My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00615
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
WSP00615
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:26:55 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 9:51:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.101.09
Description
Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powell
State
AZ
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
10/25/1996
Title
Record of Decision - Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Record of Decision
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />.. <br /> <br />\" <br /> <br />., <br />" ) <br /> <br />RECEiVED BOR SlCU l <br />OrFICiJLL FILE '::CPY l <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Colorado River Studies Office <br />Bureau of Reclamation <br />Attn: liC 1512 <br />PO Box 115G8 <br />Salt Lake City. liT 84147 <br /> <br />11 APr4PW'159 1995 <br /> <br />, ..-..-........---....-. <br />. r I j -. <br />~ ;._:.2..~_=-~ <br />J .... ~ <br />),,- ' , <br />....-- h _-S <br />;, '., _.. :. - ...;..,IJ.. I <br />.." .~:.j2 I <br /> <br />Dear Sirs. <br /> <br />. .~ ...-._._--~.. <br />I am deeply concerned with the final Glen Canyon EIS document ahd would"like''mit.::'.'J - : <br />concerns attached to the Record of Decision you are sending to S~l <<tal r-;Babbltt;-... --.. .. . <br /> <br />~-_.._..-..... ~- <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />~ , , <br />Ylaintain interim flows. I ask for credible proof, based on i --.-.-- ... ,-'''--i <br />the testing of a specific scientific hypothesis, that :..--. L--.'-:;'"1=3::' ':::r: <br />alterations in operating procedures at Glen Canyon Dam follow ~::.- <br />the spirit and intent of the Grand Canyon Protection Act. <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />Do not change two parameters at once. Changing two flow criteria <br />does not make prudent scientific sense; it will not result in <br />reliable data. There is not enough information at hand to <br />predict the outcome of these proposals. <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />Habitat/Beach Building floods. Periodic "spike flows" are <br />critical to restore some of the river's historic dynamics; <br />without them any flow regime will result in continued loss <br />of beach and backwater habitat. This "spike" should be <br />assessed and implemented for the spring of 1996. <br /> <br />Fish & Wildlife Service's Biological Opinion. I call for <br />experimental steady flows to benefit native fishes, subject <br />to the results of a risk/benefit analysis now in progress. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />Adaptive Management Program. I urge immediate funding and <br />implementation of the AMP. It is imperative that reasoned <br />judgment monitor over, and respond to, possible adverse <br />effects resulting from changes in dam operations. <br /> <br />I urge Interior Secretary Babbitt to issue a Record of <br />Decision by December 31, 1995 and, to this end, I ask <br />for an effident and timely audit by the General <br />Accounting Office as mandated by the Grand Canyon <br />Protection Act. <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />Keep me posted as to the progress and changes to the EIS <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />~- <br /> <br />-- <br />Jon Porter, M.D. <br />501 7th Street <br />Manhattan Beach CA 90266 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.