My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP06185
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
WSP06185
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:21:38 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:29:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.101.09B
Description
Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powell
State
AZ
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/1994
Title
Comments re: Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
EIS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
98
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 />SPECIFIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS <br />ON THE <br />DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT <br />FOR GLEN CANYON DAM <br /> <br />CHAPTER II <br /> <br />Page (Pg) 33, Column (C) 2, Paragraph (P) 1. According to Randy <br />Peterson of USBR, the timing of the 20,000 cfs release in April <br />does not allow USBR to manage the reservoir to allow flexibility <br />for April 1st forecast no space is left at that point. <br />Therefore, the frequency of ,spilling would increase. Is this true? <br />What are the ramifications of this condition? <br /> <br />'1 <br /> <br />Pg. 34, C. 1, P. 5. The concept of Adaptive Management is not new; <br />some would say it has always been used at Glen Canyon Dam. What <br />seems new is the concept that regulated river management should now <br />consider a variety of resources not previously included, like <br />recreation and ecology. Management of Dam operations has always <br />reflected and incorporated into the operating plans, those <br />resources represented as being worthy of consideration. Recreation <br />and ecology are resources deemed by the authors to be worthy of <br />consideration in management of Dam operations along with resources <br />previously considered such as water demands, hydropower operations <br />and flood, control. This seems reasonable but the trick is <br />achieving an acceptable balance of all resource considerations. Is <br />balancing considerations an intent? Will there be priorities? <br /> <br />Pg. 34, C. 2, P. 3. Given the disparity of agendas each committee <br />member is likely to pursue, this kind of arrangement would likely <br />result in dramatic swings in operations over time. Not only would <br />power contracts suffer from such large swings in operations, but <br />ecological conditions downstream would be harmed. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />.. <br />" <br />.~ <br /> <br />-> <br /> <br />f <br /> <br />;. <br />".- <br /> <br />Non-operational mitigation should be used where operational <br />mitigation would be either ineffective or less cost-effective, <br />after considering costs to all resources. In either instance, to <br />maintain efficiency, non-operational mitigation should be part of <br />the overall management process. <br /> <br />Pg. 35, C. 1, P. 1. The information base described is too narrow <br />to provide a realistic data set for the Adaptive Management <br />program. All resource uses and impacts must be included in the <br />data base. This includes water and power supplies and demands. <br />This way, Adaptive Management decisions will reflect all society'S <br />choice on Dam operations rather than only one or two segments. <br /> <br />Long-term monitoring and research also should look at the power <br />system as an integral part of a total energy supply program, not <br /> <br />.;.' <br /> <br />,.' <br />~' <br />~ <br />..; <br /> <br />18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.