Los Angeles Times

Federal flood control managers plan to unleash millions of cubic feet of water from behind Glen Canyon Dam to “flush” the huge canyon bottom with a simulated springtime flood this week, but National Park Service officials who oversee the natural wonder are worried.

Water releases meant to renew the river’s bottom are ill-timed and serve hydropower firms, park officials say.

By Janet Wilson, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 4, 2008

The Grand Canyon is about to take a bath, and National Park Service officials who oversee the natural wonder are worried.

Federal flood control managers, led by Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, this week plan to unleash millions of cubic feet of water from behind Glen Canyon Dam to “flush” the huge canyon bottom with a simulated springtime flood.

Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Geological Survey specialists say the 60-hour “blowout,” followed by a series of smaller flows this fall, are needed to scour accumulated sand off the Colorado River bottom, then gradually restore sandy beaches and side pools for endangered species and campers.

The flows begin today, and a massive release is set for Wednesday in a media event with Kempthorne.

At its peak volume, 41,500 cubic feet per second of water will burst from tubes at the bottom of the dam, temporarily reducing flows to hydroelectric turbines. The experiment will not affect power or water supplies to customers, officials said.

National park officials said that 10 years of research at a cost of $80 million had shown that the flooding as planned could irreparably harm the national park’s ecology and resources.

Grand Canyon National Park Supt. Steve Martin said he was given a day to formulate comments to a cursory environmental assessment of the project. In those comments, he wrote that statements by the Bureau of Reclamation used to justify the flows’ timing were “unsubstantiated.” Far from restoring crucial sand banks and other areas, the flows could destroy habitat, Martin said.

One flood was not enough, Martin said Monday. Holding off follow-up flows for months would leave endangered humpback chub fish, sandbars used by river rafting trips, and archaeological treasures at river’s edge diminished “almost to the point of no return,” he said.

Martin suggested the timing of the flows served hydroelectric power producers who need peak production during hot summer months.

“The best time to get the most money for your hydropower is during peak energy demands, which is generally daytime hours and generally in the summer,” he said.

The U.S. Geological Survey acknowledged the floods had been timed in part to maximize power generation during peak demand.

Martin said he and his staff had been “assured” this week that they would be allowed to discuss additional releases, including the possibility of flooding during summer months.

Erosion has been a major problem since Glen Canyon was dammed for hydroelectric power and water storage in the 1960s. Congress passed the Grand Canyon Preservation Act in 1992 to address ecological problems caused by holding back massive amounts of sediment-laden spring runoff.

The first flush of the Grand Canyon, in 1996, was a mixed success at best, scientists concluded, with some spots more eroded than they were before.

A second flush, in 2004, was slightly more successful, restoring sand and sediment levels about 20 miles downstream of the dam.

“But the river is 250 miles long just in the national park,” said John Hamill, chief of the Grand Canyon monitoring and research center for the geological survey, who has been working with the Bureau of Reclamation to plan the floods. Hamill said changes had been made in the draft document to try to address some of the park service’s concerns. But he said flows would go forward as planned.

“My understanding is the proposal is to still do September and October [releases] for the next five years,” he said. He said the fish would still be helped by flows at that time, and agreed that power-production costs were a prime reason for the timing.

“There’s a fairly significant economic cost to stabilize the flows,” he said. “The peak electrical demand is in the summer . . . and subsides in September and October.”

He said that although park service officials were understandably focused on park issues, the reclamation bureau had to take into account the full picture of dam operation.

Martin said that he did not fault planners for wanting to minimize power losses, and that the dam served valuable multiple roles.

But he said the best, most current scientific data should be used to determine releases.

In a statement, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility condemned the flush as a “staged canyon greenwash” meant to attract television cameras while following a flood timeline that would “magnify the benefits for power production at the expense of environmental benefits.”

“The Bush administration is trying to extend its control through the term of its successor — a dead man’s hand throttling the Colorado River management,” said Jeff Ruch, executive director of the environmental group.

janet.wilson@latimes.com

Tags: News Articles on the Experiment by TGunn
No Comments »

Upper Colorado Regional Office

Media Contact: Doug Hendrix Dennis Kubly

(801) 524-3837 (801) 524-3715

Release Date: February 29, 2008

Reclamation Releases Final EA and FONSI Authorizing High-Flow and Steady Flow Experiments on the Colorado River

Salt Lake City – The Bureau of Reclamation today released a final environmental assessment (FEA) and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) that authorizes the initiation of an early-March 2008 high-flow test and fall steady flow experiment from Glen Canyon Dam downstream through the Grand Canyon. The FEA provides an evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed action and no action, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

The FEA evaluates the impact of the proposed experimental flows on a wide range of environmental and socioeconomic resources. Following release of these documents, the high-flow experiment and associated research activities will be undertaken on March 4th cooperatively by scientists and resource managers from Interior’s U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Reclamation, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The 2008 high flow test will be similar to the previous high flow experiments conducted by the joint Interior agencies in 2004, but the amount of sediment available for the 2008 experiment is considerably larger. Based on the previous experiments, scientists have concluded that more sand is needed to rebuild sandbars throughout the 277-mile reach of Grand Canyon National Park than was available in 1996 or 2004. Currently, sand supplies in the river are at a 10-year high with a volume about three times greater than in 2004 due to tributary inflows below the dam over the past 16 months.

During the high-flow experiment, Reclamation will release water through Glen Canyon Dam’s powerplant and bypass tubes to a maximum amount of approximately 41,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) for about 60 hours. Current operational plans call for the experimental flows to begin increasing in the evening on March 4th, with powerplant bypass flows to begin on March 5th.

From February 8-22, 2008, Reclamation solicited public comments on the environmental assessment. The final environmental assessment and FONSI conclude that implementation of the preferred alternative – the March 2008 high-flow test and fall steady flow experiment from Glen Canyon Dam – would have no significant impacts on the quality of the human environment or the natural resources below the dam.

The FEA and FONSI are available for review at: www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/2008hfe/index.html

Tags: News Articles on the Experiment, Uncategorized by TGunn
No Comments »

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=999

Tags: News Articles on the Experiment by TGunn
No Comments »

Flood may help revive a river

River’s 3rd planned flood may aid fish, environment

Shaun McKinnon
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 25, 2008 12:00 AM

For 60 hours early next month, the Colorado River will reclaim some of its former glory, swelling with floodwaters that will scour and reshape miles of sandy banks on the floor of the Grand Canyon, all in the service of a 3.5-million-year-old fish.

What scientists and environmentalists want to see is what will happen to the fish - and the canyon - when the gates close at Glen Canyon Dam and the staged flood recedes.

This is the third such experiment along the river in a dozen years, and it could end as the most controversial amid questions about whether the government has shirked its obligations to protect the canyon’s natural resources.

At issue is how to manage a structure that stores water and provides electrical power for millions of people across the West, yet has also damaged a wondrous, complex ecosystem.

Federal officials insist they have progressed with long-term plans to offset the effects of the dam on the river and the Grand Canyon. The endangered humpback chub, the fish at the center of much of the dispute, has recovered some of its lost numbers since the last flood. Scientists also think they better understand when to trigger future floods.

But environmental groups argue that the upcoming flood again delays long-term changes to the river’s management, further jeopardizing the canyon’s health. They want federal officials to permanently alter the dam’s operation instead of repeating the same test, adopting a seasonally adjusted plan that better mimics nature.

Even some of the government scientists participating in the experiment seem impatient with the continued tests.

“At some point we’re going to have to draw a line in the sand and say this is the best way to manage the dam and manage resources in the Grand Canyon,” said Martha Hahn, science center director at Grand Canyon National Park. “We can’t continue to go on and on just researching. We have to make a decision. We really are losing valuable resources.”

Floods to help the fish

Glen Canyon Dam, completed in 1963, forever changed the lower Colorado River, transforming it from a warm, muddy, unpredictable force of nature into a cooler, clearer, tightly controlled water-delivery system.

Without spring floods to flush the system and help rebuild beaches and fish habitat, native species suffered even as non-native invaders, such as trout and salt cedar, thrived. The shift helped speed the extinction of four fish species and push two others, including the chub, near the edge.

In 1992, Congress passed the Grand Canyon Protection Act, which ordered the Interior Department to manage the dam in a way that better protected resources. Four years later, the government staged the first artificial flood, opening the dam’s bypass tubes for several days in a mostly unsuccessful attempt to replicate natural cycles.

A second test in 2004, while still underwhelming, taught scientists the importance of sand and sediment.

The dam traps almost all the sediment that once flowed down the river, which is why beaches and habitats have eroded. A good monsoon season can wash significant quantities of sand down the Paria and Little Colorado rivers, which empty into the big Colorado below the dam.

“There’s been a good sand season, if you want to call it that, since about 2006, and we’re thinking there’s a lot more sand in the system than there has been in past experiments,” said John Hamill, chief of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, part of the U.S. Geological Survey.

Tests, operations at odds

What scientists hope to see are more backwater pools for young humpback chub, which need the calmer refuges off the main river to develop and grow. The chub population dwindled during the 1990s, rebounding slightly in recent years as lower levels at Lake Powell warmed water temperatures.

“Our ultimate purpose is to learn whether or not this is a viable strategy for creating sandbars and habitats for native fish,” Hamill said.

Environmental groups say the question has been answered, and they accuse the government of bowing to water users and hydropower interests, which have opposed long-term changes to the way water is released from the dam.

Under current operations, the water fluctuates during the summer as power demand peaks and ebbs. The uneven flows are thought to disrupt fish life cycles.

“They’re trading off maximum hydropower revenue for diminished Grand Canyon resources,” said Nikolai Lash, senior program director for the Grand Canyon Trust, a Flagstaff-based group that has long fought the government over its management of the dam.

Lash said the March flood was hastily planned after the Trust sued the government last year for failing to protect the river. The experiment was purposely designed as a single test, he said, even though most scientists think floods must occur regularly.

“They’re trying to make it appear that they’re doing something beneficial when they’re just doing it for appearances,” he said. “It’s being manipulated to be a ‘one and done,’ even though we know that doesn’t work.”

What environmental groups want is a long-term plan to stage floods as often as conditions allow - annually, if possible - and eliminate the extreme fluctuations in water releases from the dam during the summer and fall.

Hamill said scientists want to quantify how many backwater habitats the flood creates and how long they provide shelter for the chub.

Between floods, scientists have tried to help native fish in other ways, such as removing thousands of trout from the river near the confluence of the Little Colorado, the canyon’s only remaining chub spawning ground.

“I think we know just doing one of these every five or six years won’t get the job done in the long run,” Hamill said. “What we don’t know is even if we did it regularly whether it would be a viable strategy for conserving habitat.”

The test will also examine the effects on the river’s beaches, which provide habitat for other animals as well as canyon tourists.

A regular series of floods could help capture sand from the tributaries before the river washes it into Lake Mead, said Hahn, the Grand Canyon’s science center director. Already, huge sandbars line the riverbanks as it reaches the lake.

“I really believe the science is there to tell us what we need,” Hahn said. “It’s a matter of when are we going to get to the point we will integrate this knowledge and incorporate it into a management decision.”

Tags: News Articles on the Experiment by TGunn
No Comments »

Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The multiple federal agencies planning a large, five-day flood in the Grand Canyon in hopes of washing more sand into the Colorado River ecosystem have prepared an analysis of potential costs and benefits.

The experiment is expected to cost about $8 million in research costs and lost power, as the water released from the dam will bypass power turbines. The flood is expected to help build beaches in the river and potentially aid endangered humpback chub overall, by improving the backwaters they inhabit, according to an environmental analysis by the Bureau of Reclamation. Most of the sand that used to flow through the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon is now trapped upstream of Glen Canyon Dam.

It’s also anticipated some of the young endangered chub may be washed away in the flood and killed, according to an opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Overall, the same amount of water is typically released from the Glen Canyon Dam year to year, due to interstate agreements regarding the Colorado River system.

But this proposed experiment would change when in the year some of the water will be released, which leads to reduced ability to generate power during the hottest and coldest times of the year.

The March 4-9 flood has yet to receive final approval.

To read more, see www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/2008hfe/GCDexprelEA.pdf.

Tags: News Articles on the Experiment by TGunn
No Comments »