Fall 2016 HFE Planning 

Katrina Grantz Reclamation Scott VanderKooi GCMRC TWG presentation October 18, 2016 
HFE Decision Making Process 

1. Planning and Budgeting Component 

 Annual resource status assessment 

 Annual Agency Reporting  GCDAMP Budget and Work Plan Proc

2. Modeling Component 3. Decision and Implementation Component 

 Review Modeling Component 

 Review Status of Resources  Consultation with agencies and tribes, A

input 

 Staff Recommendation/DOI GCD Leaders

Team Recommendation 

3 
Modeling Component 

4 
HFE Protocol Parameters 

Possible Timing 

– March-April and October-November through 2020 – Spring HFEs were considered starting in 2015 

Duration range 

– 1 hr – 96 hrs (at full magnitude) – 1 1⁄2 days – 6 1⁄2 days (including ramping) 

Magnitude range 

– 31,500 cfs – 45,000 cfs (depends on maintenance) 

Ramping rates 

– Ramping rates are defined by 1996 ROD and 1997 Glen 

Operating Criteria (62 FR 9447, 4,000 cfs up and 1,500 cf

5 
6 

Current conditions from the GCMRC web page as of Oct 16, 2016 

http://cida.usgs.gov/gcmrc/ discharge_qw_sediment/stations/GCDAMP Preliminary Data – Do 
Preliminary Data – Do 

7 
8 

Preliminary Data – D

Resource Status Assessment

Sediment Resources In-channel sediment storage Sandbar campable area High-elevation sand deposits Cultural Resources Archaeological site condition and stability Access to archaeological sites by tribes Hydropower and water delivery Water quality Water delivery Dam maintenance Hydropower production and marketable capacity Biological Resources Aquatic food base Lees Ferry trout population Lees Ferry fishery recreation experience quality Endangered humpback chub and other fish abundance Riparian vegetation 

10 
Hydropower/Socioeconomic Im

 HFEs impact hydropower 

production: 

 Water released during 

an HFE counts against the annual release and is not available to be programmed in peaking releases during high demand months (HFE windows of Mar/Apr and Oct/Nov are lowdemand shoulder months). 

 30-40% of HFE releases 

bypass the power plant. 

 Lake Powell is lowered, 

reducing hydrologic head. 

 2014 HFE cost: $2.1 M 

Western Area Pow

Administration estima

annual hydropower im

approximately $1.

10 
Cultural Resources 

 HFE-caused erosion and deposit 

is a consideration, some sites already mitigated. 

 GCMRC monitoring shows that 

recent HFEs have eroded terraces that contain archaeological sites in Glen Canyon NRA and can resupply aeolian dunefields which contain archaeological sites 



(though it may not outpace erosion of the dunefields) No impacts to sites were identified from the 2012 HFE, no reports of issues with access to sites 



The MOA for the HFE requires notification consulting parties at advance of a HFE and with tribes to resolve A 30-day notification MOA signatories of a in November will be sThe HFE MOA requireand consultation afte

11 
Sandbars and Campsites: 2012‐201

• HFEs in 2012, 2013, and 2014 built sandbars

– Bars eroded between HFEs

– Greater erosion in years of higher release volumes– Bars larger now than at start of HFE protocol and

periods with no HFEs, but no evidence for

“progressive” increases in sandbar size

• High‐elevation Campsite area (above 25,000 cfs stage)

– No net change in non‐critical reaches– Increase from 2012 to 2014 in critical reaches

• First three years of HFE protocol were a period of low

annual release volumes and good tributary sand

supply

– Bar deposition without depleting sand from

storage

– Sand accumulated in Marble Canyon, replenishing

sand evacuated during 2011 equalization

preliminary data, do not cite 
Sandbars: 2008‐present

2008 HFE

Marble slightly Oct. 20

Grand (below 

relativ

2012‐14 HFEs

Grand (RM 60relative 

• 50 individual sandbars with data 2008‐present

– 25 in Marble Canyon– 7 in Grand Canyon (RM 60‐87)

– 18 in Grand Canyon (below RM 87)

• With October 2008 as reference (8‐month post‐HFE)

– Increase in Marble Canyon and Grand Canyon (below RM 87)

– No change in Grand Canyon (RM60‐87) preliminary 
2011 USFWS Biological Opin

Non-native Fish Control Trigg

 Adult humpback chub <7000 fish?  OR  ALL THREE? No

 3 of 5 years 150-199 mm humpback chub in 

LCR drops below 910? *Fell below threshold 

 Temperature <12° C for 2 consecutive years 

LCR? 

 Annual survival of 40-99 mm humpback chu

JCM drops 25% from preceding year? 
2011 USFWS Biological Opin

Non-native Fish Control Trigg

 AND  Rainbow trout abundance over 760?  AND  Brown trout abundance over 50? Un

2016 catches remain low; 3 cau0 in April and July – catches too generate abundance estimate(Yard and Korman, preliminary d
Con

Aquatic Insect Drift: Long Term T
Con

Aquatic Insect Drift: Long Term T

Recent Floelicited the observed iMudsnails 
Growth (mm/30 days)

0 5 

10 15 20 25 30 

Apr12-Jul12

Jul12-Sep12

Sep12-Oct12

Oct12-Dec12

Dec12-Jan13

Jan13-Apr13

Apr13-Jul13

Jul13-Sep13

Sep13-Oct13

Oct13-Dec13

Dec13-Jan14

Jan14-Apr14

Apr14-Jul14

Jul14-Sep14

Sep14-Oct14

Oct14-Dec14

Dec14-Jan15

Jan15-Apr15

Apr15-Jul15

Jul15-Sep15

Sep15-Oct15

Oct15-Dec15

Dec15-Jan16

J16A16

Growth CF 75-124 mm 

CF 175-224 mm CF >=275 mm 

Rainbow Trout in Glen Cany

Sampling Interval 

Growth (g/30 days)

Preliminary data, do not cite. 

HFE 
Growth (mm/30 days)

Growth (g/30 days)
 

0 5 

10 15 20 25 30 

Apr12-Jul12

Jul12-Sep12

Sep12-Oct12

Oct12-Dec12

Dec12-Jan13

Jan13-Apr13

Apr13-Jul13

Jul13-Sep13

Sep13-Oct13

Oct13-Dec13

Dec13-Jan14

Jan14-Apr14

Apr14-Jul14

Jul14-Sep14

Sep14-Oct14

Oct14-Dec14

Dec14-Jan15

Jan15-Apr15

Apr15-Jul15

Jul15-Sep15

Sep15-Oct15

Oct15-Dec15

Dec15-Jan16

J16A16

Growth CF 75-124 mm 

CF 175-224 mm CF >=275 mm 

Rainbow Trout in Glen Cany

Preliminary data, do not cite. Sampling Interval

HFE 

Spring/Summer growth lower 

after 2012 & 2013 HFEs, but 

higher after 2014 HFE. Also lower 

in 2016 (no 2015 HFE). Indicates 

factors other than HFEs driving 

spring/summer trout growth. 
Growth (mm/30 days)

Growth (g/30 days)
 

0 5 

10 15 20 25 30 

Apr12-Jul12

Jul12-Sep12

Sep12-Oct12

Oct12-Dec12

Dec12-Jan13

Jan13-Apr13

Apr13-Jul13

Jul13-Sep13

Sep13-Oct13

Oct13-Dec13

Dec13-Jan14

Jan14-Apr14

Apr14-Jul14

Jul14-Sep14

Sep14-Oct14

Oct14-Dec14

Dec14-Jan15

Jan15-Apr15

Apr15-Jul15

Jul15-Sep15

Sep15-Oct15

Oct15-Dec15

Dec15-Jan16

J16A16

Growth CF 75-124 mm 

CF 175-224 mm CF >=275 mm 

Rainbow Trout in Glen Cany

Preliminary data, do not cite. Sampling Interval

HFE 

Fall growth in HFE intervals slightly 

negative in 2012 and 2014 and slightly 

positive in 2013. Growth positive in fall 

interval with no HFE in 2015. Suggests 

temporary weak negative effect on 

trout growth during HFE intervals. 
Growth (mm/30 days)

Growth (g/30 days)
 

0 5 

10 15 20 25 30 

Apr12-Jul12

Jul12-Sep12

Sep12-Oct12

Oct12-Dec12

Dec12-Jan13

Jan13-Apr13

Apr13-Jul13

Jul13-Sep13

Sep13-Oct13

Oct13-Dec13

Dec13-Jan14

Jan14-Apr14

Apr14-Jul14

Jul14-Sep14

Sep14-Oct14

Oct14-Dec14

Dec14-Jan15

Jan15-Apr15

Apr15-Jul15

Jul15-Sep15

Sep15-Oct15

Oct15-Dec15

Dec15-Jan16

J16A16

Growth CF 75-124 mm 

CF 175-224 mm CF >=275 mm 

Rainbow Trout in Glen Cany

Preliminary data, do not cite. Sampling Interval

HFE 

Any HFE effect is temporary, 

growth increases starting 

December or January. Late 

winter/spring growth increase was 

at similar levels in 2015 (post 2014 

HFE) and 2016 (no 2015 HFE). 
River Mile

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Frequency

05

1015202530

Kanab Creek

Year 

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 

N u m b e r o f G r e e n S u n fis h 

0 

10 20 30 40 

GSF catch by year GSF catch by river mile 
2016 Green Sunfish Rapid Resp

 Two detection trips in July 2016 = no G August 2016 – GSF detected  10 removal trips from August – Octobe

captured and removed over 4600 GSF

 Trips conducted by GCMRC, AGFD, and N

Preliminary results provided by Charles Yackulic (
2016 Green Sunfish Rapid Resp

 GSF numbers reduced by mechanical 

removal but cannot be eliminated 

 GSF removed by mechanical means will be 

provided to the Tribes for beneficial use

 NPS applied for a permit from ADEQ to 

ammonia as an experimental piscicide 
Current Status

 Application for proposed ammonia trea

submitted to ADEQ on October 3 

 Approval received October 13  Treatment date is October 20 

 All other permitting and compliance co

as of October 17 

 HFE proposed for November 7 

 Decision will be made by October 20 by HF

leadership team after review of all resourcconditions including status of GSF.
Treatment Plan 

 GCMRC and NPS staff will conduct the 

ammonia treatment on October 20th 

 Water quality sampling will occur befo

after treatment 

 15 to 20 gallons of ammonia will be dis

into upper slough 

 Electrofishing surveys Friday Oct. 21st 

the following week to confirm treatmensuccess 

 The slough area will be administrativel

closed from treatment to proposed HFE 
HFE Protocol Reporting 

1. GCDAMP Annual Reporting meeting ever

January. 

2. Updates at TWG and AMWG GCDAMP 

meetings 

3. Meet with the HFE MOA consulting parties 

consult with tribes as needed. 

4. The HFE Technical Team report to the 

Secretary’s Glen Canyon Leadership Teatheir consideration in HFE decisions. 

5. US Fish and Wildlife Service report each 

January on the effects of prior HFEs and conservation measures of the 2011 FWS biological opinion.
2016 HFE Summary and Next Steps 

1. Sediment conditions support a 96-hr 2016 Fal

• 36,000 cfs for 96-hrs, possible start Nov 7 

2. 30-day HFE MOA letter has gone out 3. Other resource considerstaions: green sunfish

• planned treatment Oct 20th. 

4. TWG presentation: Oct 18th 

5. The HFE Technical Team recommendation to 

Secretary’s Glen Canyon Leadership Team: O

6. Leadership Team decision on whether to proc

fall HFE: Oct 20th 

7. BO report- by December 8. Follow up at future AMP meetings 

28