Aspects of the Geomorphology and Limnology of some molluscinhabited freshwate...
Gonczar_Argonne_Research_Paper_Final_ (1)
1. 1
Evaluating the effects of Flaming Gorge Dam
operations on downstream fish populations of the
Green River, Utah
MICHAEL GONCZAR
STUDENT RESEARCH PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY
EAST LANSING, MI
08/15/12
Prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Student Research Participation
Program under the direction of Dr. Kirk LaGory in Environmental Science Division
(EVS) at Argonne National Laboratory
Participant:
Signature
Research Advisor:
___________________
Signature
3. 3
EVALUATING THE EFFECTS OF FLAMING GORGE DAM
OPERATIONS ON DOWNSTREAM FISH POPULATIONS OF THE
GREEN RIVER, UTAH
Michael Gonczar (Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824)
Dr. Kirk LaGory (Environmental Science Division, Lemont, IL, 60439).
ABSTRACT
The environmental impacts of Flaming Gorge Dam are dynamic and unique. We
conducted two distinct studies downstream from the dam, located on the Green River in
Utah. The first study assessed the effect of over winter double-peaking dam operations
on rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) behavior. Video
recording provided a reliable way of logging fish movements during a period of
fluctuation. My research included observing and tracking the precise movement and
feeding responses of trout during changing flows. Although the analysis is not complete,
the data suggest an increase in trout activity in response to fluctuation. This is an
ongoing study, and all video recordings must be processed to confirm our hypothesis.
Our second study examined the effects of dam operations on the endangered
Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) nursery habitat. We collected topographic
and bathymetric data of five backwater locations on the Green River. We then quantified
the measurements, which represent an instantaneous relationship to base-flow conditions.
Determining the flow conditions provided a reference stage for modeling the effects of
flow variability on backwater habitat features. We can conclude from our findings that
backwater physical characteristics are affected by flow levels, and that each backwater
characteristic is unique within a given year.
Research Category: Environmental Science Division
School Author Attends: Michigan State University
DOE National Laboratory Attended: Argonne
Mentor’s Name: Dr. Kirk LaGory
Phone: (630) 252-5510
E-mail: lagory@anl.gov
Author’s Name: Michael Gonczar
Mailing Address: 12175 East Ridge Drive
City/State/ZIP: Romeo, MI, 48065
Phone: (586) 350-9873
E-mail Address: gonczarm@msu.edu
Is this being submitted for publication? No
DOE Program: Student Research Program
4. 4
INTRODUCTION
Environmental impacts of dams on ecosystems can be “profound, complex,
varied, multiple and mostly negative” (Berkamp et al. 2000). Dams store and divert
water, thus altering the natural pattern of stream flows. The presence and operations of
dams also change downstream sediment and nutrient regimes, and alter water temperature
and chemistry, causing subsequent ecological and economic impacts. Reduction in the
magnitude, duration, and timing of downstream peak flow, in particular, affects the
biological productivity of floodplains, backwaters, and tailwaters. These ecosystem
impacts can result in significant stress on riverine aquatic biodiversity. The dynamic
impact of any single dam to an aquatic ecosystem is influenced not only by the dam
structure and its operation, but also upon local hydrology, sediment supplies, geomorphic
constraints, and the native biome.
Flaming Gorge Dam is a hydroelectric dam located on the Green River
approximately 32 miles (51.5 km) downstream from the Utah-Wyoming border.
Construction of Flaming Gorge Dam began in 1956 and was completed in 1962 to
provide water storage and satisfy peak energy demands as an initial section in the
Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), a
series of dams and reservoirs in the Colorado River Basin. During the first two decades
after construction, Flaming Gorge Dam operations were relatively unconstrained and
releases were patterned to meet electricity demand. These operations resulted in daily
fluctuations from minimum flow (about 800 cfs) to the maximum power plant capacity
release of approximately (4,200 cfs) through much of the year. From 1985 to 1992,
5. 5
Reclamation, the operator of Flaming Gorge Dam began to constrain the operation of
Flaming Gorge Dam. This refinement of dam operations was made to meet a variety of
flow requirements, which mitigated the negative impacts affecting fishes downstream.
Effects of Double-Peaking Operations on Trout
After completion of the dam, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown
trout (Salmo trutta) were stocked in the Green River to support a recreational tailwater
trout fishery. In November 1978, Flaming Gorge Dam was retrofitted with a selective
withdrawal structure to improve water temperatures for the trout, which had been colder
than optimal. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Staley et al.
2000) prime trout waters are clear, clean, and cold. These improvements in temperature
provided ideal habitat conditions that ordinarily might not support such a robust trout
population.
Load following is the practice of generating power in a pattern that closely
follows the pattern of electrical demand. This practice can greatly increase the market
value of the power produced (Hayse et al. 2009). From first operation of the dam to the
early 1990s, Flaming Gorge Dam regularly operated on a “double-peak1
” flow schedule
during the winter (December through February), and since then, single daily peak
releases or steady flows have been the operation pattern of the dam during the winter
period. However, in late 2005, Western Area Power Administration (Western) requested
that Reclamation, re-initiate a double-peak regime to better match the load pattern of
federal power customers, subsequently maximizing energy value. In response to
1
Hydroelectric power generation capacity pattern, which utilizes two generation peaks per day to produce
electricity.
6. 6
resuming double-peaking operations, stakeholders voiced apprehension regarding
potential impacts to the physical condition2
of trout in the Green River system, compared
to the effects of single-peaking or steady flows. Limited empirical research had been
conducted regarding the effects of double-peaking operations at Flaming Gorge Dam,
and, as a result, the potential effects of double-peaking operations on trout condition in
the dam’s tailwaters were poorly understood. As a result, a comprehensive study plan
was developed by Argonne and Western, in cooperation with Reclamation and the Utah
Division of Wildlife Resources, that identified research priorities to evaluate potential
effects from winter double-peaking operations (Hayse et al. 2009).
The study plan identified seven primary research components to be studied in
order to better evaluate the dam’s effects: (1) trout population and condition; (2) benthic
macroinvertebrate food base standing crop; (3) composition and density of the
invertebrate drift; (4) trout diet; (5) growth and survival of young-of-the-year brown
trout; (6) fish behavior; and (7) habitat availability. My research this summer focused on
investigating number 6, fish behavior. Argonne collected video recordings of trout
during the overwinter double-peaking operational regimes of the winters of 2009 and
2010.
Effects of Dam Operations on Colorado pikeminnow
The Green River system supports four endangered species of fish: Colorado
pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), bonytail (Gila
elegans), and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). The second part of my study
2
Growth, reproduction, length, weight and/or relative weight of trout species.
7. 7
focused exclusively on habitat of the endangered pikeminnow, a species endemic to the
Colorado River Basin.
Backwaters (Fig. 1.) provide important nursery habitat for young-of-the-year
Colorado pikeminnow. Annual peak flows transport sediment and reshape backwater
nursery habitats. As flows decrease after the peak, sandbars are eroded and the complex
backwater habitats critical for early life stages of Colorado pikeminnow are formed
(LaGory et al. 2003). Pikeminnow larvae drift from spawning bars in the tributary
Yampa River to relatively low-gradient river reaches in the middle Green River where
low-velocity, shallow, channel-margin habitats (e.g., backwaters) are common, and they
use these habitats throughout their first year (Vanicek and Kramer 1969; Tyus and Haines
1991; Muth and Snyder 1995). Backwaters are vulnerable to changes in dam operations
due to varying temperatures and base flows. (Muth et al. 2000) recommended specific
mean daily flows, within-season variability, between-season variability, and within-day
variability to provide greater stability in the in-channel backwaters pikeminnow use as
nursery habitats. Additionally, Muth et al. (2000) recommended that the mean daily flows
should not exceed 3 percent variation between consecutive days and daily fluctuations at
Flaming Gorge Dam should produce no more than a 0.1-meter daily stage change at
Jensen, Utah. The flow recommendations are intended to more closely resemble pre-dam
condition of the Green River and would benefit the endangered fish species downstream
of the dam.
Since 2003, Argonne scientists have worked with Western and the USFWS, (Fig.
2) to collect backwater habitat data annually.
8. 8
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Effects of Double-Peaking Operations on Trout
In order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the potential
consequences on trout condition during double-peaking regimes, it is important to
understand the movement and feeding responses of trout to shifting flows. After a
successful pilot study was conducted by Argonne during February 2009, it was
determined that video recording provided a reliable way of recording fish movements
during a period of fluctuation. Measurements of movement rates and distance
(presumably proportional to feeding rates) were used to determine if fish responded
behaviorally to flow fluctuations, and to determine the length of time any such effect
persists (Hayse et al. 2009). To examine these stated potential effects, a study was
conducted during February and March of 2010, approximately 1 to 1.5 miles
downstream, from Flaming Gorge Dam. High-definition video cameras (Canon Models
HF10, HF11, and HF20) were used to record and monitor trout behavior during steady
flow and fluctuating flow conditions. Simultaneously, two or three video cameras were
positioned adjacent to the river, directly facing the water, illustrated in (Fig. 3). Filming
duration occurred for 6-8 hours, depending on video camera battery life and memory
availability. Adobe After Effects CS5.5 program assisted in tracking and quantifying the
general movement of individual trout. Each video analyzed was a 20-minute segment,
extracted from original recordings. On the video, individual fish were tracked until it was
no longer visible. In order to calculate approximate speed (m/h), the position of each trout
(X-Y coordinates for the tip of the snout) at time increments was determined. These
coordinates were used to calculate the approximate speed of each trout.
9. 9
Effects of Dam Operations on Colorado Pikeminnow
In order to calculate the relationships between base flows and habitat availability,
the topographic features of backwater habitats were measured annually from 2003
through 2012 (although no data were collected in 2007) in an approximately 14 km
portion of the Green River through the Ouray National Wildlife Refuge located about 217
miles (350 km) downstream from Flaming Gorge Dam. Between August and October of
each year, the site was visited and surveyed for existing backwaters. Backwaters were
selected for surveying on the basis of their size, depth, and connection to the river.
Previous research had demonstrated that backwaters ≥ 0.3m deep were preferentially
used by young-of-the-year Colorado pikeminnow (Day et al. 1999). The locations of
backwaters in the study reach were not consistent from year to year, and, only one
backwater (BW02) was surveyed in all 9 of the study years. Graphics of the five
backwaters surveyed in 2012 can be viewed in (Fig. 4). This is an expected result of in-
channel sediment transport that occurs during the annual spring peak flow. In total, 12
backwater locations were surveyed from 2003 through 2012 (4 to 6 each year). The
spatial distribution of backwater areas examined in this project is illustrated in (Fig. 5).
The locations surveyed, with the dates and times of each survey, are listed in Table 1.
Topographic (including bathymetric) surveys used standard techniques and were
systematically conducted on the backwater, neighboring sandbar, and adjacent upland,
focusing on areas of noticeable elevation change such as shorelines, deep holes, ridges,
and marked elevation changes. Horizontal and vertical accuracies of the survey-grade
10. 10
equipment (e.g., Leica TC805 Ultra total station, Rover Leica 1200, and Rover Leica
Viva) were +/- 1 cm.
The survey was conducted using the total station and rovers to collect ground
elevation, streambed elevation, and water surface elevation data (Fig.6). A GPS base
station set on a USGS survey benchmark with known latitude, longitude, and elevation
coordinates was used to broadcast Real Time Kinematic (RTK) corrections to the total
station and the rovers via a radio link.
The topographic and bathymetric measurements obtained for each backwater
location represent an instantaneous relationship to base-flow conditions. Determining the
flow conditions for the backwater location on the date and time the survey was
conducted, therefore, provides a reference stage3
for modeling the effects of flow
variability on backwater habitat features.
Flow was estimated using the nearest U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gage,
located at Jensen, UT (No. 09261000). Water elevation at the reference stage was
calculated by averaging all of the shoreline topographic measurements.
RESULTS
Effects of Double-Peaking Operations on Trout
Our results indicate an initial increase in fish activity when fluctuation occurs, and
even in one case, when no fluctuation was observed. In (Fig. 7) for example, all sites,
including H 3-24, G 3-24, G 3-23, and E 2-18 displayed an initial increase in fish activity.
Site E 2-18, initially increased activity from 7:30 am to 9:20 am, reaching a maximum of
3
The topographical and bathymetrical features of the backwater habitat and surrounding areas, as well as
local flow conditions, on the date the survey was conducted.
11. 11
4 m/h, then reduced activity and oscillated at a mean speed of 3 m/h for the remainder of
the peaking cycle. Similarly, fish recorded at site G 3-24 initially exhibited a spike in
activity, at the start of the fluctuation. From 9:00 am to 10:15 am there is a mean
activity increase of 2 m/h to 6 m/h. After 10:15 am, there was a reduction in activity, as
high flows persisted. All sites demonstrated this trend, with an increase in activity, till
about 10:15 am, followed by a shift towards a decrease in activity as fluctuation
persisted. We observed that as flow initially increased, there was a surge in drift
consisting of algae, coarse organic matter, and presumably benthic macroinvertebrates, a
primary food source for trout. An increase, and then a period of decrease in activity may
occur because the fish initially react to the increasing food availability, by consuming all
available food, or the abundance of macroinvertebrates in the drift decrease as high flows
persist.
It is important to note that trout activity showed a similar pattern of increase
during a steady flow day as well. As shown in (Fig.7), fish movement rates in site G 3-23
depicts variability from 9:15 am to 14:30 pm. Therefore, trout feeding patterns may be
independent of flow fluctuations all together. Alternatively, fish may be responding to an
increase in macroinvertebrate drift that is dependent on time of day or photoperiod rather
than flow changes. Benthic macroinvertebrates can drift voluntarily (they let go of
substrate on their own) or involuntary (they are swept off the substrate). All videos
processed so far displayed no negative correlation between trout activity and an alteration
in flow variability. The effects of double-peaking operations from Flaming Gorge Dam
on rainbow trout and brown trout are currently inconclusive due to insufficient data
12. 12
processed. Though, as stated above, limited data analyzed from tracked trout videos is
trending towards fish activity initially increasing during a peaking event.
Effects of Dam Operations on Colorado Pikeminnow
The backwater physical habitat data results, which are exhibited in (Fig. 8) show
little or no change in characteristics over the range of dam releases that occurred during
the period we modeled them. During this time frame, none of the five locations would
have been disconnected from the river, if the depth dropped below the Muth et al. (2000)
recommendation of 0.1 m. However, it is important to note that backwater number 10
dropped 0.6 m over a ten-day period, from a maximum of 2.1 m to a minimum of 1.5 m
from June 15 through June 25, but the backwater’s depth still exceeded the range of
fluctuations (0.1m) recommended by Muth et al. (2000). This indicates that the
recommendations, in this year, would ensure that the backwater habitats are stable and
protected under the current release pattern. The 2012 backwater survey results,
demonstrate that backwater physical characteristics are affected by river flow. The
surveys also confirm that individual backwaters characteristics are unique within a given
year.
DISCUSSION
Effects of Double-Peaking Operations on Trout
These findings are contrary to assumptions used in a model by Railsback et al.
(2006), which assumed that a flow change of 10% or more would result in a cessation of
feeding for 15-minutes. Our study was the first to actually see if there was any effect on
13. 13
trout behavior. The data suggest that increased trout activity may occur in response to a
peaking regime. It is believed that the trout actually intensify feeding consumption
during this time, and therefore double peaking, could improve trout condition by making
more food available to fish. After observing underwater video footage during a peaking
operation, there was a distinct increase in suspended particular matter, which was largely
comprised of benthic macroinvertebrates (a common food source for trout), chunks of
algae, and coarse organic matter. This increase in food availability, during double-
peaking may reduce a trout’s desire to bite a fisherman’s lure, and thus anecdotal
observations of fishermen that trout do not feed when flows fluctuate may actually reflect
a reduction in fishability rather than a cessation of feeding. Completion of the analysis of
the fish videos is critical to fully test this hypothesis.
Effects of Dam Operations on Colorado Pikeminnow
Our survey in 2012 provided additional information on the relationship between flow and
backwater characteristics, and demonstrated how variable these habitats are from year to
year. This annual variation makes it imperative that conditions be monitored annually and
that these annual relationships be factored into decisions on base flows needed to provide
suitable conditions for Colorado pikeminnow young-of-the-year. Continued research
should focus on effects of peak flow (magnitude, duration, and frequency) and sediment
formation and maintenance of habitats to better understand habitat requirements and
geomorphic process that will better benefit the Colorado pikeminnow. Flow
recommendations will mitigate the effects of dam operations and thus protect precious
backwater habitats that are crucial to enhancing the future success of the pikeminnow.
14. 14
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my mentor Dr. Kirk LaGory for his support and interest in
cultivating me as a future environmental scientist. I would also like to thank the
backwater research team I had the privilege of working with this summer, collecting field
data in Utah. Cory Weber, John Hayse, Ph.D., Ben O’Connor, Ph.D., Western Power
Surveyor Judd Hopkins, and the U.S. Fish. and Wildlife Service.
I would like to thank the entire Argonne staff for making this summer an amazing
experience; specifically, the staff of the Environmental Sciences Division and the staff of
Educational Programs.
Lastly, I would like to thank the peer colleagues I met while here at Argonne.
The experience of growing together as young professionals this summer was
immeasurable. My new friends challenged me to become a more open-minded,
respectful, and culturally aware individual.
REFERENCES
Berkamp, G., McCartney, M., Dugan, P., McNeely, J., Acreman, M. 2000.
Dams, Ecosystem Functions and Environmental Restoration Thematic Review II.1
prepared as an input to the World Commission on Dams, Cape Town, www.dams.org
Hayse, J.W., K.E. LaGory, and W.S. Vinikour, 2009, Research to Evaluate the
Effects on Trout of Overwinter Double-Peaking Operations at Flaming Gorge Dam,
Environmental Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill. October.
LaGory, K.E., J.W. Hayse, and D. Tomasko. 2003. Recommended Priorities for
Geomorphology Research in Endangered Fish Habitats of the Upper Colorado River
15. 15
Basin, Final Report, Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Project
134, Environmental Assessment Division, Argonne National Laboratory.
Muth R.T. and D.E. Snyder. 1995. Diets of young Colorado squawfish and other
small fish in backwaters of the Green River, Colorado and Utah. Great Basin Naturalist
55:95-104.
Muth, R.T., L.W. Crist, K.E. LaGory, J.W. Hayse, K.R. Bestgen, J.K. Lyons, T.P.
Ryan, and R.A. Valdez. 2000. Flow recommendations for endangered fishes in the Green
River downstream of Flaming Gorge Dam. Final Report to Upper Colorado River
Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Denver, Colorado. USFWS, Denver, Colorado.
Staley, K., & Mueller, J. United States Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Services, (2000). Rainbow trout (oncorhynchus mykiss). Retrieved from website:
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/wssnfh/pdfs/RAINBOW1.pdf
Tyus, H.M. and G.B. Haines. 1991. Distribution, habitat use, and growth of age-
0 Colorado squawfish in the Green River basin, Colorado and Utah. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 120: 79-89.
Vanicek, C.D. and R.H. Kramer. 1969. Life history of the Colorado squawfish,
Ptychocheilus lucius, and the Colorado chub, Gila robusta, in the Green River in
Dinosaur National Monument 1964-1966. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 98:193-208.
16. 16
TABLES
Table 1: Backwater locations surveyed with dates, times, and locational coordinates
in 2012.
17. 17
FIGURES
Figure 1: 2012 Photo of Backwater Number 5.
Figure 2: Photo of the 2012 Backwater Research Team.
Figure 3: Illustration of Canon Video Camera Positioned Adjacent to the Green
River, to Capture and Record Fish Movement and Behavior.
18. 18
Figure 4: Illustrations of the Five Backwater Locations Surveyed in 2012
at 1400 cfs.
19. 19
Figure 5: Green River Backwater Areas Surveyed and Modeled in 2012.
20. 20
Figure 6: Michael Gonczar surveying, using a Rover Leica 1200 to collect sandbar
latitude and longitude coordinates.
21. 21
Figure 7: Mean Recorded Fish Speed (m/h), During a Peaking Event (cfs) at Four
Sites Over a Seven Hour Period.
22. 22
Figure 8: Maximum Depth (m) of Each of the Five Backwater Areas Modeled
during the 2012 Base Flow Period (15 June-15 July).
