Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />-~ . .-, <br /> <br />....-:,. <br /> <br />,..-....~:'.""" .---. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />< <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The work session was in the form of a brainstorming session, to <br />help derive a "long list" of alternatives, provide summary <br />descriptions, and begin to define criteria for identifying <br />"reasonable" alternatives. The session was organized with <br />facilitators for general sessions and small group (or breakout) <br />sessions. Three small groups were intended to afford all <br />participants an opportunity to provide input. Flip charts were <br />used in all sessions to record information. Material from the <br />flip charts was transcribed for inclusion in this report (see <br />Appendix 4). <br /> <br />Major pindings and Conclusions <br /> <br />Work session participants generally agreed that the objectives of <br />the Glen Canyon Dam EIS need to be more clearly defined, in order <br />to precisely focus alternatives. A related item pertains to the <br />need for more specificity in defining the scope (geographic <br />extent, topics to be addressed, etc.) of the EIS. The <br />suitability of formulating alternatives for changing other agency <br />(non-Reclamation) management plans was questioned. <br /> <br />Participants noted that certain resource data are not available <br />to precisely define alternatives in terms of resource needs, and <br />therefore, alternatives should contain built-in flexibility to <br />make future adjustments, based on long-term monitoring. <br /> <br />There was general conscientious that alternatives need to be <br />comprehensive. In this regard, alternatives would be comprised <br />of several elements addressing various resource concerns. In <br />addition, alternatives need to be described to reflect low, <br />medium, and high water year conditions. <br /> <br />Questions were raised concerning differentiation between resource <br />elements and mitigation items, particularly with respect to <br />actions that may be available to entities outside of Reclamation. <br />For example, changes in limits of NPs-administered river <br />recreation use could be part of an alternative, could be a <br />mitigation item keyed to available beaches, or could be <br />considered as a constant not subject to adjustment. Other <br />examples could be stated for fishery management or for power <br />needs. Such questions need to be further considered and resolved <br />as part of the follow-up definition of EIS objectives and scope. <br /> <br />There is a relatively common correlation between the GCES Phase I <br />recommendations, many of the public scoping comments, and the <br />outcome of the July work session. The intent of the "long <br />list" of alternatives is to identify all ideas, suggestions, or <br />other items that may be considered as potential actions regarding <br />Glen Canyon Dam operations and the resultant influences <br />downstream, without concern for feasibility or desirability. <br />Because of the extensive scoping and the intensive thought given <br /> <br />2 <br />