Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />In keeping with the GCPA, funding for long-term monitoring may be provided by <br />power revenues and/or appropriations, and are contingent upon congressional <br />approval. Reclamation has budgeted funds and is in the process of preparing a <br />transition monitoring plan to avoid data gaps which would otherwise occur <br />during the period between completion of the EIS and the Record of Decision <br />which will initiate the AMP. Certain studies required specifically to address <br />elements of the Opinion will be identified during Fiscal Year 1995 and <br />scheduled for implementation. It is our intent to minimize overlaps and form <br />cooperative and integrated approaches to designing and implementing the <br />evaluation of the scientific hypotheses. <br /> <br />1. A. Experi menta 1 flows. <br /> <br />A specific description of experimental flows needed to remove jeopardy must <br />first be developed based on the conceptual description and goals for these <br />flows as outlined in the Opinion. The specific description must also meet the <br />definition of a reasonable and prudent alternative prior to implementation. <br />Specifically, these flows must be evaluated to insure they can be implemented <br />in a manner consistent with the intended purposes of the proposed action, are <br />within the legal authority and jurisdiction of Reclamation, and are <br />economically and technologically feasible. <br /> <br />The plan to implement these flows will include scientifically based peer <br />reviewed criteria to measure and evaluate the impacts of the flows on <br />endangered fish and other resources. It also must contain provisions and <br />defined protocol to alter the flows or return to previous flows if negative <br />impacts to endangered fish or their habitats occur. We must also identify <br />staff and funding levels necessary to conduct the work and program those <br />funds, as well as evaluate the potential benefits and risks which may result. <br />The decision as to when and how to conduct appropriate endangered fish flows <br />will be based on this and other information. Implementation will be <br />coordinated through the AMP. <br /> <br />A general implementation schedule for this element of the RPA has been <br />prepared and Reclamation is continuing the planning and budgeting necessary to <br />allow experimental fish flows of the type described in the Opinion to be <br />implemented at the earliest possible date. We will continue to coordinate <br />with the Service and other stakeholders as the process moves forward. <br />However, it will be difficult at best to implement the flows within the period <br />of time recommended by the Service and we therefore appreciate the provision <br />for annual evaluation of sufficient progress. <br /> <br />1.B. Selective Withdrawal Program for Lake Powell <br /> <br />Temperature modification has been identified as the central issue to be <br />resolved in order to develop a mainstem spawning population of HBC. The <br />Selective Withdrawal item was identified as a common element in the EIS and <br />included in earlier drafts of the RPA. Reclamation has been working <br />diligently to accelerate the technical and administrative process necessary <br />for construction of the selective withdrawal structures (SWS). Reclamation <br />has begun ,the planning and budget process for determining the feasibility and <br />