The EIS Team and the Preferred Alternative

   In the months since the Glen Canyon Dam Draft Environmental Impact Statement was released, the choosing of Modified Low Fluctuating Flows as the “Preferred Alternative” has come under increasing fire. Below, two of the EIS Team writers describe how and why that selection was made.

   The Glen Canyon Dam EIS process has provided an excellent example of the importance of searching out underlying interests in situations requiring conflict resolution.

   People are usually willing to state their positions on issues, but they often are less willing or able to state what it is they hope to achieve as a result of their positions–their underlying interests. While statements such as “remove Glen Canyon Dam” or “build a reregulation dam” might be good rallying cries, they are not very useful in resolving conflict. We need to keep asking ourselves and each other “why?” to get at the underlying interests behind stated positions. Such interests may be to recover endangered species, to protect Grand Canyon’s natural features for future generations, or to preserve a rural way of life.

   Once we understand each other’s interests, we can begin the task of finding solutions that meet many interests. It can be easy to come up with solutions that meet only our own interests and then devise arguments about why other interests are not really valid or important. The challenge is to find a solution that satisfies all the varied interests–or at least as many as possible. Most people would agree that if their own interests can be met, then it is perfectly acceptable to meet other’s interests as well.

   Because some resources are natural while others exist only because of the dam, many resources affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations have conflicting needs. The EIS Team tried to recognize and acknowledge conflicting resource needs and human interests. They formulated realistic alternatives to be as viable as possible and still cover a reasonable range. In recommending a preferred alternative to the cooperating agencies, the Team tried to balance resource needs and human interests to find an alternative that would:

• result in dynamic processes that could be sustained over the long term in the postdam environment, and

• meet as many resource needs as possible–including hydropower.

   The EIS Team worked very hard to consider all interests, formulate reasonable alternatives, prepare the draft EIS, and recommend a preferred alternative that meets most interests and the critical needs of all resources.

   Although some have dubbed the interagency, interdisciplinary EIS Team the “EIS Writing Team,” producing the draft EIS was much more than a writing exercise and only one component of the contribution made by the Team. The best possible technical specialists were assembled to synthesize and analyze data and make impact predictions using science and their professional experience. The Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES) were the foundation for the EIS and provided essential information on physical, biological, and economic processes and cause and effect relationships between river flows and resources. That information is summarized in chapter III of the EIS. The EIS Team formulated alternatives based on an understanding of these processes and knowledge of dam operations (chapter II). The team’s resource specialists analyzed the impacts of each alternative under variable hydrologic conditions using their knowledge of resource linkages and the cause and effect relationships identified by GCES (chapter IV). In some cases, research couldn’t provide definite conclusions regarding river flows and resource responses (such as native fish), and they had to obtain information from other sources or use best professional judgment.

   Because of their technical expertise and professionalism, the Glen Canyon Dam EIS Team members were extremely effective agency representatives who, despite differing interests, worked together on the issues that confronted them to arrive at workable solutions.

Tim Randle and Mary Voita

   Tim Randle was the NEPA Manager/EIS Team Leader during the majority of the time that the draft EIS was being developed and produced. Mary Voita was the lead Technical Writer-Editor of the project.