Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> speakers wanted interim flows . Trout fishing interests favored <br />. (minimum peaking DperationB) during moderate release patterns which they <br /> the EIS preparation periDd. Also, many believe would maximize trout <br /> Bpeakers emphaaized the need for reproduction. Thsse interests strongly <br /> formulation and implementation of a opposed Btructural alternatives. <br /> long-term monitoring program. <br /> . Environmental speakers emphasized <br /> . Many speakers aaked that Arizona ecosystem protectiDn and desired that <br /> Game and Fish Department be a river flows in Grand CanYDn <br /> cooperating agency. (Arizona Game approximate predam conditions. <br /> and Fish Department and four Indian Multilevel powerplant water intake <br /> tribes have since been added.) units to allow an incrsaae in river <br /> water temperature for native fish were <br /> . An Environmental Protsction Agency requeBted. Strong Dbjection to other <br /> (EPA) Bpeaksr in Denver expressed structural alternatives waa expressed. <br /> concern with NEP A compliance, <br /> wanted identificetion of alternatives . Many environmental speakers desired <br /> beyond Reclamation's ability to a power conservation (or pricing) <br /> implement, and wanted the Glen alternative in the Western marketing <br /> Canyon EIS and Western's system EIS area to reduce or eliminate peak power <br /> to be integrated. The speaker ststed use patterns. <br /> that a letter from EP A would be <br /> forthcoming. (The letter has since been . A few speakerB asked that the EIS be <br /> received and diBtributed to the expanded to include all Upper Colorado <br /> cooperating agencies.) River BaBin project operations. <br />. . Power intereBtB favored careful study . A few speakers Buggested removal of <br /> befDre changes in current normal Glen Canyon Dam. <br /> operations are made. All reasonable <br /> alternatives must be studied, including It is apparent that issues and potential <br /> nonstructural and structural mitigation alternatives are diverse, and compromise and <br /> meaaures (such as regulation changes <br /> affecting rafting and fishing, a small conBenBUB are difficult to reach. All <br /> reregulation dam near Glen Canyon reasonable concerns must be treated fairly <br /> Dam, and beach rebuilding and and objectively in order to produce a quality <br /> protection), and cost sharing by document that will be uBeful in defining the <br /> non power river-using interests. impacts of alternatives and fully achieve the <br /> requirements ofNEPA. <br /> . Power and irrigation interests <br /> expressed concern about changes in The results of scoping are contained in two <br /> power operations that may reduce separate reports: one providing a summary of <br /> availability offunds for other water the public meeting comments, and the other <br /> development projects in the Upper providing a comment analYBis. Both <br /> Colorado River BaBin. documents were prepared by Bear West <br /> Consultants, who helped facilitate the scoping <br /> . River rafting interests favored mod- activities. Copies of the reports may be <br /> erate release patterns and opposed obtained from Reclamation's Upper Colorado <br /> structural alternatives in the canyon. Regional Office in Salt Lake City (SLC), Utah. <br /> Beaches and boater safety were major <br /> concerns. Several flow recommen- <br /> dations were given for lower maximum <br /> releases and higher minimum releases. <br />. <br /> 4 <br />