TWG Chair 

Report to the Secretary’s Designee 

and the Adaptive Management Work Group 

Concerning the Results of a Technical Work Group Teleconference Call 

06 October 2006 

The Technical Work Group (TWG) convened a teleconference call on Tuesday, 03 October 2006, 

from 9:00 AM- 10:51 AM (MST). The teleconference was established in response to a request 

from the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) for guidance on whether to 

include a recently submitted experimental option by Colorado River Energy Distributors 

Association (CREDA) with Experimental Options A-C, developed through the Science Planning 

Group (SPG) process, that are currently being evaluated by GCMRC. Based on an email and 

telephone poll of the TWG membership, a teleconference was determined to be the most favored 

method for considering and responding to GCMRC’s request. This report documents the result of 

that TWG teleconference. 

TWG stakeholder groups represented on the teleconference consisted of Arizona Game and Fish, 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Reclamation, CREDA, Federation of Fly Fishers, Grand 

Canyon National Park Service, Grand Canyon River Guides, Grand Canyon Trust, Hopi Tribe, 

Hualapai Tribe, Navajo Nation, State of Arizona, State of California, State of New Mexico, State 

of Utah, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Upper Colorado River Commission, Utah 

Associated Municipal Power, and Western Area Power Administration. Also represented on the 

teleconference were Ms. Leslie James, CREDA, and Dr. John Hamill and Dr. Ted Melis of 

GCMRC. An ample number of TWG stakeholders were present during the teleconference to 

represent a quorum. 

Three documents (see attached) were made available to the TWG stakeholders for reference prior 

to and during the teleconference. These documents consisted of 1) a letter from CREDA to 

GCMRC providing a narrative of their proposed experimental option, 2) a table outlining flow 

parameters proposed in the CREDA option, and 3) GCMRC’s draft assessment of flow 

experimental options and estimated influence on downstream resources below Glen Canyon Dam 

between 2007 and 2016. 

During the teleconference, Leslie James provided the TWG with a brief history of the 

development of the CREDA experimental option and a description of what was contained within 

that option, and a brief description of GCMRC’s analysis of the options to date. The TWG 

discussed the CREDA option, the process for developing the 3 SPG options and whether the 

inclusion of the CREDA option was appropriate, and a need for a re-consideration of a previous 

option developed by the Grand Canyon Trust (identified as old Option 4 during the 

teleconference). Please note: that a more detailed account of the TWG discussions during this 

teleconference will be presented in the meeting minutes. As a result of this discussion, the TWG 

considered two motions (see below) and TWG action on each motion was accomplished by rollcall vote. 

Motion 1: The TWG recommends that the CREDA option and old Option 4 be included in 

the analysis by GCMRC of the three options put forward by the SPG. 

Voting Results: No: 13 Yes: 6 
Motion 2: Move that GCMRC be recommended to proceed in its evaluation of the CREDA 

option.

Voting Results: No: 8 Yes: 11 

Without any subsequent objection by the Secretary’s Designee or the Adaptive Management 

Work Group, the results of the TWG vote on the two motions will be considered by GCMRC as 

direction from the Adaptive Management Program to incorporate the CREDA option in their 

analysis of the experimental flow options developed by the SPG. 

This report is presented for your information. I would gladly provide any additional information, 

clarification, or answer questions regarding this report. Please contact me at 928/289/9259 or by 

email. 

Humbly submitted, 

Kurt Dongoske 

TWG Chair 

2
 

CREDA

Colorado River Energy Distributors Association

September 26, 2006 VIA EMAIL ONLY 

Mr. John Hamill 

Chief, GCMRC 

RE: Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental Options 

Dear Mr. Hamill: 

 We appreciate the efforts your office continues to undertake in evaluating various Glen 

Canyon long-term experimental proposals. Shortly after the SPG meetings in June of this year, 

CREDA began assessing the various proposed options and has developed a slight variation on 

"SPG-A” for evaluation by your office and consideration by the TWG and AMWG. Following is a 

description of “A Variation”, which you will see if very similar to SPG-A, differing only in certain 

ramp rates. The hydrographs associated with this A Variation will be transmitted directly to you 

by the Western Area Power Administration prior to the end of this week. The non-flow actions 

contained in A Variation are the same as those contained in SPG-A (which were described in the 

narrative write-up of SPG-A developed in January, 2006); the hydrology is the same as assumed 

for SPG-A, (transmitted to you by WAPA on July 20, 2006 – both SPGA-A and A Variation); the 

evaluation techniques and model (CRSS) should be the same as those used to evaluate the SPG 

proposals (A, B, C). 

 Attached hereto is a table outlining the flow parameters proposed in A Variation. We 

request that A Variation be evaluated alongside SPG-A, SPG-B and SPG-C and the results of such 

evaluation be presented in the final report provided to the peer reviewers, the TWG and the 

AMWG. We are also providing a copy of this letter and the attachment to Linda Whetton for 

distribution to the TWG and AMWG members, and to Mark Limbaugh as the Secretary’s Designee 

for the Adaptive Management Program. 

 We would also like to assure you that CREDA is committed to working through the 

appropriate processes to develop a long-term experimental plan. We appreciate your evaluation 

of A Variation and look forward to continuing to work with the GCMRC in this important process. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Leslie James 

Leslie James 

Executive Director 

Cc: Mark Limbaugh – DOI 

 Brad Warren, WAPA 

 TWG and AMWG members 

 CREDA Board 

ARIZONA

Arizona Municipal Power Users Association 

Arizona Power Authority 

Arizona Power Pooling Association 

Irrigation and Electrical Districts 

Association 

Navajo Tribal Utility Authority 

(also New Mexico, Utah) 

Salt River Project 

COLORADO

Colorado Springs Utilities 

Intermountain Rural Electric Association 

Platte River Power Authority 

Tri-State Generation & Transmission 

Association, Inc. 

(also Nebraska, Wyoming, New Mexico) 

Yampa Valley Electric 

Association, Inc. 

NEVADA

Colorado River Commission 

of Nevada 

Silver State Power Association 

NEW MEXICO

Farmington Electric Utility System 

Los Alamos County 

City of Truth or Consequences 

UTAH

City of Provo 

City of St. George 

South Utah Valley Electric Service District 

Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems 

Utah Municipal Power Agency 

WYOMING

Wyoming Municipal Power Agency 

Leslie James 

Executive Director 

CREDA 

4625 S. Wendler Drive, Suite 111 

Tempe, Arizona 85282 

Phone: 602-748-1344 

Fax: 602-748-1345 

Cellular: 602-469-4046 

Email: creda@qwest.net

Website: www.creda.org 
“A Variation” 

Proposed GCD Operating Criteria 

9/26/06 

Month Max Daily 

Change 

(1,000 cfs) 

Min 

Release 

(1,000 cfs) 

Upramp 

(1,000 cfs) 

Downramp 

(1,000 cfs) 

October 8 5 4 3

November 8 5 4 4

December 12 5 4 4 

January 12 5 4 4 

February 10 5 4 4 

March 8 5 4 4

April 6 5 4 3

May 6 7 4 3

June 8 7 4 3

July 10 7 4 3 

August 10 7 4 3 

September 8 7 4 3
Draft – October 02, 2006 

DRAFT 

Assessment of Four Experimental 

Options and Estimated Influence on 

Downstream Resources below Glen 

Canyon Dam Between 2007 and 2016 

October 13, 2006 

Prepared by the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center, in Cooperation with GCD-AMP Partners 

Flagstaff, AZ

1 
Draft – October 02, 2006 

Table 1.1 Comparison of BASE with four experimental options including flow and nonflow treatments, and ancillary projects. 

Flow/Non-Flow 

Treatment or 

Conservation 

Measure 

BASE 

“Modified 

LowFluctuating 

Flows” 

SPG 

Option A 

Option A 

Variation 

SPG 

Option B 

SPG 

Option C 

Flow 

Increased Daily 

Stage Variation in 

Fluctuating Flows 

No 

Yes (increased by 

50% to 66% in winter 

months and by 25% in 

summer months) 

Yes (increased by 

25% to 66% in all 

months except Apr & 

May) 

No 

Yes (increased 

by 50% to 66% 

in winter 

months) 

Flow Stable Flows No No No 

Yes, (tests of 

4, 8 and 12 

months) 

Yes, (Sep. thru 

Oct.) 

Flow Beach/HabitatBuilding Flows 

Possible, but 

only under 

Hydrologic 

Triggers 

Yes, as tests under 

sediment input 

triggering 

Yes, as tests under 

sediment input 

triggering 

Yes, as tests 

under 

sediment 

input 

triggering 

Yes, as tests 

under sediment 

input triggering 

Flow Alternative 

Ramping Rates 

No Yes (hourly down 

ramping rate increased 

100% in all months) 

Yes (hourly down 

ramping rate increased 

100% in Apr-Oct & 

167% in Nov-Mar ) 

No Yes (hourly 

down ramping 

rate increased 

by 100% in 

Nov-Jul only) 

NonFlow TCD No Yes Yes Yes Yes, 2-units 

assumed 

NonFlow Control of 

Coldwater Fish 

No Yes, as needed Yes, as needed Yes, as 

needed 

Yes

NonFlow Control of Exotic 

Warmwater Fish 

 

No Yes, as needed, with 

R&D starting in 2007 

Yes, as needed, with 

R&D starting in 2007 

Yes, as 

needed, with 

R&D 

starting in 

2007 

Yes, with R&D 

starting 2007 

NonFlow Disease/Parasite 

Research 

No Yes Yes Yes Yes, with R&D 

starting 2008 

NonFlow Humpback Chub 

Translocation No Yes Yes No 1

Yes

NonFlow HBC Refuge(s) No Yes Yes Possibly 1Yes

NonFlow HBC Population 

Augmentation No 

Yes, Planning efforts 

toward 

implementation, as 

needed 

Yes, Planning efforts 

toward 

implementation, as 

needed 

No 1

Yes, planning 

phase

Flow 

& 

NonFlow 

2

Mini Experiments No Yes Yes Yes 1Yes

EXP Design Not applicable Reverse Titration Reverse Titration Factorial Forward 

Titration 

NOTE: 1) For SPG Option C: Ancillary projects not considered part of the main experiment; implementation decision includes 

consideration of confounding the main experiment. 2) Mini-experiments are short-term field experiments that do not confound main 

experimental treatment effects. For SPG Option C: These experiments are considered undefined concepts and would be incorporated if 

defined and not in conflict with the main experiment.

2 
Draft – October 02, 2006 

Section II 

Descriptions of Experimental Options 

Title - Option A Variation 

Goal - (SAME AS SPG OPTION A) The purpose of the Option A Variation 

experimental approach is first and foremost to provide a set of benefits to a variety of 

resources including the: 

• Grand Canyon population of the humpback chub (Gila cypha); 

• Sediment resources (conservation) in the Grand Canyon critical reach over the 

long-term; 

• Aquatic food base; 

• Value of the power resource; and 

• Lees Ferry trout fishery. 

Although all of these resources are expected to benefit from the proposed integrated 

program, the primary focus is on the humpback chub. The Option A Variation 

experimental program capitalizes on the information gathered to date on the status and 

trajectory of the humpback chub population, flows thought to benefit that population and 

the resources on which it depends, and non-flow management actions that would be 

effective in controlling nonnative predators and competitors of chub. The timing and 

sequence of flow and non-flow treatments implemented under the approach associated 

with Option A Variation is shown in Table 2.4. 

3 
Draft – October 02, 2006 

Table 2.4 Experimental program elements under Option A Variation from 2007 to 2016, 

with prior treatments shown for 1998 through 20061

. (SAME AS SPG OPTION A)

Water 

Year 

Dominant 

Dam 

Operation

Mechanical 

Removal

Temperature 

Control 

Device 

(TCD) 

Beach/Habitat 

Building Flow 

Humpback 

Chub 

Comprehensive 

Plan Research 

Humpback 

Chub 

Comprehensive 

Plan Habitat 

1998 MLFF with 

habitat 

maintenance 

flow 

No removal No TCD No BHBF No activities No activities 

1999 MLFF only No removal No TCD No BHBF No activities No activities 

2000 MLFF with 

low summer 

steady flows 

and habitat 

maintenance 

flow 

No removal No TCD No BHBF No activities No activities 

2001 MLFF only No removal No TCD No BHBF No activities No activities 

2002 Same as 

previous 

No removal No TCD No BHBF No activities No activities 

2003 MLFF with 

experimental 

fluctuating 

flows 

Trout 

removal 

No TCD No BHBF No activities No activities 

2004 Same as 

previous 

Same as 

previous 

No TCD No BHBF No activities No activities 

2005 MLFF with 

experimental 

fluctuating 

flows and 

fall testing 

Same as 

previous 

No TCD Fall BHBF No activities No activities 

2006 Modified 

MLFF [see 

text for 

description]2

Trout and 

possibly 

warmwater 

species 

removal3

Complete 

Draft EIS/BO 

Fall BHBF 

dependent on 

sediment input 

from Paria and 

Little Colorado 

Rivers 

Research and 

development of 

augmentation 

approach 

Expansion of 

humpback chub 

habitat (e.g., 

translocation to 

Colorado River 

tributaries) 

2007 Same as 

previous 

Same as 

previous 

Complete 

FEIS/BO 

Same as 

previous 

Same as 

previous 

Same as 

previous 

2008 Same as 

previous 

Same as 

previous 

Initiate 

construction 

Same as 

previous 

Same as 

previous 

Same as 

previous 

2009 Same as 

previous 

Same as 

previous 

Continue 

construction 

Same as 

previous 

Continue 

research or 

begin 

implementation 

if appropriate 

Same as 

previous 

2010 Same as 

previous 

Same as 

previous 

TCD 

operations 

Same as 

previous 

Same as 

previous 

Same as 

previous 

2011-

2016 

Same as 

previous 

Same as 

previous 

Same as 

previous 

Same as 

previous 

Same as 

previous 

Same as 

previous 

4 
Draft – October 02, 2006 

1

 Orange indicates element not implemented, green indicates element is implemented during a particular year. MLFF = modified 

low fluctuating flow alternative, BHBF = beach/habitat building flow. 2

 Modifications relative to ROD flows include lower minimum flows during weekdays, but relatively higher minimum flows on 

Sundays with flows never dropping as low as ROD flows on Sundays; faster downramp rates; and experimentation with summer 

stranding flows and fall flows. 3

 Adaptively managed to be shifted to control of warm-water nonnative species as necessary. 

Elements of the Proposed Option A Variation Flow Regime - Under the Option A 

Variation experimental proposal the Daily Stage Variation (DSV) associated with diurnal 

fluctuations would also be greatest in December and January with a 50% increase in the 

DSV compared with the BASE (12,000 vs. 8,000 cfs range). There would also be an 

increase in the DSV of 66% compared with the BASE in February (10,000 vs. 6,000 cfs 

range). Additionally, there would be 25% increase in the DSV in Sep-Nov and in Mar 

and Jun (8,000 vs. 6,000 cfs range), as well as a 25% increase in the DSV in July and 

August (10,000 vs. 8,000 cfs range). The DSV would remain unchanged relative to the 

BASE only in Apr-May (6,000 cfs range). The hourly upramping rate would remain 

unchanged at 4,000 cfs/hr. under Option A Variation, but the hourly downramping rate 

would be increased by 100% in Apr-Oct (3,000 vs. 1,500 cfs/hr) and by 167% in NovMar (4,000 vs. 1,500 cfs/hr) compared to the BASE. 

Additional Flow Experiments (SAME AS SPG OPTION A)- In addition to the proposed 

daily, weekly, and annual pattern described above, the proposed Option A Variation 

experimental flow regime would include a number of other experiments. Included are 

nonnative fish management flows (e.g., summer stranding flows), fall steady flows to 

benefit young humpback chub, and tests of the effects of ramp rate on sediment transport. 

Mini-experiments related to these flow elements would be subject to adaptive 

management, but would at minimum include: 1) Summer Stranding Flows (intended to 

disadvantage nonnative fish), 2) Fall Flows (that could be ecologically steady to 

advantage young-of-year native fish in the main channel), 3) Ponding Flows (relatively 

high flows that produce slackwater areas in tributary mouths for benefit to juvenile native 

fish) and 4) Electrical Power Production Experiments (intended to investigate 

alternative fluctuating flow parameters that might be compatible with downstream 

resource objectives.). 

Non Flow Measures/Treatments (SAME AS SPG OPTION A) – In addition, Option A 

Variation includes several non-flow components intended to provide benefit to 

downstream resources, particularly humpback chub: 1) Temperature Control Device

(construction and testing of such a device with as many units as are needed to achieve 

desired downstream water temperatures to improve the survival of larval and juvenile 

humpback chub), 2) Continued Efforts toward Humpback Chub Augmentation

(planning and research of artificial stocking program, as well as research on developing a 

program of grow-out ponds at the mouths of the Little Colorado and Paria Rivers), 3) 

Efforts to Increase the Geographical Extent of Occupied Humpback Chub Habitat 

in the Colorado River Ecosystem (with translocation efforts focused on other priority 

tributaries, such as Bright Angel and Shinumo Creeks, plus other possible side streams 

that are suitable) and 4) Mechanical Removal of Nonnative Fishes (including both cold 

and warmwater exotic species, as needed). 

5 
Draft – October 02, 2006 

Experimental Design (SAME AS SPG OPTION A) – The primary goal of Option A 

Variation is to implement as many treatments as possible that proponents believe will 

benefit downstream resources and do so as soon as feasible. These efforts are 

particularly focused on humpback chub, but also include consideration of many other 

ecosystem resources. The Option A Variation approach is referred to as a Reverse 

Titration, meaning that all treatments are implemented to achieve resource benefit until 

such time that positive responses in targeted resources is detected. Then, following 

ongoing monitoring and assessment, treatments may be systematically removed one at a 

time under continued monitoring until benefits are observed to diminish (learning by 

undoing). Although learning through this process may be more complicated, proponents 

believe that the potential for beneficial resource response is a priority above establishing 

cause-effect science results. 

6 
Motion No. 1

MOTION: The TWG recommends that the CREDA option and old Option 4 be included in the analysis by GCMRC of the three options put forward by the SPG.

Representative Agency Name Vote RESULTS

C. Palmer for Mary Barger WAPA n Total Yes 6

Steven Begay Navajo Nation n Total No 13

Kerry Christensen Hualapai Tribe n Total Abstain 0

Jonathan Damp Pueblo of Zuni absent Total Voting 19

Bill Davis CREDA n

Lloyd Greiner UAMPS n Motion fails

Jay Groseclose NM Interstate Streams Commission n

Christopher Harris California n

Norm Henderson NPS-GLNRA absent

Amy Heuslein Bureau of Indian Affairs y

Rick Johnson Grand Canyon Trust y

Robert King Utah n

Glen Knowles US FWS y

Dennis Kubly Bureau of Reclamation y

Phil Lehr Nevada absent

Ken McMullen NPS-GRCA y

A. Potochnik for John O'Brien Grand Canyon River Guides y

Don Ostler UCRC n

Bill Persons Arizona Game and Fish Dept. n

D. Randolph Seaholm COLORADO absent

John W. Shields WYOMING absent

Mark Steffen Federation of Fly Fishers n

Larry Stevens Grand Canyon Wildlands Council absent

LeAnn Skrynski Southern Paiute Consortium absent

Bill Werners ARIZONA n

Mike Yeatts The Hopi Tribe n

Vacant San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe

Total Yes 6

Total No 13

Total Abstain 0

Total Voting 19
Motion No. 2

MOTION: Move that GCMRC be recommended to proceed in its evaluation of the CREDA option.

Representative Agency Name Vote RESULTS

C. Palmer for Mary Barger WAPA y Total Yes 11

Steven Begay Navajo Nation n Total No 8

Kerry Christensen Hualapai Tribe y Total Abstain 0

Jonathan Damp Pueblo of Zuni absent Total Voting 19

Bill Davis CREDA y

Lloyd Greiner UAMPS y Motion passes

Jay Groseclose NM Interstate Streams Commission y

Christopher Harris California y

Norm Henderson NPS-GLNRA absent

Amy Heuslein Bureau of Indian Affairs n

Rick Johnson Grand Canyon Trust n

Robert King Utah y

Glen Knowles US FWS n

Dennis Kubly Bureau of Reclamation n

Phil Lehr Nevada absent

Ken McMullen NPS-GRCA n

A. Potochnik for John O'Brien Grand Canyon River Guides n

Don Ostler UCRC y

Bill Persons Arizona Game and Fish Dept. y

D. Randolph Seaholm COLORADO absent

John W. Shields WYOMING absent

Mark Steffen Federation of Fly Fishers y

Larry Stevens Grand Canyon Wildlands Council absent

LeAnn Skrynski Southern Paiute Consortium absent

Bill Werners ARIZONA y

Mike Yeatts The Hopi Tribe n

Vacant San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe

Total Yes 11

Total No 8

Total Abstain 0

Total Voting 19