WSP08242

• File Number: 8220.101.09
• Description: Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powell
• State: AZ
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 1/1/1992
• Author: USDOI-BOR
• Title: Newsletter - Colorado River Studies Office - Vol.4
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

Public Comments on Preliminary Alternatives

I
i:l
1:1
I!;
[I

Based on public scoping and early scientific research,
the EIS team developed ten preliminaIy alternatives,
These alternatives were presented to the public in the
March 1991 newsletter and in five public meetings.
Written comments were requested to determine if these
preliminary alternatives were "reasonable" or
"unreasonable" and if they adequately addressed
public concerns and offered an adequate range of
responsible actions.

The predominant public copunent was the need for
"operation only" alternatives and/ or "separate analysis
of the operation and structural (non-operational)
measures" rather than the complete package approach.
Other comments most frequently voiced were:

. An alternative should be developed that maximizes
benefits to endangered species and recreation.

. Operational elements and structural elements
should be considered separately, and structural
elements should be considered only after analysis
of dam operations.

. The reregulation dam is not a reasonable alternative
and should not be considered.

. Alternative dam operations should be considered
that will reduce the frequency of annual floods and
daily fluctuations.

. Not only is a reregulation dam a viable alternative,
but a powerplant should be added to help pay the
cost.

. The historic or natural flow patterns should serve
as the baseline or "no action" alternative.

"

'I'
~ i I
Ii
Ii
I
"
I'

. None of the alternatives should include structural
elements.

. The environmental, social, and economic effects of
reduced electrical generation should be evaluated
in steady flow alternatives.

. There should be a lower fluctuating flow alternative
with a maximum of 20,000 cfs and a minimum of
8,000 cfs. Ramping rates should be 1,000 cfs on the
upswing and 500 cfs on the downswing, with no
more than 3,000 cfs change from day to day. Al-
though none of the alternatives selected for detailed
analysis exactly fits this suggestion, the basic con-
cepts were included in the formulation process.
(M:any comments on flow regimes variations were
also received.)

The wide range of public comments were reviewed and
carefully analyzed by the EIS team, with the goal of
presenting each alternative in its most viable form. As
a result, the ten preliminary alternatives were reduced
to seven. In addition, six non-operational elements
were identified for potential addition to each
alternative. The EIS team received 456Ietters--112 from
organizations and 344 from private individuals, These
letters were reviewed and categorized by the Bear West
Consulting Team and summarized in the "Glen Canyon
Dam EIS Preliminary Alternatives Report, April- May
1991,"

The cooperating agencies wish to thank everyone who
participated in this process.

,
I,
I
!!

10