Technical Work Group Meetings 2009

Home Browse Search

I Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group DRAFT Minutes of March 16 -17, 2009, Meeting 1 f' i Page 5 He said this document is to address the conservation measures which require activities on the part of other entities and GCMRC. John said he could add some language so that it is open- ended. Mary asked if this document only focuses on the Marble and Grand Canyon reaches as she thought there were concerns about warm water fish coming up from Lake Powell and talking about monitoring lower in the canyon. She thinks the issue was that if they had warm water fish moving up then by the time they got all the way up there, they would be in a nightmare situation and asked if the entire mainstem should be included. John said considering the time frame they're looking at through FY2011, the primary focus is going to be on trout removal in the Little Colorado Reach. There will be some pilot testing of warm water fishes and they've also proposed enhancing the mainstem monitoring program to detect any increased numbers of fish coming from Lake Mead or elsewhere. Assuming there is going to be relatively cool waters for the next few years, John said the focus is going to be on trout removal in the LCR. Page 4, line 46. Norm questioned if the annual planning included in Part I would include planning within the tributaries as well as the mainstem. Matthew said he didn't think the AMP is ready to go there. They expect Part 11 will address sources on where the fish come from but the decision on who would address which species in which river or stream is beyond their authority. Page 5, line 6. Dennis asked where the "10 percent" comes from. Matthew said they have sought documentation on what is the correct percentage that one has to achieve to realize success but doesn't think it exists. This was their best, educated guess. The Science Advisors also agreed with that number. Page 5, line 10. Randy referenced "to facilitate conservation ..."and said he would like to propose adding after the word 2009: "and identify funding" as opposed to what is there now to transfer funding. John said he couldn't do that and felt someone else has to figure that out. Comments on HBC Nearshore Ecology � tudy. • Page 6, line 9. Bill Davis said one of the questions they had about this study was whether or not they're going to establish the value of different habitats, not just whether or not they're occupied or whether or not they lead to certain growth or food conditions or whatever. If 10% of a particular type of habitat is only occupied by 5% of the fish, does that make it as valuable as others? In trying to make a judgment call as to creating certain types of habitat, i. e., backwaters, they need to know if it's more or less valuable than perhaps shoreline habitats. He doesn't see the answer specifically documented and feels it is a very critical question to answer. Matthew said he could work with the cooperator to determine what they can actually do. Comments on Monthly Flow Transition Study: • Page 6, Line 13. Bill Persons said there have previously been transitions from August to September where it has been a pretty radical transition, where the lows in August were higher than the highs in September. He asked if something has been done to change that John said it wasn't a big issue last year and the only thing that has changed is hydrology. Clayton says Reclamation hasn't made any modifications to transition except for last year for the first study flow and WAPA was asked to draw from the August level of daily change to the September level of daily change over a 3 -day period rather than a 1 -day period. Clayton said the reason it's in the BO is because the FWS believes it is a big issue and believes the transition is from the summer months to September. Josh Korman thinks the transition time is more telling in terms of reducing trout, potential predators, than were the non- native fish management flows that occurred three years in a row a few years ago. Clayton said WAPA's comment would be either to confirm or dismiss it through scientific study because it affects their resource. John said their plan is to study fish habitat use during that transition time period. They will also be doing additional foodbase work during that time period so they think that will provide additional information to help form that decision about whether assuming they would see several different types of transitioning over the course of this study over a 5- year period, they will be able to provide some data. • Page 6, line 28. Bill Davis asked if this included ramping rates as well as daily range because it's not clear to him and the question has never been answered. When they talk about the EA and fall /summer flow regimes, it says the nearshore ecology study plan will be expanded to specify recommended late summer/fall flow regimes that should be provided to maximum learning and the group has never talked about that. John said they are going to have steady flows in Sept -Oct but there may be some flexibility to adjust the magnitude of them to maximize learning so they don't look at 12,000 cfs every year. Humpback Chub Refuges. John said he didn't see GCMRC as having a major role in refuge planning but has providing advice an consultation to FWS on what they should do and will continue to give support. • Kerry asked why this project appears in two different places (pgs 6 and 7). John said that in the middle of page 7 they transitioned to a new biological opinion.