Difference between revisions of "Long-term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP)"
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
||
Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
status of the species. Specifically, the following would occur: | status of the species. Specifically, the following would occur: | ||
− | *Humpback chub would be translocated from the lower reaches of the Little | + | *Humpback chub would be translocated from the lower reaches of the Little Colorado River to areas above Chute Falls in an effort to increase growth rates and survivorship. |
− | Colorado River to areas above Chute Falls in an effort to increase growth rates | + | |
− | and survivorship. | + | |
− | *Monitoring would be conducted annually, or as needed, depending on the data | + | *Monitoring would be conducted annually, or as needed, depending on the data required, to determine survivability, population status, or genetic integrity of the Havasu Creek humpback chub population. Intermittent translocations of additional humpback chub in Havasu Creek would be conducted if the FWS and NPS determine it is necessary to maintain genetic integrity of the population. |
− | required, to determine survivability, population status, or genetic integrity of the | + | |
− | Havasu Creek humpback chub population. Intermittent translocations of | + | |
− | additional humpback chub in Havasu Creek would be conducted if the FWS and | + | |
− | NPS determine it is necessary to maintain genetic integrity of the population. | + | |
Reclamation would continue to fund a '''spring and fall population estimate''' annually, or at | Reclamation would continue to fund a '''spring and fall population estimate''' annually, or at | ||
Line 164: | Line 158: | ||
'''stable or upward trend''' of humpback chub mainstem aggregations can be achieved by: | '''stable or upward trend''' of humpback chub mainstem aggregations can be achieved by: | ||
− | *Continuing to conduct annual monitoring of the Little Colorado River humpback | + | *Continuing to conduct annual monitoring of the Little Colorado River humpback chub aggregation (e.g., juvenile chub monitoring parameters). Periodically, an open or multistate model should be run to estimate abundance of the entire Little Colorado River aggregation inclusive of mainstem fish. |
− | chub aggregation (e.g., juvenile chub monitoring parameters). Periodically, an | + | |
− | open or multistate model should be run to estimate abundance of the entire Little | + | |
− | Colorado River aggregation inclusive of mainstem fish. | + | |
− | *Supporting annual monitoring in the mainstem Colorado River to determine status | + | *Supporting annual monitoring in the mainstem Colorado River to determine status and trends of humpback chub and continuing to investigate sampling and analytical methods to estimate abundance of chub in the mainstem. |
− | and trends of humpback chub and continuing to investigate sampling and | + | |
− | analytical methods to estimate abundance of chub in the mainstem. | + | |
− | *Conducting periodic surveys to identify additional aggregations and individual | + | *Conducting periodic surveys to identify additional aggregations and individual humpback chub. |
− | humpback chub. | + | |
− | *Evaluating existing aggregations and determining drivers of these aggregations, | + | *Evaluating existing aggregations and determining drivers of these aggregations, for example, recruitment, natal origins, spawning locations, and spawning habitat (e.g., consider new and innovative methods such as telemetry or the Judas-fish approach) (Kegerries et al. 2015). |
− | for example, recruitment, natal origins, spawning locations, and spawning habitat | + | |
− | (e.g., consider new and innovative methods such as telemetry or the Judas-fish | + | |
− | approach) (Kegerries et al. 2015). | + | |
− | *Exploring means of expanding humpback chub populations outside of the Little | + | *Exploring means of expanding humpback chub populations outside of the Little Colorado River Inflow aggregation. Evaluate the feasibility of mainstem augmentation of humpback chub that would include larval collection, rearing, and release into the mainstem at suitable areas outside of or within existing aggregations. |
− | Colorado River Inflow aggregation. Evaluate the feasibility of mainstem | + | |
− | augmentation of humpback chub that would include larval collection, rearing, and | + | |
− | release into the mainstem at suitable areas outside of or within existing | + | |
− | aggregations. | + | |
Reclamation would, through the GCDAMP, conduct '''disease and parasite monitoring''' in | Reclamation would, through the GCDAMP, conduct '''disease and parasite monitoring''' in | ||
Line 200: | Line 181: | ||
Reclamation would collaborate with the FWS, GCMRC, NPS, and the Havasupai Tribe | Reclamation would collaborate with the FWS, GCMRC, NPS, and the Havasupai Tribe | ||
− | to conduct preliminary surveys and a feasibility study for '''translocation of humpback chub | + | to conduct preliminary surveys and a feasibility study for '''translocation of humpback chub into Upper Havasu Creek (above Beaver Falls)'''. The implementation of surveys and |
− | into Upper Havasu Creek (above Beaver Falls)'''. The implementation of surveys and | + | |
translocations, following the feasibility study, would be dependent on interagency | translocations, following the feasibility study, would be dependent on interagency | ||
discussions, planning and compliance, and resulting outcomes of tribal consultation. As | discussions, planning and compliance, and resulting outcomes of tribal consultation. As | ||
Line 217: | Line 197: | ||
Ongoing actions: | Ongoing actions: | ||
− | Reclamation would continue to assist the NPS, FWS, and the GCDAMP in funding '''larval | + | Reclamation would continue to assist the NPS, FWS, and the GCDAMP in funding '''larval and small-bodied fish monitoring''' in order to: |
− | and small-bodied fish monitoring''' in order to: | + | |
− | *Determine the extent of hybridization in flannelmouth and razorback sucker | + | *Determine the extent of hybridization in flannelmouth and razorback sucker collected in the western Grand Canyon. |
− | collected in the western Grand Canyon. | + | |
− | *Determine habitat use and distribution of different life stages of razorback sucker | + | *Determine habitat use and distribution of different life stages of razorback sucker to assist in future management of flows that may help conserve the species. Sensitive habitats to flow fluctuations could be identified and prioritized for monitoring. |
− | to assist in future management of flows that may help conserve the species. | + | |
− | Sensitive habitats to flow fluctuations could be identified and prioritized for | + | |
− | monitoring. | + | |
*Assess the effects of TMFs and other dam operations on razorback sucker. | *Assess the effects of TMFs and other dam operations on razorback sucker. | ||
Line 235: | Line 210: | ||
Reclamation, in collaboration with the NPS and FWS, and in consultation with the | Reclamation, in collaboration with the NPS and FWS, and in consultation with the | ||
− | AZGFD, would investigate the possibility of '''renovating Bright Angel and Shinumo | + | AZGFD, would investigate the possibility of '''renovating Bright Angel and Shinumo Creeks with a chemical piscicide''', or other tools, as appropriate. Additional planning and |
− | Creeks with a chemical piscicide''', or other tools, as appropriate. Additional planning and | + | |
compliance, and tribal consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA, would be required. | compliance, and tribal consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA, would be required. | ||
This feasibility study is outlined in the NPS CFMP (2013; see “Feasibility Study for Use | This feasibility study is outlined in the NPS CFMP (2013; see “Feasibility Study for Use | ||
Line 245: | Line 219: | ||
Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b). | Sucker Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b). | ||
− | Reclamation would continue to fund efforts of the GCMRC and NPS to '''remove brown | + | Reclamation would continue to fund efforts of the GCMRC and NPS to '''remove brown trout (and other nonnative species)''' from Bright Angel Creek and the Bright Angel Creek |
− | trout (and other nonnative species)''' from Bright Angel Creek and the Bright Angel Creek | + | |
Inflow reach of the Colorado River, and from other areas where new or expanded | Inflow reach of the Colorado River, and from other areas where new or expanded | ||
spawning populations develop, consistent with the NPS CFMP. After 5 years of removal | spawning populations develop, consistent with the NPS CFMP. After 5 years of removal | ||
Line 269: | Line 242: | ||
Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b). | Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b). | ||
− | Reclamation would pursue means of '''preventing the passage of deleterious invasive | + | Reclamation would pursue means of '''preventing the passage of deleterious invasive nonnative fish through Glen Canyon Dam'''. Because Glen Canyon Dam release |
− | nonnative fish through Glen Canyon Dam'''. Because Glen Canyon Dam release | + | |
temperatures are expected to be warmer under low reservoir elevations that may occur | temperatures are expected to be warmer under low reservoir elevations that may occur | ||
through the LTEMP period, options to hinder expansion of warmwater nonnative fishes | through the LTEMP period, options to hinder expansion of warmwater nonnative fishes | ||
Line 282: | Line 254: | ||
Reclamation would, in consultation with the FWS and AGFD, fund the NPS and | Reclamation would, in consultation with the FWS and AGFD, fund the NPS and | ||
− | GCMRC on the completion of planning and compliance to '''alter the backwater slough at | + | GCMRC on the completion of planning and compliance to '''alter the backwater slough at River Mile (RM) 12''' (commonly referred to as “Upper Slough”), making it unsuitable or |
− | River Mile (RM) 12''' (commonly referred to as “Upper Slough”), making it unsuitable or | + | |
inaccessible to warmwater nonnative species that can compete with and predate upon | inaccessible to warmwater nonnative species that can compete with and predate upon | ||
native fish, including humpback chub. Depending on the outcome of NPS planning and | native fish, including humpback chub. Depending on the outcome of NPS planning and | ||
Line 294: | Line 265: | ||
Reclamation would support the GCMRC and NPS in consultation with the FWS and | Reclamation would support the GCMRC and NPS in consultation with the FWS and | ||
− | AGFD on the completion of planning and compliance of a '''plan for implementing rapid | + | AGFD on the completion of planning and compliance of a '''plan for implementing rapid response control efforts for newly establishing or existing deleterious invasive nonnative |
− | response control efforts for newly establishing or existing deleterious invasive nonnative | + | |
species''' within and contiguous to the action area. Control efforts may include chemical, | species''' within and contiguous to the action area. Control efforts may include chemical, | ||
mechanical, or physical methods. While feasible options may not currently exist, new | mechanical, or physical methods. While feasible options may not currently exist, new | ||
Line 305: | Line 275: | ||
Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b). | Recovery Goals (USFWS 2002b). | ||
− | Reclamation, will consider, in consultation with the GCDAMP, the '''experimental use of | + | Reclamation, will consider, in consultation with the GCDAMP, the '''experimental use of TMFs to inhibit brown trout spawning and recruitment in Glen Canyon''', or other |
− | TMFs to inhibit brown trout spawning and recruitment in Glen Canyon''', or other | + | |
mainstem locations. Inhibiting brown trout spawning and recruitment will benefit chub | mainstem locations. Inhibiting brown trout spawning and recruitment will benefit chub | ||
by reducing the potential for brown trout to predate upon humpback chub. The | by reducing the potential for brown trout to predate upon humpback chub. The | ||
Line 315: | Line 284: | ||
== Southwestern willow flycatcher and Yuma Ridgway’s rail == | == Southwestern willow flycatcher and Yuma Ridgway’s rail == | ||
− | Reclamation would partially assist in funding NPS to '''conduct Yuma Ridgway’s rail | + | Reclamation would partially assist in funding NPS to '''conduct Yuma Ridgway’s rail surveys''' once every three years for the life of the LTEMP. |
− | surveys''' once every three years for the life of the LTEMP. | + | |
− | Reclamation would partially assist in funding NPS to '''conduct southwestern willow flycatcher | + | Reclamation would partially assist in funding NPS to '''conduct southwestern willow flycatcher surveys''' once every two years for the life of the LTEMP. |
− | surveys''' once every two years for the life of the LTEMP. | + | |
|- | |- |
Revision as of 12:02, 1 March 2017
|
The Long-term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP)Glen Canyon Dam was authorized by the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 and completed by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in 1963. Below Glen Canyon Dam, the Colorado River flows for 15 miles through the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, which is managed by the National Park Service (NPS). Fifteen miles below Glen Canyon Dam, Lees Ferry, Arizona, marks the beginning of Marble Canyon and the northern boundary of Grand Canyon National Park. The major function of Glen Canyon Dam is water storage and flood control. The dam is specifically managed to regulate releases of water from the Upper Colorado River Basin to the Lower Colorado River Basin to satisfy provisions of the 1922 Colorado River Compact and subsequent water delivery commitments, and thereby allow states within the Upper Basin to withdraw water from the watershed upstream of Glen Canyon Dam and utilize their apportionments of Colorado River water. Another function of Glen Canyon Dam is the generation of hydroelectric power. The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 (Pub. L.102–575) (GCPA) addresses potential impacts of dam operations on downstream resources in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon National Park. The GCPA required the Secretary of the Interior to complete an EIS evaluating alternative operating criteria that would determine how Glen Canyon Dam would be operated "to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established." The first EIS on Glen Canyon Dam operations was published in March 1995. The Preferred Alternative of the 1995 EIS (Modified Low Fluctuating Flow Alternative) was selected as the best means to operate Glen Canyon Dam in a record of decision (ROD) issued on October 9, 1996. In 1997, the Secretary adopted operating criteria for Glen Canyon Dam (62 FR 9447) as required by Section 1804(c) of the GCPA. Additionally, the GCPA required the Secretary to undertake research and monitoring to determine if revised dam operations were achieving the resource protection objectives of the final EIS and ROD. These provisions of the GCPA were incorporated into the 1996 ROD and led to the establishment of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP), administered by Reclamation, and of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The LTEMP will be coordinated with the existing Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. The GCDAMP includes a federal advisory committee known as the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG), a technical work group, a scientific monitoring and research center administered by the USGS, and independent scientific review panels. The AMWG makes recommendations to the Secretary concerning Glen Canyon Dam operations and other management actions to protect resources downstream of Glen Canyon Dam consistent with the GCPA and other applicable provisions of federal law. The decision by the Secretary to develop the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan EIS is a component of its efforts to continue to comply with the ongoing requirements and obligations established by the GCPA and recommendations of the AMWG. Reclamation and NPS are joint-leads on the LTEMP EIS because Reclamation has primary responsibility for operation of Glen Canyon Dam and NPS has primary responsibility for managing the resources of the Grand Canyon National Park, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, and Lake Mead National Recreation Area. [1] |
Long-term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) The LTEMP provides the basis for decisions that identify management actions and experimental options that will provide a framework for adaptively managing Glen Canyon Dam operations over the next 20 years |
LTEMP Science Plan The LTEMP Science Plan describe a strategy by which monitoring and research data in the natural and social sciences will be collected, analyzed, and provided to DOI, its bureaus, and to the GCDAMP in support of implementation of LTEMP. |
Core Monitoring Plan The GCMRC Core Monitoring Plan (CMP) describes the consistent, long-term, repeated measurements using scientifically accepted protocols to measure status and trends of key resources to answer specific questions. Core monitoring is implemented on a fixed schedule regardless of budget or other circumstances (for example, water year, experimental flows, temperature control, stocking strategy, nonnative control, etc.) affecting target resources. |
Monitoring and Research Plan The GCMRC Monitoring and Research Plan (MRP) specifies (1) core monitoring activities, (2) research and development activities, and (3) long-term experimental activities consistent with the strategies and priorities established in this SSP to be conducted over the next 5 years to address some of the strategic science questions associated with AMWG priority questions. |
Budget and Work Plan The GCMRC Triennial Work Plan (TWP) identifies the scope, objectives, and budget for monitoring and research activities planned for a 3-year period. When completed, the TWP will be consistent with the MRP. |
---|
|
|