Long-Term Experimental Plan Ad Hoc Meeting 

September 14, 2004 

BIA Conference Room A 

Phoenix, Arizona 

Attendees: M Barger, N Henderson, J Lovich, D Garrett, P Garrett, G Burton, T Melis, H 

Fairley, C Kincaid, M Liszewski, G Knowles, D Kubly 

Action: Present results of meeting to TWG Sep 27-28 

I. Review of hybrid design and interpretations 

II. Identify management actions and treatments that would be included in the 

design (brainstorming level): 

a. Mechanical Removal as conducted at present and a research and 

development of new approaches to mechanical removal, including 

mainstream and tributaries 

b. Warming of water with a TCD no earlier than 2007 

c. Dam releases 

1. High probability of 8.23 years in near future (5-7 yrs) 

2.

d. HBC translocations and augmentation 

e. Sediment and turbidity augmentation 

f. HBC habitat enhancement in LCR 

g. Fish disease and parasite control measures 

h. Vegetation removal (ongoing by NPS in FY 04) 

i. Repatriation of native species 

j. Transgenic fish 

k. Biocontrol (related to g and j) 

III. Known and unknown effects: example evaluation professional opinions of 

attendees

a. Mechanical removal 

Actions and Treatments 

 Mech Removal TCD Dam 

Releases 

Chub 

Augment 

Sed/Turbidity

Trout Reduces #s 

(both) and size 

structure (RBT 

only) locally & 

temporarily 

 

Native Fish U; need R&D 

on capture & 

effects 

 

HBC U; need R&D 
on ms capture 

& effects 

Non-native fish Reduce #s of 

carp; need 

R&D 

 

Recreation U 

Cultural Known TCP 

neg; mitigated 

 

Socioeconomic U; anecdotal 

information on 

negative 

 

Sediment K; no effect 

Hydropower K; no effect 

Terrestrial 

Resources 

U; bird food 

base?? 

 

Actions and Treatments 

 Parasite 

Control 

Repatriation Veg 

Removal 

Biocontrol Transgenic 

Fish 

Trout 

Native Fish 

HBC 

Non-native 

fish 

 

Recreation 

Cultural 

Socioeconomic 

Sediment 

Hydropower 

Terrestrial 

Resources 

 

IV. Criteria for Assessment of “Known Effects” and “Unknown Effects” 

a. Quality of Information (expert opinion, agency reports, peer-reviewed 

journal; need to establish hierarchy of acceptance for sources of 

information) 

b. Quantity of information (has experiment been done more than once; same 

results if so?) 

c. Level of risk to resource; if risk is high, consider carefully; opportunity 

cost 

d. Cost of implementing action (short-term and long-term; relate to risk) 

e. Evidence exists for Grand Canyon vs. evidence exists for other 

comparable systems 
f. Has a knowledge assessment been done for this interaction (cause and 

effect relationship) 

V. Process and Schedule 

a. Define actions and treatments—Begun 9/14/04; continue at TWG meeting 

Sep 27-28, finish by Oct 20—LTEP Ad Hoc, GCMRC, TWG, 

Professional experts 

b. Establish criteria for known and unknown effects—December 2004—

LTEP Ad Hoc, GCMRC, TWG 

c. Knowledge assessment—February 2005—GCMRC, Cooperating 

Scientists 

What is it? Aggregation of information gathered from studies in Grand 

Canyon and on other related systems 

d. Conduct workshop—March 2005—GCMRC, LTEP Ad Hoc 

Process: GCMRC will produce a synthetic (but brief) document 

(c:knowledge assessment) of the proposed actions/treatments and their 

effects prior to the workshop; they will provide presentations and be 

available to respond to questions on the assessment; the criteria will then 

be applied to the actions/treatments by workshop participants, who include 

subject matter experts (scientists and managers), experimental design 

experts, and biostatisticians, to determine whether actions/treatments 

belong in the known effects or unknown effects category; following this 

determination workshop participants will provide input to GCMRC on the 

selection of experiments and the design of those experiments. 

Purpose: Evaluate knowns and unknowns; provide input to GCMRC for 

development of the LTEP at level of defining treatments 

e. TWG Update and Input—May 2005 

f. Draft plan—July 2005—AMWG review—GCMRC 

g. Science advisor risk assessment—October 2005 

h. TWG Review—November 2005 

i. Finalize plan—December 2005—AMWG review—GCMRC 

j. Recommendation to Secretary—January 2006—AMWG 

k. Begin compliance if DOI accepts—January 2006—Action agencies