Laserfiche WebLink
<br />difficult. <br />fluctuations <br />million. <br /> <br />In a typical year, elimination <br />can increase recreation benefits by <br /> <br />of <br />$0.8 <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Fluctuations lead to a loss of backwater habitat for <br />common native fish and may reduce natural trout <br />reproduction, although fluctuations increase food <br />availability for these fish throughout the year. <br /> <br />Although fluctuations do not appear to have a <br />long-term, continuous impact on beaches, vegetation, <br />wildlife, or humpback chub reproduction, the area <br />available for camping and establishment of vegetation <br />would be less under fluctuating flows than under steady <br />flows of the same volume. <br /> <br />(2) It is possible, within Colorado River storage <br />project water delivery requirements, to operate during <br />low- and high-water years in ways to prevent future <br />degradation and in some cases enhance downstream <br />resources. <br /> <br />- Impacts to most critical resources can be reduced by <br />reducing fluctuations as much as possible, increasing <br />minimum flows as much as possible, and eliminating <br />flood releases. The closer the operation of the dam <br />comes to steady release of the annual runoff each year, <br />the less degradation occurs to environmental resources. <br />Trout are the one exception, because fluctuations <br />apparently increase their rate of growth. <br /> <br />(3) The effects of the Uprate and Rewind Program on <br />downstream resources cannot be determined at this time. <br /> <br />The changes in dam operations due to the <br />Rewind Program are not yet determined. <br />possible at this time to specify precisely <br />powerplant capacity will affect future dam <br /> <br />Up rate and <br />It is not <br />how the new <br />operations. <br /> <br />(4) Reducing the vulnerability of the endangered hump- <br />back chub in Grand Canyon must depend on <br />non-operational alternatives. <br /> <br />Although neither floods or fluctuating flows are ad- <br />versely affecting the existing population of chub, the <br />cold releases from the dam continue to restrict <br />reproduction to the Little Colorado River. Warming the <br />temperature of the mainstem river could increase the <br />number of breeding chub populations and thereby aid in <br />recovery of this species. <br /> <br />82 <br />