WSP06185

• 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

I
\
I'

STATEMENT OF
THE HONORABLE MIKE SULLIVAN, GOVERNOR
OF THE STATE OF WYOMING
CONCERNING
OPERATION OF GLEN CANYON DAM
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AT THE MARCH 21, 1994
PUBUC HEARING IN GOLDEN, COWRADO

:.'1

On behalf of Governor Mike Sullivan of the state of wyoming,
this statement is entered into the record on March 21, 1994, at the
Golden, Colorado, public hearing being conducted by the Bureau of
Reclamation on the draft environmental impact statement on the
operation of Glen Canyon Dam. This hearing is one of eight that
were announced in a notice published in the January 11, 1994
edition of the Federal Register.

Wyoming is pleased to have the opportunity to present this
testimony. Submitted as a part of this statement today is a copy
of the written statement of the Upper Colorado River commission.
I ask that both be made a part of the official record of this
public hearing. wyoming is a member of the Commission and
participated in the development of its statement. We hope that the
secretary 01' the Interior will give our statement and that of the
Upper Colorado River commission due consideration.

Our review of the Glen Canyon Draft Environmental Impact
Statement causes us to have concerns about three of the common
elements -- flood flow frequency measures, adaptive management and
beach building habitat flows -- that are a part of every restricted
flow and steady flow alternative, including the preferred
alternative. We would call to particular attention the description
of these common elements in the presently-worded dEIS, and more
importantly, the lack of specificity as to how each of them may
likely be treated in the future. Wyoming has strong concerns that
in fact the Secretary of the Interior has not addressed in a timely
or complete manner the directives of the Grand canyon Protection
Act (GCPA). It appears that the dEIS does not contain facts,
findings and recommendations that the GCPA presumed would be
included in the dEIS and subjected to public comment.

t
.,
:.

I>
~

::~

,c

.~

;,

~
~~

,~
:.'
"'::
.'~.

'.~~
1:";
~
~~~
~;S:~
~.~
:",

The Bureau of Reclamation has addressed only on a perfunctory
level the future conduct of each of these three common elements -
and thus, very important aspects of how Glen Canyon Dam will be
operated in the future are not described in the dEIS, but rather
are only conceptually introduced. For example, the dEIS tersely
notes that "Further development of the adaptive management process