My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Study Plan - Biological Resource Responses to Fall Steady Experimental Flows Feruary 2010
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Study Plan - Biological Resource Responses to Fall Steady Experimental Flows Feruary 2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2012 4:16:53 PM
Creation date
7/25/2012 2:23:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Study Plan - Biological Resource Responses to Fall Steady Experimental Flows released for Glen Canyon Dam 2009-12
State
CO
Date
2/1/2010
Title
Study Plan - Biological Resource Responses to Fall Steady Experimental Flows
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Stability of Nearshore Habitats <br />Constant and low discharge might benefit fish by stabilizing nearshore habitats, if, for example, daily <br />fluctuations in discharge, stage, and/or velocity makes foraging /feeding less profitable relative to when <br />discharge is stable (for example, more energy is expended foraging during fluctuations). The 2000 low <br />summer steady flow experiment (constant discharge of 8,000 cfs from June through August) warmed <br />and stabilized nearshore environments (B. Ralston, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2009), <br />but there is no evidence that this management action is responsible for the decade -long increasing trend <br />in adult humpback chub (Coggins and Walters 2009). The Grand Canyon humpback chub population <br />began its current uptick as the result of increasing recruitment of the cohorts spawned after about 1998. <br />Inferences with respect to the native fish response to the 2000 experiment are weak because of reduced <br />sampling efforts in the years before 2000 and low numbers of native fish present in the system in 2000, <br />limitations that reduce the statistical power of comparisons that were made (B. Ralston, U.S. Geological <br />Survey, written commun., 2009). Further, no process -level measurements of fish growth, such as otolith <br />daily increments or RNA/DNA ratios, were made during this experiment, so the fish response was only <br />evaluated by comparing catch rate data in 2000 with the years before and after, and by comparing the <br />strength of the 1998 -2000 cohorts after they recruited into the adult population relative to the strength <br />of cohorts from years before or after. <br />There was no clear response of biological parameters to short- duration flow treatments that were <br />implemented in 2005. During September and October 2005 fluctuating (7,000 to 9,000 cfs) and steady <br />releases (8,000 cfs) were alternated on 2 -week intervals. Backwater and mainstem habitats throughout <br />the Colorado River ecosystem were sampled for water - quality parameters, invertebrate biomass, and <br />fish relative abundance in early September (fluctuating) and again in late September (stable). Turbidity, <br />which is negatively related to primary production, was significantly lower during the steady discharge <br />treatment, but this decrease was likely because of tributary spates during the fluctuating treatment rather <br />than the stable discharge treatment itself. Zooplankton concentrations were higher during the fluctuating <br />treatment while relative abundance of bluehead suckers (Catostomus discobolus) was higher during the <br />steady treatment. There were no statistically significant differences across flow treatments for biomass <br />of the 11 benthic macroinvertebrate taxa collected, and there were no treatment effects on the relative <br />abundance of the other 10 fish species collected (Ralston and others, 2007). This sampling effort was <br />not repeated during the second pair of fluctuating - stable discharge treatments that occurred in October <br />2005, so it is tenuous to ascribe the differences that were observed in biological parameters to the flow <br />treatments. Further, no process -level measurements, such as rates of primary production or fish growth, <br />were made during this experiment. <br />Juvenile humpback chub catch rates measured by the nearshore ecology project's pilot study in August <br />2008 during fluctuating flows were higher relative to catch rates from September 2008 during steady <br />flows. However, large numbers of humpback chub, especially 2- and 3- year -old fish, were captured on <br />both trips, likely because of flooding in the Little Colorado River from July to September that moved <br />humpback chub into the mainstem (discharge of the Little Colorado River at Cameron, Arizona, was <br />above 1,000 cfs for a duration of least 2 days on five different occasions from July to September 2008). <br />Little Colorado River spates, which periodically move humpback chub into the mainstem, will likely <br />complicate interpretation of catch rate /abundance data collected by the nearshore ecology project <br />throughout the remainder of the FSEF. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.