Difference between revisions of "The Bugflow Experiment"

Hypothesis: Daily flow fluctuations dry (desiccate) and kill eggs laid in the evening along the shorelines resulting in population level declines in the abundance and diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates (midges and EPT) below Glen Canyon Dam.
Questions: Will bugflows increase the abundance and diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates (midges and EPT) below Glen Canyon Dam?

• In areas where evening egg laying is out of sync with the daily hydropower wave (Glen Canyon, Upper and Lower Granite Gorge), can we detect increased egg laying and egg survival during the low weekend flow?
• If observed, does increased egg laying and survival translate into increased larval and adult abundance and diversity?
• Additionally, steady flows are know to reduce aquatic macroinvertebrate drift. Do increases in production and diversity, if observed, compensate for any decrease in drift?
  

BioScience Paper

https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2018-01-25-twg-meeting/AR10.pdf

• Citizen Science light trap monitoring throughout Glen and Grand Canyons
• Drift: every 5 miles in Glen and Grand Canyons
• Weekday vs weekend drift

• See a smoothing of the spatial pattern in midges in Grand Canyon
• Increase in midges throughout Glen and Grand Canyons
• Increase in caddisflies (and other EPT) throughout Glen and Grand Canyons

Food Base Page

Oviposition and Egg Desiccation Studies

Foodwebs and Bioenergetics Studies

Measuring Primary Production in the Lees Ferry Reach

Effects of BugFlows and HFEs on the Aquatic Foodbase

• Citizen Science Insect Monitoring

Hyporheic anoxia in the Lees Ferry Reach

Substrate condition and availability for EPT below Glen Canyon Dam

Downstream Recovery of the Foodbase Community in Several Colorado River Tailwaters

Drift and Food Availability Studies

• Invertebrate Drift below Glen Canyon Dam
• Responses of macroinvertebrate drift, benthic assemblages and trout foraging to hydropeaking below Flaming Gorge Dam

• Foodbase: abundance, diversity, availability (drift)
• Hydropower: value, capacity
• Trout and native fisheries: production, condition
• Lees Ferry fishery: access, economics
• Boater safety: Glen Canyon, downstream
• Sediment transport: beaches

The cost of the 2018 Bugflow Experiment was $165,000 [1]
The cost of the 2019 Bugflow Experiment was $327,000 [2]
The cost estimate of the 2020 Bugflow Experiment was $407,000

The three-year total of doing the Bugflow Experiment is $899,000

The cost estimate for doing a 4th year of the Bugflow Experiment in 2021 (which wasn't done) was $1,021,000

• Tributary inflows make mainstem flows anything but "steady" through Grand Canyon
• Changes in nutrients, turbidity, and temperature are also thought to be strong drivers of macroinvertebrate production
• Bugflows may have a compounding affect on production that may not be seen for many bug generations (months to years)

2022

• August 2022 BugFlow Decision memo
• August 2022 Summary Bug Flow Tech Analyses and Comments
• April 2022 BugFlow Decision memo
• April 2022 Technical Recommendation Report
• Discussion of the Bug Flows Synthesis and Review & Opportunities for Spring and Summer Flow Experiments

2022

• Bug Flows FY2022

2021

• Macro Invertebrate Flow Experiment Financial Impact on Hydropower: Process and Methods
• Discussion of the Anticipated Scope of the Forthcoming Bug Flow Evaluation Document
• Bug Flows

2020

• Financial Analysis of the 2020 Glen Canyon Dam Bug Flow Experiment
• Update on the Bug Flows Experiment
• Potential Water Year 2021 LTEMP Experiments & Bug Flow Update
• Potential Water Year 2020 LTEMP Experiments & Bug Flow Update
• Bug Flows Monitoring Results
• GCMRC 2019 Annual Reporting Meeting Overview – Part 1
• Colorado River Bugs Spark Two Unprecedented Experiments With Opposite Goals
• Water experiment to be conducted along the Colorado River while maintaining hydropower production this summer
• Approval of recommendation for macroinvertebrate production flow releases at Glen Canyon Dam, May 1 through August, 2020
• 2020 GCD Planning Implementation Team Bug Flows Recommendation Report
• Metcalfe et. al., 2020, Bug flows--Don't count your midges until they hatch: Boatman's Quarterly Review
• TRGD: Trout Recruitment, Growth and Population Dynamics
• Year 2 of Bug Flows

2019

• Financial Analysis of the 2019 Glen Canyon Dam Bug Flow Experiment
• ASWS Decision Memo on Implementing Bug Flows
• 2019 GCD Planning Implementation Team Bug Flows Recommendation Report
• GCD Planning Implementation Team Bug Flows Recommendation to GCD Leadership Team
• Bug Flows Implementation and Resource Response Presentation
• Modeling Input for the Bugflows Experiment - Summer, 2018 Presentation
• Bug Flows Implementation and Resource Response Presentation

2018

• Financial Analysis of the 2018 Glen Canyon Dam Bug Flow Experiment
• Do bug flows result in better fishing? PPT
• Update on the Progress of the Bug Flow Experiment PPT
• Approval of Recommendation for Macroinvertebrate Production Flow Releases at Glen Canyon Dam, May 1 through August 31, 2018
• 2018 BugFlow memo
• 2018 GCD Experimental Technical Team Report - Bugflows
• Bug flow optimizations and predictions PPT

2016

• Kennedy et al. 2016. Flow Management for Hydropower Extirpates Aquatic Insects, Undermining River Food Webs. BioScience
• Deep in the Grand Canyon, Scientists Struggle to Bring Back the Bugs
• Scientists Hope Bug Experiment Fattens Colorado River Fish (NY Times)
• Scientists hope bug experiment fattens Colorado River fish (AZ Daily Sun)
• Bugging out for fish (WAPA)

The Bugflow Experiment: (Chapter 2 LTEMP EIS, Page 71)

A more diverse and productive aquatic food base could benefit a variety of priority resources, including native fish (including the endangered humpback chub), the rainbow trout fishery, and other riparian species that occur in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons. Mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), and caddisflies (Trichoptera), collectively referred to as EPT, are important components of a healthy aquatic food base, but they are notably absent from the Glen and Marble Canyon reaches and very low in abundance and diversity in the Grand Canyon. GCMRC has hypothesized that EPT taxa are recruitment limited, because daily flow fluctuations to meet hydropower demand cause high egg mortality, and the absence of EPT has an adverse effect on the carrying capacity and condition of the trout fishery and native fish communities. EPT are thought to be recruitment limited because Glen Canyon Dam fluctuations create a large varial (intermittently wetted) zone along shorelines. Because the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons is canyon-bound and the tributaries that join the river all have comparatively low flow, the size of the varial zone does not appreciably decrease with distance downstream. Thus, although water temperature regimes become more naturalized with distance downstream, the effect that daily flow fluctuations to meet hydropower demand have on the stability of shoreline habitat does not attenuate much with distance from the dam.

This hypothesis attributes the absence of EPT and the poor health of the invertebrate assemblage to the width of the varial zone, similar to earlier investigations (Blinn et al. 1995), but focuses on the effects unstable shorelines have on the eggs of these species. This hypothesis assumes that egg-laying by EPT occurs principally along shorelines. According to the hypothesis, EPT taxa downstream of Glen Canyon Dam are recruitment limited, because daily flow fluctuations to meet hydropower demand negatively affect habitat quality along the shorelines where egg laying is assumed to occur.

To test this hypothesis, macroinvertebrate production flows would be provided every weekend from May through August (34 days total). The flow on weekends would be held steady at the minimum flow for that month, which would ensure that the insect eggs laid during weekends would remain submerged throughout larval development. If the hypothesis is true, there would be an increase in insect production due to the reproductive success of insects that laid eggs during weekends. No change in monthly volumes, ramping rates, or the maximum daily range in flow during weekdays would be required for this experiment. To offset the smaller water releases that would occur during weekends within a given month, larger releases would need to occur during the weekdays within a given month.

Implementation of macroinvertebrate production flows would consider resource condition assessments and resource concerns using the processes described in Sections 2.2.4.3 and 2.2.4.4. These flows may not be tested when there appears to be the potential for unacceptable impacts on the resources listed in Section 2.2.4.3.

Effects of the tests would be evaluated using observation to determine the location where insect eggs are deposited and the emergence rates of species. Depending on the outcome of the tests, the experiment could be discontinued if there were unacceptable effects on other resources. There is also the possibility that implementation would result in confounding interactions with TMF experiments, and this will be discussed during the communication and consultation process as described in Section 2.2.4.4.

Target two to three replicates (Table 2-9, Page 2-54).

LTEMP Biological Assessment, pages 30-41

Low steady weekend flows (“Macroinvertebrate Production Flows”) would be conducted to test whether the flows would increase insect abundance. On an experimental basis, for example, flows would be held low and steady for two days per week (weekends) from May through August to attempt to improve the productivity of the aquatic food base, and increase the diversity and abundance of mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), and caddisflies (Trichoptera), which are collectively referred to as EPT.

Example of an experimental Macroinvertebrate Production Flow (MPF) hydrograph

Modeling Assumptions:

• Macroinvertebrate Production Flows (MPFs) would occur every weekend from May - Aug (34 days, we scheduled July to have the 5th weekend because that how it works out in 2016)
• Weekend flow = minimum flow for the month = weekday minimum flow (see weekly hydrographs on the monthly tabs)
• Hybrid Public Draft monthly volume, ramp rates, or daily change parameters
• Moved weekend water to weekday releases
• Energy prices used in this modeling are for a Saturday, Sunday, and a weekday for May, June, July, and August 2016. These are the energy prices Argonne used in the LTEMP modeling for 2016.

Hybrid Public Draft 8.23 MAF volumes:

• May = 632
• June = 663
• July = 749
• August = 800

Ramp rates: 4,000 up and 2,500 down

Daily change:

• May = 9
• June = 10
• July = 10
• August = 10

Minimum release: 5,000 cfs
Maximum release: 25,000 cfs