Proposed Experimentat

Proposed Experimentat

WY 06
Developed by: Developed by:

• Western Area Power • Arizona Game & Fish• Federated Fly Fishermen
WY 06 Proposal for WY 06 Proposal for 

Experimentation Experimentation

• Consistent with our overall philos

of Long-term science design

• Contingent on AG&F evaluation o

status and health of the trout population

• A draft proposal – subject to chan• Time is short
Principles Considered in Principles Considered in 

Development of LTEP Development of LTEP

• Targets HBC and sediment conserv• Fidelity to ALL AMP goals

– Will not include actions that knowingly, 

adversely affects a CRE resource, LT

– Will attempt to seek improvement in ot

resources (where consistent with improthe targeted resources - e.g. trout, AFB

• Will not have significant, long-term adverse affect on power
Principles Principles – cont.

• Afflict as much improvement as poss

on the targeted resources 

• In the initial assemblage of managem

actions, do not include actions that hsignificant long term adverse effect opower or other EIS-identified resourc

• Seek actions that may provide 

improvement for both power and othEIS-identified, CRE resources
LTEP Approach LTEP Approach 

– cont

• Once a set of management actions a

experimentation is identified which is to accomplish these ends, experimecan occur seeking win/win “deals” thinclude greater flexibility for power production and other resources (e.gtrout and trout fishability)
Hybrid Approach Hybrid Approach

• Maximizes resource improvements a

earliest time

• Allows for “learning”, however, until 

“reverse titration” is initiated, cause aeffect signals may be confused
Hybrid Approach Hybrid Approach

• Best chance to afflict improvement e

on

• Takes care of potential adverse effe

single treatments:

– TCD increases warm-water invasive fis

Mechanical removal adjusts to target wwater fish 

– NNFS flows transport more sediment? 

Combine with fall BHBFs
WY 06 

Experimentation for Powe

Experimentation for Powe

Improvement Improvement – Seeking Win/

Seeking Win/

Deals for Other Resource

Deals for Other Resource

• Once you have a set of actions and 

experiments that are likely to achievgoals for the target resources, seek actions that offer win/win arrangemeother resources

• WY 06 proposal experiments with 

operating parameters – seeking improvements for power, trout & AF
WY 06

Management Actions Propos

Management Actions Propo

• Continue advancing the TCD• Continue implementation of HBC 

comprehensive plan components

– translocation– Possible refugia, grow out ponds or ha

• Mechanical removal

– Adaptively modified to manage warm-w

fish, target different locations etc.
WY 06 Proposal WY 06 Proposal

Flow component Flow component

• Non-Native Fish Management Flow

– Winter flows– Summer Standing Flows

• Aquatic Food Base Restoration F• Power Production Experiments

– Modifications of ROD parameters 

proposed, on an experimental basis seeking improvement in power, AFBTrout, Trout fishery
WY 06 Experimentation Propo

WY 06 Experimentation Prop

NNFM Flows NNFM Flows

• Adopted from Korman report• Winter flows

– Modified

• Summer stranding flows• August – Sept. transition• NNFM flows are more effective with mechanical • More effective still, because of its potential to im

HBC, tout and power (a win/win)

– Variations would be the subject of experimentation an

management

– Intended to assist in managing trout and other non-na

possibly “drift” downstream from Lee Ferry

– Intended to improve the condition of trout 
Non-Native Fish Manageme

Native Fish Manageme

Flows

• Effectiveness of proposed Winter-seas

flows (as NNFM) depends on the healtstatus of trout

• Previous years – little effect of adult tr

stranding

– Choices are: 1) increase fluctuation, 2) tar

larval and juvenile trout

• Increased fluctuation has adverse effe

other resources 

– Winter fluctuations target larval/juveniles, 

and trout fishability

– Summer stranding flows
2006 Remaining Months: 8.25 Release - Modified MLFF

800 725 725 600 600 700 833 8

555

777

8 

17

15

13 13 13

15

18 

02468

101214161820

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL A

Daily Range TCFS Release
Glen Canyon Dam Generation Comparison:

ROD Operation vs. Relaxed Operation 

Max Daily Change: 12 TCFS, Up Ramp: 4 TCFS/hr, Down Ramp 3 TCFS/

200300400500600700800900

1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 

MW

Customer Demand GC ROD Generation GC Relaxed DC & DRR G

10 Hours @ 17100 CFS

8 Hours @ 9100 CFS

Decem

13 Hours @ 17145 CFS

6 Hours @ 5145 CFS
Glen Canyon Dam Generation Comparison:

ROD Operation vs. Relaxed Operation 

Max Daily Change: 10 TCFS, Up Ramp: 4 TCFS/hr, Down Ramp 3 TCFS/

200300400500600700800900

1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 

MW

Customer Demand GC ROD Generation GC Relaxed DC & DRR G

10 Hours @ 17100 CFS

8 Hours @ 9100 CFS

Decem

13 Hours @ 17025 CFS

6 Hours @ 7025 CFS
Average Winter Month Load Patern with Proposed Operational Ranges

17 17

9

5

05

1015202530

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2

TCFS Release

MLFF Modified Winter 

Release Range
Average Summer Month Load Patern with Proposed Operational Ranges

10 1018 18

05

1015202530

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2

TCFS Release

MLFF Modified Winter 

Release Range
Average Shoulder Month Load Patern with Proposed Operational Ranges

7 7

13 13

05

1015202530

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2

TCFS Release

MLFF

Modified Winter 

Release Range