Non-native Fish Contro

Environmental Assess

Bureau of ReclamationGlen Canyon DamAdaptive Management Program Technical Work Group March 8, 2011
3⁄4 Some tribes first expressed concern during the 2003-200

experiment, resulting in a removal and mitigation prograemulsion as fertilizer in the Hualapai tribal gardens.

3⁄4 Later, non-native fish control was added as an importan

measure of several U.S. Fish and Wildlife biological opinGlen Canyon Dam.

3⁄4 As part of the Annual Work Plan of the Glen Canyon Dam 

Management Program for Fiscal Year 2010-2011, up to tmechanically remove non-native fish were included and for May-June 2010 and 2011. 

3⁄4 The Pueblo of Zuni sent Reclamation a letter on June 30

Governor Norman Cooeyate expressed the Zuni Tribe’s “taking of life” associated with mechanical removal, and Reclamation and FWS to consult with the Zuni Tribe conmanagement action. 

3⁄4 In response DOI representatives attended a meeting with 

hear their concerns on September 15, 2009. In responsetwo planned removal trips in March 2010, reinitiated conFish and Wildlife Service on cancelling removal, and lateon the EA.

History
Federal:

National Park Service, Intermountain Bureau of Indian AffairsU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Geological Survey, Pacific SouthWestern Area Power Administration 

State:

Arizona Game and Fish Department

American Indian Tribes:

Hualapai TribePueblo of Zuni

Cooperating agencies
3⁄4 Government-to-government tribal consultation meetings were he

the Pueblo of Zuni at Zuni, New Mexico, on September 15, 2009, June 4, 2010; with the Hopi Tribe (March 4 and April 22 2010, JanNation (June 9, 2010, and January 26, 2011), Hualapai (March 6, 22011), Havasupai (March 15, 2010), Kaibab Pauite Tribe (March 12011), and the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (December 13, 2010); 

3⁄4 Reclamation served on a discussion panel about this issue at th

Fish and Wildlife Society Southwest Conference; 

3⁄4 Assistant Secretary Anne Castle and DOI representatives met wi

Tribal Council, Zuni Cultural Resource Advisory Team, and the Z

Mexico, on August 5, 2010.

3⁄4 The Pueblo of Zuni sent Reclamation the Zuni Tribal Council Res

C086 regarding their concerns with mechanical removal and the Canyon be included as a TCP eligible for listing on the National was given to Assistant Secretary Castle at the August 5, 2010 me

3⁄4 A CA and tribal meeting was held in Flagstaff on August 20, 2010

3⁄4 CA conference calls were conducted on September 2, 9, 16, 23, 3

21, 2010, and on January 5, 2011. These often included the tribecooperating agencies, the Pueblo of Zuni and Hualapai Tribe.

3⁄4 Tribes participated in SDM Workshops, October 18-20, and Nove3⁄4 A tribal consultation meeting with the Pueblo of Zuni was held o

during which the tribe indicated that they would prefer, if fish are 

for human consumption as a beneficial use.

Purpose and NeedTribal Consultation
September 1, 2010 FWS revised incidental take statem

“If a decline below 6,000 is documented, such effects e

authorized level of take and represent effects not considered in this Opinion and reinitiation of consrequested by Reclamation.”

November 9, 2010 Biological Opinion on cancelling 20

removal trips, included terms and conditions:

“Resume nonnative control at the mouth of the LCR in 

implement the program in a manner compatible wTribes and other interested stakeholders.AND/OR 

Work with interested Tribes and other parties, expedit

options that would move nonnative removal outsiconfluence tribal sacred areas in 2011, with the goremoval of trout in sacred areas will be reserved fensure the upper incidental take level is not excee

Purpose and Need - ESA
Purpose of the action is to reduce the negative im

competition and predation by rainbow trout aon the endangered humpback chub (Gila cyp

critical habitat in Grand Canyon. 

The need for this action is to fulfill the conservat

terms and conditions of several U.S. Fish and (USFWS) biological opinions, to contribute to humpback chub by helping to maintain high and recruitment rates resulting in an increasipopulation, and to address concerns expressIndian Tribes over the killing of trout in the Glocation of cultural, religious, and historical itribes. 

Purpose and Need
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1012/

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/nnfc/Appdx-A-SDMreport.pdf

Structured Decision Making Project
SDM Results

D1 – Removal curtain – includes PBR Removal to test lifrom Lees Ferry to reduce trout numbers at LCR, and LCto directly address the threat of predation and competitioof freezing fish removed for beneficial use to address trib
3⁄4 The SAs feel that use of DSMs in GCDAMP decision pro

appropriate and needed and recommend their continued exercise, given concerns expressed, clarifies many issufish decision process and is helpful to managers and sc

3⁄4 SDM in the GCDAMP must recognize Adaptive Managem

which decisions are made. Learning is utilized in the proselection of alternatives in the face of the continued uncthis AM concept can be incorporated in future SDM appr

3⁄4 Because of these limitations the focus of SDM should be 

stimulate development of alternative or improved policy management actions, hypothesis and questions for scierather than determinate outcomes. Perhaps for the exercSDM process could have sought to clarify the most critiinformation needs, required tradeoffs, consultation, and agreements necessary to assist the managers in a final 

3⁄4 This SDM process chose to focus on primarily a single g

albeit a critical goal. This approach significantly restrictin which the GCDAMP manager must perform. This seereasoned argument for avoiding determinate outcomes of a SDM process. 

Science Advisor Review of 
3⁄4 Remove non-native fish, mostly trout, to reduce non-nat

the confluence of the Colorado and Little Colorado river56 to 66, area of greatest humpback chub abundance in Colorado River and so predation losses are greatest. 

3⁄4 In order to achieve this reduction, the proposed action, 

related actions, includes reducing emigration of rainbow trout from source populations in Glen and Grand canyon

3⁄4 Up to 10 boat-mounted electrofishing trips per year wou

River to Badger Creek reach (PBR reach, RM 1 to RM 8) trips in the LCR reach (RM 56 to 66). Fish that are removlater beneficial use. The proposed action will take place 

3⁄4 Adaptive Management component: The EA proposes tha

location (LCR or PBR) and extent of removal actions wilnumbers of rainbow trout in the LCR Confluence area anchub abundance and other humpback chub population pflow actions be tested.

Proposed Action
GCMRC Science Plan Science Questions: 

3⁄4 Can a decrease in non-native fishes be linked 

recruitment rate in humpback chub?

3⁄4 Can PBR removal lower densities of trout in th3⁄4 Can non-native fish control offset any increas

HFEs?

Removal will be conducted in conjunction with a scien

developed by GCMRC. GCMRC has proposed 3 o

1. Postponing LCR Removal until hbc adult or ju

declines.

2. Postpone LCR Removal for one year.3. Implement LCR Removal for six years.

Role of Adaptive Management in Non-NaControl, GCMRC Science Plan
3⁄4 Seemingly a conflict between management and science

action, or utilizing alternatives that better evaluate scie1 and 2).

3⁄4 GCMRC needs to provide arguments based on existing 

main stem is or is not important to survival and recruitmhumpback chub. 

3⁄4 Clarify EA question 2 - the source and related amounts 

3⁄4 Assessments in the science plan require 4-6 years, or i

juvenile assessments of growth and survival that requi

More clarification is needed for how learning could be eaccelerated. 

3⁄4 Although there are science questions relative to the eff

action, there is little integration of the two science planresolution.

3⁄4 No clear benefit from waiting 1 or 2 years to initiate rem3⁄4 A risk assessment and cost benefit analysis should be 

Science Advisor Review of NNFC Science Plan
Refined Proposed Action

1. 10-year period of proposed action, 2011-2020

2. Little Colorado River (LCR) reach removal, up to 6 re3. Paria River to Badger Creek (PBR) reach removal, up 4. All fish removed are frozen and used for animal feed 

consumption

5. For 2011-2013:

a. One Lees Ferry rainbow trout marking trip in Octobeb. Two PBR removal Trips in November-January.c. LCR removal if adult humpback chub abundance dro

fish, and there are more than 1,200 rainbow trout in t

d. Research to develop triggers for juvenile humpback 

survivorship to consider in implementing LCR reach 

e. Begin 1-2 year process with stakeholder involvemen

feasibility of flow releases from Glen Canyon Dam to of rainbow trout in Lees Ferry.

f. In 2014 Reclamation will undertake science review w

scientists to assess first two years of non-native fish 
Next Steps

The EA is available on the Reclamation website ahttp://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/nnfc/indexReclamation intends to provide the public with an

EA for a two-week review in April.

Conclude process by early Summer 2011 with a dComments are due by March 18, 2011:

Bureau of Reclamation, Environmental Resources Division125 South State Street, room 7218Salt Lake City, Utah 84138 

e-mail to: fishcontrol@usbr.govFor more info call Glen Knowles at (801) 524-3781
Development and Implementati

Protocol for High-Flow ExperimReleases from Glen Canyon Da

Glen Knowles Bureau of ReclamationGlen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management ProgramTechnical Work Group MeetingMarch 8, 2011
3⁄4 First presented to the public, agencies, and tribes begin

announcement from the Secretary of the Interior, Ken Sa10, 2009.

3⁄4 This announcement was followed by a Federal Register 

31, 2009 (74 FR 69361) to develop an experimental protofuture high flow experiments below Glen Canyon Dam wto improve sand conservation below Glen Canyon Dam. of the AMWG in Phoenix, Arizona, on February 3-4, 2010 scoping information for the EA process. 

3⁄4 A workshop was held in Salt Lake City on June 15-16, 20

from of this workshop, as well as ongoing communicatiothe researchers involved in the synthesis, has also been 

3⁄4 Reclamation also had a meeting with the local business

August 20, 2010, where comments on the proposed actio

3⁄4 Reclamation also used available information from a synt

by the U.S. Geological Survey on the three HFEs in Gran

Public Involvement
Federal:

National Park Service, Intermountain Bureau of Indian AffairsU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Geological Survey, Pacific SouthWestern Area Power Administration 

State:

Arizona Game and Fish CommissionUpper Colorado River Commission

American Indian Tribes:

Hualapai TribePueblo of ZuniHopi Tribe

Cooperating agencies
The Bureau of Reclamation is proposing a protoc

experimental releases (HFEs) from Glen Canyyear period, 2011–2020 as a multi-year, multi-approach using short-duration, high-volume Glen Canyon Dam during sediment -enriched 

Purpose: 1) to develop and implement a protocol 

when and under what conditions to conduct volume releases, and 2) to evaluate the paramflow releases in conserving sediment to beneresources in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyon

Need: to take advantage of future sediment-enric

and improve understanding of HFEs and sedconservation.

Purpose and Need
The proposed HFE Protocol contains three major 

(1) Planning and budgeting: sets the stage for HF

by evaluating the status of resources and assfor conducting HFEs.

(2) Modeling: projects the sand mass balance du

HFE release windows using known tributary forecasted hydrology, provides 1 of 13 HFE t

(3) Decision and implementation: incorporates th

first two components in a process of technicbalanced with policy considerations.

If the decision is made to conduct an HFE, GCMRcooperating scientists would conduct the scientifollowing a previously agreed upon science planHFE Protocol
HFE Protocol – Store and R
3⁄4 Public draft was distributed on January 18, 2

3⁄4 Numerous comments, meetings with agencie

stakeholders, January 20, 2011TWG Meeting, 9, 2011 AMWG Meeting resulted in changes t

3⁄4 Clarification about annual operations def

“water year.”

3⁄4 Clarified description and references to th

Guidelines and it guiding role in operatioProtocol will not result in changes to annwater year.

3⁄4 Clarified sections of the EA to better corr

Non-native Fish Control EA, and vice vers

3⁄4 Additional explanation on the need for a 1

action.

3⁄4 Reclamation will re-evaluate, and suspen

the protocol, if it anticipates that significacannot be mitigated. 

Latest Changes to the EA
3⁄4 Added additional language on the HFE Proto

Report on the Status of Resources, and the Athe Status of Resources.

3⁄4 If monitoring shows that there are unaccepta

as a significant decline in humpback chub nuReclamation will suspend implementation of re-evaluate the protocol. 

3⁄4 A trigger for humpback chub utilized in the N

Control EA will also be utilized in the HFE Proadult humpback chub decline below 7,000 adchub, Reclamation could suspend implementprotocol given the relationship between HFEhumpback chub. 

Latest Changes to the EA c
3⁄4 Reclamation intends to carefully track the status of reso

basis as defined in the science plan:

3⁄4 In-channel sediment storage3⁄4 High-elevation sandbar3⁄4 Sandbar campable area3⁄4 High-elevation sand deposits3⁄4 Archaeological site condition and stability3⁄4 Sediment flux3⁄4 Aquatic food base3⁄4 Lees Ferry fish monitoring3⁄4 Lees Ferry recreation experience quality3⁄4 Fish abundance including humpback chub3⁄4 Riparian vegetation3⁄4 Kanab ambersnail3⁄4 Lake Powell and Lees Ferry water quality 3⁄4 Hydropower production and marketable capacity

Latest Changes to the EA c
3⁄4 This plan does not present an appropriate science desig

proposed HFE protocol in the EA. It is recommended thto incorporate up front in several pages a definitive scieyear activity.

3⁄4 Identify why you are undertaking this HFE science progr

fundamental learning needs that go beyond the requiremother legal and policy requirements. 

3⁄4 State what you intend to accomplish, i.e. what hypothes

address the overarching science questions to gain resouncertainty in management and science, for example, hospecifically determine whether or not flow only methods term sediment, habitat and recreation beach issues for s

3⁄4 Better methods are needed to examine interactions.3⁄4 The science design to accomplish the necessary manag

integration needs significantly more specification than i

Science Advisor Review of Protocol Science Plan
Reclamation released the draft EA to the public o

2011.

Reclamation intends to provide the public with an

EA for a two-week review in April.

Conclude process by early Summer 2011 with a dThe EA is available on the Reclamation website ahttp://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/HFEProtoComments are due by March 18, 2011:

Bureau of Reclamation, Environmental Resources Division125 South State Street, room 7218Salt Lake City, Utah 84138 

e-mail to: protocol@usbr.govFor more info Dennis Kubly at (801) 524-3715

Next Steps
Glen Canyon Dam 

Long-Term Experimental and MPlan Environmental Impact Sta

Bureau of ReclamationGlen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management ProgramUpper Colorado Leadership Team March 8, 2011
3⁄4 First announced by Asst. Secretary Anne Ca

AMWG Meeting that Secretary of the Interior directed development of a of the Long Term Management Plan.

3⁄4 Will be led by the Bureau of Reclamation and 

Service as co-lead agencies.

3⁄4 Will include multiple cooperating agencies, i

Tribal, State or Local agencies or governmen

3⁄4 2011 will be primarily determining and desig

cooperating agencies and scoping.

3⁄4 Effort will be on an expedited schedule to dr

Long-Term Experimental anManagement Plan EIS
 Purpose and Need will be focused on continuing a

management through the GCDAMP to meet requirCanyon Protection Act, the Law of the River, and ocontinue the adaptive management experiments tsuccessfully completed under the GCDAMP.

 Will build on prior experiments, such as the 1996, 

HFEs, and learning gained through implementatioExperimental Protocol, non-native fish control expother experiments. Reclamation will utilize informduring prior NEPA process, the ongoing EAs and 

 Alternatives to be considered include dam operati

actions under the authority of the Secretary of the with the GCPA, Law of the River, other laws.

Purpose and Need, Propose
• We are now 15 years removed from 1996 RO

GCDAMP in place and much new information over the years.• Two EAs currently out for public comment: actions are implemented, additional knowledgacquired concurrent with EIS development.• With our increased knowledge, we have the to incorporate informed management actions techniques into the operating criteria and to dnext generation of experimental actions.
3⁄4 Identify and formalize Cooperating Ag

3⁄4 Define roles and responsibilities.3⁄4 Complete scoping and scoping comm

in 2011. 

3⁄4 Begin to develop alternatives with coo

agencies by the end of 2011.

Goals for 2011
3⁄4 Kickoff meeting with potential cooperating ag

on February 11, 2011. We have received initipotential cooperating agencies.

3⁄4 Now working with NPS on NOI for publication 

Register.

3⁄4 Scoping meetings in Phoenix, Salt Lake City, 

sites.

3⁄4 More to come...Next Steps