BR Updates

Glen Knowles Bureau of ReclamationGlen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management ProgramTechnical Work Group MeetingJanuary 20, 2011
Development and Implementati

Protocol for High-Flow ExperimReleases from Glen Canyon DaGlen Knowles Bureau of ReclamationGlen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management ProgramTechnical Work Group MeetingJanuary 20, 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 HFE Workshop was held in Salt Lake City on June 15-16

information from workshop, and communications with Gresearchers involved in the synthesis in this EA. 

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

August 20 and December 20, 2010, comments were rece

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 plan

HFE Protocol
HFE 

No.

Flow 

Magnitude 

(cfs)

Duration 

(hours)

HFE 

No.

Fl

Magn

(c

1 45,000 96 8 45,

2 45,000 72 9 41,

3 45,000 60 10 39,

4 45,000 48 11 36,

5 45,000 36 12 34,

6 45,000 24 13 31,

7 45,000 12

HFE Protocol – Flow magniduration for Model HFEs
HFE Protocol – Store and R
Reclamation released the draft EA to the public o

2011.

The EA is available on the Reclamation website ahttp://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/HFEProtoComments are due by February 14, 2011:

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

e-mail to: protocol@usbr.gov

For more info contact Dennis Kubly at (801) 524-3If a decision notice is completed by early March, 

by late April....

Next Steps
Nonnative Fish Contro

Environmental AssessGlen Knowles Bureau of ReclamationGlen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management ProgramTechnical Work Group MeetingJanuary 20, 2011
3⁄4 Tribes first expressed concern during the 2002-2006 rem

resulting in a removal and mitigation program using fish 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 massive “taking of life” associated with mechanical remof Reclamation and FWS to consult with the Zuni Tribe cmanagement action. 

3⁄4 In response DOI representatives attended a meeting with 

hear their concerns on September 15, 2009. In responsecancelled the two planned removal trips in March 2010, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on c

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 Commission

American Indian Tribes:

Hualapai TribePueblo of Zuni

Cooperating agencies
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 tribal values over the killing of trout in Canyon, a location of cultural, religious, and importance to a number to tribes. 

Purpose and Need
 ASWS Anne Castle’s requested Reclamation partner with 

Wildlife Research Center (Dr. Mike Runge) to conduct a SMaking (SDM) Project as part of the EA process as a strudevelop and provide substantive input from the cooperattribes to Reclamation.

 At Saguaro Lake Ranch workshops, October 18-20 and N

a diverse set of objectives for the project were defined, a was developed, and participants assessed alternatives aobjectives. Multi-criteria decision analysis methods were examine trade-offs with the cooperating agencies and triperformance of alternatives against the objectives. 

 The SDM process analysis resulted in a ranking of altern

action was selected based on this ranking. In this way, tutilized as an integral part of this EA process in the identevaluation of various approaches to address the proposereport has been published as a USGS Open File Report.

Structured Decision Making 
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1012/
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. Ta

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 Non-native fish, predominantly rainbow trout, will be rem

Marble Canyon with up to 10 boat-mounted electrofishinRiver 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 to vary effort based o

provide for flexibility in implementing control, and includdevelop and test flow options for control over the period action, and incorporate FWS Recovery Plan goals when 

Proposed Action
Public Draft of the EA to be released by January 

30-day public comment period.Will include an email address and written addres

comments to.

For more info, Glen Knowles at (801) 524-3781.If a decision notice is completed by early March, 

implementation this year. Important given timProtocol, and potential for increases in trout HFE.

Next Steps
Basin Hydrology Upda

Bureau of ReclamationGlen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management ProgramTechnical Work Group MeetingJanuary 20, 2011
 As of January 13, 2011 the snowpack above Lake 

average.

 The Apr‐Jul inflow forecast for Powell jumped from 

in early January due to precipitation and snowpacnear 150% of average. The mid‐month Apr‐Jul fore

January 13th and was decreased to 9.3 maf. This sdoes not change the projected operation for WY20

 The probability of receiving sufficient inflow to trig

water year 2011 increased from 48% in December 

 This latest inflow projection increased the project

Lake Powell for WY2011 well above the trigger eleEqualization to be likely triggered in April. Under aOperation, the water year projected release volummaf to 11.36 maf.

2011 Operations
 To accomplish this significantly higher water year 

releases from Glen Canyon Dam were increased oto where peaks each day will be approximately 20

prior to this adjustment were 16,000 cfs. The releaJanuary 2011 will be 1000 kaf rather than the 865 cearlier.

 Release volumes during February and March will 

January and fluctuations could be restricted due toutages occurring at Glen Canyon Dam.

 The determination of an Equalization release scen

until April and it is possible that the forecast could now and April enough to result in a release scenainclude Equalization releases. It is approximately that this could happen and the annual release volu9.0 maf if this were to happen.

2011 Forecast

Unit 

Number

Oct 

2010

Nov 

2010

Dec 

2010

Jan 

2011

Feb 

2011

Mar 

2011

Apr 

2011

May 

2011

12345

6 (3/4 Unit)

78

Units 

Available 4.75 5.75 6.75 6.75 4.75 4.75 6.75 4.75 

Capacity 

(kaf) 933 1227 1449 1446 950 1130 1310 970 

Max (kaf) 495 810 847 1000 900 1100 1310 970 

Most (kaf) 495 810 847 1000 900 1000 1200 970 

Min (kaf) 495 810 847 1000 900 900 615 650 

Glen Canyon Power Plant Planned Unit Outage Schedule 

(updated 1-14-2011)
Programmatic 

AgreementGlen Knowles Bureau of ReclamationGlen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management ProgramTechnical Work Group MeetingJanuary 20, 2011
3⁄4 In 1994, the Bureau of Reclamation put in place, as part 

Dam Operations EIS, a Programmatic Agreement (PA) to the National Historic Preservation Act requirements for operations. 

3⁄4 Signatories included: the Advisory Council on Historic P

State Historic Preservation Office, Reclamation, NationaTribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab Paiute Tribe, Paiute Tribe oNation, and Zuni Pueblo.

3⁄4 The PA has stipulations for identification of properties e

the National Register of Historic Places, monitoring to dthose properties, and development of a preservation pla

3⁄4 Under the PA, the NPS has monitored sites and objects 

added to the National Register for their historic or archevalues. Tribes have monitored sites or resources of triba

History
3⁄4 Programmatic agreements are designed to satisfy an ag

responsibilities remain in force until terminated; howevecarry out terms of a PA, the agency must complete stanreview for each individual undertaking that otherwise woPA. 

3⁄4 Without terminating the PA, Reclamation and other cons

working on the PA in 2008 and instead began to follow t106 review process with the development of a memoranarcheological data recovery. 

3⁄4 Work was conducted in 2008 and 2009 under separate M

recovery was conducted under a treatment plan developDamp and Joel Pederson at Utah State University. A synwork is in preparation and will be available in Summer 2archeological data recovery that was proposed in 2010 cupon by the consulting parties. 

History
3⁄4 Agreements under Section 106, whether PAs or MOAs, r

parties to agree on ways to accommodate historic presethe undertaking proceeds. 

3⁄4 Because the parties could not agree on resolution of eff

Reclamation is currently completing Section 106 review undertaking that otherwise would be covered by an agreaccordance with 36 CFR 800.4 through 800.6 and the Adguidance. 

3⁄4 A meeting of the 1994 PA signatories is planned for Jan

Interested persons or members of the public may be invdiscussions because Reclamation anticipates that the LExperimental and Management Plan EIS will become a nnecessitating Section 106 compliance. 

3⁄4 We have scheduled a PA Meeting for January 31, 2011, f

pm at GCRMC Building 3.

Next Steps