Difference between revisions of "GCDAMP BAHG Page"

Chair: Erik Skeie

Members: Cliff Barrett, Richard Begay, Rob Billerbeck, Rod Buchanan, Shane Capron, Colleen Cunningham, Kurt Dongoske, Laura Dye, Craig Ellsworth, Mel Fegler, Charlie Ferrentelli, Clarence Fullard, Michelle Garrison, Brian Healy, Emily Higuera, Leslie James, John Jordan, Jakob Maase, Kristen Johnson, Ryan Mann, Jessica Neuwerth, Christina Noftsker, Kerri Pedersen, Bill Persons, Shana Rapoport, Ben Reeder, Seth Shanahan, Larry Stevens, Jim Strogen, Kirk Young, Carrie Cannon.

Invited technical advisors: Drew Eppehimer, Charles Yackulic, Heather Patno, Sara Price, Mike Moran.

How is work being done helping us meet:

• Resource goals as described in LTEMP
• Guidance from DOI in the 2019 Petty memo
• BO Conservation Measures or PA requirements
• LTEMP experimentation

From both a PI and/or a stakeholder perspective:

• What data has been collected?
• What needs to continue?
• What could be added?
• What could we do less of?

Describe the Status and Trends for the resource from the 2019 (or 2017) Knowledge Assessment
Identify any Knowledge Assessment recommendations
Describe how this data might be used to adaptively manage the CRE

2023 (Planning for Fiscal Year 1 = 2024)

• January: Annual reporting meeting and information synthesis (2 days) followed by 1-day TWG meeting to review budget and provide initial guidance to GCMRC and Reclamation. TWG reviews progress in addressing Information Needs and research accomplishments.
• February: GCMRC meets with tribes and DOI agencies. GCMRC follow-up with BAHG on priorities and areas of emphasis on TWP. GCMRC meets with cooperators to develop projects. AMWG meeting to discuss initial priorities. DOI and Federal family input.
• March: GCMRC and Reclamation will develop an initial TWP based on DOI priorities and input from scientists, the TWG, and DOI/DOE family. Initial TWP presented to DOI and Secretary’s Designee.
• April: GCMRC meets with tribes and DOI agencies. April TWG meeting to consider draft TWP, including anticipated funding sources. Unresolved issues or conflicting priorities will be resolved by DOI in consultation with the DOI Family. GCMRC begins development of second draft TWP.
• May: GCMRC and Reclamation provide a second draft TWP to the BAHG, Science Advisors, DOI agencies, and tribes for their review and comment. GCMRC meets with tribes, BAHG, to get input on TWP. GCMRC develops third draft of TWP.
• June: GCMRC and Reclamation finish third draft for review. TWG meets to provide input on the draft GCMRC and Reclamation TWP and provide a recommendation to the AMWG.
• July: GCMRC and Reclamation provide a final draft TWP to the AMWG for their review.
• August: AMWG meets to provide input on the GCMRC and Reclamation draft TWP and provide a recommendation to the SOI.
• September: SOI reviews the budget and work plan recommendation from AMWG.
• October: Fiscal Year 1 begins under the TWP guidance.
• November: Consumer Price Index becomes available. Science and management meeting with DOI and cooperators.
• December: Budget is finalized. USGS produces GCMRC annual project reports document for prior year work.

2024 (Planning for Fiscal Year 2 = 2025)

• January: Annual reporting meeting (1-2 days) followed by 1-day TWG meeting with a primary emphasis on reporting results/findings/scientific advances on previous work plan.
• February:
• March:
• April: BAHG and TWG considers potential changes to the Fiscal Year 2 TWP based on criteria in section 2.7.
• May:
• June: TWG recommends Fiscal Year 2 budget of TWP to AMWG.
• July:
• August: AMWG recommends Fiscal Year 2 budget of TWP to SOI.
• September
• October: Fiscal Year 2 begins under the TWP guidance.
• November: Science and management meeting with DOI and cooperators.
• December: GCMRC produces annual project reports document.

2025 (Planning for Fiscal Year 3 = 2026)

• January: Annual reporting meeting and information synthesis (2 days) followed by 1-day TWG meeting to review initial results and findings of TWP. Potential TWP changes may be identified.
• February: BAHG/agencies/tribes meetings to consider mid-work plan adjustments to TWP, February through March.
• March:
• April: Consider mid-work plan adjustments at TWG meeting. BAHG and TWG considers potential changes to the Fiscal Year 3 TWP based on criteria in section 2.7.
• May:
• June: TWG considers and recommends mid-work plan adjustments to TWP and a recommendation for Fiscal Year 3 (2026) budget.
• July:
• August: AMWG meets and considers mid-work plan adjustments to TWP recommended by TWG and recommends Fiscal Year 3 budget to the SOI.
• September:
• October: Fiscal Year 3 begins under the TWP guidance.
• November: Consumer Price Index becomes available. Science and management meeting with DOI and cooperators. New TWP development meeting within DOI.
• December: USGS produces GCMRC annual project reports document for prior year work.

• GCDAMP Budget page
• FY25-27 Triennial Budget and Workplan page
• 2019 Knowledge Assessment (KA)
• 2017 Knowledge Assessment (KA)
• DOI Direction
• 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act
• GCDAMP Planning Page
• 2016 Long-term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) page
• Desired Future Conditions -DFCs
• GCDAMP and NPS River Trips and Field Activities

• TWP Protocol Paper (10-6-2016)
• TWP Protocol Table 1 update (3-6-2019)
• Memo from Dr. Petty re: Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Guidance (8-14-19)
• 2016 Long-term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP)
• 2016 LTEMP Record of Decision (ROD)
• 2017 LTEMP Science Plan
• 2016 LTEMP Biological Opinion (BO)
• 2017 LTEMP Programmatic Agreement (PA)
• 2018 LTEMP Historic Preservation Plan

2023

• FY 24 BAHG Process

2020

• Budget Ad Hoc Group Chair Report

2019

• Results and Findings from TWP: TWP Changes BAHG Direction Presentation

2016

• Attachment 9a: Triennial Work Plan Budget Process ppt

FY18-20 Triennial Budget and Workplan

Review Chapter 2: Administrative History and Guidance That Informs This Work Plan

2019 Petty memo

• The primary guiding documents for the GCDAMP will continue to be the LTEMP FEIS and ROD
• The priorities identified in the LTEMP ROD for the GCDAMP are as follows:

1. Management and Experimental Actions
2. Mitigation and Environmental Commitments
3. Research and Monitoring
4. In addition, the Department of the Interior (Interior) has recently prioritized the responsible development and production of renewable energy on federal lands. To this end, I encourage the GCDAMP to work within the LTEMP framework to seek ways to improve the value of the hydropower resource.

• The TWP and budget should focus on compliance priorities including:

1. Maintaining dam releases consistent with applicable laws;
2. Activities associated with the Endangered Species Act;
3. Actions necessary for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act; and
4. Research and monitoring as required by the Grand Canyon Protection Act.

• The LTEMP Scientific Monitoring Plan will continue to provide a framework for the scientific support needed to complete the monitoring and experimentation specified in the LTEMP FEIS and ROD.
• Future research proposed and undertaken by the GCDAMP should be tied directly to LTEMP resource goals and objectives. Several areas to consider as identified by the GCDAMP partners include:

1. Evaluation of the threat posed by invasive non-native species.
2. Exploring vegetation management to benefit high value recreational beaches and protect vulnerable archaeological sites.
3. Considering impacts to hydropower as part of the development of a LTEMP experiments and study plans.

• The feasibility of conducting Spring High Flow Experiments (HFE), along with modeling for improvements and efficiencies that benefit resources including natural, cultural, recreational, and hydropower should be explored.
• This guidance is not meant to be all encompassing or to preclude additional scientific investigations that can improve the resources downstream of Glen Canyon Dam that are consistent with the LTEMP.

Long Term Funding Considerations

• Sustainable funding sources and amounts
• Strategies to absorb increases in overhead and CPI

GCDAMP Triennial Budget and Workplan Protocol Paper (10-6-2016)

• Employ the adaptive environmental assessment and management approach to resources management that was developed by Holling (1978) and Walters (1986), and articulated in the Adaptive Management Program Strategic Plan (AMPSP) to include participation from the BAHG, TWG, and AMWG;
• Be guided by the GCDAMP Desired Future Conditions;
• Use a collaborative science planning process as described in the MRP (Figure 1);
• Address science needs contained within the GCDAMP science plans and adaptive management needs identified by the GCDAMP; and
• Comply with the "Law of the River" including, but not limited to the Long Range Operating Criteria, as currently implemented through the 2007 Interim Guidelines, and the GCPA.

Criteria for Review and Revisions of the Budget and Work Plan: In order for the TWP process to be successful in reducing the administrative burden on the GCMRC, Reclamation, and the GCDAMP, it must have clear criteria for making changes to the budget and work plan. Revisions of the year two budget are intended to be limited to unexpected changes due to a scientific requirement or merit, or administrative needs. Year three changes may be more substantive according to the guidelines below. The individual steps of the process, including roughly when meetings should occur and their objectives, are provided in Table 1. The burden of an appropriate rationale for proposing a change falls upon the proposer to make a persuasive argument to the TWG and AMWG. The following criteria will be used by GCMRC, Reclamation, and TWG in making recommendations to AMWG on changes to the budget and work plan:

• Scientific requirement or merit: New information gained during the implementation of monitoring and research projects may result in a need to alter methods, scope, or timelines in the work plan or substantially alter or eliminate a project. This is a science need based on the experience of implementing an already approved project. This does not represent a shifting priority (e.g., policy change), but a scientific learning process which results in needed modifications to carry out the goals of the Program.
• Administrative needs: Administrative, policy, or programmatic changes may occur within the time-frame of an approved TWP. Examples might include the mitigation of an impact resulting from ESA, NHPA, or tribal consultation, a change in the “overhead” charges of a federal or state agency, a significant reduction of the balance of available funds, or a failure to secure permits.. As soon as an administrative event occurs that affects the TWP, GCMRC (or relevant agency – such as DOI) will notify the TWG.
• New initiatives: New initiatives may be brought up for discussion by members during BAHG or TWG budget discussions (see Table 1) for consideration by Reclamation and GCMRC. These new initiatives may need to be considered by the GCDAMP Program Manager prior to requesting either GCMRC or Reclamation to develop a proposal for mid-work plan consideration. If DOI determines it is beyond the scope of a mid-work plan change, then the initiative could be considered during the development of the next work plan. Given that the budget will likely be fully accounted for, direction on funding source within the current budget will be required for discussion with the GCDAMP Program Manager. Revisions must comply with the Budget Principles (see Section 2.1).

LTEMP ROD Sec 6.1.b. (page 12):

Priorities and Funding of the GCDAMP. The GCDAMP priorities are set by the GCPA of 1992, the LTEMP FEIS, and ROD, and related mitigation requirements for endangered species and cultural resources. The GCDAMP priorities include the management and experimental actions; mitigation and environmental commitments; and research and monitoring identified in the LTEMP FEIS and ROD, and these will be the highest priorities for GCDAMP over the term of the LTEMP. The GCDAMP activities that are eligible for funding from power revenues are those actions related to dam operations or the mitigation of dam operations within the CRE. These will be funded in compliance with Section 204 of Public Law (PL) 106-377. Appropriated funds or other sources of funding may also be used for GCDAMP activities as specified in Section 1808 of the GCPA and Section 204 of PL 106-377.

Objectives and Resource Goals of the LTEMP (LTEMP FEIS Section 1.4, pages 1-10 to 1-12)

Reclamation and NPS developed resource goals considering public input and Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) previously adopted by the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG). The following resource goals were identified:

• Archaeological and Cultural Resources. Maintain the integrity of potentially affected NRHP-eligible or listed historic properties in place, where possible, with preservation methods employed on a site-specific basis.
• Natural Processes. Restore, to the extent practicable, ecological patterns and processes within their range of natural variability, including the natural abundance, diversity, and genetic and ecological integrity of the plant and animal species native to those ecosystems.
• Humpback Chub. Meet humpback chub recovery goals, including maintaining a self-sustaining population, spawning habitat, and aggregations in the Colorado River and its tributaries below the Glen Canyon Dam.
• Hydropower and Energy. Maintain or increase Glen Canyon Dam electric energy generation, load following capability, and ramp rate capability, and minimize emissions and costs to the greatest extent practicable, consistent with improvement and long-term sustainability of downstream resources.
• Other Native Fish Species. Maintain self-sustaining native fish species populations and their habitats in their natural ranges on the Colorado River and its tributaries.
• Recreational Experience. Maintain and improve the quality of recreational experiences for the users of the Colorado River Ecosystem. Recreation includes, but is not limited to, flatwater and whitewater boating, river corridor camping, and angling in Glen Canyon.
• Sediment. Increase and retain fine sediment volume, area, and distribution in the Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyon reaches above the elevation of the average base flow for ecological, cultural, and recreational purposes.
• Tribal Resources. Maintain the diverse values and resources of traditionally associated Tribes along the Colorado River corridor through Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons.
• Rainbow Trout Fishery. Achieve a healthy high-quality recreational rainbow trout fishery in GCNRA and reduce or eliminate downstream trout migration consistent with NPS fish management and ESA compliance.
• Nonnative Invasive Species. Minimize or reduce the presence and expansion of aquatic nonnative invasive species.
• Riparian Vegetation. Maintain native vegetation and wildlife habitat, in various stages of maturity, such that they are diverse, healthy, productive, self-sustaining, and ecologically appropriate.

LTEMP Science Plan

• Describes a general strategy by which monitoring and research will be conducted by GCMRC and its cooperators.
• The science plan is structured around routine monitoring activities as well as flow and non-flow experiments identified in the LTEMP ROD.
• Included are activities to monitor specific resource conditions necessary to trigger experimental actions as well as temporarily suspend or permanently end experimental actions determined to have unacceptable adverse effects on key resources.

LTEMP Experiments (LTEMP Biological Assessment, pages 24-42)

HFEs

• Fall HFEs whose duration is 96 hours or less,
• Extended duration fall HFEs that might last as long as 250 hours,
• Spring HFEs in the whose duration is 96 hours or less, and
• Proactive spring HFEs of as long as 24 hours that would occur in water years when 10 million acre feet or more of water is released from Lake Powell

Low summer flows

• May only occur in the second 10 years of the LTEMP period

Macroinvertebrate production flows

• Increase aquatic food base productivity and diversity

Trout management flows (TMFs)

• Reduce downstream movement of trout to the LCR (thereby reducing predation and competition with humpback chub)
• Increase the number and condition of catchable rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry fishery

Actions to benefit humpback chub

• Translocations
• Nonnative fish removals

Non-flow vegetation treatments

BO Conservation Measures

Humpback chub

• Support translocations
• Spring and fall population estimates in the LCR
• Control or removal of nonnative fish in tributaries prior to chub translocations
• Humpback chub refuge population
• Aggregations monitoring
• Disease and parasite monitoring
• Feasibility study for translocation of humpback chub into Upper Havasu Creek (above Beaver Falls)
• Evaluate other tributaries for potential translocations

Razorback sucker

• Larval and small-bodied fish monitoring

Actions to benefit all native aquatic species

• Investigate the possibility of renovating Bright Angel and Shinumo Creeks with a chemical piscicide, or other tools, as appropriate.
• Brown trout (and other nonnative species) removals
• Alteration of the backwater slough at River Mile (RM) -12
• Plan for implementing rapid response control efforts for newly establishing or existing deleterious invasive nonnative species
• Experimental use of TMFs to inhibit brown trout spawning and recruitment in Glen Canyon

Southwestern willow flycatcher and Yuma Ridgway’s rail

• Conduct Yuma Ridgway’s rail surveys once every three years
• Conduct southwestern willow flycatcher surveys once every two years

LTEMP Programmatic Agreement (PA)

• 2018 LTEMP Historic Preservation Plan

Knowledge Assessment status, trends, and recommendations

• 2019 Knowledge Assessment
• 2017 Knowledge Assessment

Based on ROD Resource Categories (see page 6 of the ROD)

• Archaeological and cultural resources
• Humpback chub
• Hydropower and energy
• Other native fish species
• Recreational experience
• Sediment
• Tribal Perspectives
• Rainbow trout fishery
• Riparian vegetation
• Water quality and food base (added, part of KA)
• Invasive fish species (added, part of KA)

• Natural Processes: Not used (is an evaluation of above resources as related to “natural” benchmarks)