DOCSLIB.ORG

Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement FINAL Volume 3—Appendices O–Q U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region National Park Service, Intermountain Region October 2016 Cover photo credits: Title bar: Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon: Grand Canyon National Park Glen Canyon Dam: T.R. Reeve High-flow experimental release: T.R. Reeve Fisherman: T. Gunn Humpback chub: Arizona Game and Fish Department Rafters: Grand Canyon National Park Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan October 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement GLEN CANYON DAM LONG-TERM EXPERIMENTAL AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Joint-Lead Agencies Bureau of Reclamation National Park Service Cooperating Agencies Department of the Interior Havasupai Tribe Bureau of Indian Affairs Hopi Tribe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Hualapai Tribe U.S. Department of Energy Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians Western Area Power Administration Navajo Nation Arizona Game and Fish Department Pueblo of Zuni Colorado River Board of California Salt River Project Colorado River Commission of Nevada Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems Upper Colorado River Commission ABSTRACT The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), through the Bureau of Reclamation and National Park Service (NPS), proposes to develop and implement a Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) for operations of Glen Canyon Dam. The LTEMP would provide a framework for adaptively managing Glen Canyon Dam operations over the next 20 years, consistent with the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 (GCPA) and other provisions of applicable federal law. The LTEMP would determine specific options for dam operations, non-flow actions, and appropriate experimental and management actions that will meet the GCPA’s requirements and minimize impacts on resources within the area impacted by dam operations, including those of importance to American Indian Tribes. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and followed the implementing regulations developed by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500 to 1508 and DOI regulations implementing NEPA in 43 CFR Part 46. The FEIS analysis draws on the scientific information that has been collected under the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program over the last 20 years to identify the potential environmental effects associated with taking no action, as well as a reasonable range of alternatives to no action for implementing the proposed federal action. Seven alternatives were considered and analyzed for the LTEMP EIS—a no action alternative (Alternative A), a hydropower-focused alternative (Alternative B), three condition- dependent alternatives (Alternatives C, D, and E), and two steady flow alternatives (Alternatives F and G). These alternatives incorporated a broad range of operations and experimental actions that together allowed for a full evaluation of possible impacts of the iii Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan October 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement proposed action. Based on the impact analyses conducted, DOI has chosen Alternative D as both the preferred and the environmentally preferred alternative. Alternative D is expected to result in an improvement in conditions for humpback chub, trout, and the aquatic food base; have the least impact on vegetation, wetlands, and terrestrial wildlife; improve sandbar building potential and conserve sediment; sustain or improve conditions for reservoir and river recreation; improve preservation of cultural resources; respect and enhance Tribal resources and values; and have limited impacts on hydropower resources. For additional information, visit http://ltempeis.anl.gov or contact: Rob Billerbeck Katrina Grantz Colorado River Coordinator Chief, Adaptive Management Group National Park Service Bureau of Reclamation Intermountain Region Upper Colorado Region 12795 West Alameda Parkway 125 South State Street Lakewood, CO 80228 Salt Lake City, UT 84138-1147 Phone: 303-987-6789 Phone: 801-524-3635 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] iv Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan October 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement CONTENTS ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... iii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................. lxiii 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Description of the Proposed Action ...................................................................... 1-4 1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action ............................................................................ 1-5 1.3 Lead and Cooperating Agencies and Consulting Tribes ....................................... 1-9 1.3.1 Lead Agencies .......................................................................................... 1-9 1.3.2 Cooperating Agencies and Consulting Tribes ......................................... 1-9 1.4 Objectives and Resource Goals of the LTEMP ..................................................... 1-10 1.5 Scope of the EIS .................................................................................................... 1-13 1.5.1 Affected Region and Resources ............................................................... 1-13 1.5.2 Impact Topics Selected for Detailed Analysis ......................................... 1-14 1.5.3 Impact Topics Dismissed from Detailed Analysis ................................... 1-15 1.6 Role of Adaptive Management.............................................................................. 1-16 1.6.1 History of the Existing Adaptive Management Program ......................... 1-16 1.6.2 Relationship of Adaptive Management to NEPA and Changes to Operations ............................................................................................ 1-17 1.7 Role of Decision Analysis in the EIS Process ....................................................... 1-17 1.8 History, Location, and Setting ............................................................................... 1-18 1.8.1 History and Purpose of Glen Canyon Dam.............................................. 1-18 1.8.2 Location of Glen Canyon Dam and LTEMP Affected Area ................... 1-19 1.8.3 Operation of the Glen Canyon Dam ........................................................ 1-20 1.8.4 History, Purpose, and Significance of the National Park System Units ......................................................................................................... 1-22 1.8.4.1 Grand Canyon National Park .................................................. 1-22 1.8.4.2 Glen Canyon National Recreation Area .................................. 1-24 1.8.4.3 Lake Mead National Recreation Area ..................................... 1-24 1.8.5 Tribal Lands ............................................................................................. 1-25 1.8.5.1 Fort Mojave Tribe ................................................................... 1-26 1.8.5.2 Havasupai Tribe ...................................................................... 1-26 1.8.5.3 Hopi Tribe ............................................................................... 1-27 1.8.5.4 Hualapai Tribe ......................................................................... 1-27 1.8.5.5 Navajo Nation.......................................................................... 1-27 1.8.5.6 Pueblo of Zuni ......................................................................... 1-28 1.8.5.7 Southern Paiute Tribes ............................................................ 1-28 1.9 Laws and Regulations Related to Operations of Glen Canyon Dam and Park Management .................................................................................................. 1-29 1.9.1 Environmental Laws and Executive Orders ............................................ 1-29 1.9.2 Cultural/Historical Laws and Executive Orders ...................................... 1-30 v Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan October 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement CONTENTS (Cont.) 1.9.3 American Indian and Tribal Consultation Laws and Executive Orders ....................................................................................................... 1-31 1.9.4 Laws Establishing Criteria Related to Power Marketing ......................... 1-31 1.9.5 Law of the River ...................................................................................... 1-31 1.10 Related Actions ..................................................................................................... 1-31 1.10.1 Biological Opinions ................................................................................. 1-33 1.10.2 Environmental Impact Statements and Related Documents .................... 1-33 1.10.3 Environmental Assessments and Related Documents ............................. 1-35 1.10.4 Other Actions, Programs, Plans, and Projects ......................................... 1-36 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................... 2-1
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arizona Fishing Regulations 3 Fishing License Fees Getting Started
    2019 & 2020 Fishing Regulations for your boat for your boat See how much you could savegeico.com on boat | 1-800-865-4846insurance. | Local Offi ce geico.com | 1-800-865-4846 | Local Offi ce See how much you could save on boat insurance. Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in all states or all GEICO companies. Boat and PWC coverages are underwritten by GEICO Marine Insurance Company. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. TowBoatU.S. is the preferred towing service provider for GEICO Marine Insurance. The GEICO Gecko Image © 1999-2017. © 2017 GEICO AdPages2019.indd 2 12/4/2018 1:14:48 PM AdPages2019.indd 3 12/4/2018 1:17:19 PM Table of Contents Getting Started License Information and Fees ..........................................3 Douglas A. Ducey Governor Regulation Changes ...........................................................4 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION How to Use This Booklet ...................................................5 JAMES S. ZIELER, CHAIR — St. Johns ERIC S. SPARKS — Tucson General Statewide Fishing Regulations KURT R. DAVIS — Phoenix LELAND S. “BILL” BRAKE — Elgin Bag and Possession Limits ................................................6 JAMES R. AMMONS — Yuma Statewide Fishing Regulations ..........................................7 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT Common Violations ...........................................................8 5000 W. Carefree Highway Live Baitfish
    [Show full text]
  • 1976 Link Is to a PDF File
    t • I UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 125 SCALE OF MILES Annual Report Operation of the Colorado· River Basin 1976 Projected Operations 1977 u.s. Department of the Interior Thomas S. Kleppe, Secretary Bureau of Reclamation Gilbert G. Stamm, Commissioner January 1977 Table·of Contents Introduction ii Authority for ·Report ii Actual .Operations under Criteria-Water Year 1976 1 Upper Basin Reservoirs 2 Lo~er Bas1nReservoirs __ ------------------------------~------------ 14 River Regulations 20 Beneficial Consumptive Uses 21 Upper Basin Uses 21 Lo~er Basin Uses and· Losses 21 Water Quality Control 22 Water Quality Operations during Water Year 1976 22 Enhancement of Fish and Wildlife 23 Upper Basin 23 Lo~erBasin 23 Preservation· of Environment 24 Projected Plan of Operation under Criteria for Current Year ~------------------------------------------__ 26 Determination Storage" 26 Lower Basin Requirements 27 Plan of Operation-Water Year 1977 29 Upper Basin Reservoirs 30 Lo~er Basin Reservoirs 31 (Prepared pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Public Law 90-537) Intr cti The operation of the Colorado River Basin during the past year and the projected operation for the current year reflect domestic use, irrigation, hydro­ electric power generation, water quality control, fish and wi Idl ife propagation, recreation, flood control, and Colorado River Compact require­ ments. Storage and release of water from the Upper Basin reservoirs recognize all applicable laws and relevant factors governing the Colorado River, in­ cluding the impoundment of water in the Upper Basin required by section 602(a) of Public Law 90-537. The operation of the Lower Basin reser­ voirs reflects Mexican Treaty obligations and Lower Basin contractual commitments.
    [Show full text]
  • Fill Mead First: a Technical Assessment1 Executive Summary
    Fill Mead First: a technical assessment1 John C. Schmidt2 with contributions from Maggi Kraft3, Daphnee Tuzlak4, and Alex Walker3 White Paper No. 1 Center for Colorado River Studies Quinney College of Natural Resources Utah State University November 10, 2016 Executive Summary The Fill Mead First (FMF) plan would establish Lake Mead reservoir as the primary water storage facility of the main-stem Colorado River and would relegate Lake Powell reservoir to a secondary water storage facility to be used only when Lake Mead is full. The objectives of the FMF plan are to re-expose some of Glen Canyon’s sandstone walls that are now inundated, begin the process of re-creating a riverine ecosystem in Glen Canyon, restore a more natural stream-flow, temperature, and sediment-supply regime of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon ecosystem, and reduce system-wide water losses caused by evaporation and movement of reservoir water into ground-water storage. The FMF plan would be implemented in three phases. Phase I would involve lowering Lake Powell to the minimum elevation at which hydroelectricity can still be produced (called minimum power pool elevation): 3490 ft asl (feet above sea level). At this elevation, the water surface area of Lake 1 suggested citation: Schmidt, J. C., Kraft, M., Tuzlak, D., and Walker, A. 2016. Fill Mead First: a technical assessment. Logan, Utah State University Quinney College of Natural Resources, Center for Colorado River Studies, white paper no. 1, 80 p., available at <https://qcnr.usu.edu/wats/colorado_river_studies/>. 2 corresponding author; Department of Watershed Sciences, Utah State University, Logan UT 84322-5210; [email protected] 3 graduate student, Department of Watershed Sciences 4 graduate student, Department of Geology 1 Powell is approximately 77 mi2, which is 31% of the surface area when the reservoir is full.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Water Storage on the Southern Colorado Plateau
    Rethinking water storage on the southern Colorado Plateau Jack Schmidt https://qcnr.usu.edu/wats/colorado_river_studies/https://qcnr.usu.edu/wats/colorado_river_studies/ Fill Mead First -- establish Lake Mead as the primary reservoir storage facility; 2015 store water in Lake Powell only when Lake Mead is full. 2016 • Objectives • Expose Glen Canyon’s sandstone walls • Recreate natural flow, sediment transport, and temperature regime in Grand Canyon • Save water (300,000 – 600,000 af/yr) • Eliminate need for Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Fill Mead First Proposal • Phase I – reduce storage in Lake Powell to minimum power pool elevation (3490 ft asl) • Phase II – reduce storage in Lake Powell to dead pool (3370 ft asl) • Phase III – drill new diversion tunnels and fully drain Lake Powell New York Times, May 20, 2016 ~0.49 M af/yr evaporated from Powell ~0.37 M af/yr seepage losses ~0.55 M af/yr saved Myers, 2010, Planning the Colorado River in a changing climate: reservoir loss New York Times, May 20, 2016 rates in Lakes Powell and Mead and their use in CRSS. Consulting report to GCI. Myers, 2013, Loss rates from Lake Powell and their impact on management of the Colorado River. Journal of the American Water Resources Association GRGr ?SRRGr CRC P ??E ?DDRH ?ER E ??tribsungaged ??Gstorage:long + ??Gstorge:short SJRB ??Gseepage CR LF = + ± ∆ − − Calculation of Water Savings by Myers (2010, 2013) = ± LossesPowell = E + G 770,000 af/yr (+60,000) = 500,000 af/yr + 270,000 af/yr (+60,000) LossesMead = E + G 880,000 af/yr
    [Show full text]
  • INTERIOR REPORTS PLANS READY for AERIAL FISH PLANTING in LAKE POWELL--May 19, 1963
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR FISH ANDWILDLIFE SERVICE Interior 5634 For Release MAY 19, 1963 INTERIORREPORTS PLANS READY FOR AERIAL FISH PLANTINGIN LAKE POWELL Tomorrow an airplane will take off from the airstrip at Page, Arizona, on a mission of interest to every fisherman in the Nation--a major step in the Depart- ment of the Interior's development of a huge recreational area in several Rocky Mountain States. The plane will be equipped with a special tank containing 500 pounds of two- inch rainbow trout and enough water to assure survival on their journey. A few minutes from Page as the plane flies, but days of hard travel on the ground, the plane will dip low over the lake being formed by the Colorado River behind newly completed Glen Canyon Dam, and the pilot will pull a lever dropping fish and water into the depths of Lake Powell. When he completes his six trips for that day, he will have placed one million fingerling trout in the new reservoir-- trout from the new Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery Arizona, downstream from Boulder City, Nevada, operated by the Fish and Wildlife Service's Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. On Wednesday, the same plane will again make six trips into the spectacularly beautiful capon of the upper Colorado to plant another million rainbows, these from the Williams Creek and Alchesay National Fish Hatcheries in eastern Arizona. Two days later, another million little trout from the Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery will take the short air trip up into the canyon to find their homes in the rapidly forming lake.
    [Show full text]
  • Lakemead National Recreation Area Lake Mead
    LAKEMEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LAKE MEAD AND LAKE MOHAVE ARIZONA NEVADA Indian Background THE REGION now included within Lake Mead National Rec­ National reation Area has been almost continuously inhabited by man for at least 2,000 years. In such arid regions the activities LAKE MEAD of the prehistoric Indian inhabitants naturally centered Recreation Area around the dependable water supply afforded by rivers. Because many of the sites along the Colorado and Virgin ities in the midst of a desert region. Within the recreation OPEN ALL YEAR Rivers were in the path of the rising waters of the reservoir, area, the river which forms this lake makes a great bend and a careful survey of this region was conducted in order that as flows almost due south toward the Gulf of California. much as possible of this irreplaceable prehistoric material AKE MEAD, the main feature of Lake Mead National The lake winds 115 miles to the east from Hoover Dam might be salvaged before being lost forever beneath the Recreation Area, is the reservoir created by the con- and varies from wide open waters to narrow connecting waters of this largest of manmade lakes. I• struction of Hoover Dam. This beautiful blue lake, links through the lesser canyons. At its highest level, Lake Many campsites were found, but in only cne section of with its 550-mile shoreline at high watermark, nestles in Mead has a depth of 589 feet and contains over 32 million the area have extensive, permanent aboriginal dwellings been discovered. These are the ruins popularly known as magnificent canyons along the Colorado River.
    [Show full text]
  • ARIZONA Water Supply Outlook Report As of April 1, 1995
    United States Department of Agriculture Arizona Natural Resources Conservation Basin Outlook Report Service January 15, 2007 ARIZONA Water Supply Outlook Report as of January 15, 2007 A full range of Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting products is available on the Arizona NRCS Home Page: Snow Survey Program http://www.az.nrcs.usda.gov/snow/index.html Helpful Internet Sites Defending Against Drought – NRCS http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/feature/highlights/drought.html • Ideas on water, land, and crop management for you to consider while creating your drought plan. Arizona Agri-Weekly http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Arizona/Publications/Crop_Progress_&_Condition/cur-agwk.pdf • Provides an overview of Arizona’s crop, livestock, range and pasture conditions as reported by local staffs of the USDA’s Agricultural Statistic Service and University of Arizona, College of Agriculture. SUMMARY Snowpack levels have shown little improvement since the last report issued on January 1. In that regard, the outlook for surface water supplies in Arizona continues to be poor, with seasonal runoff forecasts ranging from 47 to 67 percent of median for streams monitored in this report. The only bright note is that a fair amount of water storage remains in most major reservoirs within Arizona as the result of carryover from the previous year. SNOWPACK Percent (%) of 30-Yr. Average Watershed Snowpack Levels as of Jan. 15 Salt River Basin 41% Verde River Basin 43% Little Colorado River Basin 39% San Francisco-Upper Gila River Basin 49% Other Points of Interest Chuska Mountains 50% Central Mogollon Rim 47% Grand Canyon 35% San Francisco Peaks 48% Statewide Snowpack 44% 2 PRECIPITATION Well below average precipitation catch was recorded at all NRCS SNOTEL sites for the period January 1-15.
    [Show full text]
  • Premium Inland Map Overlays
    PREMIUM INLAND MAP OVERLAYS Available for select Garmin and Navionics chart cards and the Navionics Boating app. HIGH-RESOLUTION RELIEF SHADING SONAR IMAGERY Color and shadow combine for an easy-to-interpret, See changes to bottom hardness clearly and in bright clearer view of fish-holding structure, artificial reefs, color, highlighting both subtle and dramatic transition underwater shelves and more. areas on select U.S. lakes. Garmin Navionics States Name Relief Shading Sonar Imagery Relief Shading Sonar Imagery AL Bankhead Lake √ √ √ √ AL Jordan Lake √ √ √ √ AL Lake Martin √ √ √ √ AL Lake Tuscaloosa √ X √ X AL Lay Lake √ √ √ √ AL Lewis Smith Lake √ √ √ X AL Logan Martin Lake √ √ √ √ AL Mitchell Lake √ √ √ √ AL Neely Henry Lake √ √ √ √ AL Wheeler Lake √ √ √ √ Lake Eufaula AL/GA √ √ √ X (Walter F. George Reservoir) AL/MS/TN Pickwick Lake √ √ √ √ AL/TN Guntersville Lake √ √ √ √ AL/TN Wilson Lake √ √ √ √ AR Beaver Lake √ √ √ √ AR Greers Ferry Lake √ √ √ √ 03/21 Garmin Navionics States Name Relief Shading Sonar Imagery Relief Shading Sonar Imagery AR Greeson Lake √ X √ X AR Lake Dardanelle √ √ √ √ AR Lake Hamilton √ X √ X AR Lake Maumelle √ √ √ √ AR Lake Ouachita √ √ √ √ AR/MO Bull Shoals Lake √ √ √ √ AR/MO Norfork Lake √ √ √ √ AR/MO Table Rock Lake √ √ √ √ AZ Apache Lake √ √ √ √ AZ Canyon Lake √ √ √ √ AZ Lake Pleasant √ √ √ √ AZ Saguaro Lake √ √ √ √ AZ Theodore Roosevelt Lake √ √ √ √ AZ/CA Lake Havasu √ √ √ √ AZ/NV Lake Mohave X √** X X CA Castaic Lake √ √ √ √ CA Clear Lake √ √ √ X CA Folsom Lake √ X √ X CA Lake Isabella √ X √ X CT Candlewood Lake √ √ √ X FL Lake Eustis √ √ √ √ FL Lake Harris √ √ √ √ FL Lake Kissimmee √ √* √ X FL Lake Tohopekaliga √ √ √ √ FL/GA Lake Seminole √ √ √ √ GA Lake Oconee √ √ √ √ GA Lake Sidney Lanier √ √ √ √ GA Lake Sinclair √ √ √ √ GA West Point Lake √ √ √ √ Clarks Hill Lake GA/SC √ √ √ √ (J.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Canyon Water Trail Is Located Along a Rugged and Remote Portions of the Colorado River in Nevada and Arizona Within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area
    Water Trail 1 Lake Mead National Recreation Area—Black Canyon National Water Trail The 26-mile long Black Canyon Water Trail is located along a rugged and remote portions of the Colorado River in Nevada and Arizona within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The trail begins at the base of the Hoover Dam and meanders through Black Canyon along 26 miles of the Colorado River. The trail ends at Eldorado Canyon, a historic mining area on Lake Mohave. This spectacular river setting provides unique paddling and rafting opportunities alongside wilderness. Visitors can stop at sandy beach- Kayaking is Very Popular es, colorful caves, plentiful coves and active hot springs. Desert Bighorn Sheep and other wildlife such as bald eagles, peregrine fal- cons, red-tailed hawks, osprey, cormorants and waterfowl are often seen along the route. There is a great deal of history associated Desert Bighorn Sheep with the Hoover Dam including the sauna cave, gauging sta- tions, catwalks, trails and building foundations. The National Water Trail System establishes in 2002, is a na- tional network of water trails cooperatively supported and sus- tained for the public to explore and enjoy. Designated water trails incorporate recreation opportunities, education about the value of the resource, conservation, community support, public information, and trail maintenance and planning. There are 16 within the National Water Trails System. Black Canyon Water Trail is the first water trail in the Southwest and the only water trail that traverses through a desert. (1) Users of the trail going downriver can either take out at Willow Beach or go an addition- al 14 miles and take-out at Eldorado Can- yon.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Mohave Fisheries Survey Results 2019
    Lake Mohave Fisheries Survey Results 2019 Lisa Ozborn Lake Mohave Biologist Nevada Department of Wildlife Lake Mohave Survey Methods AZGFD Protocol for Fisheries Management 2004 Stratified into thirds Lower: Mile 0-11.75, Davis Dam to Clam Cove Middle: Mile 11.75-30, Clam Cove to Twin Cove Upper: Mile 30-63 Twin Cove to Hoover Dam 50 gill net sites (1 net-night/cove) Typically 20 sites in the lower and middle sections, and 10 in the upper section. Seven fixed reference sites 20 electrofishing sites (15 minutes/cove) 10 in the lower, and 5 in each of the middle and upper sections Seven fixed reference sites divided throughout Electrofishing Species Composition, 2019 Number Percent (%) of CPUE Species caught (n) total catch (fish/15 minutes) Common Carp 35 36.8 3.5 Smallmouth Bass 27 28.4 2.7 Largemouth Bass 25 26.3 2.5 Bluegill 4 4.2 0.4 Channel Catfish 2 2.1 0.2 Green Sunfish 2 2.1 0.2 Total 95 100 9.5 Percent of Species Composition From Electrofishing Percent (%) of Total Catch 2010-2018 2019 Green Sunfish 42.36 2.1 Bluegill 22.22 4.2 Common Carp 15.26 36.8 Largemouth Bass 10.42 26.3 Smallmouth Bass 9.88 28.4 Striped Bass 2.77 0 Channel Catfish 2.72 2.1 Razorback Sucker 1.41 0 Yellow Bullhead 0.78 0 Gizzard Shad 0.17 0 Percent of Species Composition While Electrofishing Over 10 years Gillnetting Species Composition, 2019 Number caught Percent (%) of CPUE Species (n) total catch (fish/net night) Smallmouth Bass 72 27.4 1.41 Channel Catfish 62 23.5 1.22 Common Carp 46 17.5 0.90 Largemouth Bass 22 8.4 0.43 Green Sunfish 16 6.1
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Annual Operating Plan for Colorado River Reservoirs
    Annual Operating Plan for Colorado River Reservoirs 2020 U.S. Department of the Interior December 2019 THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WASHINGTON DEC 1 1 2019 The Honorable Gavin Newsom Governor of California Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Governor Newsom: Enclosed is the Annual Operating Plan (AOP) for Colorado River System Reservoirs for 2020. The AOP contains the projected plan of operation of Colorado River reservoirs for 2020 based on the most probable runoff conditions. The plan of operation reflects the use of the reservoirs for all purposes consistent with the Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs Pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Project Act of September 30, 1968. The 2020 AOP incorporates the Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead (2007 Interim Guidelines), the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan Agreement (LB DCP Agreement), and Minute No. 323 of the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). The AOP was prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation in consultation with the seven Colorado River Basin States Governors' representatives; representatives from Mexico; the Upper Colorado River Commission; Native American Tribes; appropriate Federal agencies; representatives of the academic and scientific communities, environmental organizations, and recreation industry; water delivery contractors; contractors for the purchase of Federal power; others interested in Colorado River operations; and the general public, through the Colorado River Management Work Group (Work Group). The Work Group held meetings on June 4, 2019, July 25, 2019, and September 5, 2019. The water year 2020 release from Lake Powell is projected to be 8.23 million acre-feet (mat) (10,150 million cubic meters [mcm]).
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Reservoir Levels
    | Recent Conditions Arizona Reservoir Levels (through 11/30/07) Source: National Water and Climate Center Notes: Storage increased in the majority of Arizona reservoirs during The map gives a representation of current storage levels for reservoirs in November. Despite small increases, storage in the Salt and Arizona. Reservoir locations are numbered within the blue circles on the Verde River reservoirs is below average, and well below capac- map, corresponding to the reservoirs listed in the table. The cup next to each reservoir shows the current storage level (blue fill) as a percent of ity. Storage in Lake Powell is expected to continue declining total capacity. Note that while the size of each cup varies with the size until the spring 2008 snowmelt runoff season. The Novem- of the reservoir, these are representational and not to scale. Each cup ber increases in the San Carlos and Salt River Basin reser- also represents last year’s storage level (dotted line) and the 1971–2000 voirs were probably due to precipitation from a major storm reservoir average (red line). that visited the region, following a dry fall. Early December The table details more exactly the current capacity level (listed as a storms dumped copious precipitation and snow over much of percent of maximum storage). Current and maximum storage levels the state. are given in thousands of acre-feet for each reservoir. One acre-foot is the volume of water sufficient to cover an acre of land to a depth of 1 On December 13, 2007, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne foot (approximately 325,851 gallons).
    [Show full text]