WSP12616 ‎(2)‎

• File Number: 8220.101.10
• Description: Colorado River Water Projects - Glen Canyon Dam-Lake Powell - Adaptive Management
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 12/10/1997
• Author: Glen Canyon Dam AMWG - NEPA-ESA Subgroup
• Title: Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program - Report of the NEPA-ESA Subgroup to the Technical Work Group - 12-10-97
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

:;

..

fH.l25'i7

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

REpORT OF THE NEPA/ESA ISSUES SUBGROUP
TO THE
TECHNICAL WORK GROUP

The NEPNESA Issues subgroup met on November 18, 1997 to discuss and attempt to
reach consensus on answers to the following three questions:

(I) What does Adaptive Management mean relative to NEPA and the ESA? Do we need
new or revised NEPA documents?
(2) Are Biological Opinion issues/information needs adequately coordinated with the
GCMRC?
(3) Are the Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish & Wildlife Service and the TWG
communicating sufficiently to move forward with ALVlP goals?

In attendance were: Bill Persons, AGFD; Barry Gold, GCMRC; Bill Davis, CREDA; Wayne
Cook, UCRC; George Ruffner, CREDA; Debra Bills, USFWS; Clayton Palmer, W AP A; Bruce
Moore, USBR; Tony Monon, USBR; Norm Henderson, NPS; Pamela Hyde (chair), American
Rivers; and Chris Harris, ADWR.

NEP A Issues

We began our discussion by reviewing some of the fundamentals ofNEPA, with Tony
Monon, Reclamation's compliance officer in Salt Lake, walking us through that discussion and
giving us Reclamation's view of NEP A compliance, (The group thought this discussion was
extremely helpful and suggested that Tony could do a "NEPA 101" course of this type for the
AMWG at its next meeting.) Reclamation is the action agency when it comes to environmental
compliance.

Reclamation has a working assumption that everything they do is subject to NEPA
review, including all aspects of the operation of Glen Canyon Dam and the Adaptive
Management Program. However, Reclamation believes that the AMP, specifically the activities
of the AMWG and the TWG, is "NEPA in action", In other words, since all the stakeholders are
represented on those bodies, and they are evaluating the environmental consequences of actions
and alternatives, that which NEP A seeks to engender is already occurring, Should an action
under the AMP rise to the level of an EIS, Reclamation would seek to involve a broader public.
But should it only require an EA, which can involve selective public involvement, or be dealt
with through a categorical exclusion (CE), which does not require any public involvement,
Reclamation will rely on the workings of the AMWG and the TWG,

Documentation of those processes is critical. and therefore Reclamation must have sign-

I

12110/97