Laserfiche WebLink
<br />".-'-'~""" <br /> <br />",.. .~__...,,_. ..." _""-h<>:-~'_ <br /> <br />-..,...-,-,.~-"",.,~..... ---.-' _. "'.. <br /> <br />,..~,/ <br /> <br />-,-__.....,Ir . <br /> <br />.......,.,,- <br /> <br />"'-" <br />...". , ~;-;". <br />, ..{ <br /> <br />('~;~ <br /> <br /><, <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />the Bureau plana to complete the Draft EIS by the end of 1991. <br />This is an ambitious tjme frame considerinq the need to complete <br />significant additjon~l studies and research before key questions <br />can be an6wered accurately. The Glen Canyon !.nvironmental <br />Studies effort which has been underway since the mid 1980'. hAS <br />.made progress. albeit unfocussed. Those studies are continu!nq. <br />both to prOVide data for the EIS and to establish scientific <br />Quidance for the implementation and monitoring that will be <br />required if there are chanqea in the dam operation. However, <br />researchers workinQ on these studies. including representatives <br />frOM the National Park Service. the U.S. Fish ana WildlIfe <br />Service. and the Arizona Game ana Fish Department fear that the <br />arbitrar1ly brief time schedule will not, l='rovide for' lfalIa <br />scientific answers to important questions. The need tor <br />adequate time to complete nellded studies has been strongly <br />expressed. both by Dave Wegner. the director of the Glen canyon <br />Studies. and Duncan Patton. the Senior Scientist who i_ <br />responsible for coordinating the research efiort. <br /> <br />One ot the key issues that IIIUSt be addressed 1n the next rew <br />months. while the plans and alternatiVes tor the EIS are belnq <br />developed, is scientific integrity. No reasonable person wants <br />to delay the decision process. but a sound decision must halfe <br />a tira tactual toundation. The Secretary of the InteriOr should <br />insist that the Bureau has the time tQ assure 8 solid scientitic <br />decision. Unfortunately, Reela_tion spolees.an Wayne Coole <br />recently told the research teams that the schedule was going to <br />be shortened even more. and that the plan was to complete the <br />Final EIS by the end of 1991. That would cut the tield study <br />time to one Year. and is patently impolllsible. Both agency <br />personnel and reprltsentativ8S of environlllental organizations <br />believe, I think with good reason. that this presages a "quick <br />and dirtv" EIS. They believe that ReclamatIon's historical <br />disdain for environmental values is as much ~gency policy as <br />ever. They suspect that the traditional constitu~ncy of <br />Reclallation, the water and public power user., f.aring the <br />implementation ot interim flows to protect downstream resources <br />durinq the EIS process. . want to get it over with fast, and to <br />go bac~ to doing business as usual. <br /> <br />An aqreellent to write an EIS, of course. aCCOMpliShes nothing <br />tor the Colorado River or the Grand Canyon. It 1s the decision <br />that stems from the EIS process thOlt is important. If that <br />decision i6 to be a good one. it must be based upon a thorough <br />understanding ot the river system and what the dam has done to <br />it. The impacts and issues are not simple. Beach erosion with <br />1ts attendant los$ ot riparian values, vegetation. wildlife and <br />recreation opportunity is not easy to prevent or reduce 1n a <br />rive~ that has lost. blocked by Glen Canyon Das. the input of <br /> <br />JJ <br />