09d

• Board Meeting Date: 3/18/2008
• Description: CWCB Director's Report
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

predation by nonnative fish on endangered fish, (2) rejuvenate backwater habitats for native fish, and (3)
redeposit sand at higher elevations, thereby helping to preserve and restore camping beaches and reduce
near shore vegetation. In developing this experiment the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center
(the research arm for the GCAMP) prepared a `'Science Plan for an Experimental 2008 High Flow at Glen
Canyon Dam." The draft Science Plan was reviewed by the "GCAMP-Technical Workgroup" on
December 4-5, 2007. The Science Plan was subsequently released in final form on December 28~` and
was then reviewed with the GCAMP-Adaptive Management Workgroup on January 17, 2008 and deemed
to be acceptable.
Part of the Environmental Assessment process is the issuance of a Biological Opinion (BO). That BO
was completed on February 28, 2008 and revised certain portions of the original 1994 BO. The 2008 BO
concluded that, "implementation of the March 2008 high flow test and the five-year implementation of the
MLFF with steady releases in September and October, as proposea; is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the humback chub or• the Kanab ambersnail, and is not likely to destroy or
adversely mode designated critical habitat for• the hzsmpback chzsb. " Following the completion of the
2008 BO and conclusion of the public comment period, the Environmental Assessment was finalized and
a `'Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI) issued on February 29, 2008. As planned, the High Flow
portion of the experiment was initiated on March 5, 2008 and has received considerable press coverage.
This High Flow Experiment has been met with considerable opposition from the National Park Service
(NPS) and environmental groups who argue that such high flows should be done every year and that the
steady flows occur to far after the fact to be beneficial. My staff believes these conclusions are not
supported by the current science. Perhaps of greater concern to us as States is the NPS effort to try and
elevate the Grand Canyon Protection Act to the same status as that of the recently signed Record of
Decision concerning the Coordinated Operations of Lakes Powell and Mead and the Lower Colorado
River Basin Shortage Criteria. Even though the NPS is represented on the GCAMP-Adaptive
Management Workgroup along with many other potential cooperating agencies, both at the federal and
state levels, the NPS believes they deserve special consideration and should be a designated cooperator
with Reclamation. These efforts by the NPS need to be monitored closely and staff believes should be
opposed given the plain language contained in the Grand Canyon Protection Act. If the NPS is allowed to
mandate high flows annually that bypass the Glen Canyon power plant it will adversely impact revenues
into the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and may adversely impact O&M at existing Colorado River
Storage Project (CRSP) reservoirs, participating CRSP repayments as well as other environmental
programs such as those for endangered fish. We are also very concerned about the spillover effect of
these efforts into the Colorado River Annual Operating Plan process.
The next meeting of the GCAMP-Adaptive Management Workgroup will be on May 22-23, 2008 and we
anticipate that there may be further discussion of this matter.
COLORADO RIVER ANNUAL OPERATING PLAN (AOP) 2008 -The final draft of the 2008
Annual Operating Plan has been completed and advanced to the Secretary of Interior for approval. In
short, the release from Lake Powell is currently projected to be 8.23 million acre-feet. Releases from
Lake Mead will be governed by the Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) condition (A "Normal" release of
9.0 million acre-feet plus any requested ICS deliveries). The AOP can be reviewed at:
http://v«wv.us br.gov/lc/region/84000/AOP2008/AOP08_Final_Draft22508. pdf
Staff is concerned that final approval of the 2008 AOP is being delayed as a result of objections by the
National Park Service to the characterizations of operations at Lake Powell.
~21~