WSP09059 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Rick's Remarks By: Rick Gold Deputy Regional Director Those of you who have been following this process from the beginning, in the spring of 1990, know we have come a long way. I am especially grateful to all of you who have commented on the draft EIS. Many of you have taken time from your personal lives to stay informed and involved in this process. Many of you live great distances from Glen Canyon Dam and the Grand Canyon and may have never visited the dam nor seen the Canyon. But, we know that you care deeply about this world-renowned natural wonder. Your values, concerns, suggestions, and critiques have shaped the preferred alternative for the fmal EIS which is described in this newsletter. There has been disagreement, debate, and compromise during the process; and, while many still do not see the issues from the same perspective, we have engaged in an orderly decisionmaking process which sets our country apart from virtually all of the rest of the world. Preparation of the fmal E1S is progressing, with completion expected near the end of the year. Thank you. we appreciate your participation. EIS Update - New Preferred Alternative By: Gordy Lind NEPA Manager As a result of comments on both the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam and draft biological opinion (see article on page 4) and discussions with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and with the broad support of the cooperating agencies. the preferred alternative is being modified for the fmal EIS. This modification will include the two changes in operating limits previously proposed as deviations to interim flows--increasing the maximum flow from 20,000 to 25,000 cubic feet per second (cts) and increasing the upramp rate from 2,500 to 4,000 cts per hour. The endangered fish research flows, described in the draft EIS, will be moved from the preferred alternative and addressed from a scientifically based position within the Adaptive Management Program (AMP). This modification has been made because we believe that the potential effects of steady flows should be further studied before implementa- tion to evaluate uncertainties concerning the interactions 2 between native and non-native fish. Moving the endangered fish research flows to AMP will allow further investigations over the next 2 to 3 years to alleviate these uncertainties. Reclamation believes that these modifications are justified based upon the comments received from the cooperators and the public, additional information from meetings with researchers and other scientists, and reevaluations. In addition, Reclamation will request, through the Federal appropriations process, accelerated implementation of the selective withdrawal structure since temperature modifica- tion has been determined to be the most critical factor affecting the recovery of endangered fish in Glen and Grand Canyons (see article on page 5). The chart and narrative on the facing page is a detailed description of the parameters of the preferred alternative now being developed for the final EIS. (Continued on Page 3)