1

Whetton, Linda A

From: Whetton, Linda A

Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 11:03 AM

To: 'Balsom, Jan'; 'Barger, Mary'; 'Barrett, Clifford'; 'Bulletts, Charley'; 'Caramanian, Lori'; 'Castle, 

Anne'; 'Christensen, Kerry'; 'Cox, Jerry'; 'Davis, William E.'; 'Dongoske, Kurt'; 'Downer, Alan'; 

'Ellsworth, Craig'; 'Halliday, John'; 'Harms, Paul'; 'Harris, Christopher S.'; Heffernan, Beverley; 

'Heuslein, Amy'; 'Hughes, Chris'; 'Joe, Tony'; 'Johnson, Rick'; 'Kartha, Vineetha'; 'Kearns, 

Leanette'; 'King, Robert'; Knowles, Glen W; 'Kowalski, Ted'; 'Kubly, Dennis'; 'LaGory, Kirk'; 

'Lash, Nikolai'; 'Myers, Gerald'; 'Orton, Mary'; 'Palmer, Clayton'; 'Peterson, McClain'; 'Rozelle, 

Marty'; 'Schill, Chris'; 'Shields, John W.'; 'Stevens, Larry'; 'Stewart, Bill'; Waldron, Keith A; 

'Yeatts, Michael'; 'Anderson, Mark'; 'Bair, Janet'; 'Benemelis, Perri'; 'Bennion, David'; 'Cantley, 

Garry'; 'Capron, Shane'; 'Chaudhry, Todd'; 'Cole, Jeff'; Crawford, Marianne; 'Dahl, Kevin'; 

'Erlandsen, Evelyn'; 'Fitzpatrick, Lesley'; 'Jackson-Kelly, Loretta'; 'James, Leslie'; 'Jansen, 

Sam'; 'Jordan, John'; 'Makinster, Andy'; 'Morel, James'; 'Ostler, Don'; 'Seaholm, Randy'; 

'Skrzynski, LeAnn'; 'Thiriot, James'; 'Trubee, Meghan'; 'Van Haverbeke, Randy'

Cc: 'Davis, Phil'; 'Fairley, Helen'; 'Garrett, David'; 'Grams, Paul'; 'Mankiller, Serena'; 'Melis, Ted'; 

'Pistorius, Shelley'; 'Schmidt, John "Jack"'; 'Sogge, Mark'; 'Vanderkooi, Scott'; 'Brindle, Todd'; 

'Carter, John'; 'Dickinson, William'; 'Healy, Brian'; 'Kyriss, LaVerne'; 'Moore, Bruce'; 'Nimkin, 

David'; 'Pellegrino, Colby'; 'Shanahan, Seth'; 'Swan, William'; 'Wegner, David'

Subject: FW: BAHG Budget Issues for TWG

Attachments: FY13-14 BWP TWG prep final draft.doc

Importance: High

See Shane’s message below. Safe travels for next week.

From: Shane Capron [mailto:Capron@wapa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 8:16 AM 

To: Whetton, Linda A 

Cc: Caramanian, Lori; leanette@maryorton.com; Mary Orton; M3Research@starband.net; Knowles, Glen W; Jack 

Schmidt 

Subject: BAHG Budget Issues for TWG 

Linda, 

Please forward the following document to the TWG for our upcoming meeting and discussion of the budget, also post to 

the TWG web site. Many thanks to Mary Orton and Leanette Kearns for assisting us in putting this together, and to the 

BAHG for engaging in the budget discussion and doing their best to bring comments forward during this process. Also, I 

want to thank GCMRC and Reclamation for taking the time to engage with the BAHG and responding to comments and 

being very helpful in describing the workplan to us. 

 

In my review of the budget I felt that GCMRC made a number of advances that we should note. First, there is a level of 

discussion in the workplan that we haven't seen before, a tone that includes education and learning. It assumes we're 

smart people interested in these projects. It describes how GCMRC, cooperators, and others came to these decisions 

about the workplan and the needed research and monitoring. I learned a lot reading this workplan and I found the 

document contained very little "fluff" -- it was packed with excellent writing describing the scientific rationale for 

projects, critical thinking, and most of all a recognition that science isn't perfect and along the way we will make mistakes 

and need to make course corrections. Second, I found the workplan described the important hypotheses which need to 

be tested, a description of how we will test them, and then a discussion about how we will synthesize that information to 

distinguish between those hypotheses. I felt this was a giant leap forward, and gives me confidence that GCMRC is 

approaching these critical questions with a sound scientific approach. There was obviously a lot of critical thinking that 

went into this plan, and it shows. Of course it isn't perfect, and GCMRC is making changes as we go along and may have 

an updated version at the TWG meeting. So I think we should congratulate all of the scientists and staff for such a 
2

tremendous effort - I know this involved many agencies and cooperators, thank you all for the hard work and your 

dedication. 

 

At the TWG I know we will have more issues to consider and will have discussions about the cultural monitoring and 

other new aspects of the program. I look forward to working out these issues with you all. Again, further technical issues 

we can't resolve will go to Lori Caramanian at DOI for their consideration. Policy issues will go to AMWG, if we have any. 

We will be considering a motion to AMWG to recommend that they recommend approval of the budget and will strive 

for consensus on that motion. 

 

Jack's leadership has moved the ball significantly forward at GCMRC -- and I think there is a TWG (adaptive 

management) component that is important as well. Jack, Ted Melis, and myself recently had a discussion about the core 

monitoring plan and how to move forward. I have agreed to do another re-write of the document to bring it up to 

date and remove some of the sections that provide too much detail that is already out of date. I hope to work on that 

with the ad hoc group between our June meeting and October. Beyond that, I see a critical role for TWG to review the 

modified science questions posed by GCMRC in this workplan and help work with GCMRC to develop a monitoring and 

research plan for the next 5 years -- a document that includes a longer vision than the 2 year workplan, that considers 

how we will answer these critical questions over decadal scales and not just single year projects. This will provide 

stakeholder input on those critical science questions and help give direction to GCMRC about the type of information we 

think is important. We can talk more about this at the TWG. I think that Jack is very open to having program documents 

that are more of a collaboration between TWG and GCMRC and I think we should take advantage of this possibility. We 

can talk more at the TWG. 

 

Shane 

 

 

Shane Capron, Fish Biologist 

Western Area Power Administration 

P.O. Box 281213 

Lakewood, Co 80228-8213 

720-962-7259 
GCDAMP FY13-14 Budget and Workplan

Issues to be Addressed at the TWG Meeting, June 20-21, 2012 

This document is intended to help TWG members prepare for the TWG meeting that will be held 

on June 20-21, 2012 in Phoenix, Arizona. It is the result of the work done by TWG and BAHG 

members, and Reclamation and GCMRC staff, to raise and resolve questions and issues with regard 

to the draft Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program FY13-14 Budget and Workplan.

The resolved issues are placed toward the end of this document so that all TWG members can 

understand the resolved issues. These will not need to be discussed again at the TWG meeting.

Note: The page numbers below are in reference to the PDF document’s page numbers, NOT the page numbers printed 

on the document. 

Cultural Resources Comments re: Tribal Meeting held June 6

Mike Yeatts made these comments during the June 7 webinar. They may be raised during the TWG 

meeting.

1. Cultural portions of Reclamation’s workplan were seen as vague. Most felt it was going in 

right directions, but more detail needed.

2. Need to integrate tribes into the projects. Tribes should be active participants.

3. Need to integrate TEK into the workplan more broadly.

4. Continued concern about funding and lack of CPI in participation line items.

Questions and Issues to be Addressed at the TWG Meeting

USGS Budget and Workplan

Project L

1. P. 233: If SAs work on LTEMP has been eliminated, where will that independent review occur?

(Leslie James)

• Jack: This is a question for DOI, not for GCMRC. I understand DOI is developing an 

independent peer review protocol policy. If the SAs are part of that process, I understand 

the SAs budget would be increased by LTEMP funds because it is inappropriate to use AMP 

funds to support LTEMP activities.

• This will be addressed at the TWG meeting for a possible recommendation to AMWG. 

Leslie James and Don Ostler will prepare a proposal for the SAs’ involvement in the 

LTEMP. 

USGS and Reclamation Budget and Workplan

2. Where will the recommendations from the SEAHG be implemented? (Leslie James)

• Shane will ask for update at the TWG meeting from the DOI Interagency team that is 

determining what socioeconomic issues would be addressed under LTEMP. 
AMWG FY13-14 Budget and Workplan 

Issues to be Addressed at the TWG Meeting, June 20-21, 2012

The Mary Orton Company, LLC 2 | Page

3. Given my recent review of other federal work plans in another forum, has the federal salary 

freeze been reflected in the salaries included in this BWP? (Leslie James)

• Will give the answer to this question at the TWG. (Glen Knowles)

Technical Comments

BOR Budget and Workplan:

4. P. 6: Consider changing “Experimental Carryover Funds” to “Experimental Funds” and 

changing “Native Fish Conservation Contingency Fund” to “Native Fish Conservation 

Contingency Fund Carryover”. Rationale: the experimental fund is an annual fund, when it 

carries over it goes to the native fish line. (Shane Capron)

5. P. 12: Recommend that until the POAHG has a specific work plan recommendation with 

deliverables, that this activity be reduced, with the funding potentially provided to have a 

synthesis of the Knowledge Assessment workshops completed this year. (Leslie James)

• Sam will have a POAHG meeting ASAP and will recommend a budget. (Glen Knowles)

• SAs agree there is a need for a Knowledge Assessment document; could be internal working 

document. At least at standard of last Knowledge Assessment document. (Dave Garrett)

• We need finalized, published product under USGS imprimatur. (Shane Capron)

USGS Budget and Workplan: 

Project A

6. P. 57: Project A.4 may be of immediate concern to GCDAMP, especially with the HFE 

implementation looming in the horizon. Recommend that project should be funded. (Vineetha 

Kartha)

• If funding for this project has not been identified by the time of the TWG meeting, it may 

need to be discussed then.

Project C

7. P. 96: Clarifying question: please clarify the statement “Equalization resulted in the evacuation 

of cold water from deep portions of the reservoir. These unusual conditions resulted in the 

warmest release temperatures since 2005, reaching 15.2o

C on November 12, 2011, in spite of 

higher reservoir elevations.” (Shane Capron)

Project F

8. P. 132: F.1, Question – It looks like only one annual trip is being planned, please clarify one trip 

or two and why only one trip is needed now when we used to conduct two and AGFD has 

provided rational for two in past discussions? (Shane Capron)

9. P. 135: F.4.3 – We had been promised by FWS and GCMRC a Chute Falls translocation plan 

before the next budget cycle. It appears that document has not been prepared and no mention 

of it is in the description. Please clarify when we can expect to see a Chute Falls translocation 

plan? We believe it is important to understand the goals of the project, methods, research plan, 

important results to date, rationale for continuing it, etc. The second to last sentence on next 

page talks about a peer review, that would be helpful as well but we think a draft translocation 

plan would be a good starting point. (Shane Capron)
AMWG FY13-14 Budget and Workplan 

Issues to be Addressed at the TWG Meeting, June 20-21, 2012

The Mary Orton Company, LLC 3 | Page

10. P. 138: F.7.1 – This sentence doesn’t seem to fit together: “Monitoring will focus on midday 

collections because drift rates tend to be more variable, but higher, during nighttime hours. 

Seven samples will be collected every six weeks from each location.” Is it important to sample 

midday because of variability, or better at night? (Shane Capron)

Project J

11. P. 198: On the bottom of the page this research question is highlighted, “Therefore, a key 

research question that needs to be resolved is not whether cultural sites are eroding or otherwise 

changing but whether they are eroding or changing faster or in a significantly different manner 

than they would if the dam were not present or was operated differently than it has been up until 

now.” – Question, is this the right question? I understand the part that we want to understand if 

the dam was operated differently, but is it appropriate to have the larger question, if the dam 

were not present? (Shane Capron)

Project L

12. P. 233: Table, in the line starting “Participation in phone calls...” 50% should be changed to 5%.

(Shane Capron)

General

13. There are a lot of river trips identified in this work plan. I would like to see a table of proposed 

projects time of year when these trips would take place. Do we have the logistical support to 

conduct all this work especially if non-native control takes place? (Bill Stewart)

• I have passed this on to Fritz (in charge of logistics). We do not have an answer yet, but we 

are developing an answer. There will be logistical challenges. (Jack Schmidt)

Additional Questions

14. Creel Survey (Bill Stewart)

• Bill referenced his memo that was sent to all TWG and BAHG members. Historically, 

AGFD has funded a creel survey at Lees Ferry. Due to recent budget cuts, they can no 

longer fund it annually, and there will be no surveys in FY13-14. These surveys are 

important because we obtain data we cannot obtain with electrofishing. We see the larger 

fish caught by anglers that are not as vulnerable to electrofishing. We also see what is being 

harvested, and can assess how management recommendations are affecting the fishery.

Proposal: Maintain the annual creel survey at $25K per year for FY13-14. 

In answer to a question about how AGFD decides on priorities, Bill said the Regional staff 

made this call based on tighter budgets and other bodies of water (e.g., Lake Mary) that have 

higher visitation rates. 

Bill concluded by saying that the 2009 PEP panel recommended maintaining the survey. 

• I support the proposal. Continuity is important. We have had other examples along the river 

where there was discontinuity in surveying, which led to a void of information when the data 
AMWG FY13-14 Budget and Workplan 

Issues to be Addressed at the TWG Meeting, June 20-21, 2012

The Mary Orton Company, LLC 4 | Page

collection was re-established. He noted that it seems like small amount of money. (John 

Jordan)

Resolved Questions and Issues

The following questions and issues were resolved during the webinars and so will not be raised again 

at the TWG meeting

USGS Budget and Workplan

Jack Schmidt requested that everyone read pages 32-38 of the budget document. These are 

introductory comments that outline the philosophy of how the projects fit together, how they 

address key science questions, and how they address Desired Future Conditions.

Project A

15. P. 49-55: How is Project A.1 different from Project A.2 ? (Vineetha Kartha)

• Project A.1 is sandbar and camping beach monitoring. This is the continuation of the longterm monitoring of sandbar study sites, traditional surveying from Lees Ferry to mile 275, 

using air photos. This project used to be part of the GIS and remote sensing project. 

Project A.2 is sediment storage monitoring. Its purpose is monitoring the sand in storage in 

the system that goes to build sandbars when we have high flows. It will help to determine 

what is causing the decline of sediment in the system. The sites are deep pools and eddies, 

which are not monitored in A.1. (Paul Grams)

• This project is fueled by Project B, which is determining how much sediment goes into and 

leaves the Grand Canyon. It tells us what is available to be stored on the river when HFEs 

are triggered, not under a rapid response paradigm. This sediment is the fuel for the high 

flow sediment that will be used to rebuild sandbars. Project A.2 provides mapping and 

quantification of how much sand is on the bed of the river. This is the “foundation of the 

house” on which the camping beaches and backwater habitats are built. A.1 quantifies what 

sticks out of the river: beaches and riparian habitat. Focus of A.1 is to understand the net 

effect of the HFE program. We have uncertainties about whether we can blindly extrapolate 

the NAU time series to describe the situation in the river; this project should address this 

uncertainty. (Jack Schmidt)

16. P. 57: Is Project A.4 related to Project A.2.2? (Vineetha Kartha)

• A.2.2 is grouped with A.2 because as part of the sediment storage monitoring described 

above (foundation of sand storage), it is essential to know we are monitoring sand as 

opposed to changes in gravel. When we are mapping the bed of the river, we need to 

distinguish between textures: sand, boulders, etc. A.2 is improving our methods through 

automation and other improvements. Project A.2.2 is mapping whether it is sand or gravel, 

and determining the grain size of sand (which is important for our ability to build sandbars). 
AMWG FY13-14 Budget and Workplan 

Issues to be Addressed at the TWG Meeting, June 20-21, 2012

The Mary Orton Company, LLC 5 | Page

Project A.4 is research – improving our understanding of the grain size of the sand in the 

system, aerial coverage of sand, and how that interacts with the flow to result in the 

observed concentration of suspended sand in the water. The fundamental science question is 

the relationship between the sediment on the bed of river, how it becomes entrained into the 

flow, how it becomes suspended concentration, is carried downstream, and builds sandbars. 

This is not a monitoring project; it is improving our ability to predict grain size and amount 

based on suspended sediment concentrations. (Paul Grams)

• The bottom line is we are trying to maintain resource of sand and mud in a river with severe 

sediment deficit. We want to realize all the benefits from all the sediment from the Paria. 

These are our efforts to understand the linkages between how much sediment is in the bed 

of river, and what controls how much sediment can become part of eddy sandbars. This is 

basic research. Dave Rubin is lead on A.4. He is one of the intellectual leaders of our science 

in Grand Canyon.

A.4 is critical to understanding HFEs and for implementing the HFE protocol, but it is not 

funded, because we have prioritized monitoring over research. I am doing my best to find 

funding for this project and think we will be able to do it. (Jack Schmidt)

17. In determining the foundation, there are surface and volume measurements. Is the variability for 

the surface area on the bed greater than the variability in determining depth of the deposit? 

(Dave Garrett)

• Sand area is less variable, we believe, than the volume. However, we do not have enough 

data to prove this. (Paul Grams)

Project D

18. P. 102: Unclear exactly what is being proposed under project D. Proposed work shows 4 

projects, while budgets only shows 3 proposals (Bill Stewart)

• We will correct this a numbering error in the next iteration of the budget. There are two 

elements to this project: D1 and D2. D2 has two sub-elements – 2.1 and 2.2. (Scott 

Vanderkooi)

Project F

19. P. 132-143: Budgets for project F do not appear to align with budget table on page 143. (Bill 

Stewart)

• We will correct this typographical error in the next iteration of the budget. The correct 

number for F4 is $833,000. The totals are correct; however, the numbers do not align 

because we had merged some projects. Each of the elements will have separate budget in the 

revision. (Jack Schmidt)

Project H

20. P. 160: How does Project H.2.2 yield data that is different from certain projects identified in F?

(Vineetha Kartha)
AMWG FY13-14 Budget and Workplan 

Issues to be Addressed at the TWG Meeting, June 20-21, 2012

The Mary Orton Company, LLC 6 | Page

• Project F.7 is a continuation of the existing foodbase monitoring program. H.2.2 is a 

research approach to foodbase monitoring. The difference is that F.7 is monitoring changes 

in invertebrate drift over time, but only at two sites: Glen Canyon and Diamond Creek. 

Project H.2.2 proposes adding more spatial resolution to understand how invertebrate drift 

changes over space. The temporal data is important for monitoring the effects of HFEs on 

the foodbase, but it does not show how the situation changes over the river. Project H.2.2 

will give us more spatial information which, in combination with the temporal data, will 

improve our understanding of how food availability influences fish distribution, feeding 

habits, and growth. (Scott Vanderkooi)

21. P. 162: How does Project H.4 further the goals of the GCDAMP or the DFCs? (Vineetha 

Kartha)

• This helps us put the tailwater fishery and conditions in Glen Canyon in the context of other 

river systems. In addition, it will provide opportunities for collaborative work with other 

scientists in other river systems. We will share ideas for collecting data and learn from their 

successes and failures. This also may provide opportunities to conduct experiments we 

cannot do in Grand Canyon, such as TCD in other systems. The project will provide the 

opportunity to further the goals of AMP, particularly those of aquatic ecology and fisheries. 

(Scott Vanderkooi)

Technical Comments

BOR Budget and Workplan:

22. P. 28: Given the most recent schedule for the LTEMP, is funding ($10K) necessary in FY 13 to 

“implement the LTEMP”? (Leslie James)

• The cultural program implementation budget is still an early draft. There is a lot of 

uncertainty on this line. Depending on NHPA needs, we may need these funds. We will have 

some key discussions, including with tribes, before making decisions on this. (Glen 

Knowles)

• Perhaps you could describe it as planning instead of implementation. (Leslie James)

• Perhaps it could be used for Section 106 compliance. (Mike Yeatts)

USGS Budget and Workplan: 

Project A

23. Given my recent review of other federal work plans in another forum, has the federal salary 

freeze been reflected in the salaries included in this BWP? (Leslie James)

• For GCMRC, the FY13 salaries are flat; the freeze is incorporated. FY14 included a 3% 

increase. (Scott Vanderkooi)

24. P. 40: Project A needs to have a stronger correlation with other GCDAMP resources as 

identified in the DFCs (in addition to maintenance of camping beaches); nearshore habitats for 

native fish, marsh and riparian habitat for fish and cultural resource preservation. (Vineetha 

Kartha)
AMWG FY13-14 Budget and Workplan 

Issues to be Addressed at the TWG Meeting, June 20-21, 2012

The Mary Orton Company, LLC 7 | Page

• Excellent question. Chapter 2, page 33, I tried to address how projects fit with broader AMP 

resources. I tried to express how these link back to resources. See chapter 2 (starting page 

34) for the questions we are attempting to answer. (Jack Schmidt)

25. In adaptive management, stakeholders usually develop the questions. Here, the science 

community has crafted the questions. (Dave Garrett)

• I believe I have helped stakeholders clarify their questions. We are the scientific experts; we 

think it is our responsibility to help guide the stakeholders as if we were a team. If 

stakeholders think we are giving short shrift to their fundamental questions and goals, we 

want to hear that so we can revise and adapt our program. (Jack Schmidt)

• This budget is a great step forward in level and detail of science. The process we used in the 

past to ensure the science program and the stakeholder questions were aligned was the 

Monitoring and Research Plan, which collaboratively developed the questions to be 

answered. It will be critical in the next year or two to step back, take all the great work you 

have done, develop it into an MRP. This way, we ensure buy-in for these questions and the 

work that needs to be done. (Shane Capron)

26. P. 52: Project A.1.3 seems like a project that is better assimilated/absorbed into other projects 

rather than a standalone project. It also does not seem of immediate concern for GCDAMP 

purposes. (Vineetha Kartha)

• It could be argued this project could be part of A.1.1. However, I chose to highlight it as 

separate element because it is in addition to the basic monitoring. It is important because 

when the data we have now are from the NAU time series of sandbar monitoring: we have a 

line and the median sandbar volume. However, there is more to a good camping beach than 

this. This project will aid in the development of additional metrics beyond area and volume. 

(Paul Grams)

Project B

27. P. 74: Project B needs to have stronger correlation with other resources as well, especially effects 

on fish populations, and habitat. (Vineetha Kartha)

• We will edit the project description to make this clearer. (Jack Schmidt)

Project D

28. We advise including language to indicate that the methodologies used to obtain population 

estimates within the aggregations may be expected to adaptively change contingent upon annual 

results obtained, and thus, there are a large number of logistical uncertainties that could dictate 

exactly what approaches/strategies may ultimately be used (i.e., when, where, and how) to refine 

population estimation in the aggregates. (Janet Bair)

• We agree and will edit the language to reflect this. We view this as an experiment, and 

we are looking to learn from it such that a robust method to monitor this population 

segment can be developed and implemented. (Scott Vanderkooi)

29. P.102: Project D has become multi-faceted, and as such, there are potential issues of overhandling fish, and permits that will need to be obtained for the taking of YOY fish for otolith 
AMWG FY13-14 Budget and Workplan 

Issues to be Addressed at the TWG Meeting, June 20-21, 2012

The Mary Orton Company, LLC 8 | Page

studies. Also, there is little clarification on what parties (agency personnel) will be responsible for 

what trips, and what the full justifications are for running an annual July trip. These details 

should be assessed and clarified at this stage of proposal development. (Janet Bair)

• We are concerned about over-handling, too. This draft represents a considerable change 

from the original, based on comments from FWS, NPS, and AGFD. We have proposed to 

minimize handling by reducing the use of trammel nets, and using hoop nets as much as 

possible – these are less stressful for the fish. In addition, we propose trammel nets will not 

be used when water temperature is above 16 degrees C (based on recent research). This is a 

conservative approach. 

In addition, we propose ending sampling at Lava Chuar and Stephen Aisle, and half the 

remaining aggregations would be sampled only every other year.

This proposal will increase sampling only for a couple of years. The idea is to come up with 

more robust methods for assessing these aggregations, and then reduce sampling to a level 

dictated by the new method.

We are aware of the need for additional permitting, particularly for YOY humpback chub. 

There has been general agreement among fisheries scientists from cooperating agencies that 

the limited take of YOY is acceptable, based on the increased information we will obtain. In 

addition, any unintentional mortality will be taken advantage of, as always. Fin rays have 

some potential as a non-lethal alternative, but the scientist we work with on otoliths feels it is 

unlikely to work well, and that otoliths are the best way to obtain the data. 

Justification for the July trip – The humpback chub population in Grand Canyon has been 

increasing over the last decade and it is likely that this increase has included an expansion of 

range beyond the identified aggregations. Determining if this has occurred seems particularly 

relevant given concerns expressed in the December 2011 Biological Opinion over the 

concentration of most humpback chub in Grand Canyon in and around the Little Colorado 

River. The last system-wide surveys of humpback chub occurred in the early to mid-1990s. 

We believe the addition of a system-wide survey is timely, as it will help determine the degree 

to which recent population increases have influenced the distribution of this species, help 

clarify the location and range of specific aggregations, and identify new areas that may have 

been colonized.

Regarding the comment requesting clarification of agency personnel responsible for what 

trips: This aggregation work has been a good collaborative project with FWS and USGS, and 

we intend that to continue. Roles and responsibilities will be assigned through mutual 

agreement. We will work with FWS on this. We see this as valuable collaboration. (Scott 

Vanderkooi)

Project E

30. P. 115: We appreciate some references to the KA workshops. (Leslie James)

• No response necessary.
AMWG FY13-14 Budget and Workplan 

Issues to be Addressed at the TWG Meeting, June 20-21, 2012

The Mary Orton Company, LLC 9 | Page

31. P. 119: Project Element E.1 July Little Colorado Marking: Overhandling of adult fish in the 

LCR: If hoopnets are to be deployed river-wide during July, this will involve a large by-catch of 

adult fish. It should be recognized that many of these fish will have been handled once already 

because of the primary mark-recapture activities conducted in April and May (Projects F.4.1 and 

F.4.2). Are these by-catch fish to be immediately released, or will they be processed? (Janet Bair)

• We, too, are concerned about affecting these fish negatively. We intend to handle any fish 

captured with utmost care, following standard methods agreed to for handling fish in Grand 

Canyon. During the summer months, any fish handled will be held in buckets with bubblers, 

and kept in the shade. We may also add salt to the water to help minimize osmotic stress. 

Initially, we plan to collect length data and scan for PIT tags for these fish. However, we will 

look to minimize any handling and release immediately if there are signs of stress. We have 

not done a lot of work this time of year; we will carefully monitor how it goes. (Scott 

Vanderkooi)

32. P. 119: July seems too early for initiating a river wide VIE marking effort. In July, most of the 

age-0 cohort will be very small (barely approaching ~50-60 mm at maximum, with the majority 

of the cohort still at <40 mm, or too small to capture in the hoopnets and VIE tag). This is why 

USFWS waits until September/October to conduct a river-wide VIE marking effort of the age-0 

cohort. Even by September, many fish are barely >40-50 mm, but most are approaching ~80 

mm. The larger the age-0 cohort is, the less mortality should be suffered from VIE tagging. So, 

we are not convinced of the necessity or prospects for success for a July VIE marking event. It 

would seem to put additional handling stress upon larger size classes of fish, but yield minimal 

results for the objective of the project, that is VIE tagging the age-0 cohort. (Janet Bair)

• The objective of this project is to estimate growth, survival, and movement of juvenile HBC 

in the LCR. Past data suggests there will be enough fish of the appropriate size to tag 

(showed a chart to document this). Preliminary work during the NSE project (2009-2011)

found they were able to capture substantial numbers of VIE-taggable sized fish (>40 mm) in 

July. We are looking to tag only a moderate sample size to address the question of when they 

move from the LCR and the role of monsoon floods. The key reason to do it in July is to see 

the effects of the monsoon. We would miss this if we wait until the fall. 

Jack: See Section 3.1 of this proposal, which describes the hypotheses and the management 

implications of whether the monsoon floods drive the populations. (Scott Vanderkooi)

33. P. 119: A July marking event could feasibly be expected to result in logistical overlap with the 

USFWS effort in July to collect age-1 fish for translocation to Chute Falls (and USFWS and NPS 

collection of the few age-0 fish that are available at that time of year for transport to Dexter). 

Moreover, since USFWS VIE marks riverwide in September and October, this will necessitate 

coordinating VIE tagging localities and colors so that we are able to run a mark-recap without 

confounding tagging occurring in July. (Janet Bair)

• We agree that coordination will be necessary and we intend to do this. We will also take 

advantage of existing trips and logistics, and minimize the number of helicopter flights. We 

have started doing this in our planning. 
AMWG FY13-14 Budget and Workplan 

Issues to be Addressed at the TWG Meeting, June 20-21, 2012

The Mary Orton Company, LLC 10 | Page

Regarding VIE tags, we agree. This has to be coordinated throughout the Colorado River 

ecosystem. GCMRC has developed a location and coloring scheme that would 

accommodate all proposed VIE marking for the next 6 years. (Scott Vanderkooi)

34. P. 119: The July project will rely upon the same equipment traditionally used for the fall markrecapture effort. We are concerned with the potential for overuse and/or damage of equipment 

used at the Boulders, Coyote, and Salt camp during the summer months and how this may 

adversely affect the fall mark-recapture work. Accordingly, there needs to be a concerted effort 

by July field crews to ensure absolute quality control of all field equipment in anticipation of 

September field efforts, so as not to hamper or jeopardize the fall mark-recapture effort. (Janet 

Bair)

• We agree. Any time we use agency provided equipment, it should be used with care and 

properly maintained. We are using the taxpayer’s dollars to fund this, and we need to be as 

cautious and careful as we can to avoid waste. We also need open communication with all 

parties using the camps at any time of year to make sure, if there are problems with 

equipment, that we communicate it and resolve it. (Scott Vanderkooi)

Project F

35. P. 130: Project F.2.2 Rainbow Trout Early Life Stage Studies (RTELSS). This project is a level 

of scale and not sure if this is something that is needed annually. Changes in trout recruitment 

are detected during the standard Lees Ferry fall monitoring just not as instantaneous as 

(RTELSS). From the 2009 fish PEP recommendation:

“Monitoring age-0 trout habitat use and movement is not routinely needed because the electrofishing survey provides a direct index of pre-recruit trout density. Similarly, redd counts are not 

needed because the electro-fishing survey provides a direct index of adult trout density. This 

program’s strength is in evaluating the impacts of flow manipulations on early life history, and 

could be reinstated to for specific flow tests.”

Perhaps during HFE years BOR carryover funds could support this project. If funding were 

available, it would be good to fund this. (Bill Stewart)

• You are correct. The greatest value of this project is the quick means of evaluating effects of 

the various flows and flow regimes. HFEs are one example of those. This project also 

applies to flow-related efforts to manage trout population in Glen Canyon. This needs to be 

funded if those flows are going to happen. We propose to fund it from AMP funds in the 

current budget. (Scott Vanderkooi)

Project H

36. P. 157: Project element H.1. AZGFD would need to know where this will be done due to recent 

whirling disease detection. (Bill Stewart)

• You are correct. We will keep you posted. (Scott Vanderkooi)

• This is one of the components of the MOA for live removal of the trout. It would be good 

to start discussions with tribes right away to look at other options as necessary. (Mike Yeatts)

o We have been having discussions internally. This is new information and we are 

trying to determine what direction we are taking. We will move quickly to set up 
AMWG FY13-14 Budget and Workplan 

Issues to be Addressed at the TWG Meeting, June 20-21, 2012

The Mary Orton Company, LLC 11 | Page

tribal consultation meetings if this will change the live removal of trout. (Glen 

Knowles)

37. P. 157: Project element H.1. AZGFD would need to know where this will be done due to recent 

whirling disease detection. (Bill Stewart)

• You are correct. We will keep you posted. (Scott Vanderkooi)

• This is one of the components of the MOA for live removal of the trout. It would be good 

to start discussions with tribes right away to look at other options as necessary. (Mike Yeatts)

o We have been having discussions internally. This is new information and we are 

trying to determine what direction we are taking. We will move quickly to set up 

tribal consultation meetings if this will change the live removal of trout. (Glen 

Knowles)

Policy Comments

38. During development of the DFCs, there was quite a bit of discussion about the 2004 priority 

questions. It is my understanding that there was generally consensus that these are “out of 

date”. I would suggest that they continue to remain as a reference point, but should not be key 

drivers (as should the DFCs) in the BWP process. For example, “why are the HBC not 

thriving”? could be reframed as “what is causing the population increase in HBC and what 

should we do to maintain and increase that level?” Two very different approaches and 

interpretations. (Leslie James)

• AMWG needs to make a policy call on this and acknowledge that the 2004 priorities have 

been replaced by the DOI priorities and DFCs, or not. Shane intends to suggest during his 

TWG chair report at the AMWG meeting that AMWG clarify the relationship between 2004 

priorities, the 2011 DOI priroitity, the DFCs, and the 12 goal in the strategic plan. (Shane

Capron)

Additional Questions

39. Can Scott explain the Rainbow Trout Bioenergetics Model? (Vineetha Kartha)

• These models are the biological analog to the sediment mass-balance models that Dave 

Topping does. We are quantifying energetics – is the food the fish eat adequate to support all 

the things an animal needs to stay alive? They need energy for basic life processes (e.g., 

respiration, pumping blood, digestion), for activity (e.g., finding food, avoiding predators), 

and for growth both in terms of size and production of gametes. These types of models are a 

quantitative way of looking at that. We propose to develop a model for RBT in Glen 

Canyon, and look at how biological and environmental factors influence the growth 

potential of RBT. We will include water velocity, temperature, and competition. This is 

important in helping us understand why the prevalence of the big trout in Glen Canyon has 

declined from levels observed in the past. Is it possible for them to grow to large sizes under 

today’s conditions?

There are no plans to develop similar model for HBC under this workplan, as one already 

exists for HBC in Grand Canyon. The citation is Petersen and Paukert, Trans. of the Amer. 

Fisheries Soc. 134:960-974, 2005. (Scott Vanderkooi)