WSP08787 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

712 34. Comment: Response: 35. Comment: Response: 36. Comment: Response: 37. Comment: Response: Historic flows and impacts at Bluff will be described in the EIS. The EA should acknowledge that the National Park Service likely has Federal Reserved Water rights (as yet unquantified) along the San Juan River with the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and one of the purposes of the low flow test will be to determine if 250 cfs flows would violate those rights. Reclamation is conferring with National Park Service water right experts to determine if there is a right and if long-term operations of Navajo Reservoir could be affected by the right. This issue will be addressed in the operations EIS. From a river rafting point of view around Bluff, even 500 cfs is too low; Bluff flows need to be around 1,000 cfs. A recreational threshold value for flows at Bluff should be established. Designating a recreational threshold flow for recreation on a river is not a function of the Bureau of Reclamation. Minimum rafting flows vary with type of equipment, experience of the recreationist, type of trip and other factors. Minimumflow needs varying between 500 and 1,000 cfs have been mentioned at public meetings. It seems essential that the low flow test include an evaluation of the effects on recreational boating downstream from Bluff, especially at the Clay Hills Crossing take-out in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. There is a siltation problem in the Clay Hills area. Clay Hills actually is within the high water area of Lake Powell. When the lake drops, silt deposits interfere with boating and this is a more difficult problem at low flows. An evaluation of this problem is beyond the scope of the EA; however ifimpacts occur at the site, they will be recorded in the low flow test report. Trout Fishery Rapidly decreasing stream flows can lead to stranding of fish as declining water levels leave previously-occupied habitats without water. The draft EA does not address whether the proposed ramp-down of 250 cfs over four hours is adequate to allow fish to adjust to the changing stream channel. The EA also does not identify the rate of the ramp (increment per hour). The ramp rate is 200 cfs per 2 hours. The proposed ramping rate identified in the draft EA was formulated with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish's input. This is the same ramping rate used 20