WSP09906 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

WHAT DID THE PUBLIC TELL US THROUGH SCOPING? Two issues of concern often expressed by the commenting public were the impacts of fluctuating flow releases on downstream resources and the importance of clean, renewable hydropower as a major factor in the economic development and well-being of the communities and rural areas benefiting from the power. Central to the issue of hydropower is the use of the power plant to generate power to meet peaking demand. The downstream impacts identified were: loss of beaches, damage to the riparian ecosystem (including wildlife. vegetation, and fish habitat), and lhreat to the experience of those who fish, hike, or raft in the Grand Canyon. Most pel'"SOns providingcomments did not include supporting evidence but rather tended to infer their position was factual. Very little specific or concerted reference was made to the scientific evidence available from the Glen Canyon Envirorunental Studies conducted from 1982 to 1988. It was not possible to determine from the comments the extent to which those studies were consulted. The documents that did include scientific study and data were included in the scoping report appendix as they were too complex to be coded into general concerns. As reported in this newsletter, about 14,450 cards were pre-printed and distributed by Friends of the River in MO versions, and by the Sierra Club. Friends of the River placed high value on the beauty and health of Grand Canyon over maximization of power production from Glen Canyon Dam. They also suggested a flow release schedule that optimize all downstream benefits in an ~integrated" manner (integrated was not defined on the card). The second version of the card differed by seeking identification of resources of the Colorado River and the benefits and costs associated with different operations of the dam. The Sierra Club also supported an ~integrated" alternative which would preserve all downstream benefits. Public power interests in the S1. George, Utah, area requested, among other things, that alternatives need to associate costs of changes to beneficiaries, provide for the greatest use of hydro-electric power generation because it is clean and renewable, and assess today's water flow impacts related to an impact scenario prior to the construction of Glen Canyon Dam. Calling it "tunnel vision mentality," 124 residents of Page, AZ, disagreed with demands for irrunediate interirr flows from the dam during the EI~ process. They stated a small segmenl of society, in seeking such flows, i~ ignoring the social and economic benefits to a larger portion of society from current operations at the dam. Public comment analysts caution that there is a danger of over-simplifying when trying to categorize comments in terms that classify persons as advocates for a particular view. There is diversity of views held within each of the major interest groups even though the common interests, concerns, and suggestions tend to stand out more prominently. Many persons identified themselves as members of certain organizations, but offered individual comments differing from official organizational views. At the conclusion of sorting and categorizing all the material received, the coding team said the most impressive point to them throughout this project was the diversity of opinions, interests, perceptions and experience reflected in both written and oral comments. The second most impressive attribute was the strong desire of the public to have a voice in the EIS process and to be assured that the Federal agencies managing the resources were serious in seeking public input. 4 , '*.~ .-Ii