Comment on Glen Canyon Dam Flush (not the toilet!)

[catfish-logic]

OK well I was living in Arizona when tubedude lived there too when the mighty FLUSH was released from Glen Canyon Dam.

At that time I was naive and gullible about the whole thing. I was thinking "Oh great! There is gonna be more nutrients coming down the river and it will save the beaches!"

In other words I bought the whole press release from the newspaper article I was reading. Well I dunno why thats what I thought what the Arizona officials wanted everyone to believe.

Well I bought into the whole idea after all the reading that the Grand Canyon was loosing its beaches and that the habitat for deer and all that was gonna be gone unless water was released from the dam.

Well from what I have read seems that tubedude made a point, to me anyways.

But the logic seems clear to me that if Glen Canyon Dam was not there in the first place the Humpback Chub would return plus, and this makes me mad; the fact that Lake Mead had a serious problem with a lack of phosphorus. The fish in Lake Mead were skinny due to a lack of phosphorus. My step dad told me about the Stripers being skinny.

Well? So the fact is Glenn Canyon was blocking the vital nutrients that would otherwise enter Lake Mead and be of benefit to the fishes. By the way the Nevada Fish and Game Department asked the city of Las Vegas to "put sewer into the lake thats less treated" to increase the phosphorus levels. Phosphorus is of course a vital mineral for fish growth. In Nevada the sewer that goes to Lake Mead is actually changed to pure water with none of the phosphorus mineral. Of course in most lakes with "treated" sewage the phosphorus mineral actually cause excess algae growth and the dying algae uses oxygen which is no good.

They had to use airplanes to dump more phosphorus into Lake Mead.
I guess it helped actually, but don't know how much it cost.

If you ask me and here is my opinion. I think it would be cool to not even have Lake Powell ( no offense) and let the water run natural through the Grand Canyon, let the Humpback Chub return and let all those nutrients enter Lake Meade. Just my opinion there are too many dams on the Colorado River and I'm fed up with the overuse of water in the dry west.

Just my 10 cents worth.
[signature]

[southut46]

Wow, posting this opinion in Utah really took guts and I say kudos for you to even share your opinion, especially when it is to drain Lake Powell. If you want my opinion here it is. The people who benefit most from Glen Canyon Dam is not the fisherman nor is it the Lake Mead fisherman. It is the millions of people in AZ and SoCal that depend on the lake for water and the dam for power. In all reality the Bureau of Reclamation or the power companies could care less if the phosphorus is being stopped by the dam. And I really don't by the whole humpback chub thing. In the previous two test floods, they proved to do more damage to the population than they did good.
Lake Powell is to valuable of a resource for everyone from the tree hugger in SoCal to the Utah bass fisherman to drain. I get so tired of hearing all the environmental groups whine because they want lake powell drained to restore the natural flow of the Colorado and Glen Canyon. Its time to face facts, the damage is already done and draining lake powell would leave nothing but an eye-sore for the entire region. Without Lake Powell, Lake Mead would probably be dry already because of the increased demand for water in Nevada and So Cal. So now you have my ten cents. Lake Powell is to great a resource to drain just because the fish in Mead are supposedely lacking in phosphorus.
[signature]

[Lundman]

For those of us that don't know - How is the poplation of the Humpback Chub above Lake Powell? Doesn't the water above Powell exist the same as it has for millions of years? It seems like the dirty brown of the Colorado River sure seems the same...
[signature]

[trfishin]

The last thing we need is less dams. With global warming and water shortages everywhere why would anyone want to do away with a water storage facility that helps everyone out. With out water then we will all die of thirst. I think that we all need to learn more about water conservation and how to use water wisely. Sooner or later all of these golf courses and swiming pools are going to need to be put on tighter restrictions or find a better way to use the water wisely. I'm not saying that we can't have swimming pools or golf courses just use the water better. If you would go and see how much water evaporates out of a water fountain on a golf course or small ponds and water scenes in our yards on a hot day I think you would see what I'm saying. It unbelievable the amount of water that evaporates off of these things alone not to mention tons of other water applications that could possibablly make some changes to help conserve some water for all of us. We all need to work together to try to get our water shortages under control for us and for the furture of all our families. That's my 2 cents worth not the law just please take a minute and see if what I have said makes any sence. thanks
[signature]

[hedgesd]

Cat your still naive. Get rid of Powell so your fishery gets better. Well you can kiss Mead, Davis and the Gorge goodbye if the environmentals get rid of Powell.
[signature]

[RyanCreek]

I don't think the Humpback are doing much better above lake Powell either. I also know that I fished the Colorado up and down near Moab for Carp trying the slower holes and eddies next to the fast water a couple weeks back.... nothin. You'd suspect the Humpback to bite the same bait as well.
[signature]

[PBH]

http://www.fws.gov/coloradoriverrecovery/Crhbc.htm

"The humpback chub lives primarily in canyons with swift currents and white water. Historically, it inhabited canyons of the Colorado River and four of its tributaries: the Green, Yampa, White and Little Colorado rivers. Now, there are two populations near the Colorado/Utah border [font "Symbol"]-[/font] one at Westwater Canyon in Utah and one in an area called Black Rocks, in Colorado. Though now smaller in number than they were historically, the two populations seem to be fairly stable in these two areas. Smaller numbers have been found in the Yampa and Green rivers in Dinosaur National Monument, Desolation and Gray canyons on the Green River in Utah, Cataract Canyon on the Colorado River in Utah and the Colorado River in Arizona. The largest known population is in the Little Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, where there may be up to 10,000 fish. There are no population estimates available for the rest of the upper Colorado River basin."
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

[reply] And I really don't by the whole humpback chub thing. In the previous two test floods, they proved to do more damage to the population than they did good.
.[/reply]

Just to set the record straight....the results regarding the effect the previous two floods had on the endangered species are still not known. But, "Good news is often hard to find when it comes to endangered species. Perhaps that is why U.S. Geological Survey scientists with the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center are excited about recently collected data for the endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha) population in Grand Canyon. After more than a decade of decline, the findings suggest that the number of adult (age 4-plus) humpback chub in Grand Canyon appear to have stabilized at an estimated 5,000 fish between 2001 and 2005. In 2005, scientists also detected more juvenile fish (age 1 to 4) and young-of-year fish, or fish hatched in 2005, than previous years.

“The possible stabilization of adult fish numbers is exciting news for the recovery effort because it means that conditions exist in Grand Canyon that allow young fish to reach reproductive age,” said Matthew Andersen, USGS supervisory biologist. “Until recently, the Grand Canyon population was steadily declining because adult fish were dying at a rate of 15 percent to 20 percent annually, and young fish were not surviving in sufficient numbers to replace adult mortality.”
[signature]

[southut46]

So perhaps I got a little carried away in my statement that the floods did more damage to the chub population than they did good, I am a big boy and can admit my mistake. There is to little data to make a point one way or the other as to what impact the test floods have on the chubs. But I still stand by my point that the man-made floods did not help the population. I take this from the same article that wormandbobber quoted previous:
"Humpback chub hatched in 1999 may have benefited from substantial in-stream warming as the result of the 2000 low summer steady flow experiment. The experiment held Glen Canyon Dam releases constant at 8,000 cubic feet per second from June through August 2000 and included two habitat maintenance flows (high, steady dam releases). As a result, peak water temperatures in lower sections of Grand Canyon exceeded 20°C (68.5°F) in the summer of 2000, compared with typical peak temperatures of 15-18°C (59-64°F). "
So perhaps more studies need to be done in this regard, slowing the flow and warming the river. But if you want my honest opinion in regards to the humpback chub, it is no different than that of the June Sucker. Trying to protect these non-game fish does nothing but suck billions of dollars out of the economy to protect something that in no way benefits us as humans. Why not spend the money where it would be more beneficial.
[signature]

[trout_slayer]

Who gives a rats @$$ about those stupid chub? Unless by eating one you gain the same power as drinking from the fountain of youth then no one cares!!!
TS
[signature]

[Fish-or-die]

LMAO-short and to the point.
[signature]

[polokid]

Please tell me you are kidding and just trying to get a rise from this post? The economic impact of Lake Powell on so many levels makes that dam so beneficial and needed. The power it creates along with the water it supplies to so many communities makes it necessary. I for one would like to see more dams put up in different places in the west. Development, population growth, immigration, and the influx of people from the Eastern part of the country makes this necessary. I for one am not going to eliminate myself from this problem, and I dont think you are either. I dont like the population growth in the west, especially in the South West. BUt what can you do about?

Ecological impact is deep, conservation can help with some of this impact, but unfortunately some things are unavoidable. The chub is one example. I laugh at the greens that fight for the chubs in the Colorado and the ones in Utah Lake. I vote to eliminate them completely and start using the lobbyists money and cash they put into that dead end effort and put into something that would benefit the future of the enviroment. Something with more impact.

The same problem with stunted fish in Lake Powell is the same reason for stunting in Lake Mead! To many predators, not enough forage fish. Most people that fish Lake Mead and Lake Powell will say it isnt a lack of fish, but just the opposite. To many small fish over crowding the bait fish
. If this was posted to get a rise, i took hook, line and sinker, but if not I put my vote for more dams and more money to things that will help the environment substantially.
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

A few points warrant comment here.

1) It is true that there are periodically skinny stripers in lake Mead. However, it is due to the same cause as it is in lake Powell, the stripers eating all the threadfin shad. As a 10 yr. (former) Las Vegas area resident and Lake Mead angler, we would reliably see approximately a 3 yr. cycle of boom and bust. As for the phosphorus, you are right that the SNWA is required to remove phosphorus to very low levels, however, it is due to overly HIGH levels released causing unacceptable algae blooms as recently as 2001. The phosphorus levels in the water and sediment haven't even dropped below historical levels. See below link.
[url "http://ndep.nv.gov/forum/index.htm"]http://ndep.nv.gov/forum/index.htm[/url]
(see bottom line section on link. Causes for minimal drops on Phosphorus levels is felt to be from other Phosphorus sources and phosphorus leached from the lake sediments)

The lowering water levels and the increasing Las Vegas population also may require SNWA to lower the released phosphorus even more to keep within government guidelines. This link explains.
[url "http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/dec/tech/kc_phosphorus.html"]http://pubs.acs.org/...h/kc_phosphorus.html[/url]

I have found no reference anywhere of NDOW putting Phosphorus into Lake Mead to aid in striper feeding. I really doubt the US government would make the wastewater people remove even more phosphorus out of the water and then allow NDOW to dump phosphorus into the water. (It is the government though?)


2) As for Lake Powell, (and Mead, Mojave etc.) the Southwest and it's rampant population growth require two things; Water and power. There are political entities even more powerful than environmentalists and especially fishermen that will do ANYTHING to protect its water shares. These dams are not going anywhere. We in the West will see during our lifetimes some insane battles over water rights between the various states for Colorado river water.

I would also point out that as an occasionally tree hugging, June sucker, humpback chub loving freak, I would much rather have hydropower from a dam with no carbon emissions compared to more coal fired power, as is currently planned to meet much of our western electricity needs.
[signature]

[fuzzyfisher]

well if lake mead is doing so bad why not get rid of it? and keep glenn canyon.. [].

i'm sure it would cut into LV. alot to have them out there with no water.. but hey them humpbacks are soooooo needed! i'm sure the 3 or 4 million pepole there in vegas will under stand that a chub is much more importent than they are..

come on give me a brake! Glen Canyon is not going any where any time soon.. it put's out 1.5 million $$$$ worth of coal free power a day!! i dont see Vegas doing with out that ether..

there is alot more to it than just fish and game! you got pepole with LOT"S of money they are makeing on the power and water down stream.. they are not going to give it up so easy..
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

[reply]
Trying to protect these non-game fish does nothing but suck billions of dollars out of the economy to protect something that in no way benefits us as humans. Why not spend the money where it would be more beneficial.[/reply]

I strongly disagree...
Why save any endangered species? I think in order to answer the question of why we should spend money to save the june sucker or the humpback chub, we should first understand why it is important to save any endangered species and, we must understand why these species are becoming or have become endangered.
"If extinction is sometimes part of the natural order, and if many other species remain, some people ask: "Why save endangered species? What makes these animals and plants so special that money and effort should be spent to conserve them?"
Congress addressed these questions in the preamble to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, recognizing that endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants "are of aesthetic, ecological, educational,historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people." In this statement, Congress was summarizing a number of convincing arguments advanced by scientists, conservationists, and
others who are greatly concerned by the disappearance of
creatures.
Unfortunately, we can no longer attribute the accelerating decline of our wild animals and plants to "natural" processes. Biologists know that today's danger to wildlife most often results from habitat degradation, environmental pollution, the introduction of exotic (non-native) organisms, and exploitation--all generally as a direct result of human activities.
Although conservation efforts have begun in recent years, mankind is still exterminating entire species at an ever-increasing rate. Since the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620, more than 500 species, subspecies, and varieties of our Nation's plants and animals have become
extinct--lost forever. (By contrast, during the 3,000 years of the Pleistocene Ice Age, all of North America lost only about three species every 100 years.) The situation today is even worse in other parts of the world.
The Colorado River system once contained some of the most turbulent waters on earth, and fishes like the humpback chub evolved unique shapes to gain stability in the rough currents. Today, after construction over 20 dams, only a few short stretches of this unique habitat remains.

The humpback chub is now endangered.

So, again, why should we save the humpback chub or june sucker or any endangered species?

The Benefits of Natural Diversity

No creature exists in a vacuum. All living things are part of a complex, delicately balanced network called the biosphere. It is composed of ecosystems, the study of which includes the set of interrelationships between plants and animals and their physical environment. The removal of a single species can set off a chain reaction affecting many others. It has been estimated, for example, that a disappearing plant can take with it up to 30 other species, including insects, higher animals, and even other plants. The full significance of an extinction is not always readily apparent; much remains to be learned, and the full long-term impacts are difficult to predict.
Freshwater mollusks like this endangered Higgin's Eye mussel feed by filtering particles out of water. Toxic substances accumulate in the body tissues, making these animals valuable as natural monitors of water quality.
Medicine. Each living thing contains a unique reservoir of genetic material that has evolved over eons of time, and cannot be retrieved or duplicated if lost. Scientists have partially investigated so far only a small fraction of the world's species and have begun to unravel a few of their chemical secrets to determine possible benefits to mankind. No matter how small or obscure a species, it could one day be of direct aid to all of us. It was "only" a fungus that gave us penicillin, and certain plants have yielded substances used in drugs to treat heart disease, cancer, and a variety of other serious illnesses. At least a quarter of all prescriptions written annually in the United States contain chemicals discovered in plants and animals. If these organisms had been destroyed before their chemistries were known, their secrets would have died with them.
Agriculture. Many seemingly insignificant forms of life are beginning to show important utilitarian benefits in areas such as agriculture. Some farmers are beginning to use insects and other animals that compete with or pry on certain crop pests, as well as using plants containing natural-toxin compounds that repel harmful insects. These are called "biological controls," and in many cases they are a safe effective, and less expensive alternative to synthetic chemicals.
Thomas Jefferson once wrote that "the greatest service which can be rendered any country is to add a useful plant to its culture, a breadgrain." It has been estimated that there are almost 80,000 species of edible plants, of which fewer than 20 produce 90 percent of the world's food. If under-utilized species are conserved, they could help to feed growing populations. One grain native to the Great Lakes States, Indian wild-rice, is superior in protein to most domesticated rice, and its increasing commercial production is earning millions of dollars annually. Crossing it with a related but endangered species,Texas wild-rice, could perhaps result in a strain adaptable to other regions. Plants collectors are now seeking out remaining wild strains of many common crops, such as wheat and corn, for work on new hybrids more resistant to crop diseases, pests, and marginal climatic conditions.
Industry is also increasingly making use of wild plants. Two species in particular that show important potential are the jojoba and the guayule. The jojoba produces an oil with many unique properties that are suitable for a variety of industrial processes. In the past, the only comparable oil was derived from the sperm whale, but overharvesting has brought this great marine mammal to the brink of extinction. The guayule is a shrub containing high amounts of natural rubber, as well as a resin rich in other valuable substances. Both plants grow in the deserts of the southwestern United States, giving economic value to
lands not suitable for other agricultural purposes, and they could provide domestic sources of products that would otherwise have to be imported.
Environmental Monitors. Many individual species are uniquely important as indicators of environmental quality. The rapid decline in bald eagles and peregirne falcons was a dramatic warning of the dangers of DDT--a strong, once widely used pesticide that accumulates in body tissues. (Its effect on these birds was to hamper fertility and egg-hatching success.) In another example, certain plants, such as eastern white pine, are particularly good indicators of excess ozone, sulfur dioxide, and other air pollutants. If it were not for species like these, we may not have known about the effects of some contaminants
until more damage was done.
The Texas wild-rice could someday be used to make other strains more productive.
Aside from the more concrete reasons for preserving endangered species, moral considerations are often mentioned. Many people that every creature, after adapting for thousands or even millions years to fit a constantly changing environment, has an intrinsic right to exist. Exterminating other forms of life, they say, would not only shortsighted, but wrong--especially since the species could never be replaced. Mankind would also be the loser; being accustomed to diversity in nature, the quality of human life would diminished.
Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has primary responsibility to preserve not only jeopardized life, but also the natural resources on which life depends. The condition of plant and animal species, then, is a gauge to measure how much of our world still supports a healthy environment.
More knowledge of complete ecosystems can help us to better understand, and protect, the requirements of all life--including the human species.
Endangered means there is still time, but extinction is forever."
[signature]

[wiperhunter2]

I agree with you about the need for more dams. Along the Wasatch front, water conservation alone will not provide enough water for us to drink in the long run. With the growth rate climbing at a rate of 80,000 plus a year at some point a new dam will need to be built and the longer we wait the higher the cost will be. After reading his thread on Wolves, I can assure you Catfish-logic is not kidding about this. I'm sure he is just curious about what others think or at least I would hope so.
[signature]

[PBH]

Good post WormandBobber.


Any species in danger of extinction is worth the time and money spent to prevent its extinction.

Trout-Slayer -- how do you determine which species to save, and which species to become extinct? What are the qualifying characteristics that you use in this determination? Where do you draw the line?
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

[font "Verdana"][size 2]"Youth ages. Immaturity is outgrown. Ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever."
~Aristophanes, Greek comic, 5th century B.C.

It would be stupid to not try and save the june sucker or humpback chub or virgin river chub; it would be stupid to allow any species to become extinct because such stupidness lasts forever!
[/size][/font]
[signature]

[southut46]

Stupid lasts forever! I agree, so next time you are in downtown Salt Lake City why don't you ask the homeless man on the side of the road how stupid it was to spend millions of dollars to save a fish that will ultimately go extinct no matter what we has humans try to do, instead of spending the money to develope housing or programs to get him back on his feet. Or why not spend the money for food and supplies for the innocent children dying all over the world because they lack even the bare necessities to live. I am not a cold-hearted ignoramus, but I think that there are many ways that the money could be spent wiser than on "studies" trying to protect a fish from the inevitable. That is my opinion, I respect you for sharing yours and I wont say anything else on this subject.
[signature]

[PBH]

southut46 -- don't stop now.


I'll ask you the same question I asked Troutslayer: How do you determine what species to try to save, and what species to eliminate?

I'd be interested to hear anyone's answer to that question.
[signature]