WSP07315 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

United States Department of the Interior RECEIVED OCT 23 1995 Bl'REAU OF RECL'L\I.UIO, l'pf'cr CulurJJo R'.~ll'nJI 11tli~c I ~'i S0iJrh SrJrc ;:"lln'l. R.",nt 1.11'- SJlr l..1ke C.rv.l'IJ.h il.;l t>:.\ IP~ Colorado Waler Conservation Board "Ill I'll RfFER TO UC-326 ENV-6.00 ocr 1 9 1995 To: All on the Enclosed List Revised Assessment of Changes from the Draft to the Final in the Preferred Alternative of the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam (EIS) At the July 13, 1995, meeting to discuss your concerns with the subject EIS's preferred alternative, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) agreed to revise the document entitled, "FLOW MODIFICATIONS TO THE GLEN CANYON DAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE," which was enclosed with our June 27, 1995 letter. We have accomplished that task and the revised document is enclosed. Subject: The analyses of impacts contained in the final EIS are found to be fully adequate to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. This was confirmed by the Environmental Protection Agency in their June 20, 1995, letter of comment on the final EIS (copy enclosed). As we have discussed, no new studies were conducted. Reclamation, with assistance from the Environmental Defense Fund, has expanded on previous analyses of data used in the EIS. The conclusions remain the same. That is, the preferred alternative described in the final EIS with increases in maximum flows and upramp rates would have no discern~ble negative effects on downstream resources in Glen and Grand Canyons when compared to the preferred alternative in the draft EIS. This review was based on the knowledge that the relationship between water and the sediment resource is the most important element in defining the ecosystem of the Colorado River within Glen and Grand Canyons. The revised document is a more detailed and focused assessment of the impacts associated with the increased upramp rate and maximum flow criteria. Commentors on the June 27, 1995, version of our document expressed concern that no studies on the specific up ramp and maximum flow criteria have been conducted. We acknowledge this fact but point out that the same was true for existing parameters of the interim flows when they were selected and implemented. It is possible to determine the effects of these changes by using the extensive amount of knowledge gained from both Phase I and Phase II of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies. We have done that, and have confidence that our conclusions are correct. A careful reading of the enclosed document will, we believe, confirm this.