The 100-Year Error: How Selective Science Drained the #ColoradoRiver — Bob Hembree (LakePowellChronicle.com) #COriver #aridification

The white bathtub ring clinging to the sandstone walls of Glen Canyon is more than a marker of a receding lake; it is a physical manifestation of a century-old accounting error. PHOTO BY BOB HEMBREE (MARCH 2019)

Click the link to read the article on the Lake Powell Chronicle website (Bob Hembree):

April 1, 2026

The white bathtub ring clinging to the sandstone walls of Glen Canyon is more than a marker of a receding lake; it is a physical manifestation of a century-old accounting error. For decades, the conventional story of the Colorado River’s decline has been framed as a tragic stroke of bad luck. The narrative, popularized in modern classics like Cadillac Desert, suggests that the framers of the 1922 Colorado River Compact simply did their best with a limited record of “eighteen years of streamflow measurement” taken during an unusually wet “binge.”

However, emerging historical research and systems analysis tell a more complicated and troubling story. In their definitive study, Science Be Dammed, authors Eric Kuhn and John Fleck argue that the crisis we face in 2026 was not an accident of nature but a predictable consequence of “selective science.” The decision-makers of 1922 were not victims of ignorance; they were sophisticated professionals who chose to ignore inconvenient data in favor of a political vision that required the river to be larger than it actually was.

Eugene Clyde LaRue measuring the flow in Nankoweap Creek, 1923. Photo credit: USGS

The Inconvenient Hydrologist

As the seven basin states gathered at Bishop’s Lodge in Santa Fe to carve up the river, they were joined by Eugene Clyde (E.C.) LaRue, a hydrologist for the U.S. Geological Survey. [Eric Kuhn responding to my X post, “Actually LaRue was never allowed to attend a Commission meeting. He asked, but Hoover said no.] LaRue presented the commissioners with a conclusion that threatened the very foundation of their negotiations. His data, which included early gauge records and historical flood markers, suggested that the river’s long-term average was approximately 15 million acre-feet (maf)

LaRue explicitly warned the commission that the period between 1905 and 1922 was a hydrological anomaly. Had the negotiators included the drier records from the late 1890s, the estimated annual flow would have dropped significantly. As Kuhn and Fleck note, the decision-makers had at their disposal a relatively thorough, almost modern picture of the river’s hydrology. They chose to ignore it because accepting LaRue’s science might have left them with a flow too low to reach the compromises necessary to develop the West.

Members of the Colorado River Commission, in Santa Fe in 1922, after signing the Colorado River Compact. From left, W. S. Norviel (Arizona), Delph E. Carpenter (Colorado), Herbert Hoover (Secretary of Commerce and Chairman of Commission), R. E. Caldwell (Utah), Clarence C. Stetson (Executive Secretary of Commission), Stephen B. Davis, Jr. (New Mexico), Frank C. Emerson (Wyoming), W. F. McClure (California), and James G. Scrugham (Nevada) CREDIT: COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY WATER RESOURCES ARCHIVE via Aspen Journalism

Paper Water and the System Trap

By sidelining LaRue and enshrining a “paper water” figure of 16.4 million acre-feet into the Law of the River, the commissioners fell into a classic “system trap.” They created a legal stock of water rights that far exceeded the river’s physical flow. This inflated number was essential to the “reinforcing loop” of 20th-century growth. It provided the legal certainty needed to secure federal funding for massive infrastructure projects like the Hoover Dam and the Glen Canyon Dam.

This intentional overestimation created a massive “information delay.” For eighty years, the system appeared stable only because the Upper Basin states were slow to develop their shares, allowing their “unused” water to flow downstream. This masked the fundamental deficit, leading to a state of “overshoot” in which the regional economy came to depend on water that did not exist. Professor Rhett Larson describes the resulting legal framework as a system of “calling shotgun” that was excellent for settling a desert but is catastrophic for managing one in a time of scarcity.

The End of the Delay

Today, the “delay” has finally ended, and the “inconvenient science” of 1922 has become the undeniable reality of 2026. The river’s source is being further depleted by “aridification,” a process climate scientist Brad Udall describes as a “sponge above our head” that evaporates moisture before it can reach the streamflow. We are now witnessing the collision of a 100-year-old legal fiction with a 21st-century climate reality.

The current impasse between the Upper and Lower Basins is a symptom of “policy resistance,” where every actor is incentivized to protect their “paper” share even as the “wet” water disappears. As Professor Andrea Gerlak observes, if a system has 25 years to produce an agreement and fails, there is likely something fundamentally wrong with the system itself. Solving the crisis at Lake Powell will require more than engineering; it will require a paradigm shift that finally aligns our laws with the river’s actual physical limits.

Romancing the River – The Romance of Conquest, Part 1 — George Sibley (SibleysRivers.com) #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

Click the link to read the article on the Sibley’s Rivers website (George Sibley):

February 17, 2026

You’ve seen that quote here before – and you’ll probably see it again; if this were a Wagnerian opera, that line would be a lietmotif, a recurring musical thread associated with a particular character or place or idea in the story being told musically. And who’s to say, ‘The Romance of the Colorado River,’ Frederick Dellenbaugh’s title, might make a grand opera.

But before launching into the next chapter in the ‘Romance of the Colorado River,’ there are some items of news to note. The no-news item of course continues to be the ongoing stalemate in the ongoing negotiations between the Upper and Lower Colorado River Basins. On the eve of their Valentine’s Day deadline, there is talk of new ‘interim interim guidelines,’ two to five years, for at least a nominal state presence as the Bureau of Reclamation tries to keep the lights on and some water flowing.

The bigger news is the extent to which the Colorado River Basin continues this winter to experience the reality we have created: an ongoing anthropogenic ‘heat drought’ (February temperatures in the 50s to 8,000 feet elevation this past week), coupled with a ‘dry drought’ – probably also caused by anthropogenic warming-induced changes over the Pacific Ocean. Snowpacks in the mountains from whence the river’s waters flow range from 35 to 85 percent of normal in mid-February; we may be heading for new records in low runoff.

The biggest news, but probably less noted, is a new take on the larger reality we have created globally. Late in January, the United Nations headquarters came out with a fairly astounding announcement:

“Amid chronic groundwater depletion, water overallocation, land and soil degradation, deforestation, and pollution, all compounded by global heating, a UN report today declared the dawn of an era of global water bankruptcy, inviting world leaders to facilitate honest, science-based adaptation to a new reality.” (Emphasis added)

This announcement was generally ignored, in the world’s morbid fascination over ‘what the Trumpsters are breaking today.’ But the scientists who generated this report claim that phrases like ‘water stress’ and ‘water crisis’ are too hopeful, suggesting deviations from a normalcy that we might somehow be able to get back to. Today, they say, ‘many rivers, lakes, aquifers, wetlands, and glaciers have been pushed beyond tipping points and cannot bounce back to past baselines.’ Bankruptcy.

A short list of global ‘hotspots’ included the American Southwest, where ‘the Colorado River and its reservoirs have become symbols of over-promised water,’ with no reasonable hope of ever fulfilling those promises. Nothing new there – but calling it a state of bankruptcy bumps the desperation level up a little.

I am not going to get deeper into that report today, or the other news, but will hold it for the last chapter (to date) in this unfolding ‘Romance of the Colorado River.’ If the report intrigues your morbid fascination with the apocalypse we seem to be driving toward, as the Trumpsters and financializers part out our civilization for distribution to the morbidly wealthy, you can find the report by clicking here. [ed. also see Global Water Bankruptcy: Living beyond our hydrological means in the post-crisis era — United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health on Coyote Gulch]

Now, back to the ‘Romance of the Colorado River.’ Do remember that when we talk about ‘romancing’ here, we are not talking about a sappy love story; we are talking about people muscling up to take on a challenge that is beyond or below the mundanity of life. In the last post on this site, we looked at ‘the Colorado River and the Romance of Exploration.’ Dellenbaugh’s Romance of the Colorado River was published in 1903, and covered the adventures of everyone from the early Spanish conquistadores trying to sail up the river from its delta, to the trappers strip-mining the beavers from its upper tributaries, with a final focus on the explorations of John Wesley Powell who first sketch-mapped the unknown area between the upper river and the lower.

Dellenbaugh pulled no punches in describing his sense of the river and the challenge it represented. After noting in his introduction that ‘in every country, the great rivers have presented attractive pathways for interior exploration—gateways for settlement,’ serving as ‘friends and allies’ – he launches into his initial impressions of the Colorado River:

“By contrast, it is all the more remarkable to meet with one great river which is none of these helpful things, but which, on the contrary, is a veritable dragon, loud in its dangerous lair, defiant, fierce, opposing utility everywhere, refusing absolutely to be bridled by Commerce, perpetuating a wilderness, prohibiting mankind’s encroachments, and in its immediate tide presenting a formidable host of snarling waters whose angry roar, reverberating wildly league after league between giant rock-walls carved through the bowels of the earth, heralds the impossibility of human conquest and smothers hope.“

Opposing utility everywhere? Refusing absolutely to be bridled by Commerce? Heralding the impossibility of human conquest, smothering hope? Could he have said anything more stirring in throwing down the gauntlet to an adolescent civilization?

Dellenbaugh’s Romance does sort of follow the formula of today’s sappy romance novel, but on the grand scale of the romantic adventure: first you establish the object of the protagonist’s ‘dangerous’ love as arrogant or disturbed or otherwise undesirable or unattainable – but therefore… irresistibly attractive. Why are we drawn to such hard cases? Why wouldn’t we leave such an angry and extreme river alone, like countless generations of First Peoples had done, settling riparian along its tributaries and even the mainstream, but just living with the ‘veritable dragon’ as it was, and doing nothing to confront or challenge it? Or to bend it to their perceived needs? But we Euro-Americans are a civilization in which ‘love conquers all’ – or else. Love or its simulacra – lust for wealth, for power, for knowledge, whatever. Come not between a woman and her lust for impossible men – or a civilization and its lust for everything it doesn’t already control.

So it almost seems more destiny than coincidence that when Dellenbaugh wrapped up the ‘Romance of Exploration’ in 1903, that was also the year the U.S. Reclamation Service went to work, following the Reclamation Act of 1902, to reclaim and conserve the river.

Theodore Roosevelt and John Muir at Glacier Point. By Underwood & Underwood – This image is available from the United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs division under the digital ID cph.3g04698. See Commons:Licensing for more information., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3517191

We call Theodore Roosevelt ‘the father of American conservation,’ but he did not have the commonly accepted sense of conservation that we have today. Conservation to Roosevelt and his sidekick Gifford Pinchot was the full and efficient development of resources otherwise wasted. Freshwater running off to the ocean in an unmanageable spring flood was a prime example of profligate ‘waste’; they took it on through a Reclamation Service charged with working with farm communities, to develop irrigation systems to get water out of the rampant river and on to the dry land, thus conserving for human use both the land and water, each ‘useless’ until combined with the other.

The Reclamation Service was created as a division of the U.S. Geological Survey, which was still a bulwark of John Wesley Powell’s disciplined science in the otherwise freewheeling Interior Department, aka General Land Office, charged primarily with privatizing the public lands through the Homestead Act and other laws. From the start, the Reclamation Service was filled with idealistic young engineers infused with the spirit of Rooseveltian conservation – the kind of idealism that could gradually transmogrify into the unconscious arrogance of those who Know They Are Doing Good and are therefore Always Right.

Their idealism is reflected in an article written in 1918 by C.J. Blanchard of the U.S. Reclamation Service, for The Mentor, an educational publication:

“A vein of romance runs through every form of human endeavor…. In the desert romance finds its chief essentials in adventure, courage, daring and self-sacrifice. For more than half a century man has been writing a romance of compelling interest upon the face of the dusty earth. Irrigation, with Midas’ touch, has changed the desert’s frown to smiling vistas of verdure.“

In a section titled ‘The Romance of Reclamation,’ Blanchard described the reclamation engineers as men not concerned about ‘large emoluments, for government salaries are notoriuously meager’; instead, ‘as they toiled in the fastness of mountains, an abysmal canyons or far out in the voiceless desert, through the blazing heat of the Southwest or the fierce blizzards of the northern plains, this thought was uppermost, “By this work we shall make the desert bloom.”’

But the reclamation engineers quickly found working at the farm end of irrigation systems drawing water from the wildly varying flows of the Colorado River frustrating at best, impossible at worst. And they were engineers, not scientists – engineers with a brave new world of technology unfolding; fellow engineers were building the Panama Canal (1904-1914) using steam trains and steam shovels that could move more dirt in an hour than a hundred farmers with shovels could move in a day. Scientists just figure out how the world works; engineers figure out how to make it work better. (or so they hope).

Roosevelt Dam, Salt River, Arizona. By Nicholas Hartmann – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51639491

So within their first half-decade the Reclamation Service engineers were drawn toward larger projects that, in effect, would ‘correct’ the inefficiency and maddening variability of the river: the Roosevelt Dam up in the Salt River canyons storing the spring flood for release to irrigators throughout the whole growing season; a concrete weir dam all the way across the lower Colorado River to keep the late summer flows up to the headgate of the Laguna Irrigation Project near Yuma; a five-mile tunnel from the Black Canyon of the Gunnison River to the water-short (or over-developed) Uncompahgre Valley – all three projects begun in 1905-6.

Gunnison Tunnel via the National Park Service

Evolving concrete technology, and the evolving internal combustion engine made them dream of even larger projects, addressing all the natural challenges posed by Dellenbaugh’s ‘veritable dragon.’ In 1907 the Reclamation Service separated from the U.S. Geological Survey and became an independent bureau in the Department of Interior. This separation was more than just a name change; they also began to work independently of John Wesley Powell’s scientific rigor practiced in the Geological Survey.

U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist Eugene Clyde La Rue takes notes (top) while in camp on Diamond Creek, a tributary to the Colorado River in Arizona, in 1923. La Rue (bottom; standing in water) measures river discharge along Havasu Creek, another tributary in Arizona, also in 1923. Click image for larger version. Credit: Both: U.S. Geological Survey

This became a background issue when the seven states of the Colorado River Basin gathered in 1922 to try to work out an equitable division of the river among themselves. Knowledge of the actual flow of the river was sketchy. Rough measures of the flow at a Yuma gauge only went back to the mid-1890s, and gave an average in the wild annual fluctuations of just under 18 million acre-feet (maf). But a Geological Survey scientist, E. C. LaRue, had studied tree rings and other evidence, and argued that the river was just in a very wet spell, that the longer-term average flow of the river was probably well under 15 maf, maybe as low as 10-12 maf (what it appears to be today). He also cautioned that extensive storage in desert reservoirs would exact a large toll in reservoir evaporation; there would be more water available for use, but the tradeoff would be less water overall.

LaRue – John Wesley Powell’s kind of scientist – offered to consult with the Compact Commission; but nobody really wanted to hear what he was known for saying, and his offer was ignored by Chairman Herbert Hoover (an engineer). But a constant advisory presence at the compact planning meetings was Reclamation Commissioner Arthur Powell Davis, another engineer and an active participant in discussion leading to the commission accepting the Bureau figures, and deciding that a ‘temporary equitable division’ of 15 maf between an upper and lower basin was a reasonably conservative division, leaving enough uncommitted water for ‘those men who may come after us, possessed of a far greater fund of information, [to] make a further division of the river.’

Current water mavens Eric Kuhn and John Fleck wrote a well-researched book, Science Be Dammed: How Ignoring Inconvenient Science Drained the Colorado River, detailing this decision to ignore solid USGS science in drafting the compact. A more mythic summary of what happened probably lies in desert poet Mary Austin’s recollection of a legend about the Hassayampa River, a Colorado River tributary; if anyone drinks its water, according to the legend, they will ‘no more see fact as naked fact, but all radiant with the color of romance.’ Whatever was in the Hassayampa’s water may have infiltrated the entire Colorado River in the 20^th century.

Basically, the Bureau of Reclamation, with all the emerging technology and its vision of ‘making the desert bloom,’ was itching to take on the ‘veritable dragon.’ The ‘Romance of Exploration’ had uncovered a rampaging river whose waters were needed for American advancement; the ‘Romance of Conquest’ was the obvious next step, and science just based on the ‘naked facts’ no longer seemed to dictate the limits of the possible. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. That may not have been so baldly stated until 2004, but it was the driving theme of the 20^th century – first in America, then globally.

President Franklin Roosevelt at dedication of Boulder (now Hoover) Dam, September 30, 1935

The Romance of Conquest began with the three 1905-6 projects, but shifted into high gear with the Boulder Canyon Project, created by Congress in 1929 following ratification of the Colorado River Compact – almost simultaneously with the onset of the Great Depression. The Project became practically the nation’s only bright light in the early 1930s, and became a template for much of Roosevelt’s ‘New Deal.’

The centerpiece of the Boulder Canyon Project was Hoover Dam, the largest dam project ever undertaken anywhere, capable of storing almost two years of the river’s flow, and as it released water on demand from the ‘desert bloomers’ downstream, it would generate enough electricity to handle most of the Southwest’s power demand at that time. But while the big dam was being built, the Bureau was also building the Imperial Weir Dam 180 miles downstream, to diverting more than three million acre-feet of water into the All-American Canal for an 80-mile trip to the Imperial Valley where crops could be grown year round. And between those two huge works, the Bureau was also overseeing construction of Parker Dam (not officially part of the Boulder Canyon Project) to pool up water for a 250-mile aqueduct a Metropolitan Water District was building to carry domestic water to California’s burgeoning south coast cities.

All of that was completed by 1941 – a massive coordinated regional development: food, water and power for cities that quickly became an industrial force in the winning of World War II. And it was all done on budget, and on time, organized by an agency created only forty years earlier to help small new farming communities build local irrigation systems.

And I’m going to pause there, at the moment of the Bureau’s triumph, and pick up the rest of the story of the Romance of Conquest in the next post here. Stay tuned.

The California Aqueduct, San Joaquin Valley, California. Sources/Usage: Public Domain.

Big Tech invades #Nevada’s power grid (and desert): Data Center Watch; President Trump Ticker; Messing with Maps — Jonathan P. Thompson (LandDesk.org)

Click the link to read the article on The Land Desk website (Jonathan P. Thompson):

September 23, 2025

🤖 Data Center Watch 👾

Last week, Jeff Brigger, an executive with NV Energy, Nevada’s largest utility — and a Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary — told a gathering in Las Vegas that tech firms are asking the utility to supply up to 22,000 megawatts of electricity to support planned data centers.

That is an insanely enormous amount of generation capacity. It’s about two-and-a-half times NV Energy’s current peak demand of 9,000 MW, according to a Las Vegas Review-Journal story. It’s enough to power about 11 million homes. And it’s equivalent to the generating capacity of five Palo Verde generating stations, the nation’s largest nuclear power plant.

Brigger noted, correctly, that these are “unprecedented times” before going on to say that the utility is “excited to serve this load.” I bet they are. Not only does it mean selling a hell of a lot more of their product, but it will also require investing in new infrastructure in a massive way, for which they can then recover the costs, with a profit, from all of their ratepayers. Warren Buffet’s about to get even richer — so long as power line-sparked wildfires don’t drain his utilities of all their cash.

To its credit, NV Energy has largely moved away from coal generation, shutting down its heavily polluting Reid Gardner plant near Moapa and replacing it with battery storage and solar. It is in the process of shutting down its North Valmy coal plant, too, but instead of tearing it down, the utility will convert it to run on natural gas, adding to its already substantial fleet of the fossil fuel-burning facilities. It’s likely that a portion of that requested 22,000 MW will come from new methane-fired plants.

But a great deal of the new capacity will also come from solar power. NV Energy is currently constructing the $4.2-billion Greenlink West transmission line between Las Vegas and Reno. And it is seeking Bureau of Land Management approval for its Greenlink North line that will run along Highway 50, also known as the Loneliest Road in America. These lines will open up hundreds of square miles of public land to utility-scale solar development, with most or all of the power going to data centers in the Reno and Las Vegas areas.

Proposed path of the Greenlink North transmission project. Credit: BLM

Look, I’d much rather see a solar or wind facility than a coal or natural gas plant. No matter how you figure it, the environmental and human health toll from burning fossil fuels is far greater than solar or wind power. A solar plant doesn’t spew sulfur dioxide and mercury and arsenic into the air (and bodies of those nearby); nor will it explode catastrophically, as a natural gas pipeline did this week in southern Wyoming, damaging a freight train and sending up flames visible from Colorado. Coal mining and natural gas extraction often occurs on public lands, damaging the ecosystem, fragmenting wildlife habitat, and polluting the water.

So it’s one thing when a new giant solar installation leads to a fossil fuel generator being retired. Yet the Big Data Center Buildup’s energy needs are so high that utilities end up deferring coal and gas plant retirements, building more gas plants, and carpeting public lands with solar. As the Center for Biological Diversity’s Patrick Donnelly put it in an email: “Turns out the destruction of the desert for renewable energy isn’t about displacing fossil fuels, it’s about feeding the big tech machine.”

Of course, at this point it’s anyone’s guess whether those solar and wind installations are ultimately built. While some are already under development in Nevada along the Greenlink West line, the Greenlink North line has yet to garner BLM approval. And since it is intended to carry primarily solar-generated electrons, it could face added scrutiny from the Trump administration. Meanwhile, Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” wiped out federal tax credits for solar and wind, making new developments less feasible.

It’s somewhat surprising that data centers continue to flock to the Las Vegas area given the water constraints. Nevada has butted up against the limits of its 300,000 acre-feet (down to 279,000 under current restrictions) Colorado River allotment for years. That has forced the Southern Nevada Water Authority to crack down on water consumption by banning new lawns, limiting pool sizes, and putting a moratorium on commercial and industrial evaporative cooling systems like those used by many data centers in arid regions.

As long as the moratorium stays in place — a Nevada lawmaker unsuccessfully tried to ban the ban this year — it will force new data centers in the Vegas-area to use less water-intensive, but more energy-intensive, cooling methods1. Still, the Las Vegas data centers that began operating prior to the 2023 ban use a lot of water: more than 716 million gallons, or about 2,200 acre-feet2, in 2024, according to Las Vegas Valley Water data obtained and reported by the Review-Journal.

It’s a bit overwhelming, especially since it all came on so fast. I looked back through the news and noticed that just five years ago talk about data centers’ energy and water use was confined to a few cryptocurrency miners setting up shop in rural Washington to take advantage of cheap hydropower. While the impact was big locally, it wasn’t yet throwing utilities’ long-term plans into disarray. But here we are.

Stopping the Big Data Center Buildup may not be possible. But there are ways to mitigate the impacts, and the Great Basin Water Network has some good ideas for doing so.

***

In other data center news, the Doña Ana County commissioners voted 4-1 to approve tax incentives for Project Jupiter, a proposed $165 billion data center campus in Santa Teresa in the southeastern corner of New Mexico. Once again it’s a situation in which the community and region need the economic benefits and diversity the campus offered, but which is also short on water. As such, it sparked both opposition and support.

New Mexico journalist Heath Haussamen has the most in-depth rundown in a series of stories at haussamen.com.

🤯 Trump Ticker 😱

You may wonder why a place would try to lure, welcome, or even allow data centers into their communities, given their hefty resource consumption.

Sometimes they don’t: Tucson’s city council recently rejected a proposed data center after local residents raised concerns about water and power use and a lack of transparency. (The developers re-upped their proposal for a site outside the city, but opponents aren’t backing down).

The answer, as is often the case, is for the economic shot in the arm they offer. These sprawling facilities each create hundreds of construction jobs, which offer relatively high wages (even if they are short lived). Then they need employees to operate the centers (although not nearly as many). And they pay property taxes.

Right now, Las Vegas and Nevada as a whole seem to need a little help, given that they are one of the nation’s biggest victims of Trumponomics. Visitor volume to Las Vegas was down 11% in June and 12% in July compared to the same months in 2024, with hotel occupancy rates also taking a big hit. The state has lost 600 federal government jobs since Trump took office. And it has shed a whopping 7,300 construction jobs since January. Ouch.

On a similar note, Wyoming’s mining and logging sector shed about 1,000 jobs since January, a 6% drop. That’s surprising, given that this includes coal and uranium miners and oil and gas workers, who are supposed to be the main beneficiaries of Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda. Go figure.

🗺️ Messing with Maps 🧭

Here’s one more from the USGS’s Guidebook of the western United States: Part E – The Denver & Rio Grande Western route, published in 1922. This map shows a segment of the Wasatch Front in Utah. I’ve also included a Google Earth image of the same area now. It’s remarkable to me because back then Salt Lake City was a small city that stood on its own; now it’s surrounded by a sea of sprawl. Salt Lake was a bit bigger then (or rather, the lake level was higher than it was when the Google Earth image was made; when the map was made in 1909 it was 4,203 feet, now it’s about 13 feet lower). And Bingham Canyon still was a canyon, with little towns in it, rather than the gaping hole known as the Bingham Canyon copper mine.

#Drought puts Blue Mesa in crosshairs again — The Gunnison Country Times

Blue Mesa Reservoir. Photo credit: Curecanti National Recreation Area

Click the link to read the article on the Gunnison Country Times website (Alan Wartes). Here’s an excerpt:

August 13, 2025

After weeks of hot, dry and windy weather across western Colorado, Gunnison County Commissioners received a water-issues update on Tuesday that was filled with “sobering” news. In addition to details about Gunnison County’s worsening drought conditions, commissioners heard from representatives of the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is once again considering emergency releases from Blue Mesa Reservoir to bolster falling water levels in Lake Powell [in 2026, h/t Sue Serling].

West Drought Monitor map August 12, 2025.

According to drought.gov, approximately 50% of Gunnison County is in “extreme” drought, compared to just 5% one month ago. Conditions in most of the remainder of the county are rated as “severe.” Precipitation for most of the county has been between 25% and 50% of normal for the past 30 days, with little immediate relief in sight.

CWCB representative Amy Ostdiek told commissioners she believes emergency releases will come from elsewhere in the Upper Basin this year, but couldn’t rule out the possibility that Blue Mesa would be included…If current conditions persist, Lake Powell is projected to fall below the critical elevation of 3,525 feet above sea level in the spring of 2026. This would be the second time that has occurred since the reservoir filled in 1980. The other time happened in 2021, precipitating emergency releases from Blue Mesa Reservoir and Flaming Gorge and Navajo reservoirs totaling 180,000 acre-feet. An acre-foot is the volume of water that would cover one acre a foot deep.

As of Aug. 10, Blue Mesa was 61% full and is projected to end the year at 51% of its storage capacity — without any additional releases. Taylor Reservoir is forecasted to be at 65% of average capacity at the end of 2025. The threshold of 3,525 feet at Lake Powell was agreed to in the Upper Basin Drought Response Operations Agreement as the trigger point for possible releases. The purpose is to prevent Lake Powell from dropping below 3,490 feet, known as “dead pool” — the point at which the Glen Canyon Dam can no longer generate electricity. Up to 5 million people across six western states depend on hydroelectric power from the dam. Emergency releases in 2021 were controversial. Critics argued that federal authorities did not properly consult with Upper Basin water users prior to the decision and failed to account for impacts to local economies and communities. Further, many objected on the grounds that water managers had no way of measuring whether the extra water in fact reached Lake Powell.

MAGA intensifies its assault on public lands — Jonathan P. Thompson (LandDesk.org)

Public lands in Bears Ears National Monument. The Trump administration has indicated it may attempt to shrink the monument’s boundaries once again, potentially removing this area near White Canyon from heightened protections. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.

Click the link to read the article on The Land Desk website (Jonathan P. Thompson):

June 4, 2025

🌵 Public Lands 🌲

Even before public lands lovers were still celebrating one small victory — i.e. killing a budget bill amendment that would have sold off a half-million acres of federal holdings in Nevada and Utah — the MAGA/Trump/GOP launched a multi-pronged assault on the places Americans hold dear.

The blows come from all three branches of the federal government and seem to be designed to unravel the nation’s framework of environmental protections that have been developed over the last 50 years and more. Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s proposed 2026 budget would gut the agencies that oversee public lands and the programs aimed at stewarding them. Here’s a breakdown of just some of the attacks:

Oak Flat, Arizona features groves of Emory oak trees, canyons, and springs. This is sacred land for the San Carlos Apache tribe. Resolution Copper (Rio Tinto subsidiary) lobbied politicians to deliver this National Forest land to the company with the intent to build a destructive copper mine. By SinaguaWiki – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=98967960

The Supreme Court rejected Apache Stronghold’s bid to block a land swap at Chi’chil Biłdagoteel, aka Oak Flat, in central Arizona, clearing the way for Resolution Copper’s massive mine on sacred ground.

SCOTUS also overturned a lower court’s decision to block federal approval of a proposed Utah railway that would ship Uinta Basin oil alongside the Colorado River and across multiple states to larger markets. More significantly, the ruling also limited the scope of federal environmental reviews to the direct impacts of a proposed project. This means the relevant federal agency need not consider effects of upstream oil and gas drilling facilitated by the railway, or those of processing and burning the oil downstream. The ruling will make it easier for corporations to build pipelines, highways, major oil and gas projects, and so forth.

Excerpt from the Supreme Court’s decision on SEVEN COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE COALITION ET AL. v. EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, ET AL.

The U.S. Interior Department egregiously fast-tracked its approval of the Velvet-Wood Mine in Utah’s Lisbon Valley and promised to do the same for similar projects on federal lands to address a purported “energy emergency.”

Interior also expedited permitting for geothermal energy developments on federal lands, beginning with three projects in Nevada.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum — whose original appointment was endorsed by none other than outdoor retailer REI (remorsefully, it turns out) — moved to roll back protections on 13 million acres of wilderness-quality lands on Alaska’s North Slope, reopening it to oil and gas drilling, mining, and other development.

Sen. Mike Lee, the Utah Republican who apparently still holds Jell-O socials in his office every Wednesday, said he plans to revive the public land sell-off provision in the budget bill. So much for dodging that bullet!

The Trump administration has granted FAST-41 status to Laramide Resources’ proposed La Jara Mesa and Crownpoint-Churchrock uranium mines in New Mexico. The designation is aimed at streamlining permitting for the contested projects in the Grants area. However, the FAST-41 program does not compress the environmental review or licensing process as radically as the BLM did for the Velvet-Wood mine. The Environmental Impact Statement likely won’t be completed until next November.

Public land sell-off amendment is a test — Jonathan P. Thompson

And then there’s the Trump administration’s proposed 2026 budget. A while back I gave a more general overview of the budget and the deep, deep cuts to almost everything except for defense, border security and Trump’s golf trips. Now we have more detail in the form of the Technical Supplement to the 2026 budget.

Just like the overview, it would would tear apart the nation’s social safety net, set back science, destroy America’s global standing, erode education, eviscerate the federal workforce, rob communities and low-income households of vital funding, gut dozens of federal agencies, generally weaken regulatory oversight, and even transfer some national park units to states. You can read my take on that one here.

The Trump Budget Blues — Jonathan P. Thompson

Yet the budget still increases the federal deficit — even Elon Musk calls it an “abomination” (harsh words coming from the guy who brought us the vehicular abomination known as the cybertruck) — because it would hike spending to more than $1 trillion for the military industrial complex and the Department of Homeland Security. It would slash funding for nuclear energy research, but spend an additional $11 billion annually to build more nuclear weapons.

This time, I’ll focus on public lands (and related bureaus under the Interior Department and the USFS) because we only have so much space in these emails, and I only have enough self-medication to handle so much outrage and anxiety. Comparisons are between the 2024 actual expenditures and proposed spending for 2026. This is merely a sampling of some items that really stood out.

Cuts for the Bureau of Land Management:

1,157 full-time-equivalent staff positions (or about 20% of the entire full-time workforce)

– $216 million for personnel compensation

– $45 million for recreation management

– $17 million for energy and minerals

– $65 million for workforce and organizational support

– $30 million for aquatic resources management

– $114 million for wildlife habitat management

– $45 million for national monuments and national conservation areas

National Park Service

-$980 million (yes, you read that right: The agency that oversees America’s “Best Idea” is having its budget slashed by nearly a billion buckaroos …).

– 5,518 full-time-equivalent employees (… and the agency is losing over 40% of its full-time workforce).

U.S. Geological Survey

$563 million budget cut for the agency

– $281 million from ecosystems programs

– $46 million from natural hazards programs

– $74 million from water resources programs

– 2,067 full-time-equivalent employees (44% of the permanent workforce)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

$149 million from the National Wildlife Refuge System

– $50 million from conservation and enforcement programs

– $16 million from habitat conservation

– $9 million from science support

– $33 million from state and tribal wildlife grants

– 1,785 full-time-equivalent employees (27% of the workforce

Bureau of Indian Affairs

$120 million from public safety and justice

– $625 million from gross outlays

– 282 full-time-equivalent employees

Bureau of Reclamation:

$253 million from water and energy management and development

– $51 million from fish and wildlife management and development

National Forest System

4,636 full-time-equivalent employees (or 33% of the workforce)

Other notes

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management would have its renewable energy program zeroed out, along with $51 million in cuts for its environmental programs. The Bureau would slash about 10% of its workforce.

The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (which regulates offshore oil and gas operations on the Outer Continental Shelf) would see its budget cut by $150 million.

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement’s budget would be reduced by $15 million.

The strikes are coming so rapidly, and from so many different directions, that it has become difficult to keep track, let alone to fight back. That is by design, of course. Advocates can take to the courts to block some regulatory rollbacks, but they have little recourse against Supreme Court decisions. Citizens may be able to convince their congressional representatives to block public land sell-offs, but that draws attention away from lawmakers’ efforts to make it easier to drill and develop public lands.

The attacks will only intensify. The resistance must meet it with equal, opposing force.

📸 Parting Shot 🎞️

Sacred Datura in Utah. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.

Deep Dive: Sustaining the Rich Economic and Recreational Benefits of the Prairie Pothole Region — USGS

The wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region provide essential benefits to communities and are a premier waterfowl breeding ground. Explore how CASC science is informing the strategic restoration and management of the Prairie Pothole Region in the face of climate change. Photo credit: USGS

Click the link to read the article on the USGS website:

Waterfowl hunting. Credit: Chuck Traxler, USFWS

Climate Change and the Prairie Pothole Region

The Prairie Pothole Region’s economic and recreational significance is deeply rooted in its unique ecological characteristics. Extending across the northern Great Plains, the region’s rich, glaciated soils are a foundation for high-yield agriculture, contributing to the production of key commodities like wheat, soybeans, and corn. Across this landscape, depressional wetlands are interspersed with neighboring grasslands. These wetlands, commonly referred to as prairie potholes, provide essential benefits to communities like mitigating flood risks and regulating water flow, filtering pollutants, improving downstream water quality, storing significant amounts of carbon, and providing habitat for fish and wildlife.

The Prairie Pothole Region is a both a premier waterfowl breeding ground, attracting a large number of hunters, and major contributor to hunting opportunities across the continent. The region’s reputation as “North America’s Duck Factory” draws waterfowl hunters from within and outside the United States. Hunting and associated travel expenditures generate substantial revenue for local communities. An estimated 10,000 jobs and $760 million in labor income is generated in the region due to hunting and wildlife viewing. In recognition of these services provided by prairie pothole landscapes, conservation investment from federal programs like the Farm Bill and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) provide significant funding for conservation initiatives. These investments support habitat restoration, land management, and research, creating jobs and stimulating economic activity in the conservation sector. Finally, national wildlife refuges and other public lands provide the public with additional access to these habitats so they can enjoy the many recreational opportunities.

Climate change is increasing temperatures and changing precipitation patterns, leading to pronounced shifts in this region. More frequent, high intensity storms over the last 25 years have been observed, causing a shift from snow-melt driven hydrology to summer and fall storm driven hydrology. At the same time, more frequent and severe droughts are causing changes in the diversity of wetland sizes, negatively impacting habitat quality of smaller-sized wetlands and landscape heterogeneity important to diverse waterfowl and wildlife populations. Land-use change, combined with these effects of climate change, are diminishing the region’s capacity to support viable populations of waterfowl and other wildlife populations. Climate adaptation scientists can provide the expertise and research needed to inform future adaptations important to maintaining the recreational and economic benefits of this region.

Supporting Prairie Pothole Management and Sustaining Recreational Opportunities

Since 2018, the USGS Climate Adaptation Science Centers has been documenting key impacts of climate change on this region. Results from multiple research efforts can inform strategic acquisition, restoration, and management in the Prairie Pothole Region to maintain its ecological, economic, and cultural importance to the United States.

Waterfowl on Lake Andes; Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge. Public domain

Impacts of Climate-Driven Shifts in Prairie Pothole Wetlands on Waterfowl

Recent science indicates that climate and land use change are affecting Prairie Pothole wetlands in unexpected ways, indicating that new areas may need to be targeted for restoration to maintain suitable waterfowl breeding habitat. Partnering with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CASC scientists used new models to simulate how these wetlands would change under different future climate change scenarios, and how those changes would impact the ability of the wetlands to support waterfowl breeding.

Results showed that areas that currently have the highest densities of intact wetlands and support large numbers of breeding ducks will also likely be the most successful in maintaining these habitats under future climate conditions. Additional follow up work used extensive datasets in collaboration with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists to generate actionable insights that can inform conservation strategies for grassland and wetland ecosystems in the Prairie Pothole Region.

Prairie Pothole Landscape on Broken Arrow WPA Lake Andes Wetland Management District South Dakota. Sources/Usage Public Domain. Credits: Marcie Hebert, USFWS

How Climate Change is Linking Prairie Pothole Wetlands to River Wetlands

Wetlands in the Upper Mississippi River Basin help control floods, filter pollution, and provide critical habitat for migratory birds. However, high intensity rainfall events can cause these depressional wetlands to overflow and connect with Mississippi River tributaries. This reduces the ability of wetlands to process nutrients and mitigate nutrient pollution in the Mississippi River. These overflow events are expected to increase due to climate change and land management, as extreme precipitation events become more frequent and severe.

CASC scientists are working with managers to identify how wetlands along the Minnesota River, a large tributary of the Mississippi River, will respond to floods, and the resulting implications for water quality and migratory bird habitat. This information will feed into a tool that will allow management agencies to balance wildlife and water quality objectives in future conservation actions.

Mallard Hen in Flight over Lake Andes Wetland Management District South Dakota. Sources/Usage Public Domain.

How Weather Patterns and Land Use Influence Where Ducks are During the Fall and Winter

Ducks from the Prairie Pothole Region are important for both the economy and culture of the region. However, climate and land use change are altering their habitat are causing ducks to move to new areas during the hunting season. Partnering with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Ducks Unlimited, CASC scientists tracked these changes in duck distributions, using data from bird banding, hunting, and counts. They found that while many ducks are spending winters farther north, but it’s not a simple story. Different duck species are shifting their winter locations in different ways. Understanding these specific changes is key to figuring out what’s driving them and will inform decisions about managing habitats and harvest.

The Land Desk Predict the Peak Super-Contest: Plus: President Trump expedites big mining projects — Jonathan P. Thompson (LandDesk.org)

The Lisbon Valley copper mine in southeastern Utah is looking to expand, and now the Trump administration has moved to expedite its permits. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.

Click the link to read the article on The Land Desk website (Jonathan P. Thompson):

April 22, 2025

⛏️ Mining Monitor ⛏️

A little while back I wrote about Trump’s executive order aimed at making it easier to mine on federal lands. Now it’s becoming a little clearer how that might play out on the ground. The U.S. Permitting Council last week released a list of the first wave of mining projects the administration plans to fast track through the permitting process.

The projects include a few that the Land Desk has covered or mentioned in the past, such as:

Lisbon Valley copper mine expansion.

Hi-Tech’s McDermitt lithium exploration project in southern Oregon.

Resolution Copper’s bid to mine a massive copper deposit under Chi’chil Biłdagoteel, aka Oak Flat, in central Arizona.

The announcement promised there are “many more projects on the way” to the expedited list, though it does not elaborate on what fast-tracking might look like, exactly. The council says it will publish permitting timetables for the projects by May 2. Stay tuned to the Land Desk for updates.

😀 Good News Corner 😎

Prizes, folks. There are prizes for the winners of the Land Desk’s Predict the (spring) Peak Super Contest! Why super? Because it’s not just for one stream, but for five. And that means there could be five winners, and each gets to choose one of these prizes from our merch selection.

Is that enticing, or what? But there is a bit of a catch: Only paid Land Desk subscribers will be eligible to enter the contest, meaning only they can win the prizes. But don’t fear: Sign up now and get 20% off the regular annual subscription price, and get the privilege of entering the Predict the Peak contest.

The idea is to accurately predict the spring runoff peak streamflow (in cubic feet per second) and the date of the peak for any or all of these five stream gages:

Animas River in Durango, aka USGS gage 09361500.

North Fork of the Gunnison River near Lazear, aka USGS gage 09136100.

Rio Grande at Otowi Bridge, aka USGS gage 08313000.

San Miguel River at Uravan, (extra credit for uranium readings!) aka USGS gage 09177000.

Colorado River at the Utah-Colorado state line, aka USGS gage 09163500.

So an entry for the Animas might look like this: Animas River, May 17, 2,950 cubic-feet per-second. The winning entry would be the closest streamflow reading to the actual peak, with the date being a tie-breaker if needed. So if someone gets the cfs right, but the date wrong, they would beat out someone with the right date but wrong flow.

Entries will only be eligible if they are entered into the comment section below this post. Don’t email me your entries! They won’t count! (If you are a paid subscriber but are having problems commenting, let me know at landdesk@substack.com). And they must be entered before Friday, May 16, to be eligible. Winners will be determined after spring runoff has peaked on all of the rivers, which will likely be in late June or early July (or perhaps earlier if spring remains warm).

I’ve prepared the following graphs to help you out. They show this year’s April 22 snowpack level, along with the snowpack curve and peak flows and dates for 2021 and 2023. Good luck!

Streamflow readings are for the Animas River gage in Durango. Source: NRCS, USGS.

Streamflow readings are for the North Fork gage in Lazear. Source: NRCS, USGS.

Streamflow readings are for the Rio Grande gage at Otowi Bridge. Source: NRCS, USGS.

Streamflow readings are for the San Miguel River gage at Uravan. Source: NRCS, USGS.

Streamflow readings are for the Colorado River gage at the Utah-Colorado state line. Source: NRCS, USGS.

20% Off Spring Runoff Special

Federal Water Tap, April 21, 2025: Agencies Fast-Track Controversial #FossilFuel and Mining Projects in Great Lakes, #Arizona — Brett Walton (circleofblue.org)

Click the link to read the article on the Circle of Blue website (Brett Walton):

April 19, 2025

The Rundown

Army Corps expedites permit process for Line 5 oil tunnel that crosses beneath the Great Lakes.

White House fast-tracks 10 mining projects in its quest for domestically produced minerals.

FEMA cancels grant program meant to prepare communities for weather hazards, while USDA overhauls climate-smart agriculture grant program.

Federal agencies intend to shrink wildlife habitat protections under the Endangered Species Act.

Judge sets a trial date for Rio Grande lawsuit between New Mexico and Texas.

EPA extends public comment period for health risk assessment of PFAS in sewage sludge.

And lastly, the Justice Department seeks to end an agreement to improve sewage infrastructure in Alabama.

“The DOJ will no longer push ‘environmental justice’ as viewed through a distorting, DEI lens. President Trump made it clear: Americans deserve a government committed to serving every individual with dignity and respect, and to expending taxpayer resources in accordance with the national interest, not arbitrary criteria.” – Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, as reported by Inside Climate News.

Dhillon is referring to a Biden-era civil rights agreement with the state of Alabama that sought to improve sewage infrastructure in the state’s poorest counties, which are also majority Black. The Justice Department is trying to end that agreement.

The agreement directed Alabama agencies to take a number of actions, such as halting referral of home wastewater violations to law enforcement and expanding a public health campaign about the dangers of raw sewage. It included a sewage system assessment and an infrastructure plan for at-risk areas.

By the Numbers

$882 Million: Funding that FEMA is rescinding from the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, which was meant to prepare towns for floods, sea level rise, hurricanes, and heat. FEMA is canceling the grant program, Engineering News Record reports.

$3 Billion: Biden-era funding for the Partnership for Climate-Smart Commodities that is being retooled by the Trump administration. The U.S. Department of Agriculture said it will reevaluate the program it has rebranded as Advancing Markets for Producers to ensure that less money is spent on administrative costs. Expenditures under the previous grants that were incurred through April 13 will be paid out.

Great Lakes satellite photo via Wikipedia.

News Briefs

Line 5 Tunnel Expedited
The Army Corps of Engineers determined that the Line 5 tunnel, a proposal to drill an oil pipeline tunnel beneath the strait that separates lakes Michigan and Huron, is being put on the permitting fast track.

The determination is in response to President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national energy emergency in order to speed up the permitting and construction of fossil fuel infrastructure.

Carrie Fox, an Army Corps spokesperson, told Circle of Blue that the new permit review procedures and timeline are not known right now.

“We are coordinating with the applicant, who is Enbridge, and also coordinating with the Council on Environmental Quality, who will assist in establishing the review timeline,” Fox said. “So until those steps take place, we don’t have a timeline. And so we won’t know how exactly it’ll change yet. We just know right now that the permit has been placed under emergency procedures, but the timeline is to be determined.”

Enbridge proposes drilling a 3.6-mile tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac. The existing seven-decade-old pipeline sits exposed on the lakebed. It has been hit by ship anchors and a rupture would be calamitous for Great Lakes ecology, tourism, and water supplies.

Six Great Lakes tribes, after learning in March that the project permitting would likely be expedited, withdrew from the federal review process in protest, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.

Mining Projects Fast-Tracked
The White House put 10 mining projects on the fast-track for regulatory approval, continuing the administration’s desire for more domestically produced minerals.

The list includes the Resolution Copper mine, in Arizona, which would be located on land that is sacred to the Apache people. Tribe members have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the project, the Arizona Republic reports.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, the lead permitting agency for the Resolution project, will update the timeline by May 2.

The other mining projects would produce gold, phosphate, copper, lithium, and other critical minerals.

Redefining the Endangered Species Act
Two federal agencies that oversee the Endangered Species Act intend to eliminate the definition of “harm” because it does not fit with the new administration’s interpretation of a recent Supreme Court ruling.

The National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had considered harm to mean habitat destruction. No longer, after the Loper Bright decision that the administration reads as curtailing agency authority in this matter.

The only wrongful actions under the ESA would be those that “take” an animal, meaning to capture, injure, or kill it.

The proposed change would apply only to new permits and would not affect existing actions. Public comments are being accepted through May 19 via www.regulations.gov using docket number FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0034.

Studies and Reports

Army Corps Water Storage Agreements
The Army Corps could improve its communication with utilities about the fees it charges them for water storage space in its reservoirs, according to a Government Accountability Office report.

The fees are a portion of the cost to operate and maintain the reservoirs. The Corps had 438 water storage agreements nationwide, as of 2023.

Tile Drainage and Transportation
The U.S. Geological Survey published a report describing how drainage from farm fields affects downstream flows.

The only wrongful actions under the ESA would be those that “take” an animal, meaning to capture, injure, or kill it.

The proposed change would apply only to new permits and would not affect existing actions. Public comments are being accepted through May 19 via www.regulations.gov using docket number FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0034.

Studies and Reports

Army Corps Water Storage Agreements
The Army Corps could improve its communication with utilities about the fees it charges them for water storage space in its reservoirs, according to a Government Accountability Office report.

The fees are a portion of the cost to operate and maintain the reservoirs. The Corps had 438 water storage agreements nationwide, as of 2023.

View of runoff, also called nonpoint source pollution, from a farm field in Iowa during a rain storm. Topsoil as well as farm fertilizers and other potential pollutants run off unprotected farm fields when heavy rains occur. (Credit: Lynn Betts/U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service/Wikimedia Commons)

Tile Drainage and Transportation
The U.S. Geological Survey published a report describing how drainage from farm fields affects downstream flows.

Tile drains, common in the Midwest, move water from beneath fields into ditches.

The report was supported by state transportation departments, which want to build roads, bridges, and culverts that can withstand high water flows.

On the Radar

Future Army Corps Projects
The Army Corps is seeking proposals from states, tribes, and regional bodies for projects to be considered for future feasibility studies or improvements.

Proposals are due August 15.

PFAS in Sewage Sludge
The EPA is extending the public comment period for its draft risk assessment of two PFAS in sewage sludge, also known as biosolids.

Comments are now due August 14. Submit them via http://www.regulations.gov using docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2024-0504.

In the assessment, the agency evaluated risks to people living on or near lands where these biosolids are applied. The analysis, which looked at PFOA and PFOS, also considered risks for people whose primary consumption of water and food comes from these lands. It is not intended to assess risk for the general public.

Rio Grande and Pecos River basins. Map credit: By Kmusser – Own work, Elevation data from SRTM, drainage basin from GTOPO [1], U.S. stream from the National Atlas [2], all other features from Vector Map., CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11218868

Rio Grande Lawsuit
The lawsuit between Texas and New Mexico over water supply from the Rio Grande will have a 10-day trial starting June 9, Source NM reports.

The parties to the case, which include Colorado and the federal government, are continuing to seek a mediated solution before the trial begins.

Federal Water Tap is a weekly digest spotting trends in U.S. government water policy. To get more water news, follow Circle of Blue on Twitter and sign up for our newsletter.

Dropping the Bass: USGS science helps stop the spread of Smallmouth bass in the #ColoradoRiver #GrandCanyon

Click the link to read the relase on the USGS website (Jordan M. Bush, Drew E Eppehimer (Click through for the video):

The USGS helps Department of the Interior partners explore possible management decisions to prevent invasive fish from spreading into the Grand Canyon.

Sources/Usage: Public Domain. View Media Details
Learn about how USGS scientists work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation to protect Grand Canyon ecosystems from invasive smallmouth bass. From modeling fish population growth to forecasting the effects of future dam operations, the USGS’s unbiased, high-quality science helps on-the-ground managers rise to new challenges brought on by climate change. (Click to view the video)

Part 1: The River

The Colorado River is not a naturally flowing river, not anymore. With Glen Canyon Dam upstream and Hoover Dam downstream, the Colorado River in Grand Canyon is one of the most highly regulated water systems in the world. Its flow generates hydroelectricity, irrigates crops and provides water to nearly 40 million people across seven U.S. states, 30 Tribal Nations and two Mexican states.

ten tribes — Graphic via Holly McClelland/High Country News.

Managing the Colorado River Basin is complicated. Federal, state and Tribal agencies balance the needs of many user groups, from anglers to farmers to city municipalities. They also care for the river as an ecosystem, home to rare fish and the foundation of Grand Canyon, one of the Nation’s natural treasures. In an era of heat waves and drought, when there is less water than ever to go around, managers increasingly need high-quality science to respond to emerging challenges.

The USGS provides critical science to resource managers in the Colorado River and Grand Canyon. Our stream gages monitor water quality and flows, our researchers track fish populations and our modelers forecast how resources may respond to future conditions. We help managers anticipate new threats and consider potential outcomes of management decisions.

And on a scorching day in June 2022, the summer Lake Powell reached its lowest water level in five decades, we sprang into action when one of our predictions became suddenly real.

Did you hear what they caught in Lees Ferry?

For the first time, National Park Service staff caught baby smallmouth bass in the lower Colorado River, south of the Glen Canyon Dam holding back Lake Powell. While this voracious, predatory fish had previously been caught in very low numbers in the relatively pristine Grand Canyon ecosystem, such captures had been rare, and they had never been observed reproducing.

The finding raised fresh concerns about the future of native fish of the Grand Canyon.

Part 2: The Fish

Smallmouth bass were originally stocked in Lake Powell as a valued catch for anglers and have since established healthy populations throughout the lake. But with low lake levels in recent years, smallmouth bass can be sucked through the dam and spat into the Colorado River. Worse, extended drought means river temperatures are warmer than usual, creating especially hospitable conditions for the warm-water fish to proliferate.

To slow the spread, Eppehimer and USGS research statistician Charles Yackulic worked with academic, state and federal cooperators to develop models predicting when and where the fish might invade, based on projected temperatures and Lake Powell water levels. These models help the National Park Service prioritize locations for smallmouth bass monitoring and eradication.

Adding extra urgency: Smallmouth bass threaten to erase years of conservation gains for the threatened and endangered species of Grand Canyon. Most of the fish in the park today are native species, a hard-fought accomplishment in an era of constant non-native species invasions. And the humpback chub was recently downlisted from “endangered” to “threatened” after successful conservation efforts from park staff.

But smallmouth bass are a particularly lethal threat. Laboratory predation trials by the USGS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) show that smallmouth bass eat native fish at all life stages, from small babies to grown adults.

“Most of the sport fish species have big mouths and big teeth and they like to eat native fish,” says David Ward, fish biologist and assistant project leader for USFWS Conservation Office in Flagstaff, AZ. “When you get all those species preying on the chubs at all different life stages, they just don’t get a break.”

Part 3: The Dam

If managers want to prevent smallmouth bass from becoming a permanent addition to Grand Canyon, they need to act fast. Once a species becomes established, it becomes virtually impossible to eradicate completely.

Smallmouth bass management is a high priority for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) and the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG), a Federal Advisory Committee in the Colorado River Basin. Led by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), this group brings together twenty-five stakeholder and rightsholder groups representing different interests, including states, Tribal Nations, economic sectors, non-profit environmental organizations and hobby groups. Together, they provide recommendations to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior for how to manage flows from Glen Canyon Dam.

The USGS’s Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Group (GCMRC) is a fixture of these quarterly meetings, tasked with providing science to help members understand environmental change happening on the landscape and how different management alternatives may perform under future conditions.

A major discussion point for the advisory committee is how water should flow out of the dam – how often water should be released, how much water at a time, which part of the dam it should be released from, etc. These questions are important, impacting everything from hydroelectricity production to downstream rafting conditions.

Eppehimer, Yackulic and other USGS researchers created models to predict how changes to Glen Canyon Dam flows may affect different systems, including energy production, river hydrology and sandbar formation. Of particular interest: they explored how pumping cold water from the dam’s deep bypass jet tubes could impact smallmouth bass viability below the dam. They identified ideal water temperatures for bass to grow and reproduce and modeled how cooling river temperatures using dam flows could impact overall population growth.

This work served as the foundation for dam flow alternatives presented in the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan and the supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

Using one of the USGS-modeled alternatives, the Bureau of Reclamation has begun modifying Glen Canyon Dam flows to try to prevent smallmouth bass spawning. When river temperatures reach 60°F (15.5°C) in the Colorado River at the confluence with the Little Colorado River tributary (76 miles downstream from the dam), the BOR releases deeper, cooler flows from Glen Canyon Dam to create less favorable conditions for smallmouth bass growth and reproduction. They began these releases on July 9, 2024, and are now working with the USGS and other DOI agencies to actively monitor the effects on river conditions and smallmouth bass populations.

This work was funded by USGS’s Southwest Climate Adaptation Science Center (Southwest CASC), Ecosystems Mission Area, Water Mission Area, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The project embodies the USGS’s actionable science model, which prioritizes applied research designed to meet on-the-ground needs.

“It is an excellent example of partnership-based science,” says Sarah LeRoy, Research Coordinator with the Southwest CASC. “From the very beginning, managers asked a question about what’s going to happen to fish, native and invasive, in the Colorado River Basin, and the scientists answered their questions in a way that helps them better care for the river in the future.”

Algae under scrutiny in #YampaRiver — A rising concern for watershed groups — #Craig Press

Environmental Program Manager Jenny Frithsen with nonprofit Friends of the Yampa conducts water quality sampling in fall 2023 on a tributary to the Yampa River. Friends of the Yampa/Courtesy photo

Click the link to read the article on the Craig Press website (Suzie Romig). Here’s an excerpt:

October 5, 2024

In early fall with lower and warmer water levels, river users commonly see algae coating rocks or floating in the Yampa River, in coves and edges of area reservoirs and especially in stagnant ponds of water left over from higher flows. However, this fall watershed study groups and some citizens are raising algae alarm bells and asking questions about what appears to a strong presence of algae in the watershed. Some residents are asking water experts if the toxic level spike from a blue-green algae bloom in early September at Stagecoach Reservoir, which led the state to issue a brief red warning level closure at Morrison Cove, may be a foreshadowing of greater, growing concerns systemwide in the Yampa River watershed…

“As there are warmer temperatures and less water, this is the risk that we are going to face in the future, and a healthy watershed is more important than ever,” said Jenny Frithsen, environmental program manager at nonprofit Friends of the Yampa, during an Upper Yampa River Watershed Group meeting on Wednesday.

For the first time since the state algae monitoring program was formalized in 2018, an algae bloom caution warning occurred at Elkhead Reservoir in September, said Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Specialist Ashley Rust with Colorado Parks and Wildlife…COepht.colorado.gov/toxic-algae shows that of the 10 waterbodies listed at a yellow caution level for algae, three are in Routt County including Elkhead, Stagecoach and Steamboat reservoirs. In August 2020, a red warning level was issued briefly for a toxic spike from an algae bloom at Steamboat Lake…Supervisory Hydrologic Technician Patricia Solberg with the U.S. Geological Survey said algae was present at very noticeable levels in the river through Steamboat this year during the August sampling. Solberg said the USGS has been testing once annually since 2019 in late summer or early fall for the aquatic indicator chlorophyll-A as well as algae biomass at three sites, including upstream of Stagecoach, in Steamboat and in Milner.

21st-Century Droughts Are Transforming Ecosystems — NOAA #drought

A grassland in an area formerly dominated by boreal forest. Photo credit: Dawn Magness, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Click the link to read the article on the NOAA website (Wynne E. Moss):

August 5, 2024

Alaska’s boreal forests are declining, as increasing drought stress and fire kill off the next generation of conifer trees. Where boreal forest has disappeared, new plant communities—like grasslands and aspen forests—have begun to take its place.

Elsewhere, in the southeastern United States, droughts have decimated saltmarsh vegetation, turning saltmarshes into mudflats or open water.

In the Southwest, pinyon pines have experienced widespread die-offs during extreme droughts. Meanwhile, junipers and grasses have expanded.

Across the globe, natural resource managers now face the reality of stewarding such landscapes with vastly different species and functions. These are just three examples of drought-triggered ecological transformation, a growing phenomenon that is highlighted in a new paper in the journal BioScience.

Research on ecological drought demonstrates that while many species are tolerant of water shortages, others may experience declines, with recovery taking years or even decades after drought ends. The new study, funded by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Climate Adaptation Science Center, discussed an even more extreme possibility—that some ecosystems will never recover from drought. Instead of returning to pre-drought conditions, some ecosystems may undergo transformation, or a shift into a new, persistent state, dominated by different forms of vegetation.

Ecosystem transformations represent a major challenge for natural resource agencies. Those caused by drought can be particularly rapid and surprising. To aid preparedness, researchers synthesized science on the mechanisms involved in drought-triggered transformation. Their work provides a broad overview of this phenomenon and highlights three major points about drought’s ability to cause long-term ecological change:

1. Drought-triggered transformations are happening across the globe.

The paper highlights a dozen examples of transformations triggered by drought. They occur in many types of ecosystems, including temperate and tropical forests, grasslands, and woodlands. This suggests the risk of transformation is not limited to arid ecosystems or forests, which have received the bulk of scientific attention.

2. Shifting drought regimes are eliciting more extreme ecosystem responses.

As the climate warms, many regions of the planet are expected to experience novel and more extreme drought regimes. This is true even where annual precipitation is increasing. Certain forms of drought, including hotter droughts, snow droughts, and flash droughts, are becoming more common. Plant communities in a location may not be adapted to the changing character of drought, which may have greater impacts and exacerbate the risk of transformation.

3. Drought interacts with stressors that reduce ecosystem resilience.

Increasing drought severity is not the only factor causing transformation. The ability of ecosystems to recover from drought is also changing in the 21st century. Stressors like habitat loss, invasive species, and fire are increasingly likely to occur alongside or after drought and disrupt recovery after drought. Although managers have little control of the severity of drought, they may be able to reduce the likelihood of transformation by addressing these stressors.

Twelve locations where drought has caused a significant and permanent change in ecosystem composition. Examples occur across an aridity gradient and involve multiple different mechanisms. Figure modified from Moss et al. 2024. Base Map: World Terrestrial Ecosystems 2020.

The Next Challenge: Preparing for the Future

Translating this information into readiness is the next challenge. Many managers are already aware that climate change can trigger large shifts in the systems they manage. But they may not be aware that these changes could happen quite rapidly—after the next severe drought. Syntheses such as this can help managers develop both proactive and reactive strategies to respond to drought. A better understanding of the mechanisms involved also aids in developing predictive science to tell us what systems are most vulnerable. However, some aspects of ecosystems are just not predictable. Rather than aiming to perfectly predict the future, managers could prepare for a range of potential outcomes and consider how their actions could steer the recovery of ecosystems towards preferred conditions after drought.

USGS research brings new focus to strategic monitoring of #wildfire impacts on water supplies

West Fork Fire June 20, 2013 photo the Pike Hot Shots Wildfire Today

Click the link to read the article on the USGS website:

May 21, 2024

Wildfires are a natural process in many ecosystems, but they are increasing in size, severity and frequency in many areas across the United States.

After a wildfire, loss of canopy vegetation and changes to soil properties can occur, which leads to more water flowing over land during rainfall. This can lead to flooding, erosion, and the movement of sediment, ash, pollutants and debris to surface water.

The range of water quality impacts after a wildfire varies, from no noticeable change to large increases in the amount of sediment, nutrients, metals and other constituents. This can result in decreased water quality, loss of reservoir storage capacity, stream habitat degradation and increased treatment costs for drinking water providers.

The most severe water quality impacts are often delayed until high-intensity rainstorms occur, which can happen months to years after a wildfire. This can complicate efforts to collect post-wildfire water quality data, as funding opportunities for data collection have likely diminished by the time the most severe impacts have occurred.

To improve understanding of how wildfires affect water supplies, USGS scientists developed a strategy for selecting water sampling locations and methodologies for data collection, in order to improve the identification of regional insights into wildfire impacts on water quality.

“We don’t currently have enough data to estimate how wildfires affect water quality in different regions,” said Sheila Murphy, USGS research hydrologist and lead author of the study. “Monitoring water quality after wildfires in a strategic, consistent way would help us assess and predict the impact of wildfires on surface waters, which is critical to human and ecosystem health.”

USGS Gallinas Creek near Montezuma, NM (08380500) streamgaging and water-quality monitoring station in August 2022 (watershed burned by Calf Canyon/Hermit Peak Fires April-August 2022) (photo showing Johanna Blake, USGS; photo by Jeannie Barlow, USGS)

A USGS streamgage at Gallinas Creek near Montezuma, NM in August 2022. The watershed was burned by the 2022 Calf Canyon/Hermits Peak Fire.

With hundreds of wildfires occurring in watersheds across the country each year, it would be difficult to monitor every stream within or downstream of a burned area. Collecting post-wildfire water quality data from sites that are diverse in climate, land use, geology and vegetation can build a foundation for distinguishing regional differences in impacts to water.

One of the study’s key insights is a list of important parameters to measure after a wildfire. These parameters are critical to understanding how post-wildfire water quality impacts humans, wildlife and the environment.

The parameters are divided into two tiers in order to help balance the collection of essential data with fiscal and practical constraints. Parameters in the first tier, which includes water temperature and turbidity are considered the highest priority for assessing impacts of wildfire on water quality. Parameters in the second tier, such as alkalinity, lay the groundwork for next-generation modeling capabilities but can also substantially increase monitoring costs.

This USGS research can provide water providers, reservoir operators, land managers and emergency response agencies with actionable guidance to prepare for and mitigate against wildfire impacts to water supplies.

Learn more about how the USGS is working to assist the water resources community in planning for and adapting to impacts on water resources after wildfires here.

Integrated Science Strategy for Assessing and Monitoring Water Availability and Migratory Birds for Terminal Lakes Across the Great Basin, United States — USGS

Click the link to read the report on the USGS website (Rebecca J. Frus, Cameron L. Aldridge, Michael L. Casazza, Collin A. Eagles-Smith, Garth Herring, Scott A. Hynek, Daniel K. Jones, Susan K Kemp, Thomas M. Marston, Christopher M. Morris, Ramon C. Naranjo, Cee S. Nell, David R. O’Leary, Cory T. Overton, Bryce A. Pulver, Brian E. Reichert, Christine A. Rumsey, Rudy Schuster, and Cassandra D. Smith). Here’s the executive summary:

In 2022, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) established the Saline Lake Ecosystems Integrated Water Availability Assessment (IWAAs) to monitor and assess the hydrology of terminal lakes in the Great Basin and the migratory birds and other wildlife dependent on those habitats. Scientists from across the USGS (with specialties in water quantity, water quality, limnology, avian biology, data science, landscape ecology, and science communication) formed the Saline Lake Ecosystems IWAAs Team. The team has developed this regional strategic science plan to guide data collection and assessment activities at terminal lakes in the Great Basin.

The U.S. Congress requested the USGS to establish the Saline Lake Ecosystems IWAAs in response to historically low water levels at terminal lakes and associated wetlands across the Great Basin. Not all Great Basin terminal lakes have high salinity; however, all terminal lakes occur in endorheic, closed, basins with no surface-water outflow. Low lake levels across the Great Basin are the result of increased water use for agriculture and municipalities, drought conditions, and a warming climate. Great Basin terminal lake water extents have decreased by as much as 90 percent over the last 150 years, and terminal lake wetlands have decreased in area by as much as 47 percent since 1984. Lake elevations and wetland areas are primarily supported by freshwater inputs from snowmelt feeding upgradient rivers, streams, and springs. These freshwater inputs have been severely reduced because of continued and increased surface-water diversions and surface-water capture through groundwater pumping for agriculture, mining, and public supply as well as unprecedented drought conditions and warming temperatures related to climate change.

Water quality, specifically salinity, is highly variable for terminal lakes of the Great Basin, and this variability is a result of the balance between freshwater inflow and evaporation. Variability of salinity at each of the terminal lakes can be affected by lake morphology, hydrogeologic features of the basin, annual variability in weather patterns, and changes in upgradient water use. Hypersaline terminal lakes provide abundant food resources such as brine shrimp and brine flies that support nesting and migrating birds. The density and composition of invertebrates are closely tied to lake salinity. Increased salinity can exceed the tolerance of invertebrates, severely limiting their biomass. In contrast, decreased salinity can lead to altered invertebrate community composition, reducing the abundance of optimal avian prey resources.

Great Basin terminal lake ecosystems, including open-water and adjacent aquatic and terrestrial environments, provide resources necessary to sustain many animal populations throughout the year. Although a variety of taxa use terminal lakes, these ecosystems are of acute importance for the millions of migratory waterbirds (for example, shorebirds, wading birds, and waterfowl) dependent on the network of terminal lakes and their associated wetlands. Migratory birds transiting the Pacific and Central Flyways use Great Basin terminal lake ecosystems throughout the year to feed, nest, and transit between wintering and breeding ranges. As such, successful conservation of birds and their habitats requires coordinated management of water and habitats across the Great Basin network of terminal lakes and wetlands.

The linkages between water availability and ecosystem vulnerability of terminal lakes in the Great Basin are not well understood. The vulnerability of terminal lakes is related to the factors driving change and adaptive capacity of the lake ecosystem. Saline lake ecosystems are vulnerable when changes in water quantity affect ecosystem function. Water quantity affects salinity, which affects food webs and habitat; these linkages can be investigated with water-quality and food web monitoring. Water quantity also affects inundated habitat, which can be quantified through remote sensing. It is necessary to quantify hydroclimatic and water use controls on water availability to terminal lakes to assess the response of the ecosystems. Remotely sensed data can provide a broad-scale and long-term synoptic view of terminal lake hydrologic characteristics, but ground observations are required to interpret changes in water quality and ecological functions. Some terminal lake basins have ongoing monitoring and modeling efforts within the Great Basin (for example, Great Salt Lake, Carson River Basin), yet most monitoring locations are hydrologically upgradient and too far away from lake inflows to provide an accurate assessment of hydrological trends for the lake ecosystems. Other terminal lakes have no long-term hydrological monitoring in their respective watersheds (for example, Lake Abert).

Ecological data collection in the Great Basin is also insufficient to understand how many birds exist on the landscape, how birds use the mosaic of terminal-lake habitats as an interconnected system, and how Great Basin terminal lakes are linked to the larger continental system of the Pacific and Central Flyways. Across agencies and organizations, tracking bird movement, abundance, and diversity is inconsistent, with some lakes having once- or twice-a-year bird survey efforts and a few locations having more intensive ecological data-gathering efforts (for example, Great Salt Lake, Lake Abert). Bridging hydrological and ecological information gaps will improve understanding of the trends in water supply and water quality, habitat availability and usage, and impacts on vulnerable waterbird species, all of which would be used by managers in coordinated conservation of this unique network of terminal-lake habitats.

The terminal lakes of the Great Basin are part of the Basin and Range physiographic province that extends from the Colorado Plateau on the east to the Sierra Nevada on the west, and from the Snake River Plain on the north to the Garlock fault and the Mojave block on the south. The Great Basin is larger than 650,000 square kilometers and encompasses most of the State of Nevada but also extends to western Utah, eastern California, southeastern Idaho, southwestern Wyoming, and southeastern Oregon. The climate is arid to semiarid with a hydrologic regime that is snowmelt dominated, providing as much as 75 percent of total annual runoff for the region. Terminal lakes of the Great Basin occupy the lowest areas of closed (endorheic) drainage basins, such that lake levels and water quality respond rapidly to surface-water inflow. Terminal lakes provide local and regional economic value to the States in the Great Basin, including mineral extraction, aquaculture, public works, and recreational uses. As an example, assessments of Great Salt Lake’s ecological health and economic impact find hemispheric importance for the former and regional importance for the latter. Great Salt Lake creates about 7,000 jobs and $2 billion of economic output per year, most of which would be lost with further declines in lake level.

The objectives of this Science Strategy are threefold: (1) to identify how changing water availability affects the quality, diversity, and abundance of habitats supporting continental waterbird populations; (2) to highlight the scientific monitoring and assessment needs of Great Basin terminal lakes; and (3) to support coordinated management and conservation actions to benefit those ecosystems, migratory birds, and other wildlife. There are long-term hydrological, ecological, and societal challenges associated with terminal lakes ecosystems in the Great Basin. This Science Strategy benefits partners by providing a conceptual model, nested at different spatial extents, that identifies key scientific information needs to inform coordinated implementation of management and conservation plans within and among hydrologic basins to address these complex challenges.

A newly published study from the U.S. Geological Survey explains how salinity in the Upper #ColoradoRiver Basin has changed over the past few decades and shows how #climate, irrigation and flow of groundwater contribute to salinity in the watershed #COriver #aridification

Click the link to read the release on the USGS website (Alexandra (Allie) Weill and Olivia Miller):

February 8, 2024

A newly published study from the U.S. Geological Survey explains how salinity in the Upper Colorado River Basin has changed over the past few decades and shows how climate, irrigation and flow of groundwater contribute to salinity in the watershed. The study correlates overall salinity declines in the river basin since the 1980s with a transition from wet to dry conditions.

High salinity can limit water available for agriculture, drinking water, aquatic life and infrastructure, with significant impacts to the economy and human health. Salt occurs naturally in water, but salt loads are influenced by irrigated agriculture, geology, land cover, land-use practices and precipitation. Salinity can exacerbate corrosion of lead pipes and increase lead levels in drinking water and mobilize other metals or pollutants as well. High salinity levels in the Colorado River reduce agricultural yield, damage infrastructure and are estimated to cause $348 million per year in damage to infrastructure and crop production.

Sources/Usage: Public Domain. Salt deposits along the Paria River, UT. (Olivia Miller, USGS)

“This study shows us how irrigation and climate work together to influence salts going into streams,” said USGS hydrologist Olivia Miller, lead author on the study. “Future climate change in the Southwest, combined with changes in irrigation, may affect stream water quality, but we don’t yet understand how these interactions will play out, so our next step is developing a model to test scenarios of future climate change.”

Wet periods have higher salinity loads because increased runoff from rain and melting snow and increased groundwater movement bring more salts into rivers. In contrast, drier periods have lower salinity loads. Irrigation also plays an important role, contributing salts to the river more efficiently than any other source.

“Salt loading to the Upper Colorado River and tributaries is a significant economic and environmental concern which limits the utility of the Colorado River and creates economic damages to downstream water users,” said Don A. Barnett, Executive Director, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum.

For the new study, USGS scientists created a dynamic model that simulates the flow of water and salts throughout the whole Upper Colorado Basin between 1986 and 2017, allowing them to estimate salinity in the river and identify its sources for every year over that time.

The study confirmed previous findings that salts come primarily from groundwater (66-82%), with smaller portions attributed to runoff and springs. The salts in groundwater may initially come from infiltration of irrigation water, but once dissolved in groundwater, tracing the source is difficult. Groundwater is stored for long periods underground, meaning that there can be a time lag between when the salts enter the groundwater and when they end up in the river. As a result, while salinity management efforts focused on surface runoff processes may produce small results in the short term, larger impacts may take longer to work through the groundwater system.

“The Upper Colorado River Basin States are taking actions to reduce salinity in the Colorado River for the benefit of the 40 million people who use the River’s water,” said Paul Kehmeier, Salinity Program Coordinator, Colorado Department of Agriculture. “This study helps clarify that the sources of salt vary over time and it will help inform managers on strategies to continue improving the quality of water in the Basin.”

The study was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

Click here for more science from the USGS Utah Water Science Center.

Sources/Usage: Public Domain. View Media Details The Dolores River, CO. (Olivia Miller, USGS).

The Four Great Surveys of the West — USGS

Click the link to go to the USGS website for the article:

By 1867, the developing industries were making radical demands on the Nation’s natural resources. Joseph S. Wilson, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, in his annual report written in the fall of 1866, assessed at some length the mineral resources of the public domain, and afterward stated that the proper development of the geological characteristics and mineral wealth of the country was a matter of the highest concern to the American people. On March 2, 1867, Congress for the first time authorized western explorations in which geology would be the principal objective: a study of the geology and natural resources along the fortieth parallel route of the transcontinental railroad, under the Corps of Engineers, and a geological survey of the natural resources of the new State of Nebraska, under the direction of the General Land Office. Looking back at that day’s work in 1880, Clarence King, Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, remarked that “Eighteen sixty-seven marks, in the history of national geological work, a turning point, when the science ceased to be dragged in the dust of rapid exploration and took a commanding position in the professional work of the country.”⁸

Clarence King exploring an active glacier on Mount Shasta, 1870. Photo credit: USGS

King was only 25 and 5 years out of Yale, where he had been a member of the first class to graduate from the Sheffield Scientific School, when he was appointed Geologist in charge of the Geological Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel. He had been a member of the Geological Survey of California when he conceived the idea of a geological survey along the route of the railroad then being built, had then interested the Engineers in the plan and secured their endorsement and that of the War Department, exhibiting political as well as scientific acumen. The Chief of Engineers told King he could expect to receive $100,000 to finance the work for 3 years and was authorized to engage two assistant geologists, three topographic aides, two collectors, a photographer, and necessary camp men. King chose as assistants well-trained young men, the geologists with graduate education in Europe, and planned the work in detail before taking the field.

Ferdinand V. Hayden, M.D., who had already established a reputation as a master of reconnaissance in the Upper Missouri country, was placed in charge of the survey of Nebraska, for which only $5,000 was available. Hayden, 38, was a graduate of Oberlin College in Ohio and Albany Medical College. Except during the Civil War years, Hayden had been enthusiastically exploring the northern Great Plains region since 1853 when James Hall, the New York State Geologist, had sent him and Fielding B. Meek west to study the geology and collect fossils. In 1856 and 1857, Hayden had accompanied expeditions led by Lieutenant G.K. Warren and in 1859, the expedition led by Captain W.F. Raynolds, both of the Topographical Engineers.

The Hayden survey in the Yellowstone area, 1871. Photo credit: USGS

Both the King and the Hayden surveys were successful. In 1870, the King survey, without solicitation, received additional funds for another 3 years in the field. The Hayden survey received additional appropriations in 1868 and 1869 for exploration in Wyoming and Colorado, and in 1869 was placed directly under the Secretary of the Interior. In 1870, Hayden presented to Congress a plan for the geological and geographical exploration of the Territories of the United States that looked forward to the gradual preparation of a series of geographical and geological maps of each of the territories on a uniform scale. With Congressional blessing the Hayden survey then became the Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories under the Department of the Interior.

By that time two additional surveys had taken the field. On May 24, 1869, John Wesley Powell, Professor of Geology at Illinois State Normal University, and a party of nine men left Green River, Wyoming, in three small boats to explore the unknown canyonlands to the south and west. Powell’s expedition was privately sponsored–its only public support an authorization to draw Army rations–and the members of the expedition were a mixed crew of nonprofessionals.

Powell, 35, was the son of an itinerant Methodist preacher. His formal schooling had ceased when he was 12, and his life thereafter had been spent in farming, studying, teaching, and exploring the Midwest until the outbreak of the Civil War. He enlisted in the Union Army in May 1861 and remained in the service until the war was over. After the war, Powell became professor of geology at Illinois Wesleyan University and then at Illinois State Normal University. In 1867 and 1868, he explored the Rocky Mountains in Colorado and eastern Utah and became convinced that the unknown canyonlands to the southwest could best be explored in boats. In a trip fraught with hardships, Powell and five of the nine original members of the crew completed a journey down the Green River to the Colorado and through the Grand Canyon on August 13, 1869. In 1870, Professor Powell received an appropriation of $10,000 from Congress to make a second trip down the Colorado, being required only to report his results to the Smithsonian Institution. On June 10, 1872, Congress appropriated another $20,000 for completion of the survey.

The Powell survey on its second trip down the Colorado River, 1871. Photo credit: USGS

The second new exploration in 1869 was led by Lieutenant George Wheeler, Engineer Officer on the staff of the Commanding General of the Army’s Department of California (which covered California, Nevada, and Arizona). Wheeler, not quite 27, was a graduate of West Point in 1866 where he had ranked sixth in his class and won a commission in the elite Corps of Engineers. By 1869, exploration of the Colorado River and location of north-south routes across the Great Basin had become the most important projects of the Division of the Pacific, but when the Army learned of Powell’s planned expedition, exploration of the Colorado was postponed.

Wheeler Party Survey Members. Standing in the top row, sixth from the left, is George Montague Wheeler, the West Point graduate who in 1871 developed a comprehensive plan for surveying the territory west of the 100th meridian. National Portrait Gallery. Photo credit: Timothy O’Sullivan

In early June 1869, Lieutenant Wheeler received orders to organize and equip a party to make a thorough and careful reconnaissance of the country south and east of White Pine, Nevada, as far as the head of navigation on the Colorado, to obtain data for a military map and to survey the possibility of a wagon road and select sites for military posts. In 1871, the Engineers sent Lt. Wheeler to explore and map the area south of the Central Pacific Railroad in eastern Nevada and Arizona.

On his return from the 1871 expedition, Wheeler, convinced that the day of the pathfinder had ended, proposed a plan for mapping the United States west of the 100th meridian on a scale of 8 miles to the inch, expected to cost $2.5 million and take 15 years. Congress authorized the program on June 10, 1872, the day on which funds were appropriated for completion of the Powell survey. Hayden that year was given $75,000 for his Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories.

Inevitably, conflicts developed between the Hayden survey, mapping the Territories of the United States, and the Wheeler survey, mapping the areas west of the 100th meridian. In 1874, Congress was provoked to a thorough discussion of civilian versus military control of mapping. In the testimony heard by the Congressional committee, much of it on the purposes and efficiency of the mapping, Powell credited King’s Fortieth Parallel survey with the most advanced techniques, which Hayden and he had later adopted. In the end Congress concluded that each survey had been doing excellent work for the benefit of the people and that there was sufficient work for both the Interior Department and the War Department for years to come. The Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution had requested an additional appropriation for the Powell survey, which Congress granted but transferred the survey to the Department of the Interior, where it was at first called the second division of the Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories. Later, because of tension between Powell and Hayden, the Powell survey became known as the Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region.

Wagon Wheel Gap on the Rio Grande, by Wheeler, D. N. (Dansford Noble), 1841-1909.jpg. Photo credit: Wikipedia

The #USGS & @BLMNational have release a report with new oil and gas surface management guidance to support successful #reclamation at existing and future well pads — USGS

Click the link to read the release on the USGS website:

The report provides specific and comprehensive reclamation guidance for surface oil and gas exploration and development.

The U. S. Geological Survey, in partnership with the Bureau of Land Management, recently published an oil and gas reclamation techniques and methods report that will, for the first time, give land managers and oil and gas operators specific tools to successfully reclaim disturbed lands during and after oil and gas activities.

Pronghorns using habitat near oil and gas infrastructure. Sources/Usage: Public Domain.

Resource inventory, monitoring and protection of oil and gas sites are mandated by federal statutes and regulations, yet this is the first publication defining standards and guidelines for how to reclaim, monitor, and successfully reclaim disturbed oil and gas sites available at a national level.

The report also emphasizes the importance of best management practices, clear standards, effective monitoring and minimizing surface disturbance for successful land reclamation.

Initiated through an interagency agreement with the BLM, USGS and BLM drew upon existing federal reclamation policy, scientific literature review, practical field experience and expertise from various sources such as federal and state agencies, oil and gas contractors, and academia to produce the document, intended to be used for each reclamation step from start to finish.

“The BLM’s land management experience and the USGS’s best available science come together to create this powerful tool in the toolbox for federal agencies working on surface management of oil and gas to ensure environmentally responsible outcomes,” said Benjamin Gruber, BLM Acting Assistant Director for Energy, Minerals and Realty Management. “We’re proud to partner with the USGS to produce this guide that is relevant for all parts of the process—from the time a company develops its drilling application to monitoring reclamation activities after wells are plugged.”

Successful oil and gas Pad reclamation established grass Utah May 17, 2022. Sources/Usage: Public Domain.

New, comprehensive guidelines

Prior to this report, the industry relied on a set of guidelines known as the ‘Gold Book’ for practical information about oil and gas leasing and permitting, operations, bonding and reclamation planning processes. However, the Gold Book lacks the type of precise guidance often found in instructional memorandums and handbooks produced by surface management agency offices, multi-jurisdictional groups or state agencies.

To maximize the efficacy of reclamation efforts, a set of national guidance and policies specific to oil and gas monitoring and assessment were needed.

This new USGS-BLM report supplements the Gold Book and other existing guidance by providing thorough and definitive steps and metrics for reclamation surface management. The report provides these kinds of uniform monitoring protocols and standards covering standardized soil and vegetation field monitoring methods, indicators, benchmarks, appropriate designs and analyses and electronic data capture and repositories supports planning procedures, leasing, permitting processes and bond release decisions.

While it was designed to be specific to the oil and gas industry, many of the report’s concepts and practices hold the potential to benefit reclamation of other fluid minerals development and land disturbance, including wind and solar energy development.

Vegetation data collection at a reclaimed wellpad April 26, 2021. Sources/Usage: Public Domain.

Leveraging ecological science to achieve success

Land reclamation, in essence, is aimed at techniques that set highly disturbed or degraded ecosystems on a trajectory that benefits native plants and animals and restores functioning habitats and ecological communities similar to surrounding, naturally occurring environments. During this process, the impacts of oil and gas development are minimized.

This means a major component of land reclamation involves repopulating the landscape with locally appropriate vegetation. Therefore, the report provides useful information about repositories and data collection platforms such as the Landscape Data Commons, Esri ArcGIS Online Survey123, the Database for Inventory Monitoring and Assessment (DIMA) and LandPKS.

The report also provides guidance for developing quantitative benchmarks to determine if erosion and vegetation standards have been met, including indicators of erosion and site stability, species composition and community structure.

“This technical publication provides a solid foundation based on current ecological science. It is the product of a collaborative effort between leading ecologists and reclamation scientists at the BLM, USGS, other agencies, and private organizations,” said USGS Deputy Associate Director for Ecosystems Paul Wagner. “The report addresses the need for well-managed data collection to inform reclamation plans, operations, approval decisions, and adaptive management strategies.”

Factors such as climate change, drought, intense storms, swings in temperature and invasive species all affect seedling survival rates. Ensuring that seedlings survive is crucial for agencies and operators to meet federal requirements and achieve reclamation success.

Successful reclamation is achieved when the standards defining soil and vegetation recovery are met, and a self-sustaining, vigorous, diverse, native, or approved plant community that minimizes visual land disturbance, provides forage, stabilizes soils and prevents noxious weeds from taking hold is in place.

Near Farmington, New Mexico. Photo credit: USGS

Who does this report support?

In conjunction with the Gold Book, this report supports the BLM — the largest surface management agency in the U.S. — with tools to monitor oil and gas reclamation and ensure environmentally responsible outcomes. BLM field office staff guide operators to create reclamation plans and to ensure that reclamation goals and expectations are clear. They inspect reclamation projects’ progress and status, complete quality assessments and quality control of operators’ monitoring data, and provide feedback.

This report will also be particularly useful for operators and contractors who conduct oil and gas activities on U.S. federal or Tribal lands, surface management agencies who are responsible for advising and enforcing those activities, stewards of private lands and other landowner reclamation projects.

Reclamation has several phases, including interim and final reclamation, which each have differing overall goals. The report can help foster relationships between surface management agencies and operators, highlight timeframes, and provide operators with specific steps and goals in the reclamation process.

The report may prove particularly useful for restoration efforts funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which provides $4.7 billion for orphaned well site plugging, remediation and reclamation across federal, Tribal, state and private lands (see Through President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 24 States Set to Begin Plugging Over 10,000 Orphaned Wells).

Read the full report online: Oil and gas reclamation—Operations, monitoring methods, and standards: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods

USFWS, BLM, and USGS examining a large, newly reclaimed oil or gas pad. Sources/Usage: Public Domain.

Over a century of #YellowstoneRiver streamflow measurements at Corwin Springs, #Montana — USGS

Click the link to read the release on the USGS website:

Measuring streamflow is critical for assessing the health and status of river systems. One of the longest continuous records of streamflow is just north of Yellowstone National Park, at Corwin Springs!

Sources/Usage: Public Domain. Map of SNOTEL snowpack telemetry sites (blue dots) and streamgages (red dots) in and around Yellowstone National Park.

Yellowstone Caldera Chronicles is a weekly column written by scientists and collaborators of the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory. This week’s contribution is from Blaine McCleskey, research chemist with the U.S. Geological Survey.

John Wesley Powell, the second Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from 1881 to 1894 and explorer of the Colorado River and Grand Canyon, recognized that water availability was a significant challenge in the western United States. During Powell’s USGS tenure, systematic inventorying of streams and their flows in the USA began in earnest.

Embudo student hydrogrphers 1889. Photo credit: USGS

In January 1889, the first USGS streamgage was established along the Rio Grande near Embudo, New Mexico. Streamgages typically contain equipment to continuously measure the rate and volume of streamflow. Streamgages in the western USA are particularly challenging to install and maintain because the river stage (or height) and flow can vary greatly between the dry months (late summer-winter) and periods of snowmelt, and in many cases the riverbeds are soft and unstable. The equipment and techniques developed at the Embudo gage site became the foundation of USGS streamgaging methods. Since the establishment of the Embudo gage site, there has been a consistent increase in the number of established gages in the United States.

Currently, the U.S. Geological Survey measures discharge at approximately 8,500 sites across the United States. Most of the streamflow data are delivered in near real-time via the USGS National Water Dashboard(https://dashboard.waterdata.usgs.gov/app/nwd/en/?region=lower48&aoi=default). These flow data are used for planning, forecasting, and warning about floods and droughts; managing water rights and transboundary water issues; operating waterways for power production and navigation; monitoring environmental conditions to protect aquatic habitats; describing impacts to streamflow from changing land and water uses; assessing water quality and regulating pollutant discharges; determining if streams are safe for recreational activities; designing reservoirs, roads, bridges, drinking water and wastewater facilities; and many scientific investigations. Users of these data include water, utility, environmental, and transportation managers. More than 880 million requests for streamflow or water level information were fulfilled during the 2020 water year (which runs from October 1 to September 30 of the following year)!

There are currently 15 streamgages in and around Yellowstone that are used to monitor hydrothermal activityfrom the more than 10,000 thermal features, manage water supplies, and that are used to prepare for and investigate the impacts of floods.

Hydrograph showing discharge in cubic feet per second for Corwin Springs streamgage site on the Yellowstone River, MT, spanning 1889-2023. The spike in 2022 is from the June floods of that year. Sources/Usage: Public Domain.

While the Embudo streamgage site in New Mexico was the first USGS gage site, the gage on the Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs, just north of the national park boundary, is nearly as old! Daily average discharge at the site was first reported on August 1, 1889 and continued through October 31, 1893. Discharge measurements started again in 1910 and continue today. The discharge record at Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs is one of the longest in the United States! The hydrograph, which plots the level of stream flow over time, from the site appears to be saw-toothed, with the peaks generally representing higher flows in the spring as a result of snowmelt.

Sources/Usage: Public Domain. Plot of specific conductance, discharge, and temperature measured at the Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs, Montana, during early-mid 2023. The anomalous spikes in temperature and specific conductance on May 23, 2023, are thought to be when a large sand and bar was deposited at the site. May 23 is also the peak flow in 2023.

The highest instantaneous discharge measured at the Corwin Springs’ gage was during the June 2022 flood, when the maximum discharge was determined to be 54,700 cubic feet per second (CFS) (1,549 cubic meters per second), compared to a median peak during snowmelt of 12,000 CFS (340 cubic meters per second). The June 2022 flood is estimated to be a 500-year flood event, meaning that an event like this is likely to occur only once in 500 years.

The gage house at Corwin Springs narrowly escaped serious damage from the 2022 flood, as the streambank about 164 feet (50 meters) downstream eroded away. However, the gage did not emerge completely unscathed. During the flood, monitoring equipment was washed away and the streambed changed its shape. In addition, the site continues to see changes to the bank and stream bed after the flood. During the 2023 spring high-flow runoff, a large unconsolidated sand and gravel bar migrated downstream and was deposited on top of the newly installed monitoring equipment at the gage! Approximately 2–3 feet (60–90 centimeters) of debris was deposited along the bank covering the piping that housed scientific monitoring equipment. The new gravel bar was probably deposited at the site on May 23, 2023, which corresponds to the highest flow in 2023, based on anomalous temperature and specific conductance measurements.

Streamgage site and profiling tool on the Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs, Montana. The gage house narrowly avoided damage during the June 2022 flood, which eroded the downstream bank. The river profiling instrument helps to map the river bottom to assess streamflow rates and conditions. USGS photo by Mike Poland, July 31, 2023. Sources/Usage: Public Domain.

Clearly the riverbeds and banks are still unstable as a result of the June 2022 flood! But the Corwin Spring gage keeps on measuring, continuing one of the longest continuous records of stream flow in the United States!

Romancing the River: What Am I Talking About? — George Sibley (Sibley’s Rivers) #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

Colorado River “Beginnings”. Photo: Brent Gardner-Smith/Aspen Journalism

Click the link to read the article the Sibley’s Rivers website (George Sibley):

Romancing the River – I am aware, as you are probably aware, that when I title these posts ‘Romancing the River,’ I am talking about the life work of the kinds of people who do not usually think of themselves as ‘romantics,’ or of their water-related work as ‘romancing the river.’

Engineers, lawyers, politicians, managers, career bureaucrats, scientists – they all see themselves as rational beings just doing what must be done to rationalize a random force of nature, to put the river to beneficial use feeding, watering, powering and even entertaining us. That’s ‘romancing the river’? It’s almost an insult to call these serious public servantsromantics, a term which resonates with most people today as not really very serious, just ‘love stories’ – so unserious it’s hardly worth them answering me when I call them romantics (which they don’t); easier for them to just dismiss me as some kind of nut (which they might).

“New plot using the nClimGrid data, which is a better source than PRISM for long-term trends. Of course, the combined reservoir contents increase from last year, but the increase is less than 2011 and looks puny compared to the ‘hole’ in the reservoirs. The blue Loess lines subtly change. Last year those lines ended pointing downwards. This year they end flat-ish. 2023 temps were still above the 20th century average, although close. Another interesting aspect is that the 20C Mean and 21C Mean lines on the individual plots really don’t change much. Finally, the 2023 Natural Flows are almost exactly equal to 2019. (17.678 maf vs 17.672 maf). For all the hoopla about how this was record-setting year, the fact is that this year was significantly less than 2011 (20.159 maf) and no different than 2019” — Brad Udall

So let me try again to explain myself – and why I believe it is neither criticism nor praise to suggest that the army of engineers, lawyers, politicians, career bureaucrats, scientists who have remade the Colorado River have been ‘romancing the river.’ It is a perspective to get up on the table and think about, as we find ourselves at a kind of still point: trying to figure out how to go forward from a century of river development that has ended uncomfortably close to a systemic collapse. It is hard to see 2022-23 as anything other than that, and we’ve only been temporarily reprieved with a wet winter and Biden’s infrastructure bucks giving us time to figure out how to do better for the future.

A stopover during Powell’s second expedition down the Colorado River. Note Powell’s chair at top center boat. Image: USGS

My thinking on this started with the book, mentioned here in posts more than a year ago, by Frederick Dellenbaugh, who came right out and said it in his title: The Romance of the Colorado River. Dellenbaugh, remember, first encountered the Colorado River as seventeen-year-old, in a boat with Major John Wesley Powell, on the scientist’s second trip down the canyons of the river in 1871-2.

Major Powell was better prepared and more experienced on that second trip, and actually able to accomplish some scientific work rather than just trying to survive. But for young Dellenbaugh, it was a big eye-opening experience – life-shaping, really: he spent the rest of his life exploring other unknown parts of the still-wild West, and collecting the stories of other adventurers.

He published The Romance of the Colorado River in 1902, thirty years after his formative trip with Powell – and the year the federal Reclamation Service was created as a branch of the U.S. Geological Survey, within 20 years the organization orchestrating the river’s development.

Dellenbaugh pulled no punches in describing his sense of the river and the challenge it represented. After noting in his introduction that ‘in every country, the great rivers have presented attractive pathways for interior exploration—gateways for settlement,’ serving as ‘friends and allies’ – he launches into his impression of the Colorado River:

THE GRAND CANON, LOOKING EAST FROM TO-RO-WEAP From “Exploration of the Colorado River of the West and Its Tributaries” By J. W . Powell, 1875

‘By contrast, it is all the more remarkable to meet with one great river which is none of these helpful things, but which, on the contrary, is a veritable dragon, loud in its dangerous lair, defiant, fierce, opposing utility everywhere, refusing absolutely to be bridled by Commerce, perpetuating a wilderness, prohibiting mankind’s encroachments, and in its immediate tide presenting a formidable host of snarling waters whose angry roar, reverberating wildly league after league between giant rock-walls carved through the bowels of the earth, heralds the impossibility of human conquest and smothers hope.’

There’s Dellenbaugh’s ‘romance of the river’ – an adventure story of rising to meet a challenge, a call to action to overcome obstacles. A veritable dragon refusing to be bridled? Impossible? Prohibiting encroachment? Smothering hope? We would see about that!

And while it’s not a conventional love story, passion is involved, the kind that can turn on a dime between love and hate. We loved the presence of water in a dry land – but the water was fickle at best, destructive at worst. Every farmer trying to irrigate from its two-month flood that turned into a trickle when they most needed it knew that love-hate relationship; it became the century-long (thus far) story of a strong and ornery people testing some new-found technological strength through picking a fight with a strong and ornery protagonist: we would teach the river to stand in and push rather than cutting and running.

Dellenbaugh was not the only one turning it into a romantic adventure. When the Colorado River Compact had been hammered out in 1922, the Commission Chair and Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover announced that ‘the foundation has been laid for a great American conquest.’ In a 1946 report cataloging all the possible developments for the Colorado river’s upper tributaries, the Bureau of Reclamation carried forward Dellenbaugh’s assessment in its subtitle: ‘A Natural Menace Becomes a National Resource.’ These were the official public perceptions guiding our relationship with the Colorado River.

For three-quarters of the century that followed publication of Dellenbaugh’s Romance, America embraced that romantic challenge, answering the call to conquest, taking on those obstacles, not just individually but as a national project, a big last step in the ‘Winning of the West.’ And fueled by the power unleashed by buried carbon fuels, we were ready for the fight; it was the Early Anthropocene, and it was our planet to reform.

Graphic via Holly McClelland/High Country News.

Remarkable things were done to the river as a result. The ‘veritable dragon’ has been broken and bridled for commerce and ‘utility everywhere.’ Its breaking and taming for commerce and utility is so massive that it practically requires the satellite view to take it in – the vast new ‘desert delta’ where the waters of the former desert river are spread from Phoenix and Tucson on the east, around through large squared-off green agricultural developments spotted with towns and cities, through the Imperial and Coachella valleys to Los Angeles and San Diego on the west…. And that’s just downriver; upriver are the tunnels through the mountains, taking water from the headwaters into the Platte, Arkansas, Rio Grande Basins, and into the Great Basin itself – how long will it be before Anthropocene math calculates that there might be enough water left in the Green River to move some through the Central Utah Project workings to help recharge the Not-So-Great Salt Lake?

For me, the ‘utility’ that cements the idea that this has been a big romantic adventure is the way we have kept significant reaches of river ‘wild’ enough for industries replicating Dellenbaugh’s formative adventure. Slipping onto the tongue and into the thrashing maw of Lava Falls, it is still easy to imagine a ‘veritable dragon,’ and millions of people from all over the planet come out of the Grand Canyon having relived Dellenbaugh’s romantic adventure.

But at the same time…. We also have to face some things that are less to be celebrated. Which brings me to Mary Austin again, another writer of the southwestern deserts mentioned here before, and her skeptical observation on Arizona’s ‘fabled Hassayampa,’ an intermittent tributary of the Gila River west of Phoenix, ‘of whose waters, if any drink, they can no more see fact as naked fact, but all radiant with the color of romance.’ Phoenicians have been drinking from the Hassayampa for a century now, wrapped up in the romance of the happy golden years in green and sunny places – and the underlying standard American romance of great wealth to be harvested fulfilling such romantic dreams.

But the ‘naked facts’ don’t go away just because we don’t want to see them, and there’s a kind of cosmic irony in the fact that, right where the Hassayampa flows into the Gila (when it’s actually flowing), two big developments, Buckeye and Teravalis, have been shut down at least temporarily on further development because they can’t present evidence of a hundred-year water supply. (See this post last spring.)

The mayor of Buckeye, Eric Orsborn, who also owns a construction business, is not discouraged by this. ‘My view is that we’re still full steam ahead,’ he said in an article in The Guardian. ‘We don’t have to have all that water solved today…. What we need to figure out is what’s that next crazy idea out there’ for bringing in a new water supply. An idea under consideration currently is a desalinization plant down in Mexico on the Gulf of California, and a pipeline to bring the desalted water a couple hundred miles uphill to central Arizona. Crazy, and very expensive – but we’ve been saying in Colorado for decades now, as though it were a mother truth, ‘Water flows uphill toward money.’

But other naked facts have also been dimming the radiance of the Anthropocene conquest of the Colorado River. Water users have been coping for half a century with water quality issues stemming from using water over and over to irrigate alkaline soils. We also didn’t really know – and some states continue to refuse to acknowledge – how much water would be lost to evaporation from big reservoirs, hundreds of miles of open and unlined canals, and flood or furrow irrigation on subtropical desert lands. About a sixth of the river is vaporized annually.

The basic explanation for why CO2 and other greenhouse gases warm the planet is so simple and has been known science for more than a century. Our atmosphere is transparent to visible light — the rainbow of colors from red to violet that make up natural sunlight. When the sun shines, its light passes right through the atmosphere to warm the Earth. The warm Earth then radiates some of its energy back upward in the form of infrared radiation — the “color” of light that lies just beyond red that our eyes can’t see (unless we’re wearing infrared-sensitive night-vision goggles). If all of that infrared radiation escaped back into space, the Earth would be frozen solid. However, naturally occurring greenhouse gas molecules, including not just CO2 but also methane and water vapor, intercept some of it — re-emitting the infrared radiation in all directions, including back to Earth. That keeps us warm. When we add extra greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, though, we increase the atmosphere’s heat-trapping capacity. Less heat escapes to space, more returns to Earth, and the planet warms.

But the biggest, most unforeseen collateral fact diminishing our conquest of the river is the turbulence we’ve wrought in the climate – increasingly an unignorable ‘naked fact.’ All the heavy technology and concrete we’ve invested in controlling the river, as well as all the technology of daily living that depends on burning carbon fuels, not to mention the methane from livestock and human waste – all our gaseous carbon emissions have increased the heat-holding capacity of the atmosphere, which in turn increases the heat energy driving our weather systems. We’ve seen this just this past year: how that changing balance can result in ‘atmospheric rivers’ of vapor forming over the ocean and dumping huge snowpacks when it condenses over the mountains – but then being back on the ‘abnormally dry’ edge of drought within a few months of the day-to-day water-sucking aridification that is the shape of the future.

So we Anthropocenes have conquered the river, bridled the dragon – but as we saw in the previous post here, we lost a full third of the river as the collateral consequences, unforeseen or just ignored, of the conquest. And all responsible prognosticators project that we will lose maybe another sixth of the river by mid-century to our drying out of the planet.

There are a number of ways to look at this. One would be to say, like Eric Orsborn, okay, there have been setbacks, but we can’t stop now; we need to finish the job. And he is far from the only Phoenician saying that. The state has a governor now and a Water Resources Department who know when it’s time to call a halt, but the state also has a Water Infrastructure Finance Authority charged with creating new water supplies for the state. The Mexican desal plant and megamile pipeline is just one idea in WIFA’s portfolio of possibilities; the old unkillable idea of bringing water over from the Missouri or Mississippi Rivers is still on their list.

‘Those are big, audacious ideas, but I don’t think any are off the table,’ WIFA director Chuck Podolak told The Guardian. ‘We’re going to seek the wild ideas and fund the good ones.’ The romance of conquest throbs on; Hoover Dam was a wild idea a century ago, so why stop now?

A water policy analyst at Arizona State University, Kathryn Sorensen, toldThe Guardian that ‘the degree of [Buckeye’s] success will depend on the degree to which people are willing to pay for those more expensive solutions. But it’s absolutely feasible. We pave over rivers, we build sea walls, we drain swamps, we destroy wetlands, we import water supplies where they never would have otherwise gone. Humans always do outlandish things, it’s what we do.”

There is diminishing enthusiasm today, however, for the romance of conquest; dwellers in the megacities are increasingly reluctant to embrace higher water bills in order to finance more growth, more people, more traffic, longer lines everywhere – San Diego is an example today. The same is true for urban/suburban water conservation; there is a romantic appeal to helping one’s city by conserving in an emergency situation, a drought period or a maintenance shutdown; but conservation-in-perpetuity just to make more water available for growth lacks that romantic appeal.

For many of us, the ‘romance of the river’ has probably shifted 180 degrees over the past half century to a belated appreciation for the ‘natural river’: the Colorado River that once flowed to the ocean in a two-month flood and watered a beautiful wild delta, the river that would flow through a resurrected Glen Canyon if the dam were taken down, et cetera. This eco-rec perspective nurtures the belief that the world would be a better place if we would ‘just stop digging’ and leave it to nature to heal itself from our efforts. This idea has the ‘radiant color of romance’ for many of us, but it also has its underlying naked facts – not least of which are nature’s extreme remedies for a swarming species overpopulating its resource base.

I tend to think, myself, that, yes, we can’t stop now with our tinkering and meddling; we are all too deeply into this love-hate relationship with nature. Just as we will continue to thwart nature with vaccines against its leveling pandemics, we will continue to try to keep passable water in the pipes and faucets, on the fields, and in the recreational reaches for an ever-growing population because that is who we are; it’s what we do.

For many of us, the ‘romance of the river’ has probably shifted 180 degrees over the past half century to a belated appreciation for the ‘natural river’: the Colorado River that once flowed to the ocean in a two-month flood and watered a beautiful wild delta, the river that would flow through a resurrected Glen Canyon if the dam were taken down, et cetera. This eco-rec perspective nurtures the belief that the world would be a better place if we would ‘just stop digging’ and leave it to nature to heal itself from our efforts. This idea has the ‘radiant color of romance’ for many of us, but it also has its underlying naked facts – not least of which are nature’s extreme remedies for a swarming species overpopulating its resource base.

I tend to think, myself, that, yes, we can’t stop now with our tinkering and meddling; we are all too deeply into this love-hate relationship with nature. Just as we will continue to thwart nature with vaccines against its leveling pandemics, we will continue to try to keep passable water in the pipes and faucets, on the fields, and in the recreational reaches for an ever-growing population because that is who we are; it’s what we do.

At least 45% of the nation’s tap #water is estimated to have one or more types of the chemicals known as per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances, or #PFAS, according to a new study by the U.S. Geological Survey

This USGS map shows the number of PFAS detected in tap water samples from select sites across the nation. The findings are based on a USGS study of samples taken between 2016 and 2021 from private and public supplies at 716 locations. The map does not represent the only locations in the U.S. with PFAS. Sources/Usage: Public Domain. Visit Media to see details.

Click the link to read the release on the USGS website:

At least 45% of the nation’s tap water is estimated to have one or more types of the chemicals known as per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances, or PFAS, according to a new study by the U.S. Geological Survey. There are more than 12,000 types of PFAS, not all of which can be detected with current tests; the USGS study tested for the presence of 32 types.

Read the study

This USGS research marks the first time anyone has tested for and compared PFAS in tap water from both private and government-regulated public water supplies on a broad scale throughout the country. Those data were used to model and estimate PFAS contamination nationwide. This USGS study can help members of the public to understand their risk of exposure and inform policy and management decisions regarding testing and treatment options for drinking water.

PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals used in a wide variety of common applications, from the linings of fast-food boxes and non-stick cookware to fire-fighting foams and other purposes. High concentrations of some PFAS may lead to adverse health risks in people, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research is still ongoing to better understand the potential health effects of PFAS exposure over long periods of time. Because they break down very slowly, PFAS are commonly called “forever chemicals.” Their persistence in the environment and prevalence across the country make them a unique water-quality concern.

A USGS scientist wearing black gloves is collecting a sample of tap water from the kitchen sink using small plastic vials to test for PFAS. Sources/Usage: Public Domain. Visit Media to see details.

“USGS scientists tested water collected directly from people’s kitchen sinks across the nation, providing the most comprehensive study to date on PFAS in tap water from both private wells and public supplies,” said USGS research hydrologist Kelly Smalling, the study’s lead author. “The study estimates that at least one type of PFAS – of those that were monitored – could be present in nearly half of the tap water in the U.S. Furthermore, PFAS concentrations were similar between public supplies and private wells.”

The EPA regulates public water supplies, and homeowners are responsible for the maintenance, testing and treatment of private water supplies. Those interested in testing and treating private wells should contact their local and state officials for guidance. Testing is the only way to confirm the presence of these contaminants in wells. For more information about PFAS regulations, visit the EPA’s website on addressing PFAS.

The study tested for 32 individual PFAS compounds using a method developed by the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory. The most frequently detected compounds in this study were PFBS, PFHxS and PFOA. The interim health advisories released by the EPA in 2022 for PFOS and PFOA were exceeded in every sample in which they were detected in this study.

Scientists collected tap water samples from 716 locations representing a range of low, medium and high human-impacted areas. The low category includes protected lands; medium includes residential and rural areas with no known PFAS sources; and high includes urban areas and locations with reported PFAS sources such as industry or waste sites.

Most of the exposure was observed near urban areas and potential PFAS sources. This included the Great Plains, Great Lakes, Eastern Seaboard, and Central/Southern California regions. The study’s results are in line with previous research concluding that people in urban areas have a higher likelihood of PFAS exposure. USGS scientists estimate that the probability of PFAS not being observed in tap water is about 75% in rural areas and around 25% in urban areas.

Learn more about USGS research on PFAS by reading the USGS strategy for the study of PFAS and visiting the PFAS Integrated Science Team’s website. The new study builds upon previous research by the USGS and partners regarding human-derived contaminants, including PFAS, in drinking water and PFAS in groundwater.

What is Hydrology? — USGS

Sources/Usage: Public Domain. Research Hydrologist Martin Briggs (USGS) collects ground-penetrating radar (GPR) data. He is wearing special ice cleats on his shoes to have better traction walking on the ice. (April 2017)

Click the link to read the article on the USGS website:

What is Hydrology?

Water is one of our most precious natural resources. Without it, there would be no life on earth. Hydrology has evolved as a science in response to the need to understand the complex water system of the earth and help solve water problems. This hydrology primer gives you information about water on Earth and humans’ involvement and use of water.

Introduction

Hydrology is the study of water

Water is one of our most important natural resources. Without it, there would be no life on earth. The supply of water available for our use is limited by nature. Although there is plenty of water on earth, it is not always in the right place, at the right time and of the right quality. Adding to the problem is the increasing evidence that chemical wastes improperly discarded yesterday are showing up in our water supplies today. Hydrology has evolved as a science in response to the need to understand the complex water systems of the Earth and help solve water problems. Hydrologists play a vital role in finding solutions to water problems, and interesting and challenging careers are available to those who choose to study hydrology.

Water and People

Estimates of water use in the United States indicate that about 355 billion gallons per day (one thousand million gallons per day, abbreviated Bgal/d) were withdrawn for all uses during 2010. This total has declined about 17 percent since 1980. Fresh groundwater withdrawals (76.0 Bgal/d) during 2010 were 8 percent less than during 1980. Fresh surface-water withdrawals for 2010 were 230 Bgal/d, 18 percent less than in 1980.

Much of our water use is hidden. Think about what you had for lunch. A hamburger, for example, requires water to raise wheat for the bun, to grow hay and corn to feed the cattle and to process the bread and beef. Together with french fries and a soft drink, this all-American meal uses about 1,500 gallons of water — enough to fill a small swimming pool. How about your clothes? To grow cotton for a pair of jeans takes about 400 gallons. A shirt requires about 400 gallons. How do you get to school or to the store? To produce the amount of finished steel in a car has in the past required about 32,000 gallons of water. Similarly, the steel in a 30-pound bicycle required 480 gallons. This shows that industry must continue to strive to reduce water use through manufacturing processes that use less water, and through recycling of water.

What is Hydrology?

Hydrology is the science that encompasses the occurrence, distribution, movement and properties of the waters of the earth and their relationship with the environment within each phase of the hydrologic cycle. The water cycle, or hydrologic cycle, is a continuous process by which water is purified by evaporation and transported from the earth’s surface (including the oceans) to the atmosphere and back to the land and oceans. All of the physical, chemical and biological processes involving water as it travels its various paths in the atmosphere, over and beneath the earth’s surface and through growing plants, are of interest to those who study the hydrologic cycle.

There are many pathways the water may take in its continuous cycle of falling as rainfall or snowfall and returning to the atmosphere. It may be captured for millions of years in polar ice caps. It may flow to rivers and finally to the sea. It may soak into the soil to be evaporated directly from the soil surface as it dries or be transpired by growing plants. It may percolate through the soil to ground water reservoirs (aquifers) to be stored or it may flow to wells or springs or back to streams by seepage. The cycle for water may be short, or it may take millions of years.

People tap the water cycle for their own uses. Water is diverted temporarily from one part of the cycle by pumping it from the ground or drawing it from a river or lake. It is used for a variety of activities such as households, businesses and industries; for irrigation of farms and parklands; and for production of electric power. After use, water is returned to another part of the cycle: perhaps discharged downstream or allowed to soak into the ground. Used water normally is lower in quality, even after treatment, which often poses a problem for downstream users.

The hydrologist studies the fundamental transport processes to be able to describe the quantity and quality of water as it moves through the cycle (evaporation, precipitation, streamflow, infiltration, groundwater flow, and other components). The engineering hydrologist, or water resources engineer, is involved in the planning, analysis, design, construction and operation of projects for the control, utilization, and management of water resources. Water resources problems are also the concern of meteorologists, oceanographers, geologists, chemists, physicists, biologists, economists, political scientists, specialists in applied mathematics and computer science, and engineers in several fields.

What Hydrologists Do?

Hydrologists apply scientific knowledge and mathematical principles to solve water-related problems in society: problems of quantity, quality and availability. They may be concerned with finding water supplies for cities or irrigated farms, or controlling river flooding or soil erosion. Or, they may work in environmental protection: preventing or cleaning up pollution or locating sites for safe disposal of hazardous wastes.

Persons trained in hydrology may have a wide variety of job titles. Scientists and engineers in hydrology may be involved in both field investigations and office work. In the field, they may collect basic data, oversee testing of water quality, direct field crews and work with equipment. Many jobs require travel, some abroad. A hydrologist may spend considerable time doing field work in remote and rugged terrain. In the office, hydrologists do many things such as interpreting hydrologic data and performing analyses for determining possible water supplies. Much of their work relies on computers for organizing, summarizing and analyzing masses of data, and for modeling studies such as the prediction of flooding and the consequences of reservoir releases or the effect of leaking underground oil storage tanks.

The work of hydrologists is as varied as the uses of water and may range from planning multimillion dollar interstate water projects to advising homeowners about backyard drainage problems.

San Luis Valley. Photo credit: The Alamosa Citizen

Surface Water

Most cities meet their needs for water by withdrawing it from the nearest river, lake or reservoir. Hydrologists help cities by collecting and analyzing the data needed to predict how much water is available from local supplies and whether it will be sufficient to meet the city’s projected future needs. To do this, hydrologists study records of rainfall, snowpack depths and river flows that are collected and compiled by hydrologists in various government agencies. They inventory the extent river flow already is being used by others.

Managing reservoirs can be quite complex, because they generally serve many purposes. Reservoirs increase the reliability of local water supplies. Hydrologists use topographic maps and aerial photographs to determine where the reservoir shorelines will be and to calculate reservoir depths and storage capacity. This work ensures that, even at maximum capacity, no highways, railroads or homes would be flooded.

Deciding how much water to release and how much to store depends upon the time of year, flow predictions for the next several months, and the needs of irrigators and cities as well as downstream water-users that rely on the reservoir. If the reservoir also is used for recreation or for generation of hydroelectric power, those requirements must be considered. Decisions must be coordinated with other reservoir managers along the river. Hydrologists collect the necessary information, enter it into a computer, and run computer models to predict the results under various operating strategies. On the basis of these studies, reservoir managers can make the best decision for those involved.

The availability of surface water for swimming, drinking, industrial or other uses sometimes is restricted because of pollution. Pollution can be merely an unsightly and inconvenient nuisance, or it can be an invisible, but deadly, threat to the health of people, plants and animals.

Hydrologists assist public health officials in monitoring public water supplies to ensure that health standards are met. When pollution is discovered, environmental engineers work with hydrologists in devising the necessary sampling program. Water quality in estuaries, streams, rivers and lakes must be monitored, and the health of fish, plants and wildlife along their stretches surveyed. Related work concerns acid rain and its effects on aquatic life, and the behavior of toxic metals and organic chemicals in aquatic environments. Hydrologic and water quality mathematical models are developed and used by hydrologists for planning and management and predicting water quality effects of changed conditions. Simple analyses such as pH, turbidity, and oxygen content may be done by hydrologists in the field. Other chemical analyses require more sophisticated laboratory equipment. In the past, municipal and industrial sewage was a major source of pollution for streams and lakes. Such wastes often received only minimal treatment, or raw wastes were dumped into rivers. Today, we are more aware of the consequences of such actions, and billions of dollars must be invested in pollution-control equipment to protect the waters of the earth. Other sources of pollution are more difficult to identify and control. These include road deicing salts, storm runoff from urban areas and farmland, and erosion from construction sites.

Researchers with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln take groundwater samples from the Loup River in the Sandhills of Nebraska in September 2018. By sampling groundwater and determining its age, they hope to determine whether predictions for groundwater discharge rates and contamination removal in watersheds are accurate. Photo credit: Troy Gilmore

Groundwater

Groundwater, pumped from beneath the earth’s surface, is often cheaper, more convenient and less vulnerable to pollution than surface water. Therefore, it is commonly used for public water supplies. Groundwater provides the largest source of usable water storage in the United States. Underground reservoirs contain far more water than the capacity of all surface reservoirs and lakes, including the Great Lakes. In some areas, ground water may be the only option. Some municipalities survive solely on groundwater.

Hydrologists estimate the volume of water stored underground by measuring water levels in local wells and by examining geologic records from well-drilling to determine the extent, depth and thickness of water-bearing sediments and rocks. Before an investment is made in full-sized wells, hydrologists may supervise the drilling of test wells. They note the depths at which water is encountered and collect samples of soils, rock and water for laboratory analyses. They may run a variety of geophysical tests on the completed hole, keeping and accurate log of their observations and test results. Hydrologists determine the most efficient pumping rate by monitoring the extent that water levels drop in the pumped well and in its nearest neighbors. Pumping the well too fast could cause it to go dry or could interfere with neighboring wells. Along the coast, overpumping can cause saltwater intrusion. By plotting and analyzing these data, hydrologists can estimate the maximum and optimum yields of the well.

Polluted groundwater is less visible, but more insidious and difficult to clean up, than pollution in rivers and lakes. Ground water pollution most often results from improper disposal of wastes on land. Major sources include industrial and household chemicals and garbage landfills, industrial waste lagoons, tailings and process wastewater from mines, oil field brine pits, leaking underground oil storage tanks and pipelines, sewage sludge and septic systems. Hydrologists provide guidance in the location of monitoring wells around waste disposal sites and sample them at regular intervals to determine if undesirable leachate — contaminated water containing toxic or hazardous chemicals — is reaching the ground water.

In polluted areas, hydrologists may collect soil and water samples to identify the type and extent of contamination. The chemical data then are plotted on a map to show the size and direction of waste movement. In complex situations, computer modeling of water flow and waste migration provides guidance for a clean-up program. In extreme cases, remedial actions may require excavation of the polluted soil. Today, most people and industries realize that the amount of money invested in prevention is far less than that of cleanup. Hydrologists often are consulted for selection of proper sites for new waste disposal facilities. The danger of pollution is minimized by locating wells in areas of deep ground water and impermeable soils. Other practices include lining the bottom of a landfill with watertight materials, collecting any leachate with drains, and keeping the landfill surface covered as much as possible. Careful monitoring is always necessary.

Careers in Hydrology

Students who plan to become hydrologists need a strong emphasis in mathematics, statistics, geology, physics, computer science, chemistry and biology. In addition, sufficient background in other subjects — economics, public finance, environmental law, government policy — is needed to communicate with experts in these fields and to understand the implications of their work on hydrology. Communicating clearly in writing and speech is a basic requirement essential for any professional person. Hydrologists should be able to work well with people, not only as part of a team with other scientists and engineers, but also in public relations, whether it be advising governmental leaders or informing the general public on water issues. Hydrology offers a variety of interesting and challenging career choices for today and tomorrow. It’s a field worth considering.

Source: Hydrology: The Study of Water and Water Problems A Challenge for Today and Tomorrow, a publication of the Universities Council on Water Resources

High Flow Experiment 2023! — USGS

Glen Canyon Dam released higher flows over the past three days, with a peak discharge of over 40k cfs. This experiment aims to rebuild beaches, disrupt invasive fish breeding, and increase invertebrate abundance and diversity.

Assessing the seasonal evolution of snow depth spatial variability and scaling in complex mountain terrain — USGS #snowpack

View of the Bridger Range looking south from the summit of Sacagawea Peak. By Rperry99 at the English-language Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31376982

Click the link to access the article on the USGS website (Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center):

Dynamic natural processes govern snow distribution in mountainous environments throughout the world. Interactions between these different processes create spatially variable patterns of snow depth across a landscape. Variations in accumulation and redistribution occur at a variety of spatial scales, which are well established for moderate mountain terrain. However, spatial patterns of snow depth variability in steep, complex mountain terrain have not been fully explored due to insufficient spatial resolutions of snow depth measurement. Recent advances in uncrewed aerial systems (UASs) and structure from motion (SfM) photogrammetry provide an opportunity to map spatially continuous snow depths at high resolutions in these environments. Using UASs and SfM photogrammetry, we produced 11 snow depth maps at a steep couloir site in the Bridger Range of Montana, USA, during the 2019–2020 winter. We quantified the spatial scales of snow depth variability in this complex mountain terrain at a variety of resolutions over 2 orders of magnitude (0.02 to 20 m) and time steps (4 to 58 d) using variogram analysis in a high-performance computing environment. We found that spatial resolutions greater than 0.5 m do not capture the complete patterns of snow depth spatial variability within complex mountain terrain and that snow depths are autocorrelated within horizontal distances of 15 m at our study site. The results of this research have the potential to reduce uncertainty currently associated with snowpack and snow water resource analysis by documenting and quantifying snow depth variability and snowpack evolution on relatively inaccessible slopes in complex terrain at high spatial and temporal resolutions.

A review of current capabilities and science gaps in #water supply data, modeling, and trends for water availability assessments in the Upper #ColoradoRiver Basin — USGS #COriver #aridification #CRWUA2022

Upper Colorado River basin study area. Graphic credit: USGS

Click the link to read the article on the USGS website (Fred D. Tillman, Natalie K. Day, Matthew P. Miller, Olivia L. Miller, Christine Rumsey, Daniel Wise, Patrick Cullen Longley, and Morgan C. McDonnell). Here’s the abstract:

The Colorado River is a critical water resource in the southwestern United States, supplying drinking water for 40 million people in the region and water for irrigation of 2.2 million hectares of land. Extended drought in the Upper Colorado River Basin (UCOL) and the prospect of a warmer climate in the future pose water availability challenges for those charged with managing the river. Limited water availability in the future also may negatively affect aquatic ecosystems and wildlife that depend upon them. Water availability components of special importance in the UCOL include streamflow, salinity in groundwater and surface water, groundwater levels and storage, and the role of snow in the UCOL water cycle. This manuscript provides a review of current “state of the science” for these UCOL water availability components with a focus on identifying gaps in data, modeling, and trends in the basin. Trends provide context for evaluations of current conditions and motivation for further investigation and modeling, models allow for investigation of processes and projections of future water availability, and data support both efforts. Information summarized in this manuscript will be valuable in planning integrated assessments of water availability in the UCOL.

The Water in You: #Water and the Human Body — USGS

Water serves a number of essential functions to keep us all going. Sources/Usage: Public Domain.

Click the link to read the article on the USGS website:

Think of what you need to survive, really just survive. Food? Water? Air? Facebook? Naturally, I’m going to concentrate on water here. Water is of major importance to all living things; in some organisms, up to 90% of their body weight comes from water. Up to 60% of the human adult body is water.

According to Mitchell and others (1945), the brain and heart are composed of 73% water, and the lungs are about 83% water. The skin contains 64% water, muscles and kidneys are 79%, and even the bones are watery: 31%.

Each day humans must consume a certain amount of water to survive. Of course, this varies according to age and gender, and also by where someone lives. Generally, an adult male needs about 3 liters (3.2 quarts) per day while an adult female needs about 2.2 liters (2.3 quarts) per day. All of the water a person needs does not have to come from drinking liquids, as some of this water is contained in the food we eat.

Water serves a number of essential functions to keep us all going

A vital nutrient to the life of every cell, acts first as a building material.

It regulates our internal body temperature by sweating and respiration

The carbohydrates and proteins that our bodies use as food are metabolized and transported by water in the bloodstream;

It assists in flushing waste mainly through urination

acts as a shock absorber for brain, spinal cord, and fetus

forms saliva

lubricates joints

According to Dr. Jeffrey Utz, Neuroscience, pediatrics, Allegheny University, different people have different percentages of their bodies made up of water. Babies have the most, being born at about 78%. By one year of age, that amount drops to about 65%. In adult men, about 60% of their bodies are water. However, fat tissue does not have as much water as lean tissue. In adult women, fat makes up more of the body than men, so they have about 55% of their bodies made of water. Thus:

Babies and kids have more water (as a percentage) than adults.

Women have less water than men (as a percentage).

People with more fatty tissue have less water than people with less fatty tissue (as a percentage).

There just wouldn’t be any you, me, or Fido the dog without the existence of an ample liquid water supply on Earth. The unique qualities and properties of water are what make it so important and basic to life. The cells in our bodies are full of water. The excellent ability of water to dissolve so many substances allows our cells to use valuable nutrients, minerals, and chemicals in biological processes.

Water’s “stickiness” (from surface tension) plays a part in our body’s ability to transport these materials all through ourselves. The carbohydrates and proteins that our bodies use as food are metabolized and transported by water in the bloodstream. No less important is the ability of water to transport waste material out of our bodies.

Sources and more information:

Mitchell, H.H., Hamilton, T.S., Steggerda, F.R., and Bean, H.W., 1945, The chemical composition of the adult human body and its bearing on the biochemistry of growth: Journal of Biological Chemistry, v. 158, issue 3, p. 625-637.

The Nature of Water: Environment Canada

Project WET (PDF)

Just another day on the job in 1890 – Measuring the velocity of streams in a cable-suspended, stream-gaging car on the #ArkansasRiver in #Colorado — USGS

Just another day on the job in 1890 – Measuring the velocity of streams in a cable-suspended, stream-gaging car on the Arkansas River in Colorado.

📸 https://t.co/XNpFdAZ4KD @USGS_Water #MondayMemories #history #water pic.twitter.com/QWuwrSVN4J
— USGS (@USGS) November 7, 2022

The new Water Cycle map is now available: See how humans affect the water cycle — USGS #ActOnClimate

Click the link to read about the water cycle on the USGS website:

The water cycle describes where water is on Earth and how it moves. Human water use, land use, and climate change all impact the water cycle. By understanding these impacts, we can work toward using water sustainably.
What is the water cycle?
The water cycle describes where water is on Earth and how it moves. Water is stored in the atmosphere, on the land surface, and below the ground. It can be a liquid, a solid, or a gas. Liquid water can be fresh or saline (salty). Water moves between the places it is stored. Water moves at large scales, through watersheds, the atmosphere, and below the Earth’s surface. Water moves at very small scales too. It is in us, plants, and other organisms. Human activities impact the water cycle, affecting where water is stored, how it moves, and how clean it is.
Pools store water
Oceans store 96% of all water on Earth. Ocean water is saline, meaning it’s salty. On land, saline water is stored in saline lakes. The rest of the water on Earth is fresh water. Fresh water is stored in liquid form in freshwater lakes, artificial reservoirs, rivers, and wetlands. Water is stored in solid, frozen form in ice sheets and glaciers, and in snowpack at high elevations or near Earth’s poles. Water vapor is a gas and is stored as atmospheric moisture over the ocean and land. In the soil, frozen water is stored as permafrost and liquid water is stored as soil moisture. Deeper below ground, liquid water is stored as groundwater in aquifers. Water in groundwater aquifers is found within cracks and pores in the rock.
Fluxes move water between pools
As it moves, water can change form between liquid, solid, and gas. Circulation mixes water in the oceans and transports water vapor in the atmosphere. Water moves between the atmosphere and the surface through evaporation, evapotranspiration, and precipitation. Water moves across the surface through snowmelt, runoff, and streamflow. Water moves into the ground through infiltration and groundwater recharge. Underground, groundwater flows within aquifers. Groundwater can return to the surface through natural discharge into rivers, the ocean, and from springs.

A high desert thunderstorm lights up the sky behind Glen Canyon Dam — Photo USBR

What drives the water cycle?
Water moves naturally and because of human actions. Energy from the sun and the force of gravity drive the continual movement of water between pools. The sun’s energy causes liquid water to evaporate into water vapor. Evapotranspiration is the main way water moves into the atmosphere from the land surface and oceans. Gravity causes water to flow downward on land. It causes rain, snow, and hail to fall from clouds.

Greeley Irrigation Ditch No. 3 construction via Greeley Water

Humans alter the water cycle
In addition to natural processes, human water use affects where water is stored and how water moves. We redirect rivers. We build dams to store water. We drain water from wetlands for development. We use water from rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and groundwater aquifers. We use that water to supply our homes and communities. We use it for agricultural irrigation and grazing livestock. We use it in industrial activities like thermoelectric power generation, mining, and aquaculture.
We also affect water quality. In agricultural and urban areas, irrigation and precipitation wash fertilizers and pesticides into rivers and groundwater. Power plants and factories return heated and contaminated water to rivers. Runoff carries chemicals, sediment, and sewage into rivers and lakes. Downstream from these sources, contaminated water can cause harmful algal blooms, spread diseases, and harm habitats for wildlife.
The water cycle and climate change
Climate change is actively affecting the water cycle. It is impacting water quantity and timing. Precipitation patterns are changing. The frequency, intensity, and length of extreme weather events, like floods or droughts, are also changing. Ocean sea levels are rising, leading to coastal flooding. Climate change is also impacting water quality. It is causing ocean acidification which damages the shells and skeletons of many marine organisms. Climate change increases the likelihood and intensity of wildfires, which introduces unwanted pollutants from soot and ash into nearby lakes and streams.
What determines water availability?
Humans and other organisms rely on water for life. The amount of water that is available depends on how much water there is in each pool (water quantity). Water availability also depends on when and how fast water moves (water timing) through the water cycle. Finally, water availability depends on how clean the water is (water quality). By understanding human impacts on the water cycle, we can work toward using water sustainably. 
Read more about the components of the water cycle in more detail:
Atmosphere · Condensation · Evaporation · Evapotranspiration · Freshwater lakes and rivers · Groundwater flow · Groundwater storage · Ice and snow · Infiltration · Oceans · Precipitation · Snowmelt · Springs · Streamflow · Sublimation · Surface runoff

#GrandCanyon beach restoration program at risk because of #drought — KNAU #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

A rare sight: Water shoots out of Glen Canyon Dam’s river outlets or “jet tubes” during a high-flow experimental release in 2013. Typically all of the dam’s outflows go through penstocks to turn the turbines on the hydroelectric plant. The outlets are only used during these experiments, meant to redistribute sediment downstream, and when lake levels get too high. Spillways are used as a last, last resort. The river outlets may be used again in the not so distant future: Once Lake Powell’s surface level drops below 3,490 feet, or minimum power pool, water can no longer be run through the turbines and can only be sent to the river below via the outlets. This is cause for concern because the river outlets were not built for long-term use. Jonathan P. Thompson photo.

Click the link to read the article on the KNAU website (Melissa Sevigny). Here’s an excerpt:

In the autumn of 2012, a flood swept through the Grand Canyon. Not one provided by nature, but by the engineers who cranked open the bypass tubes at the base of Glen Canyon Dam. It was the start of a program heralded by many as a triumph. Fall floods happened again in 2013, 2014, 2016, 2018.
“And then,” says hydrologist Paul Grams, “we hit these drought conditions.”
The program is in trouble. Lake Powell is three quarters empty and just 40 feet above the level where hydropower production stops. It’s risky now to release floods.
“So we have a condition now, where it’s been four years since the last high flow and the sandbars have eroded a lot,” Grams explains…
Chapman says the beaches are vital: they create backwaters for native fish and habitat for plants and animals. And for more than 20,000 river runners in the Grand Canyon every year, Chapman says, “The sandbars themselves are the only durable, nonfragile environment that everyone can camp on; you don’t have to go bushwacking to find a place to camp.” Some scientists want to save the program by switching floods to spring, when snowmelt bolsters Lake Powell’s level. That could help balance the need for floods with the demand for hydropower.

Reading the #RioGrande — The #Albuquerque Journal

Embudo Student Hydrographers (1889?). Photo credit: USGS https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/embudo-student-hydrographers

An exchange on Twitter led me to this article written by friend of Coyote Gulch John Fleck. Click the link to read the article on the Albuquerque Journal website. Here’s an excerpt:

There’s no evidence that John Wesley Powell, the second director of the U.S. Geological Survey, ever made it to this stretch of the Rio Grande back in the winter of 1888-89, when he dispatched a crew to the site to establish the nation’s first river flow measurement site…

The first USGS streamgage, at Embudo, New Mexico, just turned 125 years old. Public domain

In the world of U.S. water management, this narrow strip where the river funnels between high bluffs is historic. Powell, most famous as the first person to survey the Grand Canyon, had realized that the ambitions of the continent’s European immigrants spreading west across North America were running up against an arid reality that Easterners failed to understand. Collective effort would be needed to confront the region’s aridity…Powell realized, and one of the first things the young nation needed was to measure how much water there was in the rivers.
Powell’s young agency, founded a decade before, dispatched a crew to Embudo in the winter of 1888-89 to try to figure out how to do that. The initial team that winter was led by Frederick Newell, who 13 years later became the founding director of the U.S. Reclamation Service, the predecessor to today’s U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the agency responsible for the dams and irrigation systems that changed the western U.S. forever.
The first experiment, done on the Rio Grande at Embudo, just north of Española, was simple. They surveyed the channel’s depth and width, then built a simple pontoon boat and floated downstream. A bit of simple arithmetic – the river’s cross section multiplied by the speed of the flowing water – gave their first measurement of the volume of water flowing past Embudo.

#Water Quality Sampling Techniques — USGS

Water-quality sampling from Salt River cableway, Etna, Wyoming. Credit: Cheryl Eddy Miller, USGS

Click the link to read the article on the USGS website (Water Science School):

Checking the water quality of the Nation’s streams, rivers, and lakes is one of the main responsibilities of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Physical water measurements and streamflow are almost always taken, but often water samples are needed for chemical analyses, and sampling must follow strict guidelines to collect scientifically-viable samples.

Water Quality Sampling Techniques

Checking the water quality of the Nation’s streams, rivers, and lakes is one of the main responsibilities of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Physical water measurements and streamflow are almost always taken, but often water samples are needed for chemical analyses. Generally, it is imperative that water samples be representative of the whole stream, and so, sampling a stream means more than just dipping a coffee cup in at the stream bank and sending it to the laboratory. The USGS uses strict scientific methodology in taking samples of any water body.

USGS scientists collect water samples for chemical analysis from an excavated pond in the New Jersey Pinelands. Credit: Kelly Smalling, USGS

Sampling methodology depends on stream size

The USGS has to utilize different methods and equipment when taking a sample of water from a stream—it all depends on the size of the stream, how deep the water is, and how fast the water is moving. Also, I should add, on the ability of the water scientist to be able to access the water. As the left-side pictures below show, often a hydrologist can simply step out into a small stream and dip a bottle in at the appropriate place, but on larger rivers, it might be necessary to build a cableway and take water samples from high above the water surface. Sampling methodology also depends on the type of water sample needed.

Sampling a small stream

For a small stream where the water is well mixed, it is sometimes possible to take a single “grab sample”, where the hydrologist just dips a bottle in the stream at one location, still trying to move the bottle up and down to sample the entire vertical column of water. Note how the sampler always stands downstream from the sampling point—don’t want to stir up any sediment that could alter the chemical analysis of the water sample.

Quite often it is important to take a water sample that represents the stream as a whole. That entails taking small amounts of water from numerous horizontal sections across the stream, at regular intervals, as the middle picture shows. There is a bottle inside the white container at the end of the pole (bottom picture). The bottle has a small tube in it that allows only a small amount of flow into the bottle, and thus, the hydrologist can regulate how much water is sampled at various points in the stream. She can sample different horizontal sections separately by using a different bottle for each vertical section or use a single bottle for the whole stream.

Sediment sampling and surrogates. Sediment work using samplers, laser diffraction, and acoustics on the Kickapoo Creek near Bloomington, Illinois, on April 22, 2011. Credit: Tim Straub, USGS

Sampling a larger river

It takes a lot more work to get a water sample from a larger river, as this picture shows. In larger rivers, there is more chance of variability in the water characteristics and quality across the river. There may be a tributary coming in from the left side above the sampling point or there may a wastewater treatment outflow pipe a mile upstream on the right bank.

It takes longer for all the water in large rivers to mix together. So, to understand the water properties of the whole river it is necessary to obtain individual samples at set increments across the river. Bridges make this task very convenient, although samples can be taken using a boat, if no bridge is available.

If the water is moving fast or if the depth is too deep, then a crane with an electric motor (or hand crank for especially hardy hydrologists) is used to obtain the water sample (above picture). The heavy metal “fish” which holds the sampling bottle is needed to keep the sampler from being pushed downstream, as it is important to representatively sample the vertical column of water at each sampling point across the river. The hydrologist has to move the sampler up and down at a steady rate until the bottle is filled, while at the same time being sure not to smash the nozzle into the mud on the stream bed!

Sometimes only a cableway will do

USGS hydrologists can’t always count on a nice, wide bridge being available for hydrologists to sample from, and sometimes it is too dangerous (due to high flows or floating debris) to use a boat for sampling. In these cases, a cable can be strung across the river, from which a hydrologist can move across and sample and measure the river as needed.

Share this:
Bluesky
LinkedIn
Facebook
Email
Print
X
Like this:
Like Loading…

The flight of the Nez Perce — USGS

Click the link to read the article on the USGS website:

Summer 2023 marks 146 years since the flight of the Nez Perce, when an indigenous tribe crossed Yellowstone in an attempt to reach Canada and during a running battle with the US army.

Yellowstone Caldera Chronicles is a weekly column written by scientists and collaborators of the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory. This week’s contribution is from Cole Messa, Ph.D. student and Professor Ken Sims, both in the Department of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Wyoming.

Throughout its history, Yellowstone has been frequented by numerous indigenous tribes. All of these groups have a unique and cherished tale bonding them with the land upon which Yellowstone sits, but perhaps one of the most harrowing and tragic recent stories is that of the Nez Perce (Nimiipu).

Photo of Hinmatóowyalahtq̓it (Chief Joseph) taken in November 1877 by O.S. Goff in Bismarck. From Wikipedia (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chief_Joseph-1877.jpg).

In the summer of 1877, the gold rush and a series of treaty miscommunications resulted in the Nez Perce being driven from their homeland of the Wallowa Mountains in Oregon. A group of about 800 Nez Perce decided to refuse relocation to the newly established reservation, instead opting to seek a new home, led by their soft-spoken and stoic leader, Hinmatóowyalahtq̓it (also known as Chief Joseph). The voyage was meant to be peaceful, but skirmishes with settlers inevitably ensued, often times manifesting as back-and-forth revenge for killings committed during prior encounters. As a result, the Nez Perce’s trek to discover a new home, safe from the relentless encroachment of an ever-growing nation, became marked by fear and bloodshed.

After an initial skirmish in Idaho, the U.S. Army began to pursue the band of Nez Perce on their march east from the Wallowa Mountains, first making contact at White Bird Battlefield in western Idaho on June 17, 1877. While the U.S. Army was being greeted by a 6-person peace party of Nez Perce carrying a while flag, a civilian volunteer opened fire, sparking a battle which resulted in heavy casualties and ignited the flight of the Nez Perce toward Canada. The Nez Perce would continue to encounter the U.S. Army on numerous occasions during their journey, including at the Clearwater Battlefield (northeastern Idaho) and the Big Hole Battlefield (western Montana), before the group entered Yellowstone National Park on August 23, 1877.

Stinging from their loses at the 1876 Battle of Greasy Grass, or as it also known, the Battle of the Little Bighorn, and determined to punish the Nez Perce to discourage other indigenous tribes who might consider rebelling against the rule of the United States, the Nez Perce were pursued by over 2,000 U.S. Army soldiers. Yellowstone was not foreign country to the Nez Perce, who often visited the park in pursuit of its abundant resources and wild game. While within the park, the Nez Perce encountered 25 tourists, and looting of supplies and multiple revenge killings occurred. Today, you can follow the path of the Nez Perce through Yellowstone National Park along park roads near Nez Perce Creek, Otter Creek, Nez Perce Ford, and Indian Pond. The Nez Perce forded the Yellowstone River at Nez Perce Ford, traveled through Pelican Valley and Hoodoo Basin, and passed over the Absaroka Mountains, finally exiting Yellowstone National Park to head north towards the Canadian border, where they hoped to find safety. Before they could reach their destination, the Nez Perce were stopped by the U.S. Army once more in the foothills of the Bear’s Paw Mountains of northern Montana, only 40 miles away from Canada.

Route followed by a band of Nez Perce (or, in their language, Nimiipu or Nee-Me-Poo) in 1877. A band of 800 men, women, and children—plus almost 2,000 horses—left their homeland in what is now Oregon and Idaho pursued by the US Army. The group crossed through Yellowstone National Park in their attempt to reach Canada, and they were ultimately captured by US Army forces in northern Montana. Courtesy of the National park Service Yellowstone Spatial Analysis Center (https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/historyculture/flightnezperce.htm).

This epic journey of the Nez Perce covered more than 1,170 miles across four states and multiple mountain ranges, and about 250 Nez Perce warriors held off the pursuing US Army troops in 18 battles, skirmishes, and engagements. Ultimately, hundreds of US soldiers and Nez Perce (including women and children) were killed in these conflicts before the Nez Perce surrendered, and Chief Joseph—one of the last surviving chiefs of the band—gave the now-famous speech* in which he said, “From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.” Some of the Nez Perce were able to reach Canada, but the rest, including Chief Joseph, accepted resettlement in numerous reservations throughout the American northwest. Chief Joseph would pass away in 1904 at the age of 64 on the Colville Indian Reservation (WA) of a “broken heart”, per his doctor’s account. He is buried near the village of Nespelem, WA.

Yellowstone National Park is a place of wonder, beauty, and almost spiritual significance to all who look upon its enchanting landscape. But long before western society encroached upon its borders, indigenous people revered this land for its resources and cultural importance. The next time you find yourself driving along Wyoming Highway 296, also known as the Chief Joseph Scenic Byway, on your way to visit Yellowstone National Park, remember the flight, and plight, of the Nez Perce, who walked the very trail upon which you drive.

You can visit numerous Nez Perce Commemorative Sites of Nez Perce National Historical Park along the 1,170-mile Nez Perce National Historic Trail, stretching from Wallowa Lake, Oregon, to the Bear’s Paw Mountains, Montana. For more details, see https://www.nps.gov/nepe/index.htm.

North American Indian regional losses 1850 thru 1890.

Indigenous management helped shape northern #California forests for over 1000 years — USGS

Dense stands of Douglas-fir surround South Twin Lake in the Klamath bioregion of northwestern California. Sources/Usage: Public Domain.

Click the link to read the article on the USGS website (Clarke Knight):

A team of federal scientists, academics, and Tribal members recently collaborated on a study that demonstrated the strong influence of Indigenous stewardship on forest conditions in northern California for at least a millennium. Indigenous burning practices coupled with lightning-induced fires kept forest carbon low, at approximately half of what it is today, and kept forests more open and less dense. Forest management and intentional ignitions also resulted in low forest fuel levels that allowed local Indigenous people to produce food and basketry materials, clear trails, reduce pests, and support ceremonial practices for generations.

These stable forest conditions appear to have enhanced the resiliency and health of the fire-prone forests of northern California. However, colonization and twentieth century fire suppression policies have transformed California forests. Forests today are denser and more prone to catastrophic large wildfire than in the past. As restoration ecologists attempt to improve the health of California forests, a key question becomes – restoration to what?

The research team merged multiple lines of evidence from the Klamath Mountains in northern California to help answer this question. They integrated Karuk and Yurok oral histories, Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge (ITEK), a pollen-based vegetation abundance reconstruction, fire scars from tree stumps, a paleofire (past fires that occurred before instrumental record keeping) reconstruction based on sedimentary charcoal, and historic forest inventory data. The evidence was consistent with human management actions on the forest, particularly Indigenous ignitions that kept forest fuels low. Data also show that the current landscape – a dense Douglas fir–dominant forest – is unlike any seen in the preceding 3,000 years.

Figure 1. Idealized vegetation response to climate vs. human activity. Top panel shows climatically-driven vegetation change without the influence of people. Bottom panel shows human-caused vegetation change where increases in fire use create more open forest conditions despite cooler/wetter conditions, such as during the Little Ice Age. Credit: Clarke Knight, USGS.

Climate is often presumed to be the most important control on vegetation dynamics during the pre-colonial period, not people. Periods of wetter and colder conditions often lead to less fire on a landscape, the promotion of more shade-tolerant taxa, and more forest closure (Figure 1, top panel). The authors tested the expected effects of climate on northern California forest conditions and found that climate alone could not account for the trends in their data. For example, during the Little Ice Age – a period of cooler and wetter conditions between 1300-1850AD (600-100 years before present) – the authors found a signal of increased fire and vegetation openness (Figure 1, bottom panel), which they corroborated statistically (Figure 2), indicating human involvement in controlling and shaping the forest environment.

A) Trends in charcoal accumulation (CHAR, a measure of paleofire), Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI, a measure of climatic conditions), and vegetation response index (VRI, a measure of forest openness) were plotted through time at Fish Lake, one of two study sites. The Little Ice Age (LIA, blue panel) and Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA, yellow panel) indicate two time periods of known climatic changes. For example, during the MCA when climate was relatively warmer and drier, CHAR (orange line) increased, in part because forest fuels were drier and easier to burn. B) Trends in correlations between CHAR, PDSI, and VRI over time. There is a significant positive correlation between CHAR and VRI (red line) during the climatically cooler period of the Little Ice Age (600-100 years before present) as predicted by the author’s conceptual model that accounts for human-caused vegetation change through burning practices. Other correlations were found at various times throughout the record. For example, there was a significant positive correlation between CHAR and PDSI around 800 years before present. Modified from Figure 4 in (Knight et al. 2022). Sources/Usage: Public Domain.

This research quantifies what stable, historic forests in California looked like and shows that frequent fire, in part ignited by people, limited forest fuels and shaped the forest for millennia. This finding is important because California is planning to use forest ecosystems to store carbon as part of climate mitigation efforts. The results of this study suggest a large-scale intervention could be required to achieve the historical conditions that supported forest resiliency and reflected Indigenous influence.

The paper, “Land management explains major trends in forest structure and composition over the last millennium in California’s Klamath Mountains” was recently published in the journal PNAS.

Klamath River Basin. Map credit: American Rivers

Recent drop in #LakePowell’s storage shows how much space #sediment is taking up — @AspenJournalism #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

Glen Canyon Dam creates water storage on the Colorado River in Lake Powell, which is just 27% full in June 2022. Bureau data on the reservoir’s water-storage volume showed a loss of 443,000 acre-feet. Credit: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Click the link to read the article on the Aspen Journalism website (Laurine Lassalle):

After inputting the new data on July 1, 2022 storage values at the current elevation dropped 6%

The Bureau of Reclamation last week revised its data on the amount of water stored in Lake Powell, with a new, lower tally taking into account a 4% drop in the reservoir’s total available capacity between 1986 and 2018 due to sedimentation.

Bureau data on the reservoir’s water-storage volume showed a loss of 443,000 acre-feet between June 30 and July 1 — a 6% drop in storage from 6.87 million acre-feet (which is 28.28% of live storage based on 1986 data) to 6.43 million (26.46% of full).

The cause was a recalculation of water stored based on a Bureau of Reclamation and U.S.Geological Survey study released in March — the first such analysis in more than 30 years — about Lake Powell’s loss of storage capacity due to the amount of sediment that the Colorado River and other tributaries deposit into the reservoir. The study was based on data about sediment in the lake collected in 2017 and 2018.

“After inputting the new data on July 1, 2022, storage values at the current elevation were updated, resulting in a decrease of 443,000 acre-feet,“ bureau officials wrote in an email.

The Bureau of Reclamation has performed two prior sediment surveys: pre-impoundment (before the construction of the dam — up to 1963) and in 1986.

Storage capacity figures prior to the release of the report in March had been based on 1986 data, Casey Root, a hydrologist for the U.S. Geological Survey’s Utah Water Science Center, said in an email.

The new data will be included in the upcoming July 24-Month Study, scheduled to be released in mid-July, which forecasts the reservoir’s volume and surface elevation, and in any subsequent operational projections.

Slackwater delta

“Like most reservoirs, Lake Powell loses storage capacity as a result of sedimentation from its source rivers,” said Root, who worked on the most recent USGS and Bureau of Reclamation study.

The paper explained that Lake Powell has continuously trapped sediment — including silt, sand and mud — from the Colorado and San Juan rivers since the Glen Canyon Dam impounded the rivers in 1963. The meeting of the free-flowing rivers carrying sediment with the slack water of the reservoir creates a delta, where the sediment falls to the lake’s bottom.

Root explained that the delta regions are located at the furthest extents of Lake Powell and that these areas typically contain the most sediment.

“Sediment isn’t deposited uniformly across the reservoir but rather far from the dam,” he said. “Over time, these deposits can laterally build toward the dam.”

Since it began filling in 1963, the reservoir has lost on average about 33,270 acre-feet in storage capacity each year, according to the study.

“Lake Powell is unique in that it is a long, narrow, steep-walled canyon, so the deltas have historically been about 150 miles away from Glen Canyon Dam,” Root said. “Simply being far away from the deltas can help buffer the dam and its operations against sedimentation.”

Due to this sedimentation, Lake Powell’s storage capacity at full pool decreased by 6.79% from 1963 to 2018, or a 1.83 million acre-foot loss.

Between 1986 and 2018, it dropped by 4%, which represents a loss of 1.05 million acre-feet in 32 years.

This animation shows the sedimentation process in Lake Powell.

Sedimentation and the limits on useful life
While sedimentation is shrinking Lake Powell’s storage capacity, the 2022 study shows that storage loss has remained stable since 1963.

From 1963 to 1986, Lake Powell had lost on average 33,390 acre-feet in storage capacity each year; from 1986 through 2018, 33,180 acre-feet per year was lost, according to the report.

“As a first-order approximation, the average annual storage loss in Lake Powell indicates the remaining volume at full pool will be filled in approximately 750 years. However, the reservoir fills laterally, from the deltas toward Glen Canyon Dam, and would likely cease to be useful sooner,” the study pointed out.

Several other variables — including sedimentation rates and climate sensitivity among others — need to be taken into consideration to better evaluate the remaining useful life of the reservoir.

Researchers are currently working on the July 24-Month Study, which should offer further insights on the reservoir’s future operations when it gets published later this month. Lake Powell dropped to its lowest level since filling prior to this spring’s runoff, which has been increasing reservoir levels since late April. At its lowest point, Lake Powell’s surface elevation at the Glen Canyon Dam dropped to 3,522.24 feet above sea level on April 22, just 32 feet above the minimum level required to generate hydropower. Water volume at the reservoir on that day was listed as being at 23.68% of full pool.

Summer of 1923 – Mapping the Grand Canyon: In this photo we have Claude Birdseye (right) – expedition leader and Chief Topographic Engineer of the USGS, and Roland Burchard (left) – expedition topographer

In this photo we have Claude Birdseye (right) – expedition leader and Chief Topographic Engineer of the USGS, and Roland Burchard (left) – expedition topographer. Photo credit: USGS

Too close for comfort! Members of Ferdinand Hayden’s Survey stand precariously close to @YellowstoneNPS Old Faithful Geyser erupting, circa 1878 — USGS

More on the early surveys can be found here: https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1050/pdf/CIRC1050.pdf?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_term=71d2e8e7-ca66-42be-8e2e-884d17ed9d62&utm_content=&utm_campaign=usgs.

Paper: By Land, Air, and Water—U.S. Geological Survey Science Supporting Fish and Wildlife Migrations Throughout North America — USGS

Click here to access the paper on the USGS website. Here’s the abstract:

Countless species of animals—big game, birds, bats, insects, amphibians, reptiles, and fish—migrate to reach suitable habitats to feed, reproduce, and raise their young. Animal migrations developed over millennia commonly follow migration corridors—unique routes for each species—to move among seasonal habitats. Changes along those corridors, whether from human development (buildings, roads, dams) or from natural disturbances (for example, climate change, drought, fire, flooding, or invasive species), can make them harder to navigate. The U.S. Geological Survey’s Ecosystems Mission Area provides science that assists land managers in mapping, enhancing, protecting, and reconnecting migration corridors critical for diverse fish and wildlife populations that migrate, such as Odocoileus hemionus (mule deer) and Antilocapra americana (pronghorn), trout and salmon, salamanders, tortoises, bats, and Danaus plexippus (monarch butterflies).

colorado-rocky-mountains-national-park-deer-drinking-water

Conservation easements protect specific conservation values of a property, such as wildlife habitat. Photo: Michael Menefee

The Rio Grande cutthroat is the only trout native to the San Luis Valley. Evidence suggests it was a native fish to Lake Alamosa 700,000 years ago. Photo credit: Ryan Michelle Scavo

Chinook Salmon, Oncorhynchus tschawytscha. By U.S. Geological Survey – http://www.usgs.gov/features/lewisandclark/ChildrenWebSites.html, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1727076

Rough-skinned newt. By The High Fin Sperm Whale – Self-photographed, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12036399

Photo credit: Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands at Colorado State University.

Big Brown Bat diagram via Shari Ansel and ExlploringNature.org

Monarch butterfly. Photo: Jim Hudgins/USFWS

Streamflow Response to Potential Changes in Climate: Upper #RioGrande Basin — USGS

Rio Grande adjacent to Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge. Courtesy of Janelle Golden, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Click the link to read the article on the USGS website (Shaleene Chavarria and C. David Moeser):

The Rio Grande is a vital water source for the southwestern States of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas and for northern Mexico. Because streamflow in the basin is highly altered, disentangling the impacts of climate change and changes in streamflow due to anthropogenic influences such as dams, diversions, and other forms of water use is difficult. Therefore, a model that simulates naturalized flow (defined as streamflow that would occur in the absence of anthropogenic modifications) was developed to determine to what degree changes in streamflow can be attributed to potential changes in future temperature and precipitation without quantifying future changes in anthropogenic influences.

In this study, the calibrated Upper Rio Grande Basin PRMS model (Moeser and others, 2021) was run with projected climate data (Dixon and others, 2020) to produce a set of streamflow projections through the year 2099 that represent potential future changes in Rio Grande streamflow due to changes in climate. The PRMS model was forced with projections of daily precipitation, minimum daily temperature, and maximum daily temperature from 27 datasets for 1981- 2099. These datasets include data generated from three general circulation models (GCM; Table 1) included in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) suite of models, using three statistical downscaling methods for three RCP scenarios. To arrive at potential climate-induced impacts, simulated streamflow for the model historical period (1981–2015) was subtracted from three simulated future time periods (2022-47,2048-73, 2074-99), and an analysis of changes in [naturalized] streamflow volume and timing was conducted for the Rio Grande and its tributaries.

In general, downscaled climate projections show consistent increases in temperature across the Upper Rio Grande Basin. The average projected change in total precipitation during the monsoon and snowmelt seasons suggests that, in general, precipitation will decrease during both seasons across the Upper Rio Grande Basin. However, there is considerable spread between individual downscaled climate projections and time periods. With the changes in temperature and precipitation, simulated hydrographs of streamflow and cumulative streamflow volume for streamgages on the main stem Rio Grande and outflow streamgages in near-native subbasins show changes from the historical period (1981–2015) in the magnitude and timing of streamflow for all future time periods and RCP scenarios. In general, changes in streamflow timing at all Rio Grande main stem gages showed shifts in timing of peak flow toward earlier in the year, whereas changes in streamflow timing at gages in near-native subbasins varied by location in the basin. Changes in streamflow volume along the Rio Grande main stem showed a similar trend for all RCPs and time periods where streamflow volume increases at headwater gages (Del Norte and Stateline) and decreases at all other gages below the headwaters. The largest percent differences in streamflow volume between the historical period and the future time periods were not found in the main stem gages but rather in the gages in the near-native subbasins.

Read the report

Projected change in cumulative streamflow volume for all Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System stream segments using the ensemble mean of general circulation models (GCMs) and downscaling scenarios for three future time periods based on the representative concentration pathways (RCPs) 2.6, 4.5, and 8.5.

Projected change in cumulative streamflow volume for all Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System stream segments using the ensemble mean of general circulation models (GCMs) and downscaling scenarios for three future time periods based on the representative concentration pathways (RCPs) 2.6, 4.5, and 8.5.

Projected change in cumulative streamflow volume for all Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System stream segments using the ensemble mean of general circulation models (GCMs) and downscaling scenarios for three future time periods based on the representative concentration pathways (RCPs) 2.6, 4.5, and 8.5.

Projected change in streamflow timing for all Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System stream segments for the snowmelt season using the ensemble mean of general circulation models (GCMs) and downscaling scenarios for three future time periods based on the representative concentration pathways (RCPs) 2.6, 4.5, and 8.5. Center of mass date is defined as the date in which 50 percent of the total yearly (or seasonal) volume of water has runoff.

Projected change in streamflow timing for all Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System stream segments for the snowmelt season using the ensemble mean of general circulation models (GCMs) and downscaling scenarios for three future time periods based on the representative concentration pathways (RCPs) 2.6, 4.5, and 8.5. Center of mass date is defined as the date in which 50 percent of the total yearly (or seasonal) volume of water has runoff.

Projected change in streamflow timing for all Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System stream segments for the snowmelt season using the ensemble mean of general circulation models (GCMs) and downscaling scenarios for three future time periods based on the representative concentration pathways (RCPs) 2.6, 4.5, and 8.5. Center of mass date is defined as the date in which 50 percent of the total yearly (or seasonal) volume of water has runoff.

Reading the Rio: The #RioGrande gaging station near #DelNorte has told the story of the river’s flow since 1889 — #Alamosa Citizen

The Rio Grande gaging station near Del Norte has told the story of the river’s flow since 1889. Photo credit: Chris Lopez/Alamosa Citizen

Click the link to read the article on the Alamosa Citizen website (Chris Lopez):

It’s a commonly known spot off County Road 17 between Del Norte and South Fork. Driving in you might see a blue heron standing off in the marsh and river rafters looking to get onto the Rio Grande at the very spot Colorado has been measuring the river since the summer of 1889 – June 1, 1889, to be precise.

This time of year, with any ice on the river gone and the weather warming, Jessie Jaminet comes every two weeks to the stream gaging station operated by Colorado Division of Water Resources to make sure everything is functioning for measurements that are closely watched by water managers up and down the Rio Grande. He was there this past week to get an early spring reading and when prompted for a prediction on this year’s flows said, “I think we’re probably going to be slightly below average from what I’ve seen.”

1934 and 1960. Credit: Alamosa Citizen

Average over the past decade has been 491,000 acre-feet of water; historically going back to 1889 the Rio Grande has an average measurement of 639,000 acre-feet, according to figures maintained by the state.

Jaminet, lead hydrographer for state water resources division 3, cautions that the river “changes daily right now.”

“Any storm that hits right now is a huge benefit for the whole system. People watch the snowpack numbers, but it really depends on what happens this time of year. Wet spring storms really benefit the system,” he said.

The Rio Grande gaging station near Del Norte is the highest profile gage station in the Upper Rio Grande Basin. That’s because it’s the gaging station the state uses to help determine how much water from the Rio Grande is available and will be delivered downstream into New Mexico and Texas as part of the three-state Rio Grande Compact.

Besides measuring lower-average acre-feet the past decade, another phenomenon has been occurring: an earlier peak to the river flow and then a quick dropoff, which means less water and shorter irrigation seasons downstream for New Mexico and Texas.

The stream gaging station operated by Colorado Division of Water Resources highway 17 between Del Norte and South Fork. Photo credit: Alamosa Citizen

“Historically the river would peak and we would maintain those flows for a while before we would fall into base flow conditions,” Jaminet said. Peak flow used to hit mid- to late-June and the Rio Grande would maintain itself through the summer. Now the state is seeing peak Rio Grande flows as early as late May and then drastic drop offs to the height of the river. It’s attributable to the aridification of the Valley floor from persistent drought and climate change.

Colorado’s obligations under the Rio Grande Compact is another aspect to the management of the upper basin of the river that water managers, irrigators, and outdoor recreationalists have to factor in when planning their own water usage.

“This is what we base pretty much all of our numbers on, this upper index here. Anything that passes this gage here we have to deliver a percentage of it downstream. This is why this is an important gage here,” said Jaminet.

He’s been working the measurements the past 15 years as part of his job with Colorado Division of Water Resources to operate and maintain the gaging stations along the Upper Rio Grande Basin. It’s not what he planned on doing for a career when he graduated from Mountain Valley High School in Saguache in 2001 and then the University of Wyoming, where he majored in rangeland geology and watershed management. But he’s learned and come to understand the importance of taking the river’s measurement, and the fact he grew up in the San Luis Valley makes him appreciate the work he does even more.

“This is a continuous record that we produce here,” he said of the Del Norte gaging station, pointing to the readings from 1890 through 2021. One of the most eye-popping historical figures is Oct. 5, 1911, when the Rio Grande was flowing at 18,000 cubic feet per second. The day Jaminet was at the gage station the river was moving at 519 cfs.

Most of the big diversions to the Rio Grande happen a bit farther downstream in Rio Grande and Alamosa counties, making the gaging station near Del Norte a natural location to determine the depth and velocity of the river.

A float sitting in a stilling well reads the height of the river. Photo credit: Alamosa Citizen

In the 1890s and early decades of the 1900s the state division of water resources would take a measurement of the Rio Grande twice a day and then daily as it kept improving the system. It eventually installed a continuous reader in 1983, and then in the summer of 1984 a satellite monitoring system was installed.

Now the gaging station takes a reading every 15 minutes and logs and transmits the data every hour to the Colorado Division of Water Resources website, where it’s tracked and followed by the three states party of the Rio Grande Compact. Fishermen and rafters will also monitor the web site to help them determine the best times to fish and float the river.

One of Jaminet’s responsibilities is to make sure the gaging station is calibrated and reading accurately. A float sitting in a stilling well reads the height of the river and then a rating table unique to the gaging station is applied to give an accurate measurement. In the winter months, with ice on the river, the measurements are more estimates.

Coming off a dry 2021, in January the Rio Grande was at its lowest point to start a year since Colorado began taking measurements 132 years ago. A cooler March and April have helped, but without significant summer rain, the Rio Grande will run dry again early in the summer irrigation season.

“If you go into the fall really dry, even if you get these big spring storms it seems like it just goes into the ground,” Jaminet said. “A lot of it is not making it to the river anymore.”

The measurements at the Rio Grande gaging station near Del Norte tell the story.

Jaminet makes regular checks on calibration. Photo credit: Alamosa Citizen

#LakePowell’s storage capacity updated for first time since 1986: Little change in rate of sediment captured since Glen Canyon Dam completed in 1963 — Reclamation

Click the link to read the article on the Reclamation website (Camille Collett and Becki Bryant):

A new report released today and compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation provides updated information on Lake Powell’s storage capacity. The report confirms Lake Powell has lost 4% of its potential storage capacity since 1986, when the last survey was completed, and 6.79% since 1963, when the diversion tunnels of Glen Canyon Dam closed and the reservoir began to fill. The loss is largely due to sediments continuously transported by the Colorado and San Juan rivers settling on the reservoir bottom.

“It is vitally important we have the best-available scientific information like this report to provide a clear understanding of water availability in Lake Powell as we plan for the future,” said Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Tanya Trujillo. “The Colorado River system faces multiple challenges, including the effects of a 22-year-long drought and the increased impacts of climate change.”

Lake Powell is the reservoir behind Glen Canyon Dam. It extends from just south of the Utah-Arizona border northeast along the southern edge of Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument and is a key water storage unit in the Colorado River system, which provides water to approximately 40 million people, irrigates 5.5 million acres of agricultural land, and has the capacity to generate more than 4,200 megawatts of hydropower electricity.

Lake Powell’s storage capacity has been calculated twice before this study: pre-Glen Canyon Dam elevation-area-capacity tables were calculated from contour maps in 1963, and a reservoir-wide, range-line bathymetric survey was conducted in 1986. This most recent survey, conducted by the USGS in 2017 and 2018, indicates: 1) the total storage capacity is 25,160,000 acre-feet, 2) a decrease of 1,833,000 acre-feet or 6.79% of storage capacity from 1963 to 2018, and 3) 1,048,000 acre-feet or 4% decrease from 1986 to 2018. The average annual loss in storage capacity was approximately 33,270 acre-feet per year between 1963 and 2018.

“Conducting repeat surveys with the most up-to-date technology is critical to understanding water storage capacity in Lake Powell,” said Dan Jones, USGS scientist and co-author of the study. “The new surveys show that the rate of reservoir storage capacity loss observed between the three surveys has remained consistent.”

Topobathymetric elevation model of Lake Powell, photo by USGS

During the most recent survey of Lake Powell, USGS scientists used high-resolution multibeam bathymetry and lidar to create the equivalent of an underwater topographic map of the reservoir. The data were then combined to create a topobathymetric digital elevation model (TBDEM), a continuous representation of submerged bathymetry and subaerial topography.

Reclamation converted the TBDEM data into a format that is useful for the management of Lake Powell and operations at Glen Canyon Dam. Those data will be incorporated into the reservoir’s databases and models for planning and operations.

The USGS Scientific Investigations Report is titled “Elevation-Area-Capacity Relationships of Lake Powell in 2018 and Estimated Loss of Storage Capacity Since 1963” and can be found on the USGS Publications Warehouse.

USGS and Reclamation will host a joint webinar on Wednesday, March 23, 2022, at 10 a.m. (MDT) to discuss the report. A brief question and answer period will be held at the conclusion of the presentation. Click here to join the webinar.

Report: #ClimateChange Adaptation Thinking for Managed Wetlands — USGS

Click this link to read the report from the USGS. Here’s the abstract:

Climate change presents new and ongoing challenges to natural resource management. To confront these challenges effectively, managers need to develop proactive adaptation strategies to prepare for and deal with the effects of climate change. We engaged managers and biologists from several midwestern U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service field stations to understand recent and future climate change effects, identify adaptation barriers and opportunities, and pilot an approach for integrating adaptation thinking into management planning. To start, three structured discussions informed our understanding of how managers currently deal with climate change effects, the strategies being implemented to cope, and the barriers that limit climate change adaptation efforts. We used these insights to develop a multiday virtual workshop geared toward identifying potential adaptation strategies for managed wetlands. First, we developed a conceptual model to visualize how management actions are used to meet habitat objectives within wetland management systems. Next, we discussed how climate change may affect management actions and objectives; we used this understanding of potential effects to spatially assess vulnerability of managed wetlands to climate change. Using a scenario planning approach, we incorporated multiple potential future conditions and identified effects and adaptation strategies that could be considered for each scenario. As a result, several adaptation strategies for managed wetlands under dry and wet future scenarios were identified that can be applied when developing site-specific adaptation plans. Based on our piloted approach, we determined it would be important to have an adaptation team composed of scientists and manag- ers to facilitate discussions, develop appropriate scenarios, and identify realistic adaptation options. We document the tools, findings, and adaptation thinking process taken to enhance adaptation efforts of managed wetlands. The adaptation think- ing process can be applied to advance adaptation efforts in other habitats, ecosystems, and site-specific land management.

Groundwater Flow to #ColoradoRiver May Decline by a Third over Next 30 Years — USGS #COriver #aridification

Here’s the release from the USGS (Camille Collett):

A new study projects that a hot and dry future climate may lead to a 29% decline in Upper Colorado River Basin “baseflow” at the basin outlet by the 2050s, affecting both people and ecosystems.

Baseflow is the movement of groundwater into streams and, on average, accounts for more than 50% of annual streamflow in the Upper Colorado River Basin. It is vital for sustaining flows in the Colorado River during dry periods. Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey and the Bureau of Reclamation modeled temperature, precipitation and runoff data to understand more about how baseflow may change under three future climate scenarios.

“Many studies project streamflow and runoff response to climate change in the Upper Colorado River Basin, but this is the first to look at the baseflow component of total streamflow,” said USGS hydrologist Olivia Miller, lead author of the paper. “Understanding how baseflow may respond to climate change is particularly important for water managers when it comes to ensuring sufficient water supply outside the spring runoff period and has critical implications for ecosystem health.”

Map of the Colorado River drainage basin, created using USGS data. By Shannon1 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=65868008

The Upper Colorado River Basin has a drainage area of about 114,000 square miles, covering portions of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico. The Continental Divide marks the eastern boundary of the basin whereas the western boundary is defined by the Wasatch Mountains. The Wind River and Wyoming Ranges form the northern border and the southern portion includes the San Juan Basin. From 1984 to 2012, total streamflow deliveries from the upper basin’s outlet at Lees Ferry, Arizona, to the Lower Colorado River Basin averaged 10.3 million acre feet/year (maf/yr). Baseflow accounted for nearly a third of this (2.8 maf/yr).

The study predicts that baseflow deliveries to the Lower Colorado River Basin may decline overall by the end of the 21st century despite potential increases in precipitation and baseflow in some areas. Three climate scenarios were modeled: under a warm, wet scenario, total baseflow at Lees Ferry is projected to initially increase by up to 6% (0.162 maf/yr) in the 2030s but then level out in the 2050s and ultimately decline by 3% from today’s levels (0.089 maf/yr) by the 2080s. Under a hot, dry climate scenario, baseflow is predicted to decline by up to 23% (0.657 maf/yr) in the 2030s and continue to worsen over time, reaching 29% (0.835 maf/yr) in the 2050s and 33% (0.940 maf/yr) in the 2080s. An intermediate climate scenario also showed a steady decline over time.

The study authors hypothesize that baseflow declines would occur due to increases in stream water loss from processes such as evapotranspiration. The largest declines in the model occur in the Rocky Mountains and in the headwaters of the Green River.

Declines in baseflow have major downstream and basin-wide effects in an area where water demand often exceeds supply. In addition to the 40 million people that rely on the Colorado River for recreational, agricultural, municipal, spiritual and hydropower uses, baseflow decline has major impacts on riverbank, water and land ecosystems.

“This region is experiencing exceptional drought conditions and record-low reservoir levels at Lake Mead and Lake Powell,” said Katharine Dahm, USGS Rocky Mountain Region Senior Scientist. “Information from this study can be used by resource managers to understand impacts of water shortages and develop mitigation plans for both people and ecosystems.”

To learn more about drought in the Colorado River basin visit:

Integrated Water Availability Assessments: Upper Colorado River Basin Homepage
Featured Story: A Century of Watching the Colorado River

Benefits from Upper #ArkansasRiver Water Conservancy District programs — The Mountain Mail

Graphic via the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District

From The Mountain Mail (Terry Scanga):

In 1979 the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District was formed. Since that time innumerable benefits have been provided to the citizens of the district.

The primary goal of the district is protection of water rights within the Upper Arkansas. Continuous monitoring and involvement in legislative measures that impact water rights, involvement in water court cases that have the potential to negatively impact Upper Basin water rights and operating umbrella augmentation plans that prevent injury to water rights by making weekly water replacements to affected rivers and streams by out-of-priority uses are the major areas of work.

Other areas include conducting water studies such as ground water monitoring, water balance studies with the U.S. Geologic Survey, identification of and development of alluvial water storage, watershed health activities such as spearheading the Monarch Pass Steep Slope Timber Harvesting Project and water education programs. The benefits of these programs are not always recognized by citizens of the district.

Water resource development is essential to an effective water right protection program. The most obvious and direct benefit of this is the district’s umbrella augmentation plan program. Augmentation is a little understood water resource concept that was developed in 1969 when Colorado fully recognized in legislation the connection between tributary ground water and surface water. With this recognition all ground water production was brought under and regulated by the prior appropriation system.

Basically, this meant that the right to extract ground water for use would be governed by the date of first use. In an arid country such as Colorado, and in particular eastern Colorado, there is never enough water to satisfy all legal claims. Thus, priority of use is controlled by the established date of first use or “First in Time Is First in Right.” This legislation prevented most well use except when a “fully consumable” water source was used to replace the amount of water used up by the well. In other words, the well use would have to be augmented with a court-decreed “Plan of Augmentation.”

The full impact of this was not completely felt until the decision of the Kansas-Colorado Compact lawsuit and the adoption by Colorado in 1995 of the “Amended Rules and Regulation on Tributary Ground Water Use in the Arkansas Basin.”

Fortuitously, the district had filed in 1992 and obtained an umbrella augmentation plan in 1994. The benefits have been enormous for citizens within district boundaries of its decreed augmentation areas needing augmentation to use their wells, surface diversion or ponds.

The value of being able to enroll into the district’s augmentation plan and continue to use one’s well is best quantified by cost savings. Typical residential well augmentation requires a source of fully consumable water, storage, an engineering plan and a water court decree. The typical current cost for such a plan ranges from a low of $80,000 to $150,000 per residence. The cost per residence with the district’s plan is less than $4,500, a savings per residence of $75,000 to more than $145,000.

Presently the district provides augmentation to over 2,000 wells. The vast majority of these are for residential use. This savings expressed in dollars would represent a cost savings to district citizens of as much as $290 million.

The additional and as important benefit is to rivers and streams in the district. Annually more than 700-acre feet of water is released to our streams and available to support water rights and protect them from injury.

Further benefits are the water infrastructure that is maintained and constructed that supports recreation and the environment. Many of the area lakes and reservoirs are filled with district owned and controlled water rights, such as O’Haver Lake.

The studies and watershed health projects the district has undertaken in its 35 years of existence provide a wealth of knowledge and data for present and future understanding of our water resource and a roadmap to future water development.

Ralph “Terry” Scanga is general manager of the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District.

A Century of Watching the #ColoradoRiver: A streamgage at Lees Ferry turns 100 years old — USGS

Here’s the release from the USGS (Elizabeth Goldbaum):

Right where the Colorado River flows into the mouth of the Grand Canyon, an inconspicuous 20-foot-high concrete tower rises from the riverbank.

Inside the tower is a U.S. Geological Survey streamgage that will mark its centennial year of monitoring the river on October 1, 2021. At a time when the Roaring Twenties were in full swing, the streamgage began collecting information about the water’s level and flow. USGS scientists chose the site in 1921 because it was readily accessible and strategically located to study the hydrology of the Colorado River drainage basin.

Now, seven states within the basin depend on the river for water supply and hydropower production. Natural resource managers look to the 100-year-old streamgage to make informed decisions while recreationists and trout seekers check the streamgage’s information before they set off in their boats and scientists use it to study region’s geology and ecology.

The gauge sits right across the river from Lees Ferry, named after John Doyle Lee. In a twist of fate, Lee started the ferry in the late 1800s after John Wesley Powell, the second USGS director, gifted him a boat while he was exploring the Grand Canyon.

Although its equipment has been updated over the last century, the streamgage is not that different from its initial installation a century ago.

“The gauge at Lees Ferry is among the most watched and accurate big-river monitoring locations in the country and is an excellent example of how consistent, long-term scientific information beneficially informs water-management decisions in a changing world,” Jim Leenhouts, the Director of the USGS Arizona Water Science Center, said.

September 21, 1923, 9:00 a.m. — Colorado River at Lees Ferry. From right bank on line with Klohr’s house and gage house. Old “Dugway” or inclined gage shows to left of gage house. Gage height 11.05′, discharge 27,000 cfs. Lens 16, time =1/25, camera supported. Photo by G.C. Stevens of the USGS.
Source: 1921-1937 Surface Water Records File, Colorado R. @ Lees Ferry, Laguna Niguel Federal Records Center, Accession No. 57-78-0006, Box 2 of 2 , Location No. MB053635.

A basin splits into two

One year after the gauge was established, the seven states in the Colorado River Basin negotiated the 1922 Colorado River Compact that divided it into the Upper and Lower Basins. The Lees Ferry gauge as well as a streamgage on the Paria River are used as critical, continuous measurement points to determine how much water passes to the Lower Basin each year.

USGS scientists have collected various data at the site, from streamflow to water quality. The gauge’s longevity means scientists have been able to tease out long-term trends and note how dramatic changes impact the river.

Glen Canyon Dam as seen from an overlook on the south side, downstream of the dam in Page, Arizona. (Public domain.)

In 1963, the basin experienced a particularly dramatic change – the construction of the Glen Canyon Dam 15 miles (24 km) upstream of the streamgage. The gauge recorded the difference between unregulated water flow, prior to the construction of the dam, and regulated flow following the dam’s completion.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation constructed the dam to harness the power of the Colorado River and provide water to millions of people in the West. Glen Canyon Dam impounded 186 miles (300 km) of the Colorado River, creating Lake Powell.

The dam stores water for the Upper Colorado River Basin states of Utah, Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico to ensure those states are able to access the river especially during droughts. Releases from the dam ensure that the Lower Basin states of California, Nevada and Arizona are able to access these essential water supplies from the Colorado Rivers.

“We built this streamgage in the Middle Ages of gauging,” Daniel Evans, a USGS scientist said. “And yet, it has consistently collected accurate information that accounts for how much water is released by the Glen Canyon Dam and enters the Grand Canyon on its way to Lake Mead,” Evans said.

“Per the 1922 Colorado River Compact, the states of the Upper Division must ensure the flow of the river at Lee Ferry doesn’t deplete below an aggregate of 75 million acre-feet for any period of 10 consecutive years,” said Reclamation’s Upper Colorado Basin hydraulic engineer Heather Patno. “Reclamation works closely with the USGS and utilizes the gauge at Lees Ferry to calculate the flow of the Colorado River at this important measuring point,” Patno said.

When in drought, check the streamgage

Since 2000, the Colorado River Basin has been in a historic drought. The combined water storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead are at their lowest levels since Lake Powell initially began to fill in the 1960s.

On August 16, 2021, the Bureau of Reclamation announced the first-ever water shortage declaration for the Lower Basin. Downstream releases from both Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam will be reduced in 2022. The streamgage at Lees Ferry, as well as other streamgages in the area, will be there to capture how changing dam operations affect streamflow.

“Like much of the West, and across our connected basins, the Colorado River is facing unprecedented and accelerating challenges,” said Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Tanya Trujillo in an August 2021 statement. “The only way to address these challenges and climate change is to utilize the best available science and to work cooperatively across the landscapes and communities that rely on the Colorado River.”

Lees Ferry streamgage and cableway downstream on the Colorado River, Arizona. (Public domain.)

Once upon a streamgage

The streamgage at Lees Ferry is one of over 8,000 that measure streamflow year-round in every state as well as the District of Columbia and the territories of Puerto Rico and Guam.

The gauges are often stored in waterproof boxes perched near flowing water. They contain instruments that measure and record the amount of water in a river or stream approximately every 15 minutes. If there’s a flood, the gauge will collect measurements more frequently.

The Grand Canyon survey party at Lees Ferry. Left to right: Leigh Lint, boatman; H.E. Blake, boatman; Frank Word, cook; C.H. Birdseye, expedition leader; R.C. Moore, geologist; R.W. Burchard, topographer; E.C. LaRue, hydraulic engineer; Lewis Freeman, boatman, and Emery Kolb, head boatman. Boatman Leigh Lint, “a beefy athlete who could tear the rowlocks off a boat…absolutely fearless,” later went to college and became an engineer for the USGS. The Grand Canyon survey party at Lees Ferry in 1923. (Public domain.)

Sometimes, as in the case of the streamgage at Lees Ferry, the only way to access the gauge is by boat or cableway. “With a cableway, we basically zipline across the river to the streamgage,” Kurt Schonauer, a USGS scientist, said.

Schonauer visits the gauge about 10 times a year to ensure it’s working properly, do any necessary repairs and soak in its majestic locale. “It may not have a whole lot of fancy instrumentation, but it produces high-quality data,” Schonauer said.

The streamgage at Lees Ferry measures water height using a stilling well. Water from the river enters and leaves the well through underwater pipes, allowing the water surface in the well to be at the same level as the water in the river. The water level is measured inside the well using a float and noted in an electronic data recorder.

To determine how fast the water is flowing, USGS hydrologists and hydrologic technicians take streamflow measurements on the river or stream. Then, they develop a mathematical relation between the streamflow measurement and the water height values that the streamgage regularly collects. They use that mathematical relation to compute streamflow information every 15 minutes.

Anglers on rafts departing the boat dock at Lees Ferry, AZ. v(Credit: Lucas Bair, USGS. )

“This streamgage is at a really beautiful site,” Schonauer said. It’s a popular spot for recreation and a renowned trout fishing area. “A lot of people who go on rafting trips down the Grand Canyon check the gauge to make sure conditions are safe on the river,” Schonauer said.

When he’s not gazing at the beautiful layers of geology, working on the streamgage, or taking a streamflow measurement, Schonauer likes to check in on the local wildlife. “We have a resident beaver that we see from time to time,” Schonauer said.

As scientists, decision makers, recreationalists, fishermen, and, possibly, a beaver or two, celebrate the streamgage’s 100th birthday, they also look forward to 100 more years of robust and reliable information.

What does the term “stream stage” mean? — USGS

Eugene Clyde LaRue measuring the flow in Nankoweap Creek, 1923. Photo credit: USGS via Environment360

From the USGS:

Stream stage is an important concept when analyzing how much water is moving in a stream at any given moment. “Stage” is the water level above some arbitrary point in the river and is commonly measured in feet. For example, on a normal day when no rain has fallen for a while, a river might have a stage of 2 feet. If a big storm hits, the river stage could rise to 15 or 20 feet, sometimes very quickly. This is important because past records might tell us that when the stage hits 21 feet, the water will start flowing over its banks and into the basements of houses along the river — time to tell those people to move out! With modern technology, the USGS can monitor the stage of many streams almost instantly.

Hydrologists are able to convert stage height into streamflow volume by determining a rating curve for each site.

Learn more:

Streamgaging Basics

National Water Information System (NWIS) Mapper

Great Salt Lake Reaches New Historic Low — USGS

USGS hydrologic technician Travis Gibson confirms Great Salt Lake water levels at the SaltAire gauge.
(Credit: Andrew Freel, USGS. Public domain.)

Here’s the release from the USGS (Jennifer LaVista):

The southern portion of the Great Salt Lake is at a new historic low, with average daily water levels dropping about an inch below the previous record set in 1963, according to U.S. Geological Survey information collected at the SaltAir gauge location.

“Based on current trends and historical data, the USGS anticipates water levels may decline an additional foot over the next several months,” said USGS Utah Water Science Center data chief Ryan Rowland. “This information is critical in helping resource managers make informed decisions on Great Salt Lake resources. You can’t manage what you don’t measure.”

Wind events can cause temporary changes in lake levels. Therefore, the USGS emphasizes that average daily values provide the most representative measurement. The USGS maintains a record of Great Salt Lake elevations dating back to 1847.

“While the Great Salt Lake has been gradually declining for some time, current drought conditions have accelerated its fall to this new historic low,” said Utah Department of Natural Resources executive director Brian Steed. “We must find ways to balance Utah’s growth with maintaining a healthy lake. Ecological, environmental and economical balance can be found by working together as elected leaders, agencies, industry, stakeholders and citizens working together.”

Streamflow levels across the state are also being impacted by extreme drought conditions. Currently, 63% (77/122) of streamgages with at least 20 years of record are reporting below-normal flows.

Current extreme drought conditions, water levels, weather and flood forecasts are available via the USGS National Water Dashboard on your computer, smartphone or other mobile device. This tool provides critical information to decision-makers, emergency managers and the public during flood and drought events, informing decisions that can help protect lives and property.

A sailboat is removed from the Great Salt Lake Marina due to low lake levels. (Credit: Andrew Freel, USGS. Public domain.)

USGS Report: Assessment of Streamflow and Water Quality in the Upper #YampaRiver Basin, Colorado, 1992–2018

Click here to read the report (Natalie K. Day). Here’s the abstract:

The Upper Yampa River Basin drains approximately 2,100 square miles west of the Continental Divide in north-western Colorado. There is a growing need to understand potential changes in the quantity and quality of water resources as the basin is undergoing increasing land and water development to support growing municipal, industrial, and recreational needs. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with stakeholders in the Upper Yampa River Basin water community, began a study to characterize and identify changes in streamflow and selected water-quality constituents, including suspended sediment, Kjeldahl nitrogen, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and orthophosphate, in the basin. This study used streamflow and water-quality data from selected U.S. Geological Survey sites to provide a better understanding of how major factors, including land use, climate change, and geological features, may influence streamflow and water quality.

Analysis of long-term (1910–2018) and short-term (1992–2018) records of streamflow at main-stem Yampa River and tributary sites indicate downward trends in one or more streamflow statistics, including 1-day maximum, mean, and 7-day minimum. Long-term downward trends in daily mean streamflow in April (22 percent overall) at Yampa River at Steamboat Springs, Colorado, correspond to observed changes in streamflow documented across western North America and the Colorado River Basin that are predominately associated with changes in snowmelt runoff and temperatures. During the short-term period of analysis, decreases in streamflow at main-stem Yampa River and some tributary sites are likely related to changes in consumptive use and reservoir management or, at sites with no upstream flow impoundments, changes in irrigation diversions and climate.

Concentrations of water-quality constituents were typically highest in spring (March, April, and May) during the early snowmelt runoff period as material that is washed off the land surface drains into streams. Highest concentrations occurred slightly later, in May, June, and July, at Yampa River above Stagecoach Reservoir, Colo., and slightly earlier, in February and March at Yampa River at Milner, Colo., indicating that these sites may have different or additional sources of phosphorus from upstream inputs. Yampa River at Milner, Colo., and Yampa River above Elkhead Creek, Colo., had the highest net yields of suspended sediment, Kjeldahl nitrogen, and total phosphorus, and are likely influenced by land use and erosion as the basins of both of these sites are underlain by highly erodible Cretaceous shales.

Upward trends in estimated Kjeldahl nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations and loads were found at Yampa River at Steamboat Springs, Colo. From 1999 to 2018, the Kjeldahl nitrogen concentration increased by 10 percent or 0.035 milligram per liter, and load increased by 22 percent or 26 tons. Total phosphorus concentration increased by 20 percent or 0.0081 milligram per liter, and loads increased by 41 percent or 6.2 tons. Decreases in streamflow and changes in land use may contribute to these trends.

During multiple summer sampling events at Stagecoach Reservoir, the physical and chemical factors indicated conditions conducive to cyanobacterial blooms, including surface-water temperatures greater than 20 degrees Celsius and total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentrations in exceedance of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment interim concentrations for water-quality standards. Local geological features (predominately sandstones and shales) and additional inputs from upstream land use likely contribute to the elevated nutrient conditions in Stagecoach Reservoir.

Webinar: Gunnison State of the River meeting, June 10, 2021 #GunnisonRiver #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

Gunnison River in Colorado. Source: Bureau of Reclamation via the Water Education Foundation

Click here for all the inside skinny and register:

Join the Colorado River District for the Gunnison State of the River webinar on Thursday, June 10 at 6 pm! Our experts and special guests will be presenting on river forecasts, landmark accomplishments, project opportunities, and the impacts of and on recreation for the Gunnison.

One of the major tributaries of the Colorado River, your Gunnison River provides the life force for local West Slope communities. Learn more about the river’s hydrology and water supply as we enter another drought year, celebrate a Lower Gunnison victory that’s been years in the making, and hear from David Dragoo, founder of Mayfly, about the West Slope recreation economy and its impacts.

You’ll also receive information on exciting new funding for Gunnison River Basin water projects and plans to sustain flows throughout the basin as conditions shift to hotter, drier seasons.

If you cannot attend the webinar live, register to receive an emailed webinar recording for later viewing!

Agenda:

Welcome – Marielle Cowdin & Zane Kessler, Director of Public Relations and Director of Government Relations, Colorado River District (CRD)

Your Gunnison River, a Water Supply Update – Bob Hurford, Division 4 Engineer, Colorado Department of Natural Resources

The Lower Gunnison Project: Modernization in Action – Dave “DK” Kanzer, Director of Science and Interstate Matters, CRD

A Victory for the Lower Gunnison – Raquel Flinker, Sr. Water Resources Engineer/Project Manager, CRD and Ken Leib, Office Chief of the Colorado Water Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey

Rivers on the Fly, Recreation Economy and Impacts – David Dragoo, Founder of Mayfly

Community Funding Partnership – Amy Moyer, Director of Strategic Partnerships, CRD

Gunnison River Basin. By Shannon1 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=69257550

Large Decreases in Upper Colorado River Salinity Since 1929 — @USGS

Here’s the release from the USGS (Heidi Koontz):

Salinity levels in the Upper Colorado River Basin, which covers portions of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico, have steadily decreased since 1929, according to a new U.S. Geological Survey study analyzing decades of water-quality measurements.

Photo credit: USGS

Salinity is the concentration of dissolved salt in water. High salinity levels in the Colorado River Basin cause an estimated $300-400 million per year in economic damages across U.S. agricultural, municipal and industrial sectors, as well as negatively impact municipal and agricultural users in Mexico. Reducing high salinity levels can benefit crop production, and decrease water treatment costs and damage to water supply infrastructure.

Findings indicate that large, widespread and sustained downward trends in salinity occurred over the last 50 to 90 years, with salinity levels decreasing by as much as 50% at some locations. The timing and amount of salinity reductions suggest that changes in land cover, land use and climate, in addition to salinity-control measures, substantially affect how dissolved salts find their way into streams that feed the basin.

“Identifying the causes of dropping salinity levels will be important for water managers in the basin so they can anticipate future changes in salinity and optimize salinity-control practices going forward,” said Christine Rumsey, USGS scientist and lead author of the study.

Results show the steepest rates of decline in salinity occurred from 1980 to 2000, coincident with the initiation of salinity-control efforts in the 1980s. However, there has been a consistent slowing of downward trends after 2000 even though salinity-control efforts continued. Significant decreases in salinity occurred as early as the 1940s in some streams, indicating that, in addition to salinity-control projects, other watershed factors are important drivers of salinity change.

“Having access to almost a century’s worth of salinity data provides greater insight to the water-quality changes that occurred prior to the implementation of salinity-control projects,” said Don Barnett, Executive Director of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum. “These findings are key in helping us understand the processes that cause and reduce salinity and assist us in our goal of protecting water quality in the Colorado River.”

Salinity occurs naturally in water due to weathering and the breaking down of minerals in soils and rock. The same process occurs in areas with irrigated agriculture, when irrigation water flows through soils and dissolves salts which eventually travel into streams. Irrigated areas contribute significantly more to stream salinity compared to areas without irrigated agriculture. Other factors known to affect salinity include geology, land cover, land-use practices, precipitation and climate.

“These findings indicate the issue of salinity in the Colorado River Basin is very complex,” said Rumsey. “Further work is needed to better understand the roles that climate change, land-use, reservoirs, population dynamics and irrigation practices play in salinity issues, which impact the economic well-being of the West and are important to U.S. relations with Mexico.”

Funding for this study was provided by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bureau of Land Management. In 1974, Congress enacted the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, which directed the Secretary of the Interior to proceed with a program to enhance and protect the quality of water available in the Colorado River for use in the U. S. and Republic of Mexico. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program implements and manages programs to reduce salinity loads, investing millions of dollars per year in irrigation upgrades, canal projects and other mitigation strategies.

The USGS is the primary scientific agency for collecting data on water quality and flow in the nation’s rivers, with more than 13,500 real-time stream, lake and reservoir, precipitation and groundwater data stations across the country. The USGS also conducts analyses of these data to evaluate the status and trends of water-quality conditions.

The new study was published in the journal Water Resources Research.

Landscape view of the San Rafael River in Utah.
Courtesy: Wyatt Brown. Public Domain.

White salts covers the surface of the San Rafael Swell, Utah.
Credit: USGS. Public domain.

Share this:
Bluesky
LinkedIn
Facebook
Email
Print
X
Like this:
Like Loading…

Invasive Zebra Mussels Found in Pet Stores in 21 States — @USGS

Here’s the release from the USGS:

A citizen’s report of an invasive zebra mussel found in an aquarium moss package found in a pet store prompted a U.S. Geological Survey expert on invasive aquatic species to trigger nationwide alerts that have led to the discovery of the destructive shellfish in pet stores in at least 21 states from Alaska to Florida.

A moss ball sold in pet stores containing an invasive zebra mussel. USGS photo.

Amid concerns that the ornamental aquarium moss balls containing zebra mussels may have accidentally spread the pest to areas where it has not been seen before, federal agencies, states, and the pet store industry are working together to remove the moss balls from pet store shelves nationwide. They have also drawn up instructions for people who bought the moss balls or have them in aquariums to carefully decontaminate them, destroying any zebra mussels and larvae they contain using one of these methods: freezing them for at least 24 hours, placing them in boiling water for at least one minute, placing them in diluted chlorine bleach, or submerging them in undiluted white vinegar for at least 20 minutes. The decontamination instructions were developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the USGS and representatives of the pet industry.

Zebra mussels are an invasive, fingernail-sized mollusk native to freshwaters in Eurasia. They clog water intakes for power and water plants, block water control structures, and damage fishing and boating equipment, at great cost. The federal government, state agencies, fishing and boating groups and others have worked extensively to control their spread.

In 1990, in response to the first wave of zebra mussel invasions, the USGS set up its Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, which tracks sightings of about 1,270 non-native aquatic plants and animals nationwide, including zebra mussels. State and local wildlife managers use the database to find and eliminate or control potentially harmful species.

The coordinator of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, USGS fisheries biologist Wesley Daniel, learned about the presence of zebra mussels in moss balls on March 2 and alerted others nationwide about the issue. Moss balls are ornamental plants imported from Ukraine that are often added to aquariums.

“The issue is that somebody who purchased the moss ball and then disposed of them could end up introducing zebra mussels into an environment where they weren’t present before,” Daniel said. “We’ve been working with many agencies on boat inspections and gear inspections, but this was not a pathway we’d been aware of until now.”

On February 25, an employee of a pet store in Seattle, Washington, filed a report to the database that the employee had recently recognized a zebra mussel in a moss ball. Daniel requested confirming information and a photograph and received it a few days later.

Daniel immediately notified the aquatic invasive species coordinator for Washington State and contacted invasive species managers at the USGS and USFWS. He visited a pet store in Gainesville, Florida, and found a zebra mussel in a moss ball there. At that point federal non-indigenous species experts realized the issue was extensive.

The USFWS is coordinating the response along with the USGS. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, several state wildlife agencies and an industry group, the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, are also taking steps to mitigate the problem. National alerts have gone out from the USFWS, the federal Aquatic Nuisance Task and regional aquatic invasive species management groups. Reports of zebra mussels in moss balls have come from Alaska, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, Washington and Wyoming.

“I think this was a great test of the rapid-response network that we have been building,” Daniel said. “In two days, we had a coordinated state, federal and industry response.”

The USGS is also studying potential methods to help control zebra mussels that are already established in the environment, such as low-dose copper applications, carbon dioxide and microparticle delivery of toxicants.

To report a suspected sighting of a zebra mussel or another non-indigenous aquatic plant or animal, go to https://nas.er.usgs.gov/SightingReport.aspx.

In May of 2018, USGS Hydrologic Technician Dave Knauer found a batch of zebra mussels attached to the boat anchor in the St. Lawrence River in New York. (Credit: John Byrnes, USGS. Public domain.)

The geomorphology of #FountainCreek: Life in the Watershed — Fountain Creek Watershed and Greenway District

Elevation (2015, 2019) and Elevation-Change (2015−19) Maps—Study Area 01 By Laura A. Hempel 2020 via USGS

From The Fountain Creek Watershed and Greenway District (Bill Banks) via The Colorado Springs Gazette:

If you catch glimpses of Fountain Creek while driving, biking or walking along the creek, you know it tends to be relatively inactive. You might notice cloudy water due to suspended sediment, or you might spot new underwater sandbars. Most likely, you won’t see major changes. But guess what? Fountain Creek is always changing.

Every year, Laura Hempel PhD and a team of USGS scientists investigate how our creek is changing. Dr. Hempel is a hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Colorado Water Science Center, located in Pueblo. She explains that fluvial geomorphology is the study of how rivers shape the landscape — and are shaped by the landscape. This broad definition includes the concepts of hydrology (where the water is, how it gets there, where it’s going) and sedimentation transport. It also encompasses ecology, since vegetation influences how rivers behave.

The USGS began monitoring the geomorphology of Fountain Creek in 2012, and Dr. Hempel joined the team in 2018. Currently, the team measures elevation and elevation change in 10 study areas annually, between January and April. This “leaf-off” season improves the GPS signals. (GPS enables the team to identify exact locations.) Plus, the low flow rate during winter makes it easier to wade in and collect data in the wetted channel. This annual monitoring effort is conducted in cooperation with Colorado Springs Utilities.

In the past, the team used manual survey methods — a time-intensive “boots on the ground” approach. Covering the nearly 400 acres was a monumental effort! This year, the team will begin using LiDAR, an aerial-based mapping technology. “We can collect orders of magnitude more data points with LiDAR,” Dr. Hempel says. “Those data will allow us to produce much higher-resolution maps, which is really exciting.”

In addition to measuring elevation and elevation change, annual monitoring of Fountain Creek’s topography will allow the team to study a variety of geomorphic metrics in the future. “For example, examining changes in the streambed’s elevation can indicate whether a reach is aggrading due to sedimentation or degrading due to erosion,” Dr. Hempel notes. “We also have the ability to measure the width and depth of the active stream channel and document specific changes in geomorphology. For example, is the channel cross-section smooth and U-shaped or is it complex and braided? Is the channel migrating laterally or straightening? These are some examples of metrics we can measure from this long-term monitoring data to quantify the river’s changing geomorphology.”

Why monitor the geomorphology of Fountain Creek?

Dr. Hempel explains that measuring changes in river geomorphology can lead to understanding WHY a change is happening. Specifically, what is causing the change? “Here’s the tricky thing,” she notes. “Rivers are dynamic. For example, river meandering is a natural process. Rivers are constantly evolving, so it’s difficult to disentangle natural geomorphic change and evolution from change that is outside of the river’s natural variability. Taking a step back even further, long-term monitoring tells us whether observed geomorphic changes are — or are not — outside of the river’s natural variability.”

What might indicate an anomalous change from natural variability? “The long-term dataset can give us clues,” Dr. Hempel explains, adding a hypothetical example. “Let’s say that in the historic past, a particular meander bend grew at a rate of ½ foot per year, but for the last 10 years that same meander bend grew at a rate of five feet per year. This could indicate a fundamental change in the behavior of the river. The long-term datasets are incredibly important to document the baseline condition and, subsequently, determine whether a river has changed in a way that is outside of its natural variability.”

Active monitoring gives us an understanding of the long-term picture, particularly when a river’s behavior impacts us. “If a river is migrating laterally at a faster rate and this reduces a farmer’s acreage or threatens I-25, that’s a problem,” Dr. Hempel notes. “Managers in the basin could address this one-off problem by installing riprap, for example, but that might not resolve the long-term issue. By identifying the cause, the long-term issue becomes solvable. That’s why monitoring Fountain Creek’s geomorphology is so important.”

An engaged and informed public is a vital piece of the puzzle

Dr. Hempel encourages residents of Fountain Creek watershed to learn more about our creek. “A river reflects all the changes upstream of it,” she says. “Hydrologists call it the ‘pour point.’ Our creek literally integrates everything that is happening upstream: water, erosion, sediment and people. It’s possible that Fountain Creek can be a healthy, ‘well-behaved’ river. Or it’s possible that it won’t be healthy and well-behaved. When we have an informed public, with their voice and votes, residents can better understand our creek. They can say what they want Fountain Creek to be and, if needed, support and implement measures to improve it.”

Check out interactive maps of Fountain Creek!

If a picture’s worth a thousand words, an interactive map may be worth 10 times more. Take a few minutes to review a brief report titled “Elevation and Elevation-Change Maps of Fountain Creek, Southeastern Colorado, 2015-19,” authored by Dr. Hempel. And don’t miss the 10 interactive maps that accompany the report, illustrating elevation changes for each of the 10 Fountain Creek study areas.

For example, Study Area 1’s map layers show that the meander bend in this reach migrated toward the west and became more exaggerated between 2015 and 2019. Click the elevation-change map button, and you’ll notice that its lateral migration resulted in deposition (an increase in elevation) on the east side of the main channel and erosion (a decrease in elevation) on the west side.

To access the maps’ interactive layers, you’ll need to download the PDF files and view them in Adobe Acrobat DC — or use Adobe Reader DC, which is free to download. Find the report and maps here: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sim3456.

Bill Banks is the executive director of the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District. The District was established in 2009, to manage, administer and fund capital improvements necessary to maintain critical infrastructure and improve the watershed for the benefit of everyone in the Fountain Creek watershed.

The Fountain Creek Watershed is located along the central front range of Colorado. It is a 927-square mile watershed that drains south into the Arkansas River at Pueblo. The watershed is bordered by the Palmer Divide to the north, Pikes Peak to the west, and a minor divide 20 miles east of Colorado Springs. Map via the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District.

Flooding events a major concern for Grand County following #EastTroublesomFire — The Sky-Hi Daily News #ColoradoRiver #COriver #aridification

The map above displays estimates of the likelihood of debris flow (in %), potential volume of debris flow (in m3), and combined relative debris flow hazard. These predictions are made at the scale of the drainage basin, and at the scale of the individual stream segment. Estimates of probability, volume, and combined hazard are based upon a design storm with a peak 15-minute rainfall intensity of 24 millimeters per hour (mm/h). Predictions may be viewed interactively by clicking on the button at the top right corner of the map displayed above. Map credit: USGS

From The Sky-Hi Daily News (Amy Golden):

One of the biggest concerns following the East Troublesome Fire in Grand County is flooding risk, specifically flooding that picks up debris to create mudflows. Local and national officials are working to get the word out about this new risk and prepare Grand County for a changed landscape this summer…

A number of watersheds were burned in the East Troublesome Fire, including 94% of the Willow Creek Watershed, 90% of the Stillwater Creek Watershed, 42% of the North Inlet Watershed and 29% of the Colorado River Watershed.

Projections have found that water flow from snowmelt and weather events on the burn scar could be 14 times higher than before. According to Grand County Emergency Manager Joel Cochran, the National Weather Service will be monitoring rainstorms that produce even a little bit of rain…

The US Geological Survey has also produced preliminary hazard assessment across the East Troublesome burn scar. The assessment found that most of the water basins in the burn scar present a moderate risk of debris flow hazards with a high risk in certain areas.

County officials have been working to identify specific risks to property and life.

The first part of that included field surveys for damage assessments, which were completed last week. Using additional modeling, risk for various structures have been further assessed and officials are working to communicate that hazard to land owners.

In her Tuesday update to commissioners, Grand County Water Quality Specialist Katherine Morris added that some narrow canyons and roads near flowing water would likely need formal evacuation plans.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

🤖 Data Center Watch 👾

🤯 Trump Ticker 😱

🗺️ Messing with Maps 🧭

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

🌵 Public Lands 🌲

Share this:

Like this:

Supporting Prairie Pothole Management and Sustaining Recreational Opportunities

Impacts of Climate-Driven Shifts in Prairie Pothole Wetlands on Waterfowl

How Climate Change is Linking Prairie Pothole Wetlands to River Wetlands

How Weather Patterns and Land Use Influence Where Ducks are During the Fall and Winter

Share this:

Like this:

⛏️ Mining Monitor ⛏️

😀 Good News Corner 😎

Share this:

Like this:

The Rundown

By the Numbers

News Briefs

Studies and Reports

Studies and Reports

On the Radar

Share this:

Like this:

Part 2: The Fish

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

The Next Challenge: Preparing for the Future

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

New, comprehensive guidelines

Leveraging ecological science to achieve success

Who does this report support?

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

What is Hydrology?

Introduction

Water and People

What is Hydrology?

What Hydrologists Do?

Surface Water

Groundwater

Careers in Hydrology

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this: