Laserfiche WebLink
<br />UlIaGl <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />been singled out to receive special consideration; and 4) the current MSCP scope does not include <br />Mexico, Compromise suggestions were discussed that would limit Steering Committee <br />consideration to the first phase of Reclamation's study (a workshop between United States and <br />Mexican officials to determine Mexico's interest and seek Mexico's help in scoping the study) and <br />to receive study results before agreeing to give them consideration. Even after the above concerns <br />and compromises were offered, the DOW and SWCBD insisted upon an all or nothing approach and <br />introduced an extensive resolution along with a scope of work for Reclamation's study. There were <br />Steering Committee members that objected to the motion and thus, it was not adopted. Mr, John <br />Fritschie, of the DOW and Mr. David Hogan representing SWCBD immediately resigned from the <br />LCR MSCP Steering Committee. Further discussion of the issue by the Steering Committee led to <br />the adoption of the following resolution regarding Reclamation's proposed study in Mexico; <br /> <br />"The Steering Committee restates its interest in looking at any and all opportunities to meet <br />the goals and objectives of the MSCP, The Bureau of Reclamation's efforts to identifY <br />conservation opportunities in Mexico is consistent with their membership on the Steering <br />Committee. The Steering Committee requests that the Bureau of Reclamation report on <br />its progress on its efforts, specifically with regard to the compatibility of its efforts with <br />the MSCP". <br /> <br />A copy of a newspaper article from the Arizona Republic regarding the action taken by the <br />Steering Committee is included in the Board folder. <br /> <br />Glen Canvon Aclantive Mana"ement <br /> <br />Included in the Board folder for your information is the first "Report to Congress: Operation <br />of Glen Canyon Dam Pursuant to the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992" (Water Years 1997 and <br />1998), From, Secretary of the Interior, August, 1998. <br /> <br />In June, 1998 the Non-Federal entities on the Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Work Group <br />(AMWG) sent a letter to Secretary Babbitt urging him to ensure that all environmental compliance <br />for beach habitat building flows (BHBF) be completed by the end of December 1998, Included in <br />the Board folder is the response from Mr, Eulid Martinez to Mr. Zimmerman regarding the letter to <br />Secretary Babbitt. The response essentially states that the AMWG does not recommend pursuing <br />environmental compliance for flows above 45,000 cfs in 1999, However, the Technical Work Group <br />(TWG) believes that flows above 45,000 cfs should be considered at some time in the future. <br />Therefore, Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to evaluate anticipated results of <br />flows up to 45,000 cfs with the goal of having environmental compliance by January, 1999. <br /> <br />WATER QUALITY <br /> <br />Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Prol!1'lllTl <br /> <br />The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) and Advisory Council met in <br />Santa Fe, New Mexico on October 18th and 19th. An issue that was brought up for discussion, as a <br />result oflast month's Board meeting, was that of the Atlas uranium mill tailings, which is located <br /> <br />7 <br />