Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />., <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />GCMRC staff also made a presentation regarding the current status of the sediment resources of <br />the Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyon reaches of the mainstream Colorado River. The result of the analysis <br />was that, under ROD dam operations, the sediment budget of the river is in deficit and continuing to <br />decline, The GCMRC and sediment researchers believe that Glen Canyon Dam operations under the ROD, <br />are causing the further degradation of these sediment resources. The GCMRC recommends that dam <br />operations may need to be modified to more opportunistically take advantage oflocalized storm events on <br />tributary watersheds which supply limited sediment supplies to the mainstream in Grand Canyon, In fact, <br />the GCMRC recommends that flow releases from Glen Canyon Dam, above power-plant capacity (approx, <br />31,000 cfs) should be made as soon as possible after the sediment hits the mainstream to deposit it on the <br />river banks (i,e.. before it is "flushed" downstream into Lake Mead), A small "experimental flows" ad hoc <br />group has been tasked with evaluating the proposed recommendations and potential impacts and reporting <br />back to the AMWG at its April 2002 meeting, <br /> <br />Finally, two letters were received from environmental organizations regarding their specific <br />concerns related to the progress and process of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program and <br />the activities of the AMWG, The first letter, to the Secretary of the Interior, from Living Rivers, which <br />does not sit on the AMWG, identifies a whole host of concerns related to the Glen Canyon Dam AMP, <br />Specifically, it is concerned that the strategic plan for the GCMRC does not comply with the requirements <br />contained within the EIS and ROD, the biological opinion, as well as the Grand Canyon Protection Act. <br />Living Rivers believes that there has not been adequate public outreach regarding the AMWG's decision- <br />making processes. Living Rivers also believes that the Basin's water and power interests control the <br />decision-making and that restoration of Grand Canyon is considered to be subservient to water and power <br />needs in the states, The second letter, from the Grand Canyon Trust, which is a member of the AMWG, <br />expresses concern about the status of the humpback chub, the status of the sediment resources, and the <br />overall recovery goals for the four endangered fish ofthe Colorado River. Copies of the letters have been <br />included in the Board folder. <br /> <br />Along with approval of the GCMRC's strategic plan, an FY2003 budget of approximately <br />$10 million was approved by the AMWG, related to the annual work plan and activities of the GCMRC <br />and Reclamation, Also, as required by the 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act, Reclamation distributed <br />a copy of the draft Report to Congress for Water Years 1999-2002 related to Glen Canyon Dam <br />Operations, Reclamations would like to receive comments on the draft report by late-April 2002, A copy <br />of the draft report to Congress has been included in your Board folder. The next meeting of the AMWG <br />has been scheduled for late April 2002. <br /> <br />12 <br />