Laserfiche WebLink
<br />STEADY FLOWS <br /> <br />Existing Monthly Volume: Provide steady flows that use historic monthly release <br />strategies. <br /> <br />Seasonally Adjusted: Provide steady flows on a seasonal or monthly basis; includes <br />habitat maintenance flows. <br /> <br />Year-Round: Provide steady flows throughout the year. <br /> <br />Table I shows the specific operational criteria for each of the alternatives. <br /> <br />IV. SIGNIFICANT ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />The Glen Canyon Dam EIS scoping process was initiated in early 1990 and the public was invited <br />to comment on the appropriate scope of the EIS. More than 17,000 comments were received <br />during the scoping period, reflecting the national attention and intense interest in the EIS. <br /> <br />As a result of the analysis of the oral and written scoping comments, the following were <br />determined to be resources or issues of public concern: beaches, endangered species, ecosystem <br />integrity, fish, power costs, power production,. sediment, water conservation, rafting/boating, air <br />quality, the Grand Canyon wilderness, and a category designated as "other" for remaining <br />concerns. Comments regarding interests and values were categorized as: expressions about the <br />Grand Canyon, economics, nonquantifiable values, nature versus human use, and the complexity <br />of Glen Canyon Dam issues. <br /> <br />The EIS team consolidated and refined the public issues of concern, identifying the significant <br />resources and associated issues to be analyzed in detail. These resources include: water, <br />sediment, fish, vegetation, wildlife and habitat, endangered and other special status species, <br />cultural resources, air quality, recreation, hydropower, and non-use value. <br /> <br />Further meetings were held with representatives from the cooperating agencies and public interest <br />groups who provided comments on the criteria for development of reasonable alternatives for the <br />EIS. The public also had an opportunity to comment on the preliminary selection of alternatives at <br />public meetings and through mailings. The fina1 selection of alternatives took into consideration <br />the public's views. <br /> <br />V. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE FINAL EIS <br /> <br />Many comments and recommendations on the fina1 EIS were received in the form of pre-printed <br />postcards and letters that addressed essentially the same issues. The comments are summarized <br />below along with Reclamation's responses. <br /> <br />COMMENT: Maintain Draft EIS flows. ModifYing the upramp rate and maximum flows <br />