My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07315
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07315
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:26:46 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:15:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.101.09B
Description
Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powell
State
AZ
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
4/1/1995
Title
Comments re: Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final 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.
/
36
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 />APR-27-9~ THU 1~:41 UPPER CO~ORADO RtVER COMM <br /> <br />P.02 <br /> <br />DRAFT <br /> <br />April 27, 1995 <br /> <br />Mr, Charles A. Calhoun <br />Recionsl Director <br />Upper Colorado Recion <br />U.S. Bureau of Reclamation <br />125 South State Street, Room 6107 <br />Salt Lake City, UT 84138-1102 <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Calhoun: <br /> <br />rbe Upper Colorado River Commission, on behalf of its ~mb.r States. <br />appreciates the opportunity to provide written comment. on the Final Environ- <br />mental Impact State~nt (BIS) on the operations of Glen Canyon Dam. <br /> <br />The Commi..ion is an interstate co~act administrative aaency created by <br />the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948. The member Statea of the <br />Commission are: Colorado, New Mexico, Utah:and Wyomina. Since it. inception <br />over 45 year. aco, the Commiaaion has actively participated in the develop- <br />~nt, utilization, protaction and conservation of the water resourcea of. the <br />Upper Colorado River Basin. These activities have included 10nastandina <br />observation of the Glen Canyon Bnvironmenta1 Studies and preparation of the <br />Glen Canyon Pinal lIS. Although not a participant.. . Cooperatin. ~ency, we <br />have obaerved with keen intereat the ranse of alternatives included for study <br />aa well as those items susaeated ae common e1ementa to all the a1ternativea. <br /> <br />We were consulted in the. proces. of deve10pina interim flow recommenda- <br />tion. and made atrona note of the extremely conservative nature of the flow <br />recommendations ultimately implemented. We likewise have been involved in tha <br />process of reviewins the impacts of interim flow criteria on the conditione of <br />the environment downstream of Glen Canyon Dam. The culmination of thie <br />process recommended chansee in the maximum normal upper limits of flows (from <br />20,000 cfs to 25,000 cfs) and an increase in uprampins rates (from 2.500 <br />cfs/hour to 4,000 cfa/hour). These chanses would better facilitate the <br />releaae of laree monthly volumes required durina years of hieh equalization <br />releases and restore 80me of the power plant flexibility so necessary to <br />provide load-followinc electrical enercy production. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.