|
|
- Info
USGS Workshop on Scientific Aspects of a Long-Term Experimental Plan for Glen Canyon Dam, April 10-11, 2007, Flagstaff, Arizona.htm
USGS Workshop on Scientific Aspects of a Long-Term Experimental Plan for Glen Canyon Dam, April 10-11, 2007, Flagstaff, Arizona.htm
—
HTML,
17Kb
File contents
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3c.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd">
<!-- saved from url=(0034)http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1153/ -->
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>USGS Workshop on Scientific Aspects of a Long-Term Experimental Plan for Glen Canyon Dam, April 10-11, 2007, Flagstaff, Arizona</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><LINK
href="USGS Workshop on Scientific Aspects of a Long-Term Experimental Plan for Glen Canyon Dam, April 10-11, 2007, Flagstaff, Arizona_files/common.css"
type=text/css rel=stylesheet><LINK
href="USGS Workshop on Scientific Aspects of a Long-Term Experimental Plan for Glen Canyon Dam, April 10-11, 2007, Flagstaff, Arizona_files/custom.css"
type=text/css rel=stylesheet>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.5726" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY><!-- BEGIN USGS Header Template -->
<DIV class=bannerColorBand>
<DIV class=banner>
<DIV class=identifier><A title="U.S. Geological Survey Home Page"
href="http://www.usgs.gov/"><IMG
style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"
height=72 alt="U.S. Geological Survey - science for a changing world"
src="USGS Workshop on Scientific Aspects of a Long-Term Experimental Plan for Glen Canyon Dam, April 10-11, 2007, Flagstaff, Arizona_files/header_graphic_usgsid_white.jpg"
width=178></A></DIV><IMG style="POSITION: absolute" height=72 alt=""
src="USGS Workshop on Scientific Aspects of a Long-Term Experimental Plan for Glen Canyon Dam, April 10-11, 2007, Flagstaff, Arizona_files/header_graphic_spacer.gif"
width=1>
<DIV class=ccsaBox><IMG style="FLOAT: left" height=72 alt=""
src="USGS Workshop on Scientific Aspects of a Long-Term Experimental Plan for Glen Canyon Dam, April 10-11, 2007, Flagstaff, Arizona_files/header_graphic_spacer.gif"
width=1>
<DIV class=ccsa><BR><A href="http://www.usgs.gov/">USGS Home</A><BR><A
href="http://www.usgs.gov/ask/index.html">Contact USGS</A><BR><A
href="http://www.usgs.gov/search">Search USGS</A><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=siteTitle>
<P id=pTitle><A href="http://www.gcmrc.gov/">Grand Canyon Monitoring and
Research Center</A></P></DIV><!-- END USGS Header Template -->
<H4>U.S. Geological Survey <BR>Open-File Report 2008-1153<BR>version 1.0</H4>
<H1>USGS Workshop on Scientific Aspects of a Long-Term Experimental Plan for
Glen Canyon Dam, April 10�11, 2007, Flagstaff, Arizona</H1>
<H3>By the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center</H3>
<H3>2008</H3>
<P><IMG height=334
alt="Set of four photos showing humpback chub, sand grains, sign at entrance of Grand Canyon National Park, and open jet tubes at Glen Canyon Dam"
src="USGS Workshop on Scientific Aspects of a Long-Term Experimental Plan for Glen Canyon Dam, April 10-11, 2007, Flagstaff, Arizona_files/coverphoto.jpg"
width=580 border=0> </P>
<H4>Executive Summary</H4>
<P>Glen Canyon Dam is located in the lower reaches of Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area on the Colorado River, approximately 15 miles upriver from Grand
Canyon National Park (fig. 1). In 1992, Congress passed and the President signed
into law the Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA; title XVIII, sec. 1801�1809, of
Public Law 102-575), which seeks �to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and
improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area were established.� The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management
Program (GCDAMP) was implemented as a result of the 1996 Record of Decision on
the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement to ensure
that the primary mandate of the GCPA is met through advances in information and
resources management (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995). </P>
<P>On November 3, 2006, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) announced it
would develop a long-term experimental plan environmental impact statement (LTEP
EIS) for operational activities at Glen Canyon Dam and other management actions
on the Colorado River. The purpose of the long-term experimental plan is
twofold: (1) to increase the scientific understanding of the ecosystem and (2)
to improve and protect important downstream resources. The proposed plan would
implement a structured, longterm program of experimentation to include dam
operations, potential modifications to Glen Canyon Dam intake structures, and
other management actions such as removal of nonnative fish species. The
development of the long-term experimental plan continues efforts begun by the
GCDAMP to protect resources downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, including Grand
Canyon, through adaptive management and scientific experimentation. </P>
<P>The LTEP EIS will rely on the extensive scientific studies that have been
undertaken as part of the adaptive management program by the U.S. Geological
Survey�s (USGS) Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), one of the
four research stations within the USGS Southwest Biological Science Center. On
April 10 and 11, 2007, at the behest of Reclamation, the GCMRC convened a
workshop with scientific experts to identify one or more scientifically
credible, long-term experimental options for Reclamation to consider for the
LTEP EIS that would be consistent with the purpose and need for the plan.
Workshop participants included government, academic, and private scientists with
broad experience in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon and regulated rivers
around the world. Resource managers and GCDAMP participants were also present on
the second day of the workshop. </P>
<P>In advance of the workshop, Reclamation and LTEP EIS cooperating agencies
identified 14 core scientific questions. Workshop participants were asked to
consider how proposed options would address these questions, which fall
primarily into four areas: (1) conservation of endangered humpback chub (<I>Gila
cypha</I>) and other high-priority biological resources, (2) conservation of
sediment resources, (3) enhancement of recreational resources, and (4)
preservation of cultural resources. </P>
<P>A secondary objective of the workshop was the evaluation of four long-term
experimental options developed by the GCDAMP Science Planning Group (SPG)
(appendix B). The flow and nonflow treatments called for in the four
experimental options were an important starting point for workshop discussions.
</P>
<P>At the beginning of the workshop, participants were provided with the final
LTEP EIS scoping report prepared by Reclamation. Participants were also advised
that Reclamation had committed to �make every effort�o ensure that a new
population of humpback chub is established in the mainstem or one or more of the
tributaries within Grand Canyon� in the 1995 Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final
Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995). This
decision was consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service�s 1995
biological opinion for Glen Canyon Dam operations that describes the
establishment of a �second spawning aggregation� of endangered humpback chub as
a reasonable and prudent alternative. </P>
<P>Before beginning their discussions, workshop participants were also briefed
by GCMRC scientists on the current status and trends of downstream resources,
particularly native and nonnative fish and sediment resources. The following
findings were presented to the participants and provided the basis for workshop
discussions: </P>
<UL>
<LI>Nonnative fish removal efforts from 2003�06, including the removal of more
than 19,000 rainbow trout (<I>Oncorhynchus mykiss</I>), seem to have
accelerated the decline of rainbow trout in the vicinity of the confluence of
the Little Colorado River, a tributary of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon.
Possibly in response to the reduction of competitive and predatory nonnative
species, native fish represented 60 percent of the fish community captured
near the confluence of the Little Colorado River in 2006, which was up from 10
percent in 2003 (U.S. Geological Survey, unpub. data, 2007); however, natural
warming caused by warmer than average releases from Glen Canyon Dam (2004?06)
is a confounding factor in determining the impact of mechanical removal on
native fish. <BR>
<LI>Between 2001 and 2005, the number of adult humpback chub (age-4+) appears
to have stabilized at approximately 5,000 (Melis and others, 2006). A summary
of the analysis of the Grand Canyon humpback chub published after the workshop
concludes that the adult population in 2006 was approximately 6,000 (Coggins,
2007). The number of humpback chub younger than 4 years of age appears to have
reached a modern low in 1991, but in 2001, the most recent year for which data
are available, population numbers have increased to the levels found during
the late 1980s. There is also some indication that a few young humpback chub
survived in the mainstem nearshore habitats near river mile 30, which is above
the Little Colorado River, during the winter of 2005�06 (U.S. Geological
Survey, unpub. data, 2007). <BR>
<LI>Bluehead sucker (<I>Catostomus discobolus</I>) and flannelmouth sucker
(<I>Catostomus latipinnis</I>) catch rates increased fivefold between 2003 and
2006 (Arizona Game and Fish Department, unpub. data, 2007; U.S. Geological
Survey, unpub. data, 2007). The presence of multiple size classes of
flannelmouth sucker indicate that this species has successfully recruited
during this period. <BR>
<LI>Substantial increases in total eddy-sandbar area and volume are only
possible during high-flow releases following large tributary floods, which
enrich sand supplies in the main channel of the Colorado River (Rubin and
others, 2002; Topping and others, 2006). <BR>
<LI>Sandbars created by the 2004 beach/habitat-building flows (BHBF) test
increased the windborne transport of sand toward some of the archaeological
sites in Grand Canyon (Draut and Rubin, 2006). Increased sand carried by the
wind from restored sandbars may reduce erosion and increase the preservation
potential at some sites. </LI></UL>
<P></P>
<P>Participants discussed the pros and cons of the possible flow and nonflow
experimental treatments identified by the SPG. Flow treatments considered by
participants included steady, fluctuating, and beach/habitat-building flows.
Nonflow treatments included the installation of a temperature control device
(TCD), also called a selective withdrawal structure; nonnative fish control;
humpback chub translocation; and increased mainstem water temperatures. The
discussions relied on the available scientific literature and professional
opinion. Workshop participants reached the following conclusions: </P>
<P>
<UL>
<LI>The single most important condition that would benefit the endangered
humpback chub in the near term is warming mainstem nearshore habitats,
although control of nonnative species is also very important. Given existing
volumetric constraints and the current state of knowledge, the most readily
available tool to stabilize the presence and persistence of nearshore habitats
and, thus, enhanced warming in those environments during the summer months, is
steady flows from Glen Canyon Dam. <BR>
<LI>Additional BHBF tests should occur following tributary sand enrichment and
be evaluated to determine whether this treatment is capable of rebuilding and
maintaining sandbars in a sustainable manner or if augmentation of the
downstream sand supply is needed to achieve sediment conservation goals. <BR>
<LI>A TCD should be built only if it is designed to release the warmest water
possible. Additionally, the TCD must have the ability to release cool water
under all conditions, including when reservoir conditions are relatively low.
The ability to also release cool water was thought to be necessary to control
the expansion of warmwater nonnative aquatic species. <BR>
<LI>Managers should continue their efforts to control nonnative fish numbers,
including both warmwater and coldwater species, especially in the vicinity of
the Little Colorado River, where more than 90 percent of the Grand Canyon
population of humpback chub spend most of their lives. <BR>
<LI>Monitoring efforts should be increased for warmwater nonnative fish
because they pose a significant risk to the humpback chub population and their
numbers may increase if warmer water temperatures continue. Early, consistent
monitoring of warmwater species is critical to successful control. It is
highly unlikely that these species can be controlled as readily as rainbow
trout. <BR>
<LI>The risk of catastrophic loss of Grand Canyon humpback chub would be
reduced if one or more populations were reproducing and growing in the
mainstem Colorado River or in another Grand Canyon tributary. The best
possible alternative for a spawning location is the main channel of the
Colorado River. <BR>
<LI>Translocation of young humpback chub from the Little Colorado River to one
or more of the tributaries the Colorado River could be beneficial for the
Grand Canyon humpback chub population, providing a refuge and perhaps
expanding the population. It was considered unlikely that such translocations
would confound humpback chub monitoring or population modeling. </LI></UL>
<P></P>
<P>Following discussions of possible treatments, the participants developed an
experimental research design that was consistent with the stated purpose and
need of the LTEP EIS. The experimental design, called the environmental triggers
approach, uses environmental cues to trigger new experimental treatments or
management actions. The best defined of these environmental triggers is the
delivery of additional sediment from tributary streams to trigger BHBF tests.
</P>
<P>An important element of the environmental triggers approach requires the
specification of desired future conditions, or measurable targets, for humpback
chub, sediment conservation, archaeological sites, camping beaches, and other
resources of interest to managers. Explicit desired future conditions will
provide reference points for evaluating treatment effectiveness and the need to
implement additional treatments or management actions. Workshop participants
also recommended a comprehensive monitoring program for native and nonnative
fishes. The results of monitoring would be used to trigger changes in dam
operation and nonnative fish control. </P>
<P>From 2009 through 2012, before a TCD could be built, the participants
recommended testing summer and fall steady dam releases. The environmental
triggers approach includes the construction and testing of a TCD. </P>
<P>Because it takes at least 4 years for humpback chub to reach maturity
(reviewed in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002), treatments should be applied
for 4 consecutive years to measure biological response, especially in the
humpback chub population. However, shorter, isolated flow treatments, such as
beach/habitat-building flows, would be likely to provide new information about
sediment conservation strategies and possible benefits to other resources. </P>
<HR>
<P><A href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1153/of2008-1153.pdf">Download this
report as an 88-page PDF file</A> (of2008-1153.pdf; 3.7 MB) </P>
<P>For questions about the content of this report, contact <A
href="mailto:mandersen@usgs.gov">Matthew Andersen</A></P>
<P>Download the <A
href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1153/version_history.txt">Suggested citation
and version history</A></P>
<HR>
<P>Download a free copy of the latest version of <A
href="http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html">Adobe
Reader</A>.</P>
<P>| <A href="http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/docs/wrgis/help.html">Help</A> | <A
href="http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/docs/wrgis/pdfhelp.html">PDF help</A> | <A
href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/">Publications main page</A> |<BR>| <A
href="http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/docs/wrgis/of_08.html">Western Open-File
Reports for 2008</A> | <BR>| <A href="http://biology.usgs.gov/">Biological
Resources</A> | <A href="http://sbsc.wr.usgs.gov/">Southwest Biological Science
Center</A> |
<P>
<HR>
<P>This report is available only on the Web. </P>
<HR>
<!-- BEGIN USGS Footer Template -->
<P class=footerBar style="CLEAR: both"><A
title="Accessibility Policy (Section 508). "
href="http://www.usgs.gov/accessibility.html">Accessibility</A> <A
title="Freedom of Information Act. " href="http://www.usgs.gov/foia/">FOIA</A>
<A title="Privacy policies of the U.S. Geological Survey. "
href="http://www.usgs.gov/privacy.html">Privacy</A> <A
title="Policies and notices that govern information posted on USGS Web sites. "
href="http://www.usgs.gov/policies_notices.html">Policies and Notices</A></P>
<P class=footerText><A href="http://www.takepride.gov/"><IMG
title="Take Pride in America home page."
style="FLOAT: right; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"
height=58 alt="Take Pride in America home page."
src="USGS Workshop on Scientific Aspects of a Long-Term Experimental Plan for Glen Canyon Dam, April 10-11, 2007, Flagstaff, Arizona_files/footer_graphic_takePride.jpg"
width=60></A> <A href="http://usa.gov/"><IMG
title="USAGov: Government Made Easy" height=26 alt="USA.gov logo"
src="USGS Workshop on Scientific Aspects of a Long-Term Experimental Plan for Glen Canyon Dam, April 10-11, 2007, Flagstaff, Arizona_files/footer_graphic_usagov.jpg"
width=90></A> <A href="http://www.doi.gov/">U.S. Department of the Interior</A>
| <A href="http://www.usgs.gov/">U.S. Geological Survey</A><BR>URL:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1153/<BR>Page Contact Information: <A
style="TEXT-DECORATION: none" href="mailto:mdiggles@usgs.gov">Michael
Diggles</A> <BR>Page Last Modified: April 30, 2008</P>
<HR>
<!-- END USGS Footer Template --></BODY></HTML>
|
Africa Sites
CAMEROON: INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT IN RIVER LOGONE FLOOD-PLAIN
smokoroski et al.2007.HydroReview.doc
Flow Experiment Site Database
Help!
Forgot your password?
