Option 1. Endorse the Project 



This option endorses the addition of four more generators at Libby Dam, construc- 

 tion of the reregulating dam and the proposed construction and operating plans and 

 environmental programs associated vn"th the project. 



The issue papers have identified serious problems associated with the project 

 that must be accepted if the project is endorsed. These include concerns over rec- 

 reational losses, mitigation of environmental damage, and the determination on whether 

 the project is really needed. Endorsement of this option assumes that regional 

 concern for additional peaking power production and local interests in construc- 

 tion employment outweigh the problems associated with the project and that the en- 

 vironmental issues do not merit further consideration. 



Effective endorsement of the project could include support of Congressional 

 authorization and efforts to hasten the EIS process associated with the Major Fac- 

 ility Siting Act if it should apply. 



Option 2. Condition Endorsement on Possible Modifications 



This option assumes that additional peaking capacity and/or local construction 

 employment is needed and attempts to accomplish these goals with minimal environmental 

 degradation. Completion of the eagle study, a reevaluation of fluctuation criteria 

 and a review of mitigation measures associated with the project should be completed 

 before the state supports the project. State support would be contingent upon ac- 

 ceptance of state recommendations arising from the studies mentioned above. 



Implementation requires initiation of the studies that will determine the con- 

 ditions upon which state support will depend. The reevaluation of fluctuation criteria 

 should identify the tradeoffs between the economic value of the peaking power and the 

 environmental and recreational benefits to be gained by reducing fluctuations. 



Mitigation of fish, wildlife, and recreation losses due to the reregulating dam 

 and reservoir has never been satisfactorily resolved. A "habitat unit" type of 

 evaluation could be prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Fish and Game 

 Department. Mitigation and compensation measures would be based on the aquatic and 

 terrestial evaluations. 



This option is only viable if the state has effective methods to ensure that the 

 recommended conditions would be adopted by the Corps. In addition there should be 

 sound reasons for believing that modifications in project design and operation can be 

 recommended which will not cripple the peaking capabilities whicn justify the pro- 

 ject. 



Implementation of the option would be difficult. An attempt could be made to use 

 the Environmental Coordinating Committee as the vehicle to accomplish the alterations. 

 However, those involved with the committee don't believe much can be accomplished 

 througb the committee. 



Support of Montana's Congressmen of an authorization bill could be hinged upon 

 project modification in accordance with the state's conditions. 



14 



