Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Agenda Item Information 

January 21, 2010

Agenda Item

Temperature Control Device (TCD) and sediment augmentation 

Action Requested

9 Recommendation to AMWG 

Presenters

Shane Capron and Dennis Kubly 

Previous Action Taken

9 By AMWG: 

August 12-13, 2009 motion: The AMWG recommends to the Secretary of the Interior that 

Reclamation report on the status of the TCD and Sediment Augmentation projects to the TWG. 

The TWG will make a recommendation to the AMWG for consideration at the spring 2010 

AMWG meeting. Motion was passed by consensus

Background Information

Dennis Kubly provided a presentation on TCD and sediment augmentation to the TWG at our 

September 2009 meeting (see presentation). The TWG worked on a motion but could not find a 

solution that had enough support to pass. The major issue seemed to be that there was support for 

continued research on a TCD but that there was much less support for continued work on sediment 

augmentation. Thus, a combine motion was problematic with the group. One solution was to pass a 

motion that dealt with the two issues separately, or separate motions. 

A starting point for conversation may be the following, based on the conversation at the TWG and 

the issues that were brought up (see TWG minutes): 

The TWG recommends that the AMWG consider a recommendation to the Secretary of 

Interior to develop a risk assessment for the implementation of a Temperature Control 

Device and Sediment Augmentation system that considers the following: (a) incorporates a 

TCD design with both warm and cold-water release options and with a combination of 2,4, 

6, and 8 units, (b) considers concerns that new warm-water non-natives might become 

established in the CRE, and (c) considers if the development of a TCD is prudent without 

the ability to increase turbidity of the river. The goals of the action would be to support 

recovery of native fish and to meet the Desired Future Conditions for sediment in the CRE. 

 Page 1 
Selective Withdrawal 

Sediment Augmentation 

Dennis Kubly

Bureau of Reclamation

Technical Work Group Mee

September 30, 2009
AMWG Motion: Augu

AMWG Motion: Augu

 MOTION: MOTION: The AMWG recomm

The AMWG recomm

Secretary of the Interior that Reclam

Secretary of the Interior that Reclam

on the status of the TCD and Sedim

on the status of the TCD and Sedim

Augmentation projects to the TWG

Augmentation projects to the TWG

will make a recommendation to the 

will make a recommendation to the 

consideration at the spring 2010 AM

consideration at the spring 2010 AM

meeting. meeting.

 Motion was passed by consensus. Motion was passed by consensus.

RE
Water Temperature: History 

Water Temperature: History 

1978 Jeopardy Biological Opin

1978 Jeopardy Biological Opin

“It is our opinion that the major reason 

It is our opinion that the major reason 

of both listed fish species (Colorado squ

of both listed fish species (Colorado squ

humpback chub) in this reach of the Col

humpback chub) in this reach of the Co

has been the abnormal water conditions 

has been the abnormal water conditions 

from the operation of Glen Canyon Dam

from the operation of Glen Canyon Dam

foremost problem has been the cold, foremost problem has been the cold, hyp

hyp

from Lake Powell. from Lake Powell.

”

RE
Water Temperature: History 

Water Temperature: History 

1995 Jeopardy Biological Opini

1995 Jeopardy Biological Opini

“The preferred alternative (wit The preferred alternative (without a selecti

hout a select

structure) does not remove the issue of cold

structure) does not remove the issue of cold

temperatures on reproductive success in the temperatures on reproductive success in th

thus, most eggs or developing larvae would 

thus, most eggs or developing larvae would 

to survive in the Colorado River below Gle

to survive in the Colorado River below Gle

Dam.

”

“Reclamation shall implement a selective w

Reclamation shall implement a selective w

program for Lake Powell waters and determ

program for Lake Powell waters and determ

using the following guidelines. using the following guidelines.

”

RE
Glen Canyon Dam and Glen Canyon Dam and Po

Po

• Co• 710 • 27 • Eig• 1,3

R

Without S

With Selective Withdrawal
Selective Withdrawal H

Selective Withdrawal H

 1999

—Draft EA completed by Reclamation on sin

Draft EA completed by Reclamation on sin

elevation design; rescinded elevation design; rescinded

 1999 and 2001 1999 and 2001

—Planning workshops; reports to A

Planning workshops; reports to A

 2003

—Reclamation survey of selective withdrawals

Reclamation survey of selective withdrawals

and AMWG recommendation to begin compliance and AMWG recommendation to begin compliance

 2005

—

2

-unit external frame selective wi unit external frame selective withdrawal ev

thdrawal ev

range 3700 range 3700

-3520’ elevation elevation

 2006

—Draft EA for 2 Draft EA for 2

-unit external frame device; d

unit external frame device; d

LTEP

 2007

—LTEP draft alternatives all contain selective 

LTEP draft alternatives all contain selective 

discontinued, reinitiate consultation; Reclamation b

discontinued, reinitiate consultation; Reclamation b

identifies it is feasible to c identifies it is feasible to construct and operate a sel

onstruct and operate a sel

Glen Canyon Dam; testing under adaptive managem

Glen Canyon Dam; testing under adaptive managem

determine effects determine effects

 2008

—LTEP put on hold; 5 LTEP put on hold; 5

-year experiment year experiment initat

initat

Service in biological opinion views selective withdra

Service in biological opinion views selective withdr

advocates for more testing advocates for more testing

RE
Selective Withdrawal Fi

Selective Withdrawal F



2

-unit external frame cost ~$100 million unit external frame cost ~$100 million

 Control available from full reservoir to 3

Control available from full reservoir to 

penstocks (180 penstocks (180’ of reservoir elevation) of reservoir elevation)

 Release temp increase begin late April; ~

Release temp increase begin late April; ~

up to 7 up to 7

°C late summer to early autumn C late summer to early autumn

 Major advantage likely to na Major advantage likely to native fish dis

tive fish dis

tribs, but also to , but also to mainstem mainstem reproduction reproduction

 Concern exists for unintended conseque

Concern exists for unintended conseque

return to cold water; native return to cold water; native vs nonnativ

nonnativ

unlikely to resolve, requires experiments 

unlikely to resolve, requires experiments 

RE
Fine Sediment: History of 

Fine Sediment: History of 

 1978 biological opinion: No concern exp

1978 biological opinion: No concern exp

role of fine sediment in endangered fish 

role of fine sediment in endangered fish 

 1988 GCES Phase I: Concern for flood 

1988 GCES Phase I: Concern for flood 

releases causing significant and irreversib

releases causing significant and irreversib

degradation degradation

...of the sand deposits. of the sand deposits.

 1995 biological opinion: Fine sediment m

1995 biological opinion: Fine sediment m

available for development and maintenan

available for development and maintena

backwaters and other channel margin ha

backwaters and other channel margin ha

 2007 biological opinion: Continued call f

2007 biological opinion: Continued call 

effect of sediment transport on humpba

effect of sediment transport on humpba

habitat. habitat. 

RE
Fine Sediment: Investig

Fine Sediment: Investi

 1995 GCD EIS: Modeling predicted sediment 

1995 GCD EIS: Modeling predicted sediment 

under MLFF. under MLFF.

 1996 BHBF: Yes we can, but only for awhile. 1996 BHBF: Yes we can, but only for awhile. 2002: Rubin et al. EOS 2002: Rubin et al. EOS—The EIS hypothesis i

The EIS hypothesis i

inputs exported in weeks to months. inputs exported in weeks to months.

 2004 BHBF: We do better with sediment trigge

2004 BHBF: We do better with sediment trigge

mixed downriver. mixed downriver.

 2005 SCORE: Research and monitoring conclu

2005 SCORE: Research and monitoring conclu

demonstrate a net loss of fine sediment under M

demonstrate a net loss of fine sediment under M

 2007 Melis et al.: Continued erosion under 199

et al.: Continued erosion under 199

 2008 Wright et al.: Flow only? Short 2008 Wright et al.: Flow only? Short-term yes w

term yes w

constraints on load constraints on load

-following hydropower; long following hydropower; lon

RE
Improving Sediment Cons

Improving Sediment Cons

 One possibility is augmentin One possibility is augmenting the sand a

g the sand a

tributaries with sand trapped behind Gle

tributaries with sand trapped behind Gle

(Randle and others, 2007). (Randle and others, 2007).

 Alternatively, the sand supply might be i

Alternatively, the sand supply might be i

increased through the use of short increased through the use of short-durat

durat

following each average to large tributary 

following each average to large tributary 

(Topping et al. 2006) (Topping et al. 2006)

 Another possibility is constraining dam r

Another possibility is constraining dam r

following tributary sand inputs for a peri

following tributary sand inputs for a per

until a high until a high

-flow release can be carried o

flow release can be carried o

2007), a movement toward the Wright e

2007), a movement toward the Wright e

case scenario. case scenario.

”

RE
Sediment Augmenta

Sediment Augmenta

 Identified in the HBC Comprehens

Identified in the HBC Comprehens

(Project 5) for turbidity control and 

(Project 5) for turbidity control and 

maintenance/restoration maintenance/restoration

 A major consideration is building a

A major consideration is building a

maintenance of beaches for recreat

maintenance of beaches for recreat

 Beaches also serve as substrate for 

Beaches also serve as substrate for 

vegetation, which provides habitat 

vegetation, which provides habitat 

wildlife species wildlife species

RE
Randle and others 2

Randle and others 2

 This appraisal This appraisal-level study provides the necessary in

level study provides the necessary in

facilitate making decisions on whether or not to pro

facilitate making decisions on whether or not to pro

detailed study and evaluation of any alternative. Pur

detailed study and evaluation of any alternative. Pur

augmentation: augmentation:

 1. Seasonally increase the turbidity of the Color

1. Seasonally increase the turbidity of the Color

provide cover for native and endang provide cover for native and endangered fish du

ered fish du

May through December. This is the period whe

May through December. This is the period whe

humpback chub emerge from the Little Colorad

humpback chub emerge from the Little Colorad

rear in the Colorado River (U.S. Department of 

rear in the Colorado River (U.S. Department of 

Bureau of Reclamation, 1995). These native fish 

Bureau of Reclamation, 1995). These native fish 

environment and may use it for environment and may use it for cover from pot

cover from pot

 2. Annually increase the sand su 2. Annually increase the sand supply to the Colo

pply to the Colo

beach

-building flows to build larger building flows to build larger sandbars, e

sandbars, e

Canyon, through fluvial processes. Canyon, through fluvial processes.

RE
Randle and others 2

Randle and others 2

 Assumptions and Objectives: Assumptions and Objectives:

 Turbidity concentration 500 Turbidity concentration 500 ppm silt/

silt/

million tons in 8 months million tons in 8 months

 1 million tons (0.9 million Mg) of san

1 million tons (0.9 million Mg) of san

beach/habitat beach/habitat-building flow. building flow. 

 The total annual sediment supply requ

The total annual sediment supply req

be 4.8 million tons. be 4.8 million tons.

 Augmentation required in most years

Augmentation required in most years

Paria River input River input

RE
Randle and others 2

Randle and others 2

• Sediment source areas (Navajo Cany

Sediment source areas (Navajo Cany

• Sediment delivery locations (below G

Sediment delivery locations (below 

Lee

’s Ferry) s Ferry)

• Sediment collection methods (clams

Sediment collection methods (clams

• Sediment delivery methods and align

Sediment delivery methods and alig

(slurry pipeline) (slurry pipeline)

• Sand storage areas (CR in Glen Can

Sand storage areas (CR in Glen Can

terrestrial site near Lee terrestrial site near Lee

’s Ferry) s Ferry)

RE
Randle and others 2

Randle and others 2

 Conclusions: Technically feasible to 

Conclusions: Technically feasible to 

and operate sediment augmentation

and operate sediment augmentation

alternatives evaluated alternatives evaluated

 Cost Estimates: $140 Cost Estimates: $140

-430 million c

430 million c

$3.6

-17 million annual to operate 17 million annual to operate

 Should be considered in conjunctio

Should be considered in conjunctio

selective withdrawal selective withdrawal

RE