Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />DRAFT <br /> <br />DRAFT <br /> <br />GLEN CANYON DAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT <br /> <br />SUMMARY OF "LONG LIST" OF ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />REPORT OF WORK SESSION HELD <br />JULY 10 AND 11, 1990 IN FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA <br /> <br />PART 1 - INTRODUCTION <br /> <br />The identification and formulation of alternatives is a vital <br />part of the EIS process, consequently it is being conducted in a <br />systematic and thorough manner. As part of this process, a <br />special work session of selected individuals was held to address <br />the sUbject. The work session objectives were to exchange <br />information, function in an open process, and produce a product. <br />The product had three main parts: 1) discussion and comment on a <br />preliminary draft description of the No Action alternative, 2) <br />brainstorm ideas to help derive a "long list" of alternatives, <br />and 3) provide comments on criteria for "reasonableness" that <br />could be considered by the EIS team to determine a "short list" <br />of alternatives to be analyzed in detail in the EIS. <br /> <br />This report documents the process through the conclusion of the <br />work session. It includes the "long list" of elements and <br />alternatives, and identifies further actions to be carried out. <br /> <br />PART 2 - DESCRIPTION OP THE PROCESS <br /> <br />Actions To Date <br /> <br />The work session on July 10 and 11 utilized the expertise of <br />selected people who have personal knowledge and experience with <br />Glen canyon operations, resource concerns, and/or downstream <br />river conditions. This included representatives from agencies <br />and from other organizations (See Appendix 1 for attendance <br />list) . <br /> <br />The process of alternative formulation for the environmental <br />impact statement (EIS) was started by summarizing and considering <br />recommendations which were identified as a result of the Glen <br />Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES) Phase I (See Appendix 2). <br /> <br />Then the preliminary results of the public scoping process were <br />reviewed and considered. The public comments were summarized and <br />they provided a variety of suggestions (See Appendix 3). <br /> <br />1 <br />