Technical Work Group Meetings 2009

Home Browse Search

' Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 6 DRAFT Minutes of March 16 -17, 2009, Meeting ' Little Colorado River Watershed Planning: John said their activity will be to provide information they have on the LCR. They will also provide input to the watershed planning effort in whatever activity that evolves into. They have also looked at the risk of non - natives coming down to the LCR into the mainstem and one of the things they could possibly do at some point is actually document non - native fish sources. This is primarily an advisory role for GCMRC and they possibly summarize literature with what is going on with non - native fish. ' Kanab Ambersnail Habitat Protection. John said they've done what is being proposed here which is remove the habitat and put it back. Everything was completed and looks good as far as the HFE science plan. Sediment Research. John said they are going to continue with the high flow reporting and routine sediment monitoring that has been in place. He said some of that will also be investigated through the nearshore ecology study in trying to establish better relationships between sand dependent backwater habitats, ' turbidity, and things like that as it relates to survival of young fish. In response to a concern raised by Norm Henderson, they are doing some modeling to look at the effects of different operating regimes on the sediment transport. Mary Barger mentioned that at a recent science meeting, Emma made a presentation that suggested the foodbase could be adversely affected by sediment so she wanted that included in the issues related to sediment and foodbase. Matthew said the existing work will report on clarity of water and primary productivity. ' Parasite Monitoring. John said they're proposing this be done every 5 -6 years. There was a study done in the past and that was the conclusion. The next time it will be done is in 2012. KAS Monitoring and Research. John said they supported some genetics research to the program on this species and that study is now in draft form and is expected to be completed sometime in 2009. Bill Davis ' said there should be something added which says that if it is determined through the genetic monitoring that this is a widespread species, monitoring may become unnecessary. Shane said that Glen reported at the last meeting that even if they do, they will have to go through a reconsultation period with a new biological opinion which could take awhile so he didn't think the program had to worry about it immediately. ' SWWF Monitorinq and Research. John said they don't do avian monitoring at this point. Bill Davis said the MSCP is a major topic for them in terms of habitat protection so he wanted to know how they were going to coordinate their activities with Reclamation in Boulder City with the MSCP in the lower canyon. Matthew said they have coordination activities with the Park but wasn't sure how they would coordinate with people who are working outside Grand Canyon. Bill said it was in the Grand Canyon from Separation down to ' White Cliffs which is where they were found in the past. John said he would add some language that they will work with the Park Service to provide information on how collaboration should occur. ' Norm said the ones presented were focused on conservation measures but part of the study plan for the HFE was a study or an analysis that was done for the effects to hydropower. He thinks that should be recognized in the document because there is a science advisor response to the plan to say that wasn't an ' analysis of all economic values. He thinks the group should recognize what was done as far as the analysis for the test and then consider adding additional economic value studies to that study, to not just show the effects of hydropower but also the cost benefit and analysis to the values within Grand Canyon. While he can see the value, John said that isn't part of the science plan. Norm said that is what he was getting at as ' far as priorities, arthropods versus doing this economic analysis. He said there hasn't been re- analysis for the other economic values within Grand Canyon. John said he could make reference to Norm's concerns on page 2 but that a broader economic study is probably beyond the scope of what they're proposing today. Shane asked if the TWG could agree on a recommendation to approve this based on the comments received today and the changes John has agreed to make.