Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting

January 21, 2010

Conducting: Shane Capron, Chairperson Convened: 8:15 a.m.

Committee Members/Alternates Present:

Mary Barger, WAPA

Cliff Barrett, UAMPS

Charley Bulletts, So. Paiute Consortium 

Kerry Christensen, Hualapai Tribe

William Davis, CREDA

Kurt Dongoske, Pueblo of Zuni

Norm Henderson, NPS/GCNRA

Amy Heuslein, BIA

Rick Johnson, Grand Canyon Trust

Glen Knowles, USFWS

Ted Kowalski, Colorado CWCB

Dennis Kubly, USBR

Andy Makinster, AGFD

Don Ostler, UCRC (alternate for WY)

VACANT, AGFD

Larry Stevens, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

Jason Thiriot, Colo. River Comm./NV

Bill Werner, ADWR

Michael Yeatts, the Hopi Tribe

VACANT, Federation of Fly Fishers

VACANT, NM Interstate Stream Comm. 

Committee Members Absent:

Robert King, UDWR

Christopher Harris, Colorado River Board/CA

Steve Mietz, NPS/GRNP

John O’Brien, Grand Canyon River Guides

InterestedPersons:

Matthew Andersen, GCRMC/USGS

Gary Burton, Public 

Marianne Crawford, Bureau of Reclamation

Alan Downer, Navajo Nation

Helen Fairley, USGS/GCMRC

Dave Garrett, Science Advisors

Pamela Garrrett, M3

Research

John Hamill, USGS/GCMRC

Barbara McKenzie, USGS/GCMRC

Tom Ryan, Bureau of Reclamation

Sam Spiller, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (alternate)

Bill Stewart, AGFD

Approval of the September 29-30, 2009, Meeting Minutes. Without objection, the minutes were 

approved.

Review of Action Items. The action items were reviewed (Attachment 1). Norm Henderson asked for an 

update on the current litigation between the Grand Canyon Trust and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Shane 

told him this would be covered at the next AMWG meeting (February 2010).

Old Business:

Reporting Requirements. Dennis Kubly said he has been involved with the Report to Congress but the other 

documents are more DOI documents and asked if the other DOI members had any information to provide. 

Rick said there were nine different reporting requirements which the Secretary said were done, but he feels 

there are still outstanding reports. He thinks it’s more of an AMWG issue and the people who are doing the 

work. He reminded the TWG that his concerns were passed as a motion at the April 29-30, 2009, AMWG 

Meeting. 

New Business. 

Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) Update. Shane Capron said there was a January 14, 2010, conference 

call in which the Secretary’s Designee gave an update. There will be a document released shortly which will 

identify those DFCs followed by a second process to establish more detailed, numerical goals on the 

narratives. It would a 2-step process. Shane explained more about what he thought the process would be 

and TWG’s future involvement. He suspected the TWG would be interested in working in the Phase II 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 2

Final Minutes of January 21, 2010, Meeting

process and could convey that to AMWG. Dennis said he feels science informs policy so it will be 

interesting to see how it works. Cliff Barrett said there was one phase already done based on previous 

science and feels they are in a third-phase process. Larry Stevens said there is enough confusion about this 

that he feels a motion from the TWG might help clarify the issue. Mary said she agreed with Larry and said 

if the TWG doesn’t have the information, they won’t be able to perform the work. Shane suggested the 

members talk to their AMWG representatives.

Establishment of High Flow Experiment Protocols: Tom Ryan stated there are three pieces of information 

on the HFE protocols: 1) Secretary Ken Salazar’s speech (Attachment 2a), 2) Anne Castle’s speech to the 

Colorado Water Users Association (Attachment 2b), and 3) the Federal Register Notice (Attachment 2c) 

published on December 31, 2009. The FRN basically proposes to put forth a protocol for future HFEs, 

multiple experiments and multiple years and scoping that will begin at the next AMWG meeting. Rick said 

he thinks the subject should be on the agenda to ensure the science, budget, and the AOP process get 

meshed together. Norm said the only processes available to the TWG are through the reporting processes 

and that’s where the determinations are made. Shane said the issue should go back to the BAHG for further 

discussion. Tom Ryan said there is a 24-month study done every month and the Upper and Lower Colorado 

regions look at how the monthly volumes will be done for the next two years. The AOP doesn’t sit around 

and debate what the monthly volumes are. It uses the 24-month study and formalizes it into an ongoing 

plan. Rick said he will have his AMWG member bring up his concerns at the next meeting and Shane said 

he would also include the TWG’s concerns as part of his TWG Chair report to the AMWG.

Upcoming Genetics Symposium. Glen Knowles announced the “International Symposium on Genetic 

Biocontrol of Invasive Fish” to be held June 21-24, 2010, at the Doubletree Hotel in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

He said Reclamation provided funding for this symposium as a conservation measure of the December 12, 

2007 Final Biological Opinion for the Proposed Adoption of Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower 

Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead. The purpose of the 

symposium will be to look at the technology and how to do the best risk assessment, policy and compliance 

issues. For more information, see the following URL: http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/ais/biocontrol

Two-year Budget Process Paper: Recommendation to AMWG. Shane distributed copies of the GCDAMP 

Biennial Budget Process paper (Attachment 3a) and referred to Table 1. He said the AMWG has already 

approved a 2-year budget. Norm said that it restricts the flexibility of making any changes. Rick moved to 

curtail further discussion given that some members hadn’t read the document and the weather conditions

were such (severe snow storms) that some members may not being able to return to Flagstaff today. Shane 

asked if the TWG supported having the BAHG use this paper in developing a draft budget recommendation 

for the AMWG in March. John added he thought the AMWG made it pretty clear that they think the program 

needs to go to a 2-year fixed budget and he thinks the TWG needs to be true to that direction and can’t 

come up with something that isn’t going to achieve the objectives for which they recommended a 2-year 

budget be established in order to make the budget process more efficient. There was no objection. He said 

right now there is a FY2011 budget but the TWG needs to work on the FY2012 budget. Mary said she was 

concerned about funding for compliance documents. Dennis said there is a two-year rolling budget in place 

and that they can’t ignore core monitoring which would take away from the BAHG discussion. The other 

thing that occurred to him was in the 2-year rolling budget there was a 3-year budget process that was 

never discussed by the AMWG. He wants to make sure the 2-year fixed process has a 3-year consideration 

and also said there was a 5-year process as well. He wanted to hear from people whether the strategic 

planning on budget development at a 5-year scale is important. Shane asked Dennis to explain more about 

the 3-year process. Dennis said you have to be 3 years out if you’re going to be looking at additional federal 

funding from appropriations. That’s why that component was put in place. He reminded people that 

Reclamation has a 3-year budget planning process which needs to be taken into consideration. Shane said 

the three and five year outlook processes could be included in the budget paper and inform the long-term 

budget process. John said there is a 5-year monitoring and research plan and the budget described in it 

was described generally, but he thought it would be worthwhile to do a better job of budgeting that out to 

see what it really costs. They didn’t do that in-depth budget analysis of that document and that’s probably 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 3

Final Minutes of January 21, 2010, Meeting

why they have deferred projects. The other thing missing from that is consideration of management actions 

that may need to be carried out as a result of compliance commitments or other things that need to get 

done (HFE protocols, non-native fish issues, etc.).

Shane said he thought the first goal would be to tie down the process budget from a 2-year perspective and 

make sure everyone is on the same page of what is being done. Dennis asked if the TWG could inquire of 

the AMWG about elements that appear to have been left out, whether they’re important, and should they be 

pursued. Shane concurred with Dennis and then asked the TWG to make review the concerns he captured 

from the above discussion:

Issues to Consider:

• Natal origins of trout paper

• Consider new initiative to study trout movement dynamics in application to future management 

decisions

• Consider future of sediment modeling projects/continuation, hand over of models to GCMRC 

(evaluation) 

• NSE/FSF two FY2010 projects (temperature modeling, thermal imaging)

• Results of the economic value workshop, and phase I

• Clarity on implementation of nonnative control

• Funding for compliance documents

• Add core monitoring to the budget process paper discussion

• Consider the 3-year and 5-year project projection process in the budget process paper discussion

• Review unfunded projects from FY2011

• Consider ecosystem modeling in FY2011-12 budget 

• Consideration of management procedures for decision processes/decision support tools to assist 

policy decisions

• Guidance on future experimental plans, i.e., new LTEP processes

Shane distributed copies of Figure 1 (Attachment 3b) which focuses on the AOP, BOR, and AMWG 

process for how monthly volumes are determined.

AIF: Nonnative Fish Control in Grand Canyon – Summary of Non-native Fish Control Options and 

Recommended Monitoring and Research Activities. (Attachment 4a). Shane pointed out the motion that 

was passed by the AMWG in 2004 that started this process. He has a partial draft motion from the January 

5th conference call which ended with the action to add some language that would address tribal concerns. 

He said there was a request from that call to make some modifications to the document which Kara Hilwig 

has done. A redline/strikeout document was provided (Attachment 4b) so the members could readily see 

the changes along with the Comment Response Table (Attachment 4c) John said Kara had planned to 

give a more detailed PowerPoint presentation of the changes but in order to move things along, he decided 

to forego that. He said there were two major changes made as a result of comments on the conference call 

and subsequent discussions with tribal representatives. One was the concern that this plan was being 

portrayed as an implementation plan, a plan, a management plan, and some of the management actions 

were concerned that approval of this would somehow commit them to certain actions and that they felt 

nervous about that given that they haven’t really looked at how the various recommendations fit within 

agency policies, legal mandates, compliance requirements, etc.. He said it’s not GCMRC’s responsibility to 

engage in those kinds of decisions and are issues for NPS, FWS, AGFD, and other land and resource 

management agencies. They restructured it and are now referring to it as a document and not a plan that 

contains a variety of options that could be pursued for non-native fish control based on the best scientific 

information they currently have and includes their recommendations for further monitoring and research. It 

was their intent to pass it off to the TWG and the management agencies to work together and figure out how 

they want to carry those out, which projects should be funded, which control options should be pursued, 

how those would need to be modified based on compliance, policies, and tribal consultation issues, etc.. 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 4

Final Minutes of January 21, 2010, Meeting

The second change resulted from discussions with the tribes. They tried to integrate some of their issues 

related to mechanical removal and other control actions that result in removal or killing of non-native fishes. 

John said there are numerous references to tribal consultation requirements to address those issues and 

concerns. They tried to be responsive to the tribes but don’t necessarily address those because they don’t 

think it’s GCMRC’s job to reconcile all the issues, either with compliance or tribal consultation but do 

acknowledge that they exist and need to be addressed. He reminded the group that one of the key 

elements of the plan is an annual non-native fish workshop with managers and scientists to look at the data 

that comes out on an annual basis and to make annual adjustments to the direction of this program. They 

see this as an adaptive management process and that this plan needs to evolve and they see it evolving 

through the annual workshops. Kara Hilwig was on the phone and available to answer any questions on 

changes made to the plan. 

Shane said he thought the group was close to passing a motion on the last conference call and read the 

following draft motion language: 

TWG has reviewed the following plan, “Nonnative Fish Control in Grand Canyon—Summary of Nonnative Fish Control Options and Recommended Monitoring and Research Activities” dated January 15, 

2010. This document was requested by AMWG and described as a conservation measure in the 2008 

Biological Opinion for Glen Canyon Dam Operations. TWG has reviewed the document plan and finds it

is scientifically and technically credible and recommends that AMWG review it. TWG recognizes there 

are Native American concerns with the implementation of this plan and understands there is ongoing 

tribal consultation between the Department of Interior and the interested tribes, and from those 

consultations changes may need to be incorporated into this document.

He asked if the TWG was able to vote on the language and/or had any questions for Kara regarding the 

document.

Mary said based on some other things that came up in the last few days that there was the potential to 

change the trigger and have different types of triggers, maybe related to numbers of HBC as well as RBT. 

There is the workshop coming up in April that is supposed to talk about the non-native plan and other 

options to remove the fish or disadvantage fish. There was a handout provided by John at the tribal 

consultation meeting last week on other ways and there was an evening fish meeting where they talked 

about some other options of translocating the RBT. As such, she thought there was a lot more than just the 

tribal issue related to rewriting the plan that would imply that there shouldn’t be a motion on the table yet. 

John said there is language in the document that makes reference to looking at alternatives to the current 

mechanical removal. There was a section added that basically said that one of the things that they were 

going to do in FY2010 is to evaluate other options and alternatives to the current mechanical removal and 

look at other management strategies that could be pursued to achieve those goals. He said he would like to 

move into the implementation phase and feels the longer they dwell on trying to get everything in the 

document will only delay that process. He said the details can be worked out in the annual workshop and 

recognize there are going to be changes. Shane agreed and said the document is always going to be a 

moving target and the TWG needs to think about being responsive to AMWG’s request. He would really like 

to see this get before AMWG and move towards implementation. 

Norm said there is a recommended trigger in the document and asked John if the trigger is to be used in 

2010. John said yes with the understanding that it’s an ongoing issue to be discussed in the future and 

adjustments may be made to that trigger at a future date, but based on what they know today this was their 

best recommendation for what the trigger should be.

Kurt said a good part of the document has to do with mechanical removal. He said the Zuni Governor’s 

letter (Attachment 5a) was sent out last summer to the Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and GCMRC about their mechanical removal concerns and the killing of trout. The DOI representatives 

came to the Zuni tribe on Sept. 15, 2009 and heard from the Governor, the tribal council, and the Zuni 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 5

Final Minutes of January 21, 2010, Meeting

religious leaders their objections to mechanical removal. The Pueblo of Zuni received a response from the 

Department last week and in their response was a paper by the FWS that talked about options to the killing 

of trout and there was also a response from GCMRC with two options. The Zuni has not been able to get 

back and talk with the tribal government or with religious leaders about those options and provide feedback 

to the Department. He said it took five months for the Department to respond (Attachment 5b) to the Zuni’s 

concerns. He said Arden Kucate and Dixie Tsabetsaye, another councilman, were in Phoenix at the DOI 

tribal consultation meeting last week. Mr. Kucate made a very passionate speech about the Zuni 

relationship to the Grand Canyon, the Zuni ceremonial performances, and religious duties they do in 

December as part of the focus in the Grand Canyon of promoting life and regenerating life and the 

continuation of life. Mr. Kucate stated that he thought some of the reasons why the HBC were still present 

was because of the Zuni ceremonial practices. Yet the Department seemed to be intent on continuing 

mechanical removal inspite of what the Zuni representatives said and he didn’t feel as though true 

consultation had taken place yet. The Zuni Councilmen went back and had a tribal council meeting on 

Friday last week. They reported back to the Governor and the Governor feels that this plan is premature

and should be part of government-to-government consultation. He feels the USGS has a legal responsibility 

with this plan to come to the Governor and the tribal council and discuss the plan before it gets approved, 

which hasn’t happened. The language that was put into the plan to talk about tribal concerns and further 

consultation, if any of the management actions are implemented, has not been reviewed by the tribes. They 

have not been given the opportunity to provide feedback to GCMRC on that language because they first 

saw it last Wednesday. Kurt says he feels to portray this as the language has been changed in consultation 

with the tribes is not correct. He thinks it’s premature to make a recommendation to the AMWG on this 

when the TWG knows full well that a stakeholder has a serious issue with this and is going through the 

consultation process with the Department to approve it and send it forward when a major component of it is 

the mechanical removal is callous and is a slap in the face to the Pueblo of Zuni. He thinks if other 

stakeholders around the table had other issues that were similar, they should be respectful of that and 

maintain that in their consideration before something is approved to go to the AMWG. He read from 

Secretary Salazar’s memo appointing Anne Castle as the Secretary’s Designee to the AMWG that in her 

confirmation statement to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources she identified “a 

number of key elements are needed to resolve challenging resource issues, that we work toward building 

consensus, that we reconcile disparate interests, and that we foster a willingness to recognize the validity of 

others’ claims.” Kurt said if the TWG approves the document and sends a motion forward, they’re telling the 

Pueblo of Zuni that their cultural views and values are of no concern to this program and are not legitimate. 

He feels that’s the wrong message to send. 

Mary stated that not everyone attended the tribal consultation meeting last week and provided a synopsis of 

what occurred. She said the tribes presented their concerns and several handouts were distributed focused 

on the killing of fish and trying to find a way of not killing them. During the meeting Deanna Archuleta 

announced there was a request by the tribes and agencies to act as cooperators in an EA and asked the 

tribes for language to the plan. She said the plan didn’t need to be approved in order to go forward with 

tribal consultation, however, there was a feeling the plan wasn’t going to go forward. John Hamill said he 

discussed the plan with Deanna and plan just lays out options. Whether those options get implemented is 

part of the purview of this group with the Secretary of the Interior. He reiterated there is nothing in the plan 

that commits anyone to doing anything. 

Kurt said he didn’t think the Zuni’s plan was to stop the document but stated the consultation process needs 

to occur before it goes to the AMWG. He doesn’t think delaying the plan is going to hurt the plan but that 

conversations need to continue with the Zuni. 

John said the USGS has no plan to implement mechanical removal. They are in consultation with the tribes 

and will respect the outcome. 

Mike Yeatts said he thought there was a lot in the plan the Hopi Tribe would support but most of it looks like 

options and recommendations and when you get to mechanical removal, it reads like it is being 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 6

Final Minutes of January 21, 2010, Meeting

implemented. He feels there is a lot of good in the plan (warm water) but things they would object to (site 

stream poisoning) and sees those as options in the future. 

Shane said as long as the document has mechanical removal in it, it’s going to be difficult to move it 

forward.

Kurt said from a tribal perspective, tribal consultation will not take place and they won’t have an effective 

voice in this program. He would vote no on the motion. By FWS’ own omission, if there has been 

meaningful consultation and dialogue from the 2007 or 2008 biological opinion, he said this issue would’ve 

come to the surface years ago and they wouldn’t be dealing with it right now.

Alan Downer stated from the outset that this is NOT a plan and AMWG will be confused by the language as 

well. He couldn’t offer a solution but shared concerns brought up by Kurt and Mike and added that no one 

is going to think it’s a plan when it gets moved up to the next level. He feels that if the plan moves forward in 

its present form, AMWG will say they have a plan.

Norm suggested not calling it a plan but moving forward with an implementation plan and use the upcoming 

workshop for further mechanical removal discussions. Rick reminded the group that meaningful consultation 

needs to take place first before moving forward with the plan. Dennis said he was troubled by the discussion 

two nights ago and Norm’s specific example of a trigger. He said he thinks GCMRC is driven more by 

economics than pushing the utility of removing trout and it’s not tied to the present status of the HBC 

population. At that meeting it was suggested there is an opportunity to look and see if that trigger could be 

broadened and more flexible which would lead us in the direction of accommodating some of the tribes’ 

concerns. He doesn’t know the outcome of that but argued that that investigation has not been done and 

would have to be done with or without this plan being passed. 

Kurt asked the group to respect Zuni’s position and reminded them that consultation with the Department 

has only just begun. The Department hasn’t reached out to the other four tribes and that may be part of the 

process as well. 

Kara Hilwig (via phone) said the original purpose of the non-native fish workshop was to get a handle on 

non-native fish issues in the Grand Canyon and review the monitoring data and get a good handle on the 

priorities, if there are any red flags – any really big issues that have to be addressed quickly. That remains 

one of the goals of the workshop and get a technical perspective based on monitoring information of what 

issues they are facing and how should the work plans be modified to deal with those issue on an annual 

basis. She said Sam Spiller has been very instrumental to move these workshops forward to really combine 

the science and management aspects of the non-native fish issue in Grand Canyon. Sam and his crew will 

be heading up the management portion of this meeting which will include addressing tribal concerns but the 

goal for this year is to identify what has been recalled in the literature relative to the development of 

response plans. They’re calling them institutional barriers so identifying those components of 

implementation that need to be addressed along with compliance issues, logistics, tribal compliance, etc.. 

She believes the goal for the second half of the non-native fish workshop (late March) is to identify the 

issues, identify a person to address the issues, and move forward with an implementation strategy for 

addressing non-native fish in Grand Canyon. It’s their hope that all management agencies and the 

stakeholders will provide input and they can move forward with something that everyone would be happy 

with. 

Dennis advocated there are two separate paths that could be taken in that there is a proposal for 

mechanical removal in the 2010 workplan and that consultation can proceed and they can try and segregate 

this plan away from that hot concerns and move forward on things that have to be done, i.e., balancing ESA 

and cultural values. 

Glen said the DOI agencies are involved in ongoing consultation with the tribes but it’s going to take some 

time. He said he sees that as very different from the technical aspects. They have a tribal consultation 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 7

Final Minutes of January 21, 2010, Meeting

responsibility and they need to address that. There are also a lot technical questions being brought up that 

need to be addressed. 

Dave Garrett said it’s clear the TWG is mixing management with science which is what the Science 

Advisors have told them not to do. He feels they’re working toward a solution that will separate them but 

hopes they can develop a process to make sure this doesn’t happen again.

Given the concerns expressed by the tribal stakeholders and questions about the scientific foundation and 

validity of some of the choices made in the plan (triggers), Shane feels the plan is not ready to be moved 

forward. He said he would present the TWG’s concerns to the AMWG at their next meeting and also ask for 

some feedback.

Agenda Update. Due to severe weather conditions, some members chose to leave at noon in order to get 

to Flagstaff before the roads closed. As such, Shane reviewed the remaining agenda items. 1) He really 

thought Mary Barger should be present for the TCD/sediment augmentation discussion. 2) As far as the 

General Core Monitoring Plan Workshop Update (Attachment 6), Shane said there were some 

recommendations that came out of the workshop and one was for him and a few other TWG members to 

work with GCMRC in revising parts of the document. They haven’t had a chance to get started but are 

hoping to have a revision for the TWG to review in March. He invited any other members who wanted to 

participate to let him know. 3) The revised document for the Fall Steady Flow Plan is out and will be on the 

March agenda for TWG review and possibly forward to the AMWG, and 4) Science Advisors’ Annual Report 

Update will be moved to the March TWG meeting.

Fall Steady Flow Plan. Pam Sponholtz (via phone) said in Feb 2008 the EA described two flow events for 

the HFE in March and the steady flow releases in September and October from 2008-2012. Also, the 

biological opinion had two conservation measures, the nearshore ecology project and the second one was 

impacts and flow transitions, transition between the August high fluctuating flows and the more steady flows 

that were proposed for September and October. In 2008 the AMWG made a motion for GCMRC to prepare 

a study plan to study those steady flows but they also wanted to include flow recommendations to support 

the study. In July 2009 the document that GCMRC developed with expert technical review, comments were 

incorporated and a document distributed to the TWG in August for their review. It was presented to the 

AMWG in August 2009. TWG comments were received and a revised document given to them in 

September. During her detail at GCMRC in December 2009, Pam worked with Ted Kennedy and 

incorporated the comments from the TWG, updated the report, and then submitted it for editorial review in 

early January. However, with the aggressive timeline to get the HFE reports edited and out for external 

review, the FSF report dropped to a lower priority. 

She reviewed how the comments were dealt with and those that were not addressed. They did not address 

adding in testable hypotheses. She referred the TWG to the memo Matthew Andersen wrote in September 

2009 regarding testable hypotheses. It was the feeling of GCMRC that adding in hypotheses into the plan 

would make it unachievable given the time frame of the study. She went through the remaining comments.

Q: Have you been able to review the past literature on stranding in Grand Canyon due to flow fluctuations? (Stevens) 

A: No, I haven’t. I worked with Ted on this and he was fairly familiar with it and felt it was fairly cojative approach given 

the fuzzing aspects and not wanting to design a very comprehensive plan without making sure it was an issue to begin 

with. But if there is some literature we need to incorporate, please let us know. (Sponholtz)

C: There is a fair amount of information from mid-1980’s on trout stranding and some of the approaches they used 

might be of use to you. (Stevens)

R: If you have those cites, please send them to me. (Sponholtz)

Q: Glen, is the stranding issue a FWS concern as well here? If it is, I hope it’s being reviewed with the viewpoint of is 

this going to be sufficient to answer this question if it is a question. (Capron)

A: I’ve spent a fair amount of time talking to Pam and Ted about this and they’ve even modified this a little bit since we 

talked and probably in response to some of my ideas about the possibility for stranding and trying to put some finality 

to that idea. Is that actually happening? Is it something we should be concerned about? There are other ways in which 

fluctuations affect fish, in which a strong transition between August and September could affect fish. Josh gave some 
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 8

Final Minutes of January 21, 2010, Meeting

information earlier this week about what he was seeing in the Lee’s Ferry trout population for that same transition. And, 

of course, the work that he has done a lot of which ended up in Korman and Campagna this year and in his thesis. 

There is the potential for similar pronounced effects during that transition. I’m anxious to see this plan but in talking 

with Ted and Pam, I think they’ve gone a long way in addressing the Service’s concerns and our reasoning behind 

developing the conservation measure. We feel like the integration of all these studies will get at a lot of those 

questions. (Knowles)

Dennis said there is a GCES Phase I record on stranding RBT but there are also many observations that 

suggest native fish are not nearly as susceptible to stranding. He suggested that before going too far down 

the road and finding themselves not reporting something that they should be doing and sufficient progress, 

that they look at the record and determine if it’s really an issue. 

Shane asked if GCMRC could do a review of the literature and report back to the TWG at its next meeting 

whether or not additional reports need to be cited and the document modified. Larry said he would go to 

GCMRC’s library, develop a list, and provide to Kara.

AIF: Temperature Control Device and Sediment Augmentation (Attachment 7). Shane said this was 

discussed at the last meeting with a presentation by Dennis on the work that has been done. A list of 

literature sources was provided. Shane said he went back through the minutes and looked at the issues that 

were brought up and tried to prepare a motion that might address the concerns presented. He reviewed the 

motion changes below:

Proposed Motion language by Mary Barger:

TheTWG recommends that the AMWG consider a recommendation to the Secretary of Interior to develop a 

risk assessment for the implementation of a Temperature Control Device that considers the following: (a) 

incorporates a TCD design with both warm and cold-water release options with a combination of 2,4, 6, and 

8 units, (b) considers concerns that new warm-water non-natives might and additional planktonic food 

sources might be established in the CRE, and (c) considers if the development of a TCD is prudent without 

the ability to increase turbidity of the river. The goals of the action would be to support recovery of native 

fish and to meet the Desired Future Conditions for sediment in the CRE.

Mary said she still wanted sediment augmentation to be part of the motion. Mary said there was concern on 

Western’s part about the cost of sediment augmentation that it was very expensive to do. She said it was 

$150 million to build and $10 million a year to maintain it. At the last meeting, she said there was a lot of 

conversation about concerns related to cost and whether that was really feasible and some concerns about 

increasing the sediment into Lake Mead that the State of Nevada had some concerns and more sediment 

below Diamond Creek that would affect boating for the Hualapai. Western thought at this point it was 

reasonable to consider the TCD as an option but don’t want to take out turbidity as something that shouldn’t 

be evaluated but not as part of the sediment augmentation.

The group discussed further and the motion language was modified:

TheTWG recommends that the AMWG consider a recommendation to the Secretary of Interior to develop 

an engineering fesability study and risk assessment, with a synthesis of existing information, for the 

implementation of a Temperature Control Device that considers the following: (a) incorporates a TCD 

design with both warm and cold-water release options and with a combination of 2,4, 6, and 8 units, (b) 

considers concerns that new warm-water non-natives and additional planktonic food sources might be 

established in the CRE, and (c) considers the potential of using turbidity (silt and clay) as a mechanism to 

affect predation rates of non-native fish on native fish. The goals of the action would be to support recovery 

of native fish. TWG further recommends that the consideration of a TCD be implemented within a long term 

experiment.

THE MOTION LANGUAGE WILL BE ON THE NEXT MEETING’S AGENDA.
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 9

Final Minutes of January 21, 2010, Meeting

Socio-economic Workshop Update. Helen Fairley said the panel is working on the report and then it will 

be brought forward to the AMWG for further action by the TWG.

Management Actions. Dave Garrett passed out copies of his PPT, “Evaluating Criteria Guiding Transition 

of Science Activities to Management Actions in Adaptive Management Programs” (Attachment 8). He 

concluded with the following recommendation: GCDAMP to direct TWG to form a management group to 

develop programmatic directions for developing management actions.

Public Comments: Gary Burton (former TWG member for WAPA): I am pleased to see work on HBC, 2) 

framework and steps are being followed, and 3) you are adaptively trying to adjust. However, disappointed 

about the relationships and processes are still the same and the lack of trust among and between the 

stakeholders and GCMRC. There is a concerned public out there and they are watching you. They expect 

the dollars to be spent appropriately, accurately, and efficiently. I equate the process to the birth process 

and the pain you’re going through. 

Adjourned: 3:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Whetton

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Upper Colorado Region
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Page 10

Final Minutes of January 21, 2010, Meeting

General Key to Adaptive Management Program Acronyms

ADWR – Arizona Dept. of Water Resources

AF – Acre Feet

AGFD – Arizona Game and Fish Department

AGU – American Geophysical Union

AIF  Agenda Information Form

AMP – Adaptive Management Program

AMWG – Adaptive Management Work Group

AOP – Annual Operating Plan

BA – Biological Assessment

BAHG – Budget Ad Hoc Group

BCOM – Biological Conservation Measure

BE – Biological Evaluation

BHBF – Beach/Habitat-Building Flow

BHMF – Beach/Habitat Maintenance Flow

BHTF – Beach/Habitat Test Flow

BIA – Bureau of Indian Affairs

BO – Biological Opinion

BOR – Bureau of Reclamation

CAPA – Central Arizona Project Association

GCT  Grand Canyon Trust

CESU – Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit

cfs – cubic feet per second

CMINs  Core Monitoring Information Needs

CRBC – Colorado River Board of California

CRAHG - Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Group

CRCN – Colorado River Commission of Nevada

CRE  Colorado River Ecosystem

CREDA – Colorado River Energy Distributors Assn.

CRSP – Colorado River Storage Project

DASA - Data Acquisition, Storage and Analysis

CWCB – Colorado Water Conservation Board

DBMS – Data Base Management System

DFCAHG  Desired Future Conditions Ad Hoc Group

DOE  Department of Energy

DOI – Department of the Interior

EA – Environmental Assessment

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement

ESA – Endangered Species Act

FACA – Federal Advisory Committee Act

FEIS – Final Environmental Impact Statement

FRN – Federal Register Notice

FWS – United States Fish & Wildlife Service

FY – Fiscal Year (October 1 – September 30)

GCD – Glen Canyon Dam

GCT  Grand Canyon Trust

GCMRC – Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Ctr.

GCNP – Grand Canyon National Park

GCNRA – Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

GCPA – Grand Canyon Protection Act

GLCA – Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

GRCA  Grand Canyon National Park

GCRG  Grand Canyon River Guides

GCWC  Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

GUI – Graphical User Interface

HBC – Humpback Chub (endangered native fish)

HMF – Habitat Maintenance Flow

HPP – Historic Preservation Plan

IEDA  Irrigation & Electrical Districts Assoc. of Arizona

INs – Information Needs

IT – Information Technology

KA  Knowledge Assessment (workshop)

KAS – Kanab ambersnail (endangered native snail)

LCR – Little Colorado River

LRRMCP – Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation Program

LTEP – Long Term Experimental Plan

MAF – Million Acre Feet

MA – Management Action

MATA – Multi-Attribute Trade-Off Analysis

MLFF  Modified Low Fluctuating Flow

MO – Management Objective

MRP  Monitoring and Research Plan

NAAO – Native American Affairs Office

NAU – Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff, AZ)

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

NGS – National Geodetic Survey

NHPA – National Historic Preservation Act

NPS  National Park Service

NRC  National Research Council

NWS  National Weather Service

O&M  Operations & Maintenance (USBR funding)

PA  Programmatic Agreement

PEP  Protocol Evaluation Panel

POAHG  Public Outreach Ad Hoc Group

Powerplant Capacity = 31,000 cfs

PPT  PowerPoint (presentation)

R&D  Research and Development

Reclamation  United States Bureau of Reclamation

RBT – Rainbow Trout

RFP  Request For Proposals

RINs  Research Information Needs

ROD Flows  Record of Decision Flows 

RPA  Reasonable and Prudent Alternative

SA  Science Advisors

Secretary  Secretary of the Interior

SCORE  State of the Colorado River Ecosystem 

SHPO – State Historic Preservation Office(r)

SOW  Scope of Work

SPAHG – Strategic Plan Ad Hoc Group

SPG Science Planning Group

SSQs  Strategic Science Questions

SWCA  Steven W. Carothers Associates

TCD  Temperature Control Device

TCP  Traditional Cultural Property

TES  Threatened and Endangered Species

TWG  Technical Work Group 

UCRC  Upper Colorado River Commission

UDWR  Utah Division of Water Resources

USBR  United States Bureau of Reclamation

USFWS  United States Fish & Wildlife Service

USGS  United States Geological Survey

WAPA  Western Area Power Administration

WY – Water Year (a calendar year)

Q/A/C/R = Question/Answer/Comment/Response

Updated: 2/3/09