My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8128
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8128
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:33 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 3:27:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8128
Author
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
Title
Operation of Glen Canyon Dam\
USFW Year
1995.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
81
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Description of Alternatives <br />Resources in the Glen Canyon reach that would be adversely impacted <br />include sandbars, riparian vegetation and associated terrestrial wildlife, <br />Cladophora and associated algal and invertebrate communities, a <br />regionally important trout fishery, recreation potential, Native American <br />cultural and sacred sites, and archeological and historic areas/sites. <br />Impacts to the Cladophora-based aquatic food chain could have effects <br />throughout Grand Canyon. <br />Most of these impacts would result from the greater frequency and <br />magnitude of fluctuations behind the reregulating dam constructed to <br />protect downstream resources from those same fluctuations. A reregu- <br />lating dam would require $60 to $110 million to construct and 5 to 15 years <br />to implement without any opposition. <br />Impacts in the Glen Canyon reach could be mitigated by reducing the <br />frequency and magnitude of daily river fluctuations. However, without <br />maximum fluctuations, there would be no need for a reregulation dam. <br />Reduced fluctuations and elimination of the reregulation dam create <br />conditions identical to those evaluated under other fluctuating flow <br />alternatives, including no action. <br />Eliminated Concepts <br />Some comments received during the scoping process suggested the <br />following concepts that were eliminated from detailed study. <br />• Sand pumping <br />• Beach protection <br />• Remove Glen Canyon Dam <br />• Move hydropower peaking from Glen Canyon Dam to Hoover Dam <br />Although sand pumping and beach protection were eliminated from <br />detailed study in this EIS, both could be considered during long-term <br />monitoring under adaptive management. <br />Removing the dam represents an alternative to the dam itself and would <br />not meet the CRSP project purpose. <br />Hoover Powerplant already is operated as a hydroelectric power peaking <br />plant. No excess capacity or energy is available at Hoover to substitute for <br />reduced peaking at Glen Canyon, as all of the capacity and energy at <br />Hoover is allocated by existing contracts. <br />Glen Canyon Dam EIS Summary 35
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.