Transcript Slide 1

Adaptive Management
MRG ESA Collaborative Program
“Steps to a New/Amended BA/BO for
the Middle Rio Grande”
Part 1 - presented by:
Valda Terauds, CGWP
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Steps in Adaptive Management
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Problem definition
Determination of ecosystem
management goals and
objectives
Determination of the
ecosystem baseline
Development of conceptual
models
Selecting future restoration or
management actions
Implementing actions
Monitoring and ecosystem
response
Evaluation of actions with
proposals for modification
Identify the needs
Evaluate
results
Monitor the
outcome
Design/adjust
a plan of action
Implement
the plan
Step 1 – Problem Definition

Current BO Not Hydrologically Sustainable
What will native RG flows support?
 How far will 8,000 AFY Supplemental Water go?

Native Flows and BO Targets
Water demands to meet 2003 BO
not sustainable


FIGURE 4
PERCENT OF MONTHS IN WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL MEAN MONTHLY FLOW ARE LESS
THAN THE REQUIRED FLOWS
50%
Historic hydrologic variability
Native Otowi flows alone cannot
reliably meet BO targets
45%
40%
35%
30%
(ISC 2004 evaluation for WAMS Workgroup)



Climate change
Basin overappropriation
Population/demand growth
PERCENT
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
% of Time Flows at Otowi
a) Meet BO Target
b) Do not Meet BO Target
BO Target
Embudo Flows to Meet BO Target (cfs)
March
April
May June 1-15
95
85
87
79
5
15
13
21
Continuous Flow to San Marcial
390
400
410
420
DE
C
V
NO
T
O
C
SE
P
AU
G
(2
nd
JU
L
Ha
lf )
al
f)
JU
N
(1
st
H
AY
M
JU
N
AP
R
AR
M
FE
B
0%
JA
N

MONTH
Month
June 16-30
July
August
September October
92
74
74
71
85
8
26
26
29
15
100 cfs Albuquerque (Central)
260
280
260
260
250
Supplemental Water Sources



Historic sources: SJC project leases & emergency
agreements with New Mexico (relinquish Compact
credits)
Reclamation is limited by legislation to leases from
willing parties
SJC project water contractor usage increasing



Municipal diversion projects coming on line (Albuquerque,
Santa Fe, Espanola)
Future supplemental water leases: 8,000 AFY
Emergency water agreements are not sustainable for
long-term planning
Historic Supplemental Water Usage (1997-2006)
7,780 (2005) – 202,269 (2000) AFY
60,000
50,000
2006
2005
40,000
2004
30,000
2003
20,000
2002
2001
10,000
2000
0
ar
br y
ua
r
M y
ar
ch
Ap
ril
M
ay
Ju
ne
Ju
Au ly
Se gu
pt st
em
b
O er
ct
N obe
ov
em r
D
ec be
em r
be
r
1999
Fe
nu
Ja
Supplemental Water (AF)
Actual Supplemental Water Use
Month
1998
1997
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
1970
1968
1966
1964
1962
1960
1958
1956
1954
1952
1950
1948
1946
1944
1942
1940
Demand (1,000 af)
Estimated Historical Year Minnow BO Demand
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Estimated Supplemental Water Demands
(MRGESA Collaborative Program-former WAMS Estimates)
2003 BO Condition
Estimated Demand
Article VII Year
DRY (non Article VII)
27,000 to 97,000 ac-ft
AVERAGE
32,000 to 42,000 ac-ft
WET
21,000 to 30,000 ac-ft
53,000 to 66,000 ac-ft
Actual 2003 BO Usage (Article VII): 7,780 to 46,781 AFY
Future Supplemental Water available: 8,000 AFY
Supplemental Water & 2003 BO
Supplemental water use for 2003 BO (2003-2006): 7,780 to 46,781 AFY
all under Dry Year designations due to Article VII restrictions
2006
2005
2004
l
Au y
Se gu
pt st
em
b
O er
ct
ob
N
ov er
em
b
D
ec er
em
be
r
Ju
ne
Ju
ay
M
il
2003
Ap
r
nu
F e ar y
br
ua
ry
M
ar
ch
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Ja
Suppelemental Water (acre-feet)
2003 BiOp Supplemental Water (2003-2006)
Time (month)
How is Supplemental Water Used?




Support minnow spawn
Keep river wet to June 15
Managed recession after June 15 – less than 8
miles/day drying
Meet late season BO flow targets
Average Monthly Supplemental Water Use
2003 BO Average Use (2003-2006) =24,144 AFY
Supplemental Water (acre-feet)
2003 BiOp Average Supplemental Water Use (2003-2006)
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Series1
Jan
Feb
0
0
Mar
April
May June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
745 1,790 3,053 5,790 1,965 3,461 5,906 1,433
month
Nov Dec
0
0
MRGESA Collaborative Program
August 2006 Workshop



Goal: Explore stakeholder ideas & concepts to
develop a long-term sustainable, stable BO
Constraint: 8,000 AFY Supplemental Water
Concepts:
 Add Critically Dry Year to BO (Concept A)
 Maintain Quality Reach below Isleta (Concept B)
 Adaptive Management per Hydrologic & Biologic
Conditions (Concept C)
Concept A & B Modeling Results-Dry Sequence
Question: Assuming 50,000 acre-feet of storage water was available initially and
8,000 acre-feet each year thereafter, when would the storage water be exhausted?
Dry 10-year Hydrologic Sequence
Year
Acre-feet
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
682,500
713,400
449,100
296,500
713,400
713,400
416,900
449,100
449,100
296,500
Minnow
BOY Storage
Minnow
Release
Acre-feet
Acre-feet
Acre-feet
3,300
8,200
38,900
7,900
7,500
7,500
7,900
3,900
6,900
7,900
50,000
22,100
16,200
7,900
7,900
12,100
13,100
4,800
7,300
7,900
32,900
12,500
15,700
7,700
2,900
5,800
12,700
4,700
7,200
7,700
Minnow
BOY Storage
Minnow
Release
Acre-feet
Acre-feet
4,900
23,900
23,100
7,900
7,600
7,500
7,900
5,100
7,300
7,900
50,000
43,100
39,800
7,900
7,900
7,900
8,000
4,000
7,000
7,900
Minnow
BOY Storage
Minnow
Release
Acre-feet
50,000
41,600
23,400
7,900
7,900
7,900
8,000
5,100
7,400
7,900
Concept "B"
Concept A
Base
Native Flow at
Otowi
Runout
Month
Apr
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
Runout
Month
June
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
Runout
Month
June
RO
RO
RO
RO
RO
Concept A & B: Low Flow Analysis Results
Number of Days Flow is Less Than 100 cfs in Ten Years
(average/dry sequence)
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
2003 BO
Central
Concept A
Concept B
49
27
26
15
3
0
54
30
27
15
8
0
18
17
23
16
3
0
2003 BO
Blw Isleta
Concept A
Concept B
170
240
229
207
231
4
180
242
229
207
229
3
181
176
169
177
203
0
Blw San Acacia
2003 BO Concept A Concept B
74
229
146
161
106
0
185
229
146
161
109
0
199
216
141
161
110
0
SWM-URGWOM Unlimited Supply Modeling:
Wet, Dry-Average, Dry Decades
Supplemental Water Release
(AF)
Annual Supplemental Water Use vs. Otowi
Flows
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
500,000 1,000,00 1,500,00 2,000,00 2,500,00
0
0
0
0
Otowi Supply Index Flow (AF)
Reservoir Storage to Meet BO Needs: 90,000 AF
MRGESA Collaborative Program
December 2006 Workshop

Results of Analyses – Concepts A & B
Neither concept provides significant water savings over
current BO
 Both concepts fail BO targets when Otowi flows fall
below 500 KAF
 8,000 AFY supplemental water supplies exhausted after
single 500KAF flow year & most future simulation years
fail BO targets
 Low flow days are almost the same for current BO and
Concepts A & B

MRGESA Collaborative Program
December 2006 Workshop
Concept C – Adaptive Management



Natural flows, MRGCD deliveries, pumping, and
some supplemental water maintain designated
reaches under “normal” conditions.
Some supplemental water is banked for drier
years or to enhance wetter years.
Adaptive management principles are applied to
allocation of supplemental water
Current AOP
Forecast
MRGCD Storage
Required Compact Delivery
Supplemental Water Supplies
Available
Water
Concept “C”
AOP
Species
Status
High
Average
Extreme
Snowpack
Projected Runoff
& Timing
Past
River
Dynamics
Frequency, Timing,
Duration of High Flows,
Geomorphic Changes,
Amount of Drying
RGSM – Population, Recruitment,
Distribution
SWFL – Population, Reproductive
Success, Distribution
Ecosystem
Status
High
Average
Extreme
Channel Conditions,
Restoration Needs,
Groundwater Levels,
Wetlands Health
Improving
Stable
Declining
Improving
Stable
Declining
Improving
Stable
Declining
Path to Amended/New BA/BO






Water managers and stakeholders – varying levels of
urgency to move to a sustainable BO
BA requires new “action” – Define Concept C
New action needs to show demonstrable change in
water use and expected species response
Agency and stakeholder contributions to the action
New action BA and resulting BO need to be legally
defensible
Action & regulatory agencies need more information


Hydrologic & Biologic flexibilities
Implementing Adaptive Management
Working the Adaptive Management Steps
Determination of ecosystem management goals and objectives
2.
•
•
Work within 8,000 AFY Supplemental Water constraint
Provide baseline in critically dry times with enhanced ecosystem support
in wetter conditions
Determination of the ecosystem baseline
3.
•
Identify critical water needs & refugia for ecosystem & species
Development of conceptual models
4.
•
Identify questions/hypotheses to be answered/tested
Selecting future restoration or management actions
5.
•
Identify current year priorities for testing
Implementing actions
6.
•
2007 Experimental Activities Program
Monitoring and ecosystem response
7.
•
In progress – preliminary results
Questions for Concept C
1) What are minimum biological water needs
during critically dry times?
2) What refugial options do the species have when
there is inadequate water supply?
3) What are long-term recurrence intervals for
certain flows that maintain long-term
population and ecosystem viability?
2007 Focus Areas

Minimize the use of existing Supplemental Water supplies




Identify characteristics of in-stream habitats during periods of
drying (focus on Isleta Reach)



Use native Rio Grande flows to support silvery minnow spawn
Closely coordinate recession with rescue activities
Better understand surface water, bank storage, groundwater interaction
Evaluate pools that form during drying and monitor physical, chemical, and
silvery minnow usage/health
Evaluate general water quality characteristics and flows associated with
wasteways and outfalls in the Isleta reach
Population Viability & Habitat Analysis – Silvery Minnow

What are key lifestage and habitat features that are most significant in
contributing to population health and robustness
2007 Experimental Activities









Ways to stretch/manage the spring hydrograph
Evaluate continuous flow targets based on spawn monitoring
Active management of river recession
Monitored in-stream refugia
Wetted reach and river drying monitoring
Diurnal monitoring of the wetted front, water quality and fish
stress
Wasteway/outfall monitoring
Bank storage and groundwater interactions
Population viability and habitat analysis
Historic Frequency:
Spawning & Overbanking Flows
Flows
>3,000 cfs
> 7 days
21/32 yrs
Flows
>5,000 cfs
> 5 days
11/32 yrs
Sample Activity Description
Ways to Stretch/Manage the Spring Hydrograph
Proposed Activity: Ways to Stretch/Manage the Spring Hydrograph (Cochiti, other
Native and Supplemental Water management options)
Objective (Hypothesis to be tested/question(s) to be answered): Test flexibility in
management of native Rio Grande flows to meet flow requirements of 2003 Biological
Opinion and conserve current water supplies acquired by Reclamation (i.e. Supplemental
Water) to meet those needs.
Description: Cochiti Reservoir is a Corps of Engineers facility design and constructed
primarily as a flood control structure for snowmelt runoff control on the mainstream of
the Rio Grande. Cochiti frequently stores significant amounts of spring and early
summer runoff that would cause flooding downstream. The dam is operated to release
stored water as quickly as possible without causing downstream flooding. Reclamation,
the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Engineer Advisers for the Rio Grande Compact
have asked the Corps to consider conducting a short-term re-regulation of native flows at
Cochiti.
The Engineer Advisers requested “the Corps to provide a 7 to 10-day stable flow greeter
than 2,000 cubic feet per second in the middle Rio Grande downstream of Cochiti and
Jemez Canyon reservoirs during snowmelt runoff from the natural flow of the Rio
Grande.” The request was subject to two caveats: “that the re-regulation occur form
direct flow of the Rio Grande only if sufficient direct flow is available in excess of
middle valley diversion demand and that deliveries of water to Elephant Butte Reservoir
not be reduced by the operation.”
Reclamation requests that the Corps consider any re-regulation of native Rio Grande
flows, subject to the same caveats previously described, which could help meet flow
requirements of the 2003 Biological Opinion and conserve Supplemental Water Supplies.
Implementation Period: May 1 – June 15, 2007
Water Operations Element(s): Regular coordination monitoring of flows by water
operations staff at .
Field Monitoring Element (s): N/A
Implementing Agency: Corps of Engineers in coordination with Reclamation and Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Preliminary 2007 Data
Ways to Stretch/Manage Spring Hydrograph
Cochiti Deviations
(Corps & Cochiti Pueblo)

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
20
07
6/
5/
7
5/
29
/2
00
7
5/
22
/2
00
7
/2
00
5/
15
20
07
0
5/
8/

3500
20
07

Use native Rio Grande flows
to meet silvery minnow
spawning & recruitment
needs
Stored 9,674 AF from May 4
to June 9
Spawning release to test
correlation between >3,000
cfs for 7 to 10 days and
RGSM spawn & recruitment
(Dudley, et. al., 2006)
Stored water released by
June 15
4000
5/
1/

Spring 2007 Flows
Discharge (cfs)

Date
RG Below Cochiti
Albuquerque
San Acacia
Otowi
RESULT: Spawning Flow Target Achieved, 0 AF Supplemental Water Used
Cochiti Inflow / Release
Deviation
Storage &
Release Period
Sample Activity Description
Wetted reach and river drying monitoring
Proposed Activity: Wetted and Drying Reach Monitoring below Isleta Dam
Objective (Hypothesis to be tested/question(s) to be answered):
1. What are the physical and chemical characteristics of remaining wetted reaches
and pools created during river recession?
2. What diurnal variations occur in physical and chemical characteristics of these
pools and drying reaches?
3. What sources of water support wet reaches and pools?
4. What potential sources of water (e.g., wasteways, outfalls, other) could be used to
support isolated pools created by drying?
5. Are fish using the perennially wet reaches and/or isolated pools created following
river drying?
6. Is there evidence of negative impacts to fish: health, competition, predation, etc.
Description: Monitor river conditions during and following recession to identify trends
in the development of pools and perennially wet reaches below Isleta Diversion Dam.
Once recession has begin, an initial two-week period of daily monitoring will be
undertaken to document the rate and variations in drying occurring as a result of
recession. Twice daily measurements will include GPS surveys of drying,
photodocumentation of drying, and water quality measurements including pH,
temperature, dissolved oxygen, and ammonia nitrogen. Beginning in July, weekly
discharge data, photodocumentation and GPS surveys will be performed to continue
monitoring the extent of drying. Sources of water supplying wetted reaches and pools
will be documented. If a pool becomes isolated, the nearest potential surface water
source shall be identified and noted. If the source is a named source (e.g., river flow
across dam, wasteway, outfall) the source name shall be noted, together with an estimate
of the discharge at the time of measurement. Weekly water quality measurements
including at a minmum pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen and water quality samples
will be obtained beginning in July and continuing until the end of the irrigation season in
October. Source water identification will continue to be performed, with discharge
measurements obtained on a weekly basis. Notes concerning fish presence and health
will be documented, if observed.
Implementation Period: June 15 through October 31
Water Operations Element(s): Coordination with BOR water operations concerning the
start and rate of recession. Coordination with River Eyes – to see if this activity is more
easily implemented into the monitoring actions already conducted. MRGCD coordination
for access.
Field Monitoring Element (s):
Monitoring will be performed as river conditions develop south of Isleta Diversion Dam.
If resources are limited, the focus area priority will be the reach between Isleta and San
Acacia Diversion Dams, with additional monitoring south of San Acacia Diversion Dam
performed if sufficient resources are available.
Water quality measurements are identified in the table below.
Parameter
Method
Frequency
Location(s)
Discharge/Flowmeter Field Probe monthly
See Map
Temperature
Field Probe monthly
See Map
pH
Field Probe monthly
See Map
Dissolved Oxygen
Field Probe monthly
See Map
Ammonia Nitrogen Field Probe monthly
See Map
Conductivity
Field Probe monthly
See Map
Reporting
Monthly
End of Season
End of Season
End of Season
End of Season
End of Season
Number of Staff, and Estimated LOE by task:
Field Activities-diurnal monitoring (June 15 to June 30): 2 staff, twice daily
discharge and water quality monitoring (1920 hours)
Field Activities – weekly monitoring (July 1 through October 31): 2 staff, weekly
discharge and water quality monitoring (432 hours).
Data Analysis: 1 staff 160 hours
Reporting: 1 staff 80 hours
Equipment (purchase costs - possibly shared with other activities):
Digital Camera - $300
GPS Unit – Trimble GeoXM Handheld w/ software/batteries - $4000
Discharge/Flow Meter: Level Troll 700 (15 psi) - $2000
Multi-Parameter Water Quality Meter: In Situ Troll 9000 - $7000
Note: Equipment could be shared with other activities (e.g., wasteway/outfall
monitoring) and would only require a single expenditure if multiple monitoring activities
are funded and coordinated.
Transportation (gov. vehicle), 100 miles per event – 2800 miles total
Estimated Total Activity Cost: $100,000 (Labor = $80K, Equipment = $20K)
Diurnal monitoring labor = $20,000
Weekly monitoring labor + reporting = $60K
Implementing Agency: BOR for initial two-week diurnal monitoring with River Eyes
assistance for continued weekly monitoring.
Preliminary 2007 Data: In-Stream Refugia
Scientific Name
Species
Healthy
Percent
Com
positi
on
1
Carpiodes carpio
river carpsucker
281
8.5
2
Cyprinella lutrensis
red shiner
527
16.0
3
Cyprinus carpio
common carp
77
2.3
4
Dorosoma cepedianum
gizzard shad
45
1.4
5
Gambusia affinis
western mosquitofish
242
7.4
6
Hybognathus amarus
Rio Grande silvery
minnow
121
3.7
7
Ictalurus furcatus
blue catfish
37
1.1
8
Ictalurus punctatus
channel catfish
275
8.4
9
Larvae sp
Larvae sp
1,377
41.9
1
Micropterus dolomieu
0
smallmouth bass
1
0.0
1
Micropterus salmoides
northern largemouth bass
1
salmoides
Health Symptoms
3
0.1
1
Percina macrolepida
2
Fungus
Lernia
Dead
506
1
3
Pimephales promelas
0
13
3
1
Hybognathus
amarus
81
8
Platygobio gracilis
4
0
Pimephales promelas
(fathead minnow)
41
Platygobio gracilis
(flathead chub)
30
Cyprinella lutrensis
(red shiner)
Common Name
Total
Coll
ecte
d
1
1
1
0
Pylodictis olivaris
5
5
Unknown
6
4
bigscale logperch
Hemorrhagic
Anemia
Lesions
fathead minnow
5
0
4
Signs of
Predation
0.1
Multiple
Symptoms
59
1.8
0
0
flathead chub
1
30
43
0
0
flathead catfish
6
6
0
1
8
0
1
4
0.1
194
5.9
0
Unknown
0
1.3
0
0
Preliminary
2007 Data:
Wasteway &
Outfall
Monitoring
Summary Statistics
Max
Median
Average
Min
RGSM Recovery Plan
Habitat Preferences
Perennial Pools BO
Min
Max
Buhl
Min
Average
Max
Units
Sabinal Drain
Flow Velocity
Depth
Temp
pH
EC
Ammonia
DO
ft/s
ft
oF
units
umhos
ppm
ppm
4.34
4.5
92.5
9.05
818.7
0.4823
18.41
0.33
2.1
76.84
7.82
550.1
0.2056
11.19
0.81
2.01
76.73
7.85
554.38
0.27
11.87
0
0.24
71.49
7.12
395.2
0.1353
4.25
<1 ft/s
<0.75 summer
35
85
>36oC lethal
7.3
8
8.1
386
<0.6 lethal
458
578 >2mg/Las N
RGSM PVA Workshop



Held Sept. 12 & 13, 2007 @ FWS
Develop life history model for RGSM
Preliminary accomplishments





Detailed discussion & consensus for values used for model inputs
Additional discussion needed: metapopulation, carrying capacity, etc.
PVA Session 2 – October 9, 2007 @ FWS
PVHA to be scheduled by end of 2007 – address key habitat
components with broader group of stakeholders
Desired Outcomes:


Guide potential management actions for RGSM by lifestage and critical
habitat component(s)
Predictive model used to evaluate management actions offering sensitivity
analyses & probability assessment of impact to RGSM demographic
trajectory
Next Steps








Evaluate 2007 Experimental Activities Reports (due Dec 31)
What worked, what did not, why?
New/modified questions
Agency & Stakeholder contributions to action defined
Decision: February 2008 – Pursue New or Amended BA/BO
by March 2009 or additional year of activities and BA/BO in
March 2010?
2008 experimental activity design
Procurement (April 2008)
Implementation (May 2008)
Lessons Learned (to Date)


Creating an atmosphere among participants to
design and execute experiments while “making it
safe to fail” is difficult
Stay Tuned - we are a work in progress!
Unanswered, Modified, New Questions





2007 summer river conditions did not create
long-standing isolated pools to answer extended
period water quality, fish usage, fish health
questions
Multi-year habitat usage?
Water wheeling/local recharge opportunities
through MRG project?
SWFL, riparian ecosystem needs?
A multitude of other questions….yours?