DOCSLIB.ORG

Roduction to the Greatest Extent Practicable, Consistent with Improvement of Downstream Resources, Including Those of Importance to American Indian Tribes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Roduction to the Greatest Extent Practicable, Consistent with Improvement of Downstream Resources, Including Those of Importance to American Indian Tribes U.S. Department of the Interior Record of Decision for the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement December 2016 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Upper Colorado Region Salt Lake City, Utah National Park Service Intermountain Region Lakewood, Colorado Record of Decision Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan 1. SUMMARY OF ACTION The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), through the Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region (Reclamation) and the National Park Service (NPS) have jointly published a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (L TEMP). Reclamation and NPS are joint-lead agencies for the L TEMP EIS because of their roles in operating Glen Canyon Dam (Reclamation's role) and managing the resources of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (GCNRA), Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP), and Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LMNRA) (NPS 's role). As joint leads, both agencies were equally involved in the development of all aspects of the L TEMP FEIS. There were 15 Cooperating Agencies for the FEIS, which included the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Western Area Power Administration (WAP A), Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD), Colorado River Board of California, Colorado River Commission of Nevada, Upper Colorado River Commission, Salt River Project, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, Havasupai Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, Navajo Nation, and the Pueblo of Zuni. Throughout the process, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) provided technical advice and managed peer review processes. The proposed Federal action considered in the L TEMP FEIS is the development and implementation of a structured, Jong-term experimental and management plan for operations of Glen Canyon Dam. The LTEMP will provide a framework for adaptively managing Glen Canyon Dam operations and other management and experimental actions over the next 20 years, consistent with the Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA) and other provisions of applicable Federal Jaw. The L TEMP identified specific options for dam operations (including hourly, daily, and monthly release patterns), non-flow actions, and appropriate experimental and management actions that meet the GCP A's requirements, and maintain or improve hydropower production to the greatest extent practicable, consistent with improvement of downstream resources, including those of importance to American Indian tribes. Under the L TEMP, water will continue to be delivered in a manner that is fully consistent with and subject to the Colorado River Compact, the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, the Water Treaty of 1944 with Mexico, the decree of the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California, and the provisions of the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (CRSPA) and the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 that govern allocation, appropriation, development, and exportation of the waters of the Colorado River Basin, and consistent with applicable determinations of annual water release volumes from Glen Canyon Dam made pursuant to the Long-Range Operating Criteria (LROC) for Colorado River Basin Reservoirs, which are currently implemented through the 2007 Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead. The area potentially affected by the L TEMP includes Lake Powell, Glen Canyon Dam, and the Colorado River downstream to Lake Mead. More specifically, the scope primarily encompasses the Colorado River Ecosystem (CRE), which includes the Colorado River mainstream corridor 2 and interacting resources in associated riparian and terrace zones, located primarily from the forebay of Glen Canyon Dam to the western boundary ofGCNP. The CRE specifically consists of the area where dam operations impact physical, biological, recreational, cultural, and other resources. This section of the river runs through Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons in Coconino and Mohave Counties in northwestern Arizona. Although the FEIS focuses primarily on the CRE, the affected area varies by resources and extends outside of the immediate river corridor for some resources and cumulative impacts. For resources such as socioeconomics, air quality, and hydropower, the affected region is larger and includes areas potentially affected by indirect impacts of the LTEMP. The FEIS and this Record of Decision (ROD) have been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations (Title 40, Code ofFederal Regulations, Parts 1500 to 1508 [40 CFR 1500-1508]), and DO I regulations (4 3 CFR 46). The decision made here is based on the FEIS filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (FES 12-01) on October 7, 2016, and noticed by the EPA in the Federal Register on October 14, 2016. For this ROD, DOI selected Alternative D without modification, which was identified in the L TEMP FEIS as both the preferred and the environmentally preferred alternative. This alternative will use the monthly release volumes as specified in Table I. Within a year, monthly operations may be increased or decreased based on factors referenced in Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of Attachment B of this ROD. Alternative D best meets the purpose and need and the broadest set of objectives and resource goals of the LTEMP. Alternative D provides the best balance of performance among downstream resources to comply with the GCPA to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the natural and cultural resources and visitor use in the GCNP and GCNRA park units while continuing to comply with GCPA 1802 (b) applicable laws. TABLE 1 Monthly Release Volumes of the Selected Alternative Monthly Release Volume (thousand ac-ft)' Total Annual 7,000 7,480 8,230 9,000 9,500 10,500 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 October 480 480 643 643 643 643 643 643 643 643 November 500 500 642 642 642 642 642 642 642 642 December 600 600 716 716 716 716 716 716 716 716 January 664 723 763 857 919 1,041 1,102 1,225 1,347 1,470 February 587 639 675 758 813 921 975 1,083 1,192 1,300 March 620 675 713 801 858 973 1,030 1,144 1,259 1,373 April 552 601 635 713 764 866 917 1,019 1,121 1,223 May 550 599 632 710 761 862 913 1,014 1,116 1,217 June 577 628 663 745 798 905 958 1,064 1,171 1,277 July 652 709 749 842 902 1,022 1,082 1,202 1,322 1,443 August 696 758 800 899 963 1,091 l, 156 1,284 1,413 1,537 Seetember 522 568 600 674 722 819 867 963 1,059 1,160 3 a Within a year, monthly operations may be increased or decreased based on factors referenced in Section 1.2 and 1.3 in Attachment B of this ROD. 2. PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of the proposed action is to provide a comprehensive framework for adaptively managing Glen Canyon Dam over the next 20 years consistent with the GCPA and other provisions of applicable Federal law. The proposed action will help determine specific dam operations and actions that could be implemented to improve conditions and continue to meet the GCP A's requirements and to minimize------consistent with law-adverse impacts on the downstream natural, recreational, and cultural resources in the two park units, including resources of importance to American Indian Tribes. The need for the proposed action stems from the need to use scientific information developed since the 1996 ROD to better inform DOI decisions on dam operations and other management and experimental actions so that the Secretary of the Interior may continue to meet statutory responsibilities for protecting downstream resources for future generations, conserving species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), avoiding or mitigating impacts on National Register ofHistoric Places (NRHP)-eligible properties, and protecting the interests of American Indian Tribes, while meeting obligations for water delivery and the generation of hydroelectric power. 3. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The FEIS assesses the potential environmental effects of seven alternatives to meet the purpose and need of the proposed action: The No-Action Alternative (Alternative A), and six action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, and G), which are summarized below (see LTEMP FEIS, Section 2.2). Alternative A (No-Action Alternative): Alternative A represents continued operation of Glen Canyon Dam as guided by the 1996 ROD for operations of Glen Canyon Dam, that is, Modified Low Fluctuating Flow (MLFF), as modified by recent DOI decisions, including those specified in the 2007 ROD on Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lakes Powell and Mead (Interim Guidelines) (until 2026); the High-Flow Experiment Environmental Assessment (HFE EA); and the Nonnative Fish Control EA (both expiring in 2020). Alternative B: The objective of Alternative B is to increase hydropower generation while limiting impacts on other resources and relying on flow and non-flow actions to the extent possible to mitigate impacts of higher fluctuations. Compared to the No-Action Alternative, Alternative B would increase within-day fluctuations and include experimental hydropower improvement flows, but would retain the monthly water release pattern of Alternative A. Alternative B focuses on non-flow actions and experiments to address sediment resources, nonnative fish control, and on native and nonnative fish communities. 4 Alternative C: The objective of Alternative C is to adaptively operate Glen Canyon Dam to achieve a balance ofresource objectives with priorities placed on humpback chub, sediment, and minimizing impacts on hydropower. Compared to the No-Action Alternative, Alternative C would decrease within-day fluctuations, reduce water releases in the late summer and fall, and provide more even releases in other months.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Little Colorado River Project: Is New Hydropower Development the Key to a Renewable Energy Future, Or the Vestige of a Failed Past?
    COLORADO NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW The Little Colorado River Project: Is New Hydropower Development the Key to a Renewable Energy Future, or the Vestige oF a Failed Past? Liam Patton* Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 42 I. THE EVOLUTION OF HYDROPOWER ON THE COLORADO PLATEAU ..... 45 A. Hydropower and the Development of Pumped Storage .......... 45 B. History of Dam ConstruCtion on the Plateau ........................... 48 C. Shipping ResourCes Off the Plateau: Phoenix as an Example 50 D. Modern PoliCies for Dam and Hydropower ConstruCtion ...... 52 E. The Result of Renewed Federal Support for Dams ................. 53 II. HYDROPOWER AS AN ALLY IN THE SHIFT TO CLEAN POWER ............ 54 A. Coal Generation and the Harms of the “Big Buildup” ............ 54 B. DeCommissioning Coal and the Shift to Renewable Energy ... 55 C. The LCR ProjeCt and “Clean” Pumped Hydropower .............. 56 * J.D. Candidate, 2021, University oF Colorado Law School. This Note is adapted From a final paper written for the Advanced Natural Resources Law Seminar. Thank you to the Colorado Natural Resources, Energy & Environmental Law Review staFF For all their advice and assistance in preparing this Note For publication. An additional thanks to ProFessor KrakoFF For her teachings on the economic, environmental, and Indigenous histories of the Colorado Plateau and For her invaluable guidance throughout the writing process. I am grateFul to share my Note with the community and owe it all to my professors and classmates at Colorado Law. COLORADO NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW 42 Colo. Nat. Resources, Energy & Envtl. L. Rev. [Vol. 32:1 III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PLATEAU HYDROPOWER ...............
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Operation of Flaming Gorge Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement
    Record of Decision Operation of Flaming Gorge Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement I. Summary of Action and Background The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has completed a final environmental impact statement (EIS) on the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam. The EIS describes the potential effects of modifying the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam to assist in the recovery of four endangered fish, and their critical habitat, downstream from the dam. The four endangered fish species are Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), and bonytail (Gila elegans). Reclamation would implement the proposed action by modifying the operations of Flaming Gorge Dam, to the extent possible, to achieve the flows and temperatures recommended by participants of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (Recovery Program). Reclamation’s goal is to implement the proposed action and, at the same time, maintain and continue all authorized purposes of the Colorado River Storage Project. The purpose of the proposed action is to operate Flaming Gorge Dam to protect and assist in recovery of the populations and designated critical habitat of the four endangered fishes, while maintaining all authorized purposes of the Flaming Gorge Unit of the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP), including those related to the development of water resources in accordance with the Colorado River Compact. As the Federal agency responsible for the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam, Reclamation was the lead agency in preparing the EIS. Eight cooperating agencies also participated in preparing this EIS: the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, State of Utah Department of Natural Resources, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Big-River Monitoring on the Colorado Plateau
    I NVENTORY & M ONITORING N ETWORK Big-River Monitoring on the Colorado Plateau Dustin Perkins1, Mike Scott2, Greg Auble2, Mark Wondzell3, Chris Holmquist-Johnson2, Eric Wahlig2, Helen Thomas1, and Aneth Wight1; 1Northern Colorado Plateau Network, P.O. Box 848, Bldg. 11, Arches National Park, Moab, UT 84532 2U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, FORT Science Center, 2150 Centre Ave., Building C, Fort Collins, CO 80526; 3National Park Service, Water Resources Division, 1201 Oakridge Dr., Ste. 150, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Introduction and Green rivers in Canyonlands National Park. The Yampa River is the longest relatively free-flowing river Water has always been in short supply in the western reach remaining in the Colorado River basin. The U.S., making it a consistent source of conflict. In Green River is highly regulated by Flaming Gorge Dam the Colorado River drainage, an increasing human but is partially restored below its confluence with the population fuels increased demands for water from Yampa River. There have been large-scale changes the river and its tributaries. As a result, streamflow to the Green River since Flaming Gorge Dam was in virtually all of these systems has been altered by completed in 1962. reservoirs and other water-development projects. In most cases, reduced flows have significantly altered Monitoring of these rivers and their riparian peak flows and increased base flows that structure vegetation focuses on processes that affect the river floodplain vegetation, stream-channel morphology, channel, active bars, and riparian floodplains. To get and water quality (e.g., temperature, suspended a complete picture of river conditions, the NCPN sediment, nutrients).
    [Show full text]
  • 3.6 Riverflow Issues
    AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 3.6 RIVERFLOW ISSUES 3.6.1 INTRODUCTION This section considers the potential effects of interim surplus criteria on three types of releases from Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam. The Glen Canyon Dam releases analyzed are those needed for restoration of beaches and habitat along the Colorado River between the Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead, and for a yet to be defined program of low steady summer flows to be provided for the study and recovery of endangered Colorado River fish, in years when releases from the dam are near the minimum. The Hoover Dam releases analyzed are the frequency of flood releases from the dam and the effect of flood flows along the river downstream of Hoover Dam. 3.6.2 BEACH/HABITAT-BUILDING FLOWS The construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam has caused two major changes related to sediment resources downstream in Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon. The first is reduced sediment supply. Because the dam traps virtually all of the incoming sediment from the Upper Basin in Lake Powell, the Colorado River is now released from the dam as clear water. The second major change is the reduction in the high water zone from the level of pre-dam annual floods to the level of powerplant releases. Thus, the height of annual sediment deposition and erosion has been reduced. During the investigations leading to the preparation of the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final EIS (Reclamation, 1995b), the relationships between releases from the dam and downstream sedimentation processes were brought sharply into focus, and flow patterns designed to conserve sediment for building beaches and habitat (i.e., beach/habitat-building flow, or BHBF releases) were identified.
    [Show full text]
  • Itinerary: the Yampa River: 5 Days/4 Nights
    Itinerary: PO Box 1324 Moab, UT 84532 (800) 332-2439 The Yampa River: (435) 259-8229 Fax (435) 259-2226 Email: [email protected] 5 Days/4 Nights www.GriffithExp.com T h r o u g h Dinosaur National Monument O v e r v i e w of The Yampa River Meeting Place Best Western Antlers 423 West Main Street Vernal, UT 84078 Meeting Time : 6 : 3 0 pm (MDT) The evening before your trip Orientation: 6 : 3 0 pm (MDT) the day BEFORE d e p a r t u r e H e r e you will learn what to expect and prepare for, receive your dry bags, sign Assumption of Risk forms, and get a chance to ask last minute q u e s t i o n s . Morning Place : Best Western Antlers 423 West Main Street Vernal, UT 84078 M o r n i n g T i m e : 7 : 0 0 a m (MDT) Return Time : Approximately 5 : 0 0 - 6 : 0 0 P M Rapid Rating: C l a s s I I I - I V (water level dependent) # of Rapids : 16 River Miles: 72 P u t i n : Deer Lodge Park Ranger Station T a k e - out : Split Mountain boat ramp Trip Length: 5 D a y s / 4 N i g h t s Raft Type(s): O a r b o a t s , Paddleboats and Inflatable Kayaks Age Limit: Minimum Age is 10 y e a r s o l d What makes this trip special? The Yampa River through the Dinosaur National Monument has it all! As the last free-flowing river in the entire Colorado River drainage, the Yampa is incredibly wild in May and June.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of the Glen Canyon Dam on Colorado River Temperature Dynamics
    Effects of the Glen Canyon Dam on Colorado River Temperature Dynamics GEL 230 – Ecogeomorphology University of California, Davis Derek Roberts March 2nd, 2016 Abstract: At the upstream end of the Grand Canyon, the Glen Canyon Dam has changed the Colorado River from a run-of-the-river flow to a deep, summer-stratified reservoir. This change in flow regime significantly alters the temperature regime of the Colorado River. Seasonal temperature variation, once ranging from near to almost , is now limited to 7 . The lack of warm summer temperatures has prevented spawning of endangered 0℃ 30℃ humpback chub in the Colorado River. Implementation of a temperature control device, to − 14℃ allow for warmer summer releases to mitigate negative temperature effects on endangered fish, was considered by the federal government. Ultimately, this proposal was put on indefinite hold by the Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service due to concerns of cost and unintended ecological consequences. The low-variability of the current dam-induced Colorado River temperature regime will continue into the foreseeable future. Agencies are reviewing humpback chub conservation efforts outside of temperature control. Keywords: Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Glen Canyon Dam, thermal dynamics 1.0 Introduction Temperature in natural water bodies is a primary driver of both ecological and physical processes. Freshwater plant and animal metabolisms are heavily affected by temperature (Coulter 2014). Furthermore, the thermal structure of a water body has significant impacts on the physical processes that drive ecosystem function (Hodges et al 2000); fluid dynamics drive transport of nutrients, oxygen, and heat. Human action, often the introduction of dams or industrial cooling systems, can alter the natural thermal regimes of rivers and lakes leading to reverberating impacts throughout associated ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary U.S
    Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement PUBLIC DRAFT Executive Summary U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region National Park Service, Intermountain Region December 2015 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 December 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 CONTENTS 2 3 4 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................. vii 5 6 ES.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 7 ES.2 Proposed Federal Action ........................................................................................ 2 8 ES.2.1 Purpose of and Need for Action .............................................................. 2 9 ES.2.2 Objectives and Resource Goals of the LTEMP ....................................... 3 10 ES.3 Scope of the DEIS .................................................................................................. 6 11 ES.3.1 Affected Region and Resources .............................................................. 6 12 ES.3.2 Impact Topics Selected for Detailed Analysis ........................................ 6 13 ES.4
    [Show full text]
  • Management of the Colorado River: Water Allocations, Drought, and the Federal Role
    Management of the Colorado River: Water Allocations, Drought, and the Federal Role Updated March 21, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45546 SUMMARY R45546 Management of the Colorado River: Water March 21, 2019 Allocation, Drought, and the Federal Role Charles V. Stern The Colorado River Basin covers more than 246,000 square miles in seven U.S. states Specialist in Natural (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California) and Resources Policy Mexico. Pursuant to federal law, the Bureau of Reclamation (part of the Department of the Interior) manages much of the basin’s water supplies. Colorado River water is used Pervaze A. Sheikh primarily for agricultural irrigation and municipal and industrial (M&I) uses, but it also Specialist in Natural is important for power production, fish and wildlife, and recreational uses. Resources Policy In recent years, consumptive uses of Colorado River water have exceeded natural flows. This causes an imbalance in the basin’s available supplies and competing demands. A drought in the basin dating to 2000 has raised the prospect of water delivery curtailments and decreased hydropower production, among other things. In the future, observers expect that increasing demand for supplies, coupled with the effects of climate change, will further increase the strain on the basin’s limited water supplies. River Management The Law of the River is the commonly used shorthand for the multiple laws, court decisions, and other documents governing Colorado River operations. The foundational document of the Law of the River is the Colorado River Compact of 1922. Pursuant to the compact, the basin states established a framework to apportion the water supplies between the Upper and Lower Basins of the Colorado River, with the dividing line between the two basins at Lee Ferry, AZ (near the Utah border).
    [Show full text]
  • Flaming Gorge Operation Plan - May 2021 Through April 2022
    Flaming Gorge Operation Plan - May 2021 through April 2022 Concurrence by Kathleen Callister, Resources Management Division Manager Kent Kofford, Provo Area Office Manager Nicholas Williams, Upper Colorado Basin Power Manager Approved by Wayne Pullan, Upper Colorado Basin Regional Director U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation • Interior Region 7 Upper Colorado Basin • Power Office Salt Lake City, Utah May 2021 Purpose This Flaming Gorge Operation Plan (FG-Ops) fulfills the 2006 Flaming Gorge Record of Decision (ROD) requirement for May 2021 through April 2022. The FG-Ops also completes the 4-step process outlined in the Flaming Gorge Standard Operation Procedures. The Upper Colorado Basin Power Office (UCPO) operators will fulfil the operation plan and may alter from FG-Ops due to day to day conditions, although we will attempt to stay within the boundaries of the operations defined below. Listed below are proposed operation plans for four different scenarios: moderately dry, average (above median), average (below median), and moderately wet. As of the publishing of this document, the most likely scenario is the moderately dry, however actual operations will vary with hydrologic conditions. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (Recovery Program), the Flaming Gorge Technical Working Group (FGTWG), Flaming Gorge Working Group (FG WG), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) provided input that was considered in the development of this report. The FG-Ops describes the current hydrologic classification of the Green River Basin and the hydrologic conditions in the Yampa River Basin. The FG-Ops identifies the most likely Reach 2 peak flow magnitude and duration that is to be targeted for the upcoming spring flows.
    [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]