Long-term Experimental Plan Ad Hoc Meeting 

Bureau of Reclamation Native American Affairs Office 

400 N. 5th Street 

Phoenix, AZ 

May 26, 2004 

Draft Agenda: 

 9:00 Welcome and Introductions 

 9:15 Meeting Objectives (what do we intend to accomplish at this meeting? what is 

the role of the ad hoc in completing the LTEP?) 

 9:45 Objectives of the LTEP (what is the plan intended to accomplish?) 

10:45 Review of the GCMRC Proposal (how well does it meet our proposed 

objectives? does it facilitate our questions being addressed and hypotheses 

being tested? what information is missing?) 

11:15 Informal Presentations: Tom Ryan: Hydrology Scenarios 

Dave Topping: Fine Sediment and Hydrology (see 

attachment to accompanying e-mail) 

 Bill Persons: Trout 

12:00 Lunch 

 1:00 Alternative Approaches to the LTEP (block vs titration approach; necessary core 

elements; risk assessment for test of extremes; anticipated analysis to determine effects) 

 3:00 Develop Recommended Process, Schedule, and Approach for Interaction with 

GCMRC and Finishing the LTEP 

 4:30 Schedule Next Meeting and Agenda of Ad Hoc 

Suggested questions to be Addressed: 

1) What are we trying to determine with this experimental effort? 

2) How are we going to measure and analyze the effects of our experimental actions? 

3) How are we going to incorporate uncertainty in reservoir elevations, dam release 

volumes, and release temperatures into our design? 

4) Does our proposed design depend on providing specific flows and release 

temperatures, or is it flexible enough to be adapted to variation in these driving variables? 

Meeting Minutes: 

Action Items Indicated by >>>

Attendees

Norm Henderson, Dennis Kubly (chair), Kelly Burke, Mike Yeates, Clayton Palmer, 

Wayne Cook, Barb Ralston, Randy Peterson, Ken Rice, Bill Persons, Jeff English, Tom 

Ryan, Mary Barger, Bill Davis, Glen Knowles, Gary Burton, David Topping 
2

Meeting Objectives: 

What do we intend to accomplish at this meeting? 

• Assist TWG and GCMRC to produce a progress report on LTEP to 

AMWG in Aug and to develop a LTEP for recommendation to AMWG by 

Oct meeting 

• Review GCMRC LTEP proposal and provide feedback 

• Review input from WAPA and others 

• Establish a set core questions for LTEP to address 

• Define the necessary elements within the LTEP 

• Discuss/decide approaches to experimentation (many elements vs few) 

• Decide use of MATA process to develop LTEP 

What is the role of the ad hoc in completing the LTEP? 

• Assist (make recommendation to) TWG in working with Science 

Advisors and GCMRC to recommend an LTEP to AMWG 

Objectives of the LTEP? (No consensus was reached on objectives of the LTEP):

• Determine how flow extremes (steady vs. high fluctuating flows) affect 

resources (hbc and sediment) 

• Target/benefit above resources understand effects on other resources 

(minimize negative impacts to other resources?). 

• LTEP may negatively affect targeted resources in order to gain valuable 

information for long term management 

• Define experimental actions other than flows 

• Conserve sediment and improve conditions for hbc (habitat, competition) 

• Implement extremes (to show effect) vs. small changes (that may not show 

effect) 

• Specify general experimental approach (take all actions at once vs. 

titration/block design) 

Chairperson Comment: There are at least two divergent schools of thought with regard to 

objectives of the LTEP. One group thinks that the LTEP is a set of experiments having a 

set of replicated (in time) treatments, including dam operations and other actions, that 

will be conducted over a period of 10 or more years to provide comparisons of resource 

responses to these treatments. Information gained from the experiments would be used to 

develop management actions that could become permanent. The second group holds that 

the LTEP is a collection of actions that are known to (or have a high probability of) 

producing positive effects on resources of concern, here primarily humpback chub and 

fine sediments. The application of these actions needs to be consistent and repeated for a 

period of 6-10 years to discern effect. If it is determined that these actions are not having 

desired effects, they would be re-evaluated and a new set of actions put in their place 

(please see the attachment on core elements submitted by Clayton Palmer and others). 

The two groups were unable to reach a compromise during the ad hoc meeting. 

Therefore, the objectives of the LTEP identified above do not represent a consensus of 

thought. 
3

Ad Hoc Feedback to GCMRC on their Draft Plan: 

• CP – LTEP plan needs to be targeted at mostly improving resource conditions 

(sediment conservation and hbc) rather than understanding effects of the 

treatments 

• CP – Block treatments need to be longer time (span variety of hydrological 

and climatic conditions). Why two years when hbc recruitment takes 4 years? 

• MY – Shouldn’t be just sediment conservation, but also placing sediment into 

targeted areas (and other targeted resources) 

• BD - The design does not address other hypotheses for the decline in hbc (loss 

of primary productivity, disease/parasites, handling) 

• GK – TCD should not be a random variable rather incorporate into block 

design (turn on and off like other treatments) 

• DK – Do not see the logic of implementing MLFF in May, June and July in 

both stable and high fluctuating treatment blocks. If GCMRC is using extreme 

dam releases as treatments in an attempt to ensure a significant effect, why 

interrupt the steady and high fluctuating flows with MLFF flows? 

• BD – Boundaries specified by WAPA (see attachment) not considered in 

GCMRC LTEP. Should be developed within these boundaries. 

• MB – Plan should incorporate new science and not just an extension of 

previous 16 year plan assumptions 

• JE – Reduce 5-31 range to 5-20 cfs because shoreline fishing is largely lost at 

higher flows. Replace steady flows with 5-6K cfs fluctuations to ensure some 

drift 

• KB – Experiment in off channel ponds with native- nonnative interactions. 

• KB – Where ever possible use GCEM model to answer questions. 

• BD/CP – Question assumption that high discharge event can only occur Jan – 

July. Can experiment with high flows in any month if bypass tubes are 

eventually retrofitted with generators for future management implementation

• MB – Use HMF (powerplant capacity) to better store sediment after tributary 

input 

• KB – Incorporate extended drought scenario into experimental design. 

• RP – LTEP should incorporate low flows and warm water for next several 

years to make use of existing conditions 

• DK – Consider tradeoffs (risk) between titration and block designs 

• BD – Incorporate HBC comprehensive plan elements/actions (those that are 

experimental in nature) into LTEP, e.g., translocation of hbc into new habitat 

• NH – GCMRC to review plan for best design to determine effects of 

individual treatments 

 

Alternative approaches to the LTEP: 

WAPA proposal (see accompanying attachment)– kitchen sink approach (all actions 

necessary to achieve positive responses from target resources, i.e. fine sediment and 
4

hbc).. Emphasizes committing to actions in LTEP that will have positive effects on 

sediment and hbc, the key resources. Include all actions identified by WAPA and 

affiliates (Clayton Palmer on behalf of myself, Gary Burton, Mary Barger, Lloyd Greiner, 

Randy Seaholm, John Shields, Bill Davis, Ted Rampton and Leslie James) group as core 

elements (see attachment) 

Extend GCMRC treatment times to 10-15 years 

Focused on specific highlighted resources (sediment and hbc) 

WAPA proposal and design a draft plan. 

What Next?? 

1) >>>WAPA group to flesh out core elements into plan that can be better compared with 

GCMRC plan.. 

2) >>>GCMRC will consider ad hoc comments on their plan and provide responses. 

3) >>>GCMRC to develop presentation on what is known, what is suspected, and what is 

not known for biological and cultural resources, similar to the Dave Topping 

presentation. 

3) How does the interaction with GCMRC work in the development of the plan? 

a) Many questions from GCMRC proposal that need to be answered. 

b) Ad Hoc believes that it would be more productive to work with GCMRC and 

cooperating scientists, like Dave Topping, rather than back and forth with 

proposals. Need additional expertise from GCMRC and cooperating scientists to 

develop plan together. Need single liaison with GCMRC to work with the ad hoc; 

could use Steve Gloss 

c) Ad hoc acknowledges that GCMRC stretched with CMP, and SP, but LTEP 

assignment and schedule have been given to GCMRC, TWG and SAs by AMWG 

4) MATA may be part of LTEP path to completion; >>>TWG needs to decide and, if so, 

how. 

5) Next ad hoc meeting proposed for June 8; is this time enough for GCMRC to provide 

responses, WAPA and others to flesh out their plan, and invitations be made to more 

cooperating scientists? >>>Chair to inquire. LTEP and CM ad hocs should meet 

concurrent with AMWG retreat. Need to have draft LTEP by mid Oct; final LTEP to 

AMWG in Jan/05 
AMP experimental program ad hoc group 

May 26, 2004 meeting in Phoenix 

Additional follow-up comments 

After yesterday’s meeting concluded, a number of us were extending the David Topping 

discussion on what we knew (and might thus implement as a management action) and 

what we didn’t know (and thus needed to address through experimentation). We crafted 

a chart of the seasons of the year displaying in simple terms, 

KNOWN NOT KNOWN 

WINTER 

- continue trout suppression flows 

- mechanical removal of trout and warm 

water non-native fish 

- test effects of alternative 

ramping rates 

SPRING - mechanical removal of trout and warm 

water non-native fish 

SUMMER 

FALL - high flow test after Paria River inputs - HBC habitat tests 

(TCD/warm releases, flows) 

This approach might be viewed as a combination of 

(1) implementing as management actions those things that we believe are moving the 

resources closer to the desired states expressed in the management objectives of 

the strategic plan (KNOWN), and 

(2) conducting as experiments those things that we think might work, but which we 

need scientific evidence to justify due to expenditure of funds or negative impacts 

to other resources (NOT KNOWN). 

We view yesterday’s discussion positive from the perspective of recognizing the 

strengths and weaknesses of both the “kitchen sink” and “science for science sake” 

approaches (both Clayton Palmer quotes). 

KNOWN 

Bill Person’s population model indicated that the winter trout suppression releases seem 

to be causing a decline in the Lees Ferry trout population numbers, one of the goals of 

this past experiment. While it may be unknown what the result has been downstream, the 

small group’s sense was that this is an effort that should continue at least for the next 

block of the proposed experiment. 

The mechanical removal effort near the confluence of the Little Colorado River has been 

effective in reducing the population of non-native fish in this location, but it will likely be 
another 2 years before impacts to HBC recruitment and population estimates can be 

identified. The group’s sense was that removal needs to include potential warm water 

predators that may expand due to warmer releases (lower reservoir conditions or use of 

the TCD). 

Reports from the sediment scientists have consistently indicated that high releases 

following Paria River sediment inputs would be the most effective means of building 

downstream sandbars and conserving sediment. The fall high flow testing was a 

component of the Clayton Palmer proposal, but as discussed in the meeting, might be 

delayed until November 1 following a Paria River input to allow for accumulation of 

sediment from potential additional Paria River floods (recommendation from David 

Topping). The linkage with low fall flows described below would enable this to occur. 

UNKNOWN 

The impact of flow conditions and temperatures on HBC recruitment is largely unknown, 

although it is widely recognized that cold water is limiting reproduction and recruitment. 

The experimentation on HBC habitat would start during the months of September and 

October, and could consist of stable low flows combined with warm dam releases. Warm 

releases are expected for the next few years due to Lake Powell reservoir levels and low 

annual releases, but also could be implemented through the TCD starting in 2008. These 

low releases would also correspond with Paria River sediment input accumulation as 

described above. 

The block design nature of the GCMRC proposal is retained in this fall effort, but with a 

block of 4 years to determine if HBC actually recruited to the adult population. After this 

initial effort, the experimental design could titrate, with an additional 4-year block 

designed to build on learning accomplished during the initial block. This second block 

could revert to cold releases, shift to alternative flow regimes to identify causal 

differences in habitat conditions, increase the degree of warming through use of the TCD, 

or expand to include other months earlier in the summer, all in an effort to identify 

differences in HBC population response. To assist in this titration, monitoring of 

backwaters and near shore habitat should be expanded to include spring and summer 

months to identify if mainstem spawning is occurring or when young of year HBC 

emerge from the LCR. Consistency of monitoring will ensure comparability among 

treatments. 

Conclusion 

This table and explanation is neither complete nor a final product, but indicates an 

approach that capitalizes on current knowledge and identifies specific experimentation 

with timeframes and target resources. It could be seen as a merging of the block and 

titration experimental design constructs. This also addresses the difference in public 

perception between “experimentation” and “making a change because we have learned 

something”. We suggest (1) GCMRC compile a list of “known” and “unknown” 

statements for the biological discipline as David Topping presented for the sediment 
discipline, and (2) the ad hoc group expand on the table with suggestions or comments on 

either the implantation of management actions or proposed experiments.