss of summer electric capacity when market re,placement 

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 swnmer 

months is not assured. The DSETS bypass flow alternatives assume that W APA will able to 

purchase replacement power to fulfill its contractual obligations to customers. (See DSEIS at 3-

19.) The DSEIS briefly notes that WAPA's operational flexibi lity 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 replacen1ent power the DSEIS identifies will be needed under the bypass 

alternatives. (Id at 3-1 9). ED7 is affected first-hand by the electric power spot market. In the 

rush to replace GCD generation, W APA and its contractors (including ED7) will all be looking 

for replacement po\ver in the same capacity-short market environment forcing prices to rise. 

Transmission constraints could further squeeze market replacement power purchases. ED7 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 

$ I ,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. ED7 agrees with 

CREDA, IEDA, and SRP's comments that there arc 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 n1arket to fill the loss of GCD. 1 This could lead to grid 

unreliability, which cao 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 opporrunities, such as maintaining 

on-peak generation in the flow-based alternatives. 

IV. Conclusion 

ED7 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. 
Bureau of Reclamation 

Attn: LTEMP SEIS Project Manager 

March 25, 2024 

Page4 

c: 

R. 0. Justice 

Manager 

1 ED7 in particular concurs in CREDA's comment that Hydropower Modeling Assumptions/'TMax should be 

rewritten by WAPA, as the Power and Energy analysis included in the DSEIS does oot appropriately disclose an 

analysis of the effects, as required for eilber public comment or a final decision by the Secrelary.