A 2021 Fall HFE - Revision history

Cellsworth at 21:03, 3 November 2022

2022-11-03T21:03:47Z

Cellsworth at 16:53, 13 September 2022

2022-09-13T16:53:16Z

Cellsworth at 16:50, 13 September 2022

2022-09-13T16:50:29Z

Cellsworth at 21:55, 9 November 2021

2021-11-09T21:55:24Z

Cellsworth at 21:53, 9 November 2021

2021-11-09T21:53:17Z

Cellsworth at 21:52, 9 November 2021

2021-11-09T21:52:43Z

Cellsworth at 21:46, 9 November 2021

2021-11-09T21:46:55Z

Cellsworth at 18:07, 9 November 2021

2021-11-09T18:07:58Z

Cellsworth at 22:03, 20 October 2021

2021-10-20T22:03:27Z

Cellsworth at 21:57, 20 October 2021

2021-10-20T21:57:05Z

@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 ==Sediment Conditions==
-'''Winter Accounting Period'''
+'''Fall Accounting Period''' [[File:2021_PariaInputs.PNG|thumb|right|400px|[http://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/station/GCDAMP/09382000#/ '''Paria River gage at Lees Ferry'''] ]]
-*Paria input (Jul 1 to Nov 30):
+*Paria input (Jul 1 to Nov 30): 1,492,000 mt
-*Evacuated from Upper Marble Canyon (Jul 1 to Nov 30, lower bound) =
+*Evacuated from Upper Marble Canyon (Jul 1 to Nov 30, lower bound) = 1,100,000 mt
-*Evacuated from Lower Marble Canyon (Jul 1 to Nov 30, lower bound) =
+*Evacuated from Lower Marble Canyon (Jul 1 to Nov 30, lower bound) = 150,000 mt
-*Available for Fall HFE:
+*Available for Fall HFE: 1,642,000 mt
 == SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ==
@@ Line 178: / Line 181: @@
 #Depletion of the Basin Fund was one of the primary reasons that the 2021 HFE was denied, yet future funding for the AMP is to come from appropriated funds, thus not draining the Basin Fund. Therefore, this reason for denying an HFE does not appear to be valid. Furthermore, we question the merit of a decision-making process wherein the Basin Fund’s fiscal health outweighs the multiple benefits of an HFE on the CRE’s ecological, cultural, and recreational resources. Most troubling, the HFE Informational Report recognizes the poor condition of the Basin Fund now and well into the future, regardless of whether an HFE is conducted or not. We are deeply concerned that this focus on the Basin Fund establishes a rationale and precedent to prohibit HFE’s in the future.
 #We have additional concerns about the precedent set by the decision to forego a 2021 HFE. In 2021 the Paria River delivered the second highest amount of sand since recording began, exceeding the sediment trigger for an HFE. The CRE is now primed for an HFE to store that sediment at higher elevations, replenishing the now-depleted shallow shoreline habitats and camping beaches that support native fish and recreational camping, respectively. Sedimentological data provided by the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center supports this conclusion. Furthermore, with low flows likely for the next two or more years, the benefits of a winter 2021 or a springtime 2022 HFE would be long-lasting. Ultimately, we are concerned that the precedent set by the decision to forego an HFE is based primarily on considerations put forth by power generation and water interests, and that the mandates of the 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act were insufficiently weighed in this decision. We believe that a more balanced approach that gives equal weight to all valued resources can be achieved without undue strain on important water and power resources.
 #We are further concerned that the AMP is insufficiently flexible in its adaptive management capacity: the AMP needs to be able to accommodate unforeseen but advantageous changes that arise. Predictions about how much snow will fall in the Rocky Mountains this coming winter are highly speculative, but the PI Team decision did not reflect consideration of contingencies. For example, above-normal winter flows should promote consideration of a springtime HFE. If flows are normal or slightly below average, a within-powerplant high flow (such as that conducted in March 2021) might be feasible. But if winter inflows are below normal, then a high flow may be precluded, despite the depleted condition of many Grand Canyon camping beaches. Unfortunately, the PI Team’s decision apparently did not consider such options. This issue of administrative flexibility is important in adaptive management, and is in keeping with Dr. Petty’s memorandum, encouraging the AMP to include both flow and non-flow management options in its recommendations to the Secretary. Adaptive CRE management demands such flexibility, as opportunities for improving resource stewardship may arise unexpectedly.
 #Lastly, the LTEMP sediment accounting periods have long been recognized as inadequate for the task of adaptive CRE management, a problem that constrains achievement of AMP goals. The present winter and springtime accounting periods preclude sufficient sediment from accruing in the channel to allow for a springtime HFE. This occurs despite the fact that natural historical floods occurred during springtime, and CRE species and processes are adapted to those springtime spates. CRE shorelines and sandbars benefit most from springtime high flows by rejuvenating camping beaches and shoreline habitats just prior to the onset of summer native fish spawning and recreational uses, respectively. The AMP has been repeatedly briefed by GCMRC and several stakeholders on the need and importance of seasonally appropriate, sediment-triggered HFEs, but the AMWG has not acted adaptively to rectify this error in the LTEMP. Therefore, we request that the AMWG include this subject in its next meeting, and provide adequate time for a discussion to explain, work to resolve, and adaptively rectify this impediment within the LTEMP. We comment on the above issues to help ensure that the AMP and the Secretary continue to respect, incorporate, and benefit from the perspectives of all of its stakeholders. We intend to continue to work together to ensure consensus on adaptive management issues and help the AMP make the best science-based recommendation to the Secretary.

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 decided not to conduct a fall HFE in November 2021. We will continue to work with our
 partners in future HFEs and in the protection of the Grand Canyon and our most important
-resources. [[Media:Fall 2021 HFE - Decision Memo wgp.pdf [1] ]]
+resources. [[Media:Fall 2021 HFE - Decision Memo wgp.pdf| (1)]]
 ==Sediment Conditions==
@@ Line 169: / Line 169: @@
 expected to be small (see brown trout section). Thus, expert opinion among fishery biologists
 was that a 60 hour fall HFE would not substantively increase risk to endangered and native fishes
-in Grand Canyon above the existing level of risk. [[Media:2021.09.28 - FINAL TechReport - Fall 2021 HFE Recommendation.pdf]]
+in Grand Canyon above the existing level of risk. [[Media:2021.09.28 - FINAL TechReport - Fall 2021 HFE Recommendation.pdf| (2)]]
 '''Stakeholder Concerns: A Letter to Mr. Wayne Pullan, Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Designee for the Honorable Deb Haaland, Secretary of the Interior: 27 October 2021'''

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 decided not to conduct a fall HFE in November 2021. We will continue to work with our
 partners in future HFEs and in the protection of the Grand Canyon and our most important
-resources. [[Media:Fall 2021 HFE - Decision Memo wgp.pdf]]
+resources. [[Media:Fall 2021 HFE - Decision Memo wgp.pdf [1] ]]
 ==Sediment Conditions==

@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 *[[Media:2021.09.28 - FINAL TechReport - Fall 2021 HFE Recommendation.pdf| FINAL Tech Team Report - Fall 2021 HFE Recommendation]]
 *[https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-environment/2021/11/01/feds-say-theres-too-little-water-spare-grand-canyons-beaches/6201263001/ The sand is there, but low water levels halt a controlled flood to restore Grand Canyon's beaches]
 == COMPLIANCE ==

@@ Line 175: / Line 175: @@
 #AMP Tribal, environmental, and recreational stakeholders were not involved in the final decision on the potential for a 2021 HFE. To more fully realize the goals of the 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act, we call on the AMWG to address the inequalities of stakeholder representation on the PI Team, and to support greater transparency in its decision-making. Our contributions and perspectives were not represented in this decision, and we feel we have been disenfranchised from this decision process. While we do not necessarily disagree with the PI Team’s decision, we wish to be involved, and not excluded from, these important decisions in the future. Consequently and collectively, we request that the AMWG include all AMP stakeholder voices in such decisions, thereby moving towards the kind of consensus that is core to its role in advising the Secretary. If inclusion of our voices can only be achieved through a National Environmental Policy Act process, we request that the Secretary consider including our voices on the PI Team during the AMP’s next NEPA-related effort.
 #Depletion of the Basin Fund was one of the primary reasons that the 2021 HFE was denied, yet future funding for the AMP is to come from appropriated funds, thus not draining the Basin Fund. Therefore, this reason for denying an HFE does not appear to be valid. Furthermore, we question the merit of a decision-making process wherein the Basin Fund’s fiscal health outweighs the multiple benefits of an HFE on the CRE’s ecological, cultural, and recreational resources. Most troubling, the HFE Informational Report recognizes the poor condition of the Basin Fund now and well into the future, regardless of whether an HFE is conducted or not. We are deeply concerned that this focus on the Basin Fund establishes a rationale and precedent to prohibit HFE’s in the future.
 #We have additional concerns about the precedent set by the decision to forego a 2021 HFE. In 2021 the Paria River delivered the second highest amount of sand since recording began, exceeding the sediment trigger for an HFE. The CRE is now primed for an HFE to store that sediment at higher elevations, replenishing the now-depleted shallow shoreline habitats and camping beaches that support native fish and recreational camping, respectively. Sedimentological data provided by the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center supports this conclusion. Furthermore, with low flows likely for the next two or more years, the benefits of a winter 2021 or a springtime 2022 HFE would be long-lasting. Ultimately, we are concerned that the precedent set by the decision to forego an HFE is based primarily on considerations put forth by power generation and water interests, and that the mandates of the 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act were insufficiently weighed in this decision. We believe that a more balanced approach that gives equal weight to all valued resources can be achieved without undue strain on important water and power resources.
 #We are further concerned that the AMP is insufficiently flexible in its adaptive management capacity: the AMP needs to be able to accommodate unforeseen but advantageous changes that arise. Predictions about how much snow will fall in the Rocky Mountains this coming winter are highly speculative, but the PI Team decision did not reflect consideration of contingencies. For example, above-normal winter flows should promote consideration of a springtime HFE. If flows are normal or slightly below average, a within-powerplant high flow (such as that conducted in March 2021) might be feasible. But if winter inflows are below normal, then a high flow may be precluded, despite the depleted condition of many Grand Canyon camping beaches. Unfortunately, the PI Team’s decision apparently did not consider such options. This issue of administrative flexibility is important in adaptive management, and is in keeping with Dr. Petty’s memorandum, encouraging the AMP to include both flow and non-flow management options in its recommendations to the Secretary. Adaptive CRE management demands such flexibility, as opportunities for improving resource stewardship may arise unexpectedly.
 #Lastly, the LTEMP sediment accounting periods have long been recognized as inadequate for the task of adaptive CRE management, a problem that constrains achievement of AMP goals. The present winter and springtime accounting periods preclude sufficient sediment from accruing in the channel to allow for a springtime HFE. This occurs despite the fact that natural historical floods occurred during springtime, and CRE species and processes are adapted to those springtime spates. CRE shorelines and sandbars benefit most from springtime high flows by rejuvenating camping beaches and shoreline habitats just prior to the onset of summer native fish spawning and recreational uses, respectively. The AMP has been repeatedly briefed by GCMRC and several stakeholders on the need and importance of seasonally appropriate, sediment-triggered HFEs, but the AMWG has not acted adaptively to rectify this error in the LTEMP. Therefore, we request that the AMWG include this subject in its next meeting, and provide adequate time for a discussion to explain, work to resolve, and adaptively rectify this impediment within the LTEMP. We comment on the above issues to help ensure that the AMP and the Secretary continue to respect, incorporate, and benefit from the perspectives of all of its stakeholders. We intend to continue to work together to ensure consensus on adaptive management issues and help the AMP make the best science-based recommendation to the Secretary.

@@ Line 91: / Line 91: @@
 *[[Media:Fall 2021 HFE - Decision Memo wgp.pdf| Fall 2021 HFE - Decision Memo]]
 *[[Media:2021.09.28 - FINAL TechReport - Fall 2021 HFE Recommendation.pdf| FINAL Tech Report - Fall 2021 HFE Recommendation]]
 == COMPLIANCE ==

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 == 2021 Fall High Flow Experiment Snapshot ==
 The PI Team has worked over the past several weeks to evaluate existing data and coordinate the
 potential implementation of an HFE. The PI Team evaluated the latest data from agency experts,
@@ Line 85: / Line 167: @@
 was that a 60 hour fall HFE would not substantively increase risk to endangered and native fishes
 in Grand Canyon above the existing level of risk. [[Media:2021.09.28 - FINAL TechReport - Fall 2021 HFE Recommendation.pdf]]
 == ADDITIONAL ==
 Under the 2016 Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Record of Decision, HFE releases are triggered by substantial sediment accumulation in the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam. Monsoonal flooding in the Paria River near Lees Ferry moves sediment into the Colorado River, where its accumulation is carefully monitored by the U.S. Geological Survey. When implemented, high flows carry and redistribute the sediment throughout the canyon above the typical high-water mark.

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 == 2021 Fall High Flow Experiment Snapshot ==
-*A 2021 Fall HFE was not conducted
+The PI Team has worked over the past several weeks to evaluate existing data and coordinate the
-A November 2021 High Flow Experiment is being considered by the Glen Canyon Dam Planning and Implementation Team. In early October, the Secretary of the Interior (or her Designee) will decide whether to implement a fall HFE following careful consideration of the Team's technical recommendation.
+'''192-hour Extended Duration Fall HFE'''
-Under the 2016 Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Record of Decision, HFE releases are triggered by substantial sediment accumulation in the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam. Monsoonal flooding in the Paria River near Lees Ferry moves sediment into the Colorado River, where its accumulation is carefully monitored by the U.S. Geological Survey. When implemented, high flows carry and redistribute the sediment throughout the canyon above the typical high-water mark.
+The PI Team arrived at this recommendation after several weeks of PI Team conference calls,
-Per the 2016 ROD, HFEs releases can occur either in the spring from March through June (spring HFE), or in the fall from October through November (fall HFE). If enough sediment enters the Colorado River from July to November, a fall HFEs release can be implemented. The decision to conduct a fall HFE release is usually made in October based on sediment accumulation, as well as a variety of other resource conditions.
+'''60-hour Fall HFE'''
-No HFEs were conducted in calendar year 2019 or 2020, though a Spring Disturbance Flow was implemented in March 2021. The Department of the Interior conducted the most recent HFE release from Glen Canyon Dam on November 5-8, 2018. The HFE release included a peak flow of approximately 38,100 cubic feet per second for 60 hours (four days including ramping-up from baseflows to peak release) to move accumulated sediment downstream to help rebuild beaches and sandbars. This HFE release was the first to be conducted under the 2016 LTEMP HFE Protocol. Similar HFE releases were conducted in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2016 in accordance with the 2011 HFE Environmental Assessment Protocol. The 2018 HFE release provided resource benefits and scientific information to be used in future decision making. [https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/gcdHFE/index.html]
+Technical representatives were divided in the assessment of a shorter duration 60-hour
 ==Sediment Conditions==
@@ Line 33: / Line 95: @@
 == SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ==
 == COMPLIANCE ==
@@ Line 39: / Line 102: @@
 == ADDITIONAL ==
 <center>