WSP00615 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- other two alternatives. The Modified Low Fluctuating Flow could substantially improve the aquatic food base and benefit native and non-native fish. The potential exists for a minor increase in the native fish population. Although the Moderate Fluctuating, Modified Low Fluctuating, and Seasonally Adjusted Steady Flow Alternatives provide similar benefits to most downstream resources, the Modified Low Fluctuating Flow Alternative was selected as the preferred alternative because it would provide the most benefits with respect to the original selection criteria, given existing information. This alternative would create conditions that promote the protection and improvement of downstream resources while maintaining some flexibility in hydropower production. Although there would be a significant loss of hydropower benefits due to the selection of the preferred alternative (between $15.1 and 544.2 million annually) a recently completed non-use value study conducted under the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies indicates that the American people are wi1\ing to pay much more than this loss to maintain a healthy ecosystem in the Grand Canyon. The results of this non- use value study are summarized in Attachment 3 of the ROD. The results ofa General Accounting Office (GAO) audit mandated by the Grand Canyon Protection Act are in Attachment 4 of the ROD. This audit generally concludes that Reclamation used appropriate methodologies and the best available information in determining the potential impact of various dam flow alternatives on important resources. However, GAO identified some shortcomings in the application of certain methodologies and data, particularly with respect to the hydropower analysis. Reclamation's assumptions do not explicitly include the mitigating effect of higher electricity prices on electricity demand (price elasticity). GAO also determined that Reclamation's assumptions about natural gas prices were relatively high and that two computational errors were made during the third phase of the power analysis. According to GAO, these limitations suggest that the estimated economic impacts for power are subject to uncertainty. GAO also found limitations with some of the data used for impact analysis. Certain data was incomplete or outdated, particularly data used in assessing the economic impact of alternative flows on recreational activities. Nevertheless, the National Research Council peer reviewed both the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies and the EIS, and generally found the analysis to be adequate. The GAO audit concluded that these shortcomings and limitations are not significant and would not likely alter the findings with respect to the preferred alternative and usefulness of the document in the decision-making process. The audit also determined that most of the key parties (83 percent of respondents) support Reclamation's preferred alternative for dam operations, although some concerns remain.