Laserfiche WebLink
<br />01867 <br /> <br />A very important step in developing an ecosystemobased science program has been the <br />development of a conceptual model of the Colorado River ecosystem in the Grand <br />Canyon region (Walters and others 2000), During 2003 the TWG used knowledge <br />gained from the conceptual model to evaluate a program of potential future experimental <br />actions through a multi-attribute tradeoff analysis (Failing and others 2003), A <br />complimentary exercise has been the development of the GCDAMP Strategic Plan, <br />which was adopted by the AMWG and is available at [online] http://www,usbr.qov/uc/ <br />envproq!amp! strateqic plan,htm!. <br /> <br />STATUS OF ELEMENT 1 <br /> <br />Completed, The GCDAMP has been developed and implemented, <br /> <br />ELEMENT 1,A <br /> <br />Carry out a program of experimental flows, including high steady flows in the spring and <br />low steady flows in summer and fall during approximately 8,23 million acre foot (maf) <br />water years, The RPA set forth a schedule for development and implementation of <br />experimental flows, Design of experimental flows and associated studies were to have <br />been completed by October 1996, Unless the Service doubted the validity of the study <br />design or the ability of the flow to contribute to removal of jeopardy, the flows were to be <br />implemented in April 1997 ' The flows could begin even later in 1997, if good faith effort <br />to make sufficient progress was completed, Absent sufficient progress, flows were to be <br />implemented in spring of 1998, <br /> <br />PROGRESS ON ELEMENT 1,A <br /> <br />In January 2002 the AMWG directed the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research <br />Center (GCMRC), in consultation with the Technical Work Group (TWG), to design an <br />experiment to test how dam operations might be modified and other management <br />actions taken to better conserve sediment and help native fish. On March 25, 2002, the <br />GCMRC provided a draft proposal for the requested experimental flows and <br />management actions that formed the basis of the September 2002 Environmental <br />Assessment on Proposed Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon Dam and Removal <br />of NonoNative Fish (USDI 2002), Following the release of the Environmental <br />Assessment, Section 7 consultation with the Service was initiated, Subsequently, the <br />Service concurred with the finding that the proposed action would not adversely affect <br />the southwestern willow flycatcher, the California condor, the razorback sucker, or <br />critical habitat for the razorback sucker. The Service also found that the proposed <br />activities would not likely result in jeopardy to the HBC, Kanab ambersnail, or bald eagle, <br />or the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for the humpback chub <br />(Service 2002), In December 2002, Reclamation and others (Bureau of Reclamation <br />and others 2002) issued a Finding of No Significant Impact related to activities proposed <br />for the experimental releases from Glen Canyon Dam and removal of nononative fish, <br />Also in December 2002, Reclamation implemented conservation measures for Kanab <br />ambersnail and humpback chub in conjunction with the proposed activities (Peterson <br />2002), Reclamation reinitiated Section 7 consultation in March 2003 (Peterson 2003) to <br />propose a change in the size of humpback chubs translocated as part of the <br />management activities detailed in the Environmental Assessment of 2002 (USDI 2002), <br />The Service (2003a) responded with a finding of no jeopardy to the proposed changes, <br />A Finding of No Significant Impact was made in July 2003 by Reclamation and others <br /> <br />3 <br />