Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />specification that existing procedures for scheduling annual and monthly releases from Glen <br />Canyon were to be unaffected by the Act. 1/1/ l802(b), 1804(c); see also attached reports and <br />letters to Senate staff. <br /> <br />Finally, the spring spike is not authorized under 1/ 1802 of the Grand Canyon Protection <br />Act governing interim operations. The Glen Canyon EIS process will be complete before any <br />test results of the spring spike will become available. The spike is an experiment, rather than a <br />response to scientific advances. It has not been proven necessary to protect Grand Canyon <br />resources, and in fact may damage some resources such as native and non-native fish and <br />archaeological sites. Other environmental impacts of the spring spike are uncertain, as shown <br />during the consultation meeting. In short, the proposal is illegal. It will destroy -- by <br />administrative fiat -- carefully negotiated congressional protections of the Basin States' rights. <br /> <br />Representatives of Reclamation have never substantively addressed these legal concerns. <br />Contrary to the statement in the Consultation Notice, Colorado does not believe that Reclamation <br />has taken extraordinary steps to achieve consensus. Reclamation has never proposed any <br />alternatives that address the concerns of the basin states. Instead, Reclamation has continued to <br />push the 1995 experimental release, inviting the states to take whatever action they feel necessary <br />to protect their interests. This approach is not conducive to a good working relationship between <br />Reclamation and the states. We are frankly disappointed in Reclamation's approach. <br /> <br />In addition to the legal issues, we understand that concerns have been expressed by some <br />biologists that the spike flow may sweep one or more age classes of humpback chub downstream <br />of the Little Colorado River, where they will be lost due to predation or inadequate habitat. <br />As a participant in the San Juan and the Upper Colorado River recovery plans for Endangered <br />Species, Colorado is concerned about actions which may make recovery more difficult or place <br />greater recovery burdens on other areas. We believe that the Fish and Wildlife Service and <br />Reclamation must apply the same strict consultation standards to the experimental release as they <br />have applied to other projects and proposals. Strict compliance with NEP A requirements is <br />equally important. Anything less will give the appearance of a double standard and invite <br />litigation. We believe that the proposed schedule for completing the consultation process, <br />Endangered Species consultation, and NEP A compliance is unrealistic and will not provide <br />interested parties with an adequate comment period. Colorado will certainly review in detail the <br />results of the section 7 consultation and the NEP A compliance efforts. <br /> <br />Further, the letter from senior scientist Duncan Patton requesting the experimental flow <br />states that the threshold when increased sediment bedload movement occurs is approximately <br />50,000 cfs. Because of projected reservoir levels in April 1995, only 40,000 - 42,000 cfs can be <br />released. It is therefore highly unlikely that the reduced test flow will achieve the desired test <br />results. During the consultation meeting, it became apparent that the justification for proceeding <br />with this test at this time is primarily the availability of researchers. Reclamation should <br />seriously consider whether an illegal test flow which will not adequately test the scientific <br />hypotheses about sediment transport justifies the economic cost, estimated at $8 million, or the <br />potential for litigation. <br /> <br />3 <br />