WSP06185 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i, ! Mr. Lee J. MCQui vey April. 11, 1994 Page 5 . ;-1 " April and May, followed by relatively low steady flows during the warm summer months not only would destroy the value of the power resource at Glen Canyon Dam but would stand a good chance of creating a friendlier environment for exotic species that were out- competing the native fish sought to be protected before Glen Canyon Dam was built. ,. ,.. None of these experiments should be common elements to an alternative because none of these experiments should be decided upon with the current level of scientific information available to the secretary of tha Interior. The only way to safely address these issues in terms of the Grand Canyon and the resources of the Colorado River is to call these so-called elements what they really are: experiments. As such, they should be consigned to the adaptive management process and it should be clear to the public in the final environmental impact statement that nothing will be done without thorough scientific review of any proposal on any of these three subjects and further opportunity for the consultation process mandated by the 1992 Act to take place. ~ !< ~ . .. ,. '.. I;" THE ADAPTIVE HANAGmmNT PROCESS MUST BE DESCRIBED IN CONSIDERABLY XORE DETAIL IN '!'HIS EIS Because the maiden voyage of consultation on operating criteria washed up on the shores of politics, the entire concept of adaptive management as understood by the interested parties and Cooperating Agencies involved in this EIS process has lost much of its meaning. The only way we know that the Bureau of Recl.amation and the Secretary of the Interior can restore some confidence in the interested parties and the public that science will play the leading role in future decisions about how Glen Canyon Dam is operated is to devise an adaptive management process in some detail to be described in this environmental impact statement. That commitment is absolutely essential if we or any of the other interested parties or the general public are to have any sort of confidence in this EIS process or possible decisions arising from it. without that detail, future decisions will appear to be subject to the whim of any future political appointee, irrespective of merit. That detail should include an explanation of the consultation process required by the 1992 Act. .' ;,-. ~~~ l ., '; .. ..; :~. ..; ~;;. f$ ~, SECTION 7 CONSULTATION IS NOT A DETERMINING FACTOR IN '!'HIS EIS One of the most startling revelations that has come out of the recent discussions among scientists and between scientists and Cooperating Agencies' representatives and interested parties is the overwhelming consensus that water temperature is the contrOlling