Difference between revisions of "GCDAMP- Questions and Answers Page"

From Glen Canyon Dam AMP
Jump to: navigation, search
(reword)
(fix)
Line 133: Line 133:
 
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
 
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
 
|000
 
|000
−
|Project Element A.1.2. Monitoring sandbars by remote sensing
+
|TBD
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
 +
|000
 +
|TBD
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
 +
|000
 +
|TBD
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
 +
|000
 +
|TBD
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
 +
|000
 +
|TBD
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
 +
|000
 +
|TBD
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
 +
|000
 +
|TBD
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
 +
|000
 +
|TBD
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
 +
|000
 +
|TBD
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
 +
|000
 +
|TBD
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
 +
|000
 +
|TBD
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
 +
|000
 +
|TBD
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|- style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"
 +
|000
 +
|TBD
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|

Revision as of 10:20, 13 February 2014

THIS PAGE IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Library Book- Pic.jpg Research Questions and Information Needs Identified in the 2013-14 Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Biennial Budget and Work Plan

  • Revision Date_140212


Num Project, Elements, and Sub-elements Project/Element summary (2012-13 BWP) Research Questions, Uncertainties, & Information Needs identified in the 2012-13 BWP Relevant Research Questions & Information Needs identified from: Project timeline: When will data obtained through this project be able to answer the relevent science questions? Project funding (FY) Reporting links NOTES
000 Project A. Sandbars and Sediment Storage Dynamics: Long-term Monitoring and Research at the Site, Reach, and Ecosystem Scales Project will evaluate the geomorphology of fine sediment deposits in and near the Colorado River. Supports the direct measurements of the volume of fine sediment, especially sand, that is stored on the bed of the Colorado River, in its eddies, or at higher elevation along the river's banks. Supports the direct measurement of the volume of fine sediment, especially sand, that is stored on the bed of the Colorado River, in its eddies, or at higher elevation along the river’s banks for the HFE protocol. Monitoring will include daily and annual observations of long-term sandbar monitoring sites by remote camera and conventional topographic survey, respectively. Also includes the analysis of system-wide airborne remote-sensing data to monitor a much larger set of sandbars every four years to assess sandbar size and abundance "Project will address the broad questions of:

(1) Will multiple high flows conducted over a period of years result in net increases in sandbar area and volume?; (2) With the available sand supply (i.e. tributary inputs), is the approach of using repeated floods to build sandbars sustainable?;and, (3) Will multiple high flows conducted over a period of 10 years result in net increases in campable area along the Colorado River?"

"How can erosion of sandbars after an HFE be minimized or offset? (IV: Dept. of Interior 2011a)

Do sandbars deposited by HFEs contribute to preservation of archaeological sites in the river corridor? (II: Mellis et al. 2007) Is sediment conservation more effective when an HFE is held in rapid response to sediment input from the Paria River? (IV: Dept. of Interior 2011a) What are the effects of ramping rates on sediment transport and sandbar stability? (USGS 2007b; SSQ RIN 4) What is the desired range of seasonal and annual flow dynamics associated with powerplant operations, BHBFs, and habitat maintenance flows, or other flows that meet GCDAMP goals and objectives? (USGS 2007b; RIN 7.4.1) What is the desired pattern of seasonal and annual flow dynamics associated with powerplant operations, BHBFs, HMFs, or other flows to meet GCDAMP Goals and Objectives? (USGS 2007b; RIN 7.4.2) What elements of ROD operations (upramp, downramp, maximum and minimum flow, modified low fluctuating flow (MLFF), habitat maintenance flow (HMF), and BHBF) are most/least critical to conserving new fine-sediment inputs, and stabilizing sediment deposits above the 25,000 cfs stage? (USGS 2007b; RIN 8.5.1) How do sandbar textures influence biological processes? (USGS 2007b; SIN 8.5.) What is the relationship between the fine-sediment budget and turbidity? (USGS 2007b; SIN 8.5.2) How can the ongoing fine sediment supply be managed to achieve sustainable habitats? (USGS 2007b; SIN 8.5.5)"

AMWG
000 Project Element A.1. Sandbar and Camping Beach Monitoring ($269,000) Track trends in the status of sandbars throughout Marble and Grand Canyons that are emergent above the water surface at 8,000 ft3/s.
000 Project Element A.1.1. Monitoring sandbars using topographic surveys and remote cameras Sandbar monitoring is conducted at a daily (using remote cameras) and annual (by conventional survey) interval in order to track local response to individual events in the context of a long-term record. Monitor selected high-elevation sandbars (~50) with conventional topographic surveys (volume and area; “long term sandbar time series”) yearly for annual status check on sandbar and camping beach condition. In addition, campable area is measured at a subset of 37 of these sites. Monitor selected high-elevation sandbars (~30) with remotely deployed digital camera (approximate size) for daily status check on sandbar condition at ~6-month intervals. "(1) What is the long-term net effect of dam operations, including high flows, on changes in high-elevation sandbar area and sand storage (i.e. the sand above the 8,000 ft3/s stage)? These changes are relevant to camping beaches, riparian vegetation, backwater habitat, and control the supply of bare sand that is redistributed by wind." "Given that sandbars are naturally dynamic and go through cycles of building and eroding, can a protocol of frequent high flows under sediment-enriched conditions be effective in sustaining these dynamic habitat features? (IV: Dept. of Interior 2011a)

Will multiple high flows conducted over a period of 10 years result in net increases in sandbar area and volume? (V: Dept. of Interior 2011b) What is the minimum duration for HFEs needed to build and maintain sandbars under sand enrichment? (II: Mellis et al. 2007) How do post HFE flows affect the persistence of sandbars and related backwater habitats? (II: Mellis et al. 2007) Is there a “flow-only” operation (i.e., a strategy for dam releases, including managing tributary inputs with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will restore and maintain sandbar habitats over decadal time scales? (USGS 2007b; SSQ 3.1 / 4.1)"

000 Project Element A.1.2. Monitoring sandbars by remote sensing A larger collection of high-elevation sandbars (>1000 sites) are also monitored every four years using remote sensing (2002, 2005, 2009, and 2012 over-flights), in order to provide a synoptic view of the entire Colorado River for long-term trend of sandbar condition. Since 2002, how has the area of vegetation and sand coverage changed at the 1000+ eddy sandbars larger than about 250 m2 (inclusive of nearly every location that has had a camping beach in any campsite inventory since 1975).
000 Project Element A.1.3. Geomorphic attributes of camping beaches Track trends in specific camping beach attributes (i.e. spatial distribution of sand and other geomorphic units, the slope of the sandbar, and the distribution and density of vegetation) over time and in response to changes in flow regime. (7) How have changes in sandbar size, sandbar characteristics (e.g., slope, roughness), and vegetation cover affected the Marble and Grand Canyon camping beach resource? This builds on sandbar monitoring (Question 1) to address the recreation resource. "Will multiple high flows conducted over a period of 10 years result in net increases in campable area along the Colorado River? (V: Dept. of Interior 2011b)

How do varying flows positively or negatively affect campsite attributes that are important to visitor experience? (USGS 2007b; SSQ 3.9) How are sandbar textures related to recreational site stability? (USGS 2007b; SIN 8.5.10)"

000 Project Element A.1.4. Analysis of historical images at selected monitoring sites Extend the length of the monitoring record back in time for the long-term sandbar monitoring sites (Project A.1.1.) by incorporating data from air photos taken before 1990. Produce digital elevation models using digitally scanned 1984 stereo photographs. Many perceptions regarding the current condition of sandbars is based on limited observations of sandbars following the floods of 1983-86 (Schmidt and Grams, 2011). However, those observations are based largely on imprecise photo comparisons and are not quantitatively tied to the current sandbar monitoring program.
000 Project Element A.2. Sediment Storage Monitoring ($609,000)
000 Project Element A.2.1. Bathymetric and topographic mapping Track longterm trends in sand storage to provide a robust measure of whether or not management objectives for fine sediment conservation (HFEs) are being met. Track the location of changes in sand storage between the channel and eddies and between high- and low-elevation deposits. Monitor low-elevation fine sediment storage in 30 to 80-mile segments with combined bathymetric and topographic surveys (area and volume) every 3 to 10 years, depending on reach for long-term trend in fine sediment storage. "(2) What is the long-term net effect of dam operations, including high flows, on changes in low-elevation sand storage and bed sediment texture (the sand below the 8,000 ft3/s stage)? These changes are relevant to backwaters and other aquatic habitat, the foundation of eddy sandbars, and as the source of sediment that fuels transport and determines whether the use of high flows is sustainable." "When are there optimal times to conduct high flows in regard to sediment building, humpback chub survivability, and ecosystem response? (IV: Dept. of Interior 2011a)

Is sediment conservation more effective following a sediment enrichment period in the context of multi-year, multi-event experiments? (IV: Dept. of Interior 2011a) With the available sand supply that comes from tributary inputs, is the approach of using repeated floods to build sandbars sustainable? (V: Dept. of Interior 2011b) Can the decline in sediment resources since 1990 be reversed using “flow” options with remaining downstream sand supplies from tributaries (Paria and Little Colorado Rivers and lesser tributaries)? (III: USGS 2007a) What is the rate of change in eddy storage (erosion) during time intervals between BHBFs? (USGS 2007b; SSQ RIN 5) What is the longitudinal variability of fine-sediment inputs, by reach? (USGS 2007b; RIN 8.1.1) What is the temporal variability of fine-sediment inputs, by reach? (USGS 2007b; RIN 8.1.2) What fine sediment abundance and distribution, by reach, is desirable to support GCDAMP ecosystem goals? (Note: Definition of “desirable” will be derived from targets for other resources and managers goals. (USGS 2007b; RIN 8.1.3, 8.2.1, 8.3.1, 8.4.1, 8.5.6) What is the reach-scale variability of fine-sediment storage throughout the main channel? (USGS 2007b; RIN 8.5.2) What are the historic and ongoing longitudinal trends of fine-sediment storage, above 25,000 cfs? (USGS 2007b; RIN 8.5.5)"

000 Project Element A.1.2. Monitoring sandbars by remote sensing
000 TBD
000 TBD
000 TBD
000 TBD
000 TBD
000 TBD
000 TBD
000 TBD
000 TBD
000 TBD
000 TBD
000 TBD
000 TBD


UNDER CONSTRUCTION:

  • To be added: From Knowledge Assessment_"Assessing what we know and don't know_8-22-2011"- USGS
  1. The food web on which fish depend is very simple
  2. Availablitity of high-quality food resources limits fish populations- Black Flies and midges are the most important parts of the present food web.
  3. The mainstem Colorado River water temperature is typically well velow the termal optimum for native fishes, but recently has been warmer.
  4. Warming increases growth/ production of algae and invertebrates.
  5. Warming increases the growth rate of humpback chub.
  6. We don't understand the decline in RBT between 2001 and 2007.
  7. Rainbow and brown trout disproportionately prey on native fish.

WHAT WE DON'T KNOW--

  1. Will warmer mainstem temperatures alone allow for increased survival of humpback chub?
  2. Do trout have substantial population-level effects on humpback chub?
  3. What ages of HBC are most impacted, and by what mechanisms? Competition, predation...


RAFTING RELATED

  • Do rafting groups get told not to cave-in sandbars?

SEDIMENT RELATED

  • Sediment Retention:
  1. Q: How do intervening flows effect retention of sand bars? A
  2. Q: In order to retain sandbar life following an HFE, has riprap been considered as a possible action against erosion in the Grand Canyon?

A: The park system was created to conserve unimpaired the resources and values that the park was set aside to protect. Natural landscapes disturbed by natural phenomena will be allowed to recover naturally (where possible). Landscape and vegetation conditions altered by human activity may be manipulated where the park management plan provides for restoring the lands to a natural condition. This usually entails removing the man-made objects (like a fence, structure, or even a dam) to bring the area back to a natural state. If the use of man-made objects or non-native species proves worthy in restoring a landscape, it can be used to a limited degree, and as long as it is done on a temporary basis and does not impair the resources.

In addition, one needs to factor in wilderness management (which applies to the lands along the river). Because the beaches are within NPS proposed wilderness recommendation, They are required to manage the area as Wilderness; including the values of naturalness, primitive and unconfined recreation, solitude, and special values. No action can be taken that would diminish the area's wilderness eligibility until after Congress and the President have taken action. This aspect takes us back to the "as natural as possible" discussion and would be a prohibitive factor for such actions as rip-wrapping and other such man-made structures.

>>Also consider-- the cost of doing such work in the Grand Canyon may even exceed that of sediment augmentation. ---Riprap, HFE, Sandbars erosion

FISH RELATED

  • How often do native fish get handled?


DAM- General Overview

  • What resources have been improved because of the dam?
  • Was there more or less vegetation along the river after GC Dam was built?

Monitoring

  • How far back does the readings of the gauges go? Pre-dam?


Flow Regimes

  • Do steady flows produce more trout?
  • Do steady flows lead to increases in vegetation encroachment?
Retrieved from "http://gcdamp.com/index.php?title=GCDAMP-_Questions_and_Answers_Page&oldid=2489"