Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />Propo$<Od F ,II 1997 Release from Glen Canyon Dam <br /> <br />October 6. 1997 <br /> <br />beachlhabitat building flows, spill avoidance and/or floodflow releases. The intent of the long- <br />term dam operations process. as explained in the EIS, was that the adaptive management program <br />would be the vehicle for detennining any recommended changes to dam operations. That would <br />include modifications related to the season. magnitude. and duration of established flow patterns. <br />The proposed flow represents a test of whether flows at or near powerplant capacity can move <br />sediment into storage on the side of the river banks. The flow is not considered a habitat <br />maintenance flow, a beachlhabitat building flow, or even a modification of either of those. <br />However, it is a change in operations from that established by the EIS ROD. the operating <br />criteria. and the annual plan of operations. Therefore it is subject to review by the Adaptive <br />Mangement Work. Group to be considered for recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior for <br />implementation. <br /> <br />Q: What did the AMWG have to say about the proposal at it's meeting in Phoenix in September? <br /> <br />A: The group discussed the proposal, a motion was made and seconded that the flows take place <br />provided two pre-conditions were met: I) that enough sediment is available and 2) that there <br />would be no adverse impacts to downstream resources. The vote was unanimous to proceed <br />accordingly. <br /> <br />Q: So. has Reclamation determined that there will or won't be any adverse resource impacts? <br /> <br />A: That was left to the resource managing entities and interested parties to determine, as it was <br />for the EIS. At meetings of resource scientists and the TWG Sub-group, subsequent to the <br />AMWG meeting, the proposed flow was discussed and there were no significant resource issues <br />identified. <br /> <br />Q: If there are no resource issues identified, then why is Section 7 consultation being engaged in? <br /> <br />A: Reclamation has decided to submit a biological opinion to the FWS on the likely effects of the <br />flow to endangered species as an added precaution to verify that there won' t be irretrievable or <br />otherwise unacceptable effects to endangered species. For example, Reclamation has been <br />operating on the premise that releases higher than 25,000 cfs are potentially harmful to native fish <br />(could wash the fish out of backwaters) if they occur between March-October (see Exhibit C of <br />the Operating Agreement between Reclamation and. Western). Also, we need to know ifkanab <br />ambersnail must sti11 be surveyed and any individuals moved to higher ground for any flows <br />scheduled above 25,000 d's, as required in the biological opinion for the spring of 1996 <br />beachlhabitat building flow. <br /> <br />Q: Doesn't the proposed flow have to be reviewed not only by the AMWG but the group that <br />formulates the Annual Operating Plan for the Colorado River, including Glen Canyon Dam? <br /> <br />A: Yes, The proposal is one not previously designed or planned and therefore it should go <br /> <br />3 <br />