Fall 2013 HFE Protocol Decision Pr

Glen KnowlesKatrina GrantzNick WilliamsBureau of ReclamationGlen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management ProgramTWG WebinarNovember 6, 2013
1. Planning and Budgeting Component

 Annual resource status assessment GCDAMP Annual Reporting (Jan 28-29, 2013 GCDAMP Budget and Work Plan Process

2. Modeling Component3. Decision and Implementation Component

 Review Modeling Component Review Status of Resources GCDAMP- Consultation with agencies and tr

AMWG and TWG presentations

 Basin States Consultation DOI/DOE Technical Team Recommendation/

Leadership Team Decision (Oct 25, 2013)

HFE Decision Making Process

2
HFE Protocol Parameters

Possible Timing

– March-April and October-November through 2020– Spring HFEs will not be considered until 2015

Duration range

– 1 hr – 96 hrs (at full magnitude)– 1 1⁄2 days – 6 1⁄2 days (including ramping)

Magnitude range

– 31,500 cfs – 45,000 cfs (depends on maintenance and re

conditions)

Ramping rates

– Ramping rates are defined by 1996 ROD and 1997 Glen 

Operating Criteria (62 FR 9447, 4,000 cfs up and 1,500 cf

Model Constraints

– “the Leadership Team's view is that it would be inappro

adjust the model output in a way that would increase thwater to be released or increase power costs associated HFE release.” November 7, 2012 memo from Anne Castl

3
1. GCDAMP Annual Reporting meeting ever

January.

2. Updates at TWG and AMWG GCDAMP 

meetings.

3. Meet with the HFE MOA consulting partie

consult with tribes as needed.

4. The HFE Technical Team report to the 

Secretary’s Glen Canyon Leadership Teatheir consideration in HFE decisions.

5. US Fish and Wildlife Service report early e

year on the effects of prior HFEs and conservation measures of the FWS biologopinion (first report Feb 2014).

HFE Protocol Reporting

4
• Synthesis report of 

results of 1996, 2004, 2008 HFEs.

• Extensive summary of 

effects to physical and biological resources.

• Forms basis for Tech 

Team Report

• Available online at 

pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1366/

c1366.pdf

USGS Circular1366
Modeling Component

6
Sand Budget Model

• Developed from USGS model (Wright et al. 20

– Empirically based rating curves– Computes sand budget in 3 reaches

• Inputs:

– Hourly Paria sand load– Antecedent conditions (bed thickness, median gra

• Determines HFE peak and duration

– Potential HFE range:

• 45,000 to 31,000 cfs, 96 hours to 1 hour

• Output

– Sand mass balance between RM 0 and RM 61
Model Reaches

• Sand Budget Model 

Reaches

– RM30 (upper Marble 

Canyon)

– RM61 (lower Marble 

Canyon)

– RM87 (eastern Grand 

Canyon)

2013 HFE Recomendation

DOI/DOE Technical Team recommends that the HFE:• Ramp up from base releases at 4,000 cfs/hr at until reaching pow

capacity (~22,200 cfs) 

• Ramp up from powerplant capacity to full bypass (~37,200 cfs) a

bypass tube (~1,875 cfs, consistent with prior HFEs) per hour in 

• Stay at peak release (37,200 cfs) for 96 hrs• Ramp down from peak release to base releases at 1,500 cfs/hr• Begin ramp up from 5,000 cfs at 9:00 am on November 11• Reach powerplant capacity at 1:00 pm November 11• Open bypass tubes at 1:00 pm November 11• Reach full bypass at 8:00 pm on November 11• Begin ramp-down from bypass at 8:00 pm on November 15• Complete HFE (back to 8,000 cfs) at 3:00 pm on November 16

10
11
Possible Monthly Release redistribution

12

NOTE: Total WY Lake Powell releaswill be 7.48 maf, regardless of whethHFE occurs. 
7.48 maf Annual Release Pattern (values in kaf)

No HFE Proposed HFE

Oct 480 480Nov 500 700Dec 600 600Jan 800 800Feb 600 600Mar 600 500Apr 500 500May 600 500Jun 600 600Jul 800 800Aug 800 800Sep 600 600WY total 7480 7480

Possible Monthly Release redistributio
Resource Status Assessment

Sediment ResourcesIn-channel sediment storageSandbar campable areaHigh-elevation sand depositsCultural ResourcesArchaeological site condition and stabilityAccess to archaeological sites by tribesBiological ResourcesAquatic food baseLees Ferry trout populationLees Ferry fishery recreation experience qualityEndangered humpback chub and other fish abundanceRiparian vegetationHydropower and water deliveryWater qualityWater deliveryDam maintenanceHydropower production and marketable capacity

14
2012 High Flow Experiment

15
Sediment – Campsite Area

Sand bar size and campsite area have been decreasing, bu

increased with each HFE, including 2012; the protocol increase frequency of HFEs which should improve this 

16
Cultural Resources

 HFE-caused erosion is a 

consideration, most sites already mitigated. 

 The HFE MOA requires 

reporting and consultation after HFEs.

 Reclamation met with MOA 

signatories Feb. 12-13, 2013. 

 No impacts to sites were 

identified from the 2012 HFE, no reports of issues with access to sites.

 The MOA for the HFE Protocol 

requires notification to all the consulting parties at least 30 days in advance of a HFE and will consult with tribes to resolve any issues.

A 30-day letter was sent n

signatories of a possi

November 2013 on Septe

17
Hydropower/Socioeconomic Im

 HFEs effect hydropower 

production negatively: 

 Water released during 

an HFE counts against the annual release and is not available to be programmed in peaking releases during high demand months (HFE windows of Mar/Apr and Oct/Nov are lowdemand shoulder months).

 30-40% of HFE releases 

bypass the power plant.

 Lake Powell is lowered, 

reducing hydrologic head.

 Other impacts – Hualapai 

Enterprise, regional.

Western Area Po

Administration es

hydropower impact o

from Fall 2013 H

(2012 HFE was $1

18
Lees Ferry Rainbow Trout

• 1996 and 2008 Spring HFEs led to 

increases in rainbow trout in Lees Ferry, 2011 high steady releases led to very large recruitment event in Lees Ferry.

• Rainbow trout moving into Marble 

Canyon, no increase yet at Little Colorado River.

• Effects of Fall HFEs on Lees Ferry 

Trout is poorly understood.

• 2004 Fall HFE appears to have 

resulted in displacement or mortality of very young trout.

• Condition overall declined slightly 

following 2004 November HFE.

• Appears that rainbow trout 

declined system-wide over period of 2012 HFE, although near removal trigger number at LCR.

19
Humpback chub adult population size in the Little Colorad

Using Age-Structured Mark Recapture Estimate (ASMR) 20• 9,000 adults in 2012 • Increases over period with HFEs in 2004, 2008, 2012• Other native fish populations have responded similarl

Humpback Chub and other native fi

20
Humpback chub sub-adult and juveniles, recruitment

• Some evidence that HFEs can cause displacement. • Improved monitoring is helping evaluate effects to sur

survivorship in mainstem appeared to remain stable operiod of the 2012 HFE.

Humpback Chub and other native fi

21
Aquatic Food Base

• Primary effect of HFEs on 

Food Base is scouring in Lees Ferry of algae and aquatic plants and animals.

• The degree of this effect is 

proportional to discharge, little effect at 31,500.

• Little effect at LCR.• Food base recovered from 

the 2008 HFE in 4 months.

• New Zealand mud snails 

were significantly reduced, a beneficial effect.

• Multiple HFEs could shift 

to flood-tolerant species, a potential benefit to higher trophic levels (trout).

• Food base little affected by 

2012 fall HFE, more blackflies in drift Jan. than 

22 Sept.
Biological Resources

• 2012 HFE appears to have 

had little effect on food base or trout and native fishery.

• Trout populations in Lees 

Ferry and downstream may have decreased, but not significantly so.

• None of the triggers for 

nonnative fish control have been met, although rainbow trout numbers at the LCR are near the trigger.

• Humpback chub status 

appears to be stable or increasing.

23