Integrating LTEMP into

GCDAMP Processes1

October 18, 2016

1 This draft presentation was prepared to facilitate the agenda item of the same name. The purpose of the agenda 

in a preliminary conversation about its potential role in the future, when the LTEMP is decided. The presentation 

Preferred Alternative, but because the Secretary of the Interior has not issued a ROD, the presentation is based on 

therefore is for discussion purposes only. The presentation is not a product of the Department of the Interior.
Components of the Process1

1Strategic Plan Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program approved by AMWG on January 17, 2002
Overall Process1,2

1Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide2Strategic Plan Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program approved by AMWG on January 17, 2002
Planning and Implementation Process1

GlossaryAMPSP Strategic PlSSP Strategic Sc

MRP Monitoring 

Research P

AWP Annual Wo

KA Knowledge

Assessmen

SCORE State of the 

River Ecosy

1Strategic Science Plan to Support the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007‐2011 approved by AMWG on A2Monitoring and Research Plan to Support the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, Fiscal Years 2007‐2011 approved by AM
TWG Roles and Responsibilities

• Technical assistance to the AMWG1 enabling the AMWG t

• Advise the Secretary in meeting environmental and cultural com

• Recommend resource management objectives for development 

implementation of a long‐term monitoring plan

• Review and provide input on the annual report to Congress

• Annually review long‐term monitoring data to provide advice on 

resources and whether the DFC’s and AMP Strategic Plan goals 

are being met.

• Monitor and report on all program activities undertaken

1Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Operating Procedures, June 27, 20132Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group Charter, August 24, 2015
TWG Roles and Responsibilities

• Consult with GCMRC in developing criteria and standards 

monitoring and research programs1

• Develop research management questions for the design o

monitoring and research administered by GCMRC1

• Provide information, as necessary, for preparing annual re

reports and other reports, for the AMWG1

• Prepare a triennial budget development timeline and proc

be used in the future2

• Review FY17 budget after issuance of the LTEMP ROD31 Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Operating Procedures, June 27, 20132Memorandum from Anne J. Castle dated May 7, 20143Approved by AMWG on August 24, 2016
TWG Roles and Responsibilities from L

Preferred Alternative (§ 2.2.4)

Explicit• DOI to seek TWG consensus on

annual hydrograph (§ 2.2.4.1)

• DOI to host annual reporting

meeting for stakeholders (§2.2.4.4)

• DOI to meet with TWG to

discuss contemplated annual

experimental actions (§ 2.2.4.4)

Potential ???• Advice on implemen

condition

‐dependen

design

• Advice on annual

implementation cons

• Advice on long term 

conditions

• Advice on work plan

budgeting
Annual Hydrograph

“Reclamation will seek consensus on the annual hydrograph through...regular meeti

the...TWG...” (p. 2‐46)
Annual Hydrograph
Annual Reporting Meeting

“these meetings will present the best available scientific information and learning fr

implemented experiments and ongoing monitoring of resources” (p. 2‐57)

• What is the scope of the • Can the meeting serv

meeting? purposes?

• Knowledge assessme

• Should the meeting be organized

• Cooperative agreem

by:

• AMWG program rep

• Resource?

• Content developmen

• Work plan project? Congress • Strategic Plan goal?• DFC?• LTEMP Resource Goal?• Experimental outcome?
Discussion of Annual Experiments

“DOI will meet with the TWG to discuss the experimental actions being contemplate

(p. 2‐57)

• Should this occur in January?

• Should there be additional check‐ins with the TWG later in 

• Will more than a listing of potential experiments be discu

• Should potential outcomes be discussed?

• If so, which outcomes should be simulated?

• If so, which tools would be useful to simulate outcomes?

• If so, should simulated outcomes be compared to monitoring re

subsequent Annual Reporting Meetings1?

1i.e., should we engage in adaptive management!
Experimental Scenarios in Year 1‐21

Scenario Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

12 3 

4 Bug Flows

5 Bug Flows 

6 Bug Flows 

7 TMF

8 TMF 

9 TMF 

10 Mechanical Removal

11 Mechanical Removal 

12 Mechanical Removal 

1Year 3‐10 include Spring HFE’s and Proactive Spring HFE’s and Year 11‐20 include LSF’s
Scenario Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

13 Bug Flows TMF

14 Bug Flows 

TMF

15 Bug Flows 

TMF 

16 Bug Flows Mechanical Removal17 Bug Flows 

Mechanical Removal

18 Bug Flows 

Mechanical Removal 

19 TMF Mechanical Removal

20 TMF 

Mechanical Removal

21 TMF 

Mechanical Removal 

22

Bug Flows

TMF

Mechanical Removal

23

Bug Flows

TMF 

Mechanical Removal

24

Bug Flows 

TMF Mechanical Removal
1Appendix C, Page

C‐37 from LTEMP FEIS
An Example of a

Scenario Outcome

Ou

Scenario

July 2017

Colorado River Tem

at LCR Confluenc

1 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 15

10 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 15 Calculation described in Appendix D, Page D‐22 to D‐23 from LTEMP FEIS
Potential Roles and Responsibilities ??

Condition‐dependent adaptive design• Input on deciphering what it is1• Advice on Science Plan

• Advice on experimental plans• Advice on how to balance

learning with achieving desirable

outcomes

1Searching the term “condition‐dependent adaptive design” in Google yields two results, the Executive Summary for the LTEMP DEIS and F

new course!

Adaptive Manage
Potential Roles and Responsibilities ??

Annual implementation considerations Long term off‐ramp cond• Input on monitoring sufficiency • Input on if objectives 

met (are treatments 

• Input on resource conditions the desired effect?)

• Input on identifying

• Input on if there are unacceptable impacts unacceptable advers

• Is the Annual Reporting Meeting

the forum for providing input?

Potential Roles and Responsibilities ??

• The Work Plan and Budget is an important policy tool for 

LTEMP into GCDAMP processes. It should include:

• “long‐term monitoring programs and activities that will ensure t

Canyon Dam is operated in a manner consistent with section 18

Grand Canyon Protection Act.

• “any necessary research and studies to determine the effect of 

actions under section 1804(c) on the natural, recreational, and c

resources of” GCNP and GCNRA.

• TWG input on content and organization

• TWG input on priorities
Other Thoughts1

• Does the TWG need specific direction from the AMWG?• Are the LTEMP Resource Goals integrated into GCDAMP p

• How can experimental monitoring be implemented witho

disrupting long‐term monitoring? How is it budgeted?

1This is here just to see if you’re reading these footnotes. Your reward for doing so is to learn that pteronophobia is the fear of being tickle