Update to the TWG on 

Experimental Planning

11/29/05

Ted Melis and Barbara Ralston, GCM

“Ideas and Concepts Regarding Phase 

Experimental Design”
Outline for Presentation

1. Overview on Knowledge Assessment 2005 

pursuit of an experimental “hybrid design”

2. Supporting AEM Information Needs3. Historical Context for the Record-of-Decis4. Basis for GCMRC’s Current Options for W

2007-2011 EXP Design Recommendation
Part I: 

Knowledge Assessment

1. Identify actions that are understood well enough t

treated as long-term management actions if approp(“hybrid design”). 

2. Evaluate uncertainties about the effects of manage

actions on key resources in CRE.

3. Develop strategic science questions that would ne

addressed to reduce uncertainties (tied to SPG pro

4. Identify modelling, research, monitoring and best 

experimental science design required to answer thquestions (benefit resource & promote learning).
Highlights from Fish Matrix

Performance Measure Species

Increase 

in GCD 

Release 

Water Temp.

Overall 

Effect of 

Increased 

Fluctuations 

Relative to 

MLFFA

BHBF 

with 

adequate 

sand 

supply

Sustaine

Low 

Steady 

Flow 

(summe

fall)

Y

O

Y

/Juvenile 

nearshore rearing HBC + - +

FMS + - +

Invasive Fish Species Coldwater + - NA + 

Warmwater +- +

Adult Population HBC

FMS + +
Performance 

Measure

Location and/or Species

Increase 

in GCD 

Release 

Water 

Temp.

Overall 

Effect of 

Increased 

Fluctuations 

Relative to 

MLFFA

Reduce 

Variation 

in Monthly 

Volume

BHBF 

with 

adequate 

sand 

supply

BHBF 

without 

adequate 

sand 

supply

HMF with 

adequate 

sand 

supply

HMF 

without 

adequate 

sand 

supply

Sustained 

Low 

Steady 

Flow 

(summerfall)

High 

Sustained 

Flow 

(pondingspring)

Mechanical 

Removal of 

Coldwater 

Exotics 

(Mainstem 

and Trib)

Mechanical 

Removal of 

Warmwater 

Exotics

Supplemenfrom Hatch

Food base Glen + + -

Grand - -+

Mainstem spawning & incubation HBC + + ++

FMS +- + ++RBT-Glen - + ++RBT-Marble

YOY/Juvenile nearshore rearing HBC + - + - -+ + +

FMS + - + - -+ + +RBT-Glen + - +- - - -++RBT-Marble - +- - - -++

Invasive Fish Species Coldwater +- + -

Warmwater +- + -

Disease

Asian Fish Tapeworm +

Whirling Disease +

Adult Population HBC 

FMS + +RBT #s - Glen +- +RBT Size - Glen ++ +RBT #sMarble - +-

Angling Opportunity and Quality Glen + - +------
Native Fish Science Question

1. What ultimately limits native fish populations:

• production of young fish from tributaries• spawning and incubation in the mainstem• survival of YoY and juvenile stages in the mainstem• growth and maturation in the adult population as influenced 

conditions?

2. What is the relative importance of increased water temperature

stability, food availability, and predators on the survival of earlnative fish?

3. How important are backwaters and vegetated shoreline habitats 

growth and survival of YoY and juvenile native fish

?

4. Do the potential benefits of improved rearing habitat outweigh 

impacts owing to increases in non-native fish abundance or dise
Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Part II: Revisiting Experimental Desi

for Water Year 2007 to 2011

Historical Perspective Behind Phase V
When Do Experimental Treatments Become Managem

Process of Ongoing Dialogue Between Managers & Scientists We know that stab

are “low” (less than 10,000 cfs range) are most effective at conserving sand, ampl

downstream and stabilizing near-shore habitats. Short-duration BHBF-type releat 41,000-45,000 cfs)) can mobilize sand from the lower channel and deeper eddiethis material to higher elevation shorelines relatively quickly when sand supply is MLFF has likely improved recreational rafting and camping, as well as angling, b

data on this (SCORE).Clearly Identified Management Goals & Objectives Are the desired outcomes of 

AMP both Measurable & Attainable? Example: Mechanical Removal - methods during 2003-2005 research are known to reduce the abundance and distribution ocoldwater species within treatment reaches in Marble & Grand Canyons and the abundance can apparently be maintained through continued implementation. Is a stated Management Objective?Environmental Compliance Beyond Experimentation? For experimental treatme

management actions, decision makers would presumably need to modify the RecoDecision, but this is only an option following compliance requirements . . . 

What is the Distinction Betw

Experimentation and Managem

Action? All Efforts are Intend

Provide Resource Benefit?
Types of Experiments

Source: Mark McKinstry, BuRec • True experiments vs. quasi experiments

– True experiments

• Quantify effect(s)

– e.g., mechanical removal (560k/yr)

» Constant treatment vs. experimental

• Partition variance• Develop cause/effect (but not an end in itself)• Statistical tests powerful• Inference is large depending on sampling units• Expensive, dedication to learning

– Quasi experiments

• “Natural” experiments• Develop correlations (Correlation 

≠ Causation)

• Infer effects• Inference is limited to sample• Statistical tests weaker (court??)• Relatively inexpensive, smaller emphasis on learning
Block Experiment

Off Off

On ON

Off On

On Off

Treatment 1 Treatment 2

TreatTreatInter

Time Step 3Time Step 2

Time Step 1

Time Step 4

Contr

Test
Block Design

121110

987654

321

Year

on off on on on on 

off off on 

off on off off on on 

on off off on off on on on off 

off off off 

off off on 

off on off 

on off off 

Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Tre
Block Design

Pros

• Planned experiments• Partitions variance• Increases learning• Cause and effect

Cons

• Long timeframe• Emphasizes lear• Long-term 

commitment
Hybrid Design

121110

987654

321

Year

on on off on on off on on off on on on on on on on on on on on off on on off on on off on on on on on on on on on 

Management 1 Management 2 Treatment 1 T
Hybrid Design

Pros

• Planned experiments• Partitions variance (some 

factors)

• Increases knowledge 

(some factors)

• Cause and effect (some 

factors)

• Implements management 

actions

Cons

• Long timeframe• Long-term commit• Confounding effec• Commitment to 

management action

• Implies knowledge 

effects of managemactions
Forward Titration

121110

987654

321

Year

on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on off on on off on on off on off off on off off on off off 

Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 T
Reverse Titration

121110

987654

321

Year

off off off off off off off off off off off on off off on off off on 

off on on off on on off on on 

on on on on on on on on on 

Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 T
Titration Design

Pros

• Implements management 

actions

• Improves some knowledge

Cons

• Decreased learning• Cause and effect n

identified (specific actions)

• Confounding facto• Not a recognized “• Analysis methods 

uncertain (e.g., maeffects vs. interacti
SBSC Quote of the Day:

“There is something fascinatin

about science. One gets sucwholesale return of conjectuout of a trifling investment ofact.” 

Mark Twain– 1874.
SBSC Quote of the Century:

“Adaptive Ecosystem Assessmen

Management Is Not Just About Learning, It’s about Comparing and Evaluating Agreed Upon Policies Intended to Benefit the Resources!” 

C. Walters – 1874?
The Design Did Not Build on History of Previous Work 

Though Useful as Starting Point, It Was Not Fully Adopt

“The Original Proposed Approach of 2002, with Five T

IMPLEMENT TREATMENT DO NOT IMPLEMENT TREATM

Increased

Fluctuations

In Daily Flows

(Jan – Mar)

Mechanical

Removal of Rainbow 

Trout in GC

(Jan-Mar, Jul - Dec)

Stable-Low

Flows in Fall

(Aug – Dec)

TCD

(Future)

Bea

Buil

WY2002-03 (JWY2003-04WY2004-05WY2005-06WY2006-07WY2007-08WY2008-09WY2009-10WY2010-11WY2011-12WY2012-13WY2013-14WY2014-15WY2015-16WY2016-17WY2017-18
Evolution in Design on Basis of Progress & Historical Perspectiv

The 2002 Revised Design with Two Controlled an

Randomized Treatments [May 2004]

IMPLEMENT TREATMENT DO NOT IMPLEMENT T

WY2018 Plus, Stable Fall Do Not Remove Fish Random ??? WY2017 Plus, Stable Fall Do Not Remove Fish Random ??? 

WY2016 MLFF + ExpFF Do Not Remove Fish Random ??? WY2015 MLFF + ExpFF Do Not Remove Fish Random ??? 

WY2014 Plus, Stable Fall Remove Fish Random ??? WY2013 Plus, Stable Fall Remove Fish Random ??? 

WY2012 MLFF + ExpFF Remove Fish Random ??? WY2011 MLFF + ExpFF Remove Fish Random ??? 

WY2010 Plus, Stable Fall Do Not Remove Fish Random ??? WY2009 Plus, Stable Fall Do Not Remove Fish Random ??? 

WY2008 MLFF + ExpFF Do Not Remove Fish Random ??? WY2007 MLFF + ExpFF Do Not Remove Fish Warming Event 

WY2006 Plus, Stable Fall Remove Fish Warming Event WY2005 Plus, Stable Fall Remove Fish Warming Event 

WY2004 MLFF + ExpFF Remove Fish Warming Event WY2003 MLFF + ExpFF Remove Fish Warming Event 

Naturally Warmed owing to 

Low Reservoir

Mechanical

Removal of Rainbow Trout in 

GC

(non-optimized)

MLFF + Designer 

Flow 

Treatments in 

Winter and 

Summer/Fall

Water Year
Update on Lake Powell

• Reservoir Level

– Current Elevation - 3602.0 ft (98 ft from full)

• low for 2005 – 3555.1 ft on 4/8/2005• lowest elevation since May 1969

– Current Live Storage 12.0 MAF (49%)– Projected Low (March 2006) – 3593.0 ft– Projected High (July 2006) – 3625.7 ft

• Warmer GCD Releases

– Maximum observed temperatures 

• 11/14/2003 – 13.2°C (56°F)• 10/5/2004 – 15.5°C (60°F)• 10/11/2005 – 15.8°C (61°F)• WY 2006 est. 12-13°C depending on hydrology
Mean Daily Temperature Patterns below Glen Cany
Mean Daily Temperature Patterns at Little Colorado R

Mother Nature Got Involved in the Experiment in a Big Wa

???

What Will Be theBiological Response?Will Warming Persist?What if it Does, butWe Don’t Like the Results?
Historical Perspective on EX

• Let’s Step Back and Look

– MLFF+BHBF is the approved Management Action 

(baseline)

– EXP treatments include: reducing coldwater exotics, plus 

EXP trout suppression flows, and Fall BHBF test

– Nature decided to add thermal element– Managers decided to add LCR Translocation (conservation)

• Comparing Policies: Stable Shoreline 

Habitat vs. Warmer River

– “Fluctuating Flows” we decide???– “Temperature Control” nature’s own device?Warming was added to the MLFF operation after a 

decade of not being implemented!

Now What?
Status of Evolved Design on Basis of Historical Perspec

IMPLEMENT TREATMENT TREATMENT NOT IMPLEM

*WY2006, decision MLFF+Fall Testing Experimental Fish Removal ??? [?,?]

MLFF+EXP FF+Fall Experimental Fish Removal [++,++] Testing WY2005, [?,?]

WY2004, [?,0] MLFF+EXP FF Experimental Fish Removal [+,+] WY2003, [?,-] MLFF+EXP FF Experimental Fish Removal [+,+] 

WY2002, [?,-] MLFF only No Exotic Control [0,0] WY2001, [?,+] MLFF only No Exotic Control [0,0] 

WY2000, [+,+] MLFF+LSSF+HMF No Exotic Control [0,+] 

WY1999, [+,+] MLFF only No Exotic Control [0,0] 

WY1998, [+,+] MLFF+HMF No Exotic Control [0,0] 

WY1997, [0,+] MLFF only No Exotic Control [0,0] 

WY1996, [0,+] Interim+BHBF No Exotic Control [0,0] 

WY1995, [-,+] Interim only No Exotic Control [0,0] WY1994, [-,+] Interim only No Exotic Control [-,-] WY1993, [-,+] Interim only No Exotic Control [0,-] WY1992, [-,+] Interim only No Exotic Control [-,-] 

WY1991, [0,0] EXP Flows No Exotic Control [0,nd] 

(

R

Naturally Varied 

Temperature

(Relative to August Average 

at GCD, RM61)

[+, 0, -]

Mechanical

Removal of Rainbow Trout in 

GC

(with Progressive 

Optimization)

Dominant Dam 

Operation

(with Seasonal Variants 

Toward “Designer 

Flows,” but All Within 

ROD)

Water Year, w/

HBC & RBT 

Recruitment 

Success

[+ or -]
Considering Historical Perspective and Recent R

Forward Titration that Could Evolve to a Factorial Design In fact, we have 15 y

Forward Titration design already behind us with pretty solid data for both sedim

fisheries! The MLFF (and its precursor, Interim operation) was implemented frthrough 2001 with no Mechanical Removal or persistent thermal warming event

continued mostly MLFF operations and implemented MR along with Nature’s Oof the Selective Withdrawal Structure since 2002! Hence, after an 11-year long 

MLFF with cold water and unconstrained RBT recruitment, we are now headin

year of a block of MR coupled with a warm main-channel “event.” What to d

Selective Withdrawal Structure might be a handy tool to have in our 

experimental kit right now. Pursue Mechanical Removal of Warm & Cold fish MLFF Under the Range of Upper Basin Hydrologic Cycle If we continue monit

MLFF under the paired implementation of MR and warming, we have no way othat warming will continue. Perhaps we continue MR and let nature decide the 

warm event, or try to manage the system to prolong warming (while building the 

Managers might choose to enhance the probability of a HBC recruitm

by recommending stable Fall flows, but that could confound ability to discern Mfrom Habitat Stability? 

Remember, Carl said “...it ain’t just about learning . . . It’s about com

policies that managers are willing to commit to in order to benefit the resources!

Let’s Consider the Continued MLFF Options – Opti
Considering Historical Perspective and Recent Res

Evaluating Stable Flows vs. Mechanical Removal and WarmingWhat to do in the next 5-year phase (Phase V)?MLFF Under the Range of Upper Basin Hydrologic Cycle There is some chanc

Native Fishes response below GCD is dominated by Upper Basin Hydrology (cy

& dry/warm) once interactions with exotics are limited (through use of MR or olimiting their success). Perhaps flow stability should only be added to the Forw(our most costly treatment) after a sustained monitoring period under MLFF+MEvent? If no recruitment occurs by 2011, then a combination of stable flows, M(with operation of a SWS) could be the next step in the Forward Titration turne

We Should Recognize that In 5 More Years, Our Expwill be 20-years old!

What About Option #2 (add Stable Fall Flows)
SWS Could Allow Factorial Design w/ Decade Scale 

IMPLEMENT TREATMENT TREATMENT NOT IMPL

WY2013, [?,?] Amended MLFF? Perhaps Stop EXP MR? Action [++,++] WY2012, [?,?] Amended MLFF? Experimental Fish Removal Management [++,++] 

Experimental Fish Removal Through [++,++] 

*WY2011, decision MLFF ? Added) [?,?]

WY2010, [?,?] MLFF only Might be Experimental Fish Removal Extended [++,++] 

WY2009, [?,?] MLFF only Sand Bars Experimental Fish Removal Regime [++,++] 

WY2008, [?,?] MLFF only Tests for Experimental Fish Removal Warm Thermal [++,++] 

WY2007, [?,?] MLFF only (Ramping Experimental Fish Removal SWS Built? [++,++] 

??

*WY2006, decision MLFF+Fall Testing Experimental Fish Removal [++,++] [?,?]

[+

MLFF+EXP FF+Fall Experimental Fish Removal [++,++] Testing WY2005, [?,?]

WY2004, [?,0] MLFF+EXP FF Experimental Fish Removal [+,+] [-WY2003, [?,-] MLFF+EXP FF Experimental Fish Removal [+,+] [-

WY2002, [?,-] MLFF only No Exotic Control [0,0] [-WY2001, [?,+] MLFF only No Exotic Control [0,0] [+

WY2000, [+,+] MLFF+LSSF+HMF No Exotic Control [0,+] [-

WY1999, [+,+] MLFF only No Exotic Control [0,0] [+

WY1998, [+,+] MLFF+HMF No Exotic Control [0,0] [+

B

B

(Pa

Rela

Naturally Varied 

Temperature

(Relative to August Average 

at GCD, RM61)

[+, 0, -]

Mechanical

Removal of Rainbow Trout in 

GC

(with Progressive 

Optimization)

Dominant Dam 

Operation

(with Seasonal Variants 

Toward “Designer 

Flows,” but All Within 

ROD)

Water Year, w/

HBC & RBT 

Recruitment 

Success

[+ or -]
Other Options for Experimental Flows 2007-201

MINI EXPERIMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION

–

Ramping & Daily Range versus Beach Stability, etc.Alternative Operations for “Trout Suppression”Influence of Expanded Daily Variability on Food Base Associated Aquatic Resources, etc.All Options are Being Discussed/Considered in SPG aOngoing Conversations with SA’s and Cooperating S

What About Stakeholder Suggested Modifications of t

GCMRC’s Recommended Options (#1 or #2)

(add Relaxed Winter Fluctuating Flows, Stranding Flo

Altered Ramping Rates, etc.)