Bishop Study - Revision history

Cellsworth at 21:32, 11 February 2026

2026-02-11T21:32:43Z

Cellsworth at 18:15, 29 August 2019

2019-08-29T18:15:04Z

Cellsworth at 21:01, 28 August 2019

2019-08-28T21:01:57Z

Cellsworth at 21:00, 28 August 2019

2019-08-28T21:00:22Z

Cellsworth at 20:59, 28 August 2019

2019-08-28T20:59:48Z

Cellsworth at 20:38, 28 August 2019

2019-08-28T20:38:58Z

Cellsworth at 19:50, 28 August 2019

2019-08-28T19:50:28Z

Cellsworth at 18:31, 28 August 2019

2019-08-28T18:31:14Z

Cellsworth at 18:27, 28 August 2019

2019-08-28T18:27:25Z

Cellsworth at 18:25, 28 August 2019

2019-08-28T18:25:42Z

@@ Line 253: / Line 253: @@
 |style="color:#000;"|
 *[http://www.gcmrc.gov/library/reports/cultural/Recreation/Stewart2000.pdf The Stewart Report: Preferences of Recreation User Groups of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. 2000]
+*[[Media:1992_Shelby_et_al.pdf| Shelby et al. 1992. Effects of Streamflows on River Trips on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Rivers. Volume 3, Number 3. Pages 191-201]]
-'''1987''' <br>
 *[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/cwa316/docs/cwa316may2010/comments041310/bishop_etal.pdf Bishop, R.C., C.A. Brown, M.P. Welsh, 1987, Grand Canyon Recreation and Glen Canyon Dam Operations: An Economic Evaluation. pg 407-436 ]<br>
 *[[Media:1987 Bishop GCDam releases downstream rec analysis user pref.pdf| Bishop, R.C., K.J. Boyle, M.P. Welsh, R.M. Baumgartner, P.R. Rathbun, 1987, Glen Canyon Dam Releases and Down Stream Recreation: An Analysis of User Preferences and Economic Values. Report to GCES. 398 pgs. ]]

@@ Line 269: / Line 269: @@
 ==Stewart et al. 2000==
-Additionally, [http://www.gcmrc.gov/library/reports/cultural/Recreation/Stewart2000.pdf Stewart et al.’s (2000)] follow-up of the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/cwa316/docs/cwa316may2010/comments041310/bishop_etal.pdf Bishop et al. (1987)] study found that angler’s did not identify river level fluctuations, at least under the MLFF operating regime, as an issue. Based on information from [http://www.gcmrc.gov/library/reports/cultural/Recreation/Stewart2000.pdf Stewart et al.’s (2000)] and [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/cwa316/docs/cwa316may2010/comments041310/bishop_etal.pdf Bishop et al. (1987)], any flow fluctuation below 10,000 cfs/day should be treated the same as a steady flow release.
+[http://www.gcmrc.gov/library/reports/cultural/Recreation/Stewart2000.pdf Stewart et al.’s (2000)] follow-up of the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/cwa316/docs/cwa316may2010/comments041310/bishop_etal.pdf Bishop et al. (1987)] study found that angler’s did not identify river level fluctuations, at least under the MLFF operating regime, as an issue.
 ==2016 LTEMP==

@@ Line 272: / Line 272: @@
 ==2016 LTEMP==
+"An 8,000-cfs maximum daily fluctuation limit was established in the 1996 ROD
 An 8,000-cfs maximum daily fluctuation limit was established in the 1996 ROD
 (Reclamation 2006) to address safety, recreation, and sediment concerns (Reclamation 1995). The
 analysis conducted for the LTEMP EIS has not identified new evidence to suggest that these concerns
@@ Line 282: / Line 281: @@
 ,000 cfs daily change for a “tolerable recreation experience” under relatively high average daily
 flows. The current river guide community has continued to state the preference for retaining the
-,000-cfs maximum daily fluctuation that is currently in place. ([http://ltempeis.anl.gov/documents/final-eis/vol1/Chapter_2-Alternatives.pdf LTEMP EIS pg 2-46, Sec 2.2.4.1 Base Operations under Alternative D])
+,000-cfs maximum daily fluctuation that is currently in place." ([http://ltempeis.anl.gov/documents/final-eis/vol1/Chapter_2-Alternatives.pdf LTEMP EIS pg 2-46, Sec 2.2.4.1 Base Operations under Alternative D])
 [*] Bishop et al. (1995) appears to be a typo. There is no Bishop et al. (1995) in the [http://ltempeis.anl.gov/documents/final-eis/vol1/Chapter_6-References.pdf LTEMP Reference section], only Bishop et al. (1987).

@@ Line 284: / Line 284: @@
 ,000-cfs maximum daily fluctuation that is currently in place. ([http://ltempeis.anl.gov/documents/final-eis/vol1/Chapter_2-Alternatives.pdf LTEMP EIS pg 2-46, Sec 2.2.4.1 Base Operations under Alternative D])
-[*] Bishop et al. (1995) appears to be a typo. There is no Bishop et al. (1995) in the [http://ltempeis.anl.gov/documents/final-eis/vol1/Chapter_6-References.pdf LTEMP Reference section], only Bishop et al. (1987)
+[*] Bishop et al. (1995) appears to be a typo. There is no Bishop et al. (1995) in the [http://ltempeis.anl.gov/documents/final-eis/vol1/Chapter_6-References.pdf LTEMP Reference section], only Bishop et al. (1987).
 |}
 <Span></Span>

@@ Line 278: / Line 278: @@
 are no longer relevant or that this fluctuation limit is no longer appropriate. The determination
 of 8,000 cfs as a maximum daily fluctuation level that is suitable for recreation was based on
-Bishop et al. (1995). Bishop et al. surveyed both the river guides and the general public regarding
+Bishop et al. (1995) [*]. Bishop et al. surveyed both the river guides and the general public regarding
 preferences, and the river guides reported a preference for a maximum of
 ,000 cfs daily change for a “tolerable recreation experience” under relatively high average daily
@@ Line 284: / Line 284: @@
 ,000-cfs maximum daily fluctuation that is currently in place. ([http://ltempeis.anl.gov/documents/final-eis/vol1/Chapter_2-Alternatives.pdf LTEMP EIS pg 2-46, Sec 2.2.4.1 Base Operations under Alternative D])
 |}
 <Span></Span>

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:38, 28 August 2019
Line 272:		Line 272:

	==2016 LTEMP==		==2016 LTEMP==
		+
		+	An 8,000-cfs maximum daily fluctuation limit was established in the 1996 ROD
		+	(Reclamation 2006) to address safety, recreation, and sediment concerns (Reclamation 1995). The
		+	analysis conducted for the LTEMP EIS has not identified new evidence to suggest that these concerns
		+	are no longer relevant or that this fluctuation limit is no longer appropriate. The determination
		+	of 8,000 cfs as a maximum daily fluctuation level that is suitable for recreation was based on
		+	Bishop et al. (1995). Bishop et al. surveyed both the river guides and the general public regarding
		+	preferences, and the river guides reported a preference for a maximum of
		+	8,000 cfs daily change for a “tolerable recreation experience” under relatively high average daily
		+	flows. The current river guide community has continued to state the preference for retaining the
		+	8,000-cfs maximum daily fluctuation that is currently in place. ([http://ltempeis.anl.gov/documents/final-eis/vol1/Chapter_2-Alternatives.pdf LTEMP EIS pg 2-46, Sec 2.2.4.1 Base Operations under Alternative D])

	\|}		\|}

@@ Line 77: / Line 77: @@
 ==Fishing ==
 *Ideal flows for fishing are in a range around 10,000 cfs
-*Constant flows are better than fluctuating flows except at very low average daily flows
+*Constant flows are better than fluctuating flows except at very low average daily flows [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/cwa316/docs/cwa316may2010/comments041310/bishop_etal.pdf]
 ==White-water boating==
 *Private boaters prefer approximately 29,000 cfs
 *Commercial passengers prefer approximately 33,000 cfs
-*The presence of significant river fluctuations reduces the value of the experience, except at average daily flows below 10,000 cfs, where fluctuating flows are preferred to low constant flows.
+*The presence of significant river fluctuations reduces the value of the experience, except at average daily flows below 10,000 cfs, where fluctuating flows are preferred to low constant flows [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/cwa316/docs/cwa316may2010/comments041310/bishop_etal.pdf]
 |-

@@ Line 229: / Line 229: @@
 recreation, other objectives aside?
 *We would assure them that there is clear evidence that how they operate the dam does have significant effects on recreational quality, effects that translate into millions of dollars.
-*To enhance recreation, they should try to avoid extremes. Extremely low flows (flows significantly below 10,000 cfs), extremely high flow (flows in excess of power plant capacity}, and extreme daily fluctuations (differences in daily releases of 10,000 cfs or more) are all detrimental.
+*To enhance recreation, they should try to avoid extremes. Extremely low flows (flows significantly below 10,000 cfs), extremely high flow (flows in excess of power plant capacity), and extreme daily fluctuations (differences in daily releases of 10,000 cfs or more) are all detrimental.
 *To the extent possible while observing the limits outlined in (2), water should be reallocated to the summer months and, water permitting, to the late spring and early fall. In all except the highest discharge years, benefits of $1 million to $2 million would be forthcoming, compared to current operations, if these criteria were observed.[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/cwa316/docs/cwa316may2010/comments041310/bishop_etal.pdf]