1. technology and computing
2. hardware
3. computer peripherals
4. printers, copiers and fax
5. fax machines

16:44
* 03/09/94
S1 -94 14ED 16 : 4-1
8015245499
B. 0R. UC
01
UC-446 (02/93) Rev
Bureau of Reclamation
FAXOGRAM COVER SHEET
Date:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
UPPER COLORADO REGIONAL OFFICE
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
To: All on the enclosed list
—
To: At/ 4PA. entioSeot bil
Agency/Code:
FAX #: ( )
To:
Agency/Code:
FAX #: (
To:
Agency/Code:
FAX #: ( )
To:
Agency/Code:
FAX #: (
To:
Agency/Code:
FAX #: ( )
From:
4%06 Agency/Code:
CHP.i 'risJif
Subject:
/)/ 0E 4LlivP-4)
letvA
170phone: (836 5'2`1
C
ift.„,"")
dL 11.:)•em.
0
Return Original to sender after transmission?
P/"- YES
NO
YES
Mail Original after transmission?
Formal Correspondence?
X33
YES
NO
If FAX is incomplete, please call (801) 524-5554. Our FAX machine number is (801) 524-5499.
THIS IS PAGE 1 OF 7 TOTAL PAGES
PLEASE NUMBER PAGES ACCORDINGLY
MAR•
03/09/94
9- 49.4
16:44
WED
1 6 :4 2
8015245499
0
R
LI C
REG I ON
P
UC-770
Memorandum
To:
All on the Enclosed List
From:
Christine Karas
Subject: Draft Meeting Summary - Glen Canyon Dam
Biological Opinion Meeting, March 2, 1994,
Las Vegas, Nevada
Attached is a Draft Summary of the March 2, 1994 meeting based on
the notes I took and a summary of Frank Baucum's notes which he
provided to me. Please review and comment as soon as possible.
A final copy will be handed out to the cooperating
agency/interested party representatives at the March 14, 1994
meeting in Phoenix. I am open to all suggestions.
Any objections/recommendation to enclosing a list of
participants?
ck
0
2
03/09/94
16:45
WED 16:42
8015245499
B.
•
0- R..
UCREGION
C.O. Minckley
USFWS
FAX (602) 667 4015
Jim Deacon
UNLV
FAX: 702 895 1159
D.L. Wegner/Owen Go an/Larry Stevens/Johnny Ray/Bill Leibfreid
GCES
FAX 602 556 7368
Bill Persons/Rob Cla kson
AGF
FAX 602 789 3918
Rich Valdez
Bio/West
FAX 801 752 0507
Ed Wick
NPS
FAX 303 225 9965
Jack Schmidt
USU
FAX 801 750 4048
Duncon Patton/W.L. Minckley
FAX (602) 965-8087
Allen Downer
FAX 602-871-7162
Frank Baucom
USFWS
Ph. (602) 379-4726
Fax.
- 6629
Paul Marsh
FAX 602 965 0213
***Return Comments To Christine Karas, UC-770
Phone: 801 524 3273
FAX:
801 524 5499
****PLEASE INDICATE IF YOU ARE ABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING ON
3/14/94
ri
-
03/09/94
9-9 4
16:46
1-J ED
16
8015245499
4- 3 B
0_
R
1_1 C
REGI CI I-1
P - 0-3
MEETING SUMMARY
FOR MARCH 2, 1992 - LAS VEGAS NEVADA
DRAFT BIOLOGICAL OPINION - GLEN CANYON DAM OPERATIONS
This meeting summary was compiled from the notes taken by
Christine Karas during the March 2, 1994 scientists meeting on
the Draft Glen CANYON Dam biological opinion.
These notes do
not necessarily represent the opinion of all the researchers
present.
An attendance list is attached. Dr. Duncon Patten served as
moderator for the meeting. Due to limited time, all present
agreed to a general format of first discussing drivers (topics of
concern to endangered fish), then the flow recommendation of the
Draft Biological Opinion and of the Modified Low Fluctuating Flow
alternative. The meeting took the form of an open forum during
which general discussion and brainstorming took place.
The group first developed the following list of drivers and
RESPONDING parameters to help focus the discussion:
Drivers
FLOODING
Sediment
Tributary Access
Ponding of tributary mouths
Backwaters
FOOD Base
Nutrient dynamics
Concerns relative to growth
Predation
Turbidity
Thermal regime
Disease/parasites
Flow variability (annual & daily) Climatic variability
Habitat use by lifestage
shoreline habitat
Historic habitat changes
Non-native interactions/competition
Responding Parameters
Spawning
Migration
Adults
larval drift
egg! larval
Young of Year
Juvenile
It was noted that the overall goal of a reasonable and prudent
alternative is to remove jeopardy, not achieve recovery.
Flooding
Important factors were listed as temperature, magnitude, and
duration of floods; the ratio of base flow to peak flow, timing
and frequency (decadal) of the peak; and the rate of the
hydrograph.
FLOODS were defined as:
- Maintence: < 31,000cfs; - power plant capacity; estimated
03/09/94
-
16:46
WED
1 6:1
8015245499
B.
O.
R. UC
REGION
P.0•5
occurance of once/year
Habitat building: 45,000+/-; 1/8 years
Uncontrolled: > 31,000 + tributary flow; turbid water; 1/100
years
General
Timing, if controlled should tend to mimic a natural hydrograph.
Floods are important to create/maintain habitat.
Impacts are cumulative, so thinking should not be focused on one
item at a time.
Floods
Magnitude, duration, ratio of peak to base flow and rise/fall of
hydrograph scarcely if ever influences adult (>175mm) to a
detectable level. However, eggs and larva are effected.
Therefore, the focus for developing recommendations/ a reasonable
and prudent alternative for removing jeopardy, and for future
research needs to be on recruitment/early life stages.
Most participants recommended that flushing and/or habitat
maintence flows be the shortest duration which would achieve
habitat maintence/building.
The trend in response to floods in other canyons seems to be a
significant drop in catch rate of non-natives, but this is
followed by a rapid recovery once flows are dropped. It would
take 3 orders of magnitude over base to remove non-natives in
Grand Canyon, which is probably higher than anything we will ever
see.
High releases should be scheduled 1 year following a strong year
class, prior to May.
If possible, water for controlled floods should come off the top
of the reservoir, not through bypass tubes, to achieve higher
temperatures, which would require a full reservoir. This type of
release may transport some pelagic species from reservoir, but
that should not be problematic as these fish usually do not
survive in riverine environments.
Food Base
Current operations are not causing food base to become limiting
for adults, impacts to earlier lite stages are unknown.
Temperature
The LCR is probably at carrying capacity and only temperature
modification to mainstem can increase population, and the
recruitment potential is there to maintain the present
ri
•
A R -
e.1.3 LJ
9 -
64
.4
it:46
E D 1 6 4 5
oUi5 45466
B
0
R
LI C
REG' ON
Purpose/Objectives: Technical, Biological discussion of the needs
of the endangered fish.
Ground rules for meeting
Time limits
Limit number of questions
Only one topic at a time
Technical meeting to examine data
Introduction
brief explanation of each scientist's roll/area of research
Ground rules for providing written comments:
-Only substantive comments
-Technical comments should be supported by citations whenever
possible, list of citations must be provided as well as comments
-The ESA does not allow for consideration of other resource
impacts. References to power or economic losses should not be
included.
- Definition/criteria for a reasonable and prudent alternative
is attached
Determine due date for comments
Recommend PIs restrict their reply to
- 07
03/09/94
16:54
602 965 8087
ASU CTR FOR ENVIRON ST 4 ZOOLOGY DEPT ARI
NO. 002
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
Arizona State University
Center for Environmental Studies
Tempe, AZ 85287-3211
FAX No (602) 965-8087
Date:
P TI\
TO:
FACSIMILE PHONE NUMBER:
-4E; - 0-5;
FROM:
MESSAGE/SUBJECT':_
•
■•■■■■•••■■■••■•■•■•■•••••n•-■•■•—■■■■•■••■■•■•••■
If fax is incomplete, please call (602) 965-2975.
THIS IS PAGE 1 OF
TOTAL PAGES
•••
I201
G3/9/94
1E:54
ASU CTR FOR ENVIRON ST 4 ZOOLOGY DEPT ARI
a1/09/94
8015245499
16:44
MAR— 9-5)4. WED 1450 .:41 D. 0. R. UC REGION
NO. 002
P02
P.01
UC-446 (02/93) Rev
lureau of Reclamation
FAXOGRAM COVER SHEET
Date: 3
-
I 4* IV
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
UPPER COLORADO REGIONAL OFFICE
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
To:
/./
All on the enclosed list (.5 0r
the
•:
Agency/Code:
FAX
To:
Agency/Code:
FAX #:
1
To:
Agency/Code:
FAX #: (
)
To:
Agency/Code:
FAX #:
)
To:
Agency/Code:
FAX it;
To
t
From: S_Etkunfik
Agency/Code:
-
Hophone:
Return Original to sender after transmission?
Formal Correspondence?
YES
)
AN S2 4/ 3213
1"/" YE5
YES
Mail Original after transmission?
(
toe
NO
...... 140
NO
If FAX is incomplete, please call (801) 524-5554. Our FAX machine number is (801) 524-5499.
THIS IS PAGE 1 OF
TOTAL PAGES
PLEASE NUMBER PAGES ACCORDINGLY
tv
toO
LAN,
O3"9/94
rl A Ft --
16:55
ASU CTR FOR ENVIRON ST -9. ZOOLOGY DEPT ARI
1644
03/09/94
B015245499
10 -94
14 EE ID
1 6 :4 2
1 .
CD -
F2 4
1_11 C
Ft EE C; 1 CD
NO. 002
hi
UC-770
Memorandum
To:
All on the Enclosed List
From:
Christine Karas
Subject: Draft Meting Summary - Glen Canyon Dam
Biological Opinion Meeting, March 2, 1994,
Las Vegas, Nevada
Attached is a Draft Summary of the March 2, 1994 meeting based on
the notes I took and a summary of Frank Baucum's notes which he
provided to me. Please review and comment as soon as possible.
A final copy will be handed out to the cooperating
agency/interested party representatives at the March 14, 1994
meeting in Phoenix. I am open to all suggestions.
Any objections/recommendation to enclosing a list of
participants?
EK
DO3
12;
2
03Y09/94
16:55
ASU CTR FOR ENUIRON ST 4 ZOOLOGY DEPT ARI
03/09/94
16:45
5015245499
MAR9-94 WED 1 IS.
B
ue REG
NO. 002
I f31,1
C.O. Minckley
USFWS
FAX (602) 667 4015
Jim Deacon
UNLV
FAX: 702 895 1159
D.L. Wegner/Owen Go
GCES
FAX 602 556 7368
n/Larry Stevens/Johnny Ray/Bill Leibfreid
Bill Persons/Rob Cle kson
AGF
FAX 602 789 3918
Rich Valdez
Eio/Weet
FAX 801 752 0507
Ed Wick
NPS
1/1
FAX 303 225 9965
Jack Schmidt
uSU
FAX 801 750 4048
Duncon Patton/W.L. Minckley
FAX (602) 965-8087
Allen Downer
FAX 602-971-7162
Frank Baucom
USFWS
Ph. (602) 379-4726
- 6629
MC.
Paul Marsh
FAX 602 965 0213
***Return Comments To Christine Kama, UC-770
Phone: 801 524 3273
FAX:
801 524 5499
****PLEASE INDICATE IF YOU ARE ABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING ON
3/14/94
PO4
03/09/94
16:55
ASU CTR FOR ENUIRON ST ZOOLOGY DEPT ARI
16:46
8015245499
03/09/94
riFIR- 9-94
wEn
1 6. : 4Z
B.
0.
R.
UC
NO. 002
REGION
P. 04
MEETING SUMMARY
FOR MARCH 2, 1992 - LAS VEGAS NEVADA
DRAFT BIOLOGICAL OPINION - GLEN CANYON DAM 0MATIONS
This meeting summary was compiled from the notes taken by
Christine Karam during the March 2, 1994 scientists meeting on
the Draft Glen Canyon Dam biological opinion. These notes do
not necessarily represent the opinion of all the researchers
present.
An attendance list is attached. Dr. Duncan Patten served as
moderator for the meeting. Due to limited time, all present
agreed to a general format of first discussing drivers (topics of
concern to endangered fish), then the flow recommendation of the
Draft Biological Opinion and of the Modified Low Fluctuating Flow
alternative. The meeting took the form of an open forum during
which general discussion and brainstorming took place.
The group first developed the following list of drivers and
responding parameters to help focus the discussion:
RriZaKa
Sediment
Flooding
Ponding of tributary mouths
Tributary Access
Food Base
Backwaters
Concerns relative to growth
Nutrient dynamics
Turbidity
Predation
Disease/parasites
Thermal regime
Flow variability (annual & daily) Climatic variability
shoreline habitat
Habitat use by lifestage
Historic habitat changes
Non-native interactions/competition
Rampondima_;Mmarata
Spawning
Migration
Adults
larval.drift
egg/larval
Young of Year
Juvenile
It was noted that the overall goal of a reasonable and prudent
alternative Is to remove jeopardy, not achieve recovery.
Flooding
Important factors were listed as temperature, magnitude, and
duration of floods; the ratio of base flow to peak flow, timing
and frequency (decadal) of the peak; and the rate of the
hydrograph.
Floods were defined as:
- Maintence:
31,000cfs; • power plant capacity; estimated
DO5
03/09/94
03/09/94
16:56
9-94
MAR-
-
16:46
L4 fE 13
ASU CTR FOR ENVIRON ST ZOOLOGY DEPT ARI
6015245499
1 6 :44 E..
0. R. UC FR EL C3
C) r4
NO.@02
1206
P e5
occurance of once/year
Habitat building: 45,000+/-; 1/8 yeare
Uncontrolled: • 31,000 + tributary flow; turbid water; 1/100
years
General
Timing, if controlled should tend to mimic a natural hydrograph.
Floods are important to create/maintain habitat.
Impacts are cumulative, so thinking should not be focused on one
item at a time.
Floods
Magnitude, duration, ratio of peak to base flow and rise/fall of
hydrograph scarcely if ever influences adult (>175mm) to a
detectable level. However, eggs and larva are effected.
Therefore, the focus for developing recommendations/ a reasonable
and prudent alternative for removing jeopardy, and for future
research needs to be on recruitment/early life stages.
Most participants recommended that flushing and/or habitat
maintence flows be the shortest duration which would achieve
habitat maintence/building.
The trend in response to floods in other canyons seems to be a
significant drop in catch rate of non-natives, but this is
followed by a rapid recovery once flows are dropped. It would
take 3 orders of magnitude over base to remove non-natives in
Grand Canyon, which is probably higher than anything we will ever
see.
High releases should be scheduled 1 year following a strong year
class, prior to May.
If possible, water for controlled floods should come off the top
of the reservoir, not through bypass tubes, to achieve higher
temperatures, which would require a full reservoir. This type of
release may tranSport some pelagic species froM reservoir, but
that should not be problematic as these fish usually do not
survive in riverine environments.
Food Base
Current operations are not causing food base to become limiting
for adults, impacts to earlier life stages are unknown.
Temperature
The LCR is probably at carrying capacity and only temperature
modification to mainstem can increase population, and the
recruitment potential is there to maintain the present
03/09/94
MAR—
03/09/94
16:56
9- 9 4
ASU CTR FOR ENV I RON ST -4 ZOOLOGY DEPT
AR I
16:47
8015245499
14 OE 15
1 6 : et et
B Õ R_
ucEz EE C: I C) FA
NO. 002
- 0 E.
POPULATION.
Flow MANIPULATION DOES EFFECT POPULATION, BUT TEMPERATURE IS
PROBABLY A MORE IMPORTANT FACTOR. CANNOT remove jeopardy without
TEMPERATURE MODIFICATION.
FLOW VARIABILITY
FLOOD FLOWS SHOULD HAVE SOME DEGREE OF RANDOMNESS.
It is not sound energetically to require fish movement with
FLUCTUATIONS. SHOULD STABILIZE HABITAT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
MINIMAL DIURNAL FLUCTUATIONS IA A DESIRABLE GOAL.
BACKWATERE/SEDIMENT
BACKWATERS ARE IMPORTANT TO NATIVE FISH SO OPERATIONS SHOULD BE
DESIGNED to ensure these HABITATS DO EXIST. THE RELATIVE
importance of backwaters may be increased in Grand Canyon due to
temperature lowering.
Young backwaters are less productive.
Maintence floods are not
NEEDED EVERY YEAR TO MAINTAIN APPROPRIATE BACKWATERS.
Do not need annual
FISH ALSO USE EDDY return CHANNELS.
FLOODS TO MAINTAIN EDDY RETURN CHANNELS.
glof
XEMEGENENDAT JEJS
. OF
HE
ALTERN
B.S.ALI_ELMATAATIMS.-ELGM
Ral BI 1
IVES
i
G107
maintence
.Qp_ilAegl
i' mealicel_ted
THERE IS AGREEMENT ON HOW FISH RESPOND TO THE VARIABLES
DISCUSSED. THERE IS A WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGED ON BASIC LIFE
history, although greater emphasis has been PUT ON ADULTS.
Both scenarios are within the global tolerance of the Humpback
Chub.
NEITHER FLOW SCENARIO WILL remove jeopardy.
nature of the system, collection of sufficient
data to produce a statistical comparisons between the two flow
scenarioS is probably not possible. Because OF THIS AND THE FACT
that We do not now, and probably never will, fully understand the
system, best professional judgement must be used.
DO TO THE DYNAMIC
6ei:ciy
Overall, more of the researchers ampperrea the reasonable and
prudent alternative PA as having a higher probability of
IMPROVING POPULATIONS OF HUMPBACK CHUB/NATIVE FISH.
FINAL BIOLOGICAL OPINION SHOULD ALSO ADDRESS CRITICAL HABITAT.
03/09/94
03/09/94
16:57
ma4R— 9-94
ASU CTR FOR ENV IRON ST -> ZOOLOGY DEPT ARI
B015245499
16 : 4U
_ 0- R. OC REGION
16;48
g4 ED
NO. Ð02
P. 01 7
Purpose/Objectives: Technical, Biological discussion of the needs
of the endangered fish.
Ground rules for meeting
Time limits
Limit number of questions
Only one topic at a time
Technical meeting to examine data
Introduction
brief explanation of each scientist's roll/area of research
Ground rules for providing written comments:
-Only substantive comments
-Technical comments should be supported by citations whenever
possible, list of citations must be provided as well as comments
-The ESA does not allow for consideration of other resource
impacts. References to power or economic losses should not be
included.
-Definition/criteria for a reasonable and prudent alternative
is attached
Determine due date for comments
Recommend PIs restrict their reply to
P08