WSP03242 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

02'''' o 't.) 't . . Glen Canvon Dam Adaptive Management Program The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) met in Phoenix, Arizona on January 17-18,2002. The purpose of the meeting was for the federal advisory committee, the AMWG, to approve and submit several recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior. These recommendations largely focused on the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center's (GCMRC) long-term strategic plan, FY 2003 budget, and reports from several ad hoc groups of the AMWG, At the meeting, there was substantial discussion of several important items, including the following: (I) the geographic and statutory scope of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program; (2) the status of the endangered humpback chub population in the Grand Canyon reach of the mainstream Colorado River; (3) status of non-native fish control efforts in the mainstream; (4) status of the sediment resources ofthe Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyon reaches of the mainstream Colorado River under the EIS Record of Decision (ROD); and (5) receipt of two letters from various environmental organizations stating that the Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program may be failing to meet the requirements of the EIS and ROD and associated USFWS biological opinion, Each of these major issues is discussed below. A source of continuing legal and administrative debate over the past several years in the AMWG continues to be the legal and administrative mandate of the AMWG and the overall approach of the Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program (AMP), Much of this debate revolves around the funding of major program elements of the AMP, as the primary source of funding is through the revenues generated through the sale of hydroelectric power pursuant to the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Currently, the Basin states' representatives and power customers believe that the Glen Canyon Dam EIS and ROD, as well as the 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act, clearly articulate the mandate and scope of the AMP, This view is not sh<lJ"ed by other participants in the process, who believe that there are broader authorities contained within other statutes, rules, regulations, and agency policies, Discussions regarding the scop" of the AMP are likely to continue into the future. Staff from the GCMRC made a presentation regarding the current biological status of the endangered humpback chub in the Glen and Grand Canyon reaches of the mainstream Colorado River. This species was one of the primary reasons for initiating the original EIS process, resulting in the 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act, final EIS and ROD, and associated ESA biological opinion. The biological opinion called for the establishment of a second population of humpback chub in the Grand Canyon_ To date, this has not been established, The GCMRC's presentation pointed out that the impact of the non-native fish in this reach of the River have had significant effect on the survival of the humpback chub, The non-native fish species of primary concern include rainbow and brown trout, red shiner, carp, striped bass, and catfish, Consequently, the AMWG approved a recommendation to initiate an evaluation and monitoring program to analyze potential non-native fish controls at Bright Angel Creek and the lower Little Colorado River. The long-term recommendation from the AMWG was to evaluate an expansion of non- native fish controls throughout the entire area of the AMP. Board staff urged the AMWG, GCMRC, Reclamation, and National Park Service to consult with the Nevada Division of Wildlife and California Department of Fish and Game prior to development of these activities, II