DRAFT 

A REVIEW OF THE GCMRC REPORT ON 

 AN “ANALYSIS OF BIOPHYSICAL AND 

SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS OF FOUR 

EXPERIMENTAL OPTIONS” 

By 

GCD AMP SCIENCE ADVISORS 

Jill Baron 

Virginia Dale 

Don Fowler 

Lance Gunderson 

Jim Kitchell 

Dale Robertson 

Harold Tyus 

Ellen Wohl 

L. D. Garrett 

Executive Secretary 

OCTOBER, 2006 
A REVIEW OF GCMRC REPORT ON 

 AN “ANALYSIS OF BIOPHYSICAL AND 

SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS OF FOUR 

EXPERIMENTAL OPTIONS” 

By GCD AMP SCIENCE ADVISORS1 

INTRODUCTION 

 In 2005 the GCD AMP requested that GCMRC and TWG develop flow 

and non-flow recommendations for a Long Term Experimental Plan. A Science 

Planning Group (SPG), structured by the GCMRC and TWG, developed several 

experimental plan options over 12 months in 2005/2006. These were reduced to 

three options for comparison to the current Record of Decision (ROD), referred to 

as Modified Low Fluctuating Flows (MLFF). 

 To understand more fully how each of the three options might affect CRE 

recources, the SPG requested that statements of work (sow) and resource 

impact assessment reports be developed by GCMRC. A sow and assessment 

report of economic impacts on hydropower resources has been conducted by the 

Western Area Power Authority (WAPA). The sow and assessment of impacts of 

the differing options on biophysical and socio-cultural resources has been 

prepared by GCMRC program managers and scientists. 

 The SPG realized that significant uncertainty would exist in developing 

these assessments. As such, the impact assessments are in major part to be 

considered preliminary. 

 Assistance in external review of the statements of work and assessments 

was requested of the Science Advisors Executive Secretary. Four hydropower 

economists external to the Science Advisors (SAs) were selected to provide 

review input to the Hydropower Economic Statement of Work and the final 

Hydropower Economic Impact Assessment. The AMP Science Advisors 

provided review input to the Biophysical and Socio-Cultural Statement of Work 

and final assessment. 

 

1

 The GCD AMP Science Advisors are currently comprised of eight discipline specialists. The individuals 

and their disciplines are presented in Appendix A. 

2
A review of the statement of work for an “Analysis of Biophysical and 

Socio-Cultural Impacts of Three Experimental Options” was completed by the 

SAs in September, 2006. The review was filed with the SPG Task Team and 

GCMRC, who revised their Biophysical and Socio-Cultural Resource Impact 

Assessment Report based on the review (Appendix B). 

REVIEW CHARGE 

 This report captures the Science Advisors review of “An Analysis of 

Biophysical and Socio-Cultural Impacts of Four Experimental Options” developed 

by GCMRC. A fourth option was presented in the final phases of this 

assessment, requiring a Technical Work Group (TWG) conference call to resolve 

its inclusion. In the call, a second option previously discussed by the SPG was 

also proposed for consideration. In requested votes, the new option was 

approved for evaluation by GCMRC, and the option previously considered by the 

SPG was rejected from evaluation. 

 GCMRC developed descriptions for each of the four options which are 

summarized in Table 1. The assessment report completed by GCMRC was 

presented to the Science Advisors for review on October 13, 2006 as scheduled. 

 The charge to the Science Advisors was to contrast the projected impacts 

in the assessment with the impacts that would be expected when applying 

current scientific knowledge. Five work days were allotted to completing these 

reviews to conform to scheduled reviews by TWG and the Adaptive Management 

Work Group (AMWG). 

3
Table 1. Summary of flow and nonflow components of the four 

experimental options under consideration by the Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program. BASE operations (modified low 

fluctuating flow regime) are provided for comparison. Each option 

is described as it would be implemented under an annual release 

of 8.23 million acre-feet. 

Flow/Nonflow 

Treatment 

BASE 

operations 

Option A Option A 

Variation 

Option B Option C 

Flow 

Increased daily 

flow 

fluctuations 

No Yes (increased by 

50% to 66% in 

winter months and 

by 25% in summer 

months) 

Yes (increased 

by 25% to 66% 

in all months 

except April 

and May) 

No Yes (increased by 

50% to 66% in 

winter months) 

Flow Stable flows 

No No No Yes, (tests of 

4, 8, and 12 

months) 

Yes, (September 

through October) 

Flow Beach/habitatbuilding flows 

Possible, 

but only 

under 

hydrologic 

triggers 

Yes, as tests under 

sediment input 

triggering 

Yes, as tests 

under sediment 

input triggering 

Yes, as tests 

under 

sediment input 

triggering 

Yes, as tests under 

sediment input 

triggering 

Flow Alternative 

ramping rates 

No Yes (hourly down 

ramping rate 

increased 100% in all 

months) 

Yes (hourly 

down ramping 

rate increased 

100% in Apr–

Oct and 167% 

in Nov–Mar ) 

No Yes (hourly down 

ramping rate 

increased by 

100% in Nov–Jul 

only) 

Nonflow Temperature 

control device 

No Yes Yes Yes Yes, 2 units 

assumed 

Nonflow Control of 

nonnative 

coldwater fish 

No Yes, as needed Yes, as needed Yes, as needed Yes 

Nonflow Control of 

nonnative 

warmwater 

Fish 

 

No Yes, as needed, with 

R&D starting in 

2007 

Yes, as needed, 

with R&D 

starting in 2007 

Yes, as 

needed, with 

R&D starting 

in 2007 

Yes, with R&D 

starting 2007 

Nonflow Humpback 

chub 

disease/parasite 

research 

No Yes Yes Yes Yes, with R&D 

starting 2008 

Nonflow HBC 

translocation No Yes Yes No 1

Yes

Nonflow Humpback 

chub refuge(s) 

No Yes Yes Possibly 1Yes

Nonflow HBC 

population 

augmentation 

planning 

No 

Yes, Planning efforts 

toward 

implementation, as 

needed 

Yes, Planning 

efforts toward 

implementation, 

as needed 

No 1

Yes, planning 

phase

Flow and 

Nonflow 

2

Mini 

experiments 

No Yes Yes Yes 1Yes

Experimental 

Design 

Not 

applicable 

Reverse Titration Reverse 

Titration 

Factorial Forward Titration 

NOTE: 1) For Option C: Ancillary projects not considered part of the main experiment; implementation decision includes 

consideration of confounding the main experiment. 2) Mini experiments are short-term field experiments that do not confound 

main experimental treatment 

4
STRUCTURE OF THE REVIEW 

 This review was conducted by responding to ten science questions as 

follows: 

Are the proposed resource impacts supported by scientific knowledge as 

reported in the Knowledge Assessment? 

Do you feel that the specific or general impact assessments documented by the 

scientists are reasonable and accurate given current scientific knowledge? 

Are the specific assessment methods utilized by the scientist(s), i.e., questions, 

guidelines, models an acceptable application of the current scientific 

knowledge? 

Are the models used appropriate and reasonable for the application specified, 

and do they provide outcomes that you feel would be generally accepted 

by scientists in the discipline. 

In obtaining the assessment presented, have the scientists over extended the 

reasonable bounds of existing knowledge or extrapolated beyond the 

reasonable limits of available models. 

Are specified assumptions applied in the assessment appropriate? Are 

assumptions clarified? 

Is the assessment complete, or are there other factors impacting the outcomes 

that are not identified in the analysis? 

Does sufficient uncertainty and conflicting analysis exist relating to some impact 

assessments that an outcome should not be predicated at all? 

Would you rate any outcome of this specific resource assessment to be known 

sufficiently to designate it as a “management action,” requiring no further 

science inquiry? 

Have the scientist(s) described sufficiently how all interacting 

factors/resources/impacts in the system are, or will affect outcomes of this 

assessment? 

 The reviewers compared resource impacts projected by the scientists 

against existing knowledge that relates to the projection. Existing knowledge is 

generally captured in a Knowledge Assessment Report (KAR) developed by 

5
GCMRC, but also can relate to other published science. Some unpublished 

science, primarily in the form of models, are also used in the assessment. 

 The assessment is structured to relate impacts of the four differing options 

on three general categories of resources as follows: 

Physical Resources: Sediment, water temperature, and stage resources 

Biological Resources: Food base, native and non-native fish, and vegetation 

resources 

Socio-Cultural Resources: Recreation, cultural, and economic resources 

The assessment separates in the text the impact assessments related to 

flow and non-flow actions, discussions of designs, and best options to pursue. 

GENERAL FINDINGS OF THE REVIEW 

 This assessment is in and of itself a significant accomplishment by 

GCMRC to inform GCD AMP members and the Secretary’s Office in their policy 

deliberations. Following are general perspectives of reviewers on this report. 

• The assessment is a thorough analysis of the aspects of the different 

experimental options. The contrasts among the options are clearly set 

forth in both text and tables. The researchers are to be complimented on 

undertaking and completing such a successful analysis. 

• The Aug 30, 2006 draft of the Knowledge Assessment presents a very 

thorough and balanced summary of what is and is not known about 

physical, biological and cultural resources in the Colorado River 

Ecosystem. 

• This is an excellent document and one that should be very useful in 

deciding which way the Glen Canyon Dam should be operated in the 

future. 

• Should this document really be considered 4 experimental options or 

considered 4 different options for flow management? Although The USGS 

typically likes to talk about effects not influences. Consider a different title 

for the document. 

• Would this analysis be better identified as an assessment of four policy 

options? 

6
• Excellent document. Great deal of thought, hard work and careful writing 

went into the assessment. The authors and participants are to be 

congratulated for this product. It is an outstandingly clear description of 

what is known, what is not known. I think it is an excellent description of 

the difficulties and trade-offs involved with a decision about what sort of 

flow regimes should be implemented over what period of time. 

• One of my concerns in this review is whether the AMP will continue to 

embrace adaptive management, or will it be driven by other values. A key 

indicator of this would be how much of the decision about alternative 

options and plans would be based upon achieving learning objectives. 

Simply put, I asked the question: which proposed actions would produce 

the most learning over both the short and long term? This is a difficult 

proposition and one which the authors and managers have struggled with 

greatly. I think that they are finding a satisfactory conclusion, and very 

much keeping learning front and center. 

• There cannot be a best flow option, because too many factors are at play. 

They have been asked to meet multiple objectives (physical, biological 

and cultural resources), i.e. the actions taken have to be directed towards 

achieving some management goal. They must deal with issues of power 

revenue, maintaining RBT while recovering HBC and other listed taxa. I 

agree with the authors, that one cannot optimize or pick the best among 

these multiple objectives simple because there are too many of them. I 

think the authors provide a balanced perspective on how to deal with 

these competing agendas and move forward. 

• This complex system must be considered in a holistic and nonlinear 

fashion. By disentangling all of the components and discussing them 

separately, the report presents a logical and clear analysis, yet the system 

aspects definitely needs to be considered. Therefore, the issues raised in 

chapter 6 are essential. 

• The assessment suffers from a lack of realistic management goals having 

been set forward. Clearly, returning to the past is not possible – yet parts 

7
of the assessment seem to focus on such goals. This report sets the 

stage for a careful evaluation of what can be done once the management 

goals are set. Yet setting those goals will involve compromises amongst 

the stakeholders. I do not see in the outline of planned activities when or 

how that agreement on goals will occur. As is, the options do not seem to 

be designed to ask – what is good enough to achieve certain goals. 

• When one reads this scientist assessment and the struggle to identify best 

options, it becomes clear that more effort is needed by managers in 

defining desired future resource conditions, and defining more explicit 

priority goals. 

• Both strengths and weaknesses of this report exist in its focus on 

desegregation of resource impacts. In this complex system scientists 

must try to tease out individual resource impacts of management actions. 

Knowing how these individual process elements work in the overall 

system is critical to learning, and to help explain what really happens to 

the system when significant change occurs. 

How all of the individual elements of the system work today is 

important to know, but also important is how they may change when they 

interact in response to strong stimuli, i.e. warmer water, a new predator, 

high flow events, etc. over longer time intervals. These long term system 

issues are critical when one begins to consider the range of options 

proposed. For example, do the responses projected hold the same under 

prolonged drought and wet periods, or will changes in the overall system 

overwhelm current individual resource responses. 

Reviewers General Responses to Review Questions 

Q.1. Yes, but there are concerns over how uncertainty is expressed; new 

findings need greater treatment (HBC). 

Q. 2. Generally yes, but some are not. Table 3.2 should align with text. The 

point of adaptive management is to uncover those issues not addressed. 

8
Q. 3. Yes; But how to proceed without dfc is a concern. Also a concern is how 

complexity in the design will be handled. The approaches’ using a blend 

of techniques is good. 

Q. 4. Probably. Some are and some are not. But more definition of model 

uncertainties are needed; and, given issues like climate change and 

exogenous effects, variance makes modeling far from being statistical, i.e. 

HBC were at 2000 in one model and 5000 in another. 

5. No. Scientists have been careful to mentioned caveats. Also, in all options 

issues are not treated the same. 

Q. 6. Yes. Although many assumptions are covered in original science, not all 

are covered in this assessment. References are provided and suitable. 

Q. 7. Maybe. Although external issues such as land use in adjoining areas, 

climate change, increased water use, invasive species, etc. are not always 

addressed. 

Q. 8. In some cases. However, some parts are better known than others. To 

be accurate the word predict should be replaced with projected. Predicted 

implies more certainty then actually exists in most cases. Relative 

differences should be used rather than absolute differences. 

Q. 9. In most cases probably not. Most of the document references existing 

uncertainty. Scientific inquiry must continue on most issues to place 

findings in an acceptable management context. However, much depends 

on the willingness to take risks. In some cases, like RBT, control, 

management action seems reasonable. But on most issues there are 

many things that are not known. 

Q. 10. In most cases no. Some interactions have been addressed, but most 

have not. This is a complex ecosystem and improved efforts are needed 

to evaluate interactions. The important impacts are being identified and 

their effects need to be determined. Some small impactors will never be 

determined, which is an acceptable outcome.

SPECIFIC REVIEW FINDINGS ON 

PHYSICAL RESOURCE IMPACTS 

9
Fine Sediment Impacts 

Fine sediment is linked to both BHBFs and daily flow regimes. The report 

establishes the different triggers for MLFF (hydrologic) and the four proposed 

options (sediment inputs). It clearly articulates current science findings from the 

KAR and other sources that link higher fluctuating flow regimes and ramping 

rates to increased sediment transport, and ranks the options from lessor to 

greater impacts as B, C, A, A/V. Relative differences in resources impacts were 

determined for the four options under dry and wet hydrology. 

Specific Comments of Reviewers 

• Option B appears to be the best option when fine sediment is considered. 

I would suggest reducing the constraints on the timing of the BHBF. Allow 

it to occur when it is best. The increased sand in the channels may help 

the HBC more than anything else. Use other means to get rid of trout, 

such as a new catch and release policy, shocking. 

In this type assessment, this approach is much preferred to the authors 

attempting to determine the explicit resource impact of an option. The 

current status of science can generally project which options are likely to 

have more or less impact on a resource, and that is what the authors have 

accomplished. 

If HBC populations are steady this seems to be the most important issue. 

Therefore, option B seems to be the best flow option. The daily ramping 

and more importantly downramping of Options A and its variant seem to 

be the worst flow option. 

The term “basic differences between the options are expected to hold under 

both conditions”, does not seem consistent with comments at the top of 

page 25. Under wet hydrology would not the differences be dampened 

since steady flows would be elevated above 12,000 cfs. 

In the physical resources section, there is a useful comparison of the 

influence of the flow and sediment options. The report seems up front 

about the ability to ask questions of the system. 

10
The BHBF trigger issue of the base (hydrologic) versus options A, A/V, C&B 

options (sediment) relates the expected greater degradation of sediment 

under base flows due to BHBFs not being implemented. The physical 

findings fully support this thesis. However, not mentioned is the policy 

question of whether or not managers will permit the sediment trigger to be 

functional in years of low lake elevation or low in-flow. 

The trigger has now been met three times in drought like years, but it may 

only be used once, wherein it received significant negative publicity. Is it 

possible that over time the operational policy of the sediment trigger will 

actually be the BHBF hydrologic trigger? 

The section on sand export reports the science findings as currently exists 

relative to potential impacts from the various options. However, the 

wording used to predict the outcome is moderate to high flows, implying 

that “flows only” for none of the options could be effective. Is option “B” 

considered in this statement? 

Did not evaluations from the 2004 BHBF indicate that post flow loses under 

normal flows were not at expected higher levels. This is not mentioned, 

but could it be relevant? 

Research on management activities to both store sand and conserve it 

through time are still areas of needed focus in physical resources over the 

next five years. 

Uncertainties are still unresolved regarding both actions to store sand (BHBFs 

impacts) and actions to minimize losses (conservation flow regimes). 

The expression of potential sand/sediment impacts of the differing options 

aligns with existing science, which points to the need for further study of 

BHBFs and conservation strategies. 

Water Temperature Without TCD 

“Uncertainty” is only mentioned in the lead sentence of key sections of the 

text on human health and water quality (p. 50) and visitor safety and 

navigation (p. 52). Yet, it is a part of all of the components of the system 

and is discussed in many of the sections. It would be useful to have a 

11
discussion of the relative sensitivity of the system to various changes and 

the uncertainties that are in the system. I was very pleased to see Table 

3.2, for it is a useful summary. However the uncertainties mentioned in 

that table are not well related to the text. It would be useful to have a 

rough measure of uncertainty in this and other tables. That would require 

some rough definition on what the authors mean by “likely,” “may,” and 

“potential” (the IPCC climate change report provides an example of 

defining such terms). It is not clear what the difference is between 

“uncertain”, “somewhat uncertain” and “highly uncertain” as used in the 

report. Only sometimes is uncertainty defined in the context in which it is 

used (as it is on age 25 in the last paragraph). 

Figure 3.2 does not seem intuitive for the September/October period. One 

would think that a lower sustained water flow in lower water years would 

warm more through the system than higher fluctuating flows. Does the 

model average the expected temperature rise of two different flows (low 

and high) for fluctuating flows? Although it was used to calibrate the 

model, the research reported from the 2000 low steady flow experiments 

would not seem to support the outcomes in Figure 3.2. Are the lines color 

coded correctly? 

Too much about the uncertainty of the present models is described. The 

relative differences in downstream waters caused by the differences in 

flow should be valid even if the models are completely accurate. These 

differences in temperature can be offset or accentuated by the TCD. Are 

more detailed modeling studies really needed? Normally I would say yes; 

however, here I think we are only trying to say which flow option provides 

the warmest backwater habitats and that can be decided without more 

modeling. 

The authors have appropriately proposed words of caution in this section due 

to obvious uncertainties, especially in near shore temperature differences. 

Considering these uncertainties would it be better to use a more 

conservative statement in option B such as “hypothesized to result in 

12
warmer nearshore areas”, rather than “expected to result in” or as in the 

summary “generally thought that”. 

It would help to use consistent colors on all graphics for the four options. 

The projected differences for the four options track with the modeled outputs, 

and are intuitive. 

The temperature model does not predict the differences one might assume to 

exist in low water years between option A and B by intuition alone. That 

is, more shallow slower water warms more that faster, deeper water. Is 

this an aberration of model specification for fluctuating flow? Will these 

combinations of models be reviewed? 

Work on the temperature model should continue. However, if it has not been 

accomplished, perhaps a review of the model approach might assist in the 

modeling process. Each of the combined models have been reviewed, 

but has the combined set been reviewed? 

Projected differences in near shore water warming for the options, especially 

A, AV & C vs B tracks with existing science. However, it becomes less 

clear if differences between A, AV and C can be determined effectively 

except in early fall. 

Diurnal Stage Variations by Reach 

The dsv model would seem to have high potential interpretive application in 

several areas; i.e. recreation, food base, near shore warming, etc. High 

quality geo-reference land form data combined with the model would be 

helpful in predicting several potential resource impacts. It was calibrated 

to CRE data. However, it is not clear if the HEC-RAS model was verified 

in this application. 

The HEC-RAS model was calibrated on 2000 LIDAR cross sections. Was 

their a test of the model on similar data? If so, in this application, what 

was its accuracy in different reaches? 

There is little indication that the authors extended the current knowledge 

beyond rational limits in their predictions. 

SPECIFIC REVIEW FINDINGS ON AQUATIC AND 

13
VEGETATION RELATED RESOURCE IMPACTS 

 In this section responses to the ten questions proposed for the overall 

review will be developed for four areas of science: aquatic food base, native and 

non-native fish, disease and parasites, and riparian vegetation. 

Aquatic Food Base 

Effects of differing flow regimes on the aquatic food base has been a 

continuing focus of science for two decades. Shortly after appointment of the 

Science Advisors, questions were posed regarding the ability of the food base 

research and monitoring program to answer critical questions regarding flow 

impacts. In 2005 a new food base program was initiated, which will require 

several years before substantive outcomes can be realized. 

Specific Reviewers Comments 

Predicted responses of food base to the different options is generally related 

to conventional science related to areas of wetted surface, temperature 

and flow stability. In combination they would normally (in the CRE) result 

in higher productivity in flow regimes maintaining greater volumes of 

consistently wetted surface. For the options being evaluated this 

knowledge would place B highest and C, A, and AV as less productive 

generally. 

• The general statements do not misrepresent or overextend existing 

science. 

• Although no models, assumptions or data bases are given, cited scientific 

literature does contain findings that generally support the projections. 

• An important point is raised regarding the base case; that its continuation 

would be most supportive of science knowledge generally and most 

probably would best benefit the resource. 

• Question 10 is a critical question regarding this resource. The projections 

do not evaluate interactive resource impacts. 

• The issue of biotic regimes that respond to disturbance surface in this 

resource issue. Over the long term (5-10 years), would the production 

function for the CRE food base best respond to disturbance regimes? 

14
Native and Non-native Fish 

 Native and non-native fish exhibit differing habitat preferences and 

possibly needs. Generally RBT are associated with clear, colder faster water 

and HBC clouded, warmer, and slower water. 

If HBC populations are steady, do we want to keep the downstream waters 

cool to prevent upstream migration of warmwater fish, especially during 

low water levels in Lake Powell? Can a TCD help with this by not only 

having capabilities to release warmer water but also having capabilities to 

release cooler water. 

It is stated that the HBC population has stabilized in recent years while the 

mainstem temperatures have been warming. However, did the population 

actually stabilize prior to the water temperatures increasing? The 

stabilization is based on 4+ age fish, so the inference to the effects of 

warmer water may not be warranted. The comments about the 

stabilization of the population appear to be added on to the paragraphs 

already written (first paragraph and last paragraph) rather than directly 

incorporated. 

For years, the HBC population was considered to be in peril. Now, recent 

studies have shown that the population never reached critically low 

numbers and that the population has been relatively steady for several 

years. This is stated several times in this document. However, if HBC 

populations are steady, do they really need to discuss all of the non-flow 

components, especially the HBC translocation, HBC disease, and HBC 

refuges, and HBC population augmentation? Is too much emphasis put 

into these areas? 

The authors have cited increased temperature as the one factor that could 

improve both fishes, all other factors equal. This could be extended to 

other fishes as well. Current science (as presented in the new 

temperature model) would indicate that no option provides benefit over the 

base for increased temperature. Only the TCD could produce increased 

temperatures. 

15
The authors cite predation, habitat, spawning success, adult maturation, food 

availability, and competition as potential limiting factors on HBC. The KAR 

presents significant uncertainty in understanding associated impacts of 

these factors for HBC. The reviewers generally propose the same 

position. 

The authors have reported the findings of current science adequately 

regarding various flow impacts to HBC. Science findings have not been 

misrepresented and are generally cited as inconclusive. 

The biologists do not propose continuation of MLFF in relation to current 

status of knowledge on HBC science. It would seem to be critical to have 

this occur in view of ongoing predation control and natural warming. 

The projected effects of the differential flow regimes on RBT properly reflect 

KAR information. 

The question of a reproducing population of RBT in Marble Canyon reflects 

recent science data of 2006, which, as noted, are not conclusive. 

The assessment has taken a conservative approach on RBT in differentiating 

impacts from the options. It correctly represents knowledge that higher 

fluctuating flows will likely reduce population size but increase condition. 

The reverse is cited for stable flows. The fact that one situation is not 

indicated to be preferred over the other, i.e., numbers vs quality defends 

the conservative approach of not ranking the options. This does point to 

concerns as to whether managers know what dfc they want. 

Another question that I had was; why have some experimentation in the 

program been successful and others haven’t? One idea is that the reason 

that predator control and BHBF experiments have been successful is that 

they are relatively short-term (and low cost) experiments, with a better (at 

least perceived to be better) idea of costs and benefits. Another idea is 

that been sufficient flexibility in the negotiations to ‘allow’ such 

experiments. In, the social capital in the AMP has generated enough trust 

to experiment with the entire system, but only for a short period of time. 

One problem with all of the proposed options is that it is a relatively 

16
longer-term agreement. Since folks will likely feel locked in to this, there is 

a lot at stake. 

The authors approach not to rank these options on RBT best fits with current 

knowledge and desires for the fishery, i.e. no clear overall preference for 

number vs quality. 

This section on native and non-native fishes points to significant science 

accomplishment but still sufficient uncertainty to permit clear ranking of 

flow options.. 

Invasive Species 

Is the neutral offset of option C on invasive species expected to hold in high 

and low water years? 

Disease and Parasites 

I agree that little knowledge exists in this area on the CRE. 

The authors appear to represent prediction ability correctly. Knowledge is too 

limited. 

Riparian Vegetation 

• The assessment of vegetation impacts of differential options adequately 

reflects current knowledge in the three flow zones covered. 

• Discussion of science associated with willow fly catchers and KAS habitat 

disturbance properly reflects current knowledge relative to BHBFs. 

SPECIFIC REVIEW FINDINGS ON RECREATION 

 AND CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS 

Angling Opportunity 

• Generally the predicted effects of the four options reflect current 

knowledge. However, proposed knowledge on impacts of wide fluctuating 

flows on RBT redds and trout numbers appears contrary to the literature 

and contrary to the biology section conclusions on trout. Does this 

paragraph (pg 46, paragraph1) state that fluctuating flows will not affect 

redds, trout populations, trout condition etc.? 

• Generally angling opportunity reflects the literature and recent recreation 

PEP findings. 

17
• The effects of BHBFs appear to properly reflect current science. 

Recreational Experience 

• the projected impacts of various options relates science findings correctly, 

except for statements related to water temperature benefits from option B. 

Is this benefit hypothesized or known to exist? Do these findings conflict 

with the water temperature predictions? 

• Concerns exist over conflicting statements such as effects are “possibly 

positive” or “possibly negative” when labeled “uncertain in the KAR”. 

Cultural Resources 

• The reviewers generally agree that the author properly represents the 

current knowledge in projecting impacts of options. 

• A concern exists over use of statements like “effects to cultural resources 

are uncertain but possibly positive”. In the KAR they are uncertain (pg 56, 

paragraph 4). 

NON-FLOW ACTIONS 

Temperature Control Device 

The TCD can be used to do more than raise water temperatures, it can also 

be used to modify the dissolved oxygen in release waters. If low 

oxygenated waters were to occur near the intake depth for the Base Case, 

then the TCD can be used to select water with higher dissolved oxygen 

concentrations. This may become more and more important with the aging 

of Lake Powell.

The TCD can also be used to cool the water during years with low water level 

in Lake Powell, if the TCD is designed properly. If warm water fish are 

found to move into the Grand Canyon with warmer water temperatures, 

the TCD can be used to reduce water temperatures and keep the warm 

water fish from entering the system.

Given that the HBC populations are now considered to be stabilized without 

increasing the water temperature, I am not sure that the SAs are the total 

risks of warming the water with this device acceptable? Of the four options 

18
proposed, I think that Option B is by far the most appropriate given the 

current state of the river ecosystem and the current state of our knowledge

• The fourth paragraph page 62 states that TCD effects will reduce the 

temperature differentials attributed to the four options. The modeled 

outcomes in the physical resources section concludes no statistical 

differences will exist. This appears to be inconsistent. 

• In balance positive benefits of the TCD to the CRE as reflected in KAR 

and other reports support its implementation. However, have risk levels 

changed with positive projections of HBC. 

• Generally hypothesized impact information of warm water on native and 

non-native fish, aquatic resources, recreation, etc., are supported by the 

literature. However, in the CRE all remain uncertain. 

Non-native Fish Control 

• The KAR only supports knowledge on RBT control in the CRE, which is 

known to be positive. Implications to other resources presented, i.e. HBC, 

food base, etc. are hypothesis to be tested. 

• Implications to recreation fishing in some river reaches and tributary inputs 

could be hypothesized to be negative. Have surveys documented these 

impacts? 

Translocation of HBC 

• The affects of translocation is hypothesized to improve mainstem HBC 

populations in time, but the proof has not been demonstrated in science. 

• Can you assign a positive benefit to an option if the science is not 

complete? We can assume a benefit but the science is not in the KAR. 

Humpback Chub Refuge 

• The same reasoning applies here as in translocation. An option 

supporting a refuge would seem to benefit the resource but the knowledge 

does not exist to demonstrate the benefit. 

• Should the 4 options for flow (A, A variant, B, and C) be separated from 

the experimental design/approach? As it is written it can result in one 

deciding on which flow option to choose (for example Flow Option C) 

19
based on the experimental approach rather than the Flow options (the 

main thing being examined, for example Flow Option B). The best 

experimental approach (forward titration) seems to be well written on Page 

18. 

• I would suggest first choosing which is the best of the 4 options for flow, 

including how to trigger the BHBF. Then choose the best experimental 

approach (similar to Page 18); I prefer the forward approach better than 

back titration, especially since HBC populations are not so critical right 

now. 

• I remain concerned that it will not be possible to determine cause and 

effect of out comes. Particularly, under the reverse titration approach 

(option A), the order of removal and time frame may greatly affect the 

results. It is said in the report that in for this type of approach that the 

benefits outweigh the scientific learning and that is clearly the case. 

Hence, the forward titration approach is more defendable from a statistical 

perspective. 

• It would be useful to glean some cross cutting themes that are mentioned 

in only option C that should be a part of all options. Such themes include 

consideration of the time needed for response of the system, ongoing and 

subsequent analysis of treatment via monitoring timely analysis of the 

data, and early involvement of biostatisticians. 

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS 

• Although it is potentially helpful to contrast the options from the 

perspective of learning, is the information presented based on all current 

knowledge of potential statistical and other potential learning capabilities? 

• This section and the proposed option designs could potentially benefit 

from a review by 3-5 specialists in biometrics. 

• On the surface, options B and C seems to offer the greatest opportunity 

for learning in the long-term, but a review by statisticians might help. 

SELECTING AN EXPERIMENTAL OPTION 

20
• The scientific arguments for continuation of MLFF for 2-4 years is sound 

and should be embraced for the next 36 months. 

• The administrative reality and probability of completing an EIS on all of the 

experimental options proposed and relating a preferred alternative in less 

than 36 months should bolster support for conducting science on the 

MLFF for the next three years 

• The Aug 30, 2006 draft of the Knowledge Assessment presents a very 

thorough and balanced summary of what is and is not known about 

physical, biological and cultural resources in the Colorado River 

Ecosystem. 

• I agree with the GCMRC recommendations that the current experiment be 

completed by continuing to implement the modified low fluctuating flow 

regime for at least another 2-4 years, the question of what constitutes the 

best flow regime cannot be answered by scientists until managers provide 

clearly defined resource response conditions, a temperature control 

device be implemented and scientifically tested, testing of sand-enriched 

BHBFs continue, flow and non-flow treatments be isolated from one 

another to limit confounding effects, testing of a more stable flow regime 

continue, and (vii) model development continues as a means to support 

management decisions. 

 

21
APPENDIX A 

THE GCD AMP SCIENCE ADVISORS

22
Dr. Jill Baron 

Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory 

USGS Biological Research Division 

Fort Collins, CO 80523 

. 

Dr. Virginia Dale 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

Environmental Division 

Oak Ridge, TN 37830 

Dr. Don Fowler 

1010 Foothill Rd 

Reno, NV 89511-9428 

Dr. Lance Gunderson 

Department of Environmental Studies 

Emory University 

Atlanta, GA 30322 

Dr. Jim Kitchell 

Director: Center for Limnology and 

Hasler Professor of Zoology 

University of Wisconsin 

Madison, WI 53706 

Dr. Dale Robertson 

Research Hydrologist 

USGS 

Middleton, WI 53582 

Dr. Harold Tyus 

Senior Research Scientist 

Center for Limnology, 216 UCB 

Cooperative Institute for Research 

in Environmental Sciences 

University of Colorado at Boulder 

Dr. Ellen Wohl 

Department of Geosciences 

Colorado State University 

Ft. Collins, CO 80523-1482 

23
APPENDIX B 

SA REVIEW OF THE STATEMENT 

OF WORK FOR BIOPHYSICAL 

SOCIO-CULTURAL ASSESSMENT 

24
A REVIEW OF THE STATEMENT OF WORK FOR 

 AN “ANALYSIS OF BIOPHYSICAL AND 

SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS OF THREE 

EXPERIMENTAL OPTIONS” 

By 

GCD AMP SCIENCE ADVISORS 

L. D. GARRETT 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

SEPTEMBER, 2006

25
A REVIEW OF THE STATEMENT OF WORK FOR 

 AN “ANALYSIS OF BIOPHYSICAL AND 

SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS OF THREE 

EXPERIMENTAL OPTIONS” 

By GCD AMP Science Advisors2 

INTRODUCTION 

The GCD AMP has requested that GCMRC and TWG develop 

cooperatively recommendations for a Long Term Experimental Plan. A Science 

Planning Group (SPG), structured by the GCMRC and TWG, developed several 

experimental plan options over 12 months in 2005/2006, which were reduced to 

three options for comparison to the current Record of Decision (ROD),referred to 

as Modified Low Fluctuating Flows (MLFF). 

Attributes of the MLFF (baseline conditions) and three proposed options, 

i.e. SPG A, B, and C, are presented in Table 1.1. Both flow and non-flow 

attributes of the options are presented. 

 To understand more fully how each of the three options might effect CRE 

resources, the SPG requested two assessments be developed by GCMRC. 

Statement of Work (SOW) were development for each assessment. 

One assessment will determine economic impacts on hydropower 

resources, conducted by WAPA under GCMRC direction. A second is an 

assessment of impacts of the three differing options on biophysical and sociocultural resources, conducted by GCMRC program managers and scientists. 

 The SPG realized that significant uncertainty would exist in developing 

these assessments. As such, the assessments are in major part considered 

preliminary. 

 Assistance in external review of the statements of work and assessments 

was requested of the Science Advisor Executive Secretary. Four reviewers 

external to the Science Advisors are providing review input to the Hydropower 

Statement of Work (SOW), and five members of the Science Advisors are 

 

2

 The GCD AMP Science Advisors are comprised of eight specialists. Five were available to provide 

comments on this Statement of Work. 

26
DRAFT Table 1.1 Comparison of Base Scenario with Three Experimental Options including 

Flow and Non-Flow Treatments, and Other Conservation Measures. 

Flow/Non-Flow 

Treatment or 

Conservation 

Measure 

BASE Scenario 

Modified LowFluctuating Flows 

Option A Option B Option C 

Increased Daily 

Range in 

Fluctuating Flows 

N/A 

Yes (daily range 

increased by from 

50% to 66% in 

winter months and 

by 25% in summer 

months) 

No 

Yes (daily range 

increased by from 

50% to 66% in 

winter months) 

Stable Flows N/A No 

Yes, (tests of 4, 8 

and 12 months) 

Yes, (Sep.thru 

Oct.) 

Beach/HabitatBuilding Flows 

Possible, but only 

under Hydrologic 

Triggers 

Yes, as tests under 

sediment input 

triggering 

Yes, as tests under 

sediment input 

triggering 

Yes, as tests under 

sediment input 

triggering 

Ramping Rate 

Studies 

N/A Yes (2X increase in 

down ramping rate 

in all months) 

No Yes (2X increase in 

down ramping rate 

Nov. thru Jul.) 

Control of Exotic 

Warmwater Fish 

 

N/A Yes, as needed, 

with R&D starting 

in 2007 

Yes, as needed, 

with R&D starting 

in 2007 

Yes, as needed, 

with R&D starting 

in 2007 

TCD Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Humpback Chub 

Translocation 

N/A Yes No Yes 

HBC Refuge(s) N/A Yes Possibly Yes 

HBC Population 

Augmentation 

N/A Planning Activities No Planning Activities 

Control of 

Coldwater Fish 

N/A Yes, as needed Yes, as needed Yes, as needed 

Design N/A Reverse Titration Factorial Forward Titration 

Mini Experiments N/A Yes Yes Yes 

NOTE: 1) Cells highlighted in GREEN indicate HBC conservation measures. 2), Mini-experiments are short-term field experiments 

that do not confound main experimental treatment effects, N/A, Not Applicable. 

27
presenting input to the Bio-physical and Socio-Cultural Statement of Work 

(SOW). 

 This report captures the review of the Biophysical and Socio-Cultural 

Statement of Work (Appendix A). 

REVIEW CHARGE 

GCMRC program managers and scientists developed the statement of 

work (SOW) for conducting an analysis of bio-physical and socio-cultural impacts 

associated with three GCD AMP experimental options. The SPG specified that 

the Science Advisors review the statement of work and determine if the methods 

for the assessment will provide reasonable evaluations. 

Science Advisors were requested to provide a response to the following 

question for this review. 

• Will the proposed GCMRC method(s) for analysis of bio-physical 

socio-cultural resource impacts of three experimental options provide 

reasonable evaluations? 

GCMRC program managers propose to use research methods, 

Findings, i.e., current scientific knowledge, as expressed in recently developed 

report; eg, “Status of Colorado River Ecosystem” (SCORE Report) and a 

“Knowledge Assessment”, as well as other recently developed science. 

RESULTS OF REVIEW 

Due to availability five GCD AMP Science Advisors provided inputs to this 

review. Their responses to the review question are presented as a group. 

• The Science Advisors in this review of the abbreviated statement of 

work and methods for a bio-physical socio-cultural assessment find 

them to provide a “reasonable approach” for the evaluation. The basis 

for this finding is that current scientific knowledge, by definition, and as 

defined above, is the most reasonable information to use for this type 

of evaluation. It is, by definition the best science information and 

methods available. Having made this evaluation, there are many 

variants possible on how the proposed knowledge is used to both 

conduct the evaluation and draw conclusions. Clearly, some 

28
approaches could be used that would falsify the available knowledge in 

its application. Some concerns are as follows. 

o The current data bases are incomplete with significant data 

voids in some areas. 

o Knowledge exists in varied forms of completeness, i.e. ranging 

from raw data to verified and replicated results. 

o Existing knowledge may result from univariate data 

assessments that could be invalid in a multivariate setting. 

o The Knowledge Assessment did as good of a job at identifying 

areas of uncertainty as areas of good knowledge. And, it clearly 

presents the reality that much of the desired knowledge base to 

answer key questions is uncertain at best, or even void. Many 

of these key areas are listed in the methods section outline for 

this assessment. 

o Any scientist is encouraged to conduct assessments with 

utmost caution when using knowledge bases of limited certainty. 

GCMRC proposes to use current scientific knowledge to evaluate potential 

impacts of the three experimental options on bio-physical and sociocultural resources in the CRE. The GCMRC developed draft 

Knowledge Assessment (GCMRC 2005) is proposed as the primary 

knowledge base to be used in the assessment, although other current 

research is also cited as the basis for review, including the 2005 

SCORE Report, the 2005 GCMRC Conference Proceeding and other 

more current work. The Knowledge Assessment available to the SAs 

is a draft document. If it is now final, how has it changed? 

The Science Advisors were asked in 2005 to review the draft Knowledge 

Assessment. Although the SA review proposed changes in the KA, it 

accepted the document contents as a reasonable assessment, given 

the goal for its development and method of development. The SAs 

reviewed a section of the “State of Colorado River Ecosystem” 

(SCORE Report) but did not review the 2005 GCMRC Conference 

29
Proceedings report. However, the Science Advisors have copies of 

the proceeding and assume it represent current knowledge. Did the 

external reviews of these latter two documents validate the reported 

science? 

One concern with the proposed approach is that it seems to me that 

deciding among the experimental alternatives is based upon imagined 

impacts which are difficult to determine, rather than which ones will 

produce the most information or learning. 

The GCD AMP and its assessments of alternative courses of actions often 

appear to be focused on direct evaluations of alternative stakeholder 

policies, rather than developing science approaches to create better 

information or knowledge to develop improved resource conditions and 

improved policy guidelines. It would be good for the SAs to review 

detailed write-ups of the three options in the assessment, to see if that 

is their base intent. 

I question the utility of one [SA] review [of these very abbreviated 

methods]. The most important part of the process is the actual 

deliberations and discussions that occurred in the science planning 

sessions. 

A concern exists over the assessment of the three options. The outline 

implicates an extensive review of the impact of the three options on all 

resources. However, it is not clear what exact source of current 

knowledge will be used i.e., data, replicated findings, tested models 

etc. on a specific resource issue. They are not specified in the SOW. 

This must be disclosed in the write-up of the assessment and for each 

resource impact evaluated. 

The methods section of the statement of work provides little guidance of 

how assessments are to be made in individual resource areas, except 

that information and methods from current knowledge, aka Knowledge 

Assessment will be used. Since the specific information methods for 

individual resource impact assessments are not revealed in the 

30
statement of work, they must be revealed in the assessment report, or 

I cannot evaluate the findings. 

The assumption exists that the assessment methods related to differing 

elements of the outline will be fleshed out in the assessment report. 

This should be a requirement of the report. 

• The strategic science questions noted in the work statement 

references the MPR. However, we were told by the SA Executive 

Secretary that the MRP is still in revision and will be out midSeptember. It is critical to have all referenced material for a review. 

The previous draft MRP is outdated. 

• It became obvious in the review that the final version of the MRP would 

be an important source of information. The Annual Work Plan 

(2007)was helpful but lacked reference to long term program strategic 

questions. 

• It is not clear how the assumption of HBC translocation will affect 

several assessments. The work in the LCR is well known, but in the 

last year work in other tributaries have been discussed. Is this 

assumption on HBC translocation identical for all options? And, what 

is the assumption as to where translocation occurs and how, i.e., just 

the LCR, or are their other tributaries? If the area of impact is 

extensive, will it confound the overall experiment? 

• The success of mechanical removal of RBT is well known as a 

research program. Is it still an experiment or management treatment? 

The SAs have recommended programs on non-native brown trout and 

warm water fish removal. Does the assumption on mechanical 

removal include all non-native fish? And what is the extent of research 

and management actions? 

• In some ways this review of methods seems not necessary. In the 

past 18 months the Center has developed extensive state of 

knowledge assessments for the CRE. One would assume that these 

knowledge bases would be the source of methods for assessments. 

31
What could be better? As such, the methods proposed are 

reasonable. About the only concern that should exist in the methods 

review is how you apply the knowledge in your assessment. And, 

since that information is generally not in the methods write-up, the 

review is significantly constrained. 

• The task 3 specifies three options to be reviewed with both flow and 

non-flow attributes. However, limited information is given on some 

attributes such as TCD, translocation of HBC, non-native fish control, 

etc. More clarification would be helpful regarding elements or 

attributes of the experiment. 

• The methods section covers such a broad array of issues. It is difficult 

to begin to evaluate the method that would be applied without the 

specific science questions. 

• The baseline is alternately referred to as ROD values, a NO ACTION 

(as though part of an EIS), MLFF etc. Although I understand what it is, 

i.e. flow regimes, I do not understand its application in the analysis. Is 

it a true reference condition to which the three options are compared? 

It has no other value in this analysis? Will it be evaluated with these 

options in an EIS? 

• In Section III I assume one of the science questions is to determine if 

one option is better than another in the storage of fine sediment. I also 

assume a model will be used in these assessments, but which 

model(s)? If I knew the explicit question being asked I might be able to 

determine the approach, i.e. probable model, to be used and could 

offer suggestions. It is too difficult to determine both the question you 

will ask and the method to evaluate the question. 

• The methods proposed i.e., current knowledge is reasonable. 

However it needs greater definition to permit adequate review. I find 

myself trying to determine which of the science questions in the 

previous draft MRP is being referenced for the bullet at top of page 6, 

“Invasive fish species – cold and warm water”. Then I try to envision 

32
from the Knowledge Assessment, or SCORE Report what method will 

be applied. At the minimum the methods should have that detail. 

Without it I can only say that current knowledge should be the best 

method to apply, if applied correctly. 

 

33
APPENDIX A 

A STATEMENT OF WORK FOR 

REVIEW OF BIO-PHYSICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC 

IMPACTS OF THREE EXPERIMENTAL OPTIONS 

34
08/16/06 

Project 10.R1. 07: A Scope of Work For Review of a Report to Evaluate Biophysical 

and Socio-Cultural Resource Impacts of Implementing Proposed Long-Term 

Experimental Options in the Colorado River Ecosystem (CRE). 

Start Date: August 20, 2006 

End Date: November 15, 2006 

Principal Investigators: 

GCMRC: Biophysical and Socio-Cultural Assessments 

M3 Research and GCD AMP Science Advisors: Administration and Review of Reports 

Geographic Scope: 

The reviewers will focus on the methods section of this Scope of Work and a final 

resource assessment report developed by GCMRC. 

Project Goals: 

The goal of this project is for 8-10 reviewers to evaluate the completeness and scientific 

basis for analysis methods used and conclusions developed in the biophysical and sociocultural impact assessment outlined in the methods section. 

Need for Project:

The Science Planning Group (SPG) of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management 

Program (AMP) has proposed four potential new flow and non-flow long-term 

experimental options. These proposed long-term experimental options are expected to 

result in differing impacts on downstream physical, biological, socio-cultural, and 

economic resources of the Colorado River Ecosystem. The Adaptive Management work 

Group (AMWG) and Technical Work Group (TWG) have requested preliminary 

evaluation of the proposed long-term experimental options impacts on these resources. 

The information will be used to determine the most reasonable option to implement over 

the next five years. One of the requested analysis, hydropower resource impact 

assessment, is being conducted in a separate assessment. All other resource impacts are 

represented in this assessment. 

Strategic Science Question(s): 

35
This science review project will review preliminary information assessments that respond 

to a broad cross section of strategic science questions, included in the Monitoring and 

Research Plan. 

Link/relationship to Other Projects: 

This project is directly linked to the comprehensive long-term science planning process 

for all USGS research in the CRE, and specifically planned science on resource impacts 

associated with proposed long-term experimental options identified in the Task 3 

methods section. 

Information Needs Addressed: 

 

This project responds to Research Information Needs (RINs) that are articulated in the 

2003 version of the AMP Strategic Plan, the GCMRC 2007-2011 Monitoring and 

Research Plan and the 2007 Annual Work Plan. 

General Methods of the Analyses: 

Assumptions 

Several assumptions are associated with this analysis that can influence developed 

resource impact assessments. Some appear in the following Task 3 methods on 

experimental options. Others are identified as follows: 

• All analyses assume installation and operation of a TCD at Glen Canyon Dam 

beginning 2010. 

• All options assume a mechanical removal program for non-native fish to be 

defined by GCMRC. 

• Selected translocation of HBC is assumed to occur in all options as specified by 

GCMRC. 

• It is assumed that the proposed assessments will utilize current knowledge to 

evaluate the hypothetical impacts. The Knowledge Assessment and 2005 

conference proceedings are assumed to be current knowledge. 

• Significant uncertainty exists with most assessments, therefore requiring a 

proposed five year science program to resolve uncertainty. Therefore, it is 

assumed that these assessments address potential impacts associated with 

differing options. 

Specific Methods of Analysis by Task 

Task 1. Describe flow regimes associated with each proposed long-term 

experimental option. Reclamation (US BOR) will provide computed monthly volumes 

for each option. Western (WAPA) will produces data tables associated with the daily 

hydrographs for each option based on these monthly volumes. 

Task 2. Establish a biophysical, socio-cultural review team. GCMRC will contract 

the services of the Science Advisors and independent reviewers to review the analysis, 

36
any modeling assumptions and methodologies, final report and recommendations, and 

ensure the results are consistent with the Scope of Work. Peer review will be coordinated 

by the Science Advisors Executive Secretary, a principal of M3 Research. 

Approximately 8-10 reviewers will be utilized. 

Task 3. Evaluate potential/hypothesized biophysical and socio-cultural resource 

impacts related to each of the long-term experimental options being evaluated. 

The assessment methods are as follows: 

• The assessment evaluates four alternatives, a baseline and three experimental 

options (Appendix A). 

• The baseline condition will be the current operating criteria for Glen Canyon 

Dam (GCD) as identified in the 1996 Record of Decision (ROD). 

• The assessment will apply current scientific knowledge of the Knowledge 

Assessment to evaluate potential impacts. The outline of treated subjects 

science questions and methods are as follows: 

Outline of Proposed Methods of Evaluation for Three 

Experimental Options and a Baseline (ROD) 

Section I 

Introduction 

Background and scope 

Purpose 

Overview of experimental options 

Section II 

Description of Each Experimental Option 

Option Title: 

Goal 

Elements of the proposed option 

Flow Regime 

Flow Experiments 

Non flow measures/treatments 

Experimental design 

Summary of Strengths of Proposal 

Summary of Weaknesses of Proposal 

Section III 

Comparative Resource Assessment of Each Proposed Flow Regime 

Part 1. Physical Resources (Fine-Sediment and Quality-of-Water) 

• Executive Summary 

• Strategic Science Questions from MRP 

• Fine-Sediment Storage: 

o above 25,000 cfs stage 

37
o between 8,000 and 25,000 cfs stages 

o below 8,000 cfs stage 

• Downstream Water Temperature: main channel and near shore 

• Estimates of Diurnal Stage Variations by Geomorphic Reach 

Part 2. Aquatic and Fisheries Resources 

Executive Summary 

Strategic Science Questions from MRP 

Aquatic Food Base: Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon 

Adult Fish Populations 

o Humpback Chub 

o Flannelmouth Sucker 

o Rainbow Trout Numbers and condition in Glen Canyon 

o Rainbow Trout Numbers in Marble Canyon 

Mainstem Spawning and Incubation: 

o Humpback Chub 

o Flannelmouth Sucker 

o Rainbow Trout, Glen Canyon 

o Rainbow Trout, Marble Canyon 

YOY/Juvenile Near Shore Rearing: 

o Humpback Chub 

o Flannelmouth Sucker 

o Rainbow Trout, Glen Canyon 

o Rainbow Trout, Marble Canyon 

Invasive Fish Species -- Cold and Warm Water 

Disease and Asian Tapeworm 

Part 3. Assessment of Effects to Recreation and Cultural Resources 

Executive Summary 

Strategic Science Questions from MRP 

Angling Opportunity, Quality and Access 

Campsites (campable area availability) 

Quality of water & human health 

Visitor safety and rafting navigability 

Recreational Experience quality including access to attraction sites 

Archaeological sites and TCPs 

Part 4. Hydropower Resources (see Western Area Power Administration’s SOW)

• Strategic Science Questions from MRP 

• Strategic Science Questions from MRP Load-Following Capacity 

• Replacement Power costs 

Section IV

Resource Assessments of the Non Flow Measures 

(Note: level of detail will be determined by specificity of the non flow measure) 

1. Temperature Control Device 

38
Part 1. Physical Resources (Fine-Sediment and Quality-of-Water) 

• Executive Summary 

• Strategic Science Questions from MRP 

• Downstream Water Temperature: main channel and near shore 

• Hydropower: Load-Following Capacity and Replacement Power costs 

Part 2. Aquatic and Fisheries Resources 

Executive Summary 

Strategic Science Questions from MRP 

Aquatic Food Base: Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon 

Adult Fish Populations 

o Humpback Chub 

o Other natives 

o Rainbow Trout Numbers and condition in Glen Canyon 

Mainstem Spawning and Incubation: 

o Humpback Chub 

o Other natives 

o Rainbow Trout, Glen Canyon 

YOY/Juvenile Near Shore Rearing: 

o Humpback Chub 

o Other natives 

o Rainbow Trout, Glen Canyon 

Invasive Fish Species -- Cold and Warm Water 

Disease and Asian Tapeworm 

Part 3. Assessment of Effects to Recreation and Cultural Resources 

Executive Summary 

Strategic Science Questions from MRP 

Angling Opportunity, Quality and Access 

Quality of water & human health 

Visitor safety 

Recreational Experience quality 

2. Non Native Fish Control/Management 

 Part 1. Aquatic and Fisheries Resources 

• Executive Summary 

• Strategic Science Questions from MRP 

• Aquatic Food Base: Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon 

• Adult Fish Populations 

• Humpback Chub 

• Other natives 

• Rainbow Trout Numbers and condition in Glen Canyon 

• Mainstem Spawning and Incubation: 

• Humpback Chub 

• Other natives 

39
• Rainbow Trout Numbers and in Glen Canyon 

• YOY/Juvenile Near Shore Rearing: 

• Humpback Chub 

• Other natives 

• Rainbow Trout Numbers and condition in Glen Canyon 

• Invasive Fish Species -- Cold and Warm Water 

Part 2. Assessment of Effects to Recreation and Cultural Resources 

Executive Summary 

 Strategic Science Questions from MRP 

Angling Opportunity, Quality and Access 

Recreational Experience quality including access to attraction sites 

TCPs 

3. Translocation of HBC 

Part 1. Aquatic and Fisheries Resources 

Executive Summary 

Strategic Science Questions from MRP 

Adult Fish Populations 

o Humpback Chub 

o Other natives 

• Mainstem Spawning and Incubation: 

o Humpback Chub 

o Other natives 

Invasive Fish Species -- Cold and Warm Water 

Part 2. Assessment of Effects to Recreation and Cultural Resources 

Executive Summary 

Strategic Science Questions from MRP 

Angling Opportunity, Quality and Access 

4. HBC refuge, propagation and genetics management planning 

Part 1. Aquatic and Fisheries Resources 

Executive Summary 

Strategic Science Questions from MRP 

Humpback Chub 

Section IV 

Evaluation of Proposed Experimental Research and Designs 

1. No Action 

2. SPG –A 

3. SPG - B 

4. SPG –C (proposed)

40
Table 1. Long Term Experimental Options being evaluated by SPG. 

Option No Action Option SPG-A Option SPG-B Option SPG-C 

 (Proposed) 

Flow regime MLFF (ROD 

flows) 

Increased 

fluctuating flows in 

10 months; 

ecologically stable 

flows in September 

and October 

Stable Flow 

Testing initially 

in summer/fall 

(4 mos.), 

eventually 

moving toward 

seasonally 

adjusted steady 

flows in all 

months, 

MLFF with stable flows 

in September and 

October and increased 

fluctuating flows in 3 

winter months 

Implement 

Expanded 

Fluctuating 

Flows Testing 

All releases 

within ROD 

operating 

constraints) 

Yes, (all months 

except in 

September and 

October) 

None (all 

releases within 

ROD operating 

constraints) 

Releases within ROD 

operating constraints in 

all months except DecFeb (increased 

fluctuations) 

Stable Flows None Yes, Sep.-Oct. 

only; includes tests 

to define 

ecologically steady 

flow 

Yes, (4-12 

months each 

year) 

Yes, September and 

October only; includes 

tests to define 

ecologically steady flow 

Beach/HabitatBuilding Flow 

(41,000 to 

45,000 cfs, 1-3 

days, in spring) 

Yes in April 

following sand 

enrichment from 

major tributaries 

Yes, in April 

following sand 

enrichment from 

major tributaries 

Yes, in JanApril following 

sand enrichment 

from major 

tributaries & 

consideration of 

native fish 

impacts 

Yes in April following 

sand enrichment from 

major tributaries 

Ramping Rate 

Studies 

Possibly so long 

as they are within 

ROD 

Yes (November – 

August) 

None (ROD 

ramping rates) 

Yes 

Tests of Exotic 

Fish Control, 

(Warmwater & 

Coldwater) 

Possible Yes, as needed Yes, as needed Yes 

Build & Test 

(Selective 

Withdrawal 

Structure) 

Possible Yes Yes yes 

41
HBC 

Translocation 

Possible Yes Depends on 

Further 

Analysis 

Yes 

HBC Refuge(s) Possible Yes Depends on 

Further 

Analysis 

Yes 

HBC 

Population 

Augmentation 

Planning 

Possible Planning efforts 

toward 

implementation as 

needed 

No activities 

toward this 

action 

Planning efforts toward 

Implementation (as 

needed) 

Experimental 

Design 

Forward 

titration/block 

design 

Forward titration in 

phase 1 

Forward 

titration—

steady flows 

implemented 

incrementally in 

4 month blocks 

over 6 years 

Implemented in 3 5-year 

increments with flow 

regimes remaining 

constant in phase 1 and 

2; implementation and 

testing of TCD in phase 

2; evaluation to 

determine flows in phase 

3 

42
Table 2 Proposed Monthly Flows for each option. 

Table 3 Portrayal of Annual Pattern of Experimental Treatments Associated with each 

option

WATER YEAR 

MONTH 

 

VOLUME 

(AC X 

1000) 

MAX. 

MONTHLY 

FLOW 

(CFS)* 

MIN. 

MONTHLY 

FLOW 

(CFS) 

RANGE OF DAILY 

FLUCTUATION 

(CFS)** 

UPRAMP/ 

DOWN 

RAMP 

(CFS/ 

HOUR) 

OCTOBER 

NOVEMBER 

DECEMBER 

JANUARY 

FEBRUARY 

MARCH 

APRIL 

MAY 

JUNE 

JULY 

AUGUST 

SEPTEMBER 

Total 8.23MAF 

Water Year Dominant Dam Operation Measure 1 Measure 2 Measure....n 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 –start Phase 1 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012-start Phase 2 

2013 

2014 

2015 

43
2016 

2017-start Phase 3 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021 - end Phase 3 

 Task 4. Draft Project Report. A draft project report will be prepared by GCMRC to 

present the results of the assessment. At a minimum the following sections are to be 

developed in the report. 

I. Introduction and purpose 

A. Context of the analysis 

B. Purpose of the analysis 

II. Objectives 

A. Specific objective sought in the analysis, questions, etc. 

III. Methods for Assessment 

A. Assumption for analysis 

B. Analysis methods used 

IV. Results and Conclusions 

A. Results: Comparative analysis of hypothesized resource impacts of three 

experimental options with a baseline option (ROD). 

B. Conclusions: Specification of how differing options could potentially 

impact resources different then realized from ROD flows and implications 

to managers. 

Task 5. Peer Review Science Advisors. A peer review panel is selected from the

Science Advisors to review the methods section of the statement of work and the draft 

GCMRC report on the assessment. The proposed panel members are as follows: 

Dr. Dale Robertson, limnologist, USGS 

Dr. James Kitchell, Fish Ecologist, University of Wisconsin 

Dr. Don Fowler, Anthropologist, University of Nevada Reno 

Dr. Ellen Wohl, Geomorphologist, Colorado State University 

Dr. Virginia Dale, Systems Ecologist, Oak Ridge Laboratory 

Dr. Jill Baron, Ecologist, USGS 

Dr. Lance Gunderson, Adaptive Management Specialist, Emory University 

Dr. Harold Tyus, Fish Ecologist, University of Colorado Boulder 

Dr. John Loomis, Recreation Economist, Colorado State University 

A review will be developed by the panel as follows: 

 Biophysical/Socio-cultural Impact Assessment Report: The goal of this review is to 

 determine if the objectives of the analysis are met. The review will evaluate 

 appropriate application of assumptions, models, data, current state of science, etc. to 

 obtain the outcomes reported. The review will also evaluate if the conclusions drawn 

 are reasonable for the analysis 

Task 6. Outcomes; Final Report and Presentation to TWG and AMWG.

44
 Two outcomes are specified, a final written report on results and conclusions, 

and a formal presentation to the TWG and AMWG. 

Schedule 

The schedule proposed for this project is as follows: 

1. Review panel established; 8/18/06 

2. Scope of Work complete; 8/22/06 

3. Experimental options, assumptions fully specified; 8/22/06 

4. Science panel review of SOW; 8/29/06 

5. GCMRC complete draft report; 9/23/06 

6. Science panel review of draft report; 9/30/06 

7. Final report presentation to TWG; 10/10/06 

Budget 

1.06 

Economic Implications of Alternative Experimental Flows (FY06) 

 Fiscal Year 2007 

USGS Salaries

roject Related Travel/Training -

perations/ Supplies -

quipment Purchase / Replacement -

tics Support -

SGS Contract Science Labor for reviewers (17% Burden Rate) $28,000 

e / Interagency Agreements (6% Burden Rate) -

ub-total 

mer Burden (Combined 6 and 17% rates) $3,600

otal (Gross) $31,700 

utsourced (Out of USGS) 100%

-

45
46