DOCSLIB.ORG

Hoover Dam Lake Mead

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hoover Dam Lake Mead w , Colorado River Basin J "".'1, " r ? 'r .. '.. It_... or ..·,U ~ .. ........••• " I • '0. M ",~ ..... • .. f \.-. " .....• .;: ..-..", ;.~ '", ....;.~.~ .. u 0 , , v .'.. ' ~-,-J~ •. l "... .... .....,. (~ .t,, __ N , w R z o N A M , c A • ANNUAL REPORT 1974 OJ)cratlon of thc Colorado Rlycr Basin 1975 Projccted OJ)cratlons (prep:lred pu~uant 10 Ihe Colomdo River Uasill Project Act of 1968, Public Lnw 90-537) U. S. Department of the Interior Rogers C. B. ~1(lrton, Secretary ~ BurellU of Reclamatioll Gilbert G. Stamm, ('ommis~ion('r 'W JJIIU:HY 1975 Tablc of Contents Page Map-Upper Colorado and Lower Colorado River Inside B:lsins .... Cover Authority for Report II In trodllction ii Actual Operations under Criteria··Water Year I Q74 ...... I Upper Basin Reservoirs , Lower Basin Reservoirs River Regulation Beneficial Consumptive Uses Upper B:lsin Uses Lower Basin Uses and Losses Water Quality ('ontrol Water Quality Operations during Wulcr Year 1974 . " Future Water Quality Control ]2 l:nhllllCClllcnt or !-'ish and Wildlife 23 Upper l3:lsin .... 23 Lower B:\sin .... 23 Prl::scrv<ltiol1 or Environment 25 Projected Plal1 of OpCr:1!ioll under Criteria for Current Ycar 26 Detem,ination of "602(::1) Storage" . ~6 Lower Ba~in Requirements 27 Plan of Operation-Water Year 1975 29 UppL'f Basin Reservoirs 29 Lower Basin Reservoirs 33 Gtel/ eal/yon Vi'iitor Cenler Authority t()r Rc)ort Introduction Pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Project The oper.ltion of tile Colorado River during Act (P.L. 90-537) of 1968. I am pleased to present thc past year and the projected operation for the to the Congress and to the Go\'emors of the ,'urrent year reOect domestic usc, irrigation. Colorado River Basin States, the fourth Annual hydroelectric power generation. water quality Report on the Operation of the Colomdo River. control, fish and wildlife propagation. recreation. nood control. and Colorado River Compact This report describes the actual operation of req uiromen ts. the reservoirs in the Colorado River drainage area constructed under the authority of the Colomdo Storage and release of water from the Upper River Storage Project Act. the Boulder Canyon Basin reservoirs recognize all applicable laws and Project Act. and the Boulder Canyon Project relevant factors governing lhe Colorado River. Adjustment Act during Water Year 1974 and the including the impoundment of water in the Upper projected operation of these reservoirs during Basin required by Section 60:!(a) of Puhlic Water Year 1975 under the Criteria for Law 90-537. The operation of the Lower Basin Coordinated Long-Range Operation of reservoirs reflct.:ts Mexican Treaty obligations and Colorado River Reservoirs published in the Lower Basin contractual commitmcnts. Federal Register June 10. 1970. ROGERS C. B. MORTON Secretary, United States Deparhnent of the Interior ii Kather;nes IAnd;1lg. Lake Mohal'e Actual Ol)erations Under Criteria Water Year 1974 Operation of the Colorado River during. 1974 A description of the actual oreration of each W3!i ba:.cd on 3 forecasl of nmoff. Starlm!,!. of the reservoirs III Ihe Colorado River BJsin is January I. th~ snowmelt runoff was forec::lst 301..1 given in the following paragJ"Olphs. Charts I the required release of store<t water 10 meel Ihrough 9 show hydrographs of monthly QUlnaw demands Wol, scheduled for each n:scrvoir Ihrou~h from the reservoirs and waler surface elevation and September. At tile beg.inning. of each month at.:tive storage in tIll,: r~servoirs for waler year 1074. (hcre~lflcr through ..Iunc. the forecast was rcvi"Cd hased on rreclpitJtion and snow data t.:oll~cted during lht month and the scheduled operation was revised ilct.:ordin.gly. 1 UI)I)Cr Basi n Rcscryoirs During the pJS{ yenr, Fontenclle Reservoir was operated for hydroelectric generation. nood control, fish and wildHfe enhancement, and for recreation. During the fall and winter of 1973-74, the reservoir was slowly reduced from elevation Fontenellc 6,505 feel at the beginning of the water year to a low elevation of 6,480 reet prior to spring runofr in April. The minimum release during [he fall and Reservoir winter was 700 cubic feet per second (ft3/5) in order that power could be genemted at the _.~ powerplnnt nnd fish nows maintained. Releases during March were high enough to force the geese ill the Seedskadee National Bird Refuge to build their nests on higher ground. After the actual geese nesting and hatching period, releases were controlled to allow the reservoir to fill late in June. Maximum releases of 8,800 ft 3/s from the reservoir occurred late in June. The reservoir as of September 30, 1974, had 3[5,000 acre-feet of active storage at elevation 6,502 feet. (Chart I) ~rt I~L_/ STATISTICS ACTIVE STORAoe- RESERVOIR (ACRE FEETI ELEVATION IFEET! "'AXIMU'II STORAGE 344.1134 65Q6 RA1£O HEAD 133.189 64111 "'INIMUM POWUI 19(.962 6485 SURFACE AREA (FUlLl lI058 ACRES RESERVOIR L.ENGTI1 (FULL! 18MIlES POWER PLANT NUMBER OF UIO,TS TOTA,LCAPACITY 10,000 KILOWATTS 'oI\N'J nor 1r><:!<KN 56J.,lf f.r I1r<MMJ I~ 1MIo..,64M /..,/ OUTFLOW "~ ~ , m AC.' ~ , I I ,I 1 I • •o o •o 0 LOWER QUARTILE~ iiii1~=========::::::;;:MOiilljHA~ -~>.Uc2;<tIIr<::l:)-Z"'C1... )- .. ;:>'-'.;="""")-2'" )-... "' .... g ~ :' ; :r ~ =: "! ~ ~I (5 £ ~ :;\ :t ~ ~ ~ __'__'__•__~~I I1------ w.. ... y,~, 117~------l.------w ••e<v... 117$ . 2 Seedskadee STORAGE .... I ,,- -- 1- J ."'" • " , I •... ~.- . I '" '~r" -.~. .'• 2 'Y~ x:: - 6 , ". w " I• 0 - - 2 ~ , •> w" I ~ .'so > ~ w• ~ -~ 1 MOST PI'108A8r..f I UPPEI'lOVAI'lT,r..E ------ r..OWEI'l OUAOOlTlr..E ______ MOST AOVEI'l$E ......_..... I fI 6<00."', ' . o u . > o •z · 3 Flaming Gorge Reservoir has been operated as p"rt of the Colorado River Storage I>rojecl in Flaming Gorge accordance with governing comp3cts and laws 10 provide optimum power production. recreational Reservoir opportunities, and fbh and wildlife benelits. On september 30. 1973. Flaming Gorge was at elevation 6,026 feet with an active storage of 3.180,000 acre-fccl. Releases for power production c<luscd the reservoir to recede 9 feel during the rail and winter to elevation 6.017 feet. The April-J uly 1974 runoff above Flaming Gorge was 1,430,000 acre-feet. or I'23 percent of the long-time aver..lge. With this runoff. Flaming Gorge filled for the fir<;1 lime on August I. 1974. at , elevation 6.040 feet wilh an active storage of 3.750.000 acre-feet. The reservoir was held near the seasona.l maximum through the recrealjon i season. (Chart :!) ~ Reservoir releascs were higher lhan normal Chart 2 during August and September 1974. This was a resull of coordina led operation with olher STItoTlSTICS reservoirs so we could reduce Glen Canyon release~ ACTIVE STORACE- to meet the operation criteria. R(SERVO"! IACRE·FEETI ELEVATION CfEETl /AA,lCl,",UIroISTOR"G£ J.I~9000 8OlIO RATED HEAO 1.061,000 MM6 /111"""""111 "'OWER 133,000 5811 SURfACE ARE'" IFULl) 42,010 ACRES AESlAVQIA lENG TH IfULLI 91 MILES POWER PLANT Nvtol8[R Of UNITS TOTAL CAPACITY or \)NITS 108,OOOKllOWAns ·~norflv:~4(),()(J()."'HI(J,_.ltN.~5I4D"1 OUTFLOW • AVE J I i , , , I II, 0 II I • LOWEA OUAATILE 4 Hamillg Gorgt! OfJm and Resen'oir, Flaming Gorge UI/it. Colorado Ril'tr StOrage Project, Utah· Wyoming STORAGE 6040 : I '-- - - 6000 -. - ,."" ,• E I , ""'" I '"~ I • " I I I I , ~ ""'" "~ I ! li ~ is : ! I ,,"OST "ROS.SL[ • • ".. U'"[''' ou... ,.nLE ----- - " I LOW£R ou.",nl.[ -----............. I I I MOST AOVEM£ 56.. I I I '59' IIII ,I I II . > • > 5 At the end of September 1973, Bille Mesa Reservoir had 716.000 acre-feet of active storage Curccanti Unit and a water surface elevation of 7,506 feet. The reservoir was drawn down to elevation 7,4-11 feel by April I, 1974, with a content of 267,000 ! acre-feel. During April-July 1974. inflow to Blue Mesa was 555,000 acre-reet, with a 1974 water _..-j year total of 767,000 acre-feet. The seasonal high for the reservoir was elevation 7,497 feet and an active storage of 640.000 acre-feet. During water year 1974, a minimum flow of 200 ft3/s was maintained below Gunnison Tunnel. The March I, 1974, forecast of the April-July I 1974 inflow to Blue Mesa was 800.000 acre-feeL The flood control diagram sJlowed that the i reservoir CQuid have remained full the remainder of the snowmelt season; thererore, the operation or Blue Mesa did not include releases ror Oood ~ control. (Chart 3) During the period May I through Chart 3 Blue MeS<l Resenolr September 30, 1974. low releases rrom Blue Mesa STATISTICS insured a flow or not more than 1,500 n3{s in ACTIVE STORAG£, the Crystal Dam sile area. Most or the spring RESERVOIR lACRE FEET! ElEVATION tHETI runorf was slored behind Blue Mesa Dam. MAXIMUM STOIlAG£ 8~,~23 1519 IlATEOHEjf,O 2<l9.39!i 1·U8 MINIMUM POWER 81,010 1393 SURFACE AR(A IFULLJ 111110 ACRES RE5I.RVOtll LENGTH (FULI.I 2. MILES POWER PLANT NUM8ER OF UNITS 2 TOTAL CAPACITY OF UNITS ro,lXXI KILOWATTS '1/<* "'" /l>C11JIJI "I.U2.e-. fH' ofdf,td ltot.bf/o... 1JS8lft1' OUTFLOW Blue Mesa Dam, Curecantl Unit. Colorado River Storage Project. Colorado STORAGE \ 1519 ,- - , ,- -- B ... , , • I -T_.... • '"I 1-f.. ..1-- ~ I • ,.; w w ~~f ·"w , •w ;;· ,-. I , ~ I • I w• I I "~ ·I • , ! "00 I LEGEND ~ - ~ MOST'AO....llLE • U~EA I QUAIUILE ---- I LOWEII' OUAATILE - -_. MOST ADVERSE -....._- I I , -....., 00 "7186 I II I I • > w • 7 Morrow Point Reservoir was essentially full during water year 1974.
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]
  • Imperial Dam/All American Canal Projects Update-2021
    Imperial Dam/All American Canal Projects Update-2021 David Escobar General Superintendent, Operations & Maintenance AAC/River Division May 19, 2021 www.iid.com www.iid.com 2 www.iid.com 3 Executive Summary • Imperial Dam is primarily a concrete slab and buttress structure on the Colorado River located approximately 18 northeast of Yuma, Arizona. The Dam was constructed between 1936 and 1938 by Reclamation to impound water for irrigation. • The Dam’s overall length is approximately 3,479 feet. The sections of the Dam consist of the California abutment, the All American Canal (AAC) Headworks, the California Sluiceway, the overflow weir (spillway) section, the Gila Canal Headworks, and the Arizona abutment. www.iid.com 4 Projects List • Imperial Dam Roller Gates 1 through 4 Overhaul completed in 2018, total project cost-$2,955,900 • Imperial and Laguna Dams Electrical Upgrade Project completed in 2018, total project cost-$20,940,977 • Imperial Dam Sluiceway Gate Replacement Project completed in 2019, total project cost-$3,132,200 • Imperial Dam Concrete Repairs 2019, total project costs- $823,954 www.iid.com 5 Projects List • Imperial Dam Desilting Basin Clarifier Valve Replacement Project will be completed in 2021, total project cost- $1,985,200 • Senator Wash Units 1, through 6 Rewind Stator and Pump Refurbishment 2019-2021, total project cost-$2,145,800 • Gila Headworks Trunnion Repair Project 2021-2022, estimated project costs-$4,156,635 • Gila Headworks Gate Replacement 2021-2022, estimated project costs-$2,900,000 www.iid.com 6 Projects List • Pilot Knob Wasteway/Spill Gate Replacement Project will be completed in 2021, project costs-$1,861,600 • Imperial Dam Desilting Basins Sludge Pipe Replacement Project 2022, estimated project costs-$15,000,000 • Gila Gravity Main Canal Unused Radial Gates Permanent Closure Project 2022, estimated project costs-$2,900,000 www.iid.com 7 Questions? www.iid.com.
    [Show full text]
  • The State of Outdoor Recreation in Utah 2020 a High-Level Review of the Data & Trends That Define Outdoor Recreation in the State
    the State of outdoor recreation in utah 2020 A high-level review of the data & trends that define outdoor recreation in the state. Jordan W. Smith, Ph.D. & Anna B. Miller, Ph.D. Institute of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Utah State University about the Institute The Institute of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism (IORT) was founded in 1998 by the Utah State Legisla- ture through the Recreation and Tourism Research and Extension Program Act (S.B. 35). It is mandated to focus on: tourism and outdoor recreation use; the social and economic tradeoffs of tourism and outdoor recreation for local communities; and the relationship between outdoor recreation and tourism and pub- lic land management practices and policies. The purpose of the Institute is to provide: better data for the Legislature and state agencies in their deci- sion-making processes on issues relating to tourism and outdoor recreation; a base of information and expertise to assist community officials as they attempt to balance the economic, social, and environmen- tal tradeoffs in tourism development; and an interdisciplinary approach of research and study on outdoor recreation and tourism, a complex sector of the state’s economy. The Institute is composed of an interdisciplinary team of scientists with backgrounds in the economic, psychological, social, and spatial sciences. It is led by Dr. Jordan W. Smith (Director), Dr. Anna B. Miller (Assistant Director of Research and Operations), and Chase C. Lamborn (Assistant Director of Outreach and Education). The Institute delivers on its mission through a broad network of Faculty Fellows. Jordan W. Smith, Ph.D.1, is the Director of the Institute of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism and an As- sistant Professor in the Department of Environment and Society at Utah State University.
    [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]
  • Grand Canyon Helicopter Tours
    GRAND CANYON HELICOPTER TOURS * * $289 Adult • $269 Child (Ages 2 - 11) + $35 Fees $364 Adult • $344 Child (Ages 2 - 11) + $80 Fees GRAND CANYON SOAR LIKE AN EAGLE THROUGH THE GRAND CANYON • Descend 4,000 feet into the Grand Canyon MOST AND SEE THE BEAUTIFUL BOWL OF FIRE. • Touch down by the banks of the Colorado River POPULAR • Champagne picnic under an authentic Hualapai Indian shelter TOUR! & Las Vegas Tours • Air only excursion through the Grand Canyon • Views of Lake Mead, Hoover Dam, Fortication Hill and the Grand Wash Clis • Views of Lake Mead, Hoover Dam, Fortification Hill and the Grand Wash Clis • Tour Duration: Approximately 4 hours (hotel to hotel) World’s Largest Grand Canyon Air Tour Company, since 1965! • Tour Duration: Approximately 3 hours (hotel to hotel) • $40 SUNSET UPGRADE (PBW-4S) • ADD LIMO TRANSFERS & STRIP FLIGHT (PLW-1) $404 Adult • $384 Child (ages 2-11) + $80 Fees $349 Adult • $329 Child (Ages 2-11) + $40 Fees • ADD LIMO TRANSFERS & STRIP FLIGHT (PLW-4) $414 Adult • $394 Child (ages 2-11) + $80 Fees • ADD LIMO TRANSFERS, SUNSET & STRIP FLIGHT (PLW-4S) $454 Adult • $434 Child (ages 2-11) + $80 Fees $94 Adult • $74 Child (Ages 2 - 11) + $10 Fees TAKE TO THE SKIES OVER THE DAZZLING AND WORLD FAMOUS LAS VEGAS "STRIP"! • Views of the MGM, New York New York, Caesar’s Palace, Bellagio, Mirage and more • Fly by the Stratosphere Tower and downtown Glitter Gulch where Las Vegas began • Complimentary champagne toast L’excursion aérienne Die vielseitigste Papillon- Veleggiate al di sotto del キャニオン上空を低 La visita aérea más • Tour Duration: Approx.
    [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]
  • The Impact of the Endangered Species Act on Glen Canyon Dam Operations and Stakeholders
    The Bottom Line: The Impact of the Endangered Species Act on Glen Canyon Dam Operations and Stakeholders By Leslie James he Endangered Species Act (ESA) is arguably the most powerful environmental law ever enacted. Since its passage in 1973, it has had far-reaching Timpacts on power production from federally owned multiple-purpose projects, such as the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP). Operational changes resulting from efforts to address ESA issues impact not only power production but repayment of the federal investment in the project. While differing approaches and programs have been established in an attempt to address ESA issues at Glen Canyon Dam, operations have proved to be significant and costly. Background: Colorado River Storage Project In 1956, Congress passed the Colorado River Storage Glen Canyon Dam. Project Act to provide storage facilities for the Upper Basin states so that they could meet Colorado River Compact needs. Operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, the CRSP of total CRSP generation. Flaming Gorge Dam is on the consists of multipurpose dams that release water to meet Green River, a major tributary of the Colorado River, and Colorado River Compact, municipal and industrial (M&I), has three units producing about 132 MW of generation. and irrigation requirements. As the water is released, electric power and energy are produced to help pay for ESA Impacts on Glen Canyon Dam Operations the projects. The Western Area Power Administration The Glen Canyon Dam power plant generates power (WAPA) markets and transmits that electricity to for municipal, industrial, irrigation pumping, and other preference power entities pursuant to federal law.
    [Show full text]
  • River Flow Advisory
    River Flow Advisory Bureau . of Reclamation Upper Colorado Region Salt Lake City, Utah Vol. 15, No. 1 September 1984 River flows in the Upper Colorado River drainage, still high for this time of year, are not expected to decrease much for several weeks: While the daily update of operations and releases has been discontinued, the toll-free numbers now provide updates on Bureau of Reclamation activities and projects. Utah residents may call 1-800-624-1094 and out-of-Utah residents may call 1-800-624-5099. Colorado River at Westwater Canyon The flow of the Colorado River on September 10 was 7, 000 cfs, and is expected to decrease slightly over the next few weeks. Cataract Canyon Includin2 the Green- River The flow was 11,500 cfs on September 10 and will continue to decrease slightly. Lake Powell Lake Powell's elevation on September 10 was 3,699. Assuming normal inflow for this time of year, the lake should continue to go down slowly to elevation 3,682 by next spring. Colorado River through Grand Canyon . Releases through Glen Canyon Dam remain at 25,000 cfs. These releases are expected to be maintained with no daily fluctuations in river flows. Upper Green River - Fontenelle Reservoir Fontenelle Reservoir is now at elevation 6,482 feet. Releases through the dam will be reduced to about 600 cfs starting on September 17 for about 2 weeks during powerplant maintenance. Green River Flows Below Flaming Gorge Dam On September 10 Flaming Gorge Reservoir was at elevation 6,039.9 feet. Releases from the dam are expected to average 2, 500 cfs in September and October with usual daily fluctuations.
    [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]
  • 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]