Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

John M. Bartholow

Publications and source records attributed to John M. Bartholow.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2010

Application of the Systems Impact Assessment Model (SIAM) to fishery resource issues in the Klamath River, California

At the request of two offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) located in Yreka and Arcata, Calif., we applied the Systems Impact Assessment Model (SIAM) to analyze a variety of water management concerns associated with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing of the Klamath hydropower projects or with ongoing management of anadromous fish stocks in the mainstem Klamath River, Oregon and California. Requested SIAM analyses include predicted effects of reservoir withdrawal elevations, use of full active storage in Copco and Iron Gate Reservoirs to augment spring flows, and predicted spawning and juvenile outmigration timing of fall Chinook salmon. In an effort to further refine the analysis of spring flow effects on predicted fall Chinook production, additional SIAM analyses were performed for predicted response to spring flow release variability from Iron Gate Dam, high and low pulse flow releases, the predicted effects of operational constraints for both Upper Klamath Lake water surface elevations, and projected flow releases specified in the Klamath Project 2006 Operations Plan (April 10, 2006). Results of SIAM simulations to determine flow and water temperature relationships indicate that up to 4 degrees C of thermal variability can be attributed to flow variations, but the effect is seasonal. Much more of thermal variability can be attributed to air temperature variations, up to 6 degrees C. Reservoirs affect the annual thermal signature by delaying spring warming by about 3 weeks and fall cooling by about 2 weeks. Multi-level release outlets on Iron Gate Dam would have limited utility; however, if releases are small (700 cfs) and a near-surface and bottom-level outlet could be blended, then water temperature may be reduced by 2-4 degrees C for a 4-week period during September. Using the full active storage in Copco and Iron Gate Reservoir, although feasible, had undesirable ramifications such as earlier spring warming, loss of hydropower production, and inability to re-fill the reservoirs without causing shortages elsewhere in the system. Altering spawning and outmigration timing may be important management objectives for the salmon fishery, but difficult to implement. SIAM predicted benefits that might occur if water temperature was cooler in fall and spring emergence was advanced; however, model simulations were based on purely arbitrary thermal reductions. Spring flow variability did indicate that juvenile fall Chinook rearing habitat was the major biological 'bottleneck' for year class success. Rearing habitat is maximal in a range between 4,500 and 5,500 cfs below Iron Gate Dam. These flow levels are not typically provided by Klamath River system operations, except in very wet years. The incremental spring flow analysis provided insight into when and how long a pulse flow should occur to provide predicted fall Chinook salmon production increases. In general, March 15th - April 30th of any year was the period for pulse flows and 4000 cfs was the target flow release that provided near-optimal juvenile rearing habitat. Again, competition for water resources in the Klamath River Basin may make implementation of pulsed flows difficult.

California, Oregon↗
USGS2006

Assessment of factors limiting Klamath River fall Chinook salmon production potential using historical flows and temperatures

We parameterized and applied a deterministic salmon production model to infer the degree to which river flows and temperatures may limit freshwater production potential of the Klamath River in California. Specific parameter requirements, data sources, and significant assumptions are discussed in detail. Model simulations covered a wide variety of historical hydrologic and meteorologic conditions for 40+ years of environmental data. The model was calibrated only qualitatively, appearing to perform well in predicted outmigrant timing, but overestimating growth. Egg-to-outmigrant survival was near that reported for other rivers north of the Klamath River. Predicted production potential appeared to be determined by multiple causes involving both regularly occurring habitat-related constraints and irregularly occurring exposure to high water temperatures. Simulated production was greatest in years of intermediate water availability and was constrained in both dry and wet years, but for different reasons. Reducing mortality associated with limitations to juvenile habitat, if possible, would be expected to have the highest payoff in increasing production. Water temperature was important in determining predicted production in some years but overall was not predicted to be as important as physical microhabitat. No single mortality cause acted as a true “bottleneck” on production. Model uncertainty is addressed through a sensitivity analysis. Predicted habitat area may be a large source of model uncertainty and sensitivity, but collectively, model parameters associated with timing of events (for example spawning, fry emergence, and emigration) or related triggers control much of the model sensitivity. Though model uncertainty remains, one can begin to explore potential alternatives to reduce production limitations. Specific recommendations are made regarding future study and reducing uncertainty.

California, Oregon↗
USGS2005

Evaluating water management strategies with the Systems Impact Assessment Model: SIAM version 4

Water from many of California's coastal rivers has been used for a wide variety of development ventures, including major agricultural diversions, hydropower generation, and contaminant assimilation from industry, agriculture and logging. Anthropogenic impacts often degrade water quality and decrease the quantity and quality of aquatic habitat. Reallocating streamflow away from uses that degrade water quality to uses that foster higher water quality is a critical step in restoring riverine habitat and the anadromous fish that rely on that habitat for a portion of their life cycle. Reallocation always brings with it the need to examine the economic efficiency of the proposed changes. If the dollar benefits of improving water quality are greater than the costs, the criterion of improving economic efficiency is satisfied, a fact that can be highly persuasive to decision makers contemplating reallocation. Previous related studies have examined nonmarket benefits of the Trinity River in northern California (Douglas and Taylor, 1998; Douglas and Taylor, 1999abc) but nothing of this kind had been done on the Klamath River, another system with numerous uses for and competition over water in times of drought. An economic survey is nearing completion for the mid- to lower Klamath River, including the Scott, Shasta, and Salmon Rivers, but excluding the Trinity River. This survey provides valuable insights about the magnitude of the benefits and nature of the costs of reallocating water from market uses to instream flows that improve water quality and assist in the recovery of Klamath River fish stocks. Preliminary survey results (Douglas and Johnson, 2002; Douglas and Sleeper, In Prep.) indicate that about 234,000 California, Oregon, and Nevada households made recreation trips to the Klamath River Basin 1997-1998 and that these users spent about $372 million on trip related expenditures. Clearly the prosperity of the region is closely linked to the demand for mid- and lower Klamath River Basin recreation trips. Further, respondents indicated that they would make roughly 36% more recreational trips per annum to the Klamath if the water quality and the fishery were restored to an unspoiled condition. Using two distinct types of survey data, these additional trips would yield benefits with a present value of approximately $9.6 billion (at a discount rate of 7.5%). Calculating costs to restore the fishery and raise water quality involved five major hypothetical restoration activities: (1) purchasing Klamath project farmland and environmentally sensitive forest lands, (2) allocating more water down the Trinity River to enhance the quantity and quality of Klamath flows below the confluence, (3) removing four mainstem dams along the Klamath River and losing their associated hydropower production, (4) eliminating all harvest of Klamath-Trinity fish stocks for a 12-year period including the acquisition of fishing rights from both tribal and commercial marine fishermen, and (5) operating all Klamath-Trinity fish hatcheries to restore self-reproducing stocks. In total, restoration costs were estimated to be about $1.7 to $2.3 billion. If the assumptions used in this study are valid, it is clear that the benefits ($9.6B) outweigh the costs of restoring water quality and the fishery. The apparent disparity between restoration benefits and costs for the Klamath River may suggest to some that water resources on the Klamath be reallocated to environmentally friendly nonmarket uses. The economic analysis rests in part on the information made available to the survey designers by the biological, hydrologic, and water quality data incorporated in The System Impact Assessment Model (SIAM). It is our hope that SIAM can be used to improve the river's water quality and fishery, and strengthen the important regional economy.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2003

Modeling uncertainty: Quicksand for water temperature modeling

Uncertainty has been a hot topic relative to science generally, and modeling specifically. Modeling uncertainty comes in various forms: measured data, limited model domain, model parameter estimation, model structure, sensitivity to inputs, modelers themselves, and users of the results. This paper will address important components of uncertainty in modeling water temperatures, and discuss several areas that need attention as the modeling community grapples with how to incorporate uncertainty into modeling without getting stuck in the quicksand that prevents constructive contributions to policy making. The material, and in particular the reference, are meant to supplement the presentation given at this conference.

Hydrological Science and Technology↗
USGS2000

The stream segment and stream network temperature models: A self-study course

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to revise the first version of this set of course notes for the stream temperature models. In some ways, there have been many changes and in some ways the notes have stayed much the same. Generally, I was satisfied that the notes were both comprehensive and fairly easy to read. The exercises using SSTEMP have been upgraded to reflect advances in the software. Some additional material was added to better cover contemporary thremistors, and some, but not all, weak transitions and incomplete sentences have been corrected. A comprehensive index was added in an attempt to make these notes as useful as possible, and a few telling quotes have been added for spice. The goal has been to make this set of notes as stand-alone as possible and keep the file size down to something that is easily downloadable over the Internet today (March 2000).

Open-File Report↗
USGS1991

A modeling assessment of the thermal regime for an urban sport fishery

Water temperature is almost certainly a limiting factor in the maintenance of a self-sustaining rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss , formerly Salmo gairdneri ) and brown trout ( Salmo trutta ) fishery in the lower reaches of the Cache la Poudre River near Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Irrigation diversions dewater portions of the river, but cold reservoir releases moderate water temperatures during some periods. The US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Stream Network Temperature Model (SNTEMP) was applied to a 31-km segment of the river using readily available stream geometry and hydrological and meteorological data. The calibrated model produced satisfactory water temperature predictions (R 2 =0.88, P <0.001, N=49) for a 62-day summer period. It was used to evaluate a variety of flow and nonflow alternatives to keep water temperatures below 23.3°C for the trout. Supplemental flows or reduced diversions of 3 m 3 /sec would be needed to maintain suitable summer temperatures throughout most of the study area. Such flows would be especially beneficial during weekends when current irrigation patterns reduce flows. The model indicated that increasing the riparian shade would result in little improvement in water temperatures but that decreasing the stream width would result in significant temperature reductions. Introduction of a more thermally tolerant redband trout ( Oncorhynchus sp.), or smallmouth bass ( Micropterus dolomieui ) might prove beneficial to the fishery. Construction of deep pools for thermal refugia might also be helpful.

Environmental Management↗
USGS1990

Reference manual for generation and analysis of Habitat Time Series: version II

The selection of an instream flow requirement for water resource management often requires the review of how the physical habitat changes through time. This review is referred to as 'Time Series Analysis." The Tune Series Library (fSLIB) is a group of programs to enter, transform, analyze, and display time series data for use in stream habitat assessment. A time series may be defined as a sequence of data recorded or calculated over time. Examples might be historical monthly flow, predicted monthly weighted usable area, daily electrical power generation, annual irrigation diversion, and so forth. The time series can be analyzed, both descriptively and analytically, to understand the importance of the variation in the events over time. This is especially useful in the development of instream flow needs based on habitat availability. The TSLIB group of programs assumes that you have an adequate study plan to guide you in your analysis. You need to already have knowledge about such things as time period and time step, species and life stages to consider, and appropriate comparisons or statistics to be produced and displayed or tabulated. Knowing your destination, you must first evaluate whether TSLIB can get you there. Remember, data are not answers . This publication is a reference manual to TSLIB and is intended to be a guide to the process of using the various programs in TSLIB. This manual is essentially limited to the hands-on use of the various programs. a TSLIB use interface program (called RTSM) has been developed to provide an integrated working environment where the use has a brief on-line description of each TSLIB program with the capability to run the TSLIB program while in the user interface. For information on the RTSM program, refer to Appendix F. Before applying the computer models described herein, it is recommended that the user enroll in the short course "Problem Solving with the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM)." This course is offered by the Aquatic Systems Branch of the National Ecology Research Center. For more information about the TSLIB software, refer to the Memorandum of Understanding. Chapter 1 provides a brief introduction to the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology and TSLIB. Other chapters in this manual provide information on the different aspects of using the models. The information contained in the other chapters includes (2) acquisition, entry, manipulation, and listing of streamflow data; (3) entry, manipulation, and listing of the habitat-versus-streamflow function; (4) transferring streamflow data; (5) water resources systems analysis; (6) generation and analysis of daily streamflow and habitat values; (7) generation of the time series of monthly habitats; (8) manipulation, analysis, and display of month time series data; and (9) generation, analysis, and display of annual time series data. Each section includes documentation for the programs therein with at least one page of information for each program, including a program description, instructions for running the program, and sample output. The Appendixes contain the following: (A) sample file formats; (B) descriptions of default filenames; (C) alphabetical summary of batch-procedure files; (D) installing and running TSLIB on a microcomputer; (E) running TSLIB on a CDC Cyber computer; (F) using the TSLIB user interface program (RTSM); and (G) running WATSTORE on the USGS Amdahl mainframe computer. The number for this version of TSLIB--Version II-- is somewhat arbitrary, as the TSLIB programs were collected into a library some time ago; but operators tended to use and manage them as individual programs. Therefore, we will consider the group of programs from the past that were only on the CDC Cyber computer as Version 0; the programs from the past that were on both the Cyber and the IBM-compatible microcomputer as Version I; and the programs contained in this reference manual as Version II.

Report↗
USGS1986

Introduction to stream network habitat analysis

Increasing demands on stream resources by a variety of users have resulted in an increased emphasis on studies that evaluate the cumulative effects of basinwide water management programs. Network habitat analysis refers to the evaluation of an entire river basin (or network) by predicting its habitat response to alternative management regimes. The analysis principally focuses on the biological and hydrological components of the riv er basin, which include both micro- and macrohabitat. (The terms micro- and macrohabitat are further defined and discussed later in this document.) Both conceptual and analytic models are frequently used for simplifying and integrating the various components of the basin. The model predictions can be used in developing management recommendations to preserve, restore, or enhance instream fish habitat. A network habitat analysis should begin with a clear and concise statement of the study objectives and a thorough understanding of the institutional setting in which the study results will be applied. This includes the legal, social, and political considerations inherent in any water management setting. The institutional environment may dictate the focus and level of detail required of the study to a far greater extent than the technical considerations. After the study objectives, including species on interest, and institutional setting are collectively defined, the technical aspects should be scoped to determine the spatial and temporal requirements of the analysis. A macro level approach should be taken first to identify critical biological elements and requirements. Next, habitat availability is quantified much as in a "standard" river segment analysis, with the likely incorporation of some macrohabitat components, such as stream temperature. Individual river segments may be aggregated to represent the networkwide habitat response of alternative water management schemes. Things learned about problems caused or opportunities generated may be fed back to the design of new alternatives, which themselves may be similarly tested. One may get as sophisticated an analysis as the decisionmaking process demands. Figure 1 shows a decision point that asks whether the results from the micro- or macrohabitat models display cumulative or synergistic effects. If they do, then network habitat analysis is the appropriate tool. We are left, however, in a difficult bind. We may not know a priori whether the effects are cumulative or synergistic unless some network-type questions are investigated as part of the scoping process. The next several sections raise issues designed to alert the modeler to relevant questions necessary to address this paradox.

Report↗