A Report from the Adaptive Management Trenches
Planning for the flow and trout
removal experiments, bickering over information needs in the strategic
plan, science updates, budget details—these are just a few of the
issues we’ve been dealing with lately in the Adaptive Management
program. The flow and trout removal experiments are definitely the most
pressing topic because they’re scheduled to begin in September (Maybe?).
As described in the last bqr, the amwg recommended a two-year program
of experimental flows combined with trout removal in the vicinity of the
Little Colorado River (see our article in the last bqr, Summer 2002, Vol.
15 #2). The recommendation also called for developing a long-term program
of experimentation. So, the present experiment lasts for two years, while
the later years are based on what we’ve hopefully learned. The whole
plan is awaiting approval by the Secretary of Interior. Remember, the
adaptive management program only recommends actions to the Secretary of
Interior. The Secretary has to make the call. Inside sources have assured
us that the experimental program will be approved. We’re waiting
for word from on high. In the meantime, it’s full-speed ahead to
plan the experiment. Gcmrc has a fourth draft version of the science plan
that form the basis for what is sure to be a lively discussion at the
upcoming August 17-18 twg meetings. Details are still being worked out
on what exactly are the criteria for going ahead with a Beach Habitat
Building Flow (bhbf), how much sediment needs to be input, what gets studied,
etc.
Here’s how the first year stands right now. Each year of the experiment
was designed in two parts: one part dirt, one part fish. Just add water,
then puree. Yummy.
Year 1 (September 2002 to September 2003): Dirt (sand, silt and clay)—the
sediment part of the experiment is dependent on the Paria River kicking
in a significant amount of sediment between September and December—significant
being at least 500,000 metric tons of sediment after July 1. Beginning
as early as September 1, the dam would release alternate two-week periods
of constant 8,000 cfs and fluctuating 6,500 cfs to 9,000 cfs until January
2003. The sediment transport will be monitored to see if there is a difference
between the low-level fluctuations and the constant flows. If there is
no detectable difference in sediment transport, fluctuations will be continued
to make some hydropower cash. If there is a detectable difference in the
sediment transport, the flow with the lowest sediment transport will be
continued. On January 6, 2003 a “flood” of approximately 41,000
cfs will be released for 3 days with an upramp rate of 4,000 cfs/hr. One
of the turbines is undergoing maintenance, therefore the powerplant cannot
run at 100% and 41,000 cfs is the max flow possible. Personally, I’d
like to see 60,000 or 80,000. The total water “spilled” will
be approximately 94,000 acre feet. In order for the flood to happen, at
least 1,000,000 (+/- 20%, for measurement uncertainty) metric tons of
sand needs to be retained in the reach above the Little Colorado River.
All of the dirt part of the
experiment is based on Paria River inputs. If nothing happens on the Paria
this year, the dirt part of the experiment will not be implemented. Fish–regardless
of dirt, the fish part of the flow experiment starts asap. The fish part
has both flow and non-flow related stuff. Mechanical removal of trout
from the Little Colorado River area (a couple miles either direction)
will start as soon as an Environmental assessment is completed—like
maybe sometime this month. Mechanical removal is a nice, dorky, scientific
term that means trout will be caught by electro shocking, then destroyed.
The plan was to run the remains through a “chipper” and back
into the river. Yuk! or Cool! depending on your perspective. There is
still some good arguing/debate over this means of disposing the carcasses
and its effect on the environment—hence the Environmental Assessment
(ea). The flow-related aspect of the fish part starts in early January,
perhaps following a “flood”. Following the bhbf and several
days of constant 8,000 cfs to collect post-bhbf measurements, high experimental
fluctuations with a daily range of 5,000 cfs to 20,000 cfs will be released
from January through March. This is the main part of the non-native spawning
and emergent/juvenile season and the flows are intended to “disadvantage”
the trout by messing with the baby trout by keeping the preferred, near-shore
habitat moving up and down the bank and perhaps stranding and killing
some of the roe. From April through September operations would follow
monthly volumes under the current Record of Decision criteria until year
two of the experiment starts. More on year two later…
Implementing this experiment will mean that there’s going to be
a whole lot of science trips on the water this fall, winter and spring.
Good luck Fritz! A whole lot of science means a whole lot of money. Gcmrc
estimates that the experiments will cost an additional 4.2 million dollars
for year one and 3.6 million dollars for year two. These are seemingly
staggering numbers. However, trying to figure out an entire ecosystem
at this scale costs money. In our opinion, we should be spending as much
as it takes to meet our programs goals and the intent of the Grand Canyon
protection act. We have argued in the past that the program is under-funded
and the additional dollars needed to address the hypotheses being tested
in the experiment only reinforce our opinion. Other players in the game
think way too much is being spent. What do you think? Give us a call,
email or write. Come to a board meeting or a twg/amwg meeting. Write in.
Your opinions are important and we want to hear them.
Matt Kaplinski
Technical Work Group
Andre Potochnik
Adaptive Management
Work Group
